The Mass Market for History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: Production, Distribution, and Consumption 9789048553983

Citation preview

The Mass Market for History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam

Amsterdam Studies in the Dutch Golden Age Editorial Board: Frans Blom, University of Amsterdam Michiel van Groesen, Leiden University Geert H. Janssen, University of Amsterdam Elmer E.P. Kolfin, University of Amsterdam Nelleke Moser, VU University Amsterdam Henk van Nierop, University of Amsterdam Claartje Rasterhoff, University of Amsterdam Emile Schrijver, University of Amsterdam Thijs Weststeijn, University of Amsterdam Advisory Board: H. Perry Chapman, University of Delaware Harold J. Cook, Brown University Benjamin J. Kaplan, University College London Orsolya Réthelyi, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest Claudia Swan, Northwestern University

The Mass Market for History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam Production, Distribution, and Consumption

Angela Jager

Amsterdam University Press

The publication of this book is made possible by grants from M.A.O.C. Gravin van Bylandt Stichting, De Gijselaar-Hintzenfonds, and Hendrik Mullerfonds.

Cover illustration: Workshop of Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordechai, panel, 75.8 × 109.5 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby), 18-5-2004, lot no. 80. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Cover design: Kok Korpershoek Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6298 773 9 978 90 4855 398 3 e-isbn doi 10.5117/9789462987739 nur 646 © A. Jager / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2020 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.



Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables

7

Acknowledgements

19

Introduction

21

1. The trade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh 37 2. ‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventoriesand their career prospects

73

3. Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’works in Dammeroen’s, Doeck’s, and Meijeringh’s art shops

103

4. History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650-1699: Social class and subject matter

201

Conclusion

237

Bibliography

251

Index

289

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

List of Figures and Tables The Nieuwmarkt square in Amsterdam, with the premises used by a) Frederick Meijeringh (1651 or before-1669) and Hendrick Meijeringh (1669-1687); b) Jan Fransz. Dammeroen (c. 1639-1646), Cornelis Doeck (1646/47-1664), and Johannes Loermans (1667-1714). Detail of Joan Blaeu, Amstelodami Celeberrimi Hollandiae Emporii Delineatio Nova, c. 1649. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España. The inventory of Hendrick Meijeringh (1687), pages 2 and 3: Opte Solder [on the Attic]. The paintings are listed by standard size, here Schilderijen groot soort and Schilderijen tien stuijvers maet. Stadsarchief Amsterdam, 5075. Jan Fransz. Dammeroen; figures by Jan Micker, Landscape with Christ and the centurion of Capernaum, 1640, signed with monograms and dated lower right ‘J F / JM 1640’, panel, 48 × 93 cm. Sale Vienna (Dorotheum), 4-3-1997, lot no. 47. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Jan Fransz. Dammeroen; figures by Jan Micker, Landscape with Abraham leaving Egypt, with Sarah, Lot, and his possessions, panel, 60 × 83.3 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 17-12-1998, lot no. 310. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Jan Fransz. Dammeroen; figures by Jan Micker, Landscape with the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael, panel, 60 × 83.3 cm. Sale New York (Sotheby’s Parke Bernet), 15-3-1974, lot no. 143. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Pieter Lastman, The banishment of Hagar and Ishmael, 1612, signed and dated lower left ‘Anno 1612 / PLastman fecit’, panel, 48.3 × 71.4 cm. Hamburger Kunsthalle, Hamburg, inv. no. HK-191. © Hamburger Kunsthalle / bpk. Photo by Elke Walford. Jan Fransz. Dammeroen; figures by staffage painter, Landscape with the Levite and his concubine on their way to Gibea, panel, 49.2 × 76.8 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 26-4-2006, lot no. 40. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

42

54

113

115

115

116

116

8

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 12.

Fig. 13. Fig. 14. Fig. 15.

Fig. 16.

Fig. 17.

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Jan Fransz. Dammeroen; figures by staffage painter, Landscape with Christ healing a blind man, panel, 59 × 84 cm. Sale Vienna (Dorotheum), 17-10-1995, lot no. 163. Whereabouts unknown. Photo: Dorotheum Vienna, auction catalogue, 17-10-1995, lot no. 163. Hans Juriaensz. van Baden; figures by Jan Micker, Palace interior with Moses changing pharaoh’s scepter into a serpent, signed lower right ‘HGVan Baden’, oval panel, 39.5 × 53.1 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 23/24-6-2015, lot no. 21. Private collection. Photo © Christie’s Images/Bridgeman Images. Hans Jurriaensz. van Baden; figures by Jan Micker Palace interior with Christ and the Pharisees discussing the tribute to Caesar, signed lower right ‘HGVan Baden’, oval panel, 38 × 51 cm. Sale The Hague (Venduehuis), 21-11-2018, lot no. 19. Venduehuis der Notarissen, Auctioneers ‒ The Hague. Hans Juriaensz. van Baden; figures by Jan Micker, Palace interior with the widow’s mite: Christ draws the disciples’ attention to a woman who puts a few coins in the temple’s money chest, signed lower right ‘HGVan Baden’, oval panel, size unknown. Denmark, private collection. Photo by author. Jan Micker, Moses striking water from the rock, signed lower right under tree ‘IMicker’, panel, 40.5 × 73.5 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 4-4-1984, lot no. 271. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Jan Micker, The narrow way of virtue and the wide way of vice, signed lower right ‘IMicker fecit’, panel, 53.5 × 71 cm. Warsaw, Museum Naradowe w Warszawie, inv. no. M.Ob.582. Jan Micker, The narrow way of virtue and the wide way of vice, signed lower right ‘IMicker fecit’, panel, 47.5 × 63 cm. Amsterdam / Paris / New York, art dealer Bob P. Haboldt, 2013. Job Berckheyde, Christ blessing the Children brought by their mothers, signed and dated lower right ‘J Berckheyde Ao 1662’, canvas, 52 × 68 cm. Schwerin, Staatliches Museum Schwerin, inv. no. G441. Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordecai, signed lower left ‘J.d.Wet’, panel, 60.5 × 84 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 14-11-1995, lot no. 4. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Pieter Lastman, The triumph of Mordechai, signed and dated lower right ‘PLastman fecit / 1617’, panel, 52 × 71.5 cm.

118

118

119

119

120 121 121

124

130

List of Figures and Tables 

9

Amsterdam, Rembrandt House Museum, inv. no. NK 2313. On loan from Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE). 130 Fig. 18. Lucas van Leyden, The triumph of Mordechai, signed and dated bottom left ‘L 1515’, engraving, 210 × 290 mm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-P-OB-1606. 131 Fig. 19. Rembrandt, The triumph of Mordechai, 1639-1643, etching and dry needle, 175 × 215 mm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-P-1962-16.131 Fig. 20. Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordechai, indistinctly signed and dated lower right ‘J. d. Wet / Ao [1637]’, panel, c. 60 × 83 cm. Amsterdam, art dealer D. Vaarties (in 1934). Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 132 Workshop of Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordechai, panel, Fig. 21. 58 × 83 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 10-5-2005, lot 17. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute 133 for Art History. Workshop of Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordechai, panel, Fig. 22. 66 × 86.4 cm. Sale New York City (Christie’s), 10-1-1980, lot no. 178. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands 133 Institute for Art History. Workshop of Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordechai, panel, Fig. 23. 75.8 × 109.5 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 18-5-2004, lot no. 80. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 134 Fig. 24. Workshop of Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordechai, panel, 100 × 150 cm. Collection J. Popelier, Den Bosch (in 1958). Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 134 Detail of 22. 135 Fig. 25. Fig. 26. Detail of 24. 135 Fig. 27. Overlay of the photographs of the four paintings of The triumph of Mordecai (Fig. 2. [green], 22 [blue], 23 [black], and 24 [red]). 136 Fig. 28. Adriaen Gael, The triumph of Mordechai, signed middle right on the bridge ‘A. gael’, panel, 59.5 × 83.5 cm. St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, inv. no. GE-3370. Photograph © The State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Alexander Koksharov. 137 Fig. 29. Adriaen Verdoel, The triumph of Mordechai, signed lower right on architecture ‘A.V.doel’, panel, 75 × 110 cm. Moscow, The Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no. 1911. 137

10 

Fig. 30.

Fig. 31.

Fig. 32. Fig. 33. Fig. 34.

Fig. 35.

Fig. 36. Fig. 37. Fig. 38. Fig. 39.

Fig. 40.

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Jacob de Wet, The feeding of the five thousand, remains of signature bottom middle ‘J. de Wet’, panel, 66.5 × 50.5 cm. The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, inv. no GE-3364. Photograph © The State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Alexander Koksharov.138 Workshop Jacob de Wet, The feeding of the five thousand, panel, 50 × 63.5 cm. Sale Cologne (Van Ham), 27-30-10-1993, lot no. 1178. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 139 Workshop Jacob de Wet, The feeding of the five thousand, panel, 76 × 110 cm. Utrecht, Museum Catharijneconvent, inv. 139 no. BMH s9588. Photo by Ruben de Heer. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The feeding of the five thousand, panel, 72.9 × 138.3 cm. Denmark, private collection. Photo by Frida Gregersen.140 Workshop Jacob de Wet, The feeding of the five thousand, canvas, 118.1 × 163.8 cm. Sale New York (Doyle), 24-1-2001, lot no. 71. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 140 Jacob de Wet (II), The feeding of the five thousand, signed lower right on tree trunk ‘JdWe. / …’, canvas, 102.5 × 121.7 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 8-5-1995, lot no. 101. Private collection. 142 Photo © Christie’s Images/Bridgeman Images. Adriaen Gael, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, signed, panel, 54 × 73 cm. Budapest, collection Friedrich Glück (in 143 1929). Photo: Van Térey, 1926. Adriaen Gael, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, signed lower center ‘A gael’, panel, 57 × 72 cm. Sale London (Phillips, Son & Neale), 10-12-1991, lot no. 22. 143 Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed under the throne ‘J.D.Wet’, panel, 53.2 × 72 cm. Zürich, collection Hans Klenk. Photo: Sumowski 1983-c. 1994. 146 Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed lower center on step ‘J.d.Wet’, panel, 44.4 × 55.5 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 11-7-2008, lot no. 105. Private collection. Photo © Christie’s Images/Bridgeman Images. 146 Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed and dated lower right ‘J. de Wet ft. 1635’, panel, 65 × 87.7 cm. Sale New York (Sotheby’s), 27-1-2012, lot no. 419. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 147

List of Figures and Tables 

Fig. 41.

Fig. 42.

Fig. 43.

Fig. 44. Fig. 45.

Fig. 46.

Fig. 47.

Fig. 48. Fig. 49.

Fig. 50.

11

Willem de Poorter (attributed to), The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, c. 1630, panel, 35.5 × 44.4 cm. New York, The Leiden Collection, inv. no. WP-100. Image courtesy of The Leiden Collection, New York. 147 Workshop Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, panel, 60 × 84.5 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 18/20-2-2003, lot no. 213. Whereabouts unknown. Private collection. Photo © Sotheby’s.148 Workshop Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, panel, 75.2 × 101.8 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 5/9-5-2000, lot no. 199. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Nether148 lands Institute for Art History. Workshop Jacob de Wet, David blessing Solomon as his successor on the instigation of Bathsheba, panel, 50.6 × 73.6 cm. Denmark, private collection. Photo by Frida Gregersen. 149 Workshop Jacob de Wet, David blessing Solomon as his successor on the instigation of Bathsheba, panel, 67 × 81 cm. Sale Stockholm (Bukowski), 27/30-05-2008, lot no. 457. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 149 Workshop Jacob de Wet, David blessing Solomon as his successor on the instigation of Bathsheba, panel, size unknown. Fredensborg, Finn Zilrave. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 150 Workshop Jacob de Wet, Queen Esther before king Ahasuerus, panel, 59.5 × 84 cm. Sale Luzern (Fischer), 31-5-1990, lot no. 2082. Whereabouts unknown. Scan from an auction catalogue at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 150 Gerrit de Wet, The sacrifice of the daughter of Jephtah, signed lower right ‘Gerardus.d Wet’, panel, 60 × 81 cm. Copenhagen, National Gallery of Denmark, inv. no. KMSsp471. 152 Gerrit de Wet, The presentation in the temple, remains of signature lower left ‘Gerhardus de Wett’, panel, 60 × 84.5 cm. Fredensborg, Royal Palace. On loan from Copenhagen, National Gallery of Denmark, inv. no. KMSsp470. Photo by author. 152 Jacob de Wet (attributed to), The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed lower right ‘G. vanden Eeckhout’, pen in brown ink, brown and red wash, heightened in white on blue paper, 19 × 33 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 11-7-2001, lot no. 258. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 153

12 

Fig. 51.

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Workshop Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed and dated lower left ‘J. de Wet 1654’, panel, 40.5 × 72.5 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 6-7-1995, lot no. 75. Private collection. Photo © Christie’s Images/Bridgeman Images. 153 Fig. 52. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, panel, 55 × 72 cm. Wageningen, collection E. Stibbe, 1983. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 154 Fig. 53. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed right on step ‘DP’, panel, 60 × 81 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 1-8-1952, lot no. 54. Whereabouts unknown. Photo 154 at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Fig. 54. Adriaen Gael, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed lower center ‘A. gael’, panel, 47 × 63 cm. Sale Berlin (Lepke), 5-6-1917, lot no. 24. Whereabouts unknown. Scan from an auction catalogue at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.155 Adriaen Verdoel, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed Fig. 55. lower left on step ‘A.v.doel’, panel, 36.8 × 49.4 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 17-2-1978, lot no. 113. Whereabouts unknown. Scan from black and white print at RKD – Netherlands Institute for 155 Art History. Fig. 56. Adriaen Verdoel, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed lower left ‘V.Doel’, panel, 47 × 62 cm. Sale Dresden (Helbing), 4-10-1907, lot 164. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – 156 Netherlands Institute for Art History. Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, signed Fig. 57. lower center ‘JW’, after 1644, canvas, 105.7 × 85 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 30-11-2010, lot. no. 45. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 157 Fig. 58. Rembrandt, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, signed lower right ‘Rembrandt f 1644’, panel, 83.8 × 65.4 cm. London, National Gallery, inv. no. NG45. © The National Gallery, London. 158 Fig. 59. Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, signed bottom right on piece of paper ‘J.d.Wet’, canvas, 44.5 × 54.4 cm. Sale Vienna (Dorotheum), 16-3-1976, lot 157. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 159 Fig. 60. Rembrandt, Judas returning the thirty silver pieces, 1629, signed and dated center right: ‘R.L. 1629’, panel, 79 × 102.3 cm. Great Britain, private collection. Photo: Sluijter 2015b. 159

List of Figures and Tables 

Fig. 61.

Fig. 62. Fig. 63.

Fig. 64.

Fig. 65.

Fig. 66.

Fig. 67. Fig. 68.

Fig. 69.

Fig. 70. Fig. 71.

Jacob de Wet, Judas returning the thirty silver pieces, 1636, signed and dated lower center ‘Jde wet / Ao1636’, panel, 65.3 × 51 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 8-5-2007, lot no. 76. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Jacob de Wet, Judas returning the thirty silver pieces, 1642, signed and dated lower right ‘J. de Wet Ao 1642’, panel, 60 × 83 cm. Copenhagen, National Gallery of Denmark, inv. no. KMSsp754. Gerrit de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, signed bottom middle ‘G. de Wet’, panel, 40.5 × 34 cm. St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, inv. no. GE-3101 © The State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Alexander Koksharov. Gerrit de Wet, David and Abigail, signed left at half height ‘G. Wet’, support unknown, 105 × 68 cm. London, W.E. Duits, 1929. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, 60 × 84.8 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 16-11-2006, lot no. 90. Private collection. Photo © Christie’s Images/Bridgeman Images. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, support and size unknown. Bazel, collection F. Woltereck (in 1926). Whereabouts unknown. Image at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, c. 50 × 93 cm. Denmark, private collection. Photo by Frida Gregersen. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, 60.7 × 84.2 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 26-4-2001, lot no. 403. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, 51 × 76 cm. London, collection Count Bobrinskov (in 1956). Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, 59.3 × 75.8 cm. Munich, Alte Pinakothek, inv. no. 4960. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, dated on the cap of the Pharisee ‘1650’, panel, 59.5 × 80 cm. Warsaw, Museum Naradowe w Warszawie, inv. no. M.Ob.1657 MNW. Photo by Piotr Safjan.

13

160 161

162

163

164

164 164

164

164 164

165

14 

Fig. 72.

Fig. 73.

Fig. 74.

Fig. 75.

Fig. 76.

Fig. 77.

Fig. 78.

Fig. 79.

Fig. 80. Fig. 81.

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, dated on the cap of the Pharisee ‘1657’, panel, 50 × 95 cm. Sale Munich, 3-6-1908, lot no. 60. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, 82 × 63 cm. Sale Dresden (Helbing), 4-10-1907, lot no. 173. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, signed lower right ‘J. de Wet’, panel, 49 × 74 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 9-11-1999, lot no. 42. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Leendert de Laeff, Still life with fruit, insects and butterflies, signed and dated lower right ‘Laeff / 1664’, canvas, 61 × 79 cm. London, Richard Taylor Fine Art, 2019. Image courtesy of Richard Taylor Fine Art. Workshop Jacob de Wet, On her way to the stake, Thamar confronts Juda with the ring and the rod he gave her (Genesis 38), panel, 58.5 × 82.2 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 4-102007, lot no. 56. Whereabouts unknown. Photo © Sotheby’s. Workshop Jacob de Wet, On her way to the stake, Thamar confronts Juda with the ring and the rod he gave her (Genesis 38), panel, 71.5 × 107 cm. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Workshop Jacob de Wet, On her way to the stake, Thamar confronts Juda with the ring and the rod he gave her (Genesis 38), support and size unknown. Collection C. Sturla, Great Crosby, Lanee. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Leendert de Laeff, Daniel’s accusers are thrown into the lion’s den by king Cyrus, signed lower right on pedestal ‘L. De Laaf’, panel, 44.5 × 58.5 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 5-11-1986, lot no. 410. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Leendert de Laeff, Diana and Actaeon, signed, panel, 74 × 109 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 1-7-1955, lot no. 88. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Amarillys crowns Mirtillo after the kissing contest, panel, 75.5 × 111 cm. Sale Stockholm (Auktionsverk), 11-6-2014, lot no. 3316. Photo © Copyright Stockholms Auktionsverk.

165

165

166

173

175

175

176

176 177 177

List of Figures and Tables 

Fig. 82.

Fig. 83.

Fig. 84.

Fig. 85.

Fig. 86. Fig. 87.

Fig. 88. Fig. 89.

Fig. 90.

Fig. 91.

15

Workshop Jacob de Wet, Amarillys crowns Mirtillo after the kissing contest, canvas, 108.5 × 85 cm. Sale Vienna (Dorotheum), 11-12-2007, lot no. 123. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 178 Leendert de Laeff, Esther’s toilet (Esther 5:1), signed ‘Leendert De Laef’, panel, 54.5 × 44.5 cm. Sale Brussels (Paleis van Schone Kunsten), 12/14-6-1679, lot no. 616. Whereabouts unknown. Scan from documentation at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 180 Leendert de Laeff, Esther’s toilet (Esther 5:1), signed ‘L. de Laaf’, panel, 92.5 × 125 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s-Mak van Waay), 17-10-1980, lot no. 44. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at 180 RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Leendert de Laeff, Esther before Ahasuerus (Esther 5:1-4), signed ‘Leendert De Laef’, panel, 54.5 × 44.5 cm. Sale Brussels (Paleis van Schone Kunsten), 12/14-6-1979, lot no. 616. Whereabouts unknown. Scan from documentation at RKD – Netherlands 181 Institute for Art History. Willem de Poorter, Esther’s toilet, late 1630s, panel, 39.4 × 30.8 cm. Dublin, National Gallery of Ireland Collection, 181 NGI.380. Photo © National Gallery of Ireland. Leendert de Laeff, The descent from the cross, signed and dated lower right ‘Leonardi De Laaff fecit Ao 166[5]’, canvas, 160.3 × 132.5 cm. Soesterberg, Pastoriekerk H. Carolus Borromaeus. Photo by author. 183 Coenraet Waumans, after Rubens, The descent from the cross, engraving, 472 × 348 mm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-P-OB-61.280.183 Rubens and/or studio of Rubens, The descent from the cross, second half of the 1610s, canvas, 2.64 × 1.86 cm. Arras, Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 183 Barend Jansz. Slordt, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, signed and dated lower right ‘Exodus / B.J. Slordt 1680’, panel, 71 × 107.5 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 19-5-1984, lot no. 69. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 187 Matthaeus Merian, Pharao verdrenckt in ‘t Roode Meyr, engraving, in: Merian [1648], p. 86. The Hague, RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Photo by author. 187

16 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 92.

Employee of Hendrick Meijeringh, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, panel, 55.7 × 79.5 cm. Edam, Edams Museum. Photo by author. 190 Fig. 93. Anonymous, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, panel 54.6 × 96.5 cm. Sale Los Angeles (Bonhams), 5-10-2015, lot no. 5031. Photo Bonhams. 240 Fig. 94. Anonymous, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, panel, 56 × 82 cm. Sale Amsterdam (De Zwaan), October 2013, lot no. 4504 (pendant of Fig. 95). 240 Fig. 95. Anonymous, Moses striking water from the rock, panel, 56 × 82 cm. Sale Amsterdam (De Zwaan), October 2013, lot 241 no. 4504 (pendant of Fig. 94). Fig. 96. Anonymous, Moses striking water from the rock, panel, 47 × 63 cm. Collection R. Jakobsson Skillingaryd (in 1977). Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. 241 Fig. 97. Anonymous, Moses striking water from the rock, panel, 37 × 50 cm. Sale Amsterdam (De Zwaan), June 2016, lot. no. 4830. 242 Fig. 98. Anonymous, Assendelfter cupboard with the doors painted with four scenes from the history of Joseph, 1690-1710, wood, 131.5 × 172 × 52.5 cm. Enkhuizen, Zuiderzeemuseum, inv. no. 013182. 243 Table 1.

Paintings in subject categories in three Amsterdam shop inventories57 Table 2. History paintings in subcategories in three Amsterdam shop inventories61 Table 3. Scenes listed four or more times in three Amsterdam shop inventories61 Table 4a. Reputation categories of painters in the inventories of Doeck (1667) and Meijeringh (1687) 77 Table 4b. Paintings in the inventories of Doeck (1667) and Meijeringh 77 (1687), per ranking order Table 5. Place of residence of painters listed in the inventories of Doeck 84 (1667) and Meijeringh (1687) Table 6. Birthplace of painters listed in the inventories of Doeck (1667) and Meijeringh (1687) 88 Table 7. Classification used for social stratification 91 Table 8. Social stratification of painters mentioned in Doeck (1667) and Meijeringh (1687), based on father’s occupation 91 Table 9. Ownership of history paintings in Amsterdam, per period 202

List of Figures and Tables 

Table 10. Ownership of history paintings and landscapes in Amsterdam in the 1650s and 1660s Table 11. Estate inventories Amsterdam 1650-1699, in groups based on the number of paintings per inventory Table 12. Appraised estate inventories Amsterdam 1650-1699, in groups based on the value in guilders of the artworks per inventory Table 13. Appraised estate inventories Amsterdam 1650-1699, in groups based on the number of paintings per inventory (in intervals of 15) Table 14a. Subjects of paintings in estate inventories in Amsterdam 16501699 (inventories have been divided into two groups, based on the number of paintings per inventory) Table 14b. Subjects of paintings in estate inventories in Amsterdam 16501699 (inventories have been divided into two groups, based on the number of paintings per inventory) Table 15a. Taxation prices of subjects of paintings in estate inventories in Amsterdam 1650-1699 (inventories have been divided into two groups, based on the number of paintings per inventory) Table 15b. Taxation prices of subjects of history paintings in estate inventories in Amsterdam 1650-1699 (inventories have been divided into two groups, based on the number of paintings per inventory) Table 16. Paintings per room listed in estate inventories of Amsterdam estates, 1650-1699, with 75 or more paintings: appraisal prices and the number of paintings listed with the name of the artist

17

203 210 211 215 216 216 228 229 231

Acknowledgements This book is based on doctoral research conducted at the University of Amsterdam. My research initiated in 2011, the final year of the project Artistic and economic competition in the Amsterdam art market, c. 1630–1690: history painting in Amsterdam in Rembrandt’s time, funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). This groundbreaking project, led by Eric Jan Sluijter, explored the complex fabric of artistic and economic competition in the f ield of history painting in Amsterdam. In a way, this book can be seen as its spin-off: instead of concentrating on the very best history painters and successful middle-ranking artists, it focuses on the ‘common’ painters who supplied a relatively wide audience with history paintings, often through the mediation of art dealers specialized in this cheaper segment. I could not have done this research without the support and guidance of my three supervisors, who, each with his own expertise, has contributed so substantially to its development. First and foremost, I am extremely grateful to Eric Jan Sluijter, my primary supervisor, and my mentor, who has provided me with his unparalleled knowledge and unwavering support throughout this research (and my career). I would also like to express my deepest appreciation to Marten Jan Bok, who was instrumental in shaping my enthusiasm for art markets and archival research, and Harm Nijboer, who extended a great amount of assistance with the quantitative analysis of archival data. Their daily support throughout the research process was invaluable, and it was a blessing to know that I could always knock on the door of their shared office at the Kunsthistorisch Instituut at the Amsterdam Herengracht. On the whole, it was a great pleasure to be a part of the vibrant History of Art of the Early Modern Period department at the University of Amsterdam; my research has benefitted tremendously from the vast amount of expertise that was present through my direct and indirect colleagues. I had the opportunity to study some of these mass-produced paintings in private collections during my doctoral research with a one-month fellowship in Copenhagen at the Centre of Art Technological Studies and Conservation (CATS), at the Statens Museum for Kunst (SMK); thanks to the generous support of the Historians of Netherlandish Art, Kircheiner-Galatius Fonds and the University of Amsterdam. After completing my doctoral research in 2016, I returned to SMKCATS with a two-year Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship to study one undocumented private collection of hundreds of early modern Dutch and Flemish paintings. I cannot begin to express my thanks to my postdoctoral supervisor Jørgen Wadum, for sharing his extensive knowledge on the materiality of paintings and his invaluable support throughout the fellowship. His role in the technical study of several ‘lower-quality’ history paintings in this collection cannot be overestimated,

20 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

and I have fond memories of us making infrared images of these mass-produced paintings in an ice-cold castle in Denmark. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to everyone else who contributed to the process of publishing this book. First of all, a special thanks to a number of my colleagues for their expert advice, feedback on parts of the manuscript, and general encouragement, particularly Anne Haack Christensen, Jasper Hillegers, Elmer Kolfin and Marije Osnabrugge. One of the challenges of this book regarded its illustrations: many of these types of paintings have not been seen for a long time, and not all photographs are sufficient. This research would not have been possible without the documentation at the RKD-Netherlands Institute for Art History in The Hague and the assistance of their photo service, in particular Vicky Foster. In this regard, I also wish to thank Valerio Pilo for his effort in processing these images to make them presentable, and Imke Horvers, for her great suggestions for the cover design. I am indebted to Vivien Collingwood for the English translation of the Dutch manuscript. I also wish to thank Amsterdam University Press, and especially Danielle Carter, Erika Gaffney and Chantal Nicolaes for their suggestions, patience and professional guidance. I feel privileged to have received publishing grants from the M.A.O.C. Gravin van Bylandt Stichting, Hendrik Mullerfonds, and De Gijselaar-Hintzenfonds. Finally, Valerio, thank you for your unconditional moral support.

Introduction In a passage on the ‘three degrees of Painting’, the painter and art theorist Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678) wrote: ‘We reject everything that is without artistry, and disapprove of what cannot hold its place among good things; otherwise the third and highest degree of art would be the most contemptible, for we see everywhere illustrious Histories that are a dime a dozen.’1 By ‘illustrious Histories’, Van Hoogstraten meant history paintings: text-based figure paintings with subjects from the Bible, mythology, literature, and classical and post-classical history. In Van Hoogstraten’s ranking, these subjects formed the top rung of the painting ladder. He grouped paintings by subject into three categories according to the forms of life depicted in them: the lowest category consisted of depictions of lifeless things, such as landscapes and still lifes; the second of creatures that follow their nature, such as cattle, peasants, or merry drinkers; the highest category of painting, history painting, depicted rational, thinking man as its subject.2 Van Hoogstraten made it abundantly clear that this was a one-way ladder: a brilliantly painted flower painting could never belong to a higher category, whereas a poorly executed daubing of a ‘high’ subject was considered to be of little value. In order to achieve the ‘highest level of art’, history painters had to do more than ‘assemble heads and bodies’; they had to ‘depict the noble movement and will of the Reasoning creature that is man’, and those who could do this skilfully were ‘most thin on the ground’.3 History painting was the ultimate subject in which a painter could excel in all skills. In fact, a number of the most highly valued painters from Van Hoogstraten’s time, such as his teacher Rembrandt, and his idols Rubens and Jordaens, were primarily history painters, and contemporary collectors paid eye-watering sums for works by these masters. The reference to ‘illustrious Histories’ at ‘a dime a dozen’, however, points to the existence of a very different type of history painting, one that was emphatically 1 English translation from original Dutch: ‘wij verwerpen al wat onkonstig is, en keuren af, al wat geen rang onder goede dingen kan houden; Anders zoude den derden en hoogsten graed der konst wel den alderverachtsten zijn; want men ziet overal dozijn werk van doorluchtige Historyen’: Van Hoogstraten 1678, p. 87. 2 Brusati 1995, pp. 237-240. 3 Van Hoogstraten 1678, p. 87.

Jager, A., Popular History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: Production, Distribution, and Consumption. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020 doi 10.5117/9789462987739_intro

22 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

rejected by Van Hoogstraten. Van Hoogstraten and his contemporaries used the term dozijnwerk, ‘dime-a-dozen’ work, to describe cheap paintings of inferior quality. 4 Such paintings were evidently widely available. In a passage by Arnold Houbraken (1660-1719), we encounter a phrase with similar undertones: ‘I surmise that if one were to work out how many portrait painters there had been in the world from time to time, compared to History painters (aside from the bunglers and duds who are driven by profit alone) […].’5 Thus, in the seventeenth century, in addition to the famous history painters, there were also artists at work who produced history paintings of a much lower quality, driven by motives other than aesthetic and artistic status. This aspect of painting production has hardly been covered in art history, as art historians have traditionally focused on the artistic canon. It is important to realize that the seventeenth-century painters with whom we are familiar today were at the top of their profession, and that the paintings they produced were in fact mainly accessible to the financial and intellectual elite. As a result, these works do not offer a historically accurate reflection of the paintings with which the majority of the population would have been familiar. Although this ‘dime-a-dozen’ work may not have been of great artistic importance, it did have considerable cultural-historical significance. This book is the result of research on these inexpensive history paintings and their producers, suppliers, and consumers.

The mass market for paintings in the Dutch Republic The market for paintings in the Dutch Republic can be characterized as a mass market. In a mass market, a certain good is produced on a large scale, there are many suppliers, and there is demand from a large group. The volume of seventeenthcentury painting production could certainly be described as massive. Estimates of the number of paintings produced over the course of the century vary from one to five to ten million.6 During the seventeenth century, there were 925 painters working in Amsterdam alone; a further 823 persons were described in one or more contemporary sources as ‘painter’, but it has not yet been possible to prove their artistic status.7 In 1650, just before the art market peaked, Amsterdam counted 180 artist-painters in a population of between 160,000 and 175,000; in other words, 4 De Pauw-de Veen 1969, p. 41. 5 English translation from original Dutch: ‘Ik gis, als men uytcyffering maakt hoe veel pourtretschilders de Waereld van tyt tot tyt in vergelyking van Histori-schilders gehad heeft (buiten de broddelaars en brekebeenen die door geen andere sporen als winzucht genoopt worden) […]’: Houbraken 1718-1721, III, p. 168. 6 Biemans 2007; Van der Woude 1991; Montias 1990a. 7 ECARTICO database, consulted on 16-11-2019.

Introduction 

23

there was more than one painter per 1000 residents.8 Based on a random sample of Amsterdam estate inventories, Montias found that the number of paintings per household at least doubled between 1600 and 1660.9 In seventeenth-century towns and cities, it became quite common for a broad cross-section of society to own one or more paintings, and this is not only evident from research in contemporary estate inventories but also in letters and travel journals.10 In these written documents, foreigners visiting the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century expressed their astonishment at the number of paintings owned by ‘common folk’ such as simple cobblers, bakers, and farmers. These paintings were available for sale at the market, just like any other product.11 Although not every claim by these seventeenth-century writers can be taken as gospel, what these statements do show is that foreigners were struck by painting ownership in the Dutch Republic, especially in relation to the status of the owner. It would be an exaggeration to conclude that every common farmer and cobbler in the Dutch Republic owned a painting: paintings were a luxury item and remained beyond the reach of the very poorest. Outside the towns and cities, we rarely come across paintings in estate inventories, and then only in limited number and of modest value.12 Nevertheless, it was not uncommon, certainly in urban settings, for one 8 ECARTICO database, consulted on 16-11-2019. On the size of Amsterdam’s population in 1650, see: Lesger 2005, p. 21. 9 Montias 1996, p. 78. 10 For publications on the ownership of paintings in urban settings, see: Bakker 2008a, pp. 136-159 (Leeuwarden); Biesboer 2001 (Haarlem); Boers-Goosens 2001, pp. 345-347 (Haarlem); Faber 1980 (Amsterdam); Fock 1990 (Leiden); Frijhoff 2007, pp. 175-179 (Woerden); De Laet 2006 (Den Bosch); Loughman 1992 (Dordrecht); Montias 1982, pp. 220-271 (Delft); Montias 1991 & 1996 (Amsterdam); Nijboer 2007, pp. 49-50 (Leeuwarden). For an exploratory impression of the paintings owned by different population groups, see: Sluijter 2015a. 11 Here are listed several examples of contemporary anecdotes about painting ownership in the Republic: ‘All-in generall striving to adorne their houses, especially the outer or street roome, with costly peeces, Butchers and bakers not much inferior in their shoppes, which are Fairely sett Forth, yea many tymes blacksmithes, Cobblers, etts., will have some picture or other by their Forge and in their stalle. Such is the generall Notion, enclination and delight that these Countrie Natives have to Paintings.’ Peter Mundy, 1640: Mundy 1907-1936, IV, p. 70. ‘Their annual marte or faire [was] so furnished with pictures (especially Landskips and Drolleries, as they call those clounish representations) that I was amaz’d. Some I bought and sent into England. The reson of this store of pictures and their cheapness proceedes from their want of land to employ their Stock, so that it is an ordinary thing to find a common Farmer lay out two or 3,000 in this com’odity. Their houses are full of them, and they vend them at their faires to very greate gaines.’ John Evelyn, 1641, during a visit to Rotterdam’s annual fair: Evelyn 1640-1706. ‘The Lining of their Houses is more rich than the Outside, not in Hangings, but Pictures, which even the poorest of the Boors are there furnished with: Not a Cobler but has his Toys for Ornament’. Anonymous 1691, p. 575. For more examples, see: Sluijter 2003, p. 12. 12 Berger Hochstrasser 2000, pp. 205-211 (Doesburg); Dibbits 2001, pp. 285-302 (Doesburg and Maassluis); Kamermans 1999, pp. 129-134 (Krimpenerwaard); Van Koolbergen 1983 (Weesp and Weesperkarspel); De

24 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

or more small paintings to be included in the estate inventories of labourers and simple craftsmen.13 This mass market for paintings arose for a number of reasons. Demand for paintings in the Northern Netherlands grew explosively and almost continuously between 1580 and 1660. The population of Holland’s towns rose quickly, especially Amsterdam, Leiden, and Haarlem. The growth in Amsterdam’s population was particularly exceptional: the number of residents increased from 25,000-30,000 in 1578 to 210,000-220,000 in 1680.14 The large wave of immigration from the Southern to the Northern Netherlands contributed significantly to the rising population numbers in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. These immigrants had been used to decorating their houses with inexpensive paintings in their original culture, and continued this practice in their new homes.15 Thanks to strong economic growth in the Dutch Republic, purchasing power rose.16 This rise in purchasing power mainly affected the budget of the middle classes, who then had the resources to purchase luxury goods – something that had previously been the preserve of the wealthy. Initially stimulated by the habits of their new Flemish compatriots,17 consumers increasingly opted to spend part of their extra budget on paintings (and, to a lesser extent, on prints) and other luxury goods.18 The production side also saw great changes during this period. Due to the Reformation, the majority of ecclesiastical commissions for painters disappeared. At the end of the sixteenth century, most painters were still producing expensive, time-consuming history paintings and portraits commissioned by small groups of wealthy collectors. As a result, the demand from Flemish immigrants for cheap works that could be hung at home was not fully satisfied. This was followed, after the conclusion of the Twelve Years’ Truce in 1609 and the reopening of the borders, by the massive importation of ‘Brabant Rubbish’ (cheap paintings from the Southern Netherlands). Complaining of market spoilage and of their livelihoods being snatched from them, local painters appealed to the government to ensure that import-restricting measures be taken.19 In order to meet the new demand and, furthermore, to be able to compete with the low prices of imported paintings, local Vries 1974, pp. 218-220 and De Vries 1975, pp. 221-222 (Frisian countryside); Meertens Instituut: Boedelbank (Doesburg, Geldermalsen, Lichtenvoorde, and Groenlo, Maasland, Maassluis, Medemblik, and Twisk, Oirschot, Rosmalen, Weesp, and Weesperkarspel). See also: Montias 1990c, pp. 361-362. 13 Sluijter 2015a, pp. 107-109; see also Chapter Four of this book. 14 Lesger 2004, p. 104; Lesger 2005, p. 21; Sluijter 2015a, p. 10. 15 Sluijter 2009. 16 For literature that investigates the rise in purchasing power as the main reason for the increasing demand for paintings, see, among others: De Vries 1991, esp. p. 256; Bok 1994, pp. 98, 109-115. 17 Sluijter 2009. 18 Nijboer 2010, pp. 201-202. 19 Sluijter 1999 & 2009.

Introduction 

25

painters were forced to innovate. By adopting new techniques, production costs were driven down and productivity increased (process innovation). At the same time, painters developed new genres – such as various kinds of still lifes, Dutch and Italianate landscapes, and so forth – and adopted idiosyncratic styles in order to capture a niche and thereby compete in the extremely competitive art market (product innovation).20 Some of these innovations are likely to have been copied from the many Flemish painters who had settled in the Dutch Republic at that time; such innovations had already been introduced in the South in the sixteenth century, when demand for luxury goods rose and a commercial art market emerged.21 Innovations employed by painters from the Northern Netherlands included the wet-on-wet technique (whereby the painter applied additional paint on wet paint layers, drastically lowering production time) and monochrome painting (use of a limited colour palette).22 Finally, new distribution channels were introduced that advanced the dissemination of paintings. In the Northern Netherlands, customers had previously ordered paintings from a painter, but eventually, influenced by the ever-evolving market, most painters worked on spec on a stock of paintings. These were then sold at the painter’s workshop or at markets and annual fairs. Unlike Antwerp, with its ‘Schilderpand’ (from 1540), Amsterdam had no permanent market for selling paintings.23 During the seventeenth century ever-increasing numbers of paintings were sold with the mediation of professional art dealers. As we shall see, this was especially true of the production of inexpensive paintings. The occupation of the art dealer, which had hardly existed in the sixteenth century, came to the fore in the 1630s and 1640s in response to the greater variety of art on offer.24 By means of alternative selling techniques such as auctions, lotteries, games, and competitions, a market was created for the surplus supply of paintings.25 20 Montias 1987 & 1990b. 21 Vermeylen 2001 & 2003. 22 Montias 1987. 23 There was a market on the upper floor of the Amsterdam Beurs (stock exchange) where paintings and various other artisanal products were sold. Like the exchange in Antwerp, the exchange building in Amsterdam had upper galleries with four ‘rounds’ of sales booths, and was known as the ‘building above the exchange’: ‘here, around a row, are a great many wooden booths and shops, where all kinds of merchandise, such as knives, silk, gold and silver ribbons, hats, and skilfully turned and cut ivory-work, are sold throughout the year.’ Thus, unlike in Antwerp, paintings were not the main wares sold there. The wares could be hung on display. Such stalls were only available for burghers of Amsterdam and cost 6 stivers a year. English translation from original Dutch: Dapper 1663, pp. 451-454; Lesger 2013, pp. 89; 97-98. In 1634, the inventory of Bastiaen Starenberg made mention of ‘a few paintings at the exchange, 40 guilders’: Bredius 1915-1922, VI, p. 1980. 24 Montias 2004, p. 76; Montias 1988, p. 245. 25 Bok 2008, p. 9. For a recent study on the lotteries, see: Raux 2018.

26 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Amsterdam and history painting In the seventeenth century, Amsterdam’s art market developed into the liveliest and most competitive in Europe. Montias and Bok have even claimed that Amsterdam was home to an exceptionally free art market.26 They argue that, as in Amsterdam, other Dutch cities too experienced an influx of inexpensive Flemish paintings; in those cities, however, the guilds of St. Luke were far more successful in restricting imports.27 As a result, local masters had too great a hold on the art market for it to be described as a completely demand-oriented economy.28 In the international trading centre Amsterdam, similar measures taken by the guild were not, or were hardly, successful.29 As a result, Amsterdam’s painters, possibly more than those elsewhere, were forced to innovate in order to compete with the influx of cheap imported paintings. Far from forming a threat to the local art market, these imports actually acted as a massive incentive.30 A prominent role within Amsterdam’s competitive art market was played by history painting, which developed into a true Amsterdam specialization in the first half of the seventeenth century.31 Stimulated by innovations from the workshops of Pieter Lastman and Rembrandt, among others, Amsterdam became the destination for ambitious history painters from the Netherlands and abroad. In Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam 1630-1650 (2015), Sluijter demonstrates how a group of artists active in this market competed with one another through the artistic and economic choices they made, and how the ongoing rivalry within this constant flow of new painters resulted in enormously differentiated painting production, not only in painting types, styles, and subjects, but also in quality. There was an enormous difference in sales prices and valuations between high-quality works of masters with a good reputation and paintings of those without any reputation. Paintings by Rembrandt, Flinck, or Lievens, for example, could reach hundreds of guilders, and even, in a few exceptional cases, more than a thousand guilders, whereas ‘dime-a-dozen’ works were usually valued between several stivers and a few guilders at most. This suggests that these artworks concerned entirely different categories. 26 Montias 1988, pp. 248-249; Bok 1994, p. 92. 27 Montias 1982, pp. 70-73; Miedema 1987, pp. 4-5. 28 Bok 1994, pp. 92-93. 29 The protective measures included a ban on public auctions held by non-burghers (1609) and a ban on the trade in works produced outside the Dutch Republic (1617). These bans were unsuccessful. With a little creativity, it was possible to evade the rules, as shown by the repeated complaints; after all, complaints are an indication of ever-increasing violations. Sluijter 2009. 30 This was concluded by Sluijter 1999 & 2009; Sluijter 2015b, p. 11. 31 For how and why, see: Sluijter 2015b, pp. 14-16.

Introduction 

27

Approach and outline of the book This book explores the extensive market for cheap history paintings in seventeenthcentury Amsterdam, by examining the producers, suppliers, and consumers who were active in it. What type of history paintings were for sale in this segment of the market? Who produced these works, and under what conditions? Which production methods did these painters use to produce history paintings economically? Which art dealers sold these cheap history paintings, and what marketing strategies did they use when doing so? Who bought these paintings, and based on what need? This book will investigate these questions, while paying attention to how this low-cost segment relates to the high-quality end of the thriving Amsterdam art market – in this period the most thriving and competitive in Europe. Were the products, production methods, consumers, and distribution strategies of the art dealers at the bottom of the market different from those at the top, or was there in fact an overlap between the two? What implications does the ‘discovery’ of a market for cheap history paintings have for our understanding of seventeenth-century art production and consumption? Most of this study was based on archival material, which was processed quantitatively. In this sense, there are many parallels between this research and the socio-economic approach to art history. The study of the social and economic aspects of art was given a powerful stimulus by the pioneering work of John Michael Montias.32 Beginning in the 1980s, Montias published a number of socio-economic studies on painting in the Dutch Republic. Aided by the statistical analysis of archival material, he sketched an innovative impression of the demographic composition of a certain community of painters, painting ownership among citizens, trends in painting prices, and the activities of art dealers, among other things.33 Since Montias conducted his research, the socio-economic approach has gained firm foundations in art history and has taken off in various directions, particularly in the form of important publications by Neil de Marchi, Hans van Miegroet, and Filip Vermeylen on the Southern Netherlands, and by Marten Jan Bok on the Dutch Republic.34 Although the socio-economic approach initially focused on early-modern Dutch painting, this approach is increasingly being used for studies of other geographical regions and time periods, whereby the use of different types of sources also has a significant impact on the approach.35 32 For a historiographical overview of the socio-economic approach to art history until c. 1990, see: Bok 1992. 33 See, for example: Montias 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1991, 1996, 2002, 2004, & 2004-2005. 34 See, for example: De Marchi 1995; De Marchi and Van Miegroet 1994, 1996, 1999, 2006a, 2006b, & 2009; De Marchi, Van Miegroet, and Raiff 1998; De Marchi and Raux 2014; Vermeylen 2001, 2003, & 2012; Vermeylen and Van der Stighelen 2006; Lyna, Vermeylen, and Vlieghe 2009; Bok 1994, 1998, 2001, & 2008. 35 See, for example: Cavazzini 2008; Spear and Sohm 2010.

28 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Due to the lack of sources, researching the cheap segment of the art market in the Dutch Republic presents a considerable challenge. Only a fraction of these inexpensive paintings have survived. As mentioned above, the total number of paintings produced is estimated to have been in the millions, but only a small proportion of these paintings were kept for reasons of artistic, aesthetic, or historical importance. Owing to this lack of physical material, it was not possible to start from traditional art-historical approaches. Just as cheap paintings were often not considered worth keeping in the past, people did not consider it important to document them either. As a result, these paintings were not listed with the name of the artist in seventeenth-century estate inventories. Thus, we only know of their names from sources such as registers of births and marriages (now compiled in the ECARTICO database36). Many of these people must have been ‘dime-a-dozen’ painters, but their status as painting creators remains unproven in the absence of any surviving signed works (if indeed they were signed at all) or listings of such works in estate inventories. In the f irst chapter, the inventories of the estates of three art dealers from Amsterdam – Jan Fransz. Dammeroen (1646), Cornelis Doeck (1666/1668), and Hendrick Meijeringh (1687) – provide a way into researching the market for cheap history paintings. With their massive assortment of history paintings, each worth an average of 3-5 guilders, these dealers focused on the inexpensive segment of the market. Their shop inventories are a unique source. In contrast to private inventories, these shop inventories contain detailed descriptions of the paintings, including the subject and the name of the ‘dime-a-dozen’ artist. They thereby offer us a unique view of this market segment. One should immediately add that focusing on these three dealers necessarily limits our view; Amsterdam’s market for cheap paintings must have been much larger than this, but we do not know of any detailed inventories from other dealers, who may have sold very different ‘dime-a-dozen’ paintings. A second limitation is the type of source used in this study: the estate inventories offer a glimpse of the status and contents of a shop at a specific moment in time. The results obtained from this research on popular subjects and paintings are therefore not exhaustive; above all, they offer a first impression of a market segment that has not been researched until now. Unfortunately, the inventories lack useful information about suppliers, consumers, and selling prices. The available sources on the trade in paintings in the Northern Netherlands thus differ greatly from those on the art trade in Antwerp, where art dealers such as Matthijs Musson and Guilliaem Forchondt left extensive shop records (including cash books, correspondence, and bills).37 Based on that 36 ECARTICO database. 37 De Marchi and Van Miegroet 1999; Denucé 1949.

Introduction 

29

rich source material and additional research on shipping documents, Sandra van Ginhoven was able to establish that Forchondt had focused his trade largely on exports to Latin America. How he developed his business policies offered insights into how art dealers responded to changes in the market.38 When using the three Amsterdam shop inventories as a source, it is not possible to sketch the development of business strategies in such detail. However, the inventories do give an impression of the types of paintings that were circulating in the market at a particular time, and, to a certain extent, give insight into the painters who produced them. In addition, these inventories provide a snapshot of the trade in inexpensive paintings: by analysing all the information in the inventories and auction proceeds, and by conducting additional research in the archives, it was possible to discover some of the marketing strategies used by these dealers. In the second chapter, the names of the artists listed in the inventories form the starting point for further research into the career prospects of painters in the Dutch Republic. In this part of the research, I looked at whether social background played a determining role in achieving success as a painter. To this end, biographical research was carried out on the painters mentioned in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s shop inventories.39 This research profited immensely from the multitude of biographical materials that Bredius and his contemporaries published on painters and art dealers. Particular mention should be made of the Bredius archive in the collection of the RKD-Netherlands Institute for Art History, 40 which consists of published and unpublished archival material. When selecting the archival material, Bredius made no distinction between the names of important or unknown painters; he was aiming for comprehensiveness, and wanted to deliver ‘building blocks […] for assessing the social status, the daily lives of our painters’. 41 For many years, this wonderful source material was rarely used by art historians; after Bredius’s day, scholars were more interested in the great masters and in stylistic and iconographic questions. The third chapter provides an analysis of cheap paintings and the ways in which they were produced. The three inventories provide various indications that Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh sold paintings that were produced in series; for instance, up to seven different depictions of the same subject were available in a limited number of standard sizes. In this regard, the present research followed a very different approach to that taken by Montias. Here, the questions raised by the archival research are related back to the works themselves, for 38 39 40 41

Van Ginhoven 2017. The full biographies are published in my dissertation: Jager 2016, pp. 269-374. RKD, Archive A. Bredius [NL-HaRKD.0380]. Bredius 1915-1922, II, p. VII; Bok 1992, p. 332.

30 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

how could an iconographically challenging genre such as history painting be produced on the cheap? The relationship between economic motivations and artistic opportunities also forms the key theme of Sluijters’s Rembrandt’s Rivals. 42 This part of my research starts from a similar place, but in contrast to Sluijter, I look at how these cheap paintings were produced and the significance of economic efficiency in that process. I focus on a number of history painters whose works were sold by Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh, and whose paintings I was able to trace; although in the case of the obscure painter Barend Jansz. Slordt, it was only possible to trace one. In order to scrutinize the process of producing these paintings, in addition to art-historical analyses, technical analyses of a number of paintings in a Danish private collection were carried out as part of my postdoctoral research at the Statens Museum for Kunst (National Gallery of Denmark). 43 In the fourth chapter, the research on the production and distribution of these cheap history paintings makes the natural progression to the consumer. Many studies on paintings in estate inventories undertaken in recent decades have found that, during the seventeenth century, the percentage of history paintings fell sharply, whilst the percentage of landscapes increased rapidly. Montias’s f indings in ‘Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subject and Attributions’ (1991) suggest, however, that unlike rich estates, estates that merely listed anonymous paintings actually contained a higher percentage of history paintings. 44 If modest households owned more history paintings, this would imply that the use of large, wealthy inventories significantly influenced the results of other research studies. The representativeness of the consumer preferences indicated by these inventories is thus highly questionable. By studying the ownership of history paintings in Amsterdam, the present research thus enters into a debate with a quarter of a century of research into consumer preferences in the early-modern art market. In a study published in 1991, Montias made a distinction between affluent and less affluent estates, based on the presence of attributed works. In the present research, I categorize the estates using a different method, and the different social groups are classif ied much more precisely. I also set a number of additional objectives. I pay attention to differences between modest and wealthy households with regard to ownership of specific scenes in history paintings, for example, and attempt to explain this. This part of the research draws on the estate inventories in the Montias/Frick Database and the Getty Provenance Index: Archival Inventories. Although the 42 Sluijter 2009 & 2015b. 43 Jager 2018 & 2019. 44 Montias 1991.

Introduction 

31

countless anonymous works in inventories are often described summarily, the f inal chapter shows that important conclusions can nevertheless be drawn about painting ownership from the descriptions of the enormous quantities of anonymous works.

Works cited Anonymous [English gentleman, attending the court of the King of Great Britain], A Late Voyage to Holland, with Brief Relations of the Transactions at The Hague, also Remarks on the Manners and Customs, Nature, and Comical Humours of the People; their Religion, Government, Habitations, Way of Living, and Manner of Treating Strangers, Especially the English (London, printed for John Humphreys, 1691). Bakker, Piet, De Friese schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw (Zwolle: Waanders, 2008). Berger Hochstrasser, Julie, ‘Imag(in)ing Prosperity. Painting and Material Culture in the 17th Century Dutch Household’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 51 (2000), 195-235. Biemans, Bert, ‘Een schatting van het aantal schilderijen dat in de zeventiende eeuw in de Republiek is gemaakt’ (unpublished Master’s thesis: University of Amsterdam, 2007). Biesboer, Pieter, Collections of Paintings in Haarlem 1572-1745 (Documents for the History of Collecting: Netherlandish Inventories 1), ed. by Carol Togneri (Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Trust, 2001). Boers-Goosens, Marion, Schilders en de markt, Haarlem 1605-1635 (Diss. Leiden University, 2001). Bok, Marten Jan, ‘De schilder in zijn wereld. De sociaal-economische benadering van de Nederlandse zeventiende-eeuwse schilderkunst’, in De Gouden Eeuw in perspectief. Het beeld van de Nederlandse zeventiende-eeuwse schilderkunst in later tijd, ed. by Frans Grijzenhout and Henk van Veen (Nijmegen: SUN, 1992), 330-359. Bok, Marten Jan, Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt 1580-1700 (Diss. Utrecht University, 1994). Bok, Marten Jan, ‘Pricing the Unpriced: How Dutch 17th-Century Painters Determined the Selling Price of Their Work’, in Art Markets in Europe, 1400-1800, ed. by Michael North and David Ormrod (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), 101-110. Bok, Marten Jan, ‘The Rise of Amsterdam as a Cultural Centre: The Market for Paintings, 1580-1680’, in Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe. Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London, ed. by Patrick O’Brien (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 186-209. Bok, Marten Jan, ‘“Schilderien te coop”: nieuwe marketingtechnieken op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt van de Gouden Eeuw’, in Thuis in de Gouden Eeuw: kleine meesterwerken uit de SØR Rusche collectie, ed. by Marten Jan Bok and Martine Gosselink (Zwolle/ Rotterdam, 2008), 9-29.

32 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Bredius, Abraham, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur geschichte der holländische kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten jahrhunderts, 7 vols. (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1915-1922). Brusati, Celeste, Artifice and Illusion. The Art and Writing of Samuel van Hoogstraten (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995). Cavazzini, Patrizia, Painting as Business in Early Seventeenth-Century Rome (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008). Dapper, Olfert, Historische beschryving der stadt Amsterdam: waer in de voornaemste geschiedenissen (na een kort verhael van gansch Hollant en d’omleggende dorpen, als ambachts-heerlijkheden, onder deze stadt gelegen) die ten tijde der herdoopers, Nederlandtsche beroerten, en onder Prins Willems, de tweede, stadt-houderlijke regeering, hier ter stede voor-gevallen zijn, verhandelt, en al de stads gemeene, zoo geestelijke als wereltlijke, gebouwen, in meer als tzeventigh kopere platen, met haer nevenstaende beschrijving, vertoont worden (Amsterdam: by Jacob van Meurs, 1663). Freedberg, David and Jan de Vries (eds.), Art in History, History in Art. Studies in SeventeenthCentury Dutch Culture (Santa Monica: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1991). Denucé, Jan, Na Peter Pauwel Rubens: Documenten uit den kunsthandel te Antwerpen in de XVIIe eeuw van Matthijs Musson (Bronnen voor de geschiedenis van de Vlaamse kunst 5) (Antwerp: De Sikkel, 1949). Dibbits, Hester, Vertrouwd bezit: Materiële cultuur in Doesburg en Maassluis 1650-1800 (Nijmegen: SUN Uitgeverij, 2001). ECARTICO database, Economic and Artistic Competition in the Amsterdam Art market. Linking Cultural Industries in the Early Modern Low Countries, ca. 1475-ca. 1725 (ECARTICO), Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam. http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/ Evelyn, John, The Diary of John Evelyn, now first printed in full from the manuscripts belonging to Mr. John Evelyn, ed. by Esmond Samuel de Beer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955). Faber, Johannes A., ‘Inhabitants of Amsterdam and their Possessions, 1701-1710’, A.A.G. Bijdragen 23 (1980), 149-155. Fock, C. Willemijn, ‘Kunstbezit in leiden in de 17de eeuw’, in Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, ed. by Th.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C. Willemijn Fock, and A.J. van Dissel, 6 vols. (Leiden: Leiden University, 1986-1992), Va, 3-26. Frijhoff, Willem, Fulfilling God’s Mission: The Two Worlds of Dominie Everardus Bogardus, 1607-1647 (Leiden: BRILL, 2007). Ginhoven, Sandra van, Connecting Art Markets: Guilliam Forchondt’s Dealership in Antwerp (c. 1632-78) and the Overseas Paintings Trade (Leiden: BRILL, 2017). Hoogstraten, Samuel van, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst: Anders de zichtbaere werelt (Rotterdam: Fransois van Hoogstraeten, 1678). Houbraken, Arnold, De groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen, waar van ‘er vele met hunne beeltenissen ten tooneel verschynen, …zynde een vervolg op het schilderboek van K. van Mander, 3 vols. (The Hague: Houwbraken, 1718-1721).

Introduction 

33

Jager, Angela, ‘Galey-schilders’ en ‘dosijnwerck’: De productie, distributie en consumptie van goedkope historiestukken in zeventiende-eeuws Amsterdam (Diss. University of Amsterdam, 2016). Jager, Angela, ‘The Workshop of Jacob de Wet (1610-1675) and his Mass Production of History Painting’, Oud Holland 131 (2018), no. 2, 67-108. Jager, Angela, ‘Quantity over Quality? Dutch and Flemish Paintings in a Danish Private Collection’, in Trading Paintings and Painters’ Materials 1550-1800 (CATS Proceedings IV), ed. by Anne Haack Christensen and Angela Jager (London: Archetype Publications, 2019), 26-38. Kamermans, Johan A., Materiële cultuur in de Krimpenerwaard in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw. Ontwikkeling en diversiteit. (A.A.G. Bijdragen 39) (Hilversum: Verloren, 1999). Koolbergen, Hans van, ‘De materiële cultuur van Weesp en Weesperkarspel in de 17e en 18e eeuw’, Volkskundig Bulletin 9 (1983), 3-53. Laet, Veerle De, ‘Schilderijenconsumptie in de marge van de Republiek. Smaak en voorkeur in het Bossche interieur van de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw’, Tijdschrift voor sociale en economische geschiedenis 3 (2006), no. 4, 37-63. Lesger, Clé, ‘De wereld als horizon: De economie tussen 1578 en 1630’, in Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, vol. II-1, Centrum van de wereld 1578-1650, ed. by Willem Frijhoff en Maarten Prak (Amsterdam: SUN, 2004), 103-187. Lesger, Clé, ‘Vertraagde groei: De economie tussen 1650 en 1730’, in Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, vol. II-2, Zelfbewuste stadstaat 1650-1813, ed. by Willem Frijhoff and Maarten Prak (Amsterdam: SUN, 2005), 21-71. Lesger, Clé, Het winkellandschap van Amsterdam. Stedelijke structuur en winkelbedrijf in de vroegmoderne en moderne tijd, 1550-2000 (Hilversum: Verloren, 2013). Loughman, John, ‘Een stad en haar kunstconsumptie: openbare en privéverzamelingen in Dordrecht 1620-1719’, in De zichtbaere wereld. Schilderkunst uit de Gouden Eeuw in Hollands oudste stad, ed. by Peter Marijnissen (Dordrecht: Dordrechts Museum, 1992), 34-64. Lyna, Dries, Filip Vermeylen, and Hans Vlieghe (eds.), Art Auctions and Dealers: The Dissemination of Netherlandish Art during the Ancien Régime (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009). Meertens Instituut: Boedelbank, De Boedelbank van het Meertens Instituut, ed. by Hester Dibbits, Meertens Instituut: Onderzoek en documentatie van Nederlandse taal en cultuur:

Marchi, Neil de, ‘The Role of Dutch Auctions and Lotteries in Shaping the Art Market(s) of 17th Century Holland’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 28 (1995), 203-221. Marchi, Neil de and Sopie Raux (eds.), Moving Pictures. Intra-European Trade in Images. 16th-18th Centuries (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014). Marchi, Neil de and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘Art, Value, and Market Practices in the Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century’, The Art Bulletin 76 (1994), no. 3, 451-464. Marchi, Neil de and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘Pricing Invention: “Originals”, “Copies” and their Relative Value in Early Modern Netherlandish Art Markets’, in Studies in the Economics of the Arts, ed. by Victor Ginsburgh and Pierre-Michel Menger (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1996).

34 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Marchi, Neil de and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘Exploring Markets for Netherlandish Paintings in Spain and Nueva España’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999), 81-111. Marchi, Neil de and Hans J. Van Miegroet (eds.), Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe 1450-1750 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006). Marchi, Neil de and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘The Antwerp-Mechelen Production and Export Complex’, in In his Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michel Montias, ed. by Amy Golahny, Mia M. Mochizuki, and Lisa Vergara (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 133-147. Marchi, Neil de and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘Antwerp Dealers’ Invasions of the SeventeenthCentury Lille Market’, in Lyna, Vermeylen, and Vlieghe 2009, 43-58. Marchi, Neil de, Hans J. Van Miegroet, and Matthew E. Raiff, ‘Dealer-Dealer Pricing in the Mid-Seventeenth-Century Antwerp to Paris Art Trade’, in Art Markets in Europe, 1400-1800, ed. by Michael North and David Ormrod (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), 113-130. Miedema, Hessel, ‘Kunstschilders, gilde en academie: Over het probleem van de emancipatie van de kunstschilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden’, Oud Holland 101 (1987), 1-14. Montias, John Michael, Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982). Montias, John Michael, ‘Collectors Preferences in 17th Century Delft’ (Unpublished paper: New Haven, 1985). Montias, John Michael, ‘Cost and Value in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art’, Art History 10 (1987), no. 4, 455-466. Montias, John Michael, ‘Art Dealers in the Seventeenth-Century Netherlands’, Simiolus 18 (1988), no. 4, 244-256. Montias, John Michael, ‘Estimates of the Number of Dutch Masterpainters, their Earnings and their Output in 1650’, Leidschrift 6 (1990), no. 3, 59-74. Montias, John Michael, ‘The Influence of Economic Factors on Style’, De zeventiende eeuw 6 (1990), 49-57. Montias, John Michael, ‘Socio-Economic Aspects of Netherlands Art from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Century: A Survey’, Art Bulletin 72 (1990), 358-373. Montias, John Michael, ‘Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions’, in Freedberg and De Vries 1991, 331-372. Montias, John Michael, ‘Works of Art in a Random Sample of Amsterdam Inventories’, in Economic History and the Arts, ed. by Michael North (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1996), 67-88. Montias, John Michael, Art at Auction in 17th Century Amsterdam (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2002). Montias, John Michael, ‘Art Dealers in Holland’, in Economics of Art and Culture: Invited Papers at the 12th International Conference of the Association of Cultural Economics International, ed. by Victor A. Ginsburgh (Amsterdam and London: Elsevier, 2004), 75-96.

Introduction 

35

Montias, John Michael, ‘Artists’ Names in Amsterdam Inventories, 1607-80’, Simiolus 31, no. 4 (2004-2005), 322-347. Montias-Frick Database, The Montias Database of 17th Century Dutch Art Inventories. New York, The Frick Collection. Mundy, Peter, The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608-1667, ed. by Richard Carnac Temple, 5 vols. (London: Hakluyt Society, 1907-1936). Nijboer, Harm, De fatsoenering van het bestaan: Consumptie in Leeuwarden tijdens de Gouden Eeuw (Diss. Groningen University, 2007). Nijboer, Harm, ‘Een bloeitijd als crisis: Over de Hollandse schilderkunst in de 17de eeuw’, Holland 42 (2010), no. 3, 193-205. Pauw-de Veen, Lydia de, De begrippen ‘schilder, ‘schilderij’ en ‘schilderen’ in de zeventiende eeuw (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1969). Raux, Sophie, Lotteries, Art Markets, and Visual Culture in the Low Countries, 15th-17th Centuries (Leiden: BRILL, 2018). Sluijter, Eric Jan, ‘Over Brabantse vodden, economische concurrentie, artistieke wedijver en de groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999), 112-143. Sluijter, Eric Jan, Verwondering over de schilderijenproductie in de Gouden Eeuw, inaugural lecture, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 2002 (published by the Vossiuspers, University of Amsterdam) Sluijter, Eric Jan, ‘On Brabant Rubbish, Economic Competition, Artistic Rivalry, and the Growth of the Market for Paintings in the First Decades of the Seventeenth Century’, trans. by Jennifer Kilian and Katy Kist of Sluijter 1999, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 1 (2009), no. 2: DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2009.1.2.4 Sluijter, Eric Jan, ‘Ownership of Paintings in the Dutch Golden Age’, in Class Distinctions: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer, ed. by Ronni Baer (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 2015), 89-111, 286-291. Sluijter, Eric Jan, Rembrandt’s Rivals. History Painting in Amsterdam (1630-1650) (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2015). Spear, Richard E. and Philip Sohm, Painting for Profit: The Economic Lives of SeventeenthCentury Italian Painters (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010). Vermeylen, Filip (with ‘Commentary’ by John Michael Montias), ‘The Commercialization of Art: Painting and Sculpture in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp’, in Early Netherlandish painting at the crossroads. A critical look at current methodologies, ed. by Maryan Ainsworth (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2001), 46-69. Vermeylen, Filip, Painting for the Market. Commercialization of Art in Antwerp’s Golden Age (Studies in European Urban History 2) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003). Vermeylen, Filip, ‘Between Hope and Despair. The State of the Antwerp Art Market, 1566-85’, in Art after Iconoclasm. Painting in the Netherlands between 1566 and 1585, ed. by Koenraad Jonckheere and Ruben Suykerbuyk (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 95-108

36 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Vermeylen, Filip and Katlijne Van der Stighelen, ‘The Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke and the Marketing of Paintings, Fifteenth-Eighteenth Centuries’, in De Marchi and Van Miegroet 2006a, 189-206. Vries, Jan de, The Dutch Rural Economy in the Golden Age, 1500-1700 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974). Vries, Jan de, ‘Peasant Demand Patterns and Economic Development: Friesland 1550-1750’, in European Peasants and their Markets. Essays in Agrarian Economic History, ed. by William N. Parker and Eric L. Jones (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975). Vries, Jan de, ‘Art History’, in Freedberg and De Vries 1991, 249-284. Woude, Ad van der, ‘The volume and value of paintings in Holland at the time of the Dutch Republic’, in Freedberg and De Vries 1991, 285-331.

1.

The trade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh1 Abstract The first chapter discusses the detailed shop inventories, which list hundreds of cheap history paintings, of the Amsterdam art dealers Jan Fransz. Dammeroen (1646), Cornelis Doeck (1667), and Hendrick Meijeringh (1687). This chapter uses the data available in these inventories to gain insight into the subjects that were popular and the painters who were active in the inexpensive segment of the art market. These three art dealers clearly specialized in history paintings with religious subjects, including several exceptionally violent and gruesome scenes. Several copies were available of most themes – up to seven pieces for some subjects. Each of these sets of paintings was available in a limited number of standard sizes. Many of these paintings were mass-produced by painters employed by these shops. Keywords: seventeenth century, art market, mass production, popular painting, Bible, Old Testament

In ‘Art Dealers in the Seventeenth-Century Netherlands’ (1988), John Michael Montias analysed ten art dealers’ inventories and concluded that each built up a stock-in-trade to cater for a particular clientele.2 Johannes de Renialme (15891657) and Gerrit Uylenburgh (c. 1625-1679) sold expensive, high-quality works by distinguished local and foreign painters and old masters, and targeted high-class buyers.3 The paintings sold by De Renialme and Uylenburgh were in great contrast to those sold by the art dealers who worked at the bottom of the market; the latter sold inexpensive paintings, often painted by local, contemporary, and obscure painters whose names never, or hardly ever, appear in estate inventories. They made up no fewer than six of the ten art dealers investigated by Montias: the 1 An earlier version of this chapter was published in: Jager 2015b. 2 Montias 1988. 3 For De Renialme, see: De Blécourt 2012; Montias 2002, pp. 130-143. For the Uylenburghs, see: Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006.

Jager, A., Popular History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: Production, Distribution, and Consumption. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020 doi 10.5117/9789462987739_ch01

38 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Amsterdam-based Lambert Blaeuw (d. 1648), Cornelis Doeck (c. 1613-1664), and Hendrick Meijeringh (1639-1687), and the Rotterdam-based Maerten Balckeneynde (d. 1631), Crijn Hendricksz. Volmarijn (c. 1601-1648), and Lauwerens Bernards (d. 1676). Montias classified the remaining two dealers Pieter van Meldert (c. 1619-after 1660) and Mathijs Hals (1609-1661), with their Amsterdam-based businesses and stocks of moderately priced Haarlem paintings, as between the low and high segments. Doeck and Meijeringh distinguished themselves from other dealers with their large supply of history paintings. Volmarijn mainly sold landscapes, and Blaeuw sold a bit of everything. Indeed, it is questionable whether Blaeuw was really an art dealer, as he is described in his inventory as a ‘hoedestofferder’ (haberdasher). Montias was also struck by Doeck and Meijeringh’s focus on history paintings; he questioned whether this had been a smart move on their part, given that earlier research on patterns of painting ownership had suggested that history paintings were falling out of fashion at the time.4 The art dealers Doeck and Meijeringh, however, appear to have been responding to specific demand for affordable history paintings in Amsterdam. This chapter investigates this trade in inexpensive history paintings with an analysis of the inventories of Doeck and Meijeringh, and of one of their predecessors who was not studied by Montias, Jan Fransz. Dammeroen (1605-1658). In the detailed inventories of their trade-in-stock, almost all of the paintings are listed with descriptions of their subjects, making these inventories an invaluable source. In this chapter, I use the three inventories and supplementary documents on these art shops to gain an impression of the range of cheap history paintings in Amsterdam, and how the art trade functioned at the lower end of the market.

Buying paintings in the Dutch Republic In the early seventeenth century, there were hardly any full-time art dealers. There was already considerable variation in the quality and price of paintings for sale, but consumers had to find their own way around the diverse wares on offer. New paintings were still largely bought from the artist, both from stock and on commission (especially in the case of portraits). Some painters also stocked works by their peers. Annual fairs were the only occasions on which paintings that had been produced outside a particular city were allowed to be sold there, with the 4 Montias 1988, p. 251: ‘It is interesting that there was still appreciable demand for histories by contemporary painters, even though, judging by the rapidly falling share of histories as a percentage of all subjects represented in private collections in the course of the seventeenth century, one might have thought this “declining industry” would not have been a very promising area for artists to specialize in.’

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

39

result that painters would travel from one annual fair to another.5 Furthermore, the occasional painting was sold by shopkeepers who traded in related crafts, such as frame-makers and booksellers, and by innkeepers, merchants, itinerant pedlars, and the so-called ‘uitdraagsters’ (female brokers).6 The latter sold used household goods and clothing, which they acquired at estate auctions that followed a death or insolvency.7 A number of these women were very active in buying and selling inexpensive paintings, and operated in the cheapest segment of the art market.8 Flemish immigrants introduced new distribution channels for paintings. The cheap paintings that they imported in large numbers in the early seventeenth century were sold, in the most unorthodox fashion, at illegal auctions, to the annoyance of Amsterdam’s guild members, who protested that ‘no merchandise here in this city is customarily sold that way [by public auction], except the belongings of deceased persons’.9 Another new distribution channel was that of commercial lotteries that offered paintings as prizes. These presumably carried little risk, as the lottery could be deferred or cancelled if the costs were not covered by the proceeds of selling tickets.10 Paintings were also offered as prizes at the so-called ‘rijfelarij’: a dice-gaming event with an evening programme packed with music, gaming, drinks, snacks, and tobacco.11 We can infer from the steep price of the tickets that these gaming evenings had an exclusive character. Auctions and lotteries, by contrast, were public events featuring open exhibitions of paintings that ran for several days, allowing them to reach a variety of potential buyers and stimulate demand.12 As the century progressed, the supply of paintings and the variations in type, quality, and price only increased. At the top of the market in particular, the fame and reputation of the artist determined the price, meaning that authenticity became more and more important.13 As a consequence, consumers, who often lacked the 5 Bok 2008, pp. 19-21. Leendert Hendricksz. Volmarijn, the brother and business partner of the artistdealer Crijn Hendricksz. Volmarijn, stated in 1643 that for several years, ‘he had earned a living by selling of all kinds of paintings, with which he had sailed to the unregulated annual fairs in all the towns of the whole province of Holland’. Martin 1901, p. 86. 6 Montias 2002, pp. 43-51. 7 Montias concluded that there were at least one hundred uitdraagsters active in Amsterdam in the period 1597-1638; Montias 2002, p. 108. For their purchases at the Weeskamer auctions, see: Montias 2002, pp. 43-44. For more on uitdraagsters, see: Van Eeghen 1969/2012; Van Wijngaarden 1995. 8 Montias 2002, pp. 43-44. 9 Obreen 1880-1881, p. 167. De Marchi 1995, p. 209, nt. 3. The only official auctions in Amsterdam were estate auctions following a death or insolvency, or auctions organized in an orphan’s name. For all other auctions, one had to request permission from the city government. 10 De Marchi 1995, pp. 214-217; Raux 2018, pp. 175-222. 11 Bok 2008, pp. 16-18. 12 Raux 2018, pp. 54-61. 13 Van der Veen 2005a; Tummers 2008; Sluijter 2008, pp. 21-23; Sluijter 2015b, pp. 19-20.

40 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

knowledge they needed to compare prices and quality, were increasingly dependent on the services of trustworthy art dealers when negotiating the goods for sale.14 As this knowledge of paintings was so important, it was mainly artists who made the transition to becoming professional art dealers.15 The emergence of the professional art trade also benefitted painters: selling paintings was a time-consuming business and required talents other than painting. According to Bok, it was no longer standard practice to buy paintings from a workshop: by then, most paintings were purchased via the retail trade.16 The great variation in quality in the art market and the lack of clarity for consumers also meant that dealers began to target particular groups, as was concluded by Montias.17 Gerrit Uylenburgh, a high-end art dealer from Amsterdam, specialized in the trade in paintings for the affluent. To satisfy his demanding clients in the Netherlands and abroad, he sought exclusive paintings by both famous contemporary painters and old foreign masters.18 Maintaining relationships with patrons and preserving his good international reputation were probably his most important sales activities.19 The other art dealer characterized by Montias as a ‘high-end’ dealer was Johannes De Renialme. Remarkably, in addition to high-quality and expensive masterpieces, he sold a lot of lower-priced works as well: of the 586 paintings in stock upon his death in 1657, 122 were valued at less than 10 guilders.20 It is unlikely that De Renialme was targeting a very different clientele with these cheaper paintings; after all, it is difficult to imagine low-paid individuals confidently walking into an art dealer’s shop with a 1500-guilder Rembrandt on the wall. It seems more logical to conclude that there was also demand among his usual customers and patrons for inexpensive, lower-quality work, perhaps to hang in less public rooms. An example of this is when De Renialme in 1650 offered the Elector of Brandenburg, in addition to a large quantity of paintings by the most expensive and most celebrated painters, more than 400 unspecified paintings ‘by various masters’.21 The appeal of these works probably came from their decorative character. Their intended purpose may have been similar to that of the 95 ‘dime-a-dozen’ landscape paintings bought in 14 Montias 1988, p. 245; Montias 2004, p. 76; De Marchi 1995, pp. 208-212. For the role played by the guild in providing information about quality and price, see: Romein 2001; Prak 2003, pp. 247-249; Vermeylen and Van der Stighelen 2006. 15 Montias 2004, p. 76. 16 Bok 2008, p. 9. 17 Montias 1988. 18 Lammertse 2006b. 19 Gerrit Uylenburgh, for example, went to great lengths to show that the works he sent to the Great Elector in 1671 were originals: Lammertse 2006b, pp. 79-91. 20 De Blécourt 2012, pp. 37-40 21 De Blécourt 2012, p. 24.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

41

bulk in Antwerp by the Danish King Christian IV, which were mounted in the wall panelling of the Winter Room at Rosenborg Castle in Copenhagen.22

Three art shops at Nieuwmarkt square: Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh All three of the art shops owned by Jan Fransz. Dammeroen, Cornelis Doeck, and Hendrick Meijeringh were situated on Kloveniersburgwal, on the section of the canal between Koestraat and Bethaniënstraat, and a dozen or so steps from Nieuwmarkt square (see Fig. 1). Nieuwmarkt (New Market) was created in 1614 as a marketplace, around an old city gate that had lost its use after an urban expansion. The gate building was repurposed as Waag (weigh house), and its top floors were used to house three craft guilds, including the painter’s Guild of St. Luke. During the annual fair, which was held three times a year in Amsterdam and lasted several weeks, Nieuwmarkt was said to be full ‘of all kinds of stalls’,23 and paintings and other luxury goods were among the wares sold at these annual fairs. The neighbourhood around Nieuwmarkt soon developed into a lively production and trading centre for the arts and crafts. Many craftsmen and dealers settled in the streets leading to the square. The painters were clustered, among other places, in Sint Anthoniesbreestraat (where Hendrick Uylenburgh’s painting shop was located between c. 1625 and 1647, and where Rembrandt lived between 1639 and 1656).24 De Renialme’s art shop was on Kloveniersburgwal, across from Koestraat (north of the building known today as the Trippenhuis).25 As well as art dealers, panel-makers and paint-sellers also set up shop in the neighbourhood. Such a concentration of related occupational groups was the result of what are known in economic geography as ‘agglomeration benefits’; interaction with fellow workers and the visibility of their products provided specific information about trends and innovation. As a consequence, it was easier for customers to compare the quality and prices of different painters’ work, meaning that painters in turn were forced to adjust their prices to those of their colleagues.26 22 Wadum 1988 & 2015. 23 The three annual fairs were associated with holidays: the Halfvastens-Markt to celebrate the Miracle of Amsterdam began ‘around the middle of Lent’; the Pinkstermarkt or the Whit Sunday market started on the Thursday after the first Sunday after Whit Sunday; and the groote Jaarmarkt or Kermis began in September, after the feast day of St. Lambert. The annual fairs each lasted for three weeks for residents of Amsterdam, and two weeks for non-residents: Wagenaar 1760-1767, II, pp. 415-416. 24 Dudok van Heel 1991, p. 56, with map on pp. 58-59; Van der Veen 2006a, esp. pp. 45-48, 54-57. 25 De Blécourt 2012, pp. 17-19. 26 Sluijter 2015b, pp. 16-19. For spatial clustering in early-modern Dutch cultural production, see: Rasterhoff 2017.

42 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 1. The Nieuwmarkt square in Amsterdam, with the premises used by a) Frederick Meijeringh (1651 or before-1669) and Hendrick Meijeringh (1669-1687); b) Jan Fransz. Dammeroen (c. 1639-1646), Cornelis Doeck (1646/47-1664), and Johannes Loermans (1667-1714). Detail of Joan Blaeu, Amstelodami Celeberrimi Hollandiae Emporii Delineatio Nova, c. 1649. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España.

From the 1640s, the influential and prosperous elite moved to the newly built canal ring. Many painters at the top end of the market followed their clientele, and settled in the better streets of the nearby working-class district of the Jordaan.27 While this development was taking place, the art dealers who focused their trade on the cheaper segment appear to have remained in the Nieuwmarkt neighbourhood. Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh were not the only dealers in cheap paintings to settle around Nieuwmarkt. It is unclear whether the other art shops also specialized in history paintings, because the subjects of the paintings are not listed in the surviving trade inventories. Around the corner on Koestraat, Elias Hoomis (1600-1636) and his wife Catharina van den Dorp (1605-1674) ran an art shop, which Catharine took over after Elias’s death in 1636, and continued to run in 1640 with her new husband, Anthonie Waterloo (1609-1690). In the 1660s, her son Casparus 27 Sluijter 2015b, p. 16.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

43

Hoomis (1630-1677) founded a subsidiary of the family business in Leeuwarden,28 whilst her daughter Lijsbeth (Elisabeth) Hoomis (1633-1684) set up an art shop in Amsterdam on Kloveniersburgwal between Bethaniënstraat and Oude Hoogstraat, together with her first husband, the painter Johannes Croon (1630-1664).29 After Croon’s death in 1664, an inventory was made of 368 paintings in the shop estate, appraised in groups of different sizes, with values ranging from 1 to 10 guilders per painting.30 The inventory also mentions a substantial stock of painting supports in the attic, and a shop selling household textiles (such as carpets, blankets, and cushions). Lijsbeth Hoomis continued the painting business, first with her second husband the painter Jan van den Broeck (c. 1615-1669/1670), and soon after his death with her third husband the painter Marcus Cortsz. (c. 1630-after 1690).31 On 1 July 1682, Meijeringh and Jan de Kaersgieter (II) (1639-1722), described as ‘art-sellers’, valued the paintings in Lijsbeth Hoomis’s estate, ‘both principals and copies’, at 1690 guilders. No figures were mentioned at the appraisal; instead, reference was made to the notebook of her last husband, Cortsz., which has unfortunately not survived.32 De Kaersgieter’s painting shop was located on the corner of Kalverstraat and Heiligewegsteeg.33 Remarkably, Lijsbeth Hoomis combined the art shop with a timber business and a curtains shop. These were logical additions; the timber market was located close to her house in front of the Bushuis, and a linen and lace market was held every Monday at the nearby Nieuwmarkt square.34 It was not unusual for people to have a business on the side: the art dealer Pieter van Meldert, who, like Mathijs Hals, worked in the middle segment of the market, also owned a lace shop.35 As we shall see, Meijeringh likewise had a second line of business.

The art dealer Jan Fransz. Dammeroen Jan Fransz. Dammeroen was baptized in Amsterdam in 1605 as the eldest son of the French caffa (silk-cloth) worker Franchois d’Ameron and Trijn Jochims of 28 Bakker 2008a, pp. 102-105; Nijboer 1998. Upon his death, Casparus Hoomis left more than 240 paintings. 29 The location of their art shop is mentioned in the will drawn up by the couple while Johannes Croon was on his deathbed in 1664; he stated that he lived ‘on the Oostindische Kay in Klockenburgh next to the Boshuys lock’ (Kloveniersburgwal, by today’s Bushuis); see: Bredius 1915-1922, III, p. 846c. 30 Bredius 1915-1922, III, pp. 844-845; SAA, ONA [5075], not. H. Rosa, inv. no. ?, pp. 673-683, 7-12-1664. 31 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 486, p. 348, 9-1-1665 (marriage banns Jan van den Broeck); inv. no. 495, p. 296, 12-9-1670 (marriage banns Marcus Cortsz). 32 Bredius 1915-1922, V, pp. 1802-1803. 33 Bredius 1915-1922, VI, pp. 2059-2062, 2066-2068. 34 Commelin 1693, pp. 688, 697; Dapper 1663, p. 451. 35 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Vos, inv. no. 1202, fol. 270-286, 1-10-1653; (partially) published in Bredius 1915-1922, VI, pp. 1968-1973; Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 184; Montias 1988.

44 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Cleves.36 When proclaiming the banns of his marriage to Annetie Claesdr. Borgers on 3 May 1625, he specified ‘painter’ as his occupation, but he did not provide a residential address.37 Dammeroen’s second marriage was announced on 10 March 1639, to Diewertje Wilkes of Groningen; this time he stated he was living at Nieuwmarkt.38 The exact building can be deduced from documents made up by the Desolate Boedelkamer (Chamber of Insolvent Estates): the shop premises and private dwelling known as ‘De Friese Os [The Frisian Ox]’ on Kloveniersburgwal, on the southern corner of Koestraat, belonging to Maurits Jansz. van der Waij, alias ‘Cruijdenier’.39 Dammeroen’s art-dealing activities are only shown by documents from 1646, but by then he had already been trading for some time. On 3 September of that year, Dammeroen’s wife confessed to owing 837 guilders to Adolf Wolff and Marten van Wijnegem for a loan and ‘security on rent’. 40 As collateral, she promised them ‘as many cases, packs and individual paintings as currently awaiting to arrive from Rotterdam’. 41 A day later, a cargo of 127 paintings arrived in Amsterdam and was stored and inventoried in Wolff’s house. 42 The load consisted of nineteen individually listed paintings and 33 numbered packs of paintings containing 108 works ‘of various sorts and sizes.’ 36 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 4, p. 121, 28-3-1605. His parents’ place of origin was gleaned from their marriage banns; she came from Langenberg in Clevenland (North Rhine-Westphalia): SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 411, p. 18, 30-8-1603. For the full biography of Jan Fransz. Dammeroen, see: Jager 2016, pp. 175-178. 37 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 430, p. 89, 3-5-1625: ‘Jan Francen van A, aged 20, assisted by his mother Trijn Jochems, painter, and Annetie Burgers van A, aged 18, assisted by her mother Anna Willems, resident on Louweriergracht.’ No baptisms relating to the couple were found in Amsterdam’s baptismal registers; the marriage was probably childless. Annetje Claesdr. Borgers died between 1626 and 1639. No funeral was registered in Amsterdam’s burial registers, but a f inal mention of her appears in the archives on 2 February 1626 (SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. Westfrisius, inv. no. 550A, fol. 43-43vo). 38 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 450, p. 191, 10-3-1639: ‘Jan Francen van A, widower of Anne Burgers, living on Oostermarct, and Diewertje Wilkes of Groningen, aged 32, living on Dijkstraet, assisted by her friend Jannetie Coijmans.’ Dammeroen stated that he lived at ‘Oostermarct’, a seventeenth-century name for Nieuwmarkt; see: Van Hall 2001, p. 130. 39 SAA, DBK [5072], Registers of inventories of moveable property ‘C’ (20 March 1646-9 August 1647)), inv. no. 572, fol. 162, 21-9-1646; SAA, DBK [5072], ‘Praeferentierol 1’ (13 April 1644-8 September 1651), inv. no. 973, without pagination, 8-3-1647. 40 The creditors were related by marriage: Adolf Wolff was a tailor ‘from Delden’ who married Janneke Coijmans in 1618: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 422, p. 312, 23-6-1618. Janneke Coijmans was friends with Diewertje Wilkes and had assisted the latter at her marriage to Jan Fransz. Dammeroen (see note 38). In 1640, the merchant Marten van Wijnegem married Susanna van Moijalen, a sister of Wijntie Coijmans (SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 453, p. 299, 23-3-1640). 41 Dammeroen’s wife Diewertje Wilkes ‒ who ‘lay ill and incapable in bed’ ‒ confessed to owing 837 guilders to Adolf Wolff and Marten van Wijnegem, for a loan and security on rent. SAA, ONA [5075], not. P. Capoen, inv. no. 1573b, fol. 489-491vo; partly published in Bredius 1915-1922, VII, p. 62n. Wolff and Wijnegem were able to sell the collateral in order to settle the debt. 42 SAA, ONA [5075], not. P. Capoen, inv. no. 1573b, fol. 489-491vo; Bredius 1915-1922, VII, p. 62n.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

45

It can be assumed that this load of paintings was the remainder of the merchandise that Dammeroen had taken to the annual fair in Rotterdam. The city’s annual fair began on the last Monday in August – in 1646, this would have fallen on 27 August – and generally lasted one week. 43 This would imply that the art dealer was seeking markets outside Amsterdam. With 127 paintings remaining, we can only guess the number of paintings that Dammeroen had taken with him. Art dealers presumably took hundreds of paintings to such annual fairs. At any rate, this is suggested by a 1642 commission by five painting-sellers for the construction of a stall at Rotterdam’s annual fair, which used 4-metre-high wooden walls and had a total exhibition space of 300-450 square metres. 44 More financial problems came to light one and a half weeks after the Rotterdam merchandise was inventoried, when it was found that Dammeroen had failed to pay any rent for two years – amounting to more than 630 guilders.45 The painter and art dealer was declared insolvent; the owner of the premises, Van der Waij, was the sole creditor. To cover the debt, the Desolate Boedelkamer made an inventory of Dammeroen’s estate on 21 September 1646. 46 Dammeroen’s insolvent estate contained 213 paintings, most of which were framed and kept in the sales area in the voorhuis (the front room, where one entered the house).47 As we will see later, the vast majority of these were history paintings. None of the artists’ names were listed in the inventory. It is possible that Dammeroen had made some of these paintings himself; he had worked as a landscape painter, and several of his landscapes include biblical figures by staffage-painters. 48 The inventory mentions painters’ materials in the loft, which was probably the workshop: three easels, ‘some painters’ tools’, and ‘some bad prints’ (slechte printen). The loft also contained a painting of The Fire of Troy. After the inventory was made, this was found to belong to the art dealer, draughtsman, and publisher Pieter Latombe 43 Rotterdam’s annual fair was traditionally held on the first Sunday after St Laurens’ day (10 August), but in 1627 this was changed to the first Monday after the day of ‘Parysche Moord’ (24 August). In principle, the fair lasted just one week, although the city administration could grant two eight-day extensions: Van Rijn 1894. These data appear to be incorrect for at least the year 1641, as, according to a note in John Evelyn’s diary, the Rotterdam market was already under way on 13 August 1641: Evelyn 1640-1706, p. 39. No recent literature or detailed study on the annual fairs is available. 44 Bok 2008, p. 19. The account has been published; see: Alting Mees 1915. Also mentioned in: BoersGoosens 2012: p. 88. 45 SAA, DBK [5072], ‘Praeferentierol 1’, inv. no. 973, without pagination, 8-3-1647. 46 SAA. DBK [5072], Registers of inventories of moveable property ‘C’, inv. no. 572, fol. 163-169, 21-9-1646. 47 The inventory specifies 140 paintings with frames and five paintings without frames; for the remaining paintings, no information about frames was included. In most cases, these were ‘black and gilded’ frames. Although ‘gilded’ might sound expensive, in the first half of the seventeenth century this simply meant a moulded frame with gilt edging, and such frames were thus not particularly valuable. Twelve paintings are described as having precious ebony frames. Van Thiel 1984a, p. 25. 48 For this, see further: pp. 111-122 and Figs. 3-8.

46 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

(c. 1600-1674).49 In the inventory, it is noted that a ‘schilderij van Caom’ (painting of Cain?) belonged to the creditor Van Wijnegem. The remaining household effects included nothing of value. The day after the inventory was made, the warden of the Desolate Boedelkamer, Thomas Jacobsz. Haeringh (1586/1587-1660), was authorized to sell the paintings and household goods.50 The total proceeds of the auction came to 557 guilders.51 Divided over 211 paintings (excluding the works belonging to La Tombe and Van Wijnegem), this gives an average of 2.6 guilders per painting. Based on this, we can conclude that Dammeroen was working at the lower end of the art market. Dammeroen’s business was not particularly successful; this is evident not only from his bankruptcy, but also from his meagre household effects. The inventory merely lists some crockery, a Bible, and a few pieces of oak and pine furniture, and no silver, gold, or jewellery. The bankruptcy inventory may not have been an exact representation of what Dammeroen owned, of course; he might have withheld goods and possessions, or he might have been allowed to retain a few possessions with which to continue living. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that on 9 October, it was agreed that the bed and bedding on which his sick wife lay would not be sold for the time being, suggesting that all of the family’s other possessions had been taken.52 With the 127 paintings as collateral and the sale of his estate, Dammeroen had paid off his debts, but he had also lost his stock of paintings. From this sum, the creditor Van der Waij received a little over 534 guilders on 12 March 1647.53 The next day, Van der Waij was promised another 150 guilders ‘for the half year’s rent’.54 Life did not improve for Dammeroen after his bankruptcy. The painter moved to Bredepad (nearby today’s Spiegelgracht), beyond the city walls, where he continued 49 SAA, DBK [5072], Notulenboek ‘3’ (1645-January 1647), inv. no. 3, fol. 112v, 10-10-1646. On the same date, 9 October, Haeringh was authorized to send the canvas entitled The Fire of Troy, which had been kept in the loft among Dammeroen’s belongings, to Pieter de la Tombe; the latter was an art dealer and must have been the owner of the canvas. 50 A trustee was also appointed: the notary Francois Meerhout. SAA, DBK [5072], ‘Notulenboek 3’, inv. no. 3, fol. 110v, 22-9-1646. On Thomas Jacobsz. Haeringh and his brother Pieter Haringh, who would have also assisted with the sale of parts of the bankrupt Rembrandt’s collection in the ‘De Keizerskroon’ inn in 1655, see: Crenshaw 2006, pp. 62-64. On 9 October, it was decreed that ‘for the time being, the bed and bedding belonging to the wife of the painter Jan Franssen, on which she still lies, shall remain unsold’: SAA, DBK [5072], ‘Notulenboek 3’, inv. no. 3, fol. 112v, 9-10-1646. 51 ‘Journaal B’ (28 March 1645-1 February 1652), inv. no. 209, fol. 95, 10-1-1647; SAA, DBK [5072], ‘Grootboek B’ (28 March 1645-1 February 1652), inv. no. 249, 1647, fol. 169. 52 SAA, DBK [5072], ‘Notulenboek 3’, inv. no. 3, fol. 112v, 9-10-1646. 53 The full amount promised to Maurits Jansz. van der Waij was 534,55 guilders: SAA, DBK [5072], ‘Grootboek B’, inv. no. 249, fol. 169. The trustee, notary Francois Meerhout, received 22.5 guilders in payment for his work: SAA, DBK [5072], ‘Notulenboek 4’ (February 1647-20 May 1648), inv. no. 4, fol. 4-5, 21-2-1647. 54 SAA, DBK [5072], ‘Notulenboek 4’, inv. no. 4, fol. 25, 13-3-1647.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

47

to live until his death in 1658.55 The move to Bredepad suggests that Dammeroen gave up his art business after going bankrupt.

The art dealer Cornelis Doeck Cornelis Doeck was the son of Willem Doeck and Baef je Cornelisdr. de Bisschop, who were married in Danzig (Gdánsk).56 Cornelis Doeck may have been born around 1613 in Danzig, rather than in Amsterdam, as he claimed at the proclamation of his marriage banns.57 His father Willem Doeck was a trader; a document drawn up on 14 February 1619 suggests that, in Danzig, he traded in goods that had been exported to the city by the Amsterdam merchant Hillebrant den Otter, and had gone bankrupt.58 On the maternal side of his family, Cornelis Doeck was related to the lawyer, printmaker, and draughtsman Jan de Bisschop (1628-1671).59 Like Dammeroen, Cornelis Doeck started out as a painter, but later switched to dealing. At the proclamation of the banns of his marriage to Cornelia Rocholts of Amsterdam in November 1637, he was registered as a painter living on Nieuwezijds Achterburgwal.60 None of Doeck’s paintings have survived, as far as we know, but the shop wares listed in his estate include a landscape by his hand, and there was also a self-portrait in a private room. Cornelis Doeck became a citizen of Amsterdam 55 The first report of Dammeroen living on Bredepad is found in the announcement of his third marriage on 2 April 1649: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 466, p. 428. He was still living there when he died: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 1226, p. 77v, 12-9-1658. Dammeroen’s death was recorded in the burial registers of the Weeskamer (Orphan Chamber): SAA, WK [5004], Heiligeweg Kerkhof, inv. no. 64, without pagination, 12-9-1658, ‘Jan Fransz on hoerepadt, 1 child.’ Hoerenpad was another name for Bredepad. No further documents were found in the archive of the Weeskamer. I have searched the following registers: SAA, WK [5073], Register guardianship and estate management, inv. no. 514; Admission register, inv. no. 556; Register ‘diversche memorien ende extra-ordinaris saecken’, inv. no. 893; Index estate inventories, inv. no. 1060. 56 For the full biography of Cornelis Doeck and his family relations, see: Jager 2016, pp. 179-184. 57 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 447, p. 53, 28-11-1637. 58 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J.F. Bruijningh, 200, fol. 8-8v [p. 140], 14-2-1619; see also: Montias-Frick Database, inv. lot 730.0013. Willem Doeck may have been the same ‘Willem Douck’ who attended the funeral of one ‘Cornelis’ in St Pancras’ Church in Leiden on 14 May 1618; RAL, Leiden Bonboeken [0501A], inv. no. 1316, 14-5-1618. 59 Van Gelder 1971, pp. 232-233. 60 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 447, p. 53, 28-11-1637; also in: De Witt 2007, p. 353, note 11. Cornelia Rochols was baptized on 10 January 1617 as the daughter of Melgior Rochelt and Neeltje Coolen/Cornelis: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 39, p. 446, 10-1-1617. From 1604 onwards, her parents had several children baptized in Amsterdam: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 39, p. 34, 21-3-1604; p. 134, 30-9-1607; p. 297, 2-10-1612; p. 354, 29-6-1614; inv. no. 4, p. 302, 13-12-1609; inv. no. 5, p. 287, 16-6-1619. No marriage deeds were found for the Rochols couple; they were presumably married outside of Amsterdam.

48 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

on 1 November 1639,61 and it was around this time that he seems to have made the switch to the art trade. In those years, he was living at his new wife’s parental home on the corner of Langestraat and Corsjespoortsteeg, and stated in his will that he was a ‘former painter’.62 Doeck bought the premises known as ‘De Friese Os’ at the end of 1646 or in 1647, after Dammeroen went bankrupt. The official transfer of the premises, purchased for 8000 guilders, took place only in 1663.63 It is possible that the two art dealers knew one another and that Doeck bought part of Dammeroen’s stock, but as many years of sales took place between the two inventories, this can no longer be shown. Doeck belonged to a network of art dealers at the cheaper end of the market. On 28 July 1652, for example, as a ‘fellow painting-seller’, he was witness to the will of his neighbours, Frederick Meijeringh and his wife Elisabeth Claesdr. (the parents of Hendrick Meijeringh).64 On 13 September 1652, the painter Croon, who the female art dealer Lijsbeth Hoomis had married in 1651, testified for Doeck that he had paid the panel-maker Wijbrand Gerritsz. van der Poel.65 Doeck’s inventory also contains a landscape painted by Jan van den Broeck, the second husband of Lijsbeth Hoomis.66 Doeck and his wife died in short succession in May 1664, probably of the plague.67 The couple’s possessions were not inventoried until December 1666, at the request 61 The estate inventory lists a ‘burgercedulen’ (declaration of citizenship) by Cornelis Doeck, dated 1 November 1639; see: SAA, ONA [5075], not. J.H. Leuven, inv. no. 2733, 13/15-7-1667, fol. 487. The surviving register of citizens of Amsterdam (poorterboek) for this period does not list the registration of Cornelis Doeck: SAA, Poorterboeken [5033], Register of purchased citizenship ‘E’, 1636-1652, inv. no. 2. 62 In the will drawn up on 8 December 1639, he described himself as a ‘former painter’: SAA, ONA [5075], not. F van Banchem, inv. no. 319, fol. 234vo-236ro, 8-12-1639; Bredius 1891, p. 56; Bredius 1915-1922, I, p. 111a. De Witt 2007, p. 353, nt. 11 mentions the deed, but was not able to locate it. 63 SAA, Remission registers [5062], inv. no. 54, fol. 209-209vo, 10-5-1663. A copy of the deed of transfer has survived in the archives of the Orphan Chamber: SAA, WK [5073], inv. no. 4332, 10-5-1663. One of the guarantors was Maurits Jansz. van der Waij’s son-in-law Frederick de Wit, print publisher and dealer on the Kalverstraat. On Frederick de Wit, see: Van Eeghen 1990. It is likely that Cornelis Doeck settled in De Friese Os around this time. After he had a child baptized in the Oude Kerk in 1647, his subsequent children (born in 1651, 1653, and 1659) were baptized in the Zuiderkerk, close to Nieuwmarkt. SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 8 (Oude Kerk), p. 120, 10-3-1647; inv. no. 94 (Zuiderkerk), p. 16, 29-5-1651; p. 68, 16-3-1653; p. 502, 1-6-1659. 64 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Bary, inv. no. 1653, fol. 325-326, 28-7-1652; Bredius 1915-1922, I, p. 343. 65 SAA, ONA [5075], not. A. Lock, inv. no. 2193, fol. 244, 13-9-1652. 66 Lijsbeth Hoomis and Jan van den Broeck proclaimed their marriage banns on 9 June 1665: Bredius 1915-1922, I, p. 118. Doeck died in May 1664. Either Doeck knew Van den Broeck before his marriage to Lijsbeth Hoomis, or the landscape was added to the inventory after Doeck’s death. 67 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 1091, p. 85v, 20-5-1664 and 26-5-1664. This was the initial period of the plague of 1664; in week 20 (17-23 May), 362 people died, and in week 21 (24-30 May), 391 people died; see: Noordegraaf and Valk 1996, pp. 40-41. The death toll rose sharply each week.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

49

of their eldest daughters, Cornelia (1640-1721) and Baefje (1642-after 1687).68 Their husbands’ names were added to the introduction to the inventory at a later time, in a different hand: Johannes Loermans (1631/33-1714), a painter from Emden, and Engelbert Nolpe (1644-before 1677), the son of the printmaker Pieter Nolpe (1613/141664).69 The younger daughters Lijsbeth (1653-after 1702) and Anna (1659-after 1702) were to receive board and lodgings from Loermans and Doeck until they turned 20. The estate inventory starts by listing personal possessions, including quite a considerable amount of silver, gold, cash, and household goods, with a total value of 2136 guilders.70 This was followed by 31 paintings.71 Of these, 26 paintings were appraised, to a total of 46,5 guilders. The other five paintings were divided among the children: Anna received the self-portrait of her father, Baefje two portraits of her mother, Cornelia the painting of Mary with Christ and John the Baptist, and Lijsbeth a Cleopatra. The other personal possessions were also divided among the four children.72 The trade-in-stock, consisting of 576 paintings, was inventoried (not appraised) six months after the personal possessions.73 The inventory describes a considerable number of paintings in detail. Many paintings included frames.74 Doeck had as many as 64 paintings in stock by the barely known painter Leendert de Laeff (c. 1630-after 1665). This strongly suggests that De Laeff was in employment of the art dealer. The production by employees of these shops will be further investigated in Chapter Three. The inventory also gives an impression of the shop layout: the voorhuis was the shop space containing 234 paintings, whilst the ‘uppermost loft’, with 177 paintings, 68 SAA ONA [5075], not J.H. Leuven, 2732B, fol. 1623-1629, 26-11-1666. 69 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 487, p. 179, 30-5-1665 (marriage banns Baafje Cornelis [Doeck] and Engelbert Pietersz. [Nolpe]): SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 489, p. 299, 3-12-1666 (marriage banns Cornelia Doecx and Jan Janse Loermans). The latter banns were thus announced a week after the first inventory of her deceased father’s estate was drawn up. The couple had known one another for some time: in 1660, Cornelia Doeck had been a witness at the baptism of Loermans’s son with his first wife, Catharina Auxbrebis (DTB 94, p. 605, 5-5-1660). Catharina Auxbrebis died two weeks before Doeck; the entry in the burial register describes her place of death as ‘at Nieuwmarkt, on the corner of Koestraet’ (DTB 5004, p. 21, 6-5-1660). 70 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J.H. Leuven, 2732B, fol. 1623-1638, 24/27-12-1666. 71 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J.H. Leuven, 2732B, fol. 1628. 72 The inventory lists the goods and their values under Engelbert Nolpe, the daughters Lijsbeth and Annetien Doeck, and Johannes Loermans: SAA, ONA [5075], not. J.H. Leuven, 2732B, fol. 1635-1638, 26-12-1666. 73 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J.H. Leuven, inv. no. 2733, fol. 473-487, 13/15-7-1667; partially published in: Bredius 1915-1922, I, pp. 102-110; Montias-Frick, inv. no. 532. 74 The inventory specifies 191 paintings with frames and 86 paintings without frames. The inventory does not provide information about frames for the other paintings. None of the frames in Doeck’s shop were made of expensive material: the inventory listed 53 black frames, twelve frames of pine, and one gilded frame. One was listed as an Italian frame.

50 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

16 dead-coloured panels, and 18 individual frames, functioned as a workshop, as had Dammeroen’s loft.75 The attic was not named in Dammeroen’s inventory, but in Doeck’s shop this seems to have functioned as a storage area where, in addition to 74 paintings, he also kept ‘two drawings, one washed and the other in pen by Ludolf Backhuyzen’. In the binnenkamer (living room) were an additional 91 paintings. The paintings were sold at public auction, along with a valuable collection of unspecified books, each day from 9 to 13 August in the nearby Bethaniënstraat.76 The auctioneer was Pieter Haringh, the brother of Thomas Jacobsz. Haringh (the seller of Dammeroen’s insolvent estate, who had died by the time of Doeck’s estate auction).77 The contents of the shop and all the books raised a total of 2562 guilders and 16 stivers.78 This sum, rounded off and divided amongst the 571 paintings (576 minus five that had already been sold separately 79), provide an average price of 4.5 guilders per painting. This suggests that Doeck, like Dammeroen, worked at the cheaper end of the art market. In fact, the average painting price must have been much lower, as an unknown quantity of books, including ‘specially-made and printed volumes’, was also among the auctioned goods. Some of the 26 paintings that had been appraised with the private possessions in the inventory of December 1666 and that had come into the possession of Anna, Lijsbeth, and the Loermans couple were also included in the trade inventory. These valuations thus offer an impression of the kinds of prices used in Doeck’s shop, ranging from 12 stivers (0.6 guilders) per piece for ‘small paintings, peasants and landscapes’; 3 guilders for a ‘bankettie’ (small banquet piece) by Pieter Claesz. (c. 1597/8-1660), a ‘stil watertie’ (calm seascape) by Wouter Knijff (c. 1605/7-1694), and a landscape by Roelof Jansz. van Vries (c. 1631-c. 1681); to 6 guilders for a ‘painting of Cecilia’.80 Unlike Dammeroen, Doeck was a successful dealer with a corresponding standard of living. As a whole, Doeck’s estate was worth the considerable sum of 75 The estate did not include any paint or painters’ tools, probably due to the long period of time between Doeck’s death (1664) and the making of the shop inventory (1667). 76 The inventory refers to ‘various books in folio, quarto, octavo and smaller, as well as extraordinarily made and printed volumes, of which a catalogue was drawn up’. Numbers and titles are not listed in the inventory, but the production of a catalogue indicates that there must have been quite a few valuable books. The auction is mentioned in the settlement of the estate (SAA, ONA [5075], not. J.H. Leuven, inv. no. 2733, fol. 950) and in a statement by various art dealers, including Hendrick Meijeringh (SAA, ONA [5075], not. D. Danckerts, inv. no. 2845, fol. 86, 14-2-1668). 77 Crenshaw 2006, pp. 62-64. 78 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J.H. Leuven, inv. no. 2732B, fol. 947-950, 31/15-1-1668. 79 A series of ‘vijf sinnen van de Fuyter’ (five senses by De Fuyter) was deleted from the inventory as ‘sold’. The painter De Fuyter can no longer be identified with any certainty. Various brothers with this family name worked as painters in Amsterdam: Louis (c. 1613-1670), Jacob Leon (II) (c. 1618-1686), and Leonard de Fuyter (c. 1622-1658). Jager 2016, pp. 306-307. 80 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J.H. Leuven, inv. no. 2732B, fol. 1628, 24/27-12-1666.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

51

17,501 guilders, 11,200 guilders of which was ‘capitael van de suyvere en onbelaste staet’ (‘pure and untaxed capital’).81 The total value of the contents of the house and the cash came to 2136 guilders. There were outstanding bonds to the city of Amsterdam (3000 guilders, in the name of Hendrick van Bronchorst), the shoemaker Willem Schellings (400 guilders), and a certain Christoffel Ulrichs of Stockholm (96 guilders). A kustingsbrief (a special mortgage on real estate) to Maurits Jansz. van der Waij, listed in the inventory, shows that 6000 guilders was still owed on the ‘Friese Os’ premises.

The painting dealer Hendrick Meijeringh Hendrick Meijeringh was baptized in the Lutheran Church on 29 December 1639, as the eldest son of painter and art dealer from Emden, Frederick Meijeringh (1608-1669), and Lijsbeth Claes of Antwerp.82 In 1669, Meijeringh officially took over his father’s art shop, ‘De Preeckstoel’ on Kloveniersburgwal, two doors down from ‘De Friese Os’.83 Hendrick was already working in the business before his father’s death: in 1668, together with the art dealers Lijsbeth Hoomis and Jan de Kaersgieter, he declared that he had been present at the auction of Doeck’s estate and that he had bought paintings there.84 In the document, he describes himself as a ‘kunstvercooper’ (art-seller). Meijeringh and Hoomis testified for De Kaersgieter that there had been three paintings too many on his invoice: ‘a winter scene at 8 guilders, a landscape for the sum of 8 guilders and 5 stivers, and a seascape for 7 guilders and 5 stivers’. It is unclear whether Hendrick also worked as a painter. Now, in any case, we do not know of any paintings by him, and his work is not listed in any contemporary inventories, including that of his own shop. Arnold Houbraken, however, recounted 81 This is shown by the settlement of the estate: SAA, ONA [5075], not. J.H. Leuven, inv. no. 2732B, fol. 947-950, 31-1-1668. 82 For the full biography of Hendrick Meijeringh and his family relations, see: Jager 2016, pp. 185-189. In any case, Frederick Meijeringh’s art shop ‘De Preeckstoel’ on Kloveniersburgwal existed in 1652, when he made his will (see note 109), and probably already in 1651, when he reported to live at the Nieuwmarkt: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 1062, p. 94, 24-9-1651. It is not unlikely that the art shop already existed when Dammeroen was still managing ‘De Friese Os’. Frederik Meijeringh was in Amsterdam from 1625: SAA, Archive of the Evangelical-Lutheran Congregation of Amsterdam [213], Register of the members of the congregation, inv. no. 507, p. 39. He lived on Uilenburg then, and still lived there in 1638: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 675, p. 84, 26-11-1638; published in: Bredius 1915-1922, VII, n151. 83 Hendrick Meijeringh then officially took over the business; the house was still mortgaged for 2200 guilders. Bredius 1915-1922, I, pp. 344e; SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Winter, inv. no. 2298, without pagination, 13-9-1669. 84 SAA, ONA [5075], not. D. Danckerts, inv. no. 2845, fol. 86, 14-02-1668.

52 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

in the biography of his younger brother, the painter Albert Meijeringh (1645-1714), that Hendrick and his father ‘would paint less significant objects, mainly folding screens, and also had a business selling these’.85 This may mean that Hendrick worked as a so-called kladschilder, which could be translated as a coarse painter or a decorative painter.86 The extent to which Houbraken’s statement is based in fact remains unclear: now, we do not know of any painted seventeenth-century screens, and after Hendrick’s death, there was no evidence of such a business in the inventory. By contrast, Albert Meijeringh was a successful landscape painter, and we find seven of paintings by him in his brother’s shop inventory.87 In 1676, Hendrick Meijeringh, described as a ‘painting-seller’, married Catharina Moubach of Aachen.88 The couple were Lutheran.89 On 21 May 1677, they drew up a will naming the guardians for any future children: Albert Meijeringh, and Catharina’s brother, the brazier Abraham Moubach.90 Their first daughter, Elisabeth, was born in c. 1678.91 On 14 April 1681, a second daughter, Anna, was baptized in the Lutheran Church.92 Meijeringh’s wife died in childbirth.93 Hendrick Meijeringh died on 8 June 1687 and was buried four days later in the Old Lutheran Church.94 His will specified that his estate would not be handled by the Orphan Chamber. On 18 June 1687, Albert Meijeringh, Abraham Moubach, and Michiel Coninck (a corset-maker and the husband of Hendrick’s sister, Elisabeth Meijeringh) requested from the Aldermen that ‘they might trade’ with the bequeathed estate.95 The reason they gave for this was that Hendrick Meijeringh and Catharina Moubach ‘had left so little that the two children could only be brought up in austerity’.96 On 20 June 1687, Albert Meijeringh and Abraham Moubach 85 Houbraken 1718-1721, III, p. 210. 86 For the kladschilder, see: Bakker 2011 & 2017b. 87 ‘A winter scene of the Amstel, by Albert Meijerinck; A landscape by Albert Meijerinck; Ditto by the same; Ditto two more by the same, both in height and in width; Two paintings by Albert Meijerinck of Italian mountains with frames.’ For literature on Albert Meijeringh, see: Zwollo 1973, pp. 19-27. 88 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 690, p. 230, 26-9-1676, also published in Bredius 1915-1922, VII, 151n. 89 This is shown by the burial registers and the presence of various books in the estate inventory, including a Lutheran Bible and the Chronica Carionis. 90 Bredius 1915-1922, I, p. 334. 91 No baptismal deed has been found. Elisabeth [Hendricksdr.] Meijeringh married a certain Jan van den Bergh in 1699; see: SAA, DTB [701], p. 236, 25-07-1699. He might have been related to the Joannes van den Bergh who was appointed guardian of Doeck’s children. On 20 December 1713, Elisabeth divorced her husband, and her uncle and guardian Albert Meijeringh acted as arbitrator: Bredius 1915-1922, I, p. 347o. 92 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 165, p. 7, 14-4-1681. 93 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 1134, p. 13, 25-4-1681. 94 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 1134, p. 25v, 12-6-1687. 95 SAA, Archive of the ‘Schout en Schepenen’ [5061], ‘Schepenen minuut register’, inv. no. 763, fol. 259, 18-6-1687. The original is listed in the estate inventory. 96 Ibidem.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

53

started to make an inventory of the estate and the shop.97 Meijeringh’s stock was not auctioned or appraised, but was taken over by his brother, Albert.98 Meijeringh’s total stock consisted of 499 paintings, many of which were framed.99 Strikingly, the paintings in the shop were organized by size (see Fig. 2): daaldersmaat (thaler-size), groot soort (large or perhaps referring to the coin groot), tien stuiversmaat (ten-stivers size), salvator, predikantsmaat (‘pastor-size’), grote stooters (large stoter, a stoter being a coin), kleine stooters, and smaller types. My hypothesis that the paintings were priced according to size is developed further in Chapter Three. An inventory of 344 paintings was made in the voorkamer (front room or parlour), which was probably the main selling area. It is unclear how the voorkamer was positioned in relation to the voorhuis, where Elisabeth Meijeringh ran a sewing shop or sewing workshop with her husband.100 The voorhuis was normally where one entered the premises, and thereby the shop window and the sales space. A shop selling sewing supplies was a strategic choice for the Nieuwmarkt area: as mentioned above, a linen and lace market was held there every Monday, at which many uitdraagsters sold used clothing and household goods.101 Fifty-five paintings also hung in the sewing shop. Was the sewing shop intended to attract potential clients to the art shop? The attic housed a painting workshop with 90 97 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Winter, inv. no. 2414, fol. 1-32, 20/25-6-1687. 98 In the will of 1672, Albert was appointed the heir general of the shop. Bredius 1915-1922, I, p. 345g. On 22 May 1695, an advertisement in the Amsterdamsche Courant read: ‘Albert Meyeringh, painter, resident on Kloveniers Burghwal, has designed and etched several new Landscapes, decorated with antique Roman Tombs, Sepulchres, Pyramids and Fountain, etc., and intends to multiply this work, which can be obtained from him for a reasonable price.’ According to the wills that he had drawn up between 1690 and 1701 with his wife Maria Schuurmans, Albert did not live on Kloveniersburgwal, but on Utrechtsestraat, between Keizersgracht and Kerkstraat. Bredius 1915-1922, I, p. 346. It appears that he moved (part of) the business to this side of town, for his sister, Elisabeth Meijeringh, had continued to run the yarn shop there. SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 1230, p. 539: ‘Elisabeth Meyeringh widow of Mighiel Koningh on Uyttstraat at Cysersgraft in the yarn shop, leaves one child.’ From 5 April 1706, Albert Meijeringh also rented out a room for 60 guilders a year to Hendrik Krollius, who left five paintings and two unfinished paintings upon his death in 1708. On 10 January 1708, the inventory of his estate was drawn up there; see: Bredius 1815-1922, I, pp. 346-347. Hendrik Krollius, who, according to his marriage banns, was a wine-buyer by trade, was married to Arnoldina Maes (c. 1660-1702), daughter of the painter Nicolaes Maes: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 512, p. 438, 5-8-1684. It appears that after the death of his wife in 1702, Krollius was left destitute and had to rent a small room; the unfinished paintings suggest that he painted there, possibly for Albert Meijeringh’s business. 99 The inventory specified 148 paintings with frames, 146 paintings without frames, and 39 separate frames. The inventory does not provide information about frames for the other paintings. In addition to a number of cheap frames, Meijeringh’s inventory reported six ebony frames. Strikingly, he had a frame of the extremely cheap material pearwood. 100 In the inventory, it was described as a ‘linen shop’, whereas the commercial stock ‒ sewing supplies such as ribbons, yarn, string, twill, edging, and cord ‒ in fact suggests a sewing shop. 101 Commelin 1693, pp. 688; Dapper 1663, p. 451.

54 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 2. The inventory of Hendrick Meijeringh (1687), pages 2 and 3: Opte Solder [on the Attic]. The paintings are listed by standard size, here Schilderijen groot soort and Schilderijen tien stuijvers maet. Stadsarchief Amsterdam, 5075.

finished paintings, 80 unpainted supports, a number of unfinished and primed paintings, 42 strainers, two painter’s easels, paint mullers, palettes, a book of Bible prints by Matthaeus Merian, and a book of maps.102 There was a bed with a pillow and a few blankets, and there was also a set of clothes. The binnenhaard (a room at the back of the house), back room, and basement were private rooms; in the former were ‘ten very old paintings’ (probably heirlooms and not part of the shop supply). The inventory concluded with property, cash, gold, silver, jewels, debts, credit due, and documents. The value of the liquid assets was remarkably high: Hendrick Meijeringh had more than 1300 guilders in cash. The debts and credit due recorded in the inventory mostly related to the sewing shop, which had customers and suppliers from Amsterdam and Haarlem. The exceptions were the panel-maker Pieter Heeremans (c. 1629/30-1709), who was still owed more than 28 guilders for 102 Merian [1648].

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

55

the delivery of panels, canvases, and the coffin, and an anonymous listing of ‘some paintings and frames ordered by the deceased during his lifetime, on account’.103 Thus, there was probably a cash book containing debts and credit due of the painting shop that were not listed in the inventory. Most art dealers, in Amsterdam and beyond (including the aforementioned Hals, Van Meldert, and Volmarijn), owed money to painters for the delivery of paintings.104 In his relations with painters, Meijeringh may have benefitted from the reputation and artistic network of his successful brother, Albert Meijeringh. The shop’s inventory included seven works by Albert Meijeringh and two landscapes by his good friend Johannes Glauber (later removed from the inventory as ‘sold’). Art dealers did not only procure paintings by ordering them from painters; Meijeringh also bought paintings at the auction of the estate of his neighbour and colleague Doeck and would have frequently attended auctions to replenish his stock. Then, as now, auctions were profitable for the art trade.105 As well as ordering from painters and purchasing at auction, most of Meijeringh’s stock is likely to have been produced in his own workshop. This is suggested by the large quantities of painting supplies kept in the workshop, as well as the 69 paintings in stock by a single painter, Barend Jansz. Slordt (c. 1625-after 1690). Meijeringh probably had copies made in this workshop, too: the trade inventory contained 46 paintings described as copies ‘after’ or ‘in the style of’. The shops run by Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh had a number of key features in common, aside from their location at Nieuwmarkt. First, all three art dealers stocked hundreds of paintings: Dammeroen had 213, Doeck 576, and Meijeringh 499. In fact, Dammeroen’s original stock of paintings must have been much larger. These were the paintings that remained from the wares he had taken to the annual fair in Rotterdam; in addition, one and a half weeks beforehand, he had handed 103 The inventory refers to an account that unfortunately has not survived; according to this reference, everything would be settled at a later date (‘voor memorie’). 104 For example, the debt books in the inventory of Trijntge Pieters, the widow of the art and paint dealer Crijn Hendricksz. Volmarijn of Rotterdam, contain the names of eight painters, including Adriaen van de Venne, Leonard Bramer, and Pieter Vromans; see: SAR, WK [16], inv. no. 430, pp. 359-404 (fol. 174r-201r), 12-3-1648; partially published in: Bredius 1915-1922, V, pp. 1634-1643; Haverkorn Van Rijsewijk 1894. The inventory of the Amsterdam-based art dealer Pieter van Meldert lists debts to a large number of painters and fellow art dealers; see: SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Vos, inv. no. 1202, fol. 270-286, 1-10-1653. The Amsterdam-based dealer Mathijs Hals owed money to Hendrick Mommers; see: SAA, ONA [5075], not. N. Listingh, inv. no. 2617, fol. 2651, 30-3-1662; partially published in Bredius 1915-1922, II, pp. 451-453; Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 411. The painter Jan Micker owed three guilders to Mathijs Hals, possibly for delivered painting supports, a number of which he had in his possession: SAA, ONA [5075], not. G. Meijer, inv. no. 2693, fol. 317-327. 105 SAA, ONA [5075], not. D. Danckerts, inv. no. 2845, fol. 86, 14-2-1668.

56 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

over 127 paintings to creditors in payment. A second similarity is that they all had a stock of paintings that were worth relatively little. The average auction yield per painting was less than 3 guilders in Dammeroen’s case, and around 5 guilders in Doeck’s. Meijeringh’s stock was neither auctioned nor appraised, but the stock was so similar to Doeck’s that I have assumed that his paintings fell into the same price category. Third, it is striking that by framing their paintings, all of the dealers were offering a complete product that could be hung at home immediately after purchase. Selling framed paintings was probably a common practice, particularly in this sector.106 In the case of Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh, these tended to be simple, cheap, black-painted frames, some with gilt edging. The frame size was standardized in the same way as the supports, which were known by contemporary names such as tienstuiversmaat and grote stooters (more on this in Chapter Three). A further important similarity is that the three inventories are unusually detailed and mention the subjects of many of the paintings. This is quite unique, and may have been for various reasons. In the inventories of Doeck and Meijeringh, the painter, painting support, and standard size are also frequently listed. The painters’ names – many of them unfamiliar to today’s art historians – form the subject of an extensive analysis in Chapter Two. In the remainder of this first chapter, I examine the composition of the paintings they sold in terms of their genre, subject, and scene.

The goods for sale: analysis of the genres and subjects of the painting stock Genres In Table 1, the descriptions of the paintings in the three trade inventories have been classified in eight different subject categories: History, Landscape, Still life, Pastoral (pastoral scenes without reference to mythological or literary sources), Genre, Seascape, Portrait, and Other. The category ‘Other’ consists of minor categories lacking a significant number of paintings. Paintings that were described without reference to a subject, such as ‘een schilderij’ (a painting) or ‘een stuckie’ (small painting), are grouped in category ‘Unknown/unspecified’. 106 The surviving documents suggest that private individuals only ordered frames for paintings that they had commissioned themselves, such as portraits. The fact that art dealers sold framed paintings is underlined by various documents showing that they purchased frames in considerable quantities. Van Thiel 1984a, pp. 29-30. A frame enhanced a painting’s saleability, because it was presentable, could be hung in the shop without damaging the painting support, and could be handled without affecting the paint and varnish. Van Thiel 1984b, pp. 15-21.

57

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

Table 1: Paintings in subject categories in three Amsterdam shop inventories Dammeroen (1646)

History painting Landscape Still life Pastoral Genre Marine Portrait Other Unknown/unspecified Total paintings

Doeck (1664)

Meijeringh (1687)

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

78 30 17 15 7 7 1 21 37 213

36.6 14.1 8 7 3.3 3.3 0.5 9.9 17

231 166 33 35 19 47 30 14 576

40.1 28.8 5.7 6.1 3.2 8.2 0 5.2 2

202 156 11 1 22 37 3 22 45 499

40.5 31.2 2.2 0.2 4.4 7.4 0.6 4.4 9

Table 1 brings three remarkable results to light. First, it is striking that 83, 98, and 91 per cent of the paintings kept in stock by Jan Fransz. Dammeroen, Cornelis Doeck, and Hendrick Meijeringh, respectively, were described in such detail that they could be categorized in terms of their subjects. For Dammeroen, only 37 paintings in a chest remained unspecified (‘37 small paintings, both round and square, with black gilt frames, locked in a chest’). The number of paintings described by subject was thereby considerably larger than the number of works that were listed with the artist’s name (none in Dammeroen’s inventory, 49 per cent in Doeck’s inventory and 52 per cent in Meijeringh’s inventory). This suggests that the depicted subject was the most distinctive feature of these paintings, and that the stock of these art dealers mainly focused on subject matter, rather than the reputation of the artist involved in its execution. Second, from Table 1 we can see that some of the ‘modern’ painting genres that were produced in large numbers for the free market in the seventeenth century, such as genre paintings, still lifes, and seascapes, were only minor categories in these shops. The few genre paintings that were listed in these inventories only included common peasant and market scenes.107 Doeck had several paintings with peasants by Hendrick Bogaert (1626/23-after 1673) in stock, among others, and at the shops of both Doeck and Meijeringh one could purchase an Italian market scene by Hendrick Mommers (1620-after 1682). Not for sale at these shops were scenes of everyday life, like those painted by the famous high-life genre painters Johannes Vermeer and Gerard Dou. The incredibly high prices generally paid for 107 These humorous scenes, showing lewd, popular amusement, can probably best be compared to theatrical farce: Vandenbroeck 1987, p. 121.

58 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

works by these painters reflect not only their high quality, but also the meticulous and time-consuming painting techniques.108 Subjects of everyday life were probably only appealing if they were painted well, and the same is likely to have been true of still lifes and seascapes. The shops contained few portraits. In Dammeroen’s shop, only one portrait of ‘various princes’ was listed, and the three portraits in Meijeringh’s estate are likely to have been heirlooms (a portrait of a deceased brother and two old ‘contrefeitsels’). Doeck’s shop contained not a single portrait, but his private property, inventoried separately, included two portraits of his wife and one self-portrait.109 The absence of commercial portraits is striking. In the seventeenth century, there were large workshops that mass-produced affordable portraits of public figures for the free market, such as the so-called ‘portrait factory’ run by Michiel van Mierevelt (1566-1641).110 Portraits of well-known figures seem to have remained popular in households throughout the seventeenth century, and are also frequently encountered in modest estate inventories.111 One would expect art dealers targeting the lower end of the art market to focus on the sale of landscapes, as did the above-mentioned Crijn Hendricksz. Volmarijn of Rotterdam. Landscapes could be produced relatively cheaply with labour- and costsaving methods, such as a reduced colour palette and the ‘wet-on-wet’ technique.112 Moreover, landscape painting was in particularly high demand in the seventeenth century.113 The ‘Landscape’ category was the second largest category in all three of the inventories. Dammeroen painted landscapes himself in which the biblical staffage was done by others, and it is not inconceivable that the paintings listed as landscapes in his shop inventory included or were awaiting staffage of Bible scenes. Doeck mainly sold Dutch landscapes. He had more than 30 paintings by Roelof Jansz. van Vries (c. 1631-1681/88),114 landscapes with ‘beesten’ (cattle) 108 For the prices of these works and their elite audience, see: Bakker 2017a; for painting techniques, see: Gifford and Glinsman 2017. 109 The self-portrait was listed as ‘Een contrefeytsel van Corn. Doeck, sittende te schilderen’ or ‘A portrait of Corn. Doeck while painting’. The three portraits were shared among the surviving relatives. 110 Michiel van Mierevelt, a portrait painter from Delft (1566-1641), and his employees produced many portraits of public figures: Jansen, Ekkart, and Verhave 2011. 111 Saskia Beranek came across 60 mentions of the portrait of Amalia van Solms, Princess consort of Orange, in Amsterdam households between 1625 and 1675; Beranek 2013, pp. 113-124. An ‘Advanced Search for Art Records, Subject: Portraits ‒ Known Persons’ in the Montias-Frick Database resulted in 1777 records. For portraits in modest households, see: Sluijter 2015a, pp. 107-109. 112 Montias 1987; Montias 1990b. 113 Bok 2008, p. 20 (Chart); Chong 1987, pp. 104-120. 114 The notary listed 28 paintings under ‘Vervries’, four under Reynier de Vries, one under R. Vervries, and another under M. Vervries. The latter was painted by Michiel van Vries (d. 1669/1702), a brother or cousin of Roelof Jansz. van Vries.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

59

by Albert Klomp (1625-1689) and a certain ‘Pieter Blockman’,115 and ‘winterties’ (winter scenes) by Abraham Beerstraten (1643-1665/66) and his son Jan Abrahamsz. Beerstraten (1622-1666).116 By contrast, the landscapes in Meijeringh’s shop were often of Southern Europe: he had fourteen Italianate landscapes by Michiel Carrée (1657-1727) and thirteen paintings from the studio of Jan Gabrielsz. Sonjé (d. 1697).117 Meijeringh also had many topographical paintings in stock: 43 descriptions include an indication of the topographical location of the place depicted, including Krooswijk and Vlissingen. Foreign sights (the Pont Neuf in Paris, San Marco in Venice) and Amsterdam landmarks (the City Hall on Dam Square, the New Lutheran Church) were also included. The third conclusion that can be drawn from Table 1 – and the most important one, as far as this chapter is concerned – is that, for these three dealers, the main category was not landscape painting, but unquestionably history painting (for Dammeroen 37 per cent, and for Doeck and Meijeringh more than 40 per cent of the total stock).118 This category excludes the works described simply as ‘shepherd and shepherdess’, which appear remarkably often in Dammeroen’s and Doeck’s inventories and which I have now grouped under ‘pastoral’. It is possible that these works depicted the literary theme of Granida and Daifilo, and can be classified as history paintings. Hooft’s Granida, performed in Amsterdam’s Schouwburg theatre 35 times between 1638 and 1665,119 was also a popular theme in art.120 Sixteen of the pastoral paintings in Doeck’s shop were painted by ‘De Fuyter’, a member of 115 The unidentified Pieter Blockman may have been the painter ‘Balckman’, two of whose paintings were listed in the inventory of Annesie Arents in 1665: SAA, ONA [5075], not. H. Westfrisius, inv. no. 2808, deed no. 2873, 24-3-1665; Montias-Frick Database, no. 530. 116 Two paintings were listed as ‘van den oude Beerestraeten’ and ‘Jan Beerestraten’; two other paintings were listed as ‘de jonge Beerstraeten’ and ‘Abraham Beerstraeten’, and must have been painted by Jan Beerstraten, whereas the other seven were listed as ‘Beerstraeten’ and could have been painted by either father or son. 117 Three landscapes are listed as painted by Sonjé himself, eight by ‘disciples of Sonjé’, and two paintings as ‘in the manner of Sonjé’. 118 The percentages of history paintings presented here, compared to the total stock of paintings, differ from the results I published previously; c.f. Jager 2015b, p. 19. That is because in my earlier publication, the paintings of The five senses were still classified as allegories (and thus as history paintings). The ‘allegories’ category consisted almost entirely of this theme. The five senses came up ten times in Dammeroen’s inventory, fourteen times in Doeck’s inventory, and nine times in Meijeringh’s. They can now be found in Table 1 under the category ‘Other’. Doeck had ten paintings of The five senses (two series) for which the painter was mentioned: ‘De Fuyter’ and ‘Van Oort’. There were several painters working with the name ‘De Fuyter’ ‒ the brothers Louis (c. 1613-1670), Jacob Leon (II) (c. 1618-1686), and Leonard (c. 1622-1658) ‒ so the painter could not be further identified. I believe that ‘Van Oort’ may refer to Pieter van Noort (1623-1672), and not Jan van Noordt; c.f. De Witt 2007, pp. 41-42, see: Jager 2016, pp. 331-332. 119 Worp 1920, p. 93. 120 Sluijter 1993, p. 56.

60 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

a family of actors and playwrights with ties to the Schouwburg.121 Furthermore, the subject Granida and Daifilio was listed once in Doeck’s inventory, painted by his employee De Laeff. Subjects Why did these art dealers, who worked at the lower end of the art market, focus on selling history paintings in particular? Exploring the kinds of subjects that were listed in these inventories may offer more insight. To this goal I have divided all history paintings listed into five subcategories (Table 2): Old Testament, New Testament, Mythology, Other, and Unknown/unspecified. There were no allegories, aside from the two paintings of ‘Ouderdom’ (old age) in Dammeroen’s shop, and they have been grouped here under ‘Other’. Paintings without reference to a specific subject, such as ‘een historij’ (a history), are gathered in the category ‘Unknown/ unspecified.’ Subsequently, in Table 3, I list the scenes that are mentioned in the inventories of Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh four times or more.122 Table 2 shows that the paintings stocked by the dealers Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh were dominated by history paintings with religious subjects. Only a small number of these history paintings had mythological subjects. In Doeck’s case, this category included paintings of an erotic nature: The bath of Diana (four), the lovers Venus and Adonis (three), Mars and Venus (two), Venus and Cupid (one), and Danäe (one). All were described without reference to the painter’s name, with the exception of three paintings of The bath of Diana by Doeck’s assistant De Laeff (see Fig. 80, p. 177 for an example). This specific theme was thus repeated at Doeck’s request; it was evidently in demand among his customers. The two other art dealers also had paintings on this theme: Dammeroen had a Landscape with Diana, and Meijeringh had three Baths of Diana and one Diana and Callisto. Other paintings showing female nudity in Doeck’s shop included the biblical scenes Susanna and the Elders (five) and Bathsheba (three). The mythological pictures in Dammeroen’s and Meijeringh’s shops were not of an erotic nature. It is striking, though, that Meijeringhs’s inventory makes five mentions of ‘a history [painting] from Ovid’ (without a specific theme), and Doeck had two paintings of Pan and Syrinx (one by De Laeff); familiarity with Ovid’s Metamorphoses may indicate a degree of literacy on the part of their customers. The high concentration of Old Testament subjects appears to ref lect the preferences of Protestant consumers. 123 Dammeroen mainly stocked scenes 121 The brothers Louis, Jacob Leon, and Leonard de Fuyter all had connections with the Schouwburg in Amsterdam: Grabowsky and Verkruijsse 1996, pp. 228-232. 122 The five senses is counted as a series, and therefore not included in Table 3. 123 Tümpel 1991, pp. 8-9.

61

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

Table 2: History paintings in subcategories in three Amsterdam shop inventories Dammeroen (1646)

Old Testament New Testament Mythology Other Unknown/unspecified Total history paintings

Doeck (1664)

Meijeringh (1687)

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

47 20 3 5 2 78

60.3 25.6 3.8 6.4 2.5

94 46 18 6 67 231

40.7 19.9 7.8 2.6 29

84 35 10 4 69 202

41.6 17.3 4.9 2 34.2

Table 3: Scenes listed four or more times in three Amsterdam shop inventories No. 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 7 6 5 5 5 4 4

Scenes Dammeroen (1646) The meeting of Jacob and Rachel Abraham and Hagar Jephthah Annunciation to the shepherds Doeck (1667) The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter Susanna and the Elders Annunciation to the shepherds The discovery of Moses in the Nile The meeting between Jacob and Joseph The Holy Family The bath of Diana Meijeringh (1687) Joseph sold by his brothers The gathering of the Manna Joseph discovers his silver cup in Benjamin’s sack The meeting between Jacob and Joseph The angel Raphael disappears into the sky Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea The sacrifice of Jeroboam

featuring Abraham or Jacob, including The meeting of Jacob and Rachel (f ive), Abraham and Hagar (four), and The meeting between Jacob and Esau (three). These were all scenes with only a few figures that could easily be added to a landscape. Doeck and Meijeringh sold many paintings with subjects from the stories of Joseph and Moses, including Joseph discovers his silver cup in Benjamin’s sack,

62 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

The meeting between Jacob and Joseph, The gathering of the Manna, and Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea. Meijeringh in particular had many copies of these scenes. In addition, Meijeringh had no fewer than seven copies of Joseph sold by his brothers. What the aforementioned subjects have in common is that whilst they rarely appeared in contemporary painting production by known masters, they were painted in the Haarlem atelier of Jacob de Wet (1610-1677/1691).124 Furthermore, it is striking that many of these Old Testament subjects were painted by the art shops’ own employees (De Laeff and Slordt). The dominance of De Wet’s studio in this segment is likewise suggested by the names of the painters in the inventories. Doeck had a total of 28 paintings in stock by five different painters associated with this studio: eight works by De Wet himself, three works by his brother Gerrit de Wet (c. 1610-1674), one painting by his son Jacob de Wet (II) (c. 1640/43-1697), two paintings by his pupil Adriaen Verdoel (1623-1675), and no fewer than twelve paintings by his pupil Pieter Wiggersz. (1632-1673).125 Meijeringh had 26 paintings from this atelier: one by De Wet, seven by his brother, two by his son, five by Verdoel, and eleven by De Wet’s pupil Adriaen Gael (c. 1618-1665). De Wet must have supplied the paintings that he and his apprentices had done to Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s art shops. In the analysis in the third chapter, we shall see that the paintings in these art shops by De Wet and his apprentices also functioned as models for the internal production of paintings by the shops’ own employees. The emphasis on Old Testament subjects contrasts with the findings of Frauke Laarmann into the ownership of history paintings in Amsterdam.126 Based on all the inventories in the Montias/Frick Database (Amsterdam, 1597-1681, with a strong emphasis on the first half of the seventeenth century), Laarmann found that most painting subjects in Amsterdam households derived from the New Testament; especially pictures showing Mary as the protagonist were common. We encounter only several paintings showing Mary as the protagonist in these inventories: Dammeroen had one Birth of Christ, Doeck had four paintings of The Holy Family and three of the Birth of Christ, and Meijeringh had two paintings of The Annunciation and one of the Birth of Christ. Aside from The Holy Family, the only other New Testament subjects in Table 3 are the Annunciation to the shepherds (Dammeroen and Doeck) and The sacrifice of Jeroboam (Meijeringh). The other New Testament subjects in these shops are usually narratives, such as The raising of Lazarus, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, and Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. This gap between the subjects of paintings owned by contemporaries 124 Compare the register of subjects in Sluijter 2015b, pp. 482-485. 125 Doeck also had a painting by De Wet’s apprentices Job Berckheyde and Paulus Potter. 126 Laarmann 2011.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

63

found in Laarmann’s research and those that I found in the three art dealers’ art shops will be explored in more depth in Chapter Four. History paintings with religious subjects were strongly represented in the dealers’ stocks of cheap paintings. One explanation for this might be found in the recognizable and marketable nature of Bible stories. In the seventeenth century, unlike mythological subjects or complex allegories, most Bible stories featured in the general education of all social classes. The fact that these stories enjoyed widespread popularity is also suggested by the numerous everyday domestic objects decorated with Bible stories, such as cabinets, cradles, pottery, and tobacco boxes.127 As well as subjects from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the mythological subjects in these inventories were also accessible and attractive to a broad audience. With the exception of Anthony and Cleopatra, there were no subjects from classical history. In other words, the art dealers did not stock any paintings that might have been considered too difficult or too unfamiliar, and which might thereby deter potential buyers. In addition to the religious significance that these history paintings must have had for contemporary viewers, they were also probably appealing thanks to their narrative character. The story of Joseph, for example, had all the hallmarks of an exciting novel, with its elements of betrayal, adultery, imprisonment, and forgiveness. Some of the subjects that appear several times in these inventories are particularly spectacular, such as The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. In this tragic story, Jephthah promises God that if he wins the war against the Ammonites, he will sacrifice the first thing that comes out from the doors of his house on his return home; having defeated his enemy, he was greeted on arrival by his only daughter. Seventeenthcentury paintings usually show Jephthah riding his horse towards his daughter as the latter heads a welcoming procession, dancing and playing a tambourine. In Doeck’s inventory, five paintings were explicitly listed as depicting the sacrifice scene (he also had two versions of ‘The meeting of Jephthah and his daughter’; Dammeroen’s inventory merely lists ‘Jephthah’. Such spectacular scenes are difficult to square with a moral message. The appeal of this subject would have lain in the gruesome nature of the story, paired with feelings of fear and compassion (also popular features of contemporary drama).128 In diametric opposition to expensive genre paintings showing scenes from everyday high life, the appeal of which was mainly based on the finesse and skill with which the artist portrayed the figures, objects, fabrics, and interiors, the story of such lower-end paintings would have retained its appeal regardless of the skill with which it was painted. This may explain why these kinds of genre paintings did not feature in the shops of art dealers who focused their wares on the lower end of the art market. 127 Kootte 1991. 128 Sluijter 2014, p. 80. On the popularity of sacrifice scenes, see: Sluijter 2015b, 228-233.

64 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Conclusion The three estate inventories of Jan Fransz. Dammeroen (1646), Cornelis Doeck (1667), and Hendrick Meijeringh (1687) point to a common retail strategy: a large, broad range of hundreds of affordable paintings with a clear emphasis on history paintings. All three dealers were located on the same stretch of Kloveniersburgwal between Bethaniënstraat and Koestraat, a stone’s throw from Nieuwmarkt. The shop on the corner of Koestraat was rented by Dammeroen between 1639 and 1646, and then bought and used by Doeck from 1646 to 1664. Doeck’s shop was continued by his daughter Cornelia and her husband Johannes Loermans.129 From c. 1650, Meijeringh’s father owned a shop two doors down from Doeck, and was his direct competitor. Hendrick Meijeringh took over his father’s business in 1669, and ran it until his death in 1687. The three inventories provide unusually detailed information about the stock of paintings. The focus of these stocks was clearly on the subject and not on the artist who had painted them, as one sees in the case of high-end dealers. The paintings depicting Bible stories reflected the knowledge of a broad layer of the population, and usually depicted ‘exciting’ subjects that were appealing regardless of the quality of the painting work. Despite the focus on the subject, about half of the paintings in the Doeck and Meijeringh inventories were listed with the artist’s name. In the third chapter, we shall see that some of these ‘dime-a-dozen’ works were actually signed. The inventories offer a glimpse of the ins and outs of the art trade at the lower end of the market. The paintings were purchased at auction and ordered from other workshops, including that of the Haarlem-based history painter Jacob de Wet. Much of the stock, however, was produced in-house by the painters employed by the dealers. The inventories provide very little direct information about other painting suppliers; no painters are mentioned among the debtors, for example. There are also 129 On 31 January 1668 it was agreed that the Loermans couple would live at the ‘De Friese Os’ premises (not including the back cellar) for a payment of a little more than 300 guilders per year, similar to what Dammeroen had paid for the building. The daughters Elisabeth and Anna were provided with board and lodging until they turned 20: SAA, ONA [5075], not. J.H. Leuven, inv. no. 2733, fol. 950, 31-1-1668. Loermans had purchased 878 guilders’ worth of paintings at the auction of Doeck’s shop. The registration of his burial in 1714 describes him as a ‘konstkooper’ (art buyer) on Kloveniersburgwal, on the corner of Koestraat: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 1093, p. 15, 3-10-1714. Cornelia liquidated the business in 1719, five years after the death of her husband, with an advertisement in the newspaper the Amsterdamsche Courant: SAA, ONA [5075], not. P. van den Ende, inv. no. 8227, deed no. 109, 19-6-1719; RKD, Archive A. Bredius [NL-HaRKD.0380], ‘Amsterdam L’, p. 35. The inventory that she had drawn up in 1719 listed among her possessions a ‘shop selling paintings and frames, as listed in the purchasing account, and of which no precise specification can be made, for they have been sold, and others of around a similar value have been purchased in their place’, with a total value of 1116 guilders and 12 stivers: SAA, ONA [5075], not. P. van den Ende, inv. no. 8227, deed no. 109, 19-6-1719; in: RKD, Archive A. Bredius [NL-HaRKD.0380], ‘Amsterdam L’, p. 35. Strikingly, there were no paintings among the household effects.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

65

sources on the panel- and frame-makers who delivered to these shops. Dammeroen possibly painted part of the stock himself, as he continued to work as a painter, but this cannot be verified, since his inventory does not contain any artists’ names. Doeck and Meijeringh trained as painters, but ultimately worked full-time as dealers. The way in which these dealers obtained paintings did not differ greatly from the usual practice in the top segment, but there were differences in terms of the value of paintings and the status of the artists who painted them. Hendrick and Gerrit Uylenburgh and Johannes De Renialme made large-scale painting purchases at the auctions of large and important collections; sometimes they had to take out loans in order to do so. Like Doeck and Meijeringh, the Uylenburghs had their own workshop, but they employed excellent painters there, including Rembrandt, Flinck, and De Lairesse. At Uylenburgh’s workshop, these painters enjoyed creative freedom and a share in the profits – conditions that cannot be compared with those of Leendert de Laeff and Barend Jansz. Slordt, who had to paint the same subject over and over again. More research is needed on how common it was in the Dutch Republic for art dealers to build up stock in their own workshops, for we know that art dealers in Antwerp often outsourced commissions to local workshops. De Renialme, incidentally, did not have his own workshop; having trained as a jeweller, he may have lacked expertise on the production side. He did have a large network of painters, however, and ordered paintings from them. The sales strategies of these art dealers are more difficult to gauge from the inventories, but at first glance they appear to have been aimed at the shopping public. The art shops run by Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh formed part of a cluster of studios and painting shops selling cheap paintings that were located in the streets around Nieuwmarkt. Regular markets were held at this strategic location, drawing lots of shoppers. The voorhuis or front room bordered the market square and functioned as the shop space. This was where the first communication with the customer took place, and where most of the paintings were kept and hung. Buyers probably paid for paintings on the spot, judging from the large amount of cash and the lack of outstanding debts in the inventories of Doeck and Meijeringh. They would have done so instead of buying on credit, which was common at the top of the market. The buyer bought a complete, framed product, which could be hung at home immediately after purchase. It would be going too far to suggest that the art trade encouraged impulse buying, however; spending 5 guilders or so was still a large purchase for the average market-goer. Meijeringh made extra use of the location by combining his art shop with a sewing shop, whereby he cleverly capitalized on the Monday linen and lace market by his door. We saw that several other dealers at the lower end of the market also engaged in other trades. This raises the question of how remunerative this branch of the art trade actually was. Of our three dealers, only Doeck’s shop appears to have been truly profitable.

66 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Another important question is whether the shop was in fact the primary sales area for these traders; it is hard to imagine that the dealers were aiming exclusively at local consumers with such enormous stocks. In 1646, for example, Dammeroen took over a hundred paintings to sell at the annual fair in Rotterdam. The Uylenburghs and De Renialme did not target the shopping public, as their stock was too expensive and exclusive for this. It seems obvious that at the top of the market, it would have been important to have a good network; these dealers had international contacts including princes and wealthy merchants, and collected paintings that appealed to their tastes. The Uylenburghs attracted many customers with lucrative portrait commissions, and it was not rare for these patrons to decide to buy a painting from stock, too.130 Furthermore, it was the role of these art dealers to mediate between specialized producers and the specific demands of their customers, often on credit and based on mutual trust. This is consistent with the fact that the painting prices in De Renialme’s and the Uylenburghs’ shops were largely determined by the reputation of the artist, meaning that authenticity – and the ability to assess it – played a key role. Strikingly, in addition to extraordinarily expensive works, they also sold cheaper paintings. Uylenburgh had young painters copy the exclusive foreign paintings in his trade stock, for example, and De Renialme stocked a considerable number of works that cost less than 10 guilders. With this cheaper range, they were not targeting less distinguished customers; it is more likely that there would also have been demand for this type of work among their usual target group. This appears to have been the case, for instance, when De Renialme sent paintings to the Elector of Brandenburg that included hundreds of cheap, unspecified paintings as well as many masterpieces.131

Works cited Alting Mees, Nelly, ‘Schilderijen op de Rotterdamsche kermis’, Oud Holland 33 (1915), 63. Bakker, Piet, De Friese schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw (Zwolle: Waanders, 2008). Bakker, Piet, ‘Crisis? Welke crisis? Kanttekeningen bij het economisch verval van de schilderkunst in Leiden na 1660’, De zeventiende eeuw 27 (2011), 232-269. Bakker, Piet, ‘Painters of and for the Elite: Relationships, Prices and Familiarity with Each Other’s Work’, in Vermeer and the Masters of Genre Painting: Inspiration and Rivalry, ed. by Adriaan E. Waiboer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 85-99. Bakker, Piet, ‘United Under One Roof: Artist Painters and Coarse Painters and their Relations in Seventeenth-Century Leiden’, Early Modern Low Countries 1 (2017), no. 2, 318-349. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/emlc.29 130 Van der Veen 2006b, pp. 128-129. 131 De Blécourt 2012, pp. 21-29.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

67

Beranek, Saskia, Power of the Portrait: Production, Consumption and Display of Portraits of Amalia van Solms in the Dutch Republic (Diss. University of Pittsburgh, 2013). Blécourt, Bram de, ‘Johannes de Renialme. Een Amsterdamse kunsthandelaar uit de 17e eeuw’, (unpublished Master’s thesis: University of Amsterdam, 2012). Boers-Goosens, Marion, De Noord-Nederlandse kunsthandel in de eerste helft van de zeventiende eeuw (Hilversum: Verloren, 2012). Bok, Marten Jan, ‘“Schilderien te coop”: nieuwe marketingtechnieken op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt van de Gouden Eeuw’, in Thuis in de Gouden Eeuw: kleine meesterwerken uit de SØR Rusche collectie, ed. by Marten Jan Bok and Martine Gosselink (Zwolle/ Rotterdam, 2008), 9-29. Bredius, Abraham, ‘De kunsthandel te Amsterdam in de XVIIe eeuw’. Amsterdamsch Jaarboekje 1891, 54-72. Bredius, Abraham, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur geschichte der holländische kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten jahrhunderts, 7 vols. (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1915-1922). Chong, Alan, ‘The Market for Landscape Painting in Seventeenth-Century Holland’, in Masters of 17th-century Dutch Landscape Painting, ed. by Peter C. Sutton (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum/Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1987), 104-120. Commelin, Caspar, Beschryvinge van Amsterdam, desselfs eerste oorspronk uyt den Huyse der Heeren van Aemstel en Aemstellant met een verhaal van haar leven en dappere krijgsdaden; Amsterdams kleyne beginselen, oudheyt, bemuring en verscheyde vergrootingen: de gelegenheyt en hoedanigheyt der stad, de voornaamste gebouwen, en wijze van regeeringe (Amsterdam: for Wolfgang, Waasberge, Boom, van Someren, and Goethals, 1693). Crenshaw, Paul, Rembrandt’s Bankruptcy: The Artist, his Patrons, and the Art Market in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Dapper, Olfert, Historische beschryving der stadt Amsterdam: waer in de voornaemste geschiedenissen (na een kort verhael van gansch Hollant en d’omleggende dorpen, als ambachts-heerlijkheden, onder deze stadt gelegen) die ten tijde der herdoopers, Nederlandtsche beroerten, en onder Prins Willems, de tweede, stadt-houderlijke regeering, hier ter stede voor-gevallen zijn, verhandelt, en al de stads gemeene, zoo geestelijke als wereltlijke, gebouwen, in meer als tzeventigh kopere platen, met haer nevenstaende beschrijving, vertoont worden (Amsterdam: by Jacob van Meurs, 1663). Dudok van Heel, S.A.C., ‘Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669): Een veranderend schilderportret’, in Rembrandt. De meester & zijn werkplaats, ed. by Christopher Brown, Jan Kelch, and Pieter van Thiel, 2 vols. (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum/Zwolle: Waanders, 1991), I, 50-67. Eeghen, Isabella H. van, ‘Het Amsterdamse Sint Lucasgilde in de 17de eeuw’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 61 (1969), 65-102. English translation with new annotations: ‘The Amsterdam Guild of Saint Luke in the Seventeenth Century’, trans. and annot. by Jasper Hillegers, with contributions by S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 4 (Summer 2012), no. 2, DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2012.4.2.4

68 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Evelyn, John, The Diary of John Evelyn, now first printed in full from the manuscripts belonging to Mr. John Evelyn, ed. by Esmond Samuel de Beer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955). Gelder, J.G. van, ‘Jan de Bisschop 1628-1671’, Oud Holland 86 (1971), 201-288. Gifford, E. Melanie and Lisha Deming Glinsman, ‘Collective Style and Personal Manner: Materials and Techniques of High-Life Genre Painting’, in Vermeer and the Masters of Genre Painting: Inspiration and Rivalry, ed. by Adriaan E. Waiboer (Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland/Washington: National Gallery of Art/Paris: Musée du Louvre, 2017), 65-83. Grabowsky, E.M. and P.J. Verkruijsse, ‘“Gadeloos, en onuytsprekelik van waerden”: Netwerken rondom de Amsterdamse schouwburg’, in Kort Tijt-verdrijf: Opstellen over Nederlands toneel (vanaf ca 1550) aangeboden aan Mieke B. Smits-Veldt, ed. by W. Abrahamse, A.C.G. Fleurkens, and M. Meijer Drees (Amsterdam: AD&L, 1996), 227-242. Haverkorn Van Rijsewijk, P., ‘Rotterdamsche Schilders: de schilders Volmarijn’, Oud Holland 12 (1894), 136-159. Houbraken, Arnold, De groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen, waar van ‘er vele met hunne beeltenissen ten tooneel verschynen, …zynde een vervolg op het schilderboek van K. van Mander, 3 vols. (The Hague: Houwbraken, 1718-1721). Jager, Angela, ‘“Everywhere Illustrious History Paintings that are a Dime a Dozen” The Mass Market for History Painting in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam’, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 7 (Winter 2015), no. 1: DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2015.7.1.2 Jager, Angela, ‘Galey-schilders’ en ‘dosijnwerck’: De productie, distributie en consumptie van goedkope historiestukken in zeventiende-eeuws Amsterdam (Diss. University of Amsterdam, 2016). Jansen, Anita, Rudi Ekkart, and Johanneke Verhave (eds.), De portretfabriek van Michiel van Mierevelt (1566-1641) (Delft: Museum het Prinsenhof, 2011). Kootte, Tanja, De bijbel in huis: Bijbelse verhalen op huisraad in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw (Utrecht: Rijksmuseum het Catharijneconvent, 1991). Laarmann, Frauke, ‘Some Thoughts on the Public for Religious History Paintings in Amsterdam’, oral presentation at Artistic and Economic Competition in the Amsterdam Art Market, c. 1630-1690: History Painting in Rembrandt’s Time. International Research Conference (Amsterdam Centre for Study of the Golden Age, University of Amsterdam, 9 and 10 December 2011). Lammertse, Friso, ‘Het kunstbedrijf van Gerrit Uylenburgh tussen 1655 en 1675’, in Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006, 207-287. Lammertse, Friso and Jaap van der Veen, Uylenburgh & Zoon: Kunst en commercie van Rembrandt tot De Lairesse 1625-1675 (Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum, 2006). Marchi, Neil de, ‘The Role of Dutch Auctions and Lotteries in Shaping the Art Market(s) of 17th Century Holland’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 28 (1995), 203-221. Martin, Wilhelm, ‘Een kunsthandel in een klappermanswachthuis’, Oud Holland 19 (1901), 86-88.

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

69

Merian, Matthaeus, Icones Biblicae, praecipuas sacrae scripturae historias eleganter et graphicè representantes / Biblische Figuren, darinnen die furnemsten Historien in heiliger Schrift begriffen geschichtmessig entworffe zyn / Bybel Printen vertonende de voornaemste historien en afbeeldsels der Heyliger schrifture / Figgers of the Bible, in who almost every history of the holy schriptures are described (Amsterdam: by Cornelis Dankertsz., [1648]) Montias, John Michael, ‘Cost and Value in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art’, Art History 10 (1987), no. 4, 455-466. Montias, John Michael, ‘Art Dealers in the Seventeenth-Century Netherlands’, Simiolus 18 (1988), no. 4, 244-256. Montias, John Michael, ‘The Influence of Economic Factors on Style’, De zeventiende eeuw 6 (1990), 49-57. Montias, John Michael, Art at Auction in 17th Century Amsterdam (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2002). Montias, John Michael, ‘Art Dealers in Holland’, in Economics of Art and Culture: Invited Papers at the 12th International Conference of the Association of Cultural Economics International, ed. by Victor A. Ginsburgh (Amsterdam and London: Elsevier, 2004), 75-96. Montias-Frick Database, The Montias Database of 17th Century Dutch Art Inventories. New York, The Frick Collection. Nijboer, Harm, ‘Casparus Hoomis. Een onbekende Leeuwarder schilder uit de zeventiende eeuw’, Fryslân 4 (1998), no. 4, 10-12. URL: http://www.friesgenootschap.nl/artikelen/ hoomis.htm. Noordegraaf, Leo and Gerrit Valk, De gave Gods: De pest in Holland vanaf de late middeleeuwen (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1996). Obreen, Fr. D. O., ‘Het Sint Lucas Gild te Amsterdam’, in Obreen 1877-1890, III, 89-196. Prak, Maarten, ‘Guilds and the Development of the Art Market during the Dutch Golden Age’, Simiolus 30 (2003), no. ¾, 236-251. Rasterhoff, Claartje, Painting and Publishing as Cultural Industries, The Fabric of Creativity in the Dutch Republic, 1580-1800 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017). Raux, Sophie, Lotteries, Art Markets, and Visual Culture in the Low Countries, 15th-17th Centuries (Leiden: BRILL, 2018). Rijn, G. van, ‘De Rotterdamsche Kermis’, Rotterdamsch Jaarboekje 4 (1894), 249-277. Romein, Ed, ‘Knollen en citroenen op de Leidse kunstmarkt: over de rol van kwaliteit in de opkomst van de Leidse fijnschilderstijl’, De zeventiende eeuw 17 (2001), 75-94. Sluijter, Eric Jan, ‘De entree van de amoureuze herdersidylle in de Noord-Nederlandse prent- en schilderkunst’, in Het gedroomde land: Pastorale schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Peter van den Brink (Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 1993), 33-57. Sluijter, Eric Jan, ‘Determining Value on the Art Market in the Golden Age: An Introduction’, in Tummers and Jonckheere 2008, 7-28.

70 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Sluijter, Eric Jan, Rembrandt’s Rivals. History Painting in Amsterdam (1630-1650) (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2015). Thiel, Pieter J.J. van, ‘Archivalische gegevens over lijsten, lijstenmakers, vergulders en de praktijk van het inlijsten’, in Prijst de lijst: De Hollandse schilderijlijst in de zeventiende eeuw, ed. by Pieter J.J. van Thiel and Cornelius Johannes de Bruyn Kops (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 1984), 25-35. Thiel, Pieter J.J. van, ‘Prijst de lijst: Een onderzoek naar vorm en functie van de Hollandse schilderijlijst in de zeventiende eeuw’, in Prijst de lijst: De Hollandse schilderijlijst in de zeventiende eeuw, ed. by Pieter J.J. van Thiel and Cornelius Johannes de Bruyn Kops (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 1984), 11-24. Tummers, Anna, ‘“By his Hand.” The Paradox of Seventeenth-Century Connoisseurship’, in Tummers and Jonckheere 2008, 31-66. Tummers, Anna and Koenraad Jonckheere (eds.), Art Market and Connoisseurship: A Closer Look at Paintings by Rembrandt, Rubens and their Contemporaries (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008). Tümpel, Christian, ‘De oudtestamentische historieschilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw’, in Het Oude Testament in de Schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Christian Tümpel (Amsterdam: Jewish Historical Museum, 1991), 8-23. Vandenbroeck, Paul, Beeld van de andere, vertoog over het zelf. Over wilden en narren, boeren en bedelaars (Antwerp: Royal Museum of Fine Arts, 1987). Veen, Jaap van der, ‘By his own Hand: The Valuation of Autograph Paintings in the 17th Century’, in A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings IV. The Self-Portraits, ed. by Ernst van de Wetering (Dordrecht: Springer, 2005), 3-44. Veen, Jaap van der, ‘Hendrick Uylenburgh, factor van de Poolse koning en kunsthandelaar te Amsterdam’, in Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006, 13-59. Veen, Jaap van der, ‘Het kunstbedrijf van Hendrick Uylenburgh in Amsterdam: Productie en handel tussen 1625 en 1655’, in Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006, 117-205. Vermeylen, Filip and Katlijne Van der Stighelen, ‘The Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke and the Marketing of Paintings, Fifteenth-Eighteenth Centuries’, in De Marchi and Van Miegroet 2006a, 189-206. Wadum, Jørgen, ‘The Winter Room at Rosenborg Castle: A Unique Survival of Antwerp Mass-Production’, Apollo 128, no. 318 (August 1988), 82-87. Wadum, Jørgen, ‘Christian IV’s Winter Room and Studiolo at Rosenborg Castle’, in Gerson Digital: Denmark (Dutch and Flemish art in European perspective 1500-1900, II), ed. by Rieke van Leeuwen (The Hague: RKD, 2015). URL: http://gersondenmark.rkdmonographs. nl/5.-christian-iv2019s-winter-room-and-studiolo-2013-joergen-wadum Wagenaar, Jan, Amsterdam, in zyne opkomst, aanwas, geschiedenissen, voorregten, koophandel, gebouwen, kerkenstaat, schoolen, schutterye, gilden en regeeringe, 3 vols. (Amsterdam: Izaak Tirion, 1760-1767).

The tr ade in cheap history paintings: Dammeroen, Doeck , and Meijeringh 

71

Wijngaarden, Hilde van, ‘Barber Jacobs en andere uitdraagsters. Werkende vrouwen in Amsterdam in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw’, Tijdschrift voor Vrouwenstudies 16 (1995), 334-347. Witt, David A. de, Jan van Noordt: Painter of History and Portraits in Amsterdam (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007). Worp, J.A., Geschiedenis van den Amsterdamschen Schouwburg, 1496-1772 (Amsterdam: S.L. Van Looy, 1920). Zwollo, An, Hollandse en Vlaamse veduteschilders te Rome, 1675-1725 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973).

2.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventoriesand their career prospects Abstract Biographical information about the painters in the inventories of Cornelis Doeck and Hendrick Meijeringh forms the starting point for further research on the career prospects of painters in the Dutch Republic. Not only are many of these painters unfamiliar to today’s art historians, but they also had little or no reputation in their own time. Some of the painters could not be identified at all, whereas for others, biographical data were scarce. This chapter demonstrates that career prospects were mainly determined by social background and the opportunities connected to it. The pupils without a painter in the family or a well-to-do background had a much harder time achieving some sort of success in the painting business. Keywords: seventeenth century, art dealer, success, reputation, social stratification

Most painters of the works sold by Cornelis Doeck and Hendrick Meijeringh are unknown today. They do not feature in art-historical volumes, their paintings are not included in public collections, and in some cases, there are no signed works known by them. Many of them were unknown in their own time as well: their names are never or are hardly ever recorded in household inventories. Their paintings appear in these private inventories as anonymous, which indicates that either the painter was not recognized by contemporaries, or that it was not relevant to note down the artist’s name to establish the painting’s value. The fact that their names are present in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories can be explained by the document type itself: paintings were usually described more precisely in trade inventories than in private ones, due to the expertise of the parties recording the estate and the large number of paintings that had to be distinguished from one another. In the case of Doeck and Meijeringh, the documents were drawn up by family members who worked in the shop and took over the business; they were

Jager, A., Popular History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: Production, Distribution, and Consumption. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020 doi 10.5117/9789462987739_ch02

74 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

familiar with the paintings, and they also knew how to access and interpret the workshop records. As well as the painters who worked for Doeck and Meijeringh, there must have been many more painters who produced works ‘by the dozen’ in Amsterdam. Although we do not (yet) know their names from inventories,1 we do come across references to them in contemporary literature, where they are described pejoratively as ‘amateurs and duds’, ‘paint- and canvas-wasters’, ‘daubers’, and ‘dime-a-dozen workers’.2 Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories, in which around half of the paintings are listed with the name of the artist, thus offer a unique glimpse of these ‘dime-a-dozen’ painters. In this chapter, we study them in more detail to gain an impression of their lives. Key questions include: who were these painters, and why did they produce ‘dime-a-dozen’ paintings? Was it simply lack of talent and ambition, or did other factors come into play? Artistic talent was essential to success, but in the seventeenth century it may have been equally important to come from a good family, with all the financial and social advantages this brought. The financial advantages included more prestigious training with a famous master and capital for setting up a business, and the social advantages included a network of potential patrons from the ruling and commercial elite, as well as the social skills to communicate with them.3 But even if a painter had talent and the right background, other factors could still hold back one’s career, such as the outbreak of war, increasing competition in the labour market, or factors such as lifestyle, alcoholism, or a difficult character.4 Factors such as the level of talent and personal characteristics cannot be captured quantitatively and are unknown in many cases, something that is especially true of the painters active at the lower end of the art market, on whom there is usually little documentation. This chapter investigates the questions above using data that can be expressed in figures, derived from biographical details such as the artist’s place of residence, birthplace, and father’s occupation.5 This method is also known as prosopography; common characteristics of a historical group are investigated by studying biographies of its members. The characteristics of this group of ‘dime-a-dozen painters’ is further compared to two other groups: successful 1 However, a number of the painters of unknown artistic status who are included in the ECARTICO database must have worked as dime-a-dozen painters. 2 For a short overview of the pejorative terms for painters in the seventeenth century, see: De Pauw-de Veen 1969, pp. 38-42. 3 Bok 1994, p. 187; Kok 2013, 2016, & 2017. 4 We come across many of these kinds of circumstances in the art literature: De Vries 1990, pp. 85-86; Miedema 2017, pp. 141-143; Houbraken 1718-1721, III, p. 386. Marten Jan Bok has suggested that the decline in Rembrandt’s popularity at the end of his life could be explained by his undisciplined character and ‘blunt’ manner with distinguished patrons; see: Bok 2004. 5 For biographies of 58 hardly researched painters in this sample, see: Jager 2016, pp. 269-374.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

75

painters (those featuring in the Grove Dictionary of Art6) and the entire painter population in seventeenth-century Amsterdam (artist-painters in ECARTICO7). A painter’s religious convictions were not included as a characteristic due to the lack of sources.8

The pathway to success: reputation, origin, and social background Sample The analysis below is based on a sample of 83 painters from Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s shop inventories, which list the names of 49 and 46 painters, respectively.9 Twelve painters are mentioned in both inventories: Joachim Govertsz. Camphuysen (c. 1601/1602-1659), Abraham Hondius (c. 1631-1691),10 Albert Klomp (1625-1689), Wouter Knijff (1606/1607-1694), Leendert de Laeff (c. 1630-after 1665), Jan Micker (1599-1664), Hendrick Mommers (1620-after 1682), Jan Spanjaert (c. 1590-after 1664), Adriaen Verdoel (1623-1675), Gerrit de Wet (c. 1610-1674), Jacob de Wet (I) (c. 1610-1677/1691), and Jacob de Wet (II) (c. 1640/42-1697). The sample of 83 painters excludes unidentified nicknames,11 anonymous copies after named 6 Turner 2000. This art encyclopaedia is used here as an indicator of success; in doing so, I am aware that it is primarily an indicator of artistic, not commercial success. Recent bibliometric research has indicated a high degree of consistency between this art encyclopaedia and eighteenth-century sources: Vermeylen, Van Dijck, and De Laet 2013, p. 94. 7 ECARTICO database. 8 There has been little research on the influence of religious convictions on people’s careers. From the dearth of sources that have survived, it does not appear that belief played a decisive role in painters’ career success. Commissions from Catholic churches and individuals went to both Protestant and Catholic painters, and Protestants owned paintings that had been made by both Protestant and Catholic artists; see: Manuth 1993-1994, p. 238. 9 These include monograms. Doeck’s painting ‘a seascape 10 stivers panel signed AA’ is identified here as having been painted by Arnoldus van Anthonissen (1631-1703), three of whose fully signed seascapes were in Doeck’s possession. The monogram P.F. on another seascape in Doeck’s possession remains for now unidentified. Note that the same monogram is recorded in the inventory of Pieter van Meldert in 1653 (Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 184), and that a Copenhagen auction in 1975 included a seascape with this monogram: Seascape with three ships in a storm, panel, 34 × 57 cm. Sale Copenhagen (Bruun Rasmussen), 1975. RKD, Voorordening Monogrammisten P. 10 Both inventories only mention ‘Hondius’. In Doeck’s inventory (1667), he can most likely be identified as Abraham Danielsz. Hondius (1631-1716). ‘Hondius’ in the inventory of Meijeringh (1687), however, could also be identified as his younger brother Isaac Hondius (c. 1646-1716). For convenience, in the sample both paintings are attributed to Abraham Hondius. 11 Three seascapes in Doeck’s shop were painted by ‘de getrouwe herder’ (the faithful shepherd). Meijeringh’s inventory contained five history paintings by ‘A Frenchman’ and one by ‘a German’ and two landscapes by ‘the Luijtenant’.

76 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

artists who do not appear elsewhere in the inventories,12 and anonymous pupils of a master listed by name.13 Doeck, who had himself made one of the paintings in the inventory, is not included in the group. The same is true of the painter Albert Meijeringh (1645-1714), seven of whose paintings were listed in the shop of his brother Hendrick Meijeringh, and his friend Johannes Glauber (1646-c. 1726), two of whose paintings were deleted from the inventory as ‘sold’. The ‘winter scene by Brueghel the Elder’ in Meijeringh’s art shop is considered a copy here; ‘Breughel’ was a trademark, above all, and inventories and auction catalogues rarely distinguished between members of the Breughel family and whether a painting was a studio copy, a repetition of an original composition, or a work in his style.14 Contemporary reputation Before we can consider the factors that were key to an artist’s success, we first need to measure success. A successful painter did more than merely earn a living: he gained fame with his work and enjoyed the appreciation of connoisseurs.15 In order to measure fame and appreciation, I use the bibliometric reputation model introduced by Claartje Rasterhoff in Painting and Publishing as Cultural Industries (2017), which links entries in various contemporary sources to the level of appreciation.16 I thereby classify the 83 painters in my data set into three groups (see Table 4a). Group A consists of painters who were listed in contemporary biographies of painters published at the time. Due to the lack of usable seventeenth-century printed sources, I used the eighteenth-century publications by Arnold Houbraken (1718-1720) and Johan van Gool (1750-1751).17 The painters in Group B do not feature in these contemporary biographies, but their names do appear in the pre-1750 Dutch households listed in the Montias/Frick Database (1280 Amsterdam inventories,

12 Copies are mentioned after Johannes Huchtenburg and ‘Wouwerman’, and paintings in the style of ‘Ostade’, Otto Marseus van Schrieck, ‘Ruysdael’, and ‘Van de Velde’. 13 Meijeringh’s inventory contained A painting of the Fall of Lucifer made by a disciple of Grebber and Two landscapes by a disciple of Sonjé, with single-border (‘enckelde’) frames. 14 See: Jonckheere 2008, pp. 72-75; Van den Brink 2001. 15 This is also reflected in art theory; see, for example, De Nieuwe Schouburg by Johan van Gool (1751): De Vries 1990, pp. 76-78. 16 Rasterhoff 2017, pp. 177-179. 17 Houbraken 1718-1720; Van Gool 1750-1751. None of the painters in our sample feature in the seventeenthcentury sources De Bie 1662; Dapper 1663; Van Hoogstraten 1678; Commelin 1693; De Lairesse 1707; Huygens 2003 (begun: 1677). The selected sources differ from Rasterhoff’s table investigating the reputation of Dutch painters in the period 1600-1820, which also considers their inclusion in Van Mander 1604 and Van Eynden and Van der Willigen 1816-1840.

77

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

Table 4a: Reputation categories of painters in the inventories of Doeck (1667) and Meijeringh (1687) Doeck/Meijeringh Ranking order A B C

Contemporary prominence No contemporary prominence, but contemporary ownership No contemporary prominence or contemporary ownership

T

No.

%

±500

21

25

±1500

32

39

unknown

30 83

36 100

Note: Group A consists of painters mentioned in: Houbraken 1718-1721; Van Gool 1750-1751. Group B consists of painters mentioned in: Montias/Frick Database; Getty Provenance Index: Archival Inventories. Group C consists of painters not mentioned in A or B. ‘T’ is the total number of Northern Netherlandish early modern painters included in the ranking order. The data set consists of painters listed in the combined inventories of Cornelis Doeck (1667) and Hendrick Meijeringh (1687), which feature 49 and 46 painters’ names respectively; twelve painters appear in both inventories.

Table 4b: Paintings in the inventories of Doeck (1667) and Meijeringh (1687), per ranking order A

Cornelis Doeck Hendrick Meijeringh

B

C

T

Named

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

576 499

84 53

50 45

8 18

92 58

32 23

135 138

48 55

Note: ‘T’ is the total number of paintings per inventory. The column ‘Named’ shows the number of paintings described in the inventory with the name of the painter. The categories A, B, and C correspond with those in Table 3.1a. Columns A, B, and C show how many paintings appear in the inventories by painters in the ranking, and the percentage of the total number of paintings by named artists per inventory.

1597-1681) and the Getty Provenance Index: Archival Inventories (8192 Dutch inventories, 1620-1750).18 These groups thereby reflect contemporary appreciation shown by painters and liefhebbers (art lovers) (Group A), and collectors and art buyers (Group B); Group C contains the rest of the names; painters who are not listed in either of these sources.

18 Montias-Frick Database; The Getty Provenance Index: Archival Inventories. I did not include listings of these painters in professional art trade inventories.

78 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Twenty-one painters from the data set fall into Group A; in theory, these were painters with an established reputation who were appreciated in their own time.19 Of these painters, only ten feature in Houbraken’s or Van Gool’s biographies: Nicolaes Berchem (1621/22-1683), Job Berckheyde (1630-1693), David Colijns (c. 15821665/66), Barend Gael (1630/1635-1698), Caesar van Everdingen (c. 1616/17-1678), 20 Dirk Maas (1656-1717), Paulus Potter (1625-1654), Abraham Storck (1644-1708), Jacob Toorenvliet (1640-1719), and the already mentioned Adriaen Verdoel. The other eleven painters are only mentioned in passing in other biographies, more often pejoratively than positively. In the biography of his son Dirck Dalens (II), for example, Willem Dalens (c. 1628-1675) is described as ‘a landscape painter […] but not of the best sort’.21 Houbraken mentions Pieter Potter (c. 1597/1600-1652) and Pieter Claesz. (c. 1597/98-1660) briefly in the biographies of their sons Paulus Potter and Nicolaes Berchem, both successful artists; and characterized them as ‘common’ painters. 22 In some cases, Houbraken only mentioned a painter due to a juicy piece of gossip or an anecdote, as in the case of Hendrick Bogaert (1626/32-after 1673). Bogaert, Houbraken writes, had died old and alone in the Gasthuis (hospital), despite repeated appeals from his relatives to put money aside ‘for old age or ill health’. (The painter is said to have snapped at them in response: ‘Well, the Gasthuis wasn’t built for pigs, was it?’)23 The ten painters with their own biographies should therefore be viewed as the only painters in our data set who were already part of the canon in the eighteenth century. Their paintings made 19 Houbraken 1718-1720, II, pp. 57-58, 75-76, 94-95, 109-114, 125-129, 200; III, pp. 164, 172, 189-198, 219, 221, 247, 320-321, 385; Van Gool, 1750, I: pp. 125, 159. In the biography of Jan Baptist Weenix, Houbraken mentions that Jan Micker was his teacher: ‘a certain Jan Micker, a common painter’. This description suggests that Houbraken had no idea who ‘Micker’ was, which is why Jan Micker has not been included in Group A. Houbraken 1718-1720, II, p. 77. 20 The descriptions ‘a large Bathsheba by Everdingh’ and ‘Susanna as before [by Everdingh]’ suggest that the mentioned ‘Everdingh’ was a history painter; this might thus refer to Caesar van Everdingen (c. 1616/7-1678), who often painted historical subjects with a nude woman in the leading role, and was briefly living in Amsterdam in 1661: Huys Janssen 2002, pp. 50-51; Klinkert 2017, p. 28. I have listed this ‘Everdingh’ in the data set as Caesar van Everdingen. Van Everdingen was a respected and well-paid painter, however, whose work would not have been in keeping with the rest of Doeck’s stock. Another possibility is that ‘Everdingh’ refers to his cousin Cornelis van Everdingen (1646-in or after 1692). Only one of his works is mentioned in the online estate inventories, namely of the family member Jacoba van Everdingen in 1705 with the description ‘Een kersnagje (Birth of Christ) van Cornelis van Everdingen’; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-453. 21 Houbraken 1718-1722, III, p. 385. 22 Houbraken 1718-1722, II, p. 111 (Pieter Claesz.), p. 126 (Pieter Sijmonsz. Potter). Today, Pieter Claesz. is well known and highly appreciated by art historians for his still lifes. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, he did not enjoy a special reputation and his work was not expensive, which explains why a ‘bankettie’ (banquet piece) in Doeck’s private collection was appraised at 3 guilders. Horn suggests Houbraken did not care much for still-life painters and tonal painters: Horn 2000, I, pp. 559, 582. 23 ‘Is het Gasthuys dan voor de verkens gemaakt?’: Houbraken 1718-1722, III, p. 247.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

79

up a very small percentage of Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s total stock – 1 and 3 per cent, respectively – and would have been the most expensive works in the shop. One should add that a number of the painters in Group A produced inexpensive paintings early in their careers, and only experienced greater success and appreciation later in their working lives. The paintings by these masters in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s shops could thus be sold cheaply despite their later higher value. Around 1667, the seascape painter Arnout Smit (1640-1710) was producing paintings for the Amsterdam-based art dealer, Laurens Cornelisz. Conincks, in a damp attic on Singel next to Brewery ‘het Swaentje’.24 Seventeen years later, in 1684, he was commissioned to decorate the domed hall of the Trompenburg country estate with paintings of ships.25 This group of artists also includes Paulus Potter, whose painting in Doeck’s shop was described as ‘David and Abigail by Young Potter’. Only a few history paintings by Paulus Potter are known today, and all of them date to the early 1640s, before and during Potter’s apprenticeship with the Haarlem-based history painter Jacob de Wet.26 In the preceding chapter, it was already suggested that De Wet’s large workshop made and supplied cheap history paintings to Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s art shops, and this may also have been the case for Potter’s painting. Group B contains 32 painters who are not mentioned in eighteenth-century biographies, but they are listed in the contemporary pre-1750 inventories in the Montias/Frick Database and the Getty Provenance Index: Archival Inventories.27 The Montias/Frick Database only contains inventories from Amsterdam, but the Getty Database also includes inventories from other towns, including Haarlem, Utrecht, and Dordrecht.28 Due to the lack of estates from Rotterdam, a number of our painters nevertheless fall outside the selection, such as Jan Gabrielsz. Sonjé (c. 1625-1697), who likely had a reasonably successful workshop in Rotterdam.29 Attributions to painters in inventories not only reflect the degree to which a painter’s style and signature was recognizable to contemporaries, but also, and above all, they reveal the significance of this attribution when determining the value of 24 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Vos, inv. no. 2968, fol. 411-412, 20-5-1667; RKD, Archief A. Bredius [NLHaRKD.0380], ‘Smit’. 25 Van Run 2013. 26 On Paulus Potter’s history paintings, see: Walsh 1985, pp. 116-131; Sluijter 2015b, pp. 317-318. 27 John Michael Montias suggests that the inclusion of painters’ names in an inventory is an indication of their contemporary reputation; see: Montias 2004-2005, p. 327. 28 The works by painters who do not appear in the inventories included in the databases may have been purchased in towns that have unfortunately not been the subject of substantial research into the ownership of paintings. One such example is a painter who worked in Rotterdam, Jan Gabrielsz. Sonjé, whose name does not appear in the inventories that were searched, but who must have had a reasonably successful workshop and whose works are likely to have appeared frequently in Rotterdam estates. 29 Van der Zeeuw 1994, p. 299.

80 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

the painting. This group of painters includes minor masters, such as Arnoldus Anthonissen (1631-1703), Adriaen Gael (c. 1618-1665), and Jacobus Storck (1614-after 1687). The eighteenth-century art dealer Gerard Hoet (II) published a Naamlyst van schilders (‘List of painters’) in critical response to Van Gool’s selection. Hoet’s list contains five of the painters from Group B, which in my view suggests that these masters were familiar names in the eighteenth-century art trade: ‘Beerstraten’ (either Jan Abrahamsz. or his son Abraham), William Gowe Ferguson (1632/33-in or after 1695), Albert Klomp (1625-1689), Klaes Molenaer (c. 1628/29-1676), and Adriaen Hendricksz. Verboom (c. 1640-after 1667).30 It is revealing that Adriaen Verdoel is not listed in any contemporary estate inventory: evidently, Houbraken only recounts Verdoel’s life because he mistakenly believed that Verdoel had been a pupil of Rembrandt.31 Group C contains the remaining painters: 30 painters who are not mentioned in the works by Houbraken or Van Gool, and whose names probably lay behind the many anonymous works in the estate inventories. They were just as unfamiliar then as they are today.32 As well as their omission from the contemporary art literature or inventories, information about the painters in Group C in the form of archival records or signed paintings is scarce. The painters ‘Juffrou Bega’ [Margrieta van Zijl, d. 1677?],33 ‘Van der Bent’ [Sijbrand van der Bent (1636-1690)?],34 ‘Pieter Blockman’,35

30 Hoet [c. 1751], pp. 83-95. 31 Houbraken 1718-1722, II, pp. 57-58. 32 For example, from our data set, only the Frisian still-life painter Petrus Schotanus and the still-life painter from Zwolle, Pieter van Noort (mentioned indirectly), are included in the survey by Bob Haak: Haak 1984, pp. 129-130, 345. 33 ‘Juffrouw Bega’ (Mrs. Bega), mentioned in Meijeringh’s inventory with ‘een stuck met beesten’ (‘a painting of cattle’), may be a reference to the wife of Abraham Begeijn (1637/8-1697). We can deduct from guild stipulations that it was not uncommon for wives of painters to assist in their husbands’ workshops: Bezemer 1894, p. 126. After her marriage with Jan Miense Molenaer, even Judith Leyster, a known painter in her own right, appears to have continued painting under her husband’s name and signed her paintings with ‘Juffr. Molenaer’: Tummers 2009, pp. 26-27. 34 The ‘stuck met kruijden’ (‘painting of herbs’) in Hendrick Meijeringh’s estate is not consistent with the oeuvre of the landscape painter Johannes van der Bent: Van der Willigen and Meijer 2003, p. 35. The work may thus have been by Sijbrand van der Bent, who was registered as a member of the Guild of St. Luke in Amsterdam in 1688: Van Eeghen 1969/2012. We do not know of any signed paintings by Sijbrand van der Bent. 35 In his research in the various Dutch archives, Abraham Bredius found nothing about the painter Pieter Blockman other than a mention of ‘a small landscape with animals by Pieter Blockman, without frame, on 1-guilder canvas’ in the inventory of Cornelis Doeck. Pieter Blockman may be identical to the painter ‘Balckman’, the painter of ‘two paintings’ mentioned in an inventory of goods belonging to Annesie Arents in 1665: SAA, ONA [5075], not. H. Westfrisius, inv. no. 2808, deed no. 2873, 24-3-1665; Montias-Frick Database, no. 530.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

81

‘Van Dor’ [Huig van Dorre Wiltschut (1650/56-after 1711)?],36 ‘De Fuyter’,37 ‘Gercken’, ‘de Jonge Heeremans’,38 ‘J. Holsloot’ [Jacob Hollesloot, c. 1614-1673?],39 and ‘Schutt’40 36 The artist ‘Dorr’ or ‘Van Dor’, three of whose landscapes are listed in Hendrick Meijeringh’s shop inventory, remains unidentif ied. He may have been one of the ‘van Doren brothers’ mentioned by Houbraken in the biography of Johannes Glauber. According to the author, in 1671 Glauber travelled to Italy, accompanied by his fifteen-year-old brother and Albert Meijeringh. On the way, they stopped in Rotterdam, among other places, where the ‘van Doren’ brothers joined the travelling company. Houbraken, 1718-1721, III, p. 217. 37 Cornelis Doeck’s inventory lists many paintings by the painter ‘De Fuyter’: ‘f ive senses [crossed out as “sold”]’ and ‘16 shepherds and shepherdesses and four seasons by de Fuyter’. The paintings listed immediately afterwards with the same subjects (‘8 five senses and shepherdesses on 6 stiver panel’ and the ‘14 shepherds and shepherdesses and four seasons small stoters panels’) may also have been by this De Fuyter. The painter ‘De Fuyter’ cannot be identified with any certainty. The brothers Louis, Jacob Leon (II), and Leonard de Fuyter all worked as painters in Amsterdam; they were the sons of Magdalena van Ebelen and the painter Jacob Lyon de Fuyter. 38 A ‘winter and a summer’ by ‘the young Heeremans’ are listed in Hendrick Meijeringh’s inventory. This may be a reference to one of the sons of the painter Thomas Heeremans (1641-1694), ‘Heereman’ (b. 1669) or ‘Johannes’ (b. 1670). Van Thiel-Stroman 2006, p. 202. None of the sons registered as painters, however. A more convincing identification is Nicolaas Heerman the Younger, who joined the Haarlem guild in October 1651 as an apprentice to Pieter Saenredam: Miedema 1980, pp. 620, 1031. Nicolaas Heerman the Younger was the nephew of Jacob van Campen; that is, he was the son of Van Campen’s sister Geertruyd van Campen and Johan Heerman. Another possible identification of ‘the young Heeremans’ is the painter Frans Heremans, the painter of two summer landscapes listed in an Amsterdam estate inventory of 1703, valued at 20 guilders. Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventory N-401. 39 The Holsloot/Hollesloot family was a well-known merchant family in Amsterdam, but none of its members was registered as a painter. ‘J. Holsloot’ may be a reference to Jacob Hollesloot, who, at the age of 25, married Aefgie Plemp on 6 June 1640; he did not give his occupation: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 675, p. 264, 6-6-1640. He was assisted by his uncle and guardian, Jacob Pietersz. Codde (c. 1590-1666, probably a cousin of the painter Pieter Codde). Jacob Pietersz. Codde was married to Elisabeth Claesdr. Hollesloot, the sister of Jacob Hollesloot’s father: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 668, p. 29, 2-6-1616. An Amsterdam inventory of 14 July 1649 contained ‘a painting by Holsloot depicting the Pool of Siloam with a black frame’. RKD, Archive A. Bredius [NL-HaRKD.0380], ‘Amsterdam H’, p. 24 (inventory Petavin Amsterdam, not S. van de Piet). At present, we know of no paintings produced under the name of Holsloot. He may be identical to the landscape painter with the monogram ‘J.H.’: RKDexplore Database, RKDartists, no. 112706. A painting dated 1645 and with the monogram ‘J.H.’ was auctioned at Sotheby’s in New York in 1985: Anonymous J.H. (possibly Jacob Holsloot), signed and dated at the bottom right: ‘1645 JH’, A shepherd and shepherdess and cattle at water, 24 × 32.5 cm, sale New York (Sotheby’s), 13-3-1985. 40 Hendrick Meijeringh’s trade inventory lists eight history paintings by a certain ‘Schutt’. He should not be confused with one of the most successful painters in Antwerp, Cornelis Schut (I) (1597-1655). I suggest instead a Schutt who worked in either Amsterdam or Haarlem. There are stylistic parallels between a painting of David and Abigail signed ‘Schut’ and the production of Jacob de Wet’s studio: ‘Schutt’, David and Abigail, panel, 77 × 110 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 5-12-1956, no. 137 (as C. Schut). ‘Schutt’ could perhaps be identified as the painter Jan (Johannis) Schot (1664-after 1682?), seven of whose unspecified paintings were listed in the estate of his father, the merchant Barent Schot in Amsterdam (1682) and whose guardian was Hendrick Mommers (the painter?): SAA, ONA [5075], not. N. Brouwer, inv. no. 3944, fol. 345v-352v, 13-4-1682; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventory N-256. These seven paintings, four with frames, were collectively valued at 25 guilders in Schot’s estate inventory. Jan

82 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

could not be identified, or only partially. Even when it was possible to identify their names, basic biographical details were often lacking, such as the place or year of birth, as in the case of Leendert de Laeff41 and Willem Gras. 42 Signed paintings by these painters are rare. For example, we know of just one signed painting by Jan van den Broeck (1615-1669/1670), 43 Gijsbert Cruijsbergh (c. 1655-1701), 44 and Barend Jansz. Slordt (c. 1625-after 1690).45 We do not currently know of any works by Willem Dalens, Bernard Faber (1633-after 1674), Matthijs van der Voort (1643-1719), Arnoldus Schaep (1645-1683), Gerrit Schimmel (1666-1685), and Pieter Wiggersz. (1632-1673). This residual group was responsible for most of the works in the trade-in-stock: half of all the attributed paintings were painted by a painter from Group C (see Table 4b). The inventories of Doeck and Meijeringh suggest that some of these artists painted as their employees in the attic workshops. 46 In addition, several painters were responsible for a particularly large amount of work in stock: Doeck had 64 history paintings by De Laeff, and Meijeringh had 69 paintings by Slordt.47 It is also striking that many pictures were stocked in duplicate, suggesting that the painters were ordered to paint certain subjects in series (see Table 3, p. X). Doeck’s shop, for example, had five copies of the Annunciation to the shepherds and five of The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 10:39); two of these – one of each subject – were by De Laeff, and the rest were listed without the painter’s name. Schot was baptized in Amsterdam on 4 April 1664; his mother, Geertruijd Ketelaars, died in childbirth: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 9, p. 379, 4-4-1664; inv. no. 1047, p. 109, 25-4-1664. I found no marriage banns related to a painter named Jan Schot. Alternatively, Schutt refers to ‘Pieter Sgut’ who was registered as member of the Amsterdam St. Luke’s Guild in 1688 as ‘vrij ceel’ (resident, but not poorter): Van Eeghen 1969/2012. 41 Aside from a 24 March 1661 attestation, in which Leendert de Laeff claimed to be ‘around 30 years old’ and living on Beulingstraat in Amsterdam, his biographical details remain unknown. See further: pp. 170-171. 42 Of Willem Gras, we know only that he was a member of the Guild of St. Luke in Haarlem, but the date of his registration is not known. He died before 25 August 1702. Miedema 1980, pp. 935, 1040. For works by Gras, see: De Vries 1950; Giltaij 2000, p. 73; Brandmüller 2010, pp. 222-223. 43 Jan van den Broeck, Landscape with farm and shepherd with cattle on a country road, signed ‘J.V.D.Broek’, panel, 37.8 × 51.4 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 23-4-2004, lot no. 123 (as: S.V.D. Broek). 44 Gijsbert Cruijsbergh, Landscape with shepherd and cattle, signed and dated ‘G. Cruijsborgh. Fct Ao 1683’, support and dimensions unknown, private collection Poland. Photo at RKD. 45 Barend Jansz. Slordt, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, signed and dated on the bottom right ‘Exodus / B.J. Slordt 1680’, panel, 71 × 107.5 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 19-5-1984, lot no. 69 (Figure 90, p. 187). 46 In the attic, in addition to 90 finished paintings, Hendrick Meijeringh also had 80 unpainted supports, 42 strainers, three painters’ easels, and other painting supplies. The sixteen underpainted panels in Doeck’s shop also suggest production; for the rest, painters’ supplies were lacking, but this may be explained by the long period of time between his death (1664) and the making of the inventory (1667). 47 According to John Michael Montias, 42 paintings by Leendert de Laeff were found in the Cornelis Doeck’s art shop, and 66 paintings by ‘Slort’ (then not identif ied) in Hendrick Meijeringh’s shop; see: Montias 1988, pp. 255-256 (Table 3). On a recount, these figures proved incorrect.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

83

Meijeringh had seven paintings of Joseph sold by his brothers (Genesis 37:28), six of which were by Slordt and one by a certain ‘Schutt’, and six paintings of The gathering of the Manna by Slordt. Artists who painted in the employ of an art shop – described as galey-schilders or ‘galley painters’ in contemporary sources – will be discussed at greater length in Chapter Three. In summary, we can say that most of the painters listed in the trade inventories of Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s shops were unknown in their own (and our) time. Their names are not mentioned in any other source. The dealers also had works by painters whose names appeared in the contemporary art literature and estate inventories, but the most famous painters of the seventeenth century were not among them. More often, these painters were known by name for other reasons, for example because their children had found fame as artists. The next section attempts to assess the various life characteristics that could influence an artist’s career. Place of residence The second analysis concerns where the artists lived. Table 5 shows the places of residence of the painters mentioned in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories. As painters tended to move around, several of them are documented to have worked in multiple towns. If a painter worked in Amsterdam and elsewhere, he was classified as having lived in Amsterdam. In the other cases, painters were grouped in the city where they worked in the period that Doeck and/or Meijeringh were active in the art trade. More than half of the painters lived in Amsterdam at some point in their lives. It is obvious that art dealers who sold cheap paintings, such as Doeck and Meijeringh, would have tended to sell mainly local products. These dealers were probably in contact with local painters, visited their workplaces, and placed orders with them; this is also evident from the mention of painting orders in Meijeringh’s estate, as we saw in the previous chapter. 48 One striking feature of the data set is the considerable group of painters from Haarlem, a city close to Amsterdam. Haarlem was home to a large number of active painters per head of the population; in 1650, there were 2.6 painters per 1000 residents, compared to 1.5 per 1000 residents in Amsterdam. 49 As a result, the 48 ‘[…] also to be paid, some paintings and frames that were ordered by the deceased in his lifetime, to be settled at a later date’ (‘voor memorie’); SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Winter, inv. no. 2414, fol. 29, 20/25-6-1687 49 For the number of painters in Haarlem (93) and Amsterdam (177), see: ECARTICO database, consulted on 16-12-2015. For the population of Haarlem in 1650 (38,000), see: Briels 1985, pp. 112-113. For the population of Amsterdam in 1650 (160,000-175,000), see: Lesger 2005, p. 21.

84 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Table 5: Place of residence of painters listed in the inventories of Doeck (1667) and Meijeringh (1687) Ranking order A B C Total

Amsterdam

Haarlem

Rotterdam

Elsewhere

Unknown

T

16 18 14 48

5 11 2 18

0 2 2 4

0 1 3 4

0 0 9 9

21 32 30 83

Note: Painters with multiple places of residence including Amsterdam were classified under Amsterdam; painters with multiple places of residence including Haarlem or Rotterdam were classified under Haarlem or Rotterdam.

supply of paintings in Haarlem would have comfortably exceeded local demand. The surplus was exported to other towns. This is also evident from the large number of Haarlem-based painters listed in estate inventories outside Haarlem, especially in nearby Amsterdam.50 There were dealers working in Amsterdam who mainly sold paintings from Haarlem, namely Matthijs Hals and, to a lesser extent, Pieter van Meldert.51 These dealers played an important role in the dissemination of Haarlem landscape paintings in Amsterdam. Perhaps the Haarlem painters these art dealers bought works from were consciously producing paintings to meet the preferences of an Amsterdam clientele. To a certain extent, there are parallels between the trading relationship between Amsterdam and Haarlem and seventeenth-century Mechelen. In 1632, there were roughly 3.5 painters per 1000 residents in Mechelen, most of whom produced paintings for dealers in Antwerp.52 Mechelen mainly produced cheap waterverfdoeken – water-based paintings on linen – which were exported all over Europe (and beyond) by Antwerp’s art dealers.53 The productive capacity of these painted cloths was considerable: they were produced rapidly and on a large scale, in series, and in sizable workshops with an advanced division of labour.54 At the same time, prices remained incredibly competitive throughout the century thanks to the cheap labour costs of apprentices and journeymen.55 Interestingly, the art

50 Montias 1991, pp. 341-342; Boers-Goosens 2001, pp. 269-275. This also applied to other towns, such as Leiden, where there was a clearer preference for paintings by local masters than in Amsterdam: Boers-Goosens 2001, p. 269; Fock 1990, pp. 12, 14-15. 51 Montias 1988, p. 252; Boers-Goosens 2001, pp. 272-274. 52 De Marchi and Van Miegroet 2006b. 53 For the overseas trade in waterverfdoeken, see: Ginhoven 2017, e.g., pp. 83-84, 121-122, 178-181, & 229-230. 54 Miegroet 2015; Tamis 2016, pp. 147-165. 55 Miegroet 2015.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

85

dealers controlled the production of these waterverfdoeken.56 I will demonstrate in the third chapter that art dealers had a dominant role in the production of cheap history paintings in Amsterdam as well. The comparison between the situation in Mechelen and that in Haarlem, where the painting of panels and canvases with oil paint required longer production times, is not perfect. Nevertheless, Haarlem was home to similar large-scale studios that produced work in series, including those of Jacob de Wet (I) and Hendrick Mommers. From the 1630s, De Wet’s workplace, with its multiple assistants, produced a considerable number of history paintings for Amsterdam’s art dealers, including Doeck and Meijeringh.57 Although we know little about Mommers’s workshop, there are various indications that he also had a spacious studio that produced a large number of paintings for Amsterdam’s market, in this case Italianate landscapes. Mommers’s work is mentioned in relation to four art dealers in Amsterdam: Doeck and Meijeringh had works by Mommers himself and copies after his work, whilst Van Meldert and Hals also owed considerable money to Mommers for paintings supplied.58 In contrast to De Wet, we know only a few names of Mommer’s apprentices.59 Mommers might have teamed up with the painter Jan Baptist Wolfaerts (1625-after 1671): in 1655-1656, Mommers and Wolfaerts bought together the premises that had been used by the painter Cornelis Adriaensz. Gael (I) (c. 1590-1672), possibly with the intention of establishing a joint atelier there.60 The two painters painted similar 56 Tamis 2016, p. 157. From a petition by the Mechelse schilders- en beeldsnijdersambacht (Mechelen painters and sculptors trade) dated 15 December 1562, we know that art dealers drew capable apprentices away from their masters’ studios by paying part of their guild entrance fee. These young artists ‒ now suddenly independent masters ‒ produced the same type of work that they were making during their education, and on the cheap, because they did not yet have to provide for a wife and children. Monballieu 1971. 57 Pieter van Meldert and Matthijs Hals also had works from De Wet’s studio: SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Vos, inv. no. 1202, fol. 270-286, 1-10-1653; not. N. Listingh, inv. no. 2617, fol. 2651, 30-3-1662. On this production, see: Chapter Three and Jager 2018. 58 When the estate inventory was drawn up in October 1653, Van Meldert had nine paintings by Mommers, and in March 1662, Hals had two landscapes by the painter. Moreover, Van Meldert still owed the painter 188 guilders (for work supplied?) and was owed another 138 guilders and 5 stivers by the painter (for material costs?). 59 The guild mentions the apprentice Abram Remmers in July 1655 and yet another two apprentices without names in July 1657: Miedema 1980, pp. 642, 650. Arnold Houbraken mentions the apprentices Dirk Maas (1656-1717), Richard Brakenburgh (1650-1702), and Dirk Visscher (c. 1650-1707): Houbraken 1718-1721, III, pp. 383, 184. Van Eynden and Van der Willigen mentioned Bernardus van Schijndel (1647-1709), but this proved to be a misinterpretation of a sentence by Houbraken. Van Eynden and Van der Willigen 1816-1840, I, pp. 87-88; Houbraken 1718-1722, III, p. 383. Another possible apprentice of Mommers was Jan van Huchtenburg (1647-1733): Mommers was his guardian, and he would eventually marry Mommers’s daughter Elisabeth (1651-1701). For his biography, see: Van Thiel-Stroman 2006, p. 208. 60 The premises on Grote Houtstraat, opposite the Nieuwe Doelen (today’s Proveniershof), were sold at public auction. At the sale, Cornelis Adriaensz. Gael had failed to reveal that the house was subject to

86 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Italianate landscapes and were good friends; both were from Antwerp and both became members of the Haarlem guild in the year 1647.61 The studios of De Wet and Mommers were primarily geared towards producing stock and were dependent on external parties for distribution; in this sense, they differed from the large studios of celebrated masters such as Rubens, Honthorst, and Rembrandt. The smaller group of painting suppliers working in Rotterdam had the same characteristics as the group in Haarlem. In the second half of the seventeenth century, Rotterdam had developed into a production centre, especially of landscapes.62 The Rotterdam landscape painter Jan Gabrielsz. Sonjé (1635-1697) probably supplied Meijeringh with works from his studio, as shown by the three principals by the Italianate painter Sonjé, the eight paintings by his ‘disciple’, and the two paintings ‘in the style of’ Sonjé in Meijeringh’s trade inventory. It is possible that the six paintings by Pieter van Mase (1651-after 1703) were also delivered with Sonjé’s mediation: the Rotterdam-based painter added staffage to a number of Sonjé’s landscapes.63 Sonjé may have also supplied Meijeringh with the paintings by fellow Rotterdam artists: his inventory included one painting by Hondius, six by Verboom,64 and ten works by Dionijs Verburgh (c. 1636-1722). There were close ties between the two cities; as we have already seen, Dammeroen sold his paintings at Rotterdam’s annual fair. In the late seventeenth century, it took just eleven hours to travel between the two cities by passenger barge.65 Sonjé had certainly visited Amsterdam.66 Further commercial contact between Sonjé and the Amsterdam art dealer may have taken place via Albert Meijeringh, whom Houbraken described as having stopped in Rotterdam on the way to Italy 1671, whereupon the ‘Doren brothers’ joined his travelling company.67 One of these may have been the landscape certain charges, and on 6 June 1656 the buyers therefore decided to withdraw from the purchase. RKD, Archive A. Bredius [NL-HaRKD.0380], ‘Mommers’, p. 1, 6-6-1656 (Haarlem, not. Kittensteyn). 61 The friendship and/or partnership between the two painters lasted for many years: in 1659, Mommers was guarantor for the first two payments on Wolfaert’s new house; in 1665 he petitioned the burgomasters on Wolfaerts’s behalf; and in 1671 it seems that Mommers advanced 1000 guilders for the cost of caring for the painter, whose mental faculties had deteriorated. For Wolfaerts’s biography, see: Van Thiel-Stroman 2006, pp. 353-355. 62 De Jager 1994, pp. 95-104. 63 Van der Zeeuw 1994, p. 299; Jager 2016, pp. 322-323. 64 However, note that Adriaen Hendricksz. Verboom, born and raised in Rotterdam, is documented as having been in Amsterdam in 1666 and 1667: RKD, Archive A. Bredius [NL-HaRKD.0380], ‘Verboom’, p. 1. See also: Jager 2016, pp. 351-352. 65 De Vries 1981, p. 66. 66 Sonjé signed a drawing of a view of the Blauwbrug from the Amstel, which, according to Frits Lugt, was made around 1650: Lugt 1920, p. 148. Four drawings in the collection of the Amsterdam City Archives are attributed to Sonjé on the basis of an eighteenth- or nineteenth-century inscription. Bakker, Fleurbaay, and Gerlagh 1988, pp. 81-82, no. 26, 27. 67 Houbraken 1718-1721, III, p. 217.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

87

painter ‘Van Dorr’, three of whose landscapes are listed in the shop inventory; he can probably be identified as Huig van Dorre Wiltschut (1650/56-1717).68 Just four of the painters in our data set never worked – according to what we can glean from the documents – in Amsterdam, Haarlem, or Rotterdam. This does not exclude the possibility that they were in Amsterdam at some time. Slordt, for example, was never registered in Amsterdam, but the presence of 69 of his paintings in Meijeringh’s shop implies that he must have worked in Meijeringh’s attic workshop.69 The six landscapes in Doeck’s inventory (1667) by the 22-year-old Arnoldus Schaep, born and raised in Utrecht, may indicate that Schaep received his training in Amsterdam. His master could have been Anthonie Waterloo (1609-1690), a painter and art dealer around the corner from Doeck in Koestraat, who knew Schaep, according to a witness statement from 1678.70 A painter from The Hague, Pieter Cosijn (1630-1667) – five of whose paintings were in Doeck’s shop – is not registered as having worked in Amsterdam either, but he did travel to Leiden seeking work in 1654 during the First Anglo-Dutch War (1652-1654), albeit unsuccessfully.71 One year before, in January 1653, Cosijn had written to inform the governors of the Orphan Chamber (Weesmeesters), who administered his inheritance, that he ‘had spent some time out of The Hague, to earn some money by painting, which did not turn out well’.72 He did not specify where he had been that time, but it is possible that he was in Amsterdam at some point. Place of birth Table 6 shows the birthplaces of the artists in the data set, subdivided over Amsterdam, Haarlem, Rotterdam, ‘elsewhere’, and ‘unknown’. The table is supplemented with an overview of all known painters who worked in seventeenth-century Amsterdam and their birthplaces (listed in ECARTICO), and an overview of all painters who were active in Amsterdam and had a successful career (listed in The Grove Dictionary of Art). Comparing Tables 5 and 6, we see that whilst most of our painters worked in Amsterdam, they often originated from outside the city. Amsterdam was 68 De Bruin 1941, pp. 92-93; Van der Zeeuw 1994, p. 277; Jager 2016, pp. 304-305. 69 Jager 2014. 70 Anthonie Waterloo was the second husband of the art dealer Catharina van den Dorp. She had taken over the art shop of her first husband, Elias Hoomis, after his death in 1636. She was the mother of Lijsbeth Hoomis. This family was in the direct network of Doeck and Meijeringh. Bakker 2008a, pp. 224; Kahn-Gerson 1992. 71 In the autumn of 1654, he reported from Leiden that he ‘was unable to live by his painting’. Servaas van Rooyen 1890, p. 116. 72 Bredius 1890, p. 122; Jager 2016, pp. 291-296.

88 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Table 6: Birthplace of painters listed in the inventories of Doeck (1667) and Meijeringh (1687) Ranking order A B C Total Painters Amsterdam 1600-1700 Painters Amsterdam 1600-1700 (success)

Amsterdam

Haarlem

Rotterdam

Elsewhere

Unknown

T

3 7 6 16

6 13 2 21

1 3 1 5

11 9 8 28

0 0 13 13

21 32 30 83

623

59

32

779

204

1697

33

7

4

41

0

85

Note: The data set ‘Painters Amsterdam, 1600-1700’ is a set of all painters working in Amsterdam in the seventeenth century who feature in ECARTICO, consulted on 1 October 2015. The data set ‘Painters Amsterdam, 1600-1700 (success)’ is a set of painters working in Amsterdam who feature in The Grove Dictionary of Art; Turner 2000.

a key destination city for migrants, including many painters; immigration was so common among artists that more than half of all painters working in Amsterdam were born elsewhere. From the 1620s onwards, the city had international appeal and drew artists from within and beyond the Republic (the latter mainly from the region where Low German was spoken), to set up workshops or gain experience in the studio of a famous master.73 Many of the painters mentioned in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s shop inventories emigrated from cities and villages that lay beyond these three large painting production centres. A number of them came from cities with a population of painters: The Hague (four), Leiden (three), Delft (two), Enkhuizen (two), Leeuwarden (one), Utrecht (one), and Alkmaar (one). But some of them were born in smaller places in the Dutch Republic: Gorinchem (two), Dronrijp (one), Nieuwpoort (one), Poortugaal (one), Rijswijk (one), and Medemblik (one). In small towns and villages, there were little to no options for artistic training. Aspiring young painters were forced to study with a coarse painter or learn another craft; only those with rich parents were send to a city to study with a good master. Barend Jansz. Slordt was born in 1625 in Medemblik, for example, a place where, to date, we know of no single painter of proven artistic status working in the seventeenth century.74 It remains a mystery 73 Sluijter 2015b, p. 11. 74 A number of painters were registered in Medemblik: ECARTICO database. Artists probably moved to nearby Hoorn, where demand for paintings rose during the seventeenth century. A guild was founded there in 1651 (although the guild regulations of this ‘Glassmakers or guild of St. Luke, or the Glassmakers’ and painters’ guild’ applied only to the glassmakers). For example, the portrait painter Jan Albertsz. Rotius (1624-1666), born in Medemblik, moved to Hoorn when he was around 20 years old; see: Renckens 1948-1949, pp. 165-234. For an article about the guild in Hoorn, see: Brozius 1993, pp. 12-18.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

89

as to how Slordt learned how to paint, and whether he even worked in Medemblik as a painter at all; we do know that he worked there as an ironmonger.75 Of the painters in our data set who were born outside the Republic, three came from the Low German-speaking region, all of whom fall into Group C. Jacob Feyt de Vries (1620-after 1652), three of whose seascapes were listed in Doeck’s shop, was born in Tönning (Holstein).76 Bernard Faber (1633-after 1676) came to Amsterdam from Emden in 1665 to marry a girl from the city, and became a citizen of Amsterdam in 1668.77 Although Doeck had four of Faber’s still lifes in stock,78 Faber’s local contact is likely to have been his neighbour Frederick Meijeringh, who also hailed from Emden and had been trained in 1620 by Bernard’s father, Martin Faber (1587-1648).79 In 1669, Bernard was back in Emden and registered as a master in the local guild; he had evidently failed to achieve the desired success in Amsterdam. 80 Faber returned once more in 1676, to learn how to marbleize (‘mermer schilderen’) from the Amsterdam coarse painter Pieter Aerdewijn; the contract stated that Faber was allowed to practise this technique in the provinces of Holland.81 Pieter Wiggersz. (1632-1673) came from Danzig, as did Doeck’s family. In 1656, aged 24, Wiggersz. was registered in De Wet’s atelier records as ‘having come to paint’.82 Did Doeck play a role in arranging his arrival? Twelve of his paintings were listed in Doeck’s shop, but we do not know of any of his works today. These painters did not manage to make a name for themselves in Amsterdam. It was not the language barrier that prevented immigrants from Low Germanspeaking regions from making it in the Republic, for such a barrier hardly existed; a number of immigrant painters from Low German-speaking regions did enjoy great success, including Jürgen Ovens (1623-1678), Johannes Spilberg (1619-1690), and Gottfried Kneller (1646-1723). These painters hailed from good circles, though. On his journey from Düsseldorf to the Netherlands, for example, Spilberg carried a letter of recommendation from Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm in order to gain admission to Rubens’s studio.83 Once in Amsterdam, these young painters ended up working 75 Jager 2014. 76 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 677, p. 189, 13-2-1644. 77 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 486, p. 333, 3-1-1665; Scheltema 1861, p. 64. 78 John Michael Montias identified these paintings by ‘Faber’ as ‘probably painted by Cornelis Faber’; see: Montias-Frick Database, lot no. 532.0305, 532.0139 and 532.0165. 79 Stracke 1974, p. 33, no. 84. 80 Stracke 1974, p. 44, no. 161. 81 Faber is listed in this document as painter in Emden (‘schilder tot Emden’): SAA 5075, 3111, not. H. Rosa, fol. 178, 10-9-1676. 82 This was on 3 July 1656: Jager 2018, p. 106. Soon after this, Wiggersz. registered as a member of the Haarlem church: NHA, DTB [2142], inv. no. 111, p. 511, 20-8-1656. 83 When he understood that Rubens had died, he went to Amsterdam and became an apprentice to Govert Flinck.

90 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

as journeymen to the most prestigious history painters of the day, Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol. This was not the case for our painters Feyt de Vries, Faber, or Wiggersz., whose paths brought them, by contrast, to Meijeringh and Doeck. The next section investigates the importance of social origin to success in a painter’s career. Social origin Until the 1980s, it was assumed that most painters and craftsmen came from the lower social classes. This perception changed in 1982, when Montias showed that painters in Delft tended to come from the respectable middle classes or the classes above.84 In the years that followed, studies showed similar findings for the cities of Utrecht, Haarlem, and Leeuwarden.85 These studies used the father’s occupation as the main indicator of social origin, but each employed a different system of categorization, meaning that the results could be compared only in general terms, not in detail.86 In the present research, too, the father’s occupation is used to identify the painters’ social background, because in most cases we lack any additional documents relating to capital or possessions. This research is based on what I consider to be the most complete social stratification system, that developed by Paul Knevel, whereby an attempt is also made to subdivide the middle classes, and the gentry are seen as separate group from the upper and middle classes (see Table 7).87 84 Montias 1982, pp. 148-153. 85 Bok 1994, p. 187; Boers-Goosens, 2001, pp. 51-58, 450-452; Bakker 2008a, pp. 54-55. 86 Montias categorized occupations as follows: in his view, the trades that fell under the Guild of St. Luke (painters, engravers, art dealers, glassmakers) and other crafts and services (gold and silversmiths, candle-makers, carpenters, etc.) belonged to the middle classes; professional occupations (lawyers, notaries, schoolmasters, etc.) were placed between the middle and upper classes; and the high bourgeoisie (brewers, merchants) were the upper classes: Montias 1982, pp. 150-151 (Table 6.3). In a similar way to Montias, Boers-Goosens divided the painters over crafts, professional occupations, and the magistrate (including the gentry, merchants, and brewers), but she also used data on assets and the value of any dowry to supplement the occupation of the father. Boers-Goosens 2001, pp. 51-59; 450-452 (Appendix 3a). The Appendix only mentions the occupational categories compiled by Marion Boers-Goosens, and not the precise occupations of the painters’ fathers. Piet Bakker divided his painters into five social groups: the aristocracy and the upper classes (the nobility, senior off icers, regents), the upper middle classes (wholesalers, shipowners, company officers), the middle classes (craftsmen, shopkeepers, shipmasters, etc.), the low-skilled (workers, servants, journeymen), and the proletariat (seafarers, porters, and unemployed labourers). Piet Bakker used this model of social stratification in the commercial edition of his doctoral thesis; see: Bakker 2008a, pp. 59-63. In the thesis, Bakker used a more detailed model and different terminology, and he divided the ‘lower middle classes’ into two groups: the upper- and the lower-level middle classes. See: Bakker 2008b, pp. 59-63. 87 Knevel 2002, pp. 218-221.

91

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

Table 7: Classification used for social stratification 1. Gentry 2. Upper middle classes

3. Middle classes

4. Lower middle classes 5. Wage-dependents 6. The masses

noble and non-noble regent families who held governing roles in Holland wealthy merchants, large shipowners, large landowners, high officials and officers, a range of academics (professors, lawyers, physicians, and city pastors); with an annual income of 1000 guilders or more, their lifestyle differed little from that of the patricians small entrepreneurs, prosperous shopkeepers, successful craftsmen, officers in lower ranks, urban and provincial officials, lecturers, village pastors, well-to-do cattle farmers, crop farmers small farmers, lower-ranking officials, schoolmasters, small shopkeepers, craftsmen, minor shipmasters, minor guild masters employed labourers, servants, domestic staff, carriers, soldiers, sailors, shipwrights those with no property, beggars, pedlars

Source: Knevel 2002, pp. 218-221.

Table 8: Social stratification of painters mentioned in Doeck (1667) and Meijeringh (1687), based on father’s occupation Ranking order

T N 1. Gentry 2. Upper middle classes 3. Middle classes 4. Lower middle classes 5. Wage-dependents 6. The masses

A

B

C

Total

21 17 0 1 2 14 0 0

32 20 0

30 11 0 2 2 7 0 0

83 48 0 3 7 37 1 0

3 16 1 0

Painters Amsterdam, 1600-1700 (success) 85 75 0  11 25 39 0  0 

Note: The data set ‘Painters Amsterdam, 1600-1700 (success)’ is a set of painters working in Amsterdam included in The Grove Dictionary of Art; Turner 2000.

Table 8 classifies all of the occupations of the painters’ fathers in six different social categories. The data set is classified as a whole and also by reputation category in columns A, B, and C. For the purposes of comparison, I added the occupations of the fathers of a group of painters who enjoyed successful careers in seventeenth-century Amsterdam (based on their inclusion in The Grove Dictionary of Art). One particularly large difference can be observed in the categories ‘upper middle classes’ and ‘middle classes’, where the names in our data set are hardly represented, unlike those from the data set of successful painters. Both in the Doeck/Meijeringh

92 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

data set and in the data set of successful painters, however, most painters hailed from the lower middle classes. Here it should be noted that, due to the large number of unidentified painters and the lack of additional biographical information on the Doeck/ Meijeringh data set, many fewer fathers’ occupations could be identified. It is simply a fact that more documentation on ‘major figures’ has survived, which implies that many of the unidentified fathers are likely to have come from the lower social classes. Many successful painters were born into the upper echelons of society. Ferdinand Bols’s father, for example, was a surgeon, and Nicolaes Maes was the son of a rich merchant. Their parents were wealthy and could afford Rembrandt’s tuition fee of 100 guilders per year.88 In addition to financial advantages such as a good education and starting capital, these painters also enjoyed other benefits. Distinguished patrons, both private individuals and municipal institutions, tended to hail from the upper classes, and it was therefore important for a painter to have well-honed social skills and the right connections. This has been demonstrated convincingly by Erna Kok in relation to the successful careers of Bol and Govert Flinck.89 Strikingly, in her thesis, Boers-Goosens concluded that a significant proportion of painters in Haarlem – namely, 27 per cent – originated from the ‘magistrate’; or, to use our terms, from the gentry and upper middle classes. These lofty origins were not shared by painters in Amsterdam, Delft, and Leeuwarden, or by our target group of successful painters. Just three painters from the Doeck/Meijeringh data set came from the upper middle classes: Cornelis Adriaensz. Gael’s father was a notary and brewer, and the fathers of Matthijs van der Voort (1643-1719) and Pieter Cosijn were officers (a captain and a lieutenant, respectively). The career of the unsuccessful Cosijn can be traced relatively easily, because his father died when he was five. The latter’s legacy of more than 1500 guilders was therefore administered by the The Hague Orphan Chamber, resulting in extensive documentation.90 Cosijn’s career shows that having a good education and sufficient starting capital was no guarantee of success. In 1647, aged seventeen, Cosijn was apprenticed for one year for the costs of 350 guilders by the The Hague portrait painter Pieter Nason (1612-c. 1688/1690).91 The next year, Cosijn travelled to Antwerp for a year’s training with Peter Willebeeck (active 1632-1648), who specialized in still lifes.92 Cosijn left Willebeeck prematurely after five months and returned to The Hague. There, the Weeskamer provided him with money for 88 In return for Rembrandt’s 100-guilder tuition fee, pupils did not receive any payment for their work, and there was no provision for board and lodging: De Jager 1990, p. 77. 89 Kok 2013, 2016, & 2017. 90 HGA, WK [0402-01], Boedelpapieren Jacques Cousingh, 1636-1657, inv. no. 621. 91 Bredius 1890, p. 121; HGA, WK [0402-01], inv. no. 621, without pagination.; De Jager 1990, p. 102, no. 29. 92 The training at Willebeeck costed 75 guilders a year, and board and lodging cost 180 guilders: Bredius 1890, pp. 121-122; De Jager 1990, p. 92, nt. 104, p. 102, no. 30.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

93

his painting career several times: ‘for the advancement and development of his painting’ (300 guilders), to set up ‘a shop’ (300 guilders), and ‘to make purchases to trade with’ (100 guilders).93 Cosijn’s business failed to launch, however, as shown, among other things, by the correspondence between his wife and the governors of the The Hague Orphan Chamber. She requested yet another instalment from his inheritance, for ‘her husband is working for another master, as there is so little to be made from painting, and he only earns enough to cover his own sustenance, leaving nothing for the applicant and her two children to live on’.94 The difficulty of earning money from painting in this period may have been linked to the First Anglo-Dutch War (1652-1654), when there was a drastic, temporary fall in demand for paintings.95 There are no indications, however, that Cosijn was earning enough to get by after the war, either; the requests to the Orphan Chamber for instalments of the inheritance continued. Moreover, after having been pressed for a long time by the painters’ guild in The Hague, Cosijn could pay only half of the annual fees.96 Eight painters from the Doeck/Meijeringh data set were from the middle classes, six of whom were classified earlier in Groups A and B: the fathers of Caesar van Everdingen, Dirk Maas, Adriaen Verdoel, and Jacob de Wet (I) worked as a clerk, a merchant, a flour-miller, and a bailiff, and the fathers of Adriaen Lievensz. van der Poel (1628-1671/1672) and Abraham Hondius worked as a goldsmith and as a city stonemason. The other two from the middle classes were Gerrit de Wet, who painted in the studio of his brother, Jacob de Wet (I), for almost his whole life,97 and Cornelis de Bie (1622-1664),98 who came from a family of silversmiths. De Bie ran his own atelier, which at various times also employed his cousin from Zwolle, Hendrick ten Oever (1639-1716), and the German brothers Johan Heinrich Roos (1631-1685) and Theodor Roos (1638-1687).99 Upon his death at 42, De Bie left 165 paintings, 41 of which he had painted himself (history paintings and landscapes), as well as copies of works by Jan van de Cappelle (1626-1679), Emanuel de Witte (1617-1692), Jan Vonck 93 Servaas van Rooyen 1890, pp. 115-116. See also: Jager 2016, pp. 291-296. 94 Servaas van Rooyen 1890, p. 114. 95 This was something that Cosijn himself also claimed: he was ‘unable to live by his painting, for the reason that nowadays painting (due to these unfavourable times) does not pay, or pays little’. Servaas van Royen 1890, p. 116. For the impact of war on the demand for paintings, see: Bok 1994, pp. 121-124. 96 Servaas van Royen 1890, pp. 114, 118; Bredius 1881-1882, p. 130. 97 That Jacob de Wet and Gerrit de Wet were brothers can be derived from their mother’s 1660 will, published in Bredius 1919, pp. 220-221. 98 He is not identical to the eponymous author from the Southern Netherlands who wrote Het gulden cabinet vande edele vry schilder const (1661). Cornelis de Bie was baptized in Amsterdam in 1622, as the son of the silversmith Cornelis Alexandersz. de Bie and Catharina Hendricksdr. ten Oever: SAA DTB [5001], inv. no. 6, p. 20, 30-6-1622. 99 Jager 2016, pp. 281-284; Verbeek and Schotman 1957; Von Sandrart 1683, pp. 366-367. On the Roos family of artists, see: Jarchow 1986.

94 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

(1631-c. 1663/1664), Aert van der Neer (c. 1603-1677), Gerard van Honthorst (1592-1656), Jan Martens de Jonge (1609-1646), Willem van de Velde (c. 1611-1693), and Gabriel Metsu (1629-1667).100 The fact that he also had the originals of these paintings in many cases demonstrates that in his workshop paintings by other masters were copied, either by De Bie himself or by his pupils. Strikingly, the name ‘De Bie’ regularly appears in eighteenth-century Danish inventories and auction catalogues in relation to history paintings that are consistent with De Wet’s production, in terms of their subject and style.101 Why this is the case is as yet unclear.102 Most painters from the Doeck/Meijeringh data set were from the lower middle classes, and in this respect, this data set is similar to the data set of successful Amsterdam painters. However, there is a relevant difference observable when we compare the type of occupation practised by the fathers in the different reputation categories. Half of the fathers of the painters classified in the Groups A and B themselves also worked as painters, whilst in Group C, those without reputation, only Bernard Faber was a painter’s son. As an immigrant painter, however, Faber was unable to profit from his father’s reputation and network, which in Amsterdam may have consisted only of his father’s former pupil Frederick Meijeringh. This suggests that it was more difficult for a young, middle-class youth without a painting background to break into the profession. Being a painter’s son had a number of advantages: he could be trained for free by his father, the fee for registering with a guild was considerably less, his upbringing automatically brought him into contact with distributors of painters’ materials and painting dealers, and he could take over his father’s business when his father grew old or passed away. In short, a number of the advantages were comparable with those enjoyed by young men from the upper classes. Moreover, the fathers from Groups A and B who were not painters often practised a trade that fell under the purview of guild of St. Luke (such as that of glass-painter or glassmaker), or had an occupation linked to the painting trade (such as that of frame-maker). By contrast, the fathers of painters with no reputation (Group C) practised completely different professions: the fathers of Petrus Schotanus (1610-1669/1675), Jan Micker, and Gerrit Schimmel (1666-1685) were a village pastor, a hatmaker, and an armourer. There is reason to believe that the sons of a glass-painter or frame-maker would have enjoyed the same advantages as the sons of painters (including growing up in the same milieu and having a relevant network of distributors of painters’ supplies), and would have thereby enjoyed better career prospects than, for example, the son of a hatmaker. 100 Bredius 1915-1922, pp. 90-93; SAA, ONA [5075], not. C. Tou, inv. no. 1464, 29-10-1664. 101 Jager 2019, p. 35. 102 I would propose initiating new research on the rise of the Danish art market in the seventeenth century and the role that Dutch immigrant painters and dealers played in this.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

95

Conclusion Biographical information about the painters in the inventories of Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh formed the starting point for further research on the career prospects of painters in the seventeenth century. Not only are many of these painters unfamiliar to today’s art historians, but they also had little or no reputation in their own time. Some of the painters could not be identified at all, whereas for others, biographical data were scarce. The research shows that those from a modest social background generally found it harder to pursue a successful painting career. This confirms earlier suggestions in the art-historical literature that a young painter’s likelihood of success was determined, to a large degree, by social origin and the opportunities this created for training, network, and ability to start a business. In any case, a painter’s son had a good chance of being able to earn his living by painting: he could start his training early for free, and could take over his father’s studio in the course of time, including his reputation, clientele, distribution channels, and suppliers. Things were a lot harder for young men whose fathers were not painters, and generally only those with a wealthy background could make up the difference with expensive training and starting capital. Likewise playing a role, of course, were factors that are less easy to gauge from a life story, such as talent, character, a feel for business, and the ability to manage money. Pieter Cosijn, for example, was left a considerable inheritance by his father. Cosijn enjoyed a good education and had sufficient starting capital to launch his own studio; yet things went so badly for him that he failed to make it on his own, and had to work in the employment of another master. In the competitive city of Amsterdam, painters of average talent, little capital, and no relevant network had few opportunities to make a living by painting. For them, the options were to practise another trade or to accept inglorious work as an employee, either working for another painter or for a dealer; that is to say, the opposite of success. This was the case, for example, for Adriaen Gael, Adriaen Verdoel, and Pieter Wiggersz., who ended up working as journeymen painters in the Haarlem studio of the history painter Jacob de Wet. This was also the fate of Leendert de Laeff and Barend Jansz. Slordt, who painted a limited repertoire of scenes for Doeck and Meijeringh in exchange for a daily or piece wage. There remains the question of whether the rather untalented Slordt even trained as a painter. It is likely that he and other galley painters had few ambitions to become independent painters; there was evidently enough work in the art trade. Other employed painters may have hoped that such work would allow them to gain experience, gradually develop a reputation, and build up a relevant network, so they might set up their own business one day, but it is unlikely that many of them succeeded in doing so.

96 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Works cited Bakker, Piet, De Friese schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw (Zwolle: Waanders, 2008). Bakker, Piet, Gezicht op Leeuwarden. Schilders in Friesland en de markt voor schilderijen in de Gouden Eeuw (Diss. University of Amsterdam, 2008). Bakker, Boudewijn, Ellen Fleurbaay, and Bert Gerlagh, De verzameling Van Eeghen: Amsterdamse tekeningen, 1600-1950 (Zwolle: Waanders, 1988). Bezemer, W., ‘Ordonnantiën van het St. Lucasgilde te ’s Hertogenbosch’, Oud Holland 12 (1894), 123-128. Bie, Cornelis de, Het gulden cabinet vande edele vry schilder-const ontsloten door den lanck ghewenschten vrede tusschen de twee machtighe Croonen van Spaignien en Vrancryck, waer-inne begrepen is den ontsterffelijcken loff vande vermaerste constminnende geesten ende schilders van dese eeuw, hier inne meest naer het leven af-gebeldt, verciert met veel vermakelijcke rijmen ende spreucken (Antwerp: by Juliaen van Montfort, 1662). Boers-Goosens, Marion, Schilders en de markt, Haarlem 1605-1635 (Diss. Leiden University, 2001). Bok, Marten Jan, Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt 1580-1700 (Diss. Utrecht University, 1994). Bok, Marten Jan, ‘Rembrandt’s Fame and Rembrandt’s Failure. The Market for History Paintings in the Dutch Republic’, in Rembrandt and Dutch History Painting in the 17th Century (Conference Proceedings of September 13-14, 2003, ed. by Akira Kofuku (Tokyo: The National Museum of Western Art, 2004), 159-180. Brandmüller, Nicole, La edad de oro de la pintura holandesa y flamenca del Städel Museum (Bilbao: Fondación del museo Guggenheim Bilbao, 2010). Bredius, Abraham, ‘De boeken der Haagsche “Schilders-Confrerye”’, in Obreen 1877/18781888/1890, IV, 45-221. Bredius, Abraham, ‘Nalezing’ [Pieter Cosijn], Oud Holland 8 (1890), 121-124. Bredius, Abraham, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur geschichte der holländische kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten jahrhunderts, 7 vols. (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1915-1922). Bredius, Abraham, ‘Het schetsboek van Jacob de Wet’, Oud Holland 37 (1919), 215-222. Briels, Jan, Zuid-Nederlanders in de Republiek 1572-1630. Een demografische en cultuurhistorische studie (Sint-Niklaas: Danthe, 1985). Brink, Peter van den, ‘De kunst van het kopiëren: Het waarom en hoe van het vervaardigen van kopieën en schilderijen in oplage in de Nederlanden in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw’, in De Firma Brueghel, ed. by Peter van den Brink (Maastricht: Bonnefantenmuseum, 2001). Brozius, John R., ‘Aspecten van de Hoornse schilderkunst in de 17e eeuw’, West-Frieslands Oud en Nieuw 60 (1993), 12-18. Bruin, C. de, ‘Een schilderij van Huig van Dorre-Wiltschut’, Oud Holland 58 (1941), 92-93.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

97

Commelin, Caspar, Beschryvinge van Amsterdam, desselfs eerste oorspronk uyt den Huyse der Heeren van Aemstel en Aemstellant met een verhaal van haar leven en dappere krijgsdaden; Amsterdams kleyne beginselen, oudheyt, bemuring en verscheyde vergrootingen: de gelegenheyt en hoedanigheyt der stad, de voornaamste gebouwen, en wijze van regeeringe. (Amsterdam: for Wolfgang, Waasberge, Boom, van Someren, and Goethals, 1693). Dapper, Olfert, Historische beschryving der stadt Amsterdam: waer in de voornaemste geschiedenissen (na een kort verhael van gansch Hollant en d’omleggende dorpen, als ambachts-heerlijkheden, onder deze stadt gelegen) die ten tijde der herdoopers, Nederlandtsche beroerten, en onder Prins Willems, de tweede, stadt-houderlijke regeering, hier ter stede voor-gevallen zijn, verhandelt, en al de stads gemeene, zoo geestelijke als wereltlijke, gebouwen, in meer als tzeventigh kopere platen, met haer nevenstaende beschrijving, vertoont worden (Amsterdam: by Jacob van Meurs, 1663). ECARTICO-database, Economic and Artistic Competition in the Amsterdam Art market. Linking Cultural Industries in the Early Modern Low Countries, ca. 1475-ca. 1725 (ECARTICO), Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam. Eeghen, Isabella H. van, ‘Het Amsterdamse Sint Lucasgilde in de 17de eeuw’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 61 (1969), 65-102. English translation with new annotations: ‘The Amsterdam Guild of Saint Luke in the Seventeenth Century’, trans. and annot. by Jasper Hillegers, with contributions by S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 4 (Summer 2012), no. 2, DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2012.4.2.4 Fock, C. Willemijn, ‘Kunstbezit in leiden in de 17de eeuw’, in Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, ed. by Th.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C. Willemijn Fock, and A.J. van Dissel, 6 vols. (Leiden: Leiden University, 1986-1992), Va, 3-26. Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories, Los Angeles, The Getty Research Institute. http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/provenance Giltaij, Jeroen, Honderdvijftig jaar er bij en eraf. De collectie oude schilderkunst van het Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen Rotterdam 1849 tot 1999 (Rotterdam: Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, 2000). Ginhoven, Sandra van, Connecting Art Markets: Guilliam Forchondt’s Dealership in Antwerp (c. 1632-78) and the Overseas Paintings Trade (Leiden: BRILL, 2017). Gool, Johan van, De nieuwe schouburg der Nederlantsche kunstschilders en schilderessen: Waer in de levens- en kunstbedryven der tans levende en reets overleedene schilders, die van Houbraken, noch eenig ander schryver, zyn aengeteekend, verhaelt worden, 2 vols. (The Hague: printed for the author, 1750-1751). Gool, Johan van, Antwoordt op den zoo genaemden Brief aen een Vrient, Mitsgaders noch op de intrërede voor het eerste deel der Catalogus van Schilderyen, beide in druk uitgegeeven door Gerard Hoet, ter afwissinge van den Laster en Schendtael, In die beide Geschriften uitgespoogen, zo op den Schryver van de Nieuwe Schouburg der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen als op deszelfs Meede Kunstgenooten, no place, no year [c. 1751]. Haak, Bob, Hollandse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw (Zwolle: Waanders, 1984).

98 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Hoet, Gerard, Brief aan een’ Vrient. Behelzende eenige aanmerkingen op het eerste Deel van den Nieuwen Schouburg der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen, door Johan van Gool (The Hague, printed for the author, 1751). Hoet, Gerard, Aanmerkingen Op het eerste en tweede Deel des Nieuwen Schouburgs der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen, door Johan van Gool, no place, no year [c. 1751] Hoogstraten, Samuel van, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst: Anders de zichtbaere werelt (Rotterdam: Fransois van Hoogstraeten, 1678). Horn, Hendrik J., The Golden Age Revisited: Arnold Houbraken’s Great Theatre of Netherlandish Painters and Paintresses, 2 vols. (Doornspijk: Davaco, 2000) Houbraken, Arnold, De groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen, waar van ‘er vele met hunne beeltenissen ten tooneel verschynen, …zynde een vervolg op het schilderboek van K. van Mander, 3 vols. (The Hague: Houwbraken, 1718-1721). Huygens, Constantijn, Mijn leven verteld aan mijn kinderen in twee boeken, ed., trans., and annot. by Frans R.E. Blom (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2003). Huys Janssen, Paul, Caesar van Everdingen 1616/17-1678: Monograph and Catalogue Raisonné (Aetas Aurea: Monographs on Dutch & Flemish Painting; 17), (Doornspijk: Davaco, 2002). Jager, Angela, ‘Barend Jansz. Slordt (ca. 1625-na 1690), “galey-schilder” uit Schermerhorn’, Oud Holland 127 (2014), no. 4, 223-233. Jager, Angela, ‘Galey-schilders’ en ‘dosijnwerck’: De productie, distributie en consumptie van goedkope historiestukken in zeventiende-eeuws Amsterdam (Diss. University of Amsterdam, 2016). Jager, Angela, ‘The Workshop of Jacob de Wet (1610-1675) and his Mass Production of History Painting’, Oud Holland 131 (2018), no. 2, 67-108. Jager, Angela, ‘Quantity over Quality? Dutch and Flemish Paintings in a Danish Private Collection’, in Trading Paintings and Painters’ Materials 1550-1800 (CATS Proceedings IV), ed. by Anne Haack Christensen and Angela Jager (London: Archetype Publications, 2019), 26-38. Jager, R. de, ‘Meester, leerjongen, leertijd. Een analyse van zeventiende-eeuwse NoordNederlandse leerling-contracten van kunstschilders, goud- en zilversmeden’, Oud Holland 104 (1990), no. 2, 69-110. Jarchow, Margarete, Roos. Eine deutsche Künstlerfamilie des 17. Jahrhunderts. Verzeichnis sämtlicher Zeichnungen und Radierungen von Johann Heinrich, Theodor, Philipp Peter, Johann Melchior, Franz und Peter Roos im Besitz des Berliner Kupferstichkabinetts (Berlin: Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 1986). Jonckheere, Koenraad, ‘Supply and Demand: Some Notes on the Economy of Seventeenth Century Connoisseur-ship’, in Tummers and Jonckheere 2008, 69-95. Kahn-Gerson, B.S., ‘Biograf ische gegevens over Anthonie Waterloo’, Oud Holland 106 (1992), 94-98.

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

99

Klinkert, Christi M., ‘Caesar van Everdingen: The Classicist from Alkmaar’, in Caesar van Everdingen (1616/1617-1678): Painting Beauty, ed. by Christi M. Klinkert and Yvonne Bleyerveld (Alkmaar: Stedelijk Museum Alkmaar, 2017), 13-33. Knevel, Paul, ‘Een kwestie van overleven. De kunst van het samenleven’, in Geschiedenis van Holland, deel II: 1572-1795, ed. by Thimo de Nijs and Eelco Beukers (Hilversum: Verloren, 2002), 218-221. Kok, Erna E., Culturele ondernemers in de Gouden Eeuw. De artistieke en sociaal-economische strategieën van Jacob Backer, Govert Flinck, Ferdinand Bol en Joachim von Sandrart (Diss. University of Amsterdam, 2013). Kok, Erna E., Netwerkende kunstenaars in de Gouden Eeuw: De succesvolle loopbanen van Govert Flinck en Ferdinand Bol (Hilversum: Verloren, 2016). Kok, Erna E., ‘Govert Flinck, Ferdinand Bol and Their Networks of Influential Clients’, in Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck, Rembrandt’s Master Pupils, ed. by Norbert Middelkoop (Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum/Amsterdam: Amsterdam Museum, 2017), 59-79. Lairesse, Gerard de, Het groot schilderboek (Amsterdam: by de Erfgenaamen van Willem de Coup, 1707). Lesger, Clé, ‘Vertraagde groei: De economie tussen 1650 en 1730’, in Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, vol. II-2, Zelfbewuste stadstaat 1650-1813, ed. by Willem Frijhoff and Maarten Prak (Amsterdam: SUN, 2005), 21-71. Manuth, Volker, ‘Denomination and Iconography: The Choice of Subject Matter in the Biblical Painting of the Rembrandt Circle’, Simiolus 22 (1993-1994), no. 4, 235-252. Miedema, Hessel, De archiefbescheiden van het St. Lukasgilde te Haarlem 1497-1798 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Canaletto, 1980). Miedema, Hessel, Theorie en praktijk: Teksten over schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw van de Noordelijke Nederlanden (Hilversum: Verloren, 2017) Miegroet, Hans Van, ‘New Data Visualizations on the Mechelen Export Industry and Artist Migration Patterns’, De Zeventiende Eeuw 31 (2015), no. 1, 179-190. DOI: http://doi. org/10.18352/dze.10127 Monballieu, A., ‘Documenten van het Mechels schilders- en beeldsnijdersambacht: II. Het rekwest van 1562 en het probleem van de 51 of 150 ateliers’, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 75 (1971), 71-82. Montias, John Michael, Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982). Montias, John Michael, ‘Art Dealers in the Seventeenth-Century Netherlands’, Simiolus 18 (1988), no. 4, 244-256. Montias, John Michael, ‘Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions’, in Freedberg and De Vries 1991, 331-372. Montias, John Michael, ‘Artists’ Names in Amsterdam Inventories, 1607-80’, Simiolus 31, no. 4 (2004-2005), 322-347.

100 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Montias-Frick Database, The Montias Database of 17th Century Dutch Art Inventories. New York, The Frick Collection. Pauw-de Veen, Lydia de, De begrippen ‘schilder, ‘schilderij’ en ‘schilderen’ in de zeventiende eeuw (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1969). Rasterhoff, Claartje, Painting and Publishing as Cultural Industries, The Fabric of Creativity in the Dutch Republic, 1580-1800 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017). Renckens, B.J.A., ‘De Hoornse portretschilder Jan Albertsz Rotius’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 2 (1948-1949), 165-234. Run, Tatjana van, ‘De koepelzaal van Syllisburg; scheepsportretten in het landhuis Trompenburg te ’s-Gravenland’, Oud Holland 126 (2013), 31-48. Sandrart, Joachim von, Academia nobilissimae artis pictoriae. (Nuremberg: Froberger, 1683). Scheltema, Pieter, ‘Namen der schilders, die in de tweede helft der zeventiende eeuw te Amsterdam poorters zijn geweest’, Aemstel’s Oudheid 4 (1861), 59-70. Servaas van Rooyen, A.J., ‘Pieter Cousijn’, Oud-Holland 8 (1890), 113-120. Sluijter, Eric Jan, Rembrandt’s Rivals. History Painting in Amsterdam (1630-1650) (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2015). Stracke, Johannes C., ‘Die Maler und Glaser in Emden seit dem Mittelalter’, Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Bildende Kunst und Vaterländische Altertümer zu Emden 54 (1974), 23-46. Tamis, Dorien, Van twee handen geschildert: werkverdeling tussen schilders in de Nederlanden in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw (Diss. University of Amsterdam, 2016) Thiel-Stroman, Irene van, ‘Biographies 15th-17th Century’, in Painting in Haarlem, 1500-1850: The Collection of the Frans Hals Museum, ed. by Neeltje Köhler (Haarlem: Frans Hals Museum, 2006), 99-363. Tummers, Anna and Koenraad Jonckheere (eds.), Art Market and Connoisseurship: A Closer Look at Paintings by Rembrandt, Rubens and their Contemporaries (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008). Tummers, Anna, Judith Leyster. De eerste vrouw die meesterschilder werd (Haarlem: Frans Hals Museum, 2009). Turner, Jane (ed.), From Rembrandt to Vermeer. 17th-century Dutch Artists. The Grove Dictionary of Art (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000). Verbeek, Jan and Johan W. Schotman, Hendrick ten Oever. Een vergeten Overijssels meester uit de zeventiende eeuw (Zwolle: Provinciaal Overijssels Geschiedkundig Museum, 1957). Vermeylen, Filip, Maarten van Dijck, and Veerle De Laet, ‘The Test of Time: Art Encyclopedias and the Formation of the Canon of Seventeenth-Century Painters in the Low Countries’, Empirical Studies of the Arts 31 (2013), no. 1, 81-105. Vries, A.B. de, ‘Willem Gras’, Oud-Holland 65 (1950), 204-202. Vries, Jan de, Barges and Capitalism: Passenger Transportation in the Dutch Economy, 1632-1839 (Utrecht: HES, 1981). Vries, Lyckle de, Diamante gedenkzuilen en leerzaeme voorbeelden: Een bespreking van Johan van Gools ‘Nieuwe Schouburg’ (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1990).

‘Bunglers’ and ‘duds’: the painters listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories 

101

Walsh, Amy, Paulus Potter: His Works and their Meaning (Diss. Columbia University, 1985). Willigen, Adriaan van der and Fred G. Meijer, A Dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-Life Painters Working in Oils, 1525-1725 (Leiden: Primavera Press, 2003). Zeeuw, Liesbeth van der, ‘Naamlijst van zeventiende-eeuwse Rotterdamse schilders’, in Rotterdamse Meesters uit de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Nora Schadee (Rotterdam: Museum Rotterdam, 1994), 269-312.

3.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ worksin Dammeroen’s, Doeck’s, and Meijeringh’s art shops Abstract This chapter investigates the painting production in the lower levels of the art market through three case studies. The f irst case concerns the art dealer Jan Fransz. Dammeroen, who had external painters add small, Biblical narratives to his landscapes. One of the painters he worked with was Jan Micker, who used the same stock figure time and again. The second case discusses the highly efficient workshop of history painter Jacob de Wet. He produced multiple versions of the same scene in a limited number of standard sizes with his assistants. The same compositions, backgrounds and stereotypical figures were used for a variety of scenes, and were probably designed with an eye to being used and transferred multiple times. The third case discusses the painters working in employment of Doeck and Meijeringh, repeating the same scene on different sizes again and again. Keywords: cost-saving, painting technique, Adriaen Gael, Adriaen Verdoel, Gerrit de Wet, Leendert de Laeff, Barend Jansz. Slordt

The art shops owned by Jan Fransz. Dammeroen, Cornelis Doeck, and Hendrick Meijeringh sold works that were produced in series. This is evident from the inventories, which often list multiple versions of exactly the same scene: Dammeroen had five versions of The meeting of Jacob and Rachel in stock; Doeck had five versions of The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter; and Meijeringh had seven versions of Joseph sold by his brothers (see also Table 3, p. 65). Moreover, the inventories of Doeck and Meijeringh reveal that the same scenes were available in different standard sizes: Meijeringh stocked the latter subject, for example, in the sizes salvator, groot soort, tien stuiver, and kleine stooter. This suggests that use was made of a limited number of models that could be produced in various sizes.

Jager, A., Popular History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: Production, Distribution, and Consumption. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020 doi 10.5117/9789462987739_ch03

104 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Standardization is a familiar concept in early modern art history. Following a sharp rise in demand for certain luxury goods, industrial workshops emerged that produced these artworks for the free market. John Michael Montias has described the advent of the time- and cost-saving methods used by these workshops as ‘process innovation’.1 In Flemish towns in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, thousands of anonymous, small devotional panels were produced in standardized fashion, depicting simple representations of Mary and Child or Christ.2 In addition, a considerable boost was given to labour productivity with the use of assistants and apprentices, and reproduction methods such as the squaring grid, perforated sketch, and tracing patron.3 In the workshops of artists who were known for their high-quality artworks, such as those of Joos van Cleve (c. 1485-1540/1541) and Jan van Scorel (1495-1562), series of copies and repeated motifs also formed an important part of the output, and mechanical aids were used in order to realize them. 4 When it comes to mass-produced paintings in the seventeenth century, the arthistorical literature has paid most attention to the copies and repeated works that were produced by assistants in masters’ ateliers, although these tend to be viewed as part of traditional painting training rather than as a means of boosting productivity. However, the fact that increasing employee participation occurs especially in the large studios with a high production output suggests the master painter benefitted immensely from his trainees as well. Rubens made little distinction in price between a pupil’s copy of his work that he had retouched, a work by an apprentice that he had retouched, and an original he had painted himself; it was his involvement, however big or small, that guaranteed the quality of the final product.5 Rembrandt’s pupils made copies and ‘free variants’ of prototypes by the master, the latter of which Ernst van de Wetering dubbed ‘satellites’.6 Joachim von Sandrart, who knew Rembrandt personally, informs us in Teutsche Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste (1675) that Rembrandt sold his pupils’ works to great benefit.7 We also come across evidence of series production among seventeenth-century masters. At his studio, Jacob Jordaens would make multiple versions of a specific 1 Montias 1987, pp. 455-466. 2 Vermeylen 2003. 3 Wilson 1998, pp. 87-160; Dijkstra 1990, pp. 7-28. These methods were in use in Italian workshops as well: Bambach 1999. 4 Leeflang 2007, pp. 133-154; Faries and Helmus 2000. On the status of the copy, see: Van den Brink 2001, pp. 13-14. 5 Sluijter 2008, p. 17, see also: Tummers 2008, esp. pp. 42-43. The source is a letter to Sir Dudley Carleton, ambassador of the English King James I in The Hague, dated 28 April 1618; for a transcription, see: Rubens 2014, pp. 51-54. 6 Van de Wetering 2006 & 2011. 7 Von Sandrart 1675, p. 203; cited in: Van de Wetering 2006, p. 108-109; Van de Wetering 2011, pp. 259-260. See also: Sluijter 2015b, pp. 76-77, p. 415, nt 307.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

105

commission, after which the size or iconography of any final products that had not been sold could be adapted to the wishes of other interested buyers without too much trouble.8 At the end of his career, Jordaens’s studio grew in popularity, and his production from this period shows a certain degree of routine, with repeated motifs and stereotypical figures.9 For seventeenth-century portrait painters, it was not uncommon to make use of a standard portrait type.10 With stock portrait models, the body (in a standard pose) and the clothing were painted in advance (for example, by apprentices and employees), after which the master painter filled in the patron’s features, namely the facial features.11 Gerard ter Borch (1617-1681) frequently used the same figures in his paintings, using a pantograph to transfer them to scale from the drawing to the canvas.12 Jan van der Heyden (1637-1712) probably used stamps to paint precise details more quickly, such as brick walls or the leaves of trees.13 The reproduction techniques used by seventeenth-century painters who produced on the lower side of the quality spectrum have rarely been researched. Based on a large number of variations on the same apostle type by the Flemish painter Artus Wolffort (1581-1641), Joost Vander Auwera concluded that this was an example of volume-driven production for the free market. Wolffort was able to reuse the same types of image in different contexts, because they had few attributes and a low degree of specificity; a St. John, for example, could be both an evangelist and an apostle. These evangelist and apostle series were produced in a number of standard sizes.14 Marijke de Kinkelder has shown that the Flemish landscape painter Franciscus Hamers would collate details from works by other (largely Haarlem-based) painters in a new composition, which he subsequently painted in various sizes.15 Similarly, the Amsterdam landscape painter Johannes Croon (1630-1664) – four of whose paintings are listed in Meijeringh’s trade inventory, and who also worked as an art dealer at the lower end of the market – reused motifs from paintings by Nicolaes Berchem and Aelbert Cuyp.16 The cheap history paintings sold by Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh differed from these anonymous mass-produced paintings and studio copies in several important respects. First, the three Amsterdam art dealers sold these works as 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

De Poorter 2000. De Poorter 2000, pp. 221-227. Verhave 2011; Huys Janssen and Sumowski 1992, pp. 240-243. Blankert 1966. Wallert and Tauber 2004. Wallert 2006, pp. 92-103. Vander Auwera 2006, pp. 600-602. De Kinkelder 2005. Heslenfeld 2013.

106 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

‘originals’ under the artist’s name. This was also the case for the painters Hamer and Croon, who signed their paintings. Second, the narrative scenes (mostly biblical) that the art dealers sold also seem to have been rather tricky subjects for reproduction and repetition, unlike the fifteenth-century devotional panels or the evangelist series by Wolffort, which could be made into a new subject with a simple change to the attributes. Drawing on the information above, we can ask the following questions: how were these ‘original’ history paintings produced so cheaply? Did the artists make use of reproduction methods and standard sizes? To what extent did these painters’ subjects and visual resources reflect developments in the upper segment of the market, and to what extent were they doing something different? In order to answer these questions, we shall first look at production costs and standard sizes, and then consider three cases. The first is that of Dammeroen’s landscape paintings, to which other painters, including Jan Micker (1599-1664), added staffage in order to increase their value. The second case focuses on mass production in the Haarlem studio of Jacob de Wet (c. 1610-1677/1691), from which Doeck and Meijeringh had many paintings in stock. The final case considers two ‘galley painters’, Leendert de Laeff (c. 1630-after 1665) and Barend Jansz. Slordt (c. 1625-after 1690), who were employed by the art dealers. The asking price of a seventeenth-century painting In order to calculate the price of a painting, most seventeenth-century painters used a traditional artisanal system based on an hourly or daily fee plus material costs.17 A painter’s fee was dependent on his reputation (talent, experience, and status). The distinguished portrait and history painter Adriaen van der Werff (1659-1722) calculated the minimum price of his paintings by applying a basic rate of 25 guilders per day for his labour, and then counting additional costs such as the frame, packaging material, and transport costs.18 Other reported rates of master painters vary from 3 guilders a day to Gerard Dou’s (1613-1675) exceptional rate of 6 guilders an hour.19 The total number of hours spent on a painting reflected its size, the painting technique, and the production speed. Eric Jan Sluijter has argued that Jan van Goyen (1596-1656) and Cornelis van Poelenburch (c. 1594-1595) – two painters who were highly appreciated in their day – charged roughly the same rate of around 8-10 guilders per day. As Van Goyen used a rapid technique, he could produce 17 Bok 1998, p. 105; Sluijter 2008, pp. 11-12. 18 Bok 1998, pp. 106-108. 19 Sluijter 2008, pp. 11-12.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

107

more paintings in less time and therefore sell his paintings relatively cheaply (around 10 guilders for a small painting and 60 guilders for a large painting). Van Poelenburch, by contrast, had a much f iner, more labour-intensive technique. He worked about ten times as long on paintings of comparable size, and as a result, his paintings appear to be on average about ten times more costly than Van Goyen’s.20 At the top of the market, with its highly acclaimed painters and associated high rates, such as the above-mentioned 25 guilders per day or 6 guilders per hour, labour was the decisive factor in calculating the asking price of a painting, making the investments in materials relatively low.21 By contrast, as we saw in the second chapter, Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh had paintings in stock by artists with little or no reputation at all. Labour was generally cheap: a skilled worker or journeyman earned around a guilder a day. Thus, in this lower segment, the investment in materials must have formed a relatively important component of the total price of a painting. The material costs per painting can be divided into the paint and the painting support. Other painting supplies, such as the muller, set of brushes, palette, and easel, were one-off investments (until they had to be replaced due to wear). Most pigments could be bought in a range of prices and qualities. The quantity of paint that was needed for a painting depended on its size and motive, and, above all, the painter’s technique. Therefore, if one used a cost-saving technique and chose (cheaper) pigments smartly, the paint need not be expensive. It is important to note that preparing and processing oil paint was time-consuming and hard manual labour, and mostly done by assistants in the painter’s studio. By the seventeenth century, however, in specialist shops of painting materials, one could purchase previously washed and ground pigments, and perhaps also pigments already mixed with oil.22 This development must have increased the productivity of painter’s workshops considerably. As far as the material costs were concerned, the painting support was probably the greatest outlay. It is striking that Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh primarily 20 Sluijter 2008, pp. 11-12. 21 Montias 1990a, p. 66; Bok 1998, p. 105. 22 There were specialist shops of painting materials in the bigger cities in the Dutch Republic: Henny 1994. One source that suggests that their assortment could have included prepared paints is the request of Leendert Hendricksz. Volmarijn of Rotterdam (1643) to set up a shop in Leiden selling ‘all kinds of prepared and unprepared paints, panels, canvases, brushes and all other tools’: Martin 1901. However, what Volmarijn meant exactly by ‘prepared paints’ is unclear; could it actually have been ready-made paint, or was it simply ground pigments? It was presumably not a smart business idea to make oil paint in bulk, since oil paint dried rather quickly (it could be preserved temporarily in bladders, but not for very long). This changed only with the invention of the paint tube.

108 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

sold paintings on panel, rather than on canvas.23 This might indicate that there were certain benefits to panel in this particular segment, since canvas was generally preferred based on it being cheap, light, and portable.24 Canvas was especially suitable to larger painting formats: strips of canvas with standard widths could be sewn together to create a support of any size.25 Larger panel supports consisted of several heavy oak planks glued together, and could in some cases become unmanageably heavy.26 The use of canvas could have an influence on the final appearance of the painting due to its weave; its coarse structure was especially disturbing for smaller formats (unless it was of a very fine weave, but that was extremely expensive). For the production of smaller works in a fine technique, painters would therefore continue to favour the rigid, smooth surface of panel.27 As the finest technique was most probably of little concern in the segment of mass production, another rationale behind the choice of panel over canvas should be considered. One reason for the use of panel might be that for smaller formats it was the cheaper option, although there is no strong evidence for this suggestion because sources for the price of supports are few.28 In Johannes Croon’s shop in Amsterdam (1664), 60 panels and two rolls of canvas were together valued at 10 23 The painting supports were not specified in the inventory of Dammeroen’s stock, but the paintings by his hand of which we know were painted on panel. Doeck’s inventory lists the material of the support for 410 of the 576 paintings, of which no fewer than 364 depictions were painted on panel, compared to 46 on canvas. With the exception of two rolled-up landscapes and ‘a rolled-up canvas of nude figures’, no supports are mentioned for the paintings in Meijeringh’s inventory. The specification of the empty and dead-coloured supports shows, however, that panel was used more often than canvas as a support; in Meijeringh’s production shop, there were 74 panels as opposed to 33 canvases. 24 Ward 2009, pp. 78-81. As some of the advantages of canvas, contemporary painters name lightness and greater ease of transport by rolling it. Sources include texts by Samuel van Hoogstraten and Vasari: Stols Witlox 2017, pp. 35, 41; Van de Wetering 2004, p. 91. In addition to the mentioned advantages, Vasari noted that the Venetians preferred linen because panel could crack and contain woodworm: Vasari 1960, pp. 236-237, nt. 4. 25 Van de Wetering 2004, p. 123. 26 Wadum 1998, pp. 154. 27 The copper plate was an alternative support for painters who worked in a fine technique, its smooth surface enabling the painter to achieve a highly detailed and almost enamel appearance of the image. The interest for this support, however, had begun to wane in the second half of the seventeenth century; see: Bowron 1999, p. 25. The inventories of Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh do not include copper supports. 28 In the first half of the seventeenth century, large quantities of oak were imported from the Baltic regions for the production of panels; this import decreased in the second quarter of the century and had stopped completely by 1650. As a result, by the second half of the seventeenth century, quality oak suitable for panel paintings had become scarce and therefore, in theory, more expensive. Panels continued to be used by painters, but were made from less-suitable oak from regions other than the Baltic and therefore from other European and even tropical species. Wadum 1998, pp. 150-151; Wadum and Streeton 2012, pp. 86-90.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

109

guilders.29 The Rotterdam shop of Jacob Abrahamsz. van Koperen (1680) had panels in ten different price categories (in stiver: 0.5, 1.25, 2.25, 3.75, 5, 9, 15, and 22), canvas on a strainer (16 stiver), and canvas of a non-specified width per ell (10 stiver).30 As this inventory does not include information about the sizes, we can only conclude that the price of a panel did not exceed the price of a canvas.31 Another reason for choosing panels for painting might have been that rigid supports were more convenient for the storage and shipping of large quantities of paintings; Dammeroen, for example, transported his paintings to and from the annual fair in Rotterdam in packs and cases, and his shop inventory comprised a case with 37 small round and square paintings. For Antwerp, it has been suggested that copper supports were preferred for overseas export because they could easily be stacked in crates.32 Canvas could be transported rolled up, but, after arrival, had to be carefully stretched on a strainer or directly in a frame again before it could be displayed; this required time, assistants, and space. In seventeenth-century Amsterdam, panel and canvas were both widely available, often already primed and prepared by the manufacturer, something that had previously been done at the atelier.33 Doeck and Meijeringh used the services of one or more regular panel-makers, who also supplied the shop with frames and canvases. The panel-maker Wijbrand Gerritsz. van der Poel was married to Doeck’s sister-in-law Trijntje Rocholts, and the painter-dealer Johannes Croon declared that Doeck had made a payment to this panel-maker in 1652.34 We know about Meijeringh’s 29 Bredius 1915-1922, III, p. 845; SAA, ONA [5075], not. H. Rosa, inv. no. 3101, p. 674, 7-12-1664. 30 SAR, ONA [18], not. J. van der Hoeven, inv. no. 1044, 26-2-1680. 31 The panels are listed in the inventory under seventeenth-century names of standard sizes, descending in value: zesentwintig maat, gulden maat, groote soort, over-maat (two types), zeven stuivermaat, salvator, admiraal, stootersmaat, tientjes. 32 Wadum and Streeton 2012, p. 100. 33 Stols-Witlox 2017, pp. 141-152; Wadum 1998, pp. 165-168; Koopstra 2010. In his Aantekeningen over Schilderkunst (1679-1704), Simon Eikelenberg noted that primed canvases and panels could be bought on Haarlemmerdijk in Amsterdam; see: Stols-Witlox 2017, p. 42, Figure 5. The fact that painters’ shops stocked pre-primed canvas rolls of long dimensions, in various lengths and widths, suggests that sometimes they were f irst primed in long strips and then cut to the desired size: Henny 1994, p. 49. One source describes how this method was even used in the painter’s workshop: a visitor of the English workshop of immigrant-painter Hendrik van der Straaten (c. 1665-1722) reports how he would paint landscape and sky on a roll of canvas, and cut the roll in pieces only afterwards: Karst 2013-2014, pp. 53-54. Interestingly, four landscapes by Van der Straaten are mentioned in Meijeringh’s shop. 34 SAA, ONA [5075], not. A. Lock, inv. no. 2193, fol. 244, 13-9-1652. For the marriage deeds of Wijbrand (Wijnand) Gerritsz. van der Poel and Trijntje Rocholts, see: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 454, p. 436, 6-10-1640. Between 1641 and 1649, the couple had children baptized in Amsterdam. In 1657, he was documented as being in Beverwijck (Albany, New York), where he bought half a sawmill on the Hudson River in 1674 (the specific stream was named after him and is still known today as the Wynants Kill). For the history of the Van der Poel family in New York, see: Reynolds 1911, pp. 251-254.

110 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

panel-maker from an entry in the debts of the estate: ‘to Pieter Heeremans, panelmaker, concerning delivered panels, canvases and coffin, 28 guilders 2 stivers’.35 Pieter Heeremans ran one of Amsterdam’s main shops selling panels, canvases, and frames, and we know that in 1675 he was owed 364 guilders by the high-end dealer Gerrit Uylenburgh.36 By using a regular supplier of painting supports, these art dealers probably benefitted from a continuous supply of painting supports, something that is also suggested by the large numbers of empty supports in the inventories. Standard sizes The sizes of the paintings in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s inventories were not listed in feet and thumbs, but by names that tend to refer to a sum of money, such as driestuiversmaat (‘three stivers-size’), kleine stootersmaat (‘small stooters-size’; a stooter was a coin worth 2.5 stivers), and daaldersmaat (a daalder, or ‘thaler’, was a coin worth 30 stivers). One exception was the salvatorsmaat (‘saviour’s size’), which may originally have been used for representations of the Salvator Mundi and portraits.37 We still lack a convincing answer to the question of which dimensions were associated with which names.38 The name citing the lowest value logically refers to the smallest format, but not to the price of the material or the painting: the prices of the panels stocked by the aforementioned Van Koperen in 1680 show that in his shop a zevenstuiversmaat (‘seven stivers-size’) cost 5 stivers and a guldensmaat (‘guilder-size’) cost 15 stivers.39 The prices varied from half a stiver for the smallest panel (thientgen) to 22 stivers for the largest panel (sesentwintigh maet, or ‘twenty-six size’). The terms, just like the term salvatorsmaat, probably stemmed from the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century; the names presumably referred to the actual price of the panel at the time. Wood was more expensive then, and it was also costly 35 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Winter, inv. no. 2414, fol. 29, 20/25-6-1687. 36 Lammertse 2006b, p. 284. 37 Wadum 1998, p. 155. 38 A number of good suggestions have been made regarding size clusters in earlier studies; see, among others: Van de Wetering 1977; Bruyn 1979; Miedema 1981. Too little use was made of the oeuvres of painters at the bottom end of the market, who used standard panels more frequently than Rembrandt and Jan Lievens. I suspect different results; namely, that larger panels were used [by painters at the bottom end of the market]. For standardization in copper supports by weight, see: Van Ginhoven 2017, pp. 84-87. 39 The panels were appraised by the master panel-maker Joost Abrahamsz. van Bubbeson. These are thus valuation prices, which, as a rule, may have deviated from the shop value. For three reasons, however, I assume that the shop value was used in this case: 1) these were unused shop wares, 2) the panels were not valued collectively, but by type; thus, for example, ‘one hundred thientgens at 8 penning per panel’, and 3) later in the inventory, we come across a reference to the ‘juijste prijs’ (correct price). SAR, ONA [18], not. J. van der Hoeven, inv. no. 1044, 26-2-1680.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

111

to process, because sawmills were not yet in use. Even then, standardization in panel sizes was already taking place to some extent. 40 The terminology offers a unique glimpse of early-modern jargon, as these terms were used exclusively by tradesmen (painters, art dealers, dealers in painters’ supplies, and panel- and frame-makers). The terms were used in both Amsterdam and Rotterdam, as well as in Antwerp.41 The use of a limited number of sizes, with dimensions determined by a system that had spread beyond local borders, indicates extensive standardization. 42 This had advantages when purchasing frames, which were available in the same standard sizes and could thus be changed easily. The use of standard sizes was also beneficial for reproduction, because existing models could be reused without having to make too many changes to the composition and proportions. The various size names were used interchangeably for panels and canvases. It is logical that guldenspaneel (‘guilder-panel’) and guldensdoek (‘guilder-canvas’) would have referred to the same size. This is not only evident from the existence of frames in the same size, but also because the paintings in Meijeringh’s shop were ordered by size, and both types of support were listed there. By contrast, inventories in Antwerp frequently mention special terms for canvas sizes, such as halfdoecken (‘half-canvases’), enkeldoecken (‘single-canvases’), and dobbeldoecken (‘doublecanvases’). All of these appear to refer to a standard strip-width, as suggested above.43 The fact that suppliers of painters’ materials also used standardization made the production of paintings more efficient and less time-consuming in the seventeenth century. Standard support and frame sizes had already been in use for some time. However, being able to buy readily prepared supports and grounded pigments, which must have significantly reduced the preparatory work in the studios, was a new and significant development. With this development, the apprentices who had previously carried out these tasks could instead be used in a more targeted way in the production of paintings. The cases below examine three forms of more efficient production: the division of labour, standardized production in the atelier by apprentices and journeymen, and so-called ‘galley painting’.

I

The division of labour: Jan Fransz. Dammeroen and Jan Micker

Dividing the work between a landscape and a staffage painter was a classic way of boosting productivity and lowering production costs. 44 From the early sixteenth 40 41 42 43 44

Weidema 2006. Bruyn 1979. There must have been small variations, due to different measurements in feet and inches. Van de Wetering 2004, pp. 303-304, nt. 88. For a recent survey on the division of labour in early-modern art in the Netherlands, see: Tamis 2016.

112 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

century, workshops, particularly in Antwerp, improved the production process substantially by having multiple painters with different specializations (landscape, still life, animals, human figures, and so forth) work on a single painting. In Antwerp it was common for the initiative to come from art dealers: Guilliaem Forchondt and Matthijs Musson, for example, commissioned various painters in their network to add staffage to landscapes they had ordered from other painters.45 These art dealers did not have their own workshops; the production took place in the painter’s studio. At the other end of the quality spectrum, master painters used famous specialists to make additions to their own work to create a unique, high-quality artistic product with a sky-high price to match; for example, this included the paintings that resulted from the partnership between Jan Brueghel (I) and Rubens. 46 In addition to being an art dealer, Jan Fransz. Dammeroen also worked as a landscape painter. He was aware that his landscapes were more valuable with staffage: people probably thought little of such unpretentious scenes unless they were associated with a story. If the landscape painter himself was not sufficiently skilled in painting human and animal forms, a specialist would be brought in. Judging from Dammeroen’s oeuvre, his landscapes were decorated by an external painter. In every known painting, this staffage shows a biblical story, and it is thereby likely that he painted part of his shop’s painting stock himself. The entries on the history paintings in Dammeroen’s stock inventory make mention of five that are specifically set in landscapes, such as ‘1 landscape with Elias’. It is possible that more of the named historical subjects were depicted in landscapes. The paintings that were listed simply as ‘landscapes’ may also have been decorated with a story, or the intention may have been to add staffage later, as was also the practice in Antwerp. 47 The partnership between Dammeroen and Micker We know the name of one of the staffage painters that Dammeroen worked with thanks to Landscape with Christ and the centurion of Capernaum (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10; John 4:46-54) (Fig. 3). This painting, dated 1640, bears monograms of both Dammeroen and Jan Micker (1599-1664). Micker was a native of Amsterdam, born there in 1599 as the son of a hatmaker. 48 Houbraken mentions him as the first master of Jan Baptist Weenix (1621-1659), and calls him ‘een gemeen schilder’ 45 Van Ginhoven 2017, pp. 111-117; 254-259; Vlieghe 1991, p. 264. 46 See, among others: Woollett 2006 and Tamis 2016, pp. 169-193. 47 Sometimes staffage was added to the painting many years later. Tamis 2016, p. 152; Van Ginhoven 2017, p. 92, nt. 45. 48 SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 3, p. 184, 13-6-1599.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

113

Fig. 3. Jan Fransz. Dammeroen; figures by Jan Micker, Landscape with Christ and the centurion of Capernaum, 1640, signed with monograms and dated lower right ‘J F / JM 1640’, panel, 48 × 93 cm. Sale Vienna (Dorotheum), 4-3-1997, lot no. 47. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

(‘a common painter’). 49 For a painter with little reputation we know quite a lot of signed paintings by Micker.50 These are predominantly history paintings with biblical subjects that correspond to the themes found in the stocks of Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh. In fact, we find three of Micker’s paintings in Doeck’s shop inventory, and one in Meijeringh’s.51 Micker frequently worked as a staffage painter, and added biblical figures to church interiors by Hans Jurriaensz. van Baden (1604-1677) and landscapes by Joachim Govertsz. Camphuysen (c. 1601/02-1659).52 Dammeroen’s tonal landscape in Landscape with Christ and the centurion of Capernaum includes a small-scale, simply painted Bible scene by Micker. The Roman centurion of Capernaum kneels before Jesus and begs for his servant to be healed. Jesus is surrounded by a number of followers. Micker left out the soldiers usually depicted in this scene, which is only identifiable because of the figure kneeling before Jesus. The other figures – passersby, a shepherd, sheep, and a resident peering from the door of a house – have nothing to do with the story. The 49 Houbraken 1718-1721, II, p. 77. 50 For an overview of Micker’s production, see: Sluijter 2015b, pp. 247-258. 51 These paintings are described as ‘two landscapes with staffage by Micker; a landscape with cattle by Micker’ in Doeck’s shop and an ‘old landscape with staffage by Jan Micker with an old-fashioned frame’ in Meijeringh’s inventory. 52 RKDexplore Database, RKDartists, no. 55950 (Micker). These artists probably worked extensively with various staffage painters, but they often signed the finished work with their names alone.

114 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

landscape bears little connection to the scene either: the solitary house in the middle of the composition does not exactly suggest to the viewer that the story is taking place in a city. Using this key work, other paintings could be attributed to Dammeroen and Micker (Figs. 4 and 5). These paintings suggest that the artworks by Dammeroen and Micker were generally composed in the same way. Dammeroen’s landscapes are simple and painted in an ‘old-fashioned’ Flemish style. Characteristic features include a large expanse of sky and a large, wild group of trees on one side or in the middle of the composition. As a rule, next to these trees is a view onto a landscape (with a ruin, house, river, or mountain). The predetermined position for the figures was in an elevated area in the foreground, which often features a winding path that disappears behind the trees. Micker’s staffage is small-scale and painted with such a thin layer of paint that most of the figures have become semi-transparent, allowing Dammeroen’s landscape to show through. The thinness of the paint layer is a first indication of a cost-saving technique. Regardless of the subject, Micker used the same narrative elements in his staffage. The works Landscape with Abraham leaving Egypt, with Sarah, Lot, and his possessions (Genesis 12:10-20) (Fig. 4) and Landscape with the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael (Genesis 21:9-21) (Fig. 5) show similar groups of three figures walking along a road. Both Bible stories depicted here feature travelling figures. The subjects are suggested only by several small characteristics, and as a result it can be difficult for the modern viewer to identify the precise story. Abraham leaving Egypt shows Abraham and Lot (two men wearing turbans) and Sarah on the road. God had told Abraham to depart his homeland for Canaan; Abraham brought his wife Sarah, his nephew Lot, and the wealth that they had acquired. Therefore, it is the retinue of people and possessions (cows) in this painting that makes this identification plausible. The banishment of Hagar and Ishmael is recognizable from the combination of the two adults with a child. Hagar was a handmaid of Sarah, who gave her to Abraham to bear a child, Ishmael. Years later Sarah would give birth to Isaac. When she found Ishmael mocking her son, she demanded Abraham send Hagar and Ishmael away. The theme was listed four times in Dammeroen’s shop53 and was very popular among Amsterdam’s painters; the depiction of Pieter Lastman in 1612 (Fig. 6) functioned as a prototype for this subject for decades.54 Lastman’s Ishmael holds his hand over his eyes as he weeps, while Hagar lays a comforting hand on Ishmael’s shoulder, and Abraham places his left hand on her forearm. The painting by Dammeroen and Micker has little in common with the prototype: it lacks the psychological 53 There were four paintings described as ‘Abraham and Hagar’, and another two paintings described only as ‘Hagar’ (possibly Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael away or The angel with Hagar). 54 Hanou 2009.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

115

Fig. 4. Jan Fransz. Dammeroen; figures by Jan Micker, Landscape with Abraham leaving Egypt, with Sarah, Lot, and his possessions, panel, 60 × 83.3 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 17-12-1998, lot no. 310. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 5. Jan Fransz. Dammeroen; figures by Jan Micker, Landscape with the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael, panel, 60 × 83.3 cm. Sale New York (Sotheby’s Parke Bernet), 15-3-1974, lot no. 143. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

116 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 6. Pieter Lastman, The banishment of Hagar and Ishmael, 1612, signed and dated lower left ‘Anno 1612 / PLastman fecit’, panel, 48.3 × 71.4 cm. Hamburger Kunsthalle, Hamburg, inv. no. HK-191. © Hamburger Kunsthalle / bpk. Photo by Elke Walford.

Fig. 7. Jan Fransz. Dammeroen; figures by staffage painter, Landscape with the Levite and his concubine on their way to Gibea, panel, 49.2 × 76.8 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 26-4-2006, lot no. 40. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

117

connection, intimacy, and emotion that characterize Lastman’s painting. The group of figures differs little from the travelling company described above. Hagar and Ishmael can only be identified as a mother and son because they are holding hands, and nothing in the painting indicates Abraham’s emotional involvement. The same group of three figures walking along a road can be found in Landscape with the Levite and his concubine on their way to Gibea (Judges 19:16) (Fig. 7). This scene shows the Levite (the man with a turban), his concubine, and his servant on their way home. The Bible story includes two saddled asses, which are here replaced by a herdsman and cows walking behind the travelling company. The travellers wish to sleep in Gibea, but none of the inhabitants welcome them in their homes. Then an old man returns home from work, and takes the travellers in for the night; we see him at the far right. Dammeroen’s calm afternoon scene shows nothing of the horror that would take place that night: hearing about the man’s hospitality, a mob of angry Gibeans arrive to the house and rape the concubine throughout the night until, exhausted, she drops dead (subsequently, the Levite would chop her body into twelve pieces to be sent to every corner of Israel). Dammeroen’s paintings that were staffaged by painters other than Micker include similar figures and figure groups. A number of figures in Dammeroen’s Landscape with Christ healing a blind man (Fig. 8), for example, can also be found in Landscape with Christ and the centurion of Capernaum: the figure group of Jesus with followers, the kneeling man (here being healed), and the woman walking towards the house at right carrying a basket on her head. This seems to suggest that Dammeroen provided examples of these figures to his staffage painters. Micker, however, used the same figures in his staffage work for other painters, as well as in his individual production. Micker’s Jesus figure in Christ and the centurion of Capernaum, for example, is, aside from some minimal differences in posture, identical to the Jesus that he added to three church interiors by Van Baden (Figs. 9-11). The same figure can be found as Moses in his signed Moses striking water from the rock (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13) (Fig. 12). It is important to note here Sluijter’s conclusion that Micker mainly used his own inventions.55 Therefore it is likely that Dammeroen presented the other painters with Micker’s examples. Dammeroen might have shown them paintings he kept in his studio (note that a Christ and the centurion of Capernaum is listed in Dammeroen’s trade inventory),56 or he provided them with examples such as the ‘5 stucties [pieces] full of images for the staffage of landscapes’ listed in the inventory of the Rotterdam dealer Crijn Hendricksz.

55 Sluijter 2015b, pp. 249-258. 56 The painting is listed as ‘1 vande hooftman over hondert’ (‘1 of the commander of a hundred’).

118 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 8. Jan Fransz. Dammeroen; figures by staffage painter, Landscape with Christ healing a blind man, panel, 59 × 84 cm. Sale Vienna (Dorotheum), 17-10-1995, lot no. 163. Whereabouts unknown. Photo: Dorotheum Vienna, auction catalogue, 17-10-1995, lot no. 163.

Fig. 9. Hans Juriaensz. van Baden; figures by Jan Micker, Palace interior with Moses changing pharaoh’s scepter into a serpent, signed lower right ‘HGVan Baden’, oval panel, 39.5 × 53.1 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 23/24-6-2015, lot no. 21. Private collection. Photo © Christie’s Images/Bridgeman Images.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

119

Fig. 10. Hans Jurriaensz. van Baden; figures by Jan Micker Palace interior with Christ and the Pharisees discussing the tribute to Caesar, signed lower right ‘HGVan Baden’, oval panel, 38 × 51 cm. Sale The Hague (Venduehuis), 21-11-2018, lot no. 19. Venduehuis der Notarissen, Auctioneers – The Hague.

Fig. 11. Hans Juriaensz. van Baden; figures by Jan Micker, Palace interior with the widow’s mite: Christ draws the disciples’ attention to a woman who puts a few coins in the temple’s money chest, signed lower right ‘HGVan Baden’, oval panel, size unknown. Denmark, private collection. Photo by author.

120 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 12. Jan Micker, Moses striking water from the rock, signed lower right under tree ‘IMicker’, panel, 40.5 × 73.5 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 4-4-1984, lot no. 271. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Volmarijn (1648).57 These would have been examples (painted or drawn) of figures and groups of figures to use and reuse in pre-painted landscapes. Micker’s figures are stereotypical and easy to recognize. It is likely that he used certain aids to paint these repeated figures; the repetition of motifs played a key role in his work. This is also shown by his many works based on the Christian theme of ‘the narrow way of virtue and the wide way of vice’. At first glance, the two paintings illustrated here appear identical (Figs. 13-14), but on closer inspection, we see that the artist played with different combinations of figures, groups of figures, and elements, whereby he created a ‘unique’ work. The standardized production method of reusing the same staffage to boost the workshop’s capacity was also used for paintings of merry companies.58 The most likely form of partnership is that Dammeroen produced the landscapes without a particular subject in mind, and had them filled in with a Bible scene based on current demand or a request from a client. This explains why there is no obvious relationship between the subject and the landscape and why the figures were not left in reserve in Dammeroen’s landscapes. That the landscapes were produced before the subject was definite can also be reasoned from Dammeroen’s shop inventory, which 57 Bredius 1915-1922, vol. 5, p. 1642, no. 262. 58 This was mainly observed in the artworks of painters working in Haarlem, such as Dirck Hals (1591-1656); see: Kolfin 2005, pp. 145-154.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

121

Fig. 13. Jan Micker, The narrow way of virtue and the wide way of vice, signed lower right ‘IMicker fecit’, panel, 53.5 × 71 cm. Warsaw, Museum Naradowe w Warszawie, inv. no. M.Ob.582.

Fig. 14. Jan Micker, The narrow way of virtue and the wide way of vice, signed lower right ‘IMicker fecit’, panel, 47.5 × 63 cm. Amsterdam / Paris / New York, art dealer Bob P. Haboldt, 2013.

122 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

contained a number of landscapes without specified scenes. As was common for art dealers in Antwerp, Dammeroen was both the initiator and the seller of the work, and he probably would have paid Micker for his contribution (per painting or per figure, as we know from the dealer Forchondt).59 Dammeroen might have been able to choose from a number of sample sketches in Micker’s studio, like those found in the workshop of the art dealer Volmarijn. The finished paintings with Micker’s staffage perhaps served as examples for other figure painters with whom Dammeroen worked. It remains unclear why Landscape with Christ and the centurion of Capernaum was signed by both painters, though. A signature by two painters is rare and is generally only found at the top of the market.60 It is therefore all the more unusual that, like the work by Dammeroen and Micker, a painting has survived by Camphuysen and Micker that was also signed by both painters (dated 1633).61 Did Micker’s contribution add substantial value to the painting? Did they share the proceeds? Or was Micker simply proud of his contribution?

II

Mass production in the workshop of Jacob de Wet62

Jacob de Wet was born around 1610 in Haarlem, the son of the Catholic bailiff Willem Jansz. de Wet and Marritge Jacobsdr.63 It is likely that his grandfather, Jan de Wet, was also a painter, and that Jacob trained with him.64 Jacob de Wet became a member of the Haarlem Guild of St. Luke in 1632, and from that time he was allowed to sign his works and train apprentices.65 Between 1638 and 1670, De Wet 59 Van Ginhoven 2017, p. 91. 60 This was related to the added value of the partnership; see: Tamis 2016, pp. 33-40. This is something we see, for example, in the signed partnership between Cornelis van Poelenburch and Alexander Keirincx: Sluijter-Seiffert and Wolters 2009, p. 35. 61 A signed work by Joachim Govertsz. Camphuysen and Jan Micker from 1633 was with Kunsthandel P. de Boer in Amsterdam in 1972; see: RKDexplore Database, RKDartists, no. 15029. 62 This case was first published in Jager 2018. 63 For De Wet’s biography, see: Van Thiel-Stroman 2006, pp. 337-341. 64 There is no further archival evidence of Jan de Wet’s life, besides the patronymic of De Wet’s father. However, a painting and two drawings bear the signature Jan de Wet, one of which dates from 1618, and excludes authorship by Jacob de Wet: Jan de Wet, David and Abigail, signed by Jan de Wet and dated 1618, panel, c. 67 × 75 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 1950-7-26, lot no. 39; Jan de Wet (attributed to), The feeding of the five thousand, signed and dated lower left ‘Jan de Wet inventor 1635’ and ‘JDW’, paper, 26.5 × 51 cm; The feeding of the five thousand, signed lower left ‘JDW’, paper, 27.5 × 51.9 cm, Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, inv. no. 4025 and 4026. As Michiel Plomp has argued, the signature ‘Jan de Wet inventor’ and the monogram ‘JDW’ differ from any we know by Jacob de Wet. A drawing in the same style at the Teylers Museum bears an identical monogram and the date ‘2-10-1601’ on the reverse. Plomp proposes that they were drawn by one of De Wet’s (unknown) brothers, but I suggest that they were produced by Jan de Wet, the grandfather of the painter. See: Plomp 1997, pp. 461-462, cat. no. 554. 65 Miedema 1980, p. 1036.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

123

registered no fewer than 37 apprentices, whose names are known to us thanks to the surviving accounting notes in a sketchbook in the Noord-Hollands Archief.66 The pages with the entries for 1644-1650 and 1656-1660 are missing, and possibly also for the years before 1638. Thirteen apprentices were registered on a page, on average, and the total number of apprentices and journeymen may have reached 65. The accounting entries in the sketchbook contain a lot of information. The master made a note of whether the youths were coming to draw or paint, the date of arrival, and the fee for their training. We thus know that the drawing apprentices paid 40 guilders per year and the painting apprentices 48 guilders, and that between 1644 and 1650, De Wet raised these fees to 48 and 60 guilders, respectively. These were average fees for art training, but considerably less than those charged by famous masters.67 Rembrandt, for example, charged his apprentices 100 guilders a year. De Wet calculated room and board separately, at 208 guilders annually. This relatively steep rate may have been why only four students made use of this opportunity: the Swedish student Kort Withold in 1642, ‘Luycas Frank’ in 1650 and again in 1655, Johann Philips Lemke (1631-1711) in 1651, and Rochus van Veen (c. 1640-1693) in 1668. The majority of De Wet’s students are not well known, in contrast to Rembrandt’s pupils. Most of them would have gone on to practise other trades or produce anonymous works for the art trade.68 Only Paulus Potter (1625-1654) and Job Berckheyde (1630-1693) became successful masters. Potter came to paint with De Wet in 1642 and Berckheyde came to draw in 1644.69 Neither earned his living as a history painter, but they did sporadically paint history paintings. Only 66 NHA, inv. no. 53-999002K. For partial transcripts, see: Bredius 1919, Jager 2018, pp. 104-106 (Appendix I). 67 De Jager 1990, pp. 75-79. We lack relevant information about the conditions of these apprenticeships. De Jager has concluded that long-term training contacts had lower fees than short-term contracts, and that to assess the fee fully, it is also necessary to know who was responsible (the pupil or the teacher) for purchasing the raw materials and who profited when selling the finished products. 68 Most of the students in Jager 2018, pp. 104-106 (Appendix 1) are unknown and absent from RKDartists (RKDexplore Database), as the majority did not leave signed paintings or drawings. Remarkably, between 1660 and 1667, De Wet only listed drawing students, at least two of whom became beeltsniders (‘sculptors’): Abraham Snellaert (1646-1693) and Huybert Leenderts van Rijn. Perhaps some of the other unknown students were dilettantes and studied with De Wet for non-professional reasons, as Marion Boers-Goossens has suggested. Boers-Goosens 2001, p. 100. She names Rochus van Veen among these amateurs. However, Van Veen also paid for bed and board, and he must have been serious about his education. About Rochus van Veen, see: Wolleswinkel 2006, Van der Veen 2008. The auction of his estate of drawings, prints, and some paintings initiated in Haarlem on 23 September 1709: Van der Willigen Pz. 1870, p. 302; Miedema 1980, p. 749, nt. 275. 69 The listings in the sketchbook are ‘in the year 1642 / 12 May, P potter came to paint with me for the sum of eight pounds a year [jaer 1642 / den 12 may is P potter bij mijn te schilderen gecoomen voor de soma van acht pont int jaer]’ and ‘on 2 November Job Adriaensen van Berckheyde came to draw with me in the year 1644 [den 2 november is bij mijn te tekenen gekoomen Job Adriaensen van Berckheyde Ao 1644]’. The ‘P’ before Potter appears to be a later addition.

124 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 15. Job Berckheyde, Christ blessing the Children brought by their mothers, signed and dated lower right ‘J Berckheyde Ao 1662’, canvas, 52 × 68 cm. Schwerin, Staatliches Museum Schwerin, inv. no. G441.

Potter’s earliest signed works are history paintings, one of which he produced before coming to De Wet, possibly during his apprenticeship with his father, Pieter Potter (1597/1600-1652).70 Berckheyde painted several history paintings throughout his career, including one before he joined the Haarlem guild, as shown by the listing of ‘A history painting of a steward in an ebony frame, by Jop Bercheijer’ (Parable of the unjust steward) in the inventory of Pieter van Meldert’s art shop of 1653.71 This listing is dated one year before Berckheyde joined the Haarlem guild, and could have originated in De Wet’s workshop.72 It is striking that the Staatliches Museum Schwerin has a painting signed by Berckheyde, dated 1662, of Christ blessing the children in De Wet’s style (Fig. 15).73 70 Sluijter 2015b, pp. 317-318, nt. 174; Walsh 1991, pp. 116-131. 71 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Vos, inv. no. 1202, fol. 270-286; 281; Montias-Frick Database, no. 184. 72 Berckheyde was asked to pay his guild entrance fee on 10 June 1653, but only paid on 10 March 1654: Van Thiel-Stroman 2006, p. 107. 73 My thanks to Gero Seelig for verifying the signature and date.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

125

This painting dates from almost twenty years after the start of his training with De Wet, and it is unclear why Berckheyde would have reverted to his former master’s style at this stage. Despite the poor career prospects associated with De Wet’s training, he was a popular master, as shown by the many apprentices he trained and the two instances in which apprentices left their current masters to join De Wet. The above-mentioned Swedish journeyman Kort Withold spent only a few days training with Philips Wouwerman (1642) before he left for De Wet’s workshop.74 Nicolaes Berchem’s apprentice Guilljeam le Febre transferred to De Wet (1643) after about seven months.75 Just two of De Wet’s pupils left a signif icant number of history paintings: Adriaen Gael (1618-1665) and Adriaen Verdoel (1623-1675), who started in De Wet’s workshop in 1640 and 1641 respectively. We have already come across these names in the inventories of Doeck and Meijeringh. The two youths were by no means beginners when they arrived – Gael was 22 and Verdoel 18 – and probably worked as ‘vrije gasten’ or painting journeymen in De Wet’s studio. According to the Haarlem guild records, having completed his training, each painter had to work at least a year in another master’s studio.76 These journeymen worked in the style of the master and sold their own work exclusively via the master’s shop.77 They did so under their own names, meaning that these works were probably signed. The vrije gasten had to pay a guild contribution that was as high as that of the master painter. They also had to pay the master an annual fee, just like the other apprentices. Gael and Verdoel both stayed at De Wet’s studio for more than a year, and, as we shall see when discussing the paintings they produced, they enjoyed a special position in this respect. Gael hailed from a large family of painters and probably received his initial training from his father Adriaen Gael (I), his uncle Cornelis Adriaensz. Gael (I), or his cousin Barent Gael. His only signed works from 1643 and 1644 show subjects, 74 Kort Withold’s relocation from Philips Wouwerman to Jacob de Wet degenerated into a dispute with the Haarlem guild, in which Withold admitted that he had already made a start on painting a tronie (‘een trony had gedootverft’) in Wouwerman’s studio. Van Thiel-Stroman 2006, p. 338. Miedema 1980, pp. 508-509. 75 Nicolaes Berchem paid the guild contribution for Guilljeam le Febre on 2 September 1642: Miedema 1980, pp. 543, 546, 549; Van Thiel-Stroman 2006, p. 102. Le Febre was listed in De Wet’s sketchbook on 5 May 1643 as having ‘come to draw’ (‘te tekenen gekomen’) and on 8 September 1643 as ‘starting to paint’ (‘aen schilderen gegaen’). The fact that Le Febre cut short his training with Berchem is particularly interesting because this apprenticeship has been used in modern scholarship to suggest that Berchem could not have travelled to Italy in the period 1642-1645, an interpretation that now needs to be revisited: Blankert 1978; Biesboer 2006, p. 21. 76 Boers-Goosens 2001, pp. 74-79. 77 Boers-Goosens 2001, p. 79. Painters employed in Utrecht workshops were obliged to paint in the master’s style: Muller 1880, p. 78, art. VII.

126 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

compositions, and figure types typical of De Wet.78 Only after Gael had inherited all of his father’s painting supplies plus 1500 guilders in 1660 did he become a member of the painters’ guild in Haarlem.79 It is tempting to think that Gael worked in the family business until he became an independent master, but all of his surviving paintings are painted in De Wet’s style. Verdoel was the son of a corn miller and did not come from an artistic family. He probably painted at De Wet’s studio until 1649, when he became a member of the Guild of St. Luke in Haarlem.80 Most of Verdoel’s signed paintings likewise reflect De Wet’s style and subject choices.81 In addition to the registered apprentices, two of De Wet’s family members were also involved in the studio. Jacob’s brother Gerrit de Wet probably worked in the studio until 1663, after which he left Haarlem for Leiden.82 It is likely that Gerrit, as Jacob de Wet’s brother, played an important role within the studio and may have worked there as a master painter. In 1643, the governors of the Guild of St. Luke in Haarlem asked him ‘finally’ to pay his membership fee.83 Jacob de Wet (II) learned the trade from his father at a young age, and continued to work in the studio 78 Adriaen Gael, David with the head of Goliath, signed and dated lower centre ‘A. Gael 1643’, panel, 49.5 × 69 cm. Sale Bremen (Bolland & Marotz), 8-11-2014, lot no. 1634; Joseph in the well, signed and dated lower left ‘A. Gael 1644’, support and size unknown. Sale Cologne (Van Ham), September 2001. 79 The testament of his parents Adriaen Gael (I) and Marritje Kampers, drawn up in 1644, states that Adriaen Gael (II) (named ‘de Jonge’) would inherit ‘all the paintings and everything associated with them’ (‘alle de schildercunst ende tgeen daer toe behoort’). This testament was changed in 1652: Gael would receive 1500 guilders and ‘all that is related to the art of painting, such as prints, drawings and other associated things’ (‘alle het gunt totte Schilderkunst, soo van prenten, teeckeningen en de andere behoorende is’). RKD, Archive A. Bredius [NL-HaRKD.0380], ‘Gael’, fol. 9, 18-4-1644 (NHA, original not traced), fol. 1, 1658-12-17 (NHA, ONA [1617], inv. no. 283, fol. 237v-238), fol. 20, 10-9-1651 (NHA, ONA [1617], inv. no. 198, fol. 45), and 18-2-1660 (NHA, original not traced). For the full biography of Adriaen Gael (II), see: Jager 2016, pp. 308-309. 80 Miedema 1980, pp. 654, 1033. Two documents suggest an ongoing association between De Wet and Verdoel following his apprenticeship, including a document that records De Wet’s position as guarantor for Verdoel’s legal costs in 1644, and another in which Verdoel acted as a witness for De Wet in 1646. RKD, Archive A. Bredius [NL-HaRKD.0380], ‘Haarlem W’, fol. 2, 1-12-1644 (NHA, original not traced) and ‘De Wet’, fol. 13, 10-7-1646 (NHA, original not traced). 81 A first reconstruction of his oeuvre is attempted in Jager 2016, pp. 385-389. Verdoel’s oeuvre is quite problematic, because the signed and dated paintings point to at least two painters active with the same name. Adriaen Verdoel (I) died in 1675 in Vlissingen. The paintings dating between 1690 and 1700 are therefore identified as by Adriaen Verdoel (II). On reflection, the painting Peasants drinking in an interior, signed and dated ‘A. Verdoel f 1652’, panel, 39.2 × 32 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 20-11-2013, lot no. 15, matches the production of Verdoel (II) rather than Verdoel (I). The date might have been mistakenly read as 1652. However, a genre painting showing dancing people in old-fashioned clothing, signed and dated ‘Adria Verdoel 1643’, has a completely different character, subject, and style from the works of either: Rosenthal 1929, p. 250. Could this be by yet another Adriaen Verdoel? 82 Gerrit de Wet married Geertruyt van Tangeren in 1664 in Leiden: ELO, DTB [1004], inv. no. 201, 1664, 29-8-1664, fol. 73v. He became a member of the St. Luke’s Guild in Leiden: Bredius 1882-1883, p. 229, 232. 83 Van Thiel-Stroman 2006, p. 339, nt. 4; Miedema 1980, pp. 591-594, 666.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

127

until his marriage in 1668, after which he settled in Amsterdam.84 An entry in De Wet’s sketchbook mentions the delivery in 1658 of two paintings by his son, then about eighteen years old, to the Amsterdam dealer Pieter van Meldert for sixteen guilders.85 Once in Amsterdam, De Wet (II) distanced himself from his father’s style and changed his signature from ‘De Wet de Jonge’ to ‘De Wet’.86 It is likely that Jacob de Wet’s studio mainly supplied history paintings to Amsterdam’s art dealers. We have already seen that Doeck’s inventory mentions 28 paintings by painters linked to De Wet’s studio, including De Wet himself, his son Jacob de Wet (II), his brother Gerrit de Wet, and his apprentices Adriaen Verdoel (I) and Pieter Wiggersz.87 The inventory of Meijeringh’s shop also listed 26 paintings from this studio: by the master himself, his son, his brother, Verdoel, and eleven by the apprentice Adriaen Gael (II). On a smaller scale, the inventories of other art shops in Amsterdam also mention paintings from this studio: in 1653, Pieter van Meldert had works by Jacob and Gerrit de Wet, a copy after Jacob de Wet, and a history painting by Gael.88 As mentioned above, Van Meldert bought two paintings by Jacob de Wet (II) in 1658. In 1662, Matthijs Hals had a history painting by Jacob de Wet and two history paintings by his son.89 Contact with other art dealers in Amsterdam was also documented: in 1640, De Wet became a shareholder in the art shop run by Hendrick Uylenburgh.90 The accounting entries in the sketchbook include several sale prices of paintings. The prices are for his own work, and the amount charged seems to have been dependent on the size of the painting support.91 For example, De Wet sold a ‘doeckie’ (‘small canvas’) of Mirtillo and Amaryllis and a ‘peneel’ (‘panel’) of Rebecca to Wouter 84 Jacob de Wet (II) and his wife Helena Stalmans moved to Amsterdam between 27 April and 13 July 1668: Van Thiel-Stroman 2006, p. 341. 85 ‘[g]helevert aen Sr Pieter van Melder twe stucks van mijn soon voor de soma van 16 gulde Ao 1659 [Delivered to Sr Pieter van Melder, two paintings by my son for the sum of 16 guilders in the year 1659]’, Haarlem, HNA, inv. 53-999002K, [fol. 63v]; Bredius 1919, p. 217. Irene Van Thiel-Stroman interpreted the amount as 56 guilders; see: Van Thiel-Stroman 2006, p. 342, nt. 3. 86 De Wet (II) would paint for Scottish clients in the 1670s and 1680s, see: Apted and Hannabuss 1978, pp. 105-106; Brown 1891, p. xxiv; Brydall 1889, pp. 84-85; Guilding 1986; Haverkorn van Rijsewijk 1899; Holloway 1989, p. 27; Jager 2016, pp. 369-373, 397-410; Lloyd Williams 1992, p. 153, no. 73; Van Meurs 1900, pp. 230-231; Thomson 1974, inv. no. 95-96, p. 95-101; Wilton 1992, cat. no. 19. 87 This number excludes the painting by Paulus Potter and the painting by Job Berckheyde. 88 SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Vos, inv. no. 1202, fol. 270-286, 1-10-1653. The painter Job Adriaensz. Berckheyde is also listed under the estate’s debts (unfortunately, without the sum that he was owed by the art dealer). 89 SAA, ONA [5075], not. N. Listingh, inv. no. 2617, fol. 2651, 30-3-1662. 90 Van der Veen 2006b, pp. 188-190; Strauss and Van der Meulen 1979, no. 1640/02, pp. 185-186. 91 Boers-Goosens has suggested that art dealers must have paid De Wet less than private buyers, based on the prices of paintings listed in the De Wet sketchbook: Boers-Goosens 2001, pp. 287. I have argued that the asking price of these paintings depended primarily on their dimensions: Jager 2018, pp. 97-98.

128 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Knijff for 54 guilders (1662). ‘Menheer Emrick’ paid 60 guilders for an Iphigenia on a large ‘daeldersdoeck’ canvas (1671). De Wet also painted on commission: ‘Did a painting of Europa for Mr. van der Stel, earned from it the sum of 100 guilders.’ The price of commissioned work was much higher than that of work made on spec (possibly with the help of apprentices and employees).92 Van der Stel also bought a painting of Christ’s dispute with the doctors in the temple for 30 guilders, and ‘een brantie en een lantschapie’ (‘a fire scene and a landscape’) for a total of 50 guilders. De Wet would have sold paintings by his apprentices and employees for less than the price of his own works. De Wet had a distinguished reputation in both Haarlem and Amsterdam; he was active in the Haarlem guild, for example, and held an administrative position there in 1645, 1661, and 1662.93 A document from 1671 – in which the Aldermen of Amsterdam chose him as one of ‘fifteen of the best experts and connoisseurs of painting in this city, the majority of whom are themselves artists’ to judge the Italian paintings by Gerrit Uylenburgh – shows that his name was also well-known in the Amsterdam art world.94 Works by his apprentices and employees thus sold for considerably less; for example, De Wet sold works by his son in 1657 and 1658 to the frame- and panel-maker Barent Jansz. Terheggere and the art dealer Van Meldert for eight guilders per painting (the size was not specified).95 De Wet’s production: four case studies De Wet’s oeuvre consists mainly of biblical narratives, of which many subjects are represented multiple times.96 For his Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler (1983-c. 1994), Werner Sumowski gathered images of 63 paintings by De Wet, and since the time of this publication, more have surfaced, including many unsigned paintings attributed to De Wet or his ‘circle’.97 De Wet’s signed works are of considerably better quality than the many anonymous ones, but there is clearly a connection between the two groups. The unsigned paintings resemble De Wet’s compositions and at times replicate the same organization and structure as the artist’s signed paintings, but were often executed by less talented hands, suggesting the involvement of apprentices and assistants. The following case studies will analyse four recurring 92 Bredius 1919, p. 219. 93 Van Thiel-Stroman 2006, p. 338; Miedema 1980, pp. 612, 671-672. 94 Lammertse 2006b, esp. pp. 84-85. 95 Bredius 1919, p. 217. The delivery of the work to Barent Jansz. Terheggere was not transcribed by Abraham Bredius; see: NHA, inv. no. 53-999002K, without pagination. 96 Sumowski, 1983-c. 1994, IV, p. 2723. 97 Sumowski 1983-c. 1994, IV, pp. 2778-2788. There is no updated catalogue raissonné of paintings by Jacob de Wet.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

129

subjects in De Wet’s oeuvre: The triumph of Mordecai, The feeding of the five thousand, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, and Christ and the woman taken in adultery. Surveying the oeuvres of the artist and his circle, I relate De Wet’s originals to various versions of the same composition and trace the workshop’s methods of mass production. The triumph of Mordecai: repetitions and variants The Book of Esther (6:11) recounts Haman’s plot to kill Mordecai, who was instead honoured, on the King’s command, in a parade through the streets. Early-modern depictions of The triumph of Mordecai often depict a similar moment in this Old Testament story, featuring Mordecai on a horse and Haman walking him into the city. In the signed painting by De Wet, Mordecai and Haman are depicted in the centre of the composition, with a crowd of spectators to their left (Fig. 16). The position of the horse and Haman bear close resemblance to Pieter Lastman’s treatment of this subject in 1617 (Fig. 17), but De Wet uses a more distant perspective. This makes us mere spectators to the entire scene (as was common for De Wet) rather than participants in the depicted audience, as is the case with Lastman’s work. Judging by the man at the bottom right of the composition, who is kneeling and taking off his hat, De Wet must have also been familiar with an engraving of the same subject by Lucas van Leyden, or Rembrandt’s later print, which borrows from the sixteenth-century master (Figs. 18 and 19).98 A second version of The triumph of Mordecai dating from 1637 depicts Mordecai and Haman in a similar fashion (Fig. 20), with the exception that Haman is turning his head towards the crowd.99 The stooping f igure, which De Wet adopted from Van Leyden’s print, is depicted again in the same place at the bottom right. Other figures recur but are repositioned, such as the soldiers, who have been placed at the right side by the gate. Four unsigned paintings of The triumph of Mordecai on supports of different dimensions show a composition identical to De Wet’s 1637 painting. Their execution is too weak to be by the master himself, but they are clearly based on this work (Figs. 21-24). However, they reverse the motif of Mordecai and Haman. These paintings also introduce two soldiers on horses following Mordecai on the left side, and a young man climbing a landmark in the middle. To the far right is a bridge with a large crowd. The figure types in the four unsigned versions are very similar 98 Like most seventeenth-century painters, De Wet owned prints. He made a note of a wager with Cornelis Coelenbier in 1636, probably a relative of the art dealer and landscape painter Jan Coelenbier (Kortrijk, 1619-Haarlem, 1680), that involved a print by Albrecht Dürer and two by Rembrandt. Bredius 1919, p. 216. 99 According to the documentation at the RKD, the date of the painting is 1637. However, on the available photographs only the signature and ‘Ao’ is visible.

130 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 16. Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordecai, signed lower left ‘J.d.Wet’, panel, 60.5 × 84 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 14-11-1995, lot no. 4. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 17. Pieter Lastman, The triumph of Mordechai, signed and dated lower right ‘PLastman fecit / 1617’, panel, 52 × 71.5 cm. Amsterdam, Rembrandt House Museum, inv. no. NK 2313. On loan from Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE).

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

131

Fig. 18. Lucas van Leyden, The triumph of Mordechai, signed and dated bottom left ‘L 1515’, engraving, 210 × 290 mm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-P-OB-1606.

Fig. 19. Rembrandt, The triumph of Mordechai, 1639-1643, etching and dry needle, 175 × 215 mm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-P-1962-16.

132 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 20. Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordechai, indistinctly signed and dated lower right ‘J. d. Wet / Ao [1637]’, panel, c. 60 × 83 cm. Amsterdam, art dealer D. Vaarties (in 1934). Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

to De Wet’s image, and we again see the stooping person on the left, though his proportions are somewhat incorrect, and a woman with a child, who is kneeling to honour Mordecai in the right foreground of the painting. The four unsigned depictions are presumably copies of a lost prototype by De Wet, or perhaps a depiction specifically designed by De Wet for reproduction by assistants. The paintings show differences in style and execution, which indicates that more than one assistant produced the exact same scene. For example, the execution of the kneeling woman and child on the right differs greatly from a version auctioned in New York or that recorded in a private collection in Den Bosch (cf. Figs. 25 and 26). In the latter, the woman is wearing a hairpiece with a soft veil, and her face is smooth and proportionately executed. Small, round brushstrokes and dots have been used to decorate the child’s dress and the woman’s underdress. By contrast, the painter of the New York piece applied no decorations to the child’s dress and only a few crude stripes to the woman’s underdress. She wears no hairpiece or veil, and her face is painted quickly and disproportionately. In addition, this

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

133

Fig. 21. Workshop of Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordechai, panel, 58 × 83 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 10-5-2005, lot 17. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 22. Workshop of Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordechai, panel, 66 × 86.4 cm. Sale New York City (Christie’s), 10-1-1980, lot no. 178. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

134 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 23. Workshop of Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordechai, panel, 75.8 × 109.5 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 18-5-2004, lot no. 80. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 24. Workshop of Jacob de Wet, The triumph of Mordechai, panel, 100 × 150 cm. Collection J. Popelier, Den Bosch (in 1958). Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

Fig. 25. Detail of 22

135

Fig. 26. Detail of 24

painter used a few quick highlights to accentuate lighter areas on her sleeve and skirt, while the painter of the Den Bosch version gradually fades dark into light. By overlaying the photographs of the four unsigned paintings of the same scene in Adobe Photoshop, I was able to demonstrate that these four paintings of different dimensions depict The triumph of Mordecai in the same proportions (Fig. 27).100 An overlay was made by cutting the composition on all sides to a recognizable point, which allowed for possible reductions of the panel at a later date.101 The four images were resized and processed with a glowing-edges filter to accentuate the contour. A transparency mask was used to hide irrelevant details and background elements, and finally the lines were coloured in green, blue, black, and red. Although distinctions in quality and the focal point of the photographs affected the results, the matching proportions of these paintings are evident and suggest the use of a reproduction method, probably a grid, which, as we shall see, was a strategy used repeatedly with a range of subjects to increase production. De Wet’s pupils Gael and Verdoel both produced painted works after De Wet’s The triumph of Mordecai (Figs. 28 and 29). Gael’s version demonstrates that he had the same prototype at his disposal as the anonymous painters of the above-mentioned reproductions, as evidenced by the presence of the bridge with a large crowd, the kneeling woman and her child, and the broken column to the bottom right (Fig. 28). 100 Valerio Pilo and I made the overlay on 28 August 2018 using Adobe Photoshop CC 2017. 101 Presumably, Figs. 23 and 24 were the same size. Fig. 23 appears to have been cut on top.

136 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 27. Overlay of the photographs of the four paintings of The triumph of Mordecai (Fig. 21 [green], 22 [blue], 23 [black], and 24 [red]).

Gael deviated from the design by using another posture for the horse and changing the attitude of Haman, who stands next to the horse, announcing his message to the public more vigorously. He also included new additions, such as the soldier restraining the crowd on the left. Verdoel’s variant shows more similarities with the 1637-dated De Wet (compare Figs. 20 and 29). Next to the gateway, he adopted the motif of the horse and Haman, but mirrored their arrangement, as found in the four anonymous works. The painter, however, added many new supporting characters, including a man with a trumpet who is also found in the print by Van Leyden, which must have been available for study purposes in De Wet’s workshop. The unsigned paintings of The triumph of Mordecai are simplified versions of what was presumably the original by De Wet. The same design was copied by different hands and on different sized supports, recreated to scale. This recalls the shops of Doeck and Meijeringh, where the same subject was available in different standard sizes. Neither Gael’s nor Verdoel’s version of The triumph of Mordecai can be characterized as slavish copies; they show additions to the established concept and design, and were rather ‘free variants’. Initially, they remind us of the

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

Fig. 28. Adriaen Gael, The triumph of Mordechai, signed middle right on the bridge ‘A. gael’, panel, 59.5 × 83.5 cm. St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, inv. no. GE-3370. Photograph © The State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Alexander Koksharov.

Fig. 29. Adriaen Verdoel, The triumph of Mordechai, signed lower right on architecture ‘A.V.doel’, panel, 75 × 110 cm. Moscow, The Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no. 1911.

137

138 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 30. Jacob de Wet, The feeding of the five thousand, remains of signature bottom middle ‘J. de Wet’, panel, 66.5 × 50.5 cm. The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, inv. no GE-3364. Photograph © The State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Alexander Koksharov.

variations made by pupils and assistants after prototypes in Rembrandt’s studio. However, these free variants or ‘satellites’ were created next to Rembrandt’s easel and were never signed by the assistant.102 The signatures on the variants by Gael and Verdoel are therefore distinguishing characteristics. These signed variants were probably created within the context of their vrije gast apprenticeships at De Wet, and followed from the regulations of the Haarlem St. Luke’s Guild. The feeding of the five thousand: repetition and adaptation The feeding of the five thousand (John 6:1-14) relates how Jesus fed a multitude with only five barley loaves and two small fish, an unusual subject in seventeenth-century painting.103 De Wet’s treatment of this narrative, captured in a work that is now found in the collection of the Hermitage in St. Petersburg (Fig. 30), is set against the backdrop 102 Van de Wetering 2006 & 2011. 103 The subject The feeding of the five thousand is unusual and not mentioned in the subject index in Sluijter 2015b, pp. 482-485; this subject matter is only mentioned as by Jacob de Wet in the subject index in Sumowski 1983-c. 1994, V, pp. 3417, 3398-3438. Two drawings of this subject in the collection of the Royal Museums of Fine Arts in Belgium are unconvincingly attributed to De Wet, and here attributed to his grandfather Jan de Wet (see note 166).

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

139

Fig. 31. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The feeding of the five thousand, panel, 50 × 63.5 cm. Sale Cologne (Van Ham), 27-30-10-1993, lot no. 1178. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 32. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The feeding of the five thousand, panel, 76 × 110 cm. Utrecht, Museum Catharijne­ convent, inv. no. BMH s9588. Photo by Ruben de Heer.

140 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 33. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The feeding of the five thousand, panel, 72.9 × 138.3 cm. Denmark, private collection. Photo by Frida Gregersen.

Fig. 34. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The feeding of the five thousand, canvas, 118.1 × 163.8 cm. Sale New York (Doyle), 24-1-2001, lot no. 71. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

141

of the mountain to which Christ would retreat after feeding the crowd. De Wet uses this mountain to suggest a large gathering of people who disappear into the landscape. Christ is one of the few characters in the painting who is standing upright in a distinct pose, and thus immediately attracts the viewer’s attention. He is depicted holding a loaf of bread while turning his face towards the sky, with a child kneeling before him holding a basket filled with bread, next to which lie two fish. The vertical format and the rather steep mountain create a strong diagonal from the bottom left to the top right. Only Christ and the figures around him are explicitly articulated by means of powerful colours and a thick application of paint. The characters to the left and right behind the scene are painted in a wet-on-wet technique, using the same colours as the background. Four unsigned paintings of The feeding of the five thousand, all of which feature a near identical arrangement, are too weak in execution to be by De Wet, but are evidently based on his signed work (Figs. 31-34). In particular, Christ’s pose and the steep mountain are shared by the five works, with the exception of one unsigned work in which the top of the mountain is missing, causing Christ’s head to stand out against the dark, cloudy sky (Fig. 34). Was this a deliberate choice, or did the anonymous painter forget to finish the mountain? The four ‘repetitions’ were executed in different sizes – the largest measures 118.1 × 163.8 cm and is painted on canvas – but the proportions of the characters remain intact. This demonstrates that the scene was reproduced to scale, as was the case for the unsigned versions of The triumph of Mordecai. These workshop copies are rarely on display in public collections and museums, and are therefore not easily accessible. Fortunately, one of the unsigned versions of The feeding of the five thousand in a private collection could be studied in more detail (Fig. 33).104 This large panel consists of two planks and measures 72.9 × 138.3 cm. Wormholes can be seen along the upper edge of the panel, indicating that a top plank is missing due to woodworm. This can also be deduced from the composition on the front, which is awkwardly cut halfway through the mountain. The background colours are thinly applied and fluently painted, so that the ground beneath is visible between the brushwork. The figures and the contours are applied directly on the ground, suggesting that the painter was working from a clear example. Infrared reflectography demonstrated that the painter had not made any underdrawing in black chalk, paint, or lead pencil, yet there were no alterations in his painting process. We may therefore assume that he made use of an underdrawing or a grid in another material, undetectable by infrared imaging. 104 For privacy reasons, the owners and location of the painting remain unknown. Jørgen Wadum and I carried out the infrared imaging on location with an Artist PRO camera mounted with a CCD progressive-scan image sensor (1360 × 1036 pixels) and a Schneider Kreuznach Xenoplan 23 mm F/1.4 CCTV lens in near Infrared 2 with a long-wave pass filter 1000 nm. The images were captured with Artist software (release 1.2) and assembled on a PC using Adobe Photoshop CS6 with Photomerge function (reposition parameter).

142 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 35. Jacob de Wet (II), The feeding of the five thousand, signed lower right on tree trunk ‘JdWe. / …’, canvas, 102.5 × 121.7 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 8-5-1995, lot no. 101. Private collection. Photo © Christie’s Images/ Bridgeman Images.

De Wet’s son Jacob painted a larger, horizontal version of his father’s prototype (Fig. 35). De Wet (II) adopted several figures from his father’s painting, including Jesus holding a loaf of bread, the woman with a baby, and the woman on the bottom left portrayed on her back. He also made some changes to his father’s design, such as the child on his knees, who holds fish instead of bread, while the loaves lie on the ground next to him. De Wet (II) also changed his father’s mountainous landscape into hills with lush vegetation. As is the case with Gael’s and Verdoel’s variants of The triumph of Mordecai, the work by De Wet (II) may also be labelled a ‘free variant’. The composition and figure types and narrative elements were adopted from his father’s prototype, but De Wet (II) made changes and introduced other features as well. Christ is central to this biblical narrative, and the characters around him play a supporting role, with the exception of the boy who kneels in front of him holding a loaf of bread in his hand. This made the composition of The feeding of the five thousand

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

143

Fig. 36. Adriaen Gael, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, signed, panel, 54 × 73 cm. Budapest, collection Friedrich Glück (in 1929). Photo: Van Térey, 1926.

Fig. 37. Adriaen Gael, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, signed lower center ‘A gael’, panel, 57 × 72 cm. Sale London (Phillips, Son & Neale), 10-12-1991, lot no. 22.

144 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

easy to adapt to different stories by simply changing attributes. This was done in two paintings by Gael, similar in composition to The feeding of the five thousand, but instead depicting Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:26) (Figs. 36 and 37). Here we see Moses in the same position and pose as Christ, but he holds a staff instead of a loaf of bread. The same overall design, sometimes mirrored (Fig. 37), could thus be reused with minimal adjustments. Narrative-specific elements, such as the Red Sea and the drowning Pharaoh, could easily be adapted from the side of the mountain. The motif of the woman with a baby, on the other hand, appears in both The feeding of the five thousand and Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea. The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon: stock figures and standardized compositions The use of similar compositions and figures for different stories was evidently standard practice in De Wet’s workshop, as another example of an endlessly reproduced subject from his workshop shows: The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon (I Kings 10: 1-13). In this narrative, the Queen of Sheba travels to Jerusalem to test King Solomon’s famed wisdom and arrives at his throne bearing spices and precious stones. The life of Solomon, which also include topics such as David blessing Solomon as his successor on the instigation of Bathsheba (1 Kings 1:28-33) and Solomon’s idolatry (1 Kings 11:7-8), was frequently depicted in De Wet’s workshop, but rarely addressed in the production of other workshops at the time. In fact, aside from De Wet’s oeuvre and that of a few other painters, such as Willem de Poorter and Salomon Koninck, depictions of Solomon were relatively rare in the seventeenth-century Netherlands.105 De Wet signed at least three different versions of The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon (Figs. 38-40), but only one is dated (1635). This dated painting corresponds to De Poorter’s depiction of the same subject, particularly in the arrangement of the composition (though reversed), the background, the figures carrying the Queen’s veil, and the seated man in the corner (Figs. 40-41). In the late 1620s, Rembrandt had developed the compositional scheme of small figures in a dark interior, with an authoritative figure placed on a set of steps looking down onto a group of standing and kneeling figures framed by repoussoirs in one of the corners.106 De Wet and De Poorter used this format throughout their careers. Eric Jan Sluijter has therefore suggested that the two painters must have been simultaneously present in Hendrick Uylenburgh’s studio in the early 1630s, where they were able to study and copy Rembrandt’s work.107 105 Sluijter 2015b, pp. 230-231; Van Gent 1991, p. 95. 106 Sluijter 2015b, pp. 244-246. 107 Sluijter 2015b, pp. 205-207, 247-246, 294. The possibility that De Wet and De Poorter visited Uylenburgh’s studio was also suggested by Sumowski 1983-c. 1994, IV, p. 2723; Montias 2002, p. 123; and Van der Veen 2006b, pp. 117-205, 190. Adriaan Waiboer has argued that De Poorter may have briefly worked under the supervision of Rembrandt in the mid 1630s: Waiboer 2013.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

145

Indeed, De Wet and De Poorter frequently produced history paintings with the same subjects and comparable compositions in the 1630s and early 1640s. Two unsigned panels of The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon (Figs. 42 and 43) are undoubtedly based on the works of De Wet. Not only is the arrangement similar, but several figures also feature in De Wet’s paintings. The man with his back to the viewer was adopted from the De Wet painting in Zürich (Fig. 38), whereas the seated Solomon, loosely holding a rod in his hand, matches a figure in the London painting (Fig. 39). The posture of the Queen of Sheba, however, is comparable to the figure in De Poorter’s version. The two unsigned paintings are presumably copies of an unknown prototype by De Wet, or an example he specifically designed to be reproduced, as argued in the case of The triumph of Mordecai and The feeding of the five thousand. Again, the works reproduce the composition in different sizes, done to scale, and suggest the use of a reproduction method such as a grid. A comparison of these two unsigned panels with three unsigned versions of David blessing Solomon as his successor on the instigation of Bathsheba (Figs. 44-46) provides more information concerning the manufacturing of paintings in De Wet’s workshop. The composition, the background with the gate and colonnade, and Bathsheba’s position with respect to the entire composition correspond closely to the two anonymous depictions of The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon (Figs. 42 and 43). Both narratives show a central group with a female protagonist in the same pose, a servant carrying her train, and three figures following behind. The outlines of the group to the right are comparable, even though the figures by the throne of Solomon are elevated in relation to the man at the table and the chambermaid by the bed of King David. Note that the posture of this seated man and the bent figure of David can also be found in Queen Esther before King Ahasuerus (Esther 5:2) (Fig. 47). De Wet’s pictorial arrangements and dense figural groups seem to have been deliberately designed to be adaptable to a number of different subjects. The design allowed for the contours of the figural group to be drawn, and the background painted, before the subject was definite. In this way, the composition could be set up easily and quickly in advance, speeding up the painting process while retaining maximum iconographic flexibility. This allowed De Wet to meet current demand with a limited number of standardized compositions. One of the paintings of David blessing Solomon as his successor on the instigation of Bathsheba (Fig. 44) was studied with infrared reflectography in an attempt to confirm the hypotheses.108 Although no black underdrawing was detectable in the figures, IRR did expose a predetermined design; a space was reserved for the figures and they were painted directly onto the background. 108 This painting is part of the same private collection as The feeding of the five thousand and is investigated in a similar manner; see note 206.

146 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 38. Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed under the throne ‘J.D.Wet’, panel, 53.2 × 72 cm. Zürich, collection Hans Klenk. Photo: Sumowski 1983-c. 1994.

Fig. 39. Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed lower center on step ‘J.d.Wet’, panel, 44.4 × 55.5 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 11-7-2008, lot no. 105. Private collection. Photo © Christie’s Images/ Bridgeman Images.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

147

Fig. 40. Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed and dated lower right ‘J. de Wet ft. 1635’, panel, 65 × 87.7 cm. Sale New York (Sotheby’s), 27-1-2012, lot no. 419. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 41. Willem de Poorter (attributed to), The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, c. 1630, panel, 35.5 × 44.4 cm. New York, The Leiden Collection, inv. no. WP-100. Image courtesy of The Leiden Collection, New York.

148 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 42. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, panel, 60 × 84.5 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 18/20-2-2003, lot no. 213. Whereabouts unknown. Private collection. Photo © Sotheby’s

Fig. 43. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, panel, 75.2 × 101.8 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 5/9-5-2000, lot no. 199. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

149

Fig. 44. Workshop Jacob de Wet, David blessing Solomon as his successor on the instigation of Bathsheba, panel, 50.6 × 73.6 cm. Denmark, private collection. Photo by Frida Gregersen.

Fig. 45. Workshop Jacob de Wet, David blessing Solomon as his successor on the instigation of Bathsheba, panel, 67 × 81 cm. Sale Stockholm (Bukowski), 27/30-05-2008, lot no. 457. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

150 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 46. Workshop Jacob de Wet, David blessing Solomon as his successor on the instigation of Bathsheba, panel, size unknown. Fredensborg, Finn Zilrave. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 47. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Queen Esther before king Ahasuerus, panel, 59.5 × 84 cm. Sale Luzern (Fischer), 31-5-1990, lot no. 2082. Whereabouts unknown. Scan from an auction catalogue at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

151

This painting sequence frequently occurred in De Wet’s workshop, as shown by The sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah (Judges 10:39) (Fig. 48) by Gerrit de Wet in the collection of the National Gallery of Denmark in Copenhagen.109 The artist first painted the background with rather swift brushstrokes around the upper contours of the planned central group. The figures at the back and the architecture were then applied with simple brushstrokes and wet-on-wet technique in the background. The central figures were painted only after the background was in place. Certain details, such as the hair of Jephthah’s daughter, were added on top of the dark paint. The man in the lower-left corner, whose outlines do not touch the background, was emphasized by painting dark contours around him. The crying man in the foreground was added to the depiction at a later stage. He is identical to a figure found in Gerrit de Wet’s The presentation in the Temple (Fig. 49). At least one case illustrates the use of drawings in De Wet’s workshop. De Wet’s drawing of The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon (Fig. 50) served as an example for two paintings, one of which is questionably signed and dated ‘J. de Wet 1654’ (Figs. 51 and 52).110 The upper portions of both paintings include more compositional elements than are found in the drawing, suggesting that it must have been cut down. A third painting with an unclear monogram, here interpreted as ‘DP’, largely reproduces the staffage from the lower-left corner to the upper-right corner (Fig. 53). The painter changed the figures in the background to the left and Solomon’s pose. Moreover, the artist added richer clothes and jewels, making the scene more elaborate. This monogrammed version includes changes to the original design and the introduction of new elements, and can therefore be identified as a free variant, similar to those Gael and Verdoel produced after De Wet’s designs. Gael and Verdoel also painted variants of The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, and their depictions largely correspond to De Wet’s 1635 type (compare Figs. 54-56 to Fig. 40). As stated earlier, Gael entered the workshop in 1640 and Verdoel in 1641, proving that prototypes were used for at least five years. Although the original was 109 Jørgen Wadum and I carried out the infrared imaging with an Osiris camera equipped with an InGaAs array sensor, wavelength 0.9 -1.7 µm. Camera lens: Rodagon f:150 mm focal length F/1:5.6 with an aperture of f:16. Light: two halogen 1000 W Hedlerlamps from 200 cm distance. The image is composed by a series of parallel exposures, each 3000 × 3000 pixels, assembled on a PC using Adobe Photoshop CS6 with photo merge function (reposition parameter). The technical investigation took place at the National Gallery of Denmark in June 2015, during a residency at the Centre for Art Technological Studies and Conservation (CATS) with fellowships from the Historians of Netherlandish Art and the Kircheiner-Galatius Fonds. 110 The drawing, falsely signed by a later hand ‘G. van den Eeckhout’, was convincingly attributed to De Wet in Sumowski 1979-1992, X, cat. no. 2377. Sumowski identified the drawing incorrectly as ‘Joseph sells corn in Egypt’. De Wet used the same composition and elements of the subjects ‘Joseph sells corn in Egypt’ and ‘The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon’, but distinguished the Queen of Sheba by surrounding her with gifts instead of children. The drawing therefore certainly represents ‘The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon’.

152 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 48. Gerrit de Wet, The sacrifice of the daughter of Jephtah, signed lower right ‘Gerardus.d Wet’, panel, 60 × 81 cm. Copenhagen, National Gallery of Denmark, inv. no. KMSsp471.

Fig. 49. Gerrit de Wet, The presentation in the temple, remains of signature lower left ‘Gerhardus de Wett’, panel, 60 × 84.5 cm. Fredensborg, Royal Palace. On loan from Copenhagen, National Gallery of Denmark, inv. no. KMSsp470. Photo by author.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

153

Fig. 50. Jacob de Wet (attributed to), The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed lower right ‘G. vanden Eeckhout’, pen in brown ink, brown and red wash, heightened in white on blue paper, 19 × 33 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 11-7-2001, lot no. 258. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 51. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed and dated lower left ‘J. de Wet 1654’, panel, 40.5 × 72.5 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 6-7-1995, lot no. 75. Private collection. Photo © Christie’s Images/Bridgeman Images.

154 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 52. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, panel, 55 × 72 cm. Wageningen, collection E. Stibbe, 1983. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 53. Workshop Jacob de Wet, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed right on step ‘DP’, panel, 60 × 81 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 1-8-1952, lot no. 54. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

Fig. 54. Adriaen Gael, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed lower center ‘A. gael’, panel, 47 × 63 cm. Sale Berlin (Lepke), 5-6-1917, lot no. 24. Whereabouts unknown. Scan from an auction catalogue at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 55. Adriaen Verdoel, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed lower left on step ‘A.v.doel’, panel, 36.8 × 49.4 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 17-2-1978, lot no. 113. Whereabouts unknown. Scan from black and white print at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

155

156 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 56. Adriaen Verdoel, The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, signed lower left ‘V.Doel’, panel, 47 × 62 cm. Sale Dresden (Helbing), 4-10-1907, lot 164. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

not slavishly copied by Gael and Verdoel, all three variants demonstrate the reuse of its composition and other narrative elements. Christ and the woman taken in adultery: changing the format In the biblical account of Christ and the woman taken in adultery (John 8:2-11), a group of scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to Jesus, accuse her of committing adultery, and ask whether she should be stoned. Jesus replies that the one without sin is the one who should cast the first stone. This is a very different story from The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon, but De Wet’s depictions of these two narratives are quite similar in composition. In both scenes, the viewer’s attention is drawn to a woman kneeling before a man who is portrayed on a higher visual plane. The central configuration is surrounded by onlookers and set in a dark interior. However, specific alterations were needed to change the Queen of Sheba into the adulterous woman. There are multiple versions of Christ and the woman taken in adultery signed by De Wet, but we will focus on the two that served as prototypes for mass production. The first example is painted on a large vertical canvas and shows a vast, dark temple filled with people. The central scene takes place on the stairs, while in the background on a higher level, a scene with a priest is cast in shadow (Fig. 57). De

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

157

Fig. 57. Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, signed lower center ‘JW’, after 1644, canvas, 105.7 × 85 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 30-11-2010, lot. no. 45. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

158 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 58. Rembrandt, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, signed lower right ‘Rembrandt f 1644’, panel, 83.8 × 65.4 cm. London, National Gallery, inv. no. NG45. © The National Gallery, London.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

159

Fig. 59. Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, signed bottom right on piece of paper ‘J.d.Wet’, canvas, 44.5 × 54.4 cm. Sale Vienna (Dorotheum), 16-3-1976, lot 157. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 60. Rembrandt, Judas returning the thirty silver pieces, 1629, signed and dated center right: ‘R.L. 1629’, panel, 79 × 102.3 cm. Great Britain, private collection. Photo: Sluijter 2015b.

160 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 61. Jacob de Wet, Judas returning the thirty silver pieces, 1636, signed and dated lower center ‘Jde wet / Ao1636’, panel, 65.3 × 51 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 8-5-2007, lot no. 76. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

161

Fig. 62. Jacob de Wet, Judas returning the thirty silver pieces, 1642, signed and dated lower right ‘J. de Wet Ao 1642’, panel, 60 × 83 cm. Copenhagen, National Gallery of Denmark, inv. no. KMSsp754.

Wet surely had Rembrandt’s depiction from 1644 in mind (Fig. 58). De Wet’s woman has folded her hands in her lap, and is being held by a soldier while she kneels before Christ. Two men sit on Christ’s right, while on his left, a Pharisee is leaning against a stick. In the foreground, a boy is getting down on his knees in front of a basket of stones. He resembles the stooping Van Leyden figure, which we have seen repurposed more than once (Figs. 16, 20, 21-24, 36-37, 50, 51-53). The other prototype is a smaller horizontal canvas (Fig. 59) in which the Pharisee sits beside Christ with a book on his lap, and points towards the woman. The adulteress kneels before Christ and clasps her hands, begging for forgiveness. This pose is borrowed in reverse from Rembrandt’s Judas returning the thirty silver pieces (Matthew 27:3-5) (Fig. 60): the scribe in Rembrandt’s painting, seen from the back with his face towards the scene, is depicted in De Wet’s work as well. Jacob de Wet was perfectly familiar with Rembrandt’s Judas, which is further demonstrated by his own depictions of Judas returning the thirty silver pieces in 1636 and 1642 (Figs. 61 and 62). Jacob’s brother Gerrit de Wet painted a vertical version of this arrangement in Christ and the woman taken in adultery, which features an almost exact copy of the main composition and background (compare Figs. 63 to 59). He only made a few adjustments to transfer his brother’s horizontal arrangement to a vertical format

162 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 63. Gerrit de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, signed bottom middle ‘G. de Wet’, panel, 40.5 × 34 cm. St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, inv. no. GE-3101 © The State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Alexander Koksharov.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

163

Fig. 64. Gerrit de Wet, David and Abigail, signed left at half height ‘G. Wet’, support unknown, 105 × 68 cm. London, W.E. Duits, 1929. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

164 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 65. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, 60 × 84.8 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 16-11-2006, lot no. 90. Private collection. Photo © Christie’s Images/Bridgeman Images.

Fig. 66. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, support and size unknown. Bazel, collection F. Woltereck (in 1926). Whereabouts unknown. Image at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 67. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, c. 50 × 93 cm. Denmark, private collection. Photo by Frida Gregersen.

Fig. 68. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, 60.7 × 84.2 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 26-4-2001, lot no. 403. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 69. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, 51 × 76 cm. London, collection Count Bobrinskov (in 1956). Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 70. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, 59.3 × 75.8 cm. Munich, Alte Pinakothek, inv. no. 4960.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

Fig. 71. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, dated on the cap of the Pharisee ‘1650’, panel, 59.5 × 80 cm. Warsaw, Museum Naradowe w Warszawie, inv. no. M.Ob.1657 MNW. Photo by Piotr Safjan.

165

Fig. 72. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, dated on the cap of the Pharisee ‘1657’, panel, 50 × 95 cm. Sale Munich, 3-6-1908, lot no. 60. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 73. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, panel, 82 × 63 cm. Sale Dresden (Helbing), 4-10-1907, lot no. 173. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

166 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 74. Jacob de Wet, Christ and the woman taken in adultery, signed lower right ‘J. de Wet’, panel, 49 × 74 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 9-11-1999, lot no. 42. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

by placing the characters in the central group closer together and replacing the seated figures at the table with a group of standing men. He also used an alternative position for the hands of the kneeling adulteress; her hands are crossed over her chest in Gerrit de Wet’s composition. Gerrit used this pose of the adulteress in at least one other case, in his portrayal of Abigail in David and Abigail (1 Samuel 25:23) (Fig. 64). In this painting, David’s bearing shows strong similarities with Christ in Gerrit’s Christ and the woman taken in adultery. There are many anonymous repetitions of Christ and the woman taken in adultery (Figs. 65-73). They all share a simplified background and composition, and the three main characters (the kneeling adulteress, the standing Christ, and the seated Pharisee) are repeatedly adopted almost directly from Jacob de Wet’s horizontal prototype (Fig. 59). The adulteress keeps her hands down, as seen in the vertical version (Fig. 57). The Pharisee does not point his hand towards the woman (perhaps this was considered too difficult to copy?). The priest and the throne on the elevation seen to the back right of the prototype are omitted in all the repetitions, but the ornaments that decorate the throne are copied, creating a strangely decorated wall. Moreover, the two characters at the table in the prototype are missing, while several new figures have been added. The man who presents the adulteress is not carrying a weapon, and the boy to the

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

167

left with the basket full of stones has been replaced by an old man. He bends over to pick up a rock for stoning the adulteress, a motif known from another Christ and the woman taken in adultery signed by De Wet (Fig. 74). On the left, a richly attired man with a walking stick observes the scene, and is found in the variant works as well. Many anonymous repeated compositions were painted on supports of different sizes. At least three of these seem to be missing the top of the panel (Figs. 67, 69, and 57). The rectangular format of one of the works has been changed into a rounded top that corresponds to Rembrandt’s original from 1644 (compare Figs. 72 and 58).111 Unfortunately, the quality of the only known photograph of this work is not good enough to determine how the painter transferred the composition and staffage to this unusual format, but it does allow us to see that this subject was used in a variety of ways. Two of these paintings bear a date on the cap of the Pharisee, 1650 and 1657 (Figs. 71-72), again demonstrating that the same composition was produced by the workshop over the course of several years. Mass production of De Wet’s designs The preceding analyses of the four subjects show that De Wet’s signed originals often took one of two forms: unsigned simplified versions and signed free variants. The same design was reproduced identically by different hands for several years, and was available in different standard sizes and formats to scale, most probably created with the use of a grid. Compositions, backgrounds, and figure types were created with the purpose of reuse and transferability to other scenes. At the same time, there are also several free variants of these originals. Gael and Verdoel adopted De Wet’s manner, style, and compositions quite literally, and the paintings they produced in the workshop were directly based on De Wet’s designs, though often altered and signed with their own names. These variants must have been created within the context of the vrije gast apprenticeship: a regulation of the Haarlem St. Luke’s Guild stipulated that before registering as masters, painters were required to have worked at least one year as a vrije gast or guest-painter-in-residence in another master’s workshop. The manifold anonymous versions of De Wet’s paintings could have been created in the master’s workshop by pupils and sold as cheaper reproductions for the art market, or may have been produced at the instruction of art dealers operating in the art market itself. As we shall see in the section on the production of the galey-schilder Barend Jansz. Slordt below, Meijeringh appears to have kept paintings from De Wet’s workshop in his attic to be copied by his own employees. Gael’s inclusion of elements from both De Wet’s originals and the simplified design of The triumph of Mordecai, however, suggests that these designs were also present and used in De Wet’s workshop. 111 I have not been able to establish contact with Schloss Tharandt, the (past) owner of this version.

168 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

III

‘In the galley’: the painters employed by Doeck and Meijeringh

Cornelis Doeck and Hendrick Meijeringh had a fully equipped workshop on the top floor of their premises, where painters worked in the employ of the art dealers. This must have been the most important channel for the art dealers to procure their merchandise. As such, their practice differed considerably from that of dealers in Antwerp, who outsourced the work to other workshops.112 Doeck’s last employee before his death was Leendert de Laeff, 64 of whose paintings were listed in the inventory, and Meijeringhs’s final employee was Barend Jansz. Slordt, 69 of whose paintings were in the shop. The nature of this production is revealed by the multiple paintings of the same subject in the inventories, and will be further investigated in this case. Working in the employ of an art dealer was mockingly described as ‘painting in the galley’. A disdainful reference to galley-rowing slaves, the term schildergaley, meaning ‘painter’s galley’, was derived, according to Johan van Gool, from the name or nickname of an art shop in Rome, where an art dealer ‘employed young painters, who had travelled there and had no other form of living, either by a daily fee or per painting’.113 The young painter would be ‘shown a Christ, Our Lady or any other Saint’, which he would copy ‘by the thousand’ for an agreed fee.114 Van Gool dismissed this practice as the exploitation of young painters, pointing out that such demeaning work corrupted the artistic practice of the youths.115 From the pamphlet war that broke out between Van Gool and Gerard Hoet (II) after the publication of De Nieuwe Schouburg, we can infer that working in the employ of art shops in large cities was a relatively common phenomenon in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,116 although not all of these painters could be described as ‘galley painters’. 112 See, for example: Tamis 2016, p. 153; Van Ginhoven 2017, pp. 91-97, 111-117; Vermeylen 2003, pp. 70-74. 113 Van Gool 1750-1751, II, pp. 472-473. 114 Van Gool 1750-1751, II, pp. 472-473. This anecdote is not unique, and we also f ind a reference to a similar painting shop in the work by Karel van Mander: a ‘bad Italian painter called Morett [Francesco Moretto], who would give work to travelling journeymen and would trade the paintings’. Van Mander 1604, p. 289v. Hans von Aachen was one of the painters who worked in the studio of this Moretto: Aikema and Di Lenardo 2010, p. 87. The existence of painting shops that hired foreign assistants to copy works (mostly icons) has been confirmed several times; see among others: Sickel 2012; Osnabrugge 2013, pp. 206-207; Aikema and Di Lenardo 2010, pp. 85-88. 115 Van Gool 1750-1751, II, p. 473. We also come across a reference from Gerard de Lairesse, who warned his readers: ‘it occurs many times that instead of learning something beautiful and extraordinary there [Rome], you are forced, for a long time, and for a small fee that hardly allows you to eke out a living, to Paint in the Galley, as it is known there; here one calls it to work for Keelbeulen [headsmen]. While there all your previously acquired abilities will turn to ashes, and there is no means of escape. And for the rest of your life you shall be a broddler and a Kladaap [daubing-monkey]’. De Lairesse 1701, pp. 49-50. 116 On this pamphlet war, see: De Vries 1985. By 1751, according to Hoet, painting for the art trade had become a shameful business, as art dealers had acquired a bad reputation thanks to the smear campaigns by Houbraken and Weyerman. Prior to that, in all of the major towns there had been ‘more than enough

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

169

The term ‘galley painter’ can be understood to mean a painter who worked in the employment of an art dealer, who had little or no freedom regarding the subjects he painted and who received a set fee. The term is applicable to Jan Harmensz. Vijnck, who worked ‘in the galley’ of the Rotterdam art dealer Crijn Hendricksz. Volmarijn (1648): the shop inventory lists 91 of Vijnck’s landscapes in stock. 117 The term is not applicable to the arrangement that Rembrandt and Govert Flinck had with Hendrick Uylenburgh. In addition to the portrait commissions, these masters could determine which subjects they would paint for Uylenburgh, they were free to paint for themselves, and – even more importantly – they probably took a cut of the art dealer’s revenues.118 In addition to master painters, Uylenburgh also hired young painters to copy the paintings by famous Italian, Flemish, and French masters that were present in the shop for sale.119 The latter cannot be typif ied as ‘galley painters’ either, because they made these copies for training purposes, although Uylenburgh made good money out of them. Contracts were agreed between the art dealer and the painter on a regular basis. Although there are no known examples of ‘galley’ agreements, the contracts in which painters promised to deliver paintings to an art dealer offer some insight into the conditions. In 1656, the Amsterdam painter Willem Robbertsz. (unknown today) agreed to supply the ebony worker Claes Maertsensz. Verboon weekly with paintings of a value of 8 guilders; half of this sum was to be paid in frames.120 In 1645, Pieter van den Bosch and Marten Kretzer drew up a contract to the effect that Van den Bosch would paint everything that the dealer told him to paint, in winter between sunrise and sunset and in summer from seven o’clock in the morning until seven o’clock in the evening, for the princely sum of 1200 guilders per year.121 We also know of examples of young painters who worked in the employ of a dealer or painter before they became master painters, including Adriaen van Ostade, Jan Porcellis, work, both for young and old painters, and there are nowadays still a few alive who painted for art dealers and can bear witness to it. Also, I often heard my late father say that young painters were never in want of work at that time; and that there was a dealer living in Brussels, called Potter, who offered them aside from daily meals a thousand guilders a year. This was so normal in major cities at that time that a painter needed very little money in order to travel.’ Hoet 1751, pp. 20-21. This was endorsed by Van Gool [c. 1751], p. 32. 117 SAR, WK [16], inv. no. 430, pp. 359-404 (fol. 174r-201r), 12-3-1648. According to John Michael Montias, 82 paintings by Jan Hermansz. Vijnck were in the art shop belonging to Crijn Hendricksz. Volmarijn; Montias 1988, p. 251. 118 Van der Veen 2006b, pp. 131, 165. 119 Van der Veen 2006b, pp. 202-205. 120 Bredius 1933. Willem Robbertsz. was baptized in Amsterdam on 7 September 1631 (SAA DTB 41, p. 152), and notice was given of his marriage to Annetje Pouwels on 29 April 1651 (SAA DTB 468, p. 455); see also: ECARTICO database: person no. 16552. 121 Bredius 1934, pp. 188-190.

170 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

and Roelandt Savery.122 These were talented youths, however, all of whom would eventually enjoy successful careers as artists in the upper segment of the market. For an art dealer, employing a painter had the advantage that he was assured of a continuous supply of paintings, and he could adapt his range quickly to fluctuations in demand. In addition, he was able to keep an eye on the material costs, which, as explained above, constituted a relatively large component of the asking price of paintings at the lower end of the market. Art dealers themselves purchased the supports and paint, often in large quantities, from regular producers. They may have supervised the quantity of paint and the types of pigments that were used by the painters. In addition, they had a direct influence on the painters’ painting techniques and working methods. The art dealer could thereby ensure that the materials and time were used efficiently. In the period before the inventories were drawn up, De Laeff and Slordt thus worked as ‘galley painters’ in the employ of the art dealers Doeck and Meijeringh. These inventories provide only a snapshot in time, and it is very likely that the painters produced many hundreds of paintings for the art dealers. This is in stark contrast to the number of signed paintings by these artists that survive today: eight signed paintings by De Laeff and just one signed work by Slordt. The following analyses are therefore of a different nature to those conducted for De Wet’s studio, and they focus on what we can glean from the inventories. It is likely that the majority of works by these painters has been lost. These painters are mentioned exclusively in the shop inventories, and in the absence of these sources and the few signed paintings that happen to have survived, we would never have heard of them. We may assume that many more painters worked in this way for art dealers, and that their names therefore remain unknown to us today. Leendert de Laeff: ‘galley painter’ for Doeck Today, hardly anything is known about Leendert de Laeff. He must have been born around 1630, because the only surviving document that concerns him, dated 24 March 1661, describes him as ‘around 30 years old’.123 The document also states 122 Adriaen van Ostade worked for the ebony worker and art dealer Corstiaen Pieterszn; see: Boers-Goosens 2001, p. 261. In 1615, Jan Porcellis agreed to a contract with Adriaen Delen in Antwerp, in which he had to produce two paintings a week for a period of 20 weeks. He was given an assistant, 15 guilders a week, and a share in the profits from the sales. In following contracts, Delen paid him a fixed sum per painting. Sluijter 2013, pp. 346-347. Roelandt Savery had signed a contract with Jan Thivaert to paint seven panels for 198 guilders; see: Montias 2002, p. 127. This latter contract was of the ‘putting out’ type: Thivaert supplied the painting materials to Savery. 123 Bredius 1916, p. 157; SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. Hellerus, inv. no. 2488, fol. 295, 24-3-1661. For De Laeff’s biography, see: Jager 2016, pp. 311-313.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

171

that he lived on the corner of Beulingstraat in Amsterdam, and that he had been a witness to a stabbing, along with the Haarlem painters Roelof Jansz. van Vries (c. 1630/31-1681/8), Reynier Hals (1627-1672), and Egbert van Heemskerck (I) (c. 1634/5-1704). De Laeff was possibly related to Hendrick, Jan, and Lodewijc Laef from Meisenheim (Germany); this family was registered in Amsterdam and Utrecht in the 1660s.124 Another possible birthplace is The Hague, where another Hendrick de Laeff (d. 1662) was related, via his marriage to Geertruijt Craijwinckel, to the painters Pieter Fransz. Seraets and Adriaen Gerritsz. Vermij (c. 1622/9-before 1658).125 In 1649-1650 and in 1656, Vermij worked in Amsterdam.126 In addition to the many paintings by De Laeff, Doeck’s inventory also contained 33 landscapes by Roelof Jansz. van Vries. We can infer from these large numbers of unsold paintings that both painters are likely to have worked for him shortly before his death in 1664. In 1661, the two painters lived in Amsterdam and spent time together, according to the above-mentioned witness statement. De Vries was a painter who probably did most of his work for the art trade: we also come across his works in the Amsterdam art shops of Pieter van Meldert (1653) and Matthijs Hals (1662), albeit in much smaller numbers.127 The landscape by his brother Michiel van Vries in Doeck’s stock suggests that De Vries, in contrast to De Laeff, worked from his own studio.128 124 Hendrick Laef (d. 1683) from Meisenheim married the Amsterdam-born Elsje van Scheijden (d. 1673) in Utrecht on 26 February 1668; his brother Jan Laef acted as witness: HUA, DTB [711], inv. no. 98, fol. 438. The shoemaker Lodewijc Laef (c. 1634-before 1673) from Meisenheim posted the banns for his marriage to Lidia Abramsdr. de Vos in Amsterdam on 14 April 1668: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 491, p. 478. 125 Hendrick de Laeff married Geertruijt Craijwinckel before 1636, when he acted as her husband and guardian in an inheritance from her mother: HGA, DTB [0377-01], inv. no. 1, fol. 50v, 26-12-1636. The painter Adriaen Gerritsz. Vermij was a son from her earlier marriage to a soldier from Gouda, Gerrit Vermij: HGA, ONA [0372-01], inv. no. 59, fol. 328, 3-11-1656. Geertruijt’s sister, Goutge Craijwinckel, married the painter Pieter Fransz. Seraets in 1633. Buijsen 1998, p. 346. This Hendrick de Laeff might have been related to Hendrick, Jan, and Lodewijk de Laeff from Meisenheim (see note 399). 126 Vermij is listed as ‘painter in Amsterdam’ in a document from 1649: HGA, ONA [0372-01], inv. no. 59, fol. 328, 3-11-1649. He rented a room from Pieter Cornelisz. van Maldegem on Keizersgracht, from where he left fugitively on 8 September 1650: Bredius 1915-1922, vol. 4, p. 1133. Vermij was back in Amsterdam on at least 7 April 1656, when he had his daughter Geertruijt baptized (Hendrick de Laeff is present as witness under the alias Hendrick Oudenhoorn): SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 9, p. 146, 7-4-1656. 127 Pieter van Meldert had a single painting by Roelof Jansz. van Vries, and his name was also listed among the ‘bad debts’ of the estate, with a sum of 11 guilders and 8 stivers; SAA, ONA [5075], not. J. de Vos, inv. no. 1202, fol. 270-286, 1-10-1653. The inventory of the art business of Mathijs Hals lists eight landscapes by De Vries; see: SAA, ONA [5075], not. N. Listingh, inv. no. 2617, fol. 2651, 30-3-1662. 128 The entry reads ‘a landscape by M. Vervries’. The scribe of Cornelis Doeck’s inventory was very sloppy, and used the name ‘Vervries’ 28 times, ‘Reynier de Vries’ four times, and ‘R. Vervries’ and ‘M. Vervries’ each a single time. The paintings listed under ‘Vervries’ could thus be by either painter. This was probably a family studio led by Roelof Jansz. van Vries, who had a more distinguished reputation. Here, these works are thus understood to be by Roelof Jansz. van Vries, not by Michiel van Vries.

172 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

We do not encounter work by De Laeff in other inventories, aside from three paintings in Meijeringh’s shop in 1687: ‘een Italiaens gebouw’ (an Italian building), a history of Naaman, and a Triumph of David. The subjects of these works were not listed in Doeck’s shop. It is not impossible that Meijeringh employed the painter after the death of his neighbour and competitor. It is unclear when De Laeff began working for Doeck. He was already living in Amsterdam in 1661. The earliest known signature by De Laeff dates from 1649, on a painting of a cave with figures (whereabouts currently unknown).129 Doeck also sold this kind of work by De Laeff; in the attic, he had ‘two grotties [caves] by Leendert de Laef’. De Laeff’s production of history paintings for Doeck’s workshop As we know of only eight signed paintings by De Laeff, the primary source of his work is Doeck’s shop inventory. The 64 paintings by De Laeff reflected Doeck’s trade specialization: aside from five paintings with unspecified subjects, all were history paintings. In total, these paintings made up almost a quarter of all of the history paintings that Doeck had in stock, showing that his business was heavily dependent on De Laeff’s production. The artist does not appear to have produced scenes other than history paintings for the art shop. The paintings listed without subjects – ‘twee grotties’ (two caves) and three ‘ovaaltjes’ (oval-shaped paintings) – are most likely to have been history paintings, too. He did paint other scenes, though: a Still life with fruit, insects, and butterflies signed by De Laeff and dated 1664 recently came onto the market (Fig. 75).130 Of the 64 paintings by De Laeff in Doeck’s shop, 57 were in the uppermost loft, where the unpainted supports and empty frames were also kept, and that probably functioned as the shop’s storage area. There were four works in the attic, which was probably the workshop, and three in the binnenkamer, which may have functioned as a sales space or additional storage room. None of his works were kept in the voorhuis, which was the first room to be entered by customers. Evidently, De Laeff’s paintings were not intended to lure potential customers. The inventory lists the subjects of 44 of the 64 paintings by De Laeff.131 They included 34 individual subjects. Doeck had more than one version of several scenes by De Laeff in stock, often of different sizes. This recalls the production in De Wet’s atelier. De Laeff’s production for Doeck heavily emphasized Old 129 Leendert de Laeff, Cave with figures, signed and dated ‘L. de Laef 1649’ (erroneously read as ‘P.D. Laef 1649’), panel, 28 × 33 cm. Sale Ghent (Goesin), 17-5-1766, lot no. 163. RKDexplore Database, RKDexcerpts, Hofstede de Grootfiches, fiche no. 1266767. 130 Leendert de Laeff, Still life with fruit, insects, and butterflies, signed and dated ‘Laeff / 1664’, canvas on panel, c. 61 × 79 cm. London, Richard Taylor Fine Art. 131 The other f ifteen paintings were described more generally as ‘historijen’ (history paintings) and ‘historijetjes’ (small history paintings).

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

173

Fig. 75. Leendert de Laeff, Still life with fruit, insects and butterflies, signed and dated lower right ‘Laeff / 1664’, canvas, 61 × 79 cm. London, Richard Taylor Fine Art, 2019. Image courtesy of Richard Taylor Fine Art.

Testament subjects: the 26 paintings included a number of common, popular themes with a long pictorial tradition, such as Rebecca at the well and Judah and Tamar. But this does not mean that De Laeff always depicted the most common episodes from these stories. Doeck’s inventory reports that one of the unnamed versions was of ‘Judah and Tamar by the f ire’, suggesting that this cheap painting showed the f inal scene of the story when the pyre is ready, but Tamar manages to evade death by showing Judah his signet ring, among other things. This is a different scene from the usual depiction of the pair of lovers, as we see in paintings by, for example, Pieter Lastman and Gerbrandt van den Eeckhout.132 De Wet’s atelier also preferred the spectacular final scene, showing 132 Pieter Lastman, Judah and Tamar, panel, 122.6 × 93 cm. Sale New York (Christie’s), 26-1-2012, lot no. 258; Gerbrand van den Eeckhout, Judah and Tamar, signed and dated 1645, canvas, 67 × 79 cm. Moscow, Pushkin Museum, inv. no. 406.

174 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

the pyre being stoked while Tamar confronts Judah with the ring and the rod (for example, Figs. 76-78). De Laeff also painted a number of less obvious scenes. One unusual scene, for example, is Shimei curses David and casts stones at him (2 Samuel 15-18), of which Doeck had two versions by De Laeff in the large dertigstuiversformaat (and one by an unnamed artist); as far as I know, these are the only examples of this subject in seventeenth-century painting.133 The earliest representation of this Bible story, to my knowledge, is the print that Jan Luyken published in 1712 in his De schriftuurlyke geschiedenissen.134 Other subjects – Daniel conquering the dragon in Babylon by feeding it (Daniel 14:23-41), The gathering of the manna (Exodus 16:17), and The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 10:39) – are encountered only sporadically among the oeuvres of other painters, and then often only by those with a connection to De Wet’s atelier.135 The same is true of the nine paintings with New Testament subjects: in addition to common depictions, such as the Birth of Christ, we also come across more unusual choices, such as Paul before Festus, King Agrippa, and Queen Berenice (Acts 9:26) and The narrow way of virtue and the wide way of vice (Matthew 7: 13-14; Luke 13:24). As mentioned above, the latter theme was frequently painted by Jan Micker in the early seventeenth century (Figs. 13-14). A similarly uncommon theme is that of a striking painting in his surviving oeuvre: Daniel’s accusers are thrown into the lion’s den by King Cyrus (Fig. 79). In addition to the works based on stories from the Old and New Testaments, Doeck also had four mythological works by De Laeff, including a Syrinx is changed into a reed, while fleeing from Pan (Ovid, Metamorphoses I 705) and three versions of The bath of Diana. The latter is the only subject in Doeck’s inventory that was listed three times as having been painted by De Laeff. From the inventory, we learn that one of these was painted on canvas, and was kept unframed in the attic (the workshop). This description suggests that the painting was still on a strainer and was in production at the time. The other two representations of The bath of Diana were kept in the uppermost loft. A painting with The bath of Diana signed by De Laeff was auctioned in London in 1955 (Fig. 80). The painting shows the scene of Diana and Actaeon against a landscape with a ruin, an obelisk, and an unidentifiable statue, with hunters in the background.136 Diana has just pronounced her punishment, as Acteon already has antlers on his head. One remarkable addition is the clothed woman bearing a wreath of flowers on her head to the top right of the nymphs; she most closely resembles 133 The subject is not listed in Sumowski’s subject index: Sumowski 1983-c. 1994, vol. 5, pp. 3398-3438. 134 Luyken 1712, pp. 232-233. 135 These subjects are listed only as by Jacob de Wet or one of his employees/apprentices in Sumowski’s subject index 1983-c. 1994, vol. 5, pp. 3398-3438; pp. 3404 (The gathering of the Manna and The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter) and 3411 (Daniel slays the dragon in Babylon). 136 Sluijter 2000, pp. 82, 111-112, Figure 277.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

175

Fig. 76. Workshop Jacob de Wet, On her way to the stake, Thamar confronts Juda with the ring and the rod he gave her (Genesis 38), panel, 58.5 × 82.2 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 4-10-2007, lot no. 56. Whereabouts unknown. Photo © Sotheby’s.

Fig. 77. Workshop Jacob de Wet, On her way to the stake, Thamar confronts Juda with the ring and the rod he gave her (Genesis 38), panel, 71.5 × 107 cm. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

176 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 78. Workshop Jacob de Wet, On her way to the stake, Thamar confronts Juda with the ring and the rod he gave her (Genesis 38), support and size unknown. Collection C. Sturla, Great Crosby, Lanee. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 79. Leendert de Laeff, Daniel’s accusers are thrown into the lion’s den by king Cyrus, signed lower right on pedestal ‘L. De Laaf’, panel, 44.5 x 58.5 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 5-11-1986, lot no. 410. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

177

Fig. 80. Leendert de Laeff, Diana and Actaeon, signed, panel, 74 × 109 cm. Sale London (Christie’s), 1-7-1955, lot no. 88. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 81. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Amarillys crowns Mirtillo after the kissing contest, panel, 75.5 × 111 cm. Sale Stockholm (Auktionsverk), 11-6-2014, lot no. 3316. Photo © Copyright Stockholms Auktionsverk.

178 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 82. Workshop Jacob de Wet, Amarillys crowns Mirtillo after the kissing contest, canvas, 108.5 × 85 cm. Sale Vienna (Dorotheum), 11-12-2007, lot no. 123. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

179

the figure of Amarillys in a painting of Amarillys crowns Mirtillo after the kissing contest that was attributed to De Wet by the Auktionsverk auction house (Fig. 81). There are other, likewise unsigned, nearly identical versions of Amarillys crowns Mirtillo in a different size by a different hand (compare, for example, to Fig. 82); this is reminiscent of the practice in De Wet’s workshop.137 The figure group of Amarillys flanked by two ladies features in De Laeff’s vertical Esther’s toilet (Esther 5:1) as well, in the form of Esther and two handmaidens (Fig. 83). De Laeff and De Wet? De Laeff’s works are reminiscent of paintings by De Wet, not only in terms of the kinds of subjects he painted for Doeck, but also in terms of the compositions and style of the works that have survived. This can be illustrated with reference to two of the versions of Esther’s toilet that were signed by De Laeff (Figs. 83 and 84). The structure of both compositions is typical of De Wet: a protagonist on an elevation, a compact group of figures made up of several secondary characters, a repoussoir figure seen from behind, and an architectural background with wet-on-wet figures. The same compositional scheme was used in Esther before Ahasuerus (Esther 5:1-4) (Fig. 85), the companion piece of one of the versions of Esther’s toilet (Fig. 83). We previously encountered the motif of a queen with two children holding her train among De Wet’s works (Figs. 40, 42, and 43). De Laeff’s work also has characteristics that never appear in De Wet’s paintings, such as the allegorical addition of Fama with two trumpets at the top right in Esther before Ahasuerus (Fig. 85).138 The versions of Esther’s toilet were painted by De Laeff on a small vertical panel and a large horizontal panel. As we already know from Doeck’s inventory, the same depictions were available in both horizontal and vertical formats. The work on the horizontal support shows the scene obliquely from the side, whilst the vertical work portrays Esther from the front and allows us to look over her servant’s shoulder. Thus here, too, the chosen perspective differs depending on the form of the support, but the central group remains the same: Queen Esther, two maidservants (one of whom adorns her with a pearl necklace), and a third servant who brings clothing or jewellery. The figures and the background of the two works are completely different; 137 Workshop Jacob de Wet, Amarillys crowns Mirtillo after the kissing contest, canvas, 108.5 × 85 cm. Sale Vienna (Dorotheum), 11-12-2007, lot no. 123; Workshop Jacob de Wet, Amarillys crowns Mirtillo after the kissing contest, canvas, 103 × 85 cm. Helsinki, Sinebrychoff Art Museum, inv. no. A I 397; Workshop Jacob de Wet, Amarillys crowns Mirtillo after the kissing contest, canvas, 96.5 × 84.5 cm. Sale London, South Kensington (Christie’s), 30-10-2000, lot no. 92. Note that De Wet sold a ‘doeckie’ (small canvas) of Mirtillo and Amaryllys to Wouter Knijff for 54 guilders in 1662, see p. 128. 138 De Wet never included allegorical additions in his biblical paintings. We know of one allegory by his son Jacob de Wet (II): The blessings of Peace, signed ‘JdWitte’, panel, 78 × 57 cm. Sale Vienna (Dorotheum), 11-6-2003, lot no. 123. De Wet’s Fama carries one trumpet.

180 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 83. Leendert de Laeff, Esther’s toilet (Esther 5:1), signed ‘Leendert De Laef’, panel, 54.5 × 44.5 cm. Sale Brussels (Paleis van Schone Kunsten), 12/14-6-1679, lot no. 616. Whereabouts unknown. Scan from documentation at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 84. Leendert de Laeff, Esther’s toilet (Esther 5:1), signed ‘L. de Laaf’, panel, 92.5 × 125 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s-Mak van Waay), 17-10-1980, lot no. 44. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

181

Fig. 85. Leendert de Laeff, Esther before Ahasuerus (Esther 5:1-4), signed ‘Leendert De Laef’, panel, 54.5 × 44.5 cm. Sale Brussels (Paleis van Schone Kunsten), 12/14-6-1979, lot no. 616. Whereabouts unknown. Scan from documentation at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 86. Willem de Poorter, Esther’s toilet, late 1630s, panel, 39.4 × 30.8 cm. Dublin, National Gallery of Ireland Collection, NGI.380. Photo © National Gallery of Ireland.

182 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

based on these two paintings, it does not appear that De Laeff had to reproduce the same scene in exactly the same way for Doeck, as we saw in the discussion of De Wet’s production. However, De Laeff’s surviving oeuvre is too small to be able to make more definitive statements about this. Moreover, not all of the paintings by De Laeff that are known of today would have been painted for Doeck. Esther’s pose, holding her hand on her chest, and the veiled servant with the necklace directly behind her, recalls Rembrandt’s Young woman at her toilet from 163[3].139 De Laeff was probably familiar with this group of figures from Willem de Poorter’s Esther’s toilet (see Fig. 86), in which three women stand behind Esther and we see a fourth kneeling at her back. We see this group of figures, with some adaptations, in both of De Laeff’s paintings. I do not know whether De Wet also depicted this subject. I argued above that De Poorter and De Wet were at Hendrick Uylenburgh’s atelier in the early 1630s and studied Rembrandt’s work there, and that both produced history paintings in the following period that were very similar in terms of both their subjects and composition. Doeck did not have any works by De Poorter in stock, but he did have 28 paintings from De Wet’s studio for his employees as examples. Doeck had one version of The meeting of Jacob and Joseph in Goshen (Genesis 46:29-30) painted by Gerrit de Wet and two depictions of this scene by De Laeff; likewise he owned one version of Daniel conquering the dragon in Babylon by feeding it by Jacob de Wet and one by De Laeff. None of the works in Doeck’s inventory depicted Esther’s toilet, but his neighbour Meijeringh did have two paintings by an unspecified painter entitled Queen Esther. A commission for an altarpiece In addition to the paintings that De Laeff produced for the stock of Doeck’s art shop, he received at least one commission: The descent from the cross is dated 166[5], and unusually, it is signed ‘Leonardi De Laaff’ (Fig. 87).140 Given its large size (160.3 × 132.5 cm) and its subject matter, the painting probably served as an altarpiece in a private Catholic chapel.141 The painting was commissioned by the husband and wife Jacob van Goltstein and Maria van Schoordijck; their family crest is depicted on a goblet at the bottom right.142 It is unclear how the painting came to be in its current location in Soesterberg.143 It is unlikely that the noble patrons knew De Laeff personally; they probably came across him through the mediation of an art dealer. 139 Rembrandt, Young woman at her toilet, signed and dated ‘Rembrant.f. 163[.]’, canvas, 109.2 × 94.4 cm. Ottawa (Canada), National Gallery of Canada, inv. no. 6089. 140 Jager 2015a. 141 To this day, the painting hangs in a church, the Carolus Borromeüskerk in Soesterberg. It has been there since at least 1906: Cuypers en Kalf 1906, p. 56. 142 My thanks to Marten Jan Bok for identifying this crest. 143 During my efforts to trace the provenance of this painting, I discovered the following: Jacob van Goltstein (1619-1676) was the son of Willem van Goltstein tot Parck, Cloppenburg, en Spaansweert, member of the

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

Fig. 87. Leendert de Laeff, The descent from the cross, signed and dated lower right ‘Leonardi De Laaff fecit Ao 166[5]’, canvas, 160.3 × 132.5 cm. Soesterberg, Pastoriekerk H. Carolus Borromaeus. Photo by author.

183

Fig. 88. Coenraet Waumans, after Rubens, The descent from the cross, engraving, 472 × 348 mm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-P-OB-61.280.

Fig. 89. Rubens and/or studio of Rubens, The descent from the cross, second half of the 1610s, canvas, 2.64 × 1.86 cm. Arras, Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

184 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

The descent from the cross is of a completely different nature to the works discussed above. The central subject of the painting is taken from the print by Coenraet Waumans (Fig. 88) after Rubens’s The descent from the cross in the church of Saint-Jean-Baptiste in Arras, originally painted for the Abbey of Saint-Vaast (Fig. 89).144 This is the only such literal use of an example that we encounter in De Laeff’s work. The painter knew Rubens’s work only from the print, because he chose different colours for the figures’ clothing from those in Rubens’s altarpiece. The poses of Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Christ, and Mary Magdalene have been copied from the print, as have the stairs and the dish on the ground. In De Laeff’s painting, the place where Mary is standing has been taken by a strange, almost contemporary figure with a beret, one of the two additional anonymous figures, who help Joseph and Nicodemus to lower the body. By contrast, Mary is depicted on the right of the painting, where, fainting, she is being cared for by John the Baptist. This ‘Catholic’ motif was probably added at the patrons’ request; after the Counter-Reformation, it was rarely depicted by artists, with the exception of Rembrandt and other painters in his circle.145 De Laeff also copied the addition of knighthood of Nijmegen, and Maria Catharina van Wees. In 1641, together with his mother, Jacob sold Cloppenburg and Klein Spaansweert in Brummen; see: Wittert van Hoogland 1913, p. 141. Maria van Schoordijck was a daughter of the knight Jacob van Schoordijck, Lord of Rijnauwen, Oudenrijn, and Heycoop, and Maria Baltens (buried 4 January 1622, Utrecht), Lady of Baerlant, Bakendorp, Oudelant, and Stuyvesant. Jacob van Goltstein and Maria van Schoordijck were married in 1646 and had two children: a son, Willem van Goltstein, and a daughter, Catharina van Goltstein. Jacob van Goltstein pursued a military career and worked as a lieutenant, colonel of the infantry, colonel (1671-1672) and commander of Kampen (1674); HUA, access no. 26, Goltstein Familie Des Tombe, inv. no. 30. Unlike some of the other members of the family, this branch is not mentioned in Nederland’s Adelsboek 1942, p. 164. On 4 September 2013, a portrait of Jacob van Goltstein in armour was auctioned at Bonhams: Sale Oxford (Bonhams), 4-9-2013, lot no. 171. Jacob’s sister, Maria Margaretha van Goltstein, was married to Maria van Schoordijck’s brother, Huijbert, from whom Jacob received the ridderhofstad (knight’s seat) of Rhijnauwen, as the husband and guardian of Maria van Schoordijck, on 1 October 1669. On 17 April 1671, Maria van Schoordijck inherited the ridderhofstad of Huis te Vleuten (Hofstede De Eng) from her cousin, Maria van Winssen; Wittert van Hoogland 1913, pp. 141, 456; Kort 1997. After Jacob van Goltstein’s death on 11 November 1674, the ridderhofstad of Rhijnauwen on 7 April 1708 (?) was left to his daughter Catharina; his son, Willem, who was a captain, had drowned at Gorinchem in 1673. By virtue of a decree dated 15 March 1717 against Catharina van Goltstein, David ten Hove, Lord of Nieuwael, received the ridderhofstad. Wittert van Hoogland 1913, pp. 141-142. When Maria van Schoordijck died in 1676, Huis te Vleuten was transferred in 1678 by testament not to her daughter, but from her cousin, Maria van Winssen, to Johan van Egmond van de Nijenburg, former burgomaster of Alkmaar; Wittert van Hoogland 1913, p. 456; Kort 1997. 144 Another version of this painting was bought in 1621 for the cathedral in Kalisz (Poland): Białostocki 1964, p. 519. The painting was destroyed during a fire in 1973. 145 We see the motif of Mary fainting, for example, in: Rembrandt, The descent from the cross, c. 1632-1633, panel, 89.4 × 65.2 cm. Munich, Alte Pinakothek, inv. no. 395; Rembrandt, The descent from the cross, 1634, canvas, 159.3 × 116.4 cm. St. Petersburg, Hermitage, inv. no. ГЭ-753; Gijsbert Jansz. Sibilla, The descent from the cross, 1645, canvas, 119 × 95 cm. Arnhem, Historisch Museum Het Burgerweeshuis (orphanage museum), inv. no. GM 5433; Salomon Koninck, The descent from the cross, 1653, canvas, 107 × 88.5 cm. Sale London (Sotheby’s), 29-7-2009, lot no. 45.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

185

Pontius Pilate, pictured here on the left, from depictions based on Rembrandt’s The descent from the cross. Once again, the still life in the right-hand corner is typical of painters from De Wet’s studio. Although I have been unable to clarify the relationship between De Laeff, De Wet, and De Poorter, it is possible that De Laeff trained as a painter in Haarlem; as mentioned above, he associated with several painters from Haarlem in 1661. He may even have trained with De Wet, whose studio records are missing for the period between De Laeff’s fifteenth and nineteenth years (1645-1649); by then, De Poorter had already settled in Beverwijk. Barend Jansz. Slordt, galley-painter for Meijeringh146 Barend Jansz. Slordt was born in Medemblik around 1625, and married Griet Willemsdr. Verwer there in 1653.147 Slordt worked in Medemblik as an ironmonger, doing business with an iron-buyer in Amsterdam. In 1661, the couple moved to Hoorn, where they joined the congregation of the Reformed Church in September of that year. Slordt must have started painting full-time in Hoorn, for on 11 January 1662, he was described as a ‘painter and former ironmonger’.148 In Hoorn, his paintings were sold by the female art dealer Luijtgen Willemsdr., from whom he demanded ‘payment of 32 guilders and 18 stivers for both frames and paintings that have been made and sold’ in January 1664.149 The art dealer had to pay back the 32 guilders and return the unsold paintings. Unfortunately, there is no record of how many paintings were involved, but the works cannot have been highly valuable in view of the total sum. By the end of 1674, after the French occupation of large parts of the Republic and its disastrous effect on the art market, Slordt appears to have racked up considerable debts, including 144 guilders in outstanding rent to Jan Cornelisz. Ouwejan and 119 guilders to Lysbeth Bruijns.150 In order to settle these debts, all of his possessions were sold under distress, a fate met by many artists in those years. Not long afterwards, in January 1675, Slordt remarried, this time to Marijtje Cornelis from Schermerhorn.151 Griet Willemsdr. must have died between December 1672 146 Parts of this section were previously published in: Jager 2014. My warm thanks to John R. Brozius, who kindly shared the biographical data on Slordt that he had collected in the Westfries Archief. 147 The Medemblik marriage records from 13 October 1641 until 27 September 1664 have not survived, but it is likely that they were married in or before 1653, because their f irst son, Jan, was baptized on 25 March 1654; see: WFA, DTB Medemblik [1702-20], inv. no. 1, fol. 151, 25-3-1654. 148 WFA, Hoorn ORA [0003], inv. no. 4254, 11-1-1662. 149 WFA, Hoorn ORA [0003], inv. no. 4437, 15-1-1664. 150 WFA, Hoorn ORA [0003], inv. no. 4462, 19-12-1674. 151 WFA, Hoorn DTB [1702-17], inv. no. 66, fol. 223 (5-1-1675/20-1-1675).

186 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

(the baptismal registration of her last child) and January 1675.152 Slordt moved to the place of residence of his new wife, Schermerhorn.153 The latter lies around 40 kilometres north of Amsterdam, and it took just a day to travel there by water in the seventeenth century. We know little about life in Schermerhorn at that time, because in 1699 a large fire not only destroyed much of the small town but also the majority of the archives predating that year.154 We come across the name Slordt in Schermerhorn until 1690,155 but his name is missing from the list of surviving members who were registered after the fire in 1699.156 However, the list does include a Maritje Cornelis, the wife of Hendrick Muerkens. Perhaps she was Slordt’s widow, implying that Slordt had died between 1690 and 1699. Periodic work for Meijeringh There is only one signed painting known by Slordt. The primary source of his paintings is therefore Meijeringh’s shop inventory, where 69 paintings by him are listed, mainly in the sales room. These works reflect Meijeringh’s specialization: 53 of them were history paintings. Taken as a whole, the paintings by Slordt accounted for more than a quarter of all the history paintings in stock, showing that, just as with Doeck and De Laeff, Meijeringh’s business was heavily dependent upon Slordt’s production. In addition to history paintings, the painter also produced other scenes for the art dealer, whose stock included nine landscapes ‘met beestjens’ (with cattle), five naval battles, and two ‘bancquetjens’ (banquet pieces) by Slordt. Slordt probably painted anything that the art dealer required at the time. In the shop, customers could buy the same scene in different sizes and in landscape or portrait format. For example, Meijeringh had three versions of Joseph’s cup found in Benjamin’s sack (Genesis 44:6-12) by Slordt in stock, one in salvatorsmaat and two in tienstuiversmaat, one of which was in horizontal and the other in vertical format. He had as many as six versions of other subjects by Slordt in stock, among which Joseph is sold for twenty pieces of silver by his brothers to the Medianites (Genesis 37:28) and The gathering of the manna. Many of these subjects were also produced in De Wet’s atelier. In view of the enormous number of paintings by his hand in the inventory, it is likely that Meijeringh employed Slordt to paint in his attic studio. However, Slordt 152 WFA, Hoorn DTB [1702-17], inv. no. 8, fol. 203, 18-12-1672 (Sijtje). 153 Slordt’s move to Schermerhorn is mentioned in the banns of his marriage (see note above) and in a notarial deed regarding his guardianship: WFA, ONA Hoorn [1685], not. Van der Heijde, inv. no. 2132, 30-6-1675. 154 See, among others: Kampf-Rekelhof 1996, p. 33; Kregel and Schilstra 1983, pp. 79-92. 155 Slordt is mentioned in documents in 1682, 1689, and 1690: RAA, ORA/WK Schermerhorn [10.3.006.2], inv. no. 6308, fol. 135v, 20-2-1682; inv. no. 6309, fol. 51v, 11-6-1689, fol. 60v, 1-5-1690. 156 RAA, DTB Schermerhorn [65.3.002], inv. no. 4, fol. 3.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

187

Fig. 90. Barend Jansz. Slordt, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, signed and dated lower right ‘Exodus / B.J. Slordt 1680’, panel, 71 × 107.5 cm. Sale Amsterdam (Christie’s), 19-5-1984, lot no. 69. Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

Fig. 91. Matthaeus Merian, Pharao verdrenckt in ‘t Roode Meyr, engraving, in: Merian [1648], p. 86. The Hague, RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. Photo by author.

188 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

lived in Schermerhorn, and his presence in Amsterdam has not been confirmed in the archives to date. That he nevertheless must have worked in Amsterdam becomes plausible when we compare the only painting that Slordt signed, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea (Fig. 90), with two versions of the same scene signed by Adriaen Gael (Figs. 36-37).157 Note that Meijeringh kept paintings from De Wet’s workshop in his attic as examples for his employees. One of these was a painting of Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea by Gael. Slordt’s composition is very similar to Gael’s painting in Budapest (Fig. 36), due to the similar landscape elements at the bottom, the placement of the Red Sea and the pharaoh and horses on the left-hand side, and the remarkably high rock towering above Moses and his followers on the right-hand side. The other painting of the same subject by Gael shows almost the same scene, although in reverse form and with several adjustments to the staffage (Fig. 37). Slordt did not paint a copy after either work by Gael. A few of Gael’s figures feature in his work, such as the woman with a child on her lap (a trope that Slordt even depicted twice in this scene), the man with the turban, the group of men with lances in the background, the horses and chariot, and the man to the left of the centre in the foreground. Slordt made some adjustments to these figures as well; he assigned a different role to the figure kneeling at the water’s edge, for example, by showing him pulling someone out of the water. The pose of the Moses figure, which differs from that in the works by Gael, seems to have been based on the Moses in one of the biblical prints by Matthaeus Merian that were also inventoried in Meijeringh’s attic (Fig. 91). The comparison suggests that Slordt worked in Amsterdam. It is unlikely that Slordt had access to such a painting in his hometown of Hoorn or Schermerhorn. He would have seen this type of work in Meijeringh’s attic, where it was hung as an example for the employees. It is also unlikely that Slordt came to Amsterdam simply to copy examples, incorporate them into paintings back in Schermerhorn, and then transport the finished paintings back to Meijeringh. Rather, Slordt would have painted for the shop in Meijeringh’s attic for certain periods, while he continued to be registered as a resident of Schermerhorn. Recruiting temporary employees from outside the city presumably had certain benefits; they could be employed for a lower wage, because the cost of living (for their family) was much cheaper outside Amsterdam. These ‘unofficial’ citizens fell beyond the jurisdiction of the city and the reach of the guild. 157 The signed work appeared under lot no. 69 at an auction at Christie’s Amsterdam on 29 May 1984, whereby the signature was erroneously interpreted as B.G. Slordt. The actual signature reads ‘Exodus / B.J. Slordt 1680’. At this same auction, an anonymous panel of 66 × 96 cm was sold under lot 70, showing Joseph receiving his brothers. There is no picture in the catalogue, but it was stated that the painting might have been ‘by the same artist as the previous lot’. The Christie’s database does not go back further than 1987, meaning that the photograph and the buyers cannot be traced.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

189

As stated before, employing a painter could be advantageous for an art dealer: he was assured of a continuous supply of paintings, and he could adapt his range quickly to fluctuations in demand. This latter point may explain why Meijeringh also stocked a number of landscapes and naval battles by Slordt, who mainly painted history paintings. Moreover, employing a painter allowed a dealer to keep an eye on his employee’s productivity, the quality of the work and the extent of the labour costs. This was more important for an art dealer specializing in cheap paintings than for a dealer at the top of the market. This explains the standardized production in series and the maximization of the cost-effective use of painting materials that characterize these paintings. Such paintings must have taken a few days, at most, to produce; the wage of a skilled labourer was about a guilder a day. We can only guess what Slordt earned per painting, but it cannot have been much. Cheap production methods Different versions of the same scene, the use of a limited number of standard sizes and the organization of the shop’s stock according to size all point to cheap series production, whereby the price of a painting was dependent on its dimensions, not the name of the artist or the quality of the brushwork. This cheap production method becomes evident when we analyse Slordt’s Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea and a similar, smaller version of this painting, now in the Edams Museum (Fig. 92).158 On both panels, the Israelites help each other onto land after their leader, Moses, has created a passage for them through the Red Sea; Moses holds out his staff, causing the sea to flow back and drown the Pharaoh with his horsemen and chariots. The Edam panel was painted by an artist with even less painting skill. Like the signed work, the execution suggests that the painting was produced in a short period of time and that savings were made on material and labour. Despite having been sawn radially in a mill, the oak support, which is 8 mm thick throughout, is relatively thin. The panel shows no signs of having been reduced, and its thinness must be why the sides of the panel were not bevelled. The light-coloured underlayer has been applied thinly, allowing the grain of the wood to shine through. The landscape is simple and painted in a single layer. The figures were added with a limited number of bright colours applied to the base layer in a thin layer of paint. In other words, savings were made not on the durability of the materials, but on their quantity, through eff icient use. Another feature shared by the two panels is that the figures appear to have been ‘stuck onto’ the landscape. They have very little depth and are highlighted with rather crude strokes of white paint. 158 Jager 2012 & 2014.

190 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 92. Employee of Hendrick Meijeringh, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, panel, 55.7 × 79.5 cm. Edam, Edams Museum. Photo by author.

The comparison demonstrates that exactly the same scenes were produced in different sizes, as already shown by the inventories. Most of the figures appear in both paintings, and although small adjustments have been made to their placement, they have the same poses and clothing. The signed panel is much larger than the panel in Edam and there is thus more to see on each side. In the smaller painting, the landscape and the sky have simply been ‘condensed’ in every direction. Moreover, the figures on the large panel are the same size as the figures on the small panel. The result is that the compositions have different proportions. This points at an important difference with the practice in De Wet’s workshop, where, as demonstrated above, the proportions of the design remained intact in repetitions on differently sized supports. It is difficult to say whether the Edam panel can be attributed to Slordt.159 The depiction and the execution are similar to the signed work, and there is no doubt 159 Since the signed work appeared at Christie’s in 1984, various auction houses have been too quick to attribute works to Slordt, apparently on the simple grounds that they depict religious subjects of inferior

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

191

that they were created in the same environment. The composition of the landscape showing Mount Sinai, with a tree on the right and the Red Sea on the left, is the same in both paintings; however, the shape of the mountain is different and the clouds have been drawn in a completely different way. The aim of this type of painting production was thus not to produce identical paintings, but to create a scene recognizable to the customer, in a range of sizes, quickly and cheaply. The disparities in the execution of the details – especially the differently coloured cloudy sky and the even sloppier execution – appear exemplary of series production. A further possibility is that another painter in Meijeringh’s atelier produced the Edam painting with the same template that Slordt had used. The signed work was indeed painted somewhat more carefully, suggesting that the second was a more rapidly produced, cheaper (due to the smaller size) repetition by Slordt or by another one of Meijeringh’s employees. The higher-quality works were signed and sold under the name of the artist. It is likely that the two paintings were traded via Meijeringh’s shop. As mentioned above, the art dealer stocked Slordt’s Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea in two different sizes, and he also had an ‘anonymous’ version in a third size. They did not necessarily need to be identical to the works in the inventory. The fact that the art shop had six versions of other subjects by Slordt gives the impression that the painter depicted the same scenes repeatedly.

Conclusion Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh sold paintings in the cheap segment of the market, and therefore had to purchase paintings while keeping cost in mind. In contrast to the top of the market, with its master painters who charged high rates, the cost of labour was not the determining factor in the asking price in this segment of the market. Rather, the material costs must have formed a relatively important component. It is therefore remarkable that the paintings themselves suggest that no savings were made on the quality and durability of the materials; this had not been the case, for instance, for the rapid production of watercolour paintings on cheap and fragile linen in Mechelen in the sixteenth century. Meijeringh even procured his supports and frames from the same supplier as the high-end dealer Gerrit Uylenburgh. There was a clear preference for oak supports in this segment, quality. Anonymous, The sacrifice of Abigail, panel, 57.5 × 84 cm. Sale London (Phillips), 1-7-1997, lot no. 166; Anonymous, The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon (as: Esther and King Ahasuerus), panel, 70.8 cm x 103.3 cm. Sale London, Bonhams, 23-4-2008, lot no. 44; Anonymous, Prayer for a child, panel, 28.5 × 48 cm. Sale London (Phillips), 8-7-1993, lot no. 265.

192 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

and those that could be studied were of good quality. Although material-technical research was not carried out on the quality of the pigments, the brightness of the colours suggests that no savings were made. Savings were made on the labour costs, however, by using multiple cheap labourers and by employing certain methods of invention and execution. Dammeroen’s stock consisted of landscapes with staffage: he himself was a landscape painter, and he had other painters, among which Jan Micker, add staffage depicting scenes from the Bible. Micker added staffage for other painters, too, and often reused the same f igures in different scenes. Jacob de Wet produced multiple versions of the same scene in a limited number of standard sizes, done to scale, with his apprentices, assistants, and family members. The same compositions, backgrounds, and typical f igures were used for a variety of scenes, and were probably designed with an eye to being used and transferred multiple times. Here we see an additional advantage to using standardized panel formats, which allowed models to be reused without having to make changes to the composition or the proportions. The ‘galley painters’ Leendert de Laeff and Barend Jansz. Slordt also produced multiple versions of the same scene in different sizes for art dealers. The painting, signed by Slordt, of Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea and an unsigned repetition in a smaller size suggest the use of templates. The same stock figures that we see in the work of De Wet and his pupils also feature in De Laeff’s and Slordt’s work. It is likely that the same models were also used by other employees of Doeck and Meijeringh. The mass production discussed here differs from other ‘dime-a-dozen’ work in a number of respects. First, we are struck by the difference in the origin of the design. Other known dosijnwerck was compiled of passages derived from works by other painters or prints.160 Rubens’s designs appear to have dominated series production in Antwerp; his sketches were in the possession of painters and art dealers and were often reproduced literally in various forms for the art market – ranging from small, portable paintings to copper plates for decorating Antwerp’s cabinets.161 By contrast, the compositions discussed here appear to have been developed specifically for mass production, and the designs were not or were hardly derived from the compositional and stylistic inventions at the top of the market. Rembrandt’s composition of small figures in a dark interior, with an elevated protagonist looking down on standing and kneeling figures, only resonates in this sector through the work of De Wet. Second, it is striking that these mass-produced paintings were not marketed anonymously per se. This is particularly evident from the paintings by De Laeff and Slordt, which were signed and kept in the shop under their names. It is difficult 160 This was shown for Franciscus Hamers and Johannes Croon; see: De Kinkelder 2005 and Heslenfeld 2013. 161 Jager 2019; Wieseman 2004.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

193

to reconcile this unusual practice with the fact that these dealers mainly sold by subject, not by name. This may reflect the fact that authenticity was considered increasingly important in the second half of the seventeenth century.162 Did the buyers of cheap works such as these also become interested in purchasing an ‘original’ in this period, even if it was signed by someone whose name is unlikely to have been familiar to anyone? Regarding one key point, this form of mass production did correspond to what we know of production in Flanders: namely, that the art dealer played a decisive role. Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh knew their market well. Staffage could be added to Dammeroen’s landscapes based on current trends, and De Wet’s underpainted, standardized compositions could be decorated with the right attributes for a particular biblical scene, depending on demand. It may have been precisely this flexible applicability that resulted in De Wet’s compositions, groups of figures, and narrative elements dominating the lower end of the market.163 After all, De Laeff and Slordt also used De Wet’s paintings as examples in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s workshops. The question therefore remains as to whether the many anonymous paintings based on De Wet’s prototypes were in fact all made in his studio, or whether they were produced in the workshops of art dealers. The fact remains that with so many pupils, De Wet certainly had the production capacity for this.

Works cited Aikema, Bernard and Isabella di Lenardo, ‘The Formative Years in Italy – Stylistics and Social Networks’, in Hans von Aachen (1552-1615): Court Artist in Europe, ed. by Thomas Fusenig (Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2010), 85-93. Apted, Michael R. and Susan Hannabuss (eds.), Painters in Schotland 1301-1700: A Biographical Dictionary (Edinburgh: Edina Press, 1978). Auwera, Joost Vander, ‘Afgemeten, ingelijst en opgelijst. Kanttekeningen bij enkele aanvullingen op het oeuvre van Artus Wolffort (Antwerpen 1581-1641)’, in Munuscula Amicorum. Contributions on Rubens and his Colleagues in Honour of Hans Vlieghe (Pictura Nova: Studies in 16th and 17th century Flemish Painting and Drawing 10), ed. by Kathlijne Van der Stighelen, 2 vols. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), II, 593-612. Bambach, Carmen C., Drawing and Painting in the Italian Renaissance Workshop: Theory and Practice, 1300-1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Białostocki, Jan, ‘The Descent from the Cross in Works by Peter Paul Rubens and His Studio’, The Art Bulletin 46 (1964), no. 4, 511-524. 162 Tummers 2008, pp. 37-38. 163 Sluijter 2015b, pp. 215-269.

194 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Biesboer, Pieter, ‘Nicolaes Pietersz Berchem, meester-schilder van Haarlem’, in Nicolaes Berchem: In het licht van Italië, ed. by Pieter Biesboer (Ghent: Ludion, 2006), 10-37. Blankert, Albert, ‘Invulportretten door Caspar en Constantyn Netscher’, Oud Holland 81 (1966), 263-269. Blankert, Albert, Nederlandse 17e eeuwse Italianiserende landschapschilders/Dutch 17th Century Italianate Landscape Painters (Soest: Davaco, 1978). Boers-Goosens, Marion, Schilders en de markt, Haarlem 1605-1635 (Diss. Leiden University, 2001). Bok, Marten Jan, ‘Pricing the Unpriced: How Dutch 17th-Century Painters Determined the Selling Price of Their Work’, in Art Markets in Europe, 1400-1800, ed. by Michael North and David Ormrod (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), 101-110. Bowron, Edgar Peters, ‘A Brief History of European Oil Paintings on Copper, 1560-1775’, in Copper as Canvas: Two Centuries of Masterpiece Paintings on Copper, 1575-1775, ed. by Michael K. Komanecky (New York: Phoenix Art Museum/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 9-30. Bredius, Abraham, ‘De boeken van het Leidsche St. Lucas-Gilde’, in Obreen 1877/18781888/1890, V, 172-259. Bredius, Abraham, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur geschichte der holländische kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten jahrhunderts, 7 vols. (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1915-1922). Bredius, Abraham, ‘De schilder Leendert de Laeff’, Oud Holland 34 (1916), 155-157. Bredius, Abraham, ‘Het schetsboek van Jacob de Wet’, Oud Holland 37 (1919), 215-222. Bredius, Abraham, ‘Een schilderscontract’, Oud Holland 51 (1934), 188-190. Brink, Peter van den, ‘De kunst van het kopiëren: Het waarom en hoe van het vervaardigen van kopieën en schilderijen in oplage in de Nederlanden in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw’, in De Firma Brueghel, ed. by Peter van den Brink (Maastricht: Bonnefantenmuseum, 2001). Brown, Peter Hume, Early Travellers in Scotland (Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1891). Bruyn, J., ‘Een onderzoek naar 17de-eeuwse schilderijformaten, voornamelijk in NoordNederland’, Oud Holland 93 (1979), 96-115. Brydall, Robert, Art in Scotland: Its Origin and Progress (Edinburgh: W. Blackwood and sons, 1889). Cuypers, Petrus Josephus Hubertus and Jan Kalf, De katholieke kerken in Nederland: dat is de tegenwoordige staat dier kerken met hunne meubeling en versiering beschreven en afgebeeld (Amsterdam: Van Holkema & Warendorf, 1906). Dijkstra, Jeltje, Origineel en kopie. Een onderzoek naar de navolging van de Meester van Flémalle en Rogier van der Weyden (Diss. University of Amsterdam, 1990). ECARTICO-database, Economic and Artistic Competition in the Amsterdam Art Market. Linking Cultural Industries in the Early Modern Low Countries, ca. 1475-ca. 1725 (ECARTICO), Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam. Faries, Molly and Liesbeth M. Helmus, De Madonna’s van Jan van Scorel, 1495-1562: Serieproductie van een geliefd motief (Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 2000).

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

195

Gent, Judith van, ‘De tijd van de koningen en de profeten’, in Het Oude Testament in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Christian Tümpel (Amsterdam: Jewish Historical Museum, 1991), 88-105. Ginhoven, Sandra van, Connecting Art Markets: Guilliam Forchondt’s Dealership in Antwerp (c. 1632-78) and the Overseas Paintings Trade (Leiden: BRILL, 2017). Gool, Johan van, De nieuwe schouburg der Nederlantsche kunstschilders en schilderessen: Waer in de levens- en kunstbedryven der tans levende en reets overleedene schilders, die van Houbraken, noch eenig ander schryver, zyn aengeteekend, verhaelt worden, 2 vols. (The Hague, printed for the author, 1750-1751). Gool, Johan van, Antwoordt op den zoo genaemden Brief aen een Vrient, Mitsgaders noch op de intrërede voor het eerste deel der Catalogus van Schilderyen, beide in druk uitgegeeven door Gerard Hoet, ter afwissinge van den Laster en Schendtael, In die beide Geschriften uitgespoogen, zo op den Schryver van de Nieuwe Schouburg der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen als op deszelfs Meede Kunstgenooten, no place, no year [c. 1751]. Guilding, Ruth A., ‘The De Wet Apostle Paintings in the Chapel at Glamis Castle’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 116 (1986), 429-445. Hanou, Jos, ‘Hagar in Amsterdam: Patronen van een afscheid’ (Unpublished paper: University of Amsterdam, 2009). Haverkorn van Rijsewijk, P., ‘De schilder Jakob de Wet in Schotland’, Oud Holland 17 (1899), 191-192. Henny, Xenia, ‘Hoe kwamen de Rotterdamse schilders aan hun verf? ’t Hemelrijck, leverancier van schildersbenodigdheden’, in Rotterdamse Meesters uit de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Nora Schadee (Rotterdam: Museum Rotterdam, 1994), 43-53. Heslenfeld, Marijke, ‘“Zo gaan er dertien in een dozijn” Johannes Croon, dozijnschilder in Amsterdam’, in Liber amicorum Marijke de Kinkelder: Collegiale bijdragen over landschappen, marines en architectuur, ed. by Charles Dumas et al. (Zwolle: Waanders, 2013), 199-210. Hoet, Gerard, Brief aan een’ Vrient. Behelzende eenige aanmerkingen op het eerste Deel van den Nieuwen Schouburg der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen, door Johan van Gool (The Hague, printed for the author, 1751). Holloway, James, Patrons and Painters: Art in Scotland 1650-1760 (Edinburgh: Scottish National Portrait Gallery, 1989). Houbraken, Arnold, De groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen, waar van ‘er vele met hunne beeltenissen ten tooneel verschynen, …zynde een vervolg op het schilderboek van K. van Mander, 3 vols. (The Hague: Houwbraken, 1718-1721). Huys Janssen, Paul and Werner Sumowski, The Hoogsteder Exhibition of Rembrandt’s Academy (The Hague: Hoogsteder and Hoogsteder, 1992). Jager, R. de, ‘Meester, leerjongen, leertijd. Een analyse van zeventiende-eeuwse NoordNederlandse leerling-contracten van kunstschilders, goud- en zilversmeden’, Oud Holland 104 (1990), no. 2, 69-110. Jager, Angela, ‘De doortocht door de Rode Zee van Barend Jansz. Slordt’, Oud Edam 36 (2012), no. 3, 14-15.

196 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Jager, Angela, ‘Barend Jansz. Slordt (ca. 1625-na 1690), “galey-schilder” uit Schermerhorn’, Oud Holland 127 (2014), no. 4, 223-233. Jager, Angela, ‘De kruisafname van Leendert de Laeff, 1665’, Samengaan. Maandblad geloofsgemeenschappen Heilige Willibrord en St. Carolus Borromeus 3 (2015), no. 8, 16-17. Jager, Angela, ‘Galey-schilders’ en ‘dosijnwerck’: De productie, distributie en consumptie van goedkope historiestukken in zeventiende-eeuws Amsterdam (Diss. University of Amsterdam, 2016). Jager, Angela, ‘The Workshop of Jacob de Wet (1610-1675) and his Mass Production of History Painting’, Oud Holland 131 (2018), no. 2, 67-108. Jager, Angela, ‘Quantity over Quality? Dutch and Flemish Paintings in a Danish Private Collection’, in Trading Paintings and Painters’ Materials 1550-1800 (CATS Proceedings IV), ed. by Anne Haack Christensen and Angela Jager (London: Archetype Publications, 2019), 26-38. Kampf-Rekelhof, C.C.M., ‘Soo vuur en d’hamer ’t yser kneest sulx doet in ons godts woort en geest’: De Grote Kerk van Schermerhorn (Schermerhorn: Oudheidkundige Vereniging Graft-De Rijp, 1996). Karst, Sander, ‘Off to a New Cockaigne: Dutch Migrant Artists in London, 1660-1715’, Simiolus 37 (2013-2014), 25-60. Kinkelder, Marijke C. de, ‘Franciscus Hamers, dozijnschilder in Antwerpen’, Oud Holland 118 (2005), no. ¾, 203-212. Kolfin, Elmer, The Young Gentry at Play: Northern Netherlandish Scenes of Merry Companies 1610-1645 (Leiden: Primavera, 2005). Koopstra, Anna, ‘De Antwerpse “witter ende paneelmaker” Melchior de Bout (werkzaam 1625/26-1658): leverancier van “ready-made” panelen voor de Parijse markt’, Oud Holland 123 (2010), no. 2, 108-124. Kort, J.C., ‘Repertorium op de lenen van de hofstede De Eng te Vleuten, 1506-1678’, De Nederlandsche Leeuw 114 (1997), 72-75. Kregel, S. and J.J. Schilstra, De Schermeer en zijn Randdorpen (no location, 1983). Lairesse, Gerard de, Grondlegginge ter teekenkonst, zynde een korte en zeekere weg om door middel van de geometrie of meetkunde, de teeken-konst volkomen te leeren (Amsterdam: by Willem de Coup, 1701). Lammertse, Friso, ‘Het kunstbedrijf van Gerrit Uylenburgh tussen 1655 en 1675’, in Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006, 207-287. Lammertse, Friso and Jaap van der Veen, Uylenburgh & Zoon: Kunst en commercie van Rembrandt tot De Lairesse 1625-1675 (Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum, 2006). Leeflang, Micha, ‘Uytnemende Schilder van Antwerpen’ Joos van Cleve: atelier, productie en werkmethoden (Diss. University of Groningen, 2007). Lloyd Williams, Julia, Dutch Art and Scotland: A Reflection of Taste (Edinburgh: National Gallery of Scotland, 1992). Luyken, Jan, De schriftuurlyke geschiedenissen en gelykenissen van het Oude en Nieuwe verbond (Amsterdam: by de Wed: Pieter Arentz and Kornelis vander Sys, 1712).

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

197

Martin, Wilhelm, ‘Een kunsthandel in een klappermanswachthuis’, Oud Holland 19 (1901), 86-88. Meurs, Peter van, ‘Iets over de Hollandsche schilders De Wet en hun Zuidafrikaansche Nakomelingen’, Oud Holland 18 (1890), 229-232. Miedema, Hessel, De archiefbescheiden van het St. Lukasgilde te Haarlem 1497-1798 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Canaletto, 1980). Miedema, Hessel, ‘Verder onderzoek naar zeventiende-eeuwse schilderij-formaten in Noord-Nederland’, Oud Holland 95 (1981), 31-49. Montias, John Michael, ‘Cost and Value in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art’, Art History 10 (1987), no. 4, 455-466. Montias, John Michael, ‘Art Dealers in the Seventeenth-Century Netherlands’, Simiolus 18 (1988), no. 4, 244-256. Montias, John Michael, ‘Estimates of the Number of Dutch Masterpainters, their Earnings and their Output in 1650’, Leidschrift 6 (1990), no. 3, 59-74. Montias, John Michael, Art at Auction in 17th Century Amsterdam (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2002). Montias-Frick Database, The Montias Database of 17th Century Dutch Art Inventories. New York, The Frick Collection. Muller Fz., Samuel, Schilders-vereenigingen te Utrecht: Bescheiden uit het gemeente-archief (Utrecht: J.L. Beijers, 1880). Osnabrugge, Marije, ‘From Itinerant to Immigrant Artist: Aert Mytens in Naples’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 63 (2013), 205-227. Plomp, Michiel, The Dutch Drawings in the Teylers Museum. Vol. II: Artists Born Between 1575 and 1630 (Haarlem: Teylers Museum, 1997). Poorter, Nora de, ‘Seriewerk en recyclage: doorgedreven efficiëntie in het geroutineerde atelier van Jacob Jordaens’, Concept, Design & Execution in Flemish Painting (1550-1700). Papers From a Symposium at the Rubenianum, Antwerp, from 21 to 22 November, 1997, ed. by Hans Vlieghe, Arnout Balis, and Carl Van de Velde (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 213-232. Reynolds, Cuyler, Hudson-Mohawk genealogical and family memoirs: A Record of Achievements of the People of the Hudson and Mohawk Valleys in New York State, Included Within the Present Counties of Albany, Rensselaer, Washington, Saratoga, Montgomery, Fulton, Schenectady and Greene, 4 vols., I, (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1911). Rosenthal, S., ‘Adrian Verdoel, an Unknown Follower of Rembrandt’, Art in America and elsewhere 17, no. 6 (October 1929), 249-258. Sandrart, Joachim von, Teutsche Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste, 3 vols. (Nuremburg: bey Jacob van Sandrart/Frankfurt: bey Matthæus Merian, 1675-1680), ed. by Thomas Kirchner et al., 2009-2012 (http://ta.sandrart.net). Sickel, Lothar, ‘Anthonis Santvoort: Ein Niederländischer Maler, Verleger und Kunstvermittler in Rom’, in Ein priviliegiertes Medium und die Bildkulturen Europas. Deutsche, Französische und Niederländische Kupferstecher und Graphikverleger in Rom von 1590 bis 1630 / German, French and Netherlandish Printmakers and Print Publishers in Rome

198 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

between 1590 and 1630 (Römische Studien der Bibliotheca Hertziana 32), ed. by Sybille Ebert-Schifferer, Elisabeth Kieven, and Eckhard Leuschner (Munich: Hirmer, 2012), 39-62. Sluijter, Eric Jan, De ‘heydensche fabulen’ in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw. Schilderijen met verhalende onderwerpen uit de klassieke mythologie in de Noordelijke Nederlanden, circa 1590-1670 (Leiden: Primavera Press, 2000). Sluijter, Eric Jan, ‘Determining Value on the Art Market in the Golden Age: An Introduction’, in Tummers and Jonckheere 2008, 7-28. Sluijter, Eric Jan, ‘“Dien grooten Raphel in het zeeschilderen!” Over de waardering voor Jan Porcellis’ sobere kunst door eigentijdse kenners’, in Liber amicorum Marijke de Kinkelder: Collegiale bijdragen over landschappen, marines en architectuur, ed. by Charles Dumas et al. (Zwolle: Waanders, 2013), 343-358. Sluijter, Eric Jan, Rembrandt’s Rivals. History Painting in Amsterdam (1630-1650) (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2015). Sluijter-Seijffert, Nicolette and Margreet Wolters, ‘Samenwerking tussen Alexander Keirincx en Cornelis van Poelenburch belicht’, Oud Holland 121 (2009), no. 1, 14-42. Stols-Witlox, Maartje, A Perfect Ground: Preparatory Layers for Oil Paintings 1550-1900 (London: Archetype Publications, 2017). Strauss, Walter L. and Marjon van der Meulen, with the assistance of S.A.C. Dudok van Heel and P.J. de Baar, The Rembrandt Documents (New York: Abaris, 1979). Sumowski, Werner, Drawings of the Rembrandt School, trans. by Walter L. Strauss, 10 vols. (New York: Abaris, 1979-1992). Sumowski, Werner, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau: PVA, 1983-c. 1994). Tamis, Dorien, Van twee handen geschildert: werkverdeling tussen schilders in de Nederlanden in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw (Diss. University of Amsterdam, 2016) Thiel-Stroman, Irene van, ‘Biographies 15th-17th century’, in Painting in Haarlem, 1500-1850: The Collection of the Frans Hals Museum, ed. by Neeltje Köhler (Haarlem: Frans Hals Museum, 2006), 99-363. Thomson, Duncan, The Life and Art of George Jamesone (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974). Tummers, Anna, ‘“By his Hand.” The Paradox of Seventeenth-Century Connoisseurship’, in Tummers, Anna and Koenraad Jonckheere (eds.), Art Market and Connoisseurship: A Closer Look at Paintings by Rembrandt, Rubens and their Contemporaries (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008). Vasari, Giorgio, Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the Three Arts of Design, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, Prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, trans. by Louisa S. Maclehose, ed. and annot. by Gerard Baldwin Brown (New York: Dover, 1960). Veen, Jaap van der, ‘Het kunstbedrijf van Hendrick Uylenburgh in Amsterdam: Productie en handel tussen 1625 en 1655’, in Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006, 117-205. Veen, Jaap van der, ‘Voor eigen plezier. Rochus van Veen ca. 1618-1693’, Kunstschrift 52 (2008), 34-37.

Painting by numbers: the production of ‘dime-a-dozen’ work s 

199

Verhave, Johanneke, ‘Het productie-proces in het atelier Van Mierevelt’, in Jansen, Ekkart, and Verhave 2011, 85-107. Vermeylen, Filip, Painting for the Market. Commercialization of Art in Antwerp’s Golden Age. (Studies in European Urban History 2) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003). Vlieghe, Hans, ‘Maatwerk en confectie. Over de functie van historieschilderkunst in de Vlaamse stad van de 17de eeuw’, in Stad in Vlaanderen. Cultuur en Maatschappij, 1477-1787, ed. by Jan van der Stock (Brussels: Gemeentekrediet Brussel, 1991), 255-267. Vries, Lyckle de, ‘De kunsthandel is zoo edel als eenigen, vermits “er geen bedrog in is”. De pamflettenstrijd tussen Gerard Hoet en Johan van Gool’, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 4 (1985), 1-16. Wadum, Jørgen, ‘Historical Overview of Panel-Making Techniques in the Northern Countries’, in The Structural Conservation of Panel Paintings. Proceedings of a Symposium at the J. Paul Getty Museum, ed. by Kathleen Dardes and Andrea Rothe (Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 1998), 149-177. Wadum, Jørgen and Noëlle Streeton (eds.), ‘History and Use of Panels or Other Rigid Supports for Easel Paintings’, in The Conservation of Easel Paintings, ed. by Joyce Hill Stoner and Rebecca Rushfield (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), 51-115. Waiboer, Adriaan, ‘Willem de Poorter: Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt Pupil’, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 5 (2013), no. 2: DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2013.5.2.12 Wallert, Arie, ‘Refined Technique or Special Tricks: Painting Methods of Jan van der Heyden’, in Jan van der Heyden (1637-1712), ed. by Peter C. Sutton (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 92-103. Wallert, Arie and Gwen Tauber, ‘Over herhalingen in de schilderkunst: het probleem van reproductie’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 52 (2004), no 3/4, 316-327. Walsh, Amy, Paulus Potter: His Works and their Meaning (Diss. Columbia University, 1985). Ward, Gerald W.R. (ed.), The Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). Weidema, Sytske, ‘Standaardisatie van paneelformaten van Zuid-Nederlandse schilderijen uit 1460-1540: een kwantitatieve benadering’ (unpublished Master’s thesis: Groningen University, 2006). Wetering, Ernst van de, ‘De jonge Rembrandt aan het werk’, Oud Holland 91 (1977), 27-65. Wetering, Ernst van de, Rembrandt: The Painter at Work (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 2004). Wetering, Ernst van de, ‘“Principaelen” and Satellites: Pupils’ Production in Rembrandt’s Workshop’, in Rembrandt? The Master and his Workshop, ed. by Lene Bøgh Rønberg and Eva de la Fuente Pedersen (Copenhagen: National Gallery of Denmark, 2006). Wetering, Ernst van de, ‘Rembrandt’s Prototypes and Pupil’s Production of Variants’, in A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings V. Small-Scale History Paintings, ed. by Ernst van de Wetering (Dordrecht: Springer, 2011), 259-282.

200 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Wieseman, Marjorie E., ‘Pursuing and Possessing Passion: Two Hundred Years of Collecting Rubens’ Oil Sketches’, in Drawn by the Brush: Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens, ed. by Peter C. Sutton and Marjorie E. Wieseman (with Nico van Hout) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 43-81. Willigen Pz., A. van der, Les artistes de Harlem: Notices historiques avec un précis sur la gilde de St. Luc, edition revue et augmentée (Haarlem/The Hague, 1870) Wilson, Jean C., Painting in Bruges at the Close of the Middle Ages. Studies in Society and Visual Culture (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Park, 1998) Wilton, Andrew, The Swagger Portrait: Grand Manner Portraiture in Britain from Van Dyck to Augustus John, 1630-1930 (London: Tate Gallery, 1992). Wittert van Hoogland, E.B.F.F., ‘Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Utrechtsche Ridderhofsteden en Heerlijkheden’, Genealogische en Heraldische Bladen 8 (1913), 1-480. Wolleswinkel, E.J., ‘De dagboeken van de genealoog Pieter van Brederode van Wieringen (1631-1697)’, De Nederlandsche Leeuw 123 (2006), 339-344. Woollett, Anne T., ‘Two Celebrated Painters. The Collaborative Ventures of Rubens and Brueghel, ca. 1598-1625’, in Rubens & Brueghel. A Working Friendship, ed. by Anne T. Woollett and Ariana van Suchtelen (The Hague: Mauritshuis, 2006), 2-41.

4. History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650-1699: Social class and subject matter Abstract This chapter demonstrates that history painting remained a dominant and topical component of painting ownership in Amsterdam in the second half of the seventeenth century. Earlier studies of paintings in estate inventories have observed that the ownership of history paintings fell considerably over the course of the seventeenth century, whereas the ownership of landscapes rose sharply. However, these findings were heavily influenced by the use of wealthy inventories that contained many paintings. The present research on Amsterdam estate inventories, in which households were divided into income classes, corrects for this bias. This made it also possible to establish differences in preferences for various subjects across the different economic groups. Keywords: painting consumption, art buyer, modest estates, social stratification, taste

The previous chapters demonstrated that there were dealers with large stocks of cheap history paintings, that the subjects of these paintings have specific characteristics, and that production of cheap history paintings was extensive. These findings raise questions about the buyers of these works. This chapter therefore focuses on the key question of who owned history paintings in the second half of the seventeenth century. The stock kept by art dealers and the oeuvres of the researched painters offer insights into the kinds of themes that were sold at the lower end of Amsterdam’s art market. Cheap history paintings tended to depict biblical themes, often of a spectacular nature. Can we identify these kinds of paintings in contemporary painting ownership in Amsterdam?

Jager, A., Popular History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: Production, Distribution, and Consumption. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020 doi 10.5117/9789462987739_ch04

202 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

The dominance of history painting John Michael Montias claimed that, during the seventeenth century, there was a relative fall in interest in history paintings among buyers. Based on estate inventories from Delft, Montias concluded that the popularity of the history painting, which had been the most common genre at the beginning of the seventeenth century, fell throughout the seventeenth century; by 1650, the most common genre in Delft’s households had become the landscape.1 This impression has been confirmed by research on genres in painting ownership in other cities in the Dutch Republic: history painting became less dominant in relative terms, whilst landscape became more popular.2 One dissenting voice is that of Gabriel Pastoor, who, in 1991, argued that it could not be concluded from the falling percentage of religious paintings in estate inventories that interest in biblical history paintings had gradually waned between 1600 and 1700. According to Pastoor, their relatively high price and increasingly large size indicated the continuing appreciation for history paintings.3 In his 1991 Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions, Montias showed that the sharp fall in the number of history paintings and the increase in landscapes was less evident in more modest Amsterdam households.4 Montias divided the inventories he had collected for this ‘exploratory study’ (362 items over the period 1620-1679) into two groups: estates in which the name of the artist was listed for at least one painting (in general, more prosperous households), and estates in which only anonymous paintings were listed (in general, more modest households). The striking result was that estates consisting of only anonymous paintings, unlike wealthy estates, owned a higher percentage of history paintings per time period (Table 9). Table 9: Ownership of history paintings in Amsterdam, per period

Estates with at least one named artist Estates without a named artist

1620-1649

1650-1679

30.1% 39%

15.5% 18.9%

Source: Montias 1991, p. 350 (Table 2). Note: for the history paintings, Montias’s categories ‘History paintings’ and ‘Allegories’ have been combined.

1 Montias 1982, pp. 220-271, esp. 238-246. 2 Bakker 2008a, pp. 136-159; Boers-Goosens 2001, pp. 343-358; Fock 1990, pp. 18-22; De Laet 2006; Loughman 1992, pp. 45-49; Montias 1991 & 1996. See also: Bok 2008, p. 20 (Chart). 3 Pastoor 1991, pp. 122-123. 4 Montias 1991.

203

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

In an additional study five years later, Montias tested if this result was due to a biased selection of inventories per decade; a greater selection of wealthy inventories in the later decades could have exaggerated the observed trend. Montias, in his Works of Art in a Random Sample of Amsterdam Inventories (1996), therefore compiled a ‘random sample’ of inventories from Amsterdam between 1600 and 1669.5 In doing so, Montias did not distinguish between different property classes. The results conf irmed the widely held assumption that the relative dominance of history paintings fell between the early decades and the 1650s and 1660s, whilst that of landscapes, still lifes, and genre paintings rose.6 One should add that the random sample, for which more modest households were selected, contained a larger number of history paintings in relative terms compared to the 1991 study (see Table 10).7 Table 10: Ownership of history paintings and landscapes in Amsterdam in the 1650s and 1660s Estates with at least one named artist Montias 1991

History painting Landscape

Random sample Montias 1996

1650s

1660s

1650s

1660s

16.1% 28.5%

14.2% 33.2%

31.5% 25.7%

23% 30.1%

Source: Montias 1991, p. 352 (Table 3); Montias 1996. Note: for the history paintings, Montias’s categories ‘History paintings’ and ‘Allegories’ have been combined; for the category ‘landscape’, following Montias 1991 in Montias 1996, the categories ‘perspectives’ and ‘seascapes’ have been combined with the category ‘landscape’.

Since Montias’s attempt to investigate differences in preferences for certain genres between different economic groups in Amsterdam, there have been few research studies of this kind. In her dissertation, Marion Boers-Goosens divided Haarlem estates over the period 1645-1650 into ‘small estates’ (20 or fewer paintings described in detail) and ‘large estates’ (30 or more paintings) and calculated the relative weight of a number of genres.8 Among other things, Boers-Goosens found that, in relative terms, the urban elite owned more landscapes and fewer biblical history paintings than ordinary citizens.9 According to Boers-Goosens, ‘ordinary citizens […] generally had conventional tastes […] whilst true collectors were much more sensitive to the 5 Montias 1996, p. 81. 6 Montias 1996, pp. 80-83. 7 Montias 1991, p. 352 (Table 3); Montias 1996. The estates that did not list the names of artists could not be included in the comparison because Montias had not selected them by decade. 8 Boers-Goosens 2001, pp. 356-357, Table 10.6. 9 Boers-Goosens 2001, pp. 356-356.

204 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

innovations introduced by painters from Haarlem’.10 This result is consistent with research on estates in Leiden, consisting of a selection of wealthy estates containing many attributed paintings, where the tendency towards a rise in landscapes and fall in history paintings was observed most strongly.11 In De Friese schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw (‘Frisian painting in the Golden Age’), Piet Bakker divided the estates in his Frisian sample into four groups, based on the value of the household goods: less than 100 guilders (top of the underclass), between 100 and 500 guilders (bottom of the middle class), between 500 and 900 guilders (top of the middle class), and 900 guilders and more (upper class).12 This division was used in order to gain an impression of the quantity of paintings per household across the different social groups, not to discover different preferences for certain genres.13 Lastly, in 2015, Eric Jan Sluijter published an exploratory study of painting ownership among different population groups.14

Research design The working hypothesis of this chapter is that the cheap history paintings in the art dealers’ inventories were intended for a relatively low-status audience with a limited budget.15 Most art-historical research based on probate inventories has focused on wealthier estates, which contained many paintings and listed the names of well-known artists. The owners of these kinds of estates hailed from the gentry (the nobility and the regent elite) and especially from the upper middle classes (wealthy merchants, senior officials and officers, and academics). With annual incomes of 1000 guilders or more, this class had considerable spending power. By contrast, this chapter will focus on painting ownership among the lower social classes: the middle classes (small entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, successful craftsmen, and officials) and the lower middle classes (small shopkeepers and craftsmen).16 With an annual income of between 350 and 600 guilders, these people had much less to spend. The ‘common man’ from the middle classes and lower middle classes was thus not one of the poorest, but was similar to today’s middle class. The social strata below the lower middle classes – wage-dependents (servants, soldiers, sailors, and various sorts of porters) and the masses (those 10 Boers-Goosens 2001, p. 357. 11 Fock 1990. 12 Bakker 2008a, pp. 116-117. 13 Few Frisian inventories make mention of information about painters and subjects; Bakker 2008a, p. 114. 14 Sluijter 2015a. 15 Sluijter 2015b, p. 20. 16 For the social categorization used, see Table 7.

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

205

without property, beggars, pedlars) – are not addressed here. We know of hardly any inventories for social groups with an income of between 200 and 350 guilders per year, there was little or no ownership (of value) among this class, and it was very costly for a benef iciary to have an inventory made. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that people from these groups also had a ‘bortje’ (‘small painted panel’) or print in their possession; after all, these could be bought for just a few stivers. The urge to decorate one’s home was compelling: more than half of all inventories in the lowest property class in Brussels, for example, included one or more paintings.17 The impoverished testator Anthonio Cento had even improvised some decoration amongst the worthless junk in his tiny garret in the city: ‘seven wooden frames made of softwood, some with drawings on paper, some without’.18 This chapter thus picks up where Montias left off in 1991, as it were, and compares painting ownership among the different classes of Amsterdam’s citizenry in the second half of the seventeenth century and their preferences for specific genres and subjects. The key source for this research is a selection of seventeenth-century estate inventories from Amsterdam. This study differs from Montias’s research on these same inventories in terms of the period used (1650-1699), the selection criteria for the inventories, the methodology, and the purpose.

Sources and source criticism The selected inventories from Amsterdam, drawn up between 1650 and 1699 (the criteria are explained in the section below), are from the Stadsarchief Amsterdam (‘Amsterdam City Archives’) and have been transcribed into two online databases. The Montias/Frick Database is an online database hosted by the Frick Collection, consisting of 1280 Amsterdam estate inventories from the Notarieel Archief (‘Notarial Archives’), Weeskamer (‘Orphan Charmber’), and Desolate Boedelkamer (‘Chamber of Insolvent Estates’) for the period 1597-1681.19 The Montias/Frick Database contains biographical information about the estate-holders and can be searched by year, keyword, valuation price, and subject, among other things. Montias began compiling the collection of inventories in the 1980s, initially based on the painters and artworks that were listed in them, and the status of the owners.20 The 17 De Laet 2011, pp. 199-203. The property categories were determined by the number of rooms, the amount of linen owned, the amount of copper owned, and the presence of equipped bedsteads; ibidem, p. 57. 18 The source dates from 1684. De Laet 2011, p. 200; Nijboer 2013. 19 Montias-Frick Database. 20 Wood Ruby 2006, p. 396.

206 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

selection reflected his own research, and between 1991 and 1996, during his work on Random Sample, he therefore switched to a random selection. For our period, the only surviving estate inventories from the Weeskamer are one drawn up in 1650 and two from the 1680s; this is unfortunate, given that such inventories usually offer a good impression of the lower classes.21 As the last recorded inventory in the Montias/Frick Database dates from 1681, for the rest of the century, I sought additional data in the Getty Provenance Index: Archival Inventories, a database of 2191 transcribed inventories from Amsterdam for the period 1620-1798.22 For the period 1620-1681, these frequently overlap with the inventories in the Montias Database. The inventories for the period 1681-1700 were collected by Marten Jan Bok, based on the unpublished notes of Abraham Bredius.23 The Getty Provenance Index: Archival Inventories does not mention any biographical data relating to the owner other than that included in the inventory itself, and for the purposes of this chapter, additional biographical research was therefore carried out in the Stadsarchief Amsterdam in order to fill any gaps. The use of data implemented in databases made it possible to quickly select households with paintings for further analysis. However, there are certain limits to working from existing databases. The inventories in these databases were generally selected by art historians on certain criteria: they contained known artists’ names and works, provided insight into an important historical collection, listed valuation prices, or contained other detailed information.24 This results in the disproportionate emphasis on the estates of rich collectors; even though part of the inventories in the Montias/Frick database were randomly selected by Montias for his 1996 study. Furthermore, these databases mainly store data on the ownership of art, and lack information about other goods or properties that are helpful in contextualizing the inventory. Another limitation to using these databases is that the data is classified in predefined, not always satisfactory, categories. In the Montias/Frick database, for example, the fourteen paintings depicting the old 21 In addition to the inventories from 1650, there is one surviving inventory that was drawn up in 1685 and one from 1688: SAA, WK [5073], inv. no. 977-979. None of them are included in the Montias Database and they have therefore not been included here. For this research, it was not possible to process all of the estates from the Weeskamer from 1650 systematically and combine them with additional research on the families concerned. A small sample of Weeskamer inventories from 1650, however, suggests that paintings in low-value estates were often described without mentioning the subject. 22 Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories. 23 RKD, Archive A. Bredius [NL-HaRKD.0380]. The source that Marten Jan Bok used for his collection was only that of the notes by Abraham Bredius, not the inventories as they were published in Bredius 1915-1922. 24 For example, for each decade, Willemijn Fock selected twelve inventories from Leiden with a large number of paintings; see: Fock 1990. For estate research with no selection bias: Montias 1996; Bakker 2008a, pp. 113-119.

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

207

testament subject of The tower of Babel are only categorized ten times as such; two are categorized as landscapes, one as a new testament subject, and another as ‘city views, architecture’. For this research, I have therefore recategorized each painting description in a personal database, instead of relying on the predefined categories in the existing database structures. Moreover, it is far from ideal to use estate inventories to draw conclusions about painting ownership in modest households. First and foremost, because there are relatively few inventories made of modest households, and they are thus underrepresented in the notarial protocol. Many small estates of lesser means were not inventoried due to the high costs. Second, the included information in estate inventories is highly variable. The level of detail in the descriptions is dependent on many factors, such as the size and value of the estate, the reason for making the inventory (division or sale), and the number of beneficiaries.25 As a result, the outcomes of such research frequently provide an ambiguous picture, while conclusions can only be based on clear differences and similarities.

Selection criteria for the data set For the sake of comparability, only the estate inventories drawn up after the death of the testator from the Notarieel Archief were selected. These inventories differ from those in the Desolate Boedelkamer, which are exclusively inventories of people in a state of insolvency, who thus had responsibilities (for example, a business) and above-average assets.26 Moreover, in the case of an insolvent estate, the inventory would often only be drawn up for part of the household goods.27 A second criterion for selecting an inventory was that it had to be a complete inventory for an entire estate – thus not an inventory that had survived in fragments or that was incomplete, for example. A third criterion was that the inventory should include a description of at least one painting subject. The inventories of painters, art dealers, and other individuals who were professionally involved in the art market were excluded from the selection, due to their trade stocks. The complete data set ultimately consisted of 301 Amsterdam estate inventories, with a subset of 135 appraised inventories. 25 Wijsenbeek-Olthuis 1995. 26 Montias 1996, p. 68. I tested the difference between the estate inventories in the Notarieel Archief and the Desolate Boedelkamer by analysing 102 inventories that had been drawn up by the Desolate Boedelkamer between 1650 and 1700 in the same way as the inventories from the Notarieel Archief. The results differed considerably: the insolvent estates contained relatively fewer history paintings. 27 Only the share of the household goods that was liable for the insolvency was inventoried; in the case of a marital settlement, for example, the spouse’s part was not included.

208 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

In this book, history paintings are defined as textually-based figure painting with subjects from the Bible, classical mythology, post-classical literature, and classical and contemporary history and allegory. This differs from the definition used by Montias, who, for his research on Delft (1982) and Amsterdam (1996), divided history paintings into subcategories (Old Testament, New Testament, Religion, Mythology, other history, and allegory).28 When conducting his research on Amsterdam estates in 1991, he included these subcategories under history paintings, with the exception of allegory.29 In terms of numbers, then, the results of the following analyses will differ from that of Montias’s research.

Prosperity and the preference for history paintings Following Montias’s 1991 article, this section studies whether history paintings remained popular among the middle classes and lower middle classes (modest households), and attempts to explain this. The use of existing databases instead of the original documents excludes other recognized proxies, such as the number of beds or chairs, the amount of linen owned, or the number of rooms in a house. In addition, information such as occupation and the degree of professional success (not all shopkeepers are equal) was often lacking. In this chapter, the number of paintings and the value of the art owned are therefore used to divide the beneficiaries into social classes. In order to rank the prosperity of various estates in Delft, Montias used two different indicators: the number of paintings and the total value of the estate.30 According to a test based on 28 Amsterdam inventories, he found that these indicators were not usable, due to the poor correlation (0.46) between the number of paintings and the total value of the Amsterdam estate: rich households owned more paintings, on average, but not by definition.31 A higher level of prosperity could thus be translated into more paintings or fewer paintings with a higher total value. As an alternative indicator of prosperity, in his Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam (1991), Montias used the explicit listing of one or more painters’ names in the inventory, which indicates a certain degree of quality and financial value. This indicator could be used because the difference in the total estate value for inventories without artists’ names compared to those with at least one artist’s name did prove to be significant. 28 29 30 31

Montias 1982, pp. 238-246; Montias 1996. Montias 1991, p. 350. Montias 1985, mentioned in: Montias 1991, p. 334; note 5. Unfortunately, not available for inspection. Montias 1991, p. 334; note 5.

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

209

Montias’s decision to use the presence of a painter’s name as an indicator of prosperity had one undesirable consequence, mainly for the second half of the seventeenth century and particularly for the inventories after 1660. The set of inventories without painters’ names in Montias’s sample was small: for the period between 1660 and 1669, only five of the 68 inventories did not contain any names; for the period between 1670 and 1679, only seven of the 48 inventories did not contain names.32 This is because, in the course of the seventeenth century, paintings were increasingly described with reference to the name of the artist.33 The relatively small numbers mean that the results for these two subgroups are susceptible to selection bias. In order to obtain a better picture of differences in painting ownership between modest and affluent households, we need to use a different system. I thus decided to take the number of paintings as an indicator, supplemented with the total value of all art objects owned in the subset of 135 appraised inventories.

Prosperity (based on the number of paintings) and the history painting Montias’s test sample did not provide a sufficiently clear link between prosperity and the number of paintings in Amsterdam. By contrast, the present data set of 301 inventories for the period between 1650 and 1699 indeed shows a strong correlation (0.71) between the total value of the estate and the number of paintings. Montias distinguished between estates in Delft with ten paintings or fewer (modest households) and households with 40 paintings or more (prosperous households).34 Because the distribution in Amsterdam is much broader, namely between four and 230 paintings per inventory, with an average of 40 paintings and a median of 35, in the present study I opted for a distribution of all inventories into groups based on the number of paintings. In this data set, only nineteen inventories contain ten paintings or fewer (6.3 per cent of the entire data set); following the categorization Montias used for Delft, these are the modest households. There would have been many more estates with a similar pattern of painting ownership, but because these families tended to have fewer possessions, it was not considered necessary to have a notary draw up a relatively expensive inventory.35 According to Montias’s Delft classification, 32 Montias 1991, p. 348, Table no. 1. 33 Montias 2004-2005, pp. 324-325 (Table 1). 34 Montias 1985; Montias 1991, p. 334, note 5. 35 A number of inventories with a few paintings do not mention any subjects and thereby fall outside our data set; Montias-Frick Database, nos. 337, 351, 428; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-336.

210 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

households with 40 or more paintings were ‘rich’; in our data set, this applies to as many as 119 inventories (39.4 per cent of the entire data set). This suggests that prosperity was expressed in different ways in Amsterdam in the second half of the seventeenth century than in Delft. This was also something that Montias found in Random Sample; for example, only 15.8 per cent of the inventoried households in Amsterdam did not own any paintings (compared to 22.3 per cent in Delft), and only 16.7 per cent had an estate that was valued at less than 300 guilders (compared to 40 per cent in Delft).36 In the first decade of the seventeenth century, around two-thirds of the inventoried Amsterdam households had one or more paintings; in the following decade this number was four-fifths; and in the years 1650 and 1660, more than nine out of ten Amsterdam households contained at least one painting.37 Further research should examine whether this difference was caused by the lack of small inventories for Amsterdam, as Montias suspects,38 or because there was more prosperity in the trading centre and the trend towards buying paintings more widespread. Table 11 shows the relative weight of history paintings in painting ownership. The proportion of history paintings was greater in the less sizeable ‘collections’.39 For example, one in three paintings (31.2 per cent) in the smallest inventories with 1-10 paintings were history paintings, whilst in the groups with 11-20 and 21-30 paintings, one in four or five paintings were history paintings (21.4 per cent and 22.6 per cent). In the groups of larger collections (31-40, 41-50, 51-100, and 100+), the share of history paintings compared to all paintings was 16-18 per cent. Table 11: Estate inventories Amsterdam 1650-1699, in groups based on the number of paintings per inventory Groups: T inv. T paintings T subject T history paintings % history painting of subject

100 12 1562 1427 262 18%

T 301 12,183 10,243 1845 18%

Source: Montias/Frick Database; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories. Note: ‘T subject’ is the total number of paintings listed with subjects in the inventory; the percentage shows the proportion of these that were history paintings.

36 Montias 1996, p. 80. 37 Calculated on the basis of data in Montias 1996, p. 78. 38 Montias 1996, p. 80. 39 If the selection is divided into equal groups ‒ for example into three groups of 90, 90, and 91 inventories ‒ the same trend is observable: the households with fewer paintings owned more history paintings.

211

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

Prosperity (based on the total value of the art owned) and the history painting From his research on estate inventories from Amsterdam, Montias concluded that rich households spent more money on individual paintings and modest households had a larger number of small, cheap panels. To correct for any influence this might have, I also considered the total value of the art owned, with the aid of the subset of 135 appraised inventories. The total value of the art owned is a preferable indicator to the total value of the estate, because it is straightforward to calculate the total value of the art for all of the appraised inventories. By contrast, we do not know the total value of the estate in many cases (the total value of the estate is unknown for 77 of the 135 appraised inventories). The total value of the estate can be used, however, to gain an impression of the difference in prosperity between the large and small inventories. The least valuable estate was worth 305 guilders and the most valuable was worth 15,150 guilders. Only five inventories (8.6 per cent) in our data set fell below Montias’s poverty line for Delft, 500 guilders, but no fewer than 26 inventories (44.8 per cent) exceeded the income line of 2000 guilders. So that similar results to the previous analysis could be obtained from this material, the 135 appraised inventories in Table 12 were divided into five groups, based on the total value of the art collection. In the subset, the lowest total appraisal value of the art in the estate is 6.35 guilders, and the highest total value is 3169.88 guilders. The average appraisal value is 391 guilders and the median 172 guilders. Table 12: Appraised estate inventories Amsterdam 1650-1699, in groups based on the value in guilders of the artworks per inventory Groups: T inv. T paintings T subject T history paintings % history painting subject

500 32 1896 1693 334 20%

T 135 5035 4059 740 18%

Source: Montias/Frick Database; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories. Note: ‘T subject’ is the total number of paintings listed with subjects in the inventory; the percentage shows the proportion of these that were history paintings.

The results of the analysis of the subset confirmed the results of the analysis of the full data set: modest households that possessed art of little value owned more history paintings than households with valuable art. One in every three paintings (35.6

212 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

per cent) in the households with less than 50 guilders’ worth of art was a history painting. The more valuable the collection, the smaller the share of history paintings. For example, one in every five paintings was a history painting in households with art worth between 51 and 100 guilders (20.2 per cent), and roughly one in every 6-7 paintings was a history painting in estates with art worth between 101 and 500 guilders (15.7 per cent and 14 per cent). The collections that were worth more than 500 guilders contained more history paintings in relative terms (19.7 per cent). This can be explained by the inclusion in the data set of collectors with a preference for monumental history paintings painted by old masters. For example, in 1678, the rich Lutheran merchant Herman Becker had a collection of 229 paintings in his monumental house on Keizersgracht, including 50 history paintings painted by deceased and foreign masters such as Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem, Albrecht Dürer, Hendrick Goltzius, Lucas van Leyden, Rubens, and Jacopo Tintoretto. He also had works that he had acquired first-hand from famous contemporary artists, including Jan Lievens and Rembrandt. 40

The number of history paintings relative to the number of paintings of other subjects The results show that history paintings were certainly not owned by the elite alone, but by everyone. Of the 301 households in our data set, the vast majority – 283 estates, or 94 per cent – had a history painting. Modest households with only a few paintings usually had at least one history painting at home. Here it should be borne in mind that the total number of paintings in the group of small inventories was much smaller than that in the group of large inventories. In other words, the results reveal the relative weight of history painting; in hard figures, the testators with large collections naturally owned more history paintings than those with just a few paintings. Montias’s explanation for the fact that modest estates owned more history paintings in relative terms was that these estate-holders had a tendency to ‘lag behind the trend of buying new painting genres’. 41 This explanation was adopted by Boers-Goosens.42 They thereby characterized the ownership of history paintings as old-fashioned in the second half of the seventeenth century. With ‘new painting genres’, Montias meant, among others, landscape and still-life painting. Although these painting subjects were already produced in great quantities in the second 40 Montias-Frick Database, no. 254; Postma 1988. 41 Montias 1991, pp. 346-347. 42 Boers-Goosens 2001, p. 357.

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

213

half of the sixteenth century in Flanders, it was only at the turn of the century that they were introduced in Holland by Flemish immigrants. Montias argued that the upper classes would have bought these ‘trendy, innovative’ subjects soon after their introduction in Amsterdam; several decades later, after the death of these wealthy buyers, these paintings were sold at auction, whereupon the cheaper prices made them more accessible for modest households. 43 It is true that modest households probably bought their paintings second-hand, too, but this is not a sufficient explanation for the finding that they owned more history paintings in relative terms. Moreover, as we saw in the other chapters in this study, there were art dealers and painters who specialized in the sale and production of inexpensive history paintings in this period. Based on the above findings, I propose a simple explanation for the observed fall in ownership of history painting and the increase of other genres in the course of the seventeenth century in Amsterdam: the purchasing behaviour of the upper middle classes. Households with a limited budget did not have the resources to buy many paintings, but if they had some money to spend, they tended to buy at least one history painting. Wealthier families obviously had a larger budget for paintings, and we see in their inventories that this increased budget allowed for a much greater variety in genres and subjects. Discounting a number of outliers – once again, collections that included monumental paintings – the number of history paintings per household did not really exceed 20. The fact that smaller collections often included a history painting seems to demonstrate that at first this genre had priority over owning other paintings. This suggests a certain function in the household. Only twelve of the 33 modest household inventories under study include information on the location of the objects, and these do not provide a clear purpose for these paintings. Therefore, we need to answer the question whether households of different social origin had similar or contrasting preferences.

Prosperity and the preference for historical scenes Now that we have seen that history paintings were owned by both modest and wealthy households, it is necessary to examine whether these two groups had comparable or contrasting preferences in subjects and scenes. Using the full data set, two manageable groups of estate inventories were compiled based on the number of paintings found in each household. Here, I describe estates with a maximum of fifteen paintings as ‘modest’, and estates with more than 75 paintings as ‘wealthy’. 43 Montias 1991, pp. 347-348.

214 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

The income limits used here are broader than those that Montias used for Delft, because Amsterdam households in the second half of the seventeenth century owned a relatively large number of lower-value paintings. The first group consists of 33 households with a total of 329 paintings, and the second of 24 households with a total of 2640 paintings. The number of paintings per estate formed a preferable indicator to the total value of the estate, because many of the smallest inventories were not valued and were thereby excluded. According to the social categorization, households with a maximum of fifteen paintings were classified as belonging to the middle and lower middle classes. As art dealers were excluded from the data set, in the social categorization, the group of testators with more than 75 paintings were classified as belonging to the upper middle classes and the gentry. The paintings in the ‘modest’ and ‘wealthy’ inventories were categorized in terms of subject, using the Iconclass system. 44 They are analysed and compared in the following sections: which themes only appeared in one of the groups, for instance, and which appeared in both? Based on the material, it did not seem necessary to take a sample from the intermediate group of households with 16-75 paintings. Compiled on the basis of the number of paintings, Table 13 shows the average total value of the estate and the average value of the total number of artworks for each group. The inventories containing more than 45 paintings had a considerable number of high-value paintings and clearly a high level of prosperity – although they did not all have as much to spend as the households with 75 or more paintings. The groups 16-30 and 31-45 included both modest and affluent inventories. For example, Mr. Matthias van Gherwen ‘only’ owned nineteen paintings, in addition to five maps, two prints, three alabaster ‘bortjes’ (‘panels with reliefs’), and seven cast figurines. But, at 80 guilders, the most valuable appraised work was a ‘rentmeester’ (‘bailiff’) by Maerten van Heemskerck, and the total value of the art came to no less than 578 guilders.45 With an estate worth a total of 6453 guilders, Matthias van Gherwen undoubtedly belonged to the financial elite. By contrast, the gravedigger Claes Moijaert, upon the death of his wife in 1656, had no fewer than 37 paintings and six prints, but they had a total estimated value of ‘only’ 62.5 guilders. 46 The inventory does not include any of the artists’ names, and the highest-valued painting was a ‘knights’ battle’ at 6 guilders. With a total appraised estate value of 746.75 guilders, Moijaert belonged to the middle classes. The number of paintings in this middle group thus tells us much less about prosperity. 44 Van de Waal 1973-1985. When classifying the themes named in the inventories, I made several changes compared to Iconclass; thus, I classif ied the subject Caritas Romana (or Cimon and Pero) as a history painting under ‘Greek and Roman Legend’, rather than under ‘Society, Civilization, Culture’ (42B41). 45 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 427 (1653). 46 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 322.

215

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

Table 13: Appraised estate inventories Amsterdam 1650-1699, in groups based on the number of paintings per inventory (in intervals of 15) Groups: T inv. Average estate value Average art value

1-15 33 668 47.85

16-30 91 1786.6 149.6

31-45 85 3051.7 412.6

46-60 42 4623 632

61-75 26 3154 800.8

76+ 24 8253.9 1623.3

T 301 21,537.2 3666.15

Source: Montias/Frick Database; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories Note: the average estate value and art value is given in guilders per inventory.

The subjects of the history paintings Table 14a shows the proportion of history paintings, landscapes, portraits, still lifes, and genre paintings relative to the total number of paintings listed with subjects in the data set, and Table 14a divides the history paintings into the subject categories Religious (Old Testament, New Testament, and Religion), Classical (Allegory, Classical mythology, and Classical history), Nudes, and Other. ‘Religion’ contains devotional religious paintings without a narrative, such as Mary and child, and depictions of saints. The category ‘Nudes’ was added for paintings that were described simply as ‘nudes’ and did not depict specific scenes, as they could be biblical (in the case of Susanna and the Elders, for example), mythological, or allegorical in nature.47 The remaining paintings fall into the category ‘Other’, consisting of unspecified scenes (‘a history painting’) and rare subjects. Both tables show the number of paintings per subject category, the percentage of paintings in this subject category compared to the total number of listed subjects (Table 14a) and total number of history paintings (Table 14b), the number of unique inventories and the percentage of the inventories in which the subject category appears, and the average number of paintings in a particular subject category per inventory per group. First of all, we see from Table 14a that all of the wealthy estates, without exception, contained history paintings, landscapes, genre paintings, and portraits. On average, each household had around 25 landscapes, nineteen history paintings, fourteen portraits, eight still lifes, and twelve genre paintings. Here we should note that the average number of history paintings per estate is strongly influenced by the small number of collectors with an interest in ‘Great Art’, and thus monumental history paintings: at thirteen paintings, the median number of history paintings per estate is lower. The difference between the inventories themselves is thus not 47 In the early modern period, paintings with nude protagonists were almost exclusively connected to subjects in history painting.

216 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

whether certain categories of paintings appeared in these households, but the extent to which they did so. Table 14a: Subjects of paintings in estate inventories in Amsterdam 1650-1699 (inventories have been divided into two groups, based on the number of paintings per inventory) 0-15 paintings Inventories

Paintings

History Painting Landscape Portrait Still life Genre Total subjects**

>75 paintings Average*

Inventories

Paintings

Average*

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

 

65 63 34 25 21 255

26 25 13 10 8 100

30 23 17 15 14 34

91 70 52 46 42 100

2.2 460 2.7 588 2 333 1.7 173 1.5 278 7.5 2247

21 26 15 8 12 100

24 24 24 24 24 24

100 100 100 100 100 100

19.2 24.5 13.9 7.5 11.6 97.1

Source: Montias/Frick Database; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories * the average number of paintings per inventory in the subject category ** the total number of paintings listed with a subject; this is thereby larger than the total of the five subject categories shown.

Table 14b: Subjects of paintings in estate inventories in Amsterdam 1650-1699 (inventories have been divided into two groups, based on the number of paintings per inventory) 0-15 paintings Paintings

Religious  Old Testament  New Testament  Religion Classical  Allegory   Classical mythology   Classical history Nudes** Other Total

Inventories

N

%

N

%

54 21 22 11 6 1 5 5 65

83 32 34 17 9 1 8 8 26

29 15 17 8  6 1 5 5 30

88 46 52 24 18 3 15 17 91

>75 paintings Average*

1.9 1.4 1.3 1.4 1 1 1 1 2.2

Paintings

Inventories

Average*

N

%

N

%

 

294 70 124 100 137 13 96 28 23 6 460

64 15 27 22 30 3 21 6 5 1 21

24 23 22 22  20 6 20  9 12  4 24

100 96 92 92 83 25 83 38 50 17 100

12.3 3 5.6 4.5 6.9 2.2 4.8 3.1 1.9 1.5 19.2

Source: Montias/Frick Database; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories * the average number of paintings per inventory in the subject category ** the paintings listed as nudes in the inventory with no mention of a specific scene

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

217

None of the subject categories was mentioned in every modest estate inventory. As shown in a previous analysis, with their limited resources, modest estate-holders, unlike wealthy collectors, had to choose between the different subjects available on the market. According to Table 14a, they showed a clear preference for history paintings: 91 per cent of modest households owned a history painting. In addition, 70 per cent owned a landscape, 51 per cent a portrait, 46 per cent a still life, and 42 per cent a genre painting. The three estates that did not contain any history paintings tended to have unspecified paintings, and these may well have included history paintings. The ship’s carpenter Jan Hermensz. had a portrait of his wife and eleven unspecified paintings in his house on Palmgracht, altogether valued at 13 guilders.48 Grietgen Pieters, the widow of the beer-seller Isaacq Cottenau, had two paintings of a shepherd and a shepherdess, a ‘blompotgen’ (‘flower painting’), and six unspecified paintings, valued at a total of 9 guilders.49 The brass-founder Sacharias Jansz. had a ‘battle of Leckerbeetje’, a portrait of Martin Luther, a ‘fruytagie’ (‘fruit piece’), a small painting by Vonck, five small paintings, and a ‘printborritje’ (‘panel with a print attached’), together valued at 42.5 guilders.50 Table 14b shows that the modest estate-holders had a marked preference for religious scenes: of all the estates that included a history painting, only one had no religious scene at all. That was the estate of the master-tailor Wouter Luijsinck; the history painting in his house on Gasthuislaan was ‘a painting of satyrs’.51 The other modest estates that owned a ‘heathen’ subject thus also owned a religious scene. Hanging in his voorkamer, for example, the corset-maker Abraham Adamsz. had a painting of Neptune and an ‘old painting of Jacob and Rachel’ (each valued at 2 guilders).52 Over 80 per cent of all history paintings in these modest estates consisted of religious scenes. The high proportion of religious scenes is consistent with the results of research on book ownership in the Dutch Republic, which has consistently shown that religious printed matter (Bibles, psalms, hymnbooks, etc.) was the most popular.53 For example, people from The Hague who had just one book at home invariably had a Bible or a psalm book.54 These books naturally had a function in the household. In addition, 48 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 361 (1650). 49 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 338 (1652). 50 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 185 (1653). 51 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 448 (1669). 52 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 355, also in: Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-2337 (1657). The occupation is shown by the inventory. Abraham Adamsz. and his wife Stijntie Arijaens baptized their son Abraham in the Noorderkerk in 1655; see: SAA, DTB [5001], inv. no. 76, p. 36, 18-7-1655. A notice of the couple’s marriage was not found in Amsterdam. 53 Keblusek 1997, pp. 144-147; Tump 2013, pp. 27-28; Hoftijzer 2008, pp. 243-247; Nijboer 2007, pp. 52-53. For the eighteenth century, see: De Kruijf 1999; Wijsenbeek-Olthuis 1987, p. 257. 54 Keblusek 1997, pp. 144-147. Incidentally, research on book ownership in The Hague has shown that also in the case of larger book collections, the books were almost invariably religious works.

218 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Marika Keblusek found that many people from the lower and prosperous middle classes had a few paintings and prints at home, but no books (even though they were often literate).55 The popularity of Bible scenes among these social classes may reflect a preference for looking at an image of a story, rather than reading a text. I shall address this in more detail during the discussion of the various scenes in the next section. All of the wealthy households owned religious scenes, and with the exception of four estates, they all owned ‘heathen’ subjects. The number of religious scenes expressed as a percentage of the total number of history paintings shows that in these households, at 64 per cent, they were less emphatically present than in modest households. By contrast, at 30 per cent of the total number of history paintings, there appears to have been much more interest in ‘heathen’ subjects. It is striking that allegories and subjects from classical history were only found in estates that also owned mythological scenes; evidently, ‘heathen’ subjects were not intended for everyone. The preference for classical iconography in prosperous households is a strong indication of a difference in schooling and intellectual education between the two groups. Old Testament scenes appear in our data set in almost every wealthy household, but with an average of three paintings per household, Old Testament subjects, together with allegories and classical history, were the least dominant in terms of numbers. By contrast, the emphasis of the religious scenes in wealthy estates lay on stories from the New Testament and devotional, religious images: around 27 per cent of the history paintings in wealthy estates depicted a scene from the New Testament, and 22 per cent of them fell into to the category ‘Religion’. The religious scenes in the modest estates, by contrast, mostly depicted stories from the Old and New Testaments, which we encounter in 46 per cent and 52 per cent of the inventories, respectively. Strikingly, modest households had a much lower share of paintings in the ‘Religious general’ category here (24 per cent of the households with history paintings and 17 per cent of the total number of history paintings). Montias previously concluded that New Testament and devotional subjects appeared more frequently in Catholic households; for example, Catholics had five times more paintings showing subjects from the New Testament than from the Old Testament.56 Now that in the current research this has emerged as a difference in preference between poor and wealthy estates (thus regardless of the religious denomination of the owner), it may be possible to develop Montias’s conclusion further. In our data set of modest households, it was not possible to trace the religion of the owner in many cases.57 The beliefs of the owners of wealthy 55 There were 35 estates without books that made mention of paintings and prints; see: Keblusek 1997, p. 146. 56 Montias 1991, p. 338. 57 The testators of modest estates are often mentioned by first name and patronymic, meaning that research in the DTB registers did not yield anything.

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

219

households could be discovered in most cases.58 On the whole, the owners with known religious beliefs formed too small a group to be able to ascertain the extent to which religious preferences shaped demand for particular themes. Nevertheless, I shall mention below if the religion was known, and I shall make some suggestions regarding this in relation to the scenes that were found.

Scenes in history paintings The various themes of the history paintings that belonged to owners in both groups were compared with the aim of distinguishing certain preferences. One problem, however, was the difference in the number of history paintings between the two groups. The modest households showed a preference for history paintings, but there are only 67 such paintings in our data set. The group of wealthy households owned fewer history paintings compared to the total number of paintings, but in absolute numbers there are many times more such paintings in our data set, namely 488. As a consequence, preferences are much easier to trace in the large data set. In this chapter, however, we are interested in the modest households. In order to solve this problem, in this section, the scenes that were found in modest households are discussed with reference to three marked preferences that emerged in prosperous households. Moreover, the category of allegory, which hardly includes any paintings, is not discussed at all. Mythology: the erotic nude and classical education Strikingly, the mythological depictions owned by wealthy households tended to depict subjects associated with love and eroticism. Considered as a whole, the prosperous households owned a particularly large number of pictures of Venus (20 paintings). Depictions of other fertility gods frequently appeared in these inventories as well, such as Bacchus (seven times) or satyrs (eight times), sometimes spying on sleeping women, as did scenes with attractive female nudes, such as The Judgement of Paris (five times) or the romances of Jupiter (four times). The 24 paintings classified as ‘Nudes’ in Table 14b (and that were described, for example, as ‘a nude’ or ‘two nudes’) should be interpreted primarily as erotic art. In addition, a number of biblical scenes in these estates would have been also erotic in nature, such as Lot and his daughters (five) and usually Mary Magdalene (six). 58 Here I was completely dependent upon the DTB registers. The selection of goods in the inventory databases is limited to paintings, and does not mention any religious books or possession of religious silver, for example. The complete inventories can be included in further research.

220 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Eric Jan Sluijter has convincingly argued that nudes and erotically tinged paintings must have been intended largely for the elite.59 Calvinist doctrine was deeply disapproving of nudes in paintings and other erotic scenes, and many seventeenth-century texts include warnings against such amorous and frivolous paintings.60 These warnings seem not to have been intended for literate men who knew how to judge art. Johan van Beverwijck’s medical handbook, published in 1636, for example, contained admonishments against erotic paintings, even though the author himself owned a painting of Susanna after Rubens, a highly erotic scene in which two men spy on and attempt to seduce a stark naked woman as she bathes in her garden.61 For a considerable part of the burgher elite, erotic texts and images were permitted. The figure of Venus, for example, played an important role in elite courting and marriage conventions, and as such features in numerous seventeenth-century songbooks, love emblems, and love poetry, in addition to the many erotic paintings and prints. Erotic paintings and prints with Venus as the protagonist were appropriate wedding gifts; looking at images of beautiful people during sexual intercourse or pregnancy was thought to increase fertility, and thus increase the likelihood of producing beautiful, healthy children.62 The idea that paintings of Venus were mainly intended for an elite audience seems to be confirmed by the fact that images of this goddess were completely absent from the modest households. The testators in this group would have been familiar with the iconography; representations of gods and goddesses formed part of the street scene in Amsterdam, and such statues were used, for example, to direct citizens to the various municipal offices in the City Hall on Dam Square. Familiarity with the gods and goddesses is also suggested by the few mythological depictions that we do encounter in the modest estates (Diana, Neptune). Perhaps tellingly, the only goddess to appear in the modest households was Diana, who, in addition to being goddess of the hunt, was also the protector of chastity.63 Despite the belief that paintings showing nudity and eroticism were dangerous to common men, they did appear to a limited extent in a number of modest households, as shown by the five listings of ‘nudes’ and a mention of the De gulden eeuw (‘golden age’), which tends to be represented by a group of lovers.64 We should add that the art 59 Sluijter 2006a, pp. 433-435; Sluijter 2006b, pp. 143-163. 60 Manuth 1993-1994, p. 246. 61 Sluijter 2006b, p. 147. 62 Sluijter 2006b, pp. 143, 158-160. 63 In the prosperous estates, there were also six mentions of Diana. One of these specif ied that the painting was a Bath of Diana, a theme in which Diana and her nymphs are shown naked. 64 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 320 (1655), 531 (1666), 2186 (1677); Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-128 (1686), N-139 (1681).

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

221

dealer Cornelis Doeck also had the most popular nude scenes in stock, including five versions of The bath of Diana, three paintings of Venus and Adonis, two of Venus and Mars, and one of Venus and Cupid. The difference in education between the two groups is primarily indicated by the absence of scenes from Greek and Roman myths and legends, which people knew from classical literature such as Virgil’s Aeneid and Ovid’s Metamorphoses, and subjects from classical history such as Democritus and Heraclitus and The suicide of Cleopatra.65 As early as the sixteenth century, and certainly from 1625, these books were included in the standard curriculum of the Latin School, which was mainly accessible to upper-class boys.66 It must have been more a matter of interest in classical literature than accessibility, however, because these books were available in illustrated editions and Dutch translations.67 ‘Devotional’ images? The Birth of Christ came up frequently in both wealthy households (seventeen paintings in eleven unique estates) and modest households (six paintings in six estates); in other words, this was a theme that was appreciated by all classes. Three of the seventeen paintings showing the Birth of Christ were painted by Pieter Aertsen, two of which hung in the ‘beste camer’ (‘best room’) of the Catholic collector Brigitta Raauwers.68 That it was evidently not unusual to have a number of paintings of this subject in one’s collection is shown by the estate of Joanna Schonevelts, the deceased widow of the merchant Daniel de Bisschop, who owned three paintings of the Birth of Christ, one of which was painted by Pieter Aertsen and another by Abraham Bloemaert; the poet Floris Soop, who owned two paintings by unnamed artists of this subject; and the captain Marten Pietersz. Daij, who owned three paintings of the Birth of Christ by unnamed artists.69 It is striking that the inventories of all of these estates were drawn up in the 1650s; the estates 65 Here, a series of twelve paintings of Roman emperors and eight antique or Roman tronies are also included in this category, following Iconclass. 66 The curriculum of the Latin School was established for the entire Dutch Republic in the ‘Hollands school order’ of 1625, but this literature already formed part of the curriculum. See: Kuiper 1958, p. 72f. 67 Sluijter 2000, pp. 170-192. 68 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 494 (Brigitta Raauwers, 1650); Montias-Frick Database inv.no. 381, also in: Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-2151 (1654) 69 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 381, also in: Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-2151 (Joanna Schonevelts, widow of Daniel de Bisschop, 1654). Daniel de Bisschop bought many paintings at Weeskamer auctions between 1623 and 1638, but was undoubtedly a collector, not an art dealer; see: Montias 2002, pp. 102-103. Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 315, also in: Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-2104 (Floris Soop, 1657); Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 974 (Marten Pietersz. Daij/ Daey, 1659).

222 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

that were inventoried in the following decades had ‘only’ one painting of the Birth of Christ. All of the paintings of the Birth of Christ in the modest households were by anonymous artists. These inventories were, too, all drawn up in the 1650s. One of them was valued, together with a painting of a ‘Samaritan woman by a well’, at 5 guilders; another was thought to be worth 5 guilders.70 The messenger Hendrick Dirxsz. Poot, who was lodging with a woman on Anjeliersgracht, owned a ‘carsnachtje’ (‘Birth of Christ’) that, appraised at 36 guilders, was the most expensive painting in his possession; this painting is also the most expensive in our data set of modest inventories.71 At between 2 and 10 guilders, the rest of his paintings were much less valuable.72 A preference for relatively old-fashioned depictions – often used by Catholics for devotional purposes – of Mary, with or without child, and the Crucifixion of Christ, was only perceptible in the wealthy households. There were 21 paintings that were simply described as ‘Mary’, and these were found in more than half – 13 of the 24 – of all wealthy households (and thereby also in the estates of eleven Protestant testators). A number of wealthy estates had an expensive painting of Mary painted by a highly esteemed Old Master. Barbara Carel, for example, the widow of the moneylender Jeronimus Ranst, had a Mary by Lucas van Leyden worth 100 guilders, and a Mary by Guido Reni valued at 80 guilders in her home, the building known as ‘The Two Tigers’ on Oude Schans.73 Owning this kind of valuable painting by a prestigious painter had more to do with status and value than any religious function. Four estates, however, had Mary paintings that, at an appraisal value of 3-5 guilders, were among the least valuable paintings in the estate.74 Seven non-appraised estates had one or more anonymous paintings of Mary at home.75 At f irst glance, it would seem that these cheap works were 70 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 33 (1652); 365 (1650). 71 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 347 (1655). 72 According to the inventory, the paintings were kept at the ‘home of Jan van Gent, wijnlater [wine distributor] on Boomsloot and the respectable Aernout Colom’. Arnold Colom (Amsterdam, c. 1624-1668), also known as Aernout or Arent Colom, was the painter who appraised the paintings for the estate. Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 347 (1655). 73 Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-99 (1687). 74 Here we are concerned with the following descriptions: ‘a picture of Mary, 5 guilders [een Maria beeltie, 5 gulden]’ (Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 422, 1667), ‘a picture of Mary after Dürer as above, 4 guilders [een Marien beeltje nae Alberduer als voren, 4 gulden]’ (Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 138, 1670), ‘Engebrechtsz. Mary picture, 3.15 guilders [Van Engelbrecht Mariabeelt, 3,15 gulden]’ (Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-183, 1692), and ‘a small painting with a black frame of Our Lady, 5 guilders [Een ditto met een zwarte lijst zijnde een lieve vrouwen beelt 5, gulden]’ (Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-99, 1687). 75 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 381, also in Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-2104 (1654), Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 460 (1671), 494 (1650), 974 (1659); Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-91 (1682), N-117 (1685), N-341 (1690/1691).

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

223

used for devotion in accordance with Catholic practice. From marriage banns and baptismal data, however, we see that just two of the 24 estates belonged to Catholics: 20 of the testators married and had their children baptized following Protestant conventions (including, demonstrably, a Remonstrant and a Lutheran), and it was not possible to discover the faith of the remaining two estates. In other words, these would not have been devotional images, nor would they have been considered an important part of a painting collection due to their value. Wealthy households likewise showed a marked preference for scenes from the Passion cycle, especially the Crucifixion of Christ (twelve scenes in four different estates). Montias concluded that this subject must have played an important devotional role, because it appeared particularly frequently in Catholic households.76 The above-mentioned Catholic Brigitta Raauwers, who also owned four anonymous Marys and two scenes of the Birth of Christ, personally owned four Crucifixion scenes, including one painting by an unnamed artist that hung in the ‘best room’, one in the corridor, one in the ‘ooste voorcamer’ (‘east front room’), and one, ‘a painting of Christ crucified between the murderers’, in the back room.77 Only one inventory included appraised crucifixion scenes: the married couple Catharine Hooft, a regent’s daughter and Lady of Purmerland and Ilpendam, and the burgomaster Cornelis de Graeff, had four paintings depicting this theme in their home at Herengracht 216 in 1692: ‘Three paintings of the crucifixion of Christ’ hung in the red room and were appraised there, together with an alabaster ‘bortje’ (‘panel’), at 3 guilders, and a ‘scene showing the crucifixion of Christ’, worth 1.5 guilders, hung in the voorkamer.78 With one exception, the crucif ixion scenes in other estates that were not appraised were listed without the names of the artists, suggesting that these pictures were not usually among the most valuable possessions. Moreover, the one painting by the named artist was by Rombout van Troyen, a painter who is mainly known for having produced cheap work.79 Thus, like the Mary paintings, these crucifixion scenes were also among the least valuable works in the estates. When we turn to the modest estates, a difference in taste becomes manifest, as ‘devotional’ images such as these hardly appeared; only two paintings of Mary were found,80 and there were no paintings of the Crucifixion at all. The reason for 76 Montias 1991, p. 339. 77 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 494 (1650). 78 Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-183 (1692). 79 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 131, also in: Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-2047 (1676); Sluijter 2015b, pp. 226-238. 80 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 413; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-2185 (1670).

224 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

this difference cannot have been financial, because, priced at a few guilders, these works were affordable; nor was it linked to the testators’ religion, because almost every estate in the data set was Protestant. It is possible that these cheap paintings of ‘devotional’ subjects were inherited from previous generations. Wealthy individuals often hailed from families that already owned paintings in the sixteenth century, in contrast to simple folk. In itself, the popularity of the figure of Mary was neither new nor remarkable. Prior to the Alteratie, when the Catholic city government was replaced by a Protestant one, these works had been used by Catholics for private devotion, as mentioned above. After Amsterdam’s administration officially became Protestant, however, paintings of Mary were also found among the household effects of Protestants. At the ECARTICO congress (University of Amsterdam, 2011), Frauke Laarmann presented a number of findings of her research into the inventories in the Montias Database, primarily from the f irst half of the seventeenth century, and concluded that there were almost as many paintings with Mary as the protagonist as in inventories in the Montias Database. In other words, in the first half of the seventeenth century, regardless of religious denomination, a picture of Mary could be found in every household in Amsterdam.81 Laarmann defined such paintings as pictures of Mary both with and without child and narrative scenes, including the Birth of Christ, that emphasized Mary’s signif icance for Protestants as an exemplary female f igure and mother, and that celebrated the birth of Christ. In this latter form, I did encounter pictures of Mary in modest households. Old and New Testament stories Whereas scenes from the childhood of Christ and the Passion appeared more frequently in wealthy households, the New Testament subjects that were found in modest households tended to show scenes from the public life of Christ. Considering this alongside the Old Testament subjects, we can conclude that these people had a preference for narrative scenes from the Bible. We also see a great variety of narrative scenes in wealthy households, but there are no discernible trends in painting ownership; when it came to this genre, unlike devotional paintings, there were clearly no scenes that one had to have. Whether the popularity of stories from the Old Testament in private painting collections had a moralizing significance lies beyond our consideration here (after all, these are stories about good and evil,

81 Laarmann 2011. The Montias Database focuses on the first half of the seventeenth century, which is why Frauke Laarmann’s conclusion primarily concerns this period.

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

225

meaning they always have a moral component).82 This section will focus mainly on the modest households. Of the six subjects from the public life of Christ that were present in modest estates, two were completely absent from wealthy households. The feeding of the five thousand – simply described in the inventory as the ‘5 gerste broden’ (‘five barley loaves’) – was found in the estate of Rebecca Willems and her deceased husband, the bombazine-maker Gerrit Simonsz., who lived on Looierstraat. We came across this subject in the previous chapter in the discussion of the De Wet workshop. According to the preamble to the inventory, Rebecca Willems described the paintings herself; the painting was hung alongside four paintings that were described, quite uniquely for a private inventory, as ‘dime-a-dozen work’ in the binnenhaard (a room at the back of the house).83 The parable of the five wise and the five foolish virgins was found in the household of shipmaster Jasper Hendrixsz.84 He had eleven paintings at home, appraised at 14 guilders, and two alabaster ‘panels with bortjes [reliefs]’ that were together estimated to be worth 15 stivers. Alabaster reliefs were produced cheaply in series in Antwerp and Mechelen, and they appear in many modest estate inventories, both in and beyond Amsterdam.85 His entire inventory was worth 384.7 guilders. The ‘painting of the foolish virgins’, with an appraisal value of 2.5 guilders, was one of the most expensive paintings in his possession. The most expensive piece, we should add, was a Judgement of Solomon, appraised at 3 guilders. Both paintings impart the message that one should act wisely. The story of the Supper at Emmaus was a relatively popular theme in modest households; it appears thrice in the data set. The subject also came up twice in wealthy estates. Strikingly, a different scene from the story was mentioned twice in the modest estates, namely that of Christ and His disciples travelling to Emmaus.86 In the seventeenth century, this subject was mainly depicted using staffage in 82 Falkenburg 1988, pp. 10-15; Pastoor 1991, pp. 126-127. 83 In 1652, these works were described as follows: ‘picture of dime-a-dozen work about 2 feet square, 3 also of dime-a-dozen work more than a foot square [affbeelding van dosyn werck omtrent 2 voet tot viercant, 3 mede van dosijn werck ruijm een voet int vierkant]’; Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 204; also in: Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-2264. One seldom encounters the term ‘dime-a-dozen work’ in inventories of private individuals’ estates. An inventory from the group of prosperous households also mentioned dime-a-dozen work: ‘a baby in a cradle dime-a-dozen work, a flower pot dime-a-dozen work, two bad pieces dime-a-dozen work [een kindeken inde wiegh dousijn werck, een bloempotje dousijnwerck, twee slechte stuckjens sijnde dousijnwerck]’: Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-91 (1682). 84 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 341 (1655). 85 For a recently published study on the production and distribution of alabaster sculpture, see: Lipinska 2014. 86 Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-2186 (1677).

226 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

landscapes, and could therefore be produced a lot more cheaply than the Supper at Emmaus, which shows large figures sitting at a table in an interior. Two important conclusions can be drawn with regard to Old Testament stories. First of all, it is striking that these kinds of scenes appeared relatively infrequently in the wealthy estates. For comparison, I came across 71 Old Testament scenes and 125 New Testament ones in these estates. Second, one notices that the subjects that appeared frequently in the shops of Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh, such as the stories of Joseph and Moses, did not appear, or hardly appeared, in either group of inventories. That is because both groups mainly owned paintings of scenes from Genesis, most of which depicted scenes from the life of Abraham. One such scene that only appeared in ‘poor’ estates was Abraham entertaining the angels. This scene appeared in two households, belonging to a shipmaster and a baker; one of the paintings was valued at 2 guilders. 87 The subject was usually added as staffage to cheaply painted landscapes. Only one painting showing an episode from the life of Joseph was found in the poor estates, simply described as ‘een bort van Joseph’ (‘panel of Joseph’) in the estate of Maria Boortiens, appraised at 15 guilders. 88 Depictions of passages from Exodus were also absent from the modest estates, with one exception. The only such work that I encountered was The discovery of Moses in the possessions of Neeltge Cronen, the widow of the glassmaker Jan Jansz. Fonteyn, thought to be worth 6 guilders.89 One subject that appeared exclusively in modest households was that of David and Abigaïl,90 a subject that is also familiar from cheap production. The stories that were encountered frequently in the cheap shop inventories described in the first chapter, such as The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter91 and The gathering of the manna, did not appear in these estates at all. Nor, remarkably, did I find depictions of these scenes in the wealthiest estates, or the estates in between. The gathering of the manna does not appear at all in the two Amsterdam databases for the period 1650-1699, and only three times in the first half of the eighteenth century.92 One explanation may be that we have fewer sources from 87 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 341 (1655); 343 (1655). 88 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 1227 (1654). 89 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 553 (1653). 90 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 360 (1650); 394 (1667). 91 The description ‘Jephthah’ does appear a few times. These may have been paintings showing the sacrif ice scene, but many are more likely to have shown the meeting scene that preceded it, which frequently appeared in seventeenth-century paintings. 92 In 1705, in the estate of Johannes Hudde and his widow, we find ‘gathering of the Manna [’t vergaderen van ’t Manna]’ (Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-413); in 1705, the notary Nicolaas Listingh had ‘a painting of the fall and gathering of the Manna [een schilderij van ’t vallen en versamelen

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

227

modest households for the late seventeenth century, because Montias focused his ‘random’ selection on the first half of the century, and the Getty Provenance Index is based on the notes by Bredius, and the latter selected inventories on the basis of their art-historical relevance. In addition to a number of clear differences, a comparison of the paintings owned by poorer and wealthy citizens also reveals one marked similarity: it seems that every seventeenth-century household owned a history painting depicting a scene from the Bible. Ownership of paintings with biblical themes cut across all economic classes, and thereby hardly seems to have been dependent on religious denomination. The differences between the two groups become clear once one considers the content of the history paintings. In contrast to wealthy citizens, poorer citizens with little money did not own any devotional subjects addressing the core of the Bible, such as the Passion of Christ, but mainly owned narrative subjects from the Old and New Testaments. Wealthy estates also contained a large number of ‘heathen’ subjects, showing scenes from classical mythology and history. Erotically charged scenes appear to have been a favourite here, particularly pictures showing Venus as the protagonist. This goddess played a role in marriage traditions in the seventeenth-century culture of the elite classes. In this context, it is telling that no pictures of Venus appeared in the modest estates. The few ‘heathen’ subjects that I encountered in these estates were not based on ‘scholarly’ iconography, and stories from classical literature and history were lacking here altogether. Instead, I found pictures of gods and goddesses, and simple personifications. A comparison of the paintings owned by modest and prosperous households thereby underscores the established picture: the middle classes were familiar with Bible stories, whilst the elite also profited from a classical education.

The value and function of the paintings In contrast to painting-buyers with limited resources, wealthy collectors had the means to buy first-rate history paintings that had been painted by distinguished masters. As mentioned above during the discussion of the many cheap paintings of Mary, however, this did not necessarily mean that the wealthy limited themselves to prestigious artworks. In order to examine the status of the paintings in the estates, the following analysis focuses on the prices of the paintings in the six ‘wealthy’ inventories that van ’t manna]’ valued at 1 guilder (Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-414); and in 1708, the famous collector Michiel Hinloopen owned ‘a large painting of the gathering of the Manna [een groot stuk daer’t manna wert verzameld]’ (Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-559).

228 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

were appraised. In Tables 15a and 15b, we again see the categories from Tables 14a and 14b, with the difference that the table does not show the number of paintings per genre and subject, but the appraisal price. The appraisals have been divided into price categories: up to and including 5 guilders, 6-10 guilders, 11-20, 21-50, 51-100, and 101 guilders and above. I opted for this particular classification because the price variation for all subject categories was too great to obtain a good impression of the average value and the possible differences between these per category. The bottom row, ‘Total’, shows the total number of appraisal prices in the data set; thus, these figures also include the prices of genres that appeared less frequently, such as seascapes, and paintings for which no subject was mentioned. Table 15a: Taxation prices of subjects of paintings in estate inventories in Amsterdam 16501699 (inventories have been divided into two groups, based on the number of paintings per inventory) 0-15 paintings appraisal (in guilders)

0-5 6-10 11-20

History Painting Landscape Portrait Still life Genre Total

19 15 8 4 118

5 7 1 21

4 4 11

21+

75+ paintings T

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 51-100 101+

3 31 43 15 1 27 48 25 8 6 9 15 12 5 19 8 4 154 224 106

7 30 12 3 13 85

14 26 9 4 9 78

4 11 1 1 8 29

T

4 87 2 142 37 35 57 9 531

Source: Montias/Frick Database; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories

As expected, most appraisal prices in the modest estates fell into the cheapest category of a maximum of 5 guilders (76 per cent). The four paintings that were considered to be a lot more valuable and that fell into the 21-50-guilder category can be seen as outliers. The most expensive painting, at 36 guilders, was the abovementioned ‘carsnachtje’ (Birth of Christ).93 The other expensive paintings were ‘Peter in prison’ at 30 guilders; ‘A painting of the Golden Age’ at 25 guilders; and a ‘View of Overtoom in Amsterdam’ at 24 guilders.94 Surprisingly, a large proportion of the paintings in the wealthy households also fell into the cheapest price category: 42 per cent of the paintings were valued at less than 5 guilders, and 20 per cent between 5 and 10 guilders. Many of these were paintings that were listed in the inventories without subjects, such as ‘three 93 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 347 (1655) 94 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 1187 (1657); Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-139 (1681).

229

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

Table 15b: Taxation prices of subjects of history paintings in estate inventories in Amsterdam 1650-1699 (inventories have been divided into two groups, based on the number of paintings per inventory) 0-15 paintings appraisal (in guilders)

0-5 6-10 11-20

Religious  Old Testament  New Testament  Religion Classical  Allegory  Classical mythology   Classical history Nudes** Other Total

16 7 6 3 2 1

5 3 2 -

1 1 19

75+ paintings

21+

T*

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 51-100 101+

T*

4 1 1 2 -

2 2 1 -

27 11 11 5 3 1

30 3 17 10 11 -

12 2 5 5 2 -

4 1 2 1 3 -

8 5 2 1 6 -

2 2 2 -

1 1 3 -

57 11 27 19 27 -

-

-

1

2

11

2

3

5

1

3

25

5

4

3

1 31

1 1 43

1 15

7

1 14

1 4

4

2 2 1 87

Source: Montias/Frick Database; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories * the total number of paintings ** the paintings listed as nudes in the inventory with no mention of a specific scene

old paintings, 2.5 guilders’, and ‘sixteen paintings and panels with prints, of poor quality, large and small, 3 guilders’;95 it was evidently not worth taking the trouble to describe them. A significant share of the paintings that were described consisted of low-value history paintings such as these. From Table 15a, we can see that a total of 224 paintings in these wealthy estates were thought to be worth no more than 5 guilders; the same is true for half of all the appraised history paintings. These works were not owned for their value. At the same time, almost all of the most expensive paintings consisted of history paintings, with the most expensive work being a Triumph of Bacchus by Jacob Jordaens, worth 250 guilders.96 Like no other genre, the prices of history paintings varied enormously in the seventeenth century: from a few stivers up to hundreds of guilders (and sometimes even more than a thousand guilders).97 These inventories suggest, however, that the majority of history paintings fell into the very cheapest category. This was not true of the landscape paintings in these estates; in general, these had an appraisal value of up to 50 guilders. On average, landscapes fell into a higher price category 95 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 422 (1667); 460 (1671). 96 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 138 (1670). 97 Sluijter 2015b, p. 20.

230 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

than history paintings, but a history painting could be many times more expensive than a landscape. Thus, there was evidently also demand for less ‘high-minded’ work in wealthy households. This is exemplified by, for example, the art dealer Johannes de Renialme; upon his death in 1657, in addition to highly appreciated and expensive masterpieces, 20 per cent of his paintings were appraised at less than 10 guilders.98 It was already suggested, in the first chapter, that De Renialme was unlikely to have aimed at a different target group with these contrasting price categories. The observation that wealthy households also owned cheap paintings raises the question of whether the placement of these differed from that of the most expensive paintings. In order to investigate this, I analysed data from eighteen wealthy households in which the paintings had been inventoried room by room. Table 16 shows the eight rooms that are named most frequently in the inventories, whereby the zaal and the beste kamer (‘large room’ and ‘best room’), the voorhuis and the voorkamer, and the gang and portaal (‘corridor’ and ‘hall’) have been merged. A number of inventories mention a hofstede (‘country estate’) where paintings were kept. For each room, I established how many paintings had been inventoried there and what percentage of these were listed with the artist’s name. With the aid of six appraised inventories, I have given the average appraisal price per painting, the lowest appraisal price, and the highest appraisal price per room. The more expensive paintings and paintings that were listed by the artist’s name in the inventory appear to have been clustered in the zaal/beste kamer, zijkamer (‘side room’), voorhuis/voorkamer, and binnenkamer. This is particularly clear from the highest appraisal price mentioned for these rooms. These results correspond with the research by Montias and John Loughman on Amsterdam estate inventories, which concluded that these rooms contained more valuable paintings.99 These halls and rooms on the ground floor played a presentational, public role, and the paintings were hung there for guests to see. It was in these rooms that the most important paintings in the collection were hung. Herman Becker’s collection included five paintings by Rembrandt and two by Rubens, which hung in his voorkamer; his zaal (‘large room’), which was probably enormous, was home to no fewer than 89 paintings, including works by Cornelis van Poelenburch, Albrecht Dürer, Jacopo Tintoretto, Jan Porcellis, and Paulus Potter.100 The reception rooms, however, did not only contain important paintings; in most households, they were combined with anonymous and cheaper works. Of all the paintings inventoried in the zaal, the most expensive painting was worth 98 De Blécourt 2012, pp. 37-40. 99 Loughman and Montias 2000, pp. 51-69. 100 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 254 (1678).

231

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

Table 16: Paintings per room listed in estate inventories of Amsterdam estates, 1650-1699, with 75 or more paintings: appraisal prices and the number of paintings listed with the name of the artist Appraisal prices in guilders Room Zaal/best room Side room Voorhuis/voorkamer [front room] Binnenkamer Upstairs room Hall/corridor Back room Hofstede [country estate]

Painting with name

T

Average

Lowest

Highest

%

357 110 249 74 121 150 274 93

32.3 22.6 12.1 23.6 5.1 5.3 3.3 4.9

0.7 3.15 0.2 1 1 0.5 0.5 1

250 100 80 150 15 25 15 18

36 32 31 30 27 26 26 0

Source: Montias/Frick Database; Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories. Note: ‘T’ is the total number of paintings in the data set that were inventoried in the room in question. The appraisal prices are from the six appraised inventories. The percentage of the number of paintings by named artists was taken from the total data set of 24 inventories.

250 guilders, but the cheapest work was priced at just 14 stivers. In addition, one in three works in the zaal was listed with the artist’s name (36 per cent). The other public rooms, such as the zijkamer and the binnenkamer, showed the same trend: expensive paintings worth 100-150 guilders were hung next to paintings worth just a few guilders. For example, Barbara Carel’s zijkamer was home to a 100-guilder Mary with child by Lucas van Leyden and the Four seasons by Joos de Momper, each worth 63 guilders, next to a banquet piece worth 3 guilders and a painting of fish valued at 6 guilders.101 The paintings in less public parts of a house – the rooms upstairs and at the back of the building – were worth considerably less. At between 4 stivers and 4 guilders, the lowest values were more or less the same for each room, public or private. The prices of the most expensive works in the private rooms differed considerably, however, from those in the reception rooms; the most expensive work in an upstairs or back room was listed in the inventory as worth just 15 guilders. There was no substantial difference in the number of artist attributions for the public and private rooms, although there were slightly more paintings in important rooms that were listed with the artist’s name. Strikingly, in the hofstedes (‘country estates’) in our data set (Heemstede, Beemster, Purmer, and Noordwijk), only anonymous works were

101 Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-99 (1687).

232 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

found.102 From the inventories, it seems that the hofstede – a luxurious base for a wealthy, distinguished gentleman, at a farm or country estate – was mainly used in the summer months by the family and their guests,103 and it therefore stands to reason that no valuable paintings would have been hung there. It was concluded earlier in this chapter that the sharp rise in landscape and other new painting genres could be explained primarily in terms of the purchasing behaviour of the upper classes. The results of this section show that some of the wealthiest seventeenth-century households owned a substantial number of paintings of considerable value. A number of the inventories studied here, with their great variation in names, genres, and depictions, provide evidence of deliberate collecting activity,104 but this does not mean that collectors only owned distinguished work. More than half of the contents of the collections of the wealthiest Amsterdam households consisted of cheap paintings by unknown artists, artists who were not known to the clerk who drew up the inventory, or unimportant masters. These works were not only hung in the less public rooms of the house, such as the back room and upstairs rooms; strikingly, many of the paintings that hung in the most public rooms designed for ostentation and display, such as the voorhuis and the zaal, consisted of cheap, anonymous work as well. These paintings were simply hung next to the more expensive ones. Owning such paintings was thus mainly about the story or message they imparted, not about quality.

Conclusion The history painting remained a dominant and topical component of painting ownership in Amsterdam in the second half of the seventeenth century. Earlier studies of paintings in estate inventories have observed that the ownership of history paintings fell considerably in the course of the seventeenth century, whereas the ownership of landscapes rose sharply. However, these findings were heavily influenced by the use of wealthy inventories that contained many paintings. The present research on Amsterdam estate inventories, in which households were divided into income classes, corrected for this bias. With a single exception, history 102 Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories N-42 (1682); N-99 (1687); N-117 (1685); N-2310, also in Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 286 (1676). 103 The rich financier Jeronimus Ranst lived in the building known as ‘The Two Tigers’ on Amsterdam’s Oude Schans. Ranst bought a hofstede in the Purmer polder nearby Edam and commissioned Philips Vinckboons (II) in 1644 to build a sumptuous country estate there. The inventory of the estate was drawn up after his widow died in 1687. The house on Oude Schans had 96 paintings divided over ten rooms; 27 paintings hung in the hofstede. 104 Van der Veen 2005b, pp. 101-102.

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

233

paintings appeared in every one of the estate inventories studied, a finding that was independent of income class. The great increase in the number of landscape paintings in the estates can be explained by the purchasing behaviour of the upper middle classes. This explanation could probably be applied to painting ownership in Delft, Leiden, and Haarlem, too, where a greater rise in the ownership of landscapes has also been observed, but where research has not taken account of different economic and social groups.105 Regarding the ownership of history paintings, it was possible to establish differences in preferences for various subjects across the different economic groups. Painting owners from more modest households had a clear preference for depictions of religious, narrative scenes, which would have been familiar from the Bible. This conclusion was also drawn in Chapter One, based on the subjects sold by Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh. The modest estates contained very few traditional-devotional or Catholic representations, such as Mary or the Crucifixion; by contrast, I came across these images in large numbers in wealthy estates. Remarkably often, these were paintings of the cheaper sort, and they may have been inherited from previous generations. At the same time, De Renialme’s two shop inventories show that devotional paintings frequently appeared in the offering at the top of the market, and were not exclusively painted by great masters, such as the ‘Mary and child, by Rubens’ or ‘an old picture of Mary by Titian’ in the non-appraised inventory from 1657.106 The appraised inventory from 1640, lists, next to a ‘painting of Mary by Scorer [Jan van Scorel], 30 guilders’ also ‘a crucifixion, 5 guilders’ and ‘an unframed panel of Christ, 8 guilders’.107 In addition, ‘heathen’ scenes, such as mythological depictions, appeared almost exclusively in the wealthier households. This difference in preference for certain types of subject raises yet more questions: could this be traced back to taste, denomination, subculture, or level of education? Cheap history paintings did not only appear in modest households; more than half of the history paintings found in Amsterdam’s wealthiest households were valued at less than 5 guilders. These cheaper works were not only hung in the private rooms reserved for the family but also in the most prominent reception halls in the voorhuis, between family portraits and valuable paintings. Thanks to their prosperity, seventeenth-century buyers had the resources to purchase monumental paintings by famous masters, but they by no means denied themselves less ‘high-minded’ work, a situation that dealers such as De Renialme responded to with a selection of cheap paintings. 105 Sluijter 2015a, pp. 105. 106 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 180. 107 Montias-Frick Database, inv. no. 1040.

234 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Works cited Bakker, Piet, De Friese schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw (Zwolle: Waanders, 2008). Blécourt, Bram de, ‘Johannes de Renialme. Een Amsterdamse kunsthandelaar uit de 17e eeuw’, (unpublished Master’s thesis: University of Amsterdam, 2012). Boers-Goosens, Marion, Schilders en de markt, Haarlem 1605-1635 (Diss. Leiden University, 2001). Bok, Marten Jan, ‘“Schilderien te coop”: nieuwe marketingtechnieken op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt van de Gouden Eeuw’, in Thuis in de Gouden Eeuw: kleine meesterwerken uit de SØR Rusche collectie, ed. by Marten Jan Bok and Martine Gosselink (Zwolle/ Rotterdam, 2008), 9-29. Bredius, Abraham, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur geschichte der holländische kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten jahrhunderts, 7 vols. (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1915-1922). Laet, Veerle De, ‘Schilderijenconsumptie in de marge van de Republiek. Smaak en voorkeur in het Bossche interieur van de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw’, Tijdschrift voor sociale en economische geschiedenis 3 (2006), no. 4, 37-63. Laet, Veerle De, Brussel binnenskamers: Kunst- en luxebezit in het spanningsveld tussen hof en stad, 1600-1735 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2011). Falkenburg, Reindert, ‘Bijbelse iconografie en spiritualiteit: enkele beschouwingen over de Nederlandse schilderkunst en grafiek van de zestiende eeuw’, Theoretische geschiedenis 15 (1988), no. 1, 5-15. Fock, C. Willemijn, ‘Kunstbezit in leiden in de 17de eeuw’, in Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, ed. by Th.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C. Willemijn Fock, and A.J. van Dissel, 6 vols. (Leiden: Leiden University, 1986-1992), Va, 3-26. Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories, Los Angeles, The Getty Research Institute. Hoftijzer, Paul, ‘Veilig achter Minerva’s schild. Het Leidse boek in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw’, in Stad van boeken: Handschrift en druk in Leiden 1260-2000, ed. by André Bouwman et al. (Leiden: Museum De Lakenhal, 2008), 235-265. Keblusek, Marika, Boeken in de hofstad: Haagse boekcultuur in de Gouden Eeuw (Hilversum: Verloren, 1997). Kruijf, J. De, Liefhebbers en gewoontelezers: Leescultuur in Den Haag in de achttiende eeuw (Zutphen: Walburg Press, 1999). Kuiper, Ernst Jan, De Hollandse “Schoolordre” van 1625: Een studie over het onderwijs op de Latijnse scholen in Nederland in de 17e en 18e eeuw (Groningen: Wolters, 1958). Laarmann, Frauke, ‘Some Thoughts on the Public for Religious History Paintings in Amsterdam’, oral presentation at Artistic and Economic Competition in the Amsterdam Art Market, c. 1630-1690: History Painting in Rembrandt’s Time. International Research Conference (Amsterdam Centre for Study of the Golden Age, University of Amsterdam, 9 and 10 December 2011).

History paintings in Amsterdam households, 1650 -1699 

235

Lipinska, Aleksandra, Moving Sculptures: Southern Netherlandish Alabasters from the 16th to 17th Centuries in Central and Northern Europe (Leiden: BRILL, 2014). Loughman, John, ‘Een stad en haar kunstconsumptie: openbare en privéverzamelingen in Dordrecht 1620-1719’, in De zichtbaere wereld. Schilderkunst uit de Gouden Eeuw in Hollands oudste stad, ed. by Peter Marijnissen (Dordrecht: Dordrechts Museum, 1992), 34-64. Loughman, John and John Michael Montias, Public and Private Spaces. Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Houses (Zwolle: Waanders, 2000). Manuth, Volker, ‘Denomination and Iconography: The Choice of Subject Matter in the Biblical Painting of the Rembrandt Circle’, Simiolus 22 (1993-1994), no. 4, 235-252. Montias, John Michael, Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982). Montias, John Michael, ‘Collectors Preferences in 17th Century Delft’, (Unpublished paper: New Haven, 1985). Montias, John Michael, ‘Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions’, in Freedberg and De Vries 1991, 331-372. Montias, John Michael, ‘Works of Art in a Random Sample of Amsterdam Inventories’, in Economic History and the Arts, ed. by Michael North (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1996), 67-88. Montias, John Michael, ‘Artists’ Names in Amsterdam Inventories, 1607-80’, Simiolus 31, no. 4 (2004-2005), 322-347. Montias-Frick Database, The Montias Database of 17th Century Dutch Art Inventories. New York, The Frick Collection. Nijboer, Harm, De fatsoenering van het bestaan: Consumptie in Leeuwarden tijdens de Gouden Eeuw (Diss. Groningen University, 2007). Nijboer, Harm, ‘Recensie van: Veerle De Laet’, Brussel binnenskamers: Kunst- en luxebezit in het spanningsveld tussen hof en stad, 1600-1735, Amsterdam 2011, BMGN ‒ Low Countries Historical Review 128 (2013), no. 3, review no. 65. Pastoor, Gabriël M.C., ‘Bijbelse historiestukken in particulier bezit’, in Het Oude Testament in de Schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Christian Tümpel (Amsterdam: Jewish Historical Museum, 1991), 122-133. Postma, H.J., ‘De Amsterdamse verzamelaar Herman Becker (ca. 1617-1678): nieuwe gegevens over een geldschieter van Rembrandt’, Oud Holland 102 (1988), no. 1, 1-21. Sluijter, Eric Jan, De ‘heydensche fabulen’ in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw. Schilderijen met verhalende onderwerpen uit de klassieke mythologie in de Noordelijke Nederlanden, circa 1590-1670 (Leiden: Primavera Press, 2000). Sluijter, Eric Jan, ‘“Les regards dards”: Werner van den Valckert’s Venus and Cupid’, in In his Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michael Montias, ed. by Amy Golahny, Mia M. Mochizuki, and Lisa Vergara (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 423-439.

236 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Sluijter, Eric Jan, Rembrandt and the Female Nude (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006). Sluijter, Eric Jan, ‘Ownership of Paintings in the Dutch Golden Age’, in Class Distinctions: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer, ed. by Ronni Baer (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 2015), 89-111, 286-291. Sluijter, Eric Jan, Rembrandt’s Rivals. History Painting in Amsterdam (1630-1650) (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2015). Tump, Janneke, ‘Lezende ambachtslieden. De leescultuur van Haarlemse kuipers, ververs, goud- en zilversmeden, 1620-1720’, Haerlem Jaarboek 2013, 9-49. Veen, Jaap van der, ‘Vorstelijke en burgerlijke verzamelingen in de Nederlanden vanaf het einde van de zestiende eeuw tot omstreeks 1700’, in Kabinetten, galerijen en musea. Het verzamelen en presenteren van naturalia en kunst van 1500 tot heden, ed. by Ellinoor Bergvelt, Debora J. Meijers, and Mieke Rijnders (Zwolle: Waanders, 2005), 101-128. Waal, Henri van de, Iconclass: An Iconographic Classification System, completed by Leendert D. Couprie et al., 18 vols. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1973-1985) (digital version: Iconclass 2100 Browser, The Hague: RKD: http://www.iconclass.org) Wijsenbeek-Olthuis, Thera F., Achter de gevels van Delft. Bezit en bestaan van arm en rijk in een periode van achteruitgang (1700-1800) (Hilversum: Verloren, 1987). Wijsenbeek-Olthuis, Thera F., ‘Boedelinventarissen’, Broncommentaren 2 (The Hague: Huygens ING, 1995), 1-73. Wood Ruby, Louisa, ‘The Montias Database: Inventories of Amsterdam Art Collections’, in In his Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michel Montias, ed. by Amy Golahny, Mia M. Mochizuki, and Lisa Vergara (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 395-401.



Conclusion

This book has explored the cheaper segment of the market for history paintings in seventeenth-century Amsterdam by conducting research on the city’s art producers, suppliers, and consumers. In doing so, the book has presented a new field of research. Art history has traditionally focused on the surviving artworks that form part of the oeuvres of well-known painters. Research on contemporary painting ownership has largely been based on estate inventories in which paintings are listed alongside the artist’s name. This approach has resulted in much knowledge about well-known painters and important collections, but at the same time it has produced a historically skewed image of the paintings in circulation in seventeenth-century society; for many more paintings were produced in the seventeenth century than the surviving masterpieces by great artists. Here, for the first time, systematic research has been carried out on the cheaper segment of seventeenth-century painting production. It was this kind of painting that the great majority of the population would have been familiar with, in contrast to the masterpieces that were hung in boardrooms and wealthy collections. Most of these cheap paintings did not survive, and they were never documented. As a result, I approached this segment with the aid of the estate inventories of three art dealers from Amsterdam: Jan Fransz. Dammeroen (1646), Cornelis Doeck (1667), and Hendrick Meijeringh (1687). Strikingly, the emphasis of all three of these dealers’ stock of cheap paintings was on history paintings. This challenged the prevailing assumption that there was a fall in demand for history paintings in the seventeenth century, and that these paintings tended to be more expensive, due to their complex iconography. I focused on these particular dealers as their inventories, quite uniquely, mentioned the subjects and painters of many hundreds of ‘dime-a-dozen’ works. The market for cheap paintings must have been much larger than that represented by these three Amsterdam shops, located on the same street, and it is likely that other dealers – for whom we have no detailed inventories – would have sold different sorts of paintings. Whilst acknowledging that they offer a limited view, the inventories were used here as a means of obtaining a first glimpse of this end of the market. By combining a socio-economic approach with more traditional art-historical analyses, I sketched an impression of the works that were for sale, and the production and ownership of these kinds of paintings.

Jager, A., Popular History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: Production, Distribution, and Consumption. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020 doi 10.5117/9789462987739_concl

238 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

The works for sale: quantity rather than quality The range of history paintings in this segment were studied with reference to the commercial stock of Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh, and the production of several painters. Together, the inventories describe more than 500 history paintings with an average value of 3-5 guilders. Whilst acknowledging that the inventories only offer insight into the paintings that were in those specif ic shops at that particular time, the inventories suggest that a wide range of history paintings were available at the lower end of the market in Amsterdam. This impression of quantity is also given by the many anonymous copies of Jacob van Wet’s designs, and the works produced by the ‘galley painters’ Leendert de Laeff and Barend Jansz. Slordt. These must have represented a mere fraction of the actual range of work available. Analysing the paintings available from the art dealers as a whole, it seems that the dealers focused primarily on the subjects of the paintings, rather than on the reputation of the painter or on the quality of the execution. The majority of works consisted of history paintings depicting biblical narrative scenes, often from the Old Testament. These stories reflected the knowledge of a broad swathe of the population. The frequently occurring subjects suggested a preference for a certain type of scene depicting exciting or gruesome episodes from the Old Testament, such as scenes from the life of Joseph, for example, or The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. These stories inspired feelings of drama, fear, and compassion. In this respect, paintings at the top of the market were very different; whilst emotion also played a key role in Rembrandt’s history paintings, he confronted the viewer with a true-to-life expression of the suffering of one or more of the protagonists, whereas painters at the lower end of the market tended to make use of the exaggerated gestures of those assisting them. With its violently sobbing and praying figures, who hold their heads in their hands or raise their arms in despair, Gerrit de Wet’s The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter (Fig. 48) most resembles a theatrical performance. Eric Jan Sluijter has already emphasized that Jacob de Wet’s subjects and compositions resounded throughout the cheap market segment. 1 With the knowledge that both Doeck and Meijeringh had numerous paintings from De Wet’s atelier in their shops, and also kept them in their own workshops as models for their own employees, here we ask the key question: how signif icant of a role did the art trade play in the dissemination of the De Wet painting type? Earlier studies have suggested that in Flemish visual culture, art dealers

1

Sluijter 2015b, pp. 215-269.

Conclusion 

239

decided which images would be painted and oversaw the mass reproduction of existing sketches and prototypes. In Antwerp, the actual painting work was contracted out to local painting studios that could only be established by properly trained painters, in accordance with guild rules. In the case of Doeck and Meijeringh, however, production took place in their own workshops. De Laeff had received a thorough training, as shown by his The descent from the cross (Fig. 87). Slordt appears to have lacked such training, however, judging from the only signed work that we have by his hand: Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea (Fig. 90). Slordt’s execution more closely resembles the many simple, ‘provincial’, anonymous panels showing biblical scenes that were produced in the late seventeenth century, and seem to have been made by painters without proper training who followed De Wet’s standard models (see, for example, Figs. 93-7).

Production: painters and workshop practice The price of a history painting by a painter with a good reputation – such as Rembrandt, Flinck, or Lievens – could reach several hundred guilders and, in a few unique cases, even more than a thousand guilders. By contrast, the average value of the ‘dime-a-dozen’ paintings in the inventories of Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh was 3-5 guilders. To be able to sell paintings as cheaply as possible, the cost price had to be even lower. Production costs were suppressed by using a number of cheap labourers and by using reproduction techniques to cut the production time. The better a painter’s reputation, the more expensive his time. It was thus in a dealer’s interest to work with painters of little reputation, as shown by the artists listed in Doeck’s and Meijeringh’s shop inventories, most of whom did not enjoy successful painting careers. By conducting biographical research on these painters, I examined the social conditions that shaped the chances of becoming a successful artist. It was found that one’s social origin, and the opportunities that this created for one’s training, network, and ability to start an independent business, played a determining role. A painter’s son had a good chance of success: he could start training at an early age for free and could eventually take over his father’s atelier and network. The situation was much tougher for young men without a painter in the family, and only those from wealthy backgrounds managed to make up for the difference, with expensive training and starting capital for a business. One might assume that a young man’s decision to become a painter despite not having a painter in the family would have been driven largely by exceptional

240 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 93. Anonymous, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, panel 54.6 × 96.5 cm. Sale Los Angeles (Bonhams), 5-10-2015, lot no. 5031. Photo Bonhams.

Fig. 94. Anonymous, Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, panel, 56 × 82 cm. Sale Amsterdam (De Zwaan), October 2013, lot no. 4504 (pendant of Fig. 95).

Conclusion 

241

Fig. 95. Anonymous, Moses striking water from the rock, panel, 56 × 82 cm. Sale Amsterdam (De Zwaan), October 2013, lot no. 4504 (pendant of Fig. 94).

Fig. 96. Anonymous, Moses striking water from the rock, panel, 47 × 63 cm. Collection R. Jakobsson Skillingaryd (in 1977). Whereabouts unknown. Photo at RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History.

242 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Fig. 97. Anonymous, Moses striking water from the rock, panel, 37 × 50 cm. Sale Amsterdam (De Zwaan), June 2016, lot. no. 4830.

talent and ambition, but this was not always the case. It remains to be seen why such youths nevertheless tried their luck: were they driven by dreams of glory and financial success? Or was there simply enough work in the art trade? The career of Slordt would suggest the latter. Slordt worked as an iron-trader in his place of birth, Medemblik, and only started working full-time as a painter after moving to Hoorn in 1661. Despite having little talent and probably no proper training as a painter, there was evidently enough work in Hoorn for Slordt to support his family with his painting. When he was living in Schermerhorn, he was probably employed by Meijeringh for certain periods. It is not clear how and why Slordt ended up working in Meijeringh’s attic; it may have been financially advantageous for the art dealer to employ someone from outside the city, possibly as a way of evading guild rules. What else would Slordt have done to make a living in Schermerhorn? The similarities between Slordt’s painting Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea, with its lack of depth and simple composition, and the decorations on the then-popular cupboards from Zaandam (Fig. 98)2 raise the question of whether Slordt might have worked on 2

Kootte 1991. For painted furniture, see Jas 1991.

Conclusion 

243

Fig. 98. Anonymous, Assendelfter cupboard with the doors painted with four scenes from the history of Joseph, 1690-1710, wood, 131.5 × 172 x 52.5 cm. Enkhuizen, Zuiderzeemuseum, inv. no. 013182.

244 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

such cupboards or other decorative or household painting work in Schermerhorn when he was not painting for Meijeringh. The price of a painting was thus kept low by using cheap labour by artists of no distinction and by saving production time through rapid execution and by using a limited number of models. Series production methods such as these are clearly manifest in the oeuvres of the artists discussed. With minimal adjustments, different subjects could be depicted using the same compositions, figure groups, and narrative elements. Micker’s staffage, for example, repeatedly shows the use of general narrative elements that could be applied in different scenes. This workshop practice was developed even further in De Wet’s atelier: with a few changes and additions, the composition of The feeding of the five thousand could also be used for Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea. This also meant that a composition could be dead-coloured before a decision had even been made about the eventual subject. By using a limited number of compositions and figures, in theory, production could be adapted rapidly to current demand. It remains a question as to how far this production method, with its compositions that could be used for different scenes, ultimately determined the limited range of subjects available, however, as it became increasingly clear that the subjects depicted in this lower segment of the market were rarely the same as those elsewhere in the market. De Wet was a key figure, and a detailed study of his whole painting output might provide more insight into this. A further key factor for series production was standardization among the suppliers of painting materials, especially panel sizes. Thanks to standard formats, it was possible to produce a prototype in different sizes without having to make changes to the composition or proportions. This is likely to have been common practice in ‘collective’ workshops, and we also know of such practice in Antwerp. Images were reproduced using grids or templates. The prices of the paintings were based on size; a customer could thus buy the same scenes in different price classes. The few appraised paintings in Doeck’s shop suggest that people paid three guilders apiece for a ‘banquet piece by Pieter Claesz’ and a ‘calm seascape by Wouter Knief’ on achtstuiverspaneel, and four guilders apiece for landscapes by Willem Gras on tienstuiverspaneel. The paintings in Meijeringh’s shop were organized according to size. The dealers probably assumed a general profit margin based on the cost per painting size. Having examined purchase and sales records, Sandra van Ginhoven calculated that the Antwerp dealer Guilliaem Forchoudt used an average profit margin of 1.7.3 If Doeck had used the same profit margin, painting on acht- and tienstuiverspaneel would have required an investment of 1.7 and 2.3 guilders respectively. 3

Van Ginhoven 2017, pp. 84-91.

Conclusion 

245

It is striking that Doeck and Meijeringh did not market their series-produced pictures anonymously; the paintings by De Laeff and Slordt were signed and sold under their names in the shop. This was a very unusual practice, for which I was unable to find an explanation. Everything indicates that the dealers primarily sold subjects, not pictures by particular artists. For this reason, in Antwerp, massproduced works remained unsigned and were sold without names. This may have been related to the fact that authenticity was considered increasingly important in the second half of the seventeenth century. 4 Did the buyers of these kinds of inexpensive works also become interested in purchasing an ‘original’ in this period, even if it was signed by someone whose name is unlikely to have been familiar to anyone?

Painting ownership: differences between economic classes Studies on paintings in estate inventories conducted in recent decades have observed that the percentage of history paintings in estates fell over the seventeenth century, whilst the percentage of landscapes grew rapidly. These results appear to have been greatly influenced by the use of wealthy inventories containing many paintings. The result of my research into Amsterdam estate inventories, which made a distinction between economic classes, was that history paintings were present in almost every estate inventory studied, and that the rapid increase in the number of landscapes could be explained by the purchasing behaviour of the upper middle classes. The history painting thus remained a dominant and topical genre in the paintings owned by Amsterdam’s citizens in the second half of the seventeenth century, and such ownership was independent of economic class. What was dependent on class, however, was a preference for certain subjects. Painting owners from more modest households had a clear preference for religious, narrative scenes that were familiar from the Bible; indeed, many of these featured in the paintings sold in the shops of Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh. By contrast, mythological and traditional-devotional scenes, such as Mary and the Crucifixion, were encountered in very large numbers in wealthy estates. More research is needed to explain these preferences for certain types of history paintings among different economic classes: was it a matter of taste, denomination, subculture, or educational level? In this respect, it is important to note that cheap history paintings did not appear in modest households alone: more than half of the history paintings found in the wealthiest households in Amsterdam were valued at less than 5 guilders. Thanks to their wealth, some seventeenth-century individuals could afford to buy monumental 4

Tummers 2008, pp. 37-38.

246 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

paintings by famous masters, but this does not mean that they exclusively desired such paintings. This suggests that these kinds of paintings fulfilled some other function. Were paintings of Old Testament stories used to illustrate the Bible and Christian morality when bringing up children, for example? Or did the elite also derive pleasure from looking at spectacular, dramatic scenes?

The ‘discovery’ of a market for cheap history paintings This research has revealed the dominance of the lower end of the market in seventeenth-century art production and consumption; in turn, this has several important implications for our understanding of Dutch Golden Age painting. It is striking that this market functioned separately from the top segment. At the top of the market in this period, innovations in history painting were achieved by a number of ambitious artists who were driven by artistic competition and economic rivalry. In terms of their compositions, iconography, and style, cheap history paintings had little in common with the trends at the top of the market. Our impression of seventeenth-century visual language is a skewed one, as it is based on the paintings in museum collections and art-historical publications. The majority of people in the seventeenth century would not have been aware of the iconographic and stylistic innovations that defined this period, and would perhaps not have understood what was special about them. Based on the paintings that have survived, they appear to have had a preference for visual language that illustrated a story clearly and unambiguously, like a book illustration. This research has focused on history paintings, but it may be possible to extrapolate the results to other major genres, such as landscapes, seascapes, and genre paintings. Such variation can also be identified in the production of these genres. Moreover, there were also art dealers working in the cheap segment who had different specializations; the Rotterdam-based dealer Crijn Hendricksz. Volmarijn, for example, sold many cheap landscapes, and had 91 such paintings by Jan Harmensz. Vijnck in stock. Further research on the production, distribution, and consumption of other genres of cheap paintings may offer more insight into the whole segment and its relationship with the top of the market. The shops of Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh, and the names of painters listed in their stock, offer a first glimpse of the similarities. Hendrik Bogaert, for example – a painter of peasant scenes – frequently used the same motifs in his paintings, such as a little dog on its hind legs and a cat on a cupboard. Doeck had five of his paintings. The painters Hendrick Mommers and Jan van der Bent used a limited number of stereotypical figures and props in different landscape or city backgrounds. Just like De Wet, Mommers mainly worked for art dealers in Amsterdam, and both Doeck and Meijeringh had works by him.

Conclusion 

247

A market beyond Amsterdam? When conducting this research, the question arose as to whether some of these mass-produced paintings were intended for markets outside Amsterdam. There are several reasons to suppose this may have been the case. With an eye to the large painting stocks of Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh, which consisted of hundreds of paintings, many with the same themes, I began to wonder whether all of these paintings really were intended for the local market. In addition, it struck me that a number of subjects that these dealers sold in large numbers – such as stories featuring Joseph, Moses, and the spectacular theme of The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter –were different from those that I came across in Amsterdam’s households, mainly scenes from the life of Abraham. Moreover, we know from Antwerp that when painting production exceeded local demand, paintings were sold beyond the city from the sixteenth century onwards.5 Exports made up an important part of the Antwerp art market: during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, thousands of devotional paintings were shipped to regions elsewhere in Europe (especially the Dutch Republic, France, Spain, and Portugal) and Latin America.6 The dealer Guilliam Forchondt, for example, mainly focused his stock on foreign markets. Sources indicating this, such as the administrative records of art businesses, are lacking for the Northern Netherlands. As a result, previous studies have paid little attention to the otherwise obvious possibility that in Amsterdam, too, part of the painting production may have been intended for export. One indication of this can be found in the painting shop run by Catharina van den Dorp and Anthonie Waterloo on Koestraat, around the corner from Dammeroen, Doeck, and Meijeringh. They sent paintings to Leeuwarden, where a son from a previous marriage had opened a branch of the shop. Both Doeck and Meijeringh had roots in Protestant regions outside the Republic, namely Danzig (Gdánsk) and Emden, and paintings and painters from Holland could be found in both cities in the seventeenth century.7 In addition, in 1664, Doeck had an outstanding private bond to a certain Christoffel Ulrich in Stockholm, suggesting a possible trade contact. Further research should test the hypothesis that paintings from the Northern Netherlands were exported to foreign Protestant regions. As no sources have been found in the Netherlands that confirm the large-scale export of paintings, further 5 De Marchi, Van Ginhoven, and Van Miegroet 2014. 6 See, for example: Vermeylen 1999; De Marchi and Van Miegroet 1999; De Marchi and Van Miegroet 2009; Van Ginhoven 2011 & 2017; De Marchi and Raux 2014. 7 Gerson 2013, § 3.6; Gerson 2017, § 2.1.

248 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

research should focus on possible surviving sources on the import side, for example, on the ownership of Northern Netherlandish paintings in overseas regions. There has been no research into estate inventories in Danzig and Emden as of yet, but such research has been carried out in several Danish cities.8 A detailed study of estates in Helsingør has shown that people already owned paintings there in 1585, and that ownership rose explosively during the seventeenth century, just as it did in the Dutch Republic.9 These paintings are frequently described as ‘hollandske skilderien’. Most of these paintings show scenes from the Old Testament (including many scenes with Jacob and also several Jephthahs). With this, we thus appear to have a first confirmation of the hypothesis. With this study, which has focused on painting production outside the artistic canon, a new part of the seventeenth-century art market has been revealed. As we have seen, an important part – in terms of size – of the Dutch art market in the seventeenth century has been overlooked to date. A wide range of cheap history paintings were produced in series by painters with no reputation and traded by art dealers who specialized in this segment. In addition, we have seen that in the second half of the seventeenth century, history paintings, in contrast to the prevailing wisdom, remained a dominant and topical component of painting ownership, in a part of the market that in many respects deviated significantly from the top segment.

Works cited Appel, Charlotte, Læsning og bogmarked i 1600-tallets Danmark, 2 vols. (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Press, 2001). Degn, Ole, Rig og fattig i Ribe: økonomiske og sociale forhold I Ribe-samfundet 1560-1660 (Skrifter udgivet af Jysk Selskab for Historie 39) (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1981). Eller, Povl, Borgerne og billedkunsten på Christian 4.s tid: Uddrag af Helsingørs Skifteprotokoller 1621-1660 (Hillerød: Frederiksborg Amts historiske Samfund, 1975). Gerson, Horst, ‘Dispersal and After-Effect of Dutch Painting of the 17th Century: Danzig and Poland. A translated, illustrated and annotated chapter from Horst Gerson’s Ausbreitung und Nachwirkung der holländischen Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts (1942/1983)’, in Gerson Digital: Poland (Dutch and Flemish art in European Perspective 1500-1900, I), ed. and annot. by Rieke van Leeuwen (The Hague: RKD, 2013): http://gersonpoland.rkdmonographs. nl/gerson-digital-part-i 8 Appel 2001, pp. 812-815; Degn 1981; Eller 1975; Hermansen 1951; Ørnbjerg 2011, pp. 287-290; Nyborg 1990, p. 171. 9 Eller 1975, p. 29.

Conclusion 

249

Gerson, Horst, ‘Dispersal and After-Effect of Dutch Painting of the 17th Century: Germany, Austria, Bohemia and Silesia (I) The 17th Century’. Translated, illustrated, and annotated chapter from Horst Gerson’s Ausbreitung und Nachwirkung der holländischen Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts (1942/1983)’, in Gerson Digital: Germany (Dutch and Flemish art in European Perspective 1500-1900, III), ed. and annot. by Rieke van Leeuwen (The Hague: RKD, 2017): http://gersongermany.rkdmonographs.nl/title-page Ginhoven, Sandra van, ‘Exports of Flemish Imagery to the New World: Guilliam Forchondt and His Commercial Network in the Iberian Peninsula and New Spain, 1644-1678’, Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen/Antwerp Royal Museum Annual (2011), 119-144. Ginhoven, Sandra van, Connecting Art Markets: Guilliam Forchondt’s Dealership in Antwerp (c. 1632-78) and the Overseas Paintings Trade (Leiden: BRILL, 2017). Hermansen, V., ‘Borgmester Enevold Rasmussen Brochmand og hans Malerisamling i Køge’, Fra Københavns Amt 1951, 71-107. Jas, J.R., ‘Bijbelse geschiedenissen op beschilderde meubelen uit de 17de en 18de eeuw’, in Kootte, Tanja, De bijbel in huis: Bijbelse verhalen op huisraad in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw (Utrecht: Rijksmuseum het Catharijneconvent, 1991). Marchi, Neil de, Sandra van Ginhoven, and Hans J. van Miegroet, ‘Supply-Demand Imbalance in the Antwerp Paintings Market, 1630-1680’, in Moving Pictures. Intra-European Trade in Images. 16th-18th Centuries, ed. by Neil De Marchi and Sophie Raux (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 37-76. Marchi, Neil de and Hans J. van Miegroet, ‘Exploring Markets for Netherlandish Paintings in Spain and Nueva España’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999), 81-111. Marchi, Neil de and Hans J. van Miegroet, ‘Antwerp Dealers’ Invasions of the SeventeenthCentury Lille Market’, in Art Auctions and Dealers: The Dissemination of Netherlandish Art during the Ancien Régime, ed. by Dries Lyna, Filip Vermeylen, and Hans Vlieghe (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009), 43-58. Nyborg, Ebbe, ‘“Hans og Sten Maler af Ribe”: om Ribes malermiljø og dets “marked” i 1600rnes Vestjylland’ [with English summary: Hans and Sten – Painters of Ribe: On the painters of 17th-century Ribe and their ‘market’ in Western Jutland], in Synligt og usynligt. Studier tilegnede Otto Norn, ed. by Hugo Johannsen (Herning: Poul Kristensens Forlag, 1990), 143-172. Ørnbjerg, Jakob, Mod en ny tid? Studier over det aalborgensiske rådsaristokratis økonomische, politiske, sociale og kulturelle udvikling 1600-1660 (Diss. Aalborg University, 2011). Sluijter, Eric Jan, Rembrandt’s Rivals. History Painting in Amsterdam (1630-1650) (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2015). Tummers, Anna, ‘“By his Hand.” The Paradox of Seventeenth-Century Connoisseurship’, in Art market and connoisseurship: a closer look at paintings by Rembrandt, Rubens and their contemporaries, ed. by Anna Tummers and Koenraad Jonckheere (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008), 31-66. Vermeylen, Filip, ‘Exporting Art across the Globe: The Antwerp Art Market in the Sixteenth Century’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999), 13-29.

Bibliography A Anonymous 1691 Anonymous [English gentleman, attending the court of the King of Great Britain], A Late Voyage to Holland, with Brief Relations of the Transactions at The Hague, also Remarks on the Manners and Customs, Nature, and Comical Humours of the People; their Religion, Government, Habitations, Way of Living, and Manner of Treating Strangers, Especially the English (London, printed for John Humphreys, 1691). Aikema and Di Lenardo 2010 Bernard Aikema and Isabella di Lenardo, ‘The Formative Years in Italy – Stylistics and Social Networks’, in Hans von Aachen (1552-1615): Court Artist in Europe, ed. by Thomas Fusenig (Berlin [etc.]: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2010), 85-93. Alting Mees 1915 Nelly Alting Mees, ‘Schilderijen op de Rotterdamsche kermis’, Oud Holland 33 (1915), 63. Appel 2001 Charlotte Appel, Læsning og bogmarked i 1600-tallets Danmark, 2 vols. (Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, Museum Tusculanums Forlag, 2001). Apted and Hannabuss 1978 Michael R. Apted and Susan Hannabuss (eds.), Painters in Schotland 1301-1700: A Biographical Dictionary (Edinburgh: Edina Press, 1978). Vander Auwera 2006 Joost Vander Auwera, ‘Afgemeten, ingelijst en opgelijst. Kanttekeningen bij enkele aanvullingen op het oeuvre van Artus Wolffort (Antwerpen 1581-1641)’, in Munuscula Amicorum. Contributions on Rubens and his Colleagues in Honour of Hans Vlieghe (Pictura Nova: Studies in 16th and 17th century Flemish Painting and Drawing 10), ed. by Kathlijne van der Stighelen, 2 vols. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), II, 593-612. B Bakker 2008a Piet Bakker, De Friese schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw (Zwolle: Waanders, 2008).

252 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Bakker 2008b Piet Bakker, Gezicht op Leeuwarden. Schilders in Friesland en de markt voor schilderijen in de Gouden Eeuw (Diss. Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2008). Bakker 2011 Piet Bakker, ‘Crisis? Welke crisis? Kanttekeningen bij het economisch verval van de schilderkunst in Leiden na 1660’, De zeventiende eeuw 27 (2011), 232-269. Bakker 2017a Piet Bakker, ‘Painters of and for the Elite: Relationships, Prices and Familiarity with Each Other’s Work’ in Vermeer and the Masters of Genre Painting: Inspiration and Rivalry, ed. by Adriaan E. Waiboer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 85-99. Bakker 2017b Piet Bakker, ‘United Under One Roof: Artist Painters and Coarse Painters and their Relations in Seventeenth-Century Leiden’, Early Modern Low Countries 1 (2017), no. 2, 318-349. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/emlc.29 Bakker, Fleurbaay and Gerlagh 1988 Boudewijn Bakker, Ellen Fleurbaay and Bert Gerlagh, De verzameling Van Eeghen: Amsterdamse tekeningen, 1600-1950 (Zwolle: Waanders, 1988) Bambach 1999 Carmen C. Bambach, Drawing and Painting in the Italian Renaissance Workshop: Theory and Practice, 1300-1600 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999) Beranek 2013 Saskia Beranek, Power of the Portrait: Production, Consumption and Display of Portraits of Amalia van Solms in the Dutch Republic (Diss. University of Pittsburgh, 2013). Berger Hochstrasser 2000 Julie Berger Hochstrasser, ‘Imag(in)ing Prosperity. Painting and Material Culture in the 17th Century Dutch Household’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 51 (2000), 195-235. Bezemer 1894 W. Bezemer, ‘Ordonnantiën van het St. Lucasgilde te ’s Hertogenbosch’, Oud Holland 12 (1894), 123-128.

Bibliogr aphy 

253

Bialostocki 1964 Jan Białostocki, ‘The Descent from the Cross in Works by Peter Paul Rubens and His Studio’, The Art Bulletin 46 (1964), no. 4, 511-524. De Bie 1662 Cornelis de Bie, Het gulden cabinet vande edele vry schilder-const ontsloten door den lanck ghewenschten vrede tusschen de twee machtighe Croonen van Spaignien en Vrancryck, waer-inne begrepen is den ontsterffelijcken loff vande vermaerste constminnende geesten ende schilders van dese eeuw, hier inne meest naer het leven af-gebeldt, verciert met veel vermakelijcke rijmen ende spreucken (Antwerp, by Juliaen van Montfort, 1662). Biemans 2007 Bert Biemans, ‘Een schatting van het aantal schilderijen dat in de zeventiende eeuw in de Republiek is gemaakt’ (unpublished Master’s thesis: University of Amsterdam, 2007). Biesboer 2001 Pieter Biesboer, Collections of Paintings in Haarlem 1572-1745 (Documents for the History of Collecting: Netherlandish Inventories 1), ed. by Carol Togneri (Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Trust, 2001). Biesboer 2006 Pieter Biesboer, ‘Nicolaes Pietersz Berchem, meester-schilder van Haarlem’, in Nicolaes Berchem: In het licht van Italië, ed. by Pieter Biesboer (Ghent: Ludion, 2006), 10-37. Blankert 1966 Albert Blankert, ‘Invulportretten door Caspar en Constantyn Netscher’, Oud Holland 81 (1966), 263-269. Blankert 1978 Albert Blankert, Nederlandse 17e eeuwse Italianiserende landschapschilders/Dutch 17th Century Italianate Landscape Painters (Soest: Davaco, 1978). De Blécourt 2012 Bram de Blécourt, ‘Johannes de Renialme. Een Amsterdamse kunsthandelaar uit de 17e eeuw’, (unpublished master thesis: Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2012). Boers-Goosens 2001 Marion Boers-Goosens, Schilders en de markt, Haarlem 1605-1635 (Diss. Universiteit Leiden, 2001).

254 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Boers-Goosens 2012 Marion Boers-Goosens, De Noord-Nederlandse kunsthandel in de eerste helft van de zeventiende eeuw (Hilversum: Verloren, 2012). Bok 1992 Marten Jan Bok, ‘De schilder in zijn wereld. De sociaal-economische benadering van de Nederlandse zeventiende-eeuwse schilderkunst’, in De Gouden Eeuw in perspectief. Het beeld van de Nederlandse zeventiende-eeuwse schilderkunst in later tijd, ed. by Frans Grijzenhout and Henk van Veen (Nijmegen: SUN, 1992), 330-359. Bok 1994 Marten Jan Bok, Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt 1580-1700 (Diss. Universiteit Utrecht, 1994) Bok 1998 Marten Jan Bok, ‘Pricing the Unpriced: How Dutch 17th-Century Painters Determined the Selling Price of Their Work’, in Art Markets in Europe, 1400-1800, ed. by Michael North and David Ormrod (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), 101-110. Bok 2001 Marten Jan Bok, ‘The Rise of Amsterdam as a Cultural Centre: The Market for Paintings, 15801680’, in Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe. Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London, ed by Patrick O’Brien (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 186-209. Bok 2004 Marten Jan Bok, ‘Rembrandt’s Fame and Rembrandt’s Failure. The Market for History Paintings in the Dutch Republic’, in Rembrandt and Dutch History Painting in the 17th Century (Conference Proceedings of September 13-14, 2003, ed. by Akira Kofuku (Tokyo: The National Museum of Western Art, 2004), 159-180. Bok 2008 Marten Jan Bok, ‘“Schilderien te coop”: nieuwe marketingtechnieken op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt van de Gouden Eeuw’, in Thuis in de Gouden Eeuw: kleine meesterwerken uit de SØR Rusche collectie, ed. by Marten Jan Bok and Martine Gosselink (Zwolle/Rotterdam, 2008), 9-29. Bowron 1999 Edgar Peters Bowron, ‘A Brief History of European Oil Paintings on Copper, 1560-1775’, in Copper as Canvas: Two Centuries of Masterpiece Paintings on Copper, 1575-1775, ed. by Michael K. Komanecky (New York: Phoenix Art Museum/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 9-30.

Bibliogr aphy 

255

Brandmüller 2010 Nicole Brandmüller, La edad de oro de la pintura holandesa y flamenca del Städel Museum (Bilbao: Fondación del museo Guggenheim Bilbao, 2010). Bredius 1881-1882 Abraham Bredius, ‘De boeken der Haagsche ‘Schilders-Confrerye’’, in Obreen 1877/18781888/1890, IV, 45-221. Bredius 1882-1883 Abraham Bredius, ‘De boeken van het Leidsche St. Lucas-Gilde’, in Obreen 1877/18781888/1890, V, 172-259. Bredius 1890 Abraham Bredius, ‘Nalezing’ [Pieter Cosijn], Oud Holland 8 (1890), 121-124. Bredius 1891 Abraham Bredius. ‘De kunsthandel te Amsterdam in de XVIIe eeuw.’ Amsterdamsch Jaarboekje 1891, 54-72. Bredius 1915-1922 Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur geschichte der holländische kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten jahrhunderts, 7 vols. (Den Haag, Nijhoff, 1915-1922). Bredius 1916 Abraham Bredius, ‘De schilder Leendert de Laeff’, Oud Holland 34 (1916), 155-157. Bredius 1919 Abraham Bredius, ‘Het schetsboek van Jacob de Wet’, Oud Holland 37 (1919), 215-222. Bredius 1933 Abraham Bredius, ‘Hoe de schilders van “dozijnwerck” in de XVIIde eeuw aan den kost kwamen’, Oud Holland 50 (1933), 63. Bredius 1934 Abraham Bredius, ‘Een schilderscontract’, Oud Holland 51 (1934), 188-190. Briels 1985 Jan Briels, Zuid-Nederlanders in de Republiek 1572-1630. Een demografische en cultuurhistorische studie (Sint-Niklaas, Danthe, 1985).

256 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Van den Brink 2001 Peter van den Brink, ‘De kunst van het kopiëren: Het waarom en hoe van het vervaardigen van kopieën en schilderijen in oplage in de Nederlanden in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw’, in De Firma Brueghel, ed. by Peter van den Brink (Maastricht: Bonnefantenmuseum, 2001). Brown 1891 Peter Hume Brown, Early Travellers in Scotland (Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1891). Brozius 1993 John R. Brozius, ‘Aspecten van de Hoornse schilderkunst in de 17e eeuw’, West-Frieslands Oud en Nieuw 60 (1993), 12-18. De Bruin 1941 C. de Bruin, ‘Een schilderij van Huig van Dorre-Wiltschut’, Oud Holland 58 (1941), 92-93. Brusati 1995 Celeste Brusati, Artifice and Illusion. The Art and Writing of Samuel van Hoogstraten (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1995). Bruyn 1979 J. Bruyn, ‘Een onderzoek naar 17de-eeuwse schilderijformaten, voornamelijk in NoordNederland’, Oud Holland 93 (1979), 96-115. Brydall 1889 Robert Brydall, Art in Scotland: Its Origin and Progress (Edinburgh: W. Blaclkwood and sons, 1889). Buijsen 1998 Edwin Buijsen, Haagse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw: Het Hoogsteder lexicon van alle schilders werkzaam in Den Haag 1600-1700. (The Hague, Kunsthandel Hoogsteder and Hoogsteder, 1998). C Carlyle 2001 Leslie Carlyle, The Artist’s Assistant: Oil Painting Instruction Manual, and Handbooks in Britain 1800-1900, with reference to selected eighteenth-century sources (London: Archetype, 2001). Cavazzini 2008 Patrizia Cavazzini, Painting as Business in Early Seventeenth-Century Rome (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008).

Bibliogr aphy 

257

Chong 1987 Alan Chong, ‘The Market for Landscape Painting in Seventeenth-Century Holland’ in Masters of 17th-century Dutch Landscape Painting, ed. by Peter C. Sutton (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum/Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1987), 104-120. Commelin 1693 Caspar Commelin, Beschryvinge van Amsterdam, desselfs eerste oorspronk uyt den Huyse der Heeren van Aemstel en Aemstellant met een verhaal van haar leven en dappere krijgsdaden; Amsterdams kleyne beginselen, oudheyt, bemuring en verscheyde vergrootingen: de gelegenheyt en hoedanigheyt der stad, de voornaamste gebouwen, en wijze van regeeringe. (Amsterdam: voor Wolfgang, Waasberge, Boom, van Someren en Goethals, 1693). Crenshaw 2006 Paul Crenshaw, Rembrandt’s Bankruptcy: The Artist, his Patrons, and the Art Market in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006). Cuypers en Kalf 1906 Petrus Josephus Hubertus Cuypers and Jan Kalf, De katholieke kerken in Nederland: dat is de tegenwoordige staat dier kerken met hunne meubeling en versiering beschreven en afgebeeld (Amsterdam: Van Holkema & Warendorf, 1906). D Dapper 1663 Olfert Dapper, Historische beschryving der stadt Amsterdam: waer in de voornaemste geschiedenissen (na een kort verhael van gansch Hollant en d’omleggende dorpen, als ambachtsheerlijkheden, onder deze stadt gelegen) die ten tijde der herdoopers, Nederlandtsche beroerten, en onder Prins Willems, de tweede, stadt-houderlijke regeering, hier ter stede voor-gevallen zijn, verhandelt, en al de stads gemeene, zoo geestelijke als wereltlijke, gebouwen, in meer als tzeventigh kopere platen, met haer nevenstaende beschrijving, vertoont worden (Amsterdam: by Jacob van Meurs, 1663). Degn 1981 Ole Degn. Rig og fattig i Ribe: økonomiske og sociale forhold I Ribe-samfundet 1560-1660 (Skrifter udgivet af Jysk Selskab for Historie 39) (Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget i Aarhus, 1981). Denucé 1949 Jan Denucé, Na Peter Pauwel Rubens: Documenten uit den kunsthandel te Antwerpen in de XVIIe eeuw van Matthijs Musson (Bronnen voor de geschiedenis van de Vlaamse kunst 5) (Antwerp: De Sikkel, 1949).

258 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Dibbits 2001 Hester Dibbits, Vertrouwd bezit: Materiële cultuur in Doesburg en Maassluis 1650-1800 (Nijmegen: SUN Uitgeverij, 2001). Dijkstra 1990 Jeltje Dijkstra, Origineel en kopie. Een onderzoek naar de navolging van de Meester van Flémalle en Rogier van der Weyden (Diss. Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1990). Dudok van Heel 1991 S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, ‘Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669): Een veranderend schilderportret’, in Rembrandt. De meester & zijn werkplaats, ed. by Christopher Brown, Jan Kelch and Pieter van Thiel, 2 vols. (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum/Zwolle: Waanders, 1991), I, 50-67. E Van Eeghen 1969 Isabella H. van Eeghen, ‘Uitdraagsters ’t zij man of vrouw’, Maandblad Amstelodamum 56 (1969), 102-110. Van Eeghen 1969/2012 Isabella H. van Eeghen, ‘Het Amsterdamse Sint Lucasgilde in de 17de eeuw’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 61 (1969), 65-102. English translation with new annotations: ‘The Amsterdam Guild of Saint Luke in the Seventeenth Century’, trans. and annot. by Jasper Hillegers, with contributions by S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 4 (Summer 2012), no. 2, DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2012.4.2.4 Van Eeghen 1990 Isabella H. van Eeghen, ‘Frederick de Wit, Amsterdams uitgever’, in Jacob Aertsz. Colom’s kaart van Holland 1681, ed. by A. H. Sijmons (Alphen aan de Rijn: Canaletto, 1990), 12-20. Eller 1975 Povl Eller, Borgerne og billedkunsten på Christian 4.s tid: Uddrag af Helsingørs Skifteprotokoller 1621-1660 (Hillerød, Frederiksborg Amts historiske Samfund, 1975). Evelyn 1955 John Evelyn, The Diary of John Evelyn, now first printed in full from the manuscripts belonging to Mr. John Evelyn, ed. by Esmond Samuel de Beer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955) Van Eynden en Van der Willigen 1816-1840 Roeland van Eynden en Adriaan van der Willigen, Geschiedenis der vaderlandsche schilderkunst, sedert de helft der XVIII eeuw, 4 vols. (Haarlem: Loosjes, 1816-1840).

Bibliogr aphy 

259

F Faber 1980 Johannes A. Faber, ‘Inhabitants of Amsterdam and their Possessions, 1701-1710’, A.A.G. Bijdragen 23 (1980), 149-155. Falkenburg 1988 Reindert Falkenburg, ‘Bijbelse iconografie en spiritualiteit: enkele beschouwingen over de Nederlandse schilderkunst en grafiek van de zestiende eeuw’, Theoretische geschiedenis 15 (1988), no. 1, 5-15. Faries en Helmus 2000 Molly Faries and Liesbeth M. Helmus, De Madonna’s van Jan van Scorel, 1495-1562: Serieproductie van een geliefd motief (Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 2000). Fock 1990 C. Willemijn Fock, ‘Kunstbezit in leiden in de 17de eeuw’, in Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, ed. by Th.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C. Willemijn Fock and A.J. van Dissel, 6 vols. (Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1986-1992), Va, 3-26. Freedberg and De Vries 1991 David Freedberg and Jan de Vries (eds.), Art in History, History in Art. Studies in SeventeenthCentury Dutch Culture (Santa Monica: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1991) Frijhoff 2007 Willem Frijhoff. Fulfilling God’s Mission: The Two Worlds of Dominie Everardus Bogardus, 1607-1647 (Leiden: BRILL, 2007). G Van Gelder 1971 J.G. van Gelder, ‘Jan de Bisschop 1628-1671’, Oud Holland 86 (1971), 201-288. Van Gent 1991 Judith van Gent, ‘De tijd van de koningen en de profeten’, in Het Oude Testament in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Christian Tümpel (Amsterdam: Joods Historisch Museum, 1991), 88-105. Gerson 2013 Horst Gerson, ‘Dispersal and After-Effect of Dutch Painting of the 17th Century: Danzig and Poland. A translated, illustrated and annotated chapter from Horst Gerson’s Ausbreitung

260 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

und Nachwirkung der holländischen Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts (1942/1983)’, in Gerson Digital: Poland (Dutch and Flemish art in European Perspective 1500-1900, I), ed. and annot. by Rieke van Leeuwen (The Hague: RKD, 2013): http://gersonpoland.rkdmonographs.nl/ gerson-digital-part-i Gerson 2017 Horst Gerson, ‘Dispersal and After-Effect of Dutch Painting of the 17th Century: Germany, Austria, Bohemia and Silesia (I) The 17th Century. A translated, illustrated and annotated chapter from Horst Gerson’s Ausbreitung und Nachwirkung der holländischen Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts (1942/1983)’, in Gerson Digital: Germany (Dutch and Flemish art in European Perspective 1500-1900, III), ), ed. and annot. by Rieke van Leeuwen (The Hague: RKD, 2017): http://gersongermany.rkdmonographs.nl/title-page Gifford and Glinsman 2017 E. Melanie Gifford and Lisha Deming Glinsman, ‘Collective Style and Personal Manner: Materials and Techniques of High-Life Genre Painting’, in Vermeer and the Masters of Genre Painting: Inspiration and Rivalry, ed. by Adriaan E. Waiboer (Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland / Washington: National Gallery of Art / Paris: Musée du Louvre, 2017), 65-83. Giltaij 2000 Jeroen Giltaij, Honderdvijftig jaar er bij en eraf. De collectie oude schilderkunst van het Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen Rotterdam 1849 tot 1999, (Rotterdam: Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, 2000). Van Ginhoven 2011 Sandra van Ginhoven, ‘Exports of Flemish Imagery to the New World: Guilliam Forchondt and His Commercial Network in the Iberian Peninsula and New Spain, 1644-1678’, Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen/Antwerp Royal Museum Annual (2011), 119-144. Van Ginhoven 2017 Sandra van Ginhoven, Connecting Art Markets: Guilliam Forchondt’s Dealership in Antwerp (c. 1632-78) and the Overseas Paintings Trade (Leiden: BRILL, 2017). Van Gool 1750-1751 Johan van Gool, De nieuwe schouburg der Nederlantsche kunstschilders en schilderessen: Waer in de levens- en kunstbedryven der tans levende en reets overleedene schilders, die van Houbraken, noch eenig ander schryver, zyn aengeteekend, verhaelt worden, 2 vols. (Den Haag: gedrukt voor den autheur, 1750-1751).

Bibliogr aphy 

261

Van Gool [c. 1751] Johan van Gool, Antwoordt op den zoo genaemden Brief aen een Vrient, Mitsgaders noch op de intrërede voor het eerste deel der Catalogus van Schilderyen, beide in druk uitgegeeven door Gerard Hoet, ter afwissinge van den Laster en Schendtael, In die beide Geschriften uitgespoogen, zo op den Schryver van de Nieuwe Schouburg der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen als op deszelfs Meede Kunstgenooten, no place, no year [c. 1751] Grabowsky and Verkruijsse 1996 E.M. Grabowsky and P.J. Verkruijsse, ‘“Gadeloos, en onuytsprekelik van waerden”: Netwerken rondom de Amsterdamse schouwburg’, in Kort Tijt-verdrijf: Opstellen over Nederlands toneel (vanaf ca 1550) aangeboden aan Mieke B. Smits-Veldt, ed. by W. Abrahamse, A.C.G. Fleurkens and M. Meijer Drees (Amsterdam: AD&L, 1996), 227-242. Guilding 1986 Ruth A. Guilding, ‘The De Wet Apostle Paintings in the Chapel at Glamis Castle’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 116 (1986), 429-445. H Haak 1984 Bob Haak, Hollandse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw, (Zwolle: Waanders, 1984). Van Hall 2001 Deanna van Hall, Vervallen straatnamen in Amsterdam, (Amsterdam: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, 2001). Hanou 2009 Jos Hanou, ‘Hagar in Amsterdam: Patronen van een afscheid’ (Unpublished paper: Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2009). Haverkorn van Rijsewijk 1894 P. Haverkorn Van Rijsewijk, ‘Rotterdamsche Schilders: de schilders Volmarijn’, Oud Holland 12 (1894), 136-159. Haverkorn van Rijsewijk 1899 P. Haverkorn van Rijsewijk, ‘De schilder Jakob de Wet in Schotland’, Oud Holland 17 (1899), 191-192. Henny 1994 Xenia Henny, ‘Hoe kwamen de Rotterdamse schilders aan hun verf? ’t Hemelrijck, leverancier van schildersbenodigdheden’ in Rotterdamse Meesters uit de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Nora Schadee (Rotterdam: Historisch Museum Rotterdam, 1994), 43-53.

262 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Hermansen 1951 V. Hermansen, ‘Borgmester Enevold Rasmussen Brochmand og hans Malerisamling i Køge’, Fra Københavns Amt 1951, 71-107. Heslenfeld 2013 Marijke Heslenfeld. ‘‘‘Zo gaan er dertien in een dozijn’ Johannes Croon, dozijnschilder in Amsterdam’ in Liber amicorum Marijke de Kinkelder: Collegiale bijdragen over landschappen, marines en architectuur, ed. by Charles Dumas and others (Zwolle: Waanders, 2013), 199-210. Hoet 1751 Gerard Hoet, Brief aan een’ Vrient. Behelzende eenige aanmerkingen op het eerste Deel van den Nieuwen Schouburg der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen, door Johan van Gool (Den Haag, gedrukt voor den Auteur, 1751). Hoet [c. 1751] Gerard Hoet, Aanmerkingen Op het eerste en tweede Deel des Nieuwen Schouburgs der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen, door Johan van Gool, no place, no year [c. 1751] Hoftijzer 2008 Paul Hoftijzer, ‘Veilig achter Minerva’s schild. Het Leidse boek in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw.’ in Stad van boeken: Handschrift en druk in Leiden 1260-2000, ed. by André Bouwman and others (Leiden, Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal, 2008), 235-265. Holloway 1989 James Holloway, Patrons and Painters: Art in Scotland 1650-1760, (Edinburgh: Scottish National Portrait Gallery, 1989). Van Hoogstraten 1678 Samuel van Hoogstraten, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst: Anders de zichtbaere werelt, (Rotterdam: Fransois van Hoogstraeten, 1678). Horn 2000 Hendrik J. Horn, The Golden Age Revisited: Arnold Houbraken’s Great Theatre of Netherlandish Painters and Paintress, 2 vols. (Doornspijk: Davaco, 2000) Houbraken 1718-1721 Arnold Houbraken, De groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen, waar van ‘er vele met hunne beeltenissen ten tooneel verschynen, …zynde een vervolg op het schilderboek van K. van Mander, 3 vols. (The Hague: Houwbraken, 1718-1721).

Bibliogr aphy 

263

Huygens 2003 Constantijn Huygens, Mijn leven verteld aan mijn kinderen in twee boeken, ed., trans. and annot. by Frans R.E. Blom (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2003). Huys Janssen 2002 Paul Huys Janssen, Caesar van Everdingen 1616/17-1678: Monograph and Catalogue Raisonné (Aetas Aurea : Monographs on Dutch & Flemish Painting; 17), (Doornspijk: Davaco, 2002). Huys Janssen and Sumowski 1992 Paul Huys Janssen and Werner Sumowski, The Hoogsteder Exhibition of Rembrandt’s Academy, (Den Haag: Hoogsteder and Hoogsteder, 1992). J De Jager 1990 R. de Jager, ‘Meester, leerjongen, leertijd. Een analyse van zeventiende-eeuwse NoordNederlandse leerling-contracten van kunstschilders, goud- en zilversmeden’, Oud Holland 104 (1990), no. 2, 69-110. De Jager 1994 Ingrid de Jager, ‘Landschapschilderkunst in Rotterdam’ in Rotterdamse Meesters uit de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Nora Schade (Rotterdam: Historisch Museum Rotterdam, 1994), 95-104. Jager 2012 Angela Jager, ‘De doortocht door de Rode Zee van Barend Jansz. Slordt’, Oud Edam 36 (2012), no. 3, 14-15. Jager 2014 Angela Jager, ‘Barend Jansz. Slordt (ca. 1625-na 1690), ‘galey-schilder’ uit Schermerhorn’, Oud Holland 127 (2014), no. 4, 223-233. Jager 2015a Angela Jager, ‘De kruisafname van Leendert de Laeff, 1665’, Samengaan. Maandblad geloofsgemeenschappen Heilige Willibrord en St. Carolus Borromeus 3 (2015), no. 8, 16-17. Jager 2015b Angela Jager, ‘“Everywhere Illustrious History Paintings that are a Dime a Dozen” The Mass Market for History Painting in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam’, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 7 (Winter 2015), no. 1: DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2015.7.1.2

264 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Jager 2016 Angela Jager, ‘Galey-schilders’ en ‘dosijnwerck’: De productie, distributie en consumptie van goedkope historiestukken in zeventiende-eeuws Amsterdam (Diss. Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2016). Jager 2018 Angela Jager, ‘The Workshop of Jacob de Wet (1610-1675) and his Mass Production of History Painting’, Oud Holland 131 (2018), no. 2, 67-108. Jager 2019 Angela Jager, ‘Quantity over Quality? Dutch and Flemish Paintings in a Danish Private Collection’, in Trading Paintings and Painters’ Materials 1550-1800 (CATS Proceedings IV), ed. by Anne Haack Christensen and Angela Jager (London: Archetype Publications, 2019), 26-38. Jansen, Ekkart and Verhave 2011 Anita Jansen, Rudi Ekkart and Johanneke Verhave (eds.), De portretfabriek van Michiel van Mierevelt (1566-1641) (Delft: Museum het Prinsenhof, 2011). Jarchow 1986 Margarete Jarchow, Roos. Eine deutsche Künstlerfamilie des 17. Jahrhunderts. Verzeichnis sämtlicher Zeichnungen und Radierungen von Johann Heinrich, Theodor, Philipp Peter, Johann Melchior, Franz und Peter Roos im Besitz des Berliner Kupferstichkabinetts (Berlijn: Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 1986). Jas 1991 J.R. Jas, ‘Bijbelse geschiedenissen op beschilderde meubelen uit de 17de en 18de eeuw.’ in Kootte 1991, 59-66. Jonckheere 2008 Koenraad Jonckheere, ‘Supply and Demand: Some Notes on the Economy of Seventeenth Century Connoisseur-ship’, in Tummers and Jonckheere 2008, 69-95. K Kahn-Gerson 1992 B.S. Kahn-Gerson, ‘Biografische gegevens over Anthonie Waterloo’, Oud Holland 106 (1992), 94-98. Kamermans 1999 Johan A. Kamermans, Materiële cultuur in de Krimpenerwaard in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw. Ontwikkeling en diversiteit. (A.A.G. Bijdragen 39) (Hilversum: Verloren, 1999).

Bibliogr aphy 

265

Kampf-Rekelhof 1996 C.C.M. Kampf-Rekelhof, ‘Soo vuur en d’hamer ’t yser kneest sulx doet in ons godts woort en geest’: De Grote Kerk van Schermerhorn, (Schermerhorn, Oudheidkundige Vereniging Graft-De Rijp, 1996). Karst 2013-2014 Sander Karst, ‘Off to a New Cockaigne: Dutch Migrant Artists in London, 1660-1715’, Simiolus 37 (2013-2014), 25-60. Keblusek 1997 Marika Keblusek, Boeken in de hofstad: Haagse boekcultuur in de Gouden Eeuw (Hilversum: Verloren, 1997). De Kinkelder 2005 Marijke C. de Kinkelder, ‘Franciscus Hamers, dozijnschilder in Antwerpen’, Oud Holland 118 (2005), no. ¾, 203-212. Klinkert 2017 Christi M. Klinkert, ‘Caesar van Everdingen: The Classicist from Alkmaar’, in Caesar van Everdingen (1616/1617-1678): Painting Beauty, ed. by Christi M. Klinkert and Yvonne Bleyerveld (Alkmaar: Stedelijk Museum Alkmaar, 2017), 13-33. Knevel 2002 Paul Knevel, ‘Een kwestie van overleven. De kunst van het samenleven’, in Geschiedenis van Holland, deel II: 1572-1795, ed. by Thimo de Nijs and Eelco Beukers (Hilversum: Verloren, 2002), 218-221. Kok 2013 Erna E. Kok, Culturele ondernemers in de Gouden Eeuw. De artistieke en sociaal-economische strategieën van Jacob Backer, Govert Flinck, Ferdinand Bol en Joachim von Sandrart (Diss. Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2013). Kok 2016 Erna E. Kok, Netwerkende kunstenaars in de Gouden Eeuw: De succesvolle loopbanen van Govert Flinck en Ferdinand Bol (Hilversum: Verloren, 2016) Kok 2017 Erna E. Kok, ‘Govert Flinck, Ferdinand Bol and Their Networks of Influential Clients’, in Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck, Rembrandt’s Master Pupils, ed. by Norbert Middelkoop (Amsterdam: The Rembrandthouse / Amsterdam: Amsterdam Museum, 2017), 59-79.

266 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Kolfin 2005 Elmer Kolfin, The Young Gentry at Play: Northern Netherlandish Scenes of Merry Companies 1610-1645 (Leiden: Primavera, 2005) Van Koolbergen 1983 Hans van Koolbergen, ‘De materiële cultuur van Weesp en Weesperkarspel in de 17e en 18e eeuw’, Volkskundig Bulletin 9 (1983), 3-53. Koopstra 2010 Anna Koopstra, ‘De Antwerpse ‘witter ende paneelmaker’ Melchior de Bout (werkzaam 1625/26-1658): leverancier van ‘ready-made’ panelen voor de Parijse markt’, Oud Holland 123 (2010), no. 2, 108-124. Kootte 1991 Tanja Kootte, De bijbel in huis: Bijbelse verhalen op huisraad in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw (Utrecht: Rijksmuseum het Catharijneconvent, 1991). Kort 1997 J.C. Kort, ‘Repertorium op de lenen van de hofstede De Eng te Vleuten, 1506-1678’, De Nederlandsche Leeuw 114 (1997), 72-75. Kregel and Schilstra 1983 S. Kregel and J.J. Schilstra, De Schermeer en zijn Randdorpen (no place, 1983). De Kruijf 1999 J. de Kruijf, Liefhebbers en gewoontelezers: Leescultuur in Den Haag in de achttiende eeuw (Zuthpen: Walburg Pers, 1999). Kuiper 1958 Ernst Jan Kuiper, De Hollandse „Schoolordre“ van 1625: Een studie over het onderwijs op de Latijnse scholen in Nederland in de 17e en 18e eeuw (Groningen: Wolters, 1958). L Laarmann 2011 Frauke Laarmann, ‘Some Thoughts on the Public for Religious History Paintings in Amsterdam’, oral presentation at Artistic and Economic Competition in the Amsterdam Art Market, c. 1630-1690: History Painting in Rembrandt’s Time. International Research Conference (Amsterdam Centre for Study of the Golden Age, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 9 and 10 December 2011).

Bibliogr aphy 

267

De Laet 2006 Veerle De Laet, ‘Schilderijenconsumptie in de marge van de Republiek. Smaak en voorkeur in het Bossche interieur van de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw’, Tijdschrift voor sociale en economische geschiedenis 3 (2006), no. 4, 37-63. De Laet 2011 Veerle De Laet, Brussel binnenskamers: Kunst- en luxebezit in het spanningsveld tussen hof en stad, 1600-1735 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2011). De Lairesse 1701 Gerard de Lairesse, Grondlegginge ter teekenkonst, zynde een korte en zeekere weg om door middel van de geometrie of meetkunde, de teeken-konst volkomen te leeren (Amsterdam: by Willem de Coup, 1701). De Lairesse 1707 Gerard de Lairesse, Het groot schilderboek (Amsterdam: by de Erfgenaamen van Willem de Coup, 1707). Lammertse 2006a Friso Lammertse, ‘Gerrit Uylenburgh, kunsthandelaar en schilder te Amsterdam en Londen’, in Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006, 61-114. Lammertse 2006b Friso Lammertse, ‘Het kunstbedrijf van Gerrit Uylenburgh tussen 1655 en 1675’, in Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006, 207-287. Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006 Friso Lammertse and Jaap van der Veen, Uylenburgh & Zoon: Kunst en commercie van Rembrandt tot De Lairesse 1625-1675 (Amsterdam: Museum Het Rembrandthuis, 2006). Leeflang 2007 Micha Leeflang, ‘Uytnemende Schilder van Antwerpen’ Joos van Cleve: atelier, productie en werkmethoden (Diss. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2007). Lesger 2004 Clé Lesger, ‘De wereld als horizon: De economie tussen 1578 en 1630’, in Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, vol. II-1, Centrum van de wereld 1578-1650, ed. by Willem Frijhoff en Maarten Prak (Amsterdam: SUN, 2004), 103-187.

268 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Lesger 2005 Clé Lesger, ‘Vertraagde groei: De economie tussen 1650 en 1730’, in Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, vol. II-2, Zelfbewuste stadstaat 1650-1813, ed. by Willem Frijhoff en Maarten Prak (Amsterdam: SUN, 2005), 21-71. Lesger 2013 Clé Lesger, Het winkellandschap van Amsterdam. Stedelijke structuur en winkelbedrijf in de vroegmoderne en moderne tijd, 1550-2000, (Hilversum: Verloren, 2013). Lipinska 2014 Aleksandra Lipinska, Moving Sculptures: Southern Netherlandish alabasters from the 16th to 17th centuries in central and northern Europe (Leiden: BRILL, 2014). Lloyd Williams 1992 Julia Lloyd Williams, Dutch Art and Scotland: A Reflection of Taste (Edinburgh: National Gallery of Scotland, 1992). Loughman 1992 John Loughman, ‘Een stad en haar kunstconsumptie: openbare en privéverzamelingen in Dordrecht 1620-1719’, in De zichtbaere wereld. Schilderkunst uit de Gouden Eeuw in Hollands oudste stad, ed. by Peter Marijnissen (Dordrecht: Dordrechts Museum, 1992), 34-64. Loughman and Montias 2000 John Loughman and John Michael Montias, Public and Private Spaces. Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Houses (Zwolle: Waanders, 2000). Lugt 1920 Frits Lugt, Mit Rembrandt in Amsterdam: Die Darstellungen Rembrandts vom Amsterdamer Stadtbilde und von der unmittelbaren landschaftlichen Umgebung, mit einem Zusatz über einige in Utrecht und Gelderland entstandene Zeichnungen (Berlin: Cassirer, 1920). Luyken 1712 Jan Luyken, De schriftuurlyke geschiedenissen en gelykenissen van het Oude en Nieuwe verbond (Amsterdam: by de Wed: Pieter Arentz, en Kornelis vander Sys, 1712). Lyna, Vermeylen and Vlieghe 2009 Dries Lyna, Filip Vermeylen and Hans Vlieghe (eds.), Art Auctions and Dealers: The Dissemination of Netherlandish Art during the Ancien Régime (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009).

Bibliogr aphy 

269

M Van Mander 1604 Karel van Mander, Het schilder-boeck, waerin voor eerst de leerlustighe iueght den grondt der edelvry schilderconst in verscheyden deelen wort voorghedraghen, daer nae in dry deelen ‘t leven der … schilders des ouden, en nieuwen tyds, eyntlyck d’uutlegghinghe op den Metamorphoseon Pub. Ovidii Nasonis, oock daerbeneffens uutbeeldinghe der figueren, (Haarlem: voor Paschier van Wesbusch, 1604). Manuth 1993-1994 Volker Manuth, ‘Denomination and Iconography: The Choice of Subject Matter in the Biblical Painting of the Rembrandt Circle’, Simiolus 22 (1993-1994), no. 4, 235-252. De Marchi 1995 Neil De Marchi, ‘The Role of Dutch Auctions and Lotteries in Shaping the Art Market(s) of 17th Century Holland’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 28 (1995), 203-221. De Marchi and Raux 2014 Neil De Marchi and Sophie Raux (eds.), Moving Pictures. Intra-European Trade in Images. 16th-18th Centuries (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014). De Marchi, Van Ginhoven and Van Miegroet 2014 Neil De Marchi, Sandra Van Ginhoven and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘Supply-demand Imbalance in the Antwerp Paintings Market, 1630-1680’, in De Marchi and Raux 2014, 37-76. De Marchi and Van Miegroet 1994 Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘Art, Value, and Market Practices in the Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century’, The Art Bulletin 76 (1994), no. 3, 451-464. De Marchi and Van Miegroet 1996 Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘Pricing Invention: “Originals”, “Copies” and their Relative Value in Early Modern Netherlandish Art Markets’ in Studies in the Economics of the Arts, ed. by Victor Ginsburgh and Pierre-Michel Menger (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1996). De Marchi and Van Miegroet 1999 Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘Exploring Markets for Netherlandish Paintings in Spain and Nueva España’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999), 81-111.

270 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

De Marchi and Van Miegroet 2006a Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet (eds.), Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe 1450-1750 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006). De Marchi and Van Miegroet 2006b Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘The Antwerp-Mechelen Production and Export Complex’, in In his Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michel Montias, ed. by Amy Golahny, Mia M. Mochizuki and Lisa Vergara (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 133-147. De Marchi and Van Miegroet 2009 Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet, ‘Antwerp Dealers’ Invasions of the SeventeenthCentury Lille Market’, in Lyna, Vermeylen and Vlieghe 2009, 43-58. De Marchi, Van Miegroet and Raiff 1998 Neil De Marchi, Hans J. Van Miegroet and Matthew E. Raiff, ‘Dealer-Dealer Pricing in the Mid-Seventeenth-Century Antwerp to Paris Art Trade’ Art Markets in Europe, 1400-1800, ed. by Michael North and David Ormrod (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), 113-130. Martin 1901 Wilhelm Martin, ‘Een kunsthandel in een klappermanswachthuis’, Oud Holland 19 (1901), 86-88. Merian [1648] Matthaeus Merian, Icones Biblicae, praecipuas sacrae scripturae historias eleganter et graphicè representantes / Biblische Figuren, darinnen die furnemsten Historien in heiliger Schrift begriffen geschichtmessig entworffe zyn / Bybel Printen vertonende de voornaemste historien en afbeeldsels der Heyliger schrifture / Figgers of the Bible, in who almost every history of the holy schriptures are described (Amsterdam: by Cornelis Dankertsz., [1648]) Van Meurs 1890 Peter van Meurs, ‘Iets over de Hollandsche schilders De Wet en hun Zuidafrikaansche Nakomelingen’, Oud Holland 18 (1890), 229-232. Miedema 1980 Hessel Miedema, De archiefbescheiden van het St. Lukasgilde te Haarlem 1497-1798 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Canaletto, 1980).

Bibliogr aphy 

271

Miedema 1981 Hessel Miedema, ‘Verder onderzoek naar zeventiende-eeuwse schilderij-formaten in Noord-Nederland’, Oud Holland 95 (1981), 31-49. Miedema 1987 Hessel Miedema, ‘Kunstschilders, gilde en academie: Over het probleem van de emancipatie van de kunstschilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden’, Oud Holland 101 (1987), 1-14. Miedema 2017 Hessel Miedema, Theorie en praktijk: Teksten over schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw van de Noordelijke Nederlanden (Hilversum: Verloren, 2017) Van Miegroet 2015 Hans Van Miegroet, ‘New data visualizations on the Mechelen export industry and artist migration patterns’, De Zeventiende Eeuw 31 (2015), no. 1, 179-190. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/ dze.10127 Monballieu 1971 A. Monballieu, ‘Documenten van het Mechels schilders- en beeldsnijdersambacht: II. Het rekwest van 1562 en het probleem van de 51 of 150 ateliers’, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 75 (1971), 71-82. Montias 1982 John Michael Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982). Montias 1985 John Michael Montias, ‘Collectors Preferences in 17th Century Delft’, (Unpublished paper: New Haven, 1985). Montias 1987 John Michael Montias, ‘Cost and Value in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art’, Art History 10 (1987), no. 4, 455-466. Montias 1988 John Michael Montias, ‘Art Dealers in the Seventeenth-Century Netherlands’, Simiolus 18 (1988), no. 4, 244-256.

272 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Montias 1990a John Michael Montias, ‘Estimates of the Number of Dutch Masterpainters, their Earnings and their Output in 1650’, Leidschrift 6 (1990), no. 3, 59-74. Montias 1990b John Michael Montias, ‘The Influence of Economic Factors on Style’, De zeventiende eeuw 6 (1990), 49-57. Montias 1990c John Michael Montias, ‘Socio-Economic Aspects of Netherlands Art from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Century: A Survey’, Art Bulletin 72 (1990), 358-373. Montias 1991 John Michael Montias, ‘Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions’, in Freedberg and De Vries 1991, 331-372. Montias 1996 John Michael Montias, ‘Works of Art in a Random Sample of Amsterdam Inventories.’ in Economic History and the Arts, ed. by Michael North (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1996), 67-88. Montias 2002 John Michael Montias, Art at Auction in 17th Century Amsterdam (Amsterdam: University Press, 2002). Montias 2004 John Michael Montias, ‘Art Dealers in Holland’, in Economics of Art and Culture: Invited Papers at the 12th International Conference of the Association of Cultural Economics International, ed. by Victor A. Ginsburgh (Amsterdam and London: Elsevier, 2004), 75-96. Montias 2004-2005 John Michael Montias, ‘Artists’ Names in Amsterdam Inventories, 1607-80’, Simiolus 31, no. 4 (2004-2005), 322-347. Mundy 1907-1936 Peter Mundy, The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608-1667, ed. by Richard Carnac Temple, 5 vols. (London: Hakluyt Society, 1907-1936). Muller 1880 Samuel Muller Fz., Schilders-vereenigingen te Utrecht: Bescheiden uit het gemeente-archief (Utrecht: J.L. Beijers, 1880).

Bibliogr aphy 

273

N Nederland’s Adelsboek 1942 Nederland’s Adelsboek 39 (1942) Nijboer 1998 Harm Nijboer, ‘Casparus Hoomis. Een onbekende Leeuwarder schilder uit de zeventiende eeuw’, Fryslân 4 (1998), no. 4, 10-12. URL: Nijboer 2007 Harm Nijboer, De fatsoenering van het bestaan: Consumptie in Leeuwarden tijdens de Gouden Eeuw (Diss. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2007). Nijboer 2010 Harm Nijboer, ‘Een bloeitijd als crisis: Over de Hollandse schilderkunst in de 17de eeuw’, Holland 42 (2010), no. 3, 193-205. Nijboer 2013 Harm Nijboer, ‘Recensie van: Veerle De Laet, Brussel binnenskamers: Kunst- en luxebezit in het spanningsveld tussen hof en stad, 1600-1735, Amsterdam 2011, BMGN ‒ Low Countries Historical Review 128 (2013), no. 3, review no. 65. Noordegraaf and Valk 1996 Leo Noordegraaf and Gerrit Valk, De gave Gods: De pest in Holland vanaf de late middeleeuwen (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1996). Nyborg 1990 Ebbe Nyborg, ‘“Hans og Sten Maler af Ribe”: om Ribes malermiljø og dets “marked” i 1600rnes Vestjylland’ [with English summary: Hans and Sten – Painters of Ribe: On the painters of 17th-century Ribe and their ‘market’ in Western Jutland], in Synligt og usynligt. Studier tilegnede Otto Norn, ed. by Hugo Johannsen (Herning: Poul Kristensens Forlag, 1990), 143-172. O Obreen 1877-1890 Fr. D.O. Obreen. Archief voor Nederlandsche kunstgeschiedenis. Ver-zameling van meerendeels onuitgegeven berichten en mededeelingen betreffende Nederlandsche schilders, plaatsnijders, beeldhouwers, bouwmeesters, juweliers, goud- en zilverdrijvers, smeden, stempelsnijders enz. 7 vols. (Rotterdam: Van Hengel & Eeltjes, 1877-1890).

274 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Obreen 1880-1881 Fr. D. O. Obreen. ‘Het Sint Lucas Gild te Amsterdam.’ in Obreen 1877-1890, III, 89-196. Osnabrugge 2013 Marije Osnabrugge, ‘From Itinerant to Immigrant Artist: Aert Mytens in Naples’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 63 (2013), 205-227. Ørnbjerg 2011 Jakob Ørnbjerg, Mod en ny tid? Studier over det aalborgensiske rådsaristokratis økonomische, politiske, sociale og kulturelle udvikling 1600-1660 (Diss. Aalborg University, 2011) P Pastoor 1991 Gabriël M.C. Pastoor, ‘Bijbelse historiestukken in particulier bezit’, in Het Oude Testament in de Schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Christian Tümpel (Amsterdam: Joods Historisch Museum, 1991), 122-133. De Pauw-de Veen 1969 Lydia de Pauw-de Veen, De begrippen ‘schilder, ‘schilderij’ en ‘schilderen’ in de zeventiende eeuw (Brussel: Paleis der Academiën, 1969). Plomp 1997 Michiel Plomp, The Dutch Drawings in the Teylers Museum. Vol. II: Artists Born Between 1575 and 1630 (Haarlem: Teylers Museum, 1997). De Poorter 2000 Nora de Poorter, ‘Seriewerk en recyclage: doorgedreven efficiëntie in het geroutineerde atelier van Jacob Jordaens.’, in Concept, Design & Execution in Flemish Painting (1550-1700). Papers from a Symposium at the Rubenianum, Antwerp, from 21 to 22 November, 1997, ed. by Hans Vlieghe, Arnout Balis and Carl Van de Velde (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 213-232. Postma 1988 H.J. Postma, ‘De Amsterdamse verzamelaar Herman Becker (ca. 1617-1678): nieuwe gegevens over een geldschieter van Rembrandt’, Oud Holland 102 (1988), no. 1, 1-21. Prak 2003 Maarten Prak. ‘Guilds and the Development of the Art Market during the Dutch Golden Age’, Simiolus 30 (2003), no. ¾, 236-251.

Bibliogr aphy 

275

R Rasterhoff 2017 Claartje Rasterhoff, Painting and Publishing as Cultural Industries, The Fabric of Creativity in the Dutch Republic, 1580-1800 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017) Raux 2018 Sophie Raux, Lotteries, Art Markets, and Visual Culture in the Low Countries, 15th-17th Centuries (Leiden: BRILL, 2018). Renckens 1948-1949 B.J.A. Renckens, ‘De Hoornse portretschilder Jan Albertsz Rotius’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 2 (1948-1949), 165-234. Reynolds 1911 Cuyler Reynolds, Hudson-Mohawk Genealogical and Family Memoirs: A Record of Achievements of the People of the Hudson and Mohawk Valleys in New York State, Included Within the Present Counties of Albany, Rensselaer, Washington, Saratoga, Montgomery, Fulton, Schenectady and Greene, 4 vols., I, (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1911). Van Rijn 1894 G. van Rijn, ‘De Rotterdamsche Kermis’, Rotterdamsch Jaarboekje 4 (1894), 249-277. Romein 2001 Ed Romein, ‘Knollen en citroenen op de Leidse kunstmarkt: over de rol van kwaliteit in de opkomst van de Leidse fijnschilderstijl’, De zeventiende eeuw 17 (2001), 75-94 Rosenthal 1929 S. Rosenthal, ‘Adrian Verdoel, an Unknown Follower of Rembrandt’, Art in America and Elsewhere 17, no. 6 (October 1929), 249-258. Rubens 2014 Peter Paul Rubens, Peter Paul Rubens: Brieven, ed., trans. and annot. by Leen Huet (Antwerp: Bezige Bij, 2014) Van Run 2013 Tatjana van Run, ‘De koepelzaal van Syllisburg; scheepsportretten in het landhuis Trompenburg te ’s-Gravenland’, Oud Holland 126 (2013), 31-48.

276 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

S Von Sandrart 1675 Joachim von Sandrart, Teutsche Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste, 3 vols. (Nuremberg: bey Jacob van Sandrart/Frankfurt: bey Matthæus Merian, 1675-1680) (ed. by Thomas Kirchner and others, 2009-2012: http://ta.sandrart.net). Von Sandrart 1683 Joachim von Sandrart, Academia nobilissimae artis pictoriae. (Nuremberg: Froberger, 1683). Scheltema 1861 Pieter Scheltema, ‘Namen der schilders, die in de tweede helft der zeventiende eeuw te Amsterdam poorters zijn geweest’, Aemstel’s Oudheid 4 (1861), 59-70. Servaas van Royen 1890 A.J. Servaas van Rooyen, ‘Pieter Cousijn’, Oud-Holland 8 (1890), 113-120. Sickel 2012 Lothar Sickel, ‘Anthonis Santvoort: Ein Niederländischer Maler, Verleger und Kunstvermittler in Rom’, in Ein priviliegiertes Medium und die Bildkulturen Europas. Deutsche, Französische und Niederländische Kupferstecher und Graphikverleger in Rom von 1590 bis 1630 / German, French and Netherlandish Printmakers and Print Publishers in Rome between 1590 and 1630 (Römische Studien der Bibliotheca Hertziana 32), ed. by Sybille Ebert-Schifferer, Elisabeth Kieven and Eckhard Leuschner (Munich: Hirmer, 2012), 39-62. Sluijter 1993 Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘De entree van de amoureuze herdersidylle in de Noord-Nederlandse prent- en schilderkunst’ in Het gedroomde land: Pastorale schilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Peter van den Brink (Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 1993), 33-57. Sluijter 1999 Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘Over Brabantse vodden, economische concurrentie, artistieke wedijver en de groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999), 112-143. Sluijter 2000 Eric Jan Sluijter, De ‘heydensche fabulen’ in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw. Schilderijen met verhalende onderwerpen uit de klassieke mythologie in de Noordelijke Nederlanden, circa 1590-1670 (Leiden: Primavera Pers, 2000).

Bibliogr aphy 

277

Sluijter 2003 Eric Jan Sluijter, Verwondering over de schilderijenproductie in de Gouden Eeuw, inaugural lecture, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 2002 (published by the Vossiuspers, University of Amsterdam) Sluijter 2006a Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘“Les regards dards”: Werner van den Valckert’s Venus and Cupid’, in In his Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michael Montias, ed. by Amy Golahny, Mia M. Mochizuki and Lisa Vergara (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 423-439. Sluijter 2006b Eric Jan Sluijter, Rembrandt and the Female Nude (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006). Sluijter 2008 Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘Determining Value on the Art Market in the Golden Age: An Introduction’, in Tummers and Jonckheere 2008, 7-28. Sluijter 2009 Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘On Brabant Rubbish, Economic Competition, Artistic Rivalry, and the Growth of the Market for Paintings in the First Decades of the Seventeenth Century’, trans. by Jennifer Kilian and Katy Kist of Sluijter 1999, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 1 (2009), no. 2: DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2009.1.2.4 Sluijter 2013 Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘‘Dien grooten Raphel in het zeeschilderen!’ Over de waardering voor Jan Porcellis’ sobere kunst door eigentijdse kenners’, in Liber amicorum Marijke de Kinkelder: Collegiale bijdragen over landschappen, marines en architectuur, ed. by Charles Dumas and others (Zwolle: Waanders, 2013), 343-358. Sluijter 2014 Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘How Rembrandt Surpassed the Ancients, Italians and Rubens as the Master of ‘the Passions of the Soul’’, BMGN ‒ Low Countries Historical Review 129 (2014), no. 2, 63-89. Sluijter 2015a Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘Ownership of Paintings in the Dutch Golden Age’, in Class Distinctions: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer, ed. by Ronni Baer (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 2015), 89-111; 286-291.

278 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Sluijter 2015b Eric Jan Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals. History Painting in Amsterdam (1630-1650) (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2015). Sluijter-Seijffert and Wolters 2009 Nicolette Sluijter-Seijffert and Margreet Wolters, ‘Samenwerking tussen Alexander Keirincx en Cornelis van Poelenburch belicht’, Oud Holland 121 (2009), no. 1, 14-42. Spear and Sohm 2010 Richard E. Spear and Philip Sohm, Painting for Profit: The Economic Lives of SeventeenthCentury Italian Painters (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010). Stols-Witlox 2017 Maartje Stols-Witlox, A Perfect Ground: Preparatory Layers for Oil Paintings 1550-1900 (London: Archetype Publications, 2017). Stracke 1974 Johannes C. Stracke, ‘Die Maler und Glaser in Emden seit dem Mittelalter’, Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Bildende Kunst und Vaterländische Altertümer zu Emden 54 (1974), 23-46. Strauss and Van der Meulen 1979 Walter L. Strauss and Marjon van der Meulen, with the assistance of S.A.C. Dudok van Heel and P.J. de Baar, The Rembrandt Documents (New York: Abaris, 1979). Sumowski 1979-1992 Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School, trans. by Walter L. Strauss, 10 vols. (New York: Abaris, 1979-1992). Sumowski 1983-ca. 1994 Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau: PVA, 1983-ca. 1994). T Tamis 2016 Dorien Tamis, Van twee handen geschildert: werkverdeling tussen schilders in de Nederlanden in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw (Diss. Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2016) Van Térey 1926 G. Térey, ‘Unbekannte Werke seltener niederländische Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts’, Der Cicerone 18 (1926), 659-664.

Bibliogr aphy 

279

Van Thiel 1984a Pieter J.J. van Thiel, ‘Archivalische gegevens over lijsten, lijstenmakers, vergulders en de praktijk van het inlijsten’, in Prijst de lijst: De Hollandse schilderijlijst in de zeventiende eeuw, ed. by Pieter J.J. van Thiel and Cornelius Johannes de Bruyn Kops (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 1984), 25-35. Van Thiel 1984b Pieter J.J. van Thiel, ‘Prijst de lijst: Een onderzoek naar vorm en functie van de Hollandse schilderijlijst in de zeventiende eeuw’, in Prijst de lijst: De Hollandse schilderijlijst in de zeventiende eeuw, ed. by Pieter J.J. van Thiel and Cornelius Johannes de Bruyn Kops (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 1984), 11-24. Van Thiel-Stroman 2006 Irene van Thiel-Stroman, ‘Biographies 15th-17th century’, in Painting in Haarlem, 1500-1850: The collection of the Frans Hals Museum, ed by Neeltje Köhler (Haarlem: Frans Hals Museum, 2006), 99-363. Thomson 1974 Duncan Thomson, The Life and Art of George Jamesone (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974). Tummers and Jonckheere 2008 Anna Tummers and Koenraad Jonckheere (eds.), Art Market and Connoisseurship: A Closer Look at Paintings by Rembrandt, Rubens and their Contemporaries (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008) Tummers 2008 Anna Tummers. ‘‘By His Hand.’ The Paradox of Seventeenth-Century Connoisseurship.’ in Tummers and Jonckheere 2008, 31-66. Tummers 2009 Anna Tummers, Judith Leyster. De eerste vrouw die meesterschilder werd. (Haarlem: Frans Hals Museum, 2009). Tump 2013 Janneke Tump, ‘Lezende ambachtslieden. De leescultuur van Haarlemse kuipers, ververs, goud- en zilversmeden, 1620-1720’, Haerlem Jaarboek 2013, 9-49. Tümpel 1991 Christian Tümpel, ‘De oudtestamentische historieschilderkunst in de Gouden Eeuw’, in Het Oude Testament in de Schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Christian Tümpel (Amsterdam: Joods Historisch Museum, 1991), 8-23.

280 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Turner 2000 From Rembrandt to Vermeer. 17th-century Dutch Artists. The Grove Dictionary of Art, ed. by Jane Turner (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000). V Vandenbroeck 1987 Paul Vandenbroeck, Beeld van de andere, vertoog over het zelf. Over wilden en narren, boeren en bedelaars (Antwerp: Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, 1987). Vasari 1960 Giorgio Vasari, Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the Three Arts of Design, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, Prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, trans. by Louisa S. Maclehose, ed. and annot. by Gerard Baldwin Brown (New York: Dover, 1960). Van der Veen 2005a Jaap van der Veen, ‘By his own Hand: The Valuation of Autograph Paintings in the 17th Century’, in A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings IV. The Self-Portraits, ed. by Ernst van de Wetering (Dordrecht: Springer, 2005): 3-44. Van der Veen 2005b Jaap van der Veen, ‘Vorstelijke en burgerlijke verzamelingen in de Nederlanden vanaf het einde van de zestiende eeuw tot omstreeks 1700’, in Kabinetten, galerijen en musea. Het verzamelen en presenteren van naturalia en kunst van 1500 tot heden, ed. by Ellinoor Bergvelt, Debora J. Meijers and Mieke Rijnders (Zwolle: Waanders, 2005), 101-128. Van der Veen 2006a Jaap van der Veen, ‘Hendrick Uylenburgh, factor van de Poolse koning en kunsthandelaar te Amsterdam’, in Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006, 13-59. Van der Veen 2006b Jaap van der Veen. ‘Het kunstbedrijf van Hendrick Uylenburgh in Amsterdam: Productie en handel tussen 1625 en 1655’, in Lammertse and Van der Veen 2006, 117-205. Van der Veen 2008 Jaap van der Veen, ‘Voor eigen plezier. Rochus van Veen ca. 1618-1693’, Kunstschrift 52 (2008), 34-37. Verbeek and Schotman 1957 Jan Verbeek and Johan W. Schotman, Hendrick ten Oever. Een vergeten Overijssels meester uit de zeventiende eeuw (Zwolle: Provinciaal Overijssels Geschiedkundig Museum, 1957).

Bibliogr aphy 

281

Verhave 2011 Johanneke Verhave, ‘Het productie-proces in het atelier Van Mierevelt’, in Jansen, Ekkart and Verhave 2011, 85-107. Vermeylen 1999 Filip Vermeylen, ‘Exporting Art across the Globe: The Antwerp Art Market in the Sixteenth Century’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999), 13-29. Vermeylen 2001 Filip Vermeylen (with “Commentary” by John Michael Montias), ‘The Commercialization of Art: Painting and Sculpture in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp’, in Early Netherlandish Painting at the Crossroads. A Critical Look at Current Methodologies, ed. by Maryan Ainsworth (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2001), 46-69. Vermeylen 2003 Filip Vermeylen, Painting for the Market. Commercialization of Art in Antwerp’s Golden Age. (Studies in European Urban History 2) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003). Vermeylen 2012 Filip Vermeylen, ‘Between Hope and Despair. The State of the Antwerp Art Market, 1566-85’, in Art after Iconoclasm. Painting in the Netherlands between 1566 and 1585 ed. by Koenraad Jonckheere and Ruben Suykerbuyk (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 95-108 Vermeylen, Van Dijck and De Laet 2013 Filip Vermeylen, Maarten van Dijck and Veerle De Laet, ‘The Test of Time: Art Encyclopedias and the Formation of the Canon of Seventeenth-Century Painters in the Low Countries’, Empirical Studies of the Arts 31 (2013), no. 1, 81-105. Vermeylen and Van der Stighelen 2006 Filip Vermeylen and Katlijne Van der Stighelen, ‘The Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke and the Marketing of Paintings, Fifteenth-Eighteenth Centuries’, in De Marchi and Van Miegroet 2006a, 189-206. Vlieghe 1991 Hans Vlieghe, ‘Maatwerk en confectie. Over de functie van historieschilderkunst in de Vlaamse stad van de 17de eeuw’, in Stad in Vlaanderen. Cultuur en Maatschappij, 1477-1787, ed. by Jan van der Stock (Brussel: Gemeentekrediet Brussel, 1991), 255-267. De Vries 1950 A.B. de Vries, ‘Willem Gras’, Oud-Holland 65 (1950), 204-202.

282 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

De Vries 1974 Jan de Vries, The Dutch Rural Economy in the Golden Age, 1500-1700 (New Haven and Londen: Yale University Press, 1974). De Vries 1975 Jan de Vries, ‘Peasant Demand Patterns and Economic Development: Friesland 1550-1750’, in European Peasants and their Markets. Essays in Agrarian Economic History, ed. by William N. Parker and Eric L. Jones (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975). De Vries 1981 Jan de Vries, Barges and Capitalism: Passenger Transportation in the Dutch Economy, 1632-1839 (Utrecht: HES, 1981). De Vries 1991 Jan de Vries, ‘Art History’, in Freedberg and De Vries 1991, 249-284. De Vries 1985 Lyckle de Vries, ‘“De kunsthandel is zoo edel als eenigen, vermits “er geen bedrog in is”. De pamflettenstrijd tussen Gerard Hoet en Johan van Gool’, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 4 (1985), 1-16. De Vries 1990 Lyckle de Vries, Diamante gedenkzuilen en leerzaeme voorbeelden: Een bespreking van Johan van Gools “Nieuwe Schouburg” (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1990) W Van de Waal 1973-1985 Henri van de Waal, Iconclass: An Iconographic Classification System, compl. by Leendert D. Couprie and others, 18 vols. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1973-1985) (digital version: Iconclass 2100 Browser, The Hague: RKD: http://www.iconclass.org) Wadum 1988 Jørgen Wadum, ‘The Winter Room at Rosenborg Castle: A Unique Survival of Antwerp Mass-Production’, Apollo 128, no. 318 (August 1988), 82-87. Wadum 1998 Jørgen Wadum, ‘Historical Overview of Panel-Making Techniques in the Northern Countries’, in The Structural Conservation of Panel Paintings. Proceedings of a Symposium at the J. Paul Getty Museum, ed. by Kathleen Dardes and Andrea Rothe (Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 1998), 149-177.

Bibliogr aphy 

283

Wadum 2015 Jørgen Wadum, ‘Christian IV’s Winter Room and Studiolo at Rosenborg Castle’, in Gerson Digital: Denmark (Dutch and Flemish art in European perspective 1500-1900, II), ed. by Rieke van Leeuwen (The Hague: RKD, 2015). URL: http://gersondenmark.rkdmonographs. nl/5.-christian-iv2019s-winter-room-and-studiolo-2013-joergen-wadum Wadum and Streeton 2012 Jørgen Wadum and Noëlle Streeton (eds.), ‘History and Use of Panels or Other Rigid Supports for Easel Paintings’, in The Conservation of Easel Paintings, ed. by Joyce Hill Stoner and Rebecca Rushfield (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), 51-115. Wagenaar 1760-1767 Jan Wagenaar, Amsterdam, in zyne opkomst, aanwas, geschiedenissen, voorregten, koophandel, gebouwen, kerkenstaat, schoolen, schutterye, gilden en regeeringe, 3 vols. (Amsterdam: Izaak Tirion, 1760-1767). Waiboer 2013 Adriaan Waiboer, ‘Willem de Poorter: Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt Pupil.’ Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 5 (2013), no. 2: DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2013.5.2.12 Wallert 2006 Arie Wallert, ‘Refined Technique or Special Tricks: Painting Methods of Jan van der Heyden’, in Jan van der Heyden (1637-1712), ed. by Peter C. Sutton (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 92-103. Wallert and Tauber 2004 Arie Wallert and Gwen Tauber, ‘Over herhalingen in de schilderkunst: het probleem van reproductie’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 52 (2004), no 3/4, 316-327. Walsh 1985 Amy Walsh, Paulus Potter: His Works and their Meaning (Diss. Columbia University, 1985). Ward 2008 The Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art, ed. by Gerald W. R. Ward (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) Weidema 2006 Sytske Weidema, ‘Standaardisatie van paneelformaten van Zuid-Nederlandse schilderijen uit 1460-1540: een kwantitatieve benadering’ (unpublished master thesis: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2006).

284 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Van de Wetering 1977 Ernst van de Wetering, ‘De jonge Rembrandt aan het werk’, Oud Holland 91 (1977), 27-65. Van de Wetering 2004 Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt: The Painter at Work (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 2004). Van de Wetering 2006 Ernst van de Wetering, ‘’Principaelen’ and Satellites: Pupils’ Production in Rembrandt’s Workshop’, in Rembrandt? The Master and his Workshop, ed. by. Lene Bøgh Rønberg and Eva de la Fuente Pedersen (Copenhagen: National Gallery of Denmark, 2006). Van de Wetering 2011 Ernst van de Wetering, ‘Rembrandt’s Prototypes and Pupil’s Production of Variants’, in A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings V. Small-Scale History Paintings, ed. by Ernst van de Wetering (Dordrecht: Springer, 2011): 259-282. Wieseman 2004 Marjorie E. Wieseman, ‘Pursuing and Possessing Passion: Two Hundred Years of Collecting Rubens’ oil sketches’, in Drawn by the Brush: Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens, ed. by Peter C. Sutton and Marjorie E. Wieseman (with Nico van Hout) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 43-81. Van Wijngaarden 1995 Hilde van Wijngaarden, ‘Barber Jacobs en andere uitdraagsters. Werkende vrouwen in Amsterdam in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw’, Tijdschrift voor Vrouwenstudies 16 (1995), 334-347. Wijsenbeek-Olthuis 1987 Thera F. Wijsenbeek-Olthuis, Achter de gevels van Delft. Bezit en bestaan van arm en rijk in een periode van achteruitgang (1700-1800) (Hilversum: Verloren, 1987). Wijsenbeek-Olthuis 1995 Thera F. Wijsenbeek-Olthuis, ‘Boedelinventarissen’, Broncommentaren 2 (The Hague: Huygens ING, 1995), 1-73. Van der Willigen Pz. 1870 A. van der Willigen Pz., Les artistes de Harlem: Notices historiques avec un précis sur la gilde de St. Luc, edition revue et augmentée (Haarlem/The Hague 1870)

Bibliogr aphy 

285

Van der Willigen and Meijer 2003 Adriaan van der Willigen and Fred G. Meijer, A Dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-Life Painters Working in Oils, 1525-1725 (Leiden: Primavera Pers, 2003). Wilson 1998 Jean C. Wilson, Painting in Bruges at the Close of the Middle Ages. Studies in Society and Visual Culture (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Park, 1998) Wilton 1992 Andrew Wilton, The Swagger Portrait: Grand Manner Portraiture in Britain from Van Dyck to Augustus John, 1630-1930 (London: Tate Gallery, 1992). De Witt 2007 David A. de Witt, Jan van Noordt: Painter of History and Portraits in Amsterdam (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007). Wittert van Hoogland 1913 E.B.F.F. Wittert van Hoogland, ‘Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Utrechtsche Ridderhofsteden en Heerlijkheden’, Genealogische en Heraldische Bladen 8 (1913), 1-480. Wolleswinkel 2006 E.J. Wolleswinkel, ‘De dagboeken van de genealoog Pieter van Brederode van Wieringen (1631-1697)’, De Nederlandsche Leeuw 123 (2006), 339-344. Wood Ruby 2006 Louisa Wood Ruby, ‘The Montias Database: Inventories of Amsterdam Art Collections’, in In his Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michel Montias, ed. by Amy Golahny, Mia M. Mochizuki and Lisa Vergara (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 395-401. Woollet 2006 Anne T. Woollett, ‘Two Celebrated Painters. The Collaborative Ventures of Rubens and Brueghel, ca. 1598-1625’, in Rubens & Brueghel. A Working Friendship, ed. by Anne T. Woollett and Ariana van Suchtelen (The Hague: Mauritshuis, 2006), 2-41. Worp 1920 J.A. Worp, Geschiedenis van den Amsterdamschen Schouwburg, 1496-1772 (Amsterdam: S.L. Van Looy, 1920).

286 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Van der Woude 1991 Ad van der Woude, ‘The Volume and Value of Paintings in Holland at the Time of the Dutch Republic’, in Freedberg and De Vries 1991, 285-331. Z Van der Zeeuw 1994 Liesbeth van der Zeeuw, ‘Naamlijst van zeventiende-eeuwse Rotterdamse schilders’, in Rotterdamse Meesters uit de Gouden Eeuw, ed. by Nora Schadee (Rotterdam: Historisch Museum Rotterdam, 1994), 269-312. Zwollo 1973 An Zwollo, Hollandse en Vlaamse veduteschilders te Rome, 1675-1725 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973).

Databases ECARTICO-database Economic and Artistic Competition in the Amsterdam Art market. Linking Cultural Industries in the Early Modern Low Countries, ca. 1475-ca. 1725 (ECARTICO), Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam. Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories Getty Provenance Index Database: Archival Inventories, Los Angeles, The Getty Research Institute. Meertens Instituut: Boedelbank De Boedelbank van het Meertens Instituut, ed. by Hester Dibbits, Meertens Instituut: Onderzoek en documentatie van Nederlandse taal en cultuur, URL: Montias-Frick Database The Montias Database of 17th Century Dutch Art Inventories. New York, The Frick Collection.

RKDexplore Database RKDexplore Database. The Hague, RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. < https:// rkd.nl/en/collections/explore>

Bibliogr aphy 

287

Primary Sources HGA (The Hague, Haags Gemeentearchief) DTB [0377-01]: Doop-, trouw- en begraafboeken Den Haag ONA [0372-01]: Oud Notarieel Archief Den Haag WK [0402-01]: Weeskamer Archief Den Haag. HUA (Utrecht, Het Utrechts Archief) Goltstein Familie Des Tombe [26] DTB [711]: Doop-, trouw- en begraafboeken Utrecht NHA (Haarlem, Noord-Hollands Archief) DTB [2142]: Doop-, trouw- en begraafboeken Haarlem RAA (Alkmaar, Regionaal Archief) ORA/WK [10.3.006.2] Oud-rechterlijke en Weeskamerarchieven Schermerhorn DTB [65.3.002] Doop-, trouw- en begraafregisters Schermerhorn, toegangsnummer ELO (Leiden, Erfgoed Leiden en Omstreken) DTB [1004]: Doop-, trouw- en begraafboeken Leiden Leiden Bonboeken [0501A] RKD (Den Haag, Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie) Archive A. Bredius [NL-HaRKD.0380] SAA (Amsterdam, Stadsarchief Amsterdam) Archief van de Evangelisch-Lutherse Gemeente te Amsterdam; Kerkenraad en Ouderlingen, [213]. DTB [5001]: Doop-, trouw- en begraafboeken Amsterdam WK [5004]: Archief van de Weeskamer: begraafregisters Poorterboeken [5033] Archieven van de Schout en Schepenen van de Schepenen en van de Subalterne Rechtbanken [5061]. Remission registers / Kwijtscheldingsregisters [5062]. DBK [5072], Archief van de Commissarissen van de Desolate Boedelkamer WK [5073]: Archief van de Weeskamer en Commissie van Liquidatie der Zaken van de Voormalige Weeskamer ONA [5075]: Archief van de Notarissen ter Standplaats Amsterdam

288 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

SAR (Rotterdam, Stadsarchief Rotterdam) WK [16]: Archief van de Weeskamer Rotterdam ONA [18]: Oud Notarieel Archief Rotterdam WFA (Hoorn, Westfries Archief) ORA [0003]: Oud-rechterlijke en Weeskamerarchieven Hoorn, toegangsnummer ONA [1685]: Oud Notarieel Archief Hoorn DTB [1702-17]: Doop-, trouw- en begraafboeken Hoorn DTB [1702-20]: Doop-, trouw- en begraafboeken Medemblik

Index Page numbers with an asterix* refer to illustrations. Aachen, Hans von 168n114 Adamsz., Abraham 217, 217n52 Aerdewijn, Pieter 89 Aertsen, Pieter 221 Birth of Christ 221 alabaster reliefs 214, 223, 225 Anthonissen, Arnoldus 75n9, 80 art dealers see dealers, art Bakhuizen, Ludolf 50 Baden, Hans Jurriaensz. van 113, 177 Baden, Hans Jurriaensz. van, and Jan Micker Palace interior with Christ and the Pharisees discussing the tribute to Caesar 117, 119* Palace interior with Moses changing pharaoh’s scepter into a serpent 117, 118* Palace interior with the widow’s mite Christ draws the disciples’ attention to a woman who puts a few coins in the temple’s money chest 117, 119* Balckeneynde, Maerten 38 Becker, Herman 212, 230 Juffrouw Bega see Margrieta van Zijl Begeijn, Abraham 80n33 Beerstraten, Jan Abrahamsz. 59, 59n116, 80 Beerstraten, Abraham 59, 59n116, 80 Bent, Johannes van der 80, 80n34, 246 Bent, Sijbrand van der 80, 80n34, Bernards, Lauwerens 38 Berchem, Nicolaes 78, 105, 125, 125n75, Berckheyde, Job 62n125, 78, 123, 123n69, 124, 124n72, 125, 127n87, 127n88 Christ blessing the Children brought by their mothers 124*, 125 Parable of the unjust steward 124 ‘De Bie’ 94 Bie, Cornelis de (painter-dealer) 93-94, 93n98 Bie, Cornelis de (author) 76n17, 93n98 Bisschop, Daniel de 221, 221n69 Bisschop, Jan de 47 Blaeuw, Lambert 38 Blockman, Pieter 59, 59n115, 80, 80n35 Landscape with cattle 59 Bloemaert, Abraham 221 Birth of Christ 221 Bogaert, Hendrick 57, 78, 246 Borch, Gerard ter 105 Bosch, Pieter van den 169 Boortiens, Maria 226 Brakenburgh, Richard 85n59 Bramer, Leonard 55n104 Broeck, Jan van den 43, 48, 48n66, 82 Landscape with farm and shepherd with cattle on a country road 82n43

Brueghel (I), Jan 76, 112 Winter scene 76 Bubbeson, Joost Abrahamsz. van 110n39 Campen, Jacob van 81n38 Camphuysen, Joachim Govertsz. 75, 113, 122, 122n61 Camphuysen, Joachim Govertsz. and Jan Micker 122n61 Cappelle, Jan van de 93 Carel, Barbara, widow of Jeronimus Ranst 222, 231 Carrée, Michiel 59 Claesz. Pieter 50, 78, 78n22 Banquet piece (‘bankettie’) 50, 244 Cleve, Joos van 104 coarse painters (grofschilders) 52, 88, 89 Codde, Pieter 81n39 Coelenbier, Cornelis 129n98 Coelenbier, Jan 129n98 Colijns, David 78 Colom, Arnold 222n72 collections see ownership of paintings collectors see ownership of paintings Conincks, Laurens Cornelisz. 79 Cortsz., Marcus 43 Cosijn, Pieter 87, 92-93, 95 Croon, Johannes 43, 43n29, 48, 105, 106, 108, 109 Cronen, Neeltge, widow of Jan Jansz. Fonteyn 226 Cruijsbergh, Gijsbert 82 Landscape with shepherd and cattle 82n44 Cuyp, Aelbert 105 Daij, Marten Pietersz. 221 Dalens(II), Dirck 78 Dalens, Willem 78, 82 Dammeroen, Jan Fransz. 28, 29, 30, 38, 41, 42, 42, 43-47, 48, 50, 51n82, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64-66, 86, 95, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108n23, 108n27, 109, 111-122, 191, 192, 193, 226, 233, 238, 239, 245, 246, 247 Dammeroen, Jan Fransz., and Jan Micker Landscape with Abraham leaving Egypt, with Sarah, Lot, and his possessions 114, 115* Landscape with the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael 114, 115* Landscape with Christ and the centurion of Capernaum 112-114, 113*, 117, 122 Dammeroen, Jan Fransz., and staffage painter Landscape with Christ healing a blind man 117* Landscape with the Levite and his concubine on their way to Gibea 116*, 117

290 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

dealers, art 25, 27, 28, 29, 37-66, 79, 80, 83-85, 86, 87, 105-106, 110-111, 112, 122, 127, 127n88, 127n91, 128, 129n98, 167, 168, 168n116, 169-170, 182, 185, 186, 189, 191, 192, 193, 201, 204, 207, 213, 214, 221n69, 230, 237, 238, 242, 246, 248; see also ‘uitdraagsters’ (female brokers) in Amsterdam 41, 42-43, 127; see also Cornelis de Bie (painter-dealer), Lambert Blaeuw, Jan van den Broeck, Laurens Cornelisz. Conincks, Johannes Croon, Marcus Cortsz., Jan Fransz. Dammeroen, Catharina van den Dorpe, Cornelis Doeck, Mathijs Hals, Gerard Hoet (II), Casparus Hoomis, Elias Hoomis, Lijsbeth (Elisabeth) Hoomis, Jan de Kaersgieter (II), Marten Kretzer, Jan Loermans, Frederick Meijeringh, Hendrick Meijeringh, Pieter van Meldert, Johannes de Renialme, Gerrit Uylenburgh, Hendrick Uylenburgh, Anthonie Waterloo in Antwerp 28, 65, 84-85, 85n56, 112, 168, 170n122, 192, 239, 244, 245, 247; see also Matthijs Musson, Guilliaem Forchondt in Brussel see ‘Potter’ (art dealer) in Hoorn 185 in Leeuwarden 43 in Rome 168, 168n115 in Rotterdam 38; see also Maerten Balckeneyde, Lauwerens Bernards, Crijn Hendricksz. Volmarijn, Leendert Hendricksz. Volmarijn distribution channels for paintings; annual fair (Jaarmarkt) 23n11, 25, 38-39, 39n5, 41, 41n23, 45, 45n43, 55, 66, 86, 109 auctions 25, 26n29, 39, 50, 213 export 26, 29, 40-41, 109, 247-248 permanent markets 25, 25n23 retail trade see dealers, art Doeck, Cornelis 28, 29, 30, 37, 38, 41, 42, 47-51, 52n91, 55-66, 73-76, 77, 78n20, 78n22, 79, 80n35, 81n37, 82, 82n46, 82n47, 83, 84, 85, 87, 87n70, 88, 89, 90, 91, 91, 92,93, 94, 95, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108n23, 108n27, 109, 110, 113, 125, 127, 136, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 179, 182, 186, 191-193, 221, 226, 233, 238, 239, 244, 245, 246, 247 Landscape 47 Self-portrait, while painting 47, 49, 58, 58n109 ‘Doren brothers’ see Huig van Dorre Wiltschut ‘Van Dorr’ see Huig van Dorre Wiltschut Dorp, Catharina van den 42, 87n70, 247 Dorre Wiltschut, Huig van 81, 81n36, 86, 87 Dou, Gerard 57, 106 Dürer, Albrecht 129n98, 212, 222n74, 230 Eeckhout, Gerbrandt van den 151n110, 173 Judah and Tamar 173n132 Elector of Brandenburg 40, 66 Engebrechtsz., Cornelis 222n74 Everdingen, Caesar van 78, 78n20, 93 Everdingen, Cornelis van 78n20 export of paintings see distribution channels for paintings; export

Faber, Bernard 82, 89, 89n78, 89n81, 90, 94 Faber, Cornelis 89n78 Faber, Martin 89 fair, annual, see distribution channels for paintings; annual fair (Jaarmarkt) Febre, Guilljeam le 125, 125n75 Ferguson, William Gowe 80 Flinck, Govert 26, 65, 89, 90, 92, 169, 239 frames 45, 45n47, 49, 49n74, 50, 52n87, 53, 53n99, 55, 56, 56n106, 57, 64n129, 65, 76n13, 81n40, 83n48, 109-110, 111, 169, 172, 174, 185, 191, 205, 233 Fonteyn, Jan Jansz. see Neeltge Cronen, widow of Jan Jansz. Fonteyn Forchondt, Guilliaem 28-29, 112, 122, 244, 247 Frank, Luycas 123 ‘De Fuyter’ 59, 59n118, 60n121, 81, 81n37 The five senses 50n79, 59n118, 81n37 The four seasons 81n37 Shepherd and shepherdesses 81n37 Fuyter, Louis de see ‘De Fuyter’ Fuyter, Jacob Leon II de see ‘De Fuyter’ Fuyter, Leonard de see ‘De Fuyter’ Gael, Adriaen 62, 80, 95, 125, 126, 126n79, 127, 135-136, 138, 142, 144, 151, 156, 167, 188 David with the head of Goliath 126n78 Joseph in the well 126n78 Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea 143*, 144, 188 The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon 151, 155*, 156 The triumph of Mordecai 135-136, 137, 142, 167 Gael, Barend 78, 126 Gael, Cornelis Adriaensz. 85, 87n60, 92, 125 galley painters 83, 95, 106, 111, 168-191, 192, 238 ‘Gercken’ 81 Gherwen, Mr. Matthias van 214 Glauber, Johannes 55, 76, 81n36 ‘Grebber’, a disciple of The fall of Lucifer 76n13 Goltstein, Jacob van 182, 182n143 Goltzius, Hendrick 212 Gool, Johan van 76, 76n15, 80, 168, 169n116 Goyen, Jan van 106-107 Graeff, Cornelis de 223 Gras, Willem 82, 82n42, 244 Guild of St. Luke 26, 40n14, 80n33, 85n56, 90n86, 91, 94, 188, 239, 242 in Amsterdam 26, 39, 41, 80n34, 81n40 in Emden 89 in Haarlem 81n38, 82n42, 85n59, 86, 122, 124, 124n72, 125, 125n74, 126, 128, 138, 167; see also ‘vrije gasten’ apprenticeships in The Hague 93 in Hoorn 88n74 in Leiden 126n82 Haarlem, Cornelis Cornelisz. van 212 Hals, Dirck 120n58

Index 

Hals, Mathijs 38, 43, 55, 55n104, 84, 85, 85n57, 85n58, 127, 171, 171n127 Hals, Reynier 171 Hamers, Franciscus 105, 192n160 Heemskerck (I), Egbert van 171 Heemskerck, Maerten 214 ‘de Jonge Heeremans’ 81, 81n38 Heeremans, Pieter 54, 110 Heeremans, Thomas 81n38 Heerman the Younger, Nicolaas 81n38 Hendrixsz., Jasper 225 Heremans, Frans 81n38 Hermensz., Jan 217 Heyden, Jan van der 105 Hoet II, Gerard 80, 168, 168n116 Holsloot, J. 81, 81n29 Pool of Siloam 81n29 Hollesloot, Jacob 81, 81n39 Hondius, Abraham 75, 75n10, 86, 93 Hooft, Catharine, wife of Cornelis de Graeff 223 Hoogstraten, Samuel van 21-22, 108n24 Hoomis, Casparus 42-43, 43n28, 247 Hoomis, Elias 42, 87n70 Hoomis, Lijsbeth (Elisabeth) 43, 48, 48n66, 51, 87n70 Houbraken, Arnold 22, 51-52, 76, 78, 78n19, 78n22, 80, 81n36, 85n59, 86, 112, 168n116 Hinloopen, Michiel 227n92 Honthorst, Gerard van 86, 94 Huchtenburg, Jan van 76n12, 85n59 Hudde, Johannes 226n92 Jansz, Sacharias 217 Jordaens, Jacob 21, 104-105, 229 The triumph of Bacchus 229 Kaersgieter (II), Jan de 43, 51 Keirincx, Alexander 122n60 Klomp, Albert 59, 75, 80 Kneller, Gottfried 89 Knijff, Wouter 50, 75, 128, 179n137, 244 Calm seascape (‘stil watertie’) 50, 244 Koninck, Salomon 144 The descent from the cross 184n145 Koperen, Jacob Abrahamsz. van 109, 110 Kretzer, Marten 169 Krollius, Hendrik 53n98 Laeff, Leendert de 49, 60, 65, 75, 82, 82n41, 82n47, 95, 106, 168, 170-185, 186, 192, 193, 238, 239, 245 Annunciation to the shepherds 82 The bath of Diana 60, 174, Birth of Christ 174 A cave 172, 172n129 Daniel’s accusers are thrown into the lion’s den by King Cyrus 174, 176* Daniel conquering the dragon in Babylon by feeding it 174, 182 The descent from the cross 182, 183*, 184, 185, 239 Diana and Actaeon 174, 177*

291 Esther before Ahasuerus 179, 181* Esther’s toilet 179, 180*, 182 The gathering of the manna 174 Granida and Daifilo 60 Italian building 172 The meeting of Jacob and Joseph in Goshen 182 Judah and Tamar 173 History of Naaman 172 The narrow way of virtue and the wide way of vice 174 Paul before Festus, King Agrippa, and Queen Berenice 174 Rebecca at the well 173 The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter 82, 174 Shimei curses David and casts stones at him 174 Still life with fruit, insects, and butterflies 172, 173* Syrinx is changed into a reed, while fleeing from Pan 60, 174 The triumph of David 172 Lairesse, Gerard de 65, 168n115 Lastman, Pieter 26, 114, 117, 129, 173 The banishment of Hagar and Ishmael 114-117, 116* Judah and Tamar 173n132 The triumph of Mordecai 129, 130* Latombe, Pieter 45 Lemke, Johann Philips 123 Leyden, Lucas van 129, 136, 161, 212, 222, 231 Mary with child 222, 231 The triumph of Mordecai 129, 131*, 136, 161 Leyster, Judith 80n33 Lievens, Jan 26, 110n38, 212, 239 Listingh, Nicolaas 226n92 Loermans, Jan 42, 49, 49n69, 49n72, 50, 64, 64n129 Luijsinck, Wouter 217 Luyken, Jan 174 Maas, Dirk 78, 85n59, 93 Maes, Nicolaes 53n98, 92 Mander, Karel van 168n114 Marseus van Schrieck, Otto 76n12 Martens de Jonge, Jan 94 Mase, Pieter van 86 Meldert, Pieter van 38, 43, 55, 55n104, 75n9, 84, 85, 85n57, 85n58, 124, 127, 128, 171, 171n127 Meijeringh, Albert 52, 52n91, 53, 53n98, 55, 76, 81n36, 86 Italian mountains 52n87 Landscape 52n87 Winter scene of the Amstel 52n87 Meijeringh, Frederick 42, 48, 51, 51n82, 89, 94 Meijeringh, Hendrick 28, 29, 30, 38, 41, 42, 43, 48, 50n76, 51-55, 56-62, 64, 65, 73-76, 76n13, 79, 80n33, 80n34, 81n36, 81n38, 81n40, 82, 82n46, 82n47, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 94, 95, 103, 106, 107, 108n23, 108n27, 109, 109n33, 110, 113, 113n51, 125, 127, 136, 170, 186-189, 191-193, 226, 237, 238, 239, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247

292 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Merian, Matthaeus 54, 188 Pharao verdrenckt in ‘t Roode Meyr 187*, 188 Metsu, Gabriel 94 Micker, Jan 55n104, 75, 78n19, 94, 106, 111-122, 174, 192, 244; see also Hans Jurriaensz. van Baden and Jan Micker; Joachim Govertsz. Camphuysen and Jan Micker; Jan Fransz. Dammeroen and Jan Micker Landscape with staffage by Micker 113n51 Moses striking water from the rock 117, 120* The narrow way of virtue and the wide way of vice 120, 121*, 174 Mierevelt, Michiel van 58, 58n110 Moijaert, Claes 214 Molenaer, Jan Miense 80n33 Molenaer, Klaes 80 Mommers, Hendrick 55n104, 57, 75, 81n40, 85, 85n58, 85n59, 86, 86n61, 246 Momper, Joos de 231 The four seasons 231 Musson, Matthijs 28, 112 Nason, Pieter 92 Neer, Aert van der 94 Nolpe, Engelbert 49, 49n69, 49n72 Nolpe, Pieter 49 Noordt, Jan van 59n118 Noort, Pieter van 59n118, 80n32 The five senses 59n118 Oever, Hendrick ten 93 ‘Van Oort’ see Pieter van Noort ‘Ostade’ 76n12 Ostade, Adriaen van 169, 170n122 Ovens, Jürgen 89 ownership of paintings (locations); within the Dutch Republic 23, 23n11, 27, 30-31; in Amsterdam 201-233; see also Abraham Adamsz; Maria Boortiens; Barbara Carel, widow of Jeronimus Ranst; Neeltge Cronen; Marten Pietersz. Daij, Mr. Matthias van Gherwen; Jasper Hendrixsz.; Jan Hermensz.; Michiel Hinloopen; Johannes Hudde; Sacharias Jansz.; Nicolaas Listingh; Wouter Luijsinck; Claes Moijaert; Grietgen Pieters, widow of Isaacq Cottenau; Hendrick Dirxsz. Poot; Brigitta Raauwers; Joanna Schonevelts, widow of the merchant Daniel de Bisschop; Floris Soop; Rebecca Willems, widow of Gerrit Simonsz., in Delft 202, 208, 209-210, 211, 233 in Haarlem 79, 203-204, 233 in Leeuwarden 204n13 in Leiden 84n50, 204, 206n24, 233 in Rotterdam 79, 79n28 outside of the Dutch Republic 248 in Brussels 205 in Denmark 248

ownership of paintings (subjects); of history paintings 30-31, 38, 38n4, 62-63, 201-233 of landscapes 30, 58, 202-204, 212, 215-217, 229-230 of portraits 58, 215-217 painting materials, suppliers 41, 65, 107, 107n22, 108-109, 109n33, 244; see also Jacob Abrahamsz. van Koperen, Leendert Hendricksz. Volmarijn panelmakers 41; see also Joost Abrahamsz. van Bubbeson, Wijbrand Gerritsz. van der Poel, Pieter Heeremans, Barent Jansz. Terheggere Pieters, Grietgen, widow of Isaacq Cottenau 217 Poel, Wijbrand Gerritsz. van der 48, 109, 109n34 Poel, Adriaen Lievensz. van der 93 Poelenburch, Cornelis van 106-107, 122n60, 230 Poorter, Willem de 144, 144n107, 145, 182, 185 Esther’s toilet 181*, 182 The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon 144-145, 147* Poot, Hendrick Dirxsz. 222 Porcellis, Jan 169, 170n122, 230 ‘Potter’ (art dealer) 169n116 Potter, Paulus 62n125, 78, 79, 123, 123n69, 127n87, 230 Potter, Pieter 78, 124 Raauwers, Brigitta 221, 223 Ranst, Jeronimus 222, 232n103 see also Barbara Carel, widow of Jeronimus Ranst Rembrandt 21, 26, 40, 41, 46n50, 65, 74n4, 80, 86, 92, 92n88, 104, 110n38, 123, 129, 129n98, 138, 144, 161, 167, 169, 182, 184-185, 192, 212, 230, 238, 239 Christ and the woman taken in adultery 158*, 161, 167 The descent from the cross 184n145 Judas returning the thirty silver pieces 159*, 161 The triumph of Mordecai 129, 131* Young woman at her toilet 182 Reni, Guido Mary 222 Renialme, Johannes de 37, 40, 41, 65, 66, 233 Remmers, Abram 85n59 Rijn, Huybert Leenderts 123n68 Robbertsz., Willem 169, 169n120 Roos, Johan Heinrich 93 Roos, Theodor 93 Rotius, Jan Albertsz. 88n74 Rubens 21, 86, 89, 104, 112, 184, 192, 212, 220, 230, 233 Mary and child 233 The descent from the cross 183*, 184 ‘Ruysdael’ 76n12 Saenredam, Pieter 81n38 Sandrart, Joachim von 104 Savery, Roelandt 107, 107n122 Scorel, Jan van 104, 233 Mary 233

Index 

Schaep, Arnoldus 82, 87 Schijndel, Bernardus 85n59 Schimmel, Gerrit 82, 94 Schoordijck, Maria van 182, 182n143 Schot, Jan 81n40 Schotanus, Petrus 80n32, 94 Schonevelts, Joanna, widow of Daniel de Bisschop 221 ‘Schutt’ 81, 81n40, 83; see also Jan Schot, Pieter Sgut David and Abigail 81n40 Joseph sold by his brothers 83 Seraets, Pieter Fransz. 171, 171n125 Sibilla, Gijsbert Jansz. The descent from the cross 184n145 Sgut, Pieter 82n40 Slordt, Barend Jansz. 30, 55, 62, 65, 82, 87, 88, 89, 95, 106, 167, 168-170, 185-191, 192, 193, 238, 239, 242, 245 The gathering of the manna 83, 186 Joseph’s cup found in Benjamin’s sack 186 Joseph is sold for twenty pieces of silver by his brothers to the Medianites 83, 186 Pharaoh’s army engulfed in the Red Sea 82n 45, 188, 187*, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 239 Smit, Arnout 79 Sonjé, Jan Gabrielsz. 59, 76n13, 79, 79n28, 86, 86n66 pupils of 59n117, 76n13, 86 Soop, Floris 221 Snellaert, Abraham 123n68 Spanjaert, Jan 75 Spilberg, Johannes 89 standardization, in size 29, 53-54, 56, 81n37 103, 105, 109, 109n31, 110-111, 136, 167, 174, 186, 189, 192, 244 Starenberg, Bastiaen 25n23 Storck, Abraham 78 Storck, Jacobus 80 Straaten, Hendrik van der 109n33 Terheggere, Barent Jansz. 128 Tintoretto, Jacopo 212, 230 Titian Mary 233 Troyen, Rombout van 223 Crucifixion 223 Toorenvliet, Jacob 78 uitdraagsters (female brokers) 39, 39n7, 53 Ulrich, Christoffel 51, 247 Uylenburgh, Gerrit 37, 40, 40n19, 65, 66, 110, 128, 191 Uylenburgh, Hendrick 41, 65, 66, 127, 144, 169, 182 Veen, Rochus van 123, 123n68 ‘Van de Velde’ 76n12 Velde, Willem van de 94 Venne, Adriaen van de 55n104 Verboom, Adriaen Hendricksz. 80, 86, 86n64

293 Verboon, Claes Maertensz. 169 Verburgh, Dionijs 86 Verdoel (I), Adriaen 62, 75, 78, 80, 93, 95, 125, 126, 126n80, 126n81, 127, 135, 136, 138, 142, 151, 156, 167 The triumph of Mordecai 135-136, 137*, 142 The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon 151, 155*, 156 Verdoel (II), Adriaen 126n81 Vermeer, Johannes 57 Vermij, Adriaen Gerritsz. 171, 171n125, 171n126 Vijnck, Jan Hermansz. 169, 169n117, 246 Visscher, Dirk 85n59 Volmarijn, Crijn Hendricksz. 38, 55, 55n104, 58, 117, 122, 169, 169n117, 246 Volmarijn, Leendert Hendricksz. 39n5, 107n22 Vonck, Jan 93, 217 Voort, Matthijs van der 82, 92 Vries, Jacob Feyt de 89, 90 Vries, Roelof Jansz. van 50, 58, 171, 171n127, 171n128 Vries, Michiel van 58n114, 171, 171n128 ‘vrije gast’ apprenticeships 125, 138, 167; see also Guild of St. Luke, Haarlem Vromans, Pieter 55n104 Waterloo, Anthonie 42, 87, 87n70, 247 waterverfdoeken (water-based paintings on linen) 84-85 Waumans, Coenraet, after Rubens The descent from the cross 183*, 184 Weenix, Jan Baptist 78n19, 112 Werff, Adriaen van der 106 Wet, Gerrit de 62, 75, 93, 93n97, 126, 126n82, 127, 151, 161, 166, 182, 238 Christ and the woman taken in adultery 161, 162*, 166 David and Abigail 163*, 166 The meeting of Jacob and Joseph in Goshen 182 The presentation in the Temple 151, 152* The sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah 151, 152*, 238 Wet (I), Jacob de 62, 64, 75, 79, 81n40, 85, 85n57, 86, 89, 93, 93n97, 94, 95, 106, 122-167, 170, 172-174, 179-182, 185, 186, 188, 190, 192, 193, 225, 238, 239, 244, 246 Christ and the woman taken in adultery 156, 157*, 159*, 161, 166*, 166, 167 Christ’s dispute with the doctors in the temple 128 Daniel conquering the dragon in Babylon by feeding it 182 The feeding of the five thousand 138*, 141 Judas returning the thirty silver pieces 160*, 161* Iphigenia 128 Mirtillo and Amaryllis 128 Rebecca 128 The triumph of Mordecai 129, 130, 132, 167 The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon 144, 146, 147, 151, 153

294 

The Mass Marke t for History Paintings in Seventeenth- Century Amsterdam

Wet (I), Jacob de (workshop); see also Adriaen Gael, Adriaen Verdoel (I), Gerrit de Wet, Jacob de Wet (II), Pieter Wiggersz. Amaryllis crowns Mirtillo after the kissing contest 177*, 178*, 179 Christ and the woman taken in adultery 164*, 165*, 166, 167 David blessing Solomon as his successor on the instigation of Bathsheba 145, 149*, 150* The feeding of the five thousand 139*, 140*, 141, 144, 244 Joseph sells corn in Egypt 151n110 Judah and Tamar 173-174, 175*, 176* The triumph of Mordecai 129-135, 133*, 134*, 135*, 136, 141 Queen Esther before king Ahasuerus 145, 150* The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon 145, 148*, 151, 151n110, 153*, 154*

Wet (II), Jacob de 126, 127, 127n84, 127n85, 127n86, 142 The blessings of Peace 179n138 The feeding of the five thousand 142 Wet, Jan de 122n64 David and Abigail 122n64 The feeding of the five thousand 122n64 Wiggersz., Pieter 62, 82, 89, 89n82, 90, 95, 127 Willebeeck, Peter 92, 92n92 Willems, Rebecca, wife of Gerrit Simonsz. 225 Wit, Frederick de 48n63 Withold, Kort 123, 125, 125n74 Witte, Emanuel de 93 Wolfaerts, Jan Baptist 85, 86n61 Wolffort, Artus 105-106 ‘Wouwerman’ 76 Wouwerman, Philips 125, 125n74 Zijl, Margrieta van 80, 80n33