Thesis, University of Amsterdam 2011 Cover Image: Detail of Willem Van Mieris, the Lute Player, 1711, Panel, 50 X 40.5 Cm, London, the Wallace Collection

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Imitation and innovation: Dutch genre painting 1680-1750 and its reception of the Golden Age

Aono, J.

Publication date 2011 Document Version Final published version

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA): Aono, J. (2011). Imitation and innovation: Dutch genre painting 1680-1750 and its reception of the Golden Age.

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:30 Sep 2021

Imitation and Innovation

Dutch Genre Painting 1680-1750 and

its Reception of the Golden Age

Imitation and Innovation: Dutch Genre Painting 1680-1750 and its Reception of the Golden Age

Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam 2011 Cover image: detail of Willem van Mieris, The Lute Player, 1711, panel, 50 x 40.5 cm, London, The Wallace Collection. ©By the kind permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection, London. Printer: Optima Grafische Communicatie

Imitation and Innovation:

Dutch Genre Painting 1680-1750 and

its Reception of the Golden Age

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op woensdag 15 juni 2011, te 11:00 uur

door

Junko Aono

geboren te Tokio, Japan

Promotiecommissie

Promotor: Prof. dr. E.J. Sluijter

Overige Leden: Prof. dr. R.E.O. Ekkart

Prof. dr. W.E. Franits

Prof. dr. F. Grijzenhout

Dr. K.J.A. Jonckheere

Dr. E.E.P. Kolfin

Prof. dr. H.F.K van Nierop

Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen

Table of Contents

Preface and Acknowledgements 9

Introduction 13

CHAPTER I Confronting the Heritage of the Golden Age: 27 the Situation around Dutch Genre Painting 1680-1750

Introduction 27

1 Painter and collector in transition: the search for a 30 new relationship

2 The collector’s taste: in praise of seventeenth-century 35 Dutch genre painting

3 Popular subject matter of genre painting in 38 eighteenth-century collections

4 The painter’s choice: updating seventeenth-century 44 genre painting

Conclusion 49

CHAPTER II Reproducing the Golden Age: Copies after Seventeenth-Century 51 Dutch Genre Painting in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century

Introduction 51 1 Commercial misuse of copies: discussion between 54 Johan van Gool and Gerard Hoet 2 Copies as substitutes for seventeenth-century 57 painting

3 The painter’s choice: in search of a favorite painter 61 and subject matter 4 Case study: the candlelight scene as popular subject 67 5 The function of copying: looking back to the Golden 72 Age

Conclusion 74

CHAPTER III Emulating the Golden Age: The Painter’s Choice of Motifs and 77 Subject Matter in Dutch Genre Painting of the First Half of the Eighteenth Century

Introduction 77 1 The painter’s choice of subject matter 78 1.1. Willem van Mieris and his genre painting 78

1.2. Johan Hendrik van Wassenaer Obdam: a 80 devotee of genre painting

1.3. The case study of A Grocer’s Shop by Willem 83 van Mieris

2 Competing with the “old masters”: 89 pendants by Gerard Dou, Willem van Mieris and Hieronymus van der Mij

3 “Pleasurable enjoyment of dissimilar similarity” 94 Conclusion 98

CHAPTER IV Ennobling Daily Life: A Question of Refinement in Early 101 Eighteenth-Century Dutch Genre Painting

Introduction 101 1 Gerard de Lairesse’s attempt to ennoble genre 104 painting 2 The painter’s practice of idealizing figures in genre 110 painting

3 To meet new demands of collectors: seeking ideal 117 versatility Conclusion 123

Conclusion 127

Appendix 133

Catalogue: Painters 1680-1750 147

Summary in English 201 Summary in Dutch 209

List of Illustrations 219

Bibliography 227

Index 253

Illustrations 259

Supplement: CD for text and catalogue illustrations, including those in color.

ȱȱ ȱ

Early in my masters program at Keio University in Tokyo, a heavy parcel arrived at my home, which had traveled a long way from an antiquary bookshop in Utrecht. This package was not unexpected, as I had ordered several books on seventeenth-century Dutch art that were not available in Japanese libraries. One of the books that I took out of the box with great impatience was Leidse fijnschilders (1988), which, unexpectedly opened up a whole new world to me. The painters’ refined technique, the convincing rendering of materials, the meticulous details and the highly finished surfaces of the pictures amazed me, but more intriguing was the long-lasting pictorial tradition founded by Gerard Dou and perpetuated by numerous painters over the centuries. At that time, I was fascinated by Johannes Vermeer’s work, and I was trying to contextualize his artistic inspiration in relation to his contemporaries. It came as a surprise to me that it was the small pictures of an even earlier artist – Dou – that had such an undeniable impact on the painters of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Certain pictorial elements, like motifs, compositional devices and subject matter, that Dou used to convincingly recreate the visible world in two dimensions were endlessly repeated by later painters, reminding later viewers how influential and compelling Dou’s pictorial formula must have been. What made Dou’s work so unique in those days, and why were his fellow painters and subsequent generations of artists so enthusiastically involved in his art? ȱ Youthful enthusiasm and an ambition to find answers to these questions brought me to the Netherlands – first, to Utrecht – in 2000. My interest in Leiden painters soon developed into an inquiry into Dutch genre painting after 1680, a subject that I began to investigate officially in the spring of 2005 with my PhD research at the University of Amsterdam. From the very beginning to the end of this academic journey, I have been most grateful for the company of many inspiring individuals with whom I was honored to share a passion for seventeenth-century Dutch art. First and foremost, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my promotor, Eric Jan Sluijter, whose deep insight in and enthusiasm for painters ŗŖȱ ȱ

of “cleyne, subtile ende curieuse dingen” always guided me in the right direction and made me aware of the significance and delight of researching the art of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. It was his confidence in my work that encouraged me to persevere and complete this exciting but long project. I am also very honored to have had a group of such prominent experts on my dissertation committee and I would therefore like to sincerely thank Rudi Ekkart, Wayne Franits, Frans Grijzenhout, Koenraad Jonckheere, Elmer Kolfin and Henk van Nierop. I am much indebted to all of my colleagues at the Art History Institute of the University of Amsterdam for their generous support and numerous suggestions without which I could never write this dissertation, among them Piet Bakker, Marten Jan Bok, Inge Broekman, Margriet van Eikema Hommes, Jan Piet Filedt Kok, Erna Kok, Arjan de Koomen, Frauke Laarmann, Harm Nijboer, Madelon Simon, Anna Tummers and Thijs Weststeijn. I am also grateful for the help and advice from a variety of specialists, including the staff of the library and other departments of the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie in The Hague. I would especially like to thank Albert Blankert, Britta Bode, Edwin Buijsen, Quentin Buvelot, Karolien de Clippel, Sabine E. Craft-Giepmans, Marieke van den Doel, Charles Dumas, Albert J. Elen, Michiel Francken, Jeroen Giltaij, Ursula de Goede-Broug, Franziska Gottwald, Peter Hecht, Megumi Jingaoka, Claus Kemmer, Marijke de Kinkelder, Elly Klück, Paul Knolle, Everhard Korthals Altes, Jan Kosten, Suzanne Laemers, Martine Lambrechtsen, Huigen Leeflang, Eric Löffler, Machteld Löwensteyn, Volker Manuth, Tomas Mascotay, Fred Meijer, Norbert Middelkoop, Hessel Miedema, Megumi Nakajima, Marrigje Rikken, Maki Ryu, Eddy Schavemaker, Vanessa Schmid, Sophie Schnackenburg, Nicolette Sluijter- Seijffert, Miki Sugiura, Dominique Surh, Lyckle de Vries, Adriaan Waiboer and Gregor Weber. During my research, I visited a large number of collections in Europe and the United States. I am thankful that the curators and staff of these institutions gave me the opportunity to do first-hand research on the work of these lesser-known artists.

I also owe a great debt of gratitude to a number of Japanese scholars, especially from my early studies at Keio University (Tokyo) and Tohoku University (Miyagi), for giving generously of their time and advice and supporting me as I started my career as an art ȱȱ ȱ ŗŗȱ

ȱ historian. I include among them Yasuhiko Iki, Fumio Kobayashi, Tsukasa Kodera, Akira Kofuku, Koichi Motoki, Toshiharu Nakamura, Junko Ninagawa, Masashi Oishi, Takashi Okunishi, Akihiro Ozaki, Yuji Sueyoshi and Koichi Toyama. I am very grateful to Yoriko Kobayashi, who opened my eyes to Dutch art and art history with her inspiring lectures and who showed me a new horizon through her pioneering achievements in this field. To my supervisor at Keio University, Fujio Maeda, I cannot sufficiently express my appreciation for all his support and, especially, for teaching me the importance of discussing art according to my own vocabulary and maintaining a dialogue about it with others. My sincere gratitude also goes to the Institute of Culture and History at the University of Amsterdam for funding my dissertation research, as well as to the Huygens Fellowship (Nuffic), The Kajima Art Foundation, and The Kao Foundation for Arts and Sciences for granting me the award that made my research possible. I have greatly benefitted from several skilled editors who have clarified my ideas with nuance and thought. I would like to thank Wendie Shaffer for editing the article that was published in Oud Holland, part of which was included in the second chapter, and Worth Bracken for editing the article published in Simiolus, which became the fourth chapter. Last but not least, I am most grateful to Jacquelyn Coutré for deftly editing the entire dissertation and for patiently answering all my questions about language.

Finally, I am greatly obliged to my family, especially to my parents, for all their support, patience and unconditional trust, as well as for giving me the freedom to develop my own ideas and to cultivate a critical ability and unprejudiced attitude toward the world. To Jasper, words cannot express my deepest gratitude for consistently listening to my endless stories with great enthusiasm and for walking alongside me down this art historical path. My last address of loving thanks goes to Miyu, whose innocent presence has been the most precious source of inspiration that I have ever had.

April 2011, Rotterdam ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

Visiting one of the many museums in the world with a collection of Dutch paintings, one would most probably encounter small, jewel-like genre paintings by renowned masters like Johannes Vermeer, Gerard ter Borch, Gerard Dou or Adriaen van Ostade. One’s eyes would delight at a scene of a young lady lost in thought over the letter in her hand, at cheerful villagers drinking in a tavern, at a maidservant polishing a kitchen pot, or at an elegant couple making music. However, if one were to look for genre paintings of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in the same gallery, the search would be futile: the number of genre paintings made after 1680 in these crowded galleries is negligible. This category of painting is rarely on display, being kept instead in storage rooms without attracting the public’s attention. What might be the cause underlying this absence of late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century genre painting in the galleries of prominent museums? The answer is rooted in the general disregard for the period after 1680, often considered the “age of decline.” The Golden Age is presumed to have ended between 1670 and 1680 as a result of ŗŚȱ ȱ

the economic downturn and political damage caused by the French attack on the Dutch Republic in 1672, the so-called “Rampjaar” (year of disaster). This is supposed to have put an end to the glorious period of art, as well. According to Wilhelm Martin in his classic study Hollandsche schilderkunst in de 17de eeuw (1935-36), the age of decline began “approximately after Rembrandt’s death and continued into the eighteenth century.”1 The documented financial difficulties of painters, as well as art dealers, during this period also strengthen our idea of an era “in decline.” The eminent Amsterdam art dealer Gerrit Uylenburch, for example, went bankrupt in 1675, and Johannes Vermeer’s widow reported in 1677 that her husband, in the years preceding his death in 1675, had difficulty selling his own and other paintings because of the economic recession.2 Furthermore, most of the representative painters, such as Vermeer, Dou, Frans Hals, and Jan Steen had died by the year 1680, and the number of painters had started to decrease dramatically towards the end of the century.3 The most deep-seated cause for the neglect of late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century genre painting, however, can be ascribed to our heavy favoring of the aesthetics of genre painting produced before 1680. Early eighteenth-century painters who borrowed subject matter and compositions from the work of masters of the second and third quarters of the seventeenth century have always been considered servile imitators of their successful Golden Age predecessors. In the paintings of Willem van Mieris (1672-1647), Arnold Boonen (1669-1729), Nicolaas Verkolje (1673-1746) and Philip van Dyk (1680-1753), for instance, one can easily find the same kinds of motifs, compositions and figures as in the work of seventeenth-century masters like Dou and Ter Borch, such as an arched stone window with a sculpted relief, a table covered with a colorful thick carpet, an elegant couple making music or a candlelit room. This marked similarity to seventeenth-century genre

1 Martin 1935-36, vol. 1, pp. 95-8. He defines the period 1670-1700 as an era of decline and dedicates a chapter to the art of this period: vol. 2, pp. 471-95. Seymour Slive mentioned “a decline in the creative impulse of Dutch artists”: Slive 1966/1995, pp. 299-300. Loos 1995, p. 7. An insightful overview of the concept of “decline” in art is drawn by Wieseman, Wieseman 2002, pp. 46-47. 2 Lammertse 2006, pp. 105-10. 3 Johannes Vermeer died in 1675, Frans Hals in 1666, Jan Steen in 1679, and Gerard Dou in 1675. Also see Haak 1984, p. 499. As to the decreasing number of painters after 1670, see the first chapter of this dissertation, pp. 30-31 and especially note 11. ȱ ŗśȱ ȱ ȱ painting is often noted as an uninspired repetition of the achievements of earlier generations.4 On the other hand, characteristic features of genre painting of the later period, that is, decorative elements and a classicizing style, have been seen as “foreign” intrusions that estranged these later paintings from the “authentic” Dutch genre pictures of the earlier period. The specific types of clothing and interior decoration, as well as idealized figures, that were associated with antique beauty were regarded as the ultimate deviation from seventeenth-century genre painting, which was perceived to be a faithful recording of the everyday surroundings of modest citizens.5 A closer look at genre painting of this later period, however, makes apparent its specific features and requires us to revise our idea of the art of this era. In regard to subject matter, for instance, not all themes that were popular in the seventeenth century were repeated; only certain types seem to have been chosen as favorites and reused in the eighteenth century. Although these later paintings treat similar kinds of motifs and subjects, they are always translated into the artists’ personal vocabularies, resulting in an unexpected variety in execution. Furthermore, regardless of the variety of motifs in these paintings, they seem to share a specific stylistic and aesthetic tendency. This observation leads us to a number of fundamental questions. Should we consider these paintings as worthless, mere imitations of the art from the Golden Age? Why did painters produce pictures with features that were closely related to, and at the same time different from, seventeenth-century art? How were these paintings viewed in those days? Who bought these paintings, and what was

4 For example, Bob Haak, who devotes only five pages to the painting after 1680 in his overview of Dutch art, describes genre painting of this period as “weaker extracts from the work of the seventeenth-century masters”: Haak 1984, p. 499, see also Aono 2006 and the third chapter of this dissertation, pp. 77-78. In Christopher Brown’s survey of seventeenth-century Dutch genre painting, the art of the late seventeenth century and the decline of art itself are scarcely discussed, although some paintings by Adriaen van der Werff are mentioned: Brown 1984. Seymour Slive rightly points out that painters active after 1675 were strongly inspired by Gerard Dou and other masters from the third quarter of the century, but he does not go deeply into questions as to why late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century painters clung to these so-called great masters. Slive 1966/1995, pp. 306-09. 5 It is often suggested that the faithful imitation of everyday surroundings, or the interest in realism, became less important for late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century painters as the classicizing tendency – one of the “foreign influences” – became dominant. For instance, Martin writes that genre painting after 1670 clearly demonstrates changes in style, from baroque to classicism, and finally to the so-called French style: Martin 1935-36, vol. 2, p. 483, also pp. 475-77. Slive 1966/1995, pp. 299-300; Philadelphia/Berlin/London 1984, pp. 13-14; Hecht 2006-07, pp. 12-13 and 19-22. ŗŜȱ ȱ

the impact of the painters’ relationship with art collectors on their artistic decisions? Historical documents about paintings can open our eyes to the context in which these paintings were produced and appreciated. Willem van Mieris (1662-1747), one of the representative painters of this period, produced a number of genre paintings of shop scenes, including A Grocer’s Shop (Chap. III, fig. 14), that had originated with and was popularized by the seventeenth-century master Gerard Dou (Chap. III, fig. 15). At first sight, one might think that this painting is no more than a mere repetition of an illustrious forerunner’s work. Yet, once we learn that this piece was purchased from the artist by a renowned art collector – who paid the enormous amount of 825 guilders for it – and that it was also highly appreciated by a distinguished contemporary biographer, we cannot help asking what made this painting so special in its time.6 Of course, such a historical record is only one of the yardsticks by which we can measure the value of a painting. It makes us keenly aware, however, that people must have had different standards by which to evaluate this kind of genre painting.

Over the last few decades, our perspective on the art of the Golden Age and the subsequent period has been enriched by an increasing number of studies on the context in which art is created, such as art theory, the art market and art collectors.7 One of the important contributions is found in the studies of literature on art from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. For instance, Lyckle de Vries points out that the early eighteenth-century idea of the “decline” in art differs from our present view, which is informed by the nineteenth-century concept of Dutch art.8 Indeed, authors of artists’ biographies from the eighteenth century, such as Arnold Houbraken (1660-1719), Johan van Gool (1687-1763) and Jacob van Campo Weyerman (1677-1747), mention the decline in art, but they had differing opinions about the exact moment at which this downfall began, varying from 1675 to 1720.9 This discrepancy in dating the “decline” in art indicates that the dividing 6 On the painting, see Aono 2006 and the third chapter of this dissertation, pp. 83-89; Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 2, p. 192; Weyerman 1729-69, vol. 3, pp. 390-91. 7 For studies on art theory, see De Vries 1990; T.J. Broos 1989; Broos 1990; Cornelis 1995; Hecht 1996; Kemmer 1998; Horn 2000. Concerning early eighteenth-century collectors, see Plomp 2001; Korthals Altes 2003; and Jonckheere 2008; and also Williamsburg/New York/Washington 1998-99. 8 De Vries 1992 (1999), p. 68. 9 They state either implicitly or explicitly when the decline in art started. Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, p. 111 and pp. ȱ ŗŝȱ ȱ ȱ line between florescence and decay had not yet been drawn definitively at that time. The period around 1700 can therefore be considered a transitional epoch in which people gradually started to notice the changes in art. Biographers such as Houbraken and Van Gool realized that the period in which they lived differed from the second and third quarters of the seventeenth century, and they asked themselves how they could evaluate and define the art of both their predecessors and their contemporaries.10 This was the beginning of the reception of seventeenth-century Dutch art, that is, the moment when the “Golden Age” actually came into existence. Such a viewpoint was certainly shared by art collectors of the time. While these affluent collectors decorated their residences with luxurious eighteenth-century wall- and ceiling paintings in the classicizing style, many of them also owned an extensive collection of paintings by seventeenth-century masters.11 Over the last decade, much research has been done on the art market and the collections of this period. Koenraad Jonckeheere’s study, among others, of the auction of King William III’s collection (1713) draws a clear picture of the system of art auctions, collecting practices and the international art trade in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.12 His extensive research elucidates not only the taste of collectors, but it also demonstrates that the practice of collecting paintings itself did not come to a close at the end of the Golden Age. It, in fact, continued to flourish, stimulated by a more organized and mature auction system.13 As will be discussed in the next chapter, it

357-58; Weyerman 1729-69, vol. 4, p. 395; Houbraken 1718-21, vol. 2, pp. 130-35. De Vries 1998, pp. 259-60; De Vries 1992 (1999), pp. 68-69; Franits 2004, pp. 219-20; Horn 2000, pp. 93-103. 10 For instance, Houbraken and Van Gool considered some painters of this transitional period, such as Adriaen van der Werff (1659-1722), as great masters who still belonged to the glorious past of the seventeenth century. Houbraken 1718-21, vol. 3, pp. 387-408; Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 2, pp. 376-410; De Vries 1998, p. 260. On Van Gool’s idea of seventeenth-century genre painting and contemporary painting, see the first chapter of this dissertation, pp. 47-49. 11 Bok 2002; see the chapter “Smaak (On taste in collecting)” in Bille 1961, pp.133-52; De Vries 1990, p. 93. The new fashion in interior decoration that originated from the French court changed the function and location of art in Dutch houses. As art lovers were eager to adorn their houses with costly wall and ceiling paintings, painters who possessed a talent for painting mythological themes on ceilings in a classicistic style, such as Gerard de Lairesse (1640-1711) and Jacob de Wit (1695-1754), enjoyed support and commissions from the wealthy upper class. For the ceiling paintings of Jacob de Wit in luxurious residences in Amsterdam, see Amsterdam 2000; for those of De Lairesse, see Snoep 1970. 12 Jonckheere 2008. See also the first chapter of this dissertation, pp. 36-37. 13 Jonckheere 2008, pp. 58-59. ŗŞȱ ȱ

is true that the art market began to stagnate because of the economic downturn and the oversupply of paintings, and that the number of painters and the production of paintings waned towards the end of the seventeenth century, yet, at the same time, a considerable number of second-hand paintings by seventeenth-century masters flooded the market.14 While these paintings drew international attention and, as a result, a number of Dutch masterpieces entered foreign collections, affluent Dutch collectors less affected by the economic recession were still able to enjoy plenty of opportunities to purchase these older paintings at auction.15 The huge number of paintings produced before 1680 did not disappear from collections overnight; they continued to be appreciated and were joined by new work from contemporary masters. Thus, the idea that the art of the Golden Age suddenly came to an end has slowly but surely been revised. What concerns us now is how painters during this transitional period responded to and coped with the new situation, how they looked at their prosperous past and still succeeded in producing their own works of art. Once we realize that the concept of the “age of decline” is no longer a priori, we are able to adopt the perspective of artists who became independent masters after 1680 to see what was, in fact, taking place at that time. These painters were surely aware of the unfavorable changes affecting their artistic circumstances, yet, they still had prospects for maintaining the prosperity of the preceding era. Our current assessment of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century art, which has shaped our retrospective viewpoint, was not shared by painters in those days. Instead, they sought to reconcile their situation with the heritage of their renowned predecessors and make the most of their artistic capabilities under the given circumstances. Thus, the aim of my study of genre painting from 1680 to 1750 is to understand the painters’ artistic intentions and professional choices by examining these in the context of the moment in which these paintings were produced and appreciated. The painters’ point of view – looking back upon a

14 For instance, a lively market for old master paintings is evident by the increasing number of advertisements for art sales in the Amsterdamsche Courant between 1675 and 1725, which have been published by S.A.C. Dudok van Heel. Dudok van Heel 1975; ibid, 1977; Bok 2002, p. 51. According to Bok, there is “an increase in the average number of advertisements per year: from 2.1 in the 1680s, to 4.5 in the 1690s, 7.5 in the first decade of eighteenth century, 6.6 in the 1710s and finally 12.2 in the 1720s.” 15 Korthals Altes 2003, pp. 176-258. ȱ ŗşȱ ȱ ȱ magnificent age and forward to future possibilities – is a key element underlying this study of the dynamic and unique period that was the first to glorify the art of Golden Age.

Until now, genre painting from the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries has rarely been discussed as a category of art that had coherent qualities and stylistic features. Although individual painters and their work have occasionally been examined in exhibition catalogues and monographic studies, little systematic research has been done on the characteristic features of this period’s genre painting.16 The first and sole contribution that brings into sharp relief the long-lasting pictorial tradition from the mid-seventeenth century into the second half of the eighteenth century is the exhibition catalogue Leidse Fijnschilders: Van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge 1630-1760 (1988), written by Eric Jan Sluijter in collaboration with a group of students.17 This catalogue, which demonstrates that popular seventeenth-century subjects, motifs and compositions were consciously selected and adapted by painters of later generations, has broadened our view of the span of Dutch genre painting, and consequently, it has drawn more scholarly attention to individual artists active after 1680. This tendency was further fostered by another important exhibition catalogue, De Hollandse fijnschilders: Van Gerard Dou tot Adriaen van der Werff (1989) by Peter Hecht, which sheds new light on the long tradition of refined painterly execution from the mid-seventeenth to the early eighteenth century.18 Such growing interest in painters of the later period has resulted 16 Genre painting of this transitional period has long attracted little attention, even in publications that focused on eighteenth-century Dutch art. The catalogue of the pioneering exhibition Dutch Masterpieces from the Eighteenth Century: Paintings and Drawing 1700-1800 (1971) treats sixty artists, yet only about one-third of them were active in the first half of the eighteenth century, and the selection of paintings lacks genre subjects around 1700. Only two pictures by Cornelis Troost were included, which look more like theater scenes than genre scenes. The collection catalogue The Age of Elegance: Paintings from the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam 1700-1800 (1995) excludes genre painting, except for one garden scene (Catalogue, Troost, fig. 2), again by Troost. Even in the recent survey on eighteenth-century Dutch art in the collection of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, Netherlandish Art 1700-1800 (2006), the catalogue includes only one genuine genre painting by Willem van Mieris. Only recently, the exhibition De Kroon op het Werk: Hollandse schilderkunst 1670-1750, (2006-2007) features more genre paintings by artists of this period, such as Arnold Boonen, Philips van Dijk, Willem van Mieris, Carel de Moor and Matthijs Naiveu. Minneapolis/Toledo/Philadelphia 1971-72, cat. nrs. 88 and 93; Loos 1995, cat. nr. 15; Barsen 2006, cat. nr. 13; Cologne/Dordrecht/Kassel 2006-07, cat. nrs. 4, 13, 49, 50, 53 and 57; Also see, note 21 in this introduction, and Philadelphia/Berlin/London 1984. 17 Leiden 1988. 18 Amsterdam 1989. ŘŖȱ ȱ

in recent monographic studies, such as Marjorie E. Wieseman’s book on Casper Netscher, the dissertation on Jacob Toorenvliet by Susanne Karau and Eddy Schavemaker’s monograph on Eglon van der Neer which provide us with detailed observations on a shift in stylistic features in genre painting around 1670.19 More recently, the exhibition De kroon op het werk: Hollandse schilderkunst 1670-1750, supervised by Ekkehard Mai, Sander Paarlberg and Gregor J.M. Weber, gave an overview of the rich variety of the paintings produced during this era and clear insight into the artistic circumstances under which genre painting was produced.20 All these contributions make clear that we can no longer speak of a deterioration in the quality of Dutch art, nor of a divergence from its “authentic” features; rather, we must conceive of a different aesthetic aim that began to play an important role in genre painting after 1680.21 This framework can also be found in the most recent survey of genre painting, Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting (2004) by Wayne Franits, who dedicates four chapters to genre scenes between 1672 and 1702 and reevaluates it by considering its historical, economic and regional background.22 By rejecting the “faulty developmental paradigm” that Dutch genre painting solely pursued “an ever more faithful representation of the surrounding world,” Franits regards the evolution of genre painting as an incessant shift “from certain prevailing stylistic and thematic conventions to others,” and therefore concludes that “those made during the late seventeenth century, with their bright, polished look and amalgam of classicizing elements reflect changing conventions.”23 The features of genre painting from 1680 to 1750 that used to be criticized as too

19 Wieseman 2002; Karau 2002; Schavemaker 2009 and Schavemaker 2010. 20 Cologne/Dordrecht/Kassel 2006-07 and see also the compilation of papers given at the symposium that accompanied the exhibition in Mai 2006. 21 One of the earliest remarks that puts more emphasis on a change of aesthetic goal, rather than a decline in quality, is made by Peter Sutton in an essay contributed to the exhibition catalogue: Philadelphia/Berlin/London 1984, pp. 57-59. He discusses “style and refinement” of genre painting at the end of the seventeenth century, and the catalogue includes some painters who were active in the late seventeenth century and early eighteenth century, such as Cornelis Dusart (1660-1704), Michiel van Musscher (1645-1705), Matthijs Naiveu (1647-1721) and Adriaen van der Werff (1659-1722). See also Sutton 1980, p. 36; Naumann 1981, vol. 2, pp. 79-83; Wieseman 2002, pp. 45-50. Schavemaker gives a detailed examination of the long-lasting discussion of style in late seventeenth-century genre painting, including the “French influence,” classicism and the trend of refinement, and “aristocratization” of painting: Schavemaker 2009, pp. 85-96 and Schavemaker 2010, pp. 85-91. 22 Franits 2004, “Part III 1672-1702,” pp. 217-57. 23 Franits 2004, p. 220. ȱ Řŗȱ ȱ ȱ similar to – or, on the contrary, too divergent from – seventeenth-century genre painting must be reconsidered. In the following chapters, I intend to examine these characteristics by focusing on how painters inherited, adapted and aspired to improve upon the pictorial conventions of genre painting from the second and third quarters of the seventeenth century, analyzing how this was closely related to collectors’ taste, art theory and artistic trends of the period. For this purpose, I devote the first chapter to constructing a clear image of the artistic circumstances under which painters produced paintings, and the following three chapters to case studies, each of which highlights one aspect of genre painting. Laying the foundation for these case studies, the first chapter examines how painters became increasingly dependent on a small group of wealthy collectors whose taste determined the painters’ artistic choices. Based on existing research as well as on the results of my own investigation, it illuminates why painters repeatedly chose certain subjects and motifs that had been popularized by famous seventeenth-century masters. The three case studies presented in the second, third and fourth chapters approach three essential features in genre painting according to the degree to which painters owed their artistic decisions to the achievements of their seventeenth-century predecessors. In other words, each of these three studies shows a different attitude towards seventeenth-century art, proceeding from the way in which painters adhered closely to the art of the Golden Age and ending with the way in which they distanced themselves from this unsurpassed canon. The first case study deals with literal “imitation” – reproductive work made by painters during the first half of the eighteenth century after genre paintings by seventeenth-century masters. This study elucidates the purpose and function of copies in connection with the increasing popularity of certain types of genre painting, and it clarifies why the practice of copying impacted the decisions painters made in their own genre paintings. Then, the second case study examines a more creative aspect of imitation – borrowing popular subject matter, motifs and compositions from seventeenth-century genre painting, and adapting these to the pictorial vocabulary of the early eighteenth century. In this chapter, I illustrate how the painters’ close and interactive relationships with collectors compelled them to adhere to, but at the same time update, the pictorial tradition of their forerunners. Then, in the last case study, my focus shifts to one of the most innovative aspects, that is, an increasing refinement, ŘŘȱ ȱ

which is recognizable as a coherent classicizing style in early eighteenth-century genre painting. This feature, which decisively differentiates eighteenth-century genre painting from its seventeenth-century counterpart, becomes convincing evidence of the painters’ efforts to innovate the convention of Dutch genre painting. As groundwork for these thematically-ordered chapters, I have compiled a catalogue of selected painters that produced genre paintings during this period, according to the criteria mentioned below. The selection of painters is based on consultation of the photographic documentation of the Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD) in The Hague as well as on my firsthand examination of paintings in various collections. It is also supplemented by information that I obtained from other academic institutions, museums, auction houses, art dealers, and scholars in this field. My research covers a long period from 1680 to 1750, during which time a large group of artists was active. In a broad sense, these painters belonged to the second and third generations of artists after the prosperous period of the second and third quarters of the seventeenth century. The starting point is set in 1680, since most of the leading artists of the second generation began working as independent masters after this time. Thus, the catalogue does not aim to serve as an encyclopedia of all the painters who were active in this category of painting. Rather, it consists of artists from the above-mentioned generations who experienced the climate of this transitional period as their primary artistic circumstance. Most of these painters were born between 1660 and 1700, and some of the artists whose extant work and information is extremely scarce cannot but be omitted from this catalogue.24 Artists born around or even before the middle of the seventeenth century and who had passed away around 1700, such as Godfried Schalcken (1643 -1706) and Eglon van der Neer (1634 -1703), are also not included in this catalogue. As they were already painting during the third quarter of the seventeenth century and had

24 For this reason, artists who were active primarily during the second and third quarters of the eighteenth century, like Tibout Regters (1710-1768), were not included. One of the exceptions is Gerard Hoet: he was active from around 1665 until his death in 1733, but his classicizing style, which was clearly consistent with the artistic tendency of the early eighteenth century, requires his inclusion in the catalogue. Painters about whom too little information is known to define specific features of their work and make attributions were also not included, such as Abraham Carré (1694-1762), Peter Cramer (1670-1703), Constantijn Netscher (1668-1723), Gerard Jan Palthe (1681-ca.1750), Theodoor van Pee (1668/89-1746), Nicolaas Six (ca. 1694/95-ca.1731), Focke Stapert (1683-1733), and Rutger Verburg (1678-1727). ȱ Řřȱ ȱ ȱ established their careers before 1680, they are classified with the group of older artists that inspired later generations.25 In the chapters, however, it is not my purpose to elaborate upon all the painters that are listed in my catalogue. Instead, my discussion focuses on a limited number of artists whose work and activities can provide us with specific examples. For this reason, Willem van Mieris, who is no doubt one of the most successful artists of this period and whose activities are well documented, receives significant attention in each of the case studies. Additionally, most of the examples I discuss in the following chapters were made after 1700, as is clear from the chapter titles, but this does not suggest an exclusion of the period between 1680 and 1700.26 My research does not include painters who were active mainly after 1750, since artists of the second half of the eighteenth century showed a different interest in seventeenth-century painting. Particularly toward the end of the eighteenth century, art gradually came to be colored by the spirit of the patriotic movement, which peaked around 1800.27 Painters of this period derived inspiration from seventeenth-century genre painting, but their emphasis lay on reviving faithful representations of the everyday life of humble citizens and projecting their current national identity onto these depictions. In the painting The Morning Visit (1796, fig. 1) by Adriaan de Lelie (1755-1820), for instance, the representation of citizens working in a kitchen early in the morning seems to have little to do with a classicizing tendency or antique beauty. Rather, these figures are portrayed in such an unaffected way as to embody the virtues of diligence and modesty that were seen as the

25 All the known interior scenes depicted by Eglon van der Neer were executed before 1686; see Schavemaker 2010. Jacob Toorenvliet (1640-1719) was also not included in my research, as only a small number of his genre paintings date to after 1680. Susanne Karau lists only seven genre paintings after that date in the catalogue of her monograph on this painter. Karau 2002, cat. nrs. A103-106, 108, 110 and 111. The most difficult case is the group of painters who were born between 1640 and 1650 and died around 1720, such as Isaac Paling (1640/45-1728), Johannes Voorhout (1647-1722), and Matthias Wulfraet (1648-1721). They produced genre paintings in the manner of the seventeenth-century masters, yet none of their extant genre paintings are safely dated after 1680, which is why the have been omitted from this study. 26 As already discussed, it is not possible to draw a clear boundary between the Golden Age and “the age of decline”. “The seventeenth century” is not an exact synonym of “the Golden Age” since the last two decades are not generally included in the latter. To avoid confusion, I use “the early eighteenth century” or “the first half of the eighteenth century” to designate my research period, in contrast to the (earlier) “seventeenth century.” 27 Koolhaas-Grosfeld 1982, pp. 605-16; Grijzenhout 1992, pp. 332-37; Loos 1995, p. 17; Dieltjes 2007, pp. 208-10. ŘŚȱ ȱ

important mainstay of Dutch society in that time.28 This retrospective attitude of painters active around 1800 toward seventeenth-century art makes us even more aware of the unique approach taken by painters working between 1680 and 1750. During the period of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, seventeenth-century Dutch art functioned as a mirror of national pride and formed a symbol of the glorious epoch that had ended more than a century before. However, around the year 1700, seventeenth-century genre painting was not yet a relic of the past. It was perceived as a model through which artists could pursue new possibilities to create their own art in response to contemporary artistic demands. This study is therefore devoted not to a revival of the lost glory of seventeenth-century Dutch art, but to a story of painters who attempted to breathe new life into the long-lasting tradition of Dutch genre painting.

28 De Lelie’s painting: Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, inv. nr. SK-A-1075; Tokyo 2007, cat. nr. 22, and see Koolhaas-Grosfeld 1996.

ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱ ȱȱȱ ȱǱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱŗŜŞŖȬŗŝśŖȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱ

ȱ Imagine a young painter visiting a handsome canal house on Amsterdam’s Herengracht in the first half of the eighteenth century. In the entrance hall he would be welcomed by magnificent stuccowork by Ignatius Logteren. Proceeding into the salon, the painter might encounter walls covered by landscape paintings from the hand of Isaac de Moucheron, or a ceiling painting of Flora and flying cupids by Jacob de Wit. After passing through several rooms decorated with tapestries, wainscots and other kinds of wall coverings, the amazed visitor could justifiably ask himself where the framed pictures hung. This new mode of interior decoration, which had evolved from the late seventeenth century, had changed the location and function of paintings in the residences of collectors.1 In his Nieuwe schouburg der Nederlantsche kunstschilders en schilderessen (1750-1751), the eighteenth-century biographer and painter Johan van Gool remarks memorably on the new fashion for interiors that resulted in the exclusion of framed pictures from the rooms in which they used to be displayed. According to Van Gool, this led to the decline of painting in his day: 1 De Vries 1992 (1999), pp. 55-57; Pijzel-Dommisse 2001, p. 201; Fock 2006-07, pp. 82-84. ŘŞȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

“It [is] all too well known that, for the past 40 years, an extraordinary change has occurred in the furnishing of houses as regards to Painting; the main consideration is that wallcoverings of all sorts and Italian stucco have become fashionable, impoverishing art to such an extent that Pictures are scarcely considered part of the furnishings any more, since Rooms are generally hung with all kinds of rags, even with paper, and stucco is already spreading from large to medium-size houses, and indeed to those of ordinary citizens. …In fact, in many homes there is no space at all, as a consequence of hangings, where people cover a surface with a piece of cloth, in a place where in the old days at least a dozen paintings were needed.”2

This passage clearly indicates that framed paintings became less popular among wealthy citizens who were eager to embellish their houses with all sorts of fashionable wall coverings, making these traditional paintings difficult to hang in most rooms. Yet, the huge number of framed pictures that had been produced and collected during the seventeenth-century could not have simply disappeared in a single night; there must have been another space reserved for the display of these works of art. Indeed, where were they hung? Recent research on the interior decoration of residences and properties of wealthy Dutchcitizens has revealed that from the late seventeenth century onwards, framed paintings gradually came to be confined to a separate cabinet room that was specially designed to display the art collection.3 The above-cited passage by Van Gool alludes to this situation during the first half of the eighteenth century, yet, already in the last quarter of the seventeenth century,

2 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, p. 358-59: “...is het maer al te bekent, dat, zedert 40 jaren, omtrent het meubileeren der huizen eene ongemeene verandering is ingevoert, met opzicht tot de Schilderkunst; waer van de hooftzaken zyn het sterk in zwang gaen van allerlei zoort van behangsels, en het Italiaensch plakwerk: waer door de Kunst zodanig is verarmt, dat men de Schilderyen neulyks onder de meubelen meer telt, vermits men tans het behangen van Kamers met allerlei vodden, zelfs met papier, algemeen ziet doorgaen, en het plakwerk al van de groote tot de middelzoort van huizen is overgebracht, ja, al by de Burgers begint ingevoert te worden: ...ja, by veelen niet meer als het vervolg van het behangsel, en dus met een lap eene vlakte bedekt, daer men in vroeger tyt ten minsten een dozyn Schilderyen toe nodig had, ...” Houbraken also lamented this tendency as “de Mode Tapytzeryen en andere blinkende vodden (de pest voor de Konst)”: Houbraken 1718-21, vol. 2, p. 96 3 De Vries 1992 (1999), pp. 55-57 and Fock 2006-07, pp. 82-84. Also see Baarsen 2006, pp. 15-16; Loughman 2000, pp. 30-32; Sluijter 2001-02, pp. 105-13; Fock 1992, p. 91. ȱ ȱ Řşȱ ȱ ȱ large-scale painted linen “wall hangings” increasingly embellished rooms.4 These wall paintings, on large canvases inserted into the wainscots, mostly depicted landscapes and mythological scenes. They were executed by painters like Frederik (1633-1686) and Isaac de Moucheron (1667-1744) or Gerard de Lairesse (1641-1711), who made a series of four paintings together with Johannes Glauber (1646-c. 1726) around 1687 for the mansion of Jacob de Flines at Herengracht 132.5 Although research by John Loughman and John Michael Montias on the distribution of paintings in Dutch houses between 1600 and 1679 concludes that “paintings were spread fairly evenly – relative to other objects – throughout Dutch houses,” the principal reception room in residences of affluent citizens seems to have taken on the appearance of a cabinet room just after 1650.6 A good example is in the residence of the Leiden professor François de le Boe Sylvius (1614-1672), whose large downstairs salon in his house at the Rapenburg (the present no. 31) displayed the finest paintings of his collection.7 Such a display of paintings in a designated room became more prevalent in the early eighteenth century and would have been experienced by visitors as a manifestation of the owner’s taste and devotion to art. For instance, in his mansion situated at Rapenburg 65 in Leiden, Pieter de la Court van der Voort (1664-1739), a prominent collector during the first half of the eighteenth century, allocated three separate rooms exclusively for the exhibition of his huge collection of paintings. According to the inventory of his collection, dated 1731, these cabinets contained a large number of paintings and were furnished only with easels and chairs.8 This new situation – the growing demand for wall painting and the confinement of framed paintings to cabinet rooms – leads to the following questions: if there was limited space

4 Pijzel-Dommisse 1997 and Pijzel-Dommisse 2000, pp. 92-99. 5 Wedde 1996; Cologne/Dordrecht/Kassel 2006-07, pp. 186-87; Weber 2006-07. 6 Loughman 2000, pp. 30-32. See also Fock 2006-07, pp. 82-84. 7 Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 3a, p. 337; Van der Veen 1993, p. 161; Sluijter 2001-02, pp. 105-113; Fock 2006-07, pp. 82-84. 8 Pieter de la Court van der Voort’s handwritten inventory of 1731: Regionaal Archief Leiden (hereafter RAL), family archive of De la Court, nr. 132 and Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 6, pp. 477-80. According to this inventory, two other rooms – the large room downstairs and the largest “voorkamer” upstairs – also contained paintings, but the inventory of 1739 recorded that there was also furniture, such as a bed, chairs and tables, in these two rooms, which indicates that these rooms did not function purely as cabinet rooms. The inventory of Pieter de la Court van der Voort of 1739: RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 59 and Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 6, pp. 481-89. See Van der Veen 1993, pp. 160-61; Fock 2006-07, p. 82; Pijzel-Dommisse 2001, p. 201. řŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

for framed pictures in collectors’ residences, what type of paintings did collectors prefer for these cabinet rooms? Were there additional factors that produced a change in the artistic situation after 1680, and what were these factors? Did this new situation affect the relationship between painters and collectors, and if so, what was the most successful strategy for painters to sell their work? By considering these issues from the point of view of both painters and collectors, this chapter will articulate a situation in which both parties were looking back to the glorious past while also going forward in the exploration of how to adapt themselves to the changing demands, trends and ideas of their day. Although this chapter will neither address the entire period covered by my research nor expatiate upon details of individual paintings, it will establish a solid foundation for the discussion held in the subsequent chapters, which consider the artistic decisions made by painters and collectors alike.

ŗǯ ȱȱȱȱǱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ From the 1660s onward, the Dutch art market, which had until then flourished due to unprecedented economic prosperity, began to stagnate.9 One of the primary causes of this decline was, as Marten Jan Bok rightly elucidates in his dissertation, the overabundance of paintings, namely the immense number of extant pictures that were produced by several generations of artists between 1620 and 1660.10 The physical durability of these paintings was so high that there was no need to replace them: people owned a sufficient number of paintings while additional new and secondhand paintings remained on the market. This oversupply resulted in the stagnation of the mass production of paintings. Compounding this decrease, the French attack on the Dutch Republic in 1672 dealt a severe and final blow to seventeenth-century Dutch art. The resulting political insecurity and economic instability caused irreparable damage to the production and consumption of paintings. For example, the number of painters in the Dutch Republic declined sharply after 1670. Research on painters active in major Dutch cities, such as Amsterdam and The Hague, indicates a first steep drop

9 Bok 1994, pp. 100-02. According to Piet Bakker's unpublished research on the number of painters, based on data from the Groenendijk database, the number began to decrease after the first Dutch-English War (1652-1654). The result of his statistical analysis of the number of artists in Leiden and other Dutch cities will soon be published in the Zeventiende Eeuw (see footnote 11). Groenendijk 2008. 10 Bok 1994, p. 101, table 4.1 and pp. 124-27 and De Vries 1991, p. 273, table 2. ȱ ȱ řŗȱ ȱ ȱ between 1660 and 1670; by 1700, the total number of painters decreased to one-quarter of the number of active painters working at mid-century.11 In short, after 1670, there was a decreasing number of young men who chose the profession of fine painter.12 The economic stagnation that began in 1670 also hit potential buyers and discouraged them from purchasing new works of art as luxury commodities. It is presumed, however, that prosperous citizens suffered less from this dismal economic situation. While middle-class citizens must have been easy victims of the period’s economic instability, affluent citizens were less affected and still possessed enough wealth to support their art collections – even spending enormous amounts of money to embellish their residences with expensive

11 De Vries 1991, p. 273, table 2 and Munt 1997, pp. 24-30. According to Jan de Vries’s estimate of the total number of Dutch painters between 1550 and 1775, the largest number of painters, 591, was active between 1640 and 1659. This number dropped to 370 between 1660 and 1670. Other research has estimated the number of artists active in cities like Leiden, Amsterdam, Utrecht, The Hague and Rotterdam, and these results are essentially consistent with De Vries’s estimate. Although the most prosperous period for painting in each city slightly differs – for example, the number of painters in Utrecht had already reached its peak before the middle of the seventeenth century – in most cities the number of painters decreased around 1660-1670. Recent research by Harm Nijboer has given a more precise picture of this decrease: according to him, the number of painters active in Amsterdam, Haarlem and The Hague began to decrease around 1662 and dropped sharply after 1670: Nijboer 2010, pp. 199-200, fig. 1. According to Bok 1994, pp. 99-104 and 213-215, in Amsterdam the number of 68 painters between 1666 and 1670 dropped dramatically to 49 painters between 1671 and 1675, further to 33 between 1676 and 1680, but increased to 56 between 1681 and 1685. It remained at 51 between 1686 and 1690, at 48 between 1691 and 1695, and at 56 between 1696 and 1700. In The Hague the number of painters reached its peak, 300, between 1651 and 1675, and dropped to 200 between 1675 and 1700. See, Buijsen 1998, pp. 27-29, table 1. As to Rotterdam, see, Roelofsz 1994, pp. 25-27. In Leiden, according to Piet Bakker's research on seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century Leiden painters, the number of members of the St. Lucas guild dropped after 1680; only a small group of ten painters stayed active. More details on the Leiden art market will be illuminated in his article in the upcoming number of the Zeventiende Eeuw entitled "Crisis, what crisis? Kanttekeningen bij het economisch verval van de schilderkunst in Leiden na 1660". I am grateful to him for allowing me to refer to the results of his unpublished research. According to the estimate of Jan de Vries, 370 painters were active between 1660 and 1679, 147 between 1680 and 1699, and 126 between 1700 and 1719. This suggests that after 1670 the painter’s profession became increasingly unpopular among young people who were exploring potential directions for their careers. What concerns us here is not the fact that the number of artists decreased, but who in this later generation still chose the profession of painter. Taking a closer look at the type of young men that made this choice, it becomes clear that they were often closely related to successful masters of the seventeenth century, either as pupils or sometimes sons. Certainly, the unstable economy forced artists to give up their profession or prevented young men from becoming painters, but it could have also encouraged certain types to select an artistic career. This last group of painters is precisely our concern in the following chapters. 12 Bok 1994, pp.104-07. Bok’s research into the record of marriage licenses of Amsterdam painters between 1601 and 1700 illustrates that a large number of young men became painters between 1611-25 and 1641-55. řŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

furniture, decorations, and new paintings.13 Consequently, a small group of wealthy citizens became potential buyers of new, contemporary paintings. Increasing wealth inequality in cities may have played a part in this shift, as John Michael Montias argues in his article on the cost and value of Dutch painting.14 According to research on income and wealth dispersion from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries by Lee Soltow and Jan Luiten van Zanden, the distribution of wealth in Leiden, for instance, grew increasingly polarized throughout the seventeenth century, and it remained at the same level or even grew after 1670 when the economy stagnated. Analysis of the wealth tax registers in Leiden shows that the richest 10 percent of the population owned nearly all the city’s wealth at the turn of the eighteenth century.15 Art lovers who could still afford to enlarge their collections by purchasing new paintings certainly belonged to this select group of citizens.16 The above-mentioned wealthy Leiden collector Pieter de la Court van der Voort, whose properties were estimated at 1,200,000 guilders after

13 Concerning affluent collectors of the early eighteenth century, see Korthals Altes 2003 and Jonckheere 2008. According to Clé Lesger, analysis of martial records in Amsterdam between 1626 and1700 revealed that the number of artisans engaged in the production of luxury articles, including the applied arts, doubled at the end of the seventeenth century. He argued that this was stimulated by the growing purchasing power of the upper class, which was less affected by the economic decline and even became richer at the end of the century. Lesger also highlighted that the number of wealthy people in Amsterdam had been increasing toward the end of the seventeenth century and that the total worth of such people had risen from 63 million guilders in 1631 to 158 million guilders in 1674. Lesger 2005, pp. 67-70. 14 Montias 1987, p. 463. Montias argues that another factor explains this shift: “a trend toward a more unequal distribution of income and wealth, which, while difficult to document statistically, is clearly perceptible even from casual observation of Dutch society in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.” It is also not easy to prove statistically how wealthy these rich collectors were. 15 Soltow and Van Zanden 1998, pp. 37-41, table 3.6 and 3.7, see the section “Wealth inequality 1500-1800”. It is concluded that there was “a marked increase in wealth inequality, which is probably concentrated in the period of rapid economic expansion after 1580, but which, in the case of at least two towns, continue after 1670.” One of these two towns is Leiden: between 1623, 1675 and 1722, the share of the richest 1% rose from 33% to 42% and then to 59% of the total wealth. The percentage of the people without property rises to a corresponding degree. 16 Based on Wijsenbeek-Olthuis’s research of Delft’s inventories, Ad van der Woude also makes an estimate of the average number of paintings per household in Delft during the eighteenth century. This result indicates that rich families whose estates were worth more than 6,000 guilders possessed far more paintings than the rest of the city’s citizens. The first class that left an estimated property of at least 12,000 guilders possessed 53 paintings on average, and the second class who left property of between 6,000 and 12,000 guilders possessed 38 paintings. These richer households possessed 70 percent of the total average of 130 paintings. Wijsenbeek-Olthuis 1987, p. 455, and Van der Woude 1991, p. 314, Table 8. He also estimated the number of paintings present in all households in Holland according to the Delft Ratios between 1580 and 1780. See also Fock 1997 (Fock 1986-92), pp. 261-63, table 9.1. A general tendency cannot be deduced from this result, however, which is based on the limited number of inventories selected by Fock. ȱ ȱ řřȱ ȱ ȱ his death, definitely counted among the numbers of the city’s upper class.17 Johan Hendrik van Wassenaer Obdam (1683-1745) in The Hague, an important patron of Willem van Mieris, had an annual income of around 30,000 guilders – a huge amount of money compared to the annual salary of a schoolmaster, which was around 700 guilders, or that of a civil secretary in the early eighteenth century, which was approximated at 3,000 to 4,000 guilders.18 In my research, then, “collectors” signify the above-mentioned small group of wealthy citizens from the upper class of society, who were consciously following the latest fashion by embellishing their residences with expensive works of art and assembling their art collections according to their own taste.19 These circumstances resulted in a substantial change in the relationship between painters and collectors.20 As painters became increasingly dependent on a diminishing circle of active collectors, the nature of this relationship grew increasingly personalized: painters were expected to cultivate a personal relationship with collectors, treating them like veritable patrons, in order to achieve success. Indeed, Johan van Gool was well aware of the importance of this patron-like relationship. He observed that a painter could no longer rely on the sale of his work on the open market but rather needed support from a munificent patron who could “elevate him to such a high status that no jealousy can drag him down” and make the painter “famous and his paintings sought after and popular so that he gets more commissions than he could handle.”21 Van Gool describes how important, and also how difficult, it was to obtain such generous support of art lovers:

“Such golden spurs raise the spirit of a painter above itself, and makes him do, with twice the energy, everything possible to bring his work of art to perfection. Yet, the number of these rich and generous art patrons is nowadays small, and this type of art lover is so thinly sown that one needs the lantern, with which Diogenes looked for

17 Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 6, p. 326. As to wealthy elites in the city, see Prak 1985 and Kooijmans 1987. 18 Soltow and Van Zanden 1998, p. 44, table 3.9. 19 Van der Veen describes that “a conscious collecting activity (een bewuste verzamelactiviteit)” is expected from a collector of painting. Van der Veen 1993, p. 145. 20 Franits 2004, p. 220. 21 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, p. 360: “daerby moet hy een grooten Mecenas hebben, die hem zo hoog kan oplichten, dat nyt noch afgunst hem kunnen krabben;..”; p. 198: “Door deze grooten Mecenas wierd Mieris alom bekent, en zyn Kunst gezocht en gewilt, krygende zyne handen vol werks.” řŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

people in bright sunshine on the market of Athens, to search for them.”22

Van Gool’s accounts offer an informative view into the close relationship between artists and collectors from the end of the seventeenth century until the middle of the eighteenth century. Maecenases supported artists financially and socially while painters did their best to measure up to these collectors’ expectations. This contrasts greatly with the open, anonymous art market that flourished from the early seventeenth century, which dictated that painters work as independent entrepreneurs that addressed the accelerating competition through pictorial means, craftsmanship, and the introduction of new subject matter. Of course, the patron-like relationship between painters and collectors was never exclusive to early eighteenth-century Dutch art. In the seventeenth century, successful painters of expensive, finely painted works of art also had a circle of wealthy patrons that regularly bought their paintings, and artists like Gerard Dou (1613-1675) and Frans I van Mieris (1635-1681) even had clients that paid a yearly honorarium to have the privilege of first refusal of their work.23 Yet, this group of painters remained an exception rather than the rule, and a great number of painters worked primarily on speculation for the anonymous art market. In fact, the close relationship between painters and collectors was fostered already at the early stage of a painter’s career. After 1670, a family background in art, good connections with wealthy collectors, and apprenticeships with successful seventeenth-century masters seem to have played a crucial role for young men as they examined their professional options. Certainly, such connections were not uncommon in the first half of the century, yet, when the art market contracted around 1670, the income guaranteed by apprenticing with famous masters must have become increasingly important to the younger generation. A perfect

22 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, 195: “Zulke goude sporen verheffen den geest eens Schilders als boven zich zelf, en doen hem, met verdubbeling van krachten, alles byzetten, wat mogelyk is om zyn Kunstwerk te volmaken. Doch het getal dezer ryke en milde Kunstbeloners is tans klein, en die zoort van Liefhebbers zo dun gezaeit, dat men de Lantaren, waer mede Diogenes by klaeren Zonneschyn, op de markt van Athenen, naer menschen zocht, wel nodig had om hen te zoeken;” See also Aono 2006, pp. 226-27; De Vries 1990, pp. 78-79; De Vries 1992 (1999), p. 72. 23 According to Philips Angel, Pieter Spiering, in the service of Queen Christina of Sweden, was willing to pay 500 Carolus guilders annually for the right of first refusal of Dou’s work. Angel 1642, p. 23. Frans I van Mieris enjoyed the patronage of Professor François de le Boe Sylvius, who, for a certain salary, secured the privilege of first refusal over everything Van Mieris painted. Houbraken 1718-21, vol. 3, p. 3 and Naumann 1981, vol. 1, pp. 24-25. ȱ ȱ řśȱ ȱ ȱ example is the Van Mieris family in Leiden. Willem, Jan, and Frans II, all direct descendents of the famous seventeenth century fine painter Frans I van Mieris, were destined to gain prestigious positions in the city, resulting in constant commissions from affluent citizens. Nicolaas Verkolje (1673-1746), apprenticed to his father Jan Verkolje, and Arnold Boonen (1669-1702), a pupil of Godfried Schalcken, also belonged to this group of painters that followed in the footsteps of masters producing expensive paintings for the happy few and then became successful painters of thenew generation.24 Even for the youngest generation of artists, this direct artistic lineage seems to have been important: painters like Philip van Dijk (1680-1743) and Hieronymus van der Mij (1687-1761) chose the preceding generation of fine painters like Arnold Boonen and Willem van Mieris as their masters.25 As a result, the family and artistic background that had fostered good connections with collectors must have contributed to the establishment of inseparable relationships between painters and collectors from the very beginning, compelling painters to constantly inform themselves of the variable taste of collectors.

Řǯ ȱȂȱǱȱȱȱȱȬ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ Considering the increasing dependence of painters upon a small group of collectors, it is important to assess the type of painting that appealed to these buyers. According to Johan van Gool, collectors developed a preference for old masters at the encouragement of greedy art dealers, who appraised paintings of seventeenth-century masters at a higher value in order to sell them at steep prices:

“…if an art lover already owned a splendid cabinet of dead Masters, then the art of the living Masters is deemed far too low to be permitted into his cabinet, since it brings him no profit; for the self-serving rule of thumb of these art dealers, who could better be called art destroyers, is to keep the living Masters, and with them the living Art, completely outside the Art Trade, so as to increase demand for their own Outfit.”26 24 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, pp. 294-309 and 392-403. 25 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, pp. 440-48 and vol. 2, pp. 129-30. 26 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, p. 360-61: “... vooral zo dees’ reets een fraei Kabinet van dode Meesters bezit, dan is de Kunst van den levenden Meester veel te laeg, om in zyn Kabinet plaets vergunt te worden, om dat ’er voor hem geen řŜȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Although Van Gool’s observation was biased in favor of contemporary painters to a certain degree, recent statistical research into inventories and sales catalogues has shown that collectors had a pronounced preference for paintings by “dead masters.” The well-known research by John Michael Montias on Amsterdam inventories from 1620 to 1714 suggests that there is a spectacular increase in the percentage of attributed paintings by “old masters” in collections as of 1670, which is accompanied by a dramatic decrease in the number of attributed paintings produced by living masters (Table I-1).27 The percentage of old masters increased from 1640 onwards, exceeding that of contemporary artists for the first time between 1660 and 1669. By 1700, old masters dominated the inventories, comprising more than eighty percent of these inventoried collections. Although this result is based on a limited number of attributed paintings made by identified artists – which could simply illustrate a stagnation of the market for new paintings in general – it still indicates that at the turn of the eighteenth century more than three- quarters of the attributed paintings hanging in an Amsterdam collector’s house were very likely made by inactive or deceased masters. To determine which painters found favor with wealthy collectors, it is worth analyzing the list of painters whose work brought in the highest prices at auction (List I-1). This list was compiled by Koenraad Jonckheere and is based on known sales catalogues from 1676 until 1739 that are recorded in the first volume of Gerard Hoet’s Catalogus of Naamlyst van Schilderyen, met derzelver pryzen (1752).28 Jonckheere drew up a list of the top 200 painters mentioned in Hoet’s catalogue and arranged them according to the average price paid for their paintings. Of these 200, I have selected the top 50 for further analysis. What is striking about these top 50 painters is that foreign names predominate, like Peter Paul Rubens, Anthony van Dyck, Raphael, Correggio, Parmigianino, Poussin and Titian (Table I-2). More importantly, though, Dutch painters who occupied a position high enough to compete with these honorable voordeel op is: want de eigenbaetzuchtige stokregel van deze Kunstkopers, (die men met vry meer recht den naem van Kunstslopers zou mogen geven) is de levende Meesters, en met hen de levende Kunst, geheel buiten den Kunsthandel te houden, om hunne eigen Kunstkraem des te meer trek te doen hebben;...” Johan van Gool also argues that among the small number of collectors, there were but a few who could or dared to “see with their own eyes, but they usually put on a pair of imaginary glasses forged by some art dealers.” 27 Montias 1987, p. 462-64, table 1 and Montias 1991, p. 343 and 363, table 9. 28 Jonckheere 2005, pp. 217-21 and Jonckheere 2008, pp. 229-33. ȱ ȱ řŝȱ ȱ ȱ foreign masters were distinguished particularly for their genre painting, such as Gerard Dou ranking at number 10, Frans I van Mieris at number 11, Pieter Cornelisz. van Slingelandt at number16, Godfried Schalcken at number 36, Gabriel Metsu at number 40, and Casper Netscher at number 45. This clearly indicates that Dutch genre painting of the third quarter of the seventeenth century occupied a prestigious position and enjoyed great popularity among collectors. This is significant, for the paintings by these foreign painters were probably not genre scenes, yet this is precisely the category of Dutch painting that they valued the highest. Although the term “genre painting” did not exist at that time, the type of paintings depicting everyday life must have been recognized as a representative category of Dutch art, for genre painting was consistently called “modern painting” in contemporary literature.29 Furthermore, if one looks at this list of 50 painters in terms of old masters and contemporary artists, the same high percentage (eighty percent) of paintings are by old masters (Table I-3), in keeping with Van Gool’s comments on the collectors’ strong preference for “dead masters.” The few contemporary painters from the list are successful Dutch artists: Adriaen van der Werff (1), Pieter van der Werff (17), Justus van Huysum (20), Gerard de Lairesse (21), Rachel Ruysch (47) and Willem van Mieris (49).30 The exorbitant prices that seventeenth-century Dutch genre paintings commanded did not pass Van Gool unnoticed. He states that the prices of paintings soared within a few decades because of the growing international market for Dutch paintings, the prices of which were inflated by art dealers. As a consequence, Van Gool writes:

“…an Art Lover, who was in earlier timesready to spend one to ten thousand guilders on Paintings in order to build up a cabinet of a splendid collection, could not even qualify to buy the works of first-ranked masters. …For example: one piece by Dou of 5 or 6 hundred guilders costs now 15 to 16 hundred guilders; one Metsu of 250 guilders is 29 On Van Gool’s definition of “modern painting”, see my discussion below. In regard to De Lairesse’s use of “modern”, see the fourth chapter of this dissertation, pp. 104-10. 30 Schalcken lived until 1706, so during the period of publication of Hoet’s sales catalogues, he could be seen as a “contemporary” painter, though he undoubtedly belongs to the group of seventeenth-century painters because of his achievements in the previous century. Taking one hundred fifty painters into account, many names of painters of the second and third generations appear, some of whom produced genre paintings: Gerard Hoet (53), Nicolaas Verkolje (111), and Mathijs Naiveu (146). řŞȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

600 guilders; one Van Ostade of 700 guilders is 21 hundred guilders; for the works by Frans van Mieris, Slingelandt, Netscher, Zachtleven [Saftleven], Wouwerman, or by masters who were rather sought after, the value increased at least three- or fourfold.”31

This passage not only gives us an idea of the steep rise in prices that illustrious seventeenth-century paintings could fetch, but also offers a vivid picture of how painters witnessed the change in the art market and the way in which paintings were collected. The unrivalled reputation of old masters coupled with the high prices paid for their work was undoubtedly what seduced painters of the new generations. The painters must have often heard that seventeenth-century “modern paintings” by Dou or Metsu were purchased by prestigious collectors for incredibly high prices at auction, which must have spurred them to design an effective and successful marketing strategy to appeal to the taste of these collectors. It was thus of great relevance for them to determine what kind of genre painting would be in favor with collectors.

řǯ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ¢ȱȱ In searching late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century accounts of the subject matter of genre paintings, one would immediately encounter critical comments on low-life subjects, such as peasant pieces. The classicist painter and theorist Gerard de Lairesse, and the lawyer, amateur draftsman and printmaker Jan de Bisschop, for instance, both strongly criticized the coarse and vulgar nature of the activities represented in pictures with “Beggars, Brothels, Taverns, Tobacco-smokers, Fiddlers, nasty Children sitting on a potty-chair, and other things more filthy and awful” and disapproved of these subjects as inappropriate for embellishing the residences of “Persons of Distinction and Respectability.”32 Since this disapproval of vulgar subjects

31 Van Gool 1752/1753, p. 25: “...een Liefhebber, die voor dezen geneegen was een duisent guldens of tien aen Schilderyen te besteden, om een fraei kabinetje te vergâren, nu niet eens in aenmerking komt, om zulks te doen van de eerste Meesters. ... By voorbeelt: een Dou van 5 of 6 hondert guldens, 15 à 16 hondert guldens; een Metsu van 250, 600 guldens; een Ostade van 700, 21 hondert guldens; Frans van Mieris, Slingelandt, Netscher, Zachtleven, Wouwerman, of wat maer van Meesters is, die eenigzins gezocht worden, scheelt het ten minsten drie of vier mael de waerde.” See, the third chapter of this dissertation, p. 87, and De Vries 1990, p. 233. 32 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 171: “...want men beschouwt naauwelyks een schoone Zaal of een heerlyk Vertrek, hoe kostelyk die ook mogen weezen, of zy zyn nu met Bedelaars, Bordeelen, Kroegen, Tabakrookers, Speelmans, ȱ ȱ řşȱ ȱ ȱ seems to be consistent with the general tendency toward increasing refinement in genre painting from the 1660s onwards, one would presume that rich, civilized collectors gradually began to omit from their luxuriously decorated rooms genre paintings with “filthy and awful” representations. Yet, was the viewpoint by the classicists De Lairesse and De Bisschop actually in accordance with the taste of collectors in the first half of the eighteenth century? In other words, what type of genre paintings hung on the walls of the collectors’ cabinets? A series of collection catalogues that were published in the second volume of Gerard Hoet’s Catalogus of naamlijst van schilderijen in 1752 provides us with valuable information on this issue.33 While the rest of the volume consists of eighteenth-century sales catalogues, Hoet selected twenty-two distinguished contemporary collections for which to compile special catalogues.34 Although this relatively small number of catalogues offers limited data, it is worth examining the types of genre paintings that were recorded in the famous collections of the period.35 Considering that potential buyers consisted of a small group besmeurde Kinders in de kakstoel, en wat noch vuilder en erger is, voorzien. Wie zou zyne vrienden, of iemand van achting, in een zaal durven ontfangen, daar het aldus over hoop legt, of daar een kind schreid of gereinigd word?... Dierhalven zyn het al te slechte en onbetaamelyke voorbeelden om daar mede te pronken, voornaamentlyk voor lieden die hunne gedachten boven ’t gemeen behoorden op te voeren, en die van staat en aanzien zyn.” As to De Bisschop, see De Bisschop 1671, title page, dedicated to Jan Six, and Van Gelder and Jost 1985, pp. 227-30. 33 Some research on inventories has already proved what type of painting – portrait, landscape, history painting or genre painting – was collected during a certain period in a particular city. This research has even suggested what type of subject was depicted in history pieces, such as the Old and New Testaments and mythology. See Montias 1991 and Van der Woude 1991, pp. 303-08, table 12-16. According to research on the percentage distribution of subject categories in ’s-Hertogenbosch between 1630-1780, done by Blondé and De Laet, the percentage of genre painting increased during this period: Blondé and De Laet 2006, p. 82, graph 8. Eighteenth-century sales catalogues also describe subjects of genre painting, yet because the same paintings were sold again within several years, it is impossible to extract which subjects were popular from this source. 34 Hoet and Terwesten 1752-70, vol. 2, pp. 393-538. These twenty-two collections are: Mrs Röver (with the remark of “verkogt aan zyn Doorl. Hoogh. den Prins van Hessen, voor de somme van 40000 Guldens”), Frederick, Prince of Wales (“Wyle zyn Doorl. Hoogheyd den Heere Prinse van Walles”), Johan Hendrik van Wassenaer Obdam, Govert van Slingelandt, Johan Diderik van Slingelandt, Hendrik van Slingelandt, Griffer Fagel, Willem Lormier, Adriaan Leonard van Heteren, Gerard Bicker van Swieten, Jacob Halfwassenaar, Benjamin da Costa, Hendrik Verschuring, Nicolaas van Bremen, Joan van der Linden van Slingelandt, Gerrit Braamcamp, Pieter Leendert de Neufville, Johannes Lubbeling, Jacobs Bierens, Arnold Leers, (Pieter and Jan) de Bisschop, and Jacob van Reygersberg Couwerven. Korthals Altes 2003, pp. 114-15, note 132. Korthals Altes uses the collection catalogues in order to determine the share of contemporary paintings in eighteenth-century collections: Korthals Altes 2006, p. 74. 35 It is also unknown how and when Hoet selected these catalogues and whether each catalogue should be regarded as complete. Since it was published in 1752, we can assume that these are collections representative of the mid-eighteenth century. Important and famous collections in Leiden, such as that of Pieter de la Court, are lacking in Hoet’s selection. ŚŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

of wealthy citizens like the owners of the collections selected by Hoet, these catalogues could reveal the type of genre painting favored by renowned collectors in the mid-eighteenth century. List I-2 illustrates the various types of genre subjects that are described in Hoet’s compilation, as well as the number of paintings produced in each category. The latter are divided into four periods according to the painters’ activity.36 Table I-4 translates the data from List I-2 into percentages of total genre subject matter according individual genre subject. Most striking in Table I-4 is that the category of “peasant scenes” forms the highest percentage, that is, 36.9 percent of the total number of genre paintings, with an enormous number of 109 pieces. These peasant paintings were made by seventeenth-century specialists in this subject, such as Adriaen van Ostade, Adriaen Brouwer and Cornelis Bega. In contrast to de Lairesse’s disapproval of “filthy” subjects, the predominance of peasant painting in these collections suggests that a huge number of seventeenth-century peasant pieces were still owned and appreciated by these distinguished collectors. Further down in the table, the category of peasant scenes is followed by that of “leisure scenes” (music-making, letter-reading, smoking, etc.) with 19 percent, and that of “domestic scenes” (kitchen scenes, mothers with children, and women at their toilet, etc.) with 10.5 percent. These three themes are the most popular subjects of genre paintings in the possession of prominent early eighteenth-century collectors. Although these findings are the result of analysis of only the quantity of paintings, reflecting neither the quality of paintings nor the reputations of artists, they still indicate the type of seventeenth-century subjects that could be a source of inspiration for eighteenth-century painters. Examination of subjects depicted by late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century

Furthermore, Hoet’s catalogue of the collection of Johan van Wassenaer van Obdam lacks a number of paintings made by Willem van Mieris, which are cited in the 1750 sales catalogue of the same collection listed in Hoet’s catalogues. Concerning the collection of van Wassenaer van Obdam, see the third chapter of this dissertation, pp. 80-83. 36 Since it was not possible to divide the data according to the paintings’ dates, the periods of artistic activity in which the genre paintings were made was used as a structuring principle to determine the type of subjects popular in these prominent collections. For this reason, the category of “the late seventeenth century” does not consist exclusively of painters from my period of focus covering 1680 to 1750, but also include painters like Godfried Schalcken, Eglon van der Neer, and Casper Netscher, whose paintings can be dated to the last quarter of the seventeenth century. On the other hand, this category of “the late seventeenth century” also includes painters from the period under consideration, like Richard Brakenburgh, Cornelis Dusart and Jan van Mieris, whose work was mostly or exclusively from the period before 1700. ȱ ȱ Śŗȱ ȱ ȱ artists in genre paintings cited in the same catalogues compiled by Hoet (Table I-5), however, tells us a slightly different story. The outcome shows some remarkable differences in ranking: the peasant pieces are ranked in the fifth position, with only ten pieces, that is, 8.5 percent of the total number of eighteenth-century genre paintings. “Scenes with children” and scenes with “commercial life” are ranked higher, occupying the third and fourth highest percentages. On the other hand, other major subjects, such as “leisure scenes” and “domestic scenes”, maintain their high percentage into the eighteenth century. The question raised by these data is why certain categories of subjects remained popular while others lost prominence. First, scrutiny of the categories of “leisure scenes” and “domestic scenes” make clear that both included subjects that sustained enduring popularity from the seventeenth into the eighteenth centuries. For instance, the portrayal of figures playing music in “leisure scenes,” especially a woman – often alone – playing a lute or cittern or tuning an instrument came into fashion in the 1660s and evolved into a long-lasting subject popular even into the first half of the eighteenth century. Seventeenth-century paintings with this subject, like A Woman Playing a Lute by Frans I van Mieris (1663, fig. 1) and A Woman Tuning Her Cittern, Approached by a Man by Gabriel Metsu (fig. 2), must have served as sources of inspiration for painters of the later seventeenth century, such as Eglon van der Neer (1678, fig. 3) and Casper Netscher (fig. 4), who depicted the same subjects with similar figure types.37 In the early eighteenth century, this subject remained a favorite of painters like Willem Verschuring (1657~67-1715~26, fig. 5), Philip van Dijk (1683-1753, fig. 6) and Pieter van der Werff (1665-1722, fig. 7), who depicted intimate scenes of elegantly dressed, half-length women absorbed in music.38 Why this subject enjoyed such long-lasting popularity is not easy to

37 Naumann 1981, vol. 1, p. 67; vol. 2, cat. nr. 52; The Hague 2005, p. 234, cat. nr. 5; Wieseman 2002, cat. nr. 119, p. 69; Robinson 1974, p.186, fig. 141, p. 58; Gudlaugsson 1959, cat. nr. 218; on Metsu’s painting, see Schnackenburg 1996, inv. nr. GK301 and the entry on this painting in Adriaan Waiboer’s forthcoming monograph on Metsu, which is based on his dissertation, Waiboer 2007. I am grateful to him for letting me read his unpublished manuscript; Schavemaker 2010, cat. nr. 83 and pp. 62-63, figs. 6 and 7; see also cat. nr. 9 and pp. 38-39, figs. 4 and 5 (Van der Neer copied the female figure of Metsu’s piece). The popularity of this subject was confirmed by Arnold Houbraken, who singled out Gabriel Metsu’s painting A Woman Tuning Her Cittern, Approached by a Man (fig. 2) for special praise in his bibliography of the master in his Groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (1721): “a small piece, but most ingeniously painted and drawn, representing a woman who tunes the lute.” Houbraken 1718-21, vol. 3, p. 57, “…een kleen stukje, maer op ‘t allerkonstigst geschildert en geteekent, veerbeeldende een Vroutje dat de luit stelt.” 38 As to the piece by Willem Verschuring, see Rettich, Klapproth and Ewald 1992, p. 471-72, inv. nr. 426, and the one by ŚŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

establish. A woman playing an instrument was probably favored because music-making reflected the luxurious lifestyle of upper-class citizens – the same citizens who became significant buyers of expensive genre paintings – but the repetition of subjects could also have been stimulated by the reputation of a painting made by a renowned master. For instance, one of the subjects categorized as a “domestic scene,” an interior scene with a mother and her baby, was depicted repeatedly with similar motifs in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (fig. 9, Catalogue, Frans II van Mieris, fig. 2 and Willem van Mieris, fig. 3), and this popularity must have been closely related to the fame of The Young Mother (1658, fig. 8) by Gerard Dou, which was given to King Charles II of England in 1660.39 This picture was undoubtedly seen as an internationally celebrated masterpiece, thereby stimulating other painters to depict the same subject. Furthermore, conscious decisions to choose popular subjects for their own work could lead painters to combine more than one subject in one painting. The most intriguing examples are found in the genre paintings of Hieronymus van der Mij, who often arranged various elements in one picture that derived from different themes depicted by Dou and Willem van Mieris. In A Mother Nursing with an Old Woman and Two Children (fig. 9), for instance, four themes popular among seventeenth-century subjects are successfully combined in a tidy, bourgeois interior: a mother nursing a baby, children playing, an old woman with a basket full of eggs (from market and shop scenes), and finally, a parrot resting on a perch with a bird cage (quoted from an elegant interior with a lady feeding a parrot).40 Thus, it seems that the

Philip van Dijk, (on loan to) Rijksmuseum, Twenthe, inv. nr. BR2059. The one by Pieter van der Werff was formerly owned by P. de Boer in Amsterdam, see Schavemaker 2010, pp. 62-63, fig. 6. In some cases, the same type of woman is combined with a drinking scene in a spacious, sumptuously furnished interior that was also in fashion in “leisure scenes” at that time, like The Lute Player (Chap. IV, fig. 1) by Willem van Mieris. Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, cat. nr. 291. This combination could derive from his father’s famous work The Family Concert, which was commissioned and bought for the enormous amount of ca. 2,500 guilders by Cosimo III de’ Medici. Naumann 1981, vol. 1, p. 184 and vol. 2, cat. nr. 102. 39 Baer 1990, cat. nr. 76. This type of scene with a mother and a baby lying in a cradle, and also a more intimate type of domestic interior with a mother nursing her child, two versions of which were painted by Dou (Baer 1990, cat. nrs. 77 and 77.1), were repeatedly treated by painters throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, like Pieter Cornelisz. Slingelandt and Willem van Mieris (such as Family in an Interior, formally owned by Daphne Alazraki, New York). For the piece by Pieter Cornelisz. van Slingelandt, see Leiden 1988, cat. nr. 66, pp. 206-07. 40 Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 13 November 2007, nr. 82. Wansink 1985, cat. nr. 5. Another example is Family Scene with a Nursing Mother in a Fish Shop (Wansink 1985, cat. nr. 14), in which a nursing mother with her husband and kitchen maid are combined with a shop interior seen through a stone window. ȱ ȱ Śřȱ ȱ ȱ popularity of certain subjects depicted in seventeenth-century genre painting could have encouraged later generations of painters to opt for the same subjects in their work. The case of peasant pictures, however, is not consistent with this assumption. The small number of eighteenth-century peasant pieces cited in Hoet’s catalogues indicates that the large number of seventeenth-century peasant pieces in distinguished collections did not necessarily encourage eighteenth-century painters to depict this theme.41 Such subjects obviously did not attract a high number of collectors as compared to earlier paintings. Seven of the ten peasant pieces from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in Hoet’s catalogues were produced by two painters from the late seventeenth century, both of whom belonged to the last generation of artists specializing in this category at the turn of the century: Cornelis Dusart (1660-1704), who was one of Van Ostade’s best pupils (fig. 10), and Richard Brakenburgh (1650-1702), who continued the pictorial schemas of Jan Steen.42 In fact, further into the first half of the eighteenth century, peasant imagery was no longer produced by specialists but was sporadically depicted by painters who also treated other subject matter.43 The lack of popularity of such pieces could be partially explained by the market value of paintings with these subjects. Referring to the above-mentioned list of the most highly-paid painters (List I-1), the production of peasant pieces indeed seems to have been less profitable than the depiction of leisure and domestic scenes. Adriaen van Ostade and Adriaen Brouwer, seventeenth-century specialists of peasant scenes, were ranked respectively at numbers 69 and 55 on the list, with an average of 126 and 147 guilders per painting. This is significantly lower than painters like Gerard Dou (in 10th place) with 440 guilders and Frans I van Mieris (in 11th place) with 437 guilders, who executed leisure and domestic scenes. Still, the market value of these paintings cannot completely explain the painter’s preference for one subject over another. Are there other elements that impacted the painters’ selection of subject matter?

41 Of course, the small number of eighteenth-century peasant pieces in Hoet’s catalogues does not necessarily mean that only a small number of peasant pieces were produced during this period, but it does demonstrate that these types of paintings did not attract collectors. 42 The painting by Dusart was formerly owned by art dealer Salomon Lilian. 43 There was still a small group of eighteenth-century painters who seems to be primarily engaged in depicting peasants, like Abraham Carré (1694-1762), but their production was far more limited. ŚŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Śǯ ȱȂȱǱȱȱȬ¢ȱȱȱ “Scenes with children,” one of the most popular eighteenth-century genre subjects cited in Hoet’s catalogue, provide us with a possible answer to the question concerning the painter’s preference for certain subject matter. Remarkably, this subject in particular shows a distinct shift in figure types and decorum throughout the century. In seventeenth-century genre painting, masters such as Gerard Dou (Chap. III, fig. 17) and Domenicus van Tol (fig. 11) depicted middle-class boys and girls in everyday clothes, holding a mouse trap or blowing bubbles. Towards the end of the century, children became more elegantly dressed, wearing luxurious gowns and beautifully plumed berets, while engaging in the same kind of activities, as seen in Two Boys Blowing Bubbles by Casper Netscher (fig. 12) and A Boy with a Mousetrap by Adriaen van der Werff (1659-1722, fig. 13).44 In keeping with the demands of affluent collectors who wanted to see the favorable and pleasant sides of civilized life, this tendency toward refinement continued into the eighteenth century and became more accentuated by decorative elements associated with the classicizing style in contemporary art.45 A good example is the work Three Girls Decorating a Statue (1710, fig. 14) by Pieter van der Werff.46 While the scene is set behind a balustrade or stone table covered with a thick, colorful carpet – a motif associated with seventeenth-century genre painting – the young female figures display antique-style dress, smooth and marble-like skin, and graceful poses. This feature of adapting an idealized form of antique sculpture can be seen as part of the classicizing tendency in genre painting. According to Gerard de Lairesse’s Groot Schilderboek, even common people depicted in genre painting should be represented according to antique precepts associated with contemporary history painting, as will be discussed in the fourth chapter of this dissertation.47 The girls’ dresses, which are loosely tied at the shoulders, are strongly reminiscent of the

44 Wieseman 2002, cat. nr. 94, pp. 234-35 and Gaehtgens 1987, cat. nr. 6. 45 Another example is Children in the Garden by Arnold Boonen: two finely dressed children appear in a garden with a classical staircase decorated with vases. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 9 July 1998, nr. 184. 46 Schnackenburg 1996, inv. nr. GK 320. The statues that are prominently positioned in the painting no doubt refer to the ideal of classicism: in his painting A Statue of Venus with a Girl Drawing and a Boy (1715, fig. 16) Pieter van der Werff depicted one of the most celebrated icons of Roman art, the Venus de’ Medici. Three Girls Decorating a Statue (fig. 14) was sold in 1713 for the substantial sum of 550 guilders in the auction of the Adriaen Paets collection in Rotterdam. Jonckheere 2008, pp. 84-86. 47 Also see Aono 2007/2008, pp. 240-43. ȱ ȱ Śśȱ ȱ ȱ dresses that were illustrated in De Lairesse’s book (fig. 15).48 The girls’ activities also underscore this adaptation of the qualities of history painting to genre painting. The decoration of an antique statue with a garland of flowers is of a more fantastic and idealized character compared to the everyday moments depicted in seventeenth-century genre scenes, and is more closely associated with history or allegorical painting. Such figures in the classicizing style seem to have appealed to artists of the later generation. Philip van Dijk, who was known for genre pieces with “contemporary gracefulness,” skillfully combined such figure types.49 His picture The Drawing Lesson, (1728, fig. 17), for instance, reveals his possible source of inspiration, that is, two paintings by Pieter van der Werff: the girl decorating an antique statue was borrowed from Three Girls Decorating a Statue (fig. 14), and the child drawing after a classical statue could be inspired by his A Statue of Venus, with a Girl Drawing and a Boy (1715, fig. 16).50 Furthermore, the subject of children provided painters not only with the opportunity for increasing refinement but also with the possibility to interpret this seventeenth-century subject in their own style. For instance, two paintings by different masters demonstrate that the children’s scene was strongly reminiscent of the seventeenth-century pictorial tradition and simultaneously highly adaptable to different stylistic interpretations by the later generations. The first one, A Boy with a Bird (fig. 18) by Matthijs Naiveu (1647-1726), displays an arched

48 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 187, and vol. 2, p. 6, 8, and the illustration facing p. 25; Kemmer 1998, pp. 109-12. 49 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, p. 445: “Noch heeft hy voor Prins Willem twee moderne Kabinetstukjes geschildert, niet van dat platte en styve modern, daer een Wyf wat Kool of Peen verkoopt, maer fraei, naer de hedendaegsche zwier, uitgedacht en gekleed.” 50 As to The Drawing Lesson, see Bock and Grosshans 1996, inv. nr. 1028; A Statue of Venus, with a Girl Drawing and a Boy, see Van Thiel et al. 1976, inv. nr. A472. Several motifs in the pieces by Pieter van der Werff also reveal his main source of inspiration, namely two paintings by his brother Adriaen van der Werff, Playing Children before a Statue of Hercules and Young Artist Studying Antique Sculptures (Gaehtgens 1987, cat. nrs. 17 and 18). His brother’s pictures show similar figures and motifs: a girl drawing with a portfolio or a young female artist, a boy with short hair interrupting her, a sculpted head and an antique statue standing on a pedestal. The combination of a classical statue with a flower garland and a landscape in the background could also have been quoted from an allegory by Adriaen van der Werff entitled The Spring (ca. 1696), which was one of the paintings in the room overlooking the garden of Van der Werff’s residence in Rotterdam: see Weber 2006-07, p. 184, ill. 6. Familiar with these three paintings by his talented brother, Pieter van der Werff must have consciously borrowed such recognizable motifs for his own work with the intention of creating a market niche for this type of genre scene with children. As Adriaen had ceased producing genre paintings after finishing his Playing Children before a Statue of Hercules, from which Pieter van der Werff made a copy and his own version, the latter would have had less competition on the market. ŚŜȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

stone window frame surmounted by a boy, which is overwhelmingly adorned with statues of putti, a sculpted relief, and ornaments of pilasters and frames.51 This excessive embellishment is typical of Naiveu’s genre painting in the early eighteenth century, and in this piece he succeeded in translating the theme and composition of his predecessors into his own pictorial vocabulary. On the other hand, Louis de Moni (1698-1771), who often found immediate inspiration in the oeuvre of Gerard Dou, treated this theme in a strikingly different way (fig. 19).52 As a subject, De Moni chose children playing “Ganzenbord,” which derived from the unpretentious type of scenes of children depicted by his mid-seventeenth century predecessors. He accentuated the modest and unadorned character of the scene by minimizing decorative elements in the interior as well as in the children’s clothes. The stone window frame, a popular compositional device which was often depicted parallel to the picture plane as in the painting by Naiveu, has been moved to the background. Through the window daylight enters the room and illuminates the interior, imparting a unique chiaroscuro effect on the children and a soft graduation of colors, which is typical of this master. As a result, the portrayal of children seems to have been an ideal vehicle for painters to depict various sorts of playful scenes, for it offered them many artistic possibilities to improve upon the pictorial formulae of their predecessors by adapting contemporary artistic tendencies and exploring their own style.53 This flexibility of subject matter must have been an important reason for painters of later generations to choose certain subjects from the seventeenth-century thematic repertory for their own work. The subject of peasants clearly did not appeal to painters; there must have been little possibility to employ the classicizing style to make something new of the seventeenth-century representation of peasant life. The same holds true for some of the favorite subjects of the Leiden fine painters, such as scholars, hermits and

51 Musée Municipal de Chartres, inv. nr. 5550. Denisart and Jusselin 1931, p. 12, nr. 166, as Karel de Moor. Concerning Naiveu, see Leiden 1988, pp. 186-95. 52 The picture is formerly owned by Noortman, Maastricht. The photograph is from the RKD. 53 Another good example of a similar theme adapted by different generations is Boys Playing the Flute and Drum by Frans I van Mieris (1670, Naumann 1981, cat. nr. 81) and Children’s Games by Willem van Mieris (1702, London, The Wallace Collection, inv. nr. 178; Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 334), which was inspired by the former. Although the boys in both pieces are dressed in fine jackets with sashes and berets, Willem van Mieris constructed his scene using a different kind of composition, motifs and figures. ȱ ȱ Śŝȱ ȱ ȱ doctors (quacks and dentists), which were rarely repeated in the later period.54 Most importantly, this indicates that painters did not blindly imitate every seventeenth-century theme that was popular in eighteenth-century collections; rather, they deliberately chose subjects that were flexible enough to adapt and translate into their contemporary idiom. Subjects that met this requirement were repeatedly depicted and varied, as seen in the domestic scene, the leisure scene and the children’s scene. Since the painters’ choice of subject matter could be determined by a number of other factors that were inextricably bound up with each other, such as potential market value, popularity of subject, collectors’ specific preference and artists’ capability, it remains difficult to pinpoint which was the most decisive aspect for painters under certain circumstances. Still, we are now able to speak of a “conscious” choice by painters, which will be discussed by means of some examples in the subsequent chapters. Like the painters’ choice of seventeenth-century subject matter, the use of a classicizing style seems to have been done consciously and in harmony with the eighteenth-century view of genre and history painting. In the introduction of his second volume of De nieuwe schouburg, Van Gool defines the features that characterize these two categories of painting and compares seventeenth-century genre painting and late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century history painting. First, he cites seventeenth-century Dutch genre painters, namely Pieter van Slingelandt, Gerard Dou, Gabriel Metsu and Frans I van Mieris as “high-flyers of modern Painting” (overvliegers in de moderne Schilderkunst), and describes them as follows:

“Some were outstanding in following everything in nature simply and precisely, without distinguishing beautiful examples from ugly ones, by examining their art work with the greatest carefulness, and they have drawn and painted objects exactly from life, which requires a lot of time and effort.” 55

54 What I call “tronies” in List I-2 are genre paintings with one figure that lacks any description of specific activities. 55 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 2, p. 3: “zijnde zommige daer op gevallen, om de Natuur eenvoudig in alles naeukeurig te volgen, zonder mooije of lelyke voorbeelden te onderscheiden, bestuderende hunne Kunststukken met de uiterste omzichtigheit, en hebben al hunne voorwerpen stipt naer het leven getekent en geschildert; het geen veel tyt en arbeit kost.” De Vries 1990, p. 49. ŚŞȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Although Van Gool here appreciates the precise imitation of nature that was achieved in seventeenth-century genre painting, his true purpose is to heighten the value of contemporary history painting, which was, in his mind, undeservedly underestimated in the shadow of the accomplishments of seventeenth-century masters.56 He defines the features of “history cabinet painters” (Historische kabinetschilders) from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, such as Gerard de Lairesse, Godfried Schalcken, Adriaen van der Werff and Carel de Moor, as counterparts to those genre painters, as follows:

“Others, on the contrary, with more genius and gifted with a more fluent technique have imitated the most beautiful in nature and the best of life more freely, and were far more daring in undertaking and executing subjects from their mind.”57

What is most striking in this comparison is that the main feature of seventeenth-century genre painting was defined as a precise imitation of nature, in contrast with the pursuit of selective and idealized nature – “the most beautiful in nature and the best of life” – in history painting executed by later painters in a classicizing style. This clear distinction between two categories of painting produced by two different generations suggests that the characteristics of the art of the recent past were already recognized by this time and that they served as a point of comparison with the art of the later period. Although Van Gool’s remark dates from the middle of the eighteenth century, the process of realizing what characterized seventeenth- and eighteenth-century painting must have already begun at the turn of the century. Consequently, it was probably no coincidence that early eighteenth-century painters seem to have combined almost contradictory features of these two categories of painting, as Van Gool describes: adhering to the pictorial tradition of genre painting of the third quarter of the seventeenth

56 Van Gool criticizes genre painting for not being free from “stiffness (stijfheid).” It is not immediately obvious what he means by “stiffness,” but in the subsequent passage, it becomes clear that he valued the idealization of nature, which he undoubtedly distinguished from the precise imitation of nature that can cause “stiffness.” Van Gool appreciates genre paintings that are “fraai, hedendaagse zwier uitgedacht en gekleed,” like paintings by Philip van Dijk, in contrast to “stiff” and “coarse” ones. Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, p. 445. 57 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 2, p. 3: “Andere, in tegendeel, met meer geest en losser behandeling begaeft, hebben het schoonste der Natuur en ’t beste Leven met meer vryheid nagebootst, en zyn veel stouter in het ondernemen en uitvoeren der onderwerpen van hunnen geest geweest.” ȱ ȱ Śşȱ ȱ ȱ century and, at the same time, adapting it to the classicizing style.58

ȱ Finally, our imaginary visitor at the Herengracht enters the collector’s cabinet. The young painter now stands in the exquisite room in which the walls are completely covered with paintings by celebrated artists. Most of these masters had already died and were no longer engaged in setting new fashions on the market; their fame had been established and their paintings were sought after as increasingly unavailable collectors’ items. The greatest concern for our fledgling painter must have been how to ensure that his own paintings entered this room as part of the collection and hung among the famous pictures. Clearly, the artistic situation had changed. Collectors were looking back to the art of the seventeenth century as a glorious past, and painters were compelled to acknowledgethis exalted heritage of seventeenth-century art. This attitude seems to underlie the artistic choices that they made in their genre paintings. High market demand for paintings by seventeenth-century “fijnschilders” like Gerard Dou and Frans I van Mieris could have had an impact on the choice of motifs, compositions, and subject matter in genre painting. At the same time, the preference for a classicizing style in painting, which would become visually dominant in collectors’ residences in both wall decorations as well as cabinet pieces, had become unavoidable for painters. They must have desired to create their own artistic identity on the market that incorporated this reference to the seventeenth century while also reflecting their own style. The following chapters will illuminate the versatile ways in which painters, confronted with this changing artistic climate and the specific demands of collectors, produced their own types of genre painting and succeeded in having these works enter prominent contemporary collections.

58 In one of the well-known passages from his biography De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (1718-21), Arnold Houbraken enumerates sixty-one prominent painters from the Southern and Northern Netherlands from 1560 to 1660, which also include famous seventeenth-century genre painters such as Gerard Dou, Gabriel Metsu, Gerard ter Borch and Frans I van Mieris. The work of these painters was already regarded as representative of the art of the glorious past. Houbraken 1718-21, vol. 2, p. 131. See Cornelis 1995, pp. 168-69; Hecht 1996; Horn 2000, pp. 93-102. See also Carasso 1996, pp. 337-38. ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱ ȱǱȱ ȱ

ȱȱȬ¢ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ

ȱ Looking at entries in the catalogues raisonnés of well-known seventeenth-century genre painters such as Frans I van Mieris and Gerard Dou, one will also often find listed a number of copies that were made after a seventeenth-century original. Although most of these copies can be neither attributed nor dated because of the lack of early provenance, some were still thought to date to the eighteenth century, which suggests that a large number of copies were produced at the time.1 According to the monographic study on Frans I van Mieris by Otto Naumann, for instance, one famous painting by this master, The Oyster Meal (The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis) has no less than 38 copies – some of which could be replicas made by the artist – that vary in size, quality and date. In addition, the earliest document concerning these copies tells us that one of them belonged to the well-known early eighteenth-century collection of Valerius Röver and that it was sold at the auction of his

1 Pioneering studies and remarks on early eighteenth-century copies after seventeenth-century genre painting: Fock 1983, pp. 265-67 and Sluijter 1988, pp. 34-36. śŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

estate in 1727 for the high price of 500 guilders.2 This piece was, in fact, sold not as a copy but as an original by Frans I van Mieris, which indicates that high-quality copies after seventeenth-century paintings could pass for the original and fetch high prices. Producing such copies could therefore be lucrative work for painters. Although copies of this kind have often been considered of little value until now, reevaluation of the art of this later period can shed new light on these reproductive activities. As already discussed in the introduction and the first chapter of this dissertation, research of the last twenty years has made clear that the earliest reception of seventeenth-century art, which was already considered an unsurpassable achievement, took place in the first decades of the eighteenth century.3 Wealthy collectors eagerly sought seventeenth-century Dutch genre paintings, especially those executed by masters active between 1640 and 1670, while painters, confronted with the shrinking market for contemporary paintings from the 1660s onward, became increasingly dependent on a small number of these wealthy citizens and their tastes.4 So, what was the function of these copies by early eighteenth-century painters after seventeenth-century genre paintings during the earliest reception of the Golden Age? Of course, the practice of copying seventeenth-century painting was not unique to the early eighteenth century. In the seventeenth century, copying the genre paintings of living masters seems to have been part of studio training for young pupils, and some of these copies were occasionally sold. As Eric Jan Sluijter has pointed out, fourteen copies painted by Abraham de Pape (before 1621-1666) after Gerard Dou, which were mentioned in De Pape’s inventory after his death, had probably been made for study purposes during his apprenticeship with Dou.5 There were also other kinds of copies, such as autograph replicas, made by the masters themselves. Gerard ter Borch, for instance, is thought to have produced

2 Naumann 1981, cat. nr. 36f. 3 Concerning the domestic and international art market of the early eighteenth century, see Korthals Altes 2003 and Jonckheere 2005. Regarding the emerging idea of the “Golden Age”, see Cornelis 1995, pp. 168-69; Hecht 1996, pp. 259-74; Kemmer 1998, pp. 87-115; Horn 2000, pp. 93-102. 4 Bok 1994, pp. 124-27. The number of painters decreased between 1670 and 1680. See Bok’s research on the records of marriage licenses of Amsterdam painters between 1601 and 1700, idem, pp. 100-04, diagram 4.1; Franits 2004, pp. 220-22. Also see Jonckheere 2005, pp. 217-18 and Aono 2006, pp. 226-27 and 238-39. See the first chapter of this dissertation, pp. 30-31. 5 Sluijter 1988, pp. 34-35. ȱ ȱ śřȱ ȱ ȱ autograph copies, probably using his own drawings of basic figure types. These copies were made not only by the artist himself but possibly also by his pupils and were created with the intention to be sold.6 Drawings, known as ricordi, were also made after successful paintings and functioned literally as a record of the finished work. They were made by the artist or his pupils and often kept in the atelier, as in the case of drawings made after paintings by Casper Netscher. As Marjorie E. Wieseman elucidates, these drawings after Netcher’s paintings served “not only to document a given painting, but also as models for later works which utilized the same basic composition.”7 Compared to the seventeenth-century practice of making copies after contemporary genre pieces by living masters, early eighteenth-century copies after seventeenth-century genre paintings seem to have undergone a remarkable change in function. Although the educational purpose of copying remained essential for young pupils, commercial objectives gradually gained more importance in the reproductive activities of these artists.8 By then, most of the famous seventeenth-century masters had died or were no longer active, meaning that fewer of their works were available on the art market. The potential commercial value of copies after their paintings therefore increased. According to recent research by Koenraad Jonckheere on collecting taste at the beginning of the eighteenth century already discussed in the first chapter, Dutch genre paintings by seventeenth-century masters such as Gerard Dou, Frans I van Mieris, Pieter Cornelisz. van Slingelandt, Godfried Schalcken, Gabriel Metsu and Casper Netscher were in great demand and sold at high prices.9 Collectors were eager to acquire the genre paintings by these celebrated masters, and copies must have served as readily available and less expensive substitutes. Several important questions now arise: in what context did painters produce copies, and how did these copies function? How were these copies valued and appreciated by contemporary collectors? What kinds of paintings were most frequently selected for copying, and finally, how were the

6 For instance: Washington/Detroit 2004-05, cat. nrs. 39, 40 and 47, and Wallert and Tauber 2004, pp. 316-27. 7 Wieseman 2004, p. 255. 8 As to the educational purpose, a well-known anecdote was told by Arnold Houbraken about the young Adriaen van der Werff making a copy after a piece by Frans I van Mieris while he was apprenticed to Eglon van der Neer. Houbraken 1718-21, vol. 3, pp. 389-90. 9 Jonckheere 2005, pp. 217-18 and Aono 2006, pp. 226-27 and 238-39. śŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

painters’ reproductive activities related to the production of their own painting? By answering these questions, this chapter deals with reproductive works executed by painters who were simultaneously engaged in producing genre paintings in their own style during the first half of the eighteenth century. It primarily treats copies in paint, but the reproductive prints of Nicolaas Verkolje will also be included. Rather than surveying all extant copies after seventeenth-century genre painting, I will focus on several representative masters from the first half of the eighteenth century and examine their reproductive work as one of the essential responses to the ongoing process of the glorification of seventeenth-century Dutch art. Each case study will explore the artist’s specific way of reproducing seventeenth-century painting, which is closely connected to the collectors’ demands.

ŗǯ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ǳȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ As seen in the above-mentioned case of The Oyster Meal by Frans I van Mieris, copies were sold as originals during the eighteenth century. One of the contemporary remarks on such commercial use of copies during the first half of the eighteenth century is found in Johan van Gool’s discourse on the misuse of copies after seventeenth-century painting. In his collection of artists’ biographies titled De nieuwe schouburg der Nederlantsche kunstschilders en schilderessen (1750-51), Van Gool refers to the art dealer’s involvement in the production and marketing of copies by eighteenth-century painters.10 For example, in the biography of Gerard Melder (1693-1754), Van Gool describes the case of an art dealer who instructed a painter to copy original paintings chosen and delivered by the dealer himself, in the following way:

“I saw that Melder’s [copies after] Dou and other Masters were sold for high prices to devotees and art dealers; among others to the famous Pauman, an illustrious figure in the world of trade, whose way of conducting business is well known here and in many German princely courts. The latter gave him [the painter] a number of beautiful pieces 10 Van Gool 1750-51; De Vries 1990, p. 98. ȱ ȱ śśȱ ȱ ȱ in order to copy them, for which he paid him handsomely.”11

In addition to this remark made by Van Gool in his Nieuwe schouburg, two pamphlets published as correspondence between Johan van Gool and Gerard Hoet (1698-1760) offer a clearer picture of how copies were made and sold for commercial purposes in those days.12 One of the two pamphlets was entitled Brief aan een’ vrient (1751) and was published by the painter and art dealer Gerard Hoet in response to the first volume of Van Gool’s De nieuwe schouburg. In this volume Van Gool argues that the art trade was to be held responsible for the decline in Dutch painting during the first half of the eighteenth century because it over-promoted seventeenth-century painting and attached little importance to contemporary art. As a counter-argument to this, Hoet, defending the art trade, attributes the decline of art to the mediocre standards of early eighteenth-century painters. Van Gool thereupon responded to this letter in his pamphlet entitled Antwoordt op den zoo genaemden brief aen een vrient, published around 1752-53.13 In this correspondence Van Gool, as a supporter of painters, and Hoet, as a defender of art dealers, discussed the question of whom was to blame for the misuse of copies sold as originals. With reference to Van Gool’s remark about Jan Mortel (1652-1719), whose copies frequently deceived inexperienced buyers, Hoet accuses the painter of making forgeries and even calls him a “swindler” (bedrieger). According to Hoet, painters themselves put signatures of famous masters on their copies, thereby making them responsible for copies that were later sold as authentic paintings.14 Van Gool, in turn, completely refutes Hoet’s argument. He insists that the art dealers are to blame for selling copies to collectors at high 11 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 2, p. 208: “Ik heb ’er gezien naer Rottenhamer, de Ridder Van der Werf, Dou en andere Meesters, die tot groote pryzen verkocht zyn aen Liefhebbers en Kunsthandelaers; onder andere aen den beruchten Pauman, een doorluchtig voorbeelt in den handel, wiens gedrag hier en aen veel Duitsche Hoven door proefbewyzen bekent staat. Dees gaf hem veel schoone stukken aen de hant om op die wyze te copiëeren, waer voor hy hem rykelyk betaelde.” In her discussion of distinguishing copies and originals, Anna Tummers quotes from the diary from the collector Louis-Henri Comte de Brienne that Dou’s finely painted works could be troublesome when one has to distinguish between originals and copies: Tummers 2009, p. 74. 12 De Vries 1990, p. 97-98. 13 Hoet 1751 and Van Gool 1752/1753. Both are reprinted in De Vries 1990, pp. 219-41. De Vries 1990, pp. 87-101. 14 Hoet 1751, p. 6 and 23. Hoet also points out that young painters were able to copy the highly sought after work of masters so that they could learn the style of these masters. Hoet 1751, pp. 21-22 and Korthals Altes 2003, pp. 34-35. śŜȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

prices, for the painters simply executed the poorly-paid commissions and had no part in selling the copies as originals. He continues by saying that art dealers were “swindlers” because they were the ones who provided original paintings to painters in order to produce copies and, after falsifying the signatures, they sold these so-called originals to collectors.15 Van Gool writes:

“…the Art Seller... does everything possible to convey the lustre of genuine antiquity on both the front and the reverse, and asks a price commensurate with what the works of such a Master from which he had copied generally make, and in this way he gains seven or eight times as much above what he had paid for it.”16

Van Gool also defends painters by assuming that they were not necessarily aware of the art dealers’ intention to sell their copies as originals.17 The point is clear, according to Van Gool: “Who is now the greatest swindler,... the maker or the seller, who has earned exorbitantly from this and is also the one who initiated the fraud?”18 Although this heated debate between Van Gool and Hoet over the misuse of copies provides us with a glimpse into the commercial aspect of the production of copies during this time, the argument is undoubtedly biased in favor of the authors’ interests regarding the debate over the “decline” of Dutch art. In reality, the situation must have been more complicated than what is apparent in their discussion, which revolved around accusations of the misuse of copies by “the maker” or “the seller.” The role of “the buyer,” as well as the painter’s relationship with certain patrons or potential purchasers, need also be considered. According to Van Gool, collectors were not responsible for copies sold as originals because

15 Van Gool 1752/1753, pp. 9-12. 16 Van Gool 1752/1753, p. 12: “de Kunstkoper... brengt ’er alles aen toe, zo van vooren als van achter, om het een glans van echte outheit te doen vertoonen, en zet ’er een prys na evenredigheid op, als de stukken van zodanigen Meester, daer hy ’t na heeft laten maken, doorgaens gelden, en wint op die wyze zeven of achtmael de waerde boven ’t gene hy ’er voor gegeven heeft.” 17 Van Gool 1752/1753, p. 11. 18 Van Gool 1752/1753, p. 12: “Wie is nu de grootste bedrieger, Gerard Hoet! de maker, of de verkoper, die ’er overbodig aen gewonnen heeft, en ook den uitvoerder van ’t bedrog is?” ȱ ȱ śŝȱ ȱ ȱ they seldom let painters copy originals “for their own pleasure.”19 Yet the truth may be that “the maker,” “the seller,” and “the buyer” of copies – each of whom could sometimes play more than one of these roles at the same time – largely depended on, and even manipulated one another in order to profit from these reproductive works. In this situation, painters who could be “the maker” and “the seller” simultaneously were required to possess great flexibility in order to meet the demands of “the buyers.”

Řǯ ȱȱȱȱȬ¢ȱȱ How did painters act as “makers” of copies, and how did these copies function in practice? An archival record from the late seventeenth century testifies to the fact that painters already made copies after seventeenth-century painters on commission from collectors. In July 1698, the Amsterdam notary P. Schabaelje served a summons to the young painter Nicolaas Verkolje (1673-1746) at the request of the collector Herman van Swoll. Van Swoll claimed that he had commissioned Verkolje to make copies of “several original paintings by De Lairesse as well as by other masters” for twelve guilders per piece.20 Verkolje, who disputed the payment and refused to give back an original landscape painting by Gerard de Lairesse, was officially summoned to return the original to Van Swoll, as well as a copy after it, and “four frames with canvas which he still had in his possession.”21 This document clearly illustrates the way in which a collector could commission a painter to make copies: the collector lent the original to the painter and provided him with materials in advance, such as a frame and canvas. The price of twelve guilders per piece as net profit must have been too low to satisfy even the fledgling artist. What happened to these copies afterwards is, unfortunately, difficult to determine. Just one year after Schabaelje’s summons, Van Swoll died; his collection was auctioned the same year. The sales catalogue contains twelve history paintings by De Lairesse, but no copies by Verkolje after De Lairesse are described in it, though we

19 Van Gool 1752/1753, p. 10: “want zelden of nooit laeten Liefhebbers zulks voor hun vermaek doen.” 20 Amsterdam, Gemeentearchief, archive of notaries, nr. 241, Pieter Schabaelje, original instruments 1692-1720, nr. 6004, act 415, 8 July 1698: “hij geïnsinueerde voor hem insinuant zoude copieeren eenige origineele stucken schilderyen soo van Larissen als andere meesters.” 21 Idem, “nog vier raemen met doek de welke van hem insinuant onder u geïnsinueerde nog berustende zijn....” Ter Molen-den Outer 1978, p. 50 and Dudok van Heel, 1975, p. 150, 160, nr. 53, and p. 167, nr. 102. śŞȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

cannot be sure that the paintings listed as originals by De Lairesse were authentic.22 Although we do not know for what purpose the copies were made, it is still clear that Verkolje made copies after works by the late seventeenth-century painter De Lairesse, whose paintings were much sought after but less available because his blindness in 1690 prevented further production.23 Testimony from 1708 recounts that the wife of Paulus Roeters also gave a landscape painting by De Lairesse to Verkolje, commissioning him to copy it for thirty guilders.24 Some of the best examples of substitutes – which were made on commission – may be found in a number of paintings made by Willem van Mieris (1662-1747), the son of Frans I van Mieris, for his patron Pieter de la Court van der Voort. According to Pieter’s handwritten inventory of 1731 and the 1749 inventory of his son Allard de la Court, Pieter commissioned Willem van Mieris to paint ten copies after the work of famous seventeenth-century painters, such as his father Frans I van Mieris (figs. 1 and 2), Gerard Dou, Ary de Vois (1632-1680) and Philips Wouwerman (1619-1688).25 Although it is not known where the original paintings were located when Van Mieris copied them, they must have been accessible to him. It is conjectured that the originals must have been in the Dutch Republic around 1690-1700 because in his inventory of 1749, Allard mentioned that one of the originals by Frans I van Mieris had been abroad “at least for fifty years” and another Van Mieris “will have been out of the country for at least sixty years in 1750.”26 22 Hoet and Terwesten 1752-70, vol. 1, pp. 47-52. Sale Herman van Swoll, Amsterdam, 22 April 1699. The paintings by De Lairesse were sold for large sums of money: seven pieces from the collection fetched between 300 and 635 guilders each. There was another, smaller sale of Van Swoll’s collection in 1707, which contained three history pieces by De Lairesse and two landscape pieces by Glauber with figures painted by De Lairesse. Hoet and Terwesten 1752-70, vol. 1, pp. 97-98. Sale Herman van Swoll, Amsterdam, 20 April 1707. 23 Roy 1992, pp. 51-52. 24 Amsterdam, Gemeentearchief, archive of notaries, no. 257, Pieter van der Meulen, original instruments 1697-1720, nr. 6777, 2 March 1708. Ter Molen-den Outer 1978, p. 52. 25 Fock 1983, pp. 261-68. The inventories of the family De la Court: Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden (hereafter RAL), family archive of De la Court, nr. 132: the handwritten inventory of Pieter de la Court van der Voort of 1731; nr. 59: the estate inventory of Pieter de la Court van der Voort and Sara Poelaert of 1739 from after Pieter’s death; nr. 117a: the self-written inventory of Allard de la Court of 1749. These inventories were also published in Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-1992, vol. 2, pp. 441-61 (1749 inventory), vol. 6, pp. 473-80 (1731 inventory), pp. 480-94 (1739 inventory). See also Sluijter 1988, pp. 36-37, and p. 52, note 170. A Soldier Smoking a Pipe: Naumann 1981, cat. nr. 43, and its copy: cat. nr. 43a; Sale, London (Sotheby’s), 11 December 1985. 26 Leiden, RAL, family archive of De la Court, no. 117a, the handwritten inventory of Allard de la Court of 1749, “the ȱ ȱ śşȱ ȱ ȱ Thanks to a precise description of these copies in the 1749 inventory, which was written by Allard himself for his personal use, we are able to learn his opinion of these copies. For example, A Lady with a Straw Hat after Frans I van Mieris (fig. 3) is described:

“A young lady wearing a straw hat holding a small dog, a bust being a little oval copied by Willem van Mieris after the original that his father Frans I van Mieris had painted, yet it is so amazingly and beautifully copied that there was no art lover who did not judge it as being painted by Van Mieris the Elder from his best period, so that I let it pass without contradiction as being an unsurpassed piece. It cost eighty guilders. The original has already been out of this country for many years, and as this one is known as the original it is surely worth two hundred guilders, for it was painted inimitably. The original itself was sold for three hundred fifteen guilders in those days, [book value:] fifty guilders.”27

In this description, two points are worth mentioning: first, the copy was literally considered a substitute for the original work, which was abroad and therefore unavailable. Second, when discussing the price, the collector evaluated the copy at a high price precisely because of its high quality and the long absence of the original painting from the Dutch Republic.28 Although Allard mentioned that the copy originally cost eighty guilders when his father bought it from Willem van Mieris, and he himself assessed it at a book value of fifty guilders, large room on the ground floor: rank B,” nr. 14 and “the large room on the ground floor: rank A,” nr. 80. The original Dutch text is quoted in List II-1. 27 Leiden, RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 117a, the self-written inventory of Allard de la Court of 1749, “the large room on the first floor: rank A”, nr. 43: “Een juffrouwtje met een stroohoedje op en een hondje in haar arm, borststukje sijnde een ovaaltje door Willem van Mieris gecopieert naar ’t orgineele daarvan door sijn vaader Frans van Mieris had geschildert, dog ’t is soo wonderlijk fraay gecopieert dat bij geen liefhebber anders geoordeelt off is door de oude in sijn eelste tijd geschilderd soodat ’t daarvoor altijd zonder teegenspreeken laat passeeren als sijnde onverbeeterlijk, kost f 80, ’t origineel is veel jaaren al buytenslands en sulks dit voor ’t origineel bekent is wel f 200 waardig als onweergaadeloos geschildert, ’t origineel selffs is in de tijd verkofft voor f 315. – f 50.” Naumann 1981, cat. nr. 109, and its copy, cat. nr. 109a and Sale, New York (Sotheby’s), 28 May 1993, nr. 26. 28 It is not known where the original painting A Lady with a Straw Hat was located around 1749. But, according to the provenance by Naumann, two other originals, A Soldier Smoking a Pipe and A Woman Pulling a Dog’s Ear, were in the collection of Johann Wilhelm, Elector Palatine (d. 1716) in Düsseldorf. They were transferred to Mannheim in 1730 and then to Munich shortly before 1899. Naumann 1981, cat. nr. 44, p. 52. ŜŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

he stressed that it could be worth much more – about two hundred guilders, considering that this copy could pass for the costly original.29 Incidentally, after Allard de la Court’s death, this very painting was sold as an original by Frans I van Mieris for two hundred eighty guilders in 1766.30 The same holds for most of the other nine copies made by Willem van Mieris on commission from Pieter de la Court van der Voort (List II-1).31 In the descriptions of five of the copies found in Allard’s 1749 inventory, it is noted that the original paintings were abroad, in some cases already for fifty or sixty years. Three pieces were “mostly considered as originals”; in the case of one after Ary de Vois it was “most unclear whether it was an original or a copy”; and describing a copy after another piece by Frans I van Mieris, A Night Scene with Offering to Apollo, the collector again wrote “everyone considers it to be an original …I let it pass as an original.”32 The average price paid directly to the painter for a copy was 62 guilders, whereas the average book value in Allard’s 1749 inventory was 24.4 guilders. Allard seems to have deliberately set the book value lower, though keeping it roughly in proportion to the purchase price. Remarkably enough, however, the copies sold as originals in 1766 fetched between 100 to as much as 505 guilders. The collection of Allard de la Court was auctioned after the death of his widow, which means that he was not directly responsible for this misuse of copies as originals. The description of the 1749 inventory clarifies the collector’s goal: to own good copies which could be considered as originals and therefore appreciated and assessed almost as highly as originals. This well-documented case of Willem van Mieris tells us how painters produced copies in order to respond to the specific demands of collectors, who initiated such reproductive activities. Copies thus functioned as highly-valued substitutes for unavailable seventeenth-century genre paintings. Does this then hold true for the considerable number of 29 The value of copies mentioned in Allard’s 1749 inventory can be considered at “book value”, as they were consciously set much lower than the potential market price. 30 Sale Allard de la Court, Leiden (Luchtmans), 8 September 1766, nr. 26. 31 Naumann 1981, cat. nrs. 43, 44, 100, D84, D85 and D122 and Naumann 1978, cat. nr. 13 (Self-Portrait). 32 The handwritten inventory of Allard de la Court of 1749, Leiden, RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 117a, for instance: “the large room on the ground floor: rank B,” nr. 13, “meest voor origineel aangezien”; nr. 2, “seer onkennelijk of origineel off copy is”; “the large room on the ground floor: rank A,” nr. 80, “…dit soo fraay gecopieert dat niemand anders als voor origineel aansiet, […] waarom ’t maar voor origineel laat passeren…”. ȱ ȱ Ŝŗȱ ȱ ȱ copies that were made on speculation? In the case of copies made for anonymous buyers on the art market, it was the painter who played the active role in selecting the type of seventeenth-century Dutch genre painting to be reproduced, taking into account the collectors’ tastes and demands. Such reproductive activities could also affect the artistic choices that painters made in the production of genre paintings in their own style, which will become clear in the following discussion.

řǯ ȱȂȱǱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Louis de Moni (1698-1771) serves as an excellent example of an artist who made genre paintings in the tradition of seventeenth-century Leiden masters and at the same time produced numerous copies after seventeenth-century genre paintings, possibly for the open market.33 He painted pieces perpetuating the motifs and techniques that had established Gerard Dou’s fame; one such picture is Old Woman at a Window (fig. 4), which is clearly reminiscent of Dou’s An Old Woman with a Jug at a Window (fig. 5). According to the biographer Johan van Gool, De Moni “had the opportunity to copy various fine pieces by Dou” after he had finished his apprenticeship with Philip van Dyk.34 The most informative document about his reproductive activity is the sales catalogue of De Moni’s own collection, published for the sale held after his death in 1772.35 From this catalogue we learn that he had a large number of copies in stock at the time of his death, including twenty painted and forty drawn copies; the current discussion will restrict itself to the painted copies in his collection.36 In the catalogue, the names of the painters whose works were copied by De Moni were mentioned explicitly: “After G. Metsu, by L. de Moni” (fig. 6), for example. An alphabetical list of these artists (List II-2) shows a remarkable variety of painters and subject

33 Leiden 1988, cat. nrs. 50-54, pp. 174-181. De Moni was mentioned for the first time in Leiden in 1729; he remained in the city for the rest of his life. 34 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 2, p. 260, “daar by had hy gelegenheit om verscheide fraeie stukjes naer Dou te copiëeren.” 35 Sale Louis de Moni, Leiden (De Moni and Delfos), 13 April 1772. The microfiche of this catalogue is kept in the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie (RKD) in The Hague. The sales catalogue of the De Moni collection in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France includes the price and name of buyers, which were annotated by Johan van der Marck. Sluijter 1988, p. 36 and 51, note 160. 36 Although a substantial number of drawn copies are recorded in the catalogue, it is difficult to establish the purpose of these drawings: some of them were made after paintings that were also copied in oil, while others were not. ŜŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

matter, ranging from Rembrandt to Hans Jordaens and from history pieces to portraits. The choice of painters and subject matter appears at first glance to be random. The prices of these copies, however, which are recorded in the auction certificate kept in the Regional Archive in Leiden, offers different insight into De Moni’s choice.37 Drawing up a list of the most costly paintings at De Moni’s sale from the highest to the lowest at 50 guilders (List II-3), it becomes clear that buyers at the sale particularly favored De Moni’s copies after seventeenth-century genre paintings by Frans I van Mieris, Gabriel Metsu and Gerard Dou, all of which fetched prices between one hundred and an enormous three hundred guilders. These prices were comparable to the most expensive of De Moni’s original genre scenes (fig. 7) and the original paintings by seventeenth-century masters in the sale. De Moni’s copies after Metsu sold for even more than a piece listed in the catalogue as an original by Metsu.38 Thanks to the precise description of the catalogue entries, we can identify some of the original paintings copied by De Moni, as well as one that was presumably copied by him. The highest priced copy (f303) is made after Frans I van Mieris’s A Young Man with an Owl (fig. 8).39 The second highest priced copy (f276.15) is made after Gabriel Metsu’s painting depicting a sick woman and a crone. Although the original work by Metsu no longer exists, the description of this copy perfectly matches A Sick Woman (fig. 9), now in the collection of Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford, Connecticut. This painting was formerly

37 Leiden, RAL, Inventaris van het archief van de Weeskamer te Leiden 1437-1860, Louis de Moni, nr. 2867b, Boelhuiscedel, 13 April 1772. 38 According to the caveat of the auction house in the catalogue, the authenticity of the “original” paintings could not be verified. In fact, most of the paintings by the masters mentioned in the advertisement did not fetch high prices, except for those by Frans Hals, Gerard de Lairesse, Peter Paul Rubens, Jan Olis, Godfried Schalcken, and Philips Wouwerman. In contrast to this result, the accompanying advertisement of this sale, which appeared in the newspaper Leidse Courant on 11 and 18 March and 1 April 1772, seems to have attempted to draw public attention to the works by seventeenth-century masters by enumerating their names: Leiden, RAL, Leidse Courant, 11 and 18 March 1772 and 1 April 1722. See Aono 2008, pp. 11-13. 39 Sale Louis de Moni, Leiden (De Moni and Delfos), 13 April 1772, nr. 59: “Na Frans van Mieris den Ouden, door Louis de Moni. Een Jongeling met een Marsch met Koopwaare voor zig houdende een brandende kaars in de linkerhand, welke hy met zyn hoed in de regterhand gedeeltelyk bedekt, dit ziet men door een Nis met Wyngaard ranke, op welkers kant een Uyl zit; in alle deelen zeer kragtig en uitvoerig geschildert, P. Hoog 13, breed 10 duim.” Another copy of this piece is attributed to Frans’s son, Willem van Mieris: Naumann 1981, cat. nr. 104; Willem’s copy: cat. nr. 104a, formerly owned by art dealer Xavier Scheidwimmer. ȱ ȱ Ŝřȱ ȱ ȱ attributed to Metsu, but it is likely the very copy made by De Moni after Metsu.40 This assumption was confirmed upon firsthand stylistic examination of the painting: De Moni’s characteristic broad brushstrokes can be seen in the modeling of figures and other motifs, such as in the white cushion behind the woman’s head.41 The third highest priced copy (f125) was painted after another Metsu, A Woman at Her Toilet (fig. 10), and the fourth one (f108) was made after Gerard Dou and could be similar to A Young Man Drawing by Candlelight (fig. 11) from the circle of Dou.42 Furthermore, there is a copy (f50) after another genre painting by Dou depicting a dentist that is comparable to Dou’s Dentist in the Staatliches Museum, Schwerin (fig. 12).43 This raises the question of how De Moni chose these particular seventeenth-century genre paintings. During the first half of the eighteenth century, the seventeenth-century originals were in the possession of collectors in The Hague, Leiden and Amsterdam, and they must have been accessible to De Moni.44 De Moni was also active as 40 Sale Louis de Moni, Leiden (De Moni and Delfos), 13 April 1772, nr. 55: “Na G. Metsu, door L. de Moni. Een Slaapend ziek Vrouwtje, zittende in een Leuningstoel met een kusse agter haar halverlyf met een deeken gedekt, en een rood Schouwermantel met bont gevoerd om, nevens haar een Tafel, gedekt met een rood kleedt, waar op een Ur[i]naal een Schootel met Citroene en Tinne pot staat, agter haar een oud Vrouwtje met een Potje in de hand zeer fraai, P. hoog 13, breed 11 duim.” According to Adriaan Waiboer, the Hartford piece is not attributed to Metsu, but considered a copy after the original that existed in the eighteenth century. See Haverkamp-Begemann 1978, cat. nr. 91 and the entry on this painting in Adriaan Waiboer’s forthcoming monograph on Metsu. A small difference between the description in the sales catalogue and the Hartford piece is the color of the woman’s jacket: in the sales catalogue the jacket is described as red, though in the Hartford piece it appears to be a kind of orange. The word “Ur[i]naal” in the description means a bottle filled with urine, which was often kept in a basket like the one sitting on the table in the Hartford piece. 41 With thanks to the curator of European art, Eric Zafran, and the conservator, Ulrich Birkmaier, at the Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, USA. 42 Sale Louis de Moni, Leiden (De Moni and Delfos), 13 April 1772, nr. 56 [Na G. Metsu, door L. de Moni] “Een Vrouwtje in een Binnevertrek zittende voor een Tafel, met een Tapyt overdekt, waar op een Doek en Bo[r]stel, zy heeft een wit Kapje op, en Schouwermantel om, en een rood onderkleed, houdende een kam in de regterhand zeer fraai, P. hoog 10, breed 8 1/2 duim.”; nr. 7: “Na G. Douw, door L. de Moni. Een Jongeling zittende by de kaars te Tekenen na een plaister Beeld dat voor hem staat, nevens Hem een Inkt en Pennekoper, en meer Bywerk, dit ziet men door een Nis in een Binnevertrek, P. hoog 12, breed 8 1/2 duim.” Metsu’s piece, see Ingamells 1992, inv. nr. P206 and the entry on this painting in Adriaan Waiboer’s forthcoming monograph on Metsu. The picture (fig. 11) is attributed to the circle of Dou. See Sale, Vienna (Dorotheum), 14 October 1997, nr. 59. 43 Sale Louis de Moni, Leiden (De Moni and Delfos), 13 April 1772, nr. 8 [Na G. Douw, door L. de Moni.], “Een Man in een leuningstoel zittende, die een Tant word getrokke, terwyl een Vrouwtje daar na schynt te wagten, na den zelven door dito, P. hoog 18 1/2, breed 14 duim.” Baer 1990, cat. nr. 97. 44 For instance: the originals of the four highest-priced copies were in the possession of famous collectors. A Young ŜŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

an art dealer, which apparently provided him with opportunities to see a number of seventeenth-century paintings and to become acquainted with famous collectors.45 In fact, Louis de Moni was one of the organizers of the above-mentioned sale of Allard de la Court’s paintings in 1766 and must have let the copies by Willem van Mieris pass as originals by Frans I van Mieris. Cases of two Leiden collectors who were connected to De Moni give some idea of the context in which De Moni made decisions about which paintings to reproduce. One of them was Jan Tak. At the time of his death in 1780, Tak owned Gabriel Metsu’s original A Woman at a Mirror (fig. 10), after which De Moni made a copy that was sold at the above-mentioned 1772 sale of his collection.46 In addition, Tak also possessed two original paintings by De Moni, one of which had been previously purchased by De Moni himself on behalf of another collector.47 Whether Tak’s collection had offered De Moni the opportunity to copy paintings is unclear, but he seems to have been interested in De Moni’s copies: Tak also owned the highest priced copy by De Moni at the 1772 sale, A Young Man with an Owl after Frans I van Mieris (fig. 8).48 Another collector who had an even closer relationship with Man with an Owl (fig. 8) was owned by Adriaan Bout and then by Bicker van Zwieten: Sale A. Bout, The Hague (Van Zanten), 11 August 1733, nr. 55; Sale B. van Zwieten, The Hague, 12 April 1741, nr. 58; Sale B. van Zwieten, The Hague, 4 April 1755, nr. 25. A Sick Woman was sold at the sale: Sale Amsterdam (Cok), 8 May 1769. A Woman at Her Toilet (fig. 10) was owned by Jan Tak in Leiden until 1781: Sale Jan Tak, Leiden (Delfos), 5 September 1781, nr. 17. Aert Schouman made a drawing after this piece at Tak’s home as early as 1776: Sale, Amsterdam (Christie’s), 3 November 2004. A Young Man Drawing by Candlelight was probably owned by E. van Dishoek: Sale E. van Dishoek, The Hague, 9 June 1745, nr. 34. 45 According to notes written in sales catalogues by Johan van der Marck, whose collection of sales catalogues is housed in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris, Louis de Moni bought his own genre piece on commission from Pieter Caauw at the Capello sale (Sale Capello, Amsterdam (Cok), 6 May 1767) and also bought a piece by C. de Dekker for V. Mackleane, an English clergyman in The Hague at the Pieter van der Eyk sale (Sale P. van der Eyk, Leiden (Van der Eyk and Delfos), 28 November 1769). 46 Sale Jan Tak, Leiden (Delfos), 5 September 1781, nr. 17. 47 This piece by De Moni had been bought at a sale in 1767 by the painter himself on behalf of the collector Pieter Caauw and was later purchased by Tak for 200 guilders at the sale of Caauw’s collection. De Moni attended the sale of Caauw’s collection and could have thus been able to recommend the piece to Tak: Sale Pieter Caauw, Leiden (Luchtmans), 24 August 1768. 48 According to notes by Johan van der Marck written in the sales catalogue of De Moni’s collection, this copy was bought by Pothoven “on commission.” Sale Sale Jan Tak, Leiden (Delfos), 5 September 1781, nr. 53, Louis de Moni: “Door een Nis met wijngaard blaaderen, ziet men een jong Koopman met een Marsje.... Hetzelve is zoo krachtig en uitvoerig geschildert, of het van den oude Frans van Mieris was.” (“Through an arched window frame surrounded by vine leaves, a young merchant is seen with a peddler’s pack.... It is painted with such power and detail, as if it were a ȱ ȱ Ŝśȱ ȱ ȱ De Moni was the Leiden burgomaster and renowned collector Johan van der Marck. At the time of his death in 1773, Van der Marck owned a relatively large number of original paintings by De Moni – eleven – including A Woman with a Fishmonger in a Kitchen (fig. 13) and An Interior with a Kitchen Maid Cleaning a Copper Pot and a Youth and Young Woman Playing Jeu de L’Oie (fig. 14). He also owned drawings, including copies after seventeenth-century masters; one of these is a very rare extant example, namely De Moni’s drawing after David II Teniers, signed and dated 1747 (fig. 15).49 Furthermore, De Moni’s declaration of liquidation, drawn up in 1773, clarifies his direct contact with this collector: Van der Marck paid 60 guilders for “the self-portrait of Louis de Moni, made by the artist himself and painted on commission from the said Burgomaster Van der Marck.”50 De Moni must have had free access to Van der Marck’s huge collection of paintings, and moreover, by

work by Frans van Mieris the Elder.”) 49 Sale Johan van der Marck, Amsterdam (De Winter and Yver), 25 August 1773, nr. 201: “Een Keuke, in een Nisje verbeeld, op Paneel, h. 16 1/2 b. 14 duim. In het zelve ziet men een Meid, met een Mes in de regter hand, vattende met de linker een Bloemkool; schynende te schrikken van een Knorhaan, die een Visboer, welke agter haar staat, digt by haar aanzigt houd. Op het onderste van de Nis, die haar tot een Regtbank diend, staat een aarde Pot, opgevuld met Peulen en een Kopere Vyzel, waar nevens een roode Kool en een bos Preijen leggen. Aan de eene zyde van de Nis hangd een doode Haas en een rood Gordyn; van binnen staat een tobbe met Bloem-kool, een Bier-pintje en een Vlootje met Vis: vertoonde zich aan de Zolder en de Wand, meerder bywerk. Zeer fraaij en uitvoerig geschilderd en in des Meesters beste tyd.” Sale London (Sotheby’s) 13 July 1983, nr. 56; idem, nr. 202: “Een andere Keuken, zynde een wedergade. Deze is mede door een Nisje te zien; vertoonende zich een Vrouwtje, die bezig is een Kopere Ketel te schuuren, welke met een Linne Fyl daar onder, op een Ton legt. Ze ziet naar twee Kinderen die op het Ganze bord speelen, op de voet der Nis, waar voor het Meisje staat, benevens een tinne Schotel, een Koper Tabaks-Convoor enz.; hangende een teene Vogel-kooy aan de zyde der Nis, en meer bywerk. Niet minder van deugd dan het voorgaande.” This is very likely the piece sold at Sale London (Christie’s) 18 June 2007, nr. 378; the painting nr. 204 may be the one sold at Sale Amsterdam (Kuhn uit Brünn), 4 June 1929. The copy after David II Teniers: Sale Louis de Moni, Leiden (De Moni and Delfos), 13 April 1772, catalogue of drawings, nr. 28; Sale Johan van der Marck (prints), Amsterdam (De Winter and Yver), 29 November 1773, nr. 2049; Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 9 November 2000, nr. 128: signed and dated: L: de Moni/ Na het schilderij van D: Teniers/ Augus 1747 (on verso). 50 Besides this portrait, Van der Marck also paid for a chimneypiece that was made by De Moni on commission. Leiden, RAL, Inventaris van het archief van de Weeskamer te Leiden 1437-1860, Louis de Moni, nr. 2867d, Liquidatie 13-01-1773, p. 5 vero: “Ontvangen van den Heer burgermeester van der Marck, voor ’t pourtrait van ’t schilderye van Louis de Moni, door denzelven konstschilder op order van gemelde heer burgermeester geschildert, een somme van 60: Ende nog voor een Schoorsteen Stuk, door denzelven op ordre als voren geschildert, een somme van 60:”. I conjecture that the expression, “ ’t po[u]rtrait van ’t schilderye van Louis de Moni door denzelven konstschilder” refers to De Moni’s own self-portrait because Van der Marck collected a large number of self-portraits of painters and also owned De Moni’s self-portrait. Sale Johan van der Marck, Amsterdam (De Winter and Yver), 25 August 1773, nr. 432. This piece has recently been identified; see Meijer 2007, pp. 40-42, fig.1. ŜŜȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

means of this artistic connection, he could have also determined which paintings he might be able to copy. For example, when the above-mentioned painting by Metsu, A Sick Woman, came under the hammer at the auction of 8 May 1769 in Amsterdam, Van der Marck wrote a comment about its bad condition in the margin of the sales catalogue. He described Metsu’s painting as an “extremely abraded” (meest afgeschuurd) piece and also reported that the painting was finally withdrawn from the sale.51 We can imagine that De Moni also learned of the bad condition of Metsu’s original, possibly having talked about it with Van der Marck, and decided to make a copy after this painting before its condition deteriorated beyond legibility. To what degree the fellow townsmen Tak and Van der Marck had an impact on the paintings De Moni selected for copying is difficult to say, but what is clear is that the artistic milieu in which De Moni was active as an artist as well as an art dealer kept him well informed about what was fashionable among collectors. Why De Moni’s copies after genre paintings by seventeenth-century masters such as Dou, Metsu and Frans I van Mieris were highly valued at the above-discussed auction of his collection remains unanswered. The great popularity of these masters’ work must have played a part, of which De Moni was keenly aware as an art dealer. Yet, De Moni’s qualities as a painter would have counted for much – he was, in the first place, a painter specialized in genre painting and was considered one of the most faithful successors of the Leiden masters in his day. This legitimization as heir to the seventeenth-century pictorial tradition increased the value of his copies after his forerunners’ genre paintings. We can imagine that potential buyers, purchasing the sales catalogue in advance, came to the sale expecting to see De Moni’s original work and copies after seventeenth-century masters, which were of high quality and executed with the same painterly technique of the Leiden painters but were still less expensive than original seventeenth-century paintings. One might then ask whether this reproductive activity was nothing more than a means to earn additional income for De Moni, who also produced genre paintings of his own design. In other words, how were the reproductive activities of painters related to the production of their own paintings? 51 Sale Amsterdam (Cok), 8 May 1769: according to Van der Marck’s notes, the piece was “meest afgeschuurd” (extremely abraded) and sold to Holstein for f570, but on the last page of the catalogue he wrote that the pieces sold to Hostein were withdrawn, “De schilderijen op de naamen van Hosten en Gropaur of Gropoul gekocht, meent men dat opgehouden zijn.” ȱ ȱ Ŝŝȱ ȱ ȱ Śǯ ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ The key to understanding the connection between the reproductive activities of painters and their own painting production lies in the themes and motifs that recur in the images of their predecessors that they reproduced. In the case of Louis de Moni, two expensive copies, A Young Man with an Owl after Frans I van Mieris, and A Young Man Drawing by a Candle after Dou, are both ‘candlelight scenes’, so-called kaarslichjes. According to the sales catalogue of 1781, De Moni also copied the candlelight piece Woman Asleep by Dou (fig. 16), which sold for 300 guilders and which may be identified as a piece auctioned in 1997.52 As Samuel van Hoogstraten mentioned in his Inleiding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkunst (1678), Dou and his followers were praised for their candlelight effects that “amazed the beholder”.53 The high prices that Dou’s candlelight paintings fetched at various sales attest to this fact. Dou’s Astronomer by Candlelight (Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum) sold for 505 guilders in 1706 and fetched 905 guilders in 1734; The Night School (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) sold for 1,000 guilders around 1710 and for 4,000 guilders in 1766; The Wine Cellar (Switzerland, Private collection) for 810 guilders in 1728; and Woman Asleep (fig. 16) for 630 guilders in 1734.54 The popularity of Dou’s candlelight scenes seems to have had a great impact not only on the choice of images that De Moni copied, but also on the choice of themes in his 52 Baer 1990, cat. nr. 93. Copy: Sale Revd P.B. Kleij, The Hague (Fullings), 10 May 1781, nr. 17: “Een Binne Vertrek, Kaarsligt, met een opgehaald Gordyn, in het Vertrek zit een Bevallig Vrouwtie te Slaapen, voor haar staat een Taafel daar op een Brandende Kaars, by de Taafel staan twee Krygsknegtten waar van de eene zyn Pyp aansteekt aan de Kaars, de andere heeft een zwaavel Stok aangestooken die hy met de Brandende Swaavel houd onder de Neus van het Slaapende Vrouwtje, in het verschiet komt een Meyt aangaan met een Lamp in de hand, op de voor grond een Lantaarn daar Ligt in is, verder eenig bywerk, dit stukje is zoo schoon Geschildert en dilicaat behandelt, of het van G. Douw zelfs was, door L. de Monney, naa Douw, hoog 11 1/2, breet 9 duym, op kooper. f 300,--.” This piece “on copper” may be identified with the work auctioned at the Sale Paris (Drouot Richelieu), 20 June 1997, nr. 188 (copper, 29 x 23 cm, attributed to Godfried Schalcken after Gabriel Metsu). 53 Van Hoogstraten 1678, p. 268: “gelijk het van Gerrit Dou en zijn naevolgers tot verwonderens toe is te weeg gebracht.” 54 Astronomer by Candlelight: Sale Adriaen van Hoek, Amsterdam (Zomer), 7 April 1706, nr. 2, and Sale Willem Six, Amsterdam (Schoemaker ten Brink), 12 May 1734, nr. 18; The Night School: Pieter de la Court van der Voort bought it from Adriaen Wittert van der Aa around 1710 (Leiden, RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 117a, the inventory of Allard de la Court of 1749, nr. 6), and Sale Allard de la Court, Leiden (Luchtmans), 8 September 1766, nr. 19; The Wine Cellar: Sale Antony Grill, Amsterdam (Ratelband), 14 April 1728, nr. 2; A Sleeping Woman: Sale Floris Drabbe, Leiden, 1 April 1734, nr. 5. Baer 1990, cat. nrs. 109, 110, 85 and 95 ŜŞȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

own paintings. An excellent example of a painting composed by De Moni himself is A Painter Lighting a Pipe (fig. 17), which was probably owned by Johan van der Marck.55 Comparing this piece with the above-discussed copies made by De Moni after seventeenth-century masters, such as A Young Man with an Owl (fig. 8), A Young Man Drawing by Candlelight (fig. 11), and Woman Asleep (fig. 16), there are obvious similarities in motif, theme and composition, such as the hidden source of light, the artist or young pupil with a classical sculpture seen through an arched stone window with a curtain, and the man lighting a pipe. There is, therefore, reason to believe that De Moni consciously selected subjects and motifs that appeared in seventeenth-century genre paintings after which he made copies for his own paintings. These works are thematically and technically related, but De Moni’s original work demonstrates a very recognizable personal style of neutral and grayish hues of a lighter tonality and a characteristic way of modeling clothes, faces and bodies using broad, flowing brushstrokes (figs. 4, 7, 13, and 14). An even more telling example of a predilection for the candlelight theme is found in the reproductive prints by the painter Nicolaas Verkolje, who, as already mentioned, also made copies in oil after the work of Gerard de Lairesse and several seventeenth-century masters.56 Nicolaas Verkolje, who was apprenticed to his father Jan Verkolje in Delft and later active in Amsterdam as a painter, specialized in history pieces, portraits in a classicizing style and genre painting strongly reminiscent of the seventeenth-century tradition of genre painting (Chap. IV, fig. 17, Catalogue, Verkolje). The most splendid of Nicolaas Verkolje’s reproductive works are his mezzotint prints after seventeenth-century paintings, particularly candlelight scenes, such as The Mouse Trap by Gerard Dou (figs. 18 and 19) and A Girl in a Shirt Holding a Candle by Godfried Schalcken (figs. 20 and 21).57 The mezzotint technique, 55 Sale Johan van der Marck, Amsterdam (De Winter and Yver), 25 August 1773. nr. 206: “Een Kaars-ligtje. Door een openstaande Vengster van boven toogswys, ziet men een Schilder staande in zyn Japon, zyn Pyp aansteekende aan de vlam van een Kaars. In de linker hand heeft hy een Plaister hoofd; staande voor de Kaars een Beeldje, verbeeldend een zittend Vrouwtje. Dit is ongemeen uitvoerig en fraay behandeld en het eenigste Kaars-ligtje van dezen Meester.” Van der Marck owned another piece by De Moni that had the effects of candlelight and daylight together in one painting, nr. 204: “Een Binnenkamer. Een bevallig Juffertje vertoond zich, zittende by een Tafel,.... In dit Stukje zyn de twee verschillende ligten, van dag en kaars, zeer fraay waargenomen, voorts is het zeer uitvoerig en konstig behandeld.” 56 About Verkolje, see Wessely 1868; Ter Molen-den Outer 1973; Ter Molen-den Outer 1978; Brozius 2001. See also Aono 2011. 57 Wessely 1868, cat. nrs. 26 and 27; ref. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, RP-P-OB-17.576, 17.578. As to the original by ȱ ȱ Ŝşȱ ȱ ȱ which was developed in the Dutch Republic in the 1660s and quickly became favored by printmakers and painters to reproduce paintings, was most suitable for depicting night scenes, as it is able to achieve the beautiful effect of representing light and shade through modulations varying from white and delicate grey to the depths of velvet black.58 Although it was impossible to print a large number of impressions from a mezzotint plate because of the rate at which the plate wears out, Verkolje’s prints seem to have already been known and appreciated among a circle of collectors and artists from the beginning of the eighteenth century.59 Arnold Houbraken, for instance, mentions Verkolje’s prints after Jan Baptist Weenix’s painting The Festive Scene of a Prodigal Son in his biography of the artist in his Groote schouburgh der nederlandsche konstschilders en schilderessen (1718-1721): the piece is “now elaborately executed in mezzotint print by Nik. Verkolje”.60 Verkolje also made a print after Philips Wouwerman’s Saddled Horse, which was described in Johan van der Marck’s sales catalogue of 1763 as “executed in mezzotint print by N. Verkolje.”61

Dou and by Schalcken, see: Baer 1990, cat. nr. C88 and Beherman 1988, cat. nr. 198. Brozius 2001, pp. 6-7. There are several other candlelight prints by Verkolje after other painter’s designs, such as A Girl Putting Out a Candle (ref. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, PR-P-OB-1911.201) probably after Schalcken (Glasgow Museum, inv. nr. 110) and A Seamstress with/without a Joke (Wessely 1868 cat. nr. 25; ref. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, RP-P-1911-195, 196) designed by Arnold Houbraken. Since most of his prints are not dated, we cannot be sure when he started to engage in printmaking; his most important prints, however, are supposed to be made between 1695 and 1715. See Aono 2011, p. 46. 58 Wuestman 1995, pp. 67-72, 78-79, and 83-88. 59 Opinions of eighteenth-century writers on the number of impressions that may be pulled from a mezzoprint plate differ. According to William Gilpin, 100 impressions are possible; reworking could help the plate to yield hundreds more. Wuestman 1995, pp. 82-83 and Wuestman 1998, pp. 126; Gilpin 1768, pp. 59-60. 60 Wessely 1868, cat. nr. 32, ref. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, RP-P-OB-17.589; Houbraken 1718-21, vol. 2, p. 82: “Het konststukje verbeeldende een vrolyk gezelschap, sommige zeggen de Verloore Zoon, dog ’t meest bekent door den naam van ’t pissend Jongetje, nu door Nik. Verkolje uitvoerig in zwarte Konst gebragt, […]”; Wuestman 1995, pp. 86-88; Aono 2011, pp. 45-46; Enschede 2011, cat. nr. 54, pp. 162-63. 61 Van der Marck also owned Veroklje’s print after this painting by Wouwerman. Wessely 1868, cat. nr. 37, ref. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, RP-P-OB-17.596; Sale Johan van der Marck, Amsterdam (De Winter and Yver), 25 August 1773, nr. 372: “Dit Stukje is bekend by de naam van het pissend Paardje: door N. Verkolje in zwarte Kunst gebragt.” This painting may be identified as the piece owned by Verkolje himself, which means that he probably made a print after a painting in his own collection. Sale Nicolaas Verkolje, Amsterdam (J. Verkolje), 18 April 1746, nr. 36, “Een wit Paardje en Mannetje, in een Rotsje; door Ph. Wouwerman, in zyn’ besten tyd.” Antony Sydervelt bought Wouwerman’s piece at the sale of Verkolje’s collection and also owned Verkolje’s print after it. Sale Antony Sydervelt, Amsterdam (De Winter en Yver), 23 April 1766, nr. 7 and Konstboek F, nr. 116. For more about these prints, see Aono 2011, pp. 47-48. ŝŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

These reproductive prints had a different function than copies in oil. Prints such as these, in spite of their limited number due to technical limitations, circulated among a select group of wealthy art lovers – helping to spread the candlelight theme in particular – and therefore could have contributed to the value of the original candlelight painting. A good example is a print after the painting by Godfried Schalcken titled A Woman at a Mirror (figs. 22 and 23).62 Here, meticulous details in the lady’s dress, the still life on the table, and the subtle effect of light and shadow are elaborately achieved through Verkolje’s mezzotint technique.63 We do not know when and where Verkolje copied Schalcken’s original painting, but it was thought to have been in the collection of Benjamin da Costa in The Hague between 1729 and 1764, when his collection was sold at auction.64 Gerard Hoet’s brief description of 1752 suggests that Verkolje’s print was already known in collectors’ circles before the original painting was sold in 1764. In the second volume of his Catalogus of Naamlyst van Schilderyen, met derzelver pryzen (1752), Hoet inventoried 22 splendid collections, among which is that of Benjamin da Costa. He described the original painting by Schalcken as follows:

“A piece, being a Lady at her Toilet, with two other figures and candlelight, by G. Schalcken, executed in print by Verkolje.”65

This description appeared again in the sales catalogue when the original painting was sold in 1764 and entered the royal collection of stadholder Willem V of Orange-Nassau for the 62 Beherman 1988, cat. nr. 207. The print bears an inscription below in the margin: “G. Schalcken. Pinx:/ N. Verkolje. Fecit.” (G. Schalcken painted/ N. Verkolje made). There is a slight difference in shape between the candlestick in the original painting and that in the print; ref. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, RP-P-OB-17.586. Since some impressions of the print were printed on blue paper and even highlighted in white, and as the print does not bear the name of the publisher, the print is supposed to have been specially made for art lovers and sold by Verkolje himself. Enschede 2011, p. 161. 63 Verkolje, who also made a copy in paint after Schalcken, would certainly have been familiar with and inspired by contemporary reproductive mezzotints after Schalcken’s candlelight scenes, such as those by the English engraver John Smith, like his Self-Portrait (1694) and A Woman Sleeping with a Candle. The sales catalogue of Verkolje’s art collection, dated 1746, included two portfolios of mezzotint prints by John Smith and other masters. Sale Nicolaas Verkolje, Amsterdam (J. Verkolje), 18 April 1746, prentkunst, Boek nr. 24 and 25. Aono 2011, pp. 48-49. 64 Sale, The Hague, 3 May 1729, nr. 60 and Sale Benjamin da Costa, The Hague (Franken), 13 August 1764, nr. 63. 65 Hoet and Terwesten 1752-70, vol. 2, p. 470 “Een stuk, zynde een Dame voor haar Toilet met twee andere beelden en kaarslicht, door G. Schalcke, gaat in prent uyt door Verkolje.” ȱ ȱ ŝŗȱ ȱ ȱ enormous sum of 810 guilders.66 One can assume that it was thanks to Verkolje’s print that Schalcken’s original painting became even more desirable and sought-after while still in Da Costa’s possession. Verkolje’s prints could be found in the collections of several well-known collectors and artists in those days, and some of them sold for the rather good price of 10 to 20 guilders.67 Furthermore, Verkolje’s high-quality prints after seventeenth-century candlelight paintings, which bear his name as printmaker in the inscription, may have substantially contributed to the association of Verkolje with seventeenth-century candlelight scenes in general. The artist seems to have made use of this association and, judging from early eighteenth-century sales catalogues, he produced many candlelight scenes in paint, such as “a woman closing the window, being a candlelight” and “a tobacco-smoking man, being a candlelight.”68 A splendid example is A Woman with a Candle and Letter in a Window with a Maidservant (fig. 24).69 In this work, he used a female type derived from the candlelight scenes of Dou and Schalcken (figs. 25 and 26): an elegantly dressed lady with a coquettish smile holding a letter in her hand, or a young woman with a pronounced décolleté leaning out of a window. These details are clearly reminiscent of the pictorial tradition of the candlelight scene by seventeenth-century masters, yet these aspects are combined with gentle facial 66 Sale Benjamin da Costa, The Hague (Franken), 13 August 1764, nr. 63: “G. Schalken. Une Demoiselle à la toilette, avec une vieille Femme & un Gerçon, à la Chandele. T. NB. Il y à une Estampe du fusdit Tableau fait par Verkolje.” In addition, Hoet added extra information to the entry for this painting in the sales catalogue record in his Catalogus of Naamlyst van Schilderyen; he noted that the painting entered the royal collection of stadholder Prince Willem V of Orange, as follows, “(NB.) De twee bovegem. Extra fraaije Stukken, zyn althans berustende in het Vorstelyk Kunst-Kabinet van zyn Doorl. Hoogheid den Heere Prince Erf-Stadhouder”: Hoet and Terwesten 1752-70, vol. 3, pp. 378-79. 67 Before Da Costa’s sale in 1764, two prints after Schalcken’s piece were sold at the sale of the collection of Johannes II Verkolje, Nicolaas’s brother, in 1763 for f10 and for f14.5: Sale J. Verkolje II, Amsterdam (De Winter), 24 October 1763; in the sales catalogue of painter Isaac Walraven: Sale I. Walraven, Amsterdam (De Winter and Yver), 18 November 1765, nr. 3063. It was sold for f20.10. 68 Sale Nicolaes van Suchtelen, Hoorn, 17 April 1715, nrs. 54 and 55: “Een vrouwtje de venster sluytende, zynde een Kaersligt” and “Een tabak rokertje zynde een kaarsligt.” Also see nrs. 56 and 57: Hoet and Terwesten 1752-70, vol. 1, p. 181. For more candlelight paintings by Verkolje, see Sale N. Verkolje, Amsterdam (J. Verkolje), 18 April 1746, nr. 40. Verkolje probably made copies after candlelight paintings by Dou and Schalcken, after which he also made prints. The piece, for instance, is quite similar to Dou’s Mouse Trap, which is attributed to Verkolje in the nineteenth-century sales catalogue: Sale Anna Elink, Amsterdam (Van der Schley, De Bosch, Yver and Pruyssenaar), 28 June 1802, nr. 193. 69 Wansink 1987, pp. 86-88. ŝŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

expressions, conversational gestures, colour graduations and brushstrokes typical of Verkolje, as seen in paintings such as his Young Man and Young Woman with a Rose (Chap. IV, fig. 17). Both De Moni and Verkolje deliberately chose to reproduce candlelight scenes by seventeenth-century masters such as Dou and Schalcken that were highly desired by contemporary collectors; in so doing, they possibly added value to the original paintings and to the candlelight theme in particular. Yet, their purpose was not only to sell their reproductive work. By demonstrating their skills in making high-quality copies of seventeenth-century genre paintings and associating themselves with their renowned forerunners, they also succeeded in legitimizing themselves as the successors to these famous masters. Thus, by reproducing seventeenth-century candlelight pieces, Verkolje and De Moni created an elaborate niche in the market for their own candlelight paintings, reminding collectors of the rich pictorial tradition of the seventeenth century but translating it into a contemporary idiom.

śǯ ȱȱȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ Before concluding, an important question remains: how did collectors perceive the copies after seventeenth-century paintings in their own collections? It is difficult to trace how the copies by De Moni and Verkolje were integrated into eighteenth-century collections, yet the above-mentioned example of Willem van Mieris and his patron Pieter de la Court van der Voort offers a clue. Thanks to a precise description in the handwritten inventory by Pieter de la Court of 1731, we know which paintings hung together on the walls of the various rooms in De la Court’s home.70 Nine copies by Willem van Mieris were spread throughout the mansion. Four of these copies appear to have been in the same room, the “cabinet room”, and hung on a single wall: A Soldier Smoking a Pipe (fig. 2), A Woman Pulling a Dog’s Ear and A Night Scene with Offering to Apollo, all after Frans I van Mieris, and A Soldier Smoking after De Vois.71 Although these copies hung together on the same wall with six original paintings 70 The handwritten inventory of Pieter de la Court van der Voort of 1731: RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 132. 71 Idem: “schilderijen in ’t cabinet tegen de oost binnenmuur”: “Een rookend soldaatje sittende in ’t harnas,” “Item een juffertie een hondje bij ’t oor trekkende,” “beyde door Willem van Mieris onkenlijk van ’t origineel van zijn vader gecopieert, dat bij de Platz”; “Een nagtligt offerhande copye door W. van Mieris en onkenlijk van ’t origineel door zijn vader”; “Een rookende matroos onkenlijk copye van ’t origineel door De Vois.” ȱ ȱ ŝřȱ ȱ ȱ by Willem van Mieris, strangely enough, there was not a single original by Frans I van Mieris in this room. In the same room on another wall there were three splendid pieces by the most representative Leiden genre painter of the seventeenth century, Gerard Dou – The Night School (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum), The Grocery Shop (Paris, Musée du Louvre, Chap. III, fig. 15) and A Praying Monk – and a history piece by Jan van Mieris.72 Did Willem’s three copies after Frans I van Mieris act as substitutes, or even as compensation, for the lack of originals by Dou’s best pupil and most prosperous Leiden successor, Frans I van Mieris? Three other copies after Frans I van Mieris that hung in another room provide more convincing evidence concerning the function of copies in this collection. In this room twenty paintings decorated the northern wall, more than half of which were made by four painters from the three generations of the Van Mieris family: Frans I, Jan, Willem and Frans II.73 Two of those were originals by Frans I van Mieris, A Man in Oriental Costume and A Man with a Hat Wearing a Coat, to which were added three copies after Frans I by Willem van Mieris: An Old Woman with a Glass of Brandy, A Seaman with a Goblet, and Self-Portrait of Frans I van Mieris after Frans I’s drawing (figs. 27 and 28).74 Furthermore, there were three original paintings by Willem van Mieris himself: Fruit Still Life, Self-Portrait and an excellent history piece titled Armida Binding the Sleeping Rinaldo (The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis).75 Finally, there were two genre pieces, A Woman 72 Idem: “schilderijen in ’t cabinet noord binnenmuur regten dag.” Baer 1990, cat. nrs. 110 and 47 (A Monk Praying: present location unknown). 73 Idem: “schilderijen op de aftermiddebovekamer tegen ’t noorder beschot of regte dag”: “Een fruytstuk daarin een etende muys zeer uytvoerig voor mij door W. van Mieris gesch.”; “Een Persiaantje met een tulbant zeer constig en uytvoerig onverbeeterlijk geschilderd door den ouden Frans van Mieris zijnde kleen ovaal”; “Een wedergade een mannetie met een hoet op ’t hooft en omgeslage mantel door denzelve”; “Een besje met een brandewijnsborreltie in de hand, copye door W. van Mieris na zijn vader”; “Een dito wat grooter ovaal, matroos met een wijnroemer in de hand, copye alsvoore”; “Het portrait van den ouden Frans van Mieris constig en uytvoerig door zijn zoon W. van Mieris na zijn vaders tekening geschilderd”; “Het portrait van Willem van Mieris na zigzelfs”; “Het portrait van den jongen Frans van Mieris na zigzelfs jonge tijd”; “De verbeelding van Armida bij den slapende Rijnhout op het betovert eyland, zijnde een zeer plaisant lantschap vol gewoel van in beesigheyd zijnde Cupidoos, zingende zirene en bloemfestoenen &c, alles zeer uitvoerig en wel verbeeld, voor mij geschilderd door Willem van Mieris”; “Een juffroutie een mosje eeten gevende zeer vlak en constig geschilderd door Jan van Mieris”; “Een wedergade zijnde een roekeloose student met verkeerbord, roemer, pijp &c door denzelve.” 74 Naumann 1981, two originals by Frans I van Mieris: cat. nrs. 70 and 29. Naumann 1978, cat. nr. 13. 75 Buvelot and Vermeeren 2004, pp. 204-05, inv. nr. 1071. Two other pieces, Fruit Still Life and Self-Portrait, are unknown. ŝŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Feeding a Bird and A Reckless Student, by Jan van Mieris (Catalogue, Jan van Mieris, fig. 3) and a Self-Portrait by Frans II van Mieris. Most importantly, the hanging of these paintings makes the collector’s intentions clear. The copies by Willem after his father were necessary to visualize the pictorial tradition of the Van Mieris family from the seventeenth through the eighteenth centuries. This “Van Mieris gallery” must have been completed for Willem’s Maecenas, Pieter de la Court van der Voort, who was one of the most renowned Leiden collectors. Not only his son Allard, but also Pieter de la Court himself seem to have allowed the copies to pass as originals when visitors came to view the collection. The German art lover Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach, who visited the collection on 19 January 1711, made mention of the self-portrait made by Frans I van Mieris, though it was surely the above-mentioned copy by Willem van Mieris after his father.76 Thus, we see how copies functioned as substitutes for much-loved seventeenth-century paintings and could attest to and even extol the pictorial tradition inherited by later generations in the eighteenth century. Of course, not all the countless copies that were made during the first half of the eighteenth century occupied the same function, but as we have seen in De Moni’s case, collectors were willing to pay dearly for a good copy after a painting by a famous seventeenth-century master. It is highly likely that such copies had the same kind of function in affluent collectors’ cabinets as did the copies by Willem van Mieris in De la Court’s collection.

ȱ In conclusion, these examples illustrate how early eighteenth-century Dutch painters deliberately took advantage of the unprecedented popularity of seventeenth-century art in their reproductive activities. Copies filled various functions: they were substitutes for certain types of seventeenth-century genre painting that had become less available on the art market and were therefore eagerly pursued by collectors. While further popularizing certain artists and themes from the seventeenth century, copies also created a highly valued market niche for genre pieces by early eighteenth-century painters who worked in similar styles and with 76 Von Uffenbach 1753-54, vol. 3, p. 421: “...darunter die von Douw und Miris von ihnen selbst sehr wohl gemahlt.” See also Fock 1983, p. 267 and Sluijter 1989, p. 288. ȱ ȱ ŝśȱ ȱ ȱ similar motifs. And finally, they enhanced the value of the original paintings, which were already considered art of the venerated past. By using reproductive methods effectively, early eighteenth-century painters found new ways to cope with and claim a pictorial tradition that was in the midst of canonization.

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱ ȱǱȱ ȱ

ȱȂȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ

ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ

ȱ¢ȱ

ȱ An overview of late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century Dutch genre painting reveals that many painters borrowed the familiar and recognizable motifs, compositions and subject matter that were first popularized by the famous genre painters of the period between ca. 1640 and 1670. These motifs include such elements as an arched stone window with a relief below, a table covered with a thick oriental carpet, an elegant couple making music, a maidservant in a kitchen, or a boy smiling by candlelight. The use of such motifs and subjects in later genre pictures has often been dismissed as slavish imitation of the art of the seventeenth century, as already discussed in the introduction of this dissertation. Bob Haak, for example, who devotes only five pages to art after 1680 in his extensive work The Golden Age: Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century (1984), describes genre painting of the second generation of painters (active after 1680) as follows:

“The most popular compositions, always in small format, were intimate domestic scenes of one or two figures seen through an arched window. Technically, these ŝŞȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

paintings are often adept; in other respects they are weaker extracts from the work of the seventeenth-century masters. Willem van Mieris (1662-1747), son of Frans, is typical of this group, although he occasionally introduced a new theme, such as a young traveling entertainer displaying a puppet case at an inn.”1

Haak rightly points out the strong tendency in genre painting of this later period to repeat popular motifs and compositions of earlier seventeenth-century painting, but this raises the question why these painters were so consistently engaged with the reuse of these pictorial elements. What determined the painter’s selection of certain motifs and subjects from the work of their renowned predecessors? Did contemporary collectors regard these paintings as nothing more than “weaker extracts”? The preceding chapters already advanced the argument that the artistic choices made by painters were affected by the taste of a small group of affluent collectors upon whom painters became increasingly dependent in terms of financial and professional success. This chapter will take a closer look at concrete examples of paintings that illuminate the interplay between the painters’ decisions and the collectors’ demands in the first half of the eighteenth century, first by focusing on the case of Willem van Mieris and his collector Johan Hendrik van Wassenaer Obdam, and then by examining pendant pieces made by different generations of painters. Finally, the last section will briefly look into theoretical ideas concerning the borrowing of motifs from the work of other painters, which will provide us with a framework for understanding the eighteenth-century evaluation of this reuse of pictorial elements from seventeenth-century genre painting.

ŗǯ ȱȂȱȱȱȱȱ ŗǯŗǯ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Willem van Mieris (1662-1747) is considered one of the painters representative of a new generation of artists who started to work as independent masters after 1680.2 He trained with 1 Haak 1984, p. 499. 2 The painters who belonged to the new generation are, for example, Arnold Boonen (1669-1702), Jan van Mieris (1660-1690) and Carel de Moor (1655-1738). Willem van Mieris became a member of the guild of St. Luke in Leiden in 1683; cf. Regionaal Archief Leiden (hereafter RAL), nr. 849, Deecken ende Hooft-mans Boek, fol. 16. Concerning Willem van Mieris: Hofstede de Groot 1907-1928, vol. 10; Fock 1983, pp. 261-82; Leiden 1988, pp. 152-68; ȱ ȱ ŝşȱ ȱ ȱ his father Frans I van Mieris, an illustrious painter from the third quarter of the seventeenth century. Confronted with economic stagnation and the subsequent change of the artistic climate, Willem van Mieris was forced to cater to the demands of collectors in various ways. He produced a wide range of different types of painting, such as history pieces, portraits, genre paintings, and eventually landscapes and still-life paintings. He could have chosen to advance on the road to success by focusing on history painting, like Adriaen van der Werff, who executed most of his genre work in his early years and later devoted himself exclusively to history painting. Instead, Van Mieris seems to have adhered to the category of genre painting in which his father had achieved significant success.3 He painted a variety of genre scenes throughout his career, using motifs that deliberately recalled the work of his seventeenth-century Leiden predecessors, such as Gerard Dou and his father Frans I van Mieris (figs. 1 and 2).4 For instance, in The Merry Toper (1699, fig. 3), Willem van Mieris deliberately chose a theme, composition, motifs, and figure types that originated in several works by his father.5 First of all, the type of a man in a beret holding a large glass and smiling at the viewer over his right shoulder derives from the painting Self-Portrait (1670, fig. 4) by Frans I van Mieris.6 For the man’s clothing, Willem drew inspiration from another picture by his father, Self-Portrait Holding a Large Glass (1668, fig. 5), upon which Willem based his Self-Portrait (fig. 6) in 1688.7 The clothing in these three paintings (figs. 3, 5, and 6), Amsterdam 1989, pp. 103-28; Elen 1995a; Elen 1995b; Aono 2006; Aono 2007/2008; Aono 2008; Elen 2009. 3 Among the 19 genre paintings by Adriaen van der Werff in Barbara Gaehtgens’s catalogue raisonné, ten paintings are dated between 1676 and 1687: Gaehtgens 1987, cat. nrs. 1-18. 4 Although he gradually lost his sight in his later years, Willem van Mieris’s dated genre paintings were produced between the 1680s and 1730s. See Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, pp. 220-26. The most common subjects that Willem van Mieris borrowed include a mother with a baby in a cradle, a drinking or smoking man, a man or woman making music, a maid in a kitchen, and a female shopkeeper in her shop, often seen through an arched stone window. 5 The Merry Toper was sold at the sale of Jan François d’Orvielle in Amsterdam, 15 July 1705, nr. 9, for fl 200; Hoet and Terwesten 1752-70, vol. 1, p. 81; Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 243; Naumann 1981, p. 59, fig. 64. In his The Merry Toper, Willem van Mieris also referred to another illustrious Leiden predecessor, Gerard Dou, by quoting a sculpted stone relief below the window, which is more typical of Dou (fig. 1) than of Van Mieris’s father, Frans I. He did the same thing in his Children’s Games (1702, London, The Wallace Collection): Willem van Mieris, having seen his father’s Boys Playing the Flute and Drum (1670) and borrowing from it the idea, combined this subject with the Dou-like stone window relief and more space for a girl playing with her doll. 6 Naumann 1981, cat. nr. 77. 7 Naumann 1981, cat. nr. 72. Willem van Mieris, Self-Portrait, see sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 18 May 2004, nr. 9; ŞŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

especially in the small details of sartorial decorations and color combinations, shows strong similarities: the purple vest with decorative slits, the white collar, the yellow sleeves, and the dark blue mantel. On the other hand, the motif of an arched stone window encircled by grapevines, with a violin lying on the windowsill, reminds us of another genre painting by Frans I, The Old Violinist (1660, fig. 7).8 The most distinctive motif shared by The Merry Toper by Willem van Mieris and The Old Violinist by Frans I is the tiny snail crawling across the window frame, which manifests the painters’ breathtaking virtuosity in the depiction of different textures in extremely minute detail – a small, soft living creature juxtaposed with the hard surface of a stone window. Willem probably used this motif of the snail with the intention of demonstrating that he was the very successor of his celebrated teacher and father – particularly in respect to his painterly technique – that extraordinary refinement and detail accompanied by a smooth finish in which hardly any visible brushstrokes may be detected.9 Comparing eighteenth-century genre painting with seventeenth-century examples motif by motif in this way, we are able to visually comprehend how a painter borrowed recognizable elements from the work of his predecessors and ingeniously adapted these to his own genre scenes. We now turn our attention to how such choices of motifs and subjects made by painters was related to the taste of collectors, or more precisely, to the painters’ attempt to meet the collectors’ demands.

ŗǯŘǯ ȱ ȱȱȱǱȱȱȱȱȱȱ The case of Count Johan Hendrik van Wassenaer Obdam (1683-1745, fig. 8), an art collector from The Hague, provides illuminating insight into the relationship between the collectors’ artistic preferences and the type of genre subject that painters chose to produce.10 Van Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 281; Naumann 1981, cat. nr. C72. 8 Naumann 1981, cat. nr. 33. 9 Another good example of Willem van Mieris’s painting being inspired by his father’s above-mentioned pieces is The Drinker, which Willem van Mieris painted in 1699, the same year as The Merry Toper. Although the color scheme is different, this piece is strikingly reminiscent of the above-mentioned self-portraits and The Old Violinist by Frans I van Mieris. In The Drinker, one encounters a familiar combination of motifs, such as a smiling drinker holding a large glass, a violin, crab (instead of the shrimp in The Old Violinist), a snail, grapevines, and a woman scoring the bill in the background, etc.. Regarding The Drinker, see, sale London (Sotheby’s), 8 December 1993, nr. 50; Naumann 1981, vol. 1, p. 59, note 53. 10 For Van Wassenaer Obdam: Aalbers, Brokken and Van der Klooster 2001, pp. 165-76; Wijsenbeek-Olthuis 1998, pp. ȱ ȱ Şŗȱ ȱ ȱ Wassenaer Obdam was one of Willem van Mieris’s important clients and, more significantly, a well-known collector that had a great fondness for Dutch genre paintings, often called “modern” pieces in those days.11 For instance, the French art dealer Edmé-François Gersaint, who visited Van Wassenaer’s collection in The Hague in 1748, was amazed by the Dutchman’s admiration for peasant pieces by Adriaan van Ostade. According to Van Wassenaer, as Gersaint reports, Dutch collectors appreciated paintings that represented the familiar from their everyday circumstances. In these pieces they “recognize the customs, pleasures and daily concerns” of the peasants and even their simplicity, leisure, joy and burdens, which were depicted so true to life that “they can almost see and hear” them.12 In fact, the sales catalogue of his collection of 121 works, dated five years after his death on 19 August 1750, bears ample witness to Van Wassenaer’s predilection for representations of everyday life. He owned a number of seventeenth-century genre paintings, among which were three paintings by Dou, including A Girl Pouring Milk (fig. 9); one by Gabriel Metsu, A Man Smoking a Pipe at a Fireplace (fig.10); one Frans I van Mieris, An Old Woman Singing or Reading (fig. 21); and two paintings by Godfried Schalcken, like A Young Girl Making Sausages. Finally, there were 18 pieces by Adriaen van Ostade, of which the total proceeds amounted to more than 6,300 guilders.13 The work of the contemporary painter Willem van Mieris occupied a distinguished

128-29 and 140-41; Van der Klooster 1993, pp. 93-103; Korthals Altes 2003, pp. 129-41; Aono 2006, pp. 230-36. 11 Concerning the definition of “modern pieces,” see the first chapter of this dissertation, pp. 47-49. 12 Blanc 1857, vol. 2, p. 118: “...mais nous aimons ces sortes de pièces qui nous représentent, au vrai, ce que nous sommes dans l’habitude de voir tous les jours. Nous y reconnaissons les usages, les plaisirs et le tracas de nos paysans, leurs simplicité, leur amusement, leur joie, leurs peines, leurs caractères, leurs passions, leurs vêtements; tout y est exprimé avec la plus exacte vérité; rien n’y est fardé. Ils y sont peints selon leur nature; nous croyons les voir et les entendre, tout y parle: voilà ce qui nous séduit.”; Amsterdam 1989, p. 120; Korthals Altes 2003, p. 130. 13 Van Wassenaer Obdam also owned peasant pieces painted by other specialized masters like Jan Steen, Adriaen Brouwer, David Vinckboons, and Cornelis Dusart. Sale Johan Hendrick van Wassenaer Obdam, The Hague (De Hondt), 19 August 1750; Hoet and Terwesten 1752-70, vol. 2, pp. 290-98. For the paintings discussed, see Baer 1990, cat. nr. B5: Baer doubts the authenticity of the painting in the Louvre, but since Van Tol made a copy after a painting with the same composition, there must have been an original by Dou – if not the painting in the Louvre – with the same composition; For Metsu, see Waiboer’s forthcoming monograph on the artist. For Van Mieris, see Naumann 1981, vol. 2, p. 160, cat. nr. C89a and p. 208, D103, illus. I, fig. 117. For Schalcken, see Beherman 1988, possibly, cat. nr. 166. Beherman does not include the Van Wassenaar collection in the painting’s provenance, and the painting illustrated for this entry seems to be a copy after an unidentified original. ŞŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

position in the collection of Van Wassenaer Obdam.14 The aforementioned 1750 sales catalogue of his collection contains ten paintings by Willem van Mieris: seven genre paintings, one of which might be An Old Man Reading a Newspaper (fig. 11), and three landscapes.15 Among these genre paintings, most outstanding are four pieces representing a kitchen or shop scene, which fetched high prices – between 322 and 546 guilders (figs. 12, 13, and 14) – at the auction.16 This type of kitchen or shop scene observed through a window frame was first introduced by Gerard Dou in the middle of the seventeenth century. By displaying various sorts of goods in the kitchen or shop, Dou demonstrated his pictorial virtuosity – meticulous brushwork, smooth finish, accurate imitation of objects and subtle indication of space – which continued to be employed by his successors in Leiden into the second half of the eighteenth century.17 Willem van Mieris, one of his successful descendants, elaborated upon this theme and achieved an even more polished painterly surface and highly finished details.18 In his A Kitchen with a Fishmonger (fig. 12), for instance, immense effort was lavished upon rendering the textures of different types of objects: the sheen of the wet fish, the smooth feathers of the drake, the sculpted stone relief, and the fresh cabbage leaf that has fallen down from the window ledge. This virtuoso display of pictorial skill was highly regarded in the early eighteenth century and was considered a trademark for Dou’s followers. Johan van Gool, the eighteenth-century painter and biographer who praised Dou’s work for his precise imitation of nature, also appreciated Willem van Mieris’s painterly technique, stating that Willem van Mieris painted “from life most patiently and attentively, [he did this] so elaborately and convincingly that one cannot be amazed enough by the painter’s noble artistic capability.”19 14 Sale Johan Hendrick van Wassenaer Obdam, The Hague (De Hondt), 19 August 1750, nrs. 53-62. Besides Willem van Mieris, very few contemporary painters are listed in the sales catalogue. There are, for example, two landscape paintings by Jan II Griffer (1688-1740) and three genre pieces by Frans II van Mieris. 15 As to An Old Man Reading a Newspaper: Sale Johan Hendrick van Wassenaer Obdam, The Hague (De Hondt), 19 August 1750, nr. 62. This piece was formerly in the possession of Salomon Lilian, Old Master Paintings. 16 Sale Johan Hendrick van Wassenaer Obdam, The Hague (De Hondt), 19 August 1750, nrs. 53-56. In the catalogue of another sale of Van Wassenaer’s collection in 1769, which will be discussed below, three other paintings by Willem van Mieris were mentioned, one of which is a genre painting. 17 For the long pictorial tradition of the Leidse fijnschilders, see Leiden 1988, especially Sluijter 1988. 18 Cologne/Dordrecht/Kassel 2006-07, cat. nrs. 49 and 50. 19 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, p. 192. “met het uiterste gedult en oplettenheit, naer het leven, zo uitvoorig en krachtig ȱ ȱ Şřȱ ȱ ȱ Significantly, these pictures of shop and kitchen scenes by Van Mieris in the Van Wassenaer collection demonstrate regular contact between the artist and collector. As Jacob Campo Weyerman reports in his biography of the artist in his Levens-beschryvingen der Nederlandsche konst-schilders en konst-schilderessen (1729), Van Mieris “painted various pieces, mostly modern subjects, such as kitchens full of all sorts of fowl, meat, fruit, vegetables and the like, as well as some paintings representing shops with all kinds of goods et cetera” for “Count Van Wassenaer”.20 Several payment receipts for paintings, kept in the family archive of Van Wassenaer in Twickel, confirm the close relationship between the two men: Van Wassenaer bought paintings directly from Van Mieris between 1713 and 1721, among them A Kitchen with a Fishmonger (fig. 12) and two landscapes, bought together for 900 guilders in 1713; A Woman Weighing Chestnuts for 600 guilders in 1714; A Grocer’s Shop (fig.14) for 825 guilders in 1718; and finally Interior with Monkeys (fig. 23) for 380 guilders in 1721.21 Whether Van Wassenear commissioned Van Mieris to make these paintings is not clear, yet his continuous purchase of very expensive paintings from the artist himself indicates that he had close and regular contact with Van Mieris, who probably selected subject matter that suited Van Wassenaer’s taste.

ŗǯřǯ ȱȱȱȱ Ȃȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ To understand how the relationship between a painter and collector could determine the painter’s choice of subjects, the most expensive painting by Van Mieris in the collection of Van Wassenaer, A Grocer’s Shop (fig.14) of 1717, serves as a good example.22 That it was sold for the enormous price of 825 guilders makes one wonder why this painting warranted such a high price and what aspects of the painting so excited the collector. Its subject is a dat men zich over ’s Mans edel Kunstvermogen niet genoeg verwonderen kan.” 20 Weyerman 1729-69, vol. 3, pp. 390-91: “Voor den Graaf van Wassenaar heeft hy onderscheyde stukjes gepenceelt meest moderne verkiezingen, als Keukens gevult met allerley soort van wild, vleesch, vruchten, moeskruyden en diergelijken, benevens eenige Konsttafereeltjes verbeeldende winkeltjes met allerhande winkelwaaren”. Van Gool also described him as a great lover of this kind of “modern pieces”: Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, p. 198. 21 Huisarchief Twickel, inv. nr. 542: 12 April 1713, 8 January 1714, 14 May 1718, and 19 May 1721. See also Korthals Altes 2003, pp. 130-31, note 10. The painting Interior with Monkeys must have been commissioned, as will be discussed below, because it was made to function as a pendant for Nicolaes van Veerendael’s painting, which was already in Van Wassenaer’s collection. 22 Buvelot and Vermeeren 2004, inv. nr. 109: signed and dated left above: W. van Mieris Fe. 1717. ŞŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

shop scene, as mentioned above, one of the subjects popularized by Gerard Dou in the mid-seventeenth century and repeatedly depicted by Van Mieris.23 Remarkably, this painting is strongly reminiscent of the first shop scene by Gerard Dou, The Grocery Shop (fig. 15), dated 1647.24 There is a great similarity in motifs and composition between these two paintings, such as the arched stone window with light falling from the upper left side, the female shopkeeper weighing goods on a scale behind a counter, the shelf filled with various kinds of labeled cans and bottles, and the wooden plank with hooked nails hanging from the ceiling, from which scales and reels of thread hang down. Most striking, however, is the perspective, which runs to the vanishing point on the left side of the composition according to lines formed by the counter and the planks of the shelf. This combination of the perspective and these specific motifs was found neither in Dou’s other shop scenes nor in other grocery paintings by Van Mieris.25 In fact, we can assume that Willem van Mieris had opportunities to study Dou’s Grocery Shop attentively before he painted his picture in 1717. Dou’s painting was in the possession of Pieter de la Court van der Voort (1664-1739), another important patron of Willem van Mieris in Leiden.26 According to the inventory of De la Court van der Voort’s son, Allard de la Court, this painting was bought by his father from Adriaen Wittert van der 23 In the photographic documentation of the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie (hereafter RKD) in The Hague, there are 21 shop paintings by Willem van Mieris, such as A Poultry Shop (Amsterdam, The Rijksmuseum, inv. nr. SK-A-264) and A Cheese Shop (Kassel, Gemäldegalerie, inv. nr. GK310). His son, Frans II van Mieris, repeated this theme and painted it in Willem’s manner. See, for example, his Grocery Shop (Amsterdam, The Rijksmuseum, inv. nr. SKC185). His father Frans I van Mieris’s shop scene, The Cloth Shop (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. nr. GG586) was purchased by the Viennese grand duke Leopold for an exceptionally high price and therefore acquired an international reputation. This must have encouraged Willem van Mieris to choose the same subject matter. 24 Baer 1990, cat. nr. 47. 25 The similarity between these two paintings has been pointed out by Eric Jan Sluijter. See Leiden 1988, pp. 159-61, especially note 7. The orthogonal accentuated by a shelf can also be found in other shop scenes, such as A Poultry Shop (The Hague, Prince Willem V Gallery, inv. nr. NK1652) or A Vegetable Shop (present whereabouts unknown, RKD). Many other shop scenes depict a shelf full of commodities positioned parallel to the picture plane, as in, for instance, The Greengrocer (London, The Wallace Collection, inv. nr. P220) or A Cheese Shop (Kassel, Gemäldegalerie, inv. nr. GK310). 26 Pieter de la Court van der Voort commissioned Willem van Mieris to make at least 28 paintings, including copies; see the second chapter of this dissertation, pp. 58-61. Their contact probably started while when De la Court lived in Amsterdam; he married there in 1686. See Fock 1983, pp. 263-64. The inventory of Pieter de la Court van der Voort of 1731: RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 132. For Willem van Mieris’s activities under the patronage of Pieter de la Court van der Voort, see Fock 1983. ȱ ȱ Şśȱ ȱ ȱ Aa around 1710 through the agency of Carel de Moor.27 The Grocery Shop by Dou must have been known in the circles of Leiden art collectors. In one of the rooms in Pieter de la Court’s house on the Rapenburg, the painting hung together with other splendid pictures, such as Dou’s Night School (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) and Willem van Mieris’s Holy Family (Chap. IV, fig. 20).28 Furthermore, the former owner of Dou’s Grocery Shop, Adriaen Wittert van der Aa, also lived on the Rapenburg, and his wife Maria Cnotter was an heir to the paintings collection of her uncle Johan de Bye, who was widely known for exhibiting his large collection of paintings by Dou in Leiden in 1665.29 In this context it comes as no surprise that Willem van Mieris used Dou’s shop painting as a model for his own Grocer’s Shop in order to appeal to Van Wassenaer, who was a great devotee of seventeenth-century genre paintings. 27 Dou’s painting was mentioned for the first time in the inventory of Pieter de la Court van der Voort in 1731 and then again in the posthumous inventory of 1739 (RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 59). This shop scene by Dou was considered to be identical with the painting that was sold as a “well-known shop painting by Dou” for 1,200 guilders at the famous auction of the Jan van Beuningen’s collection in Amsterdam in 1716. See Jonckheere 2005, p. 42 and 46, lot nr. 59, “het bekende Kruydeniers Winkeltje, 4 figuuren, van Douw.” However, according to entry number 2 in the inventory of 1749 made by De la Court van der Voort’s son Allard, this piece was bought by Pieter de la Court van der Voort from Adriaen Wittert van der Aa with four other paintings. The entry for one of these four paintings, a peasant scene by David II Teniers, describes that this purchase probably took place in 1710: RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 117a, nr. 6, “aforementioned paintings numbered 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the five pieces that were bought by my father (supposedly in the year 1710) from Mr. Witterd, whose family had always possessed these paintings, which they had bought from the painters themselves, and in 1710 the pieces were bought by Carel de Moor, the painter of Mr Witterd van der Aa. These five pieces of nrs. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 cost my father f 11,100 altogether.” Its original text is: “no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 hiervooren genommerd zijn de vijf stukken die in een koop van de heer Witterd door mijn vaader (soo meene in ’t jaar 1710 gekofft sijn) in wiens familie die altoos geweest waaren als hebbende die van de schilders selffs gekofft gehad, de stukken sijn 1710 gekofft door Carel de Moor de konstshilder van de heer Witterd van der Aa, die vijf voorige stukken kosten mijn vaader no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 saame f 11100.” There is also an unpublished document including a list of these five paintings written by Pieter de la Court himself: family archive of De la Court nr. 117a. Thus, the “winkeltje” by Dou that sold at Van Beuningen’s auction in 1716 could be another, currently unknown shop painting by the painter. In any case, Willem van Mieris could have seen Dou’s famous shop painting at De la Court van der Voort’s house or at Van Beuningen’s auction before he painted his own piece in 1717. The aforementioned inventories of the De la Court family were published in Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 2, pp. 441-61 (1749 inventory), vol. 6 (a), pp. 473-80 (1731 inventory), pp. 480-94 (1739 inventory). See also Sluijter 1988, pp. 36-37, and p. 52, note 170. 28 Several paintings with the subject of the Holy Family by Willem van Mieris are known. Among them is the version that was in the possession of Rafael Valls Ltd., London, 2001 and then of art dealer Jack Kilgore in 2003. Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 26. See the fourth chapter of this dissertation, p. 118, note 56. 29 Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 3, pp. 461-65. Dou’s Grocer’s Shop was not exhibited in De Bye’s show: Martin 1902, pp. 145-47. ŞŜȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Moreover, an archival document dating from the eighteenth century testifies to the intention underlying Van Wassenaer’s purchase of Van Mieris’s Grocer’s Shop. So far, these two collectors of Willem van Mieris’s work, Van Wassenaer and Pieter de la Court, have no connection to each other, but an interesting description appears in the inventory written by Allard de la Court, who inherited the majority of his father’s collection. Allard describes Dou’s “extremely elaborate” and “highly renowned” Grocery Shop, estimated at 1,400 guilders, and makes a remark on the popularity of the painting:

“[...] my father often met art lovers who were willing to pay [a high] price for this painting; the count Johan van Obdam van Wassenaer and Zuydwijck once offered a price as high as 1000 ducats, namely 3150 guilders, on it and he made the same offer to me, even after my father’s death.”30

This description clarifies that Van Wassenaer put a high value on Dou’s Grocery Shop and that he did his utmost to purchase this painting – in vain – first from Pieter de la Court van der Voort and then from his son Allard. This eagerness to own Dou’s famous shop painting must have been closely related to his acquisition of Willem van Mieris’s Grocer’s Shop for an extremely high price. There is every possibility that Van Wassenaer himself conceived the idea of having Willem van Mieris paint the same subject and composition. Or it could have been the other way around: Willem van Mieris, knowing Van Wassenaer’s admiration for this painting, may have suggested to the collector that he make a shop scene with striking similarities to Dou’s painting. This case clearly illustrates how the interplay between the collector’s demand for renowned seventeenth-century genre paintings and a painter’s attempt to satisfy the collector’s taste could have had consequences for the choice of subjects by 30 RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 117a, “de groote kaamer aan ’t Raapenburg... ’t soort A,” nr. 3, “Een zeer uytvoerig commenijswinkeltje met vier figuurtjes waar onder een oud besje sittende, dat geld teld zeer gereputeerd, meede onder de vijf stukken door mijn vaader in een koop van Adriaan Witterd van der Aa gekofft en door mijn vaader gecalculeert naar die prijs dit stukje hem komt te kosten f 1500, hebbende mijn vader dikmaal lieffhebbers gehad om dit op prijs te setten, de graeff Johan van Obdam heer van Wassenaar en Zuydwijck heefft meer als eens 1000 ducatons segge f 3150 voor laaten offereeren, ’t welk die selve naar mijn vaaders doot aan mij dat ook eens heeft laate doen....” ȱ ȱ Şŝȱ ȱ ȱ eighteenth-century painters. Collectors seem to have competed with one another to acquire famous paintings by prestigious masters, and painters must have taken this fact very seriously. The Grocery Shop by Dou was one such beloved collector’s item. According to the aforementioned entry of Allard de la Court’s inventory, the French collector Marc-Réné Voyer d’Argenson also made an offer of 11,150 guilders for Dou’s painting along with another piece from the same collection, The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man by Peter Paul Rubens and Jan I Brueghel (The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis).31 This keen competition between collectors must have contributed to an increase in the market value of seventeenth-century paintings. According to Johan van Gool, the price of paintings by masters such as Gerard Dou, Gabriel Metsu, and Frans I van Mieris rose by as much as three times in the course of only a few decades, “for example: a piece of Dou of five or six hundred guilders went up to fifteen or sixteen hundred.”32 Although it is difficult to estimate exactly how much the price of a painting by Dou increased in the course of the first half of the eighteenth century, a brief survey of the prices paid for Dou’s genre paintings in the Dutch Republic between 1700 and 1750 reveals that several paintings reached more than one thousand guilders: The Mouse Trap (Montpelier, Musée Fabre) sold for 1,100 guilders in 1705, The Schoolmaster (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum) for 1,030 guilders in 1713, The Herring Seller (Moscow, Pushkin Museum) for 1,350 guilders in 1733, and The Poultry Shop (London, The National Gallery) for 1,950 guilders in 1748.33 Thus, the high demand for seventeenth-century genre paintings must have strongly encouraged early eighteenth-century painters to repeat the same kind of compositions, motifs and subject matter in their own works. Yet, was early eighteenth-century genre painting made to serve as a mere substitute for expensive seventeenth-century work that was increasingly 31 RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 117a, “de groote kaamer aan ’t Raapenburg... ’t soort A,” nr. 3, “en is mij anno 1746 door een Fransman die schilderijen kofft voor den Marquis Dargenson in presentie van de heer Frans van Mieris voor gebooden met’t voorgaande stuk ’t Paradijs genaamt no. 2, 1000 goude ginnies off f 11550, sijnde dit winkeltje seer eel konstig en uytvoerig geschildert op 1 paaneeltje van boove halff rond door de beroemde Gerard Douw, stelle op. Iv, 3d - 11 1/4d f 1400.” “Frans van Mieris” means Frans II van Mieris. Marc-Réné Voyer D’Argenson, who tried to purchase A Grocer’s Shop in vain, later bought another famous shop painting by Dou, his Poulterer’s Shop, for 1950 guilders in 1748. As to Voyer d’Argenson, see Korthals Altes 2003, pp. 79-96. 32 Van Gool 1752/1753, p. 25: “By voorbeelt: een Dou van 5 of 6 hondert guldens, 15 à 16 hondert guldens,” published in De Vries 1990, p. 233. 33 Baer 1990, cat. nrs. 55, 42, 60 and 117. ŞŞȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

more difficult to purchase on the market?34 In the case of A Grocer’s Shop by Van Mieris, the painting itself suggests that the artist strived to create his own version of this theme by distinguishing his picture from Dou’s painting in several ways. In contrast to Dou’s shadowy background, for instance, Van Mieris illuminates the commodity-laden interior so that various colors and textures become more visible. And though the compositions of both pieces are characterized by an arched window frame, the manner of creating spatial illusion is more complex in Van Mieris’s panel than in Dou’s. Dou suggests space by placing the window frame extremely close to the viewer, as if coinciding with the picture plane, and by arranging the carrots to hang precariously over the sill. Van Mieris, in contrast, ingeniously arranged multiple planes in order to achieve a maximum spatial effect. He enhanced the depth of the depicted space by putting a number of objects on the window sill, hanging a curtain above it and a green cloth down over the sculptured relief, and by making space in front of the window for baskets, a tab, etc. Furthermore, the figures in Van Mieris’s painting are remarkably different from those in Dou’s: they are highly stylized with smooth, rose-colored skin and elegant gestures, as can be seen in the delicately painted fingers.35 All these distinctions can be interpreted as Van Mieris’s effort to update the popular themes and subjects of the renowned masters, yet one wonders if it was this attempt by the eighteenth-century painter to add something new to the inherited pictorial tradition that was so appreciated by collectors. If eighteenth-century paintings were not meant to substitute for less available pieces by famous forerunners, how did collectors consider these contemporary pictures in relation to the work by seventeenth-century masters?

34 As discussed in the second chapter, collectors who were eager to buy copies after famous seventeenth-century genre paintings still made a clear distinction between such copies and the original work and put a higher value on the originals. The copies made by Willem van Mieris after seventeenth-century genre paintings were estimated at much lower prices: the prices of copies which were commissioned by Pieter de la Court van der Voort vary from 39 guilders to 80 guilders, with an average of 60 guilders. These prices are much lower than what Willem van Mieris was paid for paintings he executed according to his own designs, see Fock 1983, pp. 268-69 and Aono 2008, pp. 4-8. 35 Concerning the type of figure that Willem van Mieris depicted in his genre paintings, see the fourth chapter of this dissertation, pp. 110-17. ȱ ȱ Şşȱ ȱ ȱ Řǯ ȱ ȱȱȃȱȄǱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱǰȱȱȱ ȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱ To understand the issue of contemporary evaluation of eighteenth-century genre painting, an analysis of a set of pendants made by two different generations of painters provides some insight. One half of the pair is a painting by Willem van Mieris from the Van Wassenaer collection, namely, The Shrimp Seller.36 Although the present location of the painting is unknown, a print after this picture, which was found in a nineteenth-century collection catalogue, shows us the painting’s original appearance (fig. 16). According to the 1769 auction catalogue of Van Wassenaer’s collection – which is less known than the above-mentioned auction of 1750 – this picture served as a pendant to Dou’s Boy with a Sparrow Pot and Girl with a Pail (fig. 17).37 Since collaboration between the two artists was impossible, as they belonged to different generations, it was unquestionably Van Mieris who executed his painting as a pendant to Dou’s in the early eighteenth century.

36 In the seventeenth as well as the eighteenth centuries, a pair of genre pieces made by the same painter was not uncommon, such as Frans I van Mieris’s The Old Violinist and An Old Woman with a Lobster (Naumann 1981, cat. nrs. 33 and 34), and Willem van Mieris’s Fish Seller and The Female Fish Seller (Antwerp, Collection Smidt van Gelder, inv. nr. Sm 887). 37 This painting was first recorded in the catalogue of Van Wassenaer’s collection published by Gerard Hoet: Hoet and Terwesten 1752-71, vol. 2, p. 402. Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, cat. nr. 212. The print is published in Lithographies d’après les principaux tableaux de la collection de S.A.S. monseigneur le prince Auguste d’Arenberg avec le catalogue descriptif, Brussels, 1829, cat. nr. 56. Sale Johan Hendrick van Wassenaer Obdam, The Hague (J. Posthumus, J. Lambers, J. Lambers le Jeune & P. Posthumus), 25 October 1769: “No. 21 Gerard Douw. Une Fille, qui s’appuie avec le bras droit sur un seau de cuivre avec le quel on va au marché, dans lequel on voit des herbes potageres, le bras gauche est posé sur l’epaule d’un garçon qui tient dans la main gauche un petit pot de terre, ils regardent tout deux avec beaucoup de contentement une cage pend dans la niche, au loin on voit dans une chambre. Le piedestal de la niche est un basrelief en gris. 9, 1/4 : 6”; “No. 23 Willem van Mieris. Un Pecheur, couché dans une niche, sa main droite posé sur un papier dans lequel il a des chévrettes, à côté de lui une ville femme qui montre un carlet sec, qui pend a la niche. Le piedestal est un basrelief. NB. Cette piece est pour servir de pareil au tableau de Douw. 9, 1/4 : 6.” This was part of the Van Wassenaer collection that had been inherited by his brother Unico Wilhelm van Wassenaer (1692-1766). Only after the death of Unico Wilhelm, and later after that of his widow, was this inherited portion of the collection sold in 1769: Van der Klooster 1993, p. 97. The two pieces were already mentioned by Gerard Hoet as being in Van Wassenaer’s collection: Hoet and Terwesten 1752-70, vol. 2, p. 402. The present location of Dou’s picture is unknown. According to Marten, it was in the collection of Duke Rutland in Belvoir Castle: Marten 1901, p. 139. Ronni Baer catalogues it as “formerly in Belvoir Castle”, under rejected attributions: Baer 1990, cat. nr. C80. This Belvoir painting may be a copy after the original, but since Van Tol, Dou’s nephew, made several copies after Dou’s paintings, Van Tol’s copy after Dou in Brunswick (Brunswick, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, inv. nr. 736) (fig. 18) confirms that Dou painted the original. şŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Comparison between these two paintings reveals how Van Mieris consciously composed his painting to be paired with Dou’s. Dou’s painting represents a boy and girl leaning out of an arched window. The boy with a sparrow pot and the girl holding a shopping pail with vegetables both seem to look at a flying sparrow, which takes place beyond the space depicted.38 As counterparts to the boy and girl in Dou’s painting, Van Mieris casts an old man and woman in his painting. The old man is, according to the description of the sales catalogue, a fisherman displaying shrimp and pointing at the flounder toward which the old woman reaches. As the fisherman is probably peddling his wares, they must be occupied in a commercial exchange. Most intriguing is that while Van Mieris precisely imitates the composition and motifs of Dou’s piece, including the arched stone window frame and the curtain hanging behind it, he simultaneously creates a new story by visually connecting these two pieces. Paired with Van Mieris’s painting, the girl in Dou’s painting seems to have taken on a new role; she now appears to look at her companions in the other window and to join them in the exchange. It almost looks as if the four figures, leaning out of the two windows, are conversing about shopping or handling goods. Considering that a shopping scene was the very subject that Van Mieris had depicted for Van Wassenaer, one can assume that Van Mieris intended to demonstrate that he was capable not only of succeeding in Dou’s pictorial tradition but also recasting that tradition into his own pictorial idiom. For instance, while the commercial exchange between an old woman and a boy or girl had already been explored by Dou in The Poulterer’s Shop (London, The National Gallery) and The Herring Seller and the Boy (Moscow, Pushkin State Museum of Fine Art), the encounter between the four old and young, male and female, figures can be considered Van Mieris’s idea. He also depicted an old fish peddler selling shrimp to a boy and girl in his painting The Old Fishmonger (fig. 19).39 38 A figure at a window looking to the left side, as seen in these two pictures, is common in Dou’s genre paintings. See, for example, A Woman at a Window (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam-Museum, inv. nr. 34). Scenes like this were clearly not made as pendants but as independent pictures. 39 Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, cat. nr. 167. The location of the painting is unknown; the illustration shown here is an eighteenth-century print that was made after the painting when it was in the collection of Duke Choiseul in Paris. It is possible that Willem van Mieris had one of his father’s earliest pendants in mind, such as The Old Violinist and An Old Woman with a Lobster, in which an old man and woman were also associated with seafood, including shrimp. Naumann 1981, vol. 2, pp. 36-40, cat. nrs. 33 and 34. Frans I van Mieris once made a pendant, A Woman with ȱ ȱ şŗȱ ȱ ȱ The emulation that Van Mieris attempted to visualize in his painting must have been highly appreciated by Van Wassenaer Obdam, who enthusiastically collected “modern” genre paintings with subjects like the shop scene. A preparatory drawing (fig. 20) by Van Mieris for The Shrimp Seller also gives us further information about how the painter composed his picture, perhaps even in consultation with Van Wassenaer. As is often the case with Van Mieris’s preparatory drawings, the composition, motifs and even the size of his drawing correspond with those of his painting, which suggests that the drawing was probably made for the express purpose of comparison with Dou’s painting.40 Van Mieris must have first studied Dou’s painting at the collector’s residence, then made his drawing in order to design a pendant piece that would perfectly suit Dou’s painting. It is tempting to imagine that Van Mieris showed his drawing to Van Wassenaer, perhaps asking for his approval.41 Although it remains uncertain whether this pendant was made on commission, Van Wassenaer was evidently intrigued by such competition between different generations: he also owned two other pairs of pendants, each one containing a work made by a seventeenth-century painter accompanied by a painting by Willem van Mieris. One was made to be a companion to Frans I van Mieris’s Woman Singing or Reading (fig. 21), though the counterpart by Willem, “a seaman holding a glass and a pipe”, is unknown, and the other one was made for Nicolaes van Veerendael’s Interior with Monkeys (figs. 22, 23, and 24). The latter could have been commissioned by Van Wassenaer, as there is a payment receipt signed by Willem Van Mieris.42 a Bird in a Small Coffer (Amsterdam, The Rijksmuseum), for a painting by Godfried Schalcken, Allegory of Virtue (London, The National Gallery), but it is not clear whether they collaborated or if one of them made a pendant for an existing piece: see Naumann 1981, vol. 2, p. 116, cat. nr. 108 and Beherman 1988, cat. nr. 50. On Dou’s paintings, Baer 1990, cat. nrs. 54 and 60. 40 Concerning Willem van Mieris’s drawings, see Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel 1985, pp. 152-54: she categorizes this type of drawing as a “study for a complete composition.” The size of the drawing The Shrimp Seller is slightly larger than the painting; however, the stone windowsill in the drawing is larger than the one in the painting, making the size of the window’s opening equal in both works. 41 In another pendant piece, this time to a picture by Nicolaes van Veerendael, Van Mieris also elaborated his scheme in a preparatory drawing (fig. 24); here, too, the drawing is about as large as the painting. As to Willem van Mieris’s painting and drawing of Interior with Monkeys, see Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel 1985, pp. 153-54; Leiden 1988, p. 168; Leiden 2001, pp. 102-03. 42 Sale Johan Hendrick van Wassenaer Obdam, The Hague (De Hondt), 19 August 1750, nr. 57: “Een Matroos met een Glas en Pyp in handen; paar van No. 52” and nr. 58: “Aepe Geselschap, Coffy drinkende; paar van No. 94.” şŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Another illuminating example of pendants made by two different generations in which a new story was created by the later painter is found in the collection of Johan Pompe van Meerdervoort (1735-1779) in Leiden. At the auction of this collector’s estate, which was held in 1780 after his death, the painting A Hurdy-Gurdy Player Asleep in a Tavern by Willem van Mieris (1690, fig. 25) was sold for the high price of 250 guilders and was considered one of the most splendid paintings in his collection.43 According to the sales catalogue, this piece was paired with a painting by Hieronymus van der Mij (1687-1761), A Poultry Seller (fig. 26).44 Although it is unknown when and for whom this pendant was initially made, it is highly probable that Van der Mij, who was apprenticed to Willem van Mieris and was also active as art dealer in a circle of rich collectors, conceived the idea of a pendant expressly to combine it with the painting by his illustrious teacher, which was already owned by one of his clients.45 A Hurdy-Gurdy Player Asleep in a Tavern by Van Mieris represents a tavern scene with an old man sleeping at a table with a hurdy-gurdy on his lap. He has obviously drunk excessively, and a young woman accompanied by two laughing men in the background holds up a moneybag behind him. This woman with an open bodice has snatched the sleeping man’s purse, likely in order to settle his large drinking tab or perhaps in revenge for a failed Naumann 1981, vol. 2, p. 160, cat. nr. C89a and p. 208, D103, illus. I, fig. 117 (captioned erroneously as the Armand Hammer collection copy). Naumann confirmed the attribution of this painting in the exhibition catalogue: The Hague 2005, pp. 238-39, nr. 132. For the payment receipt of Van Mieris’s Interior with Monkeys: Huisarchief Twickel, inv. nr. 542: 19 May 1721. 43 The painting was formerly in the possession of Amsterdam dealer De Boer: Amsterdam 1961, cat. nr. 43, oil on panel, signed and dated 1690, 25 x 22 cm; Hofstede de Groot 1907-1928, vol. 10, nr. 268. A good copy after this piece is in the Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museums: Wright 1988, pp. 32-33, ill. IX. Regarding Johan Pompe van Meedervoort, see Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 4, pp. 164-72 and 205-11. 44 Sale Johan Pompe van Meedervoort, Zoeterwoude (Delfos), 19 May 1780, nr. 13: “Willem van Mieris, 1690. Een Binnevertrek, op den Voorgrond zit een Man op een Stoel te slaapen, met een Lier op zijn schoot, nevens een Tafel, daar een Schotel met Haring, Brood, en een aartig Kannetje op staan, benevens een Mes en gedroogde Schol; agter deze Man een lachend Vrouwtje, die een Geldbeurs welke zij in haar hand heeft, beschouwd; verder twee Mannetjes, die drinken en vrolijk zijn, en meer Bijwerk: alles wonderlijk, uitvoerig en van de allerbeste soort van Schildering, op Paneel, hoog 9 1/2, breed 8 duim, f 250”; nr. 95 “H. van der Mey. Een Poeliers Winkel, waarin men ziet een Vrouwtje bij een Tafel, daar dood Gevogelte op legt; nevens dezelve een ander oud Vrouwtje, die Geld schijnt te bieden, en meer Bijwerk, op Paneel, hoog 9 1/2, breed 8 duim, zijnde een Weerga van no. 13, f 29”; also in Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 4, pp. 206 and 209. As to A Poultry Seller by Van der Mij, see Leiden 1988, cat. nr. 49; Wansink 1985, pp. 213, nr. 11; Craft-Giepmans 2006, pp. 24-25, inv. nr. Sm 887. 45 Leiden 1988, p. 169. ȱ ȱ şřȱ ȱ ȱ sexual transaction. An old suitor with a younger woman embodies “unequal love,” a traditional amorous theme that was still popular in eighteenth-century Dutch genre painting.46 As a companion to this painting, Hieronymus van der Mij depicted a shop scene in which an old woman visits a young female poultry seller in her shop. This could be construed as an innocent portrayal of ordinary life, yet, coupled with Willem van Mieris’s scene of a drunken man deceived by a loose woman stealing his purse, the meaning conveyed by this shopping scene becomes charged with an obscene tension. The combination of the old woman with her hand in her purse and the young woman with her low décolleté engaged in selling poultry could deliver an erotic message: an old woman involved in commercial negotiation with a younger woman follows the seventeenth-century convention of a procuress negotiating matters of love for sale. In such a context, dead poultry, here displayed prominently, was associated with sexual matters.47 The laughing boy in the background underlines this lascivious comedy and functions as a counterpart to the two laughing men in Van Mieris’s painting. Examining the two pictures side by side, Van der Mij’s intention becomes clear: he depicted the scene in such a way as to closely relate to the meaning of Van Mieris’s picture. Van der Mij, who repeatedly depicted shop scenes in his own work, deliberately chose this subject because it was one of the favorite themes from the repertory of his Leiden predecessors, particularly that of his teacher Willem van Mieris. However, in contrast to the previous example in which Willem van Mieris borrowed the composition from Dou’s painting, Van der Mij did not accurately imitate the pictorial elements of his teacher’s painting. His soft, pastel-like tonality clearly distinguishes itself from the darker, brownish palette used by Van Mieris. Rather than linking the two scenes through formal elements, Van der Mij succeeded in uniting these two paintings in another way, namely by evoking an amorous connotation in both scenes – the sexual exchange and payment between a young woman and an older man or woman. By connecting these two pictures through narrative, even subtle similarities in the clothing of the young female figures in both paintings – the 46 Fish, such as flounder, hanging from the table in such an amorous context also have erotic connotations. See Sluijter 2000, pp. 275-76. For such sexual association with fish in general, see De Jongh 2004, pp. 103-19. 47 For sexual connotations evoked by poultry in seventeenth-century genre painting, see De Jongh 1968-69, esp. pp. 23-27 and 35-41, and Sluijter 2000, pp. 278-81. şŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

white cap trimmed by lace, the white inner shirt and the yellowish jacket – intimately link both scenes together and invite the viewer to read a story into these two panels. Does the old woman act as the procuress that arranged the sexual exchange between the young woman and the old man? The young woman in Van der Mij’s picture even seems to point with her right hand at what is occurring in the other scene. It is highly probable that the owner of the pendant, Johan Pompe van Meerdervoort, enjoyed interpreting the story that was created by Van der Mij and appreciated how a contemporary painter could contribute something new to and enrich the repertory of subjects and motifs inherited from the previous generation of artists. Consequently, the pictures added by painters of the later generations were neither a mere imitation of, nor a simple supplement to, the work of earlier masters. Rather, these paintings must have been considered simultaneously an homage to their great predecessors and the result of a challenge to create a new story based on the interpretation of the work of these masters. The pendants of two genre paintings from different periods, which must have been praised by collectors as emulation devised by the younger artist, embodies the renewed pictorial tradition evolving from the seventeenth century into the eighteenth century and resulted in additional value in each of the pictures. This was exactly the eighteenth-century painters’ strategy. By praising seventeenth-century genre painting, they succeeded in enhancing the value of their own work, in which typical seventeenth-century images were elevated to unsurpassed examples. This strategy is also evident in the case of reproductive prints by Nicolaas Verkolje after seventeenth-century masters, discussed in the second chapter.

řǯ ȃȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢Ȅȱ ȱ Numerous genre paintings from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries were neither directly linked to specific paintings by celebrated seventeenth-century masters, nor intended to function as pendants. Nonetheless, the examples of pendants discussed above clearly attest to the collectors’ appreciation of the artistic emulation that eighteenth-century painters attempted to display in their work. Such positive valuation of the artistic contribution of eighteenth-century painters also gives us good reason to believe that the reuse and ȱ ȱ şśȱ ȱ ȱ remodeling of popular subjects and motifs from seventeenth-century art was not a token of “blind imitation,” but can be considered proof of the new generation’s serious endeavors to renew the inherited pictorial convention. Although it is difficult to prove exactly how such reuse was considered in practice as well as in theory, one possible interpretation can be found in the art theoretical debate on the borrowing of motifs and compositions. According to art-theoretical discourses published in the Dutch Republic in the early eighteenth century, the borrowing of motifs and compositions from other paintings was permitted under specific conditions. Eric Jan Sluijter has elucidated this particular issue in seventeenth-century Dutch painting by discussing the idea of “rapen” in art theory, arguing that borrowing was allowed only if the appropriated motifs and compositions were incorporated into the artist’s work in such a subtle way as to make them unrecognizable.48 In his Groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (1718-21), Arnold Houbraken explicitly admonishes painters against borrowing motifs that could easily be detected from other paintings. Quoting a passage from Karel van Mander’s Den Grondt der Edel vry Schilder-const (1603-04), Houbraken disapproves of painters stealing a leg or an arm from a figure in another painter’s work and subsequently making a mere assemblage of fragments that were scraped together from other works of art. Instead, according to him, “stolen” fragments should be:

“welded, molded in the mind as though it were stewed in a pot, and prepared and served with the sauce of ingenuity if it is to prove flavorful.”49

Gerard de Lairesse discusses a similar subject in his Groot Schilderboek (1707) in a chapter giving instructions for “imitating great masters as regards to the painting of representations and the copying of their paintings in general.” Lairesse provides a more concrete example of

48 For a discussion of the borrowing of compositions and motifs as a form of imitation in art theory, see Sluijter’s chapter “Imitation, Artistic Competition, and ‘Rapen’” in Sluijter 2006, pp. 251- 65, esp. p. 263. This was published earlier in Sluijter 2005, pp. 267-91, esp. p. 287. See also Weststeijn 2005, pp. 130-31. 49 Houbraken 1718-21, vol. 3, p. 55, “maar in tegendeel dat het gestolen moet versmeed, verkneed, in het verstand als in een pot gestooft, en met de saus van ’t vernuft toebereid, en opgedist worden, zal smakelyk wezen.” For Van Mander, see Van Mander/Miedema 1973, vol. 2, pp. 388-89, fol. 5r and Sluijter 2006, pp. 253-54. şŜȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

the inappropriate borrowing of motifs:

“And although it is worthy of praise and fame to follow in great masters’ footsteps, it is yet a mistake that one only focuses on one of their special qualities, such as on a decoration, pot, vase, certain kinds of motifs, or other things made by a master, without using one’s own mind to invent something different.”50

This suggests that eighteenth-century painters who used motifs originally introduced into painting by their predecessors could also be accused of such inappropriate borrowing. As seen in the previous examples, typical seventeenth-century subjects, motifs, figure types and compositional elements were neither simply repeated nor quoted. They were remodeled and transformed into the individual style of eighteenth-century painters. Thus, according to the criterion set by Houbraken, the eighteenth-century borrowings should be regarded as “welded and molded.” Yet, the problem of “recognition” remains; in spite of the artist’s thoughtful insertion of the motif into his work, it was still often easy to determine from which seventeenth-century paintings specific components were borrowed. Motifs and compositional elements, reused by eighteenth-century painters, such as an arched stone window, a colorful thick carpet, or a flowerpot, must have immediately been associated with the predecessors’ work. The key to this problem lies in the discussion of what was considered “recognizable” borrowing. According to the seventeenth-century Leiden painter Philips Angel, borrowing could be admired if it honorably acknowledged the painter whose motifs and composition were used. In his Lof der Schilder-konst (1642), which was addressed to his fellow artists in Leiden, Angel’s reasoning is consistent with other authors in his insistence that borrowing not be detectable, yet he simultaneously clarifies that when borrowing is done correctly, “it then serves to praise the master from whom it was taken.”51 Regardless of 50 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 2, p. 41, “En hoewel het lof en roem waardig is, groote Meesters op het spoor na te volgen, is het echter een misslag dat men op eenige van hunne byzonderheden valt, als op een ornament, pot, vaaze, zekere terme of iets anders door een Meester gemaakt, zonder dat men zynen geest aanzet om iets verschillendts uit te vinden.” 51 Angel 1642, p. 36: “want het eenen dient tot loff van den meester, daer het af genomen wert.” ȱ ȱ şŝȱ ȱ ȱ whether Angel had his fellow Leiden artist Gerard Dou in mind, it was no coincidence that later generations of Leiden painters reused popular elements originating in Dou’s work, resulting in praise for the unsurpassable master. Considering that it was in the early eighteenth century that painters and collectors began to consider seventeenth-century art as the glorious past, one can assume that honoring such “old masters” must have weighed considerably upon contemporary painters. In this sense, “recognizable” borrowing in eighteenth-century genre painting could be admired particularly during this transitional period, for it demonstrated the awareness of the debt that painters of the younger generation owed for the rich repertory of subjects and motifs to their seventeenth-century predecessors. This positive view of recognizable borrowing is also voiced more explicitly in Franciscus Junius’s influential book De Schilder-konst der Oude (1641). He argues in it that painters could render similarities intentionally because “the artists who surpass all others are those who diligently pursue the old art with a new argument, thus adroitly bestowing their paintings with the pleasurable enjoyment of dissimilar similarity.”52 Thus, the appropriate form of similarity, which honors the older master, can even add extra value to the painting itself, as well as pleasure to the act of viewing it. It might have been this “dissimilar similarity” that painters attempted to achieve and collectors enjoyed seeing in early eighteenth-century genre painting with themes and motifs stemming from seventeenth-century genre painting. Although it is not my purpose to argue how this theoretical debate on “borrowing” was related to practice, it certainly helps us to understand what type of artistic imitation would have been appreciated in early eighteenth-century painting. Comparing two genre paintings by early eighteenth-century artists, The Merry Toper by Willem van Mieris (fig. 3) and A Man Holding a Large Glass at a Window by Hendrik Jacob Hoet (1693-1733) (fig. 27), for example, one can readily distinguish appropriate borrowings from inappropriate ones. Both painters took the figure of the drinking man from Frans I van Mieris’s Self-Portrait (1670, fig. 4) and also used the popular compositional element of the stone arched window frame decorated with grapevines. Yet, there is a distinctive difference in

52 Junius 1641, p. 29: “die Konstenaers spannen, mijne dunckens, de kroone boven d’andere, de welcke d’oude Konst omtrent een nieuw argument naerstiglick oeffenen, om haar Schilderyen door dit middel met het aangenaeme vermaeck van een ongelijcke gelijckheyt behandighlick te vervullen.” şŞȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

execution and elaboration between these two paintings. As discussed in the beginning of this chapter, Willem van Mieris succeeded in ingeniously adapting several motifs from his father’s work to his own painting. Hendrik Jacob Hoet, in contrast, practically cut out the figure from Frans I van Mieris’s Self-Portrait and pasted it into a ready-made window frame, which was repeated in his paintings and combined with figures from pictures by other masters, such as Dou and even Frans and Dirk Hals. This example by Hoet is exactly what Houbraken calls “a compilation that is scraped together” rather than properly “welded and molded.”

ȱ We have now examined how and why painters in the early eighteenth century chose familiar seventeenth-century subjects, motifs and compositions as a point of departure for their own work. It becomes clear that the painter’s decision was made not only considering the demand of devotees of seventeenth-century art, but also in view of producing genre paintings in which painters could rephrase inherited pictorial devices in their own idiom. The depiction of popular elements deriving from genre painting of the “old masters,” which often provided artists with a vehicle to display their refined painterly technique, implied that painters were involved in thematically and stylistically upholding – and continuing – the tradition of Dutch genre painting from the preceding era. Collectors, who were keen on the “old masters” from the recent past, simultaneously appreciated the way in which contemporary painters inherited, imitated, and adapted the achievements of these masters. Although we tend to underestimate the repetition of popular motifs from the seventeenth century due to our modern conception of “originality” and “uniqueness,” this reuse by eighteenth-century painters must have been considered something intriguing and admirable, particularly in light of the emerging awareness of the previous century as an unprecedented and flourishing period of Dutch art. Thus, paintings with compositions and motifs that were recognizably based on seventeenth-century examples were not “weaker extracts” but rather were appreciated as fruitful contributions by a new generation of artists who had made great efforts to compete with the pictorial tradition of their celebrated forerunners.

ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱ¢ȱǱȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ

Ȭ¢ȱȱ ȱȱ

ȱ The Age of Elegance is the title of a catalogue of eighteenth-century Dutch paintings from the collection of the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, published in 1995.1 It contains splendid works of art from the first half of the eighteenth century, among them a still life of a lavish bouquet by Jan van Huysum, a portrait of a well-to-do gentleman by Cornelis Troost, and an allegory of one of the four seasons in grisaille by Jacob de Wit. The title of the catalogue clearly reflects what we typically expect from the art of the eighteenth century – something elegant and refined. Yet, as regards genre painting from the early part of the century, what are the specific elements in this type of work that give us the impression of elegance and refinement? This issue has occasionally been raised by art historians over the last few decades, particularly in regard to scenes of luxuriously decorated interiors (fig. 1).2 In this debate such pictures are often associated with the ongoing social process of the “civilization” and

1 Loos, Jansen and Kloek 1995. 2 For recent discussions of “elegant” types of genre painting in this period see Franits 2004, pp. 217-57; Hecht 2006-07, pp. 17-24; Weber 2006-07, pp. 56-57. ŗŖŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

“aristocratization” of Dutch society during the early eighteenth century. The craving for an upper-class lifestyle seems to be manifested in depictions of beautifully dressed figures making graceful gestures, enjoying their leisure time in expensively furnished interiors. This interpretation sounds convincing, particularly since it had its origin in a similar discussion about refined subjects that became prominent in genre paintings from the 1660s on.3 For instance, in her monograph on Casper Netscher (1639-1684), Marjorie Wieseman re-evaluates late seventeenth-century Dutch art as “part of a directed movement towards a particular aesthetic goal of idealized elegance and refinement,” and she accurately describes this tendency as follows:

“The subjects most in demand were those which illustrated the more favourable aspects of Dutch civilization: conversation pieces, tasteful and/or titillating scenes of love and courtship, and other occupations of the idle rich.... Subjects that had previously found favour were reworked, remodeled with fashionable decor, clothing, and accessories (often French or vaguely classical in derivation) and presented to an elite public, many of whom were simultaneously undergoing a parallel transformation in their own life style.”4

Although Wieseman does not discuss the situation of genre painting after 1700, it is tempting to believe that this trend toward refinement developed further into the early eighteenth century in parallel with the advancing civilizing process of Dutch society – the more civilized citizens became, the more refinement genre scenes came to display. The underlying idea is that the rich elites wanted to see their privileged lifestyle reflected in paintings that confirmed how civilized people should look and behave so as to distinguish themselves from the lower classes. This idea does indeed provide us with a perspective on art in early modern society, and it partly explains why the portrayal of agreeable and sophisticated aspects of daily life 3 Franits 2001, pp. 295-98; Wieseman 2002, pp. 47-48. An insightful review of this matter may be found in Schavemaker 2009, pp. 85-96. See also Vergara 1998, pp. 234-55. Its association with aristocratic life has already been suggested by Sutton 1984, pp. 57-59. 4 Wieseman 2002, pp. 47-48. ȱ ȱ ŗŖřȱ ȱ ȱ was favoured as the subjects of genre scenes. Examining the wide range of genre paintings from the early eighteenth century, however, it soon becomes clear that the subjects depicted in these paintings are not confined to luxuriously decorated interiors with upper-class citizens. There is, in fact, a great variety in subject matter: genre paintings show various types of figures from different social classes, like a mother nursing a baby in a tidy bourgeois interior, a girl feeding birds at a window, a well-dressed couple with a child making music, or a maidservant shopping (figs. 2-4, Chap. I, fig. 9). These subjects were mostly borrowed from seventeenth-century genre painting, which enjoyed great popularity among collectors and was therefore a rich source of inspiration for eighteenth-century painters.5 Comparing these paintings closely, one consistent feature draws our attention: the stylization of the female figure, that is, the element that distinguishes paintings of the early eighteenth century from those of the preceding century. These female figures all look highly idealized, regardless of the social class to which they were supposed to belong. Their poses and gestures are most graceful, as we can see in the gentle way in which they hold and touch objects with their delicate hands and fingers. Their facial expressions are calm and peaceful, their skin looks as spotless and smooth as marble or ivory, and its whiteness is softly accentuated by the rosy colour of their cheeks. Of course, we always have to deal with the personal stylistic features of painters, but in comparing pictures of various subjects and compositions by different hands we can still recognize a common aesthetic tendency to idealize in the depiction of figures, which results in an impression of elegance.6 This gives rise to several important questions regarding the refinement that is evident in early eighteenth-century genre painting. Why did idealization of figures occur, particularly in subjects of such variety, which tended to be inspired by seventeenth-century

5 Aono 2006, pp. 225-27, and Aono 2008, pp. 1-34. 6 The word “elegance” or “elegant” is frequently used to describe Dutch painting of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, but the word originally derives from the French word “élégance”. The Dutch word “elegant” was not commonly used in the early eighteenth-century Dutch Republic to describe Dutch genre painting. The other Dutch words “bevalligheid” and “bevallig,” which De Lairesse frequently uses in his treatise Het groot schilderboek, were more common in those days and would seem to be more suitable for the type of genre painting under consideration here. See De Vries, Te Winkel and Kluyver 1882-1998, “Elegant”: vol. 3-3, column 4063, and “Bevalligheid”: vol. 2-2, column 2304-05. De Lairesse also used “gracelyk,” which seems to be almost synonymous with “bevallig.” The difference in meaning between these two words is not immediately clear. ŗŖŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

genre painting? How did painters achieve this idealization in practice? What was the painters’ relationship to the affluent collectors of those days, and how did that relationship affect the artistic choices that painters had to make? To consider these questions, this chapter will first identify some of the theoretical notions of classicism that underlay increasing figural refinement. Next it will investigate the actual practice of painters through the example of Willem van Mieris. Finally, it will look at the evolving relationship of painters with collectors, particularly in light of the way in which that relationship defined the artistic versatility that painters practiced. Certainly, the idealized figure type is only one of the components of what we perceive as “something elegant” in early eighteenth-century genre painting. The other visual elements, such as colour, chiaroscuro and refined painterly technique, also require further research. Still, the following examination will offer one possible explanation for what has been described vaguely as “elegance” until now and give us a clue to understand what was unique to genre painting in the early eighteenth century.

ŗǯ ȱȱȂȱȱȱȱȱȱ As has often been discussed in recent studies on late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century Dutch painting, increasing refinement can be regarded as a sign of the classicizing tendency that became prominent from the late seventeenth century on.7 Although the term “classicism” varies in significance and interpretation, the following discussion about the classicizing tendency will rest on one critical issue: choosing the most ideal form embodied in antique art, especially in sculpture, as J.A. Emmens rightly argues in his discussion of classicism in Dutch art literature.8 In this respect, Gerard de Lairesse’s 7 Claus Kemmer accurately examines De Lairesse’s instruction in Dutch genre painting, but his discussion is mostly restricted to the seventeenth century; see Kemmer 1998, pp. 87-115. Regarding the relationship between genre painting and its classicizing tendency in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries see Franits 2004, pp. 221-22 and 224-25, and Hecht 2006-07, pp. 19-21. On the classicizing style in late seventeenth-century Dutch painting see Amsterdam 1989, pp. 16-18; Wieseman 2002, pp. 48-50; Mai 2006-07, pp. 37-42. For important studies on gestures depicted in paintings in connection with classicism and the theater, especially tragedies, see Roodenburg 1995, pp. 417-39, and Roodenburg 2004. 8 Emmens argued that “hard-core classicism” began with de Bisschop’s publications; see Emmens 1968, pp. 54-62, esp. p. 56. Emmens was referring to De Bisschop 1668-69 and De Bisschop 1671. Herewith I would like to thank Thijs Weststeijn for his thoughtful instructions about the terminology in art theory. On classicism in late seventeenth-century Dutch history painting, see De Vries 1983, pp. 9-10 and 14-16, and Snoep 1980-81, pp. 237-40. ȱ ȱ ŗŖśȱ ȱ ȱ instructions on genre art in his Groot schilderboek (1707) provide some clarification of what is meant by “refinement” in this category of painting. In the chapter on “The Difference between what is Antique and Modern,” De Lairesse goes into detail on the nature of genre painting by referring to it as “modern,” in contrast to “antique” history painting:

“[The] antique art is unlimited; namely, it can, and is able to, depict everything, without exception: old histories, both sacred and contemporary ones, mythological stories, spiritual and moral allegories…. The modern is, on the contrary, far from being free; besides it is severely restricted, and is of little capability; because it can or is able to represent no more than what belongs to the present, and that also in a manner which never lasts but is continuously changing and going out of date.”9

Since the antique and the modern differ fundamentally from each other in their natures, he asserts that it is impossible to “make the Modern as noble as the Antique,” using the analogy of “making a Horse out of a Donkey.”10 Nonetheless, De Lairesse describes how genre scenes could be depicted in such a way that this category of painting might be elevated. Antique form and content that are usually attributed to “noble” history painting should also be applied to genre painting of contemporary subjects.11 In his chapters on genre painting, De Lairesse elaborates upon several means for adapting the qualities of history to genre, but 9 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 172: “De Antieke Schilderkonst is onbepaald, dat’s te zeggen, zy kan en vermag alles te verbeelden, niets uytgezondert; oude Historien, zo heilige als waereldsche; Fabulen; geestelyke en morale Zinnebeelden:.... De Moderne, in tegendeel, is niet vrij; zynde daar en boven noch heel streng bepaald, en van zeer gering vermogen: want zy vermag, noch kan, niet meer als het tegenwoordige verbeelden, en dat noch op een wys die nimmer stand houd, maar gestadig veranderd en vervreemd word.” De Lairesse’s debate on the “Antique” and “Modern” does not fully accord with the so-called quarrel of the “Ancients and Moderns” (“Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes”) in late seventeenth-century France, although both derived from the same admiration of ancient Greek and Roman art. In the French discussion, “modern painting” indicates painting by contemporary artists. De Lairesse, however, applies the term to the quality of painting and not necessarily to the period. He uses the term “antique painting” similarly, so the English translation of the Dutch word “antiek” in De Lairesse’s discussion is “antique,” not “ancient,” which is associated more with the historical sense of ancient Greek and Roman art. 10 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 173: “Maar indien iemand overweegen zoude willen, of ’er geen middel ware om deze Moderne Konst, zo wel als de Antieke, edel te maken, dat zy beide nevens elkanderen zouden mogen gaan, die zou vruchteloos werk doen: want van een Ezel een Paard te maken, is een onmogelyke zaak. De gebreeken, eens te verre ingesloopen, zyn kwalyk te herstellen.” See Kemmer 1998, p. 93 and Timmers 1942, pp. 52-53. 11 Kemmer 1998, pp. 93-94. ŗŖŜȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

what concerns us here is whether his instructions can be relevant to our present question of why we find idealized figures in a wide variety of subjects in early eighteenth-century genre painting. First, as regards subject matter, De Lairesse is often said to disapprove of the vulgar activities of lower-class people that were often depicted in seventeenth-century genre painting. According to him, representations of “Beggars, Brothels, Taverns, Tobacco-smokers, Fiddlers, nasty Children sitting on a potty-chair, and other things more filthy and awful” were inappropriate for embellishing the residences of “Persons of Distinction and Respectability,” whose thoughts ought to rise above such vulgarity. He even asks himself: “Who could entertain his friends or a man of repute in a hall which is in a mess or where a child is bawling or being wiped clean?”12 This memorable, explicit statement creates the strong impression that there was literally no room for paintings with “filthy” subjects, and therefore one might tend to believe that De Lairesse exclusively advocated choosing a richly decorated interior with “persons of distinction” as a subject, especially because such a type of genre painting became popular from the 1660s on.13 In reality, though, De Lairesse also approved of subjects depicting the ordinary life of middle-class citizens. He accepted that painters would derive their subjects from the everyday surroundings of the middle class (“burglyke staat”) because these were easiest to observe for painters who were members of that class themselves.14 As appropriate subjects of genre painting, several examples of contemporary situations were proposed by De Lairesse, such as a scene of ladies drinking tea, the home of a painter, and a domestic interior of a mother with her child.15 He goes even further when he says that portrayals of such ordinary life are as valuable as the ones belonging to the courtly classes: 12 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 171: “...want men beschouwt naauwelyks een schooner Zaal of een heerlyk Vertrek, hoe kostelyk die ook mogen weezen, of zy zyn nu met Bedelaars, Bordeelen, Kroegen, Tabakrookers, Speelmans, besmeurde Kinders in de kakstoel, en wat noch vuilder en erger is, voorzien. Wie zou zyne vrienden, of iemand van achting, in een zaal durven ontfangen, daar het aldus over hoop legt, of daar een kind schreid of gereinigd word?... Dierhalven zyn het al te slechte en onbetaamelyke voorbeelden om daar mede te pronken, voornaamentlyk voor lieden die hunne gedachten boven ’t gemeen behoorden op te voeren, en die van staat en aanzien zyn.” 13 In reality, collectors from the first half of the eighteenth century owned many seventeenth-century Dutch peasant pieces. See the discussion on this matter in the first chapter of this dissertation, p. 40. 14 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, pp. 182-83. 15 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, pp. 183-87. See also De Vries 2003, pp. 312-13. ȱ ȱ ŗŖŝȱ ȱ ȱ

“we also suppose that no less art is involved in representing a farcical subject than a serious one, a peasant than a courtier, and a donkey than a horse; since, for the one as well as for the other, good knowledge is required to depict them properly.”16

While De Lairesse allows painters to choose contemporary subjects to depict, he persistently demands that one of the most essential features of the antique or classicizing style should be applied to these genre scenes – that is, ideal beauty, which can only be achieved by refining and improving nature. Genre painters, according to De Lairesse, are inclined to imitate nature as it appears to them or even worse than it is in reality. He believes that what they should do, instead, is to “always examine nature with expertise and good insight” and represent its most beautiful parts.17 He elucidates the possibility of elevating genre, or modern art, in this respect as follows:

“Painting modern pieces can not be seen as art, when nature is merely followed: because this is then only an incomplete imitation or defective mimicry… [B]ut if art is united with and gets the upper hand over nature, when nature is purified from defectiveness and improved by a bright and elevated spirit, and then provided with afore-mentioned virtues, it will surely create a perfect and dignified (deftige) art.”.18

Rightly, one might now wonder how it is possible to depict “corrected and improved” nature in genre painting if painters still choose to place their subjects in ordinary 16 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, pp. 182: “...doch daar benevens stellen wy ook, dat het geen minder konst is, een boertige als een ernstige zaak, een Landman als een Hoveling, en een Ezel als een Paard te verbeelden; dewyl tot het een zo wel, als tot het ander, goede kennis vereischet word, om het wel te treffen.” See also Weststeijn 2008, p. 127. 17 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 174. For the argument on “genera dicendi” in classical rhetoric and De Lairesse’s idea of genre painting see Kemmer 1998, pp. 92-93; Dolders 1985, pp. 217-18; Raupp 1983, pp. 407-10. De Lairesse 1707, vol 1, pp. 174, 182-83 and 185. 18 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 178: “Invoegen het Modern schilderen voor geen konst geacht kan worden, wanneer de natuur enkelyk gevolgd is: want dan is het slechts een onvolmaakte nabootschinge, of wel een gebrekkelyke na-äapinge.... maar als de Konst met de Natuur, wanneer zy door een schranderen en verheevenen geest van haare gebrekkelykheden gezuiverd en verbeterd is, gepaard, de overhand hebben, en dan de voornoemde deugden hier by gevoegd zyn, zal het zekerlyk een volmaakt en deftig Konststuk voortbrengen.” ŗŖŞȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

surroundings.19 One of the answers can be found in De Lairesse’s instructions on the depiction of figures in genre scenes. First of all, he warns painters about the pitfall of using ordinary people as models, which would result in blind imitation of nature without any correction. For instance, if a painter were to use his wife as a model, he might overlook her ugliness and imitate her just as she is, at the cost of “a pleasant look of a beautiful female tronie.”20 Instead, he recommends that painters use books and plaster casts of ancient sculpture for the purpose of learning beauty and the perfect proportions of the human body and discovering what true “gracefulness (bevalligheid)” is.21 This “gracefulness” seems to be an important quality of figures depicted in genre painting, because De Lairesse explicitly states that “Gracefulness must indispensably be perceived in Modern Representations.”22 It is not immediately clear what De Lairesse means by “gracefulness,” yet, as Lyckle de Vries elucidates in his analysis of De Lairesse’s vocabulary, “gracefulness” carries a variety of connotations, and is mostly applied to human figures and faces.23 Though it is not my intention to elaborate on the precise definition of “gracefulness” or “beauty” in De Lairesse’s terminology, what is important to us is that these are the very qualities that ancient artists were seen to have embodied in “the most perfect Bodies” in sculpture.24 According to De 19 Although De Lairesse demands a unity of subject and style in the case of “antique” painting, such unity is unnecessary for “modern” genre painting. Thus, a mixture of courtly style and contemporary subjects is permitted for the purpose of elevating genre painting. See Kemmer 1998, pp. 93-94. 20 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, pp. 173-74: “...het aangenaam gezicht van een schoone Vrouwetronie.” 21 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 177: “Indien iemand overzulks dan begeerig mogt zyn om te weeten waar hy deze schoonheden zal vinden, dien wys ik allereerst na de Boeken, welke van de volmaakte proportion, en waar in de regte bevalligheden bestaan, handelen.” 22 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 177: “De bevalligheid moet noodzakelyk in Moderne Verbeeldingen waargenomen worden.” 23 De Vries 1998, pp. 106-08; De Vries 2002, pp. 293-94; De Vries 2004, p. 82. De Lairesse’s definition of “bevalligheid” varies; it includes good composition and lighting, and even skilful brushwork: see De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, pp. 8-9 and 116, and vol. 2, p. 6 and 248. Regarding “bevalligheid” as one of the elements of beauty, see the discussion on “schoonheid,” vol. 1, p. 21; and regarding graceful gestures, vol. 1, pp. 52-56, and Weststeijn 2008, pp. 159-60. See also Dolders 1985, pp. 219-20, and Muller 1990, pp. 27-36. Graceful gestures were also closely related to another important element, “mannerliness” (“welgemanierdheid”). To learn about “mannerliness,” De Lairesse instructs painters to observe the good manners of people from the most distinguished circles: see De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 56. It is not my purpose to go into detail about “civilized” gestures in this chapter, but it would be fruitful to analyze gestures of figures in Willem van Mieris’s work in another study. See Roodenburg 2004, pp. 120-26. 24 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 174: “Dit hebben de Ouden mede wel geweten, want zy in de volmaakste ligchamen het aangezicht allermeest in schoonheid en bevalligheid deeden uitmunten.” ȱ ȱ ŗŖşȱ ȱ ȱ Lairesse, the purpose of using a plaster cast is to “get a perfect Idea of their beauty and gracefulness, both general and particular, from which the perfection derives; and it is what an illustrious modern painter [= genre painter] requires.”25 For example, when depicting a naked lady appearing in a scene of a bathing family, which is one of the subjects proposed by De Lairesse, she should be painted “as beautiful and graceful as a Greek Venus.”26 Moreover, he clarifies which elements in figures are important in order to elevate genre paintings:

“Concerning the naked [parts of the body], whether a man, a woman or children, I then say that when [painters] do not depict them in the most beautiful form or with their proper proportion and body parts, the painting of Modern pieces shall never deserve the name of art, and not without reason, because this is the one and only way to be capable of uniting these two unequal sisters.”27

In this context, “the naked” indicates the part of the body that is not covered with clothes; “two unequal sisters” means the modern and the antique, which correspond to genre painting and history painting respectively. This passage clearly indicates that the ideal form and proper proportions of the human body, which are necessary for gracefulness and beauty, were two of the most important factors for ennobling genre painting of contemporary subjects. Consequently, De Lairesse’s ideas concerning the depiction of genre painting seem to be consistent with the highly idealized figures in scenes of daily life in early eighteenth-century genre painting. According to him, painters could choose ordinary people of the middle class as subjects for their genre scenes, but they had to provide these figures with gracefulness and beauty by giving them classical form. Admittedly, De Lairesse’s treatise on genre painting cannot be seen as an instruction manual for the painting of proper genre scenes. Nonetheless, it certainly helps us to understand what painters would have taken 25 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 177: “...maar wel om een indruk in ons denkbeeld van haare schoonheid, gracelykheid en bevalligheid, zo in ’t generaal als in ’t byzonder, en waar uit die volmaaktheid spruit, te bekomen.” 26 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 177: “...zo schoon en gracelyk, als een Grieksche Venus.” 27 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 178: “Ik zeg dan ten opzigte van het naakt, ’t zy man, vrouw en kinderen, dat, wanneer zy die niet op het schoonste of in hunne rechte proportie en afdeelinge verbeelden, het Modern schilderen nooit den naam van Konst zal verdienen, en niet zonder reeden, vermits dit het eenigste middel is, waar door deeze twee ongelyke zusters vereenigd konnen worden.” ŗŗŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

into consideration and how they eventually adjusted their way of depicting daily life when the classicizing tendency came to dominate the artistic realm. The next question is: how did painters adapt classical form to their genre scenes in practice?

Řǯȱ ȱ ȱȂȱȱȱ£ȱȱȱȱȱ The case of Willem van Mieris, one of the representative artists of this period, gives new insight into the painters’ choice of idealized figures in genre painting. As seen in the preceding chapters, Van Mieris depicted various types of subject in genre painting, ranging from lower to upper-class settings, including a tavern scene, a market scene or a splendidly furnished interior, in all of which female figures often look highly idealized and display a certain type of beauty (figs. 1 and 4).28 To consider how Van Mieris achieved this type of beauty in his scenes of everyday life, we must first take a closer look at his history paintings in the classicizing style, which give us an idea of how he conceived of gracefulness and beauty. It is generally supposed that Willem van Mieris followed certain examples of classicizing sculpture as a model in order to create a type of highly idealized female nude, just as Gerard De Lairesse recommended in his treatise.29 Between 1696 and 1702 Van Mieris made at least 13 highly finished drawings after sculptures by the Flemish sculptor Francis van Bossuit (1635-1692).30 It has rightly been argued by Frits Scholten that Van Mieris directly borrowed poses and gestures from Van Bossuit’s sculptures and adapted them to the figures in his history paintings.31 Van Bossuit, who had studied antique and 28 On Willem van Mieris, see Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10; Fock 1983, pp. 261-82; Sluijter 1988, pp. 34-36 and 42-45 and Leiden 1988, pp. 152-68; Aono 2006, pp. 227-37; Aono 2008, pp. 4-8, 23-26 and 32. 29 In his early years Willem van Mieris used his wife’s face as model for that of female figures in his paintings: Elen 2009. 30 Most of these highly finished drawings on parchment were produced before 1707. This suggests that in this period Willem van Mieris was involved in designing ideal types of nude figures by means of drawing. See Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel 1992, esp. pp. 14-20; Elen 1995a, pp. 9-10 and 13, note 47; Van der Hut 2009, pp. 39-40. As regards Van Bossuit see Theuerkauff 1975, pp. 119-82; Brussels 1977, pp. 204-08; Scholten 1999, pp. 37-39. 31 Scholten 1999, pp. 38-40. As Scholten convincingly argued, Odysseus in Odysseus and Circe by Willem van Mieris (c. 1700, The Sør Rusche Collection) is very similar in pose, gesture and expression to Mars by Van Bossuit (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum). The same is true of Armida Binding the Sleeping Rinaldo by Van Mieris (The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis), which is highly reminiscent of Venus and Adonis by Van Bossuit (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum). ȱ ȱ ŗŗŗȱ ȱ ȱ contemporary Italian sculptures in Rome, worked in Amsterdam from around 1680 until his death in 1692 and enjoyed a great reputation during that period. Sixty-nine of his sculptures were engraved and published by Mattys Pool in 1727 in the print book Beeld-snyders kunst-kabinet, which provided artists with diverse examples of classicizing sculpture.32 Van Mieris himself had already been quite familiar with Van Bossuit’s sculptures before these prints were published, and he must have executed drawings after the original works, since a substantial number of them, and casts moulded after them, were in the possession of Van Mieris’s patrons, especially Pieter de la Court and his son Allard in Leiden, and Pieter’s aunt Petronella Oortmans-de la Court in Amsterdam.33 Van Mieris’s interest in Van Bossuit’s sculpture may have stemmed from his experiences at the drawing academy that he had established in Leiden together with Carel de Moor and Jacob Toorenvliet in 1694. They organized evenings for drawing lessons, during which antique and contemporary sculptures were used as models.34 Admittedly, the drawings by Willem van Mieris after the sculptures of Van Bossuit, 32 The Amsterdam artist Barent Graat (1628-1709) made drawings after Van Bossuit’s work, and his son-in-law Matthys Pool (1670-1732) later executed prints after them. See Pool 1727; Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel 1992, pp. 12-13; Van der Hut 2009. 33 Pieter de la Court and his son Allard in Leiden owned at least one original work and twelve casts after the originals, and his aunt in Amsterdam, Petronella Oortmans-de la Court, had at least ten original works. See the inventory of sculptures owned by Allard de la Court, 1749: Regional Archives, Leiden (hereafter RAL), family archive of De la Court, nr. 118, handwritten inventory of Allard de la Court of 1749, nrs. 26, 46, 47 and 50-59. See also Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 2, pp. 461-63, and sale Petronella Oortmans-de la Court, Amsterdam (Jan Pietersz Zomer and Pieter Paket), 20 and 21 October 1707, p. 20. 34 For the Leiden drawing academy see Blok 1913, pp. 2-8; Ekkart 1974, pp. 7-14; Sluijter 1988, pp. 31-33. The Leiden academy had a cabinet filled with plaster figures, antique statues and plaster works in the form of children, animals, hands and feet. It is difficult to say what type of training participants received during these lessons, but one can get an impression from the drawings by Willem van Mieris, which consist of several studies of hands making different gestures (Paris, Institut Néerlandais, Fondation Custodia), and indicate that graceful movements of hands and fingers were of great importance: see, Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel 1985, p. 150, fig. 3, and Hecht 2006-07, pp. 112-13, fig. 21c. As the German art lover, Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach, who visited Van Mieris, mentioned in his travel book, Van Mieris himself must have had many plaster casts in his studio. Von Uffenbach 1753-54, vol. 3, p. 423. Also, in the portrait The Three Generations of Van Mieris (Leiden, Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal, inv. nr. 311) by Frans II van Mieris, there are several plaster casts on the shelf in the background, including that of a barking dog. Since the same type of dog is repeatedly depicted in his paintings such as The Neglected Lute (fig. 10), The Scene from Tartuffe (fig. 22) and Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife (Hannover, Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum, inv. nr. PAM816), Van Mieris seems to have used this kind of plaster cast as a model even for depicting a dog in his paintings. I would like to thank Peter Hecht for drawing my attention to Van Mieris’s use of this unique plaster cast. ŗŗŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

all highly finished on parchment, were very probably made for sale as autonomous works of art and cannot be considered as drawn preparatory studies for specific history paintings.35 However, close examination of some of these drawings reveals how Van Mieris drew inspiration from Van Bossuit’s work in order to develop ideal forms for figures in his history paintings.36 A good example is the female nude in Bathsheba, dated 1708, and the drawing with the same representation that was probably made before this painting (figs. 5 and 6). Bathsheba, whose beautiful body happened to be seen by King David, is here shown in a graceful pose and gesture, and has the smooth, marble-like skin typical of this painter’s idealized figures.37 Two drawings by Van Mieris after Van Bossuit’s sculptures can be related to this painting. First, the profile of Venus in Venus and Cupid (fig. 7) shows great similarities to that of Bathsheba in its facial features and hairstyle, as well as the particular shape of her head, neck and shoulders.38 The original sculpture by Van Bossuit is unknown, but Van Mieris’s intention becomes clear when one compares his drawing with the print by Matthys Pool after the same sculpture (fig. 8). While Pool’s print shows a frontal view of Venus’s 35 Elen 1995a, p.1; Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel 1985, pp. 154-55. 36 To design ideal female figures for his history painting, he did not exclusively look at Van Bossuit’s sculpture, but also at the work of other artists, like Hendrik Goltzius. For instance, the female figure in the drawing The Judgment of Paris by Willem van Mieris (Leiden Universiteit, Prentenkabinet, Leiden, inv. nr. PK6951) is similar in its pose and proportion to Venus in the drawing Sine Cerere et Baccho Friget Venus by Goltzius (British Museum, London, inv. nr. 1861,0608.174). I am very grateful to Albert J. Elen for drawing my attention to Willem van Mieris’s interest in Goltzius as a model for his female figure. 37 For Bathsheba see Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 10. An autograph drawing made before the painting (black chalk, parchment, 279 x 241 mm) was on sale at New York (Sotheby’s), 27 January 1999, nr. 82. According to Albert J. Elen, this drawing can be dated from between 1695-1700. I thank him for the dating of this drawing. As mentioned in footnote 36, Willem van Mieris also seems to have drawn his inspiration for his Bathsheba from Goltzius’s work, in this case, his painting Minerva (Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem, inv. nr. OS I-95). 38 For the entry on the drawing Venus and Cupid, written by Franklin W. Robinson, see Bulletin of Rhode Island School of Design Museum Notes 1984, pp. 30-31. I thank Franklin W. Robinson for drawing my attention to the current location of this drawing and the abovementioned entry. The sculpture by Van Bossuit: sale Petronella Oortmans-de la Court, Amsterdam (Jan Pietersz Zomer and Pieter Paket), 20 and 21 October 1707, p. 20: “Een Venus dito, met een kintje dat zyn Boogje breekt,” and the inventory of sculptures owned by Allard de la Court, 1749: RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 118, handwritten inventory of Allard de la Court of 1749, nr. 46: “Een Venusje met een Cupidootje dat sijn boogje breekt, seer fraay affgegoten over ’t origineele [van Francies] dat van yvoor seer konstig was gemaakt, sijnde hiervan maar drie gietsels in de weereldt.” See also Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 2, p. 463; Pool 1724, nr. XLVI and Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel 1992, p. 16-18, ill. 8 and 9 and p. 20, cat. nr. 8. It is possible that Willem van Mieris derived the subject and composition of his Bathsheba from Van Bossuit’s relief David and Bathsheba: Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel 1992, pp. 14-15 and p. 19, cat. nr. 5a. ȱ ȱ ŗŗřȱ ȱ ȱ body, Van Mieris chose a slightly different angle in order to catch her face in full profile, and he depicted her legs more to the left, revealing his interest in drawing the contour of the ample and fluid curve from the head to the shoulders, combined with the slightly twisted waist and legs. The other drawing by Van Mieris, entitled Diana and Callisto (fig. 9), shares the same concern.39 The positioning of Diana’s bust, waist and legs is strikingly similar to that of Bathsheba; she is seated on a drapery in a similar way, with her left leg stretched out and her right knee bent. Apart from these similarities between female figures in painting and drawing, there is another good reason to believe that Willem van Mieris had Van Bossuit’s work in mind when he depicted his Bathsheba. Around 1708, when Van Mieris was working on this picture, the sculpture by Van Bossuit must have attracted much attention among collectors and artists because ten prominent works by Van Bossuit from the collection of Petronella Oortmans-de la Court came under the hammer in October 1707. As proudly announced on the title page of the sales catalogue, her collection was famed for a number of pieces which were “ingeniously carved out of ivory by the celebrated Francis van Bossuit, and which had never before been seen.”40 It therefore comes as no surprise that after his art patron’s memorable sale Van Mieris consciously designed graceful female figures consisting of ideal forms composed of body parts that he had distilled from his drawings after the famous sculptures by Van

39 A female nude in another drawing by Van Mieris, Diana (sale London (Sotheby’s), 8 July 1998, nr. 186), which could be a study for The Bath of Diana (sale Monaco (Christie’s), 20 June 1992, nr. 202), also shows a remarkable similarity in her pose, which indicates Van Mieris’s preference for a female figure in this specific pose. As to the drawing Diana, see Naumann 1981, vol. 1, p. 132, ill. 187; The Bath of Diana, see Elen 1995b, p. 205, ill. 4, p. 212, cat. nr. 5; and Diana and Callisto: sale Paris (Drouot Richelieu, Salle 9), 24 April 1997, nr. 109. The original relief by Van Bossuit is lost and is not mentioned in the monograph on him. Sale Petronella Oortmans-de la Court, Amsterdam (Jan Pietersz Zomer and Pieter Paket), 20 and 21 October 1707, p. 20: “Diana en Caliste;” the inventory of sculptures owned by Allard de la Court, 1749: RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 118, handwritten inventory of Allard de la Court of 1749, nr. 51: “Diana en Calisto sijnde een plaatje, door Francies van yvoor gemaakt, sijnde dit over ’t yvoor affgegoten, hangende in een swart ebbenhout leysje hoog 5d breet 8d, maar vier in de weereld.” See also Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 2, p. 463. Although the descriptions in the above-mentioned catalogue and inventory may not be specific enough to identify this work, the fact that Barent Graat and Van Mieris made drawings after the same sculpture indicates that the original sculpture existed at that time. See Pool 1724, nr. XXVII. 40 Sale Petronella Oortmans-de la Court, Amsterdam (Jan Pietersz Zomer and Pieter Paket), 20 and 21 October 1707, title page: “als ook van Ivoore, Palmhoute, en Geboetzeerde Beelden, waar onder 11 stuks (zo Beelden als Historien) die uit Ivoor zeer Konstig Gehouden zyn, van den Vermaarden Francis van Bossu, diergelyk nooit gezien.” ŗŗŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Bossuit.41 The example of Bathsheba gives us a glimpse into the painter’s practice of elaborating beautiful female figures, but the question that results is how he constructed figures in his genre painting. Not surprisingly, Willem van Mieris did not portray naked women in everyday scenes. Nevertheless, in The Lute Player, dated 1711 (fig. 1), the luxuriously dressed woman who is sitting and playing the lute displays a striking similarity in her pose, proportions and facial profile to Bathsheba.42 Like her, the woman is seated with her legs towards the left side, and she turns her bust to the viewer while showing her face in full profile. As far as can be detected from the creases of her skirt, her legs are in a position similar to that of Bathsheba’s. The old woman is replaced by a young man, who tempts her into drinking a glass of wine. The same type of woman can also be found in The Neglected Lute (fig. 10).43 In all these paintings, the women have almost identical faces, proportions, hairstyles, beautiful skin and décolleté, and graceful gestures with their arms, hands and fingers. Furthermore, in a later painting by Van Mieris, The Market Stall (fig. 11), Bathsheba and the old woman seem to have put on ordinary clothes, becoming a young female customer and an old female vendor.44 Although not every female figure in his genre paintings has its exact prototype in history paintings, these examples illustrate that in his genre scenes Willem van Mieris used certain types of highly idealized female figures which he had originally devised in a classicizing style for his history paintings. Returning to De Lairesse’s instructions on 41 There are other works by Willem van Mieris with a similar type of female nude, for instance: Lot and his Daughters, dated 1709: sale, New York (Sotheby’s), 24 and 25 January 2008, nr. 319, and Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 2. Constance depicted in The Identification of Constance (Genoa, Galleria di Plazzo Bianco, inv. nr. PB193), dated 1687, shows similar features, but her unbound hair makes the line between the neck and left shoulder unclear: Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 136. Diana in Van Mieris’s drawing Diana and Actaeon (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. nr. 1919:52) shows a similar pose although she does not show her face in full profile: Elen 1995a, p. 2, ill. 2, p. 18, cat. nr. 13. 42 For The Lute Player see Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 291; Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel 1985, pp. 148-50, ill. 2; Ingamells 1992, pp. 214-15, inv. nr. P155. Franits 2004, p. 228, fig. 207, draws attention to the similarity between the face in profile in this painting by Willem van Mieris and that of female heads in a print by De Lairesse. 43 Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 290, and White 1982, p. 174, inv. nr. 295. Hofstede de Groot believed that this piece was a pendant to the Sick Woman (Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 150) dated 1709. 44 Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 191, and Gerson, Goofison and Sutton 1960, pp. 83-84, inv. nr. 36. ȱ ȱ ŗŗśȱ ȱ ȱ depicting genre scenes, one could say that Van Mieris illustrates what a painter should do to improve genre scenes, namely to follow the example of antique form in sculpture and adapt it to ordinary women. Among others, two paintings by Van Mieris, Venus and Cupid (fig. 12) and A Woman Selling Pears to a Boy (fig. 13), strongly remind us of De Lairesse’s advice to depict ordinary women as being “as beautiful and agreeable as a Greek Venus.”45 The gestures of the female shopkeeper and the boy are remarkably reminiscent of those of Venus and Cupid.46 Simultaneously, however, the almost identical size of the figures in both paintings suggests that Van Mieris repeated similar figures not only for aesthetic purposes but also for practical reasons. A recent study of the genre paintings of Gerard ter Borch has revealed that Ter Borch painted certain types of satin dresses by using his own drawn studies of satin textiles and tracing them on canvas over and over again (figs. 14 and 15).47 In so doing, he was seeking an ideal balance between quality of work, effort and time – in other words, trying to achieve a maximum of effect with a minimum of labour. Although we lack evidence that Van Mieris worked in a similar way, the goal of both painters must have been identical. By repeating similar features in figures of different categories of painting Van Mieris was able to achieve higher productivity, concurrently making this specific type of graceful woman function as a trademark of his work. Willem van Mieris was certainly not the only artist who worked in this manner in the early eighteenth century. The tendency to use idealized figures can also be found in the work of other contemporary painters. Among others, Nicolaas Verkolje (1673-1746) was also consciously engaged in the production of history paintings in a classicizing style and the adaptation of that style to genre painting. For example, the type of woman with a peaceful facial expression and smooth skin that Verkolje adapted to both Bathsheba and her servants in The Toilet of Bathsheba (fig. 16) repeatedly appears in his genre scenes, such as A Young Man and a Young Woman with a Rose (fig. 17) and Young Woman with a Candle and a Letter in a 45 For Venus and Cupid, (30 x 26 cm) see Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 102, and Morel-Deckers 1988, pp. 146-47, inv. nr. 738. For A Woman Selling Pears to a Boy (25.5 x 21.5 cm) see Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 195. Martin describes a woman depicted in Willem van Mieris’s genre painting as “a housewife from Leiden with Greek profile and with such hands as belong to classic Venus”: Martin 1935-36, p. 484. See also the conclusion of this dissertation, pp. 127-28 and 132. 46 Aono 2006, pp. 229-30. 47 Wallert 2004-05, pp. 35-36; Wallert and Tauber 2004, pp. 316-27. ŗŗŜȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Window with a Maidservant (Chapter II, fig. 24).48 In the latter, in particular, the gesture of a lady with open arms leaning forward is similar, in reverse, to that of the servant doing Bathsheba’s hair. The same is true of the work of Pieter van der Werff (1661/65-1722): his characteristic female figures are as easy to recognize in his genre scenes as in his history paintings (figs. 2 and 18).49 As has just been demonstrated in the case of Van Mieris, early eighteenth-century painters studied antique and contemporary sculpture for the purpose of developing their own language of classical form, and used prints that were made after these sculptures, such as those published in the well-known print books Signorum veterum icones (1668-1669) and Paradigmata graphices variorum artificum (1671) by Jan de Bisschop.50 According to the sales catalogue of Nicolaas Verkolje’s estate, he owned at least one of de Bisschop’s print books, as well as Wilhelmus Goeree’s Natuurlyk en schilderkonstig ontwerp der menschkunde (1682), and had a number of moulds and casts after famous sculptures.51 Of course, one might still wonder whether transferring idealized figures from history painting to genre painting can be universalized and applied to other painters, too, if one cannot find exactly the same gestures in their work. Yet, the point is that painters who were involved in the production of history paintings were urged to develop a vocabulary of classical form for their biblical and mythological imagery, and could therefore easily go a step further by adapting those figures to scenes of contemporary life. The marked similarities between figures in history and genre paintings clearly indicate that the boundary between these two

48 The Toilet of Bathsheba was in the possession of Johnny van Haeften, London, in 2006. For A Young Man and a Young Woman with a Rose, see Aono 2008, p. 18, fig. 16, and for A Young Woman with a Candle and Letter in a Window with her Maidservant, see Dublin/Greenwich 2003-04, pp. 203-05 and Aono 2008, pp. 22-23. 49 Van der Werff’s A Girl Feeding Birds was in the possession of Daphne Alazraki in 2004, and for Granida and Daifilo see Hesse and Schlagenhaufer 1986, pp. 90 and 227, inv. nr. Dep. 478. 50 De Bisschop 1668-69; De Bisschop 1671; Van Gelder and Jost 1985, pp. 13-21, 35-60 and 71-73; and Mai 2006-07, pp. 37-39. For Adriaen van der Werff’s use of prints by de Bisschop see Gaehtgens 1976, pp. 44-57, and Gaehtgens 1987. Drawing after antique sculptures was the recommended way of learning about classical form. The ideas and instructions of the early eighteenth-century painter Gerard Wigmana (1673-1741) on this subject were published after his death in Wigmana 1742, esp. pp. 26-31. 51 Sale Nicolaas Verkolje, Amsterdam (Johannes Verkolje), 18 April 1746: “Gebonden en ongebonden werken,” nr. 57: “De Statuën van Bisschop”; nr. 82 “W. Goerees Menschkunde. Amst: 1682.” He also owned important literature on art by renowned authors like Karel van Mander (nr. 83), Samuel van Hoogstraten (nr. 86), Franciscus Junius (nr. 89) and “G. De Lairesses Groot Schilderboek. 2 Deelen. Amst. 1714” (nr. 87) and “Teekenkonst en Meetkunde. Amst: 1713” (nr. 88). ȱ ȱ ŗŗŝȱ ȱ ȱ categories became indistinct in the painters’ practice, reminding us that nowadays the line between them is drawn far more strictly than it was then.52 Consequently, the distinguished refinement that a variety of figures display in early eighteenth-century genre painting can be much more precisely defined than as a viewer’s subjective impression. It was the concrete result of the intentions of painters who pursued ideal, classical forms in their production of paintings.

řǯȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱǱȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ The above-mentioned comparison between Willem van Mieris and Gerard ter Borch, both striving to increase their output, raises another important question. Why did an early eighteenth-century painter attempt to enhance productivity in more than one category of painting, while a painter like Ter Borch did the same thing within just one category half a century earlier? What circumstances urged early eighteenth-century painters to work in this way? To find the answer one must consider what was required of a painter if he was to become successful in that period, especially as it relates to the painter’s relationship to collectors. As discussed in the first chapter, the number of painters had been declining drastically, and potential buyers became confined to a small group of affluent citizens.53 Under these circumstances, the painter’s relationship to collectors changed. As the fortunes of painters came increasingly to depend on the support of a diminishing circle of wealthy collectors, the need to develop and maintain personal relationships with collectors who could act as generous patrons became urgent for a painter’s success, and even for professional survival. As discussed further below, these new patrons valued seventeenth-century painting, which was associated with specialization, and at the same time, this new patron-like relationship required that artists maintain their ties to collectors by proving their versatility. In part this was because the relative paucity of collectors of contemporary paintings put pressure

52 Kemmer 1998, pp. 113-15, also pointed out that the boundary between history and genre painting became less clear as more classicist principles were applied to genre painting. 53 De Vries 1991, p. 273, table 2, and Bok 1994, pp. 124-27. Only a small group of wealthy Dutch collectors maintained and even enlarged their collections; a huge number of Dutch paintings that were sold after the death of Dutch collectors entered foreign collections. On the art market, dealers and collectors in the first half of the eighteenth century see Korthals Altes 2003, and Jonckheere 2008. ŗŗŞȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

on the artists. Since the collectors still desired a variety of paintings, it was in an artist’s best interest to be versatile and to try to supply that variety in order to maintain a personalized relationship with a collector. Willem van Mieris is a typical example of such a painter who made great efforts to satisfy the demands of collectors. He enjoyed the patronage of several wealthy individuals and chose to undertake the production of genre paintings because it was the very category that he had inherited from renowned seventeenth-century masters like Gerard Dou and his father, Frans I van Mieris, whose paintings were most popular in the early eighteenth century. On the other hand, he also needed to be flexible and versatile enough to respond to the various demands of his collectors.54 For instance, his patron Pieter de la Court van der Voort commissioned Van Mieris to make paintings of every kind: genre, history, portraits, and even landscapes and still lifes.55 Four different types of painting from this collection (figs. 19-22), which are identified based on the collector’s inventory of 1731, convincingly demonstrate the variety of this collector’s demands.56 At the same time, they also illustrate how flexible and versatile painters occasionally must have been in order to comply with collectors’ requests, as well as how Van Mieris dealt with such requirements. The female figures in these four

54 Slive 1966, p. 306. 55 Willem van Mieris also made copies after paintings by Frans I van Mieris on commission for this art patron: see Aono 2008, pp. 4-8 and the second chapter of this dissertation, pp. 58-61. Willem van Mieris’s situation turns out to be entirely different from that of his father, the seventeenth-century master Frans I van Mieris, who rejected a request to depict a biblical scene proposed by Gionvacchino Guasconi, the agent of Cosimo de’ Medici III, by stating that his vocation was only for depicting “something that he can see in nature with his eyes.” This statement testifies to his adherence to his own specialization. He was in a position to turn down such a request, being an internationally renowned genre specialist; see Naumann 1981, vol. 1, pp. 87-88. 56 I was able to identify two of these four pictures, The Fruit and Nut Seller and The Holy Family. The other two, Armida Binding the Sleeping Rinaldo and The Scene of Tartuffe had already been identified by Willemijn Fock: see Fock 1983, p. 268-69. For Fruit and Nut Seller see sale Amsterdam (Sotheby Mak van Waay), 15 May 1984, nr. 49. See Hofstede de Groot 1907-28, vol. 10, nr. 201, but in this entry a painting dated 1684 in the Museum Kunst Palast in Düsseldorf (inv. nr. M1970-12) was wrongly identified as the piece from De la Court collection. For The Holy Family see Hofstede de Groot, nr. 26, which was in the possession of Rafael Valls Ltd., London, in 2001 and then of art dealer Jack Kligore in 2003. For Armida Binding the Sleeping Rinaldo see Hofstede de Groot, nrs. 140-41, and Buvelot and Vermeeren 2004, pp. 204-05, inv. nr. 1071. For A Scene of Tartuffe see Hofstede de Groot, nr. 134. It was once in the collection of Vivian Brantsen, see Fock 1983, p. 269, fig. 9 and p. 274. See Pieter de la Court van der Voort’s handwritten inventory of 1731: RAL, family archive of De la Court, nr. 132. See also Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 6, pp. 477-79. ȱ ȱ ŗŗşȱ ȱ ȱ pictures bear a remarkable facial resemblance, for example.57 Significantly, this situation of early eighteenth-century painters who engaged in different categories of painting to satisfy the demands of collectors was in striking contrast to that of the seventeenth-century genre painters. Those earlier artists needed to specialize in one category, or even in one type of scene within that category, in order to be able to compete with the enormous number of artists on the open, and therefore more anonymous, art market. At that time, severe competition compelled painters to develop market niches in their own categories, which resulted in an unparalleled degree of specialization. In contrast, in the early eighteenth century leading masters who produced genre paintings were often forced to be versatile in order to supply paintings of different types that had been developed by individual specialists during the previous century.58 Of course, late seventeenth-century painters like Eglon van der Neer and Godfried Schalcken had already become more seriously engaged in the production of both genre and history painting, but it was in the early eighteenth century that the decreasing number of painters had to cope with the unprecedented success in both quality and quantity achieved by specialists of the recent past. For instance, eighteenth-century remarks on great specialist forerunners give us some idea of how highly collectors could still value such specialization, which increased their demand for versatility from painters. In De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (1718-21), the painter and biographer Arnold Houbraken

57 Besides practicing versatility in treating a variety of subjects, Van Mieris seems to have done his utmost to win his collector’s favour. In regard to one of these commissioned paintings, Armida Binding the Sleeping Rinaldo (fig. 21), it is likely that Van Mieris modeled specific gestures on sculptures by Francis van Bossuit that were in the possession of De la Court van der Voort. Since Van Bossuit was one of this collector’s favourite artists, Van Mieris may have expected that his patron would recognize the original forms of his valued sculptures in this painting. Scholten 1999, pp. 38-40. This leads us to ask if Van Mieris intended more generally for viewers to recognize the sculptured models of the motifs that he depicted in his paintings. A remark by the eighteenth-century German traveller Christian Ludwig von Hagedorn does give us grounds to speculate that Van Mieris may have sometimes used classical forms designed after famed classicizing sculptures with the expectation that they would be detected by contemporary viewers. Hagedorn remembered seeing that one of the most celebrated examples of antique sculpture, “the Venus of Medici, was successfully adopted in a painting by the artist.” Hagedorn 1762, p. 431: “Ich glaube so gar die mediceische Venus in einem Gemählde durch eine glückliche anwendung dieses Künstlers angetroffen zu haben.” 58 Of course this did not always hold true for every painter of this period, but several representative ones, such as Pieter van der Werff, Arnold Houbraken, Willem van Mieris, Nicolaas Verkolje, Philip van Dyk and Hieronymus van der Mij cannot be called genre painters, because they produced as many paintings of other kinds. ŗŘŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

refers to names of renowned specialists from the seventeenth century when he points out that the quality of painters was declining toward the end of that period:

“And rightly so when one sees that diverse spheres of art have been torn off and have fallen into the grave together with their laudable creators, with no hope that they will arise again with beauty enhanced. Who has emerged in painting the sea and ships since the death of Porcellis, Bakhuysen, W. van de Velde and van Everdingen? Who in the painting of domesticated animals since the death of Berchem, Potter, A. van de Velde and van der Does?... Who is their equal or superior?”59

Although this passage underlines Houbraken’s lament for the declining quality of painting of his age, by asking these questions he simultaneously clarifies that paintings by seventeenth-century specialists continued to set a standard of quality to which early eighteenth-century artists were held, just as he makes clear how challenging it was to meet that standard. Collectors who had high esteem for seventeenth-century painters probably tended to seek the same level of quality in the works by living artists in the first part of the eighteenth century. Even if, as Houbraken’s testimony suggests, those later artists were seen as falling short of the expected level of quality, their eagerness to sell their paintings to collectors would still have raised the challenge of how to be “equal or superior” to their more specialized predecessors. The challenge that living painters faced in meeting the standards is well illustrated in a passage by another biographer, Johan van Gool. In his biography of Nicolaas Verkolje, Van Gool criticizes the artist for presuming to equal great specialists of the previous century in a single painting, his Rape of Europa (fig. 23), which Van Gool saw in the painter’s studio.

“According to his claim, [Verkolje] made this piece to demonstrate that he could 59 Houbraken 1718-21, vol. 2, p. 132: “En met reden, daar men ziet, dat verscheiden deelen van de Konst afgescheurt, met hun loffelyke bewerkers ten grave gedaalt zyn, buiten hoop dat de zelve schooner verryzen zullen. Wie is ’er in ’t Zee- en Scheepschilderen naa de dood van Parcelles, Bakhuizen, W. vanden Velde en Everdingen op gestaan? wie in ’t schilderen van tam Vee naa de Dood van Berchem, Potter, A. van den Velde, en vander Does?... Die hun gelyk is of hen overtreft?” See Cornelis 1995, pp. 168-69; Hecht 1996, pp. 266-68; Horn 2000, pp. 93-102. ȱ ȱ ŗŘŗȱ ȱ ȱ paint animals, flowers and water just as well as the masters who devoted themselves only to one of these spheres of art and spent their entire life on it. And he called these masters the artists who understood only one letter of the alphabet. What is your opinion, readers! Is that not conceited and bloated enough to imagine being able to paint animals like Potter, water like Willem van de Velde and flowers like van Huysum?”60

Here, Van Gool’s condemnation of the overconfident Verkolje reflects exactly the same set of standards as Houbraken’s sorrowful assessment of contemporary painting. Verkolje’s intention to depict everything in one history painting was not blameworthy in itself, but his excessive self-assurance that he could surpass the seventeenth-century specialist masters was considered annoying and improper. Both of these prominent eighteenth-century biographers seem to indicate that versatility in contemporary painting was incompatible with the standards of excellence set by seventeenth-century specialists. This, in turn, reflects the complex situation that eighteenth-century painters had to confront: they went to great lengths to become highly ingenious and versatile “universal” painters who were able to depict everything elaborately, as Verkolje claimed to do.61 On the other hand, they were also obliged to cope with various traditional categories and diverse themes, as well as the standards of quality that the heritage of specialization from the seventeenth century imposed. What type of painters was able both to meet the demands of collectors for versatility and to adhere to the standards of quality and variety that this heritage imposed? One of the examples

60 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, pp. 395-96: “Dit stuk had hy, volgens zyn voorgeven, gemaekt om te tonen, dat hy zo wel Beesten, Bloemen en Water, kon schilderen als die Meesters, welke zich maer alleen op een van die deelen der Kunste toeleggen, en hunnen ganschen leeftyt aenbesteden; en zulke noemde hy Kunstenaers, die maer eene Letter van het A, B, verstonden, wat dunkt u, Lezers! is dat ook niet verwaent en opgeblazen genoeg? zich te verbeelden Beesten te kunnen schilderen als Potter, Water als Willem van de Velden, en Bloemen als Van Huyssem.” 61 Generally speaking, in Dutch art theory from the seventeenth century on, specialization was the option for less talented painters, while versatility was usually considered to be an ideal quality attributed to “universal painters” who were able to depict everything in one history painting. See de Vries 1990, pp. 76-77, and Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 1, p. 81, and vol. 2, p. 272. For De Lairesse’s remarks on universal painters see de Vries 1998, p. 99 and 111, and De Lairesse 1707, vol. 1, p. 41. One of the other art theorists who wrote about universal painters is Samuel van Hoogstraten: see Weststeijn 2008, p. 243, and Van Hoogstraten 1678, pp. 72-73. On the contrast between universal painters and specialists see Van Mander 1604, and Van Mander/Miedema 1973, vol. 1, fols. 5v and 6r. ŗŘŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

is found in another passage by Van Gool in his biography of Cornelis Troost.

“By carrying forward his study with undiminished diligence and effort he became an excellent master, not in one, but in various spheres of art: for he undertakes everything that constitutes art, painting histories, portraits, and antique and modern companies, in which one sees all sorts of activities depicted; be it indoors or outdoors, the backgrounds are fine landscapes or views of country houses, filled with figures of landowners seen enjoying themselves with their good friends.”62

Despite the fact that Troost produced a limited number of genre paintings and was more involved in drawing as medium and theatre pictures and portraits as subject, this passage still shows the possibility that the skill to depict many different elements and activities in one painting becomes closely connected with the ability to handle different categories of painting. Although not every painter was able to succeed in achieving this ultimate versatility, the varied demands of collectors, who were still proud of the great variety of seventeenth-century paintings in their collections, must have driven a new generation of artists to try to work in this way to a greater or lesser extent, and to get involved in the production of different categories of painting. This quest for versatility allowed for, and even promoted the use of, similar classicizing figures in genre painting as well as history painting.

ȱ ȱ ȱ

62 Van Gool 1750-51, vol. 2, p. 242-43: “...zettende, door onvertraegden yver, zyne studie wakker voort, zo dat hy niet in een, maer in verscheide deelen der Kunste een braef Meester geworden is: want hy onderneemt alles, wat tot de Kunst behoort, schilderende Historiën, Portretten, antique en moderne Gezelschappen, daer men allerhande levensbedryven in verbeelt ziet; het zy binnen- of buitens huis; de achtergronden zyn fraeje Lantschappen of gezichten van Buitenplaetsen, gestoffeert met de Afbeeltsels der Eigenaers, die zich vertonen vrolyk te maken met hunne goede Vrienden”. In his monograph on Troost, Niemeijer classifies more than 350 works under the category of “genre”, including a variety of interiors, street scenes, military scenes and landscapes with figures. Most of these works are executed in pen, pastel and gouache on paper. For a limited number of examples in oil, see, for example, Niemeijer 1973, cat. nrs. 591-93, 615, 643, and 691-97. For Troost, see also Grijzenhout 1993 and The Hague 1993. ȱ ȱ ŗŘřȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Female figures in early eighteenth-century genre painting, figures that look elegant to us, were in fact deliberately endowed with beauty and gracefulness by painters who were simultaneously involved in the idealization of figures in history painting. Graceful goddesses and biblical virgins could be transformed into bourgeois ladies, and even into maidservants or shopkeepers. This transferral of idealized women with classical form from history painting to genre painting might be considered unique to the early eighteenth century, especially when compared to seventeenth-century history painting, where this transformation often occurred in the opposite direction, as can be seen in the work of Rembrandt, in which ordinary women appear as biblical and mythological figures. As the classicist Andries Pels observed in his well-known passage in Gebruik én misbruik des tooneels (1681), which was later repeated by Arnold Houbraken, Rembrandt “chose no Greek Venus as his model, but rather a washerwoman, or a peat-treader from a barn,” and depicted “flabby breasts, misshapen hands, aye the welts of the staylaces on the belly, of the garters on the legs.”63 De Lairesse’s instructions on the depiction of figures in genre painting was exactly the opposite: the classicizing tendency was so compelling that female figures in eighteenth-century scenes of daily life often show smooth skin, graceful gestures and poses like a Greek Venus. Changing goddesses into ordinary women was also a way of achieving efficiency in the production of several types of painting in order to meet the various demands of collectors during the first half of the eighteenth century. However, this situation was not a disadvantage for painters. On the contrary, their involvement in this versatile practice must have kept them more widely abreast of the latest developments in their own art and in the taste of collectors, and it was an ideal situation for painters who were consciously striving to improve upon and update the pictorial tradition of seventeenth-century genre painting. In this sense, refinement in genre painting cannot be seen as a mere by-product of the higher category of history painting. It testifies to the innovative aspect of early eighteenth-century genre painting, which 63 Pels 1681, pp. 77-78: “Als hy een' naakte vrouw, gelyk 't somtyds gebeurde, / Zou schild'ren, tót modél geen Grieksche Vénus keurde; / Maar eer een' waschter, óf turftreedster uit een' schuur, / Zyn' dwaaling noemende navólging van Natuur, / Al 't ander ydele verziering. Slappe borsten, / Verwrongen' handen, ja de neepen van de worsten/ Des ryglyfs in de buik, des kousebands om 't been, / 't Moest al gevólgd zyn, óf natuur was niet te vréên.” See Sluijter 2006, pp. 195-97 and 314-15. ŗŘŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

exquisitely combined the contemporary demands of the classicizing style with the art of the glorious past that was already being canonized as the Golden Age. This ideal pictorial combination created its own niche in the art market, and satisfied the elite collectors in “the age of elegance.”

ȱȱȱ

ȱ ȱ

In his survey De Hollandsche schilderkunst in de zeventiende eeuw (1935-36), Wilhelm Martin points out distinctive features of early eighteenth-century Dutch genre painting, taking as example Willem van Mieris’s Kitchen with a Fishmonger (Chapter III, fig. 12). Although the tone of his argument reveals his disregard for this type of painting, Martin touches upon the core of the contention about the art of this period. In the picture he rightly recognizes a “peculiar jumble of classicism and middle-class mentality (burgerlijkheid)” and even describes the depicted female figure as “a Leiden housewife… with a Greek profile and with hands as if they belong to a classic Venus.”1 My discussion has attempted to find an answer to the question of why and how painters displayed these eclectic features in their work, through consideration of the new artistic situation with which painters were confronted, especially their relationships with collectors. I demonstrated that they were looking back to

1 Martin 1935-36, vol. 2, pp. 483-84: “Evenwel, doordien Willem steeds meer verstrikt geraakte in de academische schoonheidstheorieën, werd zijn werk allengs tot een zonderling mengelmoes van classicisme en burgerlijkheid, gelijk o.a. blijkt uit afb. 251, waar men achter een boogvenster met een reliëf met dolfijnen, meerminnen en watergoden een Leidsche huisvrouw ziet met Grieksch profiel en met handen als behoorden ze aan een klassieke Venus.” ŗŘŞȱ ȱ

the glorious past, admiring the art of the seventeenth century as an unprecedented achievement of the great masters, and at the same time looking forward to new possibilities in their own days. It has become clear that the awareness of a past Golden Age played an essential role in the painters’ choices and the collectors’ preferences for a specific type of genre painting. Painters developed a successful market strategy by making use of the great popularity of the works by their renowned seventeenth-century forerunners: they copied these masters’ paintings, borrowed subject matter and motifs, and even made pendants for existing paintings from the preceding century. They did this in their endeavor to appeal to the taste of affluent collectors who were eager to acquire works by the old masters for their cabinets, which were specially designated for the display of paintings. Simultaneously, painters must have keenly felt the necessity to renew the pictorial tradition of seventeenth-century art and to distinguish their work from that of their celebrated predecessors. As the classicizing style became more prevalent in cabinet pieces as well as in wall and ceiling paintings, it was a relatively small step for painters, who were also often engaged in the production of history pieces, to adapt a classicizing style in their genre paintings. What seemed a “peculiar jumble” to Martin was actually the result of the painters’ consistent striving for an ideal combination of popular seventeenth-century pictorial elements and the predominating style of the early eighteenth century, classicism. Admittedly, our contemporary perception of this type of painting is not that far removed from what Martin had already described more than seventy years ago, yet the difference lies in the way that we understand and evaluate the painters’ intentions underlying this feature of early eighteenth-century art. It has become clear that late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century pictures were not reactions of servile followers confronted with an unfavorable situation in an “age of decline”, but instead were conscientious answers devised by artists exploring the possibilities of carrying on traditions. As closing remarks, the following paragraphs will comment on some aspects of the roles and qualities of early eighteenth-century painting during the earliest reception of the Dutch Golden Age.

My examination of the artistic climate between 1680 and 1750, to which the first chapter was dedicated, revealed that it was during this transitional period that the idea of the glorious past ȱ ŗŘşȱ ȱ ȱ came into existence and that seventeenth-century art was elevated to the position of an unsurpassable canon for both painters and collectors. Whether early eighteenth-century painters played an important role in the glorification of the Golden Age is a difficult issue to prove, but the consistent repetition of seventeenth-century pictorial elements in eighteenth-century genre painting must have contributed to the emerging idea of what was characteristic of Dutch genre painting of this glorious past. For instance, in the case of copies after seventeenth-century genre paintings, which were discussed in the second chapter, it can be assumed that these reproductions increased the value of the original paintings and eventually enhanced the popularity of certain themes, for these copies – sometimes produced in large numbers – circulated among a circle of wealthy and influential collectors who played a prominent role in determining the taste of their age. The multiplication of these seventeenth-century images thus demonstrated the type of seventeenth-century paintings that was in favor with collectors. This visual reference to and propagation of characteristic features extracted from older paintings was also achieved in original works by early eighteenth-century painters. Once we notice how persistently certain motifs and themes were repeated in these paintings, such as an arched stone window frame, a candlelit scene, a maidservant shopping or a lady playing an instrument, we are able to comprehend what was found worthy of inheriting and what was seen as characteristic of seventeenth-century genre painting in the eyes of later artists and art lovers. We can easily imagine that this endless repetition of seventeenth-century pictorial elements in eighteenth-century genre paintings made the viewer keenly aware of the process of inheritance, canonization and renewal in art by contemporary painters. Such historical awareness of the pictorial tradition maintained by successive generations of artists could already be discerned in the cabinets of eighteenth-century collectors. As we have seen in the second chapter, Pieter and Allard de la Court displayed paintings made by artists from three generations of the Van Mieris family – including copies by Willem van Mieris after his illustrious father Frans I – which demonstrated visually the long-lasting pictorial tradition of Leiden painters.2 Another good example is a set of pendants owned by Johan van Wassenaer Obdam, discussed in the third chapter, in which a

2 See the second chapter of this dissertation, pp. 72-74. ŗřŖȱ ȱ

painter of the later generation added his picture to the existing painting by an earlier master.3 These two paintings by different generations of artists, together with the aforementioned ensemble of pictures by three generations of the Van Mieris family, bear ample witness to the fact that collectors appreciated the continuation of tradition from one generation to another and the artistic emulation formulated by later painters.

Trying to determine what was unique to art of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries is inseparable from both the characterization of art of the Golden Age and the articulation of how the art changed over the course of the subsequent decades. To what degree can we find a continuation of the seventeenth-century pictorial tradition in eighteenth-century genre painting, and which features belonged exclusively to the paintings under consideration? In an attempt to find answers to these questions, I devoted one chapter to each of the three essential features of genre painting and addressed them according to the degree to which painters owed their artistic decisions to the achievements of their seventeenth-century predecessors: reproductive activities as simple imitation, the borrowing of motifs and subjects as a more creative form of imitation, and finally the adaptation of the classicizing style as an innovative painterly strategy. This approach to individual features seems successful, for the case studies showed how painters at a certain professional stage came to distance themselves from their models of the seventeenth century. Yet, as one might notice while reading these chapters, early eighteenth-century painters were involved in more than one of these activities, and the practices that I examined in each chapter happened simultaneously and were inextricably intertwined in the painters’ production. In this sense, “imitation and innovation” were not two separate options from which painters had to choose; rather, they were part of every artistic decision that painters made. Finally, one might still wonder how the painters’ attempt to inherit and renew the seventeenth-century pictorial tradition was, in fact, recognized in paintings themselves by contemporary viewers. This was partially answered by a short passage from the biography of Willem van Mieris written by artist-biographer Jacob Campo Weyerman. In his Levens-beschryvingen der Nederlandsche konst-schilders en konst-schilderessen (1729-69),

3 See the third chapter of this dissertation, pp. 89-94. ȱ ŗřŗȱ ȱ ȱ Weyerman describes a painting by Willem van Mieris that he saw in the painter’s studio. His description gives us some idea of how the specific features of the master’s work would have been perceived in those days.4 In an amusing tone, Weyerman wrote: “The other work of art represents a beautiful and gracefully attired female greengrocer in her shop, together with a boy or servant who offers her money for a heap of cauliflower, whose offer she rejects and seems to say; No way, little man. If I would give such fine cauliflower for that little amount of money, then I would soon go bust. Furthermore, all the fruit, red cabbage, celery, beet, onions and all the other objects are so naturally, ingeniously and elaborately painted that it is a delight for the eyes to take a long time to observe them.”5 Not surprising is Weyerman’s admiration for the minute representation of the rich array of objects, which we also found in many remarks of contemporaries, as revealed in the preceding chapters. Emphasis on the narrative – Weyerman was almost able to read “a story” in this painting – on the other hand does not seem immediately relevant yet it was also one of the characteristics that belonged to art of the period. As illuminated in the fourth chapter of this study, the classicist Gerard de Lairesse gives various instructions to painters in his Groot schilderboek in order to imbue genre painting with the qualities of history painting. One of his instructions – which was not discussed in the fourth chapter and deserves further study – was to express the emotions of depicted figures through bodily movements and facial expressions, which enhances the narrative aspect of painting.6 To illustrate this, De Lairesse

4 It is unknown which picture Weyerman saw. One of Van Mieris’s shop scenes, A Greengrocer (1723, panel, 46 x 36 cm), shows a female shopkeeper and a young man who offers her money for cauliflower, yet the contradictory emotions to which Weyerman refers do not seem to be clearly present in this painting. The painting was formerly in the possession of Haboldt & Co. 5 Weyerman 1729-69, vol. 3, pp. 391-92: “Het ander konststukje verbeelt een mooi en cierlijk opgeschikt groenwijfje in haar winkel, benevens een jongen of laquey die haar geld bied voor een zoodje bloemkoolen, welk bot zy weygert en schynnt te zeggen; Neen, lansje, dat raaje niet, zou ik zulke mooie koolen geeven voor zo weynig geld, dan zou ik haast op den dyk geraaken. Vorders zijn alle de vrugten, de roode koolen, de Sellery, de bieten, de uyen en alle de overige voorwerpen zo natuurlijk, konstiglijk en uytvoeriglijk geschildert, dat het een oogenlust is die op den duur te beschouwen.” 6 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 2, pp. 183-84. See Kemmer 1998, pp. 99-104, esp. pp. 101-02 and De Vries 2003, pp. 312-13. I discussed the narrative aspect of early eighteenth-century genre painting, and the creation of a new story by younger painters in particular, in the case of pendant paintings by two different generations in the third chapter. Narrative is an especially interesting aspect of genre painting of this period, and this study has shown that narrative deserves further ŗřŘȱ ȱ

recommends that painters depict two contradictory emotions, such as “entreating and refusing”, which is precisely what Weyerman discerned in the female seller and the boy in Van Mieris’s picture of the grocery shop. According to De Lairesse, such an approach made genre painting as valuable as pictures representing poetry by Homer or Virgil.7 While it is dangerous to extrapolate from Weyerman’s brief remark, we can say with some certainty – due to the bridge formed by the classicizing style – that it comes as no surprise that eighteenth-century painting would enhance this narrative aspect through the expression of emotion. The story-telling aspect of Van Mieris’s painting was at least distinctive enough to appeal to the eighteenth-century biographer Weyerman. The most remarkable part of Weyerman’s description, though, is dedicated to the female figure depicted in the scene: “a beautiful and gracefully attired female greengrocer in her shop”. Weyerman’s choice of words is quite similar to Wilhelm Martin’s aforementioned description of a female figure in another shop scene by Van Mieris. Weyerman perceived the same distinctive features in early eighteenth-century genre painting as Martin, namely a combination of seventeenth-century subjects of everyday life and female figures with a specific type of beauty and gracefulness. However, Weyerman’s evaluation differed from that of Martin: what Martin described pejoratively as “a Leiden housewife… with a Greek profile and with hands as if they belonged to a classic Venus” appears as a positive quality for Weyerman, who was deeply enthralled by the work of his established contemporary. This divergence of opinion between Weyerman and Martin indicates that the criteria for assessing eighteenth-century genre paintings are variable and depend upon the degree to which the work of art is understood in its original context. This study partially reconstructed and reinterpreted the perception and evaluation of genre painting during Weyerman’s days, and in so doing, it has provided better insight into the viewpoints that artists and collectors shared during this dynamic era. We are now able to understand why people in those days possessed a genuine admiration for the enterprising painters that strove to imitate and innovate the pictorial tradition bequeathed to them by the Dutch Golden Age.

research. 7 De Lairesse 1707, vol. 2, pp. 184-85. See also Aono 2011, pp. 51-55. ȱ

¡ȱ

ŗřśȱ ȱ ȱ ȬŗǱȱ¢ȱȱȱȁȱȂȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǻȱǼȱǻǱȱȱŗşşŘǰȱȱŜǼȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

㻝㻜㻜

㻥㻜

㻯㼛㼚㼠㼑㼙㼜㼛㼞㼍㼞㼥㻌㼍㼞㼠㼕㼟㼠㼟㻤㻜㻻㼘㼐㻌㼙㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㼟

㻣㻜

㻢㻜

㻡㻜㼜㼑㼞㼏㼑㼚㼠㼍㼓㼑㻠㻜

㻟㻜

㻞㻜

㻝㻜

㻜㻝㻢㻞㻜㻙㻞㻥㻝㻢㻟㻜㻙㻟㻥㻝㻢㻠㻜㻙㻠㻥㻝㻢㻡㻜㻙㻡㻥㻝㻢㻢㻜㻙㻢㻥㻝㻢㻣㻜㻙㻣㻥㻝㻢㻤㻜㻙㻤㻥㻝㻣㻜㻜㻙㻝㻠 Note: Contemporary artists are those whose last known dates of activity or whose deaths fall within the decades indicated.

ȱ ȬŗǱȱȱśŖȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǻŗŜŝŜȬŗŝřşǼȱ ǻǱȱ ȱŘŖŖśǱȱ ȱȱ ȱŗŝśŘȬŝŖǰȱǯȱŗǱȱȱŘŜȱ ȱŗŜŞŚȱȦȱŘŗȱȱŗŝřşǲȱ ȱŘŖŖŞǰȱǯȱŘŘśȱȱŘŘşȬřřǯǼȱ

Painters Average Price

1 Werff, Adriaen vander 1659-1722 858 2 Brueghel, Jan I alias Velvet & 1568-1625 722 Peter Paul Rubens 1577-1640 3 Bordone, Paris 1500-1571 654 4 Dyck, Anthony van 1599-1641 641 5 Carracci (Workshop) 1560-1609 582 6 Raphaël 1483-1520 532 7 Correggio 1489-1534 524 8 Palma, Jacopo (il Vecchio) 1479-1528 514 9 Manfredi, Bartolomeo 1582-1622 487 ŗřŜȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 10 Dou, Gerard 1613-1675 440 11 Mieris, Frans I van 1635-1681 437 12 Parmigianino 1503-1540 422 13 Giordano, Luca 1634-1705 387 14 Brueghel, Jan I alias Velvet & Balen, Hendrik I van 1568-1625 368 1574-1632 15 Brueghel, Jan I alias Velvet & Rottenhammer, Hans I 1568-1625 352 1564/5-1625

16 Slingelandt, Pieter Cornelisz. van 1640-1691 315

17 Werff, Pieter vander 1661-1722 311 18 Rubens, Peter Paul 1577-1640 292 19 Castiglione, Giovanni Benedetto (alias Il Grechetto) 1609-1664 284 20 Huysum, Justus I van 1695-1716 279 21 Lairesse, Gerard de 1640-1711 272 22 Titian 1485~89-1576 267 23 Carracci, Annibale 1560-1609 265 24 Brueghel, Jan I alias Velvet 1568-1625 251 25 Bassano, Jacopo (Il Vecchio) 1510-1592 249 26 Poussin, Nicolas 1594-1665 242 27 Lorrain, Claude 1604/5-1682 239 28 Caravaggio 1571-1610 237 29 Wouwerman, Philips 1619-1668 232 30 Battaglie, Michelangelo delle (alias Cerquozzi) 1602-1660 224 31 Albani, Francesco 1578-1660 213 32 Potter, Paulus 1625-1654 204 33 Gijsels, Peeter 1621-1690 202 34 Bourdon, Sébastien 1616-1671 200 35 Veronese, Paolo (alias Caliari) 1528-1588 197 36 Schalcken, Godfried 1643-1706 188 37 Rottenhammer, Hans (the Elder) 1564/5-1635 186 38 Flemal, Bertholet I 1614-1675 182 39 Maratti, Carlo 1625-1713 182 40 Metsu, Gabriel 1629-1669 179 41 Brueghel, Pieter I 1525~30-1569 178 42 Teniers, David II 1610-1690 168 43 Velde, Adriaen van de 1636-1672 167 44 Brouwer, Abraham ?? 164 45 Netscher, Caspar 1639-1684 163 46 Breenbergh, Bartholomeus 1598-1657 160 47 Ruysch, Rachel 1664-1750 159 48 Dujardin, Karel 1626-1678 156 49 Mieris, Willem 1662-1747 154 50 Balen, Hendrik I van 1574-1632 152 ŗřŝȱ ȱ ȱ ȬŘǱȱȱśŖȱǱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ǻǱȱ ȱŘŖŖśǰȱŘŖŖşǼȱ

Painters who made genre paintings: 1 Adriaen van der Werff 10 Gerard Dou 11 Frans van Mieris I genre painting: 20% (10) 16 Pieter Cornelisz. van

Foreign Painters Dutch Painters Slingelandt 66% (33) 34% (17) 17 Pieter van der Werff 36 Godfried Schalcken others: 14% (7) 40 Gabriel Metsu 45 Casper Netscher 48 Karel Dujardin 49 Willem van Mieris ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȬřǱȱȱśŖȱ ȱȱǱȱ¢ȱȱȱȃȱȄȱ ǻǱȱ ȱŘŖŖśǰȱŘŖŖşǼȱ ȱ

“Contemporary” Dutch Painters: Adriaen van der Werff (1659-1722) Pieter van der Werff (1665-1722)

Dutch Painters Justus van Huysum (1695-1716) 14% (7) Contemporary Painters "Old Masters" 84% (42) 16% (8) Gerard de Lairesse (1640-1711) Godfried Schalcken (1643-1706) Rachel Ruysch (1664-1750) Italian Painter 2% (1) Willem van Mieris (1672-1747)

Note: Pieter Cornelisz. van Slingelandt (1640-1691), Casper Netscher (1639-1684) and David II Teniers (1610-1690) are not counted among the “contemporary painters” because most of their work was made before 1684. Godfried Schalcken appears in this chart in “contemporary painters” since the data has been taken from the period 1684-1739, covering his lifetime; he is, however, treated as a seventeenth-century painter in this book. ŗřŞȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȬŘǱȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǻǱȱ ȱȱ ȱŗŝśŘȬŝŖǰȱǯȱŘǰȱǯȱřşřȬśřŞǼȱ Subject Hoet 1752 early mid late Period 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 18th 17th 17th 17th kitchen/kitchen maid (incl. wine 17 㻌㻌㻌 14 㻌 3 cellar) needlework/ 6 㻌㻌㻌 4 2 㻌 spinning mother and 9 㻌㻌㻌 4 2 3 Domestic children/ a baby 51 Scenes a woman at her 10 㻌㻌㻌 5 5 㻌 toilet saying grace/ 2 㻌㻌㻌 1 㻌 1 praying others 7 㻌㻌㻌 3 1 3

total 㻌㻌㻌㻌 31 10 10 Commercial market 19 㻌㻌㻌㻌 8 1 10 Life (seller/buyer) music 25 general 15 㻌 12 㻌 3 guitar/l 㻌㻌 5 㻌 3 1 1 ute 㻌㻌 others 5 㻌 5 㻌㻌 reading a book/ writing, reading, or 11 㻌㻌㻌 9 2 㻌 receiving a letter Leisure drinking/eating/ 80 23 㻌㻌㻌 13 6 4 Scenes smoking with animals/birds 10 cat 3 㻌 3 㻌㻌㻌㻌 dog 2 㻌 1 1 㻌㻌㻌 birds 5 㻌 1 3 1

card/game/others 11 㻌㻌㻌 9 2 㻌

total 㻌㻌㻌㻌 56 15 9 A lady and/or a gentleman (with/without 10 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 6 1 3 maid)/ group of ladies and gentlemen ŗřşȱ ȱ

Soldiers (drinking/ 11 㻌㻌㻌㻌 1 6 1 3 smoking/wi -th woman) scholars: philosopher/ 11 㻌㻌㻌 11 㻌㻌 alchemist/lawyer, etc. Scholar/ painter/draftsman 2 㻌㻌㻌 1 1 㻌 Painter/ 26 doctor/quack/ Doctor etc. 11 㻌㻌㻌 10 㻌 1 barber/dentist School/ teacher 2 㻌㻌㻌 2 㻌㻌

total 㻌㻌㻌㻌 24 1 1 blowing bubbles 4 㻌㻌㻌 1 3 㻌 with animals/birds 6 㻌㻌㻌 4 2 㻌 Children 24 others 14 㻌㻌㻌 4 3 7

total 㻌㻌㻌㻌 9 8 7 general 123 㻌㻌㻌 105 8 1 Peasant 119 “kermis” 5 㻌㻌 3 1 1 㻌 Scenes total 㻌㻌㻌 3 106 9 1 Merry Company/ 11 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 11 㻌㻌 Party Special Feasts (“Drie Koninge 5 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 5 㻌㻌 avond” / St. Nicolas Night) “Bambocci- 8 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 8 㻌㻌 ata” Figures with candle 6 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 1 3 2 or lamp Interiors/ exteriors 7 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 5 2 㻌 without details Figures without specific 24 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 16 3 5 details/ Tronies ŗŚŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

a sleeping woman 3 㻌㻌㻌 2 㻌 1 a sick woman 3 㻌㻌㻌 3 㻌㻌 a delivery room 4 㻌㻌㻌 3 㻌 1 shepherds etc. 2 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 2 Others 18 hunters 1 㻌㻌㻌 1 㻌㻌 a fortune teller 1 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 1 amorous scenes 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 4 without details Scenes from 2 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 2 theater Unknown 3 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 1 㻌 2

total 424 㻌㻌㻌㻌 4 302 54 64 ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ŗŚŗȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȬŚǱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ ¢ȱȱȬȬ¢ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǻǱȱ ȱȱ ȱŗŝśŘȬŝŖǰȱǯȱŘǰȱǯȱřşřȬśřŞǼȱ

6SHFLDO)HHVWV ,QWHULRUH[WHULRUZLWKRXW )LJXUH V ZLWKFDQGOHRU GHWDLOV ODPS )LJXUH V ZLWKRXWGHWDLOV 7URQLHV 8QNQRZQ /DG\DQG*HQWOHPDQ 6ROGLHUV &RPPHUFLDO/LIH %DPERFFLDWD 3HDVDQW6FHQHV 2WKHUV &KLOGUHQ

0HUU\&RPSDQ\3DUW\

6FKRODU3DLQWHU'RFWRU

'RPHVWLF6FHQHV /HLVXUH6FHQHV

ȱ ȬśǱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǻǱȱ ȱȱ ȱŗŝśŘȬŝŖǰȱǯȱŘǰȱǯȱřşřȬśřŞǼȱ

,QWHULRUH[WHULRUZLWKRXW GHWDLOV 8QNQRZQ 6FKRODU3DLQWHU'RFWRU 6FHQHVIURPWKHDWHU

/DG\DQG*HQWOHPDQ /HLVXUH6FHQHV 6ROGLHUV )LJXUH V ZLWKFDQGOHRUODPS

)LJXUH V ZLWKRXWGHWDLOV 7URQLHV

2WKHUV 'RPHVWLF6FHQHV

3HDVDQW6FHQHV

&RPPHUFLDO/LIH &KLOGUHQ

ȱ ŗŚŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȬŗǱȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ (price: guilder)

Copies by Before 1749 1766 Willem van 1731 Mieris purchase book description sales attribution price value price A “Tronie” of 60 unknown an Old Man after Gerard Dou1 A Soldier 60 20 “mostly considered as the original” 100 sold as Smoking a Pipe (meest voor origineel aangezien); “the original after Frans I original being out of the country” van Mieris (sijnde ’t origineele buytensland) An Old Woman 30 15 “the original being out of this 430 sold as Holding a country” (’t origineel buytensland) original Bottle of Spirits after Frans I van Mieris A Sailor 50 20 58 sold as Holding a original Goblet after Frans I van Mieris A Self-Portrait 80 30 “mostly considered as being made by 87 sold as after Frans van Frans the Elder” (meest aangezien original Mieris’s voor door de oude Frans gedaan) drawing A Woman with a 80 50 “there was no art lover who did not 280 sold as Straw Hat after judge it as being painted by Van original Frans I van Mieris the Elder from his best period, Mieris so that I let it pass without contradiction as being an unsurpassed piece”; “worth 200, as the original sold for 315”; “the original has already been out of this country for many years” (Dutch text, see p. 59, note 27) A Night Scene 80 35 “this being so beautifully copied that 505 sold as with an everyone considers it to be an original Offering to original” (dit soo fraay gecopieert dat Apollo after niemand anders als voor origineel Frans I van aansiet); “worth f 250, since it is well Mieris copied; the original sold for f 400” (is wel f 250 waardig als onkennelijk ȱ ŗŚřȱ ȱ ȱ gecopieerd ’t origineel verkofft voor f 400); “the original will have been out of this country for at least 60 years in 1750” (’t origineel is 1750 wel 60 jaar buytenslands geweest); “I let it pass as an original” (’t maar voor origineel laat passeeren) A Soldier 40 15 “the original is now out of this 120 sold as Smoking after country” (’t origineel dat…nu original Ary de Vois huytenslands is); “most unclear whether it is original or copy” (seer onkennelijk of origineel off copy is) A Horse with (80) 15 30 by Willem Horsemen after van Mieris Philips “in the Wouwerman 2 manner of P. Wouwerman ” Average 62 24.4 190 (231.7 only as original)

Source: The handwritten inventory by Pieter de la Court van der Voort, 1731; the handwritten inventory of Allard de la Court, 1749; the sales catalogue of Allard de la Court’s collection: Sale Allard de la Court, Leiden (Luchtmans), 8 September 1766.

Note: 1. This piece was inherited by Pieter’s sister Adriana de la Court; it is recorded neither in the 1749 inventory nor in the 1766 sales catalogue. 2. Although this piece is not recorded in the 1731 inventory, the 1749 inventory clearly states that it was “painted for my father and cost 80 guilders.”

ŗŚŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȬŘǱȱȱ¢ȱȱǱȱȱȱȱ

painting drawing total Painter number numbe number subject subject 1 r Borch, Gerard ter 1 portrait 1 Brouwer, Adriaen 1 peasant 1 Dou, Gerard 2 genre 22 genre 4 Dijk, Philip van 1 genre 1 Hals, Frans 2 tronie 1 genre 3 Holbein, Hans 2 portrait 2 Jordaens, Hans 1 Bible 1 Jordaens, Jacob 4 tronie, unknown 4 Liss, Johan 1 mythology 1 Lingelbach, Johannes 1 “bambocciata” 2 “bambocciata” 3 Mijn, van der 1 portrait 1 Metsu, Gabriel 3 genre 1 genre 4 Mieris, Frans I van 1 genre 1 Moor, Carel de 1 genre Netscher, Casper 2 portrait 3 portrait, genre 5 Ostade, Adriaen van 1 peasant piece 1 Potter, Paulus 2 landscape with figures 2 Rembrandt van Rijn 1 self-portrait 2 portrait 3 Rottenhammer, Hans 1 Bible 1 Bible 2 Rubens, Peter Paul 10 tronies/heads 10 Schalcken, Godfried 1 genre 1 Steen, Jan 1 Bible 1 portrait 2 Teniers, David II 1 genre 3 genre 4 Werff, Adriaen van der 1 Bible 1 Wit, Jacob de 1 “witjes” 1 㻌 total 20 40 60

Source: Sales Louis de Moni, Leiden (de Moni and Delfos), 13 April 1772 Note: 1. Only the drawings that are clearly described as “after (painter’s name) by L. de Moni” are included. In the case of a number of drawings mentioned in the catalogue, it is not clear enough whether they are copies by Louis de Moni. 2. One of the drawings after Dou is not mentioned as “after Dou” in the De Moni sale catalogue. It was bought by Johan van der Marck, and his sales catalogue of 29 November 1773 attributes it to Dou.

ȱ ŗŚśȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȬřǱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǻǱȱǼȱ ȱ

Price Name Subject 461 De Moni, Louis An old woman making bobbin lace with a boy blowing bubbles 430* Hals, Frans (by or as good as Frans Hals) A Merry Company 420 Olis, Jan An interior with a man and a woman 371* Rubens, Peter Paul The Virgin Mary with the Christ Child and St Catherine 303 Copy, De Moni after Frans I van Mieris A young man with an owl 301* De Lairesse, Gerard in the manner of Adriaen Allegory van der Werff 276.15 Copy, De Moni after Gabriel Metsu An ill woman 260 De Moni, Louis A woman and a boy teasing a cat 216 Schalcken, Godfried A woman holding a candle 200 De Moni, Louis An interior with a girl scrubbing a jug 167 Eligger, Ottmar Cupid dressed as Ascanius 156 De Moni, Louis A woman fainting with a letter 150 Wouwerman, Philips A landscape with two officers 140 De Moni, Louis A table with a vase with flowers 125 Copy, De Moni after Gabriel Metsu A woman at her mirror 125* Xavery, Franciscus Xaverius A Landscape 108 Copy, De Moni after Gerard Dou A young man drawing by candlelight 104 Teniers, David II A ox carcass 100* Teniers, David II A peasant scene 97 De Moni, Louis An interior with a chicken seller 93 De Moni, Louis A fishmonger and a maid 87 Copy, De Moni after Hans Rottenhammer The Annunciation 81 De Moni, Louis A portrait of the artist in a window 80 Copy, De Moni after Casper Netscher Two portraits, De Witt and his wife 80 Metsu, Gabriel A candlelit interior with a painter 70 Copy, De Moni after Philip van Dijk A lady reading a book 70 De Moni, Louis A woman with herring 70* Berckheyde, Job The “Groote Kerk” in Haarlem 68.01 Holbein, Hans A portrait of man 65 Wouwerman, Philips A landscape with figures and horses 57 Copy, De Moni after Gabriel Metsu A philosopher in his study 56 Copy, De Moni after Jan Steen The feast of King Ahasuerus, Esther and Haman 56 De Moni, Louis Venus and Adonis in a landscape 53 Rembrandt van Rijn A portrait of a man in a fur hat ŗŚŜȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

51 Louis de Moni in the manner of Gerard ter A woman in a white satin dress Borch 50.10 De Moni, Louis A painting with a variety of fruit 50 Copy, De Moni after Gerard Dou A dentist 50 De Moni, Louis A laughing boy in a window ȱ Source: Sales Louis de Moni, Leiden (de Moni and Delfos), 13 April 1772 ; RAL, Inventaris van het archief van de Weeskamer te Leiden 1437-1860, Louis de Moni, no. 2867b, Boelhuiscedel, 13 April 1772. Note: The price of paintings marked with an asterisk (*) were written by Johan van der Marck in the sales catalogue located in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris. ȱ

Catalogue: Painters 1680-1750

ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱǰȱŗŜŞŖȬŗŝśŖ ŗŜśŖ ŗŜŜŖ ŗŜŝŖ ŗŜŞŖ ŗŜşŖ ŗŝŖŖ ŗŝŗŖ ŗŝŘŖ ŗŝřŖ ŗŝŚŖ ȱ ŗŝśŖȱ

ȱȱŗŜŚŝȬŗŝŘŜ ȱ ȱ ȱŗŜŚŞȬŗŝřř ȱ ŗŜśŖȬŗŝŖŘ ȱȱȱŗŜśśȬŗŝřŞ ·ȱŗŜśŜ ǻŗŜśŞǵǼȬŗŝŘŗ ȱȱŗŜśŝǅŜŝȬŗŝŗśǅŘŜ ȱȱȱȱŗŜśşȬŗŝŘŘ ȱȱȱȱŗŜśşȬŗŝřř ȱȱȱŗŜŜŖȬŗŜşŖ ȱȱŗŜŜŖȬŗŝŖŚ ȱȱŗŜŜŖǵȬŗŝŗŚǵ ȱ ȱŗŜŜŖȬŗŝŗş ȱȱȱ¢ȱŗŜŜŖǵȬŗŝřŘ ȱȱȱŗŜŜŘȬŗŝŚŝ ȱȱȱȱŗŜŜśȬŗŝŘŘ ȱȱȱŗŜŜŜȬŗŝŗŚ ȱȱŗŜŜşȬŗŝŖŘ ȱȱŗŜŝřȬŗŝŚŘ ȱȱŗŜŝřȬŗŝŚŜ ȱȱȱŗŜŞřȬŗŝśř ȱȱȱ¢ȱŗŜŞŚȬŗŝŘŜ ȱȱȱȱŗŜŞŚȬŗŝŚŘ ȱȱŗŜŞŚȬŗŝśŗ ¢ȱȱȱȱŗŜŞŝȬŗŝŜŗ ȱ ȱȱȱŗŜŞşȬŗŝŜř ȱȱȱȱŗŜşřȬŗŝřř ȱ ȱ ŗŜşřȬŗŝřř ȱȱŗŜşŞȬŗŝśŖ ȱȱȱŗŜşŞȬŗŝŝŗ ȱ

¢ȱ

Dutch genre painting of the period after 1680 has long been dismissed as an uninspired repetition of the art of the second and third quarters of the seventeenth century. This underestimation is partially rooted in the general disregard for this period – often considered the “age of decline” – in contrast to the unprecedented flourishing of the earlier part of the seventeenth century. Yet the most deep-seated cause for the undervaluation of genre painting of this period can be ascribed to our modern privileging of the aesthetics of genre painting of the earlier period. The features of genre painting between 1680 and 1750 were criticized as too similar to, or, on the contrary, too divergent from earlier genre painting. Borrowing subject matter, motifs and compositions from seventeenth-century genre paintings has long been considered servile imitation of the Golden Age. On the other hand, the classicizing style, which originated in French art and became prominent in Dutch genre painting of the later period, was seen as a “foreign” intrusion that estranged itself from the “authentic” Dutch genre painting of the seventeenth century. Because this seventeenth-century genre painting was perceived as a faithful recording of the everyday surroundings of modest citizens, the classicizing genre painting of the eighteenth century was considered particularly removed from the native Dutch context. My dissertation, founded on close analysis of a wide range of genre painting of this period and of primary sources such as archival documents, sales catalogues and literature on art, aims to reconsider these long-dismissed features of genre painting from 1680 to 1750. By framing these elements as the result of the painters’ great effort to adapt and improve upon the achievements of their influential predecessors, this dissertation addresses a number of fundamental questions: why did painters produce pictures with features that were closely related to, yet also different from, seventeenth-century art, and how were these paintings viewed in those days? Who bought these paintings, and what was the impact of the painters’ relationship with art collectors on their artistic decisions? ŘŖŘȱ ȱ ȱ

To consider these questions, analysis of the painters’ position in this transitional period plays an important role. Recent studies of the artistic context after 1680, including research on art theory, the art market and collectors, has gradually revised the idea of a sudden end to the Golden Age and presented an alternative picture of this later period. Reconsideration of artists’ biographies, for instance, has elucidated that authors, such as Arnold Houbraken (1660-1719), Johan van Gool (1687-1763) and Jacob van Campo Weyerman (1677-1747), had differing opinions about the exact moment at which this downfall began. These authors assigned years ranging from 1675 to 1720 as the initial date of decline, which indicates that the dividing line between florescence and decay had not yet been drawn definitively at that time. Recent research on collectors and the art market around 1700 underlines the continuation of collecting practices from the seventeenth into the eighteenth centuries. While the market for new paintings had stagnated because of the economic downturn and the oversupply of paintings from the 1660s onward, a considerable number of second-hand paintings by seventeenth-century masters flooded the market, and affluent Dutch citizens who were less affected by the economic recession continued to make acquisitions. As a result, the period around 1700 can now be considered a transitional era in which people gradually started to notice the changes in art, to look back upon the seventeenth century as a glorious age and to search for their own way to deal with the art of their recent past. It was therefore also the beginning of the reception of seventeenth-century Dutch art. Only by reconstructing this context is it possible to understand how painters responded to this new situation and to specify how they were able to look at their prosperous past and yet manage to produce their own distinct works of art. The artists still had prospects for maintaining the prosperity of the preceding era by trying to reconcile their situation with the heritage of their renowned predecessors and making the most of their artistic capabilities under the given circumstances. The painters’ point of view – looking back upon a magnificent age and forward to future possibilities – is a key element underlying this study of a dynamic and unique period that was the first to glorify the art of the Golden Age.

The first chapter is devoted to outlining the artistic circumstances of the period, while the subsequent three chapters contain case studies that highlight three essential features in genre ȱ ŘŖřȱ ȱ ȱ painting. As groundwork for these chapters, I have compiled a catalogue of 29 painters who produced genre paintings during the period under consideration. My period of focus begins in 1680, the year after which most of the leading artists of the second and third generations began to work as independent masters, and it ends in 1750, when a different approach to art of the Golden Age came to be inspired by the patriotic movement of the late eighteenth century. The catalogue surveys characteristic features of genre paintings by the selected artists, while the chapters concentrate on the work of a limited number of artists. The first chapter investigates the artistic context of painters, focusing especially on their relationship with collectors, and it illustrates how this became a decisive factor for painters in their artistic choices, like subject matter. As briefly mentioned in my introduction, the open market for new paintings had languished, and the number of painters had decreased drastically. Furthermore, the range of potential buyers came to be limited to wealthy citizens, who, less affected by the economic recession after the 1670s, could still afford to purchase costly works of art. Under these circumstances, the fortune of painters became increasingly dependent on the support of a diminishing circle of affluent collectors. In order to meet the demands of these collectors, the painters were urged to keep themselves informed about what collectors pursued. According to recent research on sale catalogues of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, genre paintings made by seventeenth-century Dutch masters, such as Gerard Dou, Frans I van Mieris, Godfried Schalcken and Gabriel Metsu, consistently fetched incredibly high prices at auction, which demonstrated the enormous popularity of these masters. Statistic analysis of collection catalogues published by Gerard Hoet in his second volume of the Catalogus of naamlijst van schilderijen (1752) addresses the question of what type of genre subjects were favored by collectors. This data makes clear that painters deliberately chose certain types of subjects from the seventeenth-century repertory and did not blindly depict all that was in fashion among contemporary collectors. The most popular subjects offered painters enough possibilities to adapt and translate into their own contemporary idiom. The representation of playful scenes with children, for instance, was an ideal vehicle for painters to perpetuate typical seventeenth-century subjects while also adapting the fashionable classicizing style; the peasant scene, on the other hand, was not ŘŖŚȱ ȱ ȱ

popular in eighteenth-century painting and must not have appealed to artists because of the slim possibility for innovation. According to the painter-biographer Johan van Gool, these two aspects – subjects depicting scenes of everyday life and the classicizing style – came to represent characteristics of seventeenth-century genre painting and early eighteenth-century history painting, respectively. This indicates that it was no coincidence that early eighteenth-century painters consciously elected to paint subjects that allowed them to pursue a harmonious combination of these two elements.

The three case studies in the second, third and fourth chapters consider how painters imitated, updated and improved upon the pictorial tradition of seventeenth-century genre painting; they are arranged according to the degree to which the painters owed their artistic decisions to the achievements of their renowned predecessors. The second chapter deals with literal “imitation”, that is, reproductive paintings and prints made by painters of the first half of the eighteenth century after genre paintings by seventeenth-century masters. These copies are nowadays apt to be seen as typical examples of slavish imitation, and even in the early eighteenth century, the production of copies was criticized by contemporary writers such as Johan van Gool and Gerard Hoet as potential forgeries or eventual misuse by artists. Yet, by framing the painters’ practice of copying in a contemporary context – such as the painters’ access to original paintings, their connections to art collectors who commissioned or bought these copies, and their choice of certain types of genre subjects – it becomes clear that painters were strategically involved in the production and sale of copies by making use of and simultaneously contributing to the increasing popularity of seventeenth-century genre painting. These reproductive activities gave the painters one great advantage: the ability to produce their own paintings in the manner of the sought-after work by their seventeenth-century successful predecessors. One of the intriguing examples is the popular seventeenth-century theme of the candlelight scene, which was reproduced by eighteenth-century painters like Nicolaas Verkolje (in mezzotint print) and Louis de Moni (in painting). These artists consciously chose to reproduce candlelight scenes by Dou and Schalcken that were highly desired by contemporary collectors. In so doing, they contributed to the increasing popularity of these ȱ ŘŖśȱ ȱ ȱ masters and also to the candlelight theme in particular, while also demonstrating their skills in making high-quality copies and associating themselves with their renowned forerunners. All of these elements combined to create an elaborate niche in the market for their own candlelight paintings. This type of market strategy – capitalizing upon the popularity of seventeenth-century renowned masters – clearly underlay the painters’ artistic choices discussed in the subsequent chapters. As to their function, these copies served as substitutes for increasingly unavailable seventeenth-century paintings. Willem van Mieris, for instance, was commissioned by Pieter de la Court van der Voort to make a series of copies after his father’s work. Inventories attest to the fact that these reproductive paintings compensated for the shortage of seventeenth-century originals in Van der Voort’s collection; as a result, Van der Voort’s cabinet room displayed the pictorial tradition maintained by three generations of the Van Mieris family from the seventeenth into the eighteenth centuries. The third chapter, containing my second case study, explores a more creative form of imitation, that is, the borrowing of popular subject matter, motifs and compositions from seventeenth-century genre painting, and the updating of these according to contemporary eighteenth-century vocabularies. This case study takes a closer look at the genre paintings of Willem van Mieris and his relationship with the collector Johan Hendrik van Wassenaer Obdam. In particular, it focuses on how the painter came to choose specific seventeenth-century pictorial elements to insert into his own work. A good example is Van Mieris’s Grocer’s Shop, which shows remarkable similarities to a seventeenth-century painting by Gerard Dou that was in the possession of another important collector of Van Mieris’s paintings, Pieter de la Court van der Voort. Several archival documents reveal that Van Mieris’s painting was specially executed for and directly bought from the artist – for the enormous amount of 825 guilders – by his patron Van Wassenaer Obdam, who had tried without success to buy Dou’s painting from Pieter de la Court and his son. This case suggests that collectors’ enthusiasm for certain kinds of seventeenth-century painting could have determined the type of subject matter and motifs that painters of the younger generation depicted. These conclusions, however, raise the question of whether these early eighteenth-century paintings were mere substitutes for unavailable seventeenth-century ŘŖŜȱ ȱ ȱ

paintings. How did collectors consider these contemporary pictures in relation to the works by seventeenth-century masters? An illuminating example can be found in two sets of pendant paintings, in which a painter of the later generation added a picture to an existent painting by an earlier master. Analysis of these pendants and their collectors’ enjoyment of them makes clear that the pictures added by later painters can be seen as homages to the works of their honored forerunners but, at the same time, as challenges to the younger painters to create new stories based on their interpretations of the older paintings. This case clearly bears witness to the collectors’ appreciation of the artistic emulation that eighteenth-century painters desired to show in their work. Art theory from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries also provides us with a framework for understanding the eighteenth-century evaluation of this reuse of pictorial elements from seventeenth-century painting. Though art theory allows for borrowing only if motifs are incorporated in such a subtle way as to make them unrecognizable, the recognizable borrowing seen in early eighteenth-century genre painting, which used seventeenth-century motifs and compositions, could be admired if it honored the masters from whom these motifs were taken. Collectors who enthusiastically sought the work by seventeenth-century painters must have been aware of the significance of honoring of these old masters and therefore must have greatly appreciated the way in which contemporary painters borrowed and updated the pictorial conventions of the Golden Age. In my last case study, presented in the fourth chapter, my focus shifts to one of the most innovative aspects of eighteenth century genre painting, that is, an increasing refinement, recognizable as a coherently classicizing style in early eighteenth-century genre painting. This case study pays attention to the idealized female figures which, depicted in a variety of genre scenes, show graceful gestures, beautiful postures and smooth skin. This raises the question of why this idealization occurred across figures of all social classes, particularly in combination with seventeenth-century subject matter. First of all, this question is considered by examining some of the theoretical notions of classicism, especially the instructions given by Gerard de Lairesse in regard to genre painting in his Groot schilderboek (1707). According to De Lairesse, painters were allowed to choose middle class people as subjects for their genre scenes, but they had to ȱ ŘŖŝȱ ȱ ȱ provide these figures with a classical form and ideal proportions, which were indispensable for the representation of gracefulness and beauty illustrated in classical sculpture. This was the only way to elevate the low-ranking category of genre painting: to adapt the qualities of history painting and apply them to genre painting. Thus, De Lairesse’s instructions seem to be consistent with the highly idealized figures in the everyday-life scenes of early eighteenth-century genre painting. This was, in fact, what Willem van Mieris practiced in his genre paintings. Looking at his many history paintings, drawings and genre paintings reveals that Van Mieris designed idealized female figures for his history paintings by extracting ideal forms from classicizing sculpture by Francis van Bossuit. Van Mieris then adapted these idealized forms to ordinary female personages in his genre paintings, infusing even lower class figures with gracefulness and beauty. He repeated the same types in more than one category of painting, not only to merely adopt the classicizing style but to increase his productivity, as well. In the early eighteenth century, painters were required to be versatile enough to meet the various demands of collectors, who had a strong preference for seventeenth-century paintings made by specialists and therefore set the same standard of variety and quality for contemporary artists. Consequently, by imbuing ordinary women with the qualities of goddesses, Van Mieris idealized the figures in his early eighteenth-century scenes of everyday life, which can be seen as an innovative and unique aspect of this art – and it contrasts strikingly with the seventeenth-century history paintings by Rembrandt, who used ordinary women as his model and applied their features to his goddesses.

Thus far, the distinctive features of genre painting of the period 1670-1750 have been reconsidered by measuring the painters’ perspective on the art of the recent past against their artistic situation in their transitional period. It has become clear that the awareness of a past Golden Age played an essential role in the painters’ choices and the collectors’ preferences for a specific type of genre painting. Painters developed a successful market strategy that built upon the great popularity of the work by their illustrious seventeenth-century forerunners in an endeavor to appeal to the taste of collectors eager to acquire works by these old masters. Simultaneously, painters, who must have keenly felt the necessity to renew the ŘŖŞȱ ȱ ȱ

pictorial tradition they inherited, succeeded in distinguishing their work from that of earlier masters by modifying their contemporary pictorial vocabulary. Consequently, the similarity to and divergence from seventeenth-century genre painting, which was negatively perceived by Wilhelm Martin in 1936 as a “peculiar jumble of classicism and middle-class mentality”, was actually the result of the painters’ consistent striving for an ideal combination of popular seventeenth-century pictorial elements and the predominating style of the early eighteenth-century, classicism. Considering how persistently certain motifs and themes were repeated in these later paintings, we can say that such visual references to and propagation of characteristic features extracted from the older paintings demonstrate precisely what was found worthy of inheriting and what was seen as characteristic of seventeenth century genre painting in the eyes of later generations. The key to fully assessing the art of this period lies in the degrees to which we are able to understand it in its original context. Having attempted to reconstruct and reinterpret the perception and evaluation of genre painting during this dynamic transitional period, this study makes clear why people in the early eighteenth century showed a genuine admiration for the enterprising artists that strove to imitate and innovate the pictorial tradition bequeathed to them by the Golden Age.

De Nederlandse genreschilderkunst van na 1680 is lange tijd onderschat als een ongeïnspireerde herhaling van de kunst uit het tweede en derde kwart van de zeventiende eeuw. Deze onderwaardering komt deels voort uit de algemene tendens om het tijdvak rond 1700 te beschouwen als een periode in verval, in tegenstelling tot de grote bloeiperiode die de kunst uit de vroegere zeventiende eeuw doormaakte. De belangrijkste reden voor de hedendaagse onderschatting van de genreschilderkunst uit deze periode kan echter worden toegeschreven aan onze sterke voorkeur voor de esthetiek van de genreschilderkunst van vóór 1680. De genreschilderkunst uit de periode tussen 1680 en 1750 werd bekritiseerd als te veel lijkend op, of juist te afwijkend van de vroegere genreschilderkunst. Het hergebruik van thema’s, motieven en composities uit de zeventiende-eeuwse genreschilderkunst is lange tijd beschouwd als een slaafse navolging van de kunst uit de Gouden Eeuw. Anderzijds werd de classicistische stijl, na 1680 prominent geworden in de Nederlandse genreschilderkunst, gezien als afkomstig uit Frankrijk en als een “buitenlandse” inbreuk op de “authentieke” Nederlandse genreschilderkunst uit de zeventiende eeuw. Omdat de genreschilderkunst uit de het tweede en derde kwart van de zeventiende eeuw werd beschouwd als een natuurgetrouwe afspiegeling van het dagelijks leven van gewone burgers, kreeg de classicistische genreschilderkunst uit de achttiende eeuw al snel het stempel opgedrukt te “on-Nederlands” te zijn. In mijn proefschrift, dat is gebaseerd op analyse van een grote verscheidenheid aan genrestukken uit de bovengenoemde periode en op bronnenmateriaal, zoals archiefstukken, veilingcatalogi en achttiende-eeuwse kunstliteratuur, worden de vaak onderschatte kenmerken van de genreschilderkunst uit de periode tussen 1680 tot 1750 opnieuw onder de loep genomen. Door deze specifieke kenmerken te beschouwen als het resultaat van het streven van schilders de verrichtingen van hun invloedrijke voorgangers aan te passen én te verbeteren, roept dit onderzoek een aantal fundamentele vragen op: waarom ŘŗŖȱ ȱ ȱ

maakten schilders werk dat nauw verwant was aan, maar tegelijkertijd ook zeer verschillend van zeventiende-eeuwse schilderijen, en hoe werden deze schilderijen ontvangen in die tijd? Wie kocht deze kunstwerken en welke rol speelden kunstverzamelaars bij de artistieke keuzes die kunstenaars maakten? Om deze vragen goed te kunnen beantwoorden, is het belangrijk om de positie van schilders tijdens de overgangperiode rond 1700 nader te onderzoeken. Door recente studies naar de artistieke context gedurende de periode na 1680, bijvoorbeeld wat betreft kunsttheorie, kunstmarkt en kunstverzamelaars, werd het traditionele idee van een plotseling eindigende Gouden Eeuw geleidelijk herzien en is een wat beter gefundeerd beeld over de kunst uit deze latere periode ontstaan. Onderzoek naar kunstenaarsbiografieën heeft bijvoorbeeld aangetoond dat belangrijke schrijvers over kunst uit deze periode, zoals Arnold Houbraken (1660-1719), Johan van Gool (1687-1763) en Jacob van Campo Weyerman (1677-1747), verschillende opvattingen hadden over het moment waarop deze neergang inzette, variërend van het jaar 1675 tot 1720, wat aangeeft dat de scheidslijn tussen bloei en verval in die tijd nog niet duidelijk getrokken was. Uit recent onderzoek naar verzamelaars en de kunstmarkt rond 1700 blijkt dat er sprake was van een zekere continuïteit in het verzamelen van schilderijen van de tweede helft van de zeventiende eeuw naar de eerste helft van de achttiende eeuw. Terwijl de markt voor nieuwe schilderijen stagneerde vanwege de economische recessie en door de overproductie van schilderijen vanaf de jaren zestig van de zeventiende eeuw, ontstond een omvangrijk aanbod van ‘tweedehands’ schilderijen van zeventiende-eeuwse meesters, die gekocht bleven worden door vermogende, minder zwaar door de economische crisis getroffen, burgers. Kortom, het tijdperk rond 1700 kan worden beschouwd als een overgangsperiode waarin men langzamerhand de veranderingen in de kunst begon op te merken; men ging het recente verleden als een glorieuze eeuw zien en zocht naar een eigen manier om met deze erfenis om te gaan. Men kan derhalve spreken van de vroegste vorm van receptie van de kunst van de Gouden Eeuw. Alleen door het reconstrueren van de bovengenoemde context is het mogelijk om inzicht te krijgen in hoe schilders reageerden op de nieuw ontstane situatie en hoe ze terugkeken op hun bloeiende verleden en er toch in slaagden om hun eigen, voor die periode karakteristieke, kunst te maken. Ze maakten gebruik van de mogelijkheid om het succes van ȱ Řŗŗȱ ȱ ȱ de Gouden Eeuw voort te zetten door de nalatenschap van hun beroemde voorgangers aan te passen en hun eigen capaciteiten daarbij zo goed mogelijk uit te buiten. Het uitgangspunt van de schilders – het terugkijken op een luisterrijk verleden en het vooruitblikken naar toekomstige mogelijkheden – is een sleutelelement in dit onderzoek naar een dynamische periode in de kunstgeschiedenis, waarin de kunst van de Gouden Eeuw voor het eerst werd verheerlijkt.

Het eerste hoofdstuk is gewijd aan het in kaart brengen van de artistieke omstandigheden van die tijd, terwijl de volgende drie hoofdstukken bestaan uit case studies, die drie wezenlijke kenmerken van de genreschilderkunst belichten. Als basis voor deze hoofdstukken heb ik een catalogus opgesteld met 29 kunstenaars die genrestukken produceerden in de periode tussen 1680 en 1750. Mijn onderzoeksperiode begint in 1680, wanneer het grootste gedeelte van de kunstenaars van de tweede en derde generatie als onafhankelijke meesters begon te werken, en eindigt rond 1750, toen men de kunst uit de Gouden Eeuw op een andere manier ging benaderen, mede geïnspireerd door de patriottische beweging later in de achttiende eeuw. De catalogus geeft een overzicht van de specifieke kenmerken van het werk van de geselecteerde kunstenaars, terwijl de hoofdstukken zich concentreren op het werk van een beperkt aantal schilders. In het eerste hoofdstuk wordt de artistieke context van schilders onder de loep genomen, vooral hun relatie met verzamelaars. Gedemonstreerd wordt hoe deze relatie een belangrijke factor werd voor schilders bij het maken van hun artistieke keuzes, bijvoorbeeld op het gebied van de thematiek. Zoals eerder kort genoemd in de introductie, stagneerde de kunstmarkt voor nieuwe schilderijen, en was het aantal schilders drastisch gedaald. Bovendien beperkte het aantal potentiële kopers zich tot een groep rijke burgers die het zich nog steeds kon veroorloven om kostbare schilderijen te kopen, aangezien zij minder werden geraakt door de economische recessie vanaf de jaren zeventig van de Gouden Eeuw. Onder deze omstandigheden hing het succes van schilders dus steeds vaker af van de steun van een krimpende groep van vermogende verzamelaars. Om aan de vraag van deze groep te kunnen voldoen, waren kunstenaars genoodzaakt om op de hoogte te blijven van wat bij verzamelaars in de smaak viel. Volgens recent onderzoek op het gebied van laat zeventiende-eeuwse en ŘŗŘȱ ȱ ȱ

vroeg achttiende-eeuwse veilingcatalogi, brachten genrestukken van zeventiende-eeuwse Nederlandse meesters als Gerard Dou, Frans van Mieris de Oude, Godfried Schalcken en Gabriel Metsu, bij veilingen voortdurend hoge prijzen op, wat de enorme populariteit van deze kunstenaars nog eens onderstreept. Statistisch onderzoek van de door Gerard Hoet gepubliceerde collectiecatalogi (in het tweede deel van zijn Catalogus of naamlijst van schilderijen, 1752), geeft antwoord op de vraag welk type genre-onderwerpen geliefd waren onder verzamelaars. Duidelijk wordt dat schilders bewust bepaalde thema’s uit de zeventiende eeuw uitkozen en niet alles klakkeloos na schilderden wat in de mode was onder verzamelaars. Bepalend hierbij was of een onderwerp schilders de mogelijkheid bood om het aan te passen aan of om te zetten in het eigen, hedendaagse idioom. Speelse voorstellingen met kinderen waren bijvoorbeeld een ideaal uitdrukkingsmiddel voor schilders om typisch zeventiende-eeuwse elementen over te nemen en tegelijkertijd aan te haken bij de modieuze stijl van het classicisme. Het bij verzamelaars nog steeds geliefde boerentafereel, daarentegen, was niet populair in de achttiende-eeuwse schilderkunst, en zal niet aantrekkelijk zijn geweest voor kunstenaars van de nieuwe generatie omdat het onderwerp hen onvoldoende artistieke mogelijkheden verschafte. Volgens de schilder/biograaf Johan van Gool waren de twee bovengenoemde aspecten – alledaagse voorstellingen en de classicistische stijl − typerend voor respectievelijk de zeventiende-eeuwse genreschilderkunst en de vroeg achttiende-eeuwse historieschilderkunst. Dit geeft aan dat het geen toeval was dat vroeg achttiende-eeuwse schilders bewust onderwerpen voor hun schilderijen uitkozen waarin een harmonieuze combinatie van beide elementen kon worden nagestreefd.

In het tweede, derde en vierde hoofdstuk wordt in drie case studies onderzoek gedaan naar de wijze waarop schilders de picturale traditie van de zeventiende-eeuwse genreschilderkunst hebben nagevolgd, herzien en vernieuwd. Het tweede hoofdstuk behandelt de meest directe vorm van nabootsing, dat wil zeggen geschilderde kopieën en reproductieve prenten, gemaakt door kunstenaars uit de eerste helft van de achttiende eeuw naar genrestukken van zeventiende-eeuwse meesters. Tegenwoordig is men dikwijls geneigd om deze kopieën als typische voorbeelden van slaafse nabootsing te zien, en zelfs al in de vroege achttiende eeuw ȱ Řŗřȱ ȱ ȱ werd de productie van kopieën door contemporaine schrijvers over kunst, zoals Johan van Gool en Gerard Hoet, veroordeeld als potentiële vervalsing of vanwege het gevaar van misbruik. Desalniettemin, als we de kopieerpraktijk van schilders in hun eigentijdse context beschouwen, − waarbij de keuze voor bepaalde genrethema’s en hun contacten met kunstverzamelaars, die de directe toegang tot de originele schilderijen mogelijk maakten en vaak opdracht gaven tot het maken van reproducties, een belangrijke rol spelen − wordt duidelijk dat schilders een strategische betrokkenheid hadden bij de productie en verkoop van kopieën, en profiteerden van en tegelijkertijd een bijdrage leverden aan, de groeiende populariteit van de zeventiende-eeuwse genreschilderkunst. Een van de intrigerende voorbeelden van vroeg achttiende-eeuwse reproductieve kunst betreft het populaire zeventiende-eeuwse thema van de kaarslichtscene, dat dikwijls door achttiende-eeuwse kunstenaars, zoals door Nicolaas Verkolje (in mezzotint prent) en Louis de Moni (in schilderkunst),werd gekopieerd. Zij kozen bewust voor het reproduceren van de onder contemporaine verzamelaars zeer gewilde kaarslichtscenes van Dou en Schalcken. Zo leverden zij een bijdrage aan de stijgende populariteit van deze meesters en van het kaarslichtthema in het bijzonder, terwijl zij tevens hun kundigheid in het maken van hoogwaardige kopieën toonden en zich associeerden met hun beroemde voorgangers. Op deze wijze slaagden zij er tegelijkertijd in om een niche voor hun eigen kaarslichtstukken te creëren. De marktstrategie om te kapitaliseren op de populariteit van het werk van beroemde zeventiende-eeuwse meesters ligt duidelijk ten grondslag aan de artistieke keuzes van schilders uit de jongere generatie, keuzes die in de volgende hoofdstukken zullen worden besproken. Wat betreft de kopieën zelf, deze hadden de functie om als vervanging te dienen voor de steeds schaarser wordende zeventiende-eeuwse schilderijen. Willem van Mieris bijvoorbeeld, maakte een reeks kopieën naar het werk van zijn vader in opdracht van zijn mecenas Pieter de la Court van der Voort. Inventarissen van deze befaamde verzamelaar getuigen van het feit dat de gereproduceerde schilderijen ter compensatie dienden van de ontbrekende zeventiende-eeuwse originelen. Het gevolg was dat diens schilderijenkabinet de lange picturale traditie toonde van drie generaties van de Van Mieris-familie gedurende de zeventiende en vroege achttiende eeuw. Het derde hoofdstuk, dat de tweede case study bevat, onderzoekt een creatievere ŘŗŚȱ ȱ ȱ

vorm van imitatie: het ontlenen van populaire thema’s, motieven en compostitorische elementen aan de zeventiende-eeuwse genreschilderkunst en het up-to-date brengen ervan door middel van een achttiende-eeuws idioom. Deze case study gaat in op de genreschilderkunst van Willem van Mieris en zijn relatie met de verzamelaar Johan Hendrik van Wassenaer Obdam. De aandacht wordt in het bijzonder gericht op de vraag waarom deze schilder ervoor koos specifieke zeventiende eeuwse picturale elementen in zijn werk te incorporeren. Een goed voorbeeld is het schilderij Een Kruidenierswinkel, dat opmerkelijke overeenkomsten vertoont met een zeventiende-eeuws schilderij van Gerard Dou dat in het bezit was van een andere belangrijke verzamelaar van Van Mieris’ schilderijen, de eerder genoemde Pieter de la Court van der Voort. Verschillende archiefstukken tonen aan dat Van Mieris zijn schilderij in opdracht van Van Wassenaer Obdam schilderde die het rechtstreeks van de schilder kocht voor het aanzienlijke bedrag van 825 gulden, nadat hij in eerste instantie tevergeefs had geprobeerd Dou’s originele schilderij van Pieter de la Court en zijn zoon te kopen. Dit voorbeeld geeft aan dat het enthousiasme onder verzamelaars voor specifieke zeventiende-eeuwse schilderijen bepalend kan zijn geweest voor het soort onderwerpen en motieven dat schilders van de jongere generatie in hun eigen werk gingen gebruiken. Dit roept echter de vraag op of deze vroeg achttiende-eeuwse schilderijen louter bedoeld waren ter vervanging van niet-beschikbare zeventiende-eeuwse exemplaren. Hoe beoordeelden verzamelaars deze nieuwe schilderijen in verhouding tot het werk van de zeventiende-eeuwse meesters? Een verhelderend voorbeeld betreft twee paren tegenhangers waar schilders van de latere generatie een schilderij toevoegden aan een reeds bestaand stuk van een oudere meester. Door te onderzoeken hoe deze vorm van samenvoeging door de bezitters van deze pendanten werd gewaardeerd, wordt duidelijk dat de later toegevoegde werken enerzijds als een eerbetoon aan de illustere voorgangers kunnen worden gezien, maar tegelijkertijd ook als een uitdaging voor jongere schilders om iets nieuws toe te voegen op basis van hun interpretatie van het werk van de oude meesters. Dit getuigt van de waardering van verzamelaars voor de artistieke emulatie die achttiende-eeuwse kunstenaars in hun werk nastreefden. Ook de kunsttheorie uit de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw verschaft ons een raamwerk om meer inzicht te krijgen in de achttiende-eeuwse waardering voor dit hergebruik ȱ Řŗśȱ ȱ ȱ van picturale elementen uit zeventiende-eeuwse schilderijen. Hoewel volgens de kunsttheorie ‘lenen’ normaal gesproken alleen was toegestaan wanneer motieven zó subtiel in een kunstwerk werden verwerkt dat ze niet meer als zodanig te herkennen waren, werd het op herkenbare wijze overnemen van zeventiende-eeuwse motieven en composities geapprecieerd indien het tegelijkertijd een eerbetoon was aan het werk van de schilder aan wie deze elementen werden ontleend. Verzamelaars die enthousiast op zoek waren naar het werk van zeventiende-eeuwse schilders moeten zich bewust zijn geweest van de betekenis van zulk eerbetoon aan de oude meesters en zullen grote waardering hebben gehad voor de wijze waarop jongere schilders probeerden de picturale conventies van de Gouden Eeuw over te nemen en te vernieuwen. In de laatste case study, gepresenteerd in het vierde hoofdstuk, wordt de aandacht verlegd naar een van de meest innovatieve aspecten van de genreschilderkunst uit de eerste helft van de achttiende eeuw, namelijk de toegenomen verfijning, die als een coherente classicistische stijlvorm kan worden herkend. Deze case study gaat uitvoerig in op geïdealiseerde vrouwenfiguren, die in uiteenlopende genretaferelen dikwijls voorzien zijn van elegante gebaren, gratievolle lichaamshoudingen en een gladde huid, ongeacht de verschillende sociale achtergrond van de afgebeelde vrouwen. Waarom vond deze vorm van idealisering plaats, in het bijzonder in combinatie met het gebruik van zeventiende-eeuwse onderwerpen? Allereerst wordt deze vraag beschouwd vanuit de bestudering van een aantal theoretische denkbeelden van het classicisme, met name de instructies die Gerard de Lairesse met betrekking tot de genreschilderkunst gaf in zijn Groot schilderboek (1707). Volgens De Lairesse mochten schilders gewone mensen uit de middenklasse als onderwerp voor hun genreschilderijen kiezen, maar dan moesten ze deze personages wel voorzien van klassieke vormen en ideale proporties, wat onontbeerlijk was bij het verbeelden van gratie en schoonheid, zoals die te zien waren in klassieke sculptuur. De enige manier om de lager ingeschatte categorie van de genreschilderkunst te verheffen was om dergelijke kwaliteiten uit de historieschilderkunst over te nemen en toe te passen op de genreschilderkunst. De Lairesse’s advies lijkt dus in overeenstemming met het gebruik van geïdealiseerde figuren in alledaagse scenes uit de vroeg achttiende-eeuwse genreschilderkunst. ŘŗŜȱ ȱ ȱ

Dit was in feite de wijze waarop Willem van Mieris te werk ging bij het maken van zijn genrestukken. Onderzoek naar de vele historiestukken, tekeningen en genrestukken die deze schilder produceerde, maakt duidelijk dat Van Mieris voor zijn historiestukken geïdealiseerde vrouwenfiguren gebruikte die hij ontleende aan de classicistische beeldhouwkunst van Francis van Bossuit. Van Mieris paste dezelfde geïdealiseerde vormentaal vervolgens ook toe in zijn genrestukken, waarbij zelfs volksvrouwen klassieke gratie en schoonheid werd verleend. Hij herhaalde dezelfde figuurtypen in meer dan één categorie schilderijen, overigens niet alleen met het doel de stijl van het classicisme zoveel mogelijk in zijn werk te integreren, maar ook om een hogere productie te kunnen realiseren. In het begin van de achttiende eeuw werd immers van schilders verlangd dat ze veelzijdig waren, opdat zij konden voldoen aan de uiteenlopende behoeften van verzamelaars. Deze hadden een grote voorkeur voor zeventiende-eeuwse schilderijen die door specialisten in een bepaald genre waren vervaardigd, en zij verwachtten in het werk van schilders van de jongere generatie, die zich niet meer konden permitteren zich in één genre te specialiseren, dezelfde variatie en kwaliteit. Door gewone vrouwen de uiterlijke schoonheid van godinnen te geven, paste Van Mieris een vorm van idealisering toe in zijn alledaagse genrevoorstellingen die als een vernieuwend en uniek aspect in de vroeg achttiende-eeuwse genreschilderkunst kan worden beschouwd – dit staat bijvoorbeeld in schril contrast met de zeventiende-eeuwse schilderijen van Rembrandt, die juist gewone vrouwen als model gebruikte voor het afbeelden van zijn geschilderde godinnen.

Aldus werden de specifieke kenmerken van de genreschilderkunst uit de periode 1670-1750 bestudeerd door te analyseren hoe schilders terugkeken naar de kunst uit hun recente verleden, en dit af te zetten tegen hun eigen artistieke situatie gedurende deze overgangsperiode. Het is duidelijk geworden dat het besef van een voorbije Gouden Eeuw een essentiële rol speelde bij de keuzes die kunstenaars maakten en bij de voorkeur van verzamelaars voor een bepaald type genreschilderkunst. Schilders ontwikkelden een succesvolle marktstrategie door gebruik te maken van de grote populariteit van het werk van hun illustere voorgangers uit de zeventiende eeuw, ernaar strevend te appelleren aan de smaak van verzamelaars die erop gebrand waren om het werk van de oude meesters in hun bezit te krijgen. Tegelijkertijd ȱ Řŗŝȱ ȱ ȱ slaagden schilders − die duidelijk de noodzaak voelden om de overgeërfde picturale traditie uit de zeventiende eeuw te vernieuwen − erin hun werk te onderscheiden van dat van de vroegere meesters door het verwerken van een eigentijdse beeldtaal. De overeenkomst tussen en het verschil met de zeventiende-eeuwse genreschilderkunst, in 1936 door de kunsthistoricus Wilhelm Martin nog in negatieve termen omschreven als een “zonderling mengelmoes van classicisme en burgerlijkheid”, was eigenlijk het resultaat van het consistente streven van schilders naar een ideale combinatie van populaire zeventiende-eeuwse picturale elementen en de overheersende stijl uit het begin van de achttiende eeuw, het classicisme. In ogenschouw nemend hoe vasthoudend bepaalde thema’s en motieven werden herhaald in de vroeg achttiende-eeuwse schilderkunst, kunnen we stellen dat zulke visuele referenties naar, en de verbreiding van, specifieke elementen ontleend aan de oudere schilderkunst demonstreren wat in de ogen van een latere generatie als waardevol en kenmerkend voor de zeventiende-eeuwse genreschilderkunst werd gezien. De sleutel tot een juiste beoordeling van de kunst uit de periode tussen 1680 en 1750 ligt in de mate waarin we haar kunnen doorgronden in haar oorspronkelijke context. Door het reconstrueren en herinterpreteren van de perceptie en evaluatie van de genreschilderkunst uit deze dynamische overgangsperiode, heeft deze studie duidelijk willen maken waarom men in het begin van de achttiende eeuw grote bewondering had voor de ondernemende kunstenaars die streefden naar imitatie en innovatie van de picturale traditie die hen was nagelaten door de Gouden Eeuw.

ȱȱ ȱ

ȱ 1. Adriaen de Lelie, Morning Visit, 1796, panel, 53 x 43 cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

ȱ ȱ 1. Frans I van Mieris, A Woman Playing a Lute, 1663, panel, 22.2 x 17.1 cm, Royal Scottish Academy, Edinburgh, The National Trust. 2. Gabriel Metsu, A Woman Tuning Her Cittern, Approached by a Man, panel, 36.5 x 30 cm, Kassel, Staatliche Museen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. 3. Eglon van der Neer, A Woman Tuning a Lute, 1678, panel, 42.5 x 36.7 cm, Munich, Alte Pinakothek. 4. Casper Netscher, A Woman Playing a Chitarrone, c. 1668-72, canvas, 43.5 x 36 cm, present location unknown. 5. Willem Verschuring, A Young Woman Playing a Cittern, panel, 33.7 x 26 cm, Stuttgart, Stuttgart Staatsgalerie. 6. Philip van Dijk, A Woman Playing a Lute, panel, 15.5 x 12.5 cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, on loan to Enschede, Rijksmuseum Twenthe. 7. Pieter van der Werff, A Lady Tuning a Cittern, panel, 31.5 x 27.5 cm, Private Collection. 8. Gerard Dou, The Young Mother, 1658, panel, arched top, 73 x 55.5 cm, The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis. 9. Hieronymus van der Mij, A Mother Nursing with an Old Woman and Two Children, 1735 (?), panel, 37 x 32.2 cm, Private Collection. 10. Cornelis Dusart, The Interior of an Inn with Peasants Merry-Making, 1692, copper, 23.2 x 29.2 cm, Private Collection. 11. Dominicus van Tol, Children with a Mousetrap, panel, 31 x 25 cm, Amsterdam, ŘŘŖȱ ȱ ȱ

Rijksmuseum. 12. Casper Netscher, Two Boys Blowing Bubbles, 1670, panel, 31.2 x 24.6 cm, London, The National Gallery. 13. Adriaen van der Werff, A Boy with a Mousetrap, panel, 19.2 x 13.3 cm, London, The National Gallery. 14. Pieter van der Werff, Three Girls Decorating a Statue, 1710, panel, 33.3 x 30.7 cm, Kassel, Staatliche Museen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. 15. Gerard de Lairesse, Het Groot Schilderboek, Amsterdam 1707, vol. 2, illustration facing p. 25. 16. Philip van Dijk, The Drawing Lesson, 1728, panel, 37.7 x 29.4 cm, Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie. 17. Pieter van der Werff, A Statue of Venus, with a Girl Drawing and a Boy, 1715, panel, 38.5 x 29 cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. 18. Matthijs Naiveu, A Boy with a Bird, canvas, 60 x 40 cm, Chartres, Musée Municipal de Chartres. 19. Louis de Moni, A Boy and a Girl Playing “Ganzenbord,” 1743, panel, 26.3 x 21.6 cm, present location unknown (Photo/Collection RKD, The Hague).

ȱ ȱ 1. Frans I van Mieris, A Soldier Smoking a Pipe (Self-Portrait), 1662, panel, 14 x 11 cm, Worcester, Worcester Art Museum. 2. Willem van Mieris, after Frans I van Mieris, A Soldier Smoking a Pipe (Self-Portrait), panel, 15.5 x 12 cm, Private Collection. 3. Willem van Mieris, after Frans I van Mieris, A Lady with a Straw Hat, panel, 15.2 x 11.4 cm, Private Collection. 4. Louis de Moni, Old Woman at a Window, panel, 40 x 31.5 cm, The Hague, Museum Bredius. 5. Gerard Dou, Old Woman with a Jug at a Window, c. 1660-1665, panel, 28.3 x 22.8 cm, Vienna, Akademie der bildenden Kunst. 6. Sales catalogue of the collection of Louis de Moni, Leiden, 13 April 1772. ȱȱ ȱ ŘŘŗȱ ȱ ȱ 7. Louis de Moni, An Old Woman Making Bobbin Lace with a Boy Blowing Bubbles, panel, 39 x 32.5 cm, Leiden, Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal. 8. Frans I van Mieris, A Young Man with an Owl, panel, 16 x 12 cm, Vienna, Akademie der bildenden Kunst. 9. Louis de Moni, after Gabriel Metsu, A Sick Woman, panel, 33.5 x 28 cm, Hartford, Wadsworth Atheneum. 10. Gabriel Metsu, A Woman at Her Toilet, panel, 19.2 x 16.6 cm, London, The Wallace Collection. 11. Circle of Gerard Dou, A Young Man Drawing by Candlelight, panel, 31 x 24.8 cm, present location unknown. 12. Gerard Dou, The Dentist, panel, 37.5 x 30 cm, Schwerin, Staatliches Museum. 13. Louis de Moni, A Woman with a Fishmonger in a Kitchen, panel, 43 x 36 cm, present location unknown (Photo/Collection RKD, The Hague). 14. Louis de Moni, An Interior with a Kitchen Maid Cleaning a Copper Pot and a Youth and Young Woman Playing Jeu de L’Oie, 43.2 x 36.2 cm, present location unknown. 15. Louis de Moni, after David II Teniers, A Group of Gambling Men, signed and dated: L: de Moni/ Na het schilderij van D: Teniers/ Augus 1747 (in verso), gray washed drawing, black chalk, 293 x 370 mm, present location unknown. 16. Gerard Dou, Woman Asleep, c.1660-1665, panel, 30 x 21.5 cm, Private Collection. 17. Louis de Moni, A Painter Lighting a Pipe, panel, 22.8 x 22 cm, Private Collection (Photo/Collection RKD, The Hague). 18. Gerard Dou, The Mousetrap, panel, 26.3 x 21 cm, formerly in Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden. 19. Nicolaas Verkolje, after Gerard Dou, The Mousetrap, mezzotint, 243.8 x 200.7 mm. 20. Godfried Schalcken, A Girl in a Shirt Holding a Candle, c. 1680-1685, canvas, 39 x 32 cm, present location unknown. 21. Nicolaas Verkolje, after Godfried Schalcken, A Girl in a Shirt Holding a Candle, mezzotint, 280 x 224 mm. 22. Godfried Schalcken, A Woman at a Mirror, canvas, 76 x 64 cm, The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, Prince Willem V Gallery. ŘŘŘȱ ȱ ȱ

23. Nicolaas Verkolje, after Godfried Schalcken, A Woman at a Mirror, mezzotint, 332.7 x 243.8 mm. 24. Nicolaas Verkolje, A Woman with a Candle and a Letter in a Window with a Maidservant, panel, 33.7 x 27.6 cm, Houston, The Menil Collection. 25. Godfried Schalcken, A Woman Reading a Letter, panel, 27 x 20.5 cm, Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden. 26. Gerard Dou, A Young Woman in a Window, panel, 26.7 x 19.5 cm, Madrid, Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza. 27. Willem van Mieris, after Frans I van Mieris’s drawing, Self-portrait of Frans I van Mieris, panel, 14.5 x 11.6 cm, Leiden, Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal. 28. Frans I van Mieris, Self-Portrait, 1667, drawing, 197 x 137 mm, London, British Museum.

ȱ ȱ 1. Gerard Dou, The Trumpeter, panel, 38 x 29 cm, Paris, Musée du Louvre. 2. Willem van Mieris, The Trumpeter, 1700, panel, 30.3 x 25.1 cm, Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden. 3. Willem van Mieris, The Merry Toper, 1699, panel, 25 x 20.1 cm, Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie. 4. Frans I van Mieris, Self-Portrait, 1670, panel, 17.2 x 13.3 cm, Providence, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design. 5. Frans I van Mieris, Self-Portrait, Holding a Large Glass, 1668, panel, 19.5 x 13.5 cm, Germany, private collection. 6. Willem van Mieris, Self-Portrait, 1688, oil on panel, 20.7 x 16.5 cm, United States, Private Collection. 7. Frans I van Mieris, The Old Violinist, 1660, panel, 28.1 x 21 cm, Boston, Private Collection. 8. Pieter Schenk, Portrait of Count Johan Hendrik van Wassenaer Obdam, c. 1703, mezzotint, 245 x 189 mm. 9. (Attributed to) Gerard Dou, A Girl Pouring Milk, panel, 36 x 27.4 cm, Paris, Musée ȱȱ ȱ ŘŘřȱ ȱ ȱ du Louvre. 10. Gabriel Metsu, A Man Smoking a Pipe at a Fireplace, panel, 27.5 x 23 cm, Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden. 11. Willem van Mieris, An Old Man Reading a Newspaper, 1729, panel, 14.4 x 12.7 cm, present location unknown. 12. Willem van Mieris, A Kitchen with a Fishmonger, 1713, panel, 49.3 x 41 cm, London, The National Gallery. 13. Willem van Mieris, A Woman in a Kitchen, 1715, panel, 47 x 37 cm, Paris, Musée du Louvre. 14. Willem van Mieris, A Grocer’s Shop, 1717, panel, 49.5 x 41 cm, The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, Prince Willem V Gallery. 15. Gerard Dou, A Grocer’s Shop, 1647, panel, 38.5 x 29 cm, Paris, Musée du Louvre. 16. Lithograph (reproduced here in mirror image) after Willem van Mieris, The Shrimp Seller, 235 x 148 mm, (original: oil on panel, 22 x 14 cm, present location unknown). 17. Possibly by Gerard Dou, Boy with a Sparrow Pot and Girl with a Pail, panel, 22.5 x 14 cm, present location unknown. 18. Domnicus van Tol, The Favorite Bird, panel, 27 x 20 cm, Brunswick, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum. 19. Print after Willem van Mieris, The Old Fishmonger, (original: oil on panel, 25 x 20 cm). 20. Willem van Mieris, The Shrimp Seller, black chalk on blue paper, 243 x 156 mm, London, Courtauld Institute of Art. 21. Frans I van Mieris, A Woman Singing or Reading, 1677, panel, 16 x 11.3 cm, United States, Private Collection. 22. Nicolaes van Veerendael, Interior with Monkeys, 1686, 29 x 37.5 cm, Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden. 23. Willem van Mieris, Interior with Monkeys, 1719, panel, 28.5 x 38 cm, Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden. 24. Willem van Mieris, Interior with Monkeys, black chalk on blue paper, 264 x 405 mm, Haarlem, Teyers Museum. ŘŘŚȱ ȱ ȱ

25. Willem van Mieris, A Hurdy-Gurdy Player Asleep in a Tavern, 1690, panel, 25 x 22 cm, present location unknown. 26. Hieronymus van der Mij, A Poultry Seller, panel, 24 x 20.5 cm, Antwerp, Collection Simon van Gelder. 27. Hendrik Jacob Hoet, A Man Holding a Large Glass at a Window, panel, 38 x 27.5 cm, present location unknown (Photo/Collection RKD, The Hague).

ȱ ȱ 1. Willem van Mieris, The Lute Player, 1711, panel, 50 x 40.5 cm, London, The Wallace Collection. 2. Pieter van der Werff, A Girl Feeding Birds, panel, 31 x 24.5 cm, present location unknown. 3. Philip van Dijk, A Young Couple making Music and Singing with a Boy, panel, 37.5 x 31.8 cm, present location unknown. 4. Willem van Mieris, The Poultry Shop, panel, 39 x 32.5 cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. 5. Willem van Mieris, Bathsheba, 1708, panel, 37 x 32 cm, Notre Dame (Indiana), Snite Museum of Art, University of Notre Dame. 6. Willem van Mieris, Bathsheba, black chalk, parchment, 279 x 241 mm, present location unknown. 7. Willem van Mieris, Venus and Cupid, drawing after Francis van Bossuit, black chalk, parchment, 408 x 259 mm, Providence, Rhode Island, Rhode Island School of Design Museum. 8. Mattys Pool, Galatea, a print after Barent Graat’s drawing after a sculpture by Francis van Bossuit, in Beeld-snyders Kunst-kabinet 1727, XLVI. 9. Willem van Mieris, Diana and Callisto, drawing after a relief by Francis van Bossuit, black chalk, parchment, 140 x 220 mm, present location unknown (Photo/Collection RKD, The Hague). 10. Willem van Mieris, The Neglected Lute, panel, 45.0 x 38.6 cm, London, Royal Collection, Buckingham Palace. ȱȱ ȱ ŘŘśȱ ȱ ȱ 11. Willem van Mieris, The Market Stall, c. 1730, panel, 41.9 x 35.9, Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Museum. 12. Willem van Mieris, Venus and Cupid, panel, 30 x 26 cm, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten. 13. Willem van Mieris, A Woman Selling Pears to a Boy, 1705, panel, 25.5 x 21.5 cm, present location unknown (Photo/Collection RKD, The Hague). 14. Gerard ter Borch, The Music Lesson, c. 1688/1699, canvas, 86.4 x 70.2 cm, Toledo, The Toledo Museum of Art. 15. Gerard ter Borch, The Music Party, c. 1668/1670, panel, 58.1 x 47.3 cm, Cincinnati, Cincinnati Art Museum. 16. Nicolaas Verkolje, The Toilet of Bathsheba, copper, 63.2 x 52 cm, Private Collection, United States. 17. Nicolaas Verkolje, A Young Man and a Young Woman with a Rose, panel, 38 x 31 cm, Prague, Národí Galerie. 18. Pieter van der Werff, Granida and Daifilo, 1711, panel, 37 x 29 cm, Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum. 19. Willem van Mieris, Fruit and Nut Seller, 1722, panel, 20 x 16.5 cm, present location unknown. 20. Willem van Mieris, The Holy Family, 1708, panel, 61 x 49 cm, present location unknown. 21. Willem van Mieris, Armida Binding the Sleeping Rinaldo, 1709, panel, 66.8 x 85.7 cm, The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis. 22. Willem van Mieris, A Scene from Tartuffe, panel, 60.5 x 49 cm, present location unknown (Photo/Collection RKD, The Hague). 23. Nicolaas Verkolje, The Rape of Europe, panel, 59 x 73 cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

ȱ ȱ ȱ ŘŘŜȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱ ȱ

Opposite page 13 detail of chapter IV, fig. 3 Opposite page 27 detail of Frans II van Mieris, The Three Generation, 1742, panel, 34 x 30.4 cm, Leiden, Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal Opposite page 51 detail of Chapter II, fig. 23 Opposite page 77 detail of Chapter III, fig. 14 Opposite page 101 detail of Chapter IV, fig. 5 Opposite page 127 detail of Chapter I, fig. 17

¢ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ Angel 1642 Philips Angel, Lof der schilderkonst, Leiden 1642.

De Bisschop 1668-69 Jan de Bisschop, Signorum veterum icones, 2 vols., Amsterdam 1668-69.

De Bisschop 1671 Jan de Bisschop, Paradigmata graphices variorum artificum, Amsterdam 1671.

Blanc 1847 Charles Blanc, Le trésor de la curiosité, 2 vols., Paris 1857.

Gilpin 1768 William Gilpin, An Essay upon Prints, London 1768.

Van Gool 1750-51 Johan van Gool, De nieuwe schouburg der Nederlantsche kunstschilders en schilderessen, 2 vols., The Hague 1750-51.

Van Gool 1752/1753 Johan van Gool, Antwoordt op den zoo genaemden brief aan een Vrient, Mitsfaders noch op de intrërede voor het eerste deel der Catalogus van Schilderyen, beide in druk uitgegeeven door Gerard Hoet, ter afwissinge van den laster en schendtael, In die beide Geschriften uitgespoogen, zo op den Schryver van de Nieuwe Schouburg der Nederlantsche kunstschilders en schilderessen, als op deszelfs meede kunstgenooten, The Hague 1752 or 1753.

Von Hagedorn 1762 Christian Ludwig von Hagedorn, Betrachtungen ueber die Mahlerey, Leipzig 1762.

Hoet 1751 Gerard Hoet, Brief aan een’ Vrient, The Hague 1751.

ŘŘŞȱ ȱ ȱ Hoet and Terwesten 1752-70 Gerard Hoet and Pieter Terwesten, Catalogus of Naamlyst van Schilderyen, met derzelver pryzen, 3 vols., The Hague 1752-70.

Hoet 1753 Gerard Hoet, Aanmerkingen op het eerste en tweede Deel des Nieuwen Schouburgs der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen, door Johan van Gool, The Hague 1753.

Van Hoogstraten 1678 Samuel van Hoogstraten, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkunst, Rotterdam 1678.

Houbraken 1718-21 Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen, 3 vols., Amsterdam 1718-21.

Junius 1641 Franciscus Junius, De Schilder-konst der Oude, Middelburg 1641.

De Lairesse 1707 Gerard de Lairesse, Het Groot Schilderboek, 2 vols., Amsterdam 1707.

Van Mander 1604 Karel van Mander, Het schilder-boeck, Haarlem 1604.

Van Mander/Miedema 1973 Karel van Mander, Den grondt der edel vry schilder-const, ed. H. Miedema, 2 vols., Utrecht 1973.

Pels 1681 Andries Pels, Gebruik én misbruik des tooneels, Amsterdam 1681.

Pool 1727 Mattys Pool, Cabinet de l’art de sculpture par le fameux sculpteur Francis van Bossuit executé en yvoire ou ebauché en terre/Beeld-snijders kunst-kabinet door den vermaarden beeldsnijder Francis van Bossuit in yvoor gesneeden en geboetseert, Amsterdam 1727.

Terwesten 1776 Terwesten, Register off Aanteekeninge zo van de Deekens, Hoofdluijden en Secretarissen der Kunst-Confrerie-Kamer van Pictura..., The Hague 1776 (copy at the RKD).

ȱ ŘŘşȱ ȱ ȱ Von Uffenbach 1753-54 Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach, Merkwürdige Reisen durch Niedersachen Holland und Engelland, 3 vols., Frankfurt, Leipzig & Ulm 1753-54.

Weyerman 1729-69 Jacob Campo Weyerman, De levens-beschryvingen der Nederlandsche konst-schilders en konst-schilderessen, 4 vols., The Hague 1729-69.

Wigmana 1742 Gerard Wigmana, Korte schets of denkbeeld, om tot een groote volmaaktheid in de schilderkunst te geraken, Amsterdam 1742.

ȱȱ ȱ Aalbers and Prak 1987 J. Aalbers and M. Prak, De bloem der natie: Adel en patriciaat in de Noordelijke Nederlanden, Amsterdam 1987.

Aalbers, Brokken and Van der Klooster 2001 J. Aalbers, H.M. Brokken and L.J. van der Klooster (eds.), Heren van stand: Van Wassenaer 1200-2000. Achthonderd jaar Nederlandse adelgeschiedenis, Zoetermeer 2001.

Aono 2006 Junko Aono, “Looking back to the Dutch Golden Age: Early Eighteenth-Century Genre Painting by Willem van Mieris,” in Mai 2006, pp. 225-46.

Aono 2007/2008 Junko Aono, “Ennobling Daily Life: A Question of Refinement in Early Eighteenth-Century Dutch Genre Painting,” Simiolus 33 (2007/2008), no. 4, pp. 237-57.

Aono 2008 Junko Aono, “Reproducing the Golden Age: Copies after Seventeenth-Century Dutch Genre Painting in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century,” Oud Holland 121 (2008), no. 1, pp. 1-34.

Aono 2011 Junko Aono, “De Gouden Eeuw in druk: reproductieprenten van Nicolaas Verkolje,” in Enschede 2011, pp. 45-55.

Baarsen, Te Rijdt and Scholten 2006 Reinier Baarsen, Robert-Jan te Rijdt and Frits Scholten (eds.), Netherlandish Art 1700-1800, Zwolle 2006. ŘřŖȱ ȱ ȱ Baarsen 2006 Reinier Baarsen, “Art for the interior, the interior as art,” in Baarsen, Te Rijdt and Scholten 2006, pp. 7-18.

Baer 1990 Ronni Baer, The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613-1675), Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990.

Bakker 2008 Piet Bakker, De Friese schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw, Zwolle 2008.

Beherman 1988 Thierry Beherman, Godfried Schalcken, Paris 1988.

Beilmann 1989 M. Beilmann, “Frans van Mieris d. J., Die Regenten des Katharinen- und Cäcilienhospitals,” Leids Kunsthisorisch Jaarboek 8 (1989), pp. 309-22.

Bergvelt, Meijers and Rijnders 1993 Ellinoor Bergvelt, Debora J. Meijers and Mieke Rijnders (eds.), Verzamelen: van rariteitenkabinet tot kunstmuseum, Heerlen 1993.

Bernt 1979-80 Walter Bernt, Die Niederländschen Maler und Zeichner des 17. Jahrhunderts, 5 vols., Munchen 1979-80.

Bille 1961 Clara Bille, De Temple de Kunst, of het Kabinet van den Heer Braamcamp, Amsterdam 1961.

Blondé and De Laet 2006 Bruno Blondé and Veerle de Laet, “Owing Paintings and Changes in Consumer Preferences in the Low Countries, Seventeenth-Eighteenth Centuries,” in De Marchi and Van Miegroet 2006, pp. 69-84.

Blok 1913 P.J. Blok, “Ars Aemula Naturae,” Jaarboekje voor geschiedenis en oudheidkunde van Leiden en omstreken 10 (1913), pp. 1-27.

Bock and Grosshans 1996 Henning Bock and Rainald Grosshans, Gemäldegalerie Berlin: Gesamtverzeichnis, Berlin 1996.

ȱ Řřŗȱ ȱ ȱ Bok 1994 Marten Jan Bok, Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt, 1580-1700, Ph.D. diss., Utrecht University, 1994.

Bok 2002 Marten Jan Bok, “New Perspectives on Eighteenth-century Dutch Art Production and Collecting,” in North 2002, pp. 47-53.

B. Broos 1989 B. Broos, “Improving and Finishing Old Master Drawing: An Art in Itself,” Hoogsteder-Naumann Mercury 9 (1989), pp. 34-55.

T.J. Broos 1989 T.J. Broos, “Leidse schilders beschreven. Het leven van Leidse kunstenaars volgens Jacob Campo Weyerman,” Mededelingen van Stichting Jacob van Campo Weyerman 12 (1989), pp. 41-54.

Broos 1990 T.J. Broos, Tussen Zwart en Ultramarijn: De levens van schilders beschreven door Jacob Campo Weyerman (1677-1747), Amsterdam 1990.

Brown 1984 Christopher Brown, Images of a Golden Past: Dutch Genre Painting of the 17th Century, New York 1984.

Brozius 2001 J.R. Brozius, Nicolaas Verkolje en de ‘beminders der konst,’ Hoorn 2001.

Buijsen 1998 Edwin Buijsen, “Tussen ‘Konsthemel’ en Aarde: Panorama der schilderkunst in Den Haag tussen 1600 en 1700,” in Buijsen and Dumas 1998, pp. 27-49.

Buijsen and Dumas 1998 Edwin Buijsen and Charles Dumas (eds.), Haagse Schilders in de Gouden Eeuw, Het Hoogsteder Lexicon van alle schilders werkzaam in Den Haag 1600-1700, The Hague 1998.

Buvelot and Vermeeren 2004 Quentin Buvelot and Carola Vermeeren, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis: A Summary Catalogue, Zwolle 2004.

ŘřŘȱ ȱ ȱ Carasso 1996 D. Carasso, “Houbrakens Groote Schouburgh: Enkele beschouwingen over de invloed van de Groote Schouburgh op ons beeld van de Noordnederlandse schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw,” Theoretische Geschiedenis 23 (1996), no. 3, pp. 330-45.

Copenhagen 1951 Royal Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Old Foreign Paintings, The State Museum, Copenhagen 1951.

Cornelis 1995 Bart Cornelis, “A reassessment of Arnold Houbraken’s Groote schouburgh,” Simiolus 23 (1995), pp. 163-80.

Craft-Giepmans 2006 Sabine Craft-Giepmans, Hollandse Meesters: Catalogus van de schilderijen van Hollandse meesters zeventiende en achttiende eeuw, Antwerp 2006.

Denisart and Jusselin 1931 Raoul Denisart and Maurice Jusselin, Musée Municipal de Chartres: catalogue, Chartres 1931.

Dieltjes 2007 Esther Dieltjes, “Scenes in and around the Kitchen: Dutch Genre Paintings as Inspired by Vermeer,” in Tokyo 2007, pp. 206-25 (English offprint: pp. 22-28).

Dolders 1985 Arno Dolders, “Some remarks on Lairesse’s Groot Schilderboek,” Simiolus 15 (1985), pp. 197-220.

Dudok van Heel 1975 S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, “Honderdvijftig advertenties van kunstverkopingen uit veertig jaargangen van de Amsterdamsche Courant 1672-1711,” Jaarboek Amstelodamum 67 (1975), pp. 149-73.

Dudok van Heel 1977 S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, “Ruim honderd advertenties van kunstverkopingen uit de Amsterdamsche Courant 1712-1725,” Jaarboek Amstelodamum 69 (1977), pp. 107-22.

Ekkart 1974 R.E.O. Ekkart, “Van Willem van Mieris tot Cornet,” in Ekkart et al. 1974, pp. 7-35.

ȱ Řřřȱ ȱ ȱ Ekkart et al. 1974 R.E.O. Ekkart et al., Leids Kunstlegaat: Kunst en historie rondom Ars Aemula Natura, Leiden 1974.

Elen 1995a Albert J. Elen, “‘Ongemeen uitvoerig op perkament met sapverven behandeld’: de gekleurde tekeningen van Willem van Mieris uit de collectie Jonas Witsen,” Delineavit et Sculpsit 15 (1995), pp. 1-22.

Elen 1995b Albert J. Elen, “De voortekeningen voor de vaasreliëf van Willem van Mieris,” Oud Holland 109 (1995), no. 4, pp. 201-16.

Elen 2009 Albert J. Elen, “Willem van Mieris and His First Model: Agneta Chapman as the Morgan Flora,” Master Drawings 47 (2009), no. 4, pp. 464-67.

Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel 1985 Emke Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel, “Tekeningen van Willem van Mieris (1662-1747) in relatie tot zijn schilderijen,” Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 4 (1985), pp. 147-64.

Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel 1992 Emke Elen-Clifford Kocq van Breugel, “Sculpturen van Francis van Bossuit getekend door Willem van Mieris,” Delineavit et Sculpsit 8 (1992), pp. 12-24.

Emmens 1968 J.A. Emmens, Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst, Utrecht 1968.

Fock 1983 C. Willemijn Fock, “Willem van Mieris en zijn mecenas Pieter de la Court van der Voort,” Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 2 (1983), pp. 261-82.

Fock 1986-92 C. Willemijn Fock, “Kunstbezit in Leiden in de zeventiende eeuw,” in Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92, vol. 5, pp. 3-36.

Fock 1992 C. Willemijn Fock, “Kunst en rariteiten in het Hollandse interieur,” in Amsterdam 1992, pp. 70-91.

ŘřŚȱ ȱ ȱ Fock 1997 C. Willemijn Fock, “Kunstbezit in Leiden in de zeventiende eeuw,” in Schuurman, De Vries and Van der Woude 1997, pp. 259-305.

Fock 2001 C. Willemijn Fock (ed.), Het Nederlandse interieur in beeld 1600-1900, Zwolle 2001.

Fock 2006-07 C. Willemijn Fock, “Het interieur in de Republiek 1670-1750: (g)een plaats voor schilderkunst?” in Cologne/Dordrecht/Kassel 2006-07, pp. 63-84.

Franits 2001 Wayne Franits, “‘For People of Fashion.’ Domestic Imagery and the Art Market in the Dutch Republic,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 51 (2001), pp. 295-316.

Franits 2004 Wayne Franits, Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting, New Haven and London 2004.

Freedberg and De Vries 1991 David Freedberg and Jan de Vries (eds.), Art in history/History in art: Studies in seventeenth-century Dutch culture, Santa Monica 1991.

Von Frimmel 1907 Th. Von Frimmel, “Ein signiertes werk von Gerard Wigmana,” Blätter für Gemäldekunde, January 1907, vol. 3, pp. 109-13

Frijhoff and Prak 2005 Willem Frijhoff and Maarten Prak (eds.), Geschiedenis van Amsterdam: zelfbewuste stadstaat 1650-1813, Amsterdam 2005.

Gaehtgens 1976 Babara Gaehtgens, “Paradigmata Graphices: Adriaen van der Werff and the Pattern Books of François Perrier and Jan Bisschop,” in Strauss 1976, pp. 44-57.

Gaehtgens 1987 Babara Gaehtgens, Adriaen van der Werff 1659-1722, Munich 1987.

Gaehtgens 2006 Babara Gaehtgens, “Das ‘genre noble’: Transformationen in der Malerei des späeten 17. Jahrhunderts in Holland,” in Mai 2006, pp. 205-24.

ȱ Řřśȱ ȱ ȱ Gaskell and Jonker 1998 Ivan Gaskell and Michiel Jonker (eds.), Vermeer Studies, Washington D.C. 1998.

Van Gelder and Jost 1985 Jan G. Gelder and Ingrid Jost, Jan de Bisschop and his Icones & Paradigmata: Classical Antiquities and Italian Drawings for Artistic Instruction in Seventeenth Century Holland, Doornspijk 1985.

Gerson, Goodison and Sutton 1960 H. Gerson, J.W. Goodison, and D. Sutton, Catalogue of paintings in the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge (vol. 1: Dutch and Flemish; French, German and Spanish), Cambridge 1960

Grijzenhout 1992 Frans Grijzenhout, “A Myth of Decline,” in Jacob and Mijnhardt 1992, pp. 324-37.

Grijzenhout and Van Veen 1992 (1999) Frans Grijzenhout and H. van Veen (eds.), De Gouden Eeuw in perspectief, Heerlen 1992, trans. Cambridge 1999.

Grijzenhout 1993 Frans Grijzenhout, Cornelis Troost, Bloemendaal 1993.

Groenendijk 2008 Pieter Groenendijk, Beknopt biografisch lexicon van Zuid- en Noord-Nederlandse schilders, graveurs, glasschilders, tapƋtwevers et cetera van ca. 1350 tot ca. 1720, Utrecht 2008.

Groenveld and Wintle 1994 Simon Groenveld and Michael Wintle (eds.), The Exchange of Ideas: Religion, Scholarship and Art in Anglo-Dutch Relations in the Seventeenth Century, Zutphen 1994.

Gudlaugsson 1959 Sturla J. Gudlaugsson, Gerart Ter Borch, 2 vols., 1959 The Hague.

Haak 1984 Bob Haak, The Golden Age: Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century, translated and edited by Elizabeth Willems-Treeman, New York 1984.

Van Haersma Buma 1969 B. van Haersma Buma, “Gerardus Wigmana, De Friese Raphaël,” De Vrije Fries 49 (1969), pp. 43-65.

ŘřŜȱ ȱ ȱ Haverkamp-Begemann 1978 Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann (ed.), Wadsworth Atheneum Paintings. Catalogue I: The Netherlands and the German-speaking Countries, Fifteenth-Nineteenth Centuries, Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford 1978.

Hecht 1994 Peter Hecht, “Dutch Painters in England: Readings in Houbraken, Weyerman, and Van Gool,” in: Groenveld and Wintle 1994, pp. 150-62.

Hecht 1996 Peter Hecht, “Browsing in Houbraken: Developing a Fancy for an Underestimated Author,” Simiolus 24 (1996), pp. 259-74.

Hecht 2006-07 Peter Hecht, “Het einde van de Gouden Eeuw: een kwestie van smaak,” in Cologne/Dordrecht/Kassel 2006-07, pp. 11-26.

Heck, Lemerle and Pauwels 2002 M.C. Heck, F. Lemerle and Y. Pauwels (eds.), Théorie des arts et création artistique dans l’Europe du Nord du XVIe au début du XVIIIe siècle, Lille 2002.

Hesse and Schlagenhaufer 1986 Christian Hesse and Martina Schlagenhaufer (eds.), Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, Köln: Vollständiges Verzeichnis der Gemäldesammlung, Cologne 1986.

Hofstede de Groot 1907-28 Cornelis Hofstede de Groot, Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis Maler des XVI. Jahrhunderts., 10 vols., Esslingen et al. 1907-28.

Hollstein et al. 1949-2010 F.W.H. Hollstein et al., Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts ca. 1450-1700, 72 vols., Amsterdam 1949-2010.

Horn 2000 Hendrik J. Horn, The Golden Age Revisited. Arnold Houbraken’s Great Theatre of Netherlandish Painters and Paintress, Doornspijk 2000.

Van der Hut 2009 Margreet van der Hut, “Tekeningen van Barend Graat naar de sculpturen van Francis Bossuit,” Delineavit et Sculpsit 31 (July 2009), pp. 37-41.

ȱ Řřŝȱ ȱ ȱ Immerzeel 1842-43 J. Immerzeel, De levens en werken der Hollandsche en Vlaamsche kunstschilders, beeldhouwers, graveurs, graveurs en bouwmeesters, van het begin der vijftiende eeuw tot heden, Amsterdam 1842-43.

Ingamells 1992 John Ingamells, The Wallace Collection, Catalogue of Pictures IV: Dutch and Flemish, London 1992.

Jacob and Mijnhardt 1992 Margaret C. Jacob, and Wijnand W. Mijnhardt (eds.), The Dutch Republic in the Eighteenth Century: Decline, Enlightenment, and Revolution, Ithaca and London 1992.

Jonckheere 2005 Koenraad Jonckheere, Kunsthandel en diplomatie: de veiling van de schilderijenverzameling van Willem III (1713) en de rol van het diplomatieke netwerk in de Europese kunsthandel, Ph.D. diss., Universitity Amsterdam, 2005.

Jonckheere 2008 Koenraad Jonckheere, The Auction of King William’s Paintings (1713): Elite International Art Trade at the End of the Dutch Golden Age, Amsterdam 2008.

De Jongh 1968-69 Eddy de Jongh, “Erotica in vogelperspectief: de dubbelzinnigheid van een reeks 17de-eeuwse genrevoorstellingen,” Simiolus 3 (1968-69), pp. 22-74.

De Jongh 2004 Eddy de Jongh, “De symboliek van vis, visser, visgerei en vangst,” in Utrecht 2004, pp. 75-119.

Karau 2002 Susanne Henriette Karau, Leben und Werk des Leidener Malers Jacob Toorenvliet (1640-1719), Ph.D. diss., University of Berlin, Berlin 2002.

Kemmer 1998 Claus Kemmer, “In Search of Classical Form: Gerard de Lairesse’s Groot schilderboek and Seventeenth-Century Dutch Genre Painting,” Simiolus 26 (1998), pp. 87-115.

Van der Klooster 1993 L.J. van der Klooster, “Unico Wilhelm van Wassenaer in zijn Culturele Milieu,” in Rasch and Vlaardingerbroek 1993, pp. 93-103.

ŘřŞȱ ȱ ȱ Kooijmans 1987 L. Kooijmans, “Patriciaat en aristocratisering in Holland tijdens de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw,” in Aalbers and Prak 1987, pp. 93-103.

Koolhaas-Grosfeld 1982 Eveline Koolhaas-Grosfeld, “Nationale versus goede smaak: bevordering van nationale kunst in Nederland: 1780-1840,” Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 95 (1982), pp. 605-36.

Koolhaas-Grosfeld 1996 Eveline Koolhaas-Grosfeld, “‘Economische’ schilderkunst: de verbeelding van broederschap in de laat achttiende-eeuwse genre-schilderkunst, in het bijzonder Van Adriaan de Lelie,” De achttiende eeuw 28 (1996), pp. 141-84.

Korthals Altes 2003 Everhard Korthals Altes, De verovering van de internationale kunstmarkt door de zeventiende-eeuwse schilderkunst: enkele studies over de verspreiding van Hollandse schilderijen in de eerste helft van de achttiende eeuw, Leiden 2003.

Korthals Altes 2006 Everhard Korthals Altes, “‘Old’ versus Contemporary Art: The Reception and Reputation of Dutch Painting in the Eighteenth Century,” in Mai 2006, pp. 67-78.

Krikke-Frijns 1989 Antoinette J.M. Krikke-Frijns, ‘Hieronymus van der Mij: een achttiende-eeuwse Leidse schilder,’ Jaarboekje voor geschiedenis en oudheidkunde van Leiden en omstreken 81 (1989), pp. 84-103.

Lammertse 1998 F. Lammertse, Nederlandse Genreschilderijn uit de Zevendiende Eeuw: eigen collectie museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam 1998.

Lammertse 2006 Friso Lammertse, “Gerrit Uylenburgh, Art Dealer and Painter in Amsterdam and London,” in Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006, pp. 61-114.

Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006 Friso Lammertse and Jaap van der Veen, Uylenburgh & Son: Art and Commerce from Rembrandt to De Lairesse 1625-1675, Zwolle 2006.

Lesger 2005 Clé Lesger, “Vertraagde groei: De economie tussen 1650 en 1730,” in Frijhoff en Prak 2005, pp. 21-87. ȱ Řřşȱ ȱ ȱ Loos, Jansen and Kloek 1995 Wiepke Loos, Guido Jansen, and Wouter Kloek, Het Galante Tijdperk: Schilderijen uit de collectie van het Rijksmuseum, 1700-1800, Zwolle 1995.

Loughman and Montias 2000 John Loughman and John Michael Montias, Public and Private Spaces: Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Houses, Zwolle 2000.

Lunsingh Scheurleer et al. 1986-92 Th. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer et al., Het Rapenburg; Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, 6 vols., Leiden 1986-92.

Mai 2006 Ekkehard Mai (ed.), Holland nach Rembrandt: Zur niederländischen Kunst zwischen 1670 und 1750, Cologne 2006.

Mai 2006-07 Ekkehard Mai, “De Nederlandse historieschilderkunst omtreeks 1700. Traditie, bloei en ‘verval’,” in Cologne/Dordrecht/Kassel 2006-07, pp. 29-48.

MacLaren and Brown Neil MacLaren and Christopher Brown, The Dutch School 1600-1900, National Gallery, London 1991.

Manuth and Rüger 2004 Volker Manuth and Axel Rüger (eds.), Collected Opinions: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Honour of Alfred Bader, London 2004.

De Marchi and Van Miegroet 2006 Neil de Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet (eds.), Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe 1450-1750, Turnhout 2006.

Martin 1901 Willem Martin, Het leven en de werken van Gerrit Dou, beschouwd in verband met het schildersleven van zijn tijd, Leiden 1901.

Martin 1902 Willem Martin, Gerard Dou, London 1902.

Martin 1935-36 Willem Martin, De Hollandsche schilderkunst in de 17de eeuw. Vol. I: Frans Hals en zijn tijd, Vol. II: Rembrandt en zijn tijd, Amsterdam 1935-36. ŘŚŖȱ ȱ ȱ Van der Meer Mohr 1986 Jan van der Meer Mohr, “An attribution to Gerard Wigmana,” Mercury 4 (1986), pp. 48-52.

Meijer 2007 Fred G. Meijer, “Aandacht voor twee vroeg achttiende-eeuwse kunstenaarsportretten: een zelfportret van Louis de Moni (1698-1771) en een onopgelost raadsel,” RKD Bulletin, extra issue titled Portret in Beeld (2007), pp. 40-45.

Ter Molen-den Outer 1973 B. Ter Molen-den Outer, Het leven en werken van Nikolaas Verkolje, voorafgaan door een beschrijving van het werk van zijn vader, de kunstschilder Johannes Verkolje, doctoraal scriptie, Leiden Universiteit, 1973.

Ter Molen-den Outer 1978 B. Ter Molen-den Outer, “Nicolaas Verkolje (1673-1746), zijn navolging van en samenwerking met andere 18de eeuwse kunstschilders,” Oud-Nieuws ‘Vrienden van Antiek’ 11 (1978) no. 1, pp. 48-58.

Montias 1987 John Michael Montias, “Cost and Value in Seventeenth-century Dutch Art,” Art History 10 (1987), no. 4, pp. 455-66.

Montias 1991 John Michael Montias, “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions,” in Freedberg and De Vries 1991, pp. 331-72.

Morel-Deckers 1988 Y. Morel-Deckers, Schilderijen uit de 18de eeuw: deelcatalogus, Antwerp 1988.

Muller 1990 Jeffrey M. Muller, “The quality of grace in the art of Anthony van Dyck,” in Washington 1990, pp. 27-36.

Munt 1997 Anette Munt, “The Impact of the Rampjaar on Dutch Golden Age Culture,” Dutch Crossing 21 (1997), no. 1, pp. 3-51.

Naumann 1978 Otto Naumann, “Frans van Mieris as a Draughtsman,” Master Drawings 16 (1978), pp. 3-96.

Naumann 1981 Otto Naumann, Frans van Mieris the Elder (1635-1681), 2 vols., Doornspijk 1981. ȱ ŘŚŗȱ ȱ ȱ Niemeijer 1973 J.W. Niemeijer, Cornelis Troost 1696-1750, Assen 1973.

Nijboer 2010 Harm Nijboer, “Een bloeitijd als crisis: Over Hollandse schilderkunst in de 17de eeuw,” Holland 42 (2010), pp. 193-205.

North 2002 Michael North (ed.), Kunstsammeln und Geschmack im 18. Jahrhundert, Berlin 2002.

North 2006-07 Michael North, “De Nederlandse Republiek in de 18de eeuw,” in Cologne/Dordrecht/Kassel 2006-07, pp. 87-98.

Peter 2000 M.H. Peter, Kopen voor de eeuwigheid: verzamelen in het Dordrechts Museum 1975-2000, Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht 2000.

Pijzel-Dommisse 1997 Jet Pijzel-Dommisse, “Binnen buiten: beklede kamers in de late 17de eeuw,” Kunstschrift 41 (1997), no. 6, pp. 24-27.

Pijzel-Dommisse 2000 Jet Pijzel-Dommisse, Het Hollandse pronkpopenhuis: Interieur en huishouden in de 17de en 18de eeuw, Zwolle 2000.

Pijzel-Dommisse 2001 Jet Pijzel-Dommisse, “1700-1750,” in Fock 2001, pp. 181-202.

Plomp 2001 Michiel C. Plomp, Hartstochtelijk Verzameld: 18de-eeuwse Hollandse verzamelaars van tekeningen en hun collecties, Bussem 2001.

Prak 1985 M. Prak, Gezeten burgers: De elite in een Hollandse stad Leiden 1700-1800, Amsterdam 1985.

Rasch and Vlaardingerboek 1993 Rudolf Rasch and Kees Vlaardingerbroek, Unico Wilhelm van Wassenaer (1692-1766): Componist en staatsman, Zutphen 1993.

ŘŚŘȱ ȱ ȱ Raupp 1983 H.J. Raupp, “Ansätze zu einer Theorie der Genremalerei in den Niederlanden im 17. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 46 (1983), pp. 401-18.

Rettich, Klapproth and Ewald 1992 Edeltraud Rettich, Rüdiger Klapproth and Gerhard Ewald, Alte Meister, Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, Stuttgart 1992.

Robinson 1974 Franklin W. Robinson, Gabriel Metsu (1629-1667): A Study of His Place in Dutch Genre Painting of the Golden Age, New York 1974.

Roelofsz 1994 Annelien Roelofsz, “Schilders in zeventiende-eeuws Rottterdam,” in Rotterdam 1994, pp. 14-30.

Roodenburg 1995 Herman Roodenburg, “‘Welstand’ en ‘wellevendheid’. Over houdingen, gebaren en gelaatsuitdrukking in de schilderkunst, de toneelkunst en de rhetorica: de inbreng van het classicisme,” in Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 46 (1995), pp. 416-39.

Roodenburg 2004 Herman Roodenburg, The Eloquence of the Body: Perspectives on Gesture in the Dutch Republic, Zwolle 2004.

Roy 1992 Alain Roy, Gérard de Lairesse 1640-1711, Paris 1992.

Saur 1992- Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon: die bildenden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker, Saur, München 1992-.

Schavemaker 2009 Eddy Schavemaker, Eglon Hendrik van der Neer, Ph.D. diss., Utrecht University, 2009.

Shavemaker 2010 Eddy Schavemaker, Eglon van der Neer (1635/36-1703): His Life and His Work, Doornspijk 2010.

Scheen 1981 Pieter A. Scheen, Lexicon Nederlandse beeldende kunst, 1750-1880, The Hague 1981.

ȱ ŘŚřȱ ȱ ȱ Scheen 1969-70 Pieter A. Scheen, Lexicon Nederlandse beeldende kunstenaars, 1740-1950, The Hague 1969-70.

Schnackenburg 1996 Bernhard Schnackenburg, Gesamtkatalog Gemäldegalaerie Alte Meister, Kassel, Staatliche Museen, Kassel 1996.

Scholten 1999 Frits Scholten, “Een ijvore Mars van Francis, de beeldsnijder Van Bossuit en de familie De la Court,” Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 47 (1999), no. 1, pp. 26-43.

Schuurman, De Vries and Van der Woude 1997 Anton Schuurman, Jan de Vries and Ad van der Woude (eds.), Aards Geluk: De Nederlanders en hun Spullen van 1550 tot 1850, Amsterdam 1997.

Slive 1966/1995 Seymour Slive, Dutch Art and Architecture 1600-1800, London, 1966, revised in 1995.

Sluijter 1980 Eric Jan Sluijter, “Een zaalbeschildering van Gerard Hoet in ‘De Slangenburg’: de liefdesgeschiedenis van Aeneas en Dido,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 31 (1980), pp. 299-315.

Sluijter 1988 Eric Jan Sluijter, “Schilders van ‘cleyne, subtile ende curieuse dingen’: Leidse ‘fijnschilders’ in contemporaine bronnen,” in Leiden 1988, pp. 14-55.

Sluijter 1989 Eric Jan Sluijter, “Een zelfportret en ‘de schilder en zijn atelier’: Het aanzien van Jan van Mieris,” Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 8 (1989), pp. 287-307.

Sluijter 2000 Eric Jan Sluijter, Seductress of Sight: Studies in Dutch Art of the Golden Age, Zwolle 2000.

Sluijter 2001-02 Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘All striving to adorne their houses with costly peeces’: Two Case Studies of Paintings in Wealthy Interiors,” in Newark and Denver 2001-02, pp. 102-27.

Sluijter 2005 Eric Jan Sluijter, “Over ‘rapen’ en wedijver in de Nederlandse schilderkunst van de zeventiende eeuw,” in De Zeventiende Eeuw 21 (2005), pp. 267-92. ŘŚŚȱ ȱ ȱ Sluijter 2006 Eric Jan Sluijter, Rembrandt and the Female Nude, Amsterdam 2006.

Snoep 1970 D.P. Snoep, “Gerard Lairesse als plafond- en kamerschilder,” Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 18 (1970), pp. 159-220.

Snoep 1980-81 D.P. Snoep, “Classicism and History Painting in the Late Seventeenth Century,” in Washington/Detroit/Amsterdam 1980-81, pp. 237-40.

Soltow and Van Zanden 1998 Lee Soltow and Jan Luiten van Zanden, Income and Wealth Inequality in the Netherlands 16th-20th Century, Amsterdam 1998.

Strauss 1976 Walter L. Strauss (ed.) Tribute to Wolfgang Stechow (Print Review 5), New York 1976.

Sutton 1980 Peter C. Sutton, Pieter de Hooch, Oxford 1980.

Tatenhove and Te Rijdt 2007 J. van Tatenhove en R.J. te Rijdt, “Enkele tekeningen door Jan van Mieris (1660-1690),” Delineavit et Sculpsit 31 (December 2007), p. 43-55.

Theuerkauff 1975 Christian Theuerkauff, “Zu Francis van Bossuit (1635-1692), ‘Beeldsnyder in yvoor’,” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch, Westdeutsches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 37 (1975), pp. 119-82.

Van Thiel et al. 1976 P.J.J Van Thiel et al., Alle schilderijen van het Rijksmuseum te Amsterdam: Volledig geïllustreerde catalogus, Amsterdam 1976.

Van Thiel-Stroman 2006 I. van Thiel-Stroman, Painting in Haarlem 1500-1850. The collection of the Frans Hals Museum, Gent-Haarlem 2006.

Thieme and Becker 1907-50 Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler: von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Leipzig 1907-50.

ȱ ŘŚśȱ ȱ ȱ Timmers 1942 Jan Joseph Marie Timmers, Gérard Lairesse, Amsterdam 1942.

Tummers 2009 Anna Tummers, The Fingerprint of an Old Master. On Connoisseurship of Seventeenth-Century Dutch and Flemish Paintings: Recent Debates and Seventeenth-Century Insights, Ph.D. diss., Universitity Amsterdam, 2009.

Turner 1996 Jane Tuner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art, 34 vols., London 1996.

Van der Veen 1993 Van der Veen, Jaap, “Galerij en cabinet, vorst en burger: Schilderijencollectie in de Nederlanden,” in Bergvelt, Meijers and Rijnders 1993, pp. 145-64

Vergara 1998 Lisa Vergara, “Antiek and modern in Vermeer’s Lady Writing a Letter with Her Maid,” in Gaskel and Jonker 1998, pp. 234-55.

Veth 1888 G.H. Veth, “Aantekeningen omtrent eenige Dordrechtsche schilders,” Oud Holland 6 (1888), pp. 68-80.

Veth 1889 G.H. Veth, “Aanteekeningen omtrent eenige Dordrechtsche schilders,” Oud Holland 7 (1889), pp. 298-311.

De Vries 1991 Jan de Vries, “Art History,” in Freedberg and De Vries 1991, pp. 248-82.

De Vries 1988-89 Lyckle de Vries, “Dutch Art,” in Williamsburg/New York/Washington 1988-89, pp. 259-71.

De Vries 1988 Lyckle de Vries, Gerard de Lairesse: An Artist Between Stage and Studio, Amsterdam 1998.

De Vries 1990 Lyckle de Vries, Diamante Gedenkzuilen en Leerzaemvoorbeelden: een bespreking van Johan van Gools Nieuwe Schouburg, Groningen 1990.

ŘŚŜȱ ȱ ȱ De Vries 1992 (1999) Lyckle de Vries, “‘De gelukkige schildereeuw’: opvatting over de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw in Nederland 1700-1750,” in Grijzenhout and Van Veen 1992 (1999), pp. 55-77.

De Vries 2002 Lyckle de Vries, “Gerard de Lairesse: the Theorist as an Art Critic,” in Heck, Lemerle and Pauwels 2002, pp. 291-98.

De Vries 2003 Lyckle de Vries, “Written Paintings: Real and Imaginary Works of Art in De Lairesse’s Schilderboek,” Visual Resources 19 (2003), pp. 307-20.

De Vries 2004 Lyckle de Vries “Gerard de Lairesse: The Critical Vocabulary of an Art Theorist,” Oud Holland 117 (2004), pp. 79-97.

De Vries, Te Winkel and Kluyver 1882-1998 M. de Vries, L.A. te Winkel and A. Kluyver (eds.), Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal, 29 vols., The Hague 1882-1998.

De Vrij 1999 M.R. de Vrij, “Portretten van de familie De Witt geschilderd door Adriaen van der Burg,” Jaarboek Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 53 (1999), pp. 195-213.

Waiboer 2007 Adriaan E. 2007, Gabriel Metsu (1629-1667): Life and Work, PhD diss., New York University 2007.

Wallert 2004-05 Arie Wallert, “The Miracle of Gerard ter Borch’s Satin,” in Washington/Detroit 2004-05, pp. 31-41.

Wallert and Tauber 2004 Arie Wallert and Gwen Tauber, “Over herhalingen in de schilderkunst: het probleem van reproductie,” Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 52 (2004), pp. 316-27.

Wansink 1985 C.J.A. Wansink, “Hieronymus van der Mij als historie- en genreschilder,” Oud Holland 99 (1985), pp. 201-16.

ȱ ŘŚŝȱ ȱ ȱ Wansink 1987 C.J.A. Wansink, “Een teruggevonden schilderij van Nicolaas Verkolje (1673-1746),” Oud Holland 101 (1987), pp. 86-88.

Weber 2006-07 Gregor J.M. Weber, “Een steile klim: Enkele aspecten van de ‘veradellijking’ van de schilderkunst rond 1700,” in Cologne/Dordrecht/Kassel 2006-07, pp. 51-60.

Wedde 1996 N. Wedde, Isaac de Moucheron (1667-1744): His Life and Works with a Catalogue Raisonné of His Drawings, Watercolours, Paintings and Etchings, Frankfurt am Main 1996.

Weiss-Blok 1998 Rivka Weiss-Blok, “A Closer Look at The Jeweler’s Workshop by Olivier van Deuren,” The Israel Museum Journal 16 (Summer 1998), pp. 79-84.

Wessely 1868 J.E. Wessely, “Jan und Nicolas Verkolje: Verzeichniss ihrer Schabkunstblätter,” Archiv für die Zeichnenden Künste, Leipzig 1868, pp. 99-115.

Weststeijn 2005 Thijs Weststeijn, De Zichtbare Wereld: Samuel van Hoogstratens kunsttheorie en de legitimering van de schilderkunst in de zeventiende eeuw, PhD diss., Amsterdam University 2005.

Weststeijn 2008 Thijs Weststeijn, The Visible Word: Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Art Theory and the Legitimation of Painting in the Dutch Golden Age, Amsterdam 2008.

White 1982 Christopher White, The Dutch Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen, Cambridge 1982.

Wieseman 2002 Marjorie E. Wieseman, Casper Netcher and Late Seventeenth-century Dutch Painting, Doornspijk 2002.

Wieseman 2004 Marjorie E. Wieseman, “Paper Trails: Drawings in the Work of Caspar Netscher and His Studio,” in Manuth and Rüger 2004, pp. 248-61.

ŘŚŞȱ ȱ ȱ Wijsenbeek-Olthuis 1987 Thera Wijsenbeek-Olthuis, Achter de gevels van Delft: bezit en bestaan van rijk en arm in een periode van achteruitgang (1700-1800), Hilversum 1987.

Wijsenbeek-Olthuis 1998 Thera Wijsenbeek-Olthuis, Het Lange Voorhout: monumenten, mensen en macht, Zwolle 1998.

Willigen and Meijer 2003 Adriaan van der Willigen and Fred G. Meijer, A Dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-Life Painters Working in Oils: 1525-1725, Leiden 2003.

Van der Woude 1991 Ad Van der Woude, “The Volume and Value of Paintings in Holland at the Time of the Dutch Republic,” in Freedberg and De Vries 1991, pp. 285-329.

Wright 1988 Christopher Wright (ed.), Catalogue of Foreign Paintings from the de Ferrieres Collection and Other Sources, Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museums, Cheltenham 1988.

Wuestman 1995 Gerdien Wuestman, “The mezzotint in Holland: ‘Easily learned, neat and convenient’,” Simiolus 23 (1995), pp. 63-89.

Wuestman 1998 Gerdien Wuestman, De Hollandse schilderschool in prent. Studies naar reproduktiegrafiek in de tweede helft van de zeventiende eeuw, PhD diss., Utrecht University, 1998.

Wurzbach 1906-11 Alfred von Wurzbach, Niederllndisches Kûnstler-Lexikon auf Grund archivalischer Forschungen bearbeitet, 3 vols., Vienna et al. 1906-11.

EXHIBITION CATALOGUES

Amsterdam 1961 Collection 1961, kunsthandel P. de Boer Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1961.

Amsterdam 1989 Peter Hecht, De Hollandse fijnschilders: Van Gerard Dou tot Adriaen van der Werff, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 1989.

ȱ ŘŚşȱ ȱ ȱ Amsterdam 1992 E. Bergvelt and R. Kistemaker (eds.), De wereld binnen handbereik. Nederlandse kunsten rariteitenverzamelingen, 1585-1735, Amsterdam Historisch Museum, Amsterdam 1992.

Amsterdam 2000 J. Boonstra, G. van den Hout and H. Bakker (eds.), In de Wolken: Jacob de Wit als plafondschilder, Bijbels Museum, Amsterdam 2000.

Brussels 1977 De beeldhouwkunst in de eeuw van Rubens in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden en het prinsbisdom Luik, Museum voor Oude Kunst, Brussels 1977.

Cologne/Dordrecht/Kassel 2006-07 Ekkehard Mai, Sander Paarlberg and Gregor J.M. Weber (eds.), De Kroon op het Werk: Hollandse schilderkunst 1670-1750, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, Cologne, Dordrecht Museum, Dordrecht, and Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel, Kassel, 2006-07.

Dublin/Greenwich 2003-04 Peter C. Sutton et al., Love letters: Dutch genre painting in the age of Vermeer, National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, and Bruce Museum of Arts & Science, Greenwich, Conn., 2003-04.

Enschede 2011 Paul Knolle and Everhard Korthals Altes (eds.), Nicolaas Verkolje 1673-1746: De Fluwelen Hand, Rijksmuseum Twenthe, Enschede 2011.

The Hague 1993 Edwin Buijsen (ed.), Cornelis Troost en het theater: tonelen van de 18de eeuw/ Cornelis Troost and the theatre of his time: plays of the 18th century, Mauritshuis, The Hague 1993.

The Hague 2005 Quentin Buvelot (ed.), Frans van Mieris 1635-1681, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, The Hague 2005.

Leiden 1988 Eric Jan Sluijter et al., Leidse Fijnschilders: Van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge, 1630-1760, Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal, Leiden 1988.

Leiden 2001 Annegret Laabs, The Leiden Fijnschilders from Dresden, Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal, Leiden 2001.

ŘśŖȱ ȱ ȱ Minneapolis/Toledo/Philadelphia 1971-72 E.R. Mandle and J.W. Niemeijer (eds.), Dutch Masterpieces from the 18th-century: Painting and Drawings 1700-1800, The Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts, Minneapolis, The Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, and Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia 1971-72.

Newark/Denver 2001-02 Art and Home: Dutch Interior in the Age of Rembrandt, The Newark Museum, Newark and Denver Art Museum, Denver 2001-02.

Philadelphia/Berlin/London 1984 Masters of Seventeenth Century Dutch Genre Painting, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, and Royal Academy of Arts, London 1984.

Rotterdam 1973 Adriaen van der Werff, Historisch Museum, Rotterdam 1973.

Rotterdam 1994 Nora Schadee (ed.), Rotterdamse Meesters uit de Gouden Eeuw, Historisch Museum, Rotterdam 1994.

Tokyo 2007 Toshiharu Nakamura (ed.), Milkmaid by Vermeer and Dutch Genre Painting: Masterworks from the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, The National Art Center, Tokyo 2007.

Utrecht 2004 Liesbeth M. Helms (ed.), Vis: stillevens van Hollandse en Vlaamse meesters 1550-1700, Centraal Museum, Utrecht 2004.

Washington 1990 A.K. Wheelock, Jr., S.J. Barnes and J.S. Held (eds.), Van Dyck Paintings, National Gallery of Art, Washington 1990.

Washington/Detroit 2004-05 A.K. Wheelock Jr. (ed.), Gerard ter Borch, National Gallery of Art, Washington and Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit 2004-05.

Washington/Detroit/Amsterdam 1980-81 Albert Blankert et al., Gods, Saints and Heroes: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt, National Gallery of Art, Washington, Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 1980-81.

ȱ Řśŗȱ ȱ ȱ Williamsburg/New York/Washington Robert P. Maccubbin and Martha Hamilton-Philips (eds.), The Age of William III & Mary II. Power, Politics and Patronage 1688-1702, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, The Grolier Club, New York, and The Folger Shakespear Library, Washington 1998-99.

¡ȱ

Page numbers in bold indicate the mention of the artist’s years of birth and death. Painters’ names in bold indicate that an entry is assigned to this painter in the Catalogue of Painters ȱ1680-1750. ȱ ȱ ȱ Bout, Adriaan: 46n44 Ahrenberg, Duke of: 154 Braamcamp, Gerrit: 39n34 Albani, Francesco: 136 Brakenburgh, Richard: 40n36, 43, 153 Angel, Philips: 34n23, 96, 97 Breenbergh, Bartholomeus: 136 ȱ Bremen, Nicolaas van: 39n34 ȱ Brouwer, Adriaen: 40, 43, 81n13, 136, 144 Bakhuizen, Ludolf: 120n59 Brouwer, Abraham: 136 Balen, Hendrik I van: 136 Brueghel, Jan I: 87, 135-36 Bassano, Jacopo (Il Vecchio): 136 Brueghel, Pieter I: 136 Battaglie, Michelangelo delle (alias Burg, Adriaan van der: 154 Cerquozzi) : 136 Burmeister, Joachim: 199 Berckheyde, Job Adriaensz.: 145 ȱ Bierens, Jacob: 39n34 ȱ Biset, Jan Baptist Caauw, Pieter: 64n45 Bisschop, Jan de: 38-39, 104n8, 116, Cappel: 64n45 116n50-51 Carracci, Annibale: 135 Bisschop, Pieter: 39n34 Caravaggio: 136 Blanc, Charles: 81n12 Carré, Abraham: 22n24, 43n43 Boonen, Arnold: 14, 35, 44n45, 78n2, Carré, Franciscus 151-52 Carré, Hendrik (I): 155 Borch, Gerard ter: 13-14, 49n58, 52, 115, 117, Castiglione, Giovanni Benedetto (alias Il 144, 146, Chap. IV, figs. 14 and 15 Grechetto): 136 Bordone, Paris: 135 Catel, Pieter: 176 Van Bossuit, Francis: 110-14, 119n37, 207, Charles II, King of England: 42 216 Choiseul, Duke: 90n39 Bourdon, Sébastien: 136 Correggio: 36, 135 ŘśŚȱ ȱ Costa, Benjamin da: 39n34, 70 ȱ Court van der Voort, Pieter de la: 29, 37, Elliger, Ottmar I: 145 39n35, 58, 59, 60n32, 67n54, 72, 74, Engels, Bartholomeus: 156 84-86, 88, 111, 113, 129, 142-43, 205, Everdingen, Cesar Boetius van: 120 213-14 Eyk, Abraham van der: 162 Court, Allard de la : 37, 58, 59, 60n32, 67n54, Eyk, Pieter van der: 64n45 74, 84, 85n27, 86, 111, 113, 129, 142-43 F Cramer, Peter: 22n24 Fagel, Griffer: 39n34 ȱ Flemal, Bertholet I: 136 ȱ Flines, Jacob de: 29 Decker, Frans: 156 ȱ Dekker, C. de: 64n44 ȱ Deuren, Olivier van: 157 Gersaint, Edmé-François: 81 Dijk, Philip van: 14, 41, 42n38, 61, 119n58, Gijsels, Peeter: 136 158-59, 180, Chap. I: figs. 6 and 16, Giordano, Luca: 136 Chap. I, figs. 6 and 16, Chap. IV: fig. Glauber, Johannes: 29, 58n22 3, color illus., opposite page 13 Gool, Johan van: 16, 27-28, 33-38, 45n49, Dillenburg, Willem: 167 47-48, 54-57, 61, 82, 83n19-20, 87, Dishoek, E. van: 64n44 120-22, 151, 153-56, 158, 163, 165, Does, Jacob van der: 120 167, 169, 171, 174, 177, 179, 180, 183, Dou, Gerard: 9, 13-16, 19, 23, 34, 37-38, 187-89, 191, 195, 197, 199, 202, 204, 42-44, 46-47, 49, 51-55n11, 58, 61-63, 210, 213 66-69, 71n68-74n76, 79, 81-82, 84-91, Graat, Barent: 111n32, 113n39 93, 97-98, 118, 136-37, 144-46, 151, Griffer, Jan II: 82n14 162, 165, 167, 173, 180, 183, 185, ȱ 199-200, 203-05, 212-13, Chap. I, fig. ȱ 8, Chap. II, figs. 5, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, Hagedorn, Christian Ludwig von: 119n57 and 26, Chap. III: figs. 1, 9, 15, and Halfwassenaar, Jacob: 39n34 17 Hals, Dirk: 165, Dujardin, Karel: 136-37 Hals, Frans: 14n3, 62n38, 98, 144-45, 165, Dusart, Cornelis: 20n21, 40n36, 63, 81n13, 180 116, 160-61, Chap. I, fig. 10 Heteren, Adriaan Leonard van: 39n34 Dyck, Anthony van: 36, 135 Hoet, Moses: 136 ȱ Hoet, Gerard I: 22n24, 37n30, 136, 163-64, ȱ 165 ȱ Řśśȱ ȱ ȱ Hoet, Gerard (Gerard II): 36, 39, 40-41, 54-56, Lely, Peter:157 58n22, 70n65, 71n66, 79n5, 89n37, Levecq, Jacobus: 167 155, 165, 203-04, 212-13 Linden van Slingelandt, Johan van der: 39n34 Hoet, Hendrik Jacob: 97-98, 165-66, Chap. Lingelbach, Johannes: 144 III, fig. 27 Logteren, Ignatius: 27 Holbein, Hans: 144-45 Lormier, Willem: 39n34 Hooghe, Romeyn de: 156 Louise, Mary: 158 Hoogstraten, Samuel van: 61, 67, 116n51, 121, Lourrain, Claude: 136 167 Lubbeling, Johannes: 39n34 Houbraken, Arnold: 16-17, 28n2, 34n23, ȱ 41n37, 49n58, 53n8, 69, 95-96, 98, ȱ 119n58, 119-120, 123, 167-68, 202, Mander, Karel van: 95, 121n61, 210 Manfredi, Bartolomeo: 135 Huysum, Justus van: 37, 101, 121, 136-37, Maratti, Carlo: 136 165 Marck, Johan van der: 61n34, 64n45 and 48, ȱ 65-66, 68-69, 144, 146, ȱ Medici, Cosimo II de’: 118n55 Jacobsz., Juriaen : 155 Medici, Cosimo III de’: 42n38 Johann Wilhelm, Eelector Palatine: 59n28, Meerdervoort, Johan Pompe van: 92 and 94 179, 195 Melder, Gerard: 54 Johan William Friso of Orange-Nassau: 158 Metsu, Gabriel: 37-38, 41, 47, 49n58, 53, Jordaens, Jacob II : 144 61-64, 66, 67n23, 81, 87, 136, 137, Jordaens, Hans: 62, 144 144, 145, 180, 203, 212,Chap. I, fig. 2, Junius, Franciscus: 97, 116n51 Chap. II, figs. 9 and 10, Chap. III, fig. ȱ 10. ȱ Mieris, Frans I van: 34-35, 37-38, 41, 43, Kessel, Jan Thomas van: 180 46n53, 47, 51-54, 58-60, 62, 64, ȱ 65n48, 66-67, 72, 73-74, 79, 80n9, 81, ȱ 84n23, 87, 89n36,90n39, 97-98, 118, Lairesse, Gerard de: 17, 29, 37-39, 45, 48, 129-30, 136, 137, 142-45, 157, 165, 57-58, 62n38, 95-96, 103n6, 103-10, 169, 171, 173, 180, 183, 203, 205, 114n42, 114-15, 116n51, 121n61, 123, 212-13, Chap. I, fig. 1, Chap. II, figs. 131-32, 136, 137, 145, 206-07, 215-16, 1, 2, 3, 8, 27, and 28, Chap. III, figs. 4, Chap. I, fig. 15 5, and 7. Lelie, Adriaen de: 23-24, Intro. fig. 1 Mieris, Frans II van: 35, 42, 73, 82n14, Leers, Arnold: 39n34 84n23, 87n31, 111n34, 129-30, ŘśŜȱ ȱ 169-70, 176, 205, 213 Neer, Eglon van der: 20, 22, 23n25, 40n36, 41, Mieris, Jan van: 35, 40n36, 73-74, 129-30, 53n8, 119, 195, Chap I, fig. 3 78n2, 171-72, 205, 213 Netscher, Casper: 20, 38, 40n36, 41, 44, 53, Mieris, Willem van: 33, 35, 37, 40n35, 42, 102, 136-37, 157, 188, 200, Chap. I, 46n53, 58, 59-60, 62n39, 64, 72, figs. 4 and 12 73-74, 78-93, 97-98, 104, 108n23, Netscher, Constantijn: 22n24 110-119, 128-32, 136-37, 142-43, 162, Neufville, Pieter Leendert de: 339n34 169, 171, 173-75, 176-77, 183, 199, ȱ 205, 207, 213-14, 216, Chap. II, figs. ȱ 2, 3, and 27, Chap. III, figs. 2, 3, 6, Olis, Jan: 62n38, 145. 11-14, 16, 19, 20, and 23-25, Chap. IV, Oortmans-de la Court, Petronella: 111, 113 figs. 1, 4-7, 9-13, 19-22, color illus., Ostade, Adriaen van: 14, 38, 40, 43, 81, 144, opposite page 77 and 101 153, 160 Mij, Hieronymus van der: 35, 42, 89, 92-94, 169, 176-78, Chap. I, fig. 9, Chap. III, ȱ fig. 26 Paets, Adriaen : 44n46. Mij, Philip van der: 176. Paling, Isaac : 23n25. Mijn, Herman van der: 179 Palma, Jacopo (il Vecchio) : 135 Momers, Hendrik:153 Palthe, Gerard Jan : 22n24. Moni, Gerhard de: 180 Pauman : 55 Moni, Isaak de : 180 Pape, Abraham de : 52 Moni, Louis de : 46, 61-68, 72, 73, 144-46, Parmigianino : 36, 136 158, 180-182, 204, 213, Chap. I, fig. Pee, Theodoor van : 22n24. 19, Chap. II, figs. 4, 6, 7, 9, 13-15, Pels, Andries : 123 and 17 Picolet, Cornelis: 195 Moor, Carel de : 19n16, 46n51, 48, 78n2, Poelaert, Sara : 58n25. 85n27, 111, 144,169, 173, 183-84. Pool, Mattys : 111-12, 113n39, Chap. IV, fig. Moor, Carel de Sr.: 183. 8 Mortel, Jan: 55 Porcellis, Jan: 120 Moucheron, Frederik de: 29 Potter, Paulus : 120-21, 136, 144 Moucheron, Isaac de: 27, 29. Poussin, Nicolas : 36, 136 Musscher, Michiel van: 20n21. ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Quinkhard, Jan Maurits : 151 Naiveu, Matthijs: 19n16, 37n30, 45-46, ȱ 185-86, Chap. I, fig. 18 ȱ ȱ Řśŝȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Steen, Jan: 14. 43, 81n13, 144-45, 153, 160, Raphael: 36, 199, 135 183, Regters, Tibout: 22n24 Stuven, Ernst: 179 Reijers, Nicolaas: 176 Swieten (Zwieten), Gerard Bicker van: 39n34, Rembrandt van Rijn: 62, 123, 144-45, 207, 64n44 216 Swoll, Herman van: 57-58 Reygersberg Couwerven, Jacob van: 39n34 Sybrandi, Jelle: 199 Roeters, Paulus: 58, Sydervelt, Anthony: 69n61 Rottenhammer, Hans I: 144, 136 Sylvius, François de le Boe: 29, 34n23 Röver, Valerius: 39n34, 51 ȱ Rubens, Peter Paul: 36, 62n38, 87, 135-36, ȱ 144-45 Tak, Jan: 64, 66 Ruysch, Rachel: 38, 136-37 Tempel, Abraham van den:183 Ryssen, Warnard van: 163 Tenier, David II: 136-37, 144-45, 65, 85n27 ȱ Terwesten, Pieter: 39n34, 71n68, 79n5, 81n13, ȱ 89n37, 134, 138, 141, 155, 180, 188 Saftleven, Herman: 38 Tilius, Jan: 188 Schabaelje: 57 Titian: 36, 136 Schalcken, Godfried: 22, 35, 37n30, 41n35, Tol, Dominicus van: 44, 81n13, 89n37, Chap. 53, 62n38, 67n52, 68, 69n57, 70-72, I, fig. 11, Chap. III, fig. 18 81, 91n39, 119, 136, 137, 144-45, 151, Toorenvliet, Jacob: 20, 23n25, 111, 173, 183, 183, 188, 191, 193, 195, 203-04, 185, 187 212-13, Chap. II, figs. 20-23, and 25, Troost, Cornelis: 19n16, 101, 122, 151, color illus., opposite page 23 189-90 Schenk, Pieter: Chap. III, fig. 8 ȱ Schouman, Aert: 66n44, 154 ȱ Six, Nicolaas: 22n24 Uffenbach, Zacharias Conrad von: 74, 111n34 Six, Jan: 39n32 ȱ Slingelandt, Govert van: 39n34 ȱ Slingelandt, Hendrik van: 39n34 Veerendael, Nicolaes van:83n21, 91, Chap. III, Slingelandt, Johan Diderik van: 39n34 fig. 22 Slingelandt, Pieter Cornelisz. van: 38, 136, Velde, Adriaen van de: 136 137, 187, 188 Velde, Willem van de1: 20-21 Sluys, Jacob van der: 187 Velthoven, Hendrik van: 176 Spiering, Pieter: 35n23 Verburg, Rugter: 22n24 Stapert, Focke: 22n24 Verbuys, Arnold: 151 ŘśŞȱ ȱ Verkolje, Jan: 35, 191, 193, 200 Wilhelm VIII of Hesse-Kessel: 158 Verkolje, Nicolaas: 14, 35, 37n30, 54, 57, 58, Willem III of Orange-Nassau: 179 68-72, 94, 115-16n48, 119n58, 120-21, Willem V of Orange-Nassau: 70 167, 191-92, 204, 213, Chap. II, figs. Wilt, Thomas van der: 200 21, 22, and 24, Chap IV, figs. 16, 17, Wit, Jacob de: 17n11, 27, 102, and 23, color illus., opposite page 23 Wouwerman, Philips: 38, 58, 62n38, 69, 136, Vermeer, Johannes: 9, 13, 14 145 Veronese, Paolo (alias Caliari): 136 Wulfraet, Matthias: 23n25 Verschuring, Hendrik (painter): 193 ȱ Verschuring, Hendrik (collector): 39 ȱ Verschuing, Willem: 41, 193-94, Chap. I, fig. Xavery, Franciscus Xaverius: 145 5 Vinckboons, David : 81n13 Vois, Ary de: 58, 60, 72, 143, 187, 193 Voorhout, Johannes : 23n25 Voyer d’Argenson, Marc-Réné : 87 ȱ ȱ Wales, Prince of : 179, 39n34 Wassenaer Obdam, Johan Hendrik van: 33, 39n34, 40n35, 78, 80-83, 86, 89-91, 92n42, 129, 205, 214, Chap. III, fig. 8. Wassenaer, Unico Wilhelm van: 89n37 Weenix, Jan Baptist: 69 Werff, Adriaen van der: 15n4, 17n10, 19, 20n21, 37,44, 45n50, 48, 53n8, 79, 135, 137, 144-45, 195-96, 197, Chap. I, fig. 13 Werff, Pieter van der: 37, 41, 42n38, 44, 45, 116, 119n58, 136-37, 197-98, Chap. I, figs. 7, 14, and 17, Chap. IV, figs. 2 and 18, color illus. opposite page 127 Weyerman, Jacob Campo : 16, 83, 130-32 153, 155, 169, 174, 183, 188, 191, 193, 199, 202, 210 Wigmana, Gerard: 199, 116n50