Godefridus Schalcken: A Dutch Painter in Late Seventeenth-Century London 9789048538638

Citation preview

Godefridus Schalcken

Visual and Material Culture, 1300–1700 A forum for innovative research on the role of images and objects in the late medieval and early modern periods, Visual and Material Culture, 1300–1700 publishes monographs and essay collections that combine rigorous investigation with critical inquiry to present new narratives on a wide range of topics, from traditional arts to seemingly ordinary things. Recognizing the fluidity of images, objects, and ideas, this series fosters cross-cultural as well as multi-disciplinary exploration. We consider proposals from across the spectrum of analytic approaches and methodologies. Series Editor Dr. Allison Levy, an art historian, has written and/or edited three scholarly books, and she has been the recipient of numerous grants and awards, from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Association of University Women, the Getty Research Institute, the Dumbarton Oaks Research Library of Harvard University, the Whiting Foundation and the Bogliasco Foundation, among others. www.allisonlevy.com.

Godefridus Schalcken A Dutch Painter in Late Seventeenth-Century London

Wayne Franits

Amsterdam University Press

The publication of this book is made possible by a grant from the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art.

Cover illustration: Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, 1695 (oil on canvas, 109.5 × 88.5 cm). Leamington Spa, Leamington Spa Art Gallery and Museum. Reproduced Courtesy of Leamington Spa Art Gallery & Museum (Warwick District Council) Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Newgen/Konvertus isbn 978 94 6298 711 1 e-isbn 978 90 4853 863 8 doi 10.5117/9789462987111 nur 685 © Wayne Franits / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2018 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher.

Contents List of Illustrations 7 Acknowledgments13 Introduction15 1. Haberdashers, barristers, and a young musician: Situating Schalcken in late seventeenth-century London 2. Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III 3. Self-portraiture as self-promotion 4. Schalcken’s London period genre paintings 5. Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings

37 55 77 107 129

Conclusion153 Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist 157 Notes183 Bibliography241 Index261

List of Illustrations Fig. 1.

Gerrit Dou, Astronomer by Candlelight, late 1650s (oil on panel, 31 × 21.2 cm). Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum. Fig. 2. A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade, 11 January 1695. Oxford, The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, Hope fol. 22 (1), vol. 6, no. 128, p. 3. Fig. 3. York Buildings, from William Morgan’s Map of London 1682. British History Online, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/ london-map-morgan/1682. Fig. 4. Receipt for a pass for Schalcken and his family to leave England, 24 July 1696, Kew, The National Archives. Fig. 5. Carlo Dolci, St. Jerome, 1655 (oil on panel, 43 × 54 cm). New York, Otto Naumann Ltd. Fig. 6. Godfrey Kneller, Portrait of Charles Beauclerk, Duke of St. Albans, c. 1690–95 (oil on canvas, 126.7 × 102.9 cm). New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, bequest of Jack Ruppert, 1939. Fig. 7. John Closterman, Portrait of John Poulett, 1st Earl Poulett, c. 1680 (oil on canvas, 194.3 × 132.1 cm). New Haven, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon collection. Fig. 8. Michael Dahl, Portrait of Lady Mary Somerset, Duchess of Ormond, c. 1695 (oil on canvas, 127 × 101.5 cm). London, Fergus Hall Master Paintings. Fig. 9. John Smith after Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Anne Kynnesman, 1698 (mezzotint, 34.2 × 25.5 cm). London, The British Museum. Fig. 10. “Dining Room,” from the inventory of the contents of Francis Kynnesman’s house, document pertaining to a lawsuit, 1707, Kew, The National Archives. Fig. 11. Godfrey Kneller, Portrait of Annabella Dyves, Lady Howard, 1697 (oil on canvas, approx. 228 × 152 cm). Present location unknown. Fig. 12. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of a Young Musician, Most Likely John Banister III, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 24.5 × 21.3 cm). Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario. Purchased with Funds donated by AGO Members, 1997 (inv. no. 97.3). Fig. 13. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of a Young Musician, Most Likely John Banister III, c. 1692–96 (pen and brown ink over red and black chalk, with gray and blue wash, 13.7 × 10.9 cm). New York, The Leiden Collection. Image courtesy of the Leiden Collection, New York.

8

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 14. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Sir Richard Levett, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 76.2 × 63.5 cm). London, Guildhall Art Gallery. Fig. 15. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of John Acton, 1695 (oil on canvas, 124.7 × 99.7 cm). Basingstoke, Willis Museum. Fig. 16. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Margaret Acton née Cutts, c. 1695 (oil on canvas, 123.8 × 95.9 cm). Present location unknown. Photo: National Portrait Gallery, London. Fig. 17. Detail of Fig. 15. Fig. 18. Jan de Bray, Portrait of Abraham de Casteleyn and His Wife, Magarieta van Bancken, 1663 (oil on canvas, 83 × 106. 5 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Fig. 19. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Sir Thomas Rokeby, c. 1695 (oil on canvas, 127 × 101.6 cm). New Zealand, private collection. Fig. 20. John Riley, Portrait of George Jeffreys, 1st Baron Jeffreys of Wem, Judge Jeffreys, c. 1685 (oil on canvas, 74 × 62 cm). Private collection. Fig. 21. Inventory of the art collection of Sir John Lowther, 1st Viscount Lonsdale, 1696. Carlisle, Cumbria Archive Service. Courtesy of the Lowther Estate Trust. Fig. 22. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Mary Wentworth née Lowther, c. 1693–94 (oil on canvas, 211.5 × 121 cm). Bridlington, Sewerby Hall Museum and Art Gallery. Fig. 23. Caspar Netscher, Portrait of Helena Catharina de Witte, 1678 (oil on canvas, 49 × 40 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Fig. 24. Illustration of the Maeghde-Wapen, from Jacob Cats, Houwelyck, The Hague, 1625. Private collection. Fig. 25. Detail of Fig. 8. Fig. 26. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Mary Wentworth née Lowther, 1700 (oil on canvas, 77 × 64 cm). Private collection. Fig. 27. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of James Stuart, 4th Duke of Lennox and 1st Duke of Richmond by Candlelight, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 94.6 × 144.8 cm). New York, The Leiden Collection. Image courtesy of the Leiden Collection, New York. Fig. 28. Anthony van Dyck, Portrait of James Stuart, Duke of Lennox and Richmond, c. 1636 (oil on canvas, 99.7 × 160 cm). London, Kenwood House, The Iveagh Bequest, IBK 948. Fig. 29. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of a Boy in Festive Costume, 1693 (oil on canvas, 74 × 62 cm). Stockholm, Stockholm University Collection of Paintings, J. A. Berg collection, inv. no. 103. Photo: Jean Baptiste Beranger.

List of Illustrations

Fig. 30. Jan Mijtens, Portrait of Wolfert van Brederode, c. 1663 (oil on canvas, 106.5 × 85.5 cm). The Hague, Mauritshuis. Fig. 31. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of William III, c. 1695–96 (oil on canvas, 76.5 × 65 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Fig. 32. Godfrey Kneller, Portrait of William III in His Robes of State, 1690 (oil on canvas, 243.8 × 147.7 cm). Royal Collection Trust/copyright, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2017. Fig. 33. John Smith after Godfrey Kneller, Portrait of William III, 1695 (mezzotint, 34.2 × 25 cm). London, The British Museum. Fig. 34. Attributed to Godfrey Kneller, Portrait of William III, c. 1690 (oil on canvas, 127 × 103.2 cm). Edinburgh, National Galleries of Scotland. Fig. 35. Emblem from George Wither, A Collection of Emblemes, Ancient and Moderne … London, 1635. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library. Fig. 36. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, 1695 (oil on canvas, 92 × 81 cm). Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. Photo: Finsiel/Alinari / Art Resource, NY. Fig. 37. Frans van Mieris the Elder, Self-Portrait of the Artist Holding a Small Painting, c. 1677 (oil on canvas, 73.5 × 60 cm). Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. Photo: Finsiel/Alinari / Art Resource, NY. Fig. 38. John Smith after Godefridus Schalcken, Penitent Magdalen, 1693 (mezzotint, 34.8 × 25.2 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Fig. 39. Gerrit Dou, The Night School, c. 1660–65 (oil on panel, 74 × 64 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Fig. 40. Lucas Vorsterman after Anthony van Dyck, Self-Portrait, c. 1630–45 (engraving, 24.5 × 15.7 cm). London, The British Museum. Fig. 41. Anthony van Dyck, Self-Portrait, c. 1640 (oil on canvas, 56 × 46 cm). London, National Portrait Gallery. Fig. 42. John Smith after Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, 1694 (mezzotint, 34.4 × 25.1 cm). London, The British Museum. Fig. 43. Pieter Schenck after John Smith (after Godefridus Schalcken), Self-Portrait, c. 1694–96 (mezzotint, 24.7 × 18.8 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Fig. 44. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, 1694 (oil on canvas, 118.4 × 101.6 cm). Hagerstown, MD, Washington County Museum of Fine Arts. Fig. 45. Ferdinand Bol, Self-Portrait, c. 1669 (oil on canvas, 127 × 102 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

9

10 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 46. Daniel Mijtens, Portrait of Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel, c. 1618 (oil on canvas, 207 × 127 cm). London, National Portrait Gallery. Fig. 47. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, 1695 (oil on canvas, 109.5 × 88.5 cm). Leamington Spa, Leamington Spa Art Gallery and Museum. Reproduced courtesy of Leamington Spa Art Gallery & Museum (Warwick District Council). Fig. 48. Godefridus Schalcken, So-Called Self-Portrait, c. 1695 (red and white chalk, with stumping, 28.9 × 22.8 cm). Private collection. Fig. 49. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, c. 1694–95 (black chalk, 21.8 × 17 cm). Raleigh, NC, Ackland Art Museum, University of North Carolina. Fig. 50. Gerrit Dou, Self-Portrait, c. 1665 (oil on panel, 48.9 × 39.1 cm). New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, bequest of Benjamin Altman, 1913. Fig. 51. Rembrandt van Rijn, Artist in His Studio, c. 1628 (oil on panel, 24.8 × 31.7 cm). Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Zoe Oliver Sherman collection given in memory of Lillie Oliver Poor. Fig. 52. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, c. 1690 (oil on canvas, 61.3 × 49.8 cm). Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Museum. Photo: copyright, The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Fig. 53. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, 1706 (oil on canvas, 72.5 × 60 cm). Private collection. Fig. 54. Godefridus Schalcken, A Woman and Her Dog, c. 1680–85 (oil on panel, 19.5 × 15.5 cm). Private collection. Fig. 55. Godefridus Schalcken, A Maid with Eggs, c. 1676–82 (oil on panel, 28 × 24.5 cm). Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Photo: Bildagentur bpk / Elke Estel / Hans-Peter Klut / Art Resource, NY. Fig. 56. Egbert van Heemskerck, Peasant Inn, c. 1690–95 (oil on panel, 15.8 × 17.9 cm). Private collection. Fig. 57. Marcellus Laroon the Elder, Brothel Scene, c. 1680–1700 (etching, 9.8 × 9.5 cm). London, The British Museum. Fig. 58. Godefridus Schalcken, Boy Blowing on a Firebrand, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 75 × 63.5 cm). Edinburgh, National Galleries of Scotland. Fig. 59. Gerrit van Honthorst, Boy Blowing on a Firebrand, c. 1621 (oil on canvas, 76.2 × 63.5 cm). Amsterdam, with Galerie Salomon Lilian. Fig. 60. Godefridus Schalcken, A Young Man Courting His Mistress, c. 1694–1700 (oil on canvas, 76.5 × 63.8 cm). New York, The Leiden Collection. Image courtesy of the Leiden Collection, New York.

List of Illustrations

Fig. 61. Godefridus Schalcken, Young Woman with a Headdress Holding a Candle, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 26.1 × 28 cm). Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum. Photo: copyright, Städel Museum – ARTOTHEK. Fig. 62. Godefridus Schalcken, Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 39 × 32 cm). Present location unknown. Fig. 63. Nicolaas Verkolje after Godefridus Schalcken, Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle, c. 1695–1700 (mezzotint, 28 × 22.6 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Fig. 64. Godefridus Schalcken, Every One His Fancy, c. 1692–96 (oil on panel, 42.5 × 31.5 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Fig. 65. George Glover, Avaritia, c. 1630 (engraving, 19.4 × 12.9 cm). London, The British Museum. Fig. 66. Godefridus Schalcken, There’s No Accounting for Tastes, c. 1692–96 (oil on panel, 42.5 × 31 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Fig. 67. Jan van der Bruggen after Adriaen Brouwer, Smokers, c. 1685–90 (mezzotint, 29.4 × 21.9 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Fig. 68. Godefridus Schalcken, Young Woman with a Waffle, c. 1695 (oil on canvas, 25.5 × 21.5 cm). Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Photo: Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Fig. 69. John Smith after Casparus Smits, Penitent Magdalen, 1691 (mezzotint, 34.6 × 27 cm). London, National Portrait Gallery. Fig. 70. Godefridus Schalcken, Narcissus, 1676 (oil on canvas, 48 × 39.5 cm). London, with Christophe Janet. Fig. 71. Godefridus Schalcken, Allegory of Fortune, c. 1678–85 (oil on canvas, 34 × 27 cm). Private collection. Fig. 72. Robert Williams after Godefridus Schalcken, Allegory of Fortune, before 1704 (mezzotint, 26.1 × 20 cm). London, The British Museum. Fig. 73. Karel Dujardin, Allegory of Fortune, 1663 (oil on canvas, 139.2 × 117.1 cm). Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst. Fig. 74. Godefridus Schalcken, Ceres with a Torch (Searching for Persephone), c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 34 × 27 cm). Bourges, Musée de l’Hôtel Lallemant. Fig. 75. Gerard de Lairesse, Ceres Searching for Persephone, c. 1670–75 (etching, 11.1 × 15.4 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Fig. 76. Godefridus Schalcken, Penitent Magdalen, c. 1693 (oil on canvas, dimensions unknown). Present location unknown.

11

12 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 77. Anonymous English, Penitent Magdalen, c. 1650 (embroidered silk, 40 × 46 cm). London, Victoria & Albert Museum. Copyright, Victoria & Albert Museum, London. Fig. 78. Edward Cooper after Guido Reni, Penitent Magdalen, c. 1686–1703 (mezzotint, 29.7 × 22.2 cm). London, British Museum. Fig. 79. Godefridus Schalcken, Penitent Magdalen, c. 1685–93 (oil on panel, 27 × 20.5 cm). Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Photo: Museumlandschaft Hessen Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Fig. 80. Simon Verelst, Flower Still-Life, c. 1675 (oil on canvas, 85 × 67 cm). London, Private collection. Fig. 81. Godefridus Schalcken, Flower Still-Life, c. 1692–96 (oil on panel, 44 × 32 cm). Oxford, Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Oxford. Image copyright, Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford. Fig. 82. Godefridus Schalcken, Bunch of Grapes, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 42 × 31 cm). Stockholm, Nationalmuseum. Fig. 83. Simon Verelst, Bunch of Grapes, 1709 (oil on canvas, 35.5 × 30.5 cm). Private collection. Fig. 84. GodefridusSchalcken, Miniature Portrait of the Artist’s Wife, Françoisia van Diemen, c. 1692–96 (oil on copper, 9 × 7.4 cm). The Netherlands, private collection. Fig. 85. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of a Girl, Said to be Anne Conslade, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 122.6 × 96.5 cm). Private collection. Fig. 86. Godefridus Schalcken, Music Lesson, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 75.5 × 63 cm). New York, private collection. Photo: courtesy of Johnny van Haeften Ltd.

Acknowledgments Like all books, this particular one reflects the contributions of many different individuals and organizations. First and foremost, I must recognize Guido Jansen, with whom in the autumn of 2013 I first broached the possibility of writing on Godefridus Schalcken. Even though my focus quickly narrowed to the artist’s London period, Guido was overly generous in supplying countless documents, images, and scholarly references on all matters pertaining to the painter. Moreover, he and Anja Sevcik invited me to participate in the writing of the catalogue for the comprehensive exhibition on Schalcken that opened at the Wallraf-Richartz-Museum in Cologne in September 2015. Anja, Guido, and I, along with Eddy Schavemaker, who likewise made numerous contributions to this book, have continued to exchange views and ideas about Schalcken ever since, much to my benefit. Sander Karst, who is completing a dissertation at the University of Utrecht on the impact of seventeenth-century Dutch art in contemporary England, was also generous in sharing his research and ideas with me. Naturally, my topic necessitated several research trips to England, including one of a month’s duration (mid-September to mid-October 2014) funded by a grant from the American Philosophical Society. It was a frantically busy month but an exciting one too, which, when I wasn’t working in London, found me hopping on trains to travel all over the country in an effort to visit various archives and to see as many London period paintings by Schalcken as possible. In this regard, I wish to acknowledge the following institutions, country houses, and royal residences: the National Archives in Kew, the Guildhall Library, the British Library, the Witt Library of the Courtauld I­ nstitute of Art, the London Metropolitan Archives, the Society of Genealogists, ­London, the City of Westminster Archives Centre, the Bodleian Library of the University of ­Oxford, the Cambridgeshire Archives, Northamptonshire Archives, Essex Record Office, ­Cumbria Archive Service in Carlisle, the Oxfordshire History Centre, the ­Ashmolean Museum, Attingham Park, Calke Abbey, Cartwright Hall Art Gallery, Chatsworth, ­Chevening House, Chilcomb House, Kensington Palace, the Leamington Spa Art Gallery and ­Museum, Sewerby Hall Museum and Art Gallery, and Windsor Castle. Among the staff members of these various places, the following individuals offered invaluable assistance: Gill Arnott, David Bartle, Christopher Brown, Helen Cunningham, Judith ­Edwards, Hayley Flynn, Francesca Halfacree, Matthew Hirst, Jill Iredale, Chloe J­ ohnson, Jeremy ­Johnson, Alastair Mathewson, Jennie Montague-Jones, Charles ­Noble, John ­Parkinson, Katelyn Reeves, Helen Royal, Janice Smith, Alice Swatton, Jevon Thistlewood, and Lucy Whitaker. Other friends and colleagues in England who must be recognized include Jim Lowther of the Lowther Estate Trust, Geoffrey Planer, Aileen Ribeiro, Richard Stephens, and Betsy Wieseman. Additional research was conducted at the libraries at Syracuse University, ­Cornell University as well as the New York Public Library, the Frick Art Reference Library,

14 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

the Thomas J. Watson Library of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie in The Hague. And still other friends and colleagues patiently answered my queries related to their respective fields of expertise, offered help with translations, provided timely research assistance, and so much more: Ann Jensen Adams, Kate Anderson, Marten Jan Bok, David ­Christie, Nicole Cook, S­ ally Cornelison, Stephanie Dickey, Pamela Fowler, Stefano G ­ iannini, Bria ­Koser, Emma Kronman, Christopher Kyle, Heidrun Ludwig, Giorgio M ­ arini, Matthieu H ­ erman van der Meer, Sheldon Peck, Eugene Pooley, Gary R ­ adke, ­Romita Ray, Rupert Rokeby-Johnson, Dennis Romano, Gero Seelig, Christian Tico Seifert, Jan Six, ­Dominique Surh, Adriaan Waiboer, Nina Weibull, Herbert H. Westphalen III (my chauffeur in ­Derbyshire and an outstanding arbiter of color), Thijs Weststeijn, Thea Wieteler, Amanda Winkler, Lloyd de Witt, LeeAna Wolfman, Nancy Zinn, and Diva Zumaya. The following art dealers and auction houses made inestimable contributions to this book: Luigi Caretto, Bob Haboldt, Johnny van Haeften (and Pippa Mason), Fergus Hall, Christophe Janet, Otto Naumann, and Bonhams, Christie’s, and Sotheby’s. And lastly, I wish to thank the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art for their generous grant that helped defray the production costs of this book.

Introduction The Dutch painter, Godefridus Schalcken (1643–1706), may no longer enjoy the fame that his fellow artists Rembrandt van Rijn and Johannes Vermeer do today, but he surely ranks among the most renowned painters of his own era. Largely raised in Dordrecht, where his father, Cornelis, was headmaster of the city’s Latin School, Schalcken received his initial training (c. 1658/60–c. 1662) with Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627–1678), a former pupil of Rembrandt’s who enjoyed an international career as a respected artist.1 Van Hoogstraten departed for England in spring of 1662, so around that time Schalcken moved to Leiden where he entered the studio of the preeminent genre painter in the Dutch Republic, Gerrit Dou (1613–1675).2 The young man would spend several years under Dou’s tutelage, mastering the latter’s smooth and meticulous method of applying paint, which later generations of connoisseurs would identify as the fijnschilder or fine painting style. During the late 1650s Dou had also expanded his thematic repertoire to include night scenes (Fig. 1), which must have made an indelible impression upon Schalcken, who himself would become late seventeenth-century Europe’s greatest candlelight painter. Upon his return to Dordrecht,3 Schalcken’s star rapidly rose among cognoscenti in his hometown and elsewhere in the Netherlands. He emerged as an outstanding specialist in genre painting and became an accomplished portraitist as well.4 Within just a few years, our painter’s fame had reached truly international heights with clientele in France, the Spanish Netherlands, and in various German principalities.5 During the last fifteen years of his life, Schalcken embarked upon travels abroad in order to satisfy the demands of his ever growing clientele and to augment his status as a renowned artist. Schalcken initiated this enterprise in the late spring of 1692 when he resettled in London where he would live and work for roughly the next four years. Despite the importance of Schalcken’s so-called English period, both for his own career and for other painters of the time, his sojourn in London has barely been studied and hence remains shrouded in obscurity. Beyond a mere handful of catalogue entries on Schalcken’s pictures that have appeared in connection with various exhibitions over the decades, the only scholar to make any attempt to address these years was Thierry Beherman, who published the sole monograph on the painter in 1988.6 Marshaling surprisingly little evidence to support his claims, Beherman maintained that Schalcken remained in England until 1699 (if not beyond that date) and that he resided at Windsor Castle. Moreover, the author constructed a section of his critical catalogue around these dates, 1692–99, consisting of entries on specific works – mostly portraits – that were said to have been painted in London. Thankfully, recent research has amended many of Beherman’s findings;7 the results of that work are

16 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 1. Gerrit Dou, Astronomer by Candlelight, late 1650s (oil on panel, 31 × 21.2 cm). Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum.

shared in their fullest form in this book, the first of its kind to focus specifically upon Schalcken’s English period. *** A listing in the so-called proclamation book (Proclamatie boek) of the Dutch Reformed Church in Dordrecht informs us of the departure of Godefridus Schalcken and his wife, Françoisia (Françoise) van Diemen (1661–1744), for London on the 18

Introduc tion

17

May 1692.8 By definition (and by necessity) such documents are always laconic. Is it possible to read between these very sparse lines, in other words, to gain insight into Schalcken’s motivations for leaving his native town, and with it, an established and lucrative career? On a personal and psychological level this is, of course, out of the question. Yet, economic conditions and their ramifications for the visual arts at the time, in both the Dutch Republic and Great Britain, do potentially shed light on his decision. With respect to the Netherlands, economic historians have explored the circumstances under which art was being produced and sold during the late seventeenth century, ones that had already changed significantly by that time. It is well known that the invasion of the Netherlands in 1672, the so-called “rampjaar” or year of disaster, by the armies of Louis XIV and his allies exerted a devastating impact on the economy and Dutch society.9 But the art market was actually beginning to encounter difficulties in the decade preceding the French invasion.10 The 1660s, for example, witnessed a downturn in the number of new master painters entering the profession. And, as Jan de Vries has documented, over the course of the next twenty years the number of new artists shrank to a level approximately one-quarter of that at mid-century.11 The reasons for this rather rapid drop undoubtedly reside in the fact that paintings are durable goods and can thus very easily saturate a prospective market by causing conspicuous oversupply. Through the course of the seventeenth century the market continually expanded. But by the 1670s – early on in Schalcken’s career – and 1680s, there was a glut of older pictures which, coupled with the severe economic downturn, generated a noticeable drop in demand, all of which must have rendered a potential vocation in painting extremely unappealing to many young men.12 Therefore, one can justifiably speak of a quantifiable decline in the number of painters during this period. And a decline in traditional specialization in particular genres is likewise detectable.13 That the market was hardest hit in the arena of cheaper, mass-produced art comes as no surprise given the devastating economic consequences of the disastrous 1670s upon lower- and middle-class wage earners.14 Conversely, wealthy citizens, particularly those of lofty social status, were less directly affected by the downturn.15 Therefore, affluent art lovers could continue to purchase new paintings only now from a much reduced pool of artists. As (among others) the eighteenth-century Dutch art biographers, Arnold Houbraken (1660–1719) and Jan van Gool (1685–1763) observed, painters became increasingly dependent upon individual patrons for their livelihood because the more open, speculative market shrank.16 Schalcken not only weathered these calamities but managed to thrive despite them. Indeed, on the eve of his departure for London, his reputation had already reached meteoric heights.17 His pictures were avidly sought, for example, in the Spanish Netherlands, Germany, and France. In the latter country, the art dealer Jan van der Bruggen (1649–1714?) was selling works by the artist and circulating reproductive

18 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

mezzotints he had made after them.18 Closer to home, ever increasing commissions from high-ranking officials in the Dutch government in The Hague prompted Schalcken, in February of 1691, to enroll in that city’s painters’ society, the Confrerie, despite his Dordrecht residency.19 Regardless of his propitious circumstances, London’s lure must have proven irresistible to this eminent painter. A recent article by Sander Karst carried the pithy title, “Off to a New Cockaigne: Dutch Migrant Artists in London, 1660–1715.”20 Cockaigne, of course, refers to an imaginary land of untold luxury and comfort, but for the most successful Dutch painters working in late seventeenth-century England, Schalcken among them, there was nothing illusory about earning a lucrative living there.21 Economic historians have observed how the latter decades of the seventeenth century witnessed a slow but steady rise in the economic fortunes of England at the expense of the Dutch Republic. David Ormrod, in particular, has written extensively on the subject.22 He argues that through cohesive and aggressive economic policies, protectionism, and its overwhelming naval power, the English successfully challenged the Dutch in trade in the Atlantic and especially in the region of the North Sea, so much so that the political and military alliance between the two nations in the decades following the Glorious Revolution (1688) effectively shored up the Dutch Republic’s economy, which had since become enfeebled. Thus by the 1690s England was well on its way to securing its place as Europe’s preeminent economic power. And its ­capital, London, would fully emerge as the continent’s premier entrepôt during the eighteenth-century proper. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had brought the Dutch stadtholder, William III (1650–1702), and his wife Mary (1662–1694) to the English throne, with auspicious prospects for persons who made their livelihoods in the creative arts. The couple were quite active in refurbishing such royal residences as Hampton Court and Kensington Palace and in patronizing artists and collecting pictures.23 Needless to say, members of their extensive court, which naturally included a large Dutch contingent, offered still more possibilities for employment among painters. Cultural conditions then and the economic conditions that helped to foster them clearly made England immeasurably attractive to Schalcken and his fellow foreign artists. Yet, Schalcken probably had other motivations for resettling there: his uncle, the Reformed theologian Jacobus Lydius (c. 1610–c. 1679) had served as minister to the Dutch embassy in England between 1643 and 1645 and even wrote a book about that country’s tumultuous religious history.24 Moreover, his peripatetic teacher, Samuel van Hoogstraten had resided in London between 1662 and 1667.25 Eventually, Van Hoogstraten would resettle in his native Dordrecht, where he lived from 1671 until his death in 1678. No doubt, both he and Lydius had regaled Schalcken with stories of their English experiences. For his part, Van Hoogstraten delighted his readers with anecdotes about his years in England in his art theory book, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst (Introduction to the lofty school of painting) of 1678. In

Introduc tion

19

one memorable passage, for example, the painter describes a dinner he attended with several members of the newly founded Royal Society, held at the home of the ­London merchant and politician,Thomas Povey (c. 1613/14–c. 1705), who was one of his patrons – though he does not mention this in the text.26 In her monograph on the artist, Celeste Brusati perceptively noted that in these digressions Van Hoogstraten, ever conscious of carefully fashioning his social and professional identity, invariably presented himself as a gentleman fraternizing with gentlemen.27 One can only imagine the impact of this for Schalcken, whose English period work reveals similar ambitions. By 1692, the year of the Dutch painter’s relocation, London had long enjoyed its position as England’s largest and wealthiest city: by 1700, its population easily exceeded 500,000 inhabitants.28 Schalcken was able to settle there in an area in close proximity to the English court, which can hardly be a coincidence. Thanks to Karst’s research, Schalcken can actually be situated in a specific neighborhood. In his article cited above, Karst illustrated an advertisement from a popular weekly business periodical called A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade, which was first issued in March 1692 and only ceased publication 583 issues later, in 1703.29 This magazine was dedicated to providing its readers with the latest business information, including the prices of stocks and commodities, but it also contained advertisements for prospective services. Such advertisements, so lucrative for the magazine’s publisher, John Houghton, eventually came to dominate the content of individual issues. Karst reproduces an advertisement from the issue published on 11 January 1695 (Fig. 2).30 It provides a list of London’s painters, their specific specialties, and the neighborhoods where they resided. Schalcken’s name – misspelled Schalker – appears among the painters of “Life” (portraits) and “York-Buildings” is listed as his place of residence.31 York Buildings refers to a small neighborhood within the parish of St. Martin-inthe-Fields, adjacent to the Thames, whose streets were laid out in the early 1670s on the grounds of the former York House, the mansion of the Dukes of Buckingham. The names of these streets were adopted from those of the most illustrious former owner of the property, George Villiers, the 1st Duke of Buckingham (1592–1628).32 The leveling of this great house, and many others running along a thin ribbon of land wedged between the Strand and the river, resulted from burgeoning development to the north and especially the west of the old walled city (Fig. 3). Today, the area once called York Buildings lies in the heart of London. During the late seventeenth century, it was situated at the western edge of the city and therefore comprised part of the City of Westminster in the County of Middlesex – part of the greater “metropolis of London” – in essence, a fashionable suburb in proximity to Whitehall Palace and St. James’s Palace.33 Just like many of the neighborhoods in old London, those in the City of Westminster were socially and economically eclectic though they certainly housed significantly higher percentages of residents of wealth and distinction.34

20 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 2. A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade, 11 January 1695. Oxford, The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, Hope fol. 22 (1), vol. 6, no. 128, p. 3.

In Schalcken’s day, York Buildings had some distinguished inhabitants, including John Evelyn (who resided there for several months in 1683–84), the elderly Samuel Pepys, and even Peter the Great of Russia, who lodged there during his visit to England in 1698.35 And the neighborhood itself was a noted center for musical performances, which had possible ramifications for at least one of Schalcken’s portrait commissions.36 By the later seventeenth century, the parish in which York Buildings lay, St. Martin-in-the-Fields, already enjoyed a venerable reputation as a center for the production of goods and services for the nearby court. R. Malcolm Smuts has observed that this parish functioned as a commercial quarter, “where courtiers and gentry lived side by side with the people who made their clothes, furnished them with food and drink, drove their coaches, and built their houses …”37 Its commercial function also explains the sizeable percentage of foreigners who lived there.38 It is no mere coincidence then that Schalcken elected to reside in the York Buildings section of the parish, for this specific location harbored much promise for him to secure work from distinguished clientele.39 The Dutch painter had patrons in this parish and

Introduc tion

21

Fig. 3. York Buildings, from William Morgan’s Map of London 1682. British History Online, http://www.british-history. ac.uk/no-series/london-map-morgan/1682.

in adjacent ones, including the parish of St. Margaret Westminster, one of the wealthiest in all of greater London, where the majority of his clientele lived.40 The business periodical, A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade, only provides York Buildings as Schalcken’s general address. Unfortunately, the rate books for St. Martin-in-the-Fields – tax assessments of the parishes’ inhabitants to raise funds to support the poor – do not list Schalcken among its taxpayers. This is disappointing because these rate books always record the exact street on which the inhabitants resided. The very same frustrating lack of information also characterizes the Four Shillings in the Pound Aid, a tax implemented in 1692 by William III to help finance the Nine Year’s War (1688–97), even though it has been studied extensively, and hence, much is known about the names and addresses of the inhabitants of particular parishes.41 Schalcken’s conspicuous absence from the rate books and other documented tax assessments has nothing to do with his status as a foreigner because foreign nationals were not exempt from paying taxes. Rather, he must have been subletting rooms from either the owner or, more likely, the renter of a particular home.42 Nevertheless, one can imagine that the artist’s dwelling space, was sizeable, if only for the presence of the tools of his trade, a servant, his wife, and, at one time or another, a baby.43

22 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Schalcken’s wife, Françoisia van Diemen, gave birth to two children during their London sojourn. In fact, Françoisia was already pregnant with the first one when she and her husband left Dordrecht in May of 1692. That child, a daughter named Françoisia (Françoise) after her mother, was baptized on 23 November 1692 in the Dutch Chapel Royal, an edifice at Whitehall Palace where Dutch nationals associated with the King and his court gathered to worship.44 The very fact that this child was named Françoisia indicates that the “first” Françoisia, born in Dordrecht in late June of 1690, had already died. Often faced with the tragedy of the premature demise of their children, it was not uncommon for parents in that era to recycle their names for their future offspring.45 In the wake of Gerrardys H. Veth’s important archival research published back in 1892, it has always been assumed that the Françoisia born in Dordrecht was the only infant born to Schalcken and his wife who reached adulthood.46 But it is now clear that it was actually the Françoisia baptized in London in 1692 who was the sole member of their progeny to survive.47 In a document composed fifteen years later, in September 1707, she is described as a “young maid, fifteen years of age,” living with her mother in a house in the Noordeinde (in The Hague),48 her father having since passed away. Françoisia herself eventually married two times and died decades later, in 1757.49 One additional child was born to Schalcken and Van Diemen during their London sojourn, a boy named Godefridus, after his father, who was baptized at St. Martin-inthe-Fields on 19 December 1694.50 Presumably his parents were now attending this church because their English-language skills had improved, and more significantly because it had become their parish church. Just like Françoisia, this baby was given the same name as one that had been baptized in Dordrecht prior to the couple’s English sojourn, on 20 October 1688.51 And this child likewise died before the couple departed for London in May of 1692.52 The couple were almost certainly childless again at that point in time – although Françoisia was pregnant – which likely explains the absence of the names of any children in the proclamation cited above that announced Schalcken’s and Van Dieman’s embarkation for England.53 In any event, the second Godefridus does not appear to have survived for too long: he is identifiable with “­Godfrey Scalgren,” buried at St. Martin-in-the-Fields on 19 February 1695.54 The date of Schalcken’s arrival in London, or rather, his departure from his native Dordrecht for England is well established. By contrast, the year that he left London itself has been the subject of much speculation among scholars, with most assuming that it must have occurred in 1697 at the earliest and most likely later.55 Thierry Beherman, who published the sole monograph on the painter in 1988, maintained that Schalcken remained in England until 1699, if not beyond that date.56 Curiously, no one seems to have noticed that a fairly precise date for Schalcken’s departure for the continent had already appeared in print over a century ago, in the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of William and Mary, an eleven-volume venture, issued between 1895 and 1937.

Introduc tion

23

Fig. 4. Receipt for a pass for Schalcken and his family to leave England, 24 July 1696, Kew, The National Archives.

Volume seven (1913), lists the following information for a travel pass: “On 24 July 1696, at Whitehall Palace: passes for Godfrid [sic] Schalken, Francoisa his wife, Barbara, Jacob, Francoisa, his children, and Agnieta, his maidservant to go to Holland.”57 The present writer was able to locate the actual record in the National Archives in Kew (Fig. 4). While the pass issued to the painter and members of his family certainly clarifies the dates of his stay in London it is simultaneously misleading. In the document, Barbara, Jacob, and Françoisia are named as Schalcken’s children; only Françoisia (Françoise) was the artist’s child. Barbara Schalcken (c. 1655–1709) was actually his spinster sister, who by that time, 1696, was about forty years old.58 And Jacob was most certainly Jacobus Schalcken (b. c. 1681–82), the artist’s nephew and pupil, who was roughly fourteen years old in the summer of 1696.59 Since the names of Barbara and Jacob are not included in the proclamation of 1692,we might infer that they had possibly traveled together to London at some point after Schalcken and his wife had settled there, all the more so because of their ages and familial relationship to the artist. The archival findings surveyed above may be disappointingly scant, but they do shed some light on the painter’s stay in England. There is also a generally overlooked assessment of Schalcken’s art that is most valuable because it was made while the artist was working in that country. This succinct assessment can be found in a letter that Thomas Platt, the unofficial envoy in London for the Grand Duke of Tuscany,

24 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 5. Carlo Dolci, St. Jerome, 1655 (oil on panel, 43 × 54 cm). New York, Otto Naumann Ltd.

Cosimo III de’ Medici (1642–1723), wrote in early June 1694 to Apollonio Bassetti, his patron’s secretary in Florence, concerning a potential commission for a self-portrait proposed by none other than the artist himself.60 Platt states the following: “For more than two years, we have in this city [London] a very famous Dutch painter named Schalcken, who paints in the manner of Carlo Dolci, making large and small-scale portraits, pictures of night-time scenes, fruit, flowers, etc …, to marvel at …”61 Platt had spent years in Italy and was therefore quite familiar with the art scene there and, of course, with the Grand Duke’s tastes.62 Therefore, the Englishman’s claim that Schalcken paints in the manner of the contemporary Florentine master, Carlo Dolci (1616–1687) is fascinating.63 No doubt, Platt linked the two men because he knew that Dolci was one of his patron’s favorite painters.64 Nevertheless, the equation of Schalcken with Dolci, who was (and is) noted for his religious pictures of intense piety rendered with an enamel-smooth technique (Fig. 5), is plausible in that the former likewise painted smoothly though, as subsequent chapters will demonstrate, his style of painting in England varied (especially that of his portraits) and deliberately so, depending on the tastes of his clientele. Platt also observes that Schalcken made pictures of fruit and flowers – subject matter also found in the work of Dolci65 – thereby providing confirmation of the Dutch artist’s production of still-life painting during his London sojourn, a phenomenon that scholars have occasionally questioned.

Introduc tion

25

Additional information concerning Schalcken’s English period can also be found in several eighteenth-century biographies, though this material must be used with extreme caution since much of it consists of uncomplimentary stories. The artist’s younger Dordrecht-born colleague, Arnold Houbraken wrote the earliest biography to appear in print. Like Schalcken, Houbraken too studied with Van Hoogstraten (c. 1674–78) in Dordrecht. He also knew Schalcken personally, remarking that he had been to the master painter’s studio.66 Appearing posthumously in 1721 in the third volume of Houbraken’s ambitious book, De groote schouburgh der Nederlandtsche konstschilders en schilderessen (Great theater of Netherlandish painters and paintresses), the biography of Schalcken is, generally speaking, the most straightforward and hence the most reliable one written during the eighteenth century, particularly compared with those that would follow (see below).67 Although Houbraken’s account of the painter’s English years is extremely brief, it is quite complimentary. He simply mentions that from time to time, Schalcken practiced an “aangenamer en luchtvaardiger wyze van schilderen,” which enraptured the English who consequently lured him to their country.68 Apparently, the master alternated this manner of painting with one involving a tighter more precise application of paint in the tradition of the Leiden fijnschilders in which he had been trained.69 This succinct statement is a therefore fascinating one, because it helps to explain certain aspects of Schalcken’s painting style in England. It is indeed fascinating but also highly frustrating, owing to Houbraken’s phrasing and the problems that arise when one attempts to translate it.70 Aangenam, meaning “pleasant,” is easy enough, but luchtvaardig, is either a neologism unique to Houbraken in early modern Dutch, or it is a typographical error that should actually be read as lichtvaarding. If the former, namely, luchtvaardig, then scholarly translations of it as “lighter” somewhat miss the mark.71 Dividing Houbraken’s word into its constituent parts, lucht can obviously be translated as air. Vaardig, with variant spellings in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Dutch, is associated with readiness, in the sense of being in a state of preparedness or prowess.72 Luchtvaardig then means literally to be prepared or ready for the air, to the effect of being ready to fly. So Houbraken’s use of aangenamer en luchtvaardiger to describe Schalcken’s alternative style indicates that it was more pleasant than his other style and, if this translation is correct, was more suited to allow him to fly away, take flight, that is, to rise rapidly as an artist.73 However, if luchtvaardig is a typographical error for lichtvaardig, by invoking the adjectives “aangenamer en lichtvaardiger wyze van schilderen,” Houbraken is perhaps describing Schalcken’s more pleasant and more fluid (or easy) manner of painting.74 In this sense, Nicole Elizabeth Cook’s recent translation of luchtvaardig as airy could very well be correct.75 The adjective airy in this context would thus most likely be understood in a Van Dyckian sense, that is, referencing the eminent Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641), who had spent his later career in England.76 As Jeffrey M. Muller has demonstrated, Van Dyck’s airy style evoked gracefulness in his pictures, a reflection of

26 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

his effortless facility as a painter as well as the delicate spirit said to animate them.77 Ensuing chapters in the present book will shed further light on Houbraken’s terminology linking Schalcken to a particular style practiced during his English period. The biographer concludes his pithy assessment of the artist’s residence in England by stating that Schalcken spent several years there and became very wealthy.78 The famous antiquary Horace Walpole (1717–1797) wrote the only account of Schalcken’s life published in English, in his Anecdotes of Painting in England. However, as the subtitle of his four-volume venture, which first appeared in 1762–63, informs us, these anecdotes were initially collected by George Vertue (1684–1756). Over several decades Vertue had compiled some forty volumes of notebooks to lay the groundwork for an ambitious venture on his part to publish a comprehensive history of painting and sculpture in England, with the projected title, Museum pictoris Anglicanum. This project was left unfinished at his death in 1756. Vertue himself was also an antiquary and a professional engraver to boot, who authored several scholarly books and was deeply engaged with various English cultural institutions during the first half of the eighteenth century, including learned societies, academies of art, and even clubs of artists and art lovers.79 Walpole, who knew Vertue – the two men were in repeated contact during the 1740s – purchased his notebooks en masse from the latter’s widow in 1758, mined them for material, and within four years, released his four-volume Anecdotes of Painting in England.80 In his preface to this first volume, Walpole declares his aim to “enliven” Vertue’s markedly dry presentation of the material. As Karen Junod has observed in her study of biography and artistic identity in eighteenth-century England, far from merely enlivening Vertue’s work, Walpole transformed it with goal of providing erudite entertainment for his readers.81 In the interests of presenting engrossing narratives, Walpole jettisoned many of Vertue’s tedious details in an effort to create witty biographies to amuse and educate his audience of gentlemen connoisseurs. Compared with Walpole’s biography of Schalcken, Vertue’s own assessment, mainly recorded in notebooks compiled in 1713 and 1721, is quite laudatory. Regrettably, scholars often quote Walpole’s deprecatory comments and in doing so, mistakenly assume that his words are, in fact, those of Vertue.82 The older antiquary calls Schalcken an excellent painter of night scenes by candlelight, “curiously wrought & highly finisht.”83 He cites the high cost of such pictures, which, in his view, “still keep or increase their value.” Furthermore, the Dutch painter is said to have gained “respect & Esteem among people of Qualitie & distinction,” through his art and especially “his gracefull behaviour & courtesie.” He is said to have traveled to England not once but twice, the first time for a brief stay, and the second, with his family for “many years.”84 Vertue concludes with a description of Schalcken’s method for creating candlelight paintings: “he had a little dark room, where he Plac’d a candle lighted with the person or subject he designd to Paint looking thro’ a hole made purposely. he painted by day light what there he saw. by Candle light.”85

Introduc tion

27

By contrast, Walpole, writing in 1762, damns Schalcken with faint praise as “a very confined genius, when rendering a single effect of light [which was] all his excellence.” The implication is that he was an artist of limited talent, incapable of doing anything else, save this visual “trick.”86 Despite his contempt for such work, Walpole paraphrases Vertue’s description of Schalcken’s working method: “He placed the object and a candle in a dark room and looking through a small hole, painted by day-light what he saw in the dark chamber.” And like Vertue, Walpole claims that the Dutch painter came to England not once but twice, “the last time with his wife and family.” His intention was to make portraits, “but [he] found the business too much engrossed by Kneller, Closterman and others.” Walpole also derides Schalcken’s tactlessness in creating a portrait of William III: “… as the piece was to be by candle-light, he gave his majesty the candle to hold, till the tallow ran down upon his fingers.” For Walpole, this signified Schalcken’s “ill-breeding,” and in order to justify this defect, he made a portrait of himself “in the same situation.” Apparently, “delicacy was no part of his character,” as witnessed by the impertinent manner in which he interacted with his patrons, even to the point of rudely substituting the hands of a housemaid for those of a lady. This allegedly uncouth habit of Schalcken’s, namely, of inserting his servants’ hands into the portraits of socially elevated sitters, must have struck Walpoles’s gentlemanly a­ udiences, acutely sensitive as they were to issues of class and rank, as the very height of audacity. Walpole’s impugning second-hand accounts must have been distilled from gossip, chatty tales in early magazines, and, above all, from passages in the Dutchman Jacob Campo Weyerman’s biography of Schalcken published in volume three of his Levens-beschryvingen der Nederlandsche konst-schilders en konst-schilderessen (Biographies of Netherlandish painters and paintresses) of 1729.87 Vertue, who could read Dutch, owned a copy of this work, which was then acquired by Walpole, most likely at auction in 1758.88 Weyerman (1677–1747), himself a painter, playwright, and journalist, spent several years in England in the early eighteenth century – his mother was of British descent – working as an artist for highly placed patrons (and as a flower painter to Godfrey Kneller [1646–1723]), and, if his autobiography is to be believed, studying medicine in Oxford.89 His biography of Schalcken, laced with quips, is, like those of all the other artists in his book, frequently libelous and caustic.90 Weyerman relates how the Dutch artist went to England to paint portraits, having developed an expeditious manner of making them.91 Unfortunately, ­Weyerman remarks, this made his larger portraits look as “flat as unleavened pancakes,” an impression not lost upon English connoisseurs who very quickly tired of them. Here, the author, with his characteristically acerbic wit, draws an analogy between ­Schalcken’s tedious art and fading physical pleasures following a month of marriage. More problematically, Schalcken was flattened (to continue the metaphor) by competition from such established portraitists in England as Kneller, John Closterman

28 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

(1660–1711), Michael Dahl (1659–1743), and Marcellus Laroon the Elder (1653–1702). Unable to paint in his rivals’ “firm, loose, round and forceful manner,” the Dutchman returned to making “little history pieces and little night-lights,” that is, subjects from his established repertoire. The production of small-scale work presumably allowed the artist to compensate for the weaknesses of his failed, larger-scale portraiture. Weyerman goes on to discuss the painter’s uncouth and insensitive manner of addressing his sitters’ requests. He too tells the story of William III’s grease-smeared fingers; thanks to Schalcken’s ineptitude he had not provided a candlestick or sconce, which the author then construes as an allegory demonstrating that a person of any social class will suffer similarly messy consequences without a holder for a burning candle.92 Weyerman wonders what sort of blockhead would do such a thing, which is said to reflect badly on the training and reputation of Dutch painters in general.93 The expatriate Flemish painter Jean-Baptiste Descamps (1714–1791) composed the final eighteenth-century biography of note to be assessed in this introduction.94 Writing in French, he cautioned his readers in the avertissement to his impressive four-volume work that Weyerman’s book contained “filth.” Nevertheless, Descamps’s low opinion of Weyerman did not prevent him from borrowing liberally from his text, which he could read because it was written in his native tongue.95 He relates that Schalcken had established a reputation for making small-scale portraits and for this he was called to England. Lamentably for the painter, the tremendous promise harbored in his relocation went unfulfilled because he struggled to compete with Kneller, Closterman, Dahl, and Laroon in making grand portraits on a large scale; his efforts were said to lack “force” and “truth.” Schalcken was humiliated and his pride assailed but his greed blinded him to these realities.96 Still, he was able to re-establish his reputation in England by reverting back to painting his “pretty pictures” (jolis tableaux) and small portraits. Descamps claims that in terms of etiquette the artist had “little use for the world,” as his uncultivated interactions with patrons amply testify. And his lack of intelligence was exposed in painting William III with candle wax sullying his hand. Here, Descamps admits that Weyerman was the source of this calumnious information that, he concedes, was perhaps first told by painters jealous of Schalcken’s reputation. The authors of three of the four published biographies considered in detail above, Walpole, Weyerman, and Descamps, clearly relied upon disparaging anecdotes – usually the very same disparaging anecdotes – to drive home the point of Schalcken’s supposedly uncouth character. Their denigrating assessments most likely stemmed from the growing aversion among some circles of eighteenth-century connoisseurs to meticulously painted pictures, especially those with candlelight illumination – consider, for example, Walpole’s left-handed compliment, labeling Schalcken “a very confined genius, when rendering a single effect of light.” Walpole’s distaste for works of this sort echoes that of classicist art theory in expressing an antipathy to nighttime scenes by calling attention to the disjuncture in painting between darkness and

Introduc tion

29

beauty.97 For instance, in a section of his Groot schilderboeck (Great book of painting; first published in 1707), dedicated to “agreeable and beautiful coloring,” Gerard de Lairesse (1640–1711) wrote: “As a pure light causes objects to appear clean and beautiful, so it must needs be, that the more it is broken and sullied by darkness, the objects will also become darker and less beautiful: many great masters have, in this very particular been much mistaken; as among the Flemish, Rubens; and in Holland, Rembrandt, Lievens and many others of their followers …”98 Conversely, a closer reading of Lairesse’s treatise confirms that a brighter, polished style that conforms to theoretical precepts, as practiced by such contemporary Dutch artists as Willem van Mieris (1662–1747), Eglon van der Neer (c. 1635/6–1703), Adriaen van der Werff (1659–1722), and De Lairesse himself, was judged more agreeable, refined, and civil.99 Walpole shared the opinions of several earlier eighteenth-century English writers, among them, Anthony Ashley Cooper (1671–1713), 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, who censured the meticulous imitation of nature in highly finished pictures, such as can be seen in Schalcken’s. In their view, finely wrought surfaces undermined truth and beauty in art, because they distracted the viewer and thus prevented him or her from contemplating the totality of a given work wherein the essence of its moral purpose lay.100 Questions of Schalcken’s supposedly dubious character and its impact upon his art can certainly be set aside here, yet these biographies do share two common threads that merit further analysis. First, settings illuminated by candle light in Schalcken’s paintings may have been perceived by a younger generation of cognoscenti as frivolous visual tricks to entice the uninitiated, but they were very well received among the artist’s English patrons during the 1690s, given their centrality to the master’s contemporary reputation. For instance, Marshall Smith, in his Art of Painting …, first published in London in 1692, provides commentary on masters “now living” in England, including Schalcken – whose name he misspells as Scalker – whom he commends for “Night-pieces and lamps [that come] next to Dow [Dou] himself.”101 In the chapters that follow, the motif of the burning candle will be almost omnipresent, and its function in creating astonishing English period portraits and genre paintings alike will be examined. Far from having to revert back to the creation of “night-lights,” because of business exigencies, as Weyerman claimed, such pictures seem to have been intrinsic to Schalcken’s marketing strategy in England from the start. The second pejorative issue highlighted in three of the four biographies is ­Schalcken’s alleged inability to compete with England’s most accomplished portraitists: Kneller, Closterman, Dahl, and Laroon. There can be no question that upon Schalcken’s arrival in London in the late spring of 1692, competition was rather stiff. In Smith’s treatise, the author comments briefly on sixteen portraitists besides S­ chalcken who were presently active in England, with Kneller heading the list.102 And in the aforementioned issue of A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade that appeared in January of 1695, Schalcken was named in an advertisement

30 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 6. Godfrey Kneller, Portrait of Charles Beauclerk, Duke of St. Albans, c. 1690–95 (oil on canvas, 126.7 × 102.9 cm). New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, bequest of Jack Ruppert, 1939.

with twenty-two other painters who specialized in “Life” (that is, portraiture), all working in London. Still, the biographers’ citing of Kneller, Closterman, and Dahl – setting Laroon aside,103 since he worked primarily as an assistant to Kneller – is not at all random, since all three artists, especially Kneller, had captured a significant share of the market for portraits in late seventeenth-century England. German-born and trained in the Dutch Republic, Kneller had emigrated to England in 1676. He was at the peak of his career when Schalcken settled in London, having been named Principal Painter to William III in 1688.104 Working in specific formats and with canvas sizes that had been codified decades earlier (Fig. 6), Kneller’s three-quarter-length and full-length portraits in particular display pictorial roots that harken back, via his influential near contemporary Peter Lely (1618–1680), to the venerable Anthony van Dyck, who had spent the last nine years of his celebrated career at the court of Charles I (1600–1649) and Henrietta Maria (1609–1669) where

Introduc tion

31

he laid the groundwork for the future course of painting in England.105 Kneller’s sitters invariably occupy sequestered foreground spaces in which rocky outcrops or classical architecture serve as a screens that block out much of the sky. Moreover, they are often enveloped in drapery, especially if they are female, which imparts weight and solidity to their loosely and thinly painted forms. Like Kneller, Closterman hailed from Germany but came to England by way of Paris where he had spent two years (1679–81) in the atelier of the gifted French portraitist, François de Troy (1645–1730).106 Upon settling in London, Closterman was almost immediately engaged in the studio of John Riley (1662–1691), with whom he soon developed a partnership that would last at least three years, if not longer. Malcolm Rogers, who produced a catalogue raisonné of Closterman’s pictures, surmises that his collaboration with Riley likely explains the general lack of works attributable to him during the 1680s. In the long run, however, Closterman’s connections with Riley would prove highly profitable as he inherited the English painter’s clientele – and even completed unfinished paintings in his studio – after the latter’s death in 1691. The 1690s were the most active and successful years of Closterman’s entire career. He left England to travel to Spain and Italy in 1698 and upon his return in 1700, gradually abandoned painting altogether in favor of a lucrative career as an art dealer. Closterman’s client base was large (though not as large as Kneller’s), socially prominent, and well-to-do, ranging from the Dukes of Marlborough and Somerset to members of the landed gentry and prosperous merchants. His portraits generally follow well-established compositional formulae but what principally distinguishes him from Kneller is his cool, glossy palette, often with brilliant color accents and richly rendered fabrics (Fig. 7). Dahl was a Swedish émigré, who initially settled in England in 1682 in connection with an extended study tour of Europe’s great art centers.107 He soon became acquainted with Kneller and perhaps received some supplementary instruction from him.108 Thereafter, Dahl embarked upon lengthy travels on the continent, most likely departing in late 1684. After working in Paris, he would spend at least two years in Italy, and then continued on to Frankfurt am Main, before returning to London in 1689. A prolific and long-lived painter, Dahl became Kneller’s chief rival. Although the pinnacle of his career was reached in the early eighteenth century during Queen Anne’s reign (1702–14), Dahl, like Kneller and Closterman, was already in great demand during the 1690s. The Swedish master’s style at that time still contained vestiges of his Italian, specifically Venetian experiences. His tendency was to paint relatively thinly, using the ground layer as an interactive agent with subsequent strata applied with broad brushwork. Employing characteristically soft yet rich colors, Dahl excelled at the rendition of drapery, which in his larger-scale pictures can be quite animated (Fig. 8). During his four-year stay in London, Schalcken certainly competed for commissions with Kneller, Closterman, and Dahl as well as other portraitists. Be that as it may, were the Dutch painter’s earliest biographers correct in claiming that he could

32 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 7. John Closterman, Portrait of John Poulett, 1st Earl Poulett, c. 1680 (oil on canvas, 194.3 × 132.1 cm). New Haven, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon collection.

not contend with his rivals, and was hence forced to hark back to his earlier, successful styles and themes? As the ensuing chapters will make clear, it is not at all accurate to view Schalcken’s English period as one in which rival portraitists simply vanquished him. To the contrary, his already established reputation along with the noted catholicity of taste in art among English patrons helps to explain why he was able to secure portrait commissions from the most auspicious social circles from the beginning to the end of his four-year stay in London (with many of them concentrated within the years 1694–95).109 And these commissions called for pictures executed on both

Introduc tion

33

Fig. 8. Michael Dahl, Portrait of Lady Mary Somerset, Duchess of Ormond, c. 1695 (oil on canvas, 127 × 101.5 cm). London, Fergus Hall Master Paintings.

small (see Fig. 12) and large (Fig. 22) scales – recall Thomas Platt’s observation that Schalcken made both small and large portraits. In the process, the artist managed to appropriate stylistic devices and motifs from his competitors, fusing them with the distinct features of his own established modes of working. Schalcken’s portraiture is the subject of the first three chapters of this book. ­Chapter 1 investigates portraits of specific sitters to help situate the painter in late seventeenth-century London, for Schalcken’s ability to cultivate social networks must have played a role in his success in securing patrons, all of whom were accomplished and moneyed elites. In several instances it is even possible to posit specific social ties between the painter and his clients. Most interestingly, one of these patrons was his neighbor in York Buildings. The second chapter turns to Schalcken’s portraits of William III and members of his court. Here, the reader is introduced to Sir John Lowther (1655–1700), 2nd Baronet (and from 1696, 1st Viscount Lonsdale),

34 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

one of the king’s favorites and our painter’s hitherto unrecognized Maecenas during his London years who commissioned no less than five portraits from him. This chapter also examines an unusual portrait of the long-deceased James Stuart (1612–1655), 4th Duke of Lennox and 1st Duke of Richmond. In essence, this picture constitutes a clever emulation of a much earlier portrait by Van Dyck, reworked into a night scene, replete with candlelight and moonlight. The chapter culminates with an extensive analysis of Schalcken’s Portrait of William III by Candlelight, his best-known English period work and, as we have already seen, the subject of many derisive comments by Schalcken’s eighteenth-century biographers. The third chapter also provides an in-depth analysis of the three surviving self-portraits – all nocturnes – that Schalcken made during his years in London. All three are assessed in terms of the circumstances of their production, their function, and the artist’s probable motivations in creating them. Each self-portrait served to promote Schalcken as a virtuosic master in his quest for social and economic advancement. Schalcken was an accomplished and successful portraitist in London, but his work there encompasses other genres. Chapter 4 delves into the Dutch master’s activities as a genre painter. Because many of Schalcken’s portraits were painted in the years 1694–95, one wonders whether his first year to year and a half in the metropolis was principally devoted to the production of genre paintings, for which he was already justly acclaimed. Unfortunately, the formidable problem in general of establishing a chronology for the artist’s pictures, which he dated only infrequently, makes it difficult to determine which genre paintings were executed in England. In view of his outstanding reputation as a painter of candlelight scenes, Schalcken’s genre pictures suggest a propensity to market himself by painting what for English audiences were unusual subjects in nocturnal settings. Owing to their exquisite pictorial effects and the high prices they commanded, such works were undoubtedly intended for elite buyers. Moreover, in at least one instance, there is a record of a London-based art dealer acting as an intermediary in 1694 in the sale of one of the artist’s genre paintings. Our painter’s production of history paintings is addressed in Chapter 5. Schalcken was already making history paintings by the early 1670s. He continued to do so in England, providing stunning pictures with frequently intricate iconographies to audiences largely accustomed to purchasing history paintings by continental artists via auctions and private sales. Moreover, the impressive light effects of these paintings (especially those portraying the penitent Mary Magdalen), which the artist relentlessly exploited in all genres during his four-year stay in London, made them quite marketable among the city’s collectors. Market considerations must have likewise motivated Schalcken’s venture into still-life painting, also examined in the fifth chapter of this book. Although precious few of the master’s still-life paintings survive today, those that do, depicting flowers and fruit, suggest an attempt on his part to exploit a gap in the art market created by the declining health of the preeminent

Introduc tion

35

Dutch flower painter working in late seventeenth-century London, Simon Verelst (1644 to between 1710 and 1717). In sum, the ensuing chapters will make abundantly clear just how successful Schalcken was during his four-year stay in London. Multiple literary and archival sources and, of course, the pictures themselves confirm this and in the process, cast suspicion upon the primarily negative assessments set forth by the artist’s eighteenth-century biographers.

1. Haberdashers, barristers, and a young musician: Situating Schalcken in late seventeenth-century London During most if not all of his approximately four-year stay in England, Godefridus Schalcken resided in York Buildings in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields.1 At that time, the late seventeenth century, this neighborhood lay at the western edge of ­London and actually belonged to the City of Westminster in the County of Middlesex – part of the greater “metropolis of London” (see Fig. 3). In essence, it was a fashionable suburb close to Whitehall Palace and St. James’s Palace.2 The parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields itself was a noted center for the production of goods and services for the nearby court. It is hardly accidental then that Schalcken settled there, for this location afforded him opportunities to secure work from distinguished and moneyed clientele. One such patron was Francis Kynnesman (c. 1640–1704), who lived on George Street in York Buildings. Most likely in the fall of 1694 or perhaps the winter of 1694–95, Kynnesman commissioned Schalcken to paint a portrait of his second wife, Anne Clarke (1666–1697), whom he had married on or about 1 November 1694.3 It seems reasonable to assume that Kynnesman’s and Schalcken’s status as neighbors played a role in the former’s choice of the latter to paint her.4 Although the portrait itself no longer survives, it was reproduced as a mezzotint in 1698 (Fig. 9), in other words, roughly two years after Schalcken had left London.5 The printmaker was none other than John Smith, England’s most important mezzotinter during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.6 It is indeed very fortunate that this mezzotint was made: not only does it document the appearance of a lost painting but its inscription provides sufficient clues to piece together the circumstances of Kynnesman’s and Clarke’s lives, and in doing so, shed much light on the social circumstances of Schalcken’s patrons in London. The print’s inscription mentions Schalcken and Smith but the principal lines, flanking coats-of-arms, are dedicated to the sitter: Anna, Uxor Francisci Kynnesman Generosi; Filia & una è Cohaeredibus, Guilielmi Clarke, de Soham, in Comitatu Cantabrigiae, Generosi (Anne, wife of Francis Kynnesman, gentleman; daughter and one of the joint heirs of William Clarke, gentleman, of Soham in the County of Cambridge). It is possible to learn more about Anne’s earlier life and the status of her family by turning to the last will and testament of her father, William Clarke (d. 1678). Clarke’s will was drafted on 20 October 1676 and probated at his death a little over two years later, on 5 December 1678.7 The document is rather brief, and one senses that Clarke, a widower and member of the local gentry, was relatively cash poor despite owning a large house and sundry lands – for example, he only left 40 shillings to the destitute

38 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 9. John Smith after Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Anne Kynnesman, 1698 (mezzotint, 34.2 × 25.5 cm). London, The British Museum.

of his parish.8 The parish in question was that of Soham in Cambridgeshire (as inscribed on the print) and his manor house was located in the village of Barraway (modern-day Barway). That this dwelling was a comparatively large one is confirmed by the local Hearth Tax – a form of property tax instituted by Charles II based on the number of fireplaces in a given home.9 In 1664, William Clarke’s house had nine chimneys, thereby making it the second largest one in the entire parish.10 As luck would have it, an inventory of the home’s contents, drafted on 4 November 1677, is severely water damaged but enough of it can be read to deduce that William Clarke, his daughter Anne, and her two older sisters, Mary (b. 1662) and Winifred (b. 1664), lived in comfort, enjoying the trappings of gentility.11 This inventory, which

HABERDASHERS, BARRISTERS, AND A YOUNG MUSICIAN

39

assesses the total value of the property and goods at 601 pounds, lists multiple rooms on the ground floor including two identified as the “green chamber” and the “yellow chamber,” and various outbuildings.12 A pair of virginals, so central to musical accomplishment in polite society, were found in the front parlor.13 In accordance with her status as the oldest surviving child, Mary was bequeathed her father’s “mansion house” as well as outhouses,14 pasture lands, and an orchard. Winifred was likewise awarded various pasture lands in the surrounding parish. The youngest daughter Anne, the future wife of Francis Kynnesman, received a shop, and also lands, including those situated in the villages of Soham and Thetford (today, Little Thetford), along with a leasehold to property held by “Pembroke Hall in Cambridge,” that is, Pembroke College of the University of Cambridge.15 Turning now to Kynnesman, his last will and testament was drafted on 19 November 1703 and probated upon his death, nearly a year later, on 16 November 1704.16 In this document, one learns that Kynnesman was a citizen of London and primarily a haberdasher by profession. He owned a substantial house on George Street in York Buildings and leased a shop in the so-called New Exchange.17 He was simultaneously involved in the hosiery business. Born around 1640 in Northamptonshire, Kynnesman was a member of the prominent family whose coat-of-arms appears in the center of the inscription of Smith’s mezzotint, underneath what must be the Clarke family crest.18 He was the second cousin of Harold Kynnesman (1632–1692), a member of the landed gentry in Northamptonshire.19 It is highly probable that Francis Kynnesman’s immediate family were likewise members of the gentry.20 Kynnesman’s will and other period documents dispel any notion that he was just a simple shopkeeper of modest means, selling inexpensive fashion accessories and the like. For in both of his related professions, haberdashery and hosiery, he primarily served the court. The account book of Kynnesman’s hosiery transactions, which survives in the British Library (along with other extant receipts, payment records, and so forth), lists clients drawn from some of the most prominent families in the peerage.21 He was also appointed royal hosier, successively, to Charles II (1677), to the Queen Dowager, Catherine of Braganza (1687), James II (1687), and Queen Mary (1689).22 As one would expect given this courtly clientele, his business income was impressive. On 18 May 1695, for example, the Countess of Derby paid 93 pounds for goods delivered, a sum equal to approximately t­ wenty-three times the average annual wages of one of her maidservants during this period.23 Kynnesman’s career was a lengthy one that spanned the reigns of Charles II, James II, and William III, all of whom can be counted among his clients. In 1677, Charles II appointed him Yeoman of the Close Carriage, a position he occupied until that king’s demise in 1685.24 Kynnesman’s appointment was probably meant to mollify him, because at the time of Charles death in 1685 he was still owed nearly 1000 pounds for goods delivered to the Office of the Robes, a tremendous sum by ­seventeenth-century standards.25

40 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Kynnesman’s shop at the New Exchange likewise affirms his prosperity and that of his client base. The New Exchange functioned as an early modern “shopping mall,” though a mall definitely intended for the upper crust. Designed by Inigo Jones (1573–1652) for the Earl of Salisbury, this two-story arcaded structure was constructed in 1609 along the Strand to take advantage of the growing development of what was then the suburbs on the western edge of old London. Initially, this commercial venture struggled, but in the decades immediately following the Great Fire it became the place to shop for luxury goods, especially for clothing and related accouterments, as well as the place to see and be seen in the metropolis – it was also a popular trysting spot.26 Thanks to a letter that Kynnesman wrote in 1692, we know that his shop could be found “at the sign of the bell in the upper walk in the New Exchange.”27 Insights into the conspicuous level of material comfort in which Kynnesman lived at the aforementioned residence on George Street can be gleaned from, of all things, a lawsuit filed after his death against the executors of his estate by his third wife, Elizabeth Clarke (1675–1708), whom he had married in 1698, and her second husband, Richard Drury, a London-based attorney.28 The plaintiffs claimed one-third of the personal estate of Elizabeth’s deceased husband (including her jointure and so-called widow’s chamber, the latter, goods and accouterments in her bedroom) on grounds of the long-standing custom in the city of London of offering just such a share to the widow of a freeman (the status of a person with the legal right to carry on trade in the city). Francis Kynnesman must have foreseen just such a possibility, because his will contains a clause declaring that if Elizabeth tried to claim this custom, her inheritances would be rendered null and void. Nevertheless, the Court of Chancery sided with the plaintiffs and in May 1707, directed the executors to turn over Elizabeth’s share of the estate. Evidently, the executors refused to discharge these duties. For that reason, Drury, now a widower – Elizabeth had died in 1708 – filed a subsequent suit to force them to comply.29 These suits were also accompanied by schedules, namely, lists and inventories of possessions, documents, outstanding financial obligations, receipts, and the like.30 An inventory of the contents of Kynnesman’s house on George Street accompanied the initial lawsuit. This inventory reveals that Kynnesman owned a rather large and well-appointed home: it consisted of multiple rooms on several floors crowned by three garrets. Numerous beds and bolsters are itemized (one of which was covered with a red silk quilt), along with curtains, mirrors, chinaware, cane-backed chairs, silver spoons, flap tables, and a stockpile of linens.31 For our purposes, the most interesting listing is the “six family pictures” hanging in the dining room (Fig. 10). Their value was assessed at forty-five pounds, by far the most expensive property in the entire dwelling.32 Schalcken’s portrait of Anne Kynnesman née Clarke was most likely hanging among them. In light of his ownership of a mere six paintings, Kynnesman cannot be considered a serious art collector. Rather, these works of art, which must

HABERDASHERS, BARRISTERS, AND A YOUNG MUSICIAN

41

Fig. 10. “Dining Room,” from the inventory of the contents of Francis Kynnesman’s house, document pertaining to a lawsuit, 1707, Kew, The National Archives.

have been portraits, were intended to proclaim his family’s connections and status. In Schalcken, Kynnesman must have recognized a fashionable painter who was fully capable of fulfilling his social desideratum. That Schalcken’s portrayal of Anne Kynnesman closely resembles portraits of female sitters by the most important London specialists in this genre only confirms this. The similarities are striking despite the fact that Anne’s portrait is only known today in mezzotint form. The sitter gazes at the viewer while resting her hand on a stone ledge. A large rocky wall looms behind her, because she has been posed in a grotto-like setting, with an Arcadian landscape in the distance. She wears a white ­linen shift with floppy sleeves that terminate at her elbows. An expanse of shiny ­fabric, loosely held together by jeweled clasps, envelop the shift and Anne’s very figure. Ultimately derived from portraits by the incomparable Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641), this copious shawl-like garment alludes to what was known in contemporary parlance as a nightgown, informal elite wear that was all the rage.33 Its presence enhances the casual air – or, as contemporaries would have phrased it, the carelessness – of Schalcken’s portrait, as does the sitter’s flowing hair, cascading down in curls aside one of her breasts.34 Although Schalcken was surely familiar with precedents by Dutch portraitists, this Van Dyckian mode of portraying sitters was ever popular in England where it continued to be practiced by Peter Lely (1618–1680) in the decades following the influential Fleming’s death, and, thereafter, by Godfrey Kneller (1646–1723) with whom the Dutchman competed for commissions in London.35 The combination of setting and costume in Schalcken’s painting of Anne Kynnesman is actually quite close to those found in numerous portraits by Kneller (Fig. 11). This is not the only instance in which Schalcken appropriated the devices of rival portraitists; as will be seen in the next chapter, he adapted their painting techniques as well. Naturally, this practice on Schalcken’s part has implications for some of the allegations made by the artist’s eighteenth-century biographers concerning his supposed inability to contend with rival portraitists in England.36

42 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 11. Godfrey Kneller, Portrait of Annabella Dyves, Lady Howard, 1697 (oil on canvas, approx. 228 × 152 cm). Present location unknown.

The voguish portrait of Anne Kynnesman, the wife of the haberdasher Francis Kynnesman, along with many contemporary documents pertaining to the latter’s life and career, confirm that he was a wealthy merchant with a host of connections at court. Both the man himself and the contacts he cultivated exemplified the types of clients for whom Schalcken worked during his four-year stay in London. This pattern of serving eminent clientele was hardly new for the artist, since an equally impressive

HABERDASHERS, BARRISTERS, AND A YOUNG MUSICIAN

43

Fig. 12. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of a Young Musician, Most Likely John Banister III, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 24.5 × 21.3 cm). Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario. Purchased with Funds donated by AGO Members, 1997 (inv. no. 97.3).

list of elites could be compiled from his patrons in the Dutch Republic in the decade leading up to his departure for London. Though centered in Dordrecht, ever increasing commissions from high-ranking officials in the Dutch government in The Hague prompted Schalcken to enroll in February of 1691 in that city’s painter’s society, the Confrerie.37 And when he departed England in the summer of 1696, he would resettle in The Hague, where he would spend most of the remainder of his career.38 Before moving on to examine one other prominent haberdasher who patronized Schalcken, a few words must be said about an additional portrait with close connections to the artist’s York Buildings neighborhood. The portrait in question is very small yet absolutely charming (Fig. 12). It depicts a young boy in an Arcadian setting wearing a striking Wedgwood blue-gray dressing gown (or Indian gown, as it was known in England at the time) with a fringed belt over a linen shirt, garments not dissimilar in their trendiness to those worn by Anne Kynnesman.39 Such elite male wear can be seen in Dutch portraiture, as well as in English portraiture, from Lely onwards.40 With one hand, he holds aloft the quintessential Schalcken motif of a burning candle (or perhaps a torch), and, with the other, makes a demonstrative gesture toward two musical instruments lying on the ground: a viola da gamba and a flute. A study drawing (Fig. 13) made in connection with the painting contains these

44 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 13. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of a Young Musician, Most Likely John Banister III, c. 1692–96 (pen and brown ink over red and black chalk, with gray and blue wash, 13.7 × 10.9 cm). New York, The Leiden Collection. Image courtesy of the Leiden Collection, New York.

essential motifs, though the flute is rendered in a different position vis-à-vis the viola da gamba and the boy’s delicate facial features express great surprise.41 The sitter for this portrait can most likely be identified with the celebrated young flautist John Banister III (b. 1686).42 Like his father and grandfather before him, ­Banister III was a musical prodigy but unlike the two older men, both accomplished violinists, he excelled at the flute. So adept was he as a musician that there are accounts extolling his ability to play two flutes simultaneously.43 Both Banister’s father and especially his grandfather performed regularly at York Buildings and the youngest member of this talented family himself would play there in 1704. The ­Banisters gave concerts in this neighborhood because of its well-earned reputation as a center for musical events. A concert space, dubbed the “Musick-Meeting,” the first of its kind in London, and of sufficient size to accommodate two-hundred music lovers, had been in use on Villiers Street in York Buildings for performances since the mid-1680s (and probably earlier).44 The Musick-Meeting attracted many notable English and foreign musicians over the course of its roughly fifty-year existence, including Henry Purcell

HABERDASHERS, BARRISTERS, AND A YOUNG MUSICIAN

45

(1659–1695). And although the concerts were advertised in newspapers as open to “the public,” the comparatively high price of admission – half-a-crown – ensured that the attendees were well-to-do.45 One such devotee of these gatherings was Roger North (c. 1651–1734), a member of a noble family from Cambridgeshire and attorney general under James II, who wrote extensively about London’s music scene during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. His manuscript, Memoires of Musick may be dated 1728 but it contains decades of reminiscences.46 North describes the concert room in York Buildings, a place to which, “all the quallity [sic] and beau mond repaired.”47 Newspaper advertisements yield further insights into the social standing of audiences attending concerts in this building on Villiers St. They included Peter the Great, who resided in York Buildings in 1698 during his visit to England. Evidently, a concert date had to be rescheduled in February of that year because of the “Czar of Muscovy’s” schedule.48 Even advertisements for items lost at the venue are revealing: the 26 November 1694 edition of the London Gazette, for example, offered a reward for a diamond set in a gold ring “lately dropt at the Musick Meeting in York Buildings or thereabouts.”49 And four years earlier, the same newspaper had posted a reward offered by the Earl of Northumberland for the return of a sable muff that he had left at a concert there.50 As a resident of York Buildings, a relatively small neighborhood, Schalcken lived in close proximity to the concert venue on Villiers Street. This might explain how he received the commission to make a portrait of the flute prodigy, John Banister III. As was the case with Francis Kynnesman, the Dutch painter’s immediate surroundings must have afforded him ample opportunities to mingle with affluent, socially prominent persons. And those persons could have conceivably referred him to still other potential patrons (and vice versa). Schalcken portrayed one other haberdasher, Sir Richard Levett (d. 1711), who served as the master of the Haberdasher’s Company in 1690 and 1691 (Fig. 14).51 In that capacity, he certainly knew Francis Kynnesman. Moreover, both men were also active in a charitable organization called the Corporation of the Sons of Clergy, founded in 1655 by a group London merchants whose fathers had been clergymen.52 Because Levett’s portrait is undated there is no way of knowing whether Kynnesman recommended Schalcken to him – or vice versa – but it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Regardless, Levett’s social and economic standing was much higher than Kynnesman’s. He was knighted in late 1691, and went on to hold various political and commercial appointments, including Sheriff of London (1691–92), Director of the Bank of England (1698–1700), and Lord Mayor of London (1699).53 And all the while he accumulated a great fortune from the worldwide trade in tobacco and other commodities: at his death, he was able to leave each of his two daughters a portion of 5000 pounds.54 In 1697, Levett purchased “Dutch House” in Kew for 1400 pounds, which, in turn, the Royal Family purchased from his heirs in the eighteenth century.55 Open to the public today, it is now known as Kew Palace. In London, Levett maintained

46 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 14. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Sir Richard Levett, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 76.2 × 63.5 cm). London, Guildhall Art Gallery.

a large residence on Maiden Lane in the parish of St. John Zachary. Therefore, he was the only one of Schalcken’s patrons who lived within the city walls of London (the older area of the burgeoning metropolis).56 For Levett’s picture, Schalcken utilized a standard-size canvas of 30 × 25 in. (76.2 × 63.5 cm), reflecting a format for 3/4 -length portraits established by British artists during the later 1620s and 1630s.57 The sitter is portrayed in a loose black silk dressing gown with a lilac-colored lining. A plain linen cravat rounds out this understated yet elegant ensemble bespeaking wealth and status. After his demise in 1711, Levett’s wife, Mary inherited his portrait. Eleven years later, Dame Mary Levett composed her last will and testament. A codicil attached to the will on 8 October 1722, just a week before her death, clarified her intentions concerning the disposal of family pictures and pieces of furniture: Anne Parker, a friend of Mary’s who two years prior had been promised all of her household goods, was now instructed to assist the latter’s two daughters in claiming whatever paintings and pieces of furniture they desired.58 Schalcken’s portrait of Richard Levett was surely part of the property that his daughters could potentially demand.59 But Dame Mary Levett’s anxieties concerning her heirs and family possessions were not completely assuaged. Just two days before she

HABERDASHERS, BARRISTERS, AND A YOUNG MUSICIAN

47

died, she dictated a letter to her executor reiterating the information set forth in the codicil but adding that her painting of “King Charles the first, and one other of his Queen (which I am informed in this two days are of greater value than I understood being thought to be originals of Van Dyks [Van Dyck’s]),” should be excluded from the goods bequeathed to Anne Parker. Moreover, the portraits of Charles I and Henrietta Maria, along “with any other pictures of value,” were to be sold by the executor for the benefit of her daughters. What can be deduced from this legal maneuvering is that Richard Levett and his wife had assembled an art collection that although modest in scope, probably exceeded in quality and quantity the pictures owned by his ­haberdasher colleague Francis Kynnesman. Among Schalcken’s London clients were also two barristers, John Acton (1655–1729) and Sir Thomas Rokeby (c. 1631–1699), who held the distinguished position of Justice of the Court of King’s Bench. To begin with Acton, he was a native of Basingstoke in Hampshire. After having been educated at Oxford University, he entered the Middle Temple where he was named barrister-at-law in 1687.60 During Schalcken’s sojourn in London, John Acton, his wife, Margaret Acton née Cutts (whom he married in 1687), and their two children resided close to the old city walls in the parish of St. Giles-without-Cripplegate.61 How he secured Schalcken’s services will probably always remain a mystery but his activities at the Inns of Court placed him in relative proximity to the Dutch painter’s York Buildings neighborhood.62 Portraits of John and Margaret Acton (Figs. 15, 16) must have been commissioned on the occasion of his appointment on 2 April 1695 as Solicitor – primarily, regimental paymaster – to the famed regiment, the Coldstream Guards.63 There were only two regimental solicitor positions in the entire English army, so this official appointment did carry some prestige along with an official salary.64 That his wife’s renowned brother, John Cutts (c. 1660–1707), Baron Cutts of Gowran, was the commander of the Guards undoubtedly enabled Acton to secure this highly desirable post.65 Unfortunately, the portrait pendants were separated at auction in 1963 and Margaret’s (Fig. 16) has since disappeared.66 Nevertheless, a black-and-white photograph of it (taken by the auction house) reveals a seated sitter posed before a grand curtain. Her attire, a loose fitting shift held together by jeweled clasps and partly covered by expanses of fabric, brings to mind that of Anne Kynnesman in the mezzotint discussed earlier in this chapter. However, in this portrait, the overlaying garment, generally described at the time as a nightgown, exhibits a more dress-like cut.67 Still, the clothing and Margaret Acton’s flowing hair enhance the casual air or carelessness of the image, as her contemporaries would have understood it. It therefore constitutes yet another example of a portrait of a member of the elite, commissioned by an affluent patron.68 By comparison her husband’s portrait is more formal (Fig. 15). John Acton is not dressed for any official activity – he wears a bronze-colored dressing gown with a rust lining over a plain linen shirt and cravat – but he is seated before a book-laden table, holding a sealed letter in one hand and a stick of sealing wax with the other.

48 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 15. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of John Acton, 1695 (oil on canvas, 124.7 × 99.7 cm). Basingstoke, Willis Museum.

A list of names, dated 1695 (Fig. 17), on a curled sheet of paper hanging from one of the books is headed by that of his brother-in-law, Lord Cutts, for whose regiment Acton was the Solicitor, and eight officers who were currently serving with him during the Nine Years War (1688–97).69 Of these eight, only one, William Seymour, served directly under Cutts. The remainder were colonels of their own regiments. Since the paper is inscribed, “List of my Colns [Colonels],” Acton must have been employed as the Solicitor for each of their regiments, which were, in effect, unofficial appointments.70 The annual salary for such positions was approximately 190 pounds, which means that Acton was being paid roughly 1330 pounds per annum by these seven regiments alone, a sum that provides some inkling of his affluence.71 In the portrait, a dark curtain hangs behind the table, parted slightly to one side to expose the gleaming gilt frame of what is likely a painting.72 The frame glitters because it is illuminated by candlelight, just like the overall space itself, and so provides yet another example of this signature motif in Schalcken’s portraiture. The use of the motif of a glowing taper accorded him tremendous success in England, and not merely in his famed genre paintings; quite simply, there were no other artists in London in the 1690s who were painting candlelight portraits. The presence of the

HABERDASHERS, BARRISTERS, AND A YOUNG MUSICIAN

49

Fig. 16. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Margaret Acton née Cutts, c. 1695 (oil on canvas, 123.8 × 95.9 cm). Present location unknown. Photo: National Portrait Gallery, London.

candle testifies to the singular qualities of his art, and thus explains why a portrait by Schalcken was so potentially appealing to sitters, but so too does the entire mise en scène. It is unusual in English portraiture of this period to find sitters in domestic or professional settings, such as the one seen here. It is more frequently encountered – but still unusual – in Dutch seventeenth-century portraiture (Fig. 18), marked as it is by a greater variety of settings and motifs than are typically found in English portraits. And while Acton’s gown and shirt feature flashes of rapid brushwork, overall the portrait is executed in a relatively smooth and detailed style strongly reminiscent of Schalcken’s pre-London period pictures. The artist employed a similar technique in his portrait of Thomas Rokeby (Fig. 19).73 Most likely painted on the occasion of the sitter’s appointment on 25 October 1695 to Justice of the Court of King’s Bench,74 Rokeby is shown in his judicial garb, seated on

50 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 17. Detail of Fig. 15.

Fig. 18. Jan de Bray, Portrait of Abraham de Casteleyn and His Wife, Magarieta van Bancken, 1663 (oil on canvas, 83 × 106. 5 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

HABERDASHERS, BARRISTERS, AND A YOUNG MUSICIAN

51

Fig. 19. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Sir Thomas Rokeby, c. 1695 (oil on canvas, 127 × 101.6 cm). New Zealand, private collection.

a luxurious upholstered chair in emerald-green cut velvet damask. Visible behind him (though difficult to detect because the picture is obscured by dark yellow varnish) is a green curtain parted to reveal a statue of blind Justice with her sword and scales. In many ways, Schalcken’s canvas recalls contemporary portraits of other Justices of the Court of King’s Bench (Fig. 20), but yet again, he includes a setting (an interior) and motifs (a statue) that are found more frequently in portraiture in the Dutch Republic than in England. And the relatively meticulous application of paint that characterizes this canvas, with few parallels among late seventeenth-century English portraitists, is closer to the artist’s Dordrecht style. Thomas Rokeby hailed from East Riding of Yorkshire.75 An undergraduate at the University of Cambridge, he was admitted to Gray’s Inn in 1650, and in 1657 was called to the bar. As a reward for his staunch support of William III, Rokeby was awarded a series of judicial appointments culminating with his seating on the Court of King’s

52 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 20. John Riley, Portrait of George Jeffreys, 1st Baron Jeffreys of Wem, Judge Jeffreys, c. 1685 (oil on canvas, 74 × 62 cm). Private collection.

Bench. What Rokeby shared with Schalcken’s other patrons discussed hitherto was his social prominence and wealth – he owned a large estate near York, the city where he had successfully practiced law for decades. In London, he took rooms at Serjeant’s Inn on Fleet Street after the King appointed him Serjeant-at-law in 1689 (the same year in which he was knighted).76 He would live there until his death in 1699. Rokeby was an extremely devout Presbyterian, a dissenting faith in Restoration England.77 As strange as it sounds, his religious convictions might have ultimately led to Schalcken’s commission to paint his portrait. But this potential contact between them presumably had nothing to do with the otherwise intriguing fact that the artist’s father and uncle were Dutch Reformed dominees. Rather, either the haberdasher Francis Kynnesman or, more likely, Richard Levett, who had held administrative posts in the company, conceivably made the introductions: in 1695, the very same year that his portrait was painted, Rokeby was attending the dissenting congregation of Minister Richard Stretton, which had been granted permission to meet in the Haberdasher’s Hall.78 This chapter has examined Schalcken’s portraits of two haberdashers, two barristers (one of whom became a judge of the highest court in the land), and a precocious child musician. What is readily apparent is that social networks must have played a role in the artist’s success in securing patrons.79 Consider Schalcken’s lost portrait of

HABERDASHERS, BARRISTERS, AND A YOUNG MUSICIAN

53

Anne Kynnesman, known only from a mezzotint (Fig. 9): it hardly seems coincidental that her husband, Francis Kynnesman, and the painter resided in the same neighborhood, York Buildings. Consider as well their neighborhood’s prominence as a center for musical events, housing a large concert venue, the so-called Musick-Meeting, which attracted notable Londoners to weekly performances by some of the most talented musicians of the era. It is difficult to imagine that this situation played no role in Schalcken’s securing a commission to paint the flute prodigy, John Banister III. Susan E. Whyman, who has written extensively on sociability in late Stuart England, has called attention to the importance of neighborhoods in late seventeenth-century London as loci of communal self-identity, regardless of how socially and economically eclectic those crowded enclaves tended to be.80 What probably drew some inhabitants of York Buildings together, like Schalcken and Kynnesman, was their role in providing goods and services to the nearby court, because the parish to which their neighborhood belonged, St. Martin-in-the-Fields, was a venerable center for this sort of business activity.81 Connections between the painter and haberdasher must have engendered still other connections – Kynnesman’s fellow haberdasher and charitable board member, Richard Levett (Fig. 14), comes to mind. Of course, in the absence of any date on Levett’s portrait (and any documentation concerning it) we do not know which one of these two affluent merchants approached Schalcken first. Nevertheless, the professional ties between them probably explains, on some as yet undetermined level, their patronage of the same Dutch painter. Equally intriguing is the fact that the prominent Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, Thomas Rokeby, had joined a congregation worshiping in rented space in the Haberdasher’s Hall in the very year that Schalcken painted his portrait. In the end, potential social connections among the artist’s patrons cannot be definitively resolved. As frustrating as this is, the moneyed and societally prominent circumstances of all of these men (leaving the young Banister aside) speaks volumes about the circles that they frequented and in which Schalcken practiced his art. The following chapter explores how these circles extended to William III and powerful members of his court.

2. Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III Schalcken’s residence in York Buildings, with its proximity to Whitehall Palace and St. James’s Palace (see Fig. 3), provided him with the opportunity to secure work from eminent persons attached to the court. One such client, who would play a significant role in Schalcken’s success in London, was Sir John Lowther (1655–1700), 2nd Baronet (and from 1696, 1st Viscount Lonsdale).1 A member of a prominent family from Westmorland (present-day Cumbria) in north-west England, Lowther was a rising star during the reign of William III. He was appointed to the Privy Council and made Vice-Chamberlain of the Household in 1689 and the following year, 1690, he became First Lord of the Treasury and Leader of the House of Commons. Lowther’s positions at court and Parliament naturally necessitated a luxurious residence in London. In March of 1690, he rented Winchester House in the fashionable Lincoln's Inn Fields neighborhood in the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields.2 It was at this location that Lowther continued to expand his large and impressive art collection. In the spring of 1694, art he had acquired and commissioned in London was probably taken north by its owner (after he had stepped down from public office), namely, to the newly constructed Lowther Hall.3 There, in 1696, Lowther himself compiled “A Catalogue of the Pictures bought by me,” which still survives (Fig. 21).4 Over the years, he had amassed an eclectic assemblage of artworks, ranging from drawings to prints, at least one miniature,5 and, of course, numerous oil paintings. The latter consisted of commissions, works acquired on the art market or in exchanges with other collectors. This varied assortment of pictures featured copies of works by Italian masters by Parry Walton (d. 1702; a still-life painter, restorer, picture dealer, and copyist who served as Keeper of Pictures to Charles II and James II),6 and, among the many original works, collaborations by Rubens (1577–1640) and Frans Snyders (1579–1657; including a painting purchased from the Arundel collection);7 a Hercules and Antaeus by Frans Floris (1517–1570); Narcissus by Cornelis van Poelenburgh (c. 1594/5–1667); Clowns Fighting [sic] by Adriaen Brouwer (c. 1605–1638); and four portraits by Willem Wissing (1656–1687).8 Lowther also collected paintings by several of the leading Italian masters of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries:9 a Triumph of Charles V by Leandro Bassano (1557–1622); St. Paul by Giulio Romano (before 1499–1546); David with the Head of Goliath as well as a Venus and the Three Graces by Guido Reni (1575–1642);10 a St. ­Sebastian by Annibale Carracci (1560–1609), said to have been brought out of Italy by Lord Irwin;11 and A Passage through the Red Sea by Pietro da Cortona (1596–1669), which Lowther had acquired by exchange from Thomas Herbert (c. 1656–1733), 8th Lord of Pembroke.12 For Lowther Hall itself, Lowther engaged Antonio Verrio (1639?–1707)

56 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 21. Inventory of the art collection of Sir John Lowther, 1st Viscount Lonsdale, 1696. Carlisle, Cumbria Archive Service. Courtesy of the Lowther Estate Trust.

Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III 

57

and a team of assistants for the then staggering sum of 430 pounds to decorate the main entrance hall, a project that took the celebrated Italian painter nearly nine months to complete.13 Lowther always recorded the price he had paid for individual pieces in his collection, sometimes adding such comments as “but worth much more.” For this reason, the entire value of the collection is easy to tally; over the years, he had spent approximately 1626 pounds assembling it (including the cost of Verrio’s commission).14 On the basis of comments made by the early eighteenth-century antiquarian George Vertue (1684–1756), it has long been thought that Schalcken’s principal patron during his London years was Robert Spencer (1641–1702), 2nd Earl of Sunderland.15 To the contrary, this distinction actually belongs to Lowther, who commissioned five portraits from Schalcken and purchased two of his genre paintings.16 Four of the five portraits represented Lowther himself and members of his family: his wife, Lady Katherine Lowther née Thynne (1653–1713), Mary Wentworth née Lowther (1676–1706), and her husband, Sir John Wentworth (1673–1720), 1st Baronet of North Elmsall.17 The latter three portraits were all recorded as hanging in the “withdrawing room” (most likely a semi-private chamber at Lowther Hall that could be used to entertain small numbers of distinguished guests), while the one representing the patron himself could be found in the room “with the black marble chimney piece.” Lowther records that he paid Schalcken twenty pounds for each of the portraits of his wife, daughter, and son-in-law (all likely full-lengths), and that his own portrait had cost fifteen pounds. By late seventeenth-century English standards, these were relatively expensive works of art. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that one of the Dutch master’s main competitors, Godfrey Kneller (1646–1723), was commanding fifty pounds for a full-length portrait during the 1690s.18 This rather pronounced price discrepancy certainly had something to do with Kneller’s position as the Principal Painter to the King (having been appointed to this post in 1688) but probably also reflected Schalcken’s status as a newly arrived foreigner.19 It is worth noting that in 1698, within two years of Schalcken’s return to the Dutch Republic, he was paid 100 guilders to paint portrait pendants of a couple in The Hague.20 Currency exchanges at the time indicate that the twenty-pound price for the portrayal of Lowther’s daughter, Mary, was the equivalent of 250 Dutch guilders.21 Even if he was paid less for portraits than was Kneller, Schalcken’s London years were quite lucrative compared with what he would have earned had he remained in the Netherlands. This must explain in part his decision to relocate to England.22 Of the four paintings of family members listed in the inventory of Lowther’s collection, only the portrait of the eldest of his five daughters, Mary, survives (Fig. 22). Her father recorded the picture as follows: “My daughter Wentworth by Schalken.”23 This portrait must have been commissioned on the occasion of her marriage in February 1694 to John Wentworth, whom Schalcken also portrayed in what is likely a now lost pendant to that of his bride.24 Measuring over two meters high, this canvas is

58 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 22. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Mary Wentworth née Lowther, c. 1693–94 (oil on canvas, 211.5 × 121 cm). Bridlington, Sewerby Hall Museum and Art Gallery.

by far Schalcken’s largest work. The young woman is portrayed in full-length, standing in a grotto-like setting beside a marble table laden with fruit, with a spectacular scarlet macaw (a large South American parrot) perched above it. An extensive Arcadian landscape unfolds behind her, featuring a fountain decorated with a sculpted Venus astride a dolphin, an appropriate motif for a marriage portrait. Other motifs in the painting similarly comment upon the marital state and the virtues with which it is affiliated. The water streaming from the fountain itself is encountered with some frequency in seventeenth-century portraits of females. Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641), Schalcken’s great Netherlandish

Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III 

59

Fig. 23. Caspar Netscher, Portrait of Helena Catharina de Witte, 1678 (oil on canvas, 49 × 40 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

predecessor in England, had introduced the fountain into portraiture, cleverly ­combining it with s­ itters pointing to or dipping their hands into streaming water.25 The very same motif is present in portraits by Peter Lely (1618–1680).26 It was likewise ­appropriated by ­Schalcken’s Dutch colleagues, among them, Caspar Netscher (Fig. 23), whose enchanting portraits of young women were painted in The Hague, where the painter would eventually take up permanent residence.27 In this context, water has very long-standing associations with cleansing and purity, as innumerable seventeenth-century texts attest.28 The presence of the scarlet macaw, so conspicuously placed within the portrait, also comments upon Mary Wentworth’s exemplary persona. This splendid creature may have actually been her personal pet, since late seventeenth-century London boasted a flourishing market for both domestic and exotic birds.29 Still, given its appearance in other seventeenth-century marriage portraits, the parrot in Wentworth’s potentially conveyed specific associations.30 A captivating print, inscribed “Maeghde-Wapen” (Maiden’s coat of arms), from Jacob Cats’s best-selling marriage treatise Houwelyck (Marriage) first published in 1625 and still read in Schalcken’s day, shows two female personifications with their attributes (Fig. 24).31 A screeching

60 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 24. Illustration of the Maeghde-Wapen, from Jacob Cats, Houwelyck, The Hague, 1625. Private collection.

parrot perches on the hand of one of them, beside her embroidery sampler. Songbooks, more needlework, and sewing paraphernalia lie strewn on the ground while a dog squats on its hind legs beside her. The inscription below, “Leer-sucht” (literally: willingness to learn) clarifies the meaning of these seemingly disparate motifs: they function as attributes of docility, the virtue that the maiden herself personifies.32 Parrots were considered tractable because the species could be easily tamed and taught to “speak.”33 Docility, within the larger context of Cats’s monumental treatise, refers to proper training in preparation for marriage and a willingness to learn over the course of matrimony itself. Contemporary portraits conceivably conveyed analogous associations.34 Moreover, in art, the bird was an enduring attribute of the Virgin Mary, in which context it signified chastity.35 Grapes and peaches grace the marble table below the parrot. The young bride holds one of the peaches in her hand that rests on the table. Peaches traditionally allude to the heart and are hence symbolic of love.36 Grapes are a particularly apt metaphor in this context given their long-standing associations with fertility, which, of course, for contemporaries was one of the goals of a successful marriage. In the Psalms 128, the paradigmatic wife is described as a “fruitful vine.”37 This Old Testament

Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III 

61

passage was literally depicted in several seventeenth-century Dutch prints and paintings. And more significant in relation to Schalcken’s canvas are a large number of Dutch portraits that portray sitters holding grapes or posed beside them. Beyond these individual motifs celebrating the young bride’s rectitude, the general mise en scène of Schalcken’s canvas recalls Kneller’s portraits of sitters in cloistered foreground spaces in which rocky outcrops or classical architecture serve as screens to blot out much of the sky (Fig. 11).38 Moreover, these sitters are often shown enveloped in drapery, especially if they are female, which imparts weight and solidity to their loosely painted forms. Mary Wentworth’s attire recalls the garb worn by Kneller’s sitters. She wears a white linen shift with floppy sleeves that end at her elbows. A silk dress-like garment in apricot, loosely held together by jeweled clasps, covers the shift and evokes “antique” attire.39 Enveloping the entire ensemble is a magnificent swath of French blue silk fabric, sash-like in shape, that winds around the sitter and disappears over her left shoulder. The rich color of the fabric playfully re-emerges behind her neck in the form of ribbons accentuating her elegantly coiffed, gray-powdered hair.40 Many passages within Schalcken’s portrait reveal thin applications of paint, which resemble Kneller’s work. Still other analogous passages, most notably those composing Mary Wentworth’s hair, are strongly reminiscent of those in portraits by Michael Dahl (1659–1743), the Swedish émigré and portraitist who had settled permanently in London in 1689 after extensive travels on the continent.41 Although the pinnacle of his career was reached in the early eighteenth century during Queen Anne’s reign (1702–14), Dahl, like Kneller, was already in great demand during the 1690s. For the bride’s hair, Schalcken imitated Dahl’s signature technique of rendering hair sparingly (Fig. 25), making abundant use of the ground layer as an agent interactive with subsequent strata, all applied with very broad brush strokes.42 In the Introduction to this book, Houbraken’s intriguing comments concerning Schalcken’s style were examined. The artist’s early eighteenth-century biographer observes that from time to time, Schalcken achieved an “aangenamer en luchtvaardiger wyze van schilderen,” which enraptured the English in particular, who then successfully lured the artist to their country.43 The master alternated this manner of painting with one featuring a more precise application of paint in the tradition of the Leiden fijnschilders.44 Unfortunately, Houbraken’s phrasing is opaque in this passage.45 Aangenam, meaning “pleasant,” is straightforward enough, but luchtvaardig, is either a neologism unique to the author in early modern Dutch, or it is a typographical error that should actually be read as lichtvaarding. If the former, namely, luchtvaardig, then scholarly translations of it as “lighter” do not entirely do justice to this admittedly unusual adjective.46 Dividing Houbraken’s word into its constituent parts, lucht can clearly be translated as air. Vaardig is associated with readiness, in the sense of being in a state of preparedness or prowess.47 Luchtvaardig then means literally to be prepared or “ready for the air,” in effect, to be ready

62 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 25. Detail of Fig. 8.

to fly. So Houbraken’s use of aangenamer en luchtvaardiger to describe ­Schalcken’s alternative style would therefore indicate that it was more pleasant than his other style and hence more suited to allow him to take flight, that is, to rise rapidly as an artist. However, if luchtvaardig is a typographical error for lichtvaardig, then by invoking the adjectives “aangenamer en lichtvaardiger wyze van schilderen,” Houbraken would be describing Schalcken’s more pleasant and more fluid or effortless painting style.48 The adjective airy in this context would thus most likely be understood in a Van Dyckian sense, as an expression of Schalcken’s fluent facility as a painter as well as the delicate spirit that animates his pictures.49 In many respects, the Portrait of Mary Wentworth embodies Houbraken’s comments, regardless of their precise translation. The biographer implies that the artist was already practicing this style prior to his departure to England. Specific details in Schalcken’s Dordrecht period paintings of the 1680s confirm this, such as luminous shiny garments enlivened by streaks of rapid brushwork.50 Houbraken then relates the tremendous appeal of this particular painting style among the English, who lured the master to London. Judging from the visual evidence, the Dutch artist exploited his more pleasant and airy style during his years in London to compete with British portraitists in cultivating patrons. He also appropriated techniques, motifs, and settings from his rivals. Nevertheless, while in England, Schalcken continued to practice the older, more precise mode of working he had developed in the Dutch Republic under the influence of his teacher, Gerrit Dou (1613–1675), as his portraits of John Acton and Sir Thomas Rokeby (Figs. 15, 19), attest. In contrast, Mary Wentworth’s portrait is in many ways

Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III 

63

Fig. 26. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of Mary Wentworth née Lowther, 1700 (oil on canvas, 77 × 64 cm). Private collection.

analogous to contemporary work by Kneller and Dahl. With this picture, he created a very fashionable, au courant portrayal of his principal patron’s daughter. Evidently, Mary Wentworth herself was pleased with Schalcken’s likeness of her, because six years later she was probably painted a second time by the artist, though not in England but in The Hague where he had since settled (Fig. 26).51 Several of Schalcken’s eighteenth-century biographers considered him incapable of competing with the likes of such accomplished and successful portraitists as Kneller and Dahl.52 For example, Jacob Campo Weyerman (1677–1747) stated that the Dutchman could not contend with English portraitists because he was unable to paint in their “firm, round, loose and forceful manner” (die vaste, ronde, losse en krachtige manier).53 This compelled him to return to subjects (and styles) from his established repertoire, namely, “little history pieces and little night-lights,” as Weyerman phrases it.54 The production of small-scale work supposedly allowed the artist to compensate for his weaknesses as a portraitist. The biographers’ pitting of Schalcken against his fellow portrait painters active in England during his sojourn there has led to much confusion over the precise nature of his achievements. How else can one explain the statements occasionally made by modern specialists, among them, the observation recorded in an exhibition catalogue published some twenty-five

64 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

years ago that, “the continental polish and sophistication of Schalcken’s portrait are in marked contrast with the more sober baroque, then prevailing in the styles of Kneller and Dahl …”55 To the contrary, Schalcken’s portraits provide unequivocal evidence of his practice of adapting his style and even self-consciously altering it on occasion to meet the demands of his clients.56 At times this meant working in a smoother manner akin to that of many Dutch artists; other times, it meant working successfully, pace ­Weyerman, in the looser, more painterly style that dominated late seventeenth-century English portraiture. That Kneller was aware of Schalcken’s achievements is implied by comments he purportedly made to William Gandy (c. 1655–1729), who later recorded them in a manuscript. A portrait painter by profession, Gandy was actively involved in the L­ ondon art scene from the early 1670s until the early 1690s.57 Although largely forgotten as an artist today, Gandy made notes on the techniques of London painters during his years in the city, and jotted down other fascinating information, including a conversation he once had with Kneller: “In 1693, Sir Godfrey Kneller came to see me. Sir Godfrey Kneller told me that ye ancients did use, in flesh but 3 or 4 colours, they did not know so many colours as we use, the Dutch men brot it in amongst us with their fanciful new fangled colours.”58 There is no doubt that Kneller was referencing an older generation of painters here and maybe some Flemish ones too, since “Dutch” and “Flemish” were often invoked interchangeably during this period. Be that as it may, he might have also had contemporary Dutch artists such as Schalcken in mind when he made this statement. By 1693, the year in which Gandy claims to have had this conversation with Kneller, Schalcken’s was already making pictures that could be described, to use the famed British portraitist’s terminology, as “­fancifully colorful” (see Fig. 29 below), even if the commission for Lady Wentworth’s portrait still lay in the future. Interestingly, the following year, 1694, Schalcken himself would tell Thomas Platt, the Grand Duke of Tuscany’s unofficial envoy in London, that the greatest value of his art lay in his use of color.59 An additional portrait by Schalcken, with probable ties to the English court, surely ranks among the most unusual works of his entire London period because it does not depict a living person but a sitter who had died thirty-seven years prior to the artist’s arrival in London. This stunning nocturnal portrait of James Stuart (1612–1655), 4th Duke of Lennox and 1st Duke of Richmond (Fig. 27) is based on one that Van Dyck had painted in the mid-1630s.60 Stuart is shown seated in a darkened interior, his faithful greyhound, who, according to tradition, saved his life during a boar hunt on the continent, sitting faithfully beside him. The illustrious sitter was a cousin of Charles I (1600–1649), who appointed him Gentleman of the Bed Chamber in 1625. He was later created a Privy Councillor in 1633 and also designated a member of the Order of the Garter that very same year. An ardent supporter of the Royalists during the English Civil War, Stuart and his family made great sacrifices on its behalf: Stuart himself committed large sums of money to the doomed King’s cause, and his two younger brothers were killed during the conflict.

Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III 

65

Fig. 27. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of James Stuart, 4th Duke of Lennox and 1st Duke of Richmond by ­Candlelight, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 94.6 × 144.8 cm). New York, The Leiden Collection. Image courtesy of the Leiden ­Collection, New York.

The greatest artist associated with Charles I’s court, Van Dyck, had immortalized Stuart decades earlier in several memorable portraits. The best known of those pictures, painted c. 1633–34, likely to commemorate the sitter’s appointment to the Order of the Garter, hangs today in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.61 All the same, Schalcken closely modeled his own work upon another portrait of Stuart (Fig. 28), painted slightly later, c. 1636, which presently belongs to the Iveagh Bequest at Kenwood, London.62 In essence, Schalcken transformed Van Dyck’s painting into a night scene, changing the sunset view to the left into a moonscape and, more prominently, adding his signature motif, a glowing candle in a silver candlestick. The gleaming highlights on the candlestick glitter like pulsating jewels in the darkness. This portrait of James Stuart furnishes additional evidence of the tremendous interest in Schalcken’s candlelight pictures – or night pieces, as they were termed at the time – among his English patrons. Apparently, the appeal of light effects of this sort was so strong that the person or persons who commissioned this particular portrait – it is difficult to imagine that it was painted on speculation – must have specified that Schalcken transform Van Dyck’s prototype into a highly original nocturne. This desire on the patron’s part raises two questions: where did Schalcken see Van Dyck’s original picture and for whom was his own candlelight reinterpretation painted? The first question is easier to answer than the second. Van Dyck’s portrait is listed in an inventory compiled in 1659 of the art collection of Dorothy Percy S­ idney

66 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 28. Anthony van Dyck, Portrait of James Stuart, Duke of Lennox and Richmond, c. 1636 (oil on canvas, 99.7 × 160 cm). London, Kenwood House, The Iveagh Bequest, IBK 948.

(c. 1598–1659), the Countess of Leicester, that she had bequeathed to her fourth and youngest son, Henry Sidney (1641–1704), 1st Earl of Romney.63 That the Countess herself bequeathed this picture and not her husband, Robert Sidney (1595–1677), 2nd Earl of Leicester, who survived her, most likely indicates that either Van Dyck had painted it for her or that she had purchased it from its initial owner. Upon his father Robert’s death in 1677 Henry Sidney inherited the estate, Long Itchington in Warwickshire, but by that time the young man had already been living several years on the then recently erected Jermyn Street in London.64 Presumably, Van Dyck’s portrait could be found at that residence and then at Sidney’s new address, St. James’s Square, no. 16, to which he relocated in 1695.65 Schalcken must have studied Van Dyck’s canvas at either one of these locales. Upon Henry Sidney’s death in 1704 the bulk of his estate, including his art collection, was left to his great-nephew, John Sidney (1680–1737), 6th Earl of Leicester (from 1705).66 Thereafter, Van Dyck’s portrait returned to Leicester House (the London home of the Earls of Leicester) where the famed English antiquarian, George Vertue saw it in 1735.67 The precise identity of the person or persons who commissioned Schalcken’s portrait of Stuart cannot be determined with any certainty. Doubt must be cast upon the possibility of an immediate descendant of the sitter having ordered it, because the 4th Duke of Lennox’s direct heir, Esmé Stuart (1649–1660) died in childhood in Paris in 1660. A more likely candidate is Henry Sidney, who had inherited Van Dyck’ portrait from his mother. Nevertheless, if Henry Sidney did commission this picture

Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III 

67

Fig. 29. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of a Boy in Festive Costume, 1693 (oil on canvas, 74 × 62 cm). Stockholm, Stockholm University Collection of Paintings, J. A. Berg collection, inv. no. 103. Photo: Jean Baptiste Beranger.

it was most probably intended as a gift for a family member or a friend.68 In 1743, an inventory was made of the art collection at Leicester House, following the demise of Jocelyn Sidney (1682–1743), the 7th Earl of Leicester and great-nephew of Henry Sidney. The inventory lists Van Dyck’s portrait of James Stuart but not Schalcken’s candlelight version of it.69 If Henry Sidney had indeed ordered Schalcken’s version for his own collection then it would still have been hanging at Leicester House in 1743, where, as we have seen, his artworks had been moved following his death in 1704. Regardless, the painting’s first owner must have harbored a certain nostalgia for pre-Civil War England in general and for James Stuart, the Duke of Lennox and Richmond, in particular.70 Before turning to Schalcken’s well-known Portrait of William III by Candlelight, one additional portrait with potential court connections must be considered. In 1693, the artist portrayed a young boy in a grotto-like setting clutching a spear (Fig. 29). The inventory of a former owner of the picture identified the sitter as the “Prince of Orange at the age of 6.”71 There is no evidence that this portrait actually represents a Prince of Orange, all the more so because William III (1650–1702) and Mary II (1662–1694) were childless. Still, it might depict the son of one of William III’s courtiers, if only for the fact that it has been signed: G. Schalcken Londini 1693. For the portrait’s commissioner, Schalcken’s signature must have served as an imprimatur, signaling qualities that extended beyond the obvious matter of confirming its authenticity.72 For

68 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

the affixing here to G. Schalcken of the Latin name for the city of London, Londini, likewise testified to the artist’s erudition, sophistication, and international status as a Dutch painter working in England.73 And for the patron, the addition of Londini partook of a social language generally reserved for persons of a certain status and level of ­education. More than likely, this unidentified patron frequented courtly circles. On a practical level, the presence of a Latinized spelling for London correctly corresponds to what Schalcken has portrayed: a young boy dressed à la romaine.74 Mid- to late seventeenth-century portraits of European elites, including those of the English kings Charles II (1630–1685), James II (1633–1701), and William III, reveal a predilection for Roman-style military attire.75 By the 1680s and 1690s this trend had been extended to portraits of males of all ages. Admittedly, the almost dress-like length and flow of the amber-colored garment worn atop the sitter’s linen shirt is rather odd. The somewhat feminine appearance of the attire has to do with the boy’s young age, because clothing for male toddlers resembled that of their female counterparts.76 But the fringed pteruges – epaulette-like strips of shiny fabric – that dangle from his shoulder confirm the pseudo-antique basis of the entire ensemble. Above the pteruges a jeweled clasp secures a streaming steel-blue scarf of silken fabric with dazzling highlights. Surging in a billowing arc off of the sitter’s back, this shiny textile winds completely around his body. Similarly striking displays of expanses of fabric are seen in Schalcken’s portraits of women (Fig. 22). But compared with these latter portraits, the fabric flows here most energetically, suggesting movement and lightness.77 The closest visual precedents for the garment in this picture lie not in contemporary English portraiture (despite the aforementioned depictions of English leaders in Roman attire) but in portraits of boys by Dutch artists centered in The Hague, among them, Pieter Nason and Jan Mijtens (Fig. 30).78 Schalcken must have been familiar with some of these works; commissions from high-ranking officials in the Dutch government in The Hague prompted him to enroll in 1691 – the year before he departed for England – in the Confrerie, that city’s painter’s society.79 When he returned to the Dutch Republic in the summer of 1696, he resettled in the capital. The child’s Roman-like attire, the grotto in which he is posed, his spear, and the Arcadian landscape in the left distance all serve to imbue this canvas with an antique air. The conspicuous combination of motifs makes one wonder whether Schalcken intended a portrait historié, in which case the boy would represent the mythological hunter, Adonis. This is possible but the absence of a dog, Adonis’s faithful companion invariably shown in paintings representing his tragic story, militates against this identification.80 Schalcken’s patronage networks facilitated his introduction to members of the court, such as John Lowther, who belonged to the intimate inner circle of William III. Whether these connections brought the artist directly into contact with the king himself is impossible to determine, though it seems unlikely. Schalcken did need the king’s approval to return to the Dutch Republic following his four-year stay in

Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III 

69

Fig. 30. Jan Mijtens, Portrait of Wolfert van Brederode, c. 1663 (oil on canvas, 106.5 × 85.5 cm). The Hague, Mauritshuis.

London – the surviving record for a pass to return home demonstrates this (Fig. 4). But does this pass allude to his status as a court painter? Perhaps. But then again, passes appear to have been routinely issued for persons traveling to the Netherlands from England.81 Even before he departed for England, Schalcken conceivably had an opportunity to be formally introduced to the king; the monarch was in residence in The Hague between February and April of 1691.82 That very same February, the master had enrolled in that city’s painter’s society, the Confrerie, because he was increasingly receiving portrait commissions from high-ranking officials in the Dutch government.83 Still, the chances that the talented painter actually met William III at that time are slim. These possibilities are raised here in connection with Schalcken’s Portrait of ­William III (Fig. 31), arguably one of the best known works of his London period and perhaps of any period in his storied career.84 The general format of Schalcken’s picture derives from a portrait by Kneller of the monarch, as has long been known. Adolph Staring, writing in 1950, had proposed that Schalcken’s work was ultimately dependent upon Kneller’s official full-length portrait of William III in his robes of state, dated 1690 (Fig. 32).85 Staring’s hypothesis has been followed in all of the

70 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 31. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of William III, c. 1695–96 (oil on canvas, 76.5 × 65 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

subsequent literature on the painting.86 The artist’s appropriations from Kneller could conceivably be construed as evidence of his attempt to gain formal admittance to the court in the hope of receiving future royal commissions.87 In other words, the Portrait of William III might not be a formal commission per se, but the result of an effort on Schalcken’s part to ingratiate himself with his Majesty. If true, this would not be the only instance in which the master self-consciously promoted himself in order to c­ ultivate the interest of a powerful European ruler.88 Regardless, Schalcken’s response to Kneller’s work was slightly more complex than Staring believed. Without precluding the possibility that he had actually seen the original painting, the Dutch artist must have been equally familiar, if not more so, with yet another portrait by Kneller – or possibly a workshop replica – now lost, so only known from John Smith’s mezzotint after it (Fig. 33).89 The lost painting reproduced the upper third of the official full-length portrait – hence, the likelihood of its status as a workshop replica – thus transforming the original into a bust-length picture. It is therefore in the same format as Schalcken’s canvas. And because Smith’s mezzotint obviously copied the bust-length work in reverse it is oriented in the same direction as Schalcken’s portrait. The date of 1695, written in ink by Smith himself on an impression of the print, potentially establishes a terminus post quem for Schalcken’s portrait.90

Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III 

Fig. 32. Godfrey Kneller, Portrait of William III in His Robes of State, 1690 (oil on canvas, 243.8 × 147.7 cm). Royal Collection Trust/copyright, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2017.

71

72 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 33. John Smith after Godfrey Kneller, Portrait of William III, 1695 (mezzotint, 34.2 × 25 cm). London, The British Museum.

The connections between the two images are readily apparent, so much so that it seems likely that Schalcken did not need an opportunity to study William III from life in order to create his portrait of the monarch.91 Rather, the artist’s recording of the king’s physical appearance and his inclusion of various props (see below) were mediated by his knowledge of Smith’s mezzotint and perhaps Kneller’s painting as well. In creating his portrait, the Dutch artist clearly altered the costume seen in Kneller’s work: the king’s elaborate robes of state in Smith’s mezzotint have been replaced by armor and a sash-like ensemble lined with regal ermine draped over his shoulder and secured by a cameo brooch. Similar martial attire appears in yet another portrait by Kneller of William III of c. 1690 that portrays him in half-length, partly dressed à la romaine (Fig. 34), an additional picture by his competitor with which Schalcken might have also been familiar.92 The most significant alteration to Schalcken’s pictorial sources is the transformation of his prototype into a night scene, wherein William III holds a flaming candle set in a glittering silver candlestick. He is posed in a darkened interior whose only

Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III 

73

Fig. 34. Attributed to Godfrey Kneller, Portrait of William III, c. 1690 (oil on canvas, 127 × 103.2 cm). Edinburgh, National Galleries of Scotland.

illumination is candlelight. Two small fires add weak subsidiary lighting, created by roaring cannons and a burning fortress seen in the distance through the large window on the left edge of the canvas. These motifs also augment the martial bearing of the sitter.93 The brilliant candlelight illuminates the monarch’s face, imparting to it a reddish glow. Sections of the painting furthest away from the candle fade into almost monochrome thereby demonstrating Schalcken’s knowledge of precisely how candlelight diminishes the coloristic intensities of surrounding objects. Schalcken’s reputation as a painter of night scenes – or “night-pieces” as they were often called in contemporary documents – preceded his actual entrée into the London artistic scene.94 Therefore, he must have been keenly aware of the possibility of promulgating his skills in the making of these night pictures for financial gain and related to this, for the enhancement of his overall professional status. In an effort to succeed and excel in the field of portraiture in London, crowded as it was with rival specialists, Schalcken routinely appropriated their stylistic approaches and devices. Portrait of William III by Candlelight, with its obvious derivations from a painting by Kneller, constitutes yet another example of this strategy. And simultaneously it evidences the artist’s desire to emulate his rivals, to produce works of art that surpass their models

74 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

in the presentation of sophisticated pictorial effects. Simply stated, there were no painters in England at this time (including Kneller) who could surpass Schalcken in the rendition of artificial illumination, an advantage he ceaselessly exploited in his portraits and his genre paintings.95 Multiple copies of the Portrait of William III by Candlelight corroborate its ­success with English (and Dutch) audiences.96 Moreover, most of Schalcken’s ­eighteenth-century biographers discuss this portrait. Their comments likewise testify to the enduring popularity of the portrait, but paradoxically, by explaining it in strikingly negative terms. The first of these pejorative assessments appeared in Jacob Campo Weyerman’s biography of Schalcken published in volume three of his Levens-beschryvingen der Nederlandsche konst-schilders en konst-schilderessen (Biographies of Netherlandish painters and paintresses) in 1729.97 Weyerman (1677–1747) was a painter, playwright, and journalist, who had spent several years in England in the early eighteenth century working as an artist for highly placed patrons and, he claims, studying medicine in Oxford.98 His biography of Schalcken, in keeping with the spirit of his multi-volume text, is often libelous and caustic. His satirical account of the genesis of Schalcken’s Portrait of William III by Candlelight is worth quoting in full: [Schalcken painted] William the Third, King of Great Britain … as a night-light piece, life-size but not from life, holding a light candle without either candle-holder or candlestick, and depicted the candle grease dripping down the king’s fingers. This was probably intended as an allegory, showing that such a thing can happen as easily to a king as to a peasant if he fails to provide himself with a candle-holder or candlestick. One could excuse such a stupid or impudent work if it were made by a painter from Livonia, Westphalia, or Breda but it grieves us to hear such censure from the mouths of English and Dutch painters and connoisseurs, who scoffed and asked: “Where did the Dutch painters learn to compose such scenes, from the Italians, or from the Samoyeds?”99

Weyerman’s observations were embraced by two additional biographers, who repeated his description of the portrait. In his Anecdotes of Painting in England of 1762, the famous antiquary Horace Walpole (1717–1797) derides Schalcken’s tactlessness in creating a portrait of William III, for “… as the piece was to be by candle-light, he gave his majesty the candle to hold, till the tallow ran down upon his fingers.” For Walpole, this signified the Dutch painter’s “ill-breeding,” and motivated to justify this defect, he made a portrait of himself “in the same situation.”100 Jean-Baptiste ­Descamps (1714–1791), a Flemish ex-patriot painter living in Paris reiterates the tale in his La vie des peintres flamands, allemands et hollandois (The lives of Flemish, ­German, and Dutch painters), published between 1753 and 1763.101 He observes that Schalcken’s lack of intelligence was on display when he painted William III with candle wax sullying

Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III 

75

his hand. Interestingly, Descamps admits that Weyerman was the source of this calumnious information, which, he concedes, was perhaps first told by painters jealous of the Dutch painter’s reputation.102 This disparaging anecdote is just one of several that these authors relate to ­document the Dutch painter’s supposedly uncouth character. Although Descamps wonders whether Weyerman’s tale was invented by painters who were jealous of Schalcken (which is a possibility), it could also be symptomatic of the aversion of some eighteenth-century cognoscenti to candlelight pictures. Moreover, it echoed the antipathy among classicist art theorists toward night-time scenes because of the supposed disjuncture in painting between darkness and beauty.103 Regardless, this story can hardly be accurate, if only because William III is not holding the candle with his bare hand in Schalcken’s portrait, nor are his fingers besmirched by dripping candle wax. Nevertheless, Schalcken himself does indeed hold a candle sans candlestick in a self-portrait (Fig. 44), as Walpole had mentioned.104 Schalcken frequently illuminated portraits in candlelight during his London period as a marketing strategy to enhance his profitability and his already outstanding reputation as a painter. The presence of the candle in the Portrait of William III by Candlelight suggests as much. Yet this candle, far from functioning as a purely market-driven aesthetic motif, cleverly comments upon kingship for viewers “in the know.” Peter Hecht has convincingly interpreted the burning candle in the portrait as an allusion to the king’s virtue.105 In the seventeenth century, the motif of the burning candle served as a fairly common literary trope: just as a candle is consumed in its service of providing light, so is its user “consumed” in assisting others. The inscriptio to an emblem from George Wither (Fig. 35) clarifies this: “My substance, and my light, are spent, in seeking other men’s content.”106 This meaning was also applied specifically to royalty: like a candle that slowly burns down and is ultimately extinguished, so too does the monarch in the service of his subjects.107 In Schalcken’s portrait of the king, the candle is ablaze, its extended flame at an oblique angle (as if the wind were blowing upon it) with melted wax pouring down its side. Although a candle appears in a similar state of rapid depletion in other portraits by the artist (Fig. 13) one wonders whether it has special significance here given the obvious eminence of the royal sitter. The king’s armor is likewise meaningful in this context. According to Hecht, ­William III’s armor elaborates upon the implications of the candle in its unequivocal reference to the king’s determination to defend the nation militarily, even unto death.108 Such notions are also consistent with the long-standing associations of armor with heroic virtue, which can be traced back to the New Testament. In describing the Christian warrior who “puts on the whole armor of God,” the apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, identified this protective covering with power and rectitude.109 Regardless of its precise significance for contemporaries, Schalcken’s Portrait of William III by Candlelight must have been well received, judging, at least, from contemporary copies of it.110 And the artist would portray the monarch on two further occasions after

76 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 35. Emblem from George Wither, A Collection of Emblemes, Ancient and Moderne … London, 1635. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library.

he had returned to the Dutch Republic in 1696.111 Both of those works, however, are much larger than the London period portrait and both depict the William III in full daylight. Illumination by candlelight was a leitmotif for so many of Schalcken’s London period portraits. There can be little doubt that it played a critical role in the painter’s strategies for promoting his art among his distinguished patrons. As we shall see in the following chapters, similar strategies were often at work in Schalcken’s approach to making self-portraits, genre paintings, history paintings, and still lifes.

3. Self-portraiture as self-promotion Schalcken conducted a highly successful portraiture practice during his four-year stay in London. His clientele were drawn from the upper echelons of society, including wealthy merchants, barristers, and influential members of the court. At the same time, he made at least three self-portraits.1 This chapter explores each of these works with reference to the circumstances of their production, their function, and Schalcken’s possible motivations in creating them.2 As was explained in the Introduction, by the time Schalcken departed for England in the late spring of 1692 he already enjoyed a reputation of truly international proportions. His pictures were purchased by French and German collectors, among others, and in the Dutch Republic he was frequently patronized by high-ranking government officials in The Hague. The international allure of Schalcken’s art did not diminish when he moved to London. To the contrary, in some respects it actually expanded thanks to Schalcken himself, who had much to do with the promotion of his art abroad, even if this is not sufficiently appreciated today. A case in point is his marvelous Self-Portrait (Fig. 36) painted for Cosimo III de’ Medici (1642–1723), Grand Duke of Tuscany.3 Widely traveled, Cosimo III was a sophisticated aesthete, who, in pursuing a collecting strategy begun by his uncle, Cardinal Leopoldo de’ Medici (1614–1675), amassed an outstanding collection of self-portraits by Europe’s most distinguished painters.4 The work of Dutch artists figured prominently in this august assemblage, paying testimony to the catholicity of the Gran Principe’s taste as well as to his special interest in the art of the Low Countries, a region he had toured twice, in 1667–68 and again, in 1669.5 Following his return to Florence and the death of Cardinal Leopoldo de’ Medici in 1675, Cosimo III went about commissioning a series of self-portraits from eminent painters, with the intention of displaying his acquisitions and similar works he had inherited from his uncle in a Grand Gallery space in the Uffizi.6 The gifted Leiden painter, Frans van Mieris (1635–1681), for example, contributed two self-­ portraits to this initiative. In his monograph on the painter, Otto Naumann uncovered some fascinating documents concerning the Grand Duke’s acquisition of these two pictures.7 During his travels in the Low Countries, Cosimo III had visited Van Mieris’s studio twice. Unfortunately, diaries of those journeys kept by a member of his entourage, Filippo Corsini, are quite laconic about these visits and most other events. The second one took place on 22 June 1669 and its stated purpose was to inquire about pictures the Grand Duke had ordered during his previous visit to the atelier, in 1668.8 In the course of examining later correspondence between Cosimo III’s secretary in Florence, Apollonio Bassetti, and his agent in Amsterdam, Gio­vacchino Guasconi, Naumann discovered that the Gran Principe had wanted to purchase a self-portrait by Van Mieris that he had seen during his second visit to the studio. Since that work

78 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 36. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, 1695 (oil on canvas, 92 × 81 cm). Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. Photo: Finsiel/Alinari / Art Resource, NY.

had already been sold, the painter offered a different Self-Portrait, which Cosimo III subsequently acquired. Moreover, an additional commission was tendered, specifying that Van Mieris was to portray himself in the act of painting or holding one of his finished pictures in his hand (Fig. 37).9 Commissions that Cosimo III dispensed to other Dutch painters carried the same specificity as Van Mieris’s.10 Given the Grand Duke’s practice of ordering self-portraits and setting forth particular requirements for their content, it is often assumed that Schalcken’s Self-Portrait was created under similar conditions.11 However, the surviving correspondence pertaining to this picture completely undermines this assumption. For that reason, this correspondence warrants further examination here. On 1 June 1694, Thomas Platt, the unofficial envoy in London for the Grand Duke of Tuscany, wrote to Bassetti on Schalcken’s behalf to propose a self-portrait for his patron.12 Cleverly, the envoy began the letter by praising Schalcken as “a very famous Dutch painter … who paints in the manner of Carlo Dolci, making large and small-scale portraits [and] pictures of night-time scenes, to marvel at …”13 This initial description was clearly meant to kindle the Gran Principe’s interests. Platt mentions Dolci, knowing he was one of his patron’s favorite artists.14 And he refers to “night-time scenes,” Schalcken’s quintessential thematic specialty. Immediately thereafter, Platt arrives at the heart of the matter: the Dutch painter has heard that the Grand Duke “is eager to

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

79

Fig. 37. Frans van Mieris the Elder, Self-Portrait of the Artist Holding a Small Painting, c. 1677 (oil on canvas, 73.5 × 60 cm). Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. Photo: Finsiel/Alinari / Art Resource, NY.

obtain portraits by outstanding painters, therefore he has beseeched me to write in his favor.” Moreover, if it would please the Grand Duke to have Schalcken’s portrait then he should let him know in what style it should be painted, whether as a nighttime scene or daytime one. Platt concludes by noting Schalcken’s esteem among all the connoisseurs in London and by the king (William III) of his country.15 Another letter followed on the fifth of August of that very same year, evidently answering a now lost letter from Bassetti. In response to the Gran Principe’s command that Platt ask Schalcken what he considers his principal talent, the envoy relays some fascinating remarks. Schalcken told him that the greatest value of his art lay in his use of color and that he was able to paint on both a large and small scale.16 Furthermore, although he is capable of rendering night pieces or daylight scenes he would most cherish making a night piece to best accompany the portraits in the Grand Duke’s gallery because there are no painters in these parts (England) who make them. Interestingly, Platt concurred since he could not recall having seen any nocturnal self-portraits at the gallery.17

80 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

The previous chapters drew attention to Schalcken’s keen awareness of the potential professional advantages of painting night pieces in England. The possible financial rewards were enormous, as was the enhancement to the painter’s already great reputation. Furthermore, other London period portraits (Fig. 15) revealed his desire to emulate his rivals and transcend their paradigms by creating spectacularly illuminated settings for his sitters. In other words, knowing that no other contemporary artist in England could rival his candlelight portraits (and his use of candlelight in pictures in general) he exploited this to great advantage. In this regard, the correspondence between Platt and Bassetti is invaluable because it provides unequivocal evidence of Schalcken’s strategy of self-consciously promoting himself as the preeminent painter in England – and, in truth, in all of Europe – of nocturnal scenes. The end result of this protracted series of epistolary exchanges and negotiations is the magnificent Self-Portrait by Schalcken that hangs today in the Galleria degli Uffizi (Fig. 36), a work the artist had largely completed by early January of 1695.18 Platt’s description of the portrait, contained in a letter dated 11 January 1695, is as good as any introduction to it: “the portrait is a night scene illuminated by candlelight in which the artist holds in one hand a print of a painting of a night scene he had also made while with the other hand, he shows himself as the author of the work. The experts are assured that it is an admirable piece, finished to the highest standard, following the manner of Dolci.”19 Even a cursory glance at the canvas confirms Platt’s observations. Setting aside for a moment the portrait’s contents, it is mostly painted in a smooth style recalling the work of Dolci (Fig. 5). Schalcken’s Self-Portrait thus provides still another example of his habit of adjusting his style to the tastes of the patron, whether it was someone like the Gran Principe (or even John Acton; Fig. 15) who preferred more finely executed work reminiscent of that of the painter’s Dordrecht years or, alternatively, someone such as John Lowther, who favoured a style more broadly and summarily painted work in keeping with contemporary English paradigms (Fig. 22). Schalcken’s Self-Portrait features a darkened interior subtly illuminated by his signature motif of the burning candle, seated in a silver sconce attached to the wall. As can readily be seen in other paintings with artificial illumination (Fig. 31), the artist deftly captures the lambent effects of candlelight, which bathe his face and hands in its soft reddish glow while dancing upon the Prussian-blue stripes of his doublet. What is more, the light’s diminishing effects are perceived along the outer edges of the canvas, underscored and contrasted by the distant moonlit landscape viewed through the window on the right. Schalcken was in his early fifties when he painted this self-portrait. Yet, his facial skin is smooth and taut and he is clean shaven as well. His visage therefore imparts the impression of man younger and hence more vigorous than one in his early fifties. Schalcken’s youthful countenance in the Florence Self-Portrait is echoed in the other self-portraits discussed in this chapter.20

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

81

Fig. 38. John Smith after Godefridus Schalcken, Penitent Magdalen, 1693 (mezzotint, 34.8 × 25.2 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

Schalcken is shown holding a reproductive print after one of his paintings of the Penitent Magdalen. As Platt states, the artist points to himself to indicate his authorship of the original.21 The print is a mezzotint (Fig. 38), made two years prior to the Self-Portrait, by John Smith (1652–1743), London’s premier mezzotinter who periodically worked with the Dutch master.22 The artists of other self-portraits sent to C ­ osimo III, who portrayed themselves holding one of their works, invariably included a small painting (Fig. 37). Yet Schalcken elected not to do so. His choice was perchance a strategic one, made once again to emphasize his professional and social identity. First, Platt must have informed him of the Gran Principe’s fervid religious faith (that is, if he was not aware of it already), so the depiction of the popular C ­ atholic subject of the penitent St. Mary Magdalen would have appealed to him greatly.23 Second, the very fact that reproductive prints were being made of Schalcken’s paintings during his lifetime signaled his artistic celebrity; sizeable quantities of them were distributed

82 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

in England and throughout the European continent at large.24 The significance of this phenomenon was driven home by the Dutch master’s decision to include an actual impression of the print in the shipment to Florence, an act of additional strategic consequence given Cosimo III’s interest in print collecting.25 Perhaps Schalcken hoped that its inclusion with his Self-Portrait might motivate the Gran Principe to commission a history painting from him. The rather exclusive and expensive medium of mezzotint offers intriguing parallels to Schalcken’s achievements as a painter of night scenes.26 To make a mezzotint, a copper plate is roughened with a rocker or roulette. If the plate were printed at this particular stage in the process the resultant image would be entirely dark. Thereafter, the plate is scraped or burnished to introduce forms and motifs. Mezzotints are thus created purely out of subtly nuanced transitions between light and shade, and articulated in good quality impressions in exquisite velvety tones.27 In essence then, the presence of a seemingly light-suffused figure and motifs emerging from soft, delicate shadows corresponds to what Schalcken accomplishes in paint.28 The congruity in Schalcken’s Self-Portrait between the dusky appearance of “paper and ink,” on the one hand, and oil and canvas, on the other, could have hardly been lost on a connoisseur of the Grand Duke’s capabilities. The princely collector must have thus delighted in the playful deception engendered by the very example of paper art rendered in paint. Similarly spirited artifice extends to the striking scarlet curtain on the left side of the picture, which partly hides the gleaming sconce. This motif is encountered in other pictures by the artist throughout his career. The conspicuous combination here of a curtain whose fabric is highlighted by candlelight was likely appropriated from Gerrit Dou (1613–1675; Fig. 39), who included it in several night scenes executed during the early 1660s, at a time when Schalcken was a pupil in his studio.29 Even the extraordinarily tactile manner in which the curtain’s silken fabric has been rendered, with crisp folds and the delineation of its horizontal and vertical threads to suggest its light-saturated warp and weft, is Dou-like.30 As a cognoscento of great sophistication and erudition, Cosimo III de’ Medici probably compared Schalcken’s stunning curtain to the one in the Self-Portrait by Dou that he had acquired in 1676, the year after the famous master’s death.31 Furthermore, he might have associated this motif with Pliny the Elder’s legendary tale of the competition between the ancient Greek painters Zeuxis and Parrhasius.32 According to Pliny, the two painters entered into a contest of artistic skill, wherein Zeuxis painted grapes with such stupendous lifelikeness that they deceived birds who attempted to eat them. When Zeuxis asked Parrhasius to open the curtain on his painting to unveil its subject the former was bested because the skilful illusion of the latter’s painted curtain had completely duped him: Zeuxis did not recognize the curtain as the painting's actual subject. Pliny’s story was well known in seventeenth-century Europe, including England.33 In the Dutch Republic, the Leiden poet Dirck Traudenius, writing

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

83

Fig. 39. Gerrit Dou, The Night School, c. 1660–65 (oil on panel, 74 × 64 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

in 1662, exalted Schalcken’s second teacher, Dou, crowning him the Dutch Parrhasius whose masterfully illusionistic paintings were capable of deceiving Zeuxis anew.34 Moreover, for contemporary Dutch art theorists, the story provided a fitting example of the sine qua non of painting: consummate illusionism. The anecdotes recounted by such theorists and biographers as Karel van Mander (1548–1606), Schalcken’s first teacher, Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627–1678), and ­Joachim von Sandrart (1606–1688) concerning the prodigious illusionistic talents of the

84 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Netherlandish and German artists who routinely beguile viewers are essentially variants of Pliny’s renowned tale.35 To cite just one example, Von Sandrart relates how a painting by Sebastian Stoskopff (1597–1657) depicting a print affixed to a board with wax seals totally fooled – and naturally delighted – the Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand III (1608–1657), who tried to remove the print from its “mount.”36 As Celeste Brusati has perceptively observed, “Whether true or not, these stories helped ideologically to underscore a belief in the capacity of deceptive pictures to subvert established hierarchies and to allow a­ rtists to trade imitative skill for social and economic gain.”37 That the artist’s social and economic gain is achieved in the service of high-born patrons and audiences is especially fascinating. For fundamental to all of these stories is how these pictorial deceptions are foisted upon persons of great affluence and exalted social status.38 Often overlooked in paintings of conspicuous displays of illusionistic mastery is their capacity to boost the marketability of the painter’s art and his or her very person by astounding high-born audiences.39 Schalcken’s skills in this arena – again, self-consciously promoted on his part – imputed honor and distinction to him, qualities intrinsic to his elite circle of patronage. Later in this chapter, Schalcken’s portrayal of himself as distinguished gentlemanly artist (Fig. 47), dated 1695, the very same year as the Florence Self-Portrait, will be shown to demonstrate just how closely these qualities concurred with his own social and economic standing. In his Self-Portrait, Schalcken is posed in a rather complex yet elegant manner, with his body torqued in space to offer an oblique view and his head turned sharply to the left to gaze directly at his esteemed patron – for this picture was conceived for an audience of one. Hans-Joachim Raupp has identified the pose in Schalcken’s picture (and in many other self-portraits by Dutch and Flemish painters) as a “Van Dyck type,” namely, one that descends from self-portraits by the eminent master, Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641).40 The most widely known and hence canonical of Van Dyck’s portraits of himself was the engraving included in the Iconography series (Fig. 40), which offered a paradigm for Schalcken and so many other artists.41 Indeed, the derivation of Schalcken’s portrayal from Van Dyck’s is readily apparent.42 For Raupp, this pose, ultimately rooted in Italian Renaissance prototypes, alludes to the artist’s ingenium (genius and talent) and his status as a virtuoso.43 During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the term virtuoso was a semantically rich one, connoting virtue, good breeding, and morals, along with civilized taste and keen intellectual curiosity, particularly with respect to the study of nature as well as the fine arts.44 The very concept of the virtuoso is traceable to Renaissance Italy, namely, to Baldassare Castiglone’s Cortegiano. Castiglione’s ideas were appropriated by English writers during the very late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.45 One of them, Thomas Blount, defined a virtuoso as “A learned and ingenious man, or one that is well qualified with vertue and ingenuity.”46 The all-important concept of virtuosity will be discussed later in this chapter. For now, suffice it to say that Van Dyck was considered its very embodiment.

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

85

Fig. 40. Lucas Vorsterman after Anthony van Dyck, Self-Portrait, c. 1630–45 (engraving, 24.5 × 15.7 cm). London, The British Museum.

Schalcken’s posture in his Self-Portrait harkens back to Van Dyck’s, so too does his archaic slashed doublet, a garment recalling men’s fashions of the late 1620s and 1630s, as portrayed especially by the great Fleming (Fig. 41).47 Schalcken’s placement within the composition highlights his upper-left arm and shoulder, and, in doing so, offers an expanse of dazzling fabric, shimmering in the candlelight. Without question, Schalcken had seen numerous renditions of slashed doublets in portraits by Van Dyck (and by his contemporaries) in London collections, and it is safe to say that the Gran Principe had as well, in his own and other Italian collections, and in pictures he encountered during his extended northern European tour. The Dutch painter’s decision to clothe himself in an old-fashioned doublet is enfolded once again in his purpose for this canvas: to present himself to his eminent patron (whom he had solicited for this commission) as a supremely talented master,

86 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 41. Anthony van Dyck, Self-Portrait, c. 1640 (oil on canvas, 56 × 46 cm). London, National Portrait Gallery.

in effect, identifying himself with his illustrious predecessor, Van Dyck. Furthermore, Schalcken’s Self-Portrait demonstrates his mastery in depicting complex artificial illumination and confounding illusions, just as the portrayal of himself holding a mezzotint after one of his paintings proclaims the widespread recognition of his achievements through the medium of reproductive prints. As Schalcken himself had told Thomas Platt, there were no painters in England who made night pieces and the envoy himself could not recall seeing such a picture in the Grand Duke’s gallery of self-portraits. So the Dutch master’s self-portrait assumed a singular place in the gallery among those of the most famous and accomplished artists in European painting. Later correspondence between the Grand Duke’s secretary, Bassetti, and his new envoy in London, Jacopo Giraldi, will serve to introduce the next Self-Portrait by Schalcken to be discussed here. On 3 September 1700, Giraldi wrote to Bassetti from The Hague on Schalcken’s behalf – recall that the artist was now residing in that city – to inquire about the Self-Portrait he had painted for the Gran Principe several years prior.48 Schalcken was concerned that sheer envy and malice had motivated someone to replace that portrait with a copy based upon a mezzotint of yet another Self-Portrait by the artist.49 Giraldi included an impression of that mezzotint with his

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

87

Fig. 42. John Smith after Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, 1694 (mezzotint, 34.4 × 25.1 cm). London, The British Museum.

correspondence in the expectation that it would be compared to the self-portrait hanging in Cosimo III’s gallery. However, there are actually two mezzotints of the same Self-Portrait by Schalcken, so it is not known which of the two Giraldi had sent to Florence. John Smith had made the first one in 1694 (Fig. 42). Schalcken had obviously recognized the advantages of having Smith reproduce his work in print form for distribution in England and the European continent at large.50 So it is no accident that soon after, the German engraver, Pieter Schenck (1660–1711), made a mezzotint of the very same Self-Portrait in reverse orientation to Smith’s (which indicates that he was working from the Englishman’s print) and published it in Amsterdam (Fig. 43).51 Smith’s mezzotint reproduces a Self-Portrait by Schalcken that hangs today in the Washington County Museum of Fine Arts in Hagerstown, Maryland (Fig. 44).52 In setting and tone, this picture is somewhat different than the Florence Self-Portrait. Schalcken has jettisoned his Van Dyckian attire for a tailored Indian gown – a popular dressing gown among elite men in late seventeenth-century England – in deep teal, worn over a linen shirt.53 Its very elaborate clasps, combined with the sinuous agglomeration of cocoa-colored velvet fabric pressed to the sitter’s chest, impart to

88 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 43. Pieter Schenck after John Smith (after Godefridus Schalcken), Self-Portrait, c. 1694–96 (mezzotint, 24.7 × 18.8 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

the attire a slightly fantastic quality. Nevertheless, the outfit contributes to the ­distinct gentlemanly air of this canvas, and so too do the sitter’s youthful, vital appearance and his towering wig of curls.54 The Latin inscription in the lower right, G. Schalcken pinxit hanc suam effigiem Londini 4e 1694 (G. Schalcken painted this image of himself, London, fourth part of the year, 1694),55 informs the viewer of the sitter’s identity and the year and location in which the picture was painted. Moreover, as was seen in Chapter 2 in connection with the Portrait of a Boy in Festive Costume (Fig. 29), the Latin inscription testifies to the artist’s erudition and international status as a Dutch painter working in England.56 And for the portrait’s as yet unidentified patron, the inscription partook of a social language limited to well-educated persons of conspicuous status.57 Like the Florence Self-Portrait, the Hagerstown Self-Portrait also contains several significant details that contribute to its overall import. Once again, Schalcken’s signature motif of the burning candle is present. Only in this instance the candle is not seated in a sconce; rather, the artist clutches it with his bare hand, as melted wax runs

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

89

Fig. 44. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, 1694 (oil on canvas, 118.4 × 101.6 cm). Hagerstown, MD, Washington County Museum of Fine Arts.

down his fingers.58 Several of Schalcken’s eighteenth-century biographers made pejorative comments about this detail, though they mistakenly complained about it in relation to his Portrait of William III (Fig. 31), a picture in which the sovereign actually holds a candlestick.59 They concocted the presence of messy wax in that latter portrait and then construed it as a sign of the painter’s vulgarity and ineptitude. As was argued in the Introduction, such denigrating observations probably stemmed from the distaste among some eighteenth-century connoisseurs for candlelight painting and the supposed disjuncture in painting between darkness and beauty.60 Besides, ineptitude and vulgarity were hardly the qualities that Schalcken would have wanted to promote in any portrait, let alone those of himself. In his discussion of Schenck’s mezzotint (Fig. 43) after the Hagerstown Self-Portrait, Raupp called attention to Schalcken’s allegorical function within it as a metaphorical bearer of light in the darkness.61 Raupp pointed out the frequent association of light in the early modern period with knowledge and enlightenment. For example, Cesare Ripa’s allegory of learning (Dottrina; Leeringe in the Dutch edition), holds a flame with which a child lights a candle. Ripa deems this “the light of wisdom,” illuminating a “path to truth” from the darkness of ignorance.62 Light also takes on similar metaphorical dimensions in contemporary art theory. Raupp cites the theoretical

90 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

treatise by Schalcken’s first teacher, Samuel van Hoogstraten, in which he recalls St. Basil’s comments glorifying painting because of its capacity to “illuminate” what this f­ ervent saint was only capable of describing dimly.63 One finds similar notions within Schalcken’s immediate London cultural milieu. Consider, for example, John Dryden’s (1631–1700) translation of the important treatise by the French painter and theorist, Charles Alphonse Dufresnoy (1611–1668), De arte graphica, published in 1695, the year after Schalcken’s Self-Portrait was painted.64 As will be shown below, the production of this treatise must have been underwritten by a group of London virtuosi with whom the Dutch painter was likely familiar. Dufresnoy mentions ancient painters who pursued perfection in their art by the “light of the fancy,” which in the context of his discussion can only mean their creative imaginations.65 Extrapolating these ideas to Schalcken’s Hagerstown Self-Portrait, the artist provides enlightenment to his (unknown) patron through his art, itself a product of his ingenium. Unfortunately, several passages of the Hagerstown canvas are rather abraded, especially along the right side and bottom. For this reason, the mezzotints are especially helpful, because they clarify what is now obscured in the painting itself. To the painter’s left stands a pedestal with a large fluted column, a motif depicted with some frequency in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century portraits (Fig. 45). Eddy de Jongh has demonstrated the association of columns (whether broken or not) in the early modern period with constantia (steadfast character) and fortitudo (strength of spirit), meanings consistent with the genteel manner in which Schalcken presents himself in his Self-Portrait.66 The mezzotints also reveal two details, rife with implication, that are now nearly obliterated in the painting: antique statuary in the form of a bust and broken figurine in the lower left of the canvas, positioned directly below the pedestal upon which the artist’s right arm rests.67 These sculptures obviously denote the significance of antiquity for the painter in terms of his initial training as well as a continual inspirational paradigm for art making.68 But within this context, devoid as it is of references to the painter’s actual practice of his art,69 the statuary must likewise allude to the concept of the virtuoso. Virtuosi were erudite gentlemen with the requisite wealth and leisure time to pursue learning, itself equated with a discriminating appreciation for, and familiarity with, nature and the arts. Foundational to understanding the latter was a wide-ranging knowledge of antiquities, which complemented all other facets of the visual arts, especially painting. Some of the earliest expositions in English literature addressed to aspiring virtuosi emphasize the study of ancient art: “And therefore I may justly conclude that the study of statues is profitable for all ingenious Gentlemen, who are the only Men that imploy Poets, Painters, and Architects, if they be not all these themselves. And if they are not able to judge of these workes, they well deserve to be censured.”70 This quotation, from the second edition of Henry Peacham’s Compleat Gentleman, published in

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

91

Fig. 45. Ferdinand Bol, Self-Portrait, c. 1669 (oil on canvas, 127 × 102 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

1634, merely codifies contemporary practices among some of England’s most prominent collectors. A case in point is Peacham’s great patron, who had actually encouraged him to write his treatise: Thomas Howard (1585–1646), 14th Earl of Arundel (Fig. 46).71 The Earl of Arundel and his wife, Alethea Howard (1585–1654), Countess of Arundel, amassed an eclectic assemblage of objects acclaimed for its quantity, quality, and diversity, with paintings, paper art, and antiquities predominating.72 The portrait of the Earl of Arundel reproduced here portrays this great gentleman-collector pointing to his gallery of ancient statues.73 While the setting and motifs within this picture might be unusual for painting in England in the early seventeenth century, it actually partakes of a long but in this period still flourishing tradition in European art for displaying well-heeled connoisseurs and intellectuals with statuary.74 The couple’s initial collecting activities focused upon sculpture, which they avidly acquired during their travels through Italy in 1613–14 and thereafter through the often heroic efforts of a number of agents active in Greece and the Levant.75 Yet the Earl

92 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 46. Daniel Mijtens, Portrait of Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel, c. 1618 (oil on canvas, 207 × 127 cm). London, National Portrait Gallery.

of Arundel’s status as a virtuoso was predicated upon much more than his impressive (and staggering) collection of antique coins, gems, statues, and whatnot. For he was intellectually engaged with his prized property and perceived its supposedly

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

93

inherent moral dimensions. Moreover, he actively promoted learning among a celebrated circle of scholars and literati, among others, his librarian, the famed Dutch humanist, Franciscus Junius (1589–1678).76 In sum, the Earl of Arundel epitomized the virtuoso, a fact not lost on later generations. John Evelyn (1620–1706), a prolific author, diarist, and outstanding virtuoso in his own right, writing in 1689 to S­ amuel Pepys – later, Schalcken’s neighbor in York Buildings – lauded Arundel as “that great lover of antiquity,” and Schalcken’s biographer, Horace Walpole, writing in the eighteenth century, adjudged the Earl, “the father of vertue in England.”77 Arundel and his fellow aesthetes (including Van Dyck) were key players in the early development of virtuosity in England. However, as Craig Ashley Hanson pointed out in his important study of this phenomenon, despite their paradigmatic influence on subsequent generations, the virtuoso tradition in England was marked by various shifts as the seventeenth century progressed.78 Not only was virtuosity increasingly associated with the study of nature (which certainly did not preclude the arts) but gradually the circles of virtuosi extended beyond members of the court and aristocracy to what Hanson terms, “the ‘public’ realm of learned societies,” chief among them, the Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, founded in 1660.79 The Royal Society’s dedication during the seventeenth century to what might be termed “scientific inquiry” is well known today, so much so that its ongoing engagement with visual arts is frequently underestimated if not ignored altogether.80 During Schalcken’s years in London, virtuosity continued to flourish, as witnessed by the continuing activities of the Royal Society and by the emergence of fledgling arts clubs and academies in the city, the latter functioning as important precursors to the Royal Academy of Arts.81 One such group was the Virtuosi of St. Luke, an informal club consisting of artists and cognoscenti who met regularly between 1689 and 1743.82 Its members gathered in various London taverns to discuss works of art (usually paintings), to assess their quality, to encourage connoisseurship, and to make recommendations to art collectors.83 The Virtuosi of St. Luke grew out of earlier gatherings of artists and devotees initiated in the 1630s by none other than Van Dyck, and should thus be considered among the earliest organized group of art experts and advisers in England.84 Between c.1726 and 1743 (during the period in which he was a member), the antiquarian George Vertue (1684–1756) assembled documentary material pertaining to the Virtuosi of St. Luke.85 The earliest years of the club, namely, 1689 to 1697, are rather murky. Thanks to Vertue’s documentation, it is known that early on it had just sixteen members, six of them artists (including Schalcken’s competitors, John Closterman [1660–1711] and Michael Dahl [1659–1743]). Guests were sometimes invited to their gatherings, a practice that would continue throughout the club’s existence. Frustratingly, a perusal of Vertue’s spotty notes concerning the early days of the Virtuosi of St. Luke does not yield Schalcken’s name, for the simple but unfortunate

94 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

reason that his jottings only begin with the year 1697; during the prior year, 1696, Schalcken had returned to the Dutch Republic.86 Nevertheless, in light of the Dutch painter’s possible connections to two members of the club (see below), he must have known of it and perchance attended one or more of its gatherings. Members of the Virtuosi of St. Luke were also involved in intellectual ventures. For example, the club must have underwritten the commission and publication of John Dryden’s aforementioned translation of the treatise by the French painter and theorist, Charles Alphonse Dufresnoy, De arte graphica, which appeared in 1695.87 Dryden himself mentioned his charge to translate, “a little French Booke of Painting which he hath engag’d to perform for Some Gentlemen Vertuoso’s and Painters.”88 Henry Cooke (c. 1642–1700), a history painter and prominent member of the ­Virtuosi of St. Luke, designed the allegorical frontispiece that graced the book, and it contained an addendum on the lives of modern artists authored by Cooke’s fellow member, the art dealer Richard Graham (d. 1741).89 Graham owned a now lost self-portrait by ­Schalcken in which the master portrayed himself at an easel as well as one of the artist’s courtship scenes in candlelight.90 Another member of the club, William Sykes (1659–1724) was likewise an art dealer (and a painter) who owned a picture by ­Schalcken, in this instance a copy that the artist had made of a painting of the Madonna by Raphael.91 The latter picture must have been a highly unusual work, and so was probably commissioned directly from the artist. Both Graham and Sykes were quite active in the Virtuosi of St. Luke; the fact that they owned three paintings by Schalcken between them raises some intriguing possibilities vis-à-vis the D ­ utchman’s potential contacts with this group of connoisseurs, even allowing for the possibility that they were part of two men’s stock as art dealers.92 Dryden’s translation of Dufresnoy was one of several books on the visual arts that were published in London during the last quarter of the seventeenth century.93 Another one, germane within the overall cultural context of the Hagerstown Self-Portrait, was William Aglionby’s Painting Illustrated in Three Diallogues, which first appeared in 1685.94 Aglionby was a physician and diplomat who was a member of the Royal Society. One of several physicians of this period who wrote on art, he exemplified virtuosity owing to the breadth of his intellectual interests.95 Painting Illustrated has sometimes been dismissed as a plagiaristic text overly dependent upon French prototypes (including Dufresnoy’s).96 To the contrary, Hanson has convincingly demonstrated that Aglionby’s treatise was decidedly innovative and meant to promote history painting in England. In essence, he provided his readers with a vade mecum on how to appreciate such work in the hopes of persuading them to become collectors and patrons of it.97 Painting Illustrated comprises three parts: an introduction to the topic, explaining key concepts; a history of painting, both ancient and modern; and lastly, biographies of famous Italian Renaissance artists, beginning with Duccio (d. 1319). Throughout, Aglionby extols artists for the beauty of their work and their exalted status in serving royalty.98 In other words, they are presented as

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

95

socially accomplished gentlemen working for and among like-minded gentlemen whom he deems virtuosi avant la lettre.99 Aglionby’s promotion of artists as gifted genteel virtuosi must be understood against the backdrop of still prevalent biases against them in some English upperclass circles, who considered them mere laborers who worked with their hands for remuneration, an inappropriate occupation for true gentlemen.100 The text pushes back against this ingrained prejudice by repeatedly expounding upon what the author considers the true social and intellectual status of artists and by encouraging his readership to identify with such qualities by patronizing them. In many respects, Schalcken’s portrayal of himself in the Hagerstown Self-Portrait exemplifies Aglionby’s views, even if the Dutchman enjoyed a privileged position in the London art world as a prominent foreigner and painter in service to members of the court. In Schalcken’s Self-Portrait, the splendidly attired master stands without the tools of his profession before a statuette and bust, which allude to his status as a gentleman painter, a bona fide virtuoso.101 But these statuary fragments are multivalent in that they also link the artist with antiquity in a more practical sense, as a source of abiding inspiration for the making of his own art. Multivalency likewise extends to the glowing candle held in his bare hand. On one level, it attests to Schalcken’s technical wizardry and reputation as a painter of night pieces. Schenck’s mezzotint after the Hagerstown Self-Portrait suggests as much (Fig. 43) because it is inscribed: Decus obscuris sumpsit ab umbris (He has brought forth beauty out of shadow).102 Yet, on another level, the candle alludes to knowledge and enlightenment, qualities associated with talented painters for sure, but also with virtuosi. In the end, the notions of artist and gentleman, united in Schalcken’s Self-Portrait, cannot be disentangled. The final self-portrait by Schalcken to be discussed in this chapter is in many ways his most masterful: a canvas signed and dated 1695, presently in the collection of the Leamington Spa Art Gallery and Museum in Leamington Spa (Fig. 47).103 Possibly Schalcken’s last surviving London period self-portrait,104 it is compositionally and thematically allied with the Florence Self-Portrait (Fig. 36) in that it shows a striking scarlet curtain pulled back to reveal a youthful-looking artist (belying his actual age) in a darkened interior, illuminated by a candle set in a scone, with moonlight streaming in from the window in the upper right of an otherwise unadorned room.105 But in this canvas, the windowed wall is set at a more acute angle to the painter, who is positioned at a further distance from the picture plane to reveal more of himself to the viewer. The dazzling light effects are not solely engendered by the burning candle; the moonlight is actually brighter here than it is in the other canvas. Schalcken’s attire is similar to what he wears in the Florence Self-Portrait as well, though it is more fanciful. The slashed sleeves are doublet-like and hence Van ­Dyckian, the main body of the rich Prussian-blue silk garment with ornate goldthread clasps less so. Resembling the master’s attire in the Hagerstown Self-Portrait in its tailoring, this ensemble appears to be an inventive variation upon the Indian

96 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 47. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, 1695 (oil on canvas, 109.5 × 88.5 cm). Leamington Spa, Leamington Spa Art Gallery and Museum. Reproduced courtesy of Leamington Spa Art Gallery & Museum (Warwick District Council).

gown, worn over a yellow linen shirt.106 Likewise contributing to the fantastic air of Schalcken’s garb is the shawl-like expanse of fabric – unfortunately abraded – hanging over one shoulder and then descending to wrap around his left arm and envelop his lower body. In some respects it recalls the elegant swath of fabric that Van Dyck holds in his Self-Portrait from the Iconography, discussed above (Fig. 40). The Leamington Spa Self-Portrait is also noteworthy for the presence of the gold chain draped over Schalcken’s shoulders. As is well known, chains were often bestowed upon artists by august patrons to honor their service and talents, a germane example being the chain given to Anthony van Dyck by Charles I, present in the Self-Portrait from the Iconography and even more conspicuously displayed by that artist in his Self-Portrait in the Duke of Westminster collection.107 Schalcken’s first teacher, Van Hoogstraten was awarded a gold chain and imperial medallion by his patron, the Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand III of Vienna (1608–1657).108 Among the artist’s portrait-painting contemporaries in London, Kneller received just such a chain from William III in 1699.109 Yet despite its presence in Schalcken’s Self-Portrait, there is no

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

97

Fig. 48. Godefridus Schalcken, So-Called Self-Portrait, c. 1695 (red and white chalk, with stumping, 28.9 × 22.8 cm). Private collection.

record of the Dutch artist having been awarded one during his stay in England.110 Sander Karst has made the intriguing suggestion that the painter himself added the chain to this particular Self-Portrait long after it was painted, possibly in 1703, the year in which he received one from Johann Wilhelm II (1658–1716), Elector Palatine, in honor of his services to that ruler.111 This would mean that Schalcken had kept the picture in his studio ever since he painted it. That this Self-Portrait had remained in the artist’s possession is bolstered by the fact that it was sold in the early nineteenth century together with Schalcken’s portrait pendants of himself and his wife, the latter painted in 1679 on the occasion of their marriage.112 This strengthens the hypothesis, proposed below, concerning the painting’s initial use as an “advertisement” in his London studio for prospective clients. Schalcken proudly points to the basis of his fame: his palette and brushes. Before investigating this important motif further, it is worthwhile to examine first his preparatory drawing in red chalk for the canvas (Fig. 48). This drawing surfaced on the art market in 1986. At the time, it was said to be a self-portrait attributable to the artist.113

98 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 49. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, c. 1694–95 (black chalk, 21.8 × 17 cm). Raleigh, NC, Ackland Art Museum, University of North Carolina.

In his monograph on Schalcken published two years later, Thierry Beherman downgraded it to a copy, supposedly by a later artist who had studied the Leamington Spa Self-Portrait.114 But Beherman’s reasoning was faulty, reflecting his general confusion over the artist’s drawings. Specifically, he failed to distinguish between ricordi, that is, drawings more highly finished and made after a painting was completed to provide a permanent record of it, and true study drawings, that is, less finished works executed in connection with the production of a particular painting.115 Part of the confusion lies in what amounts to only slight differences between these two types of drawings in the Dutch painter’s oeuvre.116 Consider the drawing by Schalken made in connection with the Florence Self-Portrait (Fig. 49).117 Ostensibly, in its execution it closely resembles the study drawing for the Leamington Spa Self-Portrait (notwithstanding its use of black chalk). Nevertheless, it presents more detail than the one under consideration here because relatively fine chalk lines articulate folds of clothing, the figure’s hands and strands of curly hair atop his head. Such lines are largely absent in the study for the Leamington Spa Self-Portrait. Furthermore, the Florence Self-Portrait drawing very accurately portrays what is seen in the painting (Fig. 36), which likewise confirms its status as a ricordo. One could imagine

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

99

Schalcken’s desire to make a drawn copy preserving the visual appearance of a painting he was sending to the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Despite Beherman’s objections, the preparatory study for the Leamington Spa Self-Portrait manifests all the qualities associated with other bona fide drawings from Schalcken’s oeuvre, ranging from the superbly rendered light effects, captured in white chalk, to its distinctive parallel hatching in red chalk. Even the awkward rendering of the figure’s shoulders in relation to his pose and the enveloping fabric is a typical anatomical deficiency found in other drawings by the artist, further confirming his authorship.118 Apparently, Schalcken was notorious for the weakness of his drawing style. Arnold Houbraken (1660–1719) had already alluded to his deficiencies in this regard in his monumental treatise of artists’ biographies published in the early eighteenth century. In his comments concerning the life of Schalcken’s contemporary and pupil, Carel de Moor (1655–1738), Houbraken reveals that he was at a loss to explain why the younger master sat under the older one’s tutelage since the young De Moor already had a better grasp of drawing than did his teacher.119 Additionally, in his biography of Schalcken, Houbraken remarks upon the inferior quality of the artist’s drawings in relation to those by another famed contemporary, Adriaen van der Werff (1659–1722): the author would refer the former to the latter’s footstool, namely, Schalcken could learn a thing or two about drawing from Van der Werff.120 What has hitherto escaped notice is that the figure in the drawing is not identical to Schalcken himself as he is portrayed in the Leamington Spa Self-Portrait.121 The face of the model in the drawing is more youthful as well as broader and flatter than that of Schalcken’s. This is especially apparent in the shape of the mouths and jaws of the two men: the drawing’s sitter is square-jawed while Schalcken’s lower mouth and jaw are more triangular shaped. The artist’s face is basically longer, an observation even extending to the delineation of the ear in both works. Beyond the facial disparities between the two sitters, the figure in the painting is more torqued in space than is the one in the drawing and, as a result, the former’s head is positioned at a more acute angle versus his body. And perhaps most obvious visually is the absence of a chain draped over the sitter’s shoulders in the drawing, an accouterment present in the painting. (Its absence strengthens Karst’s aforementioned hypothesis that the artist added the chain to the Leamington Spa Self-Portrait years after its completion.) In light of these features, Schalcken must have studied a model in preparation for his painted self-portrait. Although nothing is known of the painter’s studio practices during his four-year stay in London, this drawing implies the ready availability of models. The subsequent question then of whether the model was one of the artist’s pupils or assistants is difficult, if not impossible to answer.122 Still, given the general youthfulness of the sitter, one wonders whether it might depict Jacobus Schalcken (b. c. 1681–82), the artist’s nephew, who is said to have studied with him.123 Jacobus’s name – erroneously listed

100 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

as one of Schalcken’s children – was included among family members in the record of the pass issued to the artist to return to the Dutch Republic in the summer of 1696 (Fig. 4).124 At that time, Jacobus would have been fourteen or fifteen years old. Since there is no evidence that he went to England in 1692 with the artist and his wife, he probably traveled there with his aunt, the artist’s sister, Barbara (who was also listed on the pass), sometime after the couple’s arrival. He likely received instruction from his famous uncle and perchance assisted in some of the latter’s projects. This leads to the question of why Schalcken would have his nephew (or some other model) pose for a drawing being prepared as a study for his own self-portrait. The answer most likely lies in the notorious difficulties that artists experienced in rendering their hands when creating portraits of themselves. Essentially the problem revolves around working from a mirror to render a likeness of oneself. If an artist is right-handed, for example, his or her right hand in a mirrored reflection becomes the left one in the Self-Portrait and hence the “wrong” one. More significantly, that “left hand” is moving the implement employed (be it a paintbrush, etcher’s needle, or chalk or pencil) to make the image. Therefore, that critical hand, already shown in mirror image, cannot be “posed.” As Joseph Leo Koerner memorably phrased it, “The always mobile right hand constitutes a lacuna in self-portraiture, for in it the artist’s two roles of maker and model become irreconcilable.”125 Ernst van de Wetering has examined some of these inherent difficulties in relation to Rembrandt van Rijn’s (1606–1669) self-portraits.126 He notes several instances in which Rembrandt sidestepped this dilemma altogether in the final work by hiding his “painting hand” or painting it out entirely. Van de Wetering also raises the intriguing possibility that someone else posed for the hands in several of his self-portraits.127 Schalcken too must have been aware of these difficulties and resolved them by having a model sit for a preparatory chalk drawing that allowed him to sketch out the parameters of what he envisioned for his self-portrait. This proposed hypothetical procedure is not meant to imply the lack of a mirror to assist the artist in making the painting. Rather, among other purposes, the sketch enabled him to determine the position of his hands, brushes, and palette without having to have recourse to studying his own hands to do so.128 The Leamington Spa Self-Portrait comprises part of a long visual tradition of portraying artists as well-to-do gentleman holding the tools of their trade (Fig. 50).129 Yet, many if not all of these pictorial precedents show the painter posed before an easel. And often that easel is either blank or partly hidden from view. Rembrandt’s early Artist in His Studio (Fig. 51) provides one of the most fascinating and extraordinary examples of this theme wherein a painter (with facial features reminiscent of his own) standing with palette, brushes, and mahlstick in hand, stares at a large panel mounted on an easel at the opposite end of a studio, turned entirely away from the viewer. Van de Wetering has convincingly elucidated this scene as an illustration of the premise, common in seventeenth-century art theory, that pictures originate in an

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

101

Fig. 50. Gerrit Dou, Self-Portrait, c. 1665 (oil on panel, 48.9 × 39.1 cm). New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, bequest of Benjamin Altman, 1913.

artist’s mind before they are realized on canvas or panel – hence, the primacy of the intellect in the creation of art.130 In contrast to Rembrandt’s painting and those associated with it, Schalcken’s Self-Portrait is noteworthy for the absence of an easel.131 The painter likely omitted it in order to underscore the pivotal cerebral aspects of his art making. Paradoxically, its absence fittingly complements the presence of the candle, a motif, as was explained above, replete with allusions to the painter’s ingenium. Be that as it may, there are tools needed to convert creative thought to image and the requisite skills needed to wield them. Schalcken asserts this by pointing to the palette and brushes held in his left hand. These are the instruments that enable him to consummate what

102 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 51. Rembrandt van Rijn, Artist in His Studio, c. 1628 (oil on panel, 24.8 × 31.7 cm). Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Zoe Oliver Sherman collection given in memory of Lillie Oliver Poor.

previously existed only in his mind. The combination of head and hand then are the constituent agents of Schalcken’s art.132 The hand may be the locus of execution but the head is naturally accorded dominion over it. The Leamington Spa Self-Portrait differs from the other two self-portraits by Schalcken discussed in this chapter in that the viewer is presented with a likeness of the painter as a gentleman with the attributes of his profession (sans an easel). Furthermore, unlike the Florence Self-Portrait and the one in Hagerstown, the latter sometimes mistakenly connected to the Duke of Portland,133 no patron has ever been associated with it. It therefore seems entirely plausible that Schalcken intended this imposing canvas to serve as an “advertisement,” to be on continual display in his studio in York Buildings for prospective clients.134 That proposed function would explain the artist’s urbane presentation of himself and especially his use of candlelight for which he was justly renowned in his own day. Given the affluence and sophistication of many potential customers who called upon the artist, they were certainly aware of his reputation as a painter of nocturnes. The presence of this Self-Portrait in Schalcken’s studio would have provided direct access to an outstanding example of this sort of work for them to scrutinize and savor. And owing to its comparatively smooth facture, so different from the portraits of Kneller, Dahl, and other contemporary

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

103

Fig. 52. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, c. 1690 (oil on canvas, 61.3 × 49.8 cm). Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Museum. Photo: copyright, The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

masters, this Self-Portrait also showcased Schalcken’s skills as a Dutch painter, even if he were fully capable of painting in the style of his artistic competitors (Fig. 22). Hopefully, owing to its singular characteristics, the Leamington Spa Self-Portrait would inspire visitors to the artist’s London studio to commission a picture from the artist. Thereafter, in The Hague, where the artist and his family resettled in 1696, the Self-Portrait retained this function and eventually, to enhance that advertising purpose, a gold chain was presumably added to it, a reference to the one given to him in 1703 by Johann Wilhelm II, Elector Palatine. The three surviving self-portraits that Schalcken painted during his London tenure provide important evidence of his promotion of himself as a virtuoso painter. The few additional self-portraits from his hand all but confirm this. One can trace a trajectory in the artist’s portrayals of himself toward ever more calculated and sophisticated references to his profession and reputation therein. The earliest known Self-Portrait (Vaduz and Vienna, Liechtenstein, The Princely Collections), almost certainly completed in 1679, the year of the artist’s marriage, belongs to a pendant pair of Schalcken and his bride, Françoisia (Françoise) van Diemen (1661–1744).135 The newly married couple are shown in three-quarter length in luxurious attire, the artist posed in a well-appointed interior, his wife, before a classical loggia opening onto a splendid garden with a statue of Diana. A second Self-Portrait, perhaps dating to 1690 (Fig. 52), if not slightly later, shows the artist in bust-length, in comparatively plain, outmoded attire.136 While the artist’s pose and turn of the head are thoroughly Van Dyckian (and so demonstrate his appropriation of Van Dyck’s prototypes even before he relocated to England), his gold-brocaded jerkin, high-collared doublet, and jaunty beret resemble those seen in paintings by Rembrandt and his former pupils.137 Only the beret, or bonnet, as this article of clothing was known in seventeenth-century Dutch and English, relates specifically to his craft.138 By that time, bonnets were quite antiquated attire, having

104 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 53. Godefridus Schalcken, Self-Portrait, 1706 (oil on canvas, 72.5 × 60 cm). Private collection.

first appeared as an item of fashion around 1480. Nevertheless, thanks to Rembrandt, the bonnet or beret came to be associated with artists, at least in portraits and ­self-portraits (as opposed to actual life).139 In the intervening years between the creation of these two self-portraits, and into the next decade, Schalcken’s clientele base continued to expand and through various inheritances and judicious investments, the painter became very wealthy.140 Quite telling in this regard is a register recording the burial of the couple’s second child in Dordrecht, dated 15 June 1682, in which the artist is listed as “Sr Godefridus Schalcken.”141 Sr was an abbreviation for Seigneur, a title customarily invoked in the Dutch Republic for well-to-do merchants, civic officials, and the like.142 In keeping with the painter’s growing affluence and renown, the London period self-portraits, while continuing to reference his profession, are marked by increasing magnificence and sophistication. Clearly, these years were critical for Schalcken’s conception of himself as an artist, for during this time he worked for wealthy merchants as well as members of the English court, especially one of the king’s favorites, Sir John Lowther (1655–1700), 2nd Baronet (and from 1696, 1st Viscount Lonsdale). Schalcken’s final Self-Portrait (Fig. 53), dated to the year of his death, 1706 – again a pendant to a portrait of his wife – is grander still. In it, he

Self-portraiture as self-promotion

105

sports a gold chain (and medallion) awarded to him three years earlier, in 1703, by his last great patron, Johann Wilhelm II, Elector Palatine.143 (This chain was probably the one painted into the Leamington Spa Self-Portrait, around 1703–4.) In sum, that picture constitutes the culmination, both chronologically and aesthetically, of Schalcken’s illustrious career.

4. Schalcken’s London period genre paintings Schalcken’s well-deserved reputation as a distinguished artist preceded his arrival in London in the late spring of 1692. Up until that point in time, the Dutchman’s stature abroad had been largely secured by his copious production as an outstanding genre painter.1 In fact, a few, scattered pictures of this type by Schalcken were already available on the English art market before he relocated there. Several scholars have noted the surge in auction sales in London during the late 1680s and into the early 1690s. Complex phenomena underlie this phenomenon.2 It suffices here to note ­various ­factors at play in effectuating what became a quite lively auction market, among them, the burgeoning English economy, the relaxing of restrictions governing the import of paintings and, related to these circumstances, increasingly unencumbered entrepreneurial activities within the city itself. Contributing to these circumstances as well were the concurrent rise in the output of contemporary masters active in London and the serendipitous emergence of a few talented businessmen who established successful auction enterprises there at that time. A respectable number of sales catalogues for auctions survive from the years immediately preceding Schalcken’s arrival in England; some 132 of them, all dating between 1689 and 1692, were gathered by the historian, diarist, and politician Narcissus Luttrell (1657–1732) and are housed today en masse in the British Library.3 A search of Luttrell’s collection of sales catalogues yields three genre paintings by Schalcken.4 Two of the listings, for auctions held, respectively, in November 1690 and in November 1691, refer to what was presumably the same work depicting a woman holding a piece of salmon, with one describing it as “delicately painted.”5 Yet another auction, which took place in October 1691, contains a listing for what was likely a genre picture: “a small piece finely painted by Schalker.”6 Another sale occurred the following month, in November 1691, whose catalogue (likewise at the British Library but not found in the Luttrell collection), included, “a droll by Schalka.”7 In this context, droll is an abbreviated form of drollerie, a word invoked in seventeenth-century England to describe comical portrayals of low-life subjects – so this work too was a genre painting.8 Lastly, an auction staged in January 1692 includes a painting by the artist described laconically as “a curious piece by Schalka.”9 Still, this listing probably refers to a genre painting as well. Unfortunately, no prices are given for any of the pictures in the auctions listed here, but judging from the prestige of the auctioneer and the location – four of the five were administered by John Bullord (active 1680–1721) at Will’s Coffee House near the Palace of Westminster – they were probably aimed at upscale buyers.10 Interestingly, two years after Edward Millington (c. 1636–1703), one of Bullord’s competitors, had auctioned Schalcken’s Woman Holding a Piece of Salmon, in November 1690 (see above), he was hawking Marshall Smith’s newly published treatise on The Art of Painting …

108 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

at his auction house during weekly sales.11 Smith’s treatise was briefly cited in the Introduction for his inclusion of Schalcken – whose name he misspells as Scalker – whom he commended for “Night-pieces and lamps [that come] next to Dow [Dou] himself.”12 Auction devotees who purchased Marshall’s tome would no doubt have recognized the Dutchman’s name and work from London sales. There must have been other instances in which Schalcken’s genre paintings entered England before the artist himself did. One such possibility was by means of those Dutch government officials and nobleman attached to the court of William III who had emigrated to England after the Glorious Revolution to join their monarch. Unfortunately, the topic of William’s court in England remains understudied.13 Nevertheless, that several of William III’s Dutch courtiers brought artworks with them to England upon their relocation there seems entirely plausible, even if it is impossible to determine with any certainty where and when they had acquired them. This might be true of two genre paintings by Schalcken in the collection of William van Huls (after 1649–1722). Van Huls, a Dutch native, had resided in London since William III’s ascent to the English throne. As a member of the court he held various positions, among them, Carrier of All of the King’s Letters and Dispatches, and Clerk of the Queen’s Robes and Wardrobes.14 For years, Van Huls lived in the Whitehall Palace complex where he had constructed with the King’s permission a rather large home between the Holbein Gate and the Banqueting House.15 Shortly after Van Huls’s death, an auction of his possessions was held at his residence in Whitehall.16 This auction took place on 6 August 1722 and featured many paintings of uncompromisingly high quality by European artists of several nationalities, an indication of the deceased’s erstwhile status as an engaged and knowledgeable collector.17 Two paintings by Schalcken were sold that day: “a maid with eggs, a night-piece (lot 100),” and “a woman and her dog” (lot 103), both said to be hanging in “antechamber nr. 3” of Van Huls’s house. A Woman and Her Dog is likely identifiable with a painting today in a private collection (Fig. 54).18 This panel is difficult to date, a frustrating problem encountered far too frequently with many of Schalcken’s genre paintings.19 Be that as it may, the young woman’s coiffure and the picture’s thematic connection to works by such Schalcken pupils as Karel de Moor (1655–1738) and the short-lived Richard Morris (1670–1689) suggest a date of the early 1680s if not slightly later.20 The early 1680s too, or perhaps even the late 1670s, seems appropriate for A Maid with Eggs (Fig. 55), a painting that likely entered the collection of the Elector of Saxony, Augustus II the Strong (1670–1733), directly from the auction; it presently hangs in the Gemäldegalerie in Dresden.21 Since both pictures predate Schalcken’s relocation to England, Van Huls could have conceivably obtained them in the Dutch Republic before he himself moved to London in 1689. But given the flourishing English art market during Van Huls’s three-decade residency there, he also might have purchased them in his adopted country. Doubtlessly there were other Dutch collectors whose circumstances were similar to those of Van Huls’s.22

Schalcken’s London period genre paintings

109

Fig. 54. Godefridus Schalcken, A Woman and Her Dog, c. 1680–85 (oil on panel, 19.5 × 15.5 cm). Private collection.

Several of Schalcken’s surviving London period portraits are dated 1695, or can be assigned to that year (or the one immediately preceding it) on the basis of documentary evidence.23 By then, approximately two years after his arrival in England, the Dutchman must have been well established within London art circles, which might explain the flurry of activity on his part vis-à-vis portraiture at that time. One therefore wonders whether his first year to year and a half in the metropolis was principally devoted to the production of genre paintings, for which he was already justly acclaimed. Although the interest among contemporary English collectors in acquiring genre paintings paled in comparison to their zeal to commission portraits, Schalcken would still have encountered competition from resident genre painters, just as he did from other portraitists.24 But unlike his competitors in portraiture, who were mostly native Englishmen or naturalized English citizens, those in genre painting were largely émigrés from the Dutch Republic and the Spanish Netherlands. Egbert van Heemskerck (c. 1634/35–1704) was easily the most prolific genre ­painter working in England during the late seventeenth century (Fig. 56).25 The aforementioned sales catalogues dating between 1689 and 1692 list a staggering 885 pictures by this artist.26 A Haarlem native who probably trained with Pieter de Grebber

110 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 55. Godefridus Schalcken, A Maid with Eggs, c. 1676–82 (oil on panel, 28 × 24.5 cm). Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Photo: Bildagentur bpk / Elke Estel / Hans-Peter Klut /Art Resource, NY.

(c. 1600–1653), his career was a peripatetic one that eventually landed him in London around 1680.27 He would spend the remainder of his life there (and in Oxford), ­specializing in a wide variety of low-life genre subjects, mostly traditional to Dutch art and executed with an economy of means (which explains the large quantities of his pictures in late seventeenth-century London auctions).28 Van Heemskerck also developed a novel subject matter, namely, satirical depictions of Quaker meetings that were quite successful with his English audiences.29 Marcellus Laroon the Elder (1653–1702) was a friend and occasional collaborator of Van Heemskerck’s.30 Born and trained in The Hague, partly by his French father, Laroon emigrated to England in 1680, residing there until his death in 1702. This artist worked primarily as drapery painter in the busy studio of Sir Godfrey Kneller (1646–1723), but he did make some independent portraits as well as genre paintings and prints (Fig. 57). He is perhaps best known for a series of engravings after his drawings, The Cryes of the City of London Drawne after the Life of 1687, which feature spirited and highly individualized portrayals of common street criers and hawkers.31 There were other Netherlandish émigrés to London who produced genre paintings, albeit in smaller quantities. Pieter van Roestraten (1630–1700), like Van Heems­kerck, a Haarlem native, moved to England before 1666 – he purportedly injured his hip during the Great Fire. He was accompanied by his wife, Adriaentje (b. 1623), the daughter of the famed portraitist Frans Hals (c. 1582/83–1666), whom he must have

Schalcken’s London period genre paintings

111

Fig. 56. Egbert van Heemskerck, Peasant Inn, c. 1690–95 (oil on panel, 15.8 × 17.9 cm). Private collection.

first met during his apprenticeship with that master (c. 1646–51).32 A highly successful still-life painter in London, Van Roestraten also painted genre pictures on occasion.33 The same can be said of Willem de Ryck (1635–1697), who arrived in England from Antwerp in the late 1680s and executed mostly history paintings and the Fleming, Laureys a Castro (d. c. 1700), primarily a seascape painter who spent the last twenty years of his life in London.34 One additional Flemish native was also making genre paintings in London during the late seventeenth century: Daniel Boone (c. 1630–c. 1693), who probably arrived in England in the late 1660s and remained active there until his death around 1693.35 Little is known of Van Roestraten’s, De Ryck’s, Castro’s, and Boone’s activities as genre painters. To the contrary, much more can be said about Van Heemskerck’s and Laroon’s pictures in this arena, which provide every indication in both their subjects and style of having been generally (though not exclusively) aimed at what Bainbrigg Buckeridge deemed, in 1706, in his little treatise on English painters, “waggish collectors, and the lower rank of virtuosi.”36 Prices for Van Heemskerck’s pictures confirm this, because they averaged about one pound per work.37 Such was not the case with Schalcken’s genre paintings. What scant documentation survives specifies the

112 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 57. Marcellus Laroon the Elder, Brothel Scene, c. 1680–1700 (etching, 9.8 × 9.5 cm). London, The British ­Museum.

high prices he commanded from some of the leading members of London society, granting that it is not always known with absolute certainty whether they had actually acquired a given genre painting by the artist during his years in the city. Charles Bodvile Robartes (1660–1723), 2nd Earl of Radnor, offers an excellent example of the types of clients whom the painter cultivated. Robartes owned Schalcken’s “boy by candlelight,” which sold at auction for fifty-five pounds after his death.38 This picture, along with many others, had graced Robartes’s elaborately decorated home in St. James’s Square, in the parish of St. Margaret Westminster, one of the wealthiest parishes in all of greater London during the late seventeenth century.39 Charles Sackville (1638–1706), 6th Earl of Dorset, was another member of the peerage who owned one of Schalcken’s genre paintings. Sackville’s personal account books list the payment on 22 August 1694 of twenty-two pounds to “Mr. Norris for a night peice [sic] done by Scalken.”40 The Mr. Norris in this document must refer to John Norris (1642–1707), a London-based frame-maker and picture dealer who regularly sold frames and paintings to Sackville and otherwise conducted occasional business with the King.41 This raises intriguing possibilities concerning Schalcken’s strategies for selling his genre paintings in England. Some were probably sold directly to his high-born clients, such as Sir John Lowther (1655–1700), 2nd Baronet (and from 1696, 1st Viscount Lonsdale), the Dutchman’s principal patron in England (discussed in Chapter 2), who owned five portraits and two genre paintings by the

Schalcken’s London period genre paintings

113

Fig. 58. Godefridus Schalcken, Boy Blowing on a Firebrand, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 75 × 63.5 cm). Edinburgh, National Galleries of Scotland.

artist: “a night peece [sic],” valued by its owner at nine pounds, and “an old woman’s head,” valued more modestly at two pounds and thirty shillings.42 These two pictures, like the portraits by Schalcken in Lowther’s collection, would have hung initially in his London residence, Winchester House, in the fashionable Lincoln's Inn Fields neighborhood in the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields.43 Thenceforth, in the spring of 1694, after Lowther had stepped down from public office, the entire collection was brought north to Lowther Hall in what is modern-day Cumbria.44 By comparison, Norris’s function as an intermediary in the Earl of Dorset’s acquisition of a genre painting suggests Schalcken’s possible sale of other pictures of this sort to this dealer and perhaps other dealers as well for future resale.45 In this respect, the artist would have been simply continuing a practice that he had initiated years earlier when he had engaged the Parisian-based art dealer, Jan van der Bruggen (1649–1714), to sell his work in France and elsewhere.46 One additional aristocratic owner of a genre painting by Schalcken must be addressed here, if only because his picture of a Boy Blowing on a Firebrand (Fig. 58) can be identified with great certainty, for it presently hangs in the National Gallery of Scotland.47 Robert Spencer (1641–1702), 2nd Earl of Sunderland, perchance purchased this canvas from the artist himself. A statesman and peer, Spencer served

114 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

England under three kings: Charles II (r. 1660–85), James II (r. 1685–88), and William III (r. 1689–1702).48 The vicissitudes of his colorful life could provide the source material for an entertaining novel, given the political intrigues and scheming, rivalries, and personal scandals in which he was oft-times immersed. Yet, Spencer’s tempestuous political career did not preclude his activities as an enthusiastic collector. After he attained his majority in 1662, he came into possession of Althorp, the Spencer family seat in Northamptonshire that he and his wife, Anne Spencer, Countess of Sunderland (d. 1715) – whom he married in 1665 – would renovate and decorate lavishly. Given this couple’s frequent sojourns at their country residence, Schalcken’s painting was possibly displayed there.49 If it was, it would have been furnished with a fine scalloped frame, just like all of the pictures in Spencer’s growing collection.50 The eighteenth-century antiquarian George Vertue, who saw a Boy Blowing on a Firebrand and an apparent full-length portrait by Schalcken in 1732 at Althorp, claimed that the aristocrat frequently employed the painter at this great house.51 Vertue’s statements account for the long-standing theory that Spencer was Schalcken’s principal patron during his London period.52 Notwithstanding Vertue’s observations, John Lowther, was Schalcken’s actual Maecenas, not Spencer, which the evidence makes abundantly clear (Fig. 21). Although Spencer’s significance for Schalcken’s career in England has been overestimated, the genre painting he owned nonetheless ranks among the master’s most accomplished works; it constitutes a true tour de force among his many candlelight scenes. Schalcken portrays a youth in the process of utilizing a large burning stick of wood to light a candle held aloft in a gleaming brass candlestick. With superb subtlety, the brilliant radiance of the boy’s glowing stick plays upon his facial features, highlighting, in particular, his intense gaze and puffed cheeks. Cooler more understated light illuminates his hand and the candlestick, commensurate with its distance from the firebrand. Moonlight filtered through streaming clouds in the upper right complements these cooler effects. This canvas’s tremendous popularity can be measured by the sheer number of copies of it in existence as well as reproductive mezzotints, the latter produced well into the eighteenth century.53 Moreover, John Elsum’s poem (composed in 1704) celebrating this picture (or a copy of it) attests to the great esteem in which contemporaries held it: Epigram CXXXVII: A Night-piece of a boy blowing a firebrand; suppos’d by Schalcken Puffing to blow the Brand into a Flame, he brightens his own Face, and th’Author’s Fame.54

Visual precedents certainly inform Schalcken’s canvas, since its subject was portrayed several times by members of the so-called Utrecht Caravaggisti, who, under the impetus of the celebrated Italian master, Caravaggio (1571–1610), portrayed darkened

Schalcken’s London period genre paintings

115

Fig. 59. Gerrit van Honthorst, Boy Blowing on a Firebrand, c. 1621 (oil on canvas, 76.2 × 63.5 cm). Amsterdam, with Galerie Salomon Lilian.

interiors with dazzling light effects. Nevertheless, a Boy Blowing on a Firebrand and related pictures by such Dutch artists as Hendrick ter Brugghen (1588–1629), Gerrit van Honthorst (1592–1656; Fig. 59), and Jan Lievens (1607–1674)55 – all three depicting lads lighting candles or torches – can ultimately be traced back to paintings made in Italy during the sixteenth century, for example, El Greco’s (1541–1614) Boy Blowing on a Fire Brand, and various works associated with members of the Bassano family.56 These pictures are collectively indebted to the antique ekphrasis tradition, namely, literary descriptions of lost works of art from antiquity. The ancient Roman author and philosopher, Pliny the Elder, mentions two related paintings by the Greek artists Antiphilus and Philiscus, describing the former’s as a “picture of a boy blowing [on] a fire … [with] a reflection cast by the fire on the room, which is in itself beautiful and on the boy’s face.”57 The existence of Dutch and Italian paintings of this subject – two works by Georges de La Tour (1593–1652) come to mind as well – underscores just how unusual, and likely unique, Schalcken’s canvas was for late seventeenth-century English audiences. And it simultaneously provided a ready pretext for the artist to employ his signature motif of candlelight, which, like other London period works, enabled him to enhance his already outstanding reputation as a painter and his profitability in a market generally lacking similar pictures by other contemporary

116 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

artists. A Boy Blowing on a Firebrand may thus be considered a witty modernization of Pliny’s ekphrasis and of various pictorial precedents from the continent. As such, it demonstrates his virtuosity as a master painter, his propensity to market himself by painting what for English audiences were unusual subjects with nocturnal settings, and coupled with this, his erudite understanding of writings on art from antiquity. The connection here to ancient literature in particular also explains the allure of pictures of this sort among well-heeled English virtuosi of Schalcken’s day, for Pliny the Elder’s description of a painting of a boy blowing on fire was certainly known in seventeenth-century England, even if pictorial analogs of it were not. It appears, for example, in Francisus Junius’s Painting of the Ancients, published in 1638.58 Recall that Junius (1589–1678) was in the employ of Thomas Howard (1585–1646), 14th Earl of Arundel (Fig. 46), a virtuoso who actively promoted learning among a truly eminent company of like-minded literati. Closer in time to the artist’s London period is the citing of Pliny the Elder’s description in William Salmon’s (1644–1713) Polygraphice, first published in 1672, with eight subsequent enlarged editions in print by 1701.59 The author’s lengthy, rambling, and somewhat disjointed text addressed practical considerations with reference to the arts in all media, not just painting. Although intended for a much broader audience than, say, William Aglionby’s erudite Painting Illustrated in Three Diallogues of 1685, in later editions of his treatise Salmon infused its ever lengthening text with the veneer of antique respectability, even dedicating an edition to Henry Howard (1628–1684), 6th Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Arundel’s grandson.60 This ensured widespread familiarity with its contents. Nocturnes such as a Boy Blowing on a Firebrand account for much of Schalcken’s London period genre painting production. Eighteenth-century biographies of the artist confirm this, as do auction records and related to these, the contents of period collections, so far as these are known.61 Candlelight scenes were not yet a speciality among English painters or their foreign counterparts working alongside them, so Schalcken most assuredly exploited a gap in the market for pictures of this sort. His very celebrity as a painter of night scenes, which preceded his arrival in London, only served to pave his way in this enterprise. Yet, in a very general albeit indirect sense, another factor must have worked in Schalcken’s favor: the rise of actual nightlife in late seventeenth-century London. Craig Koslofsky, who authored a memorable book on the history of night in early modern Europe, terms this phenomenon “nocturnalization,” by which he meant the “ongoing expansion of the legitimate social and symbolic uses of the night” during this period.62 The introduction of systematic street lighting, installed in London between 1684 and 1694 – so completed during Schalcken’s residence there – aided in the promotion of nightlife in the metropolis, further enabling post-sunset hours to become a permanent extension of the “day.”63 Accordingly, over time, night-time activities in London and other European cities with street lighting were thoroughly

Schalcken’s London period genre paintings

117

Fig. 60. Godefridus Schalcken, A Young Man Courting His Mistress, c. 1694–1700 (oil on canvas, 76.5 × 63.8 cm). New York, The Leiden Collection. Image courtesy of the Leiden Collection, New York.

transformed, particularly for the moneyed classes.64 As Koslofsky observes, night was embraced, “sanctioning and promoting new levels of nocturnal business and pleasure.”65 Caution must be exercised here because there is certainly no straightforward connection between emerging patterns of nightlife in London of the 1690s and the popularity of Schalcken’s painted nocturnes among English collectors. All the same, the growing enthusiasm among elites for night-time engagements, leisurely or otherwise, and their simultaneous interest in nocturnal art hardly seem coincidental, though the relationship must remain ill-defined. Some of Schalcken’s London period nocturnal genre paintings display readily identifiable subject matter while that of others is less obvious. An example of the former category is the artist’s portrayal of what can only be described as a brothel scene (Fig. 60). This particular painting can possibly be identified with a “young man courting his mistress by candle-light” owned by Richard Graham (d. 1741), an art dealer and connoisseur who was an influential member of the Virtuosi of St. Luke, a group of artists, cognoscenti, and art lovers with whom Schalcken likely had contact during his London sojourn.66 This work and a now lost self-portrait of Schalcken at an easel were sold along with sixty other lots at an impressive auction in March 1712 of paintings, limnings, and sculptures from Graham’s art collection and his stock as

118 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

an art dealer.67 John Manners (1676–1721), 2nd Duke of Rutland, purchased the genre painting for the then considerable sum of 64 pounds and 8 schillings. It is difficult to determine whether Graham acquired A Young Man Courting His Mistress directly from Schalcken himself. And compounding the issue is the problem of determining whether this particular work (along with many others) was even executed in London.68 Two Schalcken specialists, Guido Jansen and Eddy Schavemaker, have each proposed a range of dates for its creation, respectively, c. 1692–1706 and c. 1696–1700.69 The artist also painted an additional courtship scene that could conceivably be identified with Graham’s: A Man Offering a Woman a Ring. However, that particular work can be dated some fifteen to twenty years earlier in the painter’s career.70 Schalcken’s potential contacts with Graham and the stronger probability that A Young Man Courting His Mistress was painted in London therefore justifies its discussion here. By the end of the seventeenth century, brothel imagery in Dutch seventeenthcentury genre painting was anything but novel.71 Originating in Netherlandish art of the prior century, this theme flourished thanks to the Utrecht Caravaggisti and other artists of their generation.72 Overlapping with Schalcken’s own career in the Dutch Republic were prostitution scenes by, among others, Frans van Mieris the Elder (1635–1681) and Jacob Ochtervelt (1634–1682).73 Dutch portrayals of brothels, just like so many other themes in genre painting, were largely conventional, with an oft-repeated cast of characters, namely, a procuress, a trollop, and a client. Schalcken’s shows these three even though dense shadows obscure the procuress, which might account for the misidentification of the subject of this work when it was auctioned. Like so many of his predecessors he introduces a striking contrast between the jagged, wizened facial features of the old crone overseeing the transaction and the lovely, sensual face and skin of the youthful prostitute. The latter’s archaically dressed and equally young client engages with her in the exchange of coin and jewelry for her services. She is depicted tying a string of pearls to her wrist; Schalcken makes this motif all the more alluring by positioning her left hand to conceal her cleavage in the process. Painted versions of such prurient scenes were scarce in England though scattered examples could be found in graphic art (Fig. 57).74 This might also explain the misleading description of Schalcken’s canvas as a courtship scene in the auction listing of 1712. If A Young Man Courting His Mistress was indeed painted during the artist’s sojourn in London it constitutes yet another instance of his strategy of creating pictures to capitalize on lacunae in the English art market. This would account for the subject matter as well as the style in which it is rendered, whereby the painter deftly exploited candlelight effects to enhance the shimmer of flesh and textiles alike, thereby deepening the viewer’s engagement with the picture. While the subject of A Young Man Courting His Mistress is unequivocal, that of other paintings from Schalcken’s London years are less readily identifiable. A case in point is the artist’s Young Woman with a Headdress Holding a Candle (Fig. 61). Scholars have customarily dated this appealing canvas to the last years of Schalcken’s career,

Schalcken’s London period genre paintings

119

Fig. 61. Godefridus Schalcken, Young Woman with a Headdress Holding a Candle, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 26.1 × 28 cm). Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum. Photo: copyright, Städel Museum – ARTOTHEK.

namely, 1699–1706.75 The figure’s striking lace headgear, a commode headdress, was all the rage among European women during the 1690s and beyond, English fashionistas included.76 While this modish article of clothing only provides an approximate range of potential dates for the picture, the woman’s fanciful attire – a bodice with slashed sleeves in Prussian blue over a white linen blouse – and torqued pose fully recalls Schalcken’s Florence Self-Portrait (Fig. 36) of 1695. Furthermore, the fluid and spirited brushwork of this picture aligns with other London period paintings (Fig. 22). The subject matter of a Young Woman with a Headdress Holding a Candle appears to be transparent enough. Posed in a niche decorated with a rich curtain, the seated young lady turns to gaze at the viewer, while holding a gleaming brass candlestick with its large candle ablaze. This seemingly simple subject, a beautiful young woman subtly and provocatively illuminated by candlelight, is devoid of any pretense. It was also one of enduring popularity, judging from the number of related paintings that survive.77 Schalcken’s initial paintings of this subject probably date from the years immediately preceding his departure for England; he continued to paint it during and beyond his London years, often imparting to his pictures a distinctly erotic air. One painting, likely executed in England, shows a young lady in a chemise, holding a candle whose light illumines the murky darkness to reveal her bed, its curtains, and

120 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 62. Godefridus Schalcken, Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 39 × 32 cm). Present location unknown.

a chamber pot on a chair beside it (Fig. 62).78 This particular canvas, which was last seen on the art market in 1970, is best known today from the mezzotint that Nicolaas Verkolje (1673–1746) made after it in the early eighteenth century (Fig. 63).79 There is little question that the Young Woman in a Chemise, Holding a Candle has an erotic import, one intensified by its night-time setting. For as countless European pictorial and literary sources attest, night itself provides a fitting ambience for amorous activities of both a licit and illicit nature.80 Nicole Elizabeth Cook has written extensively about this essential erotic aspect of so many of Schalcken’s nocturnes.81 She observes that through their enticing pictorial effects and often reduced scale, these pictures implicate viewers – most likely male viewers – who take a privileged position, observing as voyeurs the eroticized females gazing back at them. Fascinating in this context is a diary entry by Constantijn Huygens, Jr. (1628–1697), the secretary to William III, dated 9 September 1694, concerning a professional acquaintance of his: Peter Isaac, a clerk of the Green Cloth, that is, a secretary to the Board of the Green Cloth (which organized royal journeys and otherwise assisted in the administration of the royal household). Isaac, an art collector and reputed whoremonger, showed Huygens a little painting “of a woman in a very transparent chemise.” Evidently, this picture did not exhibit the same quality and cost of one by Schalcken, for elsewhere in his diary, in an entry dated 17 January 1695, Huygens dismisses Isaac’s art collection as “vodden” (rags).82 Notwithstanding these discrepancies, it is possible that collectors originally examined Schalcken’s picture in a corresponding manner, that is, with the very same lewd intention that this laconic diary entry implies. Essential to the efficacy of Schalcken’s erotic imagery is his adroit manipulation of light and shadow to unveil, both literally and figuratively, alluring young women whose seductiveness is engendered by the very painting techniques deployed to create them.83 Cook rightfully calls attention to a passage from Arnold Houbraken’s

Schalcken’s London period genre paintings

121

Fig. 63. Nicolaas Verkolje after Godefridus Schalcken, Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle, c. 1695–1700 (mezzotint, 28 × 22.6 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

(1660–1719) biography of the artist in which he praised Schalcken’s ingenious skill at rendering the beauty of the human body by utilizing light reflections filtered through clothing in order to heighten the appearance of bare flesh.84 Naturally, these sophisticated light effects, amply displayed in the artist’s depictions of women holding candles, intensified the inherent erotic appeal of his pictures. Cook also refers to accounts in contemporary pornographic novels that describe the pleasures of viewing bodies by candlelight, thus offering, mutatis mutandis, another parallel with the close inspection of paintings of salaciously clothed females in nocturnal settings.85 Schalcken’s forays into genre painting during his four years in London extended to other unusual subjects, unusual, that is, within the artistic and cultural context of late seventeenth-century England. Likewise, his genre repertoire expanded beyond his ever popular candlelight imagery to include scenes set in daylight. An odd yet delightful picture of this latter type is Every One His Fancy (Fig. 64), whose title is taken directly from the inscribed paper nailed to the rough-hewn wall in the upper right corner of the panel.86 In his monograph on the painter, Thierry Beherman dates this painting to c. 1670–75,87 which cannot be correct owing to its somewhat loose execution and especially to its subject matter and inscription. As a term, “fancy” was

122 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 64. Godefridus Schalcken, Every One His Fancy, c. 1692–96 (oil on panel, 42.5 × 31.5 cm). Amsterdam, ­Rijksmuseum.

multivalent in seventeenth-century English, for example, most often connoting the creative or productive imagination.88 But in this picture, with its wonderfully descriptive motif of a boy holding a half-eaten egg whose yoke dribbles down his chin and onto his large napkin, fancy can only refer to an inclination or desire for something.89 This cheerful boy, oblivious to the mess he has created, grins and gazes intently at the viewer whilst pointing to his companion, captured in the process of bringing a heaping wooden spoonful of porridge to his mouth.90 An additional child, likely a girl, and a grinning elderly man wearing a pince-nez observe the amusing goings on. But the white-bearded grandfatherly figure peering at the sloppy egg-eater through his spectacles contributes another dimension to this panel. Schalcken was well aware of Dutch and Flemish visual and literary traditions equating the elderly with folly because their decrepitude induced them to indulge in a veritable legion of vices.91 This also explains the frequent appearance of pince-nez

Schalcken’s London period genre paintings

123

Fig. 65. George Glover, Avaritia, c. 1630 (engraving, 19.4 × 12.9 cm). London, The British Museum.

in seventeenth-century prints portraying the aged where the motif often functions as a metaphor of short-sightedness or general moral blindness.92 The allusion of spectacles to their wearer’s inability to “see” was well known in England, as many prints (and texts) demonstrate (Fig. 65).93 Within the context of Schalcken’s painting, the presence of an elderly man wearing pince-nez who grins at the messy lad might serve to indicate in a light-hearted manner, the general folly of pursuing one’s desires inordinately. About a century ago, the eminent Dutch art historian Cornelis Hofstede de Groot claimed a pendant for Every One His Fancy, namely, a painting depicting a young man seated at a table, lighting his pipe.94 Behind him two lovers gaze into each other’s eyes (Fig. 66). Hofstede de Groot’s ingenious title for this picture, There’s No Accounting for Tastes, may be sheer fiction, but his hypothesis concerning its pendant status with

124 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 66. Godefridus Schalcken, There’s No Accounting for Tastes, c. 1692–96 (oil on panel, 42.5 × 31 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

Every One His Fancy is entirely plausible. Beherman, however, rejected this idea, arguing for a later date (c. 1685–90) for the painting of the pipe smoker.95 While the young man in There’s No Accounting for Tastes recalls Schalcken’s earlier portrayals of smokers, the facture of this panel is analogous to that of its presumed pendant.96 In both of them, Schalcken’s application of paint is comparatively loose, providing parallels in certain respects with that of some of his London period portraits (Fig. 22), which, as we have seen, feature painterly surfaces in an effort on the artist’s part to compete with the city’s leading portraitists. In addition, the unfortunately abraded commode headdress of the female in the background of the smoker adheres to fashions of the 1690s.97 There’s No Accounting for Tastes and Every One His Fancy are nearly identical in size and complementary in composition: the pair are anchored by youths sporting dark sage green slashed-sleeve doublets who, in effect, face one another. And the subject matter is reciprocal, involving choice and inclinations.98

Schalcken’s London period genre paintings

125

Unsurprisingly, the candlelight effects in There’s No Accounting for Tastes are superb in gently illuminating the background couple enjoying one another’s company. Noteworthy as well is the skilful portrayal of tobacco smoke emanating from the lips of the relaxed young smoker whose drowsy eyes track its delicate wisp, suggesting inebriation. No doubt Schalcken was familiar with the extraordinary pictures of smokers by Adriaen Brouwer (c. 1605–1638), especially those reproduced in prints whose flourishing circulation continued unabated during the late seventeenth century.99 In fact, Schalcken’s Paris-based dealer, Jan van der Bruggen (1649–1714), who was also a printmaker, published a mezzotint of a painting by Brouwer of Smoking Peasants in an Interior around 1685–90 (Fig. 67). In this image, the peasant in the center of the group of three, facing the viewer, savors his smoke in a manner recalling his counterpart in There’s No Accounting for Tastes.100 One also finds smokers in paintings and prints produced on the London art market in the years leading up to Schalcken’s arrival there. The aforementioned Egbert van Heemskerck, for example, painted a number of these (Fig. 56), all executed in his characteristically loose style. Moreover, all of these scenes of indulgence involve low-life figures; the same can be said of the smokers portrayed in contemporary prints. Collectively, the depiction of smoking by English artists (or by foreigners working in London) evoke smoking imagery of the earlier seventeenth century in that their representations invariably illustrate peasants and similar lower-class types. Tobacco was still a novelty when Brouwer and his colleagues were active, having been imported from the New World beginning in the late sixteenth century.101 Judging from their voluminous writings, contemporary herbalists and physicians harbored great ambivalence toward the plant. On one hand, it was thought to possess beneficial, medicinal qualities. Seventeenth-century medical authorities, whose understanding of etiology was still conditioned by ancient humoral theory, argued that tobacco desiccated the body, consequently inuring it against the plague and a whole gamut of diseases. But, on the other hand, medical experts, observing its narcotic or stupefying effects – they were unknowingly diagnosing mild anoxia induced by inhaling acrid tobacco through very short pipe stems – solemnly warned against “tobacco drinking,” as they termed it.102 Therefore tobacco was judged harmful for purely recreational use. Nevertheless, like other stimulants throughout history, tobacco smoking was immensely popular in early modern Europe. And what is most interesting with respect to Dutch and Flemish genre painting during the first half of the seventeenth century is that the alleged abuse of this somewhat suspect habit became associated with the masses, even if they were not the only ones who actually smoked. The identification of tobacco with socially suspect groups, such as peasants, soldiers, and ­sailors – the latter considered its first users – rapidly developed into a literary and pictorial trope, one even employed in supposedly “objective” medical treatises.103 Actual lower-class diversions undoubtedly helped shape this trope but it is equally reflective,

126 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 67. Jan van der Bruggen after Adriaen Brouwer, Smokers, c. 1685–90 (mezzotint, 29.4 × 21.9 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

if not more so, of the traditional prejudices of affluent urban dwellers toward their social antipodes. It is symptomatic of the ideological components of these images of smokers that they became less popular among art collectors only when attitudes toward the recreational use of tobacco grew more tolerant under the influence of commercial considerations, namely, the burgeoning industries of pipe manufacture and domestic cultivation. Once the stimulant was deemed respectable for urban leisure consumption, in another words once its social stigma was removed, satirical depictions of lower-class tobacco indulgence grew increasingly passé (though they never disappeared entirely). It was therefore Schalcken’s contribution to English art

Schalcken’s London period genre paintings

127

Fig. 68. Godefridus Schalcken, Young Woman with a Waffle, c. 1695 (oil on canvas, 25.5 × 21.5 cm). Kassel, ­Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Photo: Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister.

in particular to depict tobacco use within a “higher” (though, admittedly, somewhat ambivalent) social context, as can be seen in There’s No Accounting for Tastes. The subject matter of this panel was thus innovative within a late seventeenthcentury London context. And its style, along with that of its pendant, both exhibiting fairly painterly surface qualities, must have been meant to compete with the likes of Egbert van Heemskerck (Fig. 56). Yet, these pendants simultaneously signal their maker’s having taken creative liberties vis-à-vis subject matter in an effort to strengthen his already solid sales record in the local art market, hitherto based primarily upon his so-called night pieces. The same can be said of Schalcken’s Young Woman with a Waffle (Fig. 68), a subject known from Dutch art but one truly without precedent in late seventeenth-century England.104 This canvas features dazzling brushwork, especially the highlights on the slashed sleeves of the figure’s Prussian-blue bodice. Schalcken has captured the comely female in a rather complex pose, with her body torqued in space to offer an oblique view and her head turned sharply to the left to gaze directly at the viewer, as if to offer him – if the viewer was indeed male – an opportunity to partake of the waffle. Curiously, this pose echoes that of the Schalcken himself in his Self-Portrait (Fig. 36), completed in early 1695 for the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Perhaps the Young Woman with a Waffle was painted around the same time.105

128 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Schalcken enjoyed tremendous success as a genre painter in London, building upon his renown that had preceded his arrival in England. He was the undisputed master of what were then known as night pieces, namely, fine candlelight paintings. Yet, Schalcken did vary his technique, just as he had done in his portrait painting, to produce pictures showcasing and ultimately challenging the looser brushwork evidenced in the work of other genre painters (mainly Netherlandish expatriates) in England. Regardless, Schalcken’s eighteenth-century biographers, who so often assailed his art and even his character in connection with his English period, begrudgingly conceded his success as a painter of small-scale nocturnal pictures. Campo Weyerman (1677–1747), for example, informs his readers of Schalcken’s retreat into making “little night lights” (as well “little history pieces”) after his failure to compete as a portrait painter against eminent English masters.106 In other words, the dispirited artist resorted to the production of painting genres that would guarantee success. Another biographer, Jean-Baptiste Descamps (1714–1791), concedes the a­ rtist’s ­preeminence, “dans les petites ouvrages” (in small works).107 Horace Walpole (1717–1797), one of Schalcken’s main detractors, was more devious in his assessments, in essence reproaching the painter as “a very confined genius, when rendering a single effect of light [which was] all his excellence.”108 Walpole’s ostensibly laudable observation was really one of condemnation, for he presented the Dutchman as an artist whose talent was expressly limited to the display of tawdry visual effects. By articulating his distaste for pictures of this sort, Walpole was echoing the opinions of several earlier eighteenth-century English writers who censured the meticulous imitation of nature in highly finished pictures such as those painted by Schalcken. In their view, finely wrought surfaces undermined truth and beauty in art, because they distracted the viewer and thus prevented him or her from contemplating the totality of a given picture wherein the essence of its moral purpose lay.109 Walpole’s distaste for works of this sort echoes that of classicist art theory in its aversion to night-time scenes by calling attention to the disjuncture in painting between darkness and beauty.110 Thankfully, many of Walpole’s contemporaries did not share his negative opinion of Schalcken’s artistic abilities and over the course of the eighteenth century, the master’s pictures continued to be highly valued and enthusiastically collected.111

5. Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings It is very well known that prior to the eighteenth century the art-buying Englishman’s interest in history paintings paled in comparison with his seemingly inexhaustible appetite for portraiture. Iain Pears’s statement certainly holds true that the general impression among the English was that the only good history paintings were made by foreigners.1 Late seventeenth-century sources, among others, ­William A ­ glionby’s Painting Illustrated in Three Diallogues (1685), corroborate Pears’s observation.2 Some modern scholars hold a lowly opinion of Aglionby’s book, dismissing it as a mere plagiaristic recycling of Charles Alphonse Dufresnoy’s (1611–1668) important art-theoretical text, De arte graphica (1668). Nevertheless, as Craig Ashley Hanson has convincingly demonstrated, far from simply presenting plagiarized material to his audience, Aglionby reshaped his source of inspiration toward the innovative goal – innovative, that is, for the time and place in which he was writing – of promoting history painting in England.3 In essence, by acknowledging the need to encourage the development of an English school of history painting, he provided his well-heeled readers with a practical manual concerning how to appreciate such work in an effort to convince them to become true collectors and patrons of this genre.4 An interesting passage in Aglionby’s preface is worth quoting, because it sums up the situation in late seventeenth-century England vis-à-vis history painting: But for a Painter, we never had, as yet, any of Note, that was an English Man, that pretended to History-Painting. I cannot attribute this to any thing but the little Incouragement [sic] it meets with in this Nation; whose Genius more particularly leads them to affect Face-Painting … But our Nobility and Gentry, except some few, who have eminently showed their Kindness for this noble Art, they are generally speaking, no Judges and therefore can be no Promoters of an Art that lies all in nice Observations.5

In essence, Aglionby reflects upon the disheartening state of affairs with respect to fine-art production in England: the best English painters are portraitists while history painting itself, though principally collected by members of the aristocracy, is not practiced by native artists. Yet by the time that Schalcken arrived in London in the spring of 1692, change was already afoot. For new developments, both literary and pictorial, helped sow the seeds of what would ultimately lead to shifting tastes during the eighteenth century proper.

130 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Given the limited number of paintings in this genre by English masters, collectors and cognoscenti who wanted to acquire history paintings on the eve of Schalcken’s arrival in London had several options available to them. They could purchase pictures by prestigious continental masters, both alive and deceased, via art dealers (and possibly agents) as well as at auction.6 Schalcken’s principal patron in England, Sir John Lowther (1655–1700), 2nd Baronet (and from 1696, 1st Viscount Lonsdale), was one such collector, as the surviving inventory of his collection (see Fig. 21), chock-full of history paintings, attests.7 Lowther owned works of this sort dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by artists of several European nationalities. However, like so many of his fellow English collectors, he seems to have had a predilection for the work of Italian masters: Leandro Bassano (1557–1622), Giulio Romano (c. 1499–1546), Annibale Carracci (1560–1609), Guido Reni (1575–1642), and Pietro Cortona (1596–1669), among others.8 Presumably, Lowther purchased many paintings at auction, but others came from the collections of his fellow connoisseurs either via exchange or outright purchase. To cite just one example, he was able to acquire Pietro da Cortona’s The Israelites Crossing the Red Sea as well as a depiction of Our Savior (artist unknown) from Thomas Herbert (c. 1656–1733), 8th Lord of Pembroke.9 Another possible way for collectors to obtain history paintings (albeit, potentially less momentous ones) was to commission or buy works (or even copies after pictures by famed painters) from a small group of artists in London who made a specialty of this genre.10 A page advertising practicing artists in an issue from January 1695 of the business periodical, A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade (see Fig. 2), lists just two history painters. The peripatetic Italian master, Antonio Verrio (1639?–1707), is one of them, whose general address is listed as “Burleigh [Burghley House], Lincolnsh[ire].”11 This address alludes to the type of work with which Verrio was so frequently engaged in England: large-scale decorative projects in great country houses. Between 1685 and 1698 he executed an enormous commission at Burghley House for John Cecil (c. 1648–1700), 5th Earl of Exeter, and his wife, Lady Anne Cavendish (c. 1650–1703), Countess of Exeter.12 The other history painter listed in the advertisement was a native Englishman, one of the very few specializing in this genre at the time. His name was Henry Cooke (c. 1642–1700) and he was said to be residing in Long Acre in the parish of St. Paul in Covent Garden.13 In his brief biography of Cooke, Bainbrigg Buckeridge praises him as “an assiduous copier of the best masters,” as well as for his work at Oxford University, Hampton Court, “and on many ceilings and stair-cases in this town and kingdom.”14 Although little of this decorative work survives today what is known of his professional activities affords potentially tantalizing connections to Schalcken.15 Cooke was a well-regarded member of Virtuosi of St. Luke, an informal club consisting of artists and cognoscenti who met regularly between 1689 and 1743.16 He was one of the club’s first members and served as steward (the member responsible for the annual banquet celebrating St. Luke’s Day) in 1696 and then treasurer in 1697–98.17

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings 

131

Cooke also designed the allegorical frontispiece for John Dryden’s (1631–1700) translation of Dufresnoy’s De arte graphica, a project underwritten by the Virtuosi of St. Luke.18 This was the very same club whose meetings Schalcken possibly attended, so it is entirely conceivable that the two men were acquainted.19 There were several other artists active in London, all foreigners, who made history paintings in addition to working in other genres. Little is known, for e­ xample, about the Dutch painter, Willem de Ryck (1635–1697), who lived in L­ ondon between 1688 and his death in 1697. Having trained in Antwerp with Erasmus II Quellinus (1607–1678), De Ryck was recognized for his history and genre paintings.20 Balthazar van Lemens (1637–1704) is likewise poorly known. He too trained in Antwerp and subsequently moved to London around 1660. He died there in 1704 after a lengthy career as a history painter.21 There is also Adriaen de ­Hennin (?–1710), a landscape and history painting specialist possibly from The Hague who, after having worked in that city and in Amsterdam, resettled in England in 1677.22 He was said to have been patronized by Charles Dormer (1632–1709), the 2nd Earl of Carnarvon, who employed him at Eythorp, a now destroyed country house long in possession of the Dormer family.23 In all probability, De Hennin’s projects at Eythorp would have been large-scale ones, such as those undertaken Verrio and Cooke. Evidence gleaned from his precious few surviving easel ­paintings reveals an artist whose work was somewhat reminiscent – at least on a small scale – of Cornelis van Poelenburgh’s (c. 1594/95–1667) mythological subjects set in Arcadian environs.24 Jacob Huysmans (1633–1696) was perhaps the most accomplished artist in this small group.25 A native of Antwerp, where he received his artistic training, Huysmans arrived in London in 1664 and developed a considerable reputation as a portraitist and history painter working at the court of Charles II (1630–1685), where he was patronized by the king’s consort, ­Catherine of Braganza (1638–1705).26 It seems reasonable to assume Schalcken’s acquaintance with at least some of these forenamed painters. But there is an additional Netherlandish artist who had emigrated to England whose work Schalcken surely knew: Casparus Smits (c. 1635–1689 or 1707).27 A possible native of Antwerp, Smits relocated to England not once but twice during his career: initially, between the early 1660s and 1675, and then again between 1677 until c. 1681. Thereafter he moved to Ireland where he was active until his death. In the interim period, between 1675 and 1677, Smits resided in Dordrecht, so Schalcken would have known him. Primarily a still-life painter, Smits also executed a sizeable number of paintings of the repentant Mary Magdalen, having made many of them in England and Ireland. John Smith (1652–1743) reproduced one of these paintings in a mezzotint that can be dated 1691 (Fig. 69), that is, the year before Schalcken’s arrival in London.28 As will be seen below, Schalcken, who himself portrayed repentant Magdalens during his London period, likely knew this print if not actual paintings by Smits.

132 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 69. John Smith after Casparus Smits, Penitent Magdalen, 1691 (mezzotint, 34.6 × 27 cm). London, National Portrait Gallery.

As earlier chapters in this book have made clear, Schalcken was especially active as a portraitist during 1694–95.29 By that point in time, the painter was well established within London art circles, which might explain the flurry of activity on his part in painting portraits. It is therefore likely that his first year to year and a half in the metropolis was principally devoted to the production of genre paintings for which he was already justly acclaimed and perhaps history paintings as well.30 Although Schalcken’s reputation prior to his arrival in London in 1692 probably rested primarily upon his genre paintings, he was already making history paintings by the 1670s, if not slightly earlier (Fig. 70). His commitment to this genre continued throughout that decade up until the eve of his departure for England. The Dutchman’s choice of

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings 

133

Fig. 70. Godefridus Schalcken, Narcissus, 1676 (oil on canvas, 48 × 39.5 cm). London, with Christophe Janet.

subject matter tended toward the mythological, at times focusing on stories seldom portrayed by other artists – Latona Changing the Lycian Peasants into Frogs (Turin, Galleria Sabauda), for example – a trend that would continue during his London period.31 Unfortunately, the formidable problem in general of establishing a chronology for the artist’s pictures, which he dated only infrequently, makes it difficult to determine which history paintings were made in England.32 Needless to say, documentary evidence becomes quite critical in this regard. In many ways, Schalcken’s Allegory of Fortune (Fig. 71) encapsulates the problematic nature of the Dutchman’s London period production of history paintings. In his monograph on Schalcken, Thierry Beherman dates this picture to c. 1680–85, whereas Eddy Schavemaker, who has recently compiled a comprehensive list of authentic paintings by the artist, places it between 1678 and 1685.33 Complicating matters further is the existence of a mezzotint after this painting, inscribed Vanitas Vanitatum, by the little-known English printmaker Robert Williams, who was active between 1680 and his death in 1704 (Fig. 72).34 Williams must have seen the picture in England, and so made a reproductive print of it sometime before 1704. Assuming that both

134 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 71. Godefridus Schalcken, Allegory of Fortune, c. 1678–85 (oil on canvas, 34 × 27 cm). Private collection.

Beherman and Schavemaker are correct in dating this canvas – and this is by no means certain – when did it arrive there? The present writer suspects that if it was not painted in England then Schalcken possibly brought it there with him. An auction listing from 7–8 June 1733, first published by M. Kirby Talley in 1983 but misread by him, identifies the picture’s English owner: James Sykes (active 1724–d. 1733).35 Talley assumed that lot 67, a “Vanity by Scalken,” referred to a still-life painting by the artist when, to the contrary, an advertisement for this auction in London’s Daily Journal, announces, among other works, the sale of a history piece by the Dutch painter.36 Therefore, that “Vanity by Schalcken,” whose subject was understandably misidentified, is actually the picture under discussion here. To return to James Sykes, his father William, has already been encountered in this book. An active member of the art lovers club, the Virtuosi of St. Luke, with which Schalcken was possibly involved, William Sykes (1659–1724) was an art dealer and painter. He owned the Dutchman’s copy of a painting of the Madonna by Raphael, which, given its unusual nature, must have been commissioned directly from him.37 Like his father, James Sykes also worked as an art dealer and actually oversaw the two sales of the former’s massive collection in 1724.38 And just like that of his father, the auction of James Sykes’s own collection in 1733 probably included his stock.39

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings 

135

Fig. 72. Robert Williams after Godefridus Schalcken, Allegory of Fortune, before 1704 (mezzotint, 26.1 × 20 cm). London, The British Museum.

Regardless of the year in which Sykes acquired it, the present canvas can still be identified with the one placed at auction, even if its subject matter was understandably mistaken for an allegory of vanity – the same error appears in the inscription on Williams’s mezzotint. The combination of motifs depicted within the Allegory of Fortune clarifies its subject. Bubble-blowing and a fading torch – usually associated with vanity – are coupled here with a ship floundering in stormy seas (adjacent to the winged personification’s left shoulder), and a globe upon which she rests her arm. A similar constellation of elements can be found within the European pictorial tradition for portraying Fortune. For instance, the personification is furnished with wings in a number of sixteenth-century prints, most notably in Albrecht Dürer’s Nemesis.40 The presence of wings underscores capricious fate in that Dame Fortune can fly away at a moment’s notice. Ships tossed to and fro on rough seas, the very embodiment of fortune’s fickle cruelty, are likewise encountered with some frequency in sixteenth-century graphic art and book illustrations.41 An engraving from Theodor de Bry’s Emblemata of 1592 is typical in that Fortuna presides over a seascape with gentle waters and pleasure craft on one side and a sinking ship in a storm on the other.42

136 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 73. Karel Dujardin, Allegory of Fortune, 1663 (oil on canvas, 139.2 × 117.1 cm). Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst.

Closer in time to Schalcken’s painting is Karel Dujardin’s Allegory of Fortune of 1663 (Fig. 73), in which an allegorical figure blows bubbles while balancing atop a glass ball floating in the ocean, the ball referencing fate’s uncertainty.43 In place of a young boy, Schalcken has depicted a beautiful young woman with two roses affixed to her colorful headband. The withered state of one contrasts with the full bloom of the other, thus providing another subtle allusion to the subject of this canvas. The personification wears an indeterminate antique-looking garment, pulled alluringly off of her shoulder. Comely females who are often nude traditionally serve as allegories of fortune in art and deliberately so, playing upon stereotypes of ravishing females who are as unpredictable as they are deceitful.44 Schalcken has also replaced Dujardin’s ball, Fortune’s customary attribute, with a small globe. A striking bolt of fringed vermillion velvet fabric partly covers the sphere but this cloth is pulled back just enough to reveal some of its rounded surface, inscribed Hispania. This motif,

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings 

137

Fig. 74. Godefridus Schalcken, Ceres with a Torch (Searching for Persephone), c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 34 × 27 cm). Bourges, Musée de l’Hôtel Lallemant.

highly fitting within the general thematic context of the picture, constitutes an ingenious reference to Spain, the Dutch Republic’s former nemesis whose fortunes had drastically waned by the end of the seventeenth century.45 Equally novel, at least for allegories of this sort, is the painting’s nocturnal setting, which provided the artist an opportunity to depict spectacular light effects, engendered by the figure’s sputtering torch.46 These alterations to what was by the late seventeenth century Fortuna’s well-established iconography must have been motivated by the artist’s desire to create a night scene. A globe, anchored to the bottom of the composition, is easier to perceive in a dark setting than the clear ball upon which the personification usually stands. Even more creatively (and cleverly), the torch sputters because Schalcken wanted to allude to the winds, whose unpredictable bursts and paths reference fate. Dujardin’s painting is much more conventional in alluding to wind by the figure’s fluttering cloth, a motif that would have been less desirable to portray in a night scene. Regardless of precisely when Schalcken’s Allegory of Fortune was painted, its impressive light effects were highly marketable among London collectors and connoisseurs, effects that the artist exploited relentlessly during his four-year stay there. And the subject itself, almost ubiquitous in English literature and emblematics, would have resonated with contemporary audiences.47 Several of Schalcken’s London period history paintings can be linked to specific owners. On the 23 April 1724, the art collection of Charles Bodvile Robartes (1660–1723), the 2nd Earl of Radnor, was auctioned at his home, said to be in St. James’s Square in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields.48 A painting by Schalcken representing Ceres with a Torch (Searching for Persephone) was lot 60 in this auction (Fig. 74), and it was sold for the then impressive sum of just over twenty-three pounds.49 A native of Cornwall, Robartes inherited a peerage from his grandfather in 1685. He was a member of parliament and held various offices in London and in

138 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Cornwall. Robartes was also immensely wealthy, having inherited the estates of his maternal grandfather in Wales and his father’s fortune upon the latter’s death in 1682. His marriage seven years later, to Elizabeth Cutler (c. 1670–1696), the daughter of a baronet, further solidified his financial gains.50 Robartes’s residence in St. James was celebrated for its exquisite decor. George Vertue, who visited the house around the time of its owner’s demise, waxed rhapsodic about its chimney pieces and other paintings installed in over-doors and on the staircase.51 Thanks to a clumsy relining in the early twentieth century and, in the process, the trimming of the canvas, Ceres with a Torch is no longer in optimal condition. Be that as it may, it still can be dated to Schalken’s London period.52 Did Robartes acquire this canvas during the painter’s stay in the city, either from Schalcken himself or perhaps through an art dealer?53 Unfortunately, the date that the picture entered the Earl’s collection, which would shed light on that question, will probably never be discovered. In his entry on this canvas in his monograph on Schalcken, Thierry Beherman perceptively observed that Ceres is shown searching for her daughter Proserpina. The painting’s subject matter is thus drawn from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, wherein the god of the underworld, Pluto, has abducted the maiden.54 Ovid describes Ceres’s frantic search for her child as follows: Meanwhile the mother, fearing, searches in vain for the maid, through all the earth and sea. Neither the coming of dewy-haired Aurora, nor Hesperus, finds her resting. Lighting pine torches with both hands at Etna’s fires, she wanders, unquiet, through the bitter darkness, and when the kindly light has dimmed the stars, she still seeks her child, from the rising of the sun till the setting of the sun.

Accordingly, Schalcken depicts Ceres wandering through the darkness, illuminating her path through a forest with her flaming torch. The picture consequently offers yet another instance of the artist’s strategy of selecting unusual moments in a particular narrative, or even altogether inventing a narrative or context that afforded him opportunities to bring complex light effects into play within dusky settings. The end result is striking, all the more so when one takes into account just how rarely this moment in the story of Pluto and Proserpina was rendered in seventeenth-century art. In the Dutch Republic, Ceres’s hunt for her abducted daughter could occasionally be found in graphic art. Crispijn de Passe (c. 1565–1637), for instance, portrays it in his illustrated Ovid of 1602 but includes a subsidiary incident of a boy whom the goddess turns into a lizard in order to punish him for taunting her.55 More contemporaneous to Schalcken’s painting is Gerard de Lairesse’s (1640–1711) elegant etching, which portrays the torch-bearing Ceres on a chariot drawn by a dragon (Fig. 75).56 This reptilian creature is encountered in other scattered representations of Ceres searching for her daughter. By contrast, Schalcken eliminates it altogether, preferring to focus upon the goddess herself whose imposing form dominates the canvas. Besides the

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings 

139

Fig. 75. Gerard de Lairesse, Ceres Searching for Persephone, c. 1670–75 (etching, 11.1 × 15.4 cm). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.

subtle yet spectacular light effects, her fantastic attire is especially noteworthy as is her identifying attribute: an emphatically volumetric basket of wheat that breaks the picture plane.57 Schalcken’s London period also witnessed the production of history paintings with religious subject matter.58 Principal among these were portrayals of the penitent Mary Magdalen. Beherman rightly noted that this subject was an extremely popular one with the artist, who dedicated at least ten paintings to its depiction.59 Interestingly, the most sophisticated ones in terms of style and iconography can be dated between the years immediately preceding Schalcken’s departure for England and his death in 1706.60 While several reasons probably underlie Schalcken’s interest in the Magdalen, it primarily provided another pretext for him to capitalize upon the enthusiasm among his patrons and collectors for pictures with sophisticated candlelight effects.61 An especially poignant London period portrayal of the penitent Magdalen is known today only from a mezzotint (Fig. 38). This print was made by John Smith, England’s foremost mezzotinter and publisher during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The work is valuable and not merely for its beauty, for it preserves the appearance of a painting by Schalcken that has not been seen in nearly one hundred years, having last been on the art market in New York in 1920 (Fig. 76).62 Mary Magdalen was one of several mezzotints that Smith made after paintings by Schalcken, though not all

140 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 76. Godefridus Schalcken, Penitent Magdalen, c. 1693 (oil on canvas, dimensions unknown). Present location unknown.

were executed during the artist’s residence in England.63 Thanks to a comprehensive album in the collection of the New York Public Library that Antony Griffiths published in 1989, we can be certain that this mezzotint was created during Schalcken’s London period.64 Smith assembled this album late in life for one of his wealthy clients. It consists of two volumes and contains 342 prints in total, with almost all extremely fine impressions. Most importantly, almost all were assigned a year, which Smith wrote in by hand, including Penitent Magdalen, dated 1693. Clearly, Schalcken recognized the commercial advantages of having Smith make mezzotints of his creations. Indeed, this likely explains why the artist not only showed himself holding this particular print in the Self-Portrait (Fig. 36) he painted for the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Cosimo III de’ Medici (1642–1723), but also sent the illustrious collector an actual impression of it along with the painting.65 The mezzotint depicts the contrite Mary Magdalen kneeling in a lamplit cave, tearfully pondering one of her time-honored attributes: an ornate coffer filled with the perfume with which, according to tradition, she had anointed Christ’s feet. The New Testament passage (Luke 7:36–50) that records this momentous event does not actually state the name of the woman who used precious ointment to attend to Christ; the reader is simply told that she was an inhabitant of the city who was a sinner. By the Middle Ages, Western Christianity had identified this hitherto anonymous female as Mary Magdalen. Thanks to the conflation of protagonists named Mary from various biblical and apocryphal accounts she came to be known as a prostitute of noble lineage who, upon conversion, abandoned her formerly dissolute life for one of contemplation, repentance, and asceticism.66 Smith’s mezzotint of the now lost painting reveals how Schalcken emphasized the saint’s contemplative remorse in what in the original work must have been a murky setting illuminated solely by the brilliant flame of an oil lamp. This light strikes her

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings 

141

rapturous face, dancing upon her closed eyes and tear-strewn cheeks, themselves manifestations of her sorrow and profound religious ardor. It also highlights the edges of a large open religious book, draped against a lectern-like arrangement of rocks before which the weeping saint kneels.67 This fully clothed Mary Magdalen is quite modest in appearance, compared with those in Schalcken’s other, more typical renditions of this subject (see below), tinged as they are with eroticism. For this reason one wonders whether a religiously conservative patron commissioned the painting from the artist. In her wide-ranging survey of the Magdalen theme in Western European art and literature, Susan Haskins describes the transmutation of this saint into a Venus figure in sixteenth-century Italy, reflective, no doubt, of her supposed preconversion life as a prostitute.68 In the hands of Italian artists, most notably Titian (c. 1485/90–1576), Mary Magdalen was imaged in seemingly incompatible ways as a pious saint exhibiting profound remorse for her prior sinful life yet presented either with her long luxurious hair covering her naked body (except her breasts) or dishabille, in tousled fabrics that flaunt her sensuous flesh.69 While the Magdalens in these works exhibit humility and contrition, they simultaneously (and paradoxically) proclaim notions of venereal beauty – the saint was actually construed as a heavenly Venus at this time.70 The affiliation between the repentant hermitess and the goddess of love and beauty assumed varied and often fascinating forms in early modern art and literature. And this association was not restricted to high art, which surely pays testimony to its prevalence. An anonymous seventeenth-century English needlepoint, to cite just one example, shows a recumbent nude Magdalen in a landscape surrounded by attributes (Fig. 77).71 The pose unequivocally evokes those of reclining Venuses in numerous paintings and prints.72 The Dutch poet and playwright, Jan Vos (1612–1667) deftly captured the apparent interchangeability of the mythological goddess and the hermitess saint in a quatrain penned in honor of a painting by Govert Flinck (1615–1660). Its title, “To G. Flinck While Changing a Painted Venus into a Maria Magdalena,” anticipates Vos’s witty verses – a moralistic meditation on the artist’s inherent power to transform painting: Here one paints Venus into a St. Magdalena Her book, the art of love, into a manual full of prayers The bottle of make-up becomes a container of ointment in order to honor Jesus All good to him who with his brush can convert the unchaste.73

Italian masters helped introduce the subject of the penitent Mary Magdalen to seventeenth-century English collectors, which should come as no surprise owing to the aforementioned paucity of history paintings from the hands of native artists.74 Prominent members of the Stuart courts in particular owned portrayals of this subject. George Villiers (1592–1628), the 1st Duke of Buckingham, for instance, had

142 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 77. Anonymous English, Penitent Magdalen, c. 1650 (embroidered silk, 40 × 46 cm). London, Victoria & Albert Museum. Copyright, Victoria & Albert Museum, London.

acquired one of Orazio Gentileschi’s versions of the Penitent Magdalen even before this Tuscan master relocated to England in 1626.75 This canvas, now in the collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, exhibits Gentileschi’s distinctive cool and luminous palette, coupled with his lyrical rendering of the recumbent saint whose rueful expression does not quite outweigh the scopophiliac implications of her semi-nude torso. Equally significant are Guido Reni’s (1575–1642) Magdalen paintings because they circulated widely in the form of copies and in reproductive prints, even in Schalcken’s late seventeenth-century London (Fig. 78).76 These images feature Reni’s distinctive, semi-disrobed females who gaze heavenward in contrition.77 Perhaps the most immediate precedent for Schalcken’s own portrayals of the saint were those of his erstwhile Dordrecht colleague, Casparus Smits (Fig. 69), even if that artist was living in Ireland by the 1690s.78 His practice of surrounding the rueful saint with meticulously rendered attributes parallels Schalcken’s own approach. Exemplary of Schalcken’s more characteristic interpretation of this subject matter and one that likewise hews more closely to Italian conceptions is his Penitent Magdalen (Fig. 79), presently in the collection of the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister in Kassel.79 This panel recalls George Vertue’s recording of “a Small picture of a Woman,

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings 

143

Fig. 78. Edward Cooper after Guido Reni, Penitent Magdalen, c. 1686–1703 (mezzotint, 29.7 × 22.2 cm). London, British Museum.

a death’s head & a lamp. extreamly neat & Curious. in one corner. ‘G. Schalcken. P.’ in Mr Russels Sale. of pictures” (February 1727).80 The Kassel picture closely corresponds to Vertue’s description with the exception of the signature, which does not include a “P.”81 Vertue specifically mentions having seen the Penitent Magdalen at “Mr. Russels sale of pictures.” It is not known precisely when or where this sale took place, but Mr. Russel can be identified with Anthony Russell (c. 1663–1743), a minor portrait painter who studied with John Riley (1646–1691).82 Russell was close friends with Vertue, having furnished him with many biographical notes concerning seventeenth-century artists. Moreover, he was said to be living in Covent Garden in the City of Westminster in 1726. Russell could have conceivably acquired the Penitent Magdalen from Schalcken himself, though this is impossible to establish with any certainty. Compounding issues of provenance is the problem, ever constant when it comes to Schalcken’s oeuvre, of establishing a date for the panel. Beherman places it

144 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 79. Godefridus Schalcken, Penitent Magdalen, c. 1685–93 (oil on panel, 27 × 20.5 cm). Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Photo: Museumlandschaft Hessen Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister.

between c. 1700 and 1706.83 More recently and more accurately in the present writer’s view is Eddy Schavemaker’s dating of the picture to c. 1680–92.84 Schavemaker also acknowledges the possibility that it might have been painted in London.85 The motif of the blazing oil lamp found in Smith’s mezzotint discussed above is repeated in the Kassel painting and to great effect: brilliant light saturates the Magdalen who is seated in a very dark, unarticulated interior. It strikes her face and body and delicately plays upon the smooth skull resting on the table before her, casting its ghastly eye sockets and nose hole into a deep pall. The Magdalen is wearing an ill-defined, patterned silken garment, undone to reveal a floppy white linen shift. The shift itself is open and has slid partially off of the repentant saint’s right shoulder, thus affording the viewer a glimpse of her bosom, made all the more tantalizing by the scintillating light effects. The pronounced eroticism of this panel, while placing it at odds with the more demure mezzotint, is fully consonant with the manner in which the Magdalen had been portrayed since the Renaissance. It was likewise congruent with English tastes, so far as these can be gleaned from paintings such as those by Smits (Fig. 69) and from numerous literary works. Accounts of the Magdalen found in seventeenth-century

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings 

145

English poetry, for example, often fuse spiritual and erotic overtones. Henry Vaughan’s (1621–1695) “St. Mary Magdalene” of 1655 is typical in this regard: Why lies this Hair despised now Which once thy care and art did show? Who then did dress the much lov’d toy, In Spires, Globes, angry Curls and coy, Which with skill’d negligence seem’d shed About thy curious, wilde, yong head?   .  .   .   .  .   Why art thou humbled thus, and low As earth, thy lovely head dost bow?86

In commenting upon Vaughan’s poem, the literary historian Patricia Badir notes the Magdalen’s “disheveled contrition,” her hair covering her breasts, the latter described euphemistically as “the much lov’d toy.”87 For Badir, poems such as Vaughan’s as well as artistic images of the Magdalen, “seem to be responses to an increasingly discriminating taste [in England], from all moneyed walks of life, for mannered, refined observations upon familiar subjects.”88 Yet to Badir’s perceptive remarks must be added the observation that Schalcken’s paintings offered late seventeenth-century English audiences engaging renditions of the Magdalen beyond the capability of native artists (and many foreign ones as well) owing to their refinement and sophisticated nocturnal light effects. *** During his four-year sojourn in London, Schalcken experienced great success by making portraits of distinguished clientele and especially by painting genre scenes, many of them featuring artificial illumination. Yet, in an effort to expand his pictorial repertoire he painted history scenes and even took on the challenge of painting still lifes, as at least one contemporary source confirms. Frequently overlooked in the scholarship on the artist are comments penned in 1694 by Thomas Platt, the unofficial envoy in London for Cosimo III de’ Medici, the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Platt’s letter to the Gran Principe’s secretary in Florence, Apollinio Bassetti, outlines Schalcken’s subject matter and among the works to “marvel at” are specifically mentioned those depicting fruit and flowers.89 Schalcken’s venture into still-life painting, a genre that he had not previously practiced, must have been motivated by market considerations.90 In this respect, his entrée into the English market for still lifes was well timed. Schalcken’s listing in an advertisement in the weekly business periodical, A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade, was discussed in the Introduction to this book.

146 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

This advertisement (Fig. 2), published in the 11 January 1695 issue, provided a list of London’s painters, their specific specialties, and the neighborhoods where they resided.91 The names of four still-life painters appear there, under thematic headings reflective of the manner in which their work was perceived: Mr. van Loon (“Flower and Fruit”), Mr. Bogdan and Mr. Simon Verelst (“Flower”), and Mr. Roestrate (“StillLife”).92 These artists were Schalcken’s principal competitors in the genre of still-life painting during his London period. Two if not three of the four were likewise native Dutchmen. Nothing is known about the artist listed in the advertisement as Mr. van Loon. Mr. Bogdan refers to Jacob Bogdani (c. 1660–1724), who specialized in the depiction of birds, both European and exotic, which were often combined with fruit and flowers.93 Bogdani was born in Hungary, spent a year in Amsterdam (1684), and then in 1688 emigrated to England where he eventually married and became an English citizen. Bogdani may not be not well known today but he enjoyed great success in his adopted country, counting William III (1650–1702) and Mary II (1662–1694), and members of their court, among his patrons. Mr. Roestrate, classified under the rubric “Still-Life,” was Pieter van Roestraten (1630–1700), a native of Haarlem and a pupil of Frans Hals’s (c. 1582/83–1666). An occasional painter of genre scenes, Van Roestraten distinguished himself in London (where he had lived since the mid-1660s) as a practitioner of still-life painting.94 In particular, he specialized in the portrayal of objets de luxe, including silverware and other precious metal objects and, later in his career, costly oriental ceramics and accouterments for serving tea.95 In her article on the painter, Lindsey Bridget Shaw rightly claims that Van Roestraten’s innovative still lifes of this sort constitute a clever adaptation of “an area of his skill to what he saw as a gap in the market …”96 Auction sales catalogues for the period 1689–92 document seventy-one paintings (still lifes and genre scenes) by Van Roestraten with an average price of about four pounds per picture, certainly less than Schalcken was typically commanding but a respectable sum by seventeenth-century English standards nonetheless.97 The last painter of still lifes advertising in A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade (Fig. 2) was the most consequential for Schalcken: Mr. Simon Verelst, under the rubric “Flower.” Verelst (1644 to between 1710 and 1717) was born in The Hague, and trained by his father, Pieter Verelst (1618–1668).98 After beginning his career in his hometown, he resettled in London in 1668 or 1669 where he excelled at still-life painting, mostly depicting fruit and flowers, as well as portraiture.99 None other than Schalcken’s future London neighbor, Samuel Pepys (1633–1703), provided a memorable description of Verelst’s London work early on. In an oft-quoted diary entry from 11 April 1669, Pepys recounts his inspection that day of a picture by the newly arrived Everest (sic), who showed him and an artist companion, “a little flowerpot of his drawing, the drops of dew hanging on the leaves, so that I was forced again and again to put my finger to it to feel whether my eyes were deceived

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings 

147

Fig. 80. Simon Verelst, Flower Still-Life, c. 1675 (oil on canvas, 85 × 67 cm). London, Private collection.

or no.”100 Pepys was responding to this painting’s stunning illusionism, generated by its extraordinarily smooth facture. It was precisely these features of Verelst’s oeuvre (Fig. 80) that accounted for his tremendous success in London where he lived the remainder of his life. But he experienced his greatest professional (and financial) achievements prior to the 1680s. By that decade he apparently had become mentally unhinged and for a time stopped painting altogether.101 Verelst seems to have recovered to such an extent that he was able to resume painting but his best years as an artist were long past, as the work of his late period amply testifies.102 During Schalcken’s London years Verelst was already living in diminished circumstances, a result of his tragic madness.103 The quality of his work, if he was even painting between 1692 and 1696, had suffered as well.104 Therefore, like Van Roestraten, Schalcken exploited the gap in the art market, in this case the one for flower and fruit painting created by Verelst’s mental condition and ultimate decline. Almost none of Schalcken’s London period still lifes survive but Platt’s letter describing him as a painter of, among other subjects, fruits and flowers, implies the existence of many

148 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 81. Godefridus Schalcken, Flower Still-Life, c. 1692–96 (oil on panel, 44 × 32 cm). Oxford, Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Oxford. Image copyright, Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

more.105 Although only two still lifes are known today, both are of uncompromisingly high quality. Schalcken’s Flower Still-Life (Fig. 81), for example, recalls Verelst’s earlier style (Fig. 80) in presenting a meticulous rendering of various colorful and texturally differentiated species immersed in delicate chiaroscuro that gently and subtly distinguishes them from one another while simultaneously enhancing the illusion of their physical presence.106 Further contributing to that illusion is the painted frame from which the tulip to the right appears to protrude.107 The only other extant London period still life by Schalcken is a striking portrayal of a bunch of grapes suspended in the air by a crimson ribbon (Fig. 82).108 This ribbon reemerges from the middle-left of the bunch, undulating elegantly in a pattern that echoes its top-heavy shape as well as the thin withered branch immediately below it. The artist has also included four delicately painted butterflies, two of whom are about to alight on the grapes themselves. The entire ensemble hovers before a neutral brown background, which serves to heighten the grapes’ plasticity as well as their luminosity. In 1980, Peter Hecht convincingly argued that profound intentions

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings 

149

Fig. 82. Godefridus Schalcken, Bunch of Grapes, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 42 × 31 cm). Stockholm, Nationalmuseum.

underlay Schalcken’s Bunch of Grapes. Specifically, Hecht linked it to Dufresnoy’s De arte graphica, wherein the author quotes a statement attributed to the eminent Venetian painter Titian that “he knew no better rule for the distribution of the lights and shadows, than his observations drawn from a bunch of grapes.”109 By implication, the depiction of grapes could attest to an artist’s mastery in rendering convincingly natural light effects that heighten the painted illusion of this fruit. Hecht thus construed Schalcken’s Bunch of Grapes as a demonstration of his virtuosity in portraying light, only in this instance, daylight, as opposed to the effects of his celebrated candlelight genre paintings.110 Hecht’s hypothesis can be bolstered by placing the Bunch of Grapes directly into the circles of English virtuosi for whom Schalcken periodically worked during his London period. Dryden had translated Dufresnoy’s treatise and published it in London in 1695 with the financial support of the Virtuosi of St. Luke, an informal club consisting of artists and cognoscenti.111 This was a group with which the Dutch master must have had contact: one of its prominent members, Richard Graham (d. 1741),

150 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Fig. 83. Simon Verelst, Bunch of Grapes, 1709 (oil on canvas, 35.5 × 30.5 cm). Private collection.

who owned a now lost Self-Portrait and a genre painting by Schalcken, had written an addendum on the lives of modern artists for Dryden’s translation of Dufresnoy.112 Late seventeenth-century English virtuosi would have easily recognized the copious display of artistic skill in Schalcken’s fruit still life, just as viewers do today, though the former were probably quick to associate it with Dufresnoy’s remarks concerning the use of grapes to demonstrate light effects. English virtuosi were also familiar with Pliny the Elder’s story of Zeuxis and Parrha­sius, who participated in a contest to determine which of these two illustrious artists could make the most lifelike painting.113 Despite having been bested by his colleague, Zeuxis was said to have painted grapes of such astonishing verisimilitude that birds flew down from the sky and attempted to eat them. That Schalcken’s Bunch of Grapes potentially elicited associations with this tale among English connoisseurs should not be discounted. Further testimony to the significance of Schalcken’s still life is provided by none other than Simon Verelst. The still-life specialist had painted grapes several times in the 1670s, that is, during the most successful (and profitable) part of his career in England.114 No doubt Schalcken was aware of those pictures and sought to emulate them in light of Verelst’s marked decline as a painter. Years later,

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings 

151

in 1709, with his career nearly at an end, the now enfeebled artist painted two grape still lifes that directly recall and were perhaps even meant to challenge Schalcken’s precedent (Fig. 83).115 The two surviving London period still lifes by Schalcken reveal an artist of great talent in this genre, which explains Platt’s praise for his paintings of fruit and flowers. The Dutch master simply excelled at every genre he practiced during his four years in London, magnifying his renown and, of course, his purse, in the process.

Conclusion When Godefridus Schalcken embarked for England in the late spring of 1692 he was, by every measure, an internationally acclaimed artist whose reputation preceded his arrival. There he would join a large number of foreign artists, many of whom had emigrated from the Low Countries, drawn by fortuitous cultural and economic factors that were slowly securing England’s position as one of Europe’s preeminent powers. Although many of his colleagues would struggle in their new surroundings, Schalcken experienced great success in London, the nation’s fashionable and prosperous capital. He settled in York Buildings, a small neighborhood within the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, a parish that had long served as a center for the production of goods and services for the nearby court. This location therefore harbored great promise for Schalcken to secure work from distinguished clientele. Early on, the Dutch master probably devoted much of his energy to creating genre paintings, especially those featuring candlelight settings, for he was already renowned for such works. Gradually, he developed a network of clients and began to enjoy a comfortable income, and so turned to portraiture, a genre to which he would increasingly devote himself during the remainder of his four-year stay in London. Schalcken also managed to secure a principal patron who held various positions at court and was an intimate of William III’s: Sir John Lowther (1655–1700), 2nd Baronet (and from 1696, 1st Viscount Lonsdale). Lowther’s handwritten inventory of his extensive art collection reveals his ownership of no less than five portraits by the artist (see Figs. 21, 22), along with two genre paintings. By 1694–95, Schalcken’s portraiture business was flourishing; surviving portraits testify to his ability to secure commissions from prominent members of London society, including wealthy merchants (Fig. 14), leading barristers (Fig. 15), and influential members of the court. These portraits reveal a protean artist who was able to adapt his style to the demands of his sitters in an effort to market himself effectively in this foreign country. If a particular patron demanded it (Fig. 22), he could paint in a loose, airy style, appropriating application techniques and even poses and settings from his chief competitors, Geoffrey Kneller (1646–1723) the most prominent among them. Simultaneously, he continued to practice the older, more precise mode of working that he had developed in the Dutch Republic under the influence of his teacher, Gerrit Dou (1613–1675), as still other portraits attest (Fig. 19). Schalcken frequently portrayed his London period clients in candlelight (Fig. 15) as a part of an overall strategy to bolster his profitability and his celebrity as a painter of nocturnes. Schalcken himself had much to do with the promotion of his art in England and on the continent abroad, even if this is not sufficiently appreciated today. The three extant self-portraits from these years demonstrate this unequivocally. The best known among them, a Self-Portrait painted for Cosimo III de’ Medici (1642–1723),

154 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

the Grand Duke of Tuscany, actually resulted from an exchange of letters between Thomas Platt, the Grand Duke of Tuscany’s unofficial envoy in London, and the latter’s secretary in Florence, Apollonio Bassetti. These letters make clear that Platt broached the idea of a commission for Schalcken solely at the artist’s behest. The end result of the protracted series of epistolary exchanges between Platt and Bassetti is the magnificent Self-Portrait in the Galleria degli Uffizi (Fig. 36), which was largely finished by early January of 1695. Schalcken’s pose in this picture harkens back to the portraiture of Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641), as does his archaic slashed doublet, a garment recalling men’s fashions of the late 1620s and 1630s. The Dutch painter’s decision to clothe himself in an old-fashioned doublet is enfolded in his purpose of presenting himself to his illustrious Italian patron as a supremely talented master, in effect, identifying himself with his famous predecessor, Van Dyck. However, the presence of the burning candle is Schalcken’s own invention, a signature motif not found in any of the other self-portraits in Cosimo III’s gallery. The two additional self-portraits from Schalcken’s London period are equally fascinating. In one, the artist jettisoned his Van Dyckian attire for a tailored I­ ndian gown – a popular dressing gown among elite men during the late seventeenth century (Fig. 44). This outfit contributes to the distinct gentlemanly air of this canvas, so too do his youthful, vital appearance – Schalcken always showed himself as a younger man in his London period self-portraits – and towering wig of curls. These accouterments, along with the motifs of the glowing candle and fragments of ancient statuary, are all meant to underscore the artist’s status as a gentleman virtuoso. Most interestingly in this context, during his years in London Schalcken appears to have had contact with (and received patronage from) members of the Virtuosi of St. Luke, an informal club consisting of artists and cognoscenti. The other self-portrait also presents the master in contemporary garb, in this instance poised resolutely with his palette and brushes in a dusky interior illuminated by candlelight (Fig. 47). Schalcken also sports a gold chain, a costly gift from a patron. The chain was possibly added long after the portrait was completed, perhaps in 1703, the year in which he received one from Johann Wilhelm II (1658–1716), Elector Palatine, in honor of his services to that ruler. This picture seems to have remained in the artist’s possession until his death, and so it conceivably functioned as an “advertisement” in his London studio (and thereafter, in The Hague) for prospective clients. As mentioned above, Schalcken excelled in the production of genre paintings; indeed, his preeminence in this arena preceded his arrival in England. Genre paintings by the artist actually began to appear at London auctions a few years before he settled in the city. Throughout his English period, Schalcken painted genre subjects, though he probably concentrated upon creating them during 1692–94. Many of these pictures were candlelight scenes or “night-pieces,” as they were so often termed in contemporary documents. Several, such as the Boy Blowing on a Firebrand (Fig. 58), painted for Robert Spencer (1641–1702), 2nd Earl of Sunderland, enjoyed

Conclusion

155

great popularity, judging, that is, from the large number of painted and mezzotint copies that survive. In sum, the bulk of Schalcken’s genre paintings provided him with a ready pretext to employ his signature motif of candlelight, which, like other contemporary works, enhanced his already outstanding reputation as a painter and his profitability in a market generally lacking similar pictures by other artists. Yet, during this period he also made a few innovative genre paintings with daylight settings, such as Every One His Fancy (Fig. 64). Although Schalcken’s renown prior to his arrival in London in 1692 rested primarily upon his genre paintings, he was already making history paintings by the early 1670s, if not slightly earlier. He would continue to practice this genre in his new surroundings. Pictures such as Ceres with a Torch (Searching for Persephone) (Fig. 74) and especially his portrayals of the Penitent Magdalen (Fig. 76) enabled him to capitalize upon the enthusiasm among his patrons and collectors for works with sophisticated candlelight effects. The artist’s history paintings simultaneously contributed to the emergent interest among late seventeenth-century English cognoscenti in pictures in this genre by modern masters. Schalcken even tried his hand at still-life painting; the aforesaid Thomas Platt praised him as a painter of “fruits and flowers … to marvel at.” Only two still lifes can be firmly attributed to the artist and both exhibit a precision of technique and smooth surface that recall pictures by the leading flower painter in the city, Simon Verelst (1644 to between 1710 and 1717). By the 1690s Verelst was living in diminished circumstances, having succumbed tragically to mental illness. Presumably, the quality of his work, if he was even painting between 1692 and 1696, suffered as well. Schalcken must have been aware of this and thus exploited a gap in the art market, in his case the one for flower and fruit painting created by Verelst’s condition and ultimate decline. In sum, Schalcken practiced a wide variety of genres during his four years in London, even though he concentrated principally upon the production of portraits and genre paintings. There is every evidence that he was an enormous success. His achievements in England, so often the result of strategic calculations on his part, heightened his fame and, naturally, his finances. The reasons why Schalcken decided to return to the Netherlands in the summer of 1696 are unknown, but surely his decision was not motivated by a failure to accrue well-placed clients, monetary rewards, and prestige. Curiously, the valuable impact of the artist’s London period for his career remained obscured and hence misunderstood for centuries thanks to a number of distinctly uncomplimentary biographies of Schalcken published in the eighteenth century. Jacob Campo Weyerman (1677–1747) and Horace Walpole (1717–1797), among others, presented him as an artist of rather limited talent, only capable of making candlelight scenes. Moreover, he is said to have withered in the face of stiff competition from English portraitists, a situation exacerbated by his alleged rude demeanor and uncouth habit of substituting his servants’ hands for those of his socially elevated sitters in their portraits. In their view, Schalcken’s English years were

156 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

anything but rewarding. Hopefully, the evidence presented in this book has succeeded in dispelling these lingering negative perceptions and, in the process, highlighted the importance of this talented Dutch painter within the artistic and cultural milieus of late seventeenth-century London.

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist Paintings belonging to Schalcken’s London period: dated or otherwise documented A1/ Fig. 29 Portrait of a Boy in Festive Costume Canvas, 74 × 62 cm Signed and dated, lower left: G. Schalcken Londini 1693 Stockholm, Stockholm University Collection of Paintings, inv. no. 103 PROVENANCE: Suther collection; Huss collection, wherein entitled “Prince of Orange at the age of 6”; Berg collection, 1882, wherein entitled “Portrait of a Young Prince of Orange”; acquired by the Stockholm University collection in 1884. SELECTED LITERATURE: Stockholm 1978, p. 220, cat. no. 103, illus. on p. 221; Beherman 1988, p. 225, cat. no. 131, illus. in color. COMMENTS: See Chapter 2, pp. 67–68. A2/ Fig. 44 Self-Portrait Canvas, 118.4 × 101.6 cm Signed and dated, lower right: G. Schalcken pinxit hanc suam effigiem Londini 4e 1694 Hagerstown, MD, Washington County Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no. A620 50.03 PROVENANCE:1 Possibly William Beckford collection, Fonthill Abbey, Fonthill Gifford; possibly sale William Beckford collection, 11, 14 October 1823, either lot 176, Schalken, a highly finished portrait of himself, equal to G. Dow (in the great dining room) or lot 246, Schalken, a noble gallery portrait of himself by candlelight; of extraordinary finish (in the grand drawing room);2 while in transit from France to New Orleans, s­ hipwrecked off the coast of Cuba and sold there for the benefit of the underwriters, 1825; ­possibly William Harris Jones (art dealer); Robert Gilmor collection, Baltimore, before 1828; by descent to William Gilmor, Baltimore, before 1855; sale, William Gilmor collection, Baltimore, 1863; Robert Gilmor Jr. collection, Baltimore; Edmund Law Rogers collection, ­Baltimore, 1863; possibly by descent to Mrs. Kirby Flower Smith, Baltimore, before 1912; by descent to Edmund Law Rogers Smith, Lutherville, MD; by whom donated to the Washington County Museum of Fine Arts, 1950. EXHIBITIONS: Boston 1828, no. 48; possibly Baltimore 1848, no. 244, as representing “a writer by candlelight”; 1855, no. 4, as representing a “portrait of a gentleman holding a candle”; 1956, p. 31, illus.; Hagerstown, MD, 1963, cat. no. 54, illus.

158 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

SELECTED LITERATURE: Roland 1963, p. 10; Larsen 1964; Hecht 1980, p. 31 n. 27; Raupp 1984, p. 218; Beherman 1988, pp. 44, 152, cat. no. 55, illus. in color; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 97–98, fig. 4.1, illus. in color; Franits 2016, pp. 26–33, fig. 4. COMMENTS: See Chapter 3, pp. 87–95. Period graphic reproductions: A2M1/ Fig. 42 Mezzotint by John Smith, 34.4 × 25.1 cm Inscribed at the bottom: Godfridus Schalcken/ Hanc suam Effigiem pinxit Londini 1694/ I. Smith fec: & exc: EXHIBITIONS: Cologne 2015–16, pp. 97–99, cat. no. 4, illus. in color. SELECTED LITERATURE: Roland 1963, p. 10, illus.; Larsen 1964, p. 78 n. 5; Beherman 1988, p. 152 (under cat. no. 55), fig. 55a; Franits 2016, pp. 27–29, passim, fig. 5. COMMENTS: See Chapter 3, p. 87. A2M2/ Fig. 43 Mezzotint by Pieter Schenck, 24.7 × 18.8 cm Inscribed at the bottom: Godefridus Schalken Dordraco-Batavus; apud Londinenses in Anglia Pictor praestantissimus./ Decus obscuris sumpsit ab umbris T. A. V./ P. Schenck fec: et exc: Amstelod:/ cum Privil: ord: Holland: et West-Frisiae. c. 1694–96 SELECTED LITERATURE: Larsen 1964, p. 79; Hecht 1980, p. 31, fig. 10; Raupp 1984, p. 218; Beherman 1988, p. 152 (under cat. no. 55); Florence 1992, p. 167, fig. 31c; Neumeister 2003, p. 340, fig. 219; Cologne 2015–16, p. 102, fig. 5.1; Franits 2016, pp. 27–29, passim, fig. 6. COMMENTS: See Chapter 3, pp. 87, 89–90, 95. A3/ Fig. 36 Self-Portrait Canvas, 92 × 81 cm Signed and dated, bottom left: Schalcken 1695 Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. no. 1878 PROVENANCE: Commissioned from Schalcken by Cosimo III de’ Medici (1642–1723), Grand Duke of Tuscany, 1694.

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

159

SELECTED LITERATURE: Crinò 1953, pp. 191–97, fig. 3; 1957, pp. 355–59, fig. 29; Larsen 1964, p. 78; Prinz 1971, pp. 46, 134–35, 138, 141, 191–92, doc. nos. 93–97, 231; Hecht 1980, p. 31, fig. 10; Raupp 1984, pp. 217–18, fig. 120; H. van Veen 1987, p. 50, fig. 1; Beherman 1988, pp. 44–45, 153–54, cat. no. 56, illus. in color; Florence 1989, pp. 522–23, cat. no. 76.253, illus.; 1992, pp. xix–xx, xxvi, 164–71, cat. no. 31; Hecht 1992, p. 94; Liverpool 1994–95, p. 70, fig. 26, erroneously illus. in reverse; Wuestman 1995, pp. 78–79; 1998, pp. 24, 35, fig. 7; Neumeister 2003, pp. 341–42, fig. 221; Schindler 2014, p. 231, fig. 134; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 101, 289, fig. 78.1, illus. in color; Jansen 2015–16, p. 26; The Hague 2015–16, p. 114, fig. 1, illus. in color; Sevcik 2015–16, p. 63; Foucart 2016, n. pag.; Franits 2016, pp. 20–26, passim, fig. 1. COMMENTS: See Chapter 3, pp. 77–86. Period graphic reproductions: A3D1/ Fig. 49 Drawing by Godefridus Schalcken, black chalk, 21.8 × 17 cm Raleigh, NC, Ackland Art Museum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The Peck Collection, inv. no. 2017.1.79 c. 1694–95 PROVENANCE: Francesco Maria Niccolò Gabburri collection, Florence; with William Kent (art dealer), London, 1758; Charles Rogers collection, London, until 1784; sale, Thomas Philipe, London, 22 April 1799, lot 608; John Thane collection, London, until 1818; Christian Josi collection, London, until 1828; sale, Sotheby’s, London, 5 July 1921, lot 85; Henry Scipio Reitlinger collection, London, until 1951; sale, Sotheby’s, London, 22 June 1954, lot 707; sale, Sotheby’s, Monaco, 22 February 1986, lot 25, as attributed to Schalcken; Sheldon and Leena Peck collection, Boston, 1986–2017; by whom donated to the Ackland Art Museum, 2017. SELECTED LITERATURE: Raupp 1984, pp. 217–18, fig. 121; Beherman 1988, pp. 153, fig. 56a, erroneously illustrating a print after the drawing, erroneously said to be by Cornelis Ploos van Amstel,3 374, cat. no. D1; Florence 1989, p. 522; 1992, p. 167, fig. 31a; N. Turner 1993, p. 210, no. 52; J. Turner 2015, pp. 493, no. 34, illus. in color, 495 n. 13. COMMENTS: See Chapter 3, pp. 98–99. A4/ Fig. 47 Self-Portrait Canvas, 109.5 × 88.5 cm Signed and dated, lower left: G. Schalcken 1695 Leamington Spa, Leamington Spa Art Gallery and Museum, inv. no. A452.1953

160 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

PROVENANCE: Sale, C. L. Chariot, Paris, 20 March 1810, lot 112; possibly William Beckford collection, Fonthill Abbey, Fonthill Gifford; possibly sale William Beckford collection, 11, 14 October 1823, either lot 176, Schalken, a highly finished portrait of himself, equal to G. Dow (in the great dining room) or lot 246, Schalken, a noble gallery portrait of himself by candlelight; of extraordinary finish (in the grand drawing room);4 Sir Frederick Lucas Cook collection, Doughty House, Richmond, before 1920; by descent to Sir Herbert Frederick Cook collection, Doughty House, Richmond, until 1939; by descent to Sir Francis F. M. Cook collection, Doughty House, Richmond, 1939; acquired by the Leamington Spa Art Gallery and Museum in February 1953. EXHIBITIONS: Leamington Spa 1947, cat. no. 58; London 1952–53, vol. 2, p. 109, cat. no. 599; Liverpool 1994–95, p. 70, cat. no. 17, illus., as undated, as dating c. 1695; London 1998a, p. 370, illus. in color; Munich 1998–99, p. 448, cat. no. 253, illus. in color, as undated, as dating c. 1695; London 2005, p. 6, fig. 1, illus. in color, as dating 1694; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 100–2, cat. no. 5, illus. in color. SELECTED LITERATURE: Eckardt 1971, p. 206, erroneously said to be in the Sir Herbert Cook collection; Behermann 1988, p. 155, cat. no. 57, illus., as undated, as dating to Schalcken’s London period, which the author placed between 1692 and 1699; Neumeister 2003, p. 343, fig. 223, as undated, as dating c. 1690s; Foucart 2016, n. pag., n. 10, fig. 2, illus. in color; Franits 2016, pp. 33–36, fig. 8. COMMENTS: See Chapter 3, pp. 95–103. Period graphic reproductions: A4D1/ Fig. 48 Drawing by Godefridus Schalcken, red and white chalk, with stumping, 28.9 × 22.8 cm Private collection c. 1695 PROVENANCE: Sale, Sotheby’s, Amsterdam, 1 December 1986, lot 101, as attributed to Schalcken, as a self-portrait; Jacques and Galila Hollander collection, Belgium; sale, Christie’s, Paris, 16 October 2013, lot 142, as a copy after Schalcken, as a self-portrait. EXHIBITIONS: Cologne 2015–16, pp. 102–4, cat. no. 6, illus. in color. SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, pp. 155 (under cat. no. 57), fig. 57a, 383, cat. no. D41, as a copy by another hand; Foucart 2016, n. pag., as a copy after Schalcken, erroneously as a study after another painting by Schalcken.

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

161

COMMENTS: See Chapter 3, pp. 97–100. A5/ Fig. 15 Portrait of John Acton Dated on the sheet of paper hanging from the book on the table: 1695 Oil on canvas, 124.7 × 99.7 cm Basingstoke, Willis Museum, inv. no. FA1988.15 PROVENANCE: T. H. Foster collection, England; sale, Christie’s, London, 18 December 1963, lot 15; Dent collection, England; sale, Christie’s, London, 17 November 1967, lot 9; Klein collection, England; sale, Sotheby’s, New York, 3 March 1987, lot 68; sale Christie’s, London, 15 April 1988, lot 103. SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 314, cat. no. 217, illus., as an uncertain attribution to Schalcken; Franits 2015–16, pp. 43–44, fig. 22, illus. in color. COMMENTS: See Chapter 1, pp. 47–49. A6/ Fig. 16 Portrait of Margaret Acton née Cutts Oil on canvas, 123.8 × 95.9 cm Present location unknown c. 1695 PROVENANCE: T. H. Foster collection, England; sale, Christie’s, London, 18 December 1963, lot 18, as by Peter Lely. SELECTED LITERATURE: Franits 2015–16, pp. 48–49 n. 53. COMMENTS: See Chapter 1, p. 47. A7 Portrait of a Man Oil on canvas, 140 × 112 cm Signed and dated, lower right: G. Schalcken fec. 1696 Sweden, private collection PROVENANCE: Williams collection; sale, Robinson and Fisher, London, 16 November 1928; sale Christie’s, London, 10 June 1932, lot 108; Rossum collection; possibly Hellberg collection. SELECTED LITERATURE:5 Beherman 1988, p. 204, cat. no. 105, illus.

162 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

COMMENTS: The present writer has never seen this picture and hence only knows it from the underexposed black-and-white photograph in Beherman’s monograph (see Selected Literature section above). The considerable dimensions of the canvas (and even the pose of the sitter) suggest that it was painted in London, where Schalcken tended to work on a larger scale than in the Netherlands. Still, the possibility cannot be entirely excluded that it was painted after the artist resettled in The Hague in the late summer of 1696.6 A8/ Fig. 19 Portrait of Sir Thomas Rokeby Oil on canvas, 127 × 101.6 cm Inscribed by a later hand with the sitter’s name and the date, 1687 New Zealand, private collection c. 1695 PROVENANCE: By descent over the centuries to the present owner, 2001. EXHIBITIONS: Leeds 1868, p. 252, cat. no. 3061. SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman, p. 316, cat. no. 220, illus., expressing some doubts about the attribution. COMMENTS: See Chapter 1, pp. 49–52. A9/ Fig. 14 Portrait of Sir Richard Levett Oil on canvas, 76.2 × 63.5 cm Signed, lower right: G. Schalcken London, Guildhall Art Gallery, inv. no. 1393 c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: With James Bourlet & Sons Ltd., London; acquired by the Guildhall Art Gallery in 1949. SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 188, cat. no. 89, illus., as dating 1699. COMMENTS: See Chapter 1, pp. 45–47. A10/ Fig. 27 Portrait of James Stuart, 4th Duke of Lennox and 1st Duke of Richmond by Candlelight Oil on canvas, 94.6 × 144.8 cm New York, The Leiden Collection, inv. no. GS-109 c. 1692–96

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

163

PROVENANCE: Possibly commissioned from Schalcken by Henry Sidney (1641–1704), 1st Earl of Romney, London; possibly Anne-Pierre, Marquis de Montesquoiu-Fézensac collection, Paris; possibly sale, Jean-Baptiste Pierre Lebrun, Paris, 9 December 1788, lot 137, as representing “le Duc de Bukingham”; possibly Jean-Baptiste Pierre Lebrun collection, Paris; possibly sale, Jean-Baptiste Pierre Lebrun, Paris, 14 April 1791, lot 111, as representing “le portrait du Duc de Buckingham”; possibly Pierre-Joseph Renoult collection, Paris; Pablo Bosch collection, Barcelona, before 1915; by descent to Eduardo de Salas, Madrid; with Rafael Valls Ltd., London, by 2007; from whom acquired by the Leiden Collection. EXHIBITIONS: Cologne 2015–16, pp. 226–28, cat. no. 54, illus. in color SELECTED LITERATURE: Foucart 2016, n. pag., fig. 9, illus. in color; Franits 2017. COMMENTS: See Chapter 2, pp. 64–67. A11/ Fig. 22 Portrait of Mary Wentworth née Lowther Oil on canvas, 211.5 × 121 cm Signed, lower right: G. Schalcken; inscribed by a later hand, lower left: Hon.ble Mary Lowther, afterwards wife to Sr. Jno: Wentworth, Bart. Bridlington, Sewerby Hall Museum and Art Gallery, inv. no. ERYMS: 1993.441 c. 1693–94 PROVENANCE: Commissioned by the sitter’s father, Sir John Lowther (1655–1700), 2nd Baronet (and from 1696, 1st Viscount Lonsdale), most likely upon the occasion of her marriage to Sir John Wentworth in February 1694; by descent to various family members; Strickland collection, Boynton Hall, near Bridlington, until 1950; sale, Sotheby’s, London, 29 November 1978, lot 131; acquired by the Hugh Trevor Field Art Fund Trust for the Sewerby Hall Museum and Art Gallery. EXHIBITIONS: Leeds 1982–83, pp. 80–81, cat. no. 39, illus.; London 1991–92, pp. 52–53, cat. no. 11, illus. in color; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 223–26, cat. no. 53, illus. in color. SELECTED LITERATURE: Manuscript inventory of the art collection at Lowther Castle, 1696, In the withdrawing room, my daughter Wentworth by Schalken – 20.0.0; Beherman 1988, p. 195, cat. no. 95, illus. in color, as dating 1696; Franits 2015–16, pp. 40, 43–44; Wieseman 2016, pp. 59, 65, fig. 2. COMMENTS: See Chapter 2, pp. 57–63.

164 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

A12/ Fig. 76 Penitent Magdalen Oil on canvas, dimensions unknown Present location unknown c. 1693 PROVENANCE: With the Art Collectors Association Ltd., New York, 1920. SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, pp. 44, 105–6, cat. no. 22, illus., as dating to Schalcken’s London period, which the author placed between 1692 and 1699; Cologne 2015–16, p. 289. COMMENTS: See Chapter 5, p. 139. Period graphic reproductions: A12M1/ Fig. 38 Mezzotint by John Smith, 35.4 × 25.2 cm Inscribed at the bottom: G. Schalken pinxit majori forma/ M Magdalene/ Smith fec: et excud: 1693 EXHIBITIONS: Cologne 2015–16, pp. 288–91, cat. no. 78, illus. in color. SELECTED LITERATURE: Crinò 1953, pp. 195–97, fig. 2; 1957, p. 359, fig. 28; Beherman 1988, pp. 45, 105–6 (under cat. no. 22), fig. 22a; Florence 1989, p. 522; A. Griffiths 1989, pp. 256, 257, fig. 101; Florence 1992, p. 167, fig. 31b; Liverpool 1994–95, p. 70; Wuestman 1995, pp. 78–79; 1998, p. 35, fig. 8; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 289 n. 4, 294; Franits 2016, pp. 23–24; Foucart 2016, n. pag. COMMENTS: See Chapter 5, pp. 139–42.

Paintings belonging to Schalcken’s London period on stylistic grounds A13/ Fig. 31 Portrait of William III Oil on canvas, 76.5 × 65 cm Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-A-367 c. 1695–96 PROVENANCE: Gregory Page collection, Blackheath, before 1786; sale, Bertels, Paris, 27 March 1786, lot 52; with Alexandre-Joseph Paillet (art dealer), Paris; acquired by the Nationale Kunstgalerij (a predecessor of the Rijksmuseum), The Hague, 1808.

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

165

EXHIBITIONS: Cologne 2015–16, pp. 269–71, cat. no. 70, illus. in color. SELECTED LITERATURE: Hecht 1980, pp. 25–29, fig. 1; 1986, pp. 176–77, fig. 5; Beherman 1988, pp. 26, 44, 182–83, cat. no. 84, illus. in color, as dating to Schalcken’s London period, which the author placed between 1692 and 1699; Liverpool 1994–95, p. 70; Seidel 1996, pp. 146–47, fig. 62; Neumeister 2003, p. 343; Van Bree and Lekkerkerk 2006, pp. 24, fig. 20, illus. in color; Auer 2010, p. 45, fig. 7, illus. in color, as dating c. 1699; Kern 2014, p. 43, fig.13; White 2015, p. 341; Foucart 2016, n. pag.; Hecht 2016, p. 269, fig 3. COMMENTS: See Chapter 2, pp. 69–76. Period painted reproductions: A13C1 Copy after Godefridus Schalcken Oil on canvas, 74.9 × 62.2 cm Atcham (Shropshire), Attingham Park, National Trust, inv. no. 609007 c. 1695–1700 PROVENANCE: Bequeathed with the estate, house, and contents of Attingham Park to the National Trust by Thomas Henry Noel-Hill (1877–1947), 8th Baron Berwick, 15 May 1953. EXHIBITIONS: Surrey, Hampton Court Palace, Secrets of the Royal Bedchamber, 2013 (no cat.). SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 184 (under cat. no. 84), fig. 84a, as perhaps by Schalcken; London 2009b, p. 332, illus., as by Schalcken, as dating 1692. COMMENTS: The execution of this canvas is too weak and the facial features of the sitter too wooden, to be an authentic painting by Schalcken; see further Chapter 2, note 96. Nevertheless, it is a good period copy. A13C2 Copy after Godefridus Schalcken Oil on canvas, 93 × 73.5 cm Inscribed in the four corners: VENI / VIDI / ET/ VICI Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum, inv. no. GK 297 c. 1695–1700 PROVENANCE: Acquired by Landgrave Ernst Ludwig von Hessen Darmstadt, before 1715.

166 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 184 (under cat. no. 84), fig. 84b, as a copy after Schalcken. COMMENTS: Though of better quality than the other copy of Schalcken’s William III (cat. no. A10C1), this picture, with prominent Latin inscriptions and other minor variations, likewise reveals a comparatively wooden rendition of the monarch’s face; see further Chapter 2, note 96. Nevertheless, it is a good period copy. A14/ Fig. 84 Miniature Portrait of the Artist’s Wife, Françoisia van Diemen Oil on copper, 9 × 7.4 cm Monogrammed, lower left: G. S. The Netherlands, private collection c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: Possibly sale, Count François Xavier de Robiano collection, Brussels, 1 May 1837, lot 591, as representing a “petit portrait de dame,” as on copper, measuring 9 × 7 cm; with Henri Joseph Héris (art dealer), Brussels; sale, Christie’s, Amsterdam, 22 September 2009, lot 132, as by the circle of Schalcken, as representing “a lady.” EXHIBITIONS: Cologne 2015–16, pp. 109–10, cat. no. 9, illus. in color. SELECTED LITERATURE: Foucart 2016, n. pag. COMMENTS: Guido Jansen, writing in Cologne 2015–16 (see Selected Literature section above), rightly points out that rich Prussian-blue background of this copper is quite atypical for comparable Dutch pictures in a miniature format. Given its strong visual similarity to English miniatures, it must have been made during Schalcken’s London period. Jansen also convincingly identified the sitter as the artist’s wife, Françoisia van Diemen (1661–1744), who was in her early thirties during the couple’s four-year stay in London. Lastly, Jansen posited that since this is Schalcken’s only known miniature from his English period, it might have been painted – in oil on durable copper – as a memento to be carried on the person of the artist. A15 Portrait of a Man, Said to be Daniel de Utins Oil on canvas, 74 × 63 cm Signed, right center: G. Sch … Present location unknown c. 1695–96 PROVENANCE: Sale, De Zon, Amsterdam, 27 November 1962, lot 5484.

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

167

Fig. 84. Godefridus Schalcken, Miniature Portrait of the Artist’s Wife, Françoisia van Diemen, c. 1692–96 (oil on ­copper, 9 × 7.4 cm). The Netherlands, private collection.

SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 190, cat. no. 91, illus., as dating to Schalcken’s London period, which the author placed between 1692 and 1699.7 COMMENTS: Judging from the black-and-white photograph in Beherman’s monograph (see the Selected Literature section above) the composition of this picture as well as the sitter’s martial attire recall Schalcken’s Portrait of William III (see cat. no. A13 above). However, there is no evidence that it represents Daniel de Utins. In fact, the present writer was unable to identify any contemporary archival documents pertaining to this person or to his family. A16 Portrait of a Man Oil on canvas, 61 × 50 cm Le Mans, Musée de Tessé, inv. no. 10.151 c. 1694–96 PROVENANCE: Acquired by the museum in 1837.

168 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 319, cat. no. 226, illus., as dating after 1699. COMMENTS: In execution and in pose, this portrait recalls Schalcken’s Florence Self-Portrait (cat. no. A3 above). A17/ Fig. 85 Portrait of a Girl, Said to be Anne Conslade Oil on canvas, 122.6 × 96.5 cm Signed, lower left: G. Schalcken Private collection c. 1692–96 EXHIBITIONS: Maastricht, The European Fine Art Fair, 2017 (by Johnny van H ­ aeften Ltd.). PROVENANCE: With Gallery Tillou, Litchfield, CT, 1968; sale, Christie’s, London, 13 July 1979, lot 111; private collection, England; sale, Sotheby’s, London, 8 December 2016, lot 136 (bought in). SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 200, cat. no. 99, illus., as dating to Schalcken’s London period, which the author placed between 1692 and 1699. COMMENTS: In terms of pictorial style, costume, and even the sitter’s hairdo, this charming canvas recalls other English period portraits by Schalcken of female sitters (Fig. 22). However, there is no evidence that it represents Anne Conslade. In fact, the present writer was unable to identify any contemporary archival documents pertaining to this person or to her family. A18/ Fig. 12 Portrait of a Young Musician, Most Likely John Banister III Oil on canvas, 24.5 × 21.3 cm Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario, inv. no. 97.3 c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: Sir William East (1738–1819), 1st Baronet of Hall Place, Hurley, Berkshire; by descent to various family members; by descent to Agnes Emma Clayton East; sale, Christie’s, London, 19 December 1941, lot 9; with Rafael Valls Ltd., 1992; acquired by the Art Gallery of Ontario in 1997. EXHIBITIONS: Maastricht, The European Fine Art Fair, 1993 (by Rafael Valls Ltd.). SELECTED LITERATURE: Cologne 2015–16, pp. 221–23, 223 n. 7, fig. 52a, illus. in color. COMMENTS: See Chapter 1, pp. 43–45.

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

169

Fig. 85. Godefridus Schalcken, Portrait of a Girl, Said to be Anne Conslade, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 122.6 × 96.5 cm). Private collection.

Period graphic reproductions: A18D1/ Fig. 13 Drawing by Godefridus Schalcken, pen and brown ink over red and black chalk, with gray and blue wash, 13.7 × 10.9 cm New York, The Leiden Collection, inv. no. GS-112 c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: Private collection, until 1992; with Emanuel Baeyer, London, until 2006; from whom acquired by the Leiden Collection in 2006. EXHIBITIONS: Foucart 2016, n. pag.; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 221–23, cat. no. 52, illus. in color.

170 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

SELECTED LITERATURE: New York 2017, The Leiden Collection, http://www. theleidencollection.com/artwork/a-young-boy-holding-a-lighted-torch/. COMMENTS: See Chapter 1, pp. 43–44. A19/ Fig. 74 Ceres with a Torch (Searching for Persephone) Oil on canvas, 34 × 27 cm Signed, lower left: Schalcken Bourges, Musée de l’Hôtel Lallemant, inv. no. D.872.1.2 c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: Charles Bodvile Robartes (1660–1723), 2nd Earl of Radnor collection, London, until 1723; sale, John Green and Thomas Scawen, London, 28 April 1724, lot 60; acquired by Louis XVI of France, 1783; transferred to the Louvre, Paris, 1793; Musée du Louvre, Paris, 1793; transferred to the Musée de Bourges, 1872. SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 114, cat. no. 29, illus., as dating c. 1680–85. COMMENTS: See Chapter 5, pp. 137–39. A20/ Fig. 58 Boy Blowing on a Firebrand Oil on canvas, 75 × 63.5 cm Signed, bottom center: G. Schalcken Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland, inv. no. NG2495 c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: Probably purchased from Schalcken by Robert Spencer (1641–1702), 2nd Earl Sunderland, Althorp; by descent, to his son, Charles (1675–1722), 3rd Earl Sunderland; by descent to his third son, the Hon. John Spencer (1708–1746), who succeeded to Althorp in 1733; by descent to his son, John (1734–1783), 1st Earl Spencer; by descent to various family members; by descent to Edward John Spencer (1924–1992), 8th Earl Spencer; sale, Sotheby’s, New York, 14 January 1988, lot 36 (bought in); with Johnny van Haeften Ltd., London; acquired by the National Gallery of Scotland in 1989. EXHIBITIONS: Leeds 1868, p. 48, cat. no. 696; London 1952–53, vol. 2, p. 108, cat. no. 595; Munich 1998–99, p. 447, cat. no. 252, illus. in color; Memphis 2001, pp. 56–57, cat. no. 23, illus. in color; Glasgow, Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, 2003 (no cat.); Cologne 2015–16, pp. 272–74, cat. no. 71, illus. in color. SELECTED LITERATURE: Elsum 1704, p. 106, epigram no. CXXXVII; Garlick 1974– 76, pp. 76, cat. no. 585 (39); 104, no. 381; 106, 118; Beherman 1988, pp. 356–57, cat.

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

171

no. 326, illus., rejecting the attribution to Schalcken, as a copy after a lost original; ­Borchhardt-Birbaumer 2003, p. 132; Franits 2015–16, pp. 45–46; detail illus. in color on p. 36; Foucart 2016, n. pag.; New York 2017, The Leiden Collection, http://www.theleidencollection.com/artwork/a-young-man-blowing-a-torch-tolight-a-candle/. COMMENTS: See Chapter 4, pp. 113–16. Period painted reproductions: A20SW1 Variant reproduction by Godefridus Schalcken and Workshop Oil on canvas, 112.8 × 90 cm New York, The Leiden Collection, inv. no. GS-106 PROVENANCE: Private collection, Northern Europe; sale, Christie’s, Amsterdam, 18 November 2006, lot 70; with Johnny van Haeften Ltd., London and Salomon Lilian, Amsterdam, 2006; from whom acquired by the Leiden Collection in 2006. EXHIBITIONS: Kansas City, MO, The Nelson Atkins Museum of Art, 2009 (no cat.); Brooklyn, Brooklyn Museum, 2013–16 (no cat.). SELECTED LITERATURE: New York 2017, The Leiden Collection, http://www.­ theleidencollection.com/artwork/a-young-man-blowing-a-torch-to-light-a-candle/. COMMENTS: This canvas is a variant of the Edinburgh prime version (see cat. no. A20 above) in that two figures are portrayed: a boy (who differs in appearance from his Edinburgh counterpart) blowing on a firebrand and woman standing behind him. Guido Jansen, writing in New York 2017 (see Selected Literature section above) argues convincingly that this canvas is only partly by Schalcken. The superb light effects, rendered with great virtuosity, are his while the figures, rather stiffly and flatly painted, suggest the authorship of another hand. Unfortunately, little is known of Schalcken’s studio practices in London; see further Chapter 3, pp. 99–100. A21/ Fig. 68 Young Woman with a Waffle Oil on canvas, 25.5 × 21.5 cm Signed, upper left: G. Schalcken Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. no. GK 303 c. 1695 PROVENANCE: Acquired by Wilhelm VII (1682–1760), Landgrave of Hessen-Kassel, before 1749.

172 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

EXHIBITIONS: Cologne 2015–16, pp. 177–80, cat. no. 33, illus. in color; as probably dating 1692–96. SELECTED LITERATURE: Manuscript inventory, 1749–56, no. 32; Beherman 1988, pp. 238–39, cat. no. 145, illus. in color, as dating c. 1685–90; Kassel 1996, vol. 1, pp. 272, 283; vol. 2, plate 218, as dating 1680–90; Sevcik 2016a, pp. 10–12; Lange 2016, p. 213; Foucart 2016, n. pag. COMMENTS: See Chapter 4, p. 127. A22/ Fig. 61 Young Woman with a Headdress Holding a Candle Oil on canvas, 26.1 × 28 cm Signed, lower left: G. Schalcken Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum, inv. no. 735 c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: Johann Daniel von Weng collection, Stuttgart, before 1808; sale, Frankfurt am Main, 14 September 1818, lot 226; there acquired by the Städelsches Kunstinstitut (a predecessor of the Städel Museum). SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, pp. 285, cat. no. 190, illus., as dating c. 1699–1706; Frankfurt am Main 2010, pp. 423–28, fig. 476, illus. in color. COMMENTS: See Chapter 4, pp. 118–19. A23/ Fig. 62 Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle Oil on canvas, 39 × 32 cm Said to be signed Present location unknown c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: J. Singer Gallery, London; with Galleria Giorgio Caretto, Turin, 1970. EXHIBITIONS: Turin 1970, cat. no. 71, illus., as dating c. 1680. SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 292, cat. no. 198, illus., as dating c. 1680–85; Aono 2011, p. 48; Enschede 2011, p. 157; Aono 2016a, p. 255. COMMENTS: See Chapter 4, pp. 119–20.

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

173

Period graphic reproductions: A22M1/ Fig. 63: Mezzotint by Nicolaas Verkolje, 28 × 22.6 cm Inscribed at the bottom: G: Schalcken. Pinx:/ N. Verkolje: fecit./ G: Valck. Excud: Cum Previl: c. 1695–1700 SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 292 (under cat. no. 198), fig. 198a; Aono 2011, p. 48, fig. 4; Enschede 2011, p. 157, fig. 1; Aono 2016a, p. 255, fig. 2, as dating to the late 1690s. COMMENTS: See Chapter 4, p. 120. A24/ Fig. 64 Every One His Fancy Oil on panel, 42.5 × 31.5 cm Signed, on the paper in the upper right: G. Schalcken pinxit; inscribed, on the same paper in the upper right: Every One His Fancy Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-A-368 c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: A. L. van Heteren Gevers collection, The Hague and Rotterdam, 1752; acquired by the Koninklijk Museum (a predecessor of the Rijksmuseum), Amsterdam, in 1809. SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, pp. 264–65, cat. no. 167, illus. in color, as dating c. 1670–75, rejecting the theory that this picture is the pendant to There’s No Accounting for Tastes; Fusenig 2016. COMMENTS: This panel is the pendant to cat. no. A25 below; see Chapter 2, pp. 121–24. A25/ Fig. 66 There’s No Accounting for Tastes Oil on panel, 42.5 × 31 cm Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-A-369 c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: A. L. van Heteren Gevers collection, The Hague and Rotterdam, 1752; acquired by the Koninklijk Museum (a predecessor of the Rijksmuseum) in 1809. SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 302, cat. no. 205, illus. in color, as dating c. 1685–90, rejecting the theory that this picture is the pendant to Every One His Fancy; Amsterdam 1997, p. 358, fig. 1; Sevcik 2015–16, pp. 64–65, fig. 35, illus. in color, as dating 1685–90 or earlier.

174 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

COMMENTS: This panel is the pendant to cat. no. A24 above; see Chapter 2, pp. 123–27. A26/ Fig. 86 Music Lesson Oil on canvas, 75.5 × 63 cm Signed, lower right: G. Schalken London, with Johnny van Haeften Ltd. c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: Private collection, France, until 2007; sale, Sotheby’s, New York, 25 January 2007, lot 72; private collection, New York, 2007–15. SELECTED LITERATURE: Unpublished. COMMENTS: A characteristic London period work in execution. A27/ Fig. 81 Flower Still-Life Oil on panel, 44 × 32 cm Signed on the vase, bottom center: G. Schalcken Oxford, Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Oxford, bequest of Daisy Linda Ward 1939, inv. no. A 592 c. 1692–96 PROVENANCE: With Galerie J. Herbrand, Paris, 1926; Daisy Linda Ward collection, London; bequeathed to the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology in 1939. EXHIBITIONS: Cologne 2015–16, pp. 180–82, cat. no. 34, illus. in color; detail illus. in color on p. 157. SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 306, cat. no. 209, illus. in color, as dating c. 1695–1700; Taylor 1995, p. 103, fig. 63; Oxford 2003, pp. 272–73, cat. no. 67, illus., as dating to the 1670s; Foucart 2016, n. pag., n. 10. COMMENTS: See Chapter 5, p. 148. A28/ Fig. 82 Bunch of Grapes Oil on canvas, 42 × 31 cm Signed, lower left: G. Schalcken Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv. no. NM 1445 PROVENANCE: Louis Wrede collection, Melby; sale, Bukowskis, Stockholm, 1886; Olf Granberg collection; by whom given to the Nationalmuseum, 1892.

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

175

Fig. 86. Godefridus Schalcken, Music Lesson, c. 1692–96 (oil on canvas, 75.5 × 63 cm). New York, private collection. Photo: courtesy of Johnny van Haeften Ltd.

EXHIBITIONS: Stockholm 1967, pp. 99–100, cat. no. 145. SELECTED LITERATURE: Beherman 1988, p. 307, cat. no. 210, illus. in color, as dating 1695–1705; Oxford 2003, p. 273 n. 2; Stockholm 2005, pp. 446–47, cat. no. 450, illus.; Cologne 2015–16, p. 180, fig. 34.1, illus. in color; Foucart 2016, n. pag., n. 10. COMMENTS: See Chapter 5, pp. 148–51.

Lost paintings from Schalcken’s London period L1 Portrait of Sir John Lowther (1655–1700), 2nd Baronet (and from 1696, 1st Viscount Lonsdale)

176 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

SOURCE: Manuscript inventory of the art collection at Lowther Castle, compiled by John Lowther, 1696, In the next room with the Black Marble Chimney Peece, my picture by Schalken – 15.0.0 (Cumbria Archive Service, Carlisle, inv. no. DLONS/L2/6). L2 Portrait of Lady Katherine Lowther née Thynne (1653–1713), wife of Sir John Lowther (m. 1674) SOURCE: Manuscript inventory of the art collection at Lowther Castle, compiled by John Lowther, 1696, In the withdrawing room, My Wife by the same [Schalcken] – 20.0.0 (Cumbria Archive Service, Carlisle, inv. no. DLONS/L2/6). L3 Portrait of Sir John Wentworth (1673–1720), 1st Baronet of North Elmsall SOURCE: Manuscript inventory of the art collection at Lowther Castle, compiled by John Lowther, 1696, In the withdrawing room … John Wentworth by the same [Schalcken] – 20.0.0 (Cumbria Archive Service, Carlisle, inv. no. DLONS/L2/6). L4 Portrait of the Duke of Grafton, possibly Charles FitzRoy (1683–1757), 2nd Duke of Grafton SOURCE: Manuscript inventory of the art collection at Lowther Castle, compiled by John Lowther, 1696, In the withdrawing room, The Duke off Grafton by Candle Light by Scalken – 17.0.0 (Cumbria Archive Service, Carlisle, inv. no. DLONS/L2/6). L5 Portrait of Anna Kynnesman née Clarke (1666–97) SOURCE: Mezzotint by John Smith (Fig. 9) after the portrait, the latter most likely painted around the time of the sitter’s marriage to Francis Kynnesman (c. 1640–1704), which took place on or about 1 November 1694; see further ­Chapter 1, pp. 37–42. L6 Portrait? of Two Gentlemen SOURCE: [Vertue] 1935–36, p. 39, “–2. Gentlemen at len. [full-length] in Roman habits,” which the antiquarian had seen during a visit in 1732 to Althorp, the Spencer family seat in Northamptonshire; see further Chapter 4, pp. 114, 224 n. 51. L7 Copy of a Painting of the Madonna by Raphael SOURCE: “A Catalogue of Mr. Sykes’s Extraordinary Collection of Original and Other Pictures” [London 1724], lot 200, “A Madona [sic] by Schalcken after Raphael,” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 23 November 2015). “Mr. Sykes” was William Sykes (1659–1724), an art dealer and painter who was member of the Virtuosi of St. Luke, and with whom Schalcken likely had contact; see further Chapter 3, p. 94.

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

177

L8 Self-Portrait at an Easel SOURCE: “A Catalogue of Extraordinary Original Pictures and Limnings, by Several Excellent Masters” [London 1711], lot 13, “Schalcken. His own Picture, at his Easel,” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 13 July 2015). The picture’s owner was Richard Graham (d. 1741), an art dealer and virtuoso who was an influential member of the Virtuosi of St. Luke and with whom Schalcken likely had contact; see further Chapter 3, p. 94. L9 Woman Sleeping by Candlelight SOURCE: Mezzotints by John Smith and Pieter Schenck.

Checklist of paintings possibly belonging to Schalcken’s London period on stylistic grounds8 1. Penitent Magdalen, c. 1685–93 Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. no. GK 304 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Fig. 79 in the present study 2. Portrait of a Woman, c. 1688–93 Germany, private collection PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 219 (cat. no. 122) 3. Venus and Cupid, c. 1689–94 Present location unknown PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Dordrecht 2001, p. 299 (cat. no. 71) 4. Parable of the Lost Piece of Silver, c. 1689–93 New York, The Leiden Collection, inv. no. GS-108 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: New York 2017, The Leiden Collection, http://www.­ theleidencollection.com/artwork/parable-of-the-lost-piece-of-silver/ 5. The Useless Lesson, c. 1690–93 The Hague, Mauritshuis, inv. no. 160 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Mauritshuis, https://www.mauritshuis.nl/en/explore/ the-collection/artworks/a-useless-moral-lesson-160/ 6. The Doctor’s Visit, c. 1690–93 The Hague, Mauritshuis, inv. no. 160 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Mauritshuis, https://www.mauritshuis.nl/en/explore/ the-collection/artworks/the-doctors-examination-161/

178 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

7. Rest on the Flight into Egypt, c. 1690–95 Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. no. 1294 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 81 (cat. no. 3) 8. A Young Woman with Pigeons (Venus?), c. 1690–95 The Hague, Mauritshuis, inv. no. 162 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Mauritshuis, https://www.mauritshuis.nl/en/explore/ the-collection/artworks/young-woman-with-pigeons-venus-162/ 9. Penitent Magdalen, c. 1690–96 Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. no. GK 305 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 99 (cat. no. 16); see also Chapter 5, note 85 10. Juno, c. 1690–96 Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst, inv. no. KMSsp620 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: SMK, http://www.smk.dk/en/explore-the-art/search-­ smk/#/​detail/KMSsp620 11. Salome, c. 1690–98 Montreal, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no. 2003.87 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 88 (cat. no. 8) 12. Mocking of Christ, c. 1690–98 Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. no. 5248 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 93 (cat. no. 12) 13. Three Children Singing, c. 1690–98 Present location unknown PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 270 (cat. no. 173) 14. Head of a Boy, c. 1690–98 Present location unknown PHOTOG RAPHIC SOURCE: Under RKDimages, https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images#​ query=schalcken 15. Young Woman Feeding a Parrot, c. 1690–1700 Present location unknown PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 272 (cat. no. 176)

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

179

16. The Useless Lesson, c. 1691–98 Antwerp. Museum Smidt van Gelder, inv. no. Sm. 888 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 274 (cat. no. 177) 17. Holy Family with Saint John, c. 1695–1700 Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst, inv. no. KMSsp 616 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: SMK, http://www.smk.dk/en/explore-the-art/searchsmk/#/​detail/KMSsp616 18. Head of a Young Girl, c. 1692–98 United Kingdom, private collection PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Formerly with Sander Bijl, Alkmaar 19. Young Woman Holding a Candle, c. 1692–98 Florence, Palazzo Pitti, Galleria Palatina, inv. no. 1118 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 286 (cat. no. 192) 20. Young Man Eating Porridge, c. 1692–98 Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, inv. no. 177 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 298 (cat. no. 202) 21. Young Woman with a Candle and a Boy Trying to Blow Out the Flame, c. 1692–98 Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. no. 292 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 301 (cat. no. 206) 22. Portia, c. 1692–1706 Belgium, private collection PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 141 (cat. no. 48) 23. Old Man Reading, c. 1693–1700 Madrid, Museo del Prado, inv. no. 2135 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 110 (cat. no. 26) 24. Saint Peter, c. 1693–1700 Bradford, Cartwright Hall Art Gallery, inv. no. F14-64 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 109 (cat. no. 25) 25. Elderly Man Writing, c. 1693–1700 Present location unknown PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 312 (cat. no. 215b)

180 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

26. A Young Man Courting His Mistress, c. 1694–1700 New York, The Leiden Collection, inv. no. GS-129 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Fig. 60 in the present study 27. Woman Holding a Basket of Fruit, c. 1694–1706 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no. 64.606 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: MFA, http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/womanwith-a-basket-of-fruit-33849 (as attributed to Carel de Moor) 28. Smiling Young Man with a Burning Candle, c. 1695–1700 The Netherlands, private collection PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Cologne 2015–16, p. 275 (cat. no. 72) 29. Young Woman Playing the Guitar, c. 1695–1700 Present location unknown PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Under RKDimages, https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images#​ query=schalcken 30. Portrait of a Man, c. 1695–1706 Present location unknown PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 205 (cat. no. 106) 31. Portrait of a Woman, c. 1696–1706 Present location unknown PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 218 (cat. no. 121) 32. Young Woman Lighting a Candle, c. 1696–1706 Monaco, Lingenauber collection PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Lingenauber.org, http://collection-lingenauber.org/old_ mastes_northern.html 33. Woman with a Candle, c. 1696–1706 Present location unknown PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: RKDimages, https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?​ query=schalcken&start=13 34. Nymph Sitting by a Stream, c. 1696–1706 Private collection PHOTOGRAPHIC SOURCE: Beherman 1988, p. 220 (cat. no. 125)

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist

35. Head of a Youth, c. 1692–1706 With Bob Haboldt & Co., Paris9 36. Head of a Youth, Possibly St. John the Evangelist, c. 1692–1706 With Bob Haboldt & Co., Paris10

181

Notes Introduction 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11

12

13

For the following discussion, see the biography of Schalcken by Jansen (2015–16), which supercedes the biographical information set forth in Beherman 1988. See also the biography by Willem Frijhoff published on the website of the Regionaal Archief in Dordrecht: “Godefridus Schalcken,” Regionaal Archief, http://www.regionaalarchiefdordrecht.nl/biografisch-woordenboek/godefridusschalcken/. For the date of Van Hoogstaten’s departure for London, see Brusati 1995, p. 291 n. 90. For Dou, see Washington, DC, 2000b. The exact year of Schalcken’s return to Dordrecht is not known, though Jansen (2015–16, p. 16) notes that his name only begins to appear regularly from 1672 onwards in documents now in that city’s archives. For an excellent overview of Schalcken’s career as a portraitist, see Wieseman 2016. See Jansen 2015–16, pp. 23–25. As Korthals Altes 2016, explains, Schalcken’s reputation remained great among European collectors throughout the eighteenth century. Beherman 1988. See Cologne 2015–16; and especially Franits 2015–16. Veth 1892, p. 4. Guido Jansen has shared two archival documents with me that shed further light on what was then an impending event. The first, compiled on 28 March 1692, records the renting of a house and yard, along with a parcel of land in Brandwijck, a village lying to the north-east of Dordrecht. The second document, compiled on 25 April 1692 in connection with a trial, describes the painter as “staande op syn vertreck na Engeland,” which can be loosely translated as, “about to depart for England.” See also Jansen 2015–16, p. 26. For Schalcken’s portrait in miniature of Françoisia, made during the couple’s years in London, see Fig. 84 in the present study. For the following discussion, see Israel 1989, pp. 292–358; 1995, pp. 796–862; J. de Vries and Van der Woude 1997, pp. 409–503, 674–81; Munt 1997; Dreiskämper 1998. In relation to this, J. de Vries and Van der Woude (1997, pp. 674–81) argue that the onset of the decline of the Dutch economy began in the early 1660s. For example, J. de Vries 1991, pp. 264, 267–68, 270, 273, table 2. Unfortunately De Vries does not provide decade-by-decade statistics, because it would be interesting to know whether this drop in artists accelerated only during the 1670s, that is, during years of the first war with France and its allies; see Munt 1997, p. 30. See also Montias 1987, pp. 462–64; 1991, p. 343; Bok 1994, pp. 120–30, passim; 2001, pp. 204–9. The view of Horn (2000, vol. 1, pp. 102–3), that there is no necessary connection between the changing state of the economy and the evolution of the arts, is naive. Evidently, if the subject of his study, Arnold Houbraken, does not link art and the economy in his writings then for Horn there can be absolutely no link between them despite the abundant findings of economic historians to the contrary. These issues form part of a larger debate, namely, that of the so-called qualitative decline of Dutch art from roughly 1675 onwards; see, most recently, Korthals Altes 2006; Aono 2015, 2016b.

184 

14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21

22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30

31

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

See the literature cited in note 9 above. The disparities between the income of the rich and the poor continued to increase during the late seventeenth century just as they had done in earlier decades; see Soltow and Van Zanden 1998, pp. 40–41. See L. de Vries 1999, p. 36. See Beherman 1988, pp. 41–44; Jansen 2000, p. 329; 2015–16, pp. 23–25. See Jansen (2015–16, pp. 22–23), who notes Schalcken’s lawsuit against Van der Bruggen, who had failed to pay for the artist’s Preciosa Recognized (Dublin, National Gallery of Ireland). For this painting, see Cologne 2015–16, pp. 126–28, cat. no. 15. Beherman 1988, p. 25; Jansen 2015–16, pp. 24–25; and Sevcik 2016b, pp. 94–96. Both Jansen and Sevcik wonder whether the presence of William III and members of his court in The Hague during the winter and early spring of 1691 perchance allowed Schalcken to cultivate contacts that would culminate in his decision to resettle in England the following year. For two examples of Schalcken’s portraits for clientele in The Hague, see Cologne 2015–16, pp. 215–18, cat. nos. 49–50. For the Confrerie, see Rehorst 1995–96 and Buijsen 1998–99, pp. 41–43. The latter states that only after 1719 did the Confrerie become known as the Confrerie Pictura; p. 40 n. 26. Karst (2013–14), who is quoting Jacob Campo Weyerman, Schalcken’s eighteenthcentury biographer discussed below. Naturally, not every emigrant painter was truly successful in England. Hecht (1994) explores this phenomenon for the broader seventeenth century in light of biographies about the relevant artists written in the early eighteenth century; his conclusions are less rosy than those of Karst. Ormrod 2003. For this large topic, see, for example, The Hague 1988–89; Washington, DC, 1989, pp. 217–307; C. Brown 1993; Dunthorne 2007; Jonckheere 2008, pp. 17–26, passim. Lydius 1647. There is no modern scholarly study of Lydius, a fascinating figure within the religious history of the Dutch Republic. It was certainly no coincidence that in the year of Van Hoogstraten’s departure, 1662, the fledgling painter moved to Leiden to complete his training with Gerrit Dou (1613–1675). For Van Hoogstraten’s English period, see Brusati 1995, pp. 91–109; and, more recently, Yalcin 2013. Van Hoogstraten 1678, p. 188. Brusati 1995, pp. 94, 109. Gregory and Stevenson (2007, p. 245) provide population statistics for London and other cities in England between 1650 and 1831. Karst 2013–14, p. 50. This was just one of nine issues, all published in 1695, of A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade in which this very same advertisement appeared. For this periodical, see Glaisyer 2006, pp. 145–55. At this time, England still adhered to the old-style Julian calendar, wherein the “new year” began on 25 March. This book follows the now standard convention of adjusting dates to the modern calendar, so that the new year is understood to begin on 1 January. Owing to a lack of archival documentation, it is impossible to say whether Schalcken and his family lived in York Buildings during their entire stay in England. It is probably no accident that Schalcken was listed as a portrait painter in the advertisement even

Notes

32 33 34

35 36 37 38 39

40 41 42

43 44

45 46

185

though he practiced other genres during his English period: the years 1694–95 seem to have been exceptionally busy ones for the artist in terms of portrait commissions (see Chapters 1–3). For York House and the subsequent York Buildings neighborhood, see Gater and Wheeler 1937, pp. 51–60. Spence (2000, p. 5), who notes that by the 1690s more than three-quarters of the inhabitants of the greater metropolis lived outside the boundaries of the old City of London. For the social and economic structure of the district, see Spence 2000, pp. 63–114. See also Stone (1980), who considers it more homogeneous socially. To the contrary, Whyman (1999, p. 64) emphasizes its eclectic social composition, as does Boulton (2000). See also the interesting study by Power 1986, which examines the social structure of London as a whole during the Restoration era. For Pepys’s residency in York Buildings, see Bonner-Smith 1938; Tomalin 2003, pp. 298, 437 n. 2. See further the discussion in Chapter 1. Smuts (1991, pp. 128, 128 n. 33), stating that the parish remained a commercial quarter into the mid-eighteenth century. Smuts 1991, p. 124. Interestingly, until about 1695, Buckingham Street in York Buildings was the home of Leonard Knyff (1650–1722), a Dutch painter and picture dealer, who held sales there and presumably knew Schalcken; see “Knyff, Leonard (1650–1722),” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 16 May 2016). My thanks to Sander Karst for this reference. Spence 2000, pp. 66–88, passim. For an overview of this tax, see Alexander 1992; Spence 2000, pp. 7–14. This was a common practice at the time, as an archivist at the City of Westminster Archives Centre in London explained to me; see also Boulton 2000, pp. 206–7. The same can be said of the Marriage Duty Act of 1695, which taxed births, marriages, and burials to raise war funding; Schalcken’s name is also absent from the ample documentation. For this tax, see Arkell 1992, pp. 166–71. For those persons officially exempt from paying these taxes – generally, children and the destitute – see Arkell 1992, p. 144. For the servant mentioned here, see the discussion below. FamilySearch, https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NJFV-M5L, where an image of the baptismal register is available. Van Kretschmar (1964, p. 227) had first published this information decades ago but unfortunately mistranscribed the name as “François,” thus mistakenly turning the infant girl into a boy. During Schalcken’s stay in London, the Dutch Royal Chapel was the long-standing site of royal ceremonies and services for foreign nationals connected to the court. It burned to the ground in 1698 during a major fire that leveled most of the White Palace complex. Veth (1892, p. 3) states that one of Schalcken’s children was buried in Dordrecht on 29 May 1691. This must have been Françoisia, who was baptized on 28 June 1690; see Jansen 2015–16, pp. 21, 32 n. 33. Veth 1892, p. 2. An article on the artist that Wilhelm Frijhoff published on the website of the Regionaal Archief in Dordrecht, “Godefridus Schalcken,” Regionaal Archief,

186 

47

48 49 50 51 52

53 54

55

56 57 58

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

http://www.regionaalarchiefdordrecht.nl/biografisch-woordenboek/godefridusschalcken/, provides the baptismal and death dates for the nine children of the couple who did not survive infancy or toddlerhood. Curiously, [Anon.] [1740], p. 7, an auction catalogue of the property of Charles Montagu (1661–1715), 1st Earl of Halifax, lists as lot 82, “Scalken’s daughter, big as life, by Himself.” My thanks to Anja Sevcik for this reference. Naturally, it is difficult to confirm the accuracy of this listing. Schalcken could have met Montagu during his London period, for the latter was living in London at that time, where he held several important political posts, including Chancellor of the Exchequer (1694). If the picture did, in fact, portray Schalcken’s daughter, Françoisia, it was either painted in England (when the girl was a toddler) or might have been sent to Montagu after the artist had returned to the Dutch Republic. Or perhaps the Englishman acquired it second-hand. But it is much more likely that this listing misidentifies the sitter. Interestingly, early on in his career, Montagu was mentored by Charles Sackville (1638–1706), 6th Earl of Dorset, who himself owned a “night peice [sic] done by Scalken,” for which he paid the art dealer, Richard Norris, 22 pounds in August 1694; see Chapter 4. For the Montagu’s life and political career, see Handley 2004a, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/19004 (accessed 10 March 2015). This document is dated 21 September 1707. My thanks to Guido Jansen for this information. My thanks to Guido Jansen for this information. FamilySearch, https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NPMB-1F2. Regionaal Archief Dordrecht, no. 1572-1702-SAM-THI Doopakten Dordrecht. Jansen (2015–16, p. 32 n. 33) notes that this child named Godefridus passed away shortly after his birth. Veth (1892, p. 3) states that one of Schalcken’s children was buried in Dordrecht on 29 May 1691, but did not provide a name. This was the “first” Françoisia, who did not live to see her first birthday; see note 45 above. Though there is no doubt that Van Diemen was pregnant at that time with the baby girl who would be baptized at the Dutch Chapel Royal that autumn and named Françoisia. Microfilm of the St. Martin-in-the-Fields burial register, which the author consulted in September 2014 at the City of Westminster Archives Centre in London. Guido Jansen has informed me that a third Godefridus would be baptized in The Hague on 3 February 1697 (see also Jansen 2015–16, p. 27); Van Diemen was undoubtedly pregnant with that child when the family left England in the summer of 1696 (see further below). See, for example, Veth (1892, p. 4), who placed the date of the artist’s return to the Dutch Republic around 1698; while A. Griffiths (1989, p. 256) argued for mid-1698. Most recently, Christopher White, writing in London 2015b, p. 341, claims that Schalcken was recorded as living in England in 1697, and was resettled in The Hague by the following year. Beherman 1988, pp. 25–26. Hardy 1895–1937, vol. 7, p. 292. Barbara Schalcken was born around 1655 and composed her last will and testament on 11 June 1709. See the “Genealogical Tree of Barbara Schalcken,” InterNLnet, http://web. inter.nl.net/users/Th.J.F.Schalke/godfried/34.html, with references to further literature.

Notes

187

This website is dedicated to the genealogy of the Schalcken family. However, the information presented there must be used with caution because not all of it is accurate. 59 Jacobus Schalcken, born around 1681–82, was the son of the artist’s brother, Johannes Schalcken; see “The Family of Godfried Schalcken,” InterNLnet, http://web.inter. nl.­net/users/Th.J.F.Schalke/godfried/. He was probably named in honor of his great uncle, the theologian Jacobus Lydius (see above). Jansen (2015–16, pp. 28–29) convincingly argues that Godefridus Schalcken trained Jacob in London. Beherman (1988, p. 161, cat. no. 62) illustrates a supposed portrait by Schalcken of his nephew, Jacobus. The author dates this picture to about 1699–1700. This cannot be correct because the child depicted therein is far too young to have been Jacobus. Either the date assigned to the picture is incorrect or, much more likely, the sitter is not Jacobus. Moreover, it is by no means certain that this picture is, in fact, a portrait. Jacobus Schalcken might have sat for a study drawing by his uncle; see Fig. 48 and the discussion in Chapter 3. 60 For Platt, about whom little is known, see further note 62 below and also Chapter 3. 61 “Habbiamo in questa città da due anni in qua un pittore olandese assai famoso nominato Schalken, dipinge alla maniera di Carlin Dolci, facendo ritratti in grande ed in piccolo, quadri di notte, frutte, fiori &c. a maraviglia …” The letter is transcribed by Crinò 1953, p. 192. See also Crinò 1957, p. 356; Florence 1992, p. 168, doc. no. I. 62 Platt was the former English consul in Livorno; see Prinz 1971, p. 134. Platt and Schalcken might have met first in The Hague, for the former spent time in that town (and in Amsterdam) in 1691; see H. van Veen and McCormick 1984, p. 35. 63 For Dolci, see Baldassari 2015; Florence 2015; Wellesley 2017. 64 For the appeal of Dolci’s work to several prominent members of the Medici family, see Spinelli 2015. 65 See, for example, Baldassari 2015, p. 238, cat. no. 129, a flower still life first owned by Cardinal Giovan Carlo de’ Medici (1611–1663). 66 Houbraken 1753, vol. 3, p. 343 (in his biography of Schalcken’s pupil, Karel de Moor [1655–1738]). See also Jansen 2015–16, 25. 67 Houbraken 1753, vol. 3, pp. 175–77. For Houbraken’s biography, see Cook 2016b, pp. 50–57, and app. C, which contains an English translation of his text. 68 Houbraken 1753, vol. 3, p. 176. 69 See Cook 2016b, pp. 52–53. 70 My thanks to Marten Jan Bok and Thijs Weststeijn for their insights concerning Houbraken’s terminology. 71 For the term “lighter,” in this context, see Hecht 1980, p. 24; and Horn 2000, vol. 1, p. 373. For airy, see Cook 2016b, p. 55, app. C, p. 4. 72 See Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article& wdb=WNT&id=M072995&lemma=vaardig (accessed 9 May 2016). 73 My thanks to Marten Jan Bok for his insights into Houbraken’s use of the term “luchtvaardig.” 74 See Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?​ actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M037106&lemma=lichtvaardig (accessed 11 May 2016), where lichtvaardig is defined as, “Licht van beweging, gemakkelijk zich bewegende, vlug, handig,” and is said to be long obsolete.

188 

75 76 77 78 79

80

81 82 83 84 85

86

87

88

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

See Cook 2016b, p. 55, app. C, p. 4. For Van Dyck’s years in England, see London 2009a. For the impact of Van Dyck’s art on Schalcken, see especially Chapter 3. Muller 1990–91, p. 30. See also Cook 2016b, p. 55. Houbraken 1753, vol. 3, p. 176. See the important article by Bignamini (1988), who convincingly dispels lingering notions of Vertue as a simple amateurish compiler of biographical data. See also Myrone 2004 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28252 (accessed 12 March 2015). For the history of antiquarianism in England, see London 2007. Walpole had made other purchases of Vertue’s property, especially at an auction held in March of 1757 that included many volumes from his library; see Bignamini 1988, p. 13. For Vertue’s and Wapole’s acquaintance with one another, see Brownell 2011, pp. 77–78. This author (p. 78) also points out that Walpole had a commercial interest in Vertue’s notebooks in that they provided him with “an unrivaled guidebook for locating English portraits in royal and country-house collections.” Walpole (1762–63, vol. 1, p. viii): “Here and there I have tried to enliven the dryness of the subject by inserting facts not totally foreign to it.” See further, Junod 2011, p. 56. See, for example, notes 87 and 88 below. This quotation and the subsequent ones in this paragraph are all taken from the notebook that Vertue compiled in 1721; see [Vertue] 1931–32b, p. 139. For his comments about Schalcken in the notebook of 1713, see [Vertue] 1929–30a, p. 29. There exists no evidence to support the claim that Schalcken made more than one trip to England. Cook (2015–16, pp. 75–76) raises the intriguing possibility that this chamber – if it indeed existed – resembled little rooms or even boxes constructed by such artists as Nicolas Poussin (1594–1665) and Gerard de Lairesse as part of their procedure for creating paintings. All of the quotations in this paragraph are taken from Walpole 1762–63, vol. 3, pp. 130–31. As if to underscore this point, an illustration inserted between pp. 130 and 131 of Walpole’s text portrays Schalcken holding a burning candle. This illustration was likely based on a reproduction in mezzotint of the artist’s self-portrait of 1694; see Fig. 42 and Chapter 3. The author’s equation of light effects with artistic tricks, which in his view lack substance, brings to mind a comment made sixteen years prior in an English periodical: see Anon. 1746, p. 330, part of an essay lampooning a certain politician’s utter lack of taste, “who would sooner look at a Night-piece of Schalken than at any History of Raphael or Domenichino.” Weyerman 1729–69, vol. 3, pp. 11–17. For Weyerman, see T. Broos 1990; Karst 2016. See also T. Broos (1985, p. 219 n. 71), who points out that several anecdotes told by Vertue and the Dutch author were likely adopted from common sources. Broos is mistaken because the parallel anecdotes were told by Weyerman and Walpole, not Vertue. See T. Broos (1990, p. 214), though his claim that Vertue translated passages wholesale from Weyerman for his biography of Schalcken cannot be correct for the simple reason that this scholar confuses Vertue’s favorable observations about the Dutch painter with the decidedly negative comments published by Walpole.

Notes

89

90

91 92

93

94 95 96

97

189

See T. Broos (1985, 1990, pp. 17–19), who also illustrates a still life by Weyerman presently in the collection of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge; this is the sole English period painting by the artist that can be identified. Weyerman’s stay in England is discussed in detail in his autobiography, published posthumously in Weyerman 1729–69, vol. 4, pp. 409–75. See also Karst 2013–14, p. 54. For an example of gossip about Schalcken circulating in early magazines, see note 96 below. Karst (2016, pp. 102–3, 107, 109 n. 9) quotes an Englishman’s review of Weyerman’s initial three volumes, which was published in the Daily Courant in May of 1729. The author commends Weyerman for “furnishing out a life replete with Adventures merry, whimsicle … [and] comical,” that rendered his “History amusing even to those who have not the least Taste for Painting, and who otherwise would very little concern themselves about Painters.” Weyerman 1729–69, vol. 3, pp. 13–15. See further in this context, the informative (and entertaining) article by Hecht 1980. See also Kern 2014, pp. 42–43; Hecht 2016, pp. 267–68, 269–70. For this account, the painting on which it is based, and the convincing interpretation by Hecht (1980, pp. 27–29) of the motif of the burning candle, see further Chapter 2, where the pertinent text from Weyerman is quoted in full. T. Broos (1985, p. 219 n. 71) observes that Weyerman’s story of the messy candle may not, in fact, be original. He claims that the same exact tale was told about Joshua Reynolds. However, this is incorrect, as the anecdote in question does not concern a messy candle but rather the artist’s use of the hands of his servants in making portraits, which was also told about Schalcken; see Northcote 1819, vol. 2, p. 267. Despite these negative comments, ones largely centered around Schalcken’s English years, Weyerman (1729–69, vol. 3, p. 15) does make complimentary observations about his art, particularly near the end of his biography where he lauds the master as a great and prosperous artist for, among other things, his flattering coloring, pleasing draperies, and wonderful contrasts between light and shadow. Descamps (1753–63, vol. 3, pp. 139–45), who also includes a list of prominent collections featuring paintings by the master. For Descamps, see Maës 2009–10, especially the literature cited on p. 227 n. 6; and most recently, Maës 2017. Descamps 1753–63, vol. 1, p. x. The artist’s alleged greed in England underlies another anecdote told about him in the Hollandsche Spectator, of all places. An issue of that early magazine published in June 1734 – in other words, while Schalcken’s widow was still alive – informs us that the artist was charging exorbitant prices for his pictures in England. A dealer supposedly tricked Schalcken into selling a picture to him for a nominal cost, a picture quite similar to one that he had just sold to an aristocratic collector for significantly more money. The dealer showed the painting he had just purchased to that collector and informed him of its modest price, with the result that Schalcken’s reputation was ruined, so that almost no one in London would purchase his work! See Van Effen 1889, pp. 412–13. My thanks to Guido Jansen for this reference. For the following remarks, see Franits 1995, p. 407; 2004, p. 255; and especially Cook 2016b, pp. 3, 159–60, 186, 224–25, who specifically links them to Schalcken.

190 

98 99 100

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

De Lairesse 1778, p. 22. The original Dutch passage is found in De Lairesse 1740, vol. 1, p. 41–42. For De Lairesse’s treatise, see, most recently, L. de Vries 2011; Žakula 2013–14. De Lairesse 1778, pp. 22–23. See further Mount 1991, pp. 71–92, passim, and the contemporary literature cited there. See also Gibson-Wood 2000, pp. 145–47. Nevertheless, these opinions did little to stem the general enthusiasm for Schalcken’s pictures in eighteenth-century England; see Chapter 4. M. Smith 1693, p. 25. Recall that in the periodical, A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade, Schalcken’s name is similarly spelled, Schalker; see note 29 above. M. Smith 1693, pp. 23–26. For Laroon, as well as his son Marcellus the Younger (1679–1772), see Raines 1967. See also Chapter 4. J. Stewart 1983, pp. 39–56. At first, Kneller shared this position with the English painter, John Riley (1646–1691). For Van Dyck in England, see London 2009a; and for Lely, London 1978–79, 2012–13. For Closterman, see Rogers 1983. For Dahl, see the now outdated monograph by Nisser 1927. See Nisser 1927, pp. 9, 41–42. J. Stewart (1983, p. 50) makes no mention of this possibility, but simply states that Kneller seems to have been friendly with Dahl during the latter’s first visit to London. See J. Stewart 1983, pp. 12–13, for the catholicity of taste in late seventeenth-century England. For Schalcken’s strategies in relation to his activities as a portraitist in general, see Wieseman 2016.

1. Haberdashers, barristers, and a young musician: Situating Schalcken in late seventeenth-century London 1

2 3

Documentation for Schalcken’s residence in York Buildings is only available in the form of newspaper advertisements for 1695; see Fig. 2. Therefore, a lack of archival documentation makes it is impossible to determine whether Schalcken and his family lived in York Buildings during their entire stay in England. Spence (2000, p. 5), who states that by the 1690s more than three-quarters of the inhabitants of the greater metropolis lived outside the boundaries of the old City of London. The approximate date of the couple’s marriage can be determined on the basis of lists of documents prepared after Kynnesman’s death in connection with a lawsuit filed by his third wife against the executors of his estate (see notes 28 and 29 below). One document, drafted on 31 October 1694, contains the names Francis Kynnesman and Anne Clarke, while another one, drafted 2 November 1694, calls them, “Francis Kynnesman and his wife.” Francis Kynnesman’s first wife, Mary Wagstaffe, whom he had married in 1670, was buried on 29 December 1693 in St. Martin-in-the-Fields; see FamilySearch, https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KCH1-LHR.

Notes

4

5 6

7

8 9

10 11

191

Kynnesman rented a pew in St. Martin-in-the-Fields, a sign of his prestige within the community; Boulton (1987, pp. 146–47) explains the social status of pew rentals in seventeenth-century England. Schalcken and his wife had an infant christened and then buried in the very same church in, respectively, December 1694 and February 1695; see the Introduction. Therefore, in addition to being neighbors, Kynnesman and Schalcken attended the same church. See Beherman (1988, p. 194, cat. no. 94), who was unable to identify the sitter, beyond what is stated in the inscription, that is. For the exclusivity of mezzotints, see Wuestman 1995, p. 83; and, in relation to Schalcken, Cook 2016b, pp. 193, 196. For Smith, see A. Griffiths 1989. During his nearly fifty years of activity that began in 1683 and only ended in 1729 because of severe gout, Smith made well over 300 mezzotints, the majority of which he published himself. Among Griffiths’s many discoveries is the existence of a comprehensive album in the collections of the New York Public Library, which Smith himself assembled late in life for one of his wealthy clients. This album, bound in two volumes, contains 342 prints in total, with almost all extremely fine impressions. Even more significantly, however, is the presence of Smith’s handwritten dates on the prints themselves. The mezzotint under consideration here, one of several that Smith engraved after Schalcken’s work, was dated 1698 by the printmaker. However, some impressions of this mezzotint are inscribed with the date 1698; see the one illustrated in Beherman 1988, p. 194. Schalcken himself owned a large paper-art collection, including mezzotints by Smith. This can be gleaned from an advertisement concerning its auction, published in the Amsterdamse Courant, 17 February 1707; see Dudok van Heel 1975, p. 167, no. 100. Clarke’s will is housed today in the National Archives, Kew, PROB 11/358/431. I have been unable to determine Clarke’s date of birth because his Christian name and surname were so common in seventeenth-century England. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that his mother’s name was Winifred, the name of his middle daughter; the eldest daughter, Mary, was named after Clarke’s wife; see note 11 below. An inscription on a bier located in what was most likely St. Andrew’s Church in the village of Soham indicates that it was a gift in 1639 of a certain Winifred Clarke, Generose (gentlewoman); see Palmer 1932, p. 153. Palmer was quoting the report of William Cole, who visited the unnamed church in Soham on 28 July 1746. Clarke may have died cash poor, but he was “land rich.” In May 1676, for example, he received 1000 pounds from a wealthy London widow as a mortgage for 246 acres of land that he owned; Cambridgeshire Archives, ref. no. K588/b/T228. For information concerning the Hearth Tax and the listings for the parish of Soham, see “Hearth Tax for Soham Cambridgeshire 1662 & 1664,” Southam Roots, web.archive. org/web/20100403063145/http://www.sohamroots.co.uk/genealogy/hearthtax.html. See also Husbands 1992. Evidently, Clarke had recently constructed a large addition to this structure: in the Hearth Tax register for 1662, it was listed as having only five chimneys. Mary, the eldest daughter, who was named after her mother, was christened on 4 September 1662; Winifred, the middle daughter, was christened on 26 May 1664; and Anne, the youngest (and future wife of Francis Kynnesman), was christened on 15 March 1666. See FamilySearch, respectively, https://familysearch.org/pal:/

192 

12 13

14 15 16 17

18

19

20 21

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

MM9.1.1/N5WV-886; https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/J3XM-N5X; and https:// familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/N5WK-8B3. All three girls were christened at St. Andrews in Barraway. Mary, their mother, was buried there on 22 July 1676 (An Indexed Transcription of Parish Registers of Soham 1558–1753, vol. 2 [burials], p. 115; copy kept at the Cambridgeshire Archives). The National Archives, Kew, PROB 4/5327. The value of these virginals is stated to be two pounds and ten shillings, a relatively modest amount. My colleague at Syracuse University, Amanda Winkler, a specialist in seventeenth-century English music, informed me that this is not at all unusual in contemporary inventories and that the instruments were probably relatively small, unadorned ones. See also Hume 2006, pp. 531–32. The inventory also itemizes a bond among the contents in the yellow chamber with a value of 130 pounds; unfortunately, the surrounding text is entirely obliterated, so nothing further can be gleaned from it. Several of these so-called outhouses, which were actually working farm buildings, are itemized in the inventory of 1677. Pembroke College held leases to various properties in the parish since the fifteenth century; see Roach 1959, pp. 346–55. The National Archives, Kew, PROB 11/479/195. The poor-rate books for the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields indicate that Kynnesman paid about thirty-five pounds in tax per year on his house, thus indicating that it was one of the largest ones in the parish. These records are kept in microfilm format at the City of Westminster Archives Centre in London. We know the name of Francis’s father, Richard, because it was recorded when Kynnesman was registered in London as a haberdasher’s apprentice on 2 May 1656. The pertinent document lists his father’s residence as Bronston (modernday Braunston) in Northamptonshire; see Guildhall Library, London, Registers of Apprentice Bindings, 1583–1967 Cat. 15860/6. To my knowledge, no birth record for Francis survives. This estimate of his age is based on the fact that he was officially granted the status of freeman (a person with the legal right to carry on trade in the city) within the Haberdasher’s Company on 26 May 1665 (Guildhall Library, London, Index to Freedom Admissions, 1642–1967, Cat. 15858/1). This event would have taken place at the end of his seven-year apprenticeship, at a minimum age of 24; see S. Smith 1973, p. 157 n. 26. For the Haberdashers’ Company, see Archer 1991. My thanks to David Bartle, the archivist of the Harberdasher’s Company, for his many insights in this regard. In Harold Kynnesman’s last will and testament, probated on 3 May 1692, he charged Francis Kynnesman, whom he calls his “kinsman,” with the guardianship of his sons, Harold and Richard; see the National Archives, Kew, PROB 11/409/334. Harold Kynnesman simultaneously appointed his brother-in-law and a close family friend to this task. For the phenomenon of members of the gentry becoming merchants, see S. Whyman 1999, esp. pp. 55–84. The accounts recorded in the book in the British Library end just around the time that Kynnesman drafted his last will and testament (see note 16 above), in which he is described as being of sound mind and good memory but “indisposed as to my bodily

Notes

22 23

24

25 26

27

28

29

193

health.” For the flourishing business community in late seventeenth-century England and the dramatic increase in wealth among its most prosperous members, see Grassby 1970a, 1970b. See also Glaisyer 2006. Records pertaining to these appointments can be found in documents prepared in connection with a lawsuit filed after Kynnesman’s death by his third wife against the executors of his estate (see notes 28 and 29 below). W. Shaw 1904–61, vol. 10 (1693–96), p. 1077, 18 May 1695, bills signed by the Countess of Derby, 93 pounds. Reinke-Williams (2014, p. 85) notes that a female domestic servant earned roughly two to six pounds per annum in seventeenth-century London. For relative costs in this period, particularly with regard to cultural commodities, see Hume 2006, pp. 494–96, passim. Two useful websites for wages and buying power during this period are: Jeffrey G. Williamson, “Great Britain: Nominal Annual Earnings for Various Occupations in England and Wales,” compiled 1982, The Marteau Early 18th-Century Currency Converter, http://www.pierre-marteau.com/currency/indices/uk-03.html, which contains a detailed chart of the annual earnings of occupations in England from 1710 to 1911, and “Purchasing Power of British Pounds from 1270 to the Present,” MeasuringWorth, http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/, where one can calculate the comparative purchasing power of British pounds from 1270 to today. In 1682, this position was changed into Yeoman or Groom of the Carriages; see “Index of Officers-K,” The Database of Court Officers 1660–1837, Loyola University of Chicago, http://courtofficers.ctsdh.luc.edu/Index-K.pdf. See also the National Archives, Kew, C 104/259. The National Archives, Kew, C 104/259. Charles II was notoriously derelict in paying bills. Exacerbating the problem was the well-entrenched practice among elites during this period of purchasing goods of all sorts on credit; see Muldrew 1998. See Peck 2005, pp. 42–60. Samuel Pepys’s diary contains 135 references to the New Exchange, where he shopped and drank coffee with or without his wife. If alone, he would sometimes arrange assignations with shop girls; see the Diary of Samuel Pepys, http://www.Pepysdiary.com. This letter, unfortunately now lost, is cited in Pearce 1904, p. 32. Late seventeenthcentury tax records that the present writer consulted at the City of Westminster Archives Centre in London indicate that Kynnesman eventually relocated his shop to the so-called inner walk of the New Exchange. Anne Clarke Kynnesman was buried in St. Martin-in-the-Fields on 13 July 1697; see FamilySearch, https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KCH1-YWM. The marriage of Elizabeth Clarke (no relation to Anne) and Francis Kynnesman had taken place on 2 March 1698 in the Church of St. Mary the Virgin in Great Bardfield in the County of Essex; see Essex Record Office, Chelmsford, register of baptisms, marriages, and burials for the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, parish of Great Bardfield, inv. no. D/P 67/1/1. Given the huge disparity in age between Kynnesman and his bride – he was nearly 60 years old and she, 21 – the person recording the marriage in the parish register, wrote at the end of the entry, in retrospect, almost comically, ‘Vigore Facultatie’ (sound mind). Elizabeth Kynnesman and Richard Drury had married on 24 March 1706. For their lawsuit, see the National Archives, Kew, C 6/403/7. For this subsequent lawsuit, see the National Archives, Kew, C 6/396/47.

194 

30 31

32

33

34 35 36 37

38 39 40

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Papers related to these suits, mostly consisting of Francis Kynnesman’s various appointments, receipts, bills, and so forth, can be found at the National Archives, Kew, C 104/259. It is likely that for legal reasons, Kynnesman’s executors underestimated the quantity, variety, and value of his home’s contents. For example, in his last will and testament, Kynnesman specifically mentions “plate,” namely, gold and silver vessels and utensils, in contrast to the silver spoons itemized in the inventory. Still, compare the executors’ list to the description of the contents of a contemporary wealthy merchant’s home, as outlined by Turpin 2004. If the sum of 45 pounds is divided between the six pictures – hence 7.5 pounds per work – one arrives at a considerably lower amount than Schalcken was typically paid for his London period portraits; see further Chapter 2. However, we must keep in mind that this sum was calculated by the executors of Kynnesman’s estate, who were not art experts. Moreover, they likely provided low estimates for all of their deceased friend’s possessions because of what was at stake in these lawsuits; see note 31 above. In the second lawsuit, Richard Drury testified that he had sold some of his wife’s possessions after her death, “except some family pictures” (The National Archives, Kew, C 6/396/47). Presumably those paintings were sent to Drury’s country residence in Cambridgeshire to which he had since moved; this is the last we hear of them. There exists some confusion over the meaning of the term nightgown during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Gordenker (2001, p. 72) opines that while a precise understanding of the term remains unclear, it “seems to have referred to loose gown, closed or open at front and worn over stays.” Moreover, the nightgown’s unstructured shape “could be manipulated to suggest classicizing attire.” According to Ribeiro (2005, p. 274), “loose gowns or night-gowns were worn as informal elite wear …” But the relationship between this actual elite wear and what one sees in portraiture is impossible to determine. She is surely correct in stating that in portraits, “it seems more likely that we are looking … at studio draperies, although based on the lines, not specifics, of a fashionable dress” (p. 274). For “careless” dress, see Gordenker 2001, pp. 56–60; Ribeiro 2005, p. 272. For the use of this term in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century literature, see Oxford English Dictionary, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/54439?rskey=gVR7sJ&result=6#. See the brief survey of this portrait type in Gordenker 2001, pp. 69–74. For Lely’s portraits of fashionable women, which were so critical to the development of this type in the later seventeenth century, see MacLeod 2001–2. See further Chapter 2. See Beherman 1988, p. 25; Jansen 2015–16, pp. 24–25; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 215–19, cat. nos. 49, 50; Sevcik 2016b, pp. 94–95. For the Confrerie, see Rehorst 1995–96 and Buijsen 1998–99, pp. 41–43. The latter states that only after 1719 did the Confrerie become known as the Confrerie Pictura; p. 40 n. 26. See Jansen (2015–16, p. 29), who also notes that Schalcken was living in Düsseldorf in 1703, where he worked for Johann Wilhelm II (1658–1716), Elector Palatine. Gordenker 2001, pp. 73–74; Ribeiro 2005, pp. 280–83. Gordenker 2001, pp. 73–75.

Notes

41

42

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53

54 55

56

195

The right background is also different: in the drawing, trees are shown, while in the painting, a mountain lies in the distance. Guido Jansen, writing in Cologne 2015–16, pp. 221–23, cat. no. 52, suspects that Schalcken intended to sell this fairly finely worked drawing, further beautified by the application of two different color washes. See also New York 2017, “Young Boy, Dressed in a Blue Robe, Holding a Lighted Torch, Godefridus Schalcken,” The Leiden Collection, http://www.theleidencollection.com/artwork/ayoung-boy-holding-a-lighted-torch/. An inscription on the back of the picture reads: A portrait of Barritter _ Merbican?? when 12 years old Painted by C??? Moreover, when the picture was auctioned at Christie’s in London on 19 December 1941, lot 9, it was identified as a “Portrait of Banister, the musicien when twelve years old. In blue robes, holding a lighted candle, in a landscape.” (My thanks to Lloyd DeWitt and Guido Jansen for this information.) These inscriptions are presumably accurate, with the exception of the stated age of the sitter: twelve. For Banister III, see Hawkins 1776, vol. 4, p. 480; Langhans et al. 1973–93, vol. 1, p. 255. See Scott 1937, pp. 379–80, 383–90; Tilmouth (1957–58, 17), who states that by about 1691, concerts were performed on a weekly basis at this venue. Tilmouth 1957–58, pp. 18–22. North 1842 [1728]. For North, who, incidentally, served as the executor of Peter Lely’s estate after his death in 1680 and who leased his house in Covent Garden, see Kassler 2009, pp. 17–60, passim. North 1842 [1728], p. 114. This passage is cited by Tilmouth 1957–58, p. 18. Scott 1937, p. 387. Cited by Tilmouth 1961, p. 15. London Gazette, 2 January 1691. Cited by Tilmouth 1961, p. 9. For Schalcken’s portrait of Levett, see Beherman (1988, p. 188, cat. no. 89), who theorized that it was painted in 1699 on the occasion of the sitter’s appointment to Lord Mayor. This is not possible given Schalcken’s return to the Dutch Republic in 1696. There is no modern biographical study of Levett; see, however, the useful though outdated article by Rutton 1908. Legal and family papers pertaining to Richard Levett and especially his descendants are held by Manuscripts and Special Collections, University of Nottingham. Pearce 1904, pp. 31, 32. While it is tempting to hypothesize that Schalcken received this commission from Levett to commemorate his knighthood – the ceremony took place in October of 1691, some seven months before the artist’s arrival in England – it is unlikely, judging that is, from the informal clothing he wears in the portrait. My thanks to Aileen Ribeiro for sharing her insights about Levett’s attire with me. The National Archives, Kew, PROB 11/519/257. In 1700, Levett added to his property holdings in Kew by purchasing Kew House for 3900 pounds. Kew House was actually an estate consisting of a “great house” and some 80 acres of land. For Kew House and Dutch House, see Prosser 2007. For these properties in connection with Levett’s activities in leasing surrounding land after he took ownership of them, see Cloake 1995–96, vol. 2, pp. 57–65. See Glass 1966, p. 184.

196 

57

58 59 60 61

62 63

64

65 66

67 68

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

See the interesting article, “‘Three-Quarters, Kit-Cats and Half-Lengths’: British Portrait Painters and Their Canvas Sizes, 1625–1850,” National Portrait Gallery, http://www.npg. org.uk/research/programmes/artists-their-materials-and-suppliers/three-quarterskit-cats-and-half-lengths-british-portrait-painters-and-their-canvas-sizes-1625-1850/2.four-historic-sizes.php#91. As Wieseman (2016, p. 59) notes, Schalcken’s London period portraits are typically larger than those that he painted in Dordrecht, a reflection no doubt of English tastes. The National Archives, Kew, PROB 11/590. For the following discussion, see also Rutton 1908, pp. 264–66. To her grandson, Mary Levett bequeathed a snuffbox whose lid was decorated with a portrait of her late husband, surrounded by diamonds. Foster 1891, vol. 1, p. 4. For the Middle Temple, see Havery 2011. Margaret Acton was likely born c. 1661 in the parish of Arkesden in the County of Essex. Unfortunately, registers for that parish in the Records Office of the County of Essex only begin with March 1690. The approximate date of her birth can be deduced from the couple’s marriage allegation in which John is said to be 31 years old and a bachelor, while Margaret is said to be 26 years old and a spinster, residing in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields. A marriage allegation was a document sworn by one of the prospective parties, usually the groom, to the effect that there was no impediment to the marriage; the allegation also indicates where the ceremony would take place. See further Foster 1891, vol. 1, p. 4. Margaret Cutts was once a member of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, Schalcken’s eventual parish church, and may have retained connections there; see note 61 above. For John Acton’s portrait, see Beherman (1988, p. 314, cat. no. 217), who considers it an uncertain attribution. Margaret Acton’s portrait was not included in Beherman’s monograph, most likely because of some confusion concerning its attribution; see further, note 66 below. For solicitors, see Childs (1987, pp. 140–41), who points out that they were, in effect, paymasters for their regiments. Beyond the official appointments to this position for the Coldstream Guards and the First Foot Guards, all other regiments were the personal employees of their regimental colonels. For John Cutts, Baron Cutts of Gowran, a politician and army officer extolled for his courage under fire during the Nine Years War, see Swartley 1917; and Chichester 2004 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6984 (accessed 14 May 2015). The pendants, said to have come from the T. H. Foster collection, were auctioned at Christie’s, London, on 18 December 1963. Margaret Acton’s portrait was lot 18, and was inexplicably listed as having been painted by Peter Lely. John Acton’s portrait appeared as lot 15 with the correct attribution to Schalcken; see the Critical Catalogue above, cat. nos. A5, A6. Sadly, the strange attribution of these portraits to two different artists probably led to their separation. See note 33 above. John Acton’s affluence is reflected in his last will and testament, composed in 1728; see the National Archives, Kew, PROB 11/629. Now a widower (though the date of his wife’s death is unknown), he bequeathed 500 pounds to each of his four grandchildren and 400 pounds to each of his two nephews. He also held significant stock and annuities in the South Sea Company, evidently weathering its financial collapse in

Notes

69

70 71 72 73

74

75 76

77 78 79

80

197

the autumn of 1720. For the South Sea Company, see Paul 2010. Acton was also paid a substantial amount in his capacity as Solicitor to several regiments in the English army; see below. Beherman (1988, p. 314) misunderstood this inscription, conjecturing that some of the names listed therein referred to prominent art collectors. Tragically, one of the officers listed on the sheet of paper, John Courthope, was killed at the Battle of Namur in Flanders in August 1695 while another, Sir Matthew Bridges, was severely wounded; see Childs 1991, pp. 282–83, 293–95. Since the inscription in Schalcken’s portrait does not refer to Courthope as deceased, one can surmise that it was painted before August of 1695. See note 64 above. See Childs 1991, pp. 140–41. Certain passages in this portrait are rubbed, making it difficult to decipher. Beherman (1988, p. 316, cat. no. 220) provides some biographical information about the sitter but wonders whether the attribution to Schalcken is correct; the author was only working from a very poor, old photograph of the portrait and was confused by the inscription in the upper right of the canvas (see note 74 below). Last exhibited in public in 1868 (see Graves 1913–15, vol. 2, p. 1203), it was only recently learned that the canvas is currently in New Zealand, and is owned by a descendant of Rokeby’s. Sainty 1993, p. 35. Schalcken’s portrait is inscribed by a later hand with the sitter’s name and dated 1687. This cannot be correct and so must have been added by a later hand, because the artist did not arrive in London until 1692. Moreover, Rokeby did not receive his first judicial appointment until 1689; see below. For the following biographical sketch, see Handley 2004b http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/24014 (accessed 22 May 2015). Useful as well is Andrews 1861. In an account book, Rokeby records the high cost – at least 600 pounds – of this appointment and knighthood, which necessitated relocating his family to London from York and purchasing a new coach and pair of horses; see Andrews 1861, p. 39. For the significance of coaches in urban elite society in the late seventeenth century, see Whyman 1999, pp. 100–5. For a general history of Presbyterianism in England, see Bolam et al. 1968. See Wilson 2003 [1814], vol. 3, pp. 128–29. Social patterns and networks with respect to the patronage of artists have been subject of ever increasing study in relation to seventeenth-century Dutch and Flemish art. Four recent studies are: Timmermans 2008; Brosens et al. 2012; Kok 2013 and 2016. To my knowledge, extensive work of this sort has yet to be undertaken in relation to late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century English art. For a potential model drawn from contemporary English literature, see Griffin 1996. There is also an interesting collection of social-historical essays on the topic of networks and communities in early modern England: Shepard and Withington 2000. This volume includes an essay on Pepys’s social networks: Archer 2000. Whyman 1999, pp. 63–64, passim. See also the classic study by Boulton 1987, esp. pp. 228–61. In his view, “London society may be conceived of more fruitfully as a mosaic of neighbourhoods rather than as one single amorphous community” (p. 293). For an overview of the problem of constituent communities in early modern London, see Archer 2000, pp. 76–77.

198 

81

2. 1 2 3

4 5 6

7

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

See Smuts (1991, p. 128 and n. 33), who states that the parish remained a commercial quarter until the mid-eighteenth century.

Schalcken’s Maecenas and the court of William III For the following discussion, see Beckett 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/17111; accessed 20 May 2015]; and especially Owen 1990, pp. 197–217. “Lincoln’s Inn Fields: Nos. 59 and 60 (Lindsey House),” British History Online, http:// www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=74160&strquery=sir john lowther (accessed 24 July 2014). Owen (1990, pp. 206, 210) states that Lowther’s political appointments ended in February 1694 though he spent the winter of 1694–95 in London because of his wife’s grave illness following the birth of one of their children the previous July. Thereafter, in the autumn of 1695, Lowther was re-elected to Parliament. Evidently, his “retirement to the country” was a relatively brief one. See also Beckett (2004, n. pag.), who takes a more cynical view of Lowther’s decision to retire. Construction on Lowther Hall was initiated in 1692, at great expense, after the central section of the existing structure on site was demolished; see Colvin et al. 1980, pp. 7–11, fig. 4, an engraved book illustration of Lowther Hall and its grounds from 1714; Owen 1990, pp. 207–8, fig. 48, a “portrait” made by Matthias Read around 1700 of Lowther Hall and its grounds. The noted English traveler, Cecilia Fiennes (1662–1741), has left an account of the property, which she visited in 1698; see Fiennes 1982, pp. 169–71; see also note 13 below. Tragically, a fire in 1718 gutted the central section and most of the east or Chapel wing of Lowther Hall, taking with it a substantial part of Lowther’s art collection (see Owen 1990, p. 225). The present Lowther Castle was constructed in the early nineteenth century and is now a ruin, having been dismantled after the Second World War. The inventory is held by the Cumbria Archive Service, Carlisle, inv. no. DLONS/L2/6. Lowther records a price of 2.3 pounds for a picture of Queen Elizabeth by Hilliard. This relatively modest price (along with Hilliard’s primary reputation as a miniaturist) indicates that this image was a miniature. See further note 7 below. Among the copies made by Walton for Lowther was one of “Musick” after Caravaggio. Like the collector, Walton resided in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Since Lowther always lists him as “young Walton,” there is a small possibility that he actually employed Parry Walton’s son, Peter Walton (1665–1745), to make the copies. However, there is no record of Peter having done such work; he was a picture restorer and an art dealer. For both Waltons, see Pears 1988, pp. 61–62; “British Picture Restorers, 1600–1950 – W,” National Portrait Gallery, http://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/directory-ofbritish-picture-restorers/british-picture-restorers-1600-1950-w.php. See also note 9 below. Lowther states that the picture cost him forty pounds but was “worth much more.” He also owned several other works from the famed Arundel collection, including the miniature by Hilliard discussed above (see note 5 above). For the complicated story of the dispersal of Thomas Howard (1585–1646), 14th Earl of Arundel’s collection, see Haskell 2013, pp. 105–22. Pears (1988, p. 241 n. 54) cites

Notes

199

the 24 January 1689 issue of the London Gazette, which advertised the sale of pictures from Arundel’s collection, a sale administered by Parry Walton (and a colleague), who had contacts with Lowther (see note 6 above, and note 9 below). However, due to legal challenges this sale did not take place until January of 1692; see “Sale of Paintings, Limnings and Drawings from the Arundel Collection, at Parry Walton’s Premises in Lincoln’s Inn Fields,” 19 January 1692, The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 12 June 2015). Constantijn Huygens, Jr. (1628–1697), the secretary to William III, attended this sale, which included miniatures that were sold on 27 January 1692. In his diary entry, dated 30 January 1692, he recorded Lowther’s presence at the auction (while adding that he was unimpressed with what he saw there); see “Journaal van 21 october 1688 tot 2 september 1696. Tweede deel,” Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse Letteren, January 1692, http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/huyg007jour03_01/huyg007jour03_01_0001. php. (It is important to note the discrepancy here in dates because Huygens was using the Dutch dating system which, at the time, lagged ten days behind the English one; my thanks to Richard Stephens for this information.) It is likely that Lowther acquired his artworks from that collection through this auction, at the very least, the miniature of Queen Elizabeth by Hilliard. 8 There is an engraving published by Hieronymous Cock of a now lost painting by Floris of Hercules and Antaeus. It was originally part of a series of twelve (all lost) representing Hercules’s Labors that were painted around 1554–55 for the Antwerp merchant and collector, Nicolaes Jonghelinck. Inexplicably, Van de Velde (1973, 1975, vol. 1, pp. 224–25, cat. no. 76; 410, cat. no. 53; vol. 2, plates 31, 206) ties this engraving, which is horizontal in orientation, to a painting of the same subject by Floris that he had discovered in the late 1960s that is vertical in orientation; his reasoning that the engravings do not accurately reproduce the original paintings is faulty. Quite simply, Floris must have painted at least two different versions of Hercules and Antaeus. The picture listed in Lowther’s inventory is said to be hanging “over the chimney.” It therefore adorned a mantelpiece and so was probably horizontal in orientation. The provenance that Van de Velde (1975, vol. 1, p. 224) provides for Hercules and Antaeus seems to conflate the original picture made for Jonghelinck with the one he discovered. Nevertheless, this provenance evidences a possible gap between the early seventeenth and mid-eighteenth centuries; however, Van de Velde does list one owner for those years, Theodoor van der Schuer (1628–1707), but with a question mark. 9 Parry Walton, who made copies of Italian paintings for Lowther, also sold them at auction in his capacity as a picture dealer; perhaps Lowther acquired some of his Italian pictures directly from Walton. This is probably true of at least some of the artworks in Lowther’s collection that came from the Arundel collection; see note 7 above. See also the newspaper advertisements of Walton’s sales in “Walton, Parry (active 1663, probate 1702),” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york. ac.uk (accessed 1 June 2015). See also note 6 above. 10 Reni’s David with the Head of Goliath cannot be associated with the two surviving autograph works (Paris, Musée du Louvre and the art market [Sotheby’s, London, 4 July 2012, lot 32]) owing to their provenances; see Pepper (1984 pp. 216–17, cat. no. 19), who also records several copies of the picture as well as a number of references to it

200 

11

12

13

14 15

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century documents. Reni also treated this subject in half-length in a painting presently in the Joshua Latner collection; see Pepper 2002. Reni’s Venus and the Three Graces might be linked to The Toilet of Venus (London, The National Gallery), which Pepper (1984, p. 244, cat. no.83) considers largely by that artist’s studio. This picture was probably purchased by Charles I from the Duke of Mantua collection and then sold by the Commonwealth after his death, in 1651. It only re-entered the Royal Collection in 1723; for its provenance, see Pepper 1984, p. 244. Yet, it is almost inconceivable that Lowther would have knowingly owned a painting formerly belonging to Charles I. There is a painting of this subject attributed to Annibale Carracci (but not uniformly accepted by specialists) presently in a private collection that might be linked to the one owned by Lowther, that is, if his version survived the fire that engulfed Lowther Hall in 1718 (see note 3 above); see Bologna 2006–7, pp. 214–15, cat. no. IV.15. The only other portrayal of this subject that has been given to Carracci (Quimper, Musée des Beaux Arts) was already in France in the early 1630s; see Posner (1971, vol. 2, p. 83, cat. no. 203), who disagrees with the attribution. The painting by Cortona, which Lowther lists as a Passage through the Red Sea, might be identifiable with a picture by one of the so-called “Cortoneschi,” namely, Guillaume Courtois (1628–1679), today in a private collection in New York; see Rome 1997–98, pp. 408–9, cat. no. 80. According to Colvin et al. (1980, p. 10), scaffolding was erected in the entrance hall on 3 October 1694 so that Verrio could begin the project. The high price of this commission was partly dictated, as Lowther’s inventory states, by Verrio’s use of gold leaf for the decoration. Celia Fiennes, who saw Verrio’s immense work during a visit to Lowther Hall in 1698, described it as follows: “you are landed [after ascending the staircase] into a noble hall very lofty, the top and sides are exquisitely painted by the best hand in England [Verrio] which did the painting at Windsor; the top is the Gods and Goddesses that are sitting at some great feast and a great tribunal before them [the wedding of Cupid and Psyche or the wedding of Peleus and Thetis?], each corner is the Seasons of the yeare with the variety of weather, raines and rainbows stormy winds sun shine snow and frost with multitudes of other fancyes and varietyes in painting, and looks very natural …” (Fiennes 1982, p. 171). Fiennes’s description is invaluable because Verrio’s entrance hall was destroyed in the fire of 1718 that consumed much of Lowther Hall; see note 3 above. However, problems were already surfacing before the fire: Colvin et al. (1980, p. 18 n. 29), citing a traveler’s account from 1701, remark that Verrio’s work had already been damaged “by the sweating of the stone upon which it was painted.” For Verrio’s years in England, see Brett 2009–10; De Giorgi 2009, 101–55; Toulouse 2010, pp. 85–123. At the very end of the inventory Lowther adds pictures “not worth naming yet cost me above 100 pounds.” Spencer’s role as Schalcken’s patron was first mentioned by [Vertue] 1937–38, p. 57, who records two pictures – not four, as is commonly assumed – by the artist at Althorp, the Spencer family seat in Northhamptonshire. See further Chapter 4, note 51. Spencer’s supposed importance for Schalcken is taken up by Beherman (1988, p. 26).

Notes

16

17

18 19

20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27

201

In addition to the portraits mentioned in this chapter, Lowther also owned “a Night peece by Schalken” (for which he had paid 9 pounds) and “an old womans head by Schalken” (for which he had paid 2.3 pounds). Old Woman’s Head could have been a tronie and not a genre painting. Many of these pictures were probably destroyed during the fire that consumed much of Lowther Hall in 1718; see note 3 above. For issues pertaining to patronage in England during the late seventeenth century, see Pears (1988, pp. 139–43 and passim), who opines that it would not play a significant role in the development of English art until the mid-eighteenth century. The fifth portrait represented “The Duke of Grafton by Candle Light” (for which Lowther paid seventeen pounds). This now lost work possibly represented Charles FitzRoy (1683–1757), 2nd Duke of Grafton, who was a child at the time; his father, Henry FitzRoy (1663–1690), 1st Duke of Grafton, had died in 1690, two years before Schalcken settled in London. However, it could have also been a posthumous portrait of the father, based on an earlier one by another artist that Schalcken converted into a night scene. For a precedent for this type of portrait, see the discussion below of Schalcken’s Portrait of James Stuart, 4th Duke of Lennox and 1st Duke of Richmond by Candlelight (Fig. 27). Interestingly, Lowther also owned a portrait of the “Dutchesse of Grafton by [Willem] Wissing,” for which he had paid ten pounds. This picture likely portrayed Isabella FitzRoy (c. 1668–1723), Duchess of Grafton (Charles FitzRoy’s mother). See the very useful discussion and lists of payment in J. Stewart 1983, app. III: Records of Payment to Sir Godfrey Kneller and His Contemporaries (pp. 187–96). See also J. Stewart 1971; Wieseman 2016, pp. 65–67. Technically speaking, Kneller was a foreigner as well but by the time Schalcken arrived in London in 1692, he had been living in England for sixteen years; see J. Stewart 1983, pp. 13–14. At first, Kneller shared the position of Principal Painter to the King with the English artist, John Riley (1646–1691). According to Pears (1988, p. 135), the position was rescinded after Riley’s death, only to be renewed in 1695. See Jansen 2015–16, p. 27. For this calculation, see “De waarde van de gulden [The value of the guilder],” Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis, http://www.iisg.nl/hpw/calculatenl.php. My thanks to Guido Jansen for his insights in this regard. As noted by (Beherman 1988, p. 195), who did not realize that Lowther owned several other pictures by the artist. For this portrait, see also Cologne 2015–16, pp. 222–26, cat. no. 53. This marriage took place just before Lowther quit London for his country estate, Lowther Hall, in what is modern-day Cumbria (see note 3 above). The hypothesis of Beherman (1988, p. 195), that Lowther commissioned the portrait of his daughter on the occasion of his elevation to Viscount Lonsdale in 1696 makes no sense whatsoever. Mary Wentworth’s wedding took place in February 1694, not February 1692, as is often stated. Owen (1990, pp. 197–217) established the approximate date of this event in his lengthy biography of the Lowther family. See Filipczak 1990–91, pp. 50–51. See, for example, London 2001–2, pp. 74–75, cat. no. 1. For the picture by Netscher illustrated here, see Haarlem 1986, pp. 93–95, cat. no. 10; Wieseman 2002, p. 285, cat. no. 168.

202 

28 29 30 31

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

See the literature cited in Haarlem 1986, pp. 94 n. 6; 190 n. 9. Thomas 1983, pp. 110–11. See, for example, Haarlem 1986, pp. 145–47, cat. no. 25. The following discussion is drawn from Franits (1993, pp. 20–25), who also notes (p. 6) that twenty-one editions of Houwelyck were published during the seventeenth century. 32 See Bedaux 1983, pp. 56–57; 1990, p. 119. 33 This probably explains this bird's presence in several seventeenth-century portraits of children where it alludes to proper rearing; see Bedaux 1983, p. 63, figs. 21, 23. See also Bedaux 1990, p. 122, fig. 57. In Ripa 1644, pp. 283–84, the parrot is an attribute of Leersaemheyt (Docility) because of its ability to learn how to speak. See Zaunschirm, 1985, pp. 14–17. 34 For parrots within a similar context in Dutch genre painting, see Franits 1993, p. 24. 35 See the literature cited in Haarlem 1986, p. 146 n. 5. Chastity in marriage may strike modern audiences as a contradiction. In the seventeenth century, however, several authors argued that marriage constituted a second “sort of virginity” if sexual relations were conducted in moderation; see De Jongh 1974, pp. 166–76. 36 See Haarlem 1986, pp. 55, 64 n. 12. 37 See Bedaux 1987, pp. 158–61; 1990, pp. 84–89; Franits 1993, 142–43. 38 Recall that Schalcken had also adapted this setting for his now lost portrait of Anne Kynnesman, known today from a late seventeenth-century mezzotint (Fig. 9). 39 Ribeiro 2005, pp. 276–77. 40 Schavemaker (2016, pp. 50–51) identifies this upwardly combed, airy hairstyle as a 1690s variant of the so-called fontange hairdo, which itself had become popular in the Dutch Republic by the late 1680s. 41 For Dahl, see the now outdated monograph by Nisser 1927. 42 The detail illustrated in Fig. 25 is from a portrait by Dahl painted in 1695 (Fig. 8), just a year or so after Schalcken’s own work. 43 Houbraken 1753, vol. 3, p. 176. 44 See Cook 2016b, pp. 52–53. 45 My thanks to Marten Jan Bok and Thijs Weststeijn for their insights concerning Houbraken’s terminology. 46 For the translation of luchtvaardig as lighter, see Hecht 1980, p. 24; and Horn 2000, vol. 1, p. 373. For airy, see Cook 2016b, p. 55, app. C, p. 4. 47 See Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/ search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M072995&lemma=vaardig (accessed 9 May 2016). 48 See Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/ search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M037106&lemma=lichtvaardig (accessed 11 May 2016), where lichtvaardig is defined as “[l]icht van beweging, gemakkelijk zich bewegende, vlug, handig,” and is said to be long obsolete. In this sense, the recent translation by Cook (2016b, p. 55, app. C, p. 4) of luchtvaardig as airy could very well be correct. 49 Muller 1990–91, p. 30. See also Cook 2016b, p. 55. 50 See, for example, the comparatively loose treatment of clothing in Cologne 2015–16, pp. 122–24, cat. no. 14; 236–39, cat. no. 57.

Notes

51

203

Nothing is known of Mary Wentworth’s travels to The Hague in 1700, the year that she was portrayed there by Schalcken. The artist’s eighteenth-century biographers assert that he made more than one trip to England. However, no evidence has been discovered to support this claim. 52 For example, Weyerman 1729–69, vol. 3, p. 13; Descamps 1753–63, vol. 1, p. 140; Walpole 1762–63, vol. 3, p. 131. See further, the Introduction. 53 Weyerman 1729–69, vol. 3, p. 13. 54 Weyerman 1729–69, vol. 3, p. 13, “zo dat hy tegens wil en dank zich moest begeeven tot het schilderen van historiestukjes, en nachtlichtjes.” 55 London 1991–92, p. 52, though the author of the entry, John T. Hayes, rightly notes that Schalcken’s was commanding decidedly smaller fees for full-length portraits than was Kneller. See also the discussion above of comparative fees for these two portraitists. 56 For this important point, see also Wieseman 2016, p. 59. 57 For Gandy, see Fenlon 2004 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10337 (accessed 19 May 2015). See also Dalivalle 2011, p. 138, especially for Gandy’s manuscript. The manuscript itself only survives in transcript form, as compiled by yet another portrait painter, Ozias Humphrey (1742–1810) in the eighteenth century. Humphrey’s manuscript, which is not limited to Gandy’s text but is wide-ranging in its contents, is housed in the British Library (Add MS 22949–22950). 58 Humphrey [1772–95], fol. 30v. 59 See further Chapter 3. Houbraken (1753, vol. 3, p. 177) praises Schalcken for his artful blending of paints. Kneller himself would eventually fall under the spell of Peter Paul Rubens’s (1577–1640) palette, in part the result of his exposure to many paintings by the famed Fleming during a trip to Brussels in 1697; see further J. Stewart 1983, p. 43. 60 For this unusual painting, see Cologne 2015–16, pp. 226–28, cat. no. 54; Franits 2017 http://www.theleidencollection.com/artwork/james-stuart-duke-of-lennox-andrichmond-with-his-greyhound-by-candlelight/. For the following biographical information about Stuart, see D. Smith 2004 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/26707 (accessed 22 May 2015). See also London 2003, pp. 51–52. 61 For Van Dyck’s portrait, see Barnes et al. 2004, pp. 584–85, no. IV.200. 62 Barnes et al. 2004, p. 586, no. IV.201; see also London 2003, pp. 50–55, cat. no. 6, where the picture is construed as a portrait historié of Stuart as the doomed mythological hunter, Adonis. 63 Barnes et al. 2004, p. 586. The inventory is housed at the Centre for Kentish Studies in Maidstone, inv. no. De L’Isle MS U1500 E110. For Henry Sidney, see Hosford 2004 http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/25521 (accessed 22 May 2015). 64 Kingsford 1925, p. 97. 65 T. S. 1885–1901, vol. 52, p. 219. 66 Collins 1746, vol. 1, p. 175. 67 [Vertue] 1935–36, p. 81. That Van Dyck’s portrait had been returned to Leicester House after Henry Sidney’s death is confirmed by the fate of the art collection belonging to the house’s previous two occupants, his older brother, Philip Sidney (1619–1698), 3rd Earl of Leicester, and his brother’s son, his nephew, Robert Sidney (1649–1702), 4th Earl of Leicester. Over the decades, Philip Sidney had assembled an enormous collection

204 

68

69

70

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

containing some two-thousand paintings, prints, drawings, and antique statues that were sold off initially by his heir, Robert Sidney, to clear debts and, following Robert’s own death, by his heirs to settle still more debts. Thus by 1703, Leicester house was almost completed denuded of artworks. For Philip Sidney’s collection and its dispersal, see Maddicott 2014, pp. 195–203. For Leicester House and its immediate environs, see Thornbury and Walford 1887–93, vol. 3, pp. 160–73; West 2015, vol. 1, pp. 286–89. Henry Sidney’s nephew (though they were the same age) was Robert Spencer (1641–1702), 2nd Earl of Sunderland, with whom he spent much of his youth; see Brennan 2015. Spencer owned Schalcken’s Boy Blowing on a Firebrand (Fig. 58), which might have inspired the former to commission the picture from Schalcken (or vice versa); see Chapter 4. This inventory is preserved at the Kent History Centre, inv. no. U908/L23/19. It can also be consulted online at: “Inventory of Jocelyn Earl of Leicester at Soho Square, 1743,” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 15 September 2016). In the Sales Catalogs Database of the Getty Provenance Index, Nicole Elizabeth Cook has discovered two listings of late eighteenth-century auctions in Paris that describe a portrait of a sitter at night, in half-length caressing a dog (Paris, 9 December 1788, lot 137; Paris, 14 April 1791, lot 111). However, that sitter is identified as the Duke of Buckingham (likely the famous George Villiers [1592–1628], 1st Duke of Buckingham). It is certainly possible that the auctioneer misidentified the person portrayed; just such a case of mistaken identity could be reasonably expected in a document that post-dates the creation of the painting by nearly hundred years. Nevertheless, we must keep in mind that Schalcken made several portraits of members of the English aristocracy in candlelight; see note 17 above. Therefore these auction descriptions could actually be describing a now lost portrait of the Duke of Buckingham. For this portrait, see Stockholm 1978, p. 220, cat. no. 103; and Beherman 1988, p. 225, cat. no. 131. See Adams 1993. For the significance of signatures on Dutch paintings, see further J. van der Veen 2005, pp. 10–17; Tummers 2011, pp. 94–97, passim. Schalcken learned Latin at the Latin School in Dordrecht; his father, Cornelis Schalcken, was headmaster of that institution; see Jansen 2015–16, pp. 15–16. J. van der Veen 2005, p. 13, makes a similar point in connection with an antique scene painted by Jan Lievens (1607–74) in which the artist used a Latinized signature. See also the examples in De Marly 1975, pp. 449–50; Ribeiro 2005, pp. 277–80; De Winkel 2006, pp. 224–25; Cologne 2015–16, p. 192, fig. 39.2. See Kuus (2000, pp. 78–80), who calls attention to the popular misconception that during the early modern period very young boys were dressed in clothing identical to that of very young girls. For the intimation of a sitter’s graceful movement in her fluttering garments, see Dethloff 2001–2, p. 31. For the painting by Jan Mijtens illustrated here, see Bauer 2006, pp. 162–63, cat. no. A6; see also pp. 173–74, cat. no. A21. For a similar portrait by Nason, see Haarlem 2000, pp. 271–72, cat. no. 76.

Notes

79 80

81 82

83 84

85 86 87

88 89 90

91

205

See Beherman 1988, p. 25; Jansen 2015–16, pp. 24–25. For the Confrerie, see Rehorst 1995–96 and Buijsen 1998–99, pp. 41–43. The latter states that only after 1719 did the Confrerie become known as the Confrerie Pictura (p. 40 n. 26). There are no known examples of children, let alone adults, in which a sitter portrays Adonis. The claim by Julius Bryant, writing in London 2003, p. 50, that Schalcken’s posthumous rendition of Portrait of James Stuart, 4th Duke of Lennox and 1st Duke of Richmond by Candlelight (Fig. 27) represents him as Adonis is dubious. For passes issued in the name of the Crown around the time that Schalcken and his family received theirs, see Hardy 1895–1937, vol. 7, p. 292, passim. See also the names of other persons receiving passes in the record illustrated in Fig. 4. Both (Jansen 2015–16, pp. 24–25) and Sevcik (2016b, pp. 94–96) wonder whether the presence of William III and members of his court in The Hague during the winter and early spring of 1691 perchance allowed Schalcken to cultivate contacts that would culminate in his decision to resettle in England the following year. For two examples of Schalcken’s portraits for clientele in The Hague, see Cologne 2015–16, pp. 215–18, cat. nos. 49–50. For this portrait, see Beherman 1988, pp. 183–84, cat. no. 84; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 268–72, cat. no. 70. Guido Jansen, writing in Cologne 2015–16, p. 276, dates it to shortly after the artist’s return to the Netherlands in 1696. For images of William III in general, see Dunthorne 2007; London 2009b, pp. 329–34. Staring 1950–51, p. 186. For Kneller’s portrait, in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen, see J. Stewart 1983, p. 139, cat. no. 840. For example, Amsterdam 1960, p. 279, cat. no. 2140; Hecht 1980, p. 25 n. 13; Behermann 1988, p. 184. My thanks to Anja Sevcik for suggesting this possibility. Buckeridge (1754, p. 395) claims that William III and Mary II would only sit for Kneller, but surely this is an exaggeration, as J. Stewart (1983, p. 40 n. 7) states. For William III’s activities as a patron and art collector, see Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij and de Heer 1988–89. See Chapter 3, where Schalcken’s ultimately successful attempt to secure a commission from the Grand Duke of Tuscany is examined in detail. For this painting, see J. Stewart 1983, p. 139, cat. no. 841. For Smith’s handwritten date on this mezzotint and many others he had published, see Chapter 1, note 6. Sevcik (2016b, p. 100 n. 57) calls attention to an engraved portrait of William III by Philipp van Gunst, which appeared in Bidloo 1691, a short illustrated book commemorating the monarch’s triumphal entry into The Hague that year; see also note 91 below. The engraving and Schalcken’s portrait resemble one another, mostly in the pose, the embroidered cravat, and unmistakable facial features of the king. The Dutch painter must have known the print and it could have played a role in the production of his portrait, a possibility with potential ramifications for the date of this unsigned and undated work. Unlike Kneller, no documentation exists confirming that the king ever sat for Schalcken; see note 87 above. Be that as it may, there is said to be a preliminary sketch for the painting in the collections of the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg; see Hecht 1980, p. 25 n. 13; Behermann 1988, p. 183. It is worth noting in this context that during Schalcken’s stay in England William III usually resided in that country only during the fall and winter. The remainder of the year found him in the Dutch Republic

206 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

and especially in Flanders, waging war against Louis XIV’s army. See the overview of this monarch’s reign provided by Van der Kiste 2008. 92 This portrait was not included in J. Stewart 1983. It was acquired by the Scottish National Portrait Gallery from a London-based art dealer in 1989 and it was only at that time attributed to Kneller. My thanks to Kate Anderson for this information. About twelve years after Kneller’s portrait was completed, Smith made a mezzotint that is likely a variant after this portrait, reducing his prototype to a bust-length image and altering the sitter’s linen cravat. Since this mezzotint can be dated to 1702 – a date written in to an impression by Smith himself in an album of his prints (see Chapter 1, note 6) – Schalcken would have only known the original painting during his London period. 93 The comment by Cook (2016b, p. 159), that “the cannon fire in the distance alludes to William’s successful entry into England and English military power,” probably reads too much into its presence in the canvas. Sevcik (2016b, p. 95) draws intriguing parallels between the portrait and the general tenor of Bidloo 1691, a short illustrated book commemorating William III’s triumphal entry into The Hague that year; see also note 90 above. For Bidloo’s propagandistic promotion of the king, whom he primarily served as a personal physician, see Noord 2013. 94 Writing in the early eighteenth century, Schalcken’s biographer, Houbraken (1753, vol. 3, pp. 176–77), remarked that he knew of no other artist who was this master’s equal in the rendering of candlelight. 95 For Schalcken’s London period genre paintings, see Chapter 4. 96 Beherman (1988, p. 184) lists a copy in the Hessisches Landesmuseum in Darmstadt and a picture he considers an autograph replica at Attingham Park in Atcham, Shropshire. The latter work, studied first-hand by the present author, is too weak to be an autograph replica; it too is a copy. The portrait in Darmstadt is closer in execution to the original but its status as a copy is confirmed by the comparatively wooden rendition of William III’s face. Unlike the original, this portrait also includes a Latin inscription in each of its four corners, which further serve to create an oval around the sitter. Moreover, the burning fortress is more extensive in this portrait and the cannon fire emanates from a different direction as well. Doubtlessly, there are additional copies of Schalcken’s canvas; see the Critical Catalogue above, cat. nos. A13C1, A13C2. 97 Weyerman 1729–69, vol. 3, pp. 11–17. For Weyerman, see T. Broos 1990. 98 See T. Broos 1985. For a still life by Weyerman presently in the collection of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, the sole English period painting by the artist that can be identified, see T. Broos 1990, pp. 17–19. Weyerman’s stay in England is discussed in detail in his autobiography, published posthumously in Weyerman 1729–69, vol. 4, pp. 409–75. 99 Weyerman 1729–69, vol. 3, pp. 14–15. This translation of the passage is taken from Hecht (1980, p. 25), who also provides the original Dutch text (his n. 14). Interestingly, Weyerman claims that the portrait was life-size but that it was not made from life. This conceivably lends support to the suggestion, proposed above, that Schalcken’s point of departure for the portrait of William III was from portraits by Kneller and a mezzotint by Smith. 100 Vertue, who could read Dutch, owned a copy of this work, which was then acquired by Walpole, most likely at auction in 1758. See T. Broos (1990, p. 214), though his claim that Vertue translated passages wholesale from Weyerman for his biography of Schalcken

207

Notes

101 102

103 104

105 106 107 108 109 110 111

3. 1

2

3 4 5

cannot be correct for the simple reason that this scholar confuses Vertue’s favorable observations about the Dutch painter with the decidedly negative comments published by Walpole; see further, the Introduction. Descamps 1753–63, vol. 3, p. 141. Descamps (1753–63, vol. 1, p. x) warned his readers that Weyerman’s book contained “filth.” Nevertheless, the author’s low opinion of him did not prevent him from borrowing from the text – an expatriate Fleming, Descamps could read it, as it was written in his native tongue. See further the Introduction. Hecht (1980, p. 27) theorizes that in Weyerman’s case, he confused the Portrait of William III with Schalcken’s own Self-Portrait in which he does, in fact, hold a candle without a candlestick. For that picture, see Fig. 44 and Chapter 3 in the present study. See also Hecht 2016, p. 270. Hecht 1980, pp. 27–29; 2016, p. 269. Wither 1635, p. 165, no. XXXI . See further the extensive discussion of such symbolism (including Schalcken’s picture) in Seidel 1996, pp. 140–52. Hecht 1980, pp. 28–29. Hecht (1980, p. 29), who adds that William III was almost continually at war with France during his reign. Ephesians 6:11–17. See further Rosenthal 1993, pp. 92–93, 99, passim; Gordenker 2001, pp. 21–22. See note 96 above. See Beherman 1988, pp. 184–85, cat. no. 85; 185–86, cat. no. 86.

Self-portraiture as self-promotion An earlier, condensed version of this chapter was published in the Wallraf-RichartzJahrbuch, based in part upon a lecture given by the author at a symposium on Godefridus Schalcken held at the Wallraf-Richartz-Museum in Cologne on 21–23 January 2016; see Franits 2016. The artist painted other self-portraits during his London period; see below, where a now lost self-portrait is cited that was owned by a certain Richard Graham, who was probably one of Schalcken’s patrons in the city. For surveys of portraits of artists and artists’ self-portraits during the early modern period, see Braunschweig 1980; Raupp 1984; Liverpool 1994–95; Houston 2005. See also Woods-Marsden 1998, pp. 25–40, passim; Sluijter 1998a. An interesting general overview of self-portraiture through the ages was recently published by Hall 2014. For this painting, see Beherman 1988, pp. 153–54, cat. no. 56; Florence 1992, pp. 164–71, cat. no. 31. For Cosimo III de’ Medici, see the classic biography by Acton 1958, and more recently, Lafage 2015. For the history and formation of this remarkable collection of self-portraits, see Prinz 1971; Florence 1992. See the classic study by Hoogewerff 1919, which provides a transcription of the journal of the Grand Duke’s travels kept by Filippo Corsini, a member of his entourage. See also H. van Veen 1989; Rolfi 1994; Wagenaar 2014; Lafage 2015, pp. 43–46, 53–54; and Gerson 1942, pp. 177–84. Cosimo III professed his esteem for Dutch painting

208 

6

7 8 9 10 11

12

13

14 15

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

to Coenraet Ruysch (1650–1731), a member of one of the Dutch Republic’s most distinguished families, who was touring Europe with his nephew in the mid-1670s. He met Cosimo III in Florence on 19 November 1674. The Grand Duke told him that painting was thriving in the Netherlands in comparison to Italy. The journal that Ruysch kept of his travels has been transcribed by Alan Moss and was earlier available online: Dropbox, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22595352/Coenraad%20 Ruysch%2C%20november%201674.pdf. My thanks to Guido Jansen for this information. For an early portrait by Schalcken of Ruysch, painted shortly before he embarked upon his grand tour, see Cologne 2015–16, pp. 184–86, cat. no. 35. For the collections of Cardinal Leopoldo de’ Medici and his nephew, Cosimo III de’ Medici, and the latter’s activities in creating this famed gallery of self-portraits, see Prinz 1971, pp. 33–46; Goldberg 1988; Sframeli 2007. See also Florence 1992, pp. xvii– xvii. O. Naumann 1981, vol. 1, pp. 27–28, 125–26. Hoogewerff 1919, p. 251; Wagenaar 2014, pp. 186, 190, 190 n. 579. For these two self-portraits by Van Mieris, see O. Naumann 1981, vol. 2, p. 117, cat. no. 110; 117–18, cat. no. 111. Beherman (1988, p. 154) mentions a few other Dutch painters who received similar commissions. For example, Hecht 1980, p. 31; Beherman 1988, p. 154; Jansen 2015–16, p. 26; Hecht 2016, p. 270; and Gerson (1942, p. 182), who mistakenly believed that the Grand Duke purchased a number of pictures by Schalcken during his tours of the Dutch Republic (see note 5 above); the paintings he cites all post-date 1670. Moreover, the letter written by Thomas Platt in 1694 on behalf of Schalcken to solicit a commission from the Grand Duke (see below) implies that the latter was completely unfamiliar with his art. See also H. van Veen 1987, pp. 49–50; Epe 1989. Only H. van Veen (1987, p. 49) and Karla Langedijk, writing in Florence 1992, p. 167, rightly recognize that the commission was Schalcken’s idea. Platt was the former English consul in Livorno. Lacking an official representative in London, Cosimo III charged him with reporting on events there. To this end, Platt wrote weekly letters to the Grand Duke between 1691 and 1698; see Prinz 1971, p. 134. Platt and Schalcken might have met first in The Hague, for the former spent time in that town (and in Amsterdam) in 1691; see H. van Veen and McCormick 1984, p. 35. “Habbiamo in questa città da due anni in qua un pittore olandese assai famoso nominato Schalken, dipinge alla maniera di Carlin Dolci, facendo ritratti in grande ed in piccolo, quadri di notte, frutte, fiori &c. a maraviglia …” The letter is transcribed by Crinò 1953, p. 192. See also Crinò 1957, p. 356; Florence 1992, p. 168, doc. no. I. For the appeal of Dolci’s work to several prominent members of the Medici family, see Spinelli 2015; Baldassari 2015, pp. 43–55. “… ha sentito che [sic] ch’il nostro Serenissimo Padrone è curioso d’avere ritratti de’pittori insigni, però m’ha pregato di scrivere in suo favore: se S.A. si compiacerà d’aver il suo ritratto V.S. Illma mi farà grazia di farmi sapere in ché modo lo vuole, se in un pezzo di notte o di giorno, come anche la grandezza, assicurandola che non averò occasione di vergognarmi di questa raccommandazione, essendo stimatissimo da tutti gl’intendenti qua, ed il primo uomo della sua nazione.” The letter is transcribed by Crinò 1953, p. 192. See also Crinò 1957, p. 356; Florence 1992, p. 168, doc. no. I. My thanks

Notes

16 17

18 19

20 21 22

23 24 25

209

to my colleagues Gary M. Radke, Stefano Giannini, and Dennis Romano for their assistance in translating and summarizing these passages. Schalcken’s comment concerning the significance of color for his art is interesting in light of Godfrey Kneller’s statement, discussed in Chapter 2, that Dutch artists had introduced “fanciful new fangled colours” into England. “Per ubbidire agl’ordini di S.A. ho discorso col Pittore Schalken per sapere da lui in che consiste il suo talente principale, mi dice che vale più nel colorito, che gl’è uguale di dipingnere in grande o in piccolo pezzi di notte o pezzi di giorno, ma ch’avrebbe più caro di fare il proprio ritratto in un pezzo di notte et al naturale per accompagnare meglio i ritratti della Galleria di S.A. perché non vi è nissun Pittore in queste parti che lo faccia. Per me se ardisco dire la mia opinione mi pare che sarebbe meglio d’impiegarlo in quel modo perchè non mi ricordo d’aver visto nella suddetta Galleria nissun ritratto di pittore che sia fatto di notte …” The letter is transcribed by Crinò 1953, p. 192. See also Crinò 1957, p. 356; Prinz 1971, pp. 191–92, doc. no. 93; Florence 1992, p. 168, doc. no. II. Platt probably told Schalcken that his patron’s gallery lacked a night piece. For this picture, see Beherman 1988, pp. 153–54, cat. no. 56; Florence 1992, pp. 164–71, cat. no. 31. “Il Ritratto è di notte essendovi un lume su un candelliere naturalissimo, tiene con una mano una stampa d’un quadro di notte fatto da lui e con l’altra mano mostra ch’egli n’è l’autore, vi sono altri ornamenti e da tuti [sic] i periti viene assicurato ch’è un pezzo ammirabile, essendo finito al maggior segno, secondo la maniera di Carlin Dolci.” The letter is transcribed by Crinò 1953, p. 194. See also Crinò 1957, p. 356; Prinz 1971, p. 192, doc. no. 95; Florence 1992, p. 168, doc. no. VII. Although Platt claimed that the portrait was finished, he wrote again on 29 March 1695 to advise the Grand Duke that it was now entirely finished (“ha finito affatto il suo ritratto”); see Florence 1992, p. 169, doc. no. VIII. The negotiated price for the picture was twenty-five lire sterling. Cook 2016b, pp. 156, 162, 165, calls attention to Schalcken’s manner of presenting himself as a younger man in these self-portraits. Schalcken’s portrayals of the Penitent Magdalen and other history paintings are discussed in Chapter 5. For Smith, see A. Griffiths (1989), who discovered a comprehensive album in the collections of the New York Public Library, which he himself assembled late in life for one of his wealthy clients. The printmaker wrote in the dates for the mezzotints in this album, numbering over 340. Smith dated the mezzotint under consideration here, 1693. Schalcken himself owned a large paper-art collection, including mezzotints by Smith. This can be gleaned from an advertisement concerning its auction, published in the Amsterdamse Courant, 17 February 1707; see Dudok van Heel 1975, p. 170, doc. no. 100. For Cosimo III’s religious faith in the eyes of his contemporaries, see the fascinating essay by Becagli 1993. See also Greco 1993; Spinelli 1993; and Lafage 2015, pp. 203–34. For this point, see Wuestman (1998, p. 35), who considers Schalcken one of the few artists who used prints to further his reputation. Cook (2016b, p. 200) notes the Grand Duke’s interest in print collecting; see further the scholarly literature she cites. The inclusion of an impression of the mezzotint in the shipment prompted an additional letter to Platt, dated 11 October 1695, in which Bassetti requests a second impression for Cosimo III, because he had given the secretary the first one. Interestingly, Bassetti instructs Platt to make sure that the

210 

26

27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34

35 36 37 38

39 40 41

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

mezzotint is securely packed so that it does not become folded and hence damaged in transit. One wonders whether Bassetti had been given the first one because it was indeed damaged and therefore did not meet Cosimo III’s connoisseurial standards. The letter is transcribed by Crinò 1953, p. 195. See also Crinò 1957, p. 359; Prinz 1971, p. 192, doc. no. 97; Florence 1992, p. 170, doc. no. XI. In the Introduction to his catalogue of prints and drawings to be sold in London on 12 November 1690, Edward Millington, one of the leading auctioneers of the day, speaks of prints selected for the “rarity of their blackness” that would appeal to gentleman virtuosi. The prints he mentions must have been mezzotints. Karst (2013–14, p. 37) cites this passage. For the exclusivity of mezzotints, see further Wuestman 1995, p. 83; and, in relation to Schalcken, Cook 2016b, pp. 193, 196. For late seventeenth-century mezzotints in general, see Wuestman 1995, 1998. Wuestman (1995, p. 78) points out that Schalcken’s daylight scenes were reproduced in etching and engraving, while only his nocturnes appeared in mezzotint since that medium was so well suited to capturing their appearance. See Schindler 2014, p. 231. The date at which Schalcken departed Dou’s studio is not known. For this problem, see further, Jansen (2015–16, pp. 16, 32 n. 13), who states that the artist is not regularly documented in Dordrecht until 1672. See the description by Sluijter (2000b, pp. 255–57) of the curtain in Dou’s Painter Smoking a Pipe in a Window (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum). For this picture, see Florence 1992, pp. 18–23, cat. no. 04. Pliny the Elder, Natural History, bk. 35, ch. 36. Cosimo III was just as rapacious about acquiring books as he was about collecting art. For the Grand Duke’s library and reading interests, see H. van Veen and McCormick 1984, passim; Keblusek 2006, pp. 106–7. See, for example, Wanley 1673, p. 492; Aglionby 1686, p. 40; M. Smith 1693, p. 12. Traudenius 1662, p. 17. Sluijter (2000b, p. 209) cites Traudenius’s poem and translates it as follows: “If Zeuxis saw this banquet, he would be deceived again:/ Here lies no paint, but life and spirit on the panel./ Dou does not paint, oh no, he performs magic with the brush.” See Brusati 1995, pp. 9–15, passim; 1999, pp. 62–65. Von Sandrart 1675–80, vol. 1, p. 310. This passage is cited by Brusati 1999, p. 63. Brusati 1999, pp. 63–64. Brusati 1999, p. 63, “What is striking in all these stories is their emphasis on the aesthetic value accorded to illusionist artifice both by merchants and by sovereigns, by those within court circles and those who competed for honor in the commercial sphere.” See most recently Ho (2015, 2017, pp. 53–92), who explores curtains and other trompe l’oeil motifs within the broader cultural framework of early modern taste, connoisseurship, collecting, artistic virtuosity, and social distinction. Raupp 1984, pp. 208–20. For his pose in his Self-Portrait painted fifteen years earlier (Vaduz and Vienna, Liechtenstein, The Princely Collections), Schalcken had turned to Van Dyck’s portrait of Peter Paul Rubens from the Iconography; see Anja Sevcik’s comments in Cologne 2015–16, p. 90, and fig. 1.1.

Notes

42

43 44

45

46 47

48 49

50 51

211

Raupp 1984, p. 217. Neumeister (2003, p. 342) unconvincingly connects Schalcken’s portrait to the engraved one of Adam de Coster (her fig. 22) from the Iconography. Van Dyck’s prints, particularly those belonging to the Iconography, were widely collected in seventeenth-century England; see G. Luijten and Sombogaart 1999–2000, pp. 10–11, 72–91. In fact, the engraving illustrated here was reproduced, along with seven others from the Iconography, in mezzotint during the second half of the seventeenth century (London, The British Museum, regis. no. 1902, 1011.7936). For the famed Iconography series itself, see Raupp 1984, pp. 45–163; G. Luijten 1999–2000; Amsterdam 1999–2000, pp. 92–213. Raupp 1984, pp. 72–90, 181–82, 212–13, 220. For the specific English application of the term virtuoso, see Pace 1987; Novikova 2003. See Raupp 1984, pp. 70–90. A corollary to the virtuoso artist is the notion of virtù as it applies to art, namely, the artist as virtuous image-maker whose principled character engenders salutary imagery; see Kemp 1992, and for the Dutch context, Melion 1995, p. 109, passim. The use of “curiosity” in the text reflects its significance for seventeenthcentury virtuosi, who employed it ceaselessly to describe their insatiable intellectual appetites; see Whitaker 1996; Benedict 2001. The term was applied in many different contexts during this period, and its adjectival form is even found in relation to art works; see Wood 1995. Lastly, “study of nature” is invoked here instead of science since the latter in the early modern period still referred to knowledge in general as opposed to specific physical sciences that are known today; see further Hanson 2009, p. 21. For virtuosity in England, see Houghton 1942; Pace 1987; Novikova 2003, pp. 309–16, passim; and especially Hanson (2009), whose important book corrects many misconceptions concerning the respective roles that art and science played in the professions and intellectual activities of virtuosi (see also note 79 below). For Castiglione’s influence, see Burke 1996. Blount 1661, p. 338, cited by Pace 1987, p. 167. Only Cartwright 2007, p. 201, recognized the Van Dyckian roots of Schalcken’s attire. However, his linen cravat is more contemporary looking. For the doublet in Van Dyck’s portraiture and that of his contemporaries, see Gordenker 2001, pp. 33–35; Ribeiro 2005, pp. 96–103. For Giraldi’s activities in procuring self-portraits for the Grand Duke, see Prinz 1971, pp. 135–36. “È stato a trovarmi il famoso Pittore Schalcken che mentre dimorava a Londra mandò a V. A. per mezzo di Mr. Platt il suo ritratto, e dubitando che l’invidia e la malizia di qualche d’uno, anzi dicendo d’averne indizij chiari che possa esser stato cambiato il Quadro con una copia tirata dall’annessa stampa …” The letter is transcribed in Florence 1992, p. 170, doc. no. XIII. My thanks to Stefano Giannini for corroborating my summary of this passage. Interestingly, Schalcken’s neighbor in York Buildings, Samuel Pepys, owned an impression of this mezzotint; see Chamberlain 1994, p. 194. For Pepys’s residency in York Buildings, see Bonner-Smith 1938; Tomalin 2003, pp. 298, 437 n. 2. See Hecht 1980, p. 31; Raupp 1984, p. 218; and Florence 1992, p. 167. Wuestman (1995, p. 78) believes that Schalcken may have had a hand in the production of mezzotints in the Dutch Republic that were copied almost immediately from Smith’s mezzotints

212 

52

53 54 55

56 57

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

of his work. That would seem to be the case with Schenck’s mezzotint since its inscription implies that the artist was still living in London when it was made. This provides a terminus ante quem of 1696 for this particular print. Beherman 1988, p. 152, cat. no. 55. For Smith’s mezzotint of the Hagerstown Self-Portrait, see Cologne 2015–16, pp. 97–99, cat. no. 4. The identification of the specific Self-Portrait by Schalcken that was the source of Smith’s mezzotint has been the subject of some confusion. The distinguished Dutch art historian, Hofstede de Groot (1907–28, vol. 5, p. 392, under cat. no. 285) believed that Smith’s mezzotint reproduced a Self-Portrait that the printmaker had seen in the Duke of Portland’s collection at Welbeck Abbey in Nottinghamshire (but was said to be no longer there). Since the mezzotint was made in 1694, and Henry Bentinck (1682–1726), 1st Duke of Portland, was only fourteen years old at the time, this hardly seems possible. A portrait associated with Schalcken (but not by him) at Welbeck Abbey does not at all match Hofstede de Groot’s description; see Murray 1894, p. 66, cat. no. 234; and Goulding 1936, pp. 88–89, cat. no. 234, which describes a picture of a young beardless artist working at a window. Goulding (1936, p. 88) states that the original monogram of Gerard Dou has been overpainted to “scalk.” And in a note immediately below, he dismisses any connection with the mezzotint, while tracing the source of this misconception to a later edition of Walpole 1828, vol. 3, p. 262. To be fair to Hofstede de Groot (1907–28, vol. 5, p. 392, under cat. no. 285), he did state that the Self-Portrait he catalogued might be “confused with the ‘Portrait of a Painter,’ described as a doubtful work of G. Schalcken in the Welbeck catalogue of 1894 …” On the provenance of this picture, see further, note 57 below. Gordenker 2001, pp. 73–74; Ribeiro 2005, pp. 280–83. Neumeister (2003, p. 340) argues for Van Dyck’s influence here, in terms of the portrait’s supposed links to that of Hendrick van Balen in the Iconography. See note 20 above. The inscription contains the cryptic abbreviation “4e.” Matthieu van der Meer, a Latin specialist and colleague of mine at Syracuse University, suggested that it might mean “quartae partis,” that is, the fourth part of the year. If this is so, then following the oldstyle Julian calender (wherein the “new year” began on 25 March) to which England still adhered, the picture was completed sometime between January and March of 1694(5). This book follows the now standard convention of adjusting dates to the modern calendar, so that the new year is understood to begin on 1 January. With this adjustment in mind, Schalcken’s Self-Portrait would date 1695. Schalcken learned Latin at the Latin School in Dordrecht; his father, Cornelis Schalcken, was headmaster of that institution; see Jansen 2015–16, pp. 15–16. It is doubtful that John Smith based his mezzotint of 1694 – hence dated to the same year as the painting – on a self-portrait he had seen in the Duke of Portland’s collection at Welbeck Abbey, for the additional reason (see note 52 above) that the Dukes of Portland did not take possession of Welbeck Abbey until 1734. If Smith did, in fact, see the portrait in the collection of a member of the Portland family it was not that of Henry Bentinck (1682–1726), 1st Duke of Portland, who was only fourteen years old when the mezzotint was made, but that of his father, Hans Willem Bentinck

Notes

58

59 60 61 62 63 64 65

66 67

68 69 70

213

(1649–1709), 1st Earl of Portland. But it is equally likely, if not more so, that Smith saw Schalcken’s Self-Portrait in the latter’s studio. Nevertheless, nineteen years later, in 1713, Henry Bentinck, 1st Duke of Portland, did purchase a supposed self-portrait by Schalcken at auction; see “A Catalogue of Extraordinary Original Pictures, by Several of the Most Celebrated Masters” [London, 1713], lot 38, “Skalken, His own head,” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 13 July 2015). The Duke’s seal and signature are on the verso of the portrait presently at Welbeck Abbey, upon which Schalcken’s name appears, partly painted over Gerrit Dou’s monogram; see Goulding 1936, pp. 88–89. This panel must therefore be identified with lot 38 in the auction of 1713. Part of the Duke’s collection was auctioned on 19 February 1722. For that sale, see The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york. ac.uk. The only painting by Schalcken sold that day depicted an old woman’s head in candlelight (lot 82). My thanks to Guido Jansen for this reference. The Sales Catalogs Database of the Getty Provenance Index, lists a self-portrait by Gerrit van Honthorst depicting him “holding a lighted candle.” This picture was auctioned in London, Harry Phillips, 18 May 1808, lot 19. One wonders whether Schalcken knew it. My thanks to Guido Jansen for this reference. See further the Introduction and Chapter 2. See further the Introduction. Raupp 1984, p. 218. Ripa 1644, p. 285, cited by Raupp 1984, p. 218. For the use of light as a metaphor of wisdom and learning, see further Emmens (1981, vol. 2, p. 17), and the literature he cites in his n. 18. Van Hoogstraten 1678, p. 349, cited by Raupp 1984, p. 218 n. 223. See also Weststeijn 2008, p. 227. See also note 65 below. Dufresnoy 1695. For this text, see Lipking 1970, pp. 38–65; Levine 1999, pp. 103–4; Dufresnoy 2005; Hanson 2009, pp. 103–4. Dufresnoy 1695, p. xii. See also the various definitions of “fancy” in seventeenthcentury English, expounded in the Oxford English Dictionary, http://www.oed.com/ view/Entry/68025?rskey=RN1Uu1&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid. In a similar vein to Van Hoogstraten’s comments about St. Basil, Dufresnoy (1695, p. 81) claims the superiority of painting over poetry because it gives “more light to the understanding than the clearest discourses we can make.” De Jongh 1981–82, pp. 155–58. The poor condition of the ancient statuary in the foreground of the Hagerstown SelfPortrait motivated Larsen (1964) to argue their actual absence from the canvas. He therefore considered this canvas a variant version of one from Welbeck Abbey (which, like Hofstede de Groot [1907–28, vol. 5, p. 392, under cat. no. 285], he considered lost; see notes 52 and 57 above). However, Beherman (1988, p. 152) cites a letter written to Larsen shortly after his article appeared by then director of the Washington County Museum of Fine Arts, Bruce Etchison, who pointed out that the bust and fragment could, in fact, be seen in strong light. For this immense topic, see, most recently, London 2015a. Compare this Self-Portrait to the one in Leamington Spa, discussed below. Peacham 1634, p. 111, cited by Pace 1987, p. 167.

214 

71

72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79

80 81 82 83

84 85

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Peacham (1634, p. 107) praises Arundel for his “noble Patronage of Arts and ancient learning … To whose liberall charge and magnificence, this angle of the world oweth the first sight of Greeke and Romane statues, with whose admired presence he began to honour the Gardens and Galleries of Arundel-House some twentie yeares agoe, and hath ever since continued to transplant old Greece into England …” This passage is cited by Vickers 2006, p. 10. For Arundel’s activities as a collector and virtuoso, see Howarth 1985; Junius 1991, vol. 1, pp. xxxi–xli; Howarth 2002; Novikova 2003; Hanson 2009, pp. 23–26, passim; Weststeijn 2015, pp. 31–100. See the literature cited in note 71 above. For the dispersal of the collection, see also Haskell 2013, pp. 105–22. See also Chapter 2 for the Arundel pictures acquired by Schalcken’s patron, John Lowther. For this portrait (and the pendant portraying the Countess of Arundel seated before a gallery displaying portraits of the couple’s ancestors), see Novikova 2003. See Larsson 1968; Held (1991, pp. 37–40), who cites a number of examples from Flemish portraiture of the 1620s and 1630s; and Raupp 1984, pp. 82–85. See Howarth 1985, pp. 34–52, 77–97; 2006; Cheney 2003, pp. 40–47. For Junius, see Junius 1991, vol. 1, pp. xxi–lxxxiii; Weststeijn 2015. Evelyn 1862–63, vol. 3, p. 300; Smuts 2004, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/13943 (accessed 24 June 2015). Hanson 2009, p. 56. In this respect, see also Cowan (2004), who frames his thesis within the context of changing perceptions of virtuosity and connoisseurship into the eighteenth century, providing, like Hanson, much needed corrections to the classic study on virtuosity by Houghton 1942. See Cowan (2004, p. 155), who opines that, “[a]lthough virtuosity was elitist, the virtuosi founded their sense of exclusivity more on their shared knowledge and interests than on more conventional means of social distinction, such as wealth or titles or nobility.” See also Hanson (2009, pp. 7, 66, 58–92, passim), who amends older arguments (propagated mainly by Houghton 1942) that scientific interests came to dominate virtuosi by the mid-seventeenth century. Rather, “the change is more accurately understood as a widening of interest more generally around the study of nature, which by no means precluded the visual arts.” In this regard, see too Cowan 2004, pp. 170–74. Several owners of Schalcken’s paintings were members of this society, including Robert Spencer (1641–1702), 2nd Earl of Sunderland (see Chapter 4), and his principal patron, John Lowther; see Chapter 2. See Bignamini 1988; Bignamini (1989, pp. 439–40) identifies 1692 – the very same year of Schalcken’s arrival in London – as a seminal one for the arts in England because several private and public institutions associated with them came into existence. See Bignamini 1988, pp. 21–44; 1989, pp. 440–41; Cowan 2004, pp. 176–77; Myrone 2007. Bignamini 1988, p. 23. Cowan (2004, 160–63) discusses how the practice of connoisseurship among English virtuosi of the seventeenth century primarily entailed validating or constructing the inherent value of an artwork in terms of its edifying purpose as opposed to determining attributions. See Bignamini 1988, pp. 21–44. Vertue’s materials, published by Bignamini (1988), are housed in the British Library (Add. MS 39167 A-G). For Vertue, see the Introduction. Myrone (2007, n. pag., http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/theme/96316; accessed 4 September 2015) states that

Notes

86 87 88

89 90

91

215

Vertue’s notes were based on those gathered by James Seymour, an early member of the society. Nevertheless, Vertue did provide a list of the stewards from 1689 onwards for the annual banquet celebrating St. Luke’s Day; see Bignamini 1988, p. 38. Dufresnoy 1695. See also note 64 above. Dryden 1989, p. 337, cited by Myrone (2007, n. pag., http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ theme/96316; accessed 4 September 2015), who wonders whether the portraitist John Closterman (1660–1711) was the driving force behind Dryden’s commission. See also Dufresnoy 2005, pp. 128–30, passim. For Cooke, see Chapter 5. See, respectively, lots 13 and 29 in “A Catalogue of Extraordinary Original Pictures, by Several of the Most Celebrated Masters” [London, 1713], The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 13 July 2015). At this sale, which took place in March 1712, Schalcken’s courtship scene was sold to John Manners (1676–1721), 2nd Duke of Rutland, for the then considerable sum of 64 pounds and 8 schillings. My thanks to Guido Jansen for this reference. Mount (1991, pp. 69, 69 n. 5) refers to this sale, but mistakenly connects it to a certain James Graham, who was also active in the Virtuosi of St. Luke – it is not known whether Richard Graham and James Graham were related. For the courtship painting, possibly identifiable with Fig. 60, see further Chapter 4. Lot 200 in “A Catalogue of Mr. Sykes’s Extraordinary Collection of Original and Other Pictures” [London, 1724], The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld. york.ac.uk (accessed 23 November 2015). This large sale, consisting of 301 lots, took place at Sykes’s home in Lincoln’s Inn Fields on 2–6 March 1724. Evidently, Sykes’s collection was a fairly renowned one, for this auction was even advertised in a Dutch newspaper. The 6 February 1724 issue of the ‘s Gravenhaegse Courant contained the following advertisement: “Aen alle Beminnaers van fraeje Schilderkunst, werd hier mede kennisse gegeeven, dat Mr. Sykes, woonachtig in London, voorneemens is in ’t laerst van deeze maend February te verkopen, zyn uytsteekend Kabinet met Schildreyen van Italiaensen en Hollandse Meesters, die in detyd van over de 45 jaren met veel moeyte en kosten byeen verzameld heeft. De verkoping zal geschieden tenzynen huyze in Lincolns-Infield” (“‘s Gravenhaegse Courant, 6/16 February 1724,” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk [accessed 4 August 2016]). A second sale of Syke’s collection took place in November of that year: “Sale of pictures of William Sykes, at the Two Golden Balls in Portugal Row, Lincoln’s Inn Fields” (16 November 1724, The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york. ac.uk [accessed 2 March 2016]). Incidentally, Sykes purchased three pictures at the Graham sale referred to in note 90 above. He was also well acquainted with Godfrey Kneller, as he was one of a group of family members and friends who received mourning rings at the eminent artist’s funeral; see the list of recipients of these rings at the funeral of Godfrey Kneller, which took place on 7 November 1723, the National Archives, Kew, PROB 10/7373/12, The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld. york.ac.uk (accessed 23 November 2015). For Sykes, see “Francis Sykes and His Family,” Neil Jeffares [blog], https://neiljeffares.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/francis-sykes-andhis-family/. Early references to this connoisseur and dealer who belonged to the Virtuosi of St. Luke misspell his surname as “Secks.” Bignamini (1988, p. 38) confused

216 

92

93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

101 102 103

104

105 106 107 108

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

matters further by identifying him as “Wykes.” My thanks to Guido Jansen for calling my attention to Sykes. This is more likely the case for Graham, who, unlike Sykes, sold his two paintings by the artist decades before his death. Nevertheless, the possibility cannot be ruled out that he first acquired these pictures during Schalcken’s London period and only decided to sell them years later. See the somewhat out-of-date though still useful article by Salerno 1951. For Aglionby and this text, see Cowan 2004, pp. 157–59; Hanson 2009, pp. 94–108, passim. See Hanson 2009, passim. See Hanson 2009, p. 99. Hanson 2009, pp. 103–8. See Hanson (2009, p. 105), who also notes that Aglionby lauds artists’ “sexual prowess among women.” See, for example, Aglionby 1686, pp. 273–74. See the discussion in Pears 1988, pp. 107–13; Cowan 2004, pp. 165–67. Ironically, the Royal Society, a bastion of virtuosity in the decades following the Restoration, early on launched the “History of Trades” initiative whose aim was to “collate all that was known about the constellation of natural resources and human manufactured goods” (Hanson 2009, p. 11). Unfortunately, painting fell under this rubric, thereby reducing it to a mechanical, craft-like activity that could theoretically be taught to anyone. For the History of Trades project, see Hanson 2009, pp. 75–81, 89–92, passim. Neumeister (2003, p. 341), too, construed this Self-Portrait as one celebrating Schalcken’s status as a virtuoso though for different reasons, grounded primarily in the painter’s pose and especially his attire, including his wig. My thanks to Thea Wieteler for her insights into the most accurate manner in which to translate this inscription. Wieteler also pointed out that in addition to darkness the word “obscuris” carries with it the idea of mystery. For this picture, see Beherman 1988, p. 155, cat. no. 57; Liverpool 1994–95, p. 70, cat. no. 17; Munich 1998–99, p. 448 cat. no 253; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 100–2, cat. no. 5. Karla Langedijk, writing in Florence 1992, p. 167, argued that the Florence Self-Portrait was modeled on the Leamington Spa Self-Portrait, without realizing that the latter is dated 1695. Recall that Richard Graham, a member of the Virtuosi of St. Luke, owned a selfportrait by Schalcken depicting him at an easel; see note 90 above. It is not known whether Graham acquired this work during the painter’s years in London. The 1st Duke of Portland also owned a Schalcken Self-Portrait, but this picture was acquired after the artist’s death; see note 57 above. Xanthe Brooke, writing in Liverpool 1994–95, p. 70, theorized that the artist’s youthful countenance in this self-portrait suggested an allegorical intention on his part, to wit, to present himself as the embodiment of the concept of painting. Gordenker 2001, pp. 73–74; Ribeiro 2005, pp. 280–83. For this painting, see Barnes et al. 2004, pp. 431–32, no. IV.4. See further Brusati 1995, pp. 145–51.

Notes

217

109 J. Stewart 1983, p. 40. 110 Eventually, Schalcken would receive one from a German prince at the very end of his career; see the discussion below and Fig. 53. 111 Karst proposed this hypothesis to me in conversation during the Godefridus Schalcken symposium in Cologne on 22 January 2016. Unfortunately, the present condition of the Leamington Spa Self-Portrait makes it impossible to determine whether the chain painted therein was a later addition. Schalcken wears the chain (and accompanying medal) that he received from the Elector Palatine in his last Self-Portrait, executed in 1706 (Fig. 53); see Jansen 2015–16, p. 29; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 105–9, cat. no. 7. 112 My thanks to Anja Sevcik for this suggestion. The Leamington Spa Self-Portrait was lot 112 in an auction held in Paris on 20 March 1810, while the portrait pendants, today in Liechtenstein, The Princely Collections in Vaduz and Vienna, were lots 113 and 114 in the very same sale. A fourth painting by Schalcken, depicting Saint Cecilia, was lot 115 in the sale. The Sales Catalogs Database of the Getty Provenance Index provides a detailed analysis of this auction. For Schalcken’s earlier pendant pair in Vaduz and Vienna, see Cologne 2015–16, pp. 90–94, cat. nos. 1, 2. In her catalogue entry for these two pictures, Sevcik (p. 91) notes that it impossible to determine who owned these four paintings at the time they were placed on the auction block. 113 Sotheby’s, Amsterdam, 1 December 1986, lot 101. For the following comments, see further Cologne 2015–16, pp. 102–4, cat. no. 6. 114 Beherman 1988, pp. 155, 383, cat. no. D41. 115 For ricordi versus study drawings, see Wieseman 2004. See also Wieseman 2016, pp. 60–62, for Schalcken’s use of drawings in his portraiture practice; he sometimes annotated them with notes on fabrics and colors for later reference. See also Sevcik (2015–16, pp. 57–58), who observes that only ricordi by Schalcken were included in the auction of property from his studio after his death in 1706. For this sale, which took place on 22 February 1707, see Dudok van Heel 1975, p. 167, no. 100. 116 For Schalcken’s many drawings, see Beherman 1988, pp. 374–85, cat. nos. D1–D48, passim; Jansen 1992. 117 For this drawing, see Beherman 1988, p. 374, cat. no. D1, passim. 118 For example, the drawing for the Florence Self-Portrait (Fig. 49) displays a manifestly awkward transition between the head and neck of the figure. 119 Houbraken 1753 [1718–21], vol. 3, p. 177; see further, Cologne 2015–16, p. 223 n. 3. 120 Houbraken 1753 [1718–21], vol. 3, p. 343; see further, Cologne 2015–16, p. 223 n. 3. 121 Foucart (2016, n. 21) misunderstood the present writer’s catalogue entry (Cologne 2015–16, pp. 102–4, cat. no. 6) and mistakenly claimed that I considered this drawing a preparatory one for a completely different portrait. 122 For the artist’s various pupils throughout his career, see Jansen (2015–16, pp. 25–26, 28–29). He cites the presence of a certain portrait painter named Gramagli who worked in Schalcken’s studio in London. 123 Jacobus Schalcken was the son of the artist’s brother, Johannes Schalcken. He was likely named in honor of his great-uncle, the theologian Jacobus Lydius (see the Introduction). In his brief biography of Jacobus Schalcken, Weyerman (1729–69, vol. 4, p. 79) states that he was Godefridus’s pupil. There is no reason to doubt this claim. Bredius (1930, p. 157) published a notarial document concerning an assessment

218 

124

125 126 127

128 129

130 131 132 133

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

of the authenticity of two of his uncle’s paintings by Jacobus and a colleague, which they deemed to be copies. Interestingly, this event took place in The Hague, where Godefridus and his family resettled after quitting London, on 23 April 1698. Presumably, Jacobus followed his uncle there and by that time, having already been in the master’s studio for several years, was well familiar with his paintings. My thanks to Guido Jansen for this reference. For this record, see the Introduction. Beherman (1988, p. 161, cat. no. 62) illustrates a supposed portrait by Godefridus of his nephew, Jacobus. The author dates this picture to about 1699–1700. This cannot be correct because the child depicted therein is far too young to have been Jacobus, who would have been eighteen or nineteen years old in 1700. The date Beherman assigned to the picture is incorrect; see further Cologne 2015–16, pp. 112–14, cat. no. 10, where it is dated c. 1675–80. This earlier date also precludes the identity of the figure as Jacobus. Regardless, it is by no means certain that this picture is an actual portrait. Koerner 1993, p. 6. For the following discussion, see Van de Wetering 1999, pp. 12–13. Rembrandt, of course, was another seventeenth-century Dutch artist who promoted himself through his self-portraits. Van de Wetering (1999, p. 12) observes that in seventeenth-century portrait studios, someone other than the sitter, that is, an assistant, posed for the depiction of the hands. Van de Wetering’s source for this statement is Weyerman 1726, p. 833. Van de Wetering (1999, p. 37 n. 9) cites the very same text for complaints among Schalcken’s clients concerning his portrayal of hands, which were said to be based on those of the pudgy ones of his assistants – see further the Introduction to the present study. Weyerman (1729–69, vol. 3, pp. 13–14) repeats this assertion in his biography of the master. But is Weyerman really a reliable source in this instance for information about the practices of portraitists? After all, much of what he writes, given his notoriously acerbic and satirical style, must be weighed carefully. Likewise, this does not preclude the possibility that the model also sat for the actual painting. See Raupp 1984, pp. 36–44, passim; Sluijter 1998a. Cook (2016b, p. 159) referenced Gerrit Dou’s Self-Portrait (see Fig. 50 in the present study) in relation to Schalcken’s, a telling comparison since the latter studied with the former in the 1660s. Cook also cites English examples, including a spirited Self-Portrait by Michael Dahl (her fig. 134; London, National Portrait Gallery) – painted four years before Schalcken’s – in which the suavely dressed painter gestures at an ancient bust, with his palette and brushes just to its side. Van de Wetering (2009, pp. 81–89), who quotes extensively from the treatise by Schalcken’s teacher, Van Hoogstraten 1678. Recall that Schalcken did paint a now lost self-portrait in which he was posed beside an easel. It was owned by Richard Graham, a London-based art dealer and collector whom the artist probably knew; see the discussion above. Woods-Marsden (1998, pp. 35–38) makes this point in relation to Renaissance art. See also Woodall 2007, p. 11. See notes 52 and 57 above.

219

Notes

134 Johannes Vermeer’s famed Art of Painting (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum) likely had this function; see Sluijter 1998b, p. 266. See also Sluijter 1998a, p. 175. 135 For these pendants, see Beherman 1988, pp. 147–49, cat. nos. 52, 53; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 90–94, cat. nos. 1, 2. The couple married on 31 October 1679, so it seems logical to view them as wedding portraits; see Cologne 2015–16, p. 90; Jansen 2015–16, p. 20. 136 For this Self-Portrait, see Beherman 1988, pp. 146–47, cat. no. 51; Sevcik 2015–16, p. 54. For another Self-Portrait by Schalcken (Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum) dating to approximately the same period, 1690–92, see Cologne 2015–16, pp. 94–96, cat. no. 3. 137 See Beherman 1988, p. 146. Illustrations in the theory book of Schalcken’s teacher, Van Hoogstraten 1678, opp. p. 136, opp. p. 214, show artists with berets. Several times, Van Hoogstraten also portrayed himself wearing a beret (for example, St. Petersburg, Hermitage); see Brusati 1995, p. 142, fig. 101. My thanks to Stephanie Dickey for sharing her insights into Schalcken’s Self-Portrait with me. 138 For the following discussion, see De Winkel 2006, pp. 164–68. 139 De Winkel (2006, p. 168) considers the evidence that berets were actually worn inconclusive. 140 See Jansen 2015–16, pp. 21–25. 141 Jansen 2015–16, p. 21. 142 Johannes Vermeer used this title as well; see Franits 2015, p. 99. 143 For this picture, see, Beherman 1988, p. 156, cat. no. 58; Dordrecht 2012–13, pp. 156–57, cat no. 39; Cologne 2015–16, pp.105–8, cat. no. 7.

4. 1 2 3

4

Schalcken’s London period genre paintings Franits (2004, pp. 245–50) provides an overview of Schalcken’s activities in this arena within the broader context of late seventeenth-century Dutch genre painting. For the points touched upon here, see Karst 2013–14, pp. 30–36. See also the literature cited in note 3 below. These catalogues can be found in the Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld. york.ac.uk/. This site contains references to other sales from this period known only from contemporary newspaper advertisements. Cowan (2006, pp. 269–73, 279–81, table 16, graph 10) assesses a “bubble” in the number of London auctions, which peaked during the years 1689 to 1694, only to diminish rapidly immediately thereafter. This bubble therefore burst during Schalcken’s residence there. See also Meadows 1988, pp. 52–56. For auction activities in England and the art market in general in the years leading up to Schalcken’s arrival, see Meadows 1988, pp. 34–67, 106–205, passim; Ormrod 1998; De Marchi 2004. See Mount 1991, p. 234; Karst (2013–14, p. 32, fig. 5), who published a list of Dutch artists whose works are referred to in the British Library catalogues. Confusingly, Karst adds (p. 33 n. 39) that this list only includes artists who were active in London between March 1689 and March 1692 – the period covered by the catalogues. Schalcken, whose name appears here, did not arrive in London until the late spring of 1692.

220 

5

6

7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

“A Collection of Curious Pictures, viz. Paintings and Limnings by the Best Masters” [London, November 1690], lot 360, “a Dutch Lady holding a piece of Salmon, delicately painted by Skalk,” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 2 September 2015). “A Choice Collection of Valuable Paintings, Most of Which Are Originals, by the Best Ancient and Modern Masters” [London, November 1691], lot 222, “a Woman with a Salmon by Schalka,” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 2 September 2015). Today, this picture is only known from one assigned to the circle of Schalcken (though, admittedly, this could be the very same work referred to in the two late seventeenth-century auctions); it was sold at Christie’s, London, 8 December 1995, lot 283. It seems to be the very same picture that graced the dust jacket of Noordegraaf 1985. “A Collection of Curious Paintings, Most of Which Are Originals, by the Best Ancient and Modern Masters” [London, October 1691], lot 104, “a small piece finely painted by Schalker,” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 2 September 2015). “A Choice Collection of Valuable Paintings, Most of Which Are Original” [London, November 1691], lot 45, “a Droll by Schalka,” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http:// artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 4 September 2015). For drolleries, see the Oxford English Dictionary, http://www.oed.com/view/ Entry/57832?redirectedFrom=drollerie#eid. See also Mount 1991, pp. 27–28, 33–35, passim. “A Collection of Curious Paintings, Most of Which Are Originals, by the Best Ancient and Modern Masters” [London, January 1692], lot 106, “a curious piece by Schalka,” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 3 September 2015). Karst (2013–14, pp. 36–41) examines the target audiences for auctions in late seventeenth-century London in relation to the types of pictures available for sale and the social status of some of the buyers, adding much needed nuance to this topic. For auction participants in relation to issues of social status and connoisseurship, see also Cowan 1998, pp. 157–63, passim; 2006. What recent scholarship has made clear is that prices for artworks at late seventeenth-century London auctions tended to be fairly modest (with exceptions, naturally) and that the auctions themselves were attended by both elites and persons of a more middling sort; in addition to Karst 2013–14, pp. 36–41, see also Cowan 1998, pp. 157–63, passim; Gibson-Wood 2002; De Marchi 2004; Cowan 2006. However, there were sales, albeit far fewer in number, specifically targeted at elite buyers; see Karst 2013–14, p. 37. See further note 36 below. Cowan 2006, p. 277. M. Smith 1693, p. 25. Recall that in the periodical, A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade, Schalcken’s name is similarly spelled, Schalker; see the Introduction and Fig. 2. Among the few articles addressing William III’s English court are: Barclay 2007; van der Steen 2009. See “VAN HULS, William Charles (aft. 1649–1722), of Whitehall, London,” The History of Parliament, http://historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1715-1754/member/vanhuls-william-charles-1649–1722. See Cox and Forrest 1931, pp. 18, 20 (the latter page illustrating a print of the house as it appeared around 1759). It was situated directly adjacent to the Holbein Gate.

Notes

16 17

18 19

20

21

22

23 24

25

221

“A Catalogue of Pictures by the Best Italian, French, Flemish and Dutch Masters, Collected by the Late William Van Huls Esq” [London, 1722], The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 4 September 2015). One month later, in September, an additional auction was held at one of van Huls’s other homes, in “Great Chelsea”: “A Catalogue Consisting of Two Houses at Great Chelsea as also Household Furniture … [and] Pictures … Lately Belonging to William Van Huls Esq” [London, 1722], The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york. ac.uk (accessed 4 September 2015). See Cologne 2015–16, pp. 149–51, cat. no. 23. Cook (2016b, p. 34) states that Schalcken only dated about 26 of his paintings or approximately 12 percent of them. Her estimates are based on the total number of pictures (210) securely ascribed to Schalcken by Beherman 1988. The most recent estimate of Schalcken’s entire output, an unpublished list compiled by Eddy Schavemaker, places the number of surviving paintings and drawings at 340. See, for example, the painting by Richard Morris of An Old Man and an Owl, discussed and illustrated by Jansen (2015–16, p. 25, fig. 14). My thanks to Eddy Schavemaker for his insights concerning the dating of Schalcken’s picture. See also Schavemaker 2016, an article exploring the use of figures’ hairstyles as an aid in establishing the artist’s chronology. According to Cat. Mus. Dresden 2005, vol. 2., p. 474, A Maid with Eggs was acquired before 1723 for Augustus II the Strong by August Christoph Graf von Wackerbarth (1662–1734), a connoisseur and collector in his own right, who played a major role in developing his patron’s collection. It was conceivably purchased by an agent of Von Wackerbarth’s at the auction of Van Huls’s collection in London and immediately thereafter, placed in Augustus II the Strong’s collection. Beherman (1988, p. 278, cat. no. 181) notes that the picture is already mentioned in an inventory of the collection compiled in 1722. For Von Wackerbarth and his collecting activities in the service of Augustus II, see Niedner 1910; Korthals Altes 2003, pp. 241–42, 246, 312 inv. no. 368. Again, my thanks to Eddy Schavemaker for his insights concerning its dating. Beherman (1988, p. 278) had incorrectly dated it to c. 1665–70. Waterhouse (1956, p. 140) believed that Robert Spencer (1641–1702), 2nd Earl of Sunderland, brought Dutch pictures back to England after he returned from exile in the Dutch Republic. For Spencer, mistakenly thought to be Schalcken’s principal patron during his London period, see further below. This might explain the artist’s decision to advertise himself at that time as a specialist in the painting of “life” in A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade (Fig. 2); for this periodical, see Glaisyer 2006, pp. 145–55. Raines (1987, p. 130) offers a rather pessimistic view of the state of genre painting in late seventeenth-century England owing to an alleged general lack of interest in it among collectors. Mount (1991, pp. 20–21, 27) convincingly challenges his theories. For Van Heemskerck, see Raines 1987; Mount 1991, passim; Kollmann 2000, pp. 208–9; and Karst 2013–14, pp. 38–40, passim. For additional biographical information on this artist, see Buckeridge 1754, p. 383; and especially Groenendijk 2008, p. 391, which is more accurate.

222 

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33

34 35

36

37

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

See Mount 1991, p. 231, app. I, which includes 238 paintings by the so-called “old Heemskerck.” See further Karst (2013–14, pp. 32, 40 n. 83, fig. 5), who lists 833 pictures in total. See the literature cited in note 25 above. See Raines 1987, pp. 125–28, passim. See Raines 1987, pp. 122–25, passim. See also Mount 1991, pp. 36–37. For Laroon, see Raines 1967, pp. 5–39; and Groenendijk 2008, p. 480. Raines (1987, p. 120) points out potential collaborations between Laroon and Van Heemskerck. For this series, see Raines 1967, pp. 13–39; and especially Shesgreen 1990. For Van Roestraten, see L. Shaw 1990; Kollmann 2000, pp. 257–58; Groenendijk 2008, pp. 641–42. As these authors note, Houbraken (1753, vol. 2, 192) reports Van Roestraten’s injury in the Great Fire of 1666. Several of Van Roestraten’s eighteenthcentury biographers claim that he was also a talented portraitist, so much so that his skill in this genre potentially threatened Peter Lely’s (1618–1680) livelihood. The latter supposedly agreed to assist the young master in procuring still-life commissions from the highest court circles on the condition that he not paint portraits; see L. Shaw 1990, pp. 403–4; Karst 2013–14, p. 56 n. 192. L. Shaw (1990, p. 404) cites a series of six genre paintings, dating 1672–76, that were commissioned by Thomas Clifford (1630–1673) 1st Baron Clifford of Chudleigh. However, Clifford died (possibly by suicide) in 1673; see “CLIFFORD, Thomas (1630–73), of Ugbrooke, Chudleigh, Devon,” The History of Parliament, http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/cliffordthomas-1630-73. De Ryck was actually born in Amsterdam; see Groenendijk 2008, p. 654. For Castro, see Kollmann 2000, p. 166; Groenendijk 2008, p. 184; and Karst 2013–14, p. 39. For Boone, who also made still lifes depicting game as well as mezzotints, see Kollmann 2000, p. 159; Groenendijk 2008, p. 128; and Karst 2013–14, pp. 32, 46, 48, passim. One of this artist’s surviving genre paintings, representing Mercenary Love, belongs to the Shipley collection. It is strongly reminiscent of early seventeenthcentury portrayals of this subject, especially as rendered by Hendrick Goltzius (1558–1617); see London 1979, n. pag., cat. no. 4. Buckeridge 1754, p. 383, with respect to paintings by Van Heemskerck. This passage is quoted by Karst (2013–14, pp. 39–40), who himself quotes Weyerman (1729–69, vol. 4, p. 351), who made similar comments. Castro’s paintings were probably targeted at the same audiences as well, judging from the prices of his seascapes; see Karst 2013–14, p. 39. Karst (2013–14, pp. 36–41) argues convincingly for the social diversity of buyers within London’s late seventeenth-century art markets; in other words, elites did not limit themselves to the purchase of expensive paintings but simultaneously acquired those of lesser value. For this important point, see also Mount 1991, pp. 25–27. See also note 10 above. Karst (2013–14, pp. 38–39), citing the inventory of the painting collection of the actor, William Cartwright (d. 1686), and noting that a few scattered works by the artist, probably larger in size and of higher quality, reached prices as high as fifteen pounds. For Cartwright’s collection, see London 1987–88.

Notes

38

39

40

41

42

43 44

45

223

Karst 2013–14, p. 42. Robartes also owned Schalcken’s Ceres with a Torch (Searching for Persephone), which fetched slight over 23 pounds at the same auction; for this picture, see Chapter 5 and Fig. 74. A transcription of the auction catalogue of his collection, “Catalogue of the Earl of Radnor’s Picture Collection” [London, 1724], and the prices that the pictures fetched, can be found at: The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http:// artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 18 September 2015). See Karst 2013–14, p. 42. Robartes’s residence, at St. James’s Square no. 7, was in close proximity to that of another owner of one of Schalcken’s genre paintings: Robert Spencer (1641–1702), 2nd Earl of Sunderland, who resided at St. James’s Square no. 31; see further below. “Personal Accounts of the Earl of Dorset, May to September 1694,” Kent History Centre U269/A7/28, The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 18 September 2015). Some idea of Norris’s stock of pictures can be gleaned from an auction held shortly after his death, in 1707. Unfortunately, not all of the items for this sale carried attributions: see “A Catalogue of Pictures, the Collection of Mr John Norris, Deceas’d” [London, 1707], The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld. york.ac.uk (accessed 18 September 2015). See “Norris, John (1642?–1707),” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld. york.ac.uk (accessed 18 September 2015). Constantijn Huygens, Jr. (1628–1697), Secretary to William III, whose diaries reveal his frequent dealings with Norris, described him as “the King’s joiner”; see Dekker 2013, pp. 68, 78, 79. Lowther recorded the titles of these two genre paintings and their values in an inventory he compiled in 1696 (Fig. 21), presently held by the Cumbria Archive Service, Carlisle, inv. no. DLONS/L2/6. “Night peece” was a common descriptor for Schalcken’s genre paintings in contemporary archival documents and auction sales. Technically speaking, Old Woman’s Head could have been a tronie and would therefore not be a genre painting. See “Lincoln’s Inn Fields: Nos. 59 and 60 (Lindsey House),” British History Online, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=74160&strquery=sir john lowther (accessed 24 July 2014). Construction on Lowther Hall was initiated in 1692 after the central section of the existing structure on site was demolished; see Colvin et al. 1980, pp. 7–11, fig. 4, an engraved book illustration of Lowther Hall and its grounds from 1714; Owen 1990, pp. 207–08, fig. 48, a “portrait” made by Matthias Read around 1700 of Lowther Hall and its grounds. Tragically, its upper story and most of the east wing were destroyed by fire in 1718. Of course, there remains the possibility that Norris first owned the night piece that he then sold to the Earl of Dorset second-hand. Two other art dealers, Richard Graham and William Sykes, also owned pictures by Schalcken though it is difficult to say whether these works were part of their stock or their own private collections. Both men were members of the Virtuosi of St. Luke, a club dedicated to the fine arts with which Schalcken probably had contact; see Chapter 3. Karst (2013–14, pp. 58–59) discusses Dutch migrant painters who marketed imported pictures by their countrymen in London. One of them was Leonard Knyff (1650–1722), a Dutch painter and art dealer who until about 1695 actually resided in Schalcken’s York Buildings

224 

46 47 48 49

50 51

52 53

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

neighborhood. Apparently, he held auctions at his premises there (on Buckingham Street); see “Knyff, Leonard (1650–1722),” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http:// artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 16 May 2016). See also Groenendijk 2008, p. 467. My thanks to Sander Karst for this reference. See further the Introduction. For this painting, see Beherman (1988, pp. 356–57, cat. no. 326), who inexplicably rejects the attribution to Schalcken, considering it a copy after the lost original; Munich 1998–99, p. 447, cat. no 252; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 272–74, cat. no. 71. For Spencer, see the classic study by Kenyon 1958; and more recently, Speck 2004. For the Spencer family art collection, which, unfortunately, only began to be properly documented during the eighteenth century, see Garlick 1974–76. During Schalcken’s years in London, the Earl and Countess of Sunderland lived in a large residence called Norfolk House, St. James’s Square, no. 31, in the parish of St. Margaret Westminster; see Sheppard 1960, pp. 187–202. Norfolk House certainly contained pictures; see Kenyon 1958, pp. 84–85. The couple’s home lay in close proximity to that of another owner of a genre painting by Schalcken, Charles Bodvile Robartes, 2nd Earl of Radnor, who resided at St. James’s Square no. 7 (see note 39 above). See Kenyon 1958, p. 16; Garlick 1974–76, p. xiii. This does not preclude the possibility that a Boy Blowing on a Firebrand could have hung in Spencer’s London residence; see note 49 above. Spencer’s role as Schalcken’s patron was first mentioned by [Vertue] 1937–38, p. 57. [Vertue] 1935–36, p. 39, records what he saw at Althorp as follows: “2 Schalcken Candlelights. – 2. Gentlemen at len. in Roman habits. another, the boy. firebrand.” The first picture seems to have been a full-length portrait of two men dressed à la romaine; for a similar surviving work by the artist of a sitter in such costume, see Fig. 29. Following Vertue’s manner of notation, we can transcribe this passage to say that he saw two candlelight pictures: one, depicting two gentlemen in full-length ancient Roman costume and the other, a boy blowing on a firebrand. (Later in his entry, [Vertue] 1935–36, p. 39, reiterates that he had seen “of Schalcken, an excellent peice [sic] a boy blowing on a firebrand.”) Garlick (1974–76, p. 76) misunderstood Vertue’s notes here, stating that he had seen four paintings by Schalcken in total. Mount (1991, p. 70 n. 7) repeats Garlick’s error. See further the Introduction. Beherman (1988, p. 26) assumes Spencer’s supposed importance for Schalcken. Several copies and variants of a Boy Blowing on a Firebrand have appeared on the market over the last few decades. Evidently, these were already circulating in England by the early eighteenth century (if not earlier), as one was owned by the architect Henry Bell (1647–1711); see Moore 1988, p. 8. The Leiden Collection in New York owns a particularly interesting variant (inv. no. GS-106), though it is not entirely from Schalcken’s hand; it features the boy in a similar position, but accompanied by a maid; see New York 2017, “Young Man Blowing a Torch to Light a Candle, Godefridus Schalcken and Studio,” The Leiden Collection, http://www.theleidencollection.com/ artwork/a-young-man-blowing-a-torch-to-light-a-candle/. See further the Critical Catalogue at the end of the present study, cat. no. A20SW1. A Boy Blowing on a Firebrand was also repeatedly reproduced as a mezzotint during the eighteenth

Notes

54

55

56

57

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

68 69

225

century; a number of impressions belong to the collection of the British Museum in London. Elsum 1704, p. 106. Contrary to the claim of Garlick 1974–76, p. 76, Vertue made no reference to Elsum’s epigram on Schalcken’s picture. Given Elsum’s verse, “suppos’d by Schalcken,” one wonders whether he was looking at one of the many copies of Spencer’s celebrated painting. However, this verse could also reflect the possibility that Elsum was not familiar with Schalcken’s art. For Van Honthorst’s painting, see Judson and Ekkart 1999, pp. 183–84, cat. no. 231, plate 132; for Ter Brugghen’s two versions of this subject, Slatkes and Franits 2007, pp. 154–56, 166–68, cat. nos. A47, A55, plates 46, 54; for Lievens’s, see, most recently, Schnackenburg 2016, p. 186, cat. no. 21, plate 21. For El Greco’s painting, see New York 2003–4, pp. 226–27, cat. no. 63. There is a painting by Jacopo Bassano (c. 1510–1592) of a boy in profile blowing on a flame (formerly with Victor Spark, New York), cited in New York 2003–4, p. 226. There is a closely related picture, attributed to the Bassano School, in Vicenza, Museo Civico. Pliny the Elder 1968, pp. 163, 168. Both quotations are taken from his Natural History, bk. 35. Likewise, Pliny the Elder (1968, p. 64) notes that the sculptor Lycius made a sculpture of a “boy blowing a dying fire …” See also Bialostocki 1966; Seidel 1996, pp. 260–61. Junius 1991, vol. 1, p. 263; vol. 2, p. 306. For Junius, see Junius 1991, vol. 1, pp. xxi–lxxxiii; Weststeijn 2015. Salmon 1673, p. 349. The original edition of 1672 was 293 pages while the final edition of 1701 reached 939 pages. Ogden and Ogden (1947, p. 199) catalogue the editions of this work, as does Hanson (2009, pp. 113–14). See also Gibson-Wood 2000, pp. 12–13. See Hanson 2009, pp. 115–16. For example, the collection of John Lowther; see the discussion above. Koslofsky 2011, p. 2. My thanks to Nicole Elizabeth Cook for referring me to this study. See also the more general work by Ekirch 2005. For the London street-lighting project, see Falkus 1976. For street lighting in general during this period, see Koslofsky 2011, pp. 128–97. Part of this transformation involved the dramatic effect of street lighting in lessening crime; see Beattie 2001, p. 172. Koslofsky (2011, p. 157) quotes an English poem published in 1697 in which the author extols street lighting for banishing unwanted riff-raff. Koslofsky 2011, p. 129. For Graham and the Virtuosi of St. Luke, see Chapter 3. Lot 29 in “A Catalogue of Extraordinary Original Pictures and Limnings, by Several Excellent Masters” [London, 1711], The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld. york.ac.uk (accessed 13 July 2015). Schalcken’s now lost self-portrait at an easel was lot 13 in this auction. See note 19 above. Guido Jansen, writing in New York 2017, “Lovers (Prodigal Son), Godefridus Schalcken,” The Leiden Collection, http://www.theleidencollection.com/artwork/the-lovers-theprodigal-son/; Schavemaker in his unpublished list of Schalcken’s paintings, no. 276 (see note 19 above). This painting was unknown to Beherman 1988.

226 

70

71 72 73

74 75 76 77

78 79 80

81 82

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

See Beherman (1988, p. 329, cat. no. 247), who only knew the picture from an eighteenth-century French engraving. For an illustration of it, see Franits 2004, p. 249, fig. 230. Schavemaker in his unpublished list of Schalcken’s paintings, no. 84, dates it to c. 1676–80 (see note 19 above). Curiously, the theme of prostitution in seventeenth-century Dutch art has not been studied extensively. To date, there are only scattered articles, including Pol 1988, 2010; Schiller 2010. See Franits 1997a; Schiller 2010; Van de Pol 2010. Van Mieris painted prostitution imagery repeatedly; see O. Naumann 1981. For Ochtervelt, see Kuretsky 1979. For one of Ochtervelt’s most subtle portrayals of this theme (Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art), see Franits 2004, p. 201, fig. 186. There are also numerous paintings of erotic subject matter that are thematically related to brothel scenes, including some by Schalcken’s teacher Gerrit Dou, for example, the Kitchen Maid (Karlsruhe, Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe); see Sluijter 2000a, pp. 271–73, fig. 207. For Fig. 57, see London 1998b, p. 259, cat. no. 179, where this etching is dated c. 1683? For example, Beherman 1988, p. 285, cat. no. 190; and Mirjam Neumeister, writing in Frankfurt am Main 2010, pp. 423–28. Ribeiro 2005, pp. 309, 312, 331–32, figs. 210–14b. See also McShane and Backhouse 2010, an essay that explores the portrayal of commode headdresses in late seventeenthcentury English broadsides. For example, Beherman 1988, pp. 283–86, cat. nos. 188–92; 302, cat. no. 206. However, Beherman’s dates for these pictures are mostly incorrect; they have been modified by Eddy Schavemaker; see note 19 above. A painting in the Royal Collection in London (Beherman cat. no. 188), probably dating to the late 1680s or early 1690s, ranks among the earliest portrayals of this subject, while one in the Galleria degli Uffizi in Florence (Beherman cat. no. 192), first documented in 1698, is among the last; for the London picture, see London 2015b, pp. 347–48, cat. no. 181; and for the one in Florence, see Florence 1989, pp. 511–13. Beherman 1988, p. 292, cat. no. 198, dates this picture to c. 1680–85. Schavemaker, in his unpublished list of Schalcken’s paintings, no. 242, proposes the more accurate date of 1692–96; see note 19 above. For Verkolje’s mezzotint, see Aono 2011, pp. 48; Enschede 2011, p. 157; Aono 2016a, p. 255. For essays addressing the significance, in bono and in malo, of night-time settings in seventeenth-century Dutch and Flemish art (with numerous literary references), see B. Broos 1971; Renger 1972; Müller Hofstede 1988; Neumeister 2003. See also Seidel 1996, a general study of the motif of the candle in art and its significance; and Munich 1998–99, which offers an exhaustive examination of night scenes throughout the history of Western art. Cook (2016b, p. 83) quotes a fascinating poem by Thomas Yalden (1670–1736), published in 1692, which begins with the line: “Thou darkness art the lovers kind retreat …” For the following observations, see Cook 2015–16, pp. 76–77, passim; 2016b, pp. 82–84, passim. See also Cook 2016a. For these diary entries, see Constantijn Huygens, “Journaal van 21 october 1688 tot 2 september 1696: tweede deel,” Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse Letteren, for September 1694, http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/huyg007jour03_01/huyg007jour03_01_0033.

Notes

83 84 85

86

87 88

89 90

91 92 93

94 95

227

php, and for January 1695, http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/huyg007jour03_01/ huyg007jour03_01_0037.php. See also Dekker 1999, pp. 104–5; 2013. See Sluijter 1988, pp. 157–58; 1997, pp. 85–86; 2000a, p. 294. See also Sluijter 2006. Houbraken 1753, vol. 3, p. 177. See Cook 2016b, pp. 56–57, 82. Cook 2016b, p. 89. See, for example, [Millot] 1680, p. 40. This text, long attributed to Michel Millot, was first published in French in 1655 under the title, L’Escole des filles. It was well known in England, having first been described by Samuel Pepys in a diary entry dated 13 January 1668, as, “the most bawdy, lewd book that I ever saw”; see Pepys 1970–83, vol. 9, pp. 21–22. For L’Escole des filles, see Larson 1997; Turner (James) 2003, pp. 106–64. Pornographic novels were an emerging phenomenon in late seventeenth-century Europe; for the English context, see P. Naumann 1976, pp. 70–108; Thompson 1979; Turner (James) 2003; Toulalan 2007. For the Dutch context, see Leemans 2002. The paper is also signed: G. Schalcken pinxit. For this painting, see Beherman 1988, pp. 264–65, cat. no. 167. It appears to be a daylight scene, notwithstanding the low level of illumination within the interior. In the distance, through the window, what is probably a setting sun can be seen. Beherman 1988, p. 265. See the many examples of this usage in the Oxford English Dictionary, http://www. oed.com/view/Entry/68025?rskey=vKN3JG&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid. For the contemporary English use of fancy as a reference to the creative imagination, see also Chapter 3. See, for example, the definitions provided by Howell 1660, n. pag. (under: A Fancie unto); Wilkins 1668, n. pag. (under: Mind). See also note 88 above. A recent article by Fusenig 2016, attempted to link this motif to verses from a popular book by Jacob Cats (1577–1660), whose admonitory meaning hinges upon children blowing on their porridge to cool it before they consume it. Similarly, the meaning of the undercooked egg in the panel is linked to proverbs associating it with partially baked bread. However, this is not what transpires in Schalcken’s painting. In many ways, Fusenig’s article is microcosmic of the formidable problems that are so often encountered when one tries to posit one-to-one correspondences between literary motifs and those in paintings. Moreover, the author did not realize that the picture has a pendant, There’s No Accounting for Tastes (see below). See Franits 1993–94; and, for the especially strong tradition in graphic art, Janssen 2007. See the examples examined by Janssen 2007, pp. 235–41. A. Stewart (1977, pp. 60–61) discusses the motif of glasses as a metaphor of moral deception. The engraving illustrated here is part of George Glover’s (active 1625–50) series of the Seven Deadly Sins; see Jones 2010, pp. 39–41. The master herbalist, Culpeper (1652, p. 12) provides an interesting literary analog in his rebuke of doctors who fail to distinguish between two different varieties of the herb, arsmart (water pepper): “… whereby they discover, 1. Their ignorance, 2. Their carelesness [sic], and he that hath but half an Eye may see their pride without a pair of Spectacles.” Hofstede de Groot 1907–28, vol. 5, pp. 353, cat. no. 156; 381, cat. no. 242. For this picture, see Beherman 1988, p. 302, cat. no. 205. Beherman 1988, p. 302.

228 

96

97 98 99

100

101

102

103

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Schalcken’s one time pupil, Carel de Moor (1656–1738) made an etching of one of Schalcken’s paintings of a Smoker, but likely not the one seen in There’s No Accounting for Tastes. The young man in the print is much stouter, wears a slightly different cap, and more significantly, is posed in a different manner so as to hide one of his hands. Furthermore, the hand holding the pipe is in a completely different position. De Moor possibly made the etching during his years with Schalcken (c. 1681–83) and for that reason, it must reproduce a now lost painting by his master of a smoker. No comparable picture is catalogued by Hofstede de Groot (1907–28, vol. 5, pp. 309–419). For the print, see Amsterdam 1997, pp. 358–61, cat. no. 76, wherein the author of the entry, Eddy de Jongh, argues (incorrectly in my view) that it reproduces the smoker in There’s No Accounting for Tastes. See also Six and Schavemaker (2016, pp. 249–50 n. 14), who concur. Six and Schavemaker (2016, pp. 244–45) also posit a relationship between Schalcken’s smoker and a painting attributed to Arnold Boonen (1669–1729) of a Boy Lighting His Pipe (their fig. 6) that was once signed, falsely, G. Schalcken f. 1693. See the literature cited in note 76 above. Moreover, both paintings share the same provenance; see the Critical Catalogue above, cat. nos. A24, A25. Beherman (1988, p. 302) and Seidel (1996, p. 265) interpret the painting as one with weighty moral implications. Scholz (1985) explores the flourishing Nachleben of Brouwer’s paintings and drawings in the form of reproductive prints. Schalcken’s English audiences could read a biography of the famed Fleming in their native tongue; see Anon. 1694, p. 18. This text is a hybrid, partly combining a translation of De Bie 1661 with portrait engravings of artists; some of the latter are copied from Lampsonius 1572. See further Mount 1991, p. 22. For this mezzotint, see Amsterdam 1997, p. 313; and Sevcik (2015–16, p. 64), who argues that it served as a source for Schalcken’s smoking figure. She also notes the significance of Van der Bruggen in having made the mezzotint. Jansen (2015–16, pp. 22–23) recounts Schalcken’s lawsuit against Van der Bruggen, who was first and foremost an art dealer. He had failed to pay for the artist’s Preciosa Recognized (Dublin, National Gallery of Ireland). For this painting, see Cologne 2015–16, pp. 126–28, cat. no. 15. For the following discussion, see Amsterdam 1976, pp. 54–57, cat. no. 7; Munich 1986, pp. 35–38; The Hague 1987, pp. 84–88, cat. no. 14; H. Luijten 1996, vol. 2, pp. 301–11; Amsterdam 1997, pp. 311–13, cat. no. 64; 358–61, cat. no.76; Gaskell 1997; Augustin 1998. Brongers (1964) provides a general history of tobacco use in the Netherlands. For the English context, see Jones 2010, pp. 208–10. A painting by Brouwer is listed as representing a “toback drincker” (tobacco drinker) in the death inventory of Magdelena van Loo, compiled in 1669. Van Loo was the wife of Titus van Rijn (1641–1668), the son of Rembrandt van Rijn (1606–1669); see The Hague 1987, p. 86. Like Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640), Rembrandt was an avid collector of Brouwer’s paintings. In early seventeenth-century Dutch painting, figures of a higher social status sometimes smoke as well. However, these depictions rarely, if ever, show "inebriated" smokers of the type encountered in representations of peasants. For some examples, see Augustin 1998, figs. 13–15.

229

Notes

104 For this picture, see Beherman (1988, pp. 238–39, cat. no. 145), who dates it c. 1685–90; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 177–80, cat. no. 33, where other examples of waffle-eaters in Schalcken’s paintings are noted. Eddy Schavemaker, the author of this entry, dates the Young Woman with a Waffle (correctly in my view) to Schalcken’s London period. 105 The same holds true for the Frankfurt am Main, Young Woman with a Headdress Holding a Candle (Fig. 61), discussed above. Citing an early inventory reference for the picture that identifies it as a portrait of Schalcken’s wife, Françoisia (Françoise) van Diemen (1661–1744), Lange (2016, p. 213) speculates that the figure displays her facial features. 106 Weyerman 1729–69, vol. 3, p. 13. This author’s negative comments are largely centered around Schalcken’s London period. However, Weyerman (1729–69, vol. 3, p. 15) does make complimentary observations about his art, particularly near the end of his biography where he lauds the master as a great and prosperous artist. 107 Descamps 1753–63, vol. 3, p. 140. 108 Walpole 1762–63, vol. 3, p. 130. An asterisk at the end of Walpole’s statement refers the reader to the bottom of the page where the author quotes Elsum’s poem dedicated to the Edinburgh Boy Blowing on a Firebrand (Fig. 58); see the discussion above and note 54 above. Walpole’s equation of light effects with cheap artistic tricks parallels a comment made sixteen years prior in an English periodical; see Anon. 1746, p. 330, part of an essay lampooning a certain politician’s utter lack of taste, “who would sooner look at a Night-piece of Schalken than at any History of Raphael or Domenichino.” 109 See further Mount 1991, pp. 71–92, passim. See also Gibson-Wood 2000, pp. 145–47. Doubtlessly, Walpole would have decried the perceived vulgarity of the subject matter of some of Schalcken’s London period paintings, among them, Every One His Fancy (Fig. 64), with its egg-dribbling boy; see Mount 1991, p. 63. 110 See Franits 1995, p. 407; 2004, p. 255; and especially Cook 2016b, pp. 3, 159–60, 186, 224–25. 111 Mount (1991, p. 91) quotes one of Walpole’s letters in which he recalled having been accused of undervaluing Dutch artists. For the reception of Schalcken’s paintings in eighteenth-century England, see Barker 2003, pp. 41–46.

5. 1

2 3 4 5 6

Schalcken’s London period history and still-life Paintings Pears (1988, p. 121. Karst 2013–14, p. 55) cites both Jacob Campo Weyerman (1677–1747) and Arnold Houbraken (1660–1719), who observed the inclination among foreign painters in London to focus on portraiture at the expense of history painting and other genres because it was so lucrative. For Aglionby and this text, see Cowan 2004, pp. 157–59; Hanson 2009, pp. 94–108, passim. Hanson 2009, p. 104. Hanson 2009, pp. 103–8. Aglionby 1686, pp. 12–13. However, recent scholarship has determined that prices for artworks at late seventeenth-century London auctions tended, with some exceptions, to be relatively modest. Both elites and persons of a more middling sort attended the auctions

230 

7

8

9

10 11 12 13

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

themselves; see Karst 2013–14, pp. 36–41, see also Cowan 1998, pp. 157–63, passim; Gibson-Wood 2002; De Marchi 2004; Cowan 2006. See further Chapter 4. Tragically, many of these pictures were destroyed in a fire that engulfed Lowther Hall, the collector’s estate in Westmorland (present-day Cumbria) in 1718. Lowther can only be linked directly to one auction that took place in London in late January 1692, an ostensibly prestigious sale of artworks from the Arundel collection: see “Sale of Paintings, Limnings and Drawings from the Arundel Collection, at Parry Walton’s Premises in Lincoln’s Inn Fields,” 24 January 1689, The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 7 March 2016). Constantijn Huygens, Jr. (1628–1697), the secretary to William III, attended the sale, which included miniatures that were sold on the 27 January 1692. In a diary entry dated 30 January 1692, he recorded Sir John Lowther’s presence at the initial sale day; see “Journaal van 21 october 1688 tot 2 september 1696: tweede deel,” 1877, Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse Letteren, for January 1692, http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/huyg007jour03_01/huyg007jour03_01_0001. php. Huygens added that the sale, despite the supposedly august provenance of its contents, contained only “trivial things.” (It is important to note the discrepancy here in dates because Huygens was using the Dutch dating system which, at the time, lagged ten days behind the English one; my thanks to Richard Stephens for this information.) The artworks at auction were apparently less trivial for Lowther, who likely acquired his miniature of Queen Elizabeth by Hilliard at this time. In light of Lowther’s zeal for paintings of historical subjects and for pictures by Schalcken, it is interesting to note the absence of a history painting by the Dutchman in his detailed inventory. He does itemize a “night piece” by the artist but this was more than likely a genre painting; see Chapter 4. See Chapter 2. Lowther also commissioned replicas of famed Italian history paintings. For example, a copy of Titian’s Cupid and Psyche hung in his dining room; see Lowther’s inventory of his painting collection, compiled in 1696 (Fig. 21). The inventory is held by the Cumbria Archive Service, Carlisle, inv. no. DLONS/L2/6. The painting by Cortona, which Lowther lists as a Passage through the Red Sea, might actually be identifiable with a picture by one of the so-called Cortoneschi, namely, by Guillaume Courtois (1628–1679), today in a private collection in New York; see Rome 1997–98, pp. 408–9, cat. no. 80. Lowther adds, evidently, with some relish, that this painting had cost him much less than the thirty pounds that Pembroke had paid for it. Unfortunately, he makes no mention of what pictures he exchanged for his two acquisitions from Lord Pembroke; see the inventory held by the Cumbria Archive Service, Carlisle, inv. no. DLONS/L2/6. Lowther owned several copies of paintings after Italian artists made by Parry Walton (d. 1702), including a “Musick” after Caravaggio; see Chapter 2, note 6. For Verrio’s years in England, see Brett 2009–10; De Giorgi 2009, 101–55; Toulouse 2010, pp. 85–123. See especially De Giorgi 2009, pp. 115–24, 234–35. During this period, Verrio also worked for Schalcken’s patron, John Lowther; see Chapter 2. At the time of his death in 1700, Cooke was living in Bloomsbury Square; see Barron 2004, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6138 (accessed 7 March 2016).

Notes

14

15

16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

231

Buckeridge 1754, p. 363. M. Smith (1693, p. 24) waxes effusive about Cooke: “The Ingenious Mr. Cook must be allow'd in History one of the greatest Masters of the Age; he was Disciple to the famous Salvator Rose; he hath Travel'd into Italy, and studyed the great Antique Masters; his Designs shew a vast Judgment, thoroughly Consider'd, and himself a strict Imitator of the best reputed Italian Masters.” See also “Cooke, Henry (born circa 1642, died 1700),” The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 7 March 2016), where reference is made to two portraits by this artist, one representing Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727), in the collection of St. Catherine’s College, Cambridge. For the Virtuosi of St. Luke, see Bignamini 1988, pp. 21–44; 1989, pp. 440–41; Cowan 2004, pp. 176–77; Myrone 2007. Bignamini 1988, pp. 22–23, 24, 31 n. 13, 34. Dufresnoy 2005, p. 129. For Dryden’s translation, see Chapter 3. Cooke’s library was quite large and naturally included a copy of the English edition of Dufresnoy; see “A Catalogue of the Library of Mr Henry Cook, Painter, Deceased” [London, 1700], The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 7 March 2016). An advertisement in the London Gazette, 20 February 1701, indicates that Cooke likewise owned an impressive art collection, including “severall excellent original Italian pieces and copies of the cartoons of Raphael” (the latter no doubt related to a project that he undertook for William III to restore Raphael’s [1483–1520] seven cartoons representing episodes from the lives of St. Peter and St. Paul that had been cut into strips to make tapestries); see London Gazette, 20 February 1701, The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 7 March 2016). See Chapter 3. For De Ryck, see Groenendijk 2008, p. 654; Karst (2013–14, p. 32), who lists his death date as c. 1699 and his London period as 1682–99. For his status as a genre painter, see Chapter 4. For Lemens, see Kollmann 2000, p. 234; Groenendijk 2008, p. 486; Karst 2013–14, p. 32. For De Hennin, see Kollmann 2000, pp. 210–11; Groenendijk 2008, p. 398; Karst 2013–14, p. 32. For the Eythorp estate, see Maclagan 1946–47, p. 95. Photographs of a handful of De Hennin’s paintings can be seen in the image database on the website of the Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis (RKD), https://rkd. nl/nl/explore/images#query=+De+Hennin. For Huysmans, see Buckeridge 1754, pp. 390–91; Kollmann 2000, pp. 217–18; Groenendijk 2008, p. 431; Millar n.d. http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/ article/grove/art/T039648 (accessed 7 March 2016); Karst 2013–14, p. 32. One history painting purportedly by Huysmans representing the Beheading of St. Barbara (1687), in the image database of the Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis (RKD), is of such poor quality that it is hard to believe it is by the artist, whose portraits were so much more accomplished by comparison. Several of Huysmans’s portraits of members of the English court are included in the exhibition catalogue, London 2001–2. Millar (n.d.) states that soon after his arrival in England, Huysmans made “small pastiches of mythological and religious subjects by Anthony

232 

27 28

29

30 31

32

33

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

van Dyck and much of his mature work is in a flamboyantly Baroque manner that derives ultimately from van Dyck’s second Flemish period and suggests, on a larger scale, the influence of Wouters [Frans Wouters (1612–1659), one of his teachers in Antwerp].” For this now obscure artist, see Buckeridge 1754, p. 418; Walpole 1762–63, vol. 3, p. 132; Kollmann 2000, p. 264; Willigen and Meijer 2003, p. 183; Groenendijk 2008, p. 692. My thanks to Anja Sevcik for calling my attention to Smits. Buckeridge (1754, p. 418), who notes Smit’s nickname, which references his most popular subject matter in England: Magdalen Smith. For Smith, see A. Griffiths 1989. During his nearly fifty years of activity this mezzotinter made well over 300 prints, the majority of which he published himself. Griffiths discovered a comprehensive album in the collections of the New York Public Library, which Smith himself assembled late in life for one of his wealthy clients. This album, bound in two volumes, contains 342 mezzotints in total, with Smith’s own handwritten dates provided on the prints themselves. He dated the mezzotint under consideration here, 1691. The Dutch printmaker Jacob Gole (1660–1737) subsequently made a variant copy of Smith’s mezzotint (H. 156), which, besides being in reverse of the original, crops its setting and introduces minor changes into the foliage. This might explain the artist’s decision to advertise himself at that time as a painter from “life” in A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade (Fig. 2); for this periodical, see Glaisyer 2006, pp. 145–55. See also the Introduction to the present study. For Schalcken’s genre paintings, see Chapter 4. For the Turin painting, see Turin 2012, pp. 236–37, cat. no. 8.11, where it is dated c. 1690–92. Beherman (1988, p. 121, cat. no. 35) argues for the same dating, while Eddy Schavemaker, in his unpublished list of paintings by the artist, no. 023, places its date between 1669 and 1672. For other history paintings by Schalcken, see Cologne 2015–16, cat. nos. 15, 22, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 66, 67. Two history paintings, presently in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen, serve as a case in point: the Penitent Magdalen and Lot and His Daughters. Both pictures are recorded in the inventory of the collection of Queen Anne (r. 1702–14), compiled between 1705 and 1710 (White 2015, pp. 341–42, cat. no. 177; 342–43, cat. no. 178; 526, inv. no. 22); White (2015, p. 32) conjectures that they entered William III’s collection during Schalcken’s stay in London. If this is true, then the artist either brought these pictures to England with him in 1692 or had them shipped there after his arrival. Complicating White’s hypothesis are the two paintings’ probable dating. Penitent Magdalen is an early work, painted around 1670, in other words, shortly after Schalcken had left the studio of Gerrit Dou; Foucart (2016, n. pag.) rightly challenges the present author’s earlier statement (writing in Cologne 2015–16, p. 284 n. 2) that this picture was made during Schalcken’s London years. Eddy Schavemaker, in his unpublished list of paintings by the artist, no. 122, dates Lot and His Daughters to c. 1679–85. Beherman 1988, p. 78, cat. no. 1, incorrectly places it between 1692 and 1699, which he considered to be Schalcken’s London period. Behermann 1988, pp. 252–53, cat. no. 159. Schavemaker’s list corrects Beherman’s many dating errors and adds pictures that were unknown to him when he was writing in the 1980s.

Notes

34 35

36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

49 50 51 52

233

For brief biography of Williams, see Walpole (1762–63, vol. 4, p. 115), who states that the printmaker lost one of his legs, after having injured it. Talley 1983, p. 210. See “Mr. Sykes Sale of Pictures. 1733,” transcribed in Houlditch Manuscript, vol. 1, p. 525, mid-18th cent., National Art Library, London, pressmark 86.00.18, The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 2 March 2016). For this newspaper advertisement, see Daily Journal, 2 June 1733, The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 2 March 2016). Early references to this connoisseur and dealer who belonged to the Virtuosi of St. Luke misspell his surname as “Secks.” Bignamini (1988, p. 38) confused matters further by identifying him as “Wykes.” That William Sykes was James’s father can be determined from the wording of their respective last wills and testaments: the National Archives, Kew, PROB 11/602/25 and PROB11/658/276. See Chapter 3, note 91. Judging from his very brief last will and testament and the small sums of money bequeathed therein, James Sykes probably did not enjoy the success experienced by his father; see the National Archives, Kew, PROB 11/658/276. See note 35 above. For Dürer’s engraving, see London 1995, p. 32, cat. no. 17. See Washington, DC, 2000a, pp. 22–29. See Washington, DC, 2000a, p. 22, fig. 1. For Dujardin’s painting, see Amsterdam 1976, pp. 100–3, cat. no. 20. See Washington, DC, 2000a, p. 61. David Dallas, writing in London 2002, n. pag. (under cat. no. 21), overreads the significance of this motif and others in the picture, which he construes in political terms. The plumes of smoke emanating from the candle are considerably more conspicuous in Schalcken’s presumed preparatory drawing for this painting (Brussels, Musée Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Collection Jean de Grez); see Beherman 1988, p. 253, fig. 159a. See the many examples discussed in Washington, DC, 2000a. Robartes’s address can be determined from the records of payment to the Four Shillings in the Pound Aid, a tax implemented in 1692 by William III to help finance the Nine Year’s War (1688–97). Tax records for 1693–94 place him in a house on Arlington Street within this neighborhood: “City of Westminster, St Martin in the Fields, Out Ward, Arlington Street,” British History Online, http://www.british-history. ac.uk/no-series/london-4s-pound/1693-4/st-martin-arlington-street (accessed 4 March 2016). Given this street’s proximity to St. James’s Square, it was probably at this house that the auction took place. “Catalogue of the Earl of Radnor's Picture Collection,” London 1724, The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 4 March 2016). Henning 1983 http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/ robartes-charles-bodvile-1660–1723 (accessed 4 March 2016). [Vertue] 1929–30b, pp. 131–32. The author goes on to list some of the paintings sold at the auction and the prices paid for them (pp. 132–33). See also Karst 2013–14, p. 42. Beherman (1988, p. 114, cat. no. 29) dates the picture to c. 1680–85. Schavemaker in his unpublished list of Schalcken’s paintings, no. 223, dates it correctly to c. 1692–96 (see note 30 above). There are several other paintings by Schalcken portraying Ceres but the present picture is the only one which shows her alone holding a torch. For

234 

53 54 55 56

57

58

59

60

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

the others, see Beherman (1988, pp. 126–27, cat. no. 38; 134–35, cat. no. 43; 334, cat. no. 261), who suspects that the latter work might have been painted by a follower of Schalcken’s. See also Beherman 1988, app. I, p. 391, cat. nos. 65a, 66a, 77a. Schalcken’s possible involvement with art dealers in London is discussed in Chapter 4. Ovid 2000, bk. V, vv. 425–86. See Veldman 2001, pp. 73–98, fig. 164. Roy (1992, p. 446, cat. no. G61) dates the print to c. 1670–75. He also erroneously identifies the scene in the etching as one taking place before the entrance of Hades. Among the few other representations of Ceres Searching for Proserpina is a drawing by Arnold Houbraken (London, The British Museum, inv. no. Ff,4.103), based on a bronze figurine by the French sculptor, Michel Anguier (1612–1686). This drawing resembles the prints in Houbraken’s Toneel van sinnebeelden (1700), but evidently, it was never etched. A figure wears a similar hat in a painting of a Woman with a Basket of Fruit in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (inv. no. 64.606). In Boston 1985, p. 212, this canvas is attributed to Carel de Moor (1656–1738) but it seems quite likely to have been painted by Schalcken. For a glimpse into the types of religious subjects available to English collectors, see Gibson-Wood 2002, app. I, pp. 496–98, who has published a sample of such pictures offered at London auctions in 1690. Ormrod (1998, pp. 174–75, passim), surveys changing attitudes toward religious art in England following the iconoclasms of the 1640s and 1650s, arguing that the “distaste for devotional paintings was overtaken by a new aesthetic vocabulary which took a morally neutral view of painting and pictures (p. 174).” Beherman 1988, pp. 97–109, cat. nos. 15–24. See also Foucart 2016, n. pag. These pictures include various attributes, among them skulls, crucifixes, sacred writings, and so forth. Beherman (1988, pp. 100, 108–109) dates two of Schalcken’s Magdalens to c. 1665–70: a picture in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen (his cat. no. 17), Windsor, and another (Schwerin, Staatliches Museum; his cat. no. 24). For the Queen’s painting, see White 2015, pp. 342–43, cat. no. 178. The present writer is not convinced that the picture in Schwerin is authentic. It was last listed in a catalogue of that collection in 1982: Cat. Mus. Schwerin 1982, p. 114, cat. no. 320. More recently, Seelig (2016, p. 197) has concurred with my opinion, one likewise shared by Eddy Schavemaker. For a particularly unusual late picture of this subject from the Leiden Collection in New York (inv. no. GS-114), in which the Magdalen rejects the world’s riches, see Cologne 2015–16, pp. 292–94, cat. no. 79; New York 2017, “Conversion of Mary Magdalen, Godefridus Schalcken,” The Leiden Collection, http://www.theleidencollection. com/artwork/conversion-of-mary-magdalen/. See also Bartilla (2016), who rightly distinguishes paintings of this sort from those that portray the Magdalen in prayer. The dating of Schalcken’s Magdalen pictures by Beherman (1988, pp. 97–109, cat. nos. 15–24) tends to be problematic. This probably accounts for the defensive (and somewhat dismissive) comments made by Foucart (2016, n. pag.) concerning portrayals of the Magdalen within Schalcken’s development, as outlined in his review of Cologne 2015–16. Eddy Schavemaker’s dates, as set forth in his unpublished list

Notes

61

62 63 64 65

66 67

68 69

70 71

235

of authentic works by the artist, correct many of Beherman’s errors. Schavemaker employs such hitherto overlooked aspects of Schalcken’s paintings as the hairstyles of the figures represented therein to assist him in determining the painter’s overall chronology; see also Schavemaker 2016. Cook (2016b, p. 178) ties images of the penitent Magdalen to the period’s growing interest in nocturnal worship. Two prominent owners of paintings by Schalcken of this subject were the wealthy Antwerp jeweler and art collector, Diego Duarte (1612–1691), and Johann Wilhelm von der Pfaltz (1658–1716), Elector Palatine, who was the artist’s principal patron during the last years of his career; for the former’s picture, see Jansen 2015–16, p. 21; for the latter’s, Cologne 2015–16, pp. 292–94, cat. no. 79; and the literature cited in note 60 above. The painting was with the Art Collectors Association Ltd., New York, in 1920; see Beherman 1988, pp. 105–6, cat. no. 22. Smith’s mezzotint, dated 1698, of Schalcken’s now lost Portrait of Anne Kynnesman (Fig. 9) provides another example; see the discussion in Chapter 1. A. Griffiths 1989. See Karla Langedijk, writing in Florence 1992, p. 167, who notes that the Grand Duke requested a second impression from the artist because he had given the one sent with the painting to his secretary, Apollonio Bassetti; that second impression is now in the Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe of the Uffizi, inv. no. St. Sc. 10591. See further Franits 2016, pp. 23–24, and Chapter 3 of the present study and note 25 there. See Saxer 1986; Haskins 1993, pp. 3–97; Spear 1997, pp. 163–64; Mormando 1999, pp. 107–20; Badir 2009, pp. 5–6; and various essays in Erhardt and Morris 2012. Bartilla (2016, p. 122) and especially Müller Hofstede (1993, pp. 41–42, passim) link the presence of books, oil lamps, and nocturnal settings in paintings of the repentant Magdalen to those depicting hermit saints and scholars engaged in study. For a painting of just such a subject, see Fig. 1 in the present book. Haskins 1993, pp. 236–48, passim. For the Magdalen in sixteenth-century Italian art in general, see Ingenhoff-Danhäuser 1984. For Titian’s Magdalens, see Aikema 1994; Goffen 1997, pp. 171–92; Dickey (2010, p. 71), who cites an interesting passage from Van Hoogstraten 1678 concerning the conflation of the sacred and profane in one of the Italian master’s renditions of this subject. See also Florence 1986, which offers numerous examples of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century portrayals of the Magdalen by European artists of several nationalities. Spear (1997, pp. 176–77) provides an interesting discussion of the Magdalen’s hair. See Eade 2012, pp. 320, 325, passim. As has often been pointed out, Titian’s famed Mary Magdalen (Florence, Pitti Palace) adopts the pose of the Venus pudica. See Inglesby 2015 http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/journals/research-journal/issueno.-7-autumn-2015/an-unusual-embroidery-of-mary-magdalene/. The “frame” of this embroidery portrays time-honored attributes of Christ’s passion, no doubt present because of the conflation of several protagonists named Mary in the biblical accounts of the anointing of Christ’s feet as well as his crucifixion and resurrection; see the literature cited in note 66 above.

236 

72 73

74

75 76 77

78 79 80 81

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

See further Inglesby 2015, who elaborates on the embroidery’s possible thematic sources. Vos 1726, vol. 1, p. 257: “Aan G. FLINK, toen hy een geschilderde Venus in Maria Magdaleena veranderde, &c. Hier maalt men Venus tot een Sinte Magdaleen: Haar boek, de minkunst, tot een handtboek vol gebeên: 't Blanketvat wordt een bus vol zalf, om Jezus t'eeren. Wel hem die door 't penseel d'onkuissen kan bekeeren.” Vos (1726, vol. 1, p. 522 no. 604) cleverly reverses this progression in a poem in which a painting of the Magdalen is transformed into one depicting Venus. For these poems, see Weber 1991, pp. 168–69; Dickey 2010, pp. 69–70. For Vos and his sociocultural milieu, see Geerdink 2012. Flinck’s life and work were the subject of many seventeenth-century Dutch poems, that is, beyond the fourteen penned by Vos, a clear reflection of his high artistic standing; see Van der Molen 2015–16. See also Kok 2013, 2016, on Flinck’s immensely successful career. Regardless, it became very fashionable particularly after the Restoration for women at the English court to have themselves portrayed á la Madeleine. See the portraits discussed in London 2001–2, pp. 118–124, cat. nos. 33–36; and especially MarciariAlexander (1999, pp. 107–43), who proffers the most convincing analyses of their interpretive complexity. For Gentileschi’s painting, see Bissell 1981, pp. 182–83, cat. no. 56, fig. 117; and more recently, Vienna 2010, pp. 177–85, where technological research is presented that confirms that the artist originally intended to paint Danae on this canvas. For Reni’s Magdalen paintings, see Pepper 1984, pp. 232, cat. no. 49; 258–59, cat. no. 118; 259–60, cat. no. 120; 262–63, cat. no. 126; 267, cat. no. 137; 271, cat. no. 151; 271, cat. no. 152; 290, cat. no. 203. See also Spear 1997, pp. 128–29, 163–80. Spear (1997, p. 178) tends to construe Reni’s Magdalens as “more sacred than profane in their purity, modesty and retreat from physical love, whether that be explicit in the flesh or implicit through spiritual ravishment.” His opinion forms part of a wider discussion concerning the problematic interpretation of penitent Magdalens in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Italian art that typically occupy an ambiguous place between the erotic and the spiritual; see also Goffen 1997, pp. 186–87, passim; Mormando 1999, pp. 117–18; B. Brown 2001, pp. 286–88; and Dickey (2010, pp. 69–71, esp. 69), who contends that the bared breast in images of the Magdalen functions as an “emblem of her femininity, signifying both her vulnerable state and the sensuality she is leaving behind.” For the Magdalen’s erotic spirituality in medieval and Reformed theology, see Shuger 1994, pp. 167–76. Assuming that is, that Smits lived into the 1690s; see the bibliographical references in note 27 above. For Smits and Schalcken, see further Bartilla 2016, p. 120. Kassel 1996, vol. 1, p. 281, inv. no. GK 305, said to have been acquired before 1749 by Landgrave Wilhelm VIII (1682–1760) of Hessen-Kassel. [Vertue] 1931–32a, p. 24. For this painting, see Beherman 1988, p. 97, cat. no. 15; Cologne 2015–16, pp. 286–88, cat. no. 77. Lange (2016, p. 208) points out that Landgrave Wilhelm VIII of Hessen-Kassel (who eventually purchased the picture; see note 79 above), was in London in 1699. One wonders whether he had seen Schalcken’s painting during his visit there. Perhaps when it was placed on the block during the Russell sale, Landgrave instructed one of his agents to purchase it for his collection. In any event, his hypothesis (Lange 2016,

Notes

82 83 84 85

86 87 88 89

90 91 92

93 94 95 96 97

237

pp. 209–10), that a painting described in a letter to the prince dated 1728 as “A night piece. A woman reading with great attention in a book,” might be identifiable with the present painting of the Penitent Magdalen is probably incorrect because the saint is not shown reading. For Russell, see Cust 2004. Beherman 1988, p. 97. Schavemaker, writing in Cologne 2015–16, pp. 286–88, cat. no. 77. Schavemaker, writing in Cologne 2015–16, p. 288 n. 5. An additional Penitent Magdalen by Schalcken, also in the Gemäldegalerie in Kassel, was more than likely painted in London. This canvas likewise presents an eroticized portrayal of the saint; see Beherman (1988, p. 97, cat. no. 16), who dates it, erroneously in my view, to c. 1700–6. Schavemaker in his unpublished list of Schalcken’s paintings, no. 216, proposes a date of c. 1690–96. Vaughan 1963, pp. 343–44. Badir 2009, p. 163. Badir 2009, p. 151. “Habbiamo in questa città da due anni in qua un pittore olandese assai famoso nominato Schalken, dipinge alla maniera di Carlin Dolci, facendo ritratti in grande ed in piccolo, quadri di notte, frutte, fiori &c. a maraviglia …” The letter is transcribed by Crinò 1953, p. 192. See also Crinò 1957, p. 356; Florence 1992, p. 168, doc. no. I. Platt was the former English consul in Livorno. Lacking an official representative in London, Cosimo III charged him with reporting on events in London. To this end, Platt wrote weekly letters to the Grand Duke between 1691 and 1698. For Platt’s letter quoted here, see further Chapter 3. For still-life painting in late seventeenth-century England in general, see Talley 1983, app. II, passim; Oxford 2003, pp. 29–32; Karst 2013–14, passim. Karst 2013–14, p. 50.This was just one of nine issues, all published in 1695 of A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade, in which this very same advertisement appeared. For this periodical, see Glaisyer 2006, pp. 145–55. This list of still-life painters in the city of London is by no means exhaustive. It omits, for example, Edward Collier (c. 1640–1708), an artist possibly trained in Haarlem who lived in London between 1693 and 1696, and continued there his practice of painting remarkable trompe l’oeil pictures. Collier’s residency in London thus overlapped with that of Schalcken. Collier returned to the city a year or two before his death in 1708; see Willigen and Meijer 2003, p. 64; Groenendijk 2008, p. 209; and Wahrman 2012. See Van der Willigen and Meijer 2003, p. 41; and Groenendijk 2008, p. 122. For Van Roestraten’s activities as a genre painter, see further Chapter 4. See L. Shaw 1990, pp. 405–6. L. Shaw 1990, p. 406. See Karst 2013–14, pp. 32, 42. Houbraken (1753, vol. 2, p. 192) claims that Van Roestraten often received forty to fifty pounds for a picture. Schalcken’s patron, John Lowther (see Chapter 2), owned one of Van Roestraten’s still lifes; see Lowther’s inventory of his painting collection, compiled in 1696, where it is listed as hanging in his wife’s “closet” and is said to have cost him eight pounds. The inventory is held by the Cumbria Archive Service, Carlisle, inv. no. DLONS/L2/6.

238 

98

99

100

101

102

103

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

For Verelst, see Lewis 1979; Kollmann 2000, pp. 279–80; Van der Willigen and Meijer 2003, p. 204; Taylor 2004, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28222?docPos=4; Groenendijk 2008, p. 767; and Karst 2013–14, pp. 28, 32, 46–47, passim. The date of his death is unknown. [Vertue] 1929–30a, p. 42, writing in 1713, states that Verelst had already died. In the early 1680s Verelst’s brother, Herman (c. 1641/42–1702), joined him in London. Herman Verelst was also an artist though his repertoire included subject matter not painted by his more famous brother. For Herman Verelst, see Buckeridge 1754, pp. 432–33; Kollmann 2000, p. 279; Van der Willigen and Meijer 2003, pp. 203–4; Groenendijk 2008, pp. 766–77. Pepys 1970–83, vol. 9, p. 515. Pepys stated that Verelst was asking seventy pounds for the picture. For the prices the artist commanded, see Lewis 1979, pp. 15–16; Karst 2013–14, p. 70. Schalcken’s patron, John Lowther (see Chapter 2), owned one of Verelst’s still lifes; see Lowther’s inventory of his painting collection, compiled in 1696, where a painting of “flowers by Verelst” is listed as hanging “in the room with the white marble chimney piece” and is said to have cost him three pounds, ten shillings. The inventory is held by the Cumbria Archive Service, Carlisle, inv. no. DLONS/L2/6. Weyerman (1729–69, vol. 3, pp. 251–52) describes his illness and subsequent recovery. See also Taylor (2004, n. pag.), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/28222?docPos=4, who quotes the testimony of Verelst’s brother-in-law concerning his compromised mental state. Compare, for example, figs. 15 and 16 in Karst 2013–14. Karst (2013–14, p. 47, quoting Weyerman 1729–69, vol. 3, p. 250) notes that in his later years, Verelst’s precarious financial circumstances forced him to work for a dealer. Weichel (2015, p. 34) has recently noted a payment made on 7 January 1703 by John Hervey (1665–1751), 1st Earl of Bristol, for twenty-seven pounds, eighteen shillings, for pictures he purchased at auction. Weichel deduces that a certain Peter Verelst, who was paid for these works must actually be Simon Verelst and therefore that this transaction must refer to a commission for still-life pictures from the Hervey family. However, Weichel’s assumption is incorrect and not merely because what Hervey actually paid for were unidentified pictures (see Hervey 1894, p. 160). Peter Verelst was acting as the organizer for this sale, in which the property of Herman Verelst, Simon’s brother (who was also a painter; see note 99 above), and one would assume, Peter’s relative as well – perhaps he was named after Simon’s father – was placed on the block. This large sale of 281 lots contained many still-life paintings by members of the extended (?) Verelst family, including a certain William Verelst, who, like Peter Verelst, has yet to be identified. Lewis (1979, p. 99) lists a Willem Verelst in his “Verelst Family Tree,” who was the grandson of Herman Verelst. Since Willem died in 1756, it would be difficult to identify him with the artist whose pictures were included in this sale. For the sale itself, see “A Curious Collection of Pictures, to Be Sold at the Late Dwelling House of Mr Herman Verelst” [London, 1702], The Art World in Britain 1660 to 1735, http://artworld.york.ac.uk (accessed 4 November 2015). In January of 1692 – in other words, about five to six months before Schalcken’s arrival in England – Verelst served as a witness before the House of Lords in the divorce proceedings of a former patron, Henry Howard (1655–1701), 7th Duke of Norfolk. On that occasion, he was said to have been lodging the past three years with

Notes

104 105

106

107

108 109 110

239

a housekeeper on Fleet Street; see Anon. 1767–1830, vol. 15 (1691–96), p. 46, “House of Lords Journal Volume 15: 23 January 1692,” British History Online, http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol15/pp45-47 (accessed 2 November 2015). Taylor (2004, n. pag., http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28222?docPos=4) states that Verelst’s testimony was disqualified on account of his mental illness; see note 101 above. It is difficult to confirm Verelst’s years of inactivity owing to the enormous gap in dated paintings; Taylor (2004, n. pag., http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ 28222?docPos=4) states that, “no dated paintings are known between 1672 and 1709.” Interestingly, Schalcken’s principal patron, John Lowther (see Chapter 2), did not own one of his still lifes but in the inventory of his collection, one by Verelst is listed, valued at three pounds and ten shillings; see notes 97 and 100 above. In addition to the two still-life paintings discussed in this chapter, there is also a signed fruit still life in the Leiden Collection in New York (inv. no. GS-100) that is accepted by Beherman (1988, p. 330, cat. no. 251) and Fred G. Meijer, writing in Oxford 2003, p. 273 n. 2. However, Guido Jansen, writing in New York 2017 (“Still Life with Peaches, Grapes, and Melon and a Butterfly on a Stone Plate, Dordrecht School,” The Leiden Collection, http://www.theleidencollection.com/artwork/still-life-withpeaches-grapes-and-melon-and-a-butterfly-on-a-stone-plate/), considers it a work of the Dordrecht School between c. 1660 and 1680, with a false Schalcken signature. There is an additional still life, a flower piece, that might have been painted by Schalcken, presently in the collection of Chatsworth House in Bakewell, Derbyshire (inv. no. PA 1060). For this picture, see Beherman (1988, p. 306, cat. no. 209), who proposed its connection to Verelst’s work; Oxford 2003, pp. 273–74, cat. no. 67, where it is said to perhaps have been painted in the 1670s; and Cologne 2015–16, pp. 180–82, cat. no. 34, with additional references to the scholarly literature. In this context, it is worth noting that Thomas Platt’s description of Schalcken’s work invokes the name of Carlo Dolci, no doubt because his patron, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, was fond of that Italian master’s paintings; see note 89 above and the Introduction. In their precision, Schalcken’s stilllife paintings are reminiscent of those by Dolci; see Baldassari 2015, p. 238–39, cat. no. 129 (a canvas from the Medici collections). The observation of Taylor (1995, p. 103) concerning the Oxford painting’s supposed lack of compositional unity and “colour control” undoubtedly relates to its state of preservation; several of the individual blooms now look rather flat. My thanks to the conservator at the Ashmolean Museum, Jevon Thistlewood, for discussing these issues with me during my visit there in September 2014. Fred G. Meijer, writing in Oxford 2003, p. 273, believes that the work of Schalcken’s first teacher, Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627–1678), may have inspired him to place a painted frame around the bouquet in A Vase of Flowers. Nevertheless, the author (p. 273 n. 2) only notes Verelst’s influence with respect to a Bunch of Grapes (see below), which he places within Schalcken’s London period; to the contrary, he dates the Oxford still life to the 1670s. For this painting, see Beherman 1988, p. 307, cat. no. 210; Stockholm 2005, pp. 446–47, cat. no. 450. Hecht 1980, p. 32. See Dufresnoy 1695, p. 44. Hecht 1980, pp. 32–34.

240 

Gelukkige stad

111 See Chapter 3. 112 See Chapter 3. 113 Pliny the Elder, Natural History, bk. 35, ch. 36. For late seventeenth-century English literary references to Pliny the Elder’s story, see, for example, Wanley 1673, p. 492; Aglionby 1686, p. 40; M. Smith 1693, p. 12. See further Chapter 3. 114 See, for example, a painting from the early 1670s in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen; Millar 1963, vol. 1, p. 132, cat. no. 295. For Verelst’s influence upon Schalcken with respect to the latter’s Bunch of Grapes, see further Fred G. Meijer, writing in Oxford 2003, p. 273 n. 2. 115 The painting illustrated here, formerly with Otto Naumann Ltd., is signed and dated 1709. A similar work, likewise signed and dated 1709, was auctioned at Christie’s in Amsterdam on 9 November 1998, lot 38, and is now in an English private collection. Fred G. Meijer, writing in Oxford 2003, p. 273 n. 2, only notes Verelst’s influence upon Schalcken’s Bunch of Grapes; presumably he is referring to earlier paintings by the older artist.

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9 10

Critical Catalogue, lost paintings, and checklist The curatorial files at the museum contain a letter written by Lance Humphries, dated 17 September 1996, which sets forth the proper provenance for the picture, thus amending the provenance provided by Beherman 1988, p. 152. Anon. 1823, pp. 248, 258. My thanks to Anja Sevcik for this reference. The statement by Beherman 1988, pp. 153, fig. 56b (erroneously illustrating Schalcken’s drawing) that Cornelis Ploos van Amstel made a print after the drawing is incorrect. As the drawing’s provenance makes clear (see the Provenance section above), it was in England throughout Ploos van Amstel’s life. Around 1818, it came into the collection of Christian Josi, a distant relative and former apprentice of the Dutch printmaker, who eventually became a print dealer. It was Josi who made a print of the drawing, as part of a larger project to create Josi 1821, a two-volume venture reissuing 104 prints based on drawings from the Ploos van Amstel collection and scattered works that he himself owned; see further Laurentius et al. 1980, pp. 255, 289, no. 82; and especially De Luise 1995. See note 3 above. Contrary to the information provided in the entry by Beherman 1988, p. 204, cat. no. 105, this portrait was not included in the exhibition, Stockholm 1967. This painting might be identifiable with a portrait described by Cornelis Hofstede de Groot that was said to be signed and dated, Londini 1693; see “Hofstede de Grootfiches: Schalcken, Godefridus, baknummer 235”, RKDexcerpts, https://rkd.nl/explore/ excerpts/480987. My thanks to Anja Sevcik for this reference. The drawing that Beherman (1988, p. 190, fig. 91a) reproduces in connection with this portrait represents a different sitter. This checklist is largely derived from Eddy Schavemaker’s unpublished list of Schalcken’s paintings, which presents more accurate dating than does Beherman 1988. Acquired at sale, Sotheby’s, London, 28 March 2017, lot 449. Acquired at sale, Sotheby’s, London, 28 March 2017, lot 450.

Bibliography Primary sources

Aglionby, William. Painting Illustrated in Three Diallogues. 2nd edn. London, 1686. Anon. [Resta, Sebastiano]. The True Effigies of the Most Eminent Painters … London, 1694. [Anon.]. A Catalogue of the Entire and Valuable Collection of Paintings, Bronzes, Busts in Porphyry and Marble and Other Curiosities, of the Most Noble Charles Earl of Halifax … [London, 1740]. Anon. “On Taste.” The Museum: Or the Literary and Historical Register 1, no. 9 (1746): 326–31. Anon. Journal of the House of Lords. 64 vols. London, 1767–1830. Anon. The Pictures and Miniatures at Fonthill Abbey: Catalogue of this Well-Selected and Valuable Collection of Gallery and Cabinet Paintings …Which Will Be Sold by Auction. n.p., 1823. Bidloo, G[overt]. Komste van zyne majesteit Willem III. The Hague, 1691. Bie, Cornelis de. Het gulden cabinet vande edele vry schilder-const. Antwerp, 1661. Blount, Thomas. Glossographia. 2nd edn. London, 1661. Buckeridge, Bainbrigg. An Essay towards an English School of Painting [1706]. 3rd edn. London, 1754. Collins, Arthur. Letters of Memorials of State … 2 vols. London, 1746. Culpeper, N[icholas]. The English Physician or an Astrologo-Physical Discourse of the Vulgar Herbs of this Nation. London, 1652. Descamps, Jean-Baptiste. La vie des peintres flamands, allemands et hollandois. 4 vols. Paris, 1753–63. Dryden, John. The Works of John Dryden. Edited by A. E. Wallace Maurer. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989. Dufresnoy, Charles Alphonse. De arte graphica (Paris 1668). Edited and translated by Christopher Allen et al. Geneva, 2005. Dufresnoy, Charles Alphonse. De arte graphica: The Art of Painting. Translated by J[ohn] Dryden. London, 1695. Effen, J. van. De Hollandsche Spectator: eene bloemlezing van een en tachtig vertoogen … Groningen, 1889. Elsum, John. A Description of the Most Celebrated Pieces of Paintings of the Most Eminent Masters Ancient and Modern … London, 1704. Evelyn, John. Dairy and Correspondence of John Evelyn, F. R. S. Edited by William Bray. 4 vols. London, 1862–63. Fiennes, Celia. The Illustrated Journeys of Celia Fiennes 1685–c. 1712. Edited by Christopher Morris. London, 1982. Hawkins, John. A General History of the Science and Practice of Music. 5 vols. London, 1776. Hervey, John. The Diary of John Hervey, First Earl of Bristol: With Extracts from His Book of Expenses, 1688 to 1742. Wells, 1894. Hoogstraten, Samuel van. Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst, anders de zichtbaere werelt. Rotterdam, 1678. Houbraken, Arnold. De groote schouburgh der Nederlandtsche konstschilders en schilderessen [1718–21]. 3 vols. 2nd edn. The Hague, 1753. Howell, James. Lexicon Tetraglotton. London, 1660. Humphrey, Ozias. Memorandum-Books. 2 vols. n.p., n.d. [1772–95]. Josi, Christiaan. Collection d’imitation de dessins d’après les principaux maîtres hollandois et flamands, commencée par Ploos van Amstel. 2 vols. London, 1821. Junius, Franciscus. The Painting of the Ancients: De Pictura Veterum; According to the English translation (1638). Edited by Keith Aldrich et al. 2 vols. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1991. Lairesse, Gerard de. Groot schilderboek … 2 vols. 2nd edn. Haarlem 1740. Lairesse, Gerard de. The Art of Painting in All Its Branches. Translated by John Frederick Fritsch. London, 1778. Lampsonius, Dominicus. Pictorum aliquot celebrium Germaniae inferioris effigies. Antwerp, 1572. Lydius, Jacobus. Historie der beroerten van Engelandt … Dordrecht, 1647. [Millot, Michel]. The School of Venus, or the Ladies Delight, Reduced into Rules of Practice. n.p., 1680. North, Roger. Memoires of Musick [1728]. Edited by Edward F. Rimbault. London, 1842. Northcote, James. The Life of Sir Joshua Reynolds. 2 vols. 2nd edn. London, 1819.

242 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Ovid. Metamorphoses. Translated by Anthony S. Kline. Published electronically, 2000. Peacham, Henry. The Compleat Gentleman. 2nd edn. London, 1634. Pepys, Samuel. The Diary of Samuel Pepys [1660–69]: A New and Complete Transcription. 9 vols. Edited by Robert Latham et al. London, 1970–83. Pliny the Elder. The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art [1896]. 2nd edn. Translated by K. Jex-Blake. Chicago, 1968. Ripa, Cesare. Iconologia, of uytbeeldingen des verstands. Translated by D. P. Pers. Amsterdam, 1644. Salmon, William. Polygraphice … 2nd edn. London, 1673. Sandrart, Joachim von. Teutsche Academie der edlen Bau-, Bild- und Malerei-Künste. 3 vols. Nuremberg, 1675–80. Smith, Marshall. The Art of Painting according to the Theory and Practice of the Best Italian, French and German Masters. 2nd edn. London, 1693. Traudenius, Dirck. “Rymbundel.” In Tyd-zifter, dat is kort bericht of onderwijs van de onderscheidinge en afbeeldinge de tydts, gevolgd door rym-bundel … Amsterdam, 1662. Vaughan, Henry. Henry Vaughan: Poetry and Selected Prose. Edited by L. C. Martin. Oxford, 1963. [Vertue, George]. “Vertue’s Notebook A. j. [British Museum Add. MS. 21,111].” Volume of the Walpole Society 18 (1929–30a): 22–80. [Vertue, George]. “Vertue’s Notebook A. b. [British Museum Add. MS. 23, 069].” Volume of the Walpole Society 18 (1929–30b): 81–161. [Vertue, George]. “Vertue’s Notebook A. G. [British Museum Add. MS. 23, 075].” Volume of the Walpole Society 20 (1931–32a): 1–93. [Vertue, George]. “Vertue’s Notebook A. c. [British Museum Add. MS. 23, 075].” Volume of the Walpole Society 20 (1931–32b): 94–158. [Vertue, George]. “Vertue’s Notebook A. q. [British Museum Add. MS. 23, 071].” Volume of the Walpole Society 24 (1935–36): 1–100. [Vertue, George]. “Vertue’s Notebook A. y. y. [British Museum Add. MS. 23, 073].” Volume of the Walpole Society 26 (1937–38): 1–92. Vos, Jan. Alle de gedichten … 2 vols. Amsterdam, 1726. Walpole, Horace. Anecdotes of Painting in England. 4 vols. London, 1762–63. Walpole, Horace. Anecdotes of Painting in England. 5 vols. Edited by James Dallaway. London, 1828. Wanley, Nathaniel. The Wonders of the Little World … London, 1673. Weyerman, Jacob Campo. Maandelyksche ‘t zamenspraaken tusschen de dooden en de leevenden. Amsterdam, 1726. Weyerman, Jacob Campo. De levens-beschryvingen der Nederlandsche konst-schilders en konst-schilderessen. 4 vols. The Hague and Dordrecht, 1729–69. Wilkins, John. An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language. London, 1668. Wilson, Walter. The History and Antiquities of Dissenting Churches and Meeting Houses, in London, Westminster, and Southwark [1814]. 4 vols. Paris [AK], 2003. Wither, George. A Collection of Emblemes, Ancient and Moderne. London, 1635.

Secondary sources

Acton, Harold. The Last Medici. Revised edn. London, 1958. Adams, Ann. “Rembrandt f[ecit]: The Italic Signature and the Commodification of Artistic Identity.” In Thomas W. Gaehtgens, ed. Künstlerischer Austauch/Artistic Exchange: Akten des XXVIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte Berlin, 15.–20. Juli 1992. Berlin, 1993, pp. 581–94. Aikema, Bernard. “Titian’s Mary Magdalen in the Palazzo Pitti: An Ambiguous Painting and Its Critics.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 57 (1994): 48–59. Alexander, James. “The City Revealed: An Analysis of the 1692 Poll Tax and the 1693 4s. Aid in London.” In Kevin Schurer and Tom Arkell, eds. Surveying the People: The Interpretation and Use of Document Sources for the Study of Population in the Later Seventeenth Century. Oxford, 1992, pp. 181–200.

Bibliography

243

Andrews, George. “A Brief Memoir of Mr. Justice Rokeby, Comprising His Religious Journal and Correspondence.” Surtees Society Publications 37 (1861): 1–71. Aono, Junko. “De Gouden Eeuw in druk: reproductieprenten van Nicolaas Verkolje.” In Enschede, Nicolaas Verkolje 1673–1746: de fluwelen hand (Catalogue by Paul Knolle et al.). Rijksmuseum Twenthe, 2011, pp. 45–55. Aono, Junko. Confronting the Golden Age: Imitation and Innovation in Dutch Genre Painting 1680–1750. Amsterdam, 2015. Aono, Junko. “In the Glow of Candlelight: A Study of Nicolaas Verkolje’s Approach to the Art of Godefridus Schalcken.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016a): 251–64. Aono, Junko. “Out of the Shadow of the Golden Age: Recent Scholarly Developments Concerning Dutch Painting of the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries.” In Wayne Franits, ed. The Ashgate Research Companion to Dutch Art of the Seventeenth Century. New York and London, 2016, pp. 286–301. Archer, Ian W. The History of the Haberdashers’ Company. Chichester, 1991. Archer, Ian W. “Social Networks in Restoration London: The Evidence of Samuel Pepys’s Diary.” In Alexandra Shepard and Phil Withington, eds. Communities in Early Modern England: Networks, Place, Rhetoric. Manchester and New York, 2000, pp. 76–94. Arkell, Tom. “An Examination of the Poll Taxes of the Later Seventeenth Century, the Marriage Duty Act and Gregory King.” In Kevin Schurer and Tom Arkell, eds. Surveying the People: The Interpretation and Use of Document Sources for the Study of Population in the Later Seventeenth Century. Oxford, 1992, pp. 142–77. Auer, Leopold. “Prince Eugene and the Ideal of the honnête homme: Behavioral Norms of the Elites under the Ancien Régime.” In Vienna, Prince Eugene: General-Philosopher and Art Lover (Catalogue by Agnes Husslein-Arco et al.). Belvedere, 2010, pp. 41–47. Augustin, Roland. Der Geschmack des Neuen: Das Motiv des Tabakrauchens und seine Modernität in der niederländischen Kunst. Frankfurt am Main and New York, 1998. Badir, Patricia. The Maudlin Impression: English Literary Images of Mary Magdalene, 1550–1700. Notre Dame, 2009. Baldassari, Francesca. Carlo Dolci: Complete Catalogue of the Paintings. Florence, 2015. Barclay, Andrew. “William’s Court as King.” In Esther Mijers and David Onnekink, eds. Redefining William III: The Impact of the King-Stadholder in International Context. Aldershot and Burlington [VT], 2007, pp. 241–61. Barker, Elizabeth Ellen. “‘A Very Great and Uncommon Genius in a Peculiar Way’: Joseph Wright of Derby and Candlelight Painting in Eighteenth-Century Britain.” PhD diss., Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 2003. Barnes, Susan, et al. Van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings. New Haven and London, 2004. Barron, Kathryn. “Cook, Henry (1642?–1700).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004. Bartilla, Stefan. “Eine prunkvolle Mahnung: Schalckens Maria Magdalena entsagt den Eitelkeiten der Welt.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016): 113–26. Bauer, Alexandra Nina. Jan Mijtens (1613/14–1670): Leben und Werk. Petersberg, 2006. Beattie, J. M. Policing and Punishment in London 1660–1750: Urban Crime and the Limits of Terror. Oxford, 2001. Becagli, Vieri. “Biografie coeve di Cosimo III.” In Franco Angiolini et al., eds. La Toscana nell’età di Cosimo III: atti del convegno Pisa-San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) 4–5 giugno 1990. Florence, 1993, pp. 403–18. Beckett, J. V. “Lowther, John, First Viscount Lonsdale (1655–1700).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004. Bedaux, Jan Baptist. “Beelden van ‘leersucht’ en tucht: opvoedingsmetaforen in de Nederlandse schilderkunst van de zeventiende eeuw.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 33 (1983): 49–74. Bedaux, Jan Baptist. “Fruit and Fertility: Fruit Symbolism in Netherlandish Portraiture of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” Simiolus 17 (1987): 150–68. Bedaux, Jan Baptist. The Reality of Symbols: Studies in the Iconology of Netherlandish Art 1400–1800. The Hague and Maarssen, 1990. Beherman, Thierry. Godfried Schalcken. Paris, 1988.

244 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Benedict, Barbara M. Curiosity: A Cultural History of Early Modern Inquiry. Chicago and London, 2001. Bialostocki, Jan. “Puer sufflans ignes.” In Eduardo Arslan, ed. Arte in Europa: scritti di storia dell’arte in onore di Eduardo Arslan. 2 vols. Milan, 1966, vol. 1, pp. 591–95. Bignamini, Ilaria. “George Vertue, Art Historian and Art Institutions in London, 1679–1768: A Study of Clubs and Academies.” Volume of the Walpole Society 54 (1988): 1–148. Bignamini, Ilaria. “The ‘Academy of Art’ in Britain before the Foundation of the Royal Academy in 1768.” Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 8 (1989): 434–50. Bissell, R. Ward. Orazio Gentileschi and the Poetic Tradition in Caravaggesque Painting. University Park and London, 1981. Bok, Marten Jan. “Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt, 1580–1700.” PhD diss., University of Utrecht, 1994. Bok, Marten Jan. “Society, Culture, and Collecting in Seventeenth-Century Delft.” In New York, Vermeer and the Delft School (Catalogue by Walter Liedtke, et al.). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2001, pp. 196–210. Bolam, C. Gordon, et al. The English Presbyterians: From Elizabethan Puritanism to Modern Unitarianism. Boston, 1968. Bonner-Smith, D. “Samuel Pepys and York Buildings.” Mariner’s Mirror 24 (1938): 226–36. Borchhardt-Birbaumer, Brigitte. Imago noctis: Die Nacht in der Kunst des Abendlandes. Vienna, 2003. Boulton, Jeremy. Neighbourhood and Society: A London Suburb in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge and New York, 1987. Boulton, Jeremy. “The Poor among the Rich: Paupers and the Parish in the West End, 1600–1724.” In Paul Griffiths and Mark S. R. Jenner, eds. Londinopolis: Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London. Manchester and New York, 2000, pp. 197–225. Bredius, A. “Archiefsprokkelingen.” Oud Holland 47 (1930): 157–58. Bree, Han van, and Piet Lekkerkerk. The House of Orange: From William the Silent to Crown Princess Amalia. Amsterdam, 2006. Brennan, Michael G. “Henry Sidney (1641–1704), Earl of Romney, and Robert Spencer (1641–1702), Second Earl of Sunderland.” In Margaret P. Hannay, et al., eds. Ashgate Research Companion to The Sidneys, 1500–1700. 2 vols. Aldershot and Burlington [VT], 2015, vol. 1, pp. 169–76. Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij, Beatrijs, and Ed de Heer, “William III and the Royal Collections.” In The Hague, Paintings from England: William III and the Royal Collections (Catalogue by Ben Broos et al.). Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis, 1988–89, pp. 9–45. Brett, Cécile. “Antonio Verrio (c.1636–1707): His Career and Surviving Work.” British Art Journal 10, no. 3 (2009–10): 4–17. Brongers, Georg A. Nicotiana Tabacum: The History of Tobacco and Tobacco Smoking in the Netherlands. Amsterdam, 1964. Broos, B. P. J. “De caers uit de scaemschoe uit: een vergeten erotisch symbool.” Vrij Nederland 31 (24 April 1971): 25. Broos, Ton J. “‘Uit de hoofdstad der Britten wort berigt’: Jacob Campo Weyerman in Engeland.” In Peter Altena and Willem Hendrikx, eds. Het verlokkend ooft: proeven over Jacob Campo Weyerman. Amsterdam, 1985, pp. 195–220. Broos, Ton J. Tussen zwart en ultramarijn: de levens van schilders beschreven door Jacob Campo Weyerman (1677–1747). Amsterdam and Atlanta, 1990. Brosens, Koenraad, et al., eds. Family Ties: Art Production and Kinship Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries. Turnhout, 2012. Brown, Beverly Louise. “Between in the Sacred and the Profane.” In London, The Genius of Rome 1592–1623 (Catalogue by Beverly Louise Brown et al.). Royal Academy of Arts, 2001, pp. 276–303. Brown, Christopher. “Patrons and Collectors of Dutch Painting in Britain during the Reign of William and Mary.” In David Howarth, ed. Art and Patronage in the Caroline Courts: Essays in Honour of Sir Oliver Millar. Cambridge and New York, 1993, pp. 12–31. Brownell, Morris. The Prime Minister of Taste: A Portrait of Horace Walpole. New Haven and London, 2001.

Bibliography

245

Brusati, Celeste. Artifice and Illusion: The Art and Writings of Samuel van Hoogstraten. Chicago and London, 1995. Brusati, Celeste. “Honorable Deceptions and Dubious Distinctions: Self-Imagery in Trompe-l’Oeil.” In Copenhagen, Illusions: Gijsbrechts – Royal Master of Deception (Catalogue by Olaf Koester et al.). Stattens Museum for Konst, 1999, pp. 49–73. Buijsen, Edwin. “Tussen ‘konsthemel’ en aarde: panorama van de schilderkunst in Den Haag tussen 1600 en 1700.” In The Hague, Haagse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw (Catalogue by Edwin Buijsen et al.). Historisch Museum, 1998–99, pp. 27–49. Burke, Peter. The Fortunes of the Courtier: The European Reception of Castiglione’s Cortegiano. University Park, PA, 1996. Cartwright, Ingrid A. “‘Hoe schilder hoe wilder’: Dissolute Self-Portraits in Seventeenth-Century Dutch and Flemish Art.” PhD diss., University of Maryland, 2007. Chamberlain, E., ed. Catalogue of the Pepys Library at Magdalen College, vol. 3: Prints and Drawings. Cambridge, 1994. Cheney, Edward. “The Italianate Evolution of English Collecting.” In Edward Cheney, ed. The Evolution of English Collecting: The Reception of Italian Art in the Tudor and Stuart Periods. New Haven and London, 2003, pp. 1–124. Chichester, H. M. “Cutts, John, Baron Cutts of Gowran (1660/61–1707).” Revised by John B. Hattendorf. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004. Childs, John. The British Army of William III, 1689–1702. Manchester, 1987. Childs, John. The Nine Years’ War and the British Army, 1688–1697: The Operations in the Low Countries. Manchester, 1991. Cloake, John. Palaces and Parks of Richmond and Kew. 2 vols. Chichester, 1995–96. Colvin, Howard, et al. Architectural Drawings from Lowther Castle Westmorland. Leeds, 1980. Cook, Nicole Elizabeth. “Eros, Intimität und Begehren in den Genrebildern von Godefridus Schalcken.” In Cologne, Schalcken: Gemalte Verführung (Catalogue by Anja Sevçik et al.). Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, 2015–16, pp. 72–85. Cook, Nicole Elizabeth. “From Amoris Causa to Pygmalion’s Creative Dream: Schalcken’s Young Man and Woman Looking at a Statuette by Lamplight and Theories of Love and Art.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016a): 127–43. Cook, Nicole Elizabeth. “Godefridus Schalcken (1643–1706): Desire and Intimate Display.” PhD diss., University of Delaware, 2016b. Cowan, Brian. “Arenas of Connoisseurship: Auctioning Art in Later Stuart England.” In Michael North and David Ormrod, eds. Art Markets in Europe, 1400–1800. Aldershot and Brookfield [MA], 1998, pp. 153–66. Cowan, Brian. “An Open Elite: The Peculiarities of Connoisseurship in Early Modern England.” Modern Intellectual History 1 (2004): 151–83. Cowan, Brian. “Art and Connoisseurship in the Auction Market of Later Seventeenth-Century London.” In Neil de Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet, eds. Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe 1450–1750. Turnhout, 2006, pp. 263–84. Cox, Montague H., and G. Topham Forrest, eds. Survey of London, vol. 14: St. Margaret Westminster, pt. III: Whitehall II. London, 1931. Crinò, Anna Maria. “Note di documentazione su due autoritratti della collezione degli Uffizi.” Rivista d’Arte 28 (1953): 185–97. Crinò, Anna Maria. Fatti e figure del seicento Anglo-Toscano: documenti inediti sui rapporti letterari, diplomatici, culturali fra Toscana e Inghilterra. Florence, 1957. Cust, L. H. “Anthony Russell (1663–1743).” Revised by Ann Sumner. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004. Dalivalle, Margaret. “‘Borrowed Comlinesse’: Copying from Pictures in Seventeenth-Century England.” PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2011. De Giorgi, Raffaele. “Couleur, couleur!”: Antonio Verrio; un pittore in Europa tra Seicento e Settecento. Florence, 2009.

246 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Dekker, Rudolf. “Sexuality, Elites, and Court Life in the Late Eighteenth Century: The Diaries of Constantijn Huygens, Jr.” Eighteenth-Century Life 23 (1999): 94–109. Dekker, Rudolf. Family, Culture and Society in the Diary of Constantijn Huygens Jr, Secretary to Stadholder-King William of Orange. Leiden and Boston, 2013. De Marchi, Neil. “Auctioning Paintings in Late Seventeenth-Century London: Rules, Segmentation and Prices in an Emergent Market.” In Victor A. Ginsburgh, ed. Economics of Art and Culture: Invited Papers at the 12th International Conference of the Association of Cultural Economics International. Amsterdam and New York, 2004, pp. 97–128. Dethloff, Diane. “Portraiture and Concepts of Beauty in Restoration Painting.” In London, Painted Ladies: Women at the Court of Charles II (Catalogue by Catherine MacLeod et al.). National Portrait Gallery, 2001–2, pp. 24–35. Dreiskämper, Petra. “Redeloos, radeloos, reddeloos”: de geschiedenis van het rampjaar 1672. Hilversum, 1998. Dickey, Stephanie S. “Damsels in Distress: Gender and Emotion in Seventeenth-Century Netherlandish Art.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 60 (2010): 53–81. Dudok van Heel, S. A. C. “Honderdvijftig advertenties van kunstverkopingen uit veertig jaargangen van de Amsterdamse Courant 1672–1711.” Jaarboek Amstelodamum 76 (1975): 149–73. Dunthorne, Hugh. “William III in Contemporary Portraits and Prints.” In Esther Mijers and David Onnekink, eds. Redefining William III: The Impact of the King-Stadholder in International Context. Aldershot and Burlington [VT], 2007, pp. 263–76. Eade, Jane. “Reflections on a Glass Madeleine Pénitente.” In Michelle A. Erhardt and Amy M. Morris, eds. Mary Magdalene: Iconographic Studies from the Middle Ages to the Baroque. Leiden and Boston, 2012, pp. 315–37. Eckardt, Götz. Selbstbildnisse niederländischer Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1971. Ekirch, A. Roger. At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past. New York and London, 2005. Erhardt, Michelle A., and Amy M. Morris, eds. Mary Magdalene: Iconographic Studies from the Middle Ages to the Baroque. Leiden and Boston, 2012. Emmens, J. A. Kunsthistorische opstellen. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 1981. Epe, Elisabeth. “A Clio by Godfried Schalcken for Ferdinando de’ Medici, Prince of Tuscany.” Mercury 8 (1989): 27–33. Falkus, Malcolm. “Lighting in the Dark Ages of English Economic History: Town Streets before the Industrial Revolution.” In D. C. Coleman and A. H. John, eds. Trade, Government, and Economy in Pre-industrial England: Essays Presented to F. J. Fisher. London, 1976, pp. 187–211. Fenlon, T. J. “Gandy, William (d. 1729).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004. Filipczak, Zirka Zaremba. “Reflections on Motifs in Van Dyck’s Portraits.” In Washington, DC, Anthony van Dyck (Catalogue by Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr., et al.). National Gallery of Art, 1990–91, pp. 59–68. Foster, Joseph. Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500–1714 … 4 vols. Oxford, 1891. Foucart, Jacques. “Schalcken: la révélation d’un grand peintre hollandais du XVII siècle.” La Tribune de l’Art. Published electronically, June 2016. Franits, Wayne. Paragons of Virtue: Women and Domesticity in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art. Cambridge and New York, 1993. Franits, Wayne. “Zwischen Frömmigkeit und Geiz: Das Alter in Genredarstellungen.” In Braunschweig, Bilder vom alten Menschen in der niederländischen und deutschen Kunst 1550–1750 (Catalogue by Thomas Döring et al.). Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, 1993–94, pp. 78–86. Franits, Wayne. “‘Young Women Preferred White to Brown’: Some Remarks on Nicolaes Maes and the Cultural Context of Late Seventeenth-Century Dutch Portraiture.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 46 (1995): 394–415. Franits, Wayne. “Emerging From the Shadows: Genre Painting by the Utrecht Caravaggisti and Its Contemporary Reception.” In San Francisco, Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age (Catalogue by Joneath A. Spicer et al.). Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1997, pp. 114–20. Franits, Wayne. Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting: Its Stylistic and Thematic Evolution. New Haven and London, 2004.

Bibliography

247

Franits, Wayne. Vermeer. London, 2015. Franits, Wayne. “A Very Famous Dutch Painter: Schalcken in England, 1692–1696.” In Cologne, Schalcken: Gemalte Verführung (Catalogue by Anja Sevçik et al.). Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, 2015–16, pp. 36–49. Franits, Wayne. “Schalcken in London: Self-Portraiture as Self Promotion.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016): 19–42. Franits, Wayne. “James Stuart, Duke of Lennox and Richmond with His Greyhound by Candlelight, Godefridus Schalcken” (GS-109). In New York, The Leiden Collection (Catalogue by Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. et al.). The Leiden Collection, 2017. Published electronically, 2017. Fusenig, Thomas. “‘Cautio est …’. Aufgepasst: heißer Brei und weich gekochte Eier.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016): 101–12. Garlick, K. J. “A Catalogue of Pictures at Althorp.” Volume of the Walpole Society 55 (1974–76): 1–128. Gaskell, Ivan. “Tobacco, Social Deviance, and Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century (1987).” In Wayne Franits, ed. Looking at Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art: Realism Reconsidered. Cambridge and New York, 1997, pp. 68–77. Gater, G. H., and E. P. Wheeler, eds. Survey of London, vol. 18: St. Martin in the Fields II: The Strand. London, 1937. Geerdink, Nina. Dichters en verdiensten: de sociale verankering van het dichterschap van Jan Vos (1610–1667). Hilversum, 2012. Gerson, Horst. Ausbreitung und Nachwirkung der holländischen Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts. Haarlem, 1942. Gibson-Wood, Carol. Jonathan Richardson: Art Theorist of the English Enlightenment. New Haven and London, 2000. Gibson-Wood, Carol. “Picture Consumption in London at the End of the Seventeenth Century.” Art Bulletin 84 (2002): 491–500. Glaisyer, Natasha. The Culture of Commerce in England 1660–1720. Woodbridge and Rochester, 2006. Glass, D. V. London Inhabitants within the Walls 1695. London, 1966. Goffen, Rona. Titian’s Women. New Haven and London, 1997. Goldberg, Edward L. After Vasari: History, Art, and Patronage in Late Medici Florence. Princeton, 1988. Gordenker, Emilie E. S. Van Dyck and the Representation of Dress in Seventeenth-Century Portraiture. Turnhout, 2001. Goulding, Richard W. Catalogue of the Pictures Belonging to His Grace the Duke of Portland, K. G. at Welbeck Abbey, 17 Hill Street, London, and Langwell House. Edited by C. K. Adams. Cambridge, 1936. Grassby, Richard. “English Merchant Capitalism in the Late Seventeenth Century. The Composition of Business Fortunes.” Past & Present 46 (1970a): 87–107. Grassby, Richard. “The Personal Wealth of the Business Community in Seventeenth-Century England.” Economic History Review 23 (1970b): 220–34. Graves, Algernon. A Century of Loan Exhibitions 1813–1912. 5 vols. London, 1913–15. Greco, Gaetano. “Provvedimenti e pratiche nel governo politico della chiesa locale nell’età di Cosimo III.” In Franco Angiolini, et al., eds. La Toscana nell’età di Cosimo III: atti del convegno Pisa-San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) 4–5 giugno 1990. Florence, 1993, pp. 437–54. Gregory, Jeremy, and John Stevenson. The Routledge Companion to Britain in the Eighteenth Century, 1688–1820. London and New York, 2007. Griffin, Dustin. Literary Patronage in England, 1650–1800. Cambridge and New York, 1996. Griffiths, Antony. “Early Mezzotint Publishing in England – I John Smith, 1652–1743.” Print Quarterly 6 (1989): 243–57. Groenendijk, Pieter. Beknopt biografisch lexicon van Zuid- en Noord-Nederlandse schilders, graveurs, glasschilders, tapijtwevers et cetera van ca. 1350 tot ca. 1720. Utrecht, 2008. Hall, James. The Self-Portrait: A Cultural History. London, 2014. Handley, Stuart. “Montagu, Charles, Earl of Halifax (1661–1715).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004a. Handley, Stuart. “Rokeby, Sir Thomas (c.1631–1699).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004b.

248 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Hanson, Craig Ashley. The English Virtuoso: Art, Medicine, and Antiquarianism in the Age of Empiricism. Chicago and London, 2009. Hardy, W. J., ed. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of William and Mary Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office. 11 vols. London, 1895–1937. Haskell, Francis. The King’s Pictures: The Formation and Dispersal of the Collections of Charles I and His Courtiers. Edited and introduced by Karen Serres. New Haven and London, 2013. Haskins, Susan. Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor. Old Saybrook [CT], 1993. Havery, Richard. History of the Middle Temple. Oxford, 2011. Hecht, Peter. “Candlelight and Dirty Fingers, or Royal Virtue in Disguise: Some Thoughts on Weyerman and Godfried Schalcken.” Simiolus 11 (1980): 23–38. Hecht, Peter. “The Debate on Symbol and Meaning in Dutch Art: An Appeal to Common Sense.” Simiolus 16 (1986): 173–87. Hecht, Peter. “Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting: A Reassesment of Some Current Hypotheses.” Simiolus 21 (1992): 85–95. Hecht, Peter. “Dutch Painters in England: Readings in Houbraken, Weyerman, and Van Gool.” In Simon Groenveld and Michael Wintle, eds. The Exchange of Ideas: Religion, Scholarship and Art in Anglo-Dutch Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Zutphen, 1994, pp. 150–62. Hecht, Peter. “Beschränkung wird Marke: Spezialisierung in der Malerei Schalckens.” Wallraf-RichartzJahrbuch 77 (2016): 265–84. Held, Julius S. Rembrandt Studies. Princeton, 1991. Henning, Basil Duke. The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1660–1690. 3 vols. London, 1983. Ho, Angela. “Gerrit Dou’s Enchanting Trompe-l’oeil: Virtuosity and Agency in Early Modern Collections.” Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 7, no. 1 (2015). Published electronically. Ho, Angela K. Creating Distinctions in Dutch Genre Painting; Repetition and Invention. Amsterdam, 2017. Hofstede de Groot, Cornelis. A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century. 8 vols. Translated and edited by Edward G. Hawke. London, 1907–28. Hoogewerff, G. J. De twee reizen van Cosimo de’ Medici Prins van Toscane door de Nederlanden (1667–1669). Amsterdam, 1919. Horn, Hendrik J. The Golden Age Revisited: Arnold Houbraken's Great Theatre of Netherlandish Painters and Paintresses. 2 vols. Doornspijk, 2000. Hosford, David. “Sidney, Henry, First Earl of Romney (1641–1704).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004. Houghton, Walter. “The English Virtuoso in the Seventeenth Century.” Journal of the History of Ideas 3 (1942): 51–73, 190–219. Howarth, David. Lord Arundel and His Circle. New Haven and London, 1985. Howarth, David. “The Arundel Collection: Collecting and Patronage in England in the Reigns of Philip III and Philip IV.” In Madrid, The Sale of the Century: Artistic Relations between Spain and Great Britain, 1604–1655 (Catalogue by Jonathan Brown and John Elliott). Museo del Prado, 2002, pp. 69–86. Howarth, David. “A Question of Attribution: Art Agents and the Shaping of the Arundel Collection.” In Hans Cools, et al., eds. Your Humble Servant: Agents in Early Modern Europe. Hilversum, 2006, pp. 17–28. Hume, Robert D. “The Economics of Culture in London, 1660–1740.” Huntington Library Quarterly 69 (2006): 487–533. Husbands, Chris. “Hearths, Wealth and Occupations: An Exploration of the Hearth Tax in the Later Seventeenth Century.” In Kevin Schurer and Tom Arkell, eds. Surveying the People: The Interpretation and Use of Document Sources for the Study of Population in the Later Seventeenth Century. Oxford, 1992, pp. 65–77. Ingenhoff-Danhäuser, Monika. Maria Magdalena: Heilige und Sünderin in der italienischen Renaissance; Studien zur Ikonographie der Heiligen von Leonardo bis Tizian. Tübingen, 1984. Inglesby, Roison. “An Unusual Embroidery of Mary Magdalene.” V&A Online Journal, no. 7 (Summer 2015). Published electronically. Israel, Jonathan. Dutch Primacy in World Trade 1585–1740. Oxford, 1989.

Bibliography

249

Israel, Jonathan. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477–1806. Oxford, 1995. Jansen, Guido. “Additions to Godfried Schalcken’s Oeuvre as a Draftsman.” Mercury 13–14 (1992): 74–80. Jansen, Guido. “Schalcken, Godfried.” In Jane Turner, ed. From Rembrandt to Vermeer: 17th-Century Dutch Artists (The Grove Dictionary of Art). New York, 2000, pp. 328–29. Jansen, Guido. “Ein Künstlerleben und seine Zeit.” In Cologne, Schalcken: Gemalte Verführung (Catalogue by Anja Sevçik et al.). Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, 2015–16, pp. 14–35. Janssen, Anouk. Grijsaards in zwart-wit: de verbeelding van de ouderdom in de Nederlandse prentkunst (1550–1650). Zutphen, 2007. Jonckheere, Koenraad. The Auction of King William’s Paintings (1713). Elite International Art Trade at the End of the Dutch Golden Age. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 2008. Jones, Malcolm. The Print in Early Modern England: An Historical Oversight. New Haven and London, 2010. Jongh, Eddy de. “Grape Symbolism in Paintings of the 16th and 17th Centuries.” Simiolus 7 (1974): 166–91. Jongh, Eddy de. “Bol vincit amorem.” Simiolus 12 (1981–2): 147–61. Judson, J. Richard, and Rudolf E. O. Ekkart. Gerrit van Honthorst 1592–1656. Doornspijk, 1999. Junod, Karen. “Writing the Lives of Painters”: Biography and Artistic Identity in Britain 1760–1810. Oxford, 2011. Karst, Sander. “Off to a New Cockaigne: Dutch Migrant Artists in London, 1660–1715.” Simiolus 37 (2013–14): 25–60. Karst, Sander. “Nog meer gestolen veren: Weyermans letterdieverij uit een Engelse bron in her vierde deel van zijn Levens-beschryvingen.” In Eddy Schavemaker, et al., eds. “Gij zult niet feestbundelen”: 34 bijdragen voor Peter Hecht. Amsterdam, 2016, pp. 102–10. Kassler, J. C. The Honorable Roger North, 1651–1734: On Life, Morality, Law and Tradition. Farnham and Burlington [VT], 2009. Keblusek, Marika. “Book Agents: Intermediaries in the Early Modern World of Books.” In Hans Cools, et al., eds. Your Humble Servant: Agents in Early Modern Europe. Hilversum, 2006, pp. 97–107. Kemp, Martin. “Virtuous Artists and Virtuous Art.” In Frances Ames-Lewis and Anka Bednarek, eds. Decorum in Renaissance Art: Papers Delivered at the Annual Conference of the Association of Art Historians, London, April 1991. London, 1992, pp. 15–23. Kenyon, J. P. Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland 1641–1702. London and New York, 1958. Kern, Ulrike. Light and Shade in Dutch and Flemish Art. Turnhout, 2014. Kingsford, Charles Lethbridge. The Early History of Piccadilly, Leicester Square, Soho and Their Neighborhood. Cambridge, 1925. Kiste, John van der. William and Mary. Heroes of the Glorious Revolution. 1st pbk. edn. Stroud, 2008. Koerner, Joseph Leo. The Moment of Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance Art. Chicago and London, 1993. Kok, Erna. “Culturele ondernemers in de Gouden Eeuw: de artistieke en sociaal-economische strategieën van Jacob Backer, Govert Flinck, Ferdinand Bol en Joachim von Sandrart.” PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 2013. Kok, Erna. Netwerkende kunstenaars in de Gouden Eeuw: de succesvolle loopbanen van Govert Flinck en Ferdinand Bol. Hilversum, 2016. Kollmann, Stefanie. Niederländische Künstler und Kunst im London des 17. Jahrhunderts. Hildesheim and New York, 2000. Korthals Altes, Everhard. 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, Everhard. “‘Old’ Versus Contemporary Art: The Reception and Reputation of Dutch Painting in the Eighteenth Century.” In Ekkehard Mai, ed. Holland nach Rembrandt: Zur niederländischen Kunst zwischen 1670 und 1750. Cologne, 2006, pp. 67–78. Korthals Altes, Everhard. “Looking for Patterns in Collecting: Schalcken in the Eighteenth Century.” WallrafRichartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016): 177–86. Koslofsky, Craig. Evening’s Empire: A History of the Night in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge and New York, 2011.

250 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Kretschmar, F. G. L. O. van. “De registers van de ‘Dutch Chapel Royal’, St. James’s Palace, Westminster.” Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie (1964): 223–53. Kuretsky, Susan Donahue. The Paintings of Jacob Ochtervelt (1634–1682). Montclair, 1979. Kuus, Saskia. “Children’s Costume in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” In Haarlem, Pride and Joy: Children’s Portraits in the Netherlands 1500–1700 (Catalogue by Jan Baptist Bedaux et al.). Frans Hals Museum, 2000, pp. 73–83. Lafage, Franck. Côme III de Médicis, Grand-Duc de Toscane: un règne dans l’ombre de l’histoire (1670–1723). Paris, 2015. Lange, Justus. “With Profound Expression: Landgrave Wilhelm VIII of Hessen-Kassel and His Appreciation for Schalcken’s Work.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016): 205–20. Langhans, Edward A., et al., eds. A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians … and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1600–1800. 16 vols. Carbondale, IL, 1973–1993. Larsen, Erik. “A Self-Portrait by Schalcken.” Oud Holland 79 (1964): 78–79. Larson, Ruth. “Sex and Civility in a 17th-Century Dialogue: L’Escole des filles.” Papers on French Seventeenth Century Literature 24 (1997): 496–511. Larsson, Olaf Lars. “Lorenzo Lottos Bildnis des Andrea Odoni in Hampton Court: Eine typologische und ikonographische Studie.” Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 37 (1968): 21–33. Laurentius, Th., et al. Cornelis Ploos van Amstel: kunstverzamelaar en prentuitgever. Assen, 1980. Leemans, Inger. Het woord is aan de onderkant: radicale ideeën in Nederlandse pornografische romans 1670–1700. Nijmegen, 2002. Levine, Joseph M. Between the Ancients and the Moderns: Baroque Culture in Restoration England. New Haven and London, 1999. Lewis, Frank. Simon Pietersz Verelst, “The God of Flowers.” Leigh-on-Sea, 1979. Lipking, Lawrence. The Ordering of the Arts in Eighteenth-Century England. Princeton, 1970. Luijten, Ger. “The Iconography: Van Dyck’s Portraits in Print.” In Amsterdam, Anthony van Dyck as a Printmaker (Catalogue by Carl Depauw et al.). Rijksmuseum, 1999–2000, pp. 72–91. Luijten, Ger, and Saskia Sombogaart. “‘… with the Hand’: The Collecting of Van Dyck’s Prints.” In Amsterdam, Anthony van Dyck as a Printmaker (Catalogue by Carl Depauw et al.). Rijksmuseum, 1999–2000, pp. 8–18. Luijten, Hans. Jacob Cats: Sinne- en minnebeelden. 3 vols. The Hague, 1996. Luise, A. de. “Ploos van Amstel and Christian Josi: Two Generations of Printmakers Working in the Artful Imitation of Drawings.” Quaerendo 25 (1995): 215–26. Maclagan, Michael. “The Family of Dormer in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire.” Oxoniensia 11–12 (1946–47): 90–101. MacLeod, Catherine. “‘Good but Not Like’: Peter Lely, Portrait Practice and the Creation of a Court Look.” In London, Painted Ladies: Women at the Court of Charles II (Catalogue by Catherine MacLeod et al.). National Portrait Gallery, 2001–2, pp. 50–61. McShane, Angela, and Claire Backhouse. “Top Knots and Lower Sorts: Print and Promiscuous Consumption in the 1690s.” In Michael Hunter, ed. Printed Images in Early Modern Britain: Essays in Interpretation. Farnham and Burlington [VT], 2010, pp. 337–57. Maddicott, Hilary. “The Political and Cultural Career of Philip Sidney, Lord Viscount Lisle, Third Earl of Leicester, 1619–1698: Nobility and Identity in the Seventeenth Century.” PhD diss., Birkbeck College, University of London, 2014. Maës, Gaëtane. “Dutch Art Collections and Connoisseurship in the Eighteenth Century: The Contributions of Dezallier d’Argenville and Descamps.” Simiolus 34 (2009–10): 226–38. Maës, Gaëtane. De l’expertise artistique à la vulgarisation au siècle des Lumières: Jean-Baptiste Descamps (1715–1791) et la peinture flamande, hollandaise et allemande. Turnhout, 2017. Marciari-Alexander, Julia Mary. “Self-Fashioning and Portraits of Women at the Restoration Court: The Case of Peter Lely and Barbara Villiers, Countess of Castlemaine.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1999. Marly, Diana de. “The Establishment of Roman Dress in Seventeenth-Century Portraiture.” Burlington Magazine 117 (1975): 443–51. Meadows, Anne. “Collecting Seventeenth-Century Dutch Painting in England 1689–1760.” PhD diss., University College London, 1988.

Bibliography

251

Melion, Walter S. “Self-Imaging and the Engraver’s Virtù: Hendrick Goltzius’s Pietà of 1598.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 46 (1995): 104–43. Millar, Oliver. The Tudor, Stuart and Early Georgian Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen. 2 vols. London, 1963. Millar, Oliver. “Huysmans, Jacob.” The Grove Dictionary of Art. Published electronically, n.d. Molen, Tom van der. “Wie die Natur den Maler fürchtet, der seinen Leinwänden das Leben gab: Gedichte über das Leben und Werk von Govaert Flinck.” In Kleve, Govaert Flinck: Reflecting History (Catalogue by Tom von der Molen et al.). Museum Kurhaus Kleve, 2015–16, pp. 32–43. Montias, John Michael. “Cost and Value in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art.” Art History 10 (1987): 455–66. Montias, John Michael. “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions.” In David Freedberg and Jan de Vries, eds. Art in History, History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture. Santa Monica, 1991, pp. 331–72. Moore, Andrew W. “Norfolk and the Netherlands.” In Norfolk, Dutch and Flemish Painting in Norfolk: A History of Taste and Influence, Fashion and Collecting (Catalogue by Andrew W. Moore). Norwich Castle Museum, 1988, pp. 1–9. Mormando, Franco. “Teaching the Faithful to Fly: Mary Magdalene and Peter in Baroque Italy.” In Boston, Saints and Sinners: Caravaggio and the Baroque Image (Catalogue by Franco Mormando et al.). McMullen Museum of Art, Boston College, 1999, pp. 107–32. Mount, Harry Thomas. “The Reception of Dutch Genre Painting in England, 1695–1829.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 1991. Muldrew, Craig. The Economy of Obligation: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England. New York, 1998. Muller, Jeffrey M. “The Quality of Grace in the Art of Anthony van Dyck.” In Washington, DC, Anthony van Dyck (Catalogue by Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr., et al.). National Gallery of Art, 1990–91, pp. 27–36. Müller Hofstede, Justus. “Artificial Light in Honthorst and ter Brugghen: Form and Iconography.” In Rüdiger Klessmann, ed. Hendrick ter Brugghen und die Nachfolger Caravaggios in Holland. Braunschweig, 1988, pp. 13–43. Müller Hofstede, Justus. “Vita Mortalium Vigilia: Die Nachtwache der Eremiten und Gelehrten.” In Frankfurt am Main, Leselust: Niederländische Malerei von Rembrandt bis Vermeer (Catalogue by Sabine Schulze et al.). Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt, 1993, pp. 34–46. Munt, Annette. “The Impact of the Rampjaar on Dutch Golden Age Culture.” Dutch Crossing 21 (1997): 3–51. Murray, Charles Fairfax. Catalogue of the Pictures Belonging to His Grace the Duke of Portland, at Welbeck Abbey, and in London. London, 1894. Myrone, Martin. “Vertue, George (1684–1756).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004. Myrone, Martin. “Society of the Virtuosi of St. Luke.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2007. Naumann, Otto. Frans van Mieris the Elder (1635–1681). 2 vols. Doornspijk, 1981. Naumann, Peter. Keyhole und Candle: John Clelands “Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” und die Entstehung des pornographischen Romans in England. Heidelberg, 1976. Neumeister, Mirjam. Das Nachtstück mit Kunstlicht in der niederländischen Malerei und Graphik des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Petersberg, 2003. Niedner, Carl. “Der sächsische Kabinettsminister Graf August Christoph von Wackerbarth (✝ 1734) und die Königliche Gemäldegalerie in Dresden.” Neues Archiv für Sächsische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 31 (1910): 86–99. Nisser, Wilhelm. Michael Dahl and the Contemporary Swedish School of Painting in England. Uppsala, 1927. Noord, Alex. “‘Terwijl men Beeld en Staf der Majesteiten ziet; de Godsdienst, Vryheid, Recht en Wijsheid rust geniet’: Govert Bidloo (1649–1731) vertrouweling en propagandist van Willem III, stadhouder van de Republiek en koning van Engeland.” Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 39 (2013): 197–219. Noordegraaf, Leo. Hollands welvaren? Levensstandaard in Holland, 1450–1650. Bergen, 1985.

252 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Novikova, Anastassia. “Virtuosity and Declensions of Virtue: Thomas Arundel and Aletheia Talbot Seen by Virtue of a Portrait Pair by Daniel Mytens and a Treatise by Franciscus Junius.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 54 (2003): 309–33. Ogden, Henry V. S., and Margaret S. Ogden. “A Bibliography of Seventeenth-Century Writings on the Pictorial Arts in English.” Art Bulletin 29 (1947): 196–201. Ormrod, David. “The Origins of the London Art Market, 1660–1730.” In Michael North and David Ormrod, eds. Art Markets in Europe, 1400–1800. Aldershot and Brookfield [MA], 1998, pp. 167–86. Ormrod, David. The Rise of Commercial Empires: England and the Netherlands in the Age of Mercantilism, 1650–1770. Cambridge and New York, 2003. Owen, Hugh. The Lowther Family: Eight Hundred Years of “A Family of Ancient Gentry and Worship.” Chichester, 1990. Pace, Claire. “Virtuoso to Connoisseur: Some Seventeenth-Century English Responses to the Visual Arts.” Seventeenth Century 2 (1987): 167–88. Palmer, William Mortlock, ed. Monumental Inscriptions and Coats of Arms from Cambridgeshire. Cambridge, 1932. Paul, Helen Julia. The South Sea Bubble: An Economic History of Its Origins and Consequences. London, 2010. Pearce, E. H. The Sons of the Clergy, 1655–1904. London, 1904. Pears, Iain. The Discovery of Painting: The Growth of Interest in the Arts in England, 1680–1768. New Haven and London, 1988. Peck, Linda Levy. Consuming Splendor: Society and Culture in Seventeenth-Century England. Cambridge and New York, 2005. Pepper, D. Stephen. Guido Reni: A Complete Catalogue of His Works with an Introductory Text. New York, 1984. Pepper, D. Stephen. “A New ‘David with the Head of Goliath’ by Guido Reni.” Burlington Magazine 144 (2002): 429–33. Pol, Lotte C. van de. “Beeld en werkelijkheid van de prostitutie in de zeventiende eeuw.” In Gert Hekma and Herman Roodenburg, eds. Soete minne en helsche boosheit: Seksuele voorstellingen in Nederland 1300–1850. Nijmegen, 1988, pp. 109–44. Pol, Lotte C. van de. “The Whore, the Bawd and the Artist: The Reality and Imagery of Seventeenth-Century Dutch Prostitution.” Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 2, nos. 1–2 (2010). Published electronically. Posner, Donald. Annibale Carracci: A Study in the Reform of Italian Painting around 1590. 2 vols. London, 1971. Power, M. J. “The Social Topography of Restoration London.” In A. L. Beier and Roger Finlay, eds. London 1500–1700: The Making of the Metropolis. London and New York, 1986, pp. 199–223. Prinz, Wolfram. Die Sammlung der Selbstbildnisse in den Uffizien: Geschichte der Sammlung. Berlin, 1971. Prosser, Lee. “Kew Palace: A Seventeenth-Century Villa Rediscovered.” Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society 51 (2007): 7–30. Raines, Robert. Marcellus Laroon. New York and London, 1967. Raines, Robert. “Notes on Egbert van Heemskerck and the English Taste for Genre.” Volume of the Walpole Society 53 (1987): 119–42. Raupp, Hans-Joachim. Untersuchungen zu Künstlerbildnis und Künstlerdarstellung in den Niederlanden im 17. Jahrhundert. Hildesheim and New York, 1984. Rehorst, Chris. “Confrerie Pictura und Haagsche Teekenacademie: Zur Geschichte der Akademie in Den Haag.” In Berlin, Götter und Helden für Berlin: Gemälde und Zeichnungen von Augustin und Matthäus Terwesten (Catalogue by Renate L. Colella et al.). Schloss Charlottenburg, 1995–96, pp. 24–27. Reinke-Williams, Tim. Women, Work and Sociability in Early Modern London. Basingstoke and New York, 2014. Renger, Konrad. “Joos van Winghes ‘Nachtbancket met een Mascarade’ und verwandte Darstellingen.” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 14 (1972): 161–93. Ribeiro, Aileen. Fashion and Fiction: Dress in Art and Literature in Stuart England. New Haven and London, 2005. Roach, J. P. C. A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely, vol. 3: The City and University of Cambridge. London, 1959.

Bibliography

253

Rogers, Malcolm. “John and John Baptist Closterman: A Catalogue of Their Works.” Volume of the Walpole Society 49 (1983): 224–79. Roland, Berthold. “Das letzte Selbstbildnis von Godfried Schalcken.” Die Weltkunst 33, no. 3 (1963): 10–11. Rolfi, Serenella. “Il difetto di lontananza: appunti sui viaggi di Cosimo III de’ Medici nel Nord Europa.” Ricerche di Storia dell’Arte 54 (1994): 53–68. Rosenthal, Lisa. “Manhood and Statehood: Rubens’s Construction of Heroic Virtue.” Oxford Art Journal 16, no. 1 (1993): 92–111. Roy, Alain. Gérard de Lairesse (1640–1711). Paris, 1992. Rutton, W. L. “Two Lord Mayors of London.” Home Counties Magazine 10 (1908): 261–67. S., T. “Sidney or Sydney, Henry.” In Sidney Lee, ed. Dictionary of National Biography. 66 vols. London, 1885–1901, vol. 52, pp. 217–19. Sainty, John. The Judges of England 1272–1990: A List of Judges of the Superior Courts. Oxford, 1993. Salerno, Luigi. “Seventeenth-Century English Literature on Painting.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 14 (1951): 234–58. Saxer, Victor. “Santa Maria Maddalena dalla storia evangelica alla leggenda e all’arte.” In Florence, La Maddalena tra sacro e profano: da Giotto a De Chirico (Catalogue by Marilena Mosco et al.). Palazzo Pitti, 1986, pp. 24–28. Schavemaker, Eddy. “What Hair Can Reveal: Schalcken’s Chronology and Hairstyles as a Dating Aid.” WallrafRichartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016): 43–54. Schiller, Noël. “Desire and Dissimulation: Laughter as an Expressive Behavior in Karel van Mander’s Den grondt der edel vry schilder-const (1604).” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 60 (2010): 83–107. Schindler, Tabea. Arachnes Kunst: Textilhandwerk, Textilien und die Inszenierung des Alltags in der holländischen Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts. Emsdetten and Berlin, 2014. Schnackenburg, Berhard. Jan Lievens: Friend and Rival of the Young Rembrandt, with a Catalogue Raisonné of His Early Leiden Work 1623–1632. Translated by Kristin Lohse Belkin. Petersberg, 2016. Scholz, Horst. “Brouwer Invenit”: Druckgraphische Reproduktionen des 17.–19. Jahrhunderts nach Gemälden und Zeichnungen Adriaen Brouwers. Marburg, 1985. Scott, Hugh Arthur. “London’s First Concert Room.” Music & Letters 18 (1937): 379–90. Seelig, Gero. “Because the Night: Paintings by Schalcken for Schwerin.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016): 187–204. Seidel, Katrin. Die Kerze: Motivgeschichte und Ikonologie. Hildesheim and New York, 1996. Sevcik, Anja K. “Godefridus Schalcken – Aspekte eines (ver)führenden Malers.” In Cologne, Schalcken: Gemalte Verführung (Catalogue by Anja Sevçik et al.). Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, 2015–16, pp. 50–71. Sevcik, Anja K. “Godefridus Schalcken: Neueröffnete Perspektiven auf den Meister gemalter Verführung.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016a): 9–18. Sevcik, Anja K. “‘Zechen, Schwelgen, Prassen’: Schalckens Ceres, Bacchus, Venus und Cupido im zeitgenössischen Kontext.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016b): 81–100. Sframeli, Maria. “‘Consecrated to Eternity by Their Own Hands’: Leopoldo de’ Medici’s Collection of SelfPortraits.” In London, Artists’ Self-Portraits from the Uffizi (Catalogue by Giovanna Giusti et al.). Dulwich Picture Gallery, 2007, pp. 21–33. Shaw, Lindsey Bridget. “Pieter van Roestraten and the English ‘Vanitas’.” Burlington Magazine 132 (1990): 402–6. Shaw, William A., ed. Calendar of Treasury Books … Preserved in the Public Record Office. 32 vols. London, 1904–61. Shepard, Alexandra, and Phil Withington, eds. Communities in Early Modern England: Networks, Place, Rhetoric. Manchester and New York, 2000. Sheppard, F. W. H. Survey of London: Volumes 29 and 30, St James Westminster, Part 1. London, 1960. Shesgreen, Sean, ed. The Criers and Hawkers of London: Engravings and Drawings. Stanford, 1990. Shuger, Debora Kuller. The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1994.

254 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Six, Jan, and Eddy Schavemaker. “Arnold Boonen: Pupil of Godefridus Schalcken.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016): 237–50. Slatkes, Leonard J., and Wayne Franits. The Paintings of Hendrick ter Brugghen 1588–1629: Catalogue Raisonné. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 2007. Sluijter, Eric Jan. “‘Een stuck waerin een juffr. voor de spiegel van Gerrit Douw.’” Antiek 23 (1988): 150–61. Sluijter, Eric Jan. “Didactic and Disguised Meanings? Several Seventeenth-Century Texts on Painting and the Iconological Approach to Dutch Paintings of This Period” [first published in 1988 in Dutch]. In Wayne Franits, ed. Looking at Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art: Realism Reconsidered. Cambridge and New York, 1997, p. 78–87. Sluijter, Eric Jan. “The Painter’s Pride: The Art of Capturing Transience in Self-Portraits from Isaac van Swanenburgh to David Bailly.” In Karl Enenkel, et al., eds. Modelling the Individual: Biography and Portrait in the Renaissance. Amsterdam and Atlanta, 1998a, pp. 173–96. Sluijter, Eric Jan. “Vermeer, Fame, and Female Beauty: The Art of Painting.” In Ivan Gaskell and Michiel Jonker, eds. Vermeer Studies, Washington, DC, 1998b, pp. 265–83. Sluijter, Eric Jan. “On Fijnschilders and Meaning” [1991]. In Idem, Seductress of Sight: Studies in Dutch Art of the Golden Age. Translated by Katy Kist and Jennifer Kilian. Zwolle, 2000a, pp. 264–95. Sluijter, Eric Jan. “In Praise of the Art of Painting: On Paintings by Gerrit Dou and a Treatise by Philips Angel of 1642.” Seductress of Sight; Studies in Dutch Art of the Golden Age. Translated by Katy Kist and Jennifer Kilian. Zwolle, 2000b, pp. 198–263. Sluijter, Eric Jan. Rembrandt and the Female Nude. Amsterdam, 2006. Smith, David L. “Stuart, James, Fourth Duke of Lennox and First Duke of Richmond (1612–1655).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004. Smith, Steven R. “The London Apprentices as Seventeenth-Century Adolescents.” Past & Present 61 (1973): 149–61. Smuts, R. Malcolm. “The Court and Its Neighborhood: Royal Policy and Urban Growth in the Early Stuart West End.” Journal of British Studies 30 (1991): 117–49. Smuts, R. Malcolm. “Howard, Thomas, Fourteenth Earl of Arundel, Fourth Earl of Surrey, and First Earl of Norfolk (1585–1646).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004. Soltow, Lee, and Jan Luiten van Zanden. Income and Wealth Inequality in the Netherlands 16th–20th Century. Amsterdam, 1998. Spear, Richard. The “Divine” Guido: Religion, Sex, Money and Art in the World of Guido Reni. New Haven and London, 1997. Speck, W. A. “Spencer, Robert, Second Earl of Sutherland (1641–1702).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004. Spence, Craig. London in the 1690s: A Social Atlas. London, 2000. Spinelli, Riccardo. “Cosimo III, Giovan Battista Foggini e l’introduzione dei cistercensi riformati della Trappa alla Badia del Buonsollazzo.” In Franco Angiolini, et al., eds. La Toscana nell’età di Cosimo III: atti del convegno Pisa-San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) 4–5 giugno 1990. Florence, 1993, pp. 377–87. Spinelli, Riccardo. “Carlo Dolci e i Medici: riflessioni e appunti sulla committenza e sul collezionismo granducali.” In Florence, Carlo Dolci 1616–1687 (Catalogue by Sandro Bellesi et al.). Palazzo Pitti, 2015, pp. 67–83. Staring, A. “Portretten van den Koning-Stadhouder.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 3 (1950–51): 151–96. Steen, Jasper van der. “‘This Nation Was Not Made for Me’: William III’s Introduction to Etiquette, Ritual and Ceremony at the English Court, 1688–1691.” Dutch Crossing 33 (2009): 121–34. Stewart, Alison G. Unequal Lovers: A Study of Unequal Couples in Northern Art. New York, 1977. Stewart, J. Douglas. “Records of Payment to Sir Godfrey Kneller and His Contemporaries.” Burlington Magazine 113 (1971): 30–33. Stewart, J. Douglas. Sir Godfrey Kneller and the English Baroque Portrait. Oxford, 1983. Stone, Lawrence. “The Residential Development of the West End of London in the Seventeenth Century.” In B. C. Malament, ed. After the Reformation: Essays in Honor of J. H. Hexter. Philadelphia, 1980, pp. 167–212. Swartley, Stanley Simpson. The Life and Poetry of John Cutts. Philadelphia, 1917.

Bibliography

255

Talley, M. Kirby. “‘Small, Usuall, and Vulgar Things’: Still-Life Painting in England 1635–1760.” Volume of the Walpole Society 49 (1983): 133–223. Taylor, Paul. Dutch Flower Painting 1600–1720. New Haven and London, 1995. Taylor, Paul. “Verelst, Simon Pieterszoon.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Published electronically, 2004. Thomas, Keith. Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England, 1500–1800. London, 1983. Thompson, Roger. Unfit for Modest Ears: A Study of Pornographic, Obscene, and Bawdy Works Written or Published in England in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century. Totawa, 1979. Thornbury, Walter, and Edward Walford. Old and New London: A Narrative of Its History, Its People and Its Places. 6 vols. London, 1887–93. Tilmouth, Michael. “Some Early London Concerts and Music Clubs, 1670–1720.” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 84th Sess. (1957–58): 13–26. Tilmouth, Michael. “Calendar of References to Music in Newspapers Published in London and the Provinces (1660–1719).” R. M. A. Research Chronicle 1 (1961): ii–vii, 1–107. Timmermans, Bert. Patronen van patronage in het zeventiende-eeuwse Antwerpen: een elite als actor binnen een kunstwereld. Amsterdam, 2008. Tomalin, Claire. Samuel Pepys: The Unequalled Self. 1st pbk. edn. London, 2003. Toulalan, Sarah. Imaging Sex: Pornography and Bodies in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford and New York, 2007. Tummers, Anna. The Eye of the Connoisseur: Authenticating Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries. Amsterdam, 2011. Turner, James Grantham. Schooling Sex. Libertine Literature and Erotic Education in Italy, France, and England 1534–1685. Oxford and New York, 2003. Turner, James Grantham. “Francesco Maria Niccolò Gabburri's ‘Portrait of Bartholomeus Spranger’ in the Rijksmuseum.” Master Drawings 53 (2015): 485–96. Turner, Nicholas. “The Gabburri/Rogers Series of Drawn Self-Portraits and Portraits of Artists.” Journal of the History of Collections 5 (1993): 179–216. Turpin, Adriana. “Furnishing the London Merchant’s Town House.” In Mireille Galinou, ed. City Merchants and the Arts 1670–1720. London, 2004, pp. 55–67. Veen, Jaap van der. “By His Own Hand: The Valuation of Autograph Paintings in the 17th Century.” In Ernst van de Wetering, ed. A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 4. Dordrecht, 2005, pp. 3–43. Veen, Henk T. van. “A Schalcken for Prince Ferdinando de’ Medici.” Mercury 5 (1987): 49–52. Veen, Henk T. van. “Cosimo de’ Medici’s reis naar de Republiek in een nieuw perspectief.” Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 102 (1989): 44–52. Veen, Henk Th. van, and Andrew P. McCormick. Tuscany and the Low Countries: An Introduction to the Sources and Inventory of Four Florentine Libraries. Florence, 1984. Velde, C. van de. “Hercules en Antaeus, een teruggevonden schilderij van Frans Floris.” In J. Bruyn, et al., eds. Album Amicorum J. G. van Gelder. The Hague, 1973, pp. 333–36. Velde, C. van de. Frans Floris (1519/20–1570): leven en werken. 2 vols. Brussels, 1975. Veldman, Ilja M. Profit and Pleasure: Print Books by Crispijn de Passe. Rotterdam, 2001. Veth, G. H. “Aanteekeningen omtrent eenige Dordrechtsche schilders xxxii: Godefridus Schalcken.” Oud Holland 10 (1892): 1–16. Vickers, Michael. The Arundel and Pomfret Marbles in Oxford. Oxford, 2006. Vries, Jan de. “Art History.” In David Freedberg and Jan de Vries, eds. Art in History, History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture. Santa Monica, 1991, pp. 249–82. Vries, Jan de, and Ad van der Woude. The First Modern Economy: Stress, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815. Cambridge and New York, 1997. Vries, L. de. “‘The Felicitous Age of Painting’: Eighteenth-Century Views of Dutch Art in the Golden Age.” In Frans Grijzenhout and Henk van Veen, eds. The Golden Age of Dutch Painting in Historical Perspective. Cambridge and New York, 1999, pp. 29–43. Vries, L. de. How to Create Beauty: De Lairesse on the Theory and Practice of Making Art. Leiden, 2011.

256 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

Wagenaar, Lodewijk, ed. Een Toscaanse prins bezoekt Nederland: de twee reizen van Cosimo de’ Medici 1667–1669. Translated by Bertie Eringa. Amsterdam, 2014. Wahrman, Dror. Mr. Collier’s Letter Racks: A Tale of Art and Illusion at the Threshold of the Modern Information Age. Oxford, 2012. Waterhouse, Ellis. “British Collections and Dutch Art.” Museums Journal 56 (1956): 137–45. Weber, Gregor J. M. Der Lobtopos des “lebenden” Bildes: Jan Vos und sein “Zeege der schilderkunst” von 1654. Hildesheim, 1991. Weichel, Eric. “‘Not Only Increase but Embellish the Collection’: Political Satire and Lady Hervey’s Imaginary Pictures.” Court Historian 20 (2015): 25–42. West, Susie. “Penshurst Place and Leicester House.” In Margaret P. Hannay, et al., eds. Ashgate Research Companion to The Sidneys, 1500–1700. 2 vols. Aldershot and Burlington [VT], 2015, vol. 1, pp. 281–95. Weststeijn, Thijs. The Visible World: Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Art Theory and the Legitimation of Painting in the Dutch Golden Age. Amsterdam, 2008. Weststeijn, Thijs. Art and Antiquity in the Netherlands and Britain: The Vernacular Arcadia of Franciscus Junius (1591–1677). Leiden and Boston, 2015. Wetering, Ernst van de. “The Multiple Functions of Rembrandt’s Self Portraits.” In London, Rembrandt by Himself (Catalogue by Christopher White et al.). The National Gallery, 1999, pp. 8–37. Wetering, Ernst van de. Rembrandt: The Painter at Work. Revised edn. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2009. Whitaker, Katie. “The Culture of Curiosity.” In N. Jardine, et al., eds. Cultures of Natural History. Cambridge and New York, 1996, pp. 75–90. Whyman, Susan E. Sociability and Power in Late Stuart England: The Cultural Worlds of the Verneys 1660–1720. Oxford, 1999. Wieseman, Marjorie E. Caspar Netscher and Late Seventeenth-Century Dutch Painting. Doornspijk, 2002. Wieseman, Marjorie E. “Paper Trails: Drawings in the Work of Caspar Netscher and His Studio.” In Volker Manuth and Axel Rüger, eds. Collected Opinions: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Honour of Alfred Bader. London, 2004, pp. 248–61. Wieseman, Marjorie E. “Savvy and Stylish: Godefridus Schalcken and the Business of Portraits.” WallrafRichartz-Jahrbuch 77 (2016): 55–70. Willigen, Adriaan van der, and Fred G. Meijer. A Dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-Life Painters Working in Oils, 1525–1725. Leiden, 2003. Winkel, Marieke de. Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings. Amsterdam, 2006. Wood, Christopher S. “‘Curious Pictures’ and the Art of Description.” Word & Image 11 (1995): 332–52. Woodall, Joanna. Anthonis Mor: Art and Authority. Zwolle, 2007. Woods-Marsden, Joanna. Renaissance Self-Portraiture: The Visual Construction of Identity and the Social Status of the Artist. New Haven and London, 1998. Wuestman, Gerdien. “The Mezzotint in Holland: ‘Easily Learned, Neat and Convenient.’” Simiolus 23 (1995): 63–89. Wuestman, Gerdien. “De Hollandse schilderschool in prent: studies naar reproduktiegrafiek in de tweede helft van de zeventiende eeuw.” PhD diss., University of Utrecht, 1998. Yalcin, Fatma. “Van Hoogstraten’s Success in Britain.” In Thijs Weststeijn, ed. The Universal Art of Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627–1678): Painter, Writer, and Courtier. Translated by Beverley Jackson and Lynne Richards. Amsterdam, 2013, pp. 161–81. Žakula, Tijana. “Reforming Dutch Art: Gerard de Lairesse on Beauty, Morals and Class.” Simiolus 37 (2013–14): 7–142. Zaunschirm, Thomas. “Affe und Papagei–Mimensis und Sprache in der Kunst.” Kunsthistoriker 2 (1985): 14–17.

Exhibition catalogues

Amsterdam. Tot lering en vermaak: betekenissen van Hollandse genrevoorstellingen uit de zeventiende eeuw (Catalogue by Eddy de Jongh et al.). Rijksmuseum, 1976.

Bibliography

257

Amsterdam. Mirror of Everyday Life: Genreprints in the Netherlands 1550–1700 (Catalogue by Eddy de Jongh and Ger Luijten). Rijksmuseum, 1997. Amsterdam. Anthony van Dyck as a Printmaker (Catalogue by Carl Depauw et al.). Rijksmuseum, 1999–2000. Baltimore. Catalogue of Paintings, Engravings, &c., &c., at the Picture Gallery of the Maryland Historical Society: First Annual Exhibition. Maryland Historical Society, 1848. Baltimore. Catalogue of Paintings, Engravings, &c., &c., at the Picture Gallery of the Maryland Historical Society: Fifth Annual Exhibition. Maryland Historical Society, 1855. Baltimore. Rendezvous for Taste. Peale Museum, 1956. Bologna. Annibale Carracci (Catalogue by Daneile Benati et al.). Museo Civico Archeologico, 2006–7. Boston. Catalogue of the Second Exhibition of Paintings in the Athenaeum Gallery Consisting of Specimens by American Artists and a Selection from the Works of the Old Masters. Athenaeum, 1828. Braunschweig. Selbstbildnisse und Künstlerporträts von Lucas van Leyden bis Anton Raphael Mengs (Catalogue by Rüdiger Klessmann). Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, 1980. Cologne. Schalcken: Gemalte Verführung (Catalogue by Anja Sevçik et al.). Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, 2015–16. Dordrecht. Greek Gods and Heroes in the Age of Rubens and Rembrandt (Catalogue by Sander Paarlberg et al). Dordrechts Museum, 2001. Dordrecht. Portret in portret in de Nederlandse kunst 1550–2012 (Catalogue by Annette de Vries et al.). Dordrechts Museum, 2012–13. Enschede. Nicolaas Verkolje 1673–1746: de fluwelen hand (Catalogue by Paul Knolle et al.). Rijksmuseum Twenthe, 2011. Florence. La Maddalena tra sacro e profano: da Giotto a De Chirico (Catalogue by Marilena Mosco et al.). Palazzo Pitti, 1986. Florence. Carlo Dolci 1616–1687 (Catalogue by Sandro Bellesi et al.). Palazzo Pitti, 2015. Haarlem. Portretten van echt en trouw: huwelijk en gezin in de Nederlandse kunst van de zeventiende eeuw (Catalogue by Eddy de Jongh). Frans Hals Museum, 1986. Haarlem. Pride and Joy: Children’s Portraits in the Netherlands 1500–1700 (Catalogue by Jan Baptist Bedaux et al.). Frans Hals Museum, 2000. Hagerstown [MD]. Portraits through the Ages. Washington County Museum of Fine Arts, 1963. Houston. A Portrait of the Artist, 1525–1825: Prints from the Collection of the Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation (Catalogue by James Clifton et al.). The Museum of Fine Arts, 2005. Leamington Spa. Re-opening Exhibition of Oil Paintings … from the Cook Collection. Royal Leamington Spa Art Gallery, 1947. Leeds. National Exhibition of Works of Art. General Infirmary Building, 1868. Leeds. Dutch Seventeenth Century Paintings from Yorkshire Public Collections (Catalogue by Alexander Robertson and Christopher Wright). Leeds City Art Gallery, 1982–83. Liverpool. Face to Face: Three Centuries of Artists’ Self-Portraiture (Catalogue by Xanthe Brooke). Walker Art Gallery, 1994–95. London. Dutch Pictures 1450–1750. 2 vols. Royal Academy of Arts, 1952–53. London. Sir Peter Lely, 1618–80 (Catalogue by Oliver Millar). 15 Carlton House Terrace, 1978–79. London. Dutch and Flemish 16th and 17th Century Paintings from the Shipley Collection (Catalogue by Christopher Wright). Alan Jacobs Gallery, 1979. London. Mr. Cartwright’s Pictures: A Seventeenth Century Collection (Catalogue by Giles Waterfield et al.). Dulwich Picture Gallery, 1987–88. London. The Portrait in British Art: Masterpieces Bought with the Help of the National Art Collections Fund (Catalogue by John T. Hayes). National Portrait Gallery, 1991–92. London. German Renaissance Prints, 1490–1550 (Catalogue by Giulia Bartrum). The British Museum, 1995. London. Art Treasures of England: The Regional Collections (Catalogue by Jane Martineau et al.). Royal Academy of Arts, 1998a. London. The Print in Stuart Britain 1603–1689 (Catalogue by Antony Griffiths and Robert A. Gerard). The British Museum, 1998b. London. Rembrandt by Himself (Catalogue by Christopher White et al.). The National Gallery, 1999.

258 

GODEFRIDUS SCHALCKEN

London. Painted Ladies: Women at the Court of Charles II (Catalogue by Catherine MacLeod et al.). National Portrait Gallery, 2001–2. London. Dutch and Flemish Old Master Paintings (Catalogue by Meredith Hale et al.). Johnny van Haeften, 2002. London. Self Portrait: Renaissance to Contemporary (Catalogue by Anthony Bond et al.). National Portrait Gallery, 2005. London. Making History: Antiquaries in Britain 1707–2007 (Catalogue by David R. M. Gaimster et al.). Royal Academy of Arts, 2007. London. Van Dyck and Britain (Catalogue by Karen Hearn et al.). Tate Britain, 2009a. London. Peter Lely: A Lyrical Vision (Catalogue by Caroline Campbell et al.). The Courtauld Gallery, 2012–13. London. Drawn from the Antique: Artists and the Classical Ideal (Catalogue by Adriano Aymonino et al.). Sir John Soane’s Museum, 2015a. Memphis. Scottish Treasures: Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Scotland (Catalogue by J. Lloyd Williams). Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, 2001. Munich. Adriaen Brouwer und das niederländische Bauerngenre 1600–1660 (Catalogue by Konrad Renger). Alte Pinakothek, 1986. Munich. Die Nacht (Catalogue by Hubertus Gaßner et al.). Haus der Kunst, 1998–99. New York. Vermeer and the Delft School (Catalogue by Walter Liedtke, et al.). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2001. New York. El Greco (Catalogue by David Davies et al.). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003–4. Rome. Pietro da Cortona 1597–1669 (Catalogue by Anna Lo Bianco et al.). Palazzo Venezia, 1997–98. Stockholm. Holländska mästare i svensk ägo (Catalogue by Pontus Grate). Nationalmuseum, 1967. The Hague. Paintings from England: William III and the Royal Collections (Catalogue by Ben Broos et al.). Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis, 1988–89. The Hague. Dutch Self-Portraits of the Golden Age (Catalogue by Ariane van Suchtelen). Mauritshuis, 2015–16. Toulouse. Antonio Verrio: chroniques d’un peintre italien voyageur (1636–1707) (Catalogue by Lucio Galante et al.). Musée des Augustins, 2010. Turin. Mostra di “scene di genere”: opere di maestri olandesi e fiamminghi del XVII secolo. Galleria Giorgio Caretto, 1970. Turin. Le raccolte del principe Eugenio condottiero e intellettuale: collezionismo tra Vienna, Parigi e Torino nel prino Settecento (Catalogue by Carla Enrica Spantigati et al.). La Venaria Reale, Sale delle Arti, 2012. Washington, DC. The Age of William III and Mary II: Power, Politics and Patronage 1688–1702 (Catalogue by Robert P. Maccubbin et al.). The Folger Shakespeare Library, 1989. Washington, DC. Fortune: “All Is but Fortune” (Catalogue by Leslie Thomson et al.). The Folger Shakespeare Library, 2000a. Washington, DC. Gerrit Dou 1613–1675 (Catalogue by Ronni Baer et al.). National Gallery of Art, 2000b. Wellesley [MA]. The Medici’s Painter: Carlo Dolci and 17th-Century Florence (Catalogue by Francesca Baldassari et al.). Davis Museum, 2017.

Catalogues of institutional and private permanent collections

Amsterdam. Catalogue of Paintings: Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. (Catalogue by B. Haak et al.). Rijksmuseum, 1960. Boston. European Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Catalogue by Alexandra R. Murphy). Museum of Fine Arts, 1985. Dresden. Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister: Illustriertes Gesamtverzeichnis. 2 vols. (Catalogue by Harald Marx and Elisabeth Hipp). Cologne, 2005. Florence. Gallerie e musei statali di Firenze: i dipinti Olandesi del seicento e del settecento (Catalogue by Marco Chiarini). Rome, 1989. Florence. Die Selbstbildnisse der holländischen und flämischen Künstler in der Galleria degli Autoritratti der Uffizien in Florenz (Catalogue by Karla Langedijk). Galleria degli Uffizi, 1992.

Bibliography

259

Frankfurt am Main. Holländische Gemälde im Städel Museum 1550–1800, vol. 3: Künstler geboren nach 1630 (Catalogue by Mirjam Neumeister). Städel Museum, 2010. Kassel. Gesamtkatalog Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister Kassel. 2 vols. (Catalogue by Bernhard Schnackenburg). Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, 1996. London. Kenwood: Paintings in the Iveagh Bequest (Catalogue by Julius Bryant). Kenwood, 2003. London. National Portrait Gallery: Later Stuart Portraits 1685–1714 (Catalogue by John Ingamells). London, 2009b. London. Dutch Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen. 2nd edn. (Catalogue by Christopher White). London, 2015b. New York. The Leiden Collection (Catalogue by Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. et al.). The Leiden Collection, 2017. Published electronically. Oxford. The Ashmolean Museum Oxford: The Collection of Dutch and Flemish Still-Life Paintings Bequeathed by Daisy Linda Ward (Catalogue by Fred G. Meijer). The Ashmolean Museum, 2003. Schwerin. Holländische und flämische Maleri des 17. Jahrhunderts (Catalogue by Lisa Jürß). Staatliches Museum Schwerin, 1982. Stockholm. The Stockholm University Collection of Paintings. (Catalogue by Sten Karling). Stockholm University, 1978. Stockholm. Dutch and Flemish Paintings II: Dutch Paintings c. 1600–c. 1800 (Catalogue by Görel CavalliBjörkman). Nationalmuseum, 2005. The Hague. Meesterwerken in het Mauritshuis (Catalogue by Ben Broos). Mauritshuis, 1987. Vienna. Caravaggio und der internationale Caravaggismus (Catalogue by Wolfgang Prohaska and Gudrun Swoboda et al.). Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2010.

Index References to illustrations are in bold. References with a ‘c’ after them indicate a detailed description of the work in the critical catalogue on pages 157–82.

Acton, John  career 47, 48 portrait 48, 48–9, 161c  wealth 196n68 Acton, Margaret, portrait 47, 49  Aglionby, William Painting Illustrated in Three Diallogues  94–5, 116  on history painting 129 Anne, Queen of England 31 Anon., Penitent Magdalen 142  Antiphilus 115 art album, Griffiths 140 art market  London 125 Netherlands, 17th century 17 artists, as virtuosi 94–5, 211n44 auction sales  catalogues 107, 219n3 target audiences 220n10 Augustus II the Strong, Elector of Saxony 108 Badir, Patricia 145 Banister family 44 Banister III, John  musicianship 44 portraits 43, 44, 168c, 169c  Bassano, Leandro 130 Triumph of Charles V 55  Bassetti, Apollonio 24, 77, 79, 80, 86, 145, 154 Beherman, Thierry 15, 22, 98, 121, 124, 133, 138 Blount, Thomas 84 Bogdani, Jacob, career 146 Bol, Ferdinand, Self-Portrait 91  column motif 90, 91  Boone, Daniel 111 Bray, Jan de, Portrait of Abraham de Casteleyn and His Wife, Magarieta van Bancken 50  brothel imagery 112, 118  Utrecht Caravaggisti 118 Brouwer, Adriaen  Clowns Fighting 55  Smoking Peasants in an Interior 125, 126  Bruggen, Jan van der 17–18 Smokers (after Brouwer) 125, 126  Brugghen, Hendrick ter 115 Brusati, Celeste 19, 84 Bry, Theodor de, Emblemata 135  Buckeridge, Bainbrigg 111, 130 Bullord, John, auctioneer 107 Burghley House, Lincolnshire 130

candle, as symbol of enlightenment 95 candlelight motif 26–7, 29, 76, 153, 154 A Young Man Courting His Mistress (Schalcken) 117, 180c  allusion to virtue 75, 76  Ceres with a Torch Searching for Persephone (Schalcken) 137, 155, 170c  criticisms of 75, 89 Portrait of James Stuart (Schalcken) 65, 162–3c  Portrait of John Acton (Schalcken) 48, 161c  Portrait of William III (Schalcken) 70, 73–4, 75, 164–5c  Portrait of a Young Musician (Schalcken) (oil) 43, 43, 168c  Portrait of a Young Musician (Schalcken) (pen and ink) 43–4, 44, 168c  Self-Portrait (1694; Washington Co. Museum) (Schalcken) 88–9, 89, 154, 157–8c  Self-Portrait (1695; Leamington Spa Gallery) (Schalcken) 95, 96, 102, 154, 159–60c  Self-Portrait (1695; Uffizi Gallery) (Schalcken) 78, 80, 158–9c  Self-Portrait (Schenck after Smith, after Schalcken) 87, 88, 95, 158c  Self-Portrait (Smith after Schalcken) 87, 87  There’s No Accounting for Tastes (Schalcken) 124, 124–5, 173–4c  Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle (Schalcken) 120, 121, 172–3c  Young Woman with a Headdress Holding a Candle (Schalcken) 119, 172c  Caravaggio 114–15 Carracci, Annibale 130 St. Sebastian 55  Castiglione, Baldassare, Cortegiano 84  Castro, Laureys a 111 Catherine of Braganza, consort of Charles II 39, 131 Cats, Jacob, Maeghde-Wapen (Houwelyck, Marriage) 59–60, 60  parrot motif 60  Cavendish, Anne, Lady, Countess of Exeter 130 Cecil, John, 5th Earl of Exeter 130 Charles I, King of England 30 Charles II, King of England 38, 114, 131 Clarke, Anne 37 Clarke, Elizabeth 40 Clarke, William  inventory of house 38–9 last will and testament 37–8 Closterman, John 27–8, 93 career 31

262  clientele 31 Portrait of John Poulet, 1st Earl Poulet 32  Cockaigne 18 A Collection of letters for the Improvement of Husbandry & Trade 19, 20, 21, 29–30, 130, 145, 146  column motif  and character 90 Self-Portrait (Bol) 90, 91  Confrerie painter’s society, Schalcken’s membership 18, 68, 69 Cook, Nicole Elizabeth 25, 120 on Schalcken 120–1 Cooke, Henry 130 frontispiece for Dryden’s translation of De arte graphica 94, 131  Cooper, Anthony Ashley, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury 29 Cooper, Edward, Penitent Magdalen (after Reni) 143  Corporation of the Sons of Clergy 45 Corsini, Filippo 77 Cortona, Pietro da  A Passage through the Red Sea 55  The Israelites Crossing the Red Sea 130  curtain motif 82, 210n39 Self-Portrait (Schalcken) 78, 96  The Night School (Dou) 83  Cutler, Elizabeth 138 Cutts, John, Baron 47 Dahl, Michael 28, 93 career 31 painting style 31 Portrait of Lady Mary Somerset, Duchess of Ormond 33  detail 62  Schalcken, comparison 61 Descamps, Jean-Baptiste  biography of Schalcken 28 La vie des peintres flamands, allemands et hollandois 74  on Schalcken’s painting 28, 128 on Schalcken’s Portrait of William III 74–5  Diemen, Françoisia (Françoise) van (Schalcken’s wife) 22 miniature portrait 166c, 167  Dolci, Carlo 78 St. Jerome 24  Dormer, Charles, 2nd Earl of Carnarvon 131 Dou, Gerrit (Schalcken’s teacher) 15, 62, 153, 184n25 Astronomer by Candlelight 16  Self-Portrait 101  The Night School 83  drolleries 107, 220n8 Drury, Richard 40 Dryden, John, De arte graphica, translation 90, 94, 131, 149 Duccio 94 Dufresnoy, Charles Alfred, De arte graphica  90, 129, 149  Dryden’s translation 90, 94, 131, 149 Dujardin, Karel, Allegory of Fortune 136, 136  Dürer, Albrecht, Nemesis 135  Dutch Chapel Royal, London 22

Index

Dyck, Anthony van 30 airy style 25–6, 61–2 fountain motif 58–9 Portrait of James Stuart, Duke of Lennox and Richmond 66  Self-Portrait 86  slashed doublet motif 85 Van Dyck-type pose 84, 85, 86, 103, 154  as virtuoso 84 Dyves, Annabella (Lady Howard), portrait 42  ekphrasis tradition 115 El Greco, Boy Blowing on a Fire Brand 115  Elsum, John, poem about Schalcken’s Boy Blowing on a Firebrand 114  eroticism 120, 120, 141, 144  Evelyn, John 20, 93 Eythorp House 131 Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor 84 fijnschilder tradition see Leiden School of fijnschilders  Flinck, Govert 141 Floris, Frans, Hercules and Antaeus 55  Fortune (Fortuna)  Allegory of Fortune (Dujardin) 136  Allegory of Fortune (Schalcken) 134  Allegory of Fortune (Williams after Schalcken) 135  Nemesis (Dürer) 135 fountain motif 58, 58–9, 59  Portrait of Helena Catharina de Witte (Netscher) 59  Portrait of Mary Wentworth née Lowther (Schalcken) 58  Gandy, William 64 genre painters 110–11, 116 genre paintings  Bruggen, Jan van der, Smokers (after Brouwer) 125, 126  Glover, George, Avaritia 123  Heemskerck, Egbert van, Peasant Inn 111  Honthorst, Gerrit van, Boy Blowing on a Firebrand 115, 115  Laroon, Marcellus, the Elder 28 Brothel Scene 112  Schalcken, Godefridus 34, 107 A Maid with Eggs 108, 110, 221n21  A Woman and Her Dog 108, 109  A Young Man Courting His Mistress 117, 180c  Boy Blowing on a Firebrand 113, 170–1c  Every One His Fancy 121–3, 122, 155, 173c  There’s No Accounting for Tastes 124, 124, 173–4c  Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle 120, 172c  Young Woman with a Headdress Holding a Candle 119, 172c  Young Woman with a Waffle 127, 171–2c  Verkolje, Nicolaas, Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle (after Schalcken) 121, 121, 173c  Gentileschi, Orazio, Penitent Magdalen 142  Giraldi, Jacopo 86–7 The Glorious Revolution (1688) 18

263

Index

Glover, George  Avaritia 123  pince-nez motif 123 gold chain  Self-Portrait (Schalcken) 96, 104, 154, 217n111  significance of award 96–7 Gool, Jan van 17 Grafton, Duke of (Charles Fitzroy?), portrait (lost) 176c, 201n17 Graham, Richard 94, 149–50 A Man Offering a Woman a Ring (Schalcken) 118 art collection 117–18 grapes motif 60–1, 82, 149, 150  Great Fire of London 40 Grebber, Pieter de 109 Griffiths, Antony, mezzotint album 140, 191n6, 206n92, 209n22, 232n28 Guasconi, Giovacchino 77 Hanson, Craig Ashley 94, 129 Haskins, Susan 141 Hearth Tax 38 Hecht, Peter 75, 149 Heemskerck, Egbert van  career 109–10 genre paintings 110 Peasant Inn 111  Hennin, Adriaen de 131 Henrietta Maria 30 Herbert, Thomas 55, 130 history painters 131 Italian masters 130 history paintings 94 Aglionby on 129 Cooper, Edward (after Reni), Penitent Magdalen 143  Dujardin, Karel, Allegory of Fortune 136  Lairesse, Gerard de, Ceres Searching for Persephone (etching) 139  Schalcken, Godefridus 34, 132–3 Narcissus 133  Allegory of Fortune 134  Ceres with a Torch (Searching for Persephone) 137, 170c  Penitent Magdalen (c.1693) 140, 140, 164c  Penitent Magdalen (c.1685-93) 142–3, 144, 177c  Smith, John (after Schalcken), Penitent Magdalen (mezzotint) 81, 81–2, 139–41, 164c Smith, John (after Smits), Penitent Magdalen (mezzotint) 132  Sir John Lowther’s collection 130 Williams, Robert (after Schalcken), Allegory of Fortune (mezzotint) 135  Hofstede de Groot, Cornelis 123 Honthorst, Gerrit van, Boy Blowing on a Firebrand 115, 115  Hoogstraten, Samuel van 15, 19, 83, 90 Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst 18–19  Houbraken, Arnold 17 biography of Schalcken 25 on Schalcken’s drawing ability 99 on Schalcken’s style 25, 26, 61–2 on Schalcken’s use of light 121

Howard, Alethea, Countess of Arundel 91 Howard, Henry, 6th Duke of Norfolk 116 Howard, Thomas, 14th Earl of Arundel 91 portrait 92, 116  statue collection 91–2 as virtuoso 93 Huls, William van, art collection 108 Huygens, Constantijn Jr. 120 Huysmans, Jacob 131 illusionism 83–4, 147, 147  Isaac, Peter 120 James II, King of England 39, 114 Jansen, Guido 118 Jermyn Street, London 66 Jones, Inigo 40 Jongh, Eddy de 90 Junius, Franciscus 93 Painting of the Ancients 116  Junod, Karen 26 Karst, Sander 18, 19, 97 Kneller, Godfrey, Sir 27, 153 fees 57 painting style 31, 41 Portrait of Annabella Dyves, Lady Howard 42  Portrait of Charles Beauclerk, Duke of St. Albans 30  Portrait of William III in His Robes of State 71  Principal Painter to the King 57 Schalcken, comparison 61 Knyff, Leonard 185n39 Koerner, Joseph Leo 100 Koslofsky, Craig 116, 117 Kynnesman, Anne (née Clarke) 39 portrait (lost) 38, 40, 41, 42, 176c  Kynnesman, Francis  clients 39 house inventory 40, 41  last will and testament 39 royal hosier 39 wealth 40 La Tour, Georges de 115 Lairesse, Gerard de  Ceres Searching for Persephone 138–9, 139  Groot schilderboeck 29  on painting style 29 Laroon, Marcellus, the Elder 28 Brothel Scene 112  Leicester House (London) 66 art collection, inventory 67 Leiden School of fijnschilders 15, 25, 61  Lely, Peter 30, 41, 59 Lemens, Balthazar van 131 Levett, Mary, Dame, last will and testament  46–7 Levett, Richard, Sir  art collection 46–7 portrait 46, 162c, 195n51  Lievens, Jan 115

264  light, as metaphor 89–90 see also candlelight motif  London  art market 125 Dutch Chapel Royal 22 Great Fire 40 Jermyn Street 66 New Exchange 40 nocturnalization 116 nightlife 116–17 population 19, 184n28 street lighting 116 Villiers Street 45 see also York Buildings (London)  London Gazette 45  Louis XIV, invasion of the Netherlands 17 Lowther Hall 55, 198n3, 200n13 paintings in 57 Lowther, John, Sir, 2nd Baronet/1st Viscount Lonsdale 112 art collection 55, 153 catalogue 55, 56, 130  history paintings 130 art patronage 33–4 career 55 portrait (lost) 175–6c Lowther, Katharine, Lady (née Thynne) 57 portrait (lost) 176c luchtvaardig, meaning 25, 61–2 Luttrell, Narcissus 107 Lydius, Jacobus (Schalcken’s uncle) 18 Mander, Karel van 83 Manners, John, 2nd Duke of Rutland 118 Mary II, Queen of England 39, 67 Mary Magdalen  in art and literature 139, 141 embroidery of 142  Penitent Magdalen (Anon.) 142  Penitent Magdalen (Cooper after Reni) 143  Penitent Magdalen (Gentileschi) 142 Penitent Magdalen (Schalcken) 140, 144, 164c, 177c  Penitent Magdalen (Smith after Schalcken) 81  Penitent Magdalen (Smith after Smits) 132  verse about 141, 145 Medici, Cardinal Leopoldo de’ 77 Medici, Cosimo III de’, Grand Duke of Tuscany 24, 145 self-portraits collection 77, 140 Medici, Leopoldo de’, Cardinal 77 mezzotints   album 140, 191n6, 206n92, 209n22, 232n28 Allegory of Fortune (Williams after Schalcken) 135, 135  Penitent Magdalen (Cooper after Reni) 143  Penitent Magdalen (Smith after Schalcken) 81, 81, 164c  Penitent Magdalen (Smith after Smits) 131, 132  Portrait of Anne Kynnesman (Smith after Schalcken) 38, 39, 41, 53, 176c  Portrait of William III (Smith after Kneller) 72, 72  Self-Portrait (Schenck after Smith, after Schalcken) 88, 89, 158c  Self-Portrait (Smith after Schalcken) 87, 158c 

Index

Smokers (Bruggen after Brouwer) 126  Woman Sleeping by Candlelight (Smith and Schenck) 177c Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle (Verkolje after Schalcken) 121, 173c  Mieris, Frans van, the Elder 77–8, 118 Self-Portrait of the Artist Holding a Small Painting 79  Mieris, Willem van 29 Mijtens, Daniel Portrait of Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel 92  Mijtens, Jan  Portrait of Wolfert van Brederode 69  Millington, Edward, auctioneer 107, 210n26 Moor, Carel de 99, 108, 228n96 Morris, Richard 108 Muller, Jeffrey M. 25 narrative, use by Schalcken 138 Nason, Pieter 68 Naumann, Otto 77 Neer, Eglon van der 29 neighborhoods, and communal self-identity 53 Netherlands  art market, 17th century 17 invasion by Louis XIV 17 Netscher, Caspar 59 Portrait of Helena Catharina de Witte 59  New Exchange, London 40 night, illicit ambience 120 nightlife, London 116–17 Nine Year’s War (1688-97) 21, 48 nocturnalization, London 116 Norris, John 112 North, Roger, Memoires of Musick 45  Ochtervelt, Jacob 118 oil lamp motif 140, 144, 144  Ormrod, David 18 Ovid, Metamorphoses 138  painting style, Lairesse on 29 paintings, prices 220n10, 222n37, 223n38, 238n100 Parrhasius, and Zeuxis, artistic rivalry 82, 150 parrot motif 60, 60, 202n33  Portrait of Mary Wentworth née Lowther (Schalcken) 58, 59  Passe, Crispijn de 138 Peacham, Henry, Compleat Gentleman 90–1  Pears, Iain 129 Pepys, Samuel 20, 93 on Simon Verelst 146–7 Peter the Great 20, 43 Philiscus 115 pince-nez motif  Avaritia (Glover) 123  Every One His Fancy, (Schalcken) 121–3, 122, 155, 173c  Platt, Thomas 23–4, 33–4, 64, 78–9, 81, 86, 145, 147, 154 on Schalcken’s Self-Portrait 80  Pliny the Elder 82, 115, 150 Poelenburgh, Cornelis van 131 Narcissus 55 

Index

portraiture  popularity of 30 see also self-portraiture  Povey, Thomas, art patron 19 prices, of paintings 220n10, 222n37, 223n38, 238n100 Proclamatie boek 16  Purcell, Henry 45 Quellinus, Erasmus II 131 Raphael, Madonna 94, 134  Raupp, Hans Joachim 84 on Schenck’s Self-Portrait (after Smith, after Schalcken) 89 Rembrandt van Rijn 15 Artist in His Studio 100–1, 102  self-portraits, problems in making 100 Reni, Guido 130 David with the Head of Goliath 55, 199n10  Penitent Magdalen 143  Venus and the Three Graces 55  Riley, John 31, 143 Portrait of George Jeffreys, 1st Baron Jeffreys of Wem, Judge Jeffreys 52  Ripa, Cesare 89 Robartes, Charles Bodvile, 2nd Earl of Radnor 112 art collection 137 career 137–8 Roestraten, Pieter van 110, 111, 146 Rogers, Malcolm 31 Rokeby, Thomas, Sir 47 career 51–2 portrait 49, 51, 51, 162c  Roman-attire, in portraits 67, 68, 69  Romano, Giulio 130 St. Paul 55  Royal Society 19 and the visual arts 93 Rubens, Peter Paul 55 Russell, Anthony 143 Ryck, Willem de 111, 131 Sackville, Charles, Sixth Earl of Dorset 112 Salmon, William, Polygraphice 116  Sandrart, Joachim von 83 Schalcken, Barbara (Schalcken’s sister) 23 Schalcken, Cornelis (Schalcken’s father) 15 Schalcken, Françoisia (Schalcken’s daughter) 22 Schalcken, Godefridus  biographies of (18th century) 25–9, 74–5, 155 candlelight motif 26–7, 29, 76, 153, 154 A Young Man Courting His Mistress 117, 180c  Ceres with a Torch Searching for Persephone 137, 155, 170c  Portrait of James Stuart 65, 162–3c  Portrait of John Acton 48, 161c  Portrait of William III 70, 73–4, 75, 164-5c  Portrait of a Young Musician (oil) 43, 43, 168c  Portrait of a Young Musician (pen and ink) 43–4, 44, 168c  Self-Portrait (1694; Washington Co. Museum) (Schalcken) 88–9, 89, 154, 157–8c 

265 Self-Portrait (1695; Leamington Spa Gallery)  95, 96, 102, 154, 159–60c  Self-Portrait (1695; Uffizi Gallery) 78, 80, 158–9c  There’s No Accounting for Tastes 124, 124–5, 173–4c  Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle 120, 121, 172–3c  Young Woman with a Headdress Holding a Candle 119, 172c  children 22 clientele 42–3 Confrerie, membership 43, 69 Cook on 120–1 criticism of 29, 63, 155–6, 189n96 Dahl, comparison 61 Descamps on 28, 128 drawing ability, Houbraken on 99 drawings  Portrait of a Young Musician 43–4, 44, 168c  Self-Portrait (c. 1694-5) 97–9, 98, 159c  So-Called Self-Portrait (c. 1695) 97, 97-100 160–1c  erotic imagery 121 fees 57 genre paintings 34, 107 A Maid with Eggs 108, 110, 221n21  A Woman and Her Dog 108, 109  A Young Man Courting His Mistress 117, 180c  Boy Blowing on a Firebrand 113, 170–1c  Every One His Fancy 121–3, 122, 155, 173c  There’s No Accounting for Tastes 124, 124, 173–4c  Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle 120, 172c  Young Woman with a Headdress Holding a Candle 119, 172c  Young Woman with a Waffle 127, 171–2c  history paintings 34, 132–3 Narcissus 133  Allegory of Fortune 134  Ceres with a Torch (Searching for Persephone) 137, 170c  Penitent Magdalen (c.1693) 140, 140, 164c  Penitent Magdalen (c.1685-93)  142–3, 144, 177c  Houbraken on 121 Kneller, comparison 61 in London 15, 19, 22, 107 Smith, Marshall on 29, 108 narrative, use of 138 Netherlands, return to 94, 155, 186n55 night scenes 73 painting style 25, 26, 61–2, 63–4 paintings  A Maid with Eggs 108, 110, 221n21  A Woman and Her Dog 108, 109  A Young Man Courting His Mistress 117, 180c  candlelight motif 117 Allegory of Fortune 133, 134, 136–7  light effects 137 Boy Blowing on a Firebrand 113, 170–1c  antecedents 114–15 poem about 114, 229n108 popularity 154–5 Bunch of Grapes 148–9, 149, 150, 174–5c 

266  Ceres with a Torch (Searching for Persephone) 137, 170c  candlelight motif 155 date of 138 Every One His Fancy 121–3, 122, 155, 173c  pince-nez motif 123–4 Flower Still-Life 148, 148, 174c  Latona Changing the Lycian Peasants into Frogs 133  Miniature Portrait of the Artist’s Wife 166c  Music Lesson 174c, 175  Narcissus 133  Penitent Magdalen (c.1690–96) 178c, 237n85 Penitent Magdalen (c.1685-93) 142–3, 144, 177c  candlelight motif 144 eroticism 144 Penitent Magdalen (mezzotint) (1693) 139, 140, 154 candlelight motif 140–1 Penitent Magdalen (c.1693) 140, 140, 164c  Portrait of Anne Kynnesman (mezzotint) 38, 41, 176c  Portrait of Boy in Festive Costume 67–8, 67, 157c  Portrait of a Girl, Said to be Anne Conslade 168c, 169  Portrait of James Stuart 64, 65, 162–3c  Portrait of John Acton 48, 161c  detail 50  Portrait of a Man (1696) 161–2c Portrait of a Man (1694-6) 167–8c Portrait of a Man, said to be Daniel de Utins  166–7c  Portrait of Margaret Acton née Cutts 49, 161c  Portrait of Mary Wentworth née Lowther 57–8, 58, 163c  motifs 58–9 Portrait of Sir Richard Levett 46, 46, 162c, 195n51  Portrait of Sir Thomas Rokeby 49, 51, 51, 162c  Portrait of William III by Candlelight 34, 70, 164–5c  candlelight motif 73–4, 75 criticisms of 74–5, 89 date of 70 Descamps on 28, 74–5 king’s armor 75 popularity 74 as response to Kneller’s work 70, 73 Weyerman on 27, 28, 74 Portrait of a Young Musician 43, 43, 168c  Self-Portrait (1690; Fitzwilliam Museum) 103  Van Dyck-type pose 103 Self-Portrait (1694; Washington Co. Museum) 89, 157–8c  candlelight motif 88–9, 154 Indian gown 87–8, 154 Self-Portrait (1694-5) 97–8, 98, 159c  Self-Portrait (1695; Leamington Spa Gallery) 96, 159–60c  as “advertisement” 102–3, 154 candlelight motif 95, 102, 154 gold chain 96, 154, 217n111 painter as gentleman 102 preparatory study 97, 97–100, 160–1c  slashed doublet motif 95, 154

Index

Self-Portrait (1695; Uffizi Gallery) 75, 77, 78, 119, 127, 140, 153–4, 158–9c  candlelight motif 80 curtain motif 78  Platt’s description of 80 Schalcken’s youthful countenance 80 slashed doublet motif 85 Van Dyck-type pose 84, 154 as virtuoso 95 Self-Portrait (1706) 104  gold chain 105 There’s No Accounting for Tastes 124, 124, 173–4c  candlelight motif 125 Woman Holding a Piece of Salmon 107  Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle 120, 172c  Young Woman with a Headdress Holding a Candle 119, 172c  Young Woman with a Waffle 127, 171–2c  reproductive prints of paintings 81–2 rivals 31–2 social networks, use of 52–3, 68–9 still-life paintings 34, 145, 155 Bunch of Grapes 149, 149, 150, 174–5c  Flower Still-Life (Schalcken) 148, 174c  travel pass 23, 23, 69  Walpole on 27, 128 wealth 104 Weyerman on 27–8, 63, 128, 189n93 York Buildings, residence in 19, 20, 37, 43, 55, 153 Schalcken, Godefridus (Schalcken’s son) 22 Schalcken, Jacobus (Schalcken’s nephew) 23, 99–100, 217n123-4 Schavemaker, Eddy 118, 133, 144 Schenck, Pieter (after Smith, after Schalcken)  candlelight motif 88, 95  Self-Portrait 87, 88  self-portraiture 100, 207n2, 218n126 Seymour, William 48 Shaw, Lindsey Bridget 146 Sidney, Dorothy Percy, Countess of Leicester 65–6 Sidney, Henry, 1st Earl of Romney 66, 66–7 Sidney, Jocelyn, 7th Earl of Leicester 67 Sidney, John, 6th Earl of Leicester 66 Sidney, Robert, 2nd Earl of Leicester 66 slashed doublet motif  Self-Portrait (Schalcken) 78, 85, 95, 96, 154  Self-Portrait (Van Dyck) 86, 154  Smith, John  mezzotint album 140, 191n6, 206n92, 209n22, 232n28 Penitent Magdalen (after Schalcken) 81, 81–2, 139–41, 164c  Penitent Magdalen (after Smits) 131, 132  Portrait of Anne Kynnesman (after Schalcken) 37, 38, 41  Portrait of William III (after Kneller) 70, 72  Self-Portrait (after Schalcken) 87, 87, 90  Smith, Marshall  Art of Painting 29, 107–8  on Schalcken’s painting style 29, 108 Smits, Casparus 131 Penitent Magdalen 132 

267

Index

smoking  imagery 125 and the masses, association with 125–6 medicinal effects 125 popularity 125 Smuts, R. Malcolm 20 Snyders, Frans 55 social networks, Schalcken’s use of 52–3 Spencer, Anne, Countess of Sunderland 114 Spencer, Robert, Earl of Sunderland, art patron 57, 113–14, 154 Staring, Adolph 69, 70 still-life painters 146–51 still-life paintings  Bunch of Grapes (Schalcken) 149, 149, 150, 174–5c  Bunch of Grapes (Verelst) 150  Flower Still-Life (Schalcken) 148, 174c  Flower Still-Life (Verelst) 147  Stoskopff, Sebastian 84 street lighting, London 116 Stretton, Richard 52 Stuart, Esmé 66 Stuart, James, portraits of 65, 66  candlelight motif 34, 65  Sykes, James 134 Sykes, William 94, 134 Talley, M. Kirby 134 Titian 141, 149 Traudenius, Dirck 82, 210n34 Troy, François de 31 Utrecht Caravaggisti 114 brothel imagery 118 Vaughan, Henry, “St. Mary Magdalene” 145 Verelst, Herman 238n99 Verelst, Pieter 146 Verelst, Simon 35 Bunch of Grapes 150–1, 150  Flower Still-Life 147, 147  insanity 147, 155 Pepys on 146–7 Verkolje, Nicolaas, Young Woman in a Chemise Holding a Candle (after Schalcken) 121, 121, 173c  Vermeer, Johannes 15 Verrio, Antonio 55, 57, 130 Vertue, George 57, 66, 93, 114, 138 Museum pictoris Anglicanum, proposed 26 Veth, Gerrardys H. 22 Villiers, George, 1st Duke of Buckingham 19, 141 Villiers Street, London 45 virtuosi 90, 214n79 artists as 94–5, 211n44

Virtuosi of St. Luke 131, 134, 149, 154 activities 94 members 93, 117, 130 virtuosity, development 93 virtuoso  connotations of term 84, 90, 93 Schalcken as 95 Thomas Howard as 93 Van Dyck as 84 visual arts, and the Royal Society 93 Vorsterman, Lucas, Self-Portrait (after Van Dyck) 85  Vos, Jan, verse on Mary Magdalen 141, 236n73 Vries, Jan de 17 Walpole, Horace  Anecdotes of Painting in England 26, 74, 93  on Schalcken 27, 128 on Schalcken’s Portrait of William III 74  Walton, Parry, Keeper of Pictures to Charles II/ James II 55 water motif 58–9, 59  Portrait of Mary Wentworth née Lowther (Schalcken) 58  Wentworth, John, Sir 57 portrait (lost) 176c Wentworth, Mary (née Lowther), portraits 57–8, 58, 63, 163c  drapery 61 motifs 58–9 Werff, Adriaen van der, drawing ability 99 Westminster, Duke of, art collection 96 Wetering, Ernst van de, on Rembrandt’s self-portraits 100 Weyerman, Joseph Campo  biography of Schalcken 27, 74, 155 on Schalcken’s painting style 27–8, 63, 128, 189n93, 229n106 on Schalcken’s Portrait of William III 27, 28, 74–5  Whyman, Susan E. 53 Wilhelm II, Johann, Elector Palatine 97, 154 William III, Stadtholder, King of England 18, 114 Schalcken’s portrait of 69–76, 70  Williams, Robert (after Schalcken), Allegory of Fortune 135, 135  Wissing, Willem 55 Wither, George, A Collection of Emblemes, Ancient and Moderne, emblem 75, 76  York Buildings (London)  famous residents 20 map 1682 21  “Musick-Meeting” concert space 44–5 Schalcken’s residence 19, 20, 37, 43, 55, 153, 190n1 Zeuxis, and Parrhasius, artistic rivalry 82, 150