RKD STUDIES

Anthony van Dyck DPG127

... 203 mm.78Ewer8a) Antwerp (?) after a design by Jacques Androuet du Cerceau, Ewer with a handle in the form of Pan, on the body the Rape of Helen after Raphael, signed and dated HR 1559 and PS, silver, h. 35.6 cm. BM, London, WB.93.798b) Antwerp, Ewer and basin with scenes from Charles V’s conquest of Tunis in 1535, with a satyr with two snakes on the ewer, 1558–9, gilded silver with enamel, h. 43.5 (ewer), diam. 64 cm (basin). Louvre, Paris, MR 341, 351.809) Peter Paul Rubens, Lot and his Daughters in a Rock Grotto, c. 1610–11, canvas, 108 x 146 cm. Staatliches Museum, Schwerin, G 158.81Shears and instrument case10) Barber’s instruments, including razor, scissors and shears, Tudor period.8211a) Cornelius Gijsbrechts, Trompe-l’œil of a letter board with the instruments of a barber-surgeon, signed and dated 1670, canvas, 125 x 109.5 cm. SMK, Copenhagen, KMS3060.8311b) Barber’s instruments with original leather case, c. 1520–25, silver, parcel gilt and enamel, with wood and leather lining, h. 18 cm. The Worshipful Company of Barbers, London.84Gold-brocaded silk velvet12a) Peter Paul Rubens and Anthony van Dyck, St Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius, c. 1615–16, canvas, 308 x 248.5 cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, GG 524.8512b) Anthony van Dyck after Peter Paul Rubens, St Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius, c. 1619–20, canvas, 149 x 113.2 cm. NG, London, NG50.8612c) Anthony van Dyck, The Mystic Marriage of St Catherine of Alexandria, c. 1618–20, canvas, 121 x 173 cm. Prado, Madrid, 1544.8712d) Anthony van Dyck, The Mystic Marriage of St Rosalie with SS. Peter and Paul, documented as painted in 1629, canvas, 275 x 210 cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, GG 482.8812e) Erasmus Quellinus, The Queen of Sheba and King Solomon, signed EQuellinus, c. 1650, canvas, 151 x 237 cm. Liechtenstein, The Princely Collections, Vaduz-Vienna, HE 90.8912f) School of Rubens (Sallaert?), The Martyrdom of St Andrew, panel, 72 x 56 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (London, H. Terry-Engell; photo RKD).Copies after DPG12713a) Copy: Samson and Delilah, pen and brush, wash in brown, 193 x 233 mm. Kupferstichkabinett, Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum, Brunswick, Z. 203 [12].9013b) Copy: Samson and Delilah, canvas, 165 x 232 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Koller, Zurich, 19 September 2008, lot 3038; Lepke, Berlin, 13 May 1929, lot 241; Hecht collection, Berlin, until 13 May 1929).9113c) Copy: Samson and Delilah, canvas, 165 x 240 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Lepke, Berlin, 4 April 1911, lot 37).9213d) Copy: attributed to Rubens, Samson and Delilah. Present whereabouts unknown (Christie’s, 25 Oct. 1946, lot 129, from the collection of the Queen of the Netherlands).9313e) Copy (only the figure of Delilah): Sotheby’s, 8 March 1950, lot 28 (Jordaens).9413f) Copy: Lely said to be in the museum in Ghent.9513g) Copy: Alexandre Evariste Fragonard (1780–1850), canvas, 100 x 152 cm, signed ‘A. Fragonard’. Present whereabouts unknown (Uppsala Auktions Kammare (Uppsala), 14 June 2018), lot 764.9614a) Copy: William Hilton (1786–1839), Samson and Delilah, canvas, 133.4 x 198.1 cm. V&A, London, 257-1872, gift of Helen Tatlock.9714b) Copy (with only three figures: Samson, Delilah, and one of the Philistines, whose head is partly cut off): William Hilton, Samson and Delilah, leaf in album with 99 drawings (1835?), watercolour, 115 x 168 mm. BM, London, 1913,0524.179 [13].98Northern Netherlandish works related to DPG127, and other Dutch Samson and Delilah compositions15a) Jan Lievens, Samson and Delilah, c. 1625–6, canvas, 131 x 111 cm. RM, Amsterdam, SK-A-1627.9915b) (Delilah’s gesture; ewer with phallic spout) Grisaille, attributed to Rembrandt, Samson and Delilah, c. 1626–7, panel, 27.5 x 23.5 cm. RM, Amsterdam, SK-A-4096 [14].10015c) Rembrandt, Samson and Delilah, monogrammed and dated ‘RHL 1628’, panel, 61.4 x 50 cm. Staatliche Museen, Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, 812 A.10115d) (procuress cutting Samson’s hair) Rembrandt?, Samson and Delilah, panel, 70.6 x 86.3 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (formerly Kassel, unrecorded since 1806).10215e) (Only the left part copied after DPG127) Rembrandt (or Rembrandt pupil?), The Capture of Samson, c. 1636–40, pen in brown, 147 x 202 mm. Kupferstichkabinett, Dresden, C 1966-66 [15].10315f) Circle of Rembrandt, Samson and Delilah, c. 1640, pen and bister, wash, gouache, 190 x 223 mm. Groninger Museum, Groningen, C. Hofstede de Groot Bequest, 1931.0197.10415g) (procuress beckoning; silver ewer) Hendrick Bloemaert, Samson and Delilah, signed HBloemaert fe:, c. 1630–32, canvas, 142 x 202 cm. Gemäldegalerie, Akademie der bildenden Künsten, Vienna, 1301 [16].10515h) (silencing finger of Delilah) Christiaen van Couwenbergh, Samson and Delilah, monogrammed and dated CBF. Ao 1630, canvas, 156 x 196 cm. Acquired in 1632 for the Town Hall, Dordrecht, now Dordrechts Museum, DM/975/502 [17].10615i) (silencing finger of Delilah; barber cutting hair) Willem Bartsius, Samson and Delilah, signed and dated W.P. BARCIUS 163 (2?), panel, 66.4 x 86.7 cm. Colnaghi, London.10715j) (silencing finger of Delilah) Willem de Poorter, Samson and Delilah, monogrammed W.D.P., c. 1632–3, panel, 52 x 64 cm. Staatliche Museen, Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, 820A.10815k) (silencing finger of Delilah; barber not yet cutting hair) Pieter Soutman, Samson and Delilah, signed and dated P. SOUTMAN/ F. Ao 1642, canvas, 154.3 x 137.7 cm. York Art Gallery, York, 15 [18].10915l) Jan Victors, The Capture of Samson, c. 1645, canvas, 131 x 187 cm. Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Brunswick, 254.11015m) ?Abraham van Cuylenborch, Samson and Delilah, panel, 39 x 50 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Sotheby's, 24 April 2008, lot 379).11115n) Jan de Braij, Samson and Delilah, dated 1659, panel, 40.2 x 32.8 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Sotheby’s, 1 April 1992, lot 85).11215o) Attributed to Hendrik Bloemaert, Samson and Delilah, signed and dated Gesina ter Borch fe: Aº 1665, canvas, 154 x 152 cm. Municipal Museum, Zwolle.113Other Samson and Delilah compositions16a) Follower of Caravaggio, Samson and Delilah, c. 1600, canvas, dimensions unknown. Hospital de Tavera, Toledo.11416b) Louis Finson, Samson captured by the Philistines, c. 1613–16, canvas, 158 x 149 cm. Musée des Beaux-Arts, Marseille.11516c) Gioacchino Assereto, Samson and Delilah, 1630s, canvas, 112 x 162 cm. Fondazione di Studi di Storia dell'Arte Roberto Longhi, Florence.11616d) Domenico Fiasella, Samson and Delilah, 1650, canvas, 159 x 256 cm. Louvre, Paris, 700.117Other works related to DPG12717a) Modello, Anthony van Dyck, The Blinding of Samson, 37 x 58 cm. Robert von Hirsch collection, Frankfurt.11817b) Anthony van Dyck, The Capture of Samson, c. 1628–30, canvas, enlarged at the top by 5 cm to 146 x 254 cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, GG 512.11917c) (with donkey’s jawbone) School of Peter Paul Rubens, Samson and Delilah, panel, 32.6 x 42.6 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (exh. Rafael Valls Ltd, London, 2012, no. 5 [Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert];120 Christie’s, New York, 26 Jan. 2011, lot 138, sold for $11,250 [circle of Anthony van Dyck]; Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, 26.85 [school of Anthony van Dyck]).12117d) Anthony van Dyck, Christ carrying the Cross, c. 1618, panel, 216 x 161.5 cm. St Paul’s, Antwerp.12217e) Anthony van Dyck, Moses and the Brazen Serpent, c. 1618–20, canvas, 207 x 234 cm. Prado, Madrid, P01637.12317f) Rembrandt, The Blinding of Samson, signed and dated Rembrandt.f.1636 (signature probably not authentic), canvas, 206 x 276 cm. Städel Museum, Frankfurt am Main, 1383 [19].124Comparable compositions, different subjects18a) Gerard van Honthorst, The Steadfast Philosopher, signed and dated GHonthorst f 1623, canvas, 151.5 x 207.5 cm. Private collection, Hohenbuchau, Schlangenbad, on loan to the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.12518b) Pieter Codde, Death of Adonis, signed Pr. Codde, 1640s, panel, 31 x 32 cm. Hermitage, St Petersburg, 3150.126Lent to the RA to be copied in 1817, 1818 and 1835....

... e, such as Moses and the Brazen Serpent now in the Prado (Related works, no. 17e) and two versions of St Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius, of which the last was made in collaboration with Rubens (Related works, nos 12a, 12b).173 The plinth there is meant as a staircase in front of Milan Cathedral.174The gesture with which Delilah tries to silence the onlookers could have been borrowed from the silencing gesture of St John in Michelangelo’s Madonna del Silenzio (which survives only in prints and drawings, such as Related works, no. 5a) [8];175 there moreover the Christ child is sleeping with his head on the lap of the Madonna, very like Samson’s position in DPG127, though the posture of his arm is closer to Rubens’s Samson than to Van Dyck’s. A Samson and Delilah by Caravaggio of around 1600 survives only in a rather bad copy (Related works, no. 16a). The similar gesture of Delilah’s hand in Honthorst’s Samson and Delilah in Cleveland, dated between c. 1615 and 1621 (Related works, no. 5c) [9], has been related to the Harpocrates print by Jan Harmensz. Muller of 1593 (Related works, no. 5b).176 In the cases of Michelangelo, Muller and Honthorst the hand is touching the lips, while Delilah’s hand in DPG127 is hovering in the air and partly hiding her breasts. Probably it was not necessary for Van Dyck to have seen one or more of these compositions for his Delilah in DPG127: a silencing gesture is one we all know in everyday life.177A piece of canvas was added at the top of the painting, probably by Van Dyck (see Technical Notes) [20]. There was initially very little space above the figures, and the headdress of the old woman was cut off.Artists in the Northern Netherlands seem to have taken over the earlier moment in the story chosen by Van Dyck, and the silencing gesture in particular. Until now Dutch 17th-century scenes of Samson and Delilah have been compared only to Rubens’s painting in the National Gallery or Matham’s print after it, in which the barber is cutting Samson’s hair.178 In some of these scenes, however, there are elements that show knowledge of DPG127. As we have seen, no print was made after the painting, so the artists must have seen it themselves in a Dutch collection (or a drawing after it?). The earlier moment of excitement and fear appears in three works by Jan Lievens and Rembrandt (Related works, nos 15a–15c), starting c. 1625. In the Lievens/Rembrandt grisaille we find Delilah’s gesture and a ewer with a phallic spout. In 1630 Christiaen van Couwenbergh, a Delft painter, made a Samson and Delilah which was purchased in 1632 for Dordrecht Town Hall (now in the Dordrecht Museum; Related works, no. 15h) [17]. There the barber is cutting Samson’s hair, and Delilah makes the silencing gesture. According to Schwartz in 1984 Couwenbergh, or rather the Dordrecht officials, wanted to make an allusion to the coming peace with Spain to which they were opposed, so Samson stood for the Stadholder or his army and Delilah for the Spanish Archduchess Isabella. For Pastoor in 1991 and 1994 however the scene is just a warning to be alert. Huiskamp in 1998 observed that Dordrecht at the time tended to support peace with Spain, so the city would not have purchased a painting expressing the opposite view.179 The contemporary Samson and Delilah by Hendrick Bloemaert, now in Vienna (Related works, no. 15g) [16], seems to combine the elements of both Rubens and Van Dyck compositions: the silver ewer – a ewer by the Utrecht silversmith Adam van Vianen that no longer exists – points to DPG127.In 1642 Pieter Soutman painted a Samson and Delilah, now in York (Related works, no. 15k) [18]. At the time he was living in Haarlem; he had worked in Antwerp from 1616 to 1624, and could have seen both Rubens’s and Van Dyck’s Samson and Delilah compositions there. Indeed Soutman’s is the only painting for which scholars have mentioned DPG127 as a source, as well as the Rubens.180 Complicating matters however is Honthorst’s Samson and Delilah of c. 1615–21, now in Cleveland (Related works, no. 5c) [9]. At the time Honthorst was living in Rome. In this nightpiece – his speciality, hence his nickname, ‘Gherardo delle Notti’, Gerard of the Nights – Delilah is cutting Samson’s hair and it is the procuress who is making the silencing gesture. In 1620 Honthorst returned to Utrecht, possibly with this painting. It seems that in their three painting Lievens and Rembrandt combined elements from the compositions of Rubens/Matham, Van Dyck, and Honthorst; the way Samson’s torso is seen frontally in the large Lievens painting (Related works, no. 15a) looks particularly as if it was derived from the Honthorst painting.It is clear that the left-hand part of a drawing dated c. 1636–40, now in Dresden (Related works, no. 15e) [15], which could be attributed to a Rembrandt pupil or even to Rembrandt himself and has been related to the Rembrandt Blinding of Samson in Frankfurt (Related works, no. 17f) [19], is partly based on DPG127: there are the barber, Samson lying down, and the two women seen full face, although their positions are different: in the drawing Delilah is to the left of the procuress, whereas in the painting she is to the right. Although the right-hand part is different, the drawing is another proof that Van Dyck’s composition was known in Amsterdam in the 1630s.Two other scholars also came to the conclusion that DPG127 must already have been in the Northern Netherlands in the 17th century. Stephanie Dickey based this on her Rembrandt studies, and Eric Jan Sluijter suggested this in his discussion of history painting in Amsterdam.181In Italy and the North many 17th-century paintings are known of different subjects which have compositions related to those of the Flemish Samson and Delilah paintings. The subjects are from the Old Testament, from Gerusalemme Liberata by the 16th-century poet Torquato Tasso, and from the play Granida by P. C. Hooft: Jael and Sisera, Lot and his Daughters, Rinaldo and Armida, Erminia and Tancredi and Granida and Daifilo. Most have in common a stretched-out, half-naked male body182 and people around him (or her) busy with scissors or other instruments, pointing and often with silencing fingers (Related works, no. 18b).183 Sometimes there is no stretched-out body but only people busy with instruments or pointing with their fingers, as in The Three Fates by Bernardo Strozzi, but see also Honthorst’s Steadfast Philosopher, where we see again a female half-naked body and a play with hands that cross each other (Related works, no. 18a).184Before a family tree could be constructed it should be clear whether there are two separate traditions, one in Italy and one in the North, or the Northerners were looking at the Italian compositions and the Italians knew the Northern compositions by Rubens (or Matham), Van Dyck and Honthorst, who painted his Samson and Delilah in Rome. For instance a Samson and Delilah by Domenico Fiasella (1589–1669), which shows Delilah with a silencing finger, has been associated with DPG127 (Related works, no. 16d). But how could this Genoese painter have seen the Van Dyck composition, since it was in the North?185 And are all Delilahs with pointing fingers in the North inspired by Van Dyck’s DPG127?Desenfans probably bought Van Dyck’s Samson and Delilah at the Page sale in 1783 (see Provenance). Desenfans mentioned that another Van Dyck painting, St Cyprian tied to the Rock, also came ‘out of Sir Gregory Page’s collection’.186 That seems to have disappeared from the Desenfans collection in 1786. Soon after the purchase Desenfans thought that Rubens was a better attribution, and so it remained until the end of the 19th century.Reaction to the painting in the Dulwich Gallery was mixed. Some of the early critics were very enthusiastic (e.g. Haydon 1817 and Fuseli c. 1802),187 but Patmore in 1824 had a mixed message and Hazlitt did not like it at all, calling it ‘a coarse daub’ and preferring Van Dyck’s Madonna (DPG90) and Charity (DPG81), the two pictures between which it hung. Denning in 1859 agreed with those who attributed it to Jordaens, because of ‘the utter absence of all refinement’. The French author Lavice (1867) described Delilah as white as an Antwerp lady, and ended with ‘sloppily painted’. In the 20th century Christopher Brown clearly preferred Rubens’s version of the subject, as did Christopher White: according to him Van Dyck’s later Samson painting (Related works, no. 17b) makes DPG127 ‘appear a purely decorative showpiece’;188 Nora De Poorter in her catalogue entry of 2004 is not entirely positive: to her the facial expressions in DPG127 were ‘almost caricatural’. Eric Jan Sluijter in 2015 in his discussion of Rembrandt’s Blinding of Samson of 1636 (Related works, no. 17f) [19] is much more positive about Van Dyck’s version of the Samson and Delilah theme than the one by Rubens.189In the 19th century DPG127 was lent to the RA three times, reflected in the copies by William Hilton (Related works, nos 14a, 14b) [13]....

Johannes LINGELBACH

... 130–132; RKD, no 284914: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/284914 (June 21, 2017).EXHIBITIONSWilliamsburg/Fresno/Pittsburgh/Oklahoma City 2008–10, pp. 76–7, no. 24 (I. A. C. Dejardin).TECHNICAL Fine plain-weave canvas. Grey ground. Glue-paste lined; the original tacking margins are absent. The lining has been reinforced with a strip lining. The original canvas is approximately 0.6 cm short of the stretcher on all sides and the visible edges of the lining canvas are not in-painted. The paint surface is slightly cupped. There are scattered small areas of damages (now retouched). Previous recorded treatment: 1953, Dr Hell.RELATED WORKS1a) Johannes Lingelbach, Oriental Merchants and Rider in Conversation with Western Merchants on the Beach, pencil, pen and light brown ink, brush and grey wash, 152 x 233 mm. Albertina, Vienna, 3553 [2].81b) Johannes Lingelbach, Harbour with Classical Buildings and a Statue of Neptune, brush, grey wash, 209 x 337 mm. RPK, RM, Amsterdam, RP-T-1879-A-28 [3].91c) Johannes Lingelbach, Levantine Harbour, signed I. LINGELBACH, brush, grey an...

... 284916: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/284916 (June 21, 2017).TECHNICAL NOTESPlain-weave linen canvas. Glue-paste lined; the original tacking margins are present. The painting has suffered from blistering in the past. The paint is worn and abraded and there are several scratches in the lower edge. The central poplars are overpainted. The paint is obscured by a heavy discoloured varnish, which has been partially removed from the sky. Previous recorded treatment: 1953–55, Dr Hell; 1990, lower edge secured with wax/resin, surface cleaned, N. Ryder.RELATED WORKS1) Version of DPG55, Johannes Lingelbach?, The Blacksmith, canvas, 52 x 43 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Hôtel Drouot, Paris, 28 Nov. 1980, lot 227; photo Witt).242) Johannes Lingelbach, Distribution of Food near a Cloister in Rome, signed LINGELBACH, canvas, 81.9 x 72.6 cm. Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, Mass., Sarah C. Carver Fund, 1976.155 [9].25In the foreground is a blacksmith’s shop with the papal coat-of-arms on the corner above the...

Jan van HUIJSUM

... argaretha van Huysum (1707–79). Little is known of his apparently uneventful life, and he seems never to have travelled abroad.His œuvre consists of some dozens of arcadian or classical landscapes and more than two hundred known still lifes, on which his fame is based. These typically show luxuriant flowers in a classicizing vase on a stone plinth or table; often there is a bird’s nest. His early works still have a traditional symmetr...

... 1805).4) Jan van Huijsum, Flower Still Life, dated 1714, panel, 79 x 60.3 cm. Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe, 380 [3].85a) Copy: 18th century, Still Life of Flowers in a Terracotta Vase on a Stone Plinth, after 1715, probably 18th-century, canvas, 90 x 71 cm. KMSKA, Antwerp, 427 [4].95b) Copy: 19th century, panel, c. 57.6 x 61.2 cm. Simon Dobbs collection, Kingsbridge, Devon.106) A glass vase: Maria van Oosterwijck, Flowers in a Cylindrical Glass Decorative Vase on a Marble Ledge, panel, 46.4 x 36.8 cm. Royal Collection Trust, RCIN405626.117) A metal vase: Jan van Huijsum, Still Life of Flowers and Fruit, signed Jan Van Huysum fecit, panel, 81.6 x 62.9 cm. The Edward and Sally Speelman Collection.128) A terracotta vase: Jan van Huijsum, Flowers in a Terracotta Vase, signed and dated Jan Van Hùijsùm / fecit 1736 / en. 1737, canvas, 133.5 x 91.5 cm. NG, London, NG796.13Painted around 1715, according to Meijer in 2006, this depicts flowers in a vase and a bird’s nest with five eggs beside it, on a marble slab, against a dark background. The flowers consist of tulips, roses, poppies, auriculas, French marigolds, orange blossom, salvias, London pride, forget-me-not, veronica, iris, larkspur, flax, and convolvulus minor [5]. The vase is made of glass or stone, however, and not of terracotta as Meijer asserts (for examples of glass, metal and terracotta vases see Related works, nos 6–8).Paul Taylor in 1996 noted that the vase is decorated with high-relief putti in the style of François Du Quesnoy (1597–1643); Meijer considered that this was one of the first paintings in which that element appears. The motif was also used by Van Huijsum in a flower piece formerly in Vienna (Related works, no. 3); and also in DPG139.Smith suggested that the eggs in the nest were those of a chaffinch, but the 1905 Dulwich catalogue asserted that they were chiefly those of a hedge-sparrow, and that one was a cuckoo’s egg. Gaskell in 1984 noted that eggs in still life paintings had been interpreted as signifying the life cycle or the Resurrection, and regarded that as far-fetched, though he found the inclusion of the cuckoo’s egg intriguing, evoking a number of themes such as adultery, ingratitude, and the nativity of Christ;14 he thought that Van Huijsum was chiefly concerned to demonstrate his ability to depict different textures, colours and forms, in effect rewarding viewers for their close attention. Close attention will similarly be rewarded by the many insects that populate the picture – beetle, bee, butterfly, ant, ladybird and fly – as well as by the numerous water droplets.Meijer suggested that a painting in Houston (Related works, no. 1) [2] might have been painted as or later used as a pendant to DPG120. He based this suggestion on a pair of copies, one after DPG120 and one after the picture in Houston (Related works, nos 2a, 2b)....

... s aurantiumBlue auricula - Primula x pubescens ardesiacaFlax - Linum usitatissimumMeadow grass - Poa pratensisToadflax - Linaria vulgarisMilkwort - Polygala vulgarisEnglish Iris - Iris latifoliaBachelor’s Buttons - RanunculusRed Turban Cap Lily - Lilium chalcedonicumLong-leaved Speedwell - Veronica longifoliaBaguette Tulip - Tulipa clusiana x T. stellataDark Persian Tulp - Tulipa clusiana hybridDark Scabious - Scabiosa atropurpureaPheasant’s Eye ...

... x 56.4 cm. National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, 50.253) Preparatory drawing: Jan van Huijsum, Flower Still Life, Vase with Putti on a Stone Slab, c. 1720?, black chalk, brush in grey, pen in brown, squared with red chalk, 365 x 273 mm. Albertina, Vienna, 10551 [7].26DPG139 has many elements characteristic of Van Huijsum, such as the arrangement of the flowers in an S-curve, the juxtaposition of large and small blossoms, and the dramatic lighting. It was a popular picture, the subject of many postcards. Because of the style, especially the use of the light background, it must have been painted later than DPG120, which has a dark background. In 1979 Segal attributed it to Jacob Xavery (1736–in or after 1774). Later, in a discussion of a Xavery picture in Dublin (Related works, no. 2), he drew attention to the fact that several Xavery signatures had been changed to Van Huijsum, including that on DPG139.27 Meijer repeated the attribution to Xavery in 2006, but commented that it would seem to be of somewhat better quality and of a cooler tonality than Xavery’s known, and often uneven, œuvre (Related works, no. 1) [6].28 However the condition of the painting needs to be taken into account before any decision can be made concerning attribution. Much has been lost in the upper layers, and the picture is rather dirty, with scattered remains of varnish, producing a flat and dull effect. Cleaning would give one a chance to evaluate the quality. In our opinion it might even be by Van Huijsum himself. What was probably a preparatory drawing is in Vienna (Related works, no. 3) [7]. It seems more logical that Van Huijsum used the drawing himself for DPG139; it is not known that Jacob Xavery got hold of the contents of Van Huijsum’s studio, or that he ever used another preparatory drawing by Van Huijsum.29The flowers consist of a large overblown tulip, tuberoses, double stocks, roses, auriculas, and a hollyhock. A bird’s nest lower right contains robin’s eggs. The flowers are in a terracotta vase decorated with wrestling putti in the manner of François Du Quesnoy, similar to those on the vase in DPG120.Britton in his 1813 inventory for what is now DPG120 described this as the pair, but with their great difference in dates that would probably not have been the intention of Van Huijsum – if he was the painter....

Gerrit Willemsz. HORST

... have worked in the studio of the art dealer Hendrick Uylenburgh (1587–1661), after the compositions of Govert Flinck (1615–60). Flinck was the head of that studio after Rembrandt left. Late in life Horst also painted some still lifes.LITERATUREBredius 1933; Valentiner 1933; Sumowski 1983–94, ii, pp. 1387–9, 1390–93 (nos 904–27), figs 1394–417; Bruyn 1987a, pp. 231, 234; Van der Willigen & Meijer 2003, p. 113; Bakker 2008, pp. 183–4, figs 15–22; Sluijter 2015, pp. 328–31; RKDartists&...

... eal for Isaac. She gave Jacob a garment of Esau’s, and as Esau was ‘a hairy man’, she wrapped the kids’ skins around Jacob’s hands and neck. Jacob then brought the meal to his father.Rebecca can be seen at the right on the far side of the bed to which her ailing husband is confined. Isaac raises one hand in blessing, while the other feels the kids’ skins on Jacob’s hands. To complete the impersonation of Esau the hunter, Horst has added a quiver of arrows on Jacob’s back, an unusual but not unique touch. This quiver, however, caused Bruyn to re-identify the composition as Isaac blessing Esau (Genesis 27:42): the figure with the quiver could not be Jacob, because he was not a hunter. Against his argument, as he said himself, is the appearance of Rebecca, not mentioned in the Bible at that point, but he considered this part of an iconographical convention.38 There are, however, two details that can prove which brother is shown. Jacob’s hands were covered with kids’ skins to deceive his father’s touch, and the food prepared for Isaac was made from the kids. In our opinion both are visible, so this is Jacob.Isaac blessing Jacob was a very popular theme with Rembrandt’s pupils (Related works, nos 3a) [3]; Gerbrand van den Eeckhout (1621–74)), and 3c.I, II (Victors)), although Rembrandt did not paint the subject himself:39 the nearest he came to the image was a depiction of Saskia in bed (Related works, no. 4e; see also 4d). It has been suggested that in Rembrandt’s workshop the theme was a subject for competition.40 It seems that the first to have depicted the subject is Govert Flinck, in the years 1633–4, before he entered the Rembrandt-Uylenburgh studio (Related works, 3b.I, II) [5]. That picture seems to have been based on a composition of Jan Lievens (1607–74) of c. 1626, known only from a print by Jan Gillisz. van Vliet (1600/1610–68; Related works, no. 3b.Ia) [4].41 There are many large paintings with variations on the image of a bearded old man in bed, with the kneeling Jacob and Rebecca in front of or behind the bed, in an interior that is often richly decorated with Eastern curtains, carpets, furniture and armour. The same ingredients – the man in bed, the old lady, the young man, in a richly decorated Eastern interior – feature for instance in David’s Dying Charge to Solomon by Ferdinand Bol and in David presenting the Sceptre to Solomon by Cornelis de Vos (1584–1651) (Related works, nos 4a–4f) [6].Horst treated the subject on at least two other occasions, most notably in a picture formerly in Berlin that again showed Jacob with a quiver of arrows (Related works, no. 1a) [1].42 The features of Jacob in the Dulwich painting reappear on one of Joseph’s brothers in Jacob shown the Bloody Cloak of Joseph (Related works, no. 2b) [2].43Horst gave his history painting an Old-Testament look by using a heavily decorated quiver, very much like ones with a Persian provenance (cf. Related works, no. 7b). The eye-catching Anatolian carpet had the same function.44 We know that Rembrandt had a collection of exotic objects that could be used to give an air of authenticity to this kind of Old Testament subject (he often used his fantasy as well).45 Gerard Dou (1613–75) in one of his pictures used the same round shield as Rembrandt, in whose collection it probably featured.46Although this painting is not of the highest quality – Bruyn called Horst a ‘well-meaning but anaemic Rembrandt follower’,47 and Sluijter, perhaps more accurately, saw him as ‘a mediocre follower of the early Flinck and Bol’48 – it is very intriguing, both for its iconography and for its style in comparison to the many other depictions of the subject by painters working in the orbit of Rembrandt.A 19th-century painting by Walter Charles Horsley (1855–1934) also at Dulwich, Old Time Tuition at Dulwich College (DPG607; Related works, no. 5) [7], could very well have been inspired by Horst’s Biblical scene.49 Of course there are differences and the composition is in reverse, but Dulwich and this ‘Rembrandt’ would have been an association easy to make, and DPG214 a composition waiting for a 19th-century answer....

Pieter NEEFS I

... t to tell stylistically apart; however the costumes which tend to depict contemporary dress can be dated rather precisely. Pieter Neefs I specialized in painting church int...

... as moulded piers without capitals, however, and the cylindrical columns here look more like those of St Walburga; but DPG141 does not feature the distinctive raised choir of that church, so it seems to be a combination of the two interiors (for St Walburga see under Rubens DPG40A, B, Related works, nos 12a, 12b, Fig.).25 Maillet thought there was one picture by Pieter Neefs I that depicted St Walburga’s with its raised choir (Related works, no. 2), but that is not certain.26The paintings by the Neefs are (like those of the Van Steenwijcks) deceptively documentary. In all of the very many versions of the interior of the cathedral painted by father and son the architecture and decoration are treated with great freedom: they tend to exaggerate the height and length of the nave, they vary the architectural details, and they invent paintings and sculptures to furnish the church. Further variations are introduced by the painters of the figures.Subjects of the altarpieces here include on the right the Madonna, the Descent from the Cross, Gethsemane (?), a bishop, and the Road to Calvary, and on the left the Holy Family. Many figures can be seen: on the left, a lady converses with a gentleman (whose costume can be dated to c. 1625–30); in the left foreground, a lady (whose costume can be dated to c. 1630) stands with a priest; and on the right loaves of bread are being dispensed to the poor and crippled – a scene that looks very much like one of the Seven Corporal Works of Mercy (cf. DPG614, Studio of Teniers). Further in, three people kneel in prayer. The figures in such pictures are usually dressed in up-to-date costume, so it is likely that DPG141 was painted around 1630.27 The various people reflect the way in which churches then were not just sacred spaces, but also acted as gathering places, for romance, religion, or charity.Jantzen (1910) pointed to the similarity with a picture by Neefs that was at auction in Berlin in 1908 (and again in London in 2012; Related works, no. 1a) [1]. In both scenes the point of view is somewhat left of centre; but there are many differences, for instance in the figures, the pavement, and the altarpiece subjects. Mai (1992) refers to DPG141 in discussing a painting in a private collection, but there the point of view is right of centre (Related works, no. 1b) [2]. There are not many pictures by the Neefs in which cylindrical columns are depicted (most show compound piers), with a viewpoint slightly left of centre.28 However there is at least one more, which was for sale in 1989 in New York (Related works, no. 1c). These church scenes by Neefs seem to go back to a composition by Hendrick van Steenwijck I dated 1586 (Related works, no. 1d) [3] in which a very similar church is depicted. The difference is that the church in the earlier picture is much darker and the altarpieces are closed, while the altarpieces in DPG141 are all open, creating a much more colourful and festive effect.Occasionally the figure painters also signed a work, but not in DPG141. Until now the figures were assumed to be by Neefs’ usual collaborator, Frans Francken II, but they look very like the ones in a later painting with the monogram of Bonaventura Peeters (Related works, no. 3a) [4]. That is by the younger Neefs, as is another interior to which Peeters contributed the figures (Related works, no. 3b). However Peeters was not born until 1614, so he may have been too young to have painted the figures in DPG141....

Peter LELY

... eman of the Painter-Stainers’ Company in London on 26 October 1647 and by June 1650 he had settled in the Piazza in Covent Garden. Dulwich’s Nymphs by a Fountain (c. 1650) [2] exemplifies Lely’s early preoccupation with Arcadian subject matter and sensuous Venetian colouring.2 Without any serious rivals, Lely became the natural successor to Van Dyck and secured the support of some of his most important patrons, including the earls of Northumberland and Pembroke. He soon abandoned subject pictures in favour of portraiture and, although he never quite achieved the subtlety or refinement of Van Dyck, he built a hugely successful career modelled on the earlier artist’s effortless elegance, fluid brushwork and a rep...

... ally acceptable. Previous recorded treatment: 2010, S. Plender and N. Ryder.RELATED WORKS1) Peter Lely, A Boy as a Shepherd, c. 1658–60, canvas, 91.4 x 75.6 cm. DPG, London, DPG563 [5].42) Mary Beale, Portrait of a Youth, canvas, 76.5 x 63.8 cm. DPG, London, DPG574 [6].53a) Charles Beale II after Peter Lely (after DPG662), Portrait of Bartholomew Beale, red chalk, strengthened with graphite and black chalk, 191 x 164 mm. BM, London, Gg,5.72.63b) Charles Beale II after Peter Lely (after 1; DPG563), Portrait of a Youth as a Shepherd, red chalk, strengthened with graphite and black chalk, 207 x 181 mm. BM, London, Gg,5.65.74) Peter Lely, Portrait of a Lady, c. 1663, canvas, 91.4 x 76.2 cm. Private collection.85) Hellenistic, the Arundel Head, second century BC, bronze, h. 29.21 cm. BM, London, 1760,0919.1.9This picture was purchased in 2010 as a pair to A Boy as a Shepherd (Related works, no. 1) [5]; they have very similar spectacular frames, but whether they were intended as a pair by the artist is a matter of debate (see below). The painting is likely to depict...

Cornelis JONSON (van Ceulen) I

... ed his signature in the course of time. In Holland he first added ‘Londini(s)’, or Londones (from London), to his signature,5 but later, around 1650, he added ‘van Ceulen’ (from Cologne)6 – perhaps because it was not very sensible at that time to emphasize London in the Netherlands.7 During the final eighteen years of his life in Holland, in whichever city he was living he always attended the English church, which conducted its business in English.8Cornelis Janson van Ceulen – also referred to as Cornelis Jonson II – worked in his father’s style, and does not have a well defined character. Born in London, he appears to have been active in England from about 1675, but he must have started painting in the Netherlands in the 1650s. He seems to have been fond of the blue-grey background that his father used in his later works. The relationship between the œuvres of the two artists is not clear, and it would seem that the son sometimes signed with his father’s signature, alt...

... Cornelia Strick van Linschoten (1628–1703), signed and dated Cornelius Jonson van Ceulen fecit 1654, canvas, 118 x 90 cm. Rijksmuseum Twenthe, Enschede, 698b [5].13With the date ‘1657’ (earlier read as ‘1637’), DPG564 could be by father or son. However it seems that only the father used the signature as found on it, as was noted by Malcolm Rogers in a letter of 199714 and by Alistair Laing in his review (1999) of the Beresford catalogue. Karen Hearn confirmed the date, highlighting that the sitter was probably Utrecht-based, as Jonson was living in the city from 1652.15 Some dated portraits of the 1650s are very similar. In style and the positioning of the figure, as well as its dimensions, a Portrait of a Lady now at St Gallen might be a pendant to the Dulwich portrait, although it is dated 1652 (Related works, no. 1) [3].16 The Portrait of a Lady with Philip Mould in 2012 is dated 1657 like DPG594, but it is too large (Related works, no. 2).If DPG594 is the portrait that was in the London auction in 1898, it then had a pair; what happened to that, and what that looked like, is unknown.In the backgrounds of the Dulwich picture and the two women’s portraits (Related works, nos 1, 2) the blue has discoloured from exposure to light; here the original colour survives under the frame.17 The three pictures seem to have had the same problems in the background as the pair of portraits of Jasper Schade van Westrum and Cornelia Strick van Linschoten by Cornelius Jonson van Ceulen I now in Enschede, dated 1654 (Related works, nos 3a, 3b) [4-5].18...

Karel du JARDIN

... ard). He died on a visit to Venice.Du Jardin’s œuvre consists mainly of small Italianate landscapes that depict country people with animals. These are executed with fine detail, bright colours, and strong contrasts of light and shade. He also made drawings, mainly in chalk, and from the 1650s he produced some fifty etchings. In the 1660s he painted portraits of members of Amsterdam’s ruling classes. Among these, The Regents of the Spinhuis and the Nieuwe Werkhuis (1669) [2]4 was considered in 1808 with Rembrandt’s Nightwatch and Syndics to be one of the seven most important of the city’s paintings: Louis Napoleon (1778–1846), who was King of Holland (1806–10), ordered them to be placed as a loan from the city in his Royal Museum, the forerunner of the Rijksmuseum. Du Jardin also produced large-scale religious and history paintings that reflect his interest in contemporary Italian 17th-century painting. His late Italian landscapes are dramatically different from those done in the Netherlands, with small figures in large Italianate settings painted in smoky colours.LITERATUREHoubraken 1753, iii, pp. 56–61; Brochhagen 1958; Blankert 1978/1965, pp. 195–7; Kilian 1996b; Schatborn 2001, pp. 154–60, 210–11; Saur, xxx, 2001, pp. 422–3 (J. M. Kilian); Kilian 2005; Bikker 2009; Ecartico, no. 2652: http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/e...

... s 1985–6 , pp. 50–51, no. 5 (C. Brown); Tokyo/Shizuoka/Osaka/Yokohama 1986–7, pp. 64–5, no. 6 (in Japanese; C. Brown); Warsaw 1992, pp. 68–9, no. 7 (C. Brown); Houston/Louisville 1999–2000, pp. 164–5, no. 53 (D. Shawe-Taylor); London 2002, pp. 146–7, no. 33 (L. B. Harwood); Williamsburg/Fresno/Pittsburgh/Oklahoma City 2008–10, pp. 66–7, no. 19 (I. A. C. Dejardin).TECHNICAL NOTESFine plain-weave linen canvas. Glue-paste lined; the original tacking margins are present. There is some slightly raised craquelure and minor wear, but otherwise the paint surface is in good condition. Previous recorded treatment: 1984, surface cleaned, blanching treated, retouched and varnished, National Maritime Museum, S. Sanderson.RELATED WORKS1) Copy of DPG82: canvas, 36.5 x 42 cm. University of Edinburgh Fine Art Collection, Torrie Bequest (1835), EU 720; NGS 26 [3].122) Copy of DPG82: panel, 37 x 45 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Christie’s, Amsterdam, 2 Dec. 1987, lot 287; The Hague, 22 Feb. 1966, lot 55).133) Manner of Karel du Jardin, An Italian Farrier, 38.6 x 43.7 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Barend Kooy, Amsterdam, 20 April 1820 (Lugt 9773), lot 43; ƒ58 to Zweers).14 This could be no. 1 or 2.4) Paulus Potter, The Farrier’s Shop, signed and dated ‘paulus potter f. 1648’, panel, 48.3 x 45.7 cm. NGA, Washington, Widener Collection, 1942.9.52 [4].155) Cornelis Visscher II after Pieter van Laer, The Farrier, etching, 200 x 282 mm. RPK, Amsterdam, RP-P-OB-62.109 [5].16Lent to the RA to be copied in 1829 and 1855.The attribution has never been in doubt. The picture shows the shoeing of an ox in an Italian courtyard. It is a typical bamboccianti subject, enjoying the commonplace scene of working life. The naturalism of the ox, on the other hand, demonstrates Du Jardin's familiarity with the work of Paulus Potter (Related works, no. 4) [4] and Pieter van Laer, known for instance through a print by Cornelis Visscher II (c. 1628/9–58; Related works, no. 5) [5]. Du Jardin painted scenes such as this for a relatively short period. Brochhagen dated the picture to the second half of the 1650s.DPG82 was at one time in the collection of George Crawford or Craufurd, a Scottish merchant who had spent much of his life in Rotterdam. At the sale of his collection in 1806 the picture was bought, along with DPG78 (Wouwerman), by ‘North’, who seems likely to have been acting for Bourgeois, a friend of the Crawford family. A version of DPG82 in Edinburgh (Related works, no. 1) [3] was deemed the original by Hofstede de Groot, but is considered to be a copy by more recent authors.17 In a copy of the 1806 sale catalogue (RKD, The Hague) there is the note, ‘Genl Sir Js Erskine [third Baronet of Torrie] has one of the same subject’, proving that DPG must be the Crawford picture, as the Edinburgh picture was already in Scotland by that date.18...

... P-P-OB-12.472 [8].293b) Karel du Jardin, Horse harnessed as a Workhorse, etching, 81 x 103 mm. RPK, RM, Amsterdam, RP-P-1971-268 [9].304) Copy of DPG72: Ralph Cockburn, Landscape, with Cattle and Figures, c. 1816–20, aquatint, 405 x 352 mm (Cockburn 1830, no. 47). DPG [10].315) Copy of DPG72: Ralph Cockburn, Italianate landscape with peasants and a white horse, inscription: Published October 1, 1816 by R Cockburn, Dulwich, etching and aquatint with colouring on the flesh parts, 215 x 271 mm. BM, London, 1878,0511.1329 [11].32The attribution was never in doubt. A date, read by Brochagen as ‘.676’, cannot now be seen.The scene is an Italian mountainous landscape, with the sky lit by the last glow of sunset, and a group of cattle and people prominent in the foreground. Painted with greater chiaroscuro than Du Jardin’s earlier work, with a quite different tonal palette of sombre muted colours, and energetic, broadly painted figures, DPG72 is typical of his late œuvre, also in its inclusion of a horse in the centre of the composition.33 This white horse, used by Du Jardin in many paintings, recalls the almost compulsory white horse in the paintings of Philips Wouwerman (1619–68); the decrepit state of the old animal seems to be inspired by an etching by Paulus Potter (Related works, no. 2) [7]. Du Jardin also made etchings of a worn-out horse (cf. Related works, no. 3a) [8]. A workhorse in a small etching (Related works, no. 3b) [9] looks very much like the horse in DPG72....

Philips Augustijn IMMENRAET

... a wolf hunt is depicted (Related works, no. 1) [1]; later she compared DPG651 to one dated 1666, auctioned in London in 1949 (Related works, no. 2). Another comparable picture by Immenraet, signed and dated 1666, is now in Strasbourg (Related works, no. 3) [2].It seems that the figures in DPG651 are by a different hand, probably close to Johann Jakob Hartmann (before 1658–1736/45), a Bohemian landscape painter who was very much influenced by Antwerp landscapists such as Jan Brueghel I (1568–1625) and by artists of the Frankenthal School. Two of Hartmann’s pictures were acquired by the National Gallery in Prague in 2005 (Related works, nos 4a, 4b). It remains a question how the two artists could have collaborated, while one was working in Antwerp and the other in Bohemia. In any case there were close links between landscapists in Bohemia and in Flanders. Was there an earlier painter of figures who worked in Flanders in the style that Hartmann later would develop in Eastern Europe? During a CODART-meeting on 2 December 2013 in Dulwich Picture Gallery it was suggested that DPG651 was by a Franco-Italian painter, in the circle of Salvator Rosa (who is known to have influenced Immenraet as well). According to us, however, as long as no name of such a painter has come up, or his works, De Kinkelder’s suggestion is more credible.It is unclear what mythological or allegorical scene is depicted....

Jan van der HEYDEN

... d the figures. DPG155 is a view of an imaginary city, probably based on sketches made in different places, or the product of the artist’s imagination. Wagner has suggested that the left one of the churches resembles Santa Francesca Romana in Rome, between the Forum and the Colosseum. A very similar building appears in the background of a drawing by Adriaen van de Velde, but there it is embellished with a cupola (Related works, no. 1) [2]. As Van der Heyden is not documented as having visited Rome, he must have taken his ideas from prints or via drawings by other artists such as Adriaen van de Velde (who also never saw Rome). The church tower on the right is a combination of Netherlandish Renaissance elements (Related works, no. 2) and an architectural capriccio (Related works, no. 3). The Gothic church on the far right is Northern European, and Van der Heyden had probably seen it himself. The figures painted by Adriaen van de Velde enjoying themselves around the pool seem to be wearing Dutch costumes of a type fashionable in the third quarter of the 17th century. The seated peasant woman with a basket on the left also appears in a famous painting by Adriaen van de Velde, The Barn (Related works, no. 4d) [4].14 The drawings that have survived show how the artist prepared his compositions and re-used his figure studies (Related works, nos 4a–4c) [3] as he did again in DPG155....