Abstract
In the second volume of A Corpus of Rembrandt paintings, the question was raised whether the desire to distinguish between Rembrandt’s hand and those of his pupils and assistants is a pursuit that could be called anachronistic. Could this be a consequence of the 19th-century cult of genius that fuelled the urge to isolate a master’s work? Indeed, 17th-century painters themselves would not have been very particular about the autograph nature of their work. However, various sources indicate that their contemporaries were, in fact, eager to know exactly by whom a certain painting had been made and whether the master had received any assistance in executing the work. While it was difficult to draw any general conclusions from the meagre source material, it was nevertheless postulated in Volume II that the concept of differentiating the hand of the master and his workshop assistants is not anachronistic1.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
A Corpus Vol. II, pp. 60–61. For a summary of the current state of affairs see, E. van de Wetering, ‘The question of authenticity: an anachronism? (A summary)’, in: G. Cavalli-Björkman (ed.), Rembrandt and his pupils. Papers given at a symposium in the Nationalmuseum Stockholm, 2–3 October 1992, n.p. [Stockholm] 1993, pp. 9–13.
E. de Jongh in: ‘Cultured Supplement’ of the NRC Handelsblad, 18 May 1990; and also in Kunstschrift 34 (1990), no. 2, pp. 2–3.
F. Lugt, ‘Italiaansche kunstwerken in Nederlandsche verzamelingen van vroeger tijden’, O. H. 53 (1936), pp. 97–135, esp. 110–112.
J.G.C.A. Briels, Vlaamse schilders in de JVoordelijke Nederlanden in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw, 1585–1630, Haarlem n.d. [1987], and his dissertation cited in note 8.
G. Geerts et al., Van Dale. Groot woordenboek der JVederlandse taal, 3 vols., Utrecht/Antwerp n.d. [1984, 11th edition], under ‘authentiek’ and its derivative forms. Walter Benjamin interpreted the term as it relates to publications on painting of the 16th to 18th century as ‘the perceived uniqueness of the original work of art’, quoted by J.M. Muller in: ‘Measures of authenticity: the detection of copies in the early literature on connoisseurship’, Studies in the History of Art 20 (1989), pp. 141–149.
L. de Pauw-de Veen, De begrippen’ schilder’,’ schilderif’ en’ schilderen’ in de zeventiende eeuw, Brussels 1969, pp. 107–111. The author notes that the terms ‘principaal’ and ‘origineel’ both derive from French, but only the French word ‘original’ means: original painting. See also P. Bloch, ‘Original, Kopie, Fälschung’, Jahrbuch Preussischer Kulturbesitz 16 (1979), pp. 41–72. Contemporary appreciation of an original versus a copy may be inferred from the sometimes appreciable difference in price between them. Useful in this respect is: N. De Marchi and H.J. Van Miegroet, ‘Pricing invention: “originals,” “copies,” and their relative value in seventeenth century Netherlandish art markets’, in: V.A. Ginsburgh and P.-M. Menger (eds.), Economics of the arts. Selected essays, Amsterdam etc. 1996, pp. 27-70. E. Honig, ‘The beholder as work of art: A study in the location of value in seventeenth-century Flemish painting’, M.K.J. 46 (1995), pp. 253–297, examines the contemporary estimation of paintings on which more than one artist (often specialists) had worked.
‘[..] plagten de meeste kracht haerer Konst-kennisse daer in voornaemelick te bewijsen, datse d’originelen staends-voets van de copijen weten t’onderscheyden. d’Oorspronckelicke wercken die de treffelicke Meesters nae’t leven selver ghemaeckt hebben, worden alhier door den naem van originele stucken te verstaen ghegeven’, F. Junius, Schilder-Boeck, behebende de Schilder-konst der Oude, Begrepen in dry Boecken, Middelburg 1641, p. 344. This is the Dutch translation of De pictura veterum libri tres, Amsterdam 1637.
Listed in an Antwerp inventory of 1614 is ‘een originael ende copie van Hoywagen’ (an original and a copy of a hay-wagon), E. Duverger, Antwerpse kunstinventarissen uit de zeventiende eeuw, 12 vols, Brussels 1984–2002, I, p. 308. Around 1690 the Ghent painter Joannes de Cleeff appraised several paintings in an Antwerp estate, including a fruit basket with flowers and little shells ‘wesende een excellent origineel van Ambrosius Boschaert’ (being an excellent original by Ambrosius Bosschaert), J. Denucé, De Antwerpsche ‘konstkamers’: inventarissen van kunstverzamelingen in de 16e en 17e eeuwen, Antwerp and Amsterdam 1932, p. 347. ‘Principaal’ was used with greater frequency. In the inventory of Gillis van Conincxloo, drawn up in Amsterdam in 1607, the compiler of the inventory — undoubtedly helped by studio assistants — used the term several times, J.G.C.A. Briels, De Zuidnederlandse immigratie in Amsterdam en Haarlem 1572-1630, Utrecht 1976, pp. 231–235.
Muller, op. cit., pp. 141–142. Parallels are found in diplomatic studies.
Important in this context is H. Miedema, ‘Kunstschilders, gilde en académie; over het probleem van de emancipatie van de kunstschilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden van de 16de en 17de eeuw’, O. H. 101 (1987), pp. 1–34.
I am aware that with respect to Italy, considerably earlier examples can be given of buyers wishing to own a painting by a specific master. The subject of the painting was of minor importance. Fifteenth-century contracts sometimes stipulated that the work, or a part thereof, especially the face and the uncovered parts of the body, had to be executed by none other than the painter who had been commissioned to do the work, see M. O’Malley, ‘Late fifteenth-and early sixteenth-century painting contracts and the stipulated use of the painter’s hand’, in: E. Marchand and A. Wright (eds.), With and without the Medici. Studies in Tuscan art and patronage, 1434–1530, n.p. 1998, pp. 155–178. It is possible that such a stipulation was prompted by norms of quality. Southern Netherlandish contracts of the 16th century also point in that direction. In 1517 the Bruges painter Albert Cornells contractually agreed to make an altarpiece on the condition that he ‘zelve, metter handt, wel ende constich wercken zoude alle de naecten ende’ t principale were’ (himself would work well and artfully, by his own hand, all the nudes and the principal work). Later it appeared that he had contracted out some of the work, with which his patrons disagreed, see W.HJ. Weale, ‘Albert Cornells. Hiérarchie des anges’, Le Beffroi 1 (1863), pp. 1–22, esp. 18–20. M. Baxandall Painting and experience in fifteenth century Italy, London/ Oxford/New York n.d. [1976, 3rd edition], pp. 14–16 and passim) perceived a shift at the turn of the 15th to the 16th century: patrons placed greater emphasis on the quality of the work to be executed than on the use of costly pigments (ultramarine and gold). This does not mean, however, that the demand existed for fully autograph works, as painters generally left a large part of the execution in the hands of their apprentices.
‘[..] sijnde’ t voorsz. schilderije waerdich driehondert gulden, maer ten respecte van de meester sijn naem en reputatie hebben’ t selve op vierhundert gulden getaxeert en niet meer’, according to a statement of 31 December 1665, in Br. Künstler-Inv. VII, p. 301; and cf. ibid., pp. 299–300.
The economist Montias and the historian Van der Woude calculated that painting production in the 17th-century Dutch Republic came to almost four and a half million works. See J.M. Montias, ‘Estimates of the number of Dutch master-painters, their earnings and their output in 1650’, Leidschrift 6 (1990), pp. 59–74 and A.M. van der Woude, ‘De schilderijenproduktie in Holland tijdens de Republiek. Een poging tot kwantificatie’, in: J.C. Dagevos a.o. (ed.), Kunst-Zaken. Particulier initiatief en overheidsbeleid in de wereld van de beeidende kunst, n.p. n.d. [1991], pp. 18–50.
On the serial production of paintings, see H. Vlieghe, ‘Maatwerk en confectie. Over de functie van historieschilderkunst in de Vlaamse stad van de 17de eeuw’, in: J. van der Stock (ed.), Stad in Vlaanderen. Cultuur en Maatschappij, 1477–1787, Brussels 1991, pp. 255–268.
When the parties involved agreed, the directors of this board handled cases as ‘goedemannen’ (arbitrators). A ‘goedeman’ not only meant arbitrator, but also expert. In the event that one considered oneself incompetent to arbitrate a dispute, then one sought the advice of generally recognised experts. In more comprehensive cases the aldermen’s bench was called in. The aldermen could also refer a party to independent experts. For example, Gerrit Uylenburgh turned to the aldermen in 1672 to counter allegations regarding Italian paintings, which he had offered the Elector of Brandenburg for sale and which had been condemned by the latter’s advisers as being ‘vodden’ (rags) and poor copies (Doc. 27). Uylenburgh requested the appointment of’eenige neuterale meestersschilders ende andere kunstkennende persoonen hen de schilderkunst verstaende’ (several neutral master painters and other knowledgeable persons who understand the art of painting). Henri de Fromantiou, the Elector’s court painter and as such defender of his employer’s interests, notified Uylenburgh that he would have nothing to do with the aldermen, GAA, not. A. Lock, NA 2239, pp. 80–81, dd. 7 May 1672. The aldermen subsequently appointed 15 individuals to inspect the paintings, a measure that met with De Fromantiou’s dis-approval. Upon his request the aldermen asked the headmen of the St Luke’s guild to examine the works concerned, ibid., pp. 82–83 and 130–131, dd. 9 and 12 May 1672 and A. Bredius, ‘Italiaansche schilderijen in 1672 door Amsterdamsche en Haagsche schilders beoordeeld’, O.H. 4 (1886), pp. 41–46, esp. 42.
J.G. van Dillen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven en het gildewezen van Amsterdam, 3 vols., The Hague 1929–1974, I, pp. 664–665; II, pp. 63–64; see also A Corpus Vol. II, p. 60 and note 129 and E.J. Sluijter, ‘Over Brabantse vodden, economische concurrentie, artistieke wedijver en de groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw’, N.K.J. 50 (1999), pp. 113–143.
J.M. Montias, Artists and artisans in Delft, A socio-economic study of the seventeenth century, Princeton N.J. 1982, pp. 218, 227 and 247–258.
A salient example is Laurens Mauritsz. Doucy (see Docs. 24 and 25). This Amsterdam hatter conducted trade in paintings in a relatively low price class. The paintings cited in his 1669 inventory were appraised by Ferdinand Bol and Gerrit Uylenburgh; they distinguished between work by Porcellis the Elder and the Younger and, moreover, identified a seascape by Anthonisz.: ‘een see van Percelles’ (a seascape by Porcellis) at 18 guilders, ‘een storm van den Ouwen Percelles’ (a storm by the Elder Porcellis) at 42 guilders, ‘een zeetie van Hendrick van Antonisz.’ (a seascape by Hendrick Anthonisz.) at 8 guilders, a ‘duyntie van Percelles’ (a dunescape by Porcellis) and ‘een dito’ (a ditto) at 8 and 6 guilders respectively, ‘een watertie van de Jonge Percelles’ (a small marine piece by the Younger Porcellis) at 5 guilders and ‘een graeuwtje van Percelles’ (a grisaille by Porcellis) at 4 guilders, GAA, not. G. van Breugel, NA 3505, pp. 191–200, dd. 5, 6 and 21 February 1669 and Br. Künstler-Inv. II, pp. 422–426. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, various art sellers were operating in cities such as Amsterdam and The Hague who had not been involved originally with the art business. Some of these newfangled dealers did not shy away from questionable practices, see J. van der Veen, ‘De Amsterdamse kunstmarkt en de schilderijaankopen voor Peter de Grote’, in: R. Kistemaker, N. Kopaneva and A. Overbeek (eds.), Peter de Grote en Holland. Culturele en wetenschappelijke betrekkingen tussen Rusland en Nederland ten tijde van tsaar Peter de Grote, Bussum 1996, pp. 132–139.
Doc. 28; Broeckman was summoned to court on numerous occasions in 1676, but it is not always clear what transpired. See GA The Hague, Rechterlijk Archief, inv. no. 145, fols. 186, 207, 219, 232v, 245, 265, 279, 290v and 31 lv and also fols. 193v, 210v and 238. In the period 1675–76 the painter Dirck Dalens submitted various claims against him, including some relating to paintings he had delivered, Br. Künstler-Inv. IV, p. 1413.
The number of collectors who owned good Italian art was small. Shortly after 1750, a German traveller noted that, while the Dutch indeed fostered a great love for painting, they did not know the first thing about Italian art, see C.W. Fock, ‘De schilderijengalerij van Prins Willem V op het Buitenhof te Den Haag’, Antiek 11 (1976), pp. 113–137, esp. 123. There were more contemporaries who doubted Zomer’s expertise; in an elegy dedicated to Zomer, the book printer and art dealer Jan Goeree described him as ‘in de Kunst een Kakelaar / In de Kunst een Jan de Dooper’ (a cackler in art / a John the Baptist in art), quoted by A. Bredius, ‘De kunsthandel te Amsterdam in de XVIIe eeuw’, Amsterdamsch Jaarboekje 1891, pp. 54–71, esp. 69; and S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, ‘Jan Pietersz. Zomer (1641–1724), makelaar in schilderijen (1690-1724)’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 69 (1977), pp. 89–106.
Docs. 11, 18, 24 and 25. A procuration from the Delft art dealer Abraham de Cooge of 27 May 1661, authorising a colleague to appear on his behalf in Amsterdam in the matter of a painting by Porcellis that had been purchased by Laurens Mauritsz. Doucy, (Montias, op. cit.20, no source mentioned), certainly must have concerned the seascape discussed in Doc. 24. On Doucy, see note 21 and on De Cooge Docs. 20a-b.
This could have been Hans Jordaens the Elder, active as a painter in Antwerp and Delft, or his identically named grandson who worked in Leiden and Delft. The inventory of Abraham Jordaens, a brother of the latter, contains two landscapes ‘geseght’ (said to be) by Jordaens, possibly work by the young Jordaens (the estate also contained a portrait of the grandfather, but he was a history painter), Br. Künstler-Inv. V, pp. 1825–1826. The same source also cites paintings that are either ‘geseyt’ (said to be) or‘gemeent’ (believed to be) by Moyses van Uyttenbroeck, Jan Lievens and Gabriel Metsu, a landscape after Claes Berchem, a work’ sonder naem’ (anonymous) and a few entries with signatures.
M.L. Galesloot, ‘Un procès pour une vente de tableaux attribués à Antoine van Dyck, 1660–1662’, Annales de l’Académie d Archéologie de Belgique 24 (1868), pp. 561–606.
Note that Rembrandt’s inventory of 1656 includes ‘een seestuck door Hendrick Antonisz. opgemaeckt’ (a seascape finished by Hendrick Anthonisz.), Strauss Doc, 1656/12, no. 29.
Ch. Ruelens and M. Rooses, Correspondance de Rubens et documents épistolaires concernant sa vie et ses oeuvres, 6 vols., Antwerp 1887–1909, II, pp. 145 and 189.
M. Rooses, Correspondance de Rubens et documents épistolaires concernant sa vie et ses oeuvres, 6 vols., Antwerp 1887–1909 Ibid., II, pp. 275 and 286–287; F. Haskeil, ‘Charles I’s collection of pictures’, in: A. MacGregor (ed.), The late King’s goods. Collections, possessions and patronage of Charles I in the light of the Commonwealth sale inventories, London/Oxford 1989, pp. 203–231, esp. 209–210 and fig. 68. The rejected painting is in the Galleria Corsini in Rome.
Antwerp, Archief van de Académie, inv. no. 81 (13), fol. 73v, dd. 19 January 1699.
Ibid., fol. 74v, dd. 14 February 1699.
The outcome of this matter is unknown, nor have I been able to find a copy of the pamphlet. It is not included in J. Polak-Suetens (ed.), Inventaris pamfletten, 1520–1881, n.p., 1983. This matter is neither to be found in the rekwestboeken (Stadsarchief Antwerpen, Privilegekamer, inv. no. 786), nor in the vonnisboeken (Stadsarchief Antwerpen, Vierschaar, inv. no. 1358). Moreover, the so-called Vliegende Bladen at the university library of Ghent does not possess a copy, as the keeper of the collection, Mrs Sylvia van Peteghem, kindly informed me.
Montias, op. cit.20, p. 235 and A Corpus Vol. II, pp. 60–61, note 131. Could it have been a work by Willem van Aelst, a pupil of Evert van Aelst? After all, he vied with his uncle from a young age.
J. Bruyn, ‘A descriptive survey of the signatures’, in: A Corpus Vol. I, pp. 53–59; ‘A selection of signatures, 1632–1634’, in: Vol. II, pp. 99–106; and ‘A selection of signatures, 1635–1642’, in: Vol. III, pp. 51–56.
W. Froentjes, H.J.J. Hardy and R. ter Kuile-Haller, ‘Een schriftkundig onderzoek van Rembrandt Signaturen’, O.H. 105 (1991), pp. 185–204.
A. Jensen Adams,‘Rembrandt f(ecit): the italic signature and the commodification of artistic identity’, in: Th.W. Gaehtgens (ed.), Künstlerischer Austausch, 3 vols., Berlin 1993, II, pp. 581–594.
For the following I relied on several articles in: C. Van Vlierden and M. Smeyers (eds.), Merken opmerken. Merk-en meesterteken op kunstwerken in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden en het Prinsbisdom Luik. Typologie en méthode, Louvain 1990.
For example, in conformance with a regulation in the ordinance of 1621, the ebony joiners in Antwerp were required to brand the Spanish wood with an S ‘op dat de gemeijnte daer door nijet en worde bedroghen’ (so that the community will not be deceived), R. Fabri, ‘Aan-en afwezigheid van merktekens op 17de-eeuwse Antwerpse kunstkasten’, in: Van Vlierden and Smeyers (see note 38), pp. 201–213, esp. 202. This Spanish wood was much cheaper than ebony.
W.F.H. Oldewelt, ‘De geschiedenis der merken te Amsterdam’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 38 (1941), pp. 1–19.
F.J. Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche schaderschool, Antwerp 1883, p. 342, note 1. They signed ‘HF’, ‘FF’ and ‘AF’, respectively. The painters in this family all signed differently thus avoiding any confusion regarding the maker of a given work. In 1597 Frans Francken signed a painting with ‘den ouden Frans Francken’ (the elder Frans Francken), to distinguish himself from his similarly named son. The latter signed, at least from 1606 on, ‘ff. d. j.’ or ‘Den Jon. F.F.’. After the death of the elder Frans Francken in 1616, Frans II Francken began to sign with ‘de oude Fr. Francken’ (the elder Fr. Francken) and Frans III Francken alternately with ‘F.Franck’, ‘Den jon. FFF’ or with ‘D. i. ffranck’.
Examples are taken from catalogues raisonnes, summary catalogues of the permanent collections of several large museums, particularly that of the National Gallery in London, the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Künsten in Antwerp and that of the Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin. A general description of this matter was given by J. Six, ‘Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy’, O.H. 4 (1886), pp. 81–108, esp. 81–85. More recently, this subject was addressed by a series of articles which appeared under the title ‘L’art de la signature’ in Revue de l’Art 26 (1974), pp. 8–56; B.L. Brown, ‘Replication and the art of Veronese’, Studies in the History of Art 20 (1989), pp. 111–124, L.C. Matthew, ‘The painter’s presence: signatures in Venetian Renaissance pictures’, Art Bull. 80 (1998), pp. 616–648 and C. Gilbert, ‘A preface to signatures (with some cases in Venice)’, in: M. Rogers (ed.), Fashioning identities in Renaissance art, n.p. 2000, pp. 79–87. See also (though not relating to 17th century art) G. Hickey,’signature: identity, authenticity and marketing’, Surface Design Journal, fall 1995, pp. 20–21 and 35–37. Stechow pointed out that it is possible to date undated paintings of some Dutch masters on the basis of the signature’s form, provided it underwent a change in the course of time, see W. Stechow, ‘über das Verhältnis zwischen Signatur und Chronologie bei einigen holländischen Künstlern des 17. Jahrhunderts’, in: Festschrift Dr.h.c. Eduard Trautscholdt, Hamburg 1965, pp. 111–117.
Jensen Adams, op. cit.37, p. 581, note 6, cites four works: one from 1613, the others from 1614.
‘Een dito Cabinetstuk door dezelve [Rubens], verbeeidende de vlugt van Joseph en Maria met het Kindeken na AEgypten, in der nagt, weergaloos van ordonnantie, Couleur en schikking, en tot iets seldsaams is te remarqueren de origineele naam daar op te sien met het jaar 1614. hoog 1. voet 4 3/4 duim, breedt 1. voet 9. duim’ (A ditto cabinet piece by the same [Rubens] depicting the flight of Joseph and Mary with the Child into Egypt, in the night, matchless in its disposition, colour and arrangement, and it may be noted as being rare that it bears the original name with the year 1614. high 1. voet 4 3/4 duim, wide 1. voet 9. duim), in: Catalogus van het lang-bekende welgeconditioneerde en uytmuntende Cabinet zoo van konstige uitvoerige als plaisante Schilderyen … by een versamelt door den Heer Mr. Johan van Schuylenburch, The Hague 1735, p. 6, no. 23.
As did for example, a random example by Antonello da Messina: ‘1475. antonellus messaneus me pinxit’, in a painting now in Antwerp (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Künsten — Antwerpen. Catalogus schilderkunst oude meesters, Antwerp 1988, p. 20, no. 4).
Ibid., nos. 5052, 871 and 5024; Metsijs also used the abbreviated notation ‘ping.’, ibid., no. 5076.
Six, op. cit.46, p. 82. That is not to say that this manner of signing was unknown in the Netherlands. An early example is the inscription on the famous little portrait of the 16-year-old Hugo de Groot in the Fondation Custodia (coll. F. Lugt), Institut Néerlandais, Paris: ‘Aeta meae 16’, ‘Hugo de Groot’ and ‘Jo.v(?).Ravesteijn Pinxit Ano 1599’ (panel, diameter 30 cm. See E.A. van Beresteyn, Iconographie van Hugo Grotius, The Hague 1929, p. 30, no. C and p. 44, no. 2 and exhib. cat. Dawn of the Golden Age. Northern Netherlandish art 1580–1620 [Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum], Amsterdam/Zwolle n.d. [1993], cat. no. 54). In later portraits, Jan Anthonisz. van Ravesteyn almost always placed an T behind his name or monogram ‘JVR’. Was the inscription on the 1599 portrait specified by De Groot?
Exhib. cat. Jan Lievens, ein Maler im Schatten Rembrandts (Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum Braunschweig), n.p. n.d. [1979], nos. 6 and 7, and ibid., p. 15. Confirmation of this theory may be found in the fact that Lievens signed most of his etchings and woodcuts with his monogram ‘IL’, but his prints bearing Latin inscriptions, such as the portrait of Daniel Heinsius, with ‘Ioannes Lijvius’. A work from 1638, thus painted in Lievens’ Antwerp period, bears a comparable signature (‘I. Lijvius fecit 1638’). In the course of time, Lievens began to use this form (sporadically?) as his signature; the latter signature closely resembles the artist’s signature on a notarial document of the same year (ibid., cat. no. 34 and note 1).
In his Meuwe Schouburg, Jan van Gool reported on the dubious reputation of art dealers in cities such as Amsterdam and The Hague. Around 1750 a fierce dispute carried out in pamphlets flared up between the painter and art dealer Gerard Hoet the Younger who, among other matters, defended himself against Van Gool’s attack on the art trade, L. de Vries, Diamante gedenkzuilen en leerzame voorbeelden. Een bespreking van Johan van Gools Meuwe Schouburg, n.p. [Groningen] 1990. De Vries includes transcriptions of the pamphlets. It is noteworthy that both Van Gool and Hoet condemned the sale of copies as originals. However, Van Gool accused the art dealers, the initiators of this type of deceit, while Hoet blamed the copiers, those who actually made the works. From their discussion it appears that both the art dealers and the painters were extremely clever at forging signatures. Hoet proposed issuing certificates of authenticity, which Van Gool did not consider useful.
F.D.O. Obreen (ed.), Archief voor Nederlandsche kunstgeschiedenis, 7 vols., Rotterdam 1877-1890, IV, p. 51.
In A Corpus Vol. II, p. 50, note 51 and p. 57, the regulations of the Utrecht St Luke’s guild has been incorrectly interpreted. The third article of the supplement of 17 March 1651 to the body of regulations states that the ‘gepermitteerde Meesters’ (accepted masters) were not permitted to ‘eenige vreemde, of 00k inwoonende persoonen, op tytels als discipulen, ofte voor haar schilderende, en echter van haar handelinge niet zynde, ende haar eygen naam teekenende, aan te houden, ofte in het werk te stellen’ (employ or recruit any strangers, or lodgers, either disciples or those painting for them, and do not have their manner of painting, and therefore sign with their own name), S. Muller Fz., Schildersvereenigingen te Utrecht, bescheiden uit het Gemeentearchief, Utrecht 1880, pp. 76 and 78. This meant that non-residents temporarily active as painters in the city of Utrecht could not engage the services of pupils or assistants who had their own ‘handelinge’ and signed their work. For an accurate interpretation, see MJ. Bok, Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt, 1580–1700, n.p. 1994, p. 190, note 97. Jensen Adams, op. cit. 37, incorrectly concludes that ‘guild regulations from Utrecht and The Hague directed that all work produced for sale by both pupils and assistants must bear the master’s name.’
C. Van de Velde, Frans Floris (1519/20–1570). Leven en werken, 2 vols., Brussels 1975, 1, pp. 472–473, Doc. 78 and cf. pp. 235–236, no. 89. After Floris had completed the work, he had the aforementioned Francken make a copy after it. Thus there were (at least) two versions in circulation. In 1655, the father of the Antwerp painter Jacobus Zoes owned ‘een oude copye van Caïn ende Abel van Frans Floris’ (an old copy of a Cain and Abel by Frans Floris), Duverger, op. cit.8, VII, p. 140. In 1662 the Antwerp art dealer Matthijs Musson was offered a Cain and Abel, about which it was remarked:’ soo ick meyn van Flores’ (which I presume to be by Floris), Van de Velde, op. cit., p. 508, Doc. 148. At the time, an autograph version was supposedly in Amsterdam, that is to say in 1637 (and in 1665) mention is made of ‘een schilderije van Kaijn en Abel van Franske Floris gedaen’ (a painting of Cain and Abel by Frans Floris), E.W. Moes, ‘De inventaris van den inboedel nagelaten door Dirck Alewijn in 1637’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 9 (1911), pp. 31–54, esp. 46 and 53.
In A Corpus Vol. 1, pp. 11–33, esp. 23, Van de Wetering distinguished three stages in the genesis of a painting: the invention, the dead colour stage and the opmaken, or execution; however, in many instances the latter term means little more than ‘to finish’ or ‘to complete’. H. Miedema, ‘Over kwaliteitsvoorschriften in het St. Lucasgilde; over “doodverf”, O.H. 101 (1987), pp. 141–147, esp. 142, quotes a passage by Van Mander in which images are discussed that ‘maer weynigh begonnen, en ghedootverwt, en werden namaels van anderen opghedaeri (that were barely begun, and dead coloured, and were later completed by others [my italics]); Floris first made a chalk drawing (probably on the panel) and then let assistants ‘voort varen’ (continue).
Mentioned in Van den Branden, op. cit. 44, p. 1089.
H. Miedema, Kunst, kunstenaar en kunstwerk bij Kar el van Mander: een analyse van zijn levensbeschrijvingen, Alphen aan den Rijn 1981, p. 138. The passage in Van Mander (after Vasari) drew the attention of Van Buchell, who provided a summary of it, G J. Hoogewerff and J.Q. van Regteren Altena, Arnoldus Buchelius ‘Res Pictoriae’. Aanteekeningen over kunstenaars en kunstwerken voorkomende in zijn Diarium, Res Pictoriae, Notae Quotidianae en Descriptio Urbis Ultrajectinae (1583–1639), The Hague 1928, p. 72.
With a view to exporting their work, artists sometimes even added to their paintings behind their signature their place of residence or country, L’art de la signature’ in Revue de l’Art 26 (1974) see ‘L’art de la signature’, op. cit. 46, p. 8 and p. 14, note 5, and here note 120.
W. Kloek, ‘Pieter Aertsen en het probleem van het samenstellen van zijn oeuvre’, N.K.J. 40 (1989), pp. 1–26, esp. 9–10. It is conspicuous that Aertsen’s City view with Ecce Homo (Museum Ridder Smidt van Gelder in Antwerp; ill. in Kloek, fig. 13), a presumably fully autograph work and a key painting in his oeuvre (but not of his own invention!), is unusually elaborately signed, namely with his mark as well as his name (ibid., pp. 11 and 4). In 17th-century inventories, doubt is expressed on several occasions with respect to attributions to Aertsen (Utrecht 1646, Amsterdam 1648, Leiden 1667 and Rijswijk 1684 and notes 105 and 118). The artist’s mark was, indeed, noted. In his copy of Van Mander’s Schilder-boeck, the Antwerp art lover Peeter Stevens drew next to two paintings by Aertsen the artist’s trident flanked by the letters ‘P’ and ‘A’ as he had observed them, see J. Briels, ‘Amator Pictoriae Artis. De Antwerpse kunstverzamelaar Peeter Stevens (1590–1668) en zijn Constcamer’, Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Künsten Antwerpen 1980, pp. 137–226, esp. 203. Stevens also recorded the marks and signatures of other painters.
Duverger, op. cit. 8, XI, p. 206; a second statement concerning this matter, ibid., pp. 206–207.
Antwerp, Archief van de Academie, inv. no. 81 (13), fol. 36, dd. 26 February 1684 and fol. 37, dd. 27 June 1684.
‘[..] een Veirendaeltje, dan datter eenige blommekens gevoeght offonder waeren van een ander geschildert’, ibid., fol. 62, dd. 28 January 1693. As the painter had died several years earlier, he could no longer be consulted! That signatures were indeed checked during such appraisals is evidenced in 1719: the Antwerp deans recorded that in a seascape with galleys that had been submitted in the guild hall they had read the ‘naem van de meester’ (the name of the master) on the front ship. In their opinion, the painting was splendid, but had been poorly overpainted in some places, ibid., fol. 101, dd. 24July 1719. Sometimes a commissioning client insisted that an artist should sign the commissioned work. In 1695 the Antwerp painter Peter IJkens contracted to produce two paintings ‘met syn eygen handt ende dat naer syn best vermögen ende rechte originele van syn eijgen handt geschildert met synen naem ende toenaem daer op te setten’ (my italics) (by his own hand and according to the best of his ability and his duty painted originally by his own hand with his name and surname inscribed), Duverger, op. cit. 8, XII, pp. 362–363.
‘[..] sullen voor hem Van Vuchts werck mögen passeeren, te we ten soodanich als hij aen hem Van Waesberge voor desen heeft gelevert ende met sijn eygen hant geteeckent’, P. Haverkorn van Rijsewijk, ‘Johannes van Vucht’, O.H. 9 (1891), pp. 39–51, esp. 43.
‘Van hem wert doch met meerder reden gheclaeght / dat hy zijn Jonghers Copien vercocht voor sijn eygen werck / wanneer hy daer soo wat aengedaen hadde’ (There were complaints about him, and with good reason / that he sold his apprentices’ copies as his own works when he had worked on them somewhat), cited by De Pauw-de Veen, op. cit. 6, p. 110. Aernout van Buchell excerpted Van Mander as follows: ‘[Coignet] vercoft veel van sijne jongers copijen bij hem verbetert voor de sijnen’ (Coignet sold copies by his apprenctices which he had improved, as his own work), Hoogewerff and Van Regteren Altena, op. cit. 59, p. 77.
My transcription of the document deviates somewhat from the text in: M. Rooses, Jordaens’ leven en werken, Amsterdam/Antwerp 1906, p. 139. Careful reading of the handwriting reveals that various changes were made in the notary’s minute.
Marten van Langenhoven initially lived in Rijswijk in ‘de huysinge van sijn Hoogheyt den here prince van Orangien’ (the house of his Highness the Prince of Orange), as he indicated in his will, GA Delft, not. F. Boogert, NA 1993, dd. 6 April 1645. In 1653 he resided in The Hague and maintained contact with, among others, the painter Christiaen van Couwenbergh (O.H. 8, 1890, pp. 223–224; and Br. Künstler-Inv. VI, p. 1975, there referred to as a ‘Kunsthändler’). Around 1656 he went to Amsterdam ‘bancquerot’ (bankrupt), where in 1661 he witnessed the will of the ‘fijnschilder’Jan van Houthuijsen, GAA, not. H. Westfrisius, NA 2820, pp. 207-210, dd. 2 December 1661. In 1663 he lived in ‘de Keizerskroon’ (as an innkeeper?), GAA, not. P. van Toll, NA 2425, fol. 154, dd. 29 August 1663.
‘[..] well ende curieuslijck ten deele zelffs te schilderen ende ten deele door andere, sooals het bequaemst door hem Jordaens goet gevonden sal worden. Ende’ t gene door andere geschildert sal wesen blijft hij gehouden zoo te overschilderen, dat het voor zijn signors Jordaens eygen werck gehouden sal worden ende oversulckx zijnen naem ende teeckeninge daer onder stellen’, Stadsarchief Antwerpen, not. H. van Cantelbeck Jr, NA 3399, dd. 21 April 1648; Van den Branden, op. cit. 44, p. 828, Rooses, op. cit. 67, pp. 139–141; and R.-A. d’Hulst, Jacob Jordaens, Antwerp 1982, p. 30.
In 1641 six pupils are mentioned as being in his workshop, learning ‘de const van schilderen’ (the art of painting). These pupils are not recorded in the ‘Liggeren’ of the Antwerp St Luke’s guild, Rooses, op. cit. 67, p. 123. Given their age — the youngest was 18, the oldest 21 — they must have been advanced pupils who were fully involved in the workshop production. The same has been established for Rembrandt’s pupils.
S. Foister, ‘Paintings and other works of art in sixteenth-century English inventories’, Burl. Mag. 123 (1981), pp. 273–282.
Ibid., p. 273.
G. Stappaerts, Bijdrage tot de Studie van schilderijen in privé-bezit te Antwerpen in de zestiende eeuw, unpublished thesis, Free University of Brussels, Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Department of Art History and Archaeology, 1988. The earliest inventories date from the 1520s; over two-thirds were drawn up after 1580, almost always by an Antwerp notary. In the last two decades of the 16th century, not only did the number of inventories increase substantially but they also became more extensive. Stappaerts does not mention any selection criteria, but the inventories turn out to relate to the ‘better off (ibid., p. 156), in other words magistrates, high officials and merchants, who comprise the largest group.
The exact number cannot always be determined. Not included are the drawings (‘taferelen’ on paper or parchment), prints (often maps) and the listings of ‘een crucifix’ (a crucifix); on the other hand, ‘beeiden’ (images) are included unless this term refers to wood or stone sculptures, which may have been painted. The ‘contrefeytsels’ (likenesses) were counted in, although there may have been prints among them. A few inventories (Stappaerts, op. cit. 74, nos. 60, 81, 82 and 91) were left out of the calculations.
Ibid., nos. 19, 34, 61, 205, 214, 281 and 290. In the inventory of Van Kessel (no. 91) there are two pieces by Jacques’ (conceivably Jacob de Backer), and in the shop on the painters’ magazine in the Beurs 119 ‘enckel doecken, alrehande sorte ende sommige nyet volmaect’ (single canvases, of all kinds and some not completed), 13 ‘dubbel doecken, Cortrycse personagien’ (double canvases with Courtrai figures), an old painting by Hieronymus Bosch, a sea chart on parchment and 477 canvases ‘alrehande sorten’ (of all kinds); see also Denucé, op. cit. 8, pp. De Antwerpsche ‘konstkamers’: inventarissen van kunstverzamelingen in de 16e en 17e eeuwen, Antwerp and Amsterdam 1932, 11–12.
‘Een viercant tafereel, olyeverwe, daer op staet een mans personagie gefigureert ende daer staet bij een ghescrifte Quintinus Metzys me fecit anno XVc ende XIIe’, Stappaerts, op. cit. 74, no. 19 and Denucé, op. cit. 8, De Antwerpsche ‘konstkamers’: inventarissen van kunstverzamelingen in de 16e en 17e eeuwen, Antwerp and Amsterdam 1932, pp. 1–4.
C.J. Gonnet, ‘Oude schilderijen in en van de stad Haarlem’, O.H. 33 (1915), pp. 132–144.
Some of the lists kept by collectors have survived, among them the ‘register van de schilderyen en vande prenten’ (register of paintings and prints) of Willem Vincent van Wyttenhorst of Utrecht (for the years 1651–1659, see J. van der Veen, ‘Collections of paintings in the Dutch Republic during the period of Frederick Henry and Amalia’, in: exhib. cat. Princely Patrons. The collection of Frederick Henry of Orange and Amalia of Solms in The Hague (The Hague, Mauritshuis), Zwolle 1997, pp. 87–96) and the (written) ‘catalogus van mijne schilderyen’ (catalogue of my paintings) of Valerius Röver (from the first decades of the 18th century), see J. van der Veen, ‘Delftse verzamelingen in de zeventiende en eerste helft van de achttiende eeuw’, in: E. Bergveit, M. Jonker and A. Wiechmann (eds.), Schatten in Delft. Burgers verzamelen 1600–1750, Zwolle 2002, pp. 47–89 and 156–160, esp. 85–89. The inventory of the Amsterdam collector Isaac Rooleeuw mentions ‘een boek behelsende een inventaris van des overledens kunst’ (a book containing an inventory and copies; in a few cases he was unable to give the name of the artist. These sources, which nonetheless provide a great deal of information on attributions and uncertainty about them, are not considered further here.
This seems to me to answer Montias’s view that ‘with respect to notaries, my impression is that their degree of expertise varied widely’, Simiolus 22 (1993), pp. 99–105, esp. 103, note 16. This may have applied to the Delft notary Willem de Langue, who was an art collector, but was certainly not the case with Laurens Lamberti of Amsterdam, whom Montias cites in evidence. The many artists’ names found in the inventories drawn up by this notary are explained purely by the fact that he had a wealthy, predominantly Catholic clientele, and in the 1630s alone, the paintings were appraised by painters in five inventories drawn up by Lamberti, and it is virtually certain that the attributions were made by them (and not by the notary!). Another Amsterdam notary from the same period whose protocols contain many important inventories with a large number of attributions is Jan Warnaertz.; in at least six cases the paintings were appraised by experts. In contrast, in the protocols drawn up by their colleague Johannes Hellerus, whose office was frequented by many painters, there are hundreds of inventories of humble craftsmen in which not a single artist’s name occurs.
Montias, op. cit. 20, pp. 235–236, is one of the few who paid attention to this matter.
‘[..] het een met olyverf, dat Albert Dürer toegeschreven wordt, ende het ander ontwyffelyck Mabuys, beide beduydende het afnemen van den h. cruys’. The will, published in J.J. Dodt van Flensburg, Archief voor kerkelijke en wereldsche geschiedenissen, inzonderheid van Utrecht, 7 vols., Utrecht 1838–1848, II, pp. 76–92, esp. 78–79, also mentions a painting by Anthonie Mor and his own portrait by (Maarten?) de Goyer; it was filed with a notary on 12 September 1618 (Old Style).
‘[..] die men Breugel toeschrijft, waervan ic twee principaele van waterverwe seer aerdich gesien hebbe bij Boyssens te Leyden, meende deselve Boyssens te sijn Joachim Patenier van Dinant’. Cornells Boyssens, the owner of the tronies, ascribed them by turns to Lucas van Valckenburch and Joachim Patenir. Van Buchell described them as ‘twee tronikens seer aerdigh in waterverwe van Lucas van Valckenborg, als Boissens meende, hoewel sij gedruct sijn opden naeme van Bruegel’ (two small tronies, very attractive, in watercolour by Lucas van Valckenburch, as Boyssens believed, although they are printed under the name of Bruegel), see Hoogewerff and Van Regteren Altena, op. cit. 59, pp. 56 and 60. The prints which bear Bruegel’s name were published by Claes Jansz. Visscher. Are the ‘twee cleyne troneties van Lucas van Valckenburch’ (two small tronies by Lucas van Valckenburch) which Rembrandt owned (Strauss Doc., 1656/12, no. 53) these same heads?
‘[..] in het testament van den overleden toegeschreven geschildert [heetten] te zijn van den Fluweelen Breugel’, in the inventory of Rombout Jacob Jacobsz., GAA, not. S. van Jaarlandt, NA 4395, act 66, pp. 561–603, dd. 22 and 27 July 1695–6 April 1696. The attribution is in his will, GAA, not. W. Sylvius, NA 4928, act 32, pp. 196–201, dd. 23 June 1695. He had been given one of the two pieces by his sister. In her will, she referred to ‘hare kleyne ronde waterverwge somerschilderijtie waarvan [..] hare broeder de weergae is hebbende’ Jher small round watercolour summer painting of which her brother has the companion piece), GAA, not. S. van der Sluijs, NA 3566, fols. 169–177, dd. 15 December 1675; in her inventory it is stated that she had given ‘zodanighen waterverwege schilderijtie’ (such a watercolour painting) to her brother.
Haarlem, Archiefdienst voor Kennemerland, not. W. van Kittensteyn, NA 305, fols. 67–68v, dd. 20 September 1669; she was certainly related to the painter. Jan Porcelllis established in his will of 19 December 1631 that his son Julius would receive all of the paintings included in his estate upon his death, ‘te weten die met zijn testateurs eygene handt sullen wesen gedaen en met zijn naem geteykent’ (namely, those done by the testator himself and signed with his name), Briels, op. cit. 8, p. 278, Doc. k.
J. Loughman, ‘Een stad en haar kunstconsumptie: openbare en privéverzamelingen in Dordrecht, 1620–1719’, in: exhib. cat. De Zichtbaere Werelt (Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum), Zwolle n.d. [1992], pp. 34–64, esp. 45. In the first half of the 17th century Loughman found only nine inventories with one or more names of artists, ibid., p. 51. In one of the first Dordrecht inventories in which special attention was paid to attributions, that of the physician Johan van Beverwijck and his wife, the painter Maerten van Toi acted as the appraiser. In addition to copies after Hieronymus Bosch, Pieter Aertsen and Rubens, there are ‘vier cleyne schilderijckens, conterfeytsels van twee oude mans ende twee oude vrouwen, copien van Rembrants’ (four small paintings, images of two old men and two old women, copies after Rembrandt), valued at ten guilders, ibid., pp. 59–61. Van Toi was already familiar with the paintings in the estate, since he had copied nine family portraits and had himself painted original portraits of two of its members.
GAA, not. P. de Bary, NA 1731, pp. 221–235, dd. 25 February-11 March 1669; the painters generally gave higher valuations than the appraisers.
P. van Meurs, ‘Kunst in de archieven van Vianen’, O.H. 26 (1908), pp 177–202 and 225–241, esp. 236–240.
The earliest Amsterdam example I know of dates from 1643. Apart from remarks such as ‘de naam van de schilder onbekend’ (name of the painter unknown), one finds others like ‘van een oud meester’ (by an old master), ‘van een Duyts meester’ (by a German master) or other possible places of origin. Examples from Delft are given in Montias, op. cit. 20, p. 233.
GAA, not. P. Mathijsz., NA 483, fols. 563–568, c. 1635. The document is damaged and incomplete. The attributions were made by the painters David Colijn and Dirck Pietersz. Bontepaert.
This designation is seen very rarely. Worth mentioning in this regard is ‘een brieveschrijfstertje gedaan na ‘t schijnt door Gerard ter Burg’ (a woman writing a letter apparently by Gerard ter Borch), appraised by Jan Pietersz. Zomer and Justus van Huysum at 80 guilders, GAA, not. F. Nolet, NA 6399, pp. 33–86, dd& April 1704; cf. Doc. 34 in the appendix to this essay.
GAA, not. J. d’Amour, NA 2162, pp. 151–177, dd. 22 January 1659, esp. 167 and 169; and Strauss Doc., 1659/1. It is possible that the appraisers made use of Deutgens’ sales records; the names in the inventory of persons with outstanding debts are certainly taken from an account book. Deutgens’s widow was present when the inventory was drawn up.
It goes without saying that this does not concern clerical errors and corrections. Examples from Amsterdam are cited in the following discussion, but the same procedure can be observed in documents in other cities. One example from Haarlem is the estate of Coenraet Coymans with an appraisal done by the painters Frans Hals and Pieter Molijn. The first painting on the list is a work by Pieter Aertsen, followed by a Road to Calvary next to which was originally written ‘van Lange Pier d’Oude’ (by Pieter Aertsen); this was crossed out (as was ‘d’Jonge’, or the Younger, which was added obliquely above) and replaced by ‘Jochem Beukelaer’. The next item is a large landscape with the added remark: ‘men meynt van Coningsloo’ (believed to be by Coninxloo), Haarlem, Archiefdienst voor Kennemerland, not. M. Bardoel, NA 344, fols. 16–6-171v, dd. 24 April 1660, esp. 171, nos. 406, 407 and 408; no. 425 on this list remained ‘onbekent’ (unknown), while above no. 426, a landscape with brigands, the inscriptions ‘van Van der Weijen’ was added.
‘Een Mariebeldt met kindeken Jhesus, origineel oft immers geretocqueert van wijlen hr. Pietro Paulo Rubens, op panneel, olieverve, in swerte lijste, d’welck den affl. in desen bij sijnen voorsz. testamente gelegateert heeft aen de lieve-vrouwe-broeders alhier’, Stadsarchief Antwerpen, not. H. van Elslant, NA 4022, dd. 13 January 1663 and following days, especially fol. 8 (Denucé, op. cit.8, p. 233 and Duverger, op.cit.8, Antwerpse kunstinventarissen uit de zeventiende eeuw, 12 vols, Brussels 1984–2002, VIII, p. 278). This item is immediately followed by an ‘Ecce Homo op panneel in vergulde lijste, copye, op panneel in lijste, naer’t voorgaende Mariebeelf (Ecce Homo on panel in gilt frame, copy, on panel in frame, after the foregoing Virgin Mary), ibid., fol. 8v.
This could not be checked, however, because the protocols of the notary before whom the testament was executed have not survived. A later codicil (Stadsarchief Antwerpen, not. J. Pauwels, NA 2782, dd. 10 May 1661) gives no details.
In the vast majority of cases, the name of the painter of the work in the lottery is given. In four instances, the compilers of the list could not decide whether they were dealing with an original or a copy, and so ‘van en nae’ (by and after) was put in front of the names of David Teniers (the Younger), Jan van Bijlert, Abraham van Beijeren and Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem. These doubts were reflected in the relatively low appraisals of 25, 10, 12 and 15 guilders, respectively; see V. de Stuers, ‘De lotery van Jan de Bondt, 1649’, in: 0Obreen, op. cit.54, II, pp. 71–93, esp. p. 82, no. 9, p. 83, no. 13, p. 84, no. 39 and p. 85, no. 49.
Ibid., p. 85, no. 51. Cornelis van Poelenburch was one of the five individuals who had appraised the paintings before the lottery, and the correction would have been made at his instigation. Equally, in the case of a copy after a work by Johan van Isendoorn, which he himself retouched, one suspects that he also provided this information: as well as being a sheriff he was an artist, and was also involved in the lottery, ibid., p. 88, no. 98.
The earliest example from Amsterdam, in the inventory of Pieter Codde of 1636, reads: ‘twee stucxkens, bij den discipel van P[iete]r Codde geinventeert’ (two small pieces, invented by the pupil of Pieter Codde), A. Bredius, ‘Iets over Pieter Codde en Willem Duyster’, O.H. 6 (1888), pp. 187–194, esp. 190.
An early example of the use of the term ‘manier’ is found in the inventory of the Archduke Ernest drawn up (in German) in Brussels in 1595: ‘Christy Creutzigung von Bruegels Manier’, in: M. De Maeyer, Albrecht en Isabella en de schilderkunst. Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van de XVIIe-eeuwse schilderkunst in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden, Brussels 1955, p. 259.
GAA, not. P. Barcman, NA 1267, act 3, dd. 5/6 January 1640. The same inventory lists another painting as ‘nae Lange Pier’ (after Pieter Aertsen). This description can perhaps be explained by the presence of Cornells Dircksz. Cool, who signed as a witness. A prominent art collector, he was co-guardian in the will of the deceased (GAA, not. P. Barcman, NA 1264, dd. 29 November 1639).
Mentioned in O.H. 16 (1898), p. 145.
Br. Künstler-Inv. III, p. 1027; and P. Hecht, De Hollandse fijnschilders. Van Gerard Dou tot Adriaen van der Werff, Amsterdam-Maarssen/The Hague 1989, p. 203, note 3. If the paintings mentioned in Doc. 33b but not recognised by the painters Jacob Schalcken (a cousin of Godfried) and Arent Pijl as being originals by Godfried Schalken really were by his hand, the rather unusual signature on the back of both works, namely’ G. Schalcken, Pictor in Hollandia. Ao 1690’ (Hecht, cat. nos. 42 and 43) may be explained — as Hecht suspected — by the fact that these paintings were intended for the foreign market. In Doc. 33a there is a reference to Schalken selling works in Kleve, where the artist’s name would not have been known. The merchant Pieter van der Luyt dealt in paintings, apparently on an occasional basis. In 1702 his wife asked someone for payment for goods supplied; according to the details of this document, the ‘goods’ included paintings by Jan Miense Molenaer, Jan Steen and one of the Van Ostades, GAA, not. P. Carel, NA 6198, act 188, dd. 2 December 1702, and acts 162, 163 and 194.
See also De Pauw-de Veen, op. cit.6, pp. 111–113.
In one instance such a ‘Brouwerken’ is followed by the word ‘coppij’ (copy) and in another it is preceded by ‘Hollans’. De Pauw-de Veen, op. cit.6, p. III, cites several examples, among them ‘Tenirkens’, which in 1663 was explained as: ‘dat syn dingen dar de wtdragers met de kopykens gan leuren van deur tot deur’ (they are things that the second-hand dealers with copies peddle from door to door). She also cites the painter J. Verhoek, who in his translation of Roger de Piles’s Abrégé de la vie des peintres calls such imitations ‘pasteytjes’, after the Italian pasticcio, from which the word ‘pastiche’ is derived.
The document refers to a’ seeckren schilder die als doen met sijne schilderijen ende coopmanschappen voorgestaen heeft op ‘t Raedthuys aen de deur van de voorsz. stede Weescamer’ (a certain painter, who then with his paintings and wares was standing before the Town Hall near the door of the court of orphans), GA Leiden, not. D. Jansz. van Vesanevelt, NA 349, act 35, dd. 12 June 1641.
‘[..] een stuck ‘t welck den schilder voornomt verclaerde bij mr. Rembrant gedaen te sijn ende selffs aen den voorsz. mr. Rembrant besteet te hebben’ (a piece which said painter declared to be by master Rembrant and which indeed he commissioned from the aforementioned master Rembrandt), ibid. Although the document is accurately presented in A. Bredius, ‘Een schilderij van Rembrandt? op de kermis te Leiden 1641’, O.H. 26 (1908), p. 68, and it is rightly observed that it concerns the autograph nature of a painting attributed to Rembrandt, it is wrongly concluded that ‘men omstreeks 1641 schilderyen van Rembrandt op de kermis te Leiden ventte’ (around 1641 paintings by Rembrandt were traded at the fair in Leiden), ibid. This mistaken conclusion, which is reflected in the title of Bredius’s article, is taken over in Strauss Doc, 1641/2.
E. Duverger, ‘Een betwist schilderij van Paulus Bril bij een Gents kanunnik’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Oudheidkunde en Kunstgeschiedenis 35 (1965), pp. 191–200.
No painting by Bril is found in Rembrandt’s inventory of 1656. Rembrandt could have seen his work at auctions, with dealers, or in the collections of art lovers. Johannes de Renialme owned a landscape by Bril which was valued at 90 guilders by Marten Kretzer and the painter Adam Camerarius, GAA, not. F. Uijttenbogaert, NA 1915, pp. 663-692, dd. 27 June 1657, esp. 678, no. 272 and Br. Künstler-Inv. I, p. 234. In 1665 a work by Bril in an Amsterdam estate was appraised at 300 guilders, ibid., III, p. 838.
Rembrandt was, of course, obliged to observe the guild regulations. That he did so is apparent from a dispute between him and a client over the resemblance to the sitter in a portrait of a woman. Rembrandt replied that he would complete the piece and abide ‘aen ‘t oordeel van de overluyden van’t St. Lucasgilt’ (by the judgement of the headmen of the St Luke’s Guild), Strauss Doc, 1654/4; see also J. van der Veen, ‘Faces from life: tronies and portraits in Rembrandt’s painted oeuvre’, in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt, a genius and his impact (Melbourne, National Gallery of Victoria and Canberra, National Gallery of Australia), Zwolle 1997, pp. 69–80, esp. 77.
H.E. van Gelder, ‘De jonge Huygensen en Rembrandt’, O.H. 73 (1958), pp. 238–241; Strauss Doc, 1663/9. In 1656 Rembrandt owned two copies after Annibale Carracci, ibid., 1656/12, nos. 81 and 83.
E. van de Wetering, Rembrandt, the painter at work, Amsterdam 1997, in the dust jacket of the hard cover edition and IV Addenda I.
A Corpus Vol. II, p. 105; Vol. Ill, pp. 55–56.
Vol. III, p. 56, and figs. 24 and 25.
Sumowski Gemälde III, no. 1274 (as Lievens); B. Broos, ‘Fame shared is fame doubled’, in: exhib. cat. The impact of a genius. Rembrandt, his pupils and followers in the seventeenth century, Amsterdam 1983, pp. 35-58, esp. 38 and fig. c; and see the review by the same author of Strauss Doc. in Simiolus 12 (1981-1982), pp. 245-262, esp. 252-253 and note 35. The inscription is now illegible either with the naked eye or with technical examination. With a bit of good will a few letters can be deciphered, however they do not amount to much.
H.L. Straat, ‘Lambert Jacobsz., schilder’, De Vrije Fries 28 (1925), pp. 53–76, esp. 73, nos. 21 and 22. The works on sale in the shop in Leeuwarden included copies from the workshop of Hendrick Uylenburgh, some after paintings by Rembrandt. Apart from the two copies after Lievens mentioned, there was available ‘een cleine bleecke verschepene troni alheel int swart nae Jan Lieuves’ (a small pale discoloured head completely in black after Jan Lievens), ibid., p. 72, no. 12; and also H. Schneider with the assistance of R.E.O. Ekkart, Jan Lievens, sein Leben und seine Werke, Amsterdam 1973, no. 221.
C. Hofstede de Groot, ‘Rembrandts onderwijs aan zijne leerlingen’, O.H. 33 (1915), pp. 79–94, esp. 85, believed that he could see Rembrandt’s hand in the distinctively applied touches in the locks of curly hair and perhaps also in the light passages in the background.
For the autograph Sacrifice of Isaac in St Petersburg (signed and dated’ Rembrandt, f. 1635’) and the copy in Munich, see III A 108. The same view is taken in exhib. cat. Het Oude Testament in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw (Amsterdam, Joods Historisch Museum), Zwolle 1991, cat. no. 9. M. Royalton-Kisch, ‘Rembrandt’s sketches for his paintings’, Master Drawings 27 (1989), pp. 128-145, believes that the work in Munich was painted after a drawing by Rembrandt and that the Sacrifice of Isaac in St Petersburg was done later. At the Rembrandt symposium held on 16 and 17 January 1992 at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, E. Haverkamp-Begemann pointed out that H. von Sonnenburg was said to have detected retouches in the Munich painting (done by Rembrandt?). The provenance of III A 108 can be traced back with some confidence to 1656: the inventory drawn up after the death of Miguel Mendes de Vasconcelos of Antwerp lists ‘un Sacrificio de Abraham de Rynbrant’ (a Sacrifice of Abraham by Rembrandt), Duverger, op. cit.8, VII, pp. 208-211, esp. 210. This collector may have been the first owner of the St Petersburg painting. Apart from two anonymous pieces produced in’ Olanda’, the Rembrandt is the only Dutch painting in the collection, which otherwise consisted of work by a few Italians and a great many artists from the Southern Netherlands, particularly Antwerp.
Bruyn saw similarities with early signatures by Ferdinand Bol; A Corpus Vol. III, p. 55 and fig. 20.
J. Bruyn, ‘Rembrandts werkplaats: functie en produktie’, in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt. Paintings, 1991/92, pp. 68–89, esp. 71 and 79, and ibid., cat. no. 80, where Bruyn’s attribution to Fabritius is supported. The listing in Rembrandt’s inventory reads ‘een vrouwtie met een kintie van Rembrant van Rijn’ (a woman with a child by Rembrandt van Rijn), Strauss., 1656/12, no. 3.
Rembrandts werkplaats: functie en produktie’, in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt. Paintings, 1991/92 Ibid., p. 79, fig. 94 and notes 69 and 72 there, attributed by Bruyn to Samuel van Hoogstraten. For other suspected workshop pieces that passed for work by Rembrandt, see A Corpus Vol. II, p. 630; and Vol. Ill, p. 277.
Strauss Doc, pp. 594–595; due to the condition of the document, the text is incomplete.
‘Twe oude antickxe tronytgens van een dissipel van Rembrant, getax: op XVJ gulfden]’ (two old antique tronies by a pupil of Rembrandt, valued at sixteen guilders), GA Leiden, not. J. Dou, NA 617, act 59, dd. 21 March 1657 (given in O. H. 53, 1936, p. 186, but not included in Strauss Doc).
A Corpus Vol. II, p. 48.
Rembrandts werkplaats: functie en produktie’, in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt. Paintings, 1991/92 Bruyn, op. cit.139, pp. 70–71, investigated the question whether contemporaries were interested in who actually painted a work and came to the conclusion that in the first half of the 17th century, and particularly the 1630s, they indeed were, and that subsequently awareness of the difference between original and copy seemed to become blurred. This ‘blurring’ in my view means the loss of exact knowledge among owners as well as compilers of inventories and appraisers of paintings. At the same time there must often have been (many) overly optimistic attributions. This is not to say, however, that less interest was taken in who had painted a work.
Strauss Doc., 1632/3 and I A 12.
Strauss Doc., 1660/5, where the names of the appraisers are omitted. The lady of the house stated she had bought both heads from Pieter Heyblom, a dealer in mirrors and frames. In the same inventory a painting attributed to Jordaens is corrected — in a different hand — to ‘alias Mompert’ and valued accordingly at six guilders, GAA, DBK 365, fols. 272v–273v and 276–277, dd. 22 April/26 June 1660.
HdG Urk., no. 357.
HdG Urk., no. 323.
Strauss Doc., 1647/2; and A Corpus Vol. II, p. 49, fig. 1 and note 48.
By Lieuwe van Aitzema, Strauss Doc., 1657/4; in my opinion, HdG Urk., no. Ill gives the wrong name for the buyer of this picture at the auction in 1647.
P. Schatborn, ‘Van Rembrandt tot Crozat. Vroege verzamelingen met tekeningen van Rembrandt’, N.K.J. 32 (1981), pp. 1–54, esp. 3 and 21. Another album contained drawings that were described as ‘extra puyk van Rembrant Originale’ (extra fine originals by Rembrandt), ibid., p. 22.
Strauss Doc., 1656/12, nos. 29 (see also note 28 above) and 102, by ‘een onbekent meester’ (an unknown master).
Italiaansche kunstwerken in Nederlandsche verzamelingen van vroeger tijden’, O.H. 53 (1936) Lugt, op. cit.3, p. 112, wondered whether the names under which they were listed in Rembrandt’s inventory were all correct. The modest prices sometimes fetched by ‘Italian’ paintings at auction suggest that they were not originals; striking examples are given in Lugt (op. cit., pp. 132-133, especially note 71). In the case of Rembrandt’s estate, we may question the two works attributed to Palma Vecchio and Giorgione. In 1658 the DBK paid out 32 guilders and 5 stuivers to De la Tombe, who owned half of both paintings, see Strauss Doc., 1656/12, nos. 34 and 109 and 1658/26, 27 and 28. This amount is far too small for these to have been undisputed originals by the masters named.
Strauss Doc., 1656/12, nos. 25, 27, 28, 33, 120, 123, 295 and 301. A newly discovered document concerns a portrait of a woman, being a copy of a portrait done by Rembrandt and retouched by him (‘gecopieert na dat van Rembrant en door hem geretorqueert’), J. van der Veen, ‘Onbekende opdrachtgevers van Rembrandt. Jacomo Borchgraeff en Maria van Uffelen en hun portretten door Rembrandt, Jonson van Ceulen, Van Zijl, Van Mol en Jacob Backer’, Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 1998, pp. 14–31.
Jouderville was one of the pupils who painted such still lifes. An Amsterdam estate contained ‘een vanitas, sijnde een dootshooft van Soederwiel’ (a Vanitas, being a skull by Jouderville), GAA, not. P. de Bary, NA 1714, pp. 361–375, dd. 16 October–11 November 1660, esp.
GAA, not. S. Pelgrom, NA 4767, pp. 324–378, dd. 19 October–23 November 1678; and H.J. Postma, ‘De Amsterdamse verzamelaar Herman Becker (ca. 1617–1678); nieuwe gegevens over een geldschieter van Rembrandt’, O.H. 102 (1988), pp. 1–21, esp. 17.
GAA, not. C van Achthoven, NA 6417, act 383, pp. 871–901, dd. 24 November 1710, esp. 891.
Catalogus van een overheerlyk en genoegzaem vorstelyk kabinet konstige en plaizante schilderyen.. by een verzamelt door den Heere van Valkenburg.., Rotterdam 1731, p. 7, no. 72. A handwritten note in the margin gives a price of 15 guilders.
Namely in 1657, 1676 (twice) and in 1712, see note 142 above and the review byj. Bruyn of Sumowski Gemälde I, O.H. 98 (1984), pp. 146–162, esp. note 39.
GAA, not. D. van Liebergen, NA 6301, act 11(1), dd. 4 November 1720-2 February 1721; Hoet I, p. 257, no. 14: ‘De stervende Rykeman, door Hoogstraten f 21:-:-’ (the dying Rich Man, by Hoogstraten f 21:-:-). Note that in 1656 Rembrandt possessed ‘een rijcke man van Palma Vetio’ (a Rich Man by Palma Vecchio), Strauss Doc., 1656/12, no. 34. In sales catalogues one finds several references to paintings done in the manner of Rembrandt, for example by Govert Flinck and Gerbrand van den Eeckhout. The inventory of the painter Cornells Dusart lists a man’s head by Rembrandt, which is described in the sales catalogue as in ‘de trant’ (the style) of Rembrandt. Another study of a head mentioned in the inventory is qualified with’ soo men meent’ (as is thought to be by Rembrandt), whereas the sales catalogue calls it ‘de trant van Rembrant’ (the style of Rembrandt), Br. Künstler-lnv. I, pp. 45 and 46.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Der Veen, J. (2005). By his own hand. The valuation of autograph paintings in the 17th century. In: A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings. Rembrandt Research Project Foundation, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4441-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4441-0_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3280-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-4441-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)