RKD STUDIES

Biographical data

... and to look in colour’. He returns to Amsterdam when Marja leaves Ibiza with an American.1959-1961Works under the influence of Abstract Expressionists, mainly Rothko, and later comes under the influence of de Staël and Mondrian. Makes the acquaintance of the artist Anton Heyboer (1924-2005), and is impressed by his raw etching method, ‘messing about with acid’ and inscriptions in mirror writing.Lives for a while in Wijk aan Zee. Goes to sea for a week in a fishing boat, and later makes a series of ‘seascapes’ and almost abstract landscapes, involving experiments with printing and the effects of acid (FP 61-1-7 and FP 62-1-6). Has a studio in an old chicken slaughterhouse in Voorthuizen and makes his prints on a press at the academy in Haarlem.1961-1962Lives in Laren in a ground-floor room in a villa called Jagtlust in Blaricum (FP 63-4) which was occupied by the Dutch poetess Frederike Harmsen van Beek (1927-2009), a former neighbour whom he regularly visits in order to repair automobiles. She nicknamed him ‘Bullie of the Knaak’ because he never borrowed more than a knaak (2½ guilders). ...

... mas Rap publishing house in the Reguliersdwarsstraat in Amsterdam the following day, which is a success.1968In the artist’s absence Reve opens an exhibition of his paintings, drawings and prints (11 January to 6 February 1968) in the Pribaut gallery in Amsterdam. The spoof announcement that the prints were by Reve himself causes a sensation in the Dutch press until journalists run the artist to ground in Tarragona. Later that year Pannekoek stays in Valls until moving to Conil [de la Frontera] in Andalusia.1969Remains initially in Conil de la Frontera before buying a plot of land and two cottages in Zahora near Vejer de la Frontera. After a period on Tenerife in 1970 he starts building his house. Stays in Spain for the rest of his life, apart from a long period in France between 1986 and 2005, with fairly regular visits to the Netherlands. While there in the summer of 1969 he gives a number of interviews, some of them about Reve, who had been awarded the P.C. Hooft Prize for literature and had renounced his friendship with Pannekoek. In January 1969 he suggests Thomas Rap publish a bibliophile anthology of seven small etchings to be titled Cambio de Vida en el Siglo xx. The plan gets no further than a dummy that he sends to Rap in March (FP 69-9). Later that year he also makes a number of etchings (combined with aquatint) to mark the American moon landing on 20 July 1969 (FP 69-1-3 and 5/6)....

... is the year that sees the start of the personal patronage of the artist by Carlos van Hasselt, who gives him a monthly allowance in return for the right of first refusal of his latest prints. While he is in Paris he meets Mària van Berge, the new curator of the Fondation Custodia, who makes a selection of his prints together with Van Hasselt. That autumn he first sees prints by Charles Donker at the latter’s exhibition in Galerie Balans. It is the start of a lifelong artistic friendship....

... 1973 he goes hunting with Lemperg again, first in Lapland and later in Grannäs. Game that they hunt in Sweden, like the black grouse, marsh ptarmigan and capercaillie, are recorded in his prints from those years, along with pheasants and ducks (FP 73-3, 74-1, 1A, 2, 2A, 77-2)....

... He makes a series of impressions of the etching with drypoint and aquatint called Human Skull Seen from above of 1972 (FP-72-7) in an exploration of graphic potentialities. In June 1974 he visits Chartres (FP-75-2) and Deauville (FP 75-7/8)....

... the autumn of 2011 puts an end to it. At the end of May (24 May 1-June 1975) there is an exhibition of his work at the house of the collector Antonio de la Herran Matorras, in Jerez de la Frontera....

... ans Pannekoek and Marja van der Veen in Zahora in April. In reaction to that visit and to an open letter from Reve in Hollands Diep at the end of April, Pannekoek in his turn writes a long open letter to Reve in the 19 June issue of the same periodical, putting his side of the story....

... s dedicated to Marja van der Veen and Carlos van Hasselt. It is a combination of reproductions of recent prints and Pannek...

... rk after seeing the exhibition. After making Dutch scenes based on his reminiscences (FP 77-4, 78-2, 81-4, 82-11) he turns to drypoint prints of Spanish seascapes and beach scenes. There are also numerous prints of ships, both moored in a harbour and drawn up on a beach, including shipwrecks and r...

... . He runs off six sets that he offers for sale at 6,000 guilders each. This is followed by a long period of stagnation in his graphic work, from 1983 to 1991, when he makes hardly any new prints. His relationship with his old flame Marja van der Veen (FP 83-4 and 9) comes to an end....

... It is accompanied by a TV interview in Hier is… Adriaan van Dis (15 February) and another with Bibeb that was published in Vrij Nederland (25 February)....

... is Hoefnagel (1542-1601) through southern Spain, illustrated with his own etchings of contemporary city views....

... 19 November-6 December) there is an exhibition of his prints in the Palacio Provincial (Diputación) in...

... agne-Monteglin (Hautes-Alpes). In this period he concentrates on waterco...

... y Village (Hautes-Alpes), where his son regularly comes to stay. In addition to watercolours he is now painting in oils on acrylics....

... ves to ‘Les Oeufs’, Mison (Alpes-de-Hautes-Provence), where he lives in a barn that he does up himself. In November his stepfather Schook dies, from whom he inherits furniture and prints....

... Imago in Amsterdam. He and his girlfriend Emanuelle Fourat visit Venice at Christmas 1994, which gives rise to several paintings and a few prints....

... m in all, plus the book with the prints reworked in 1983, and the drawings acquired directly from the artist between 1970 and 1994....

... Is injured in a hang gliding accident, for which he has an operation on his back and is confined to h...

... tled Les épines de l’amour (The Thorns of Love; see FP 97-album) with seven drypoint prints and accompanying handwritten notes dedicated to his muse Sandrine Gabriel....

... ith friends. Although he makes few prints at the beginning of the century, in 2002 he creates a large group of drypoints of Spanish landscapes FP 02-1/7, 16/17)....

... 1-18) and has to have an operation on his neck....

... io but is refused a building permit and is pursued by summonses. Makes a number ...

... is house ‘Los Albitrios’ in a hilly region near Algodonales. Returns to printmaking in 2009, and makes a ...

... the Fondation Custodia and a single painting. For the exhibition, which is staged partly on the initiative of the Hercules Segers Stichting, Pete...

... ith his hang glider, and from mid-November spends four months in a hospital in Cadiz. He takes a very long time to recover, and is unable to make prints....

... 17-1/7), some of which are in very varied impressions. Experiments with highly coloured impressions, including a series of 46 with portraits of his muse Susana Valle from the village of Algodonales (FP 16-3)....

Jacob JORDAENS I

... ish painter, draughtsman, and designer of tapestries...

... tijn Huygens (1596–1687), and the result is one of the masterpieces of the Golden Age.2Jordaens’s importance is also demonstrated by the number of his pupils. The Guild of St Luke recorded fifteen official pupils between 1621 and 1667; six further pupils appear in court documents, so it is likely that he had more students than officially recorded. Like Rubens and other artists at the time, Jordaens relied on a studio of assistants and pupils for the production of his paintings.His reputation suffered greatly from his supposed subject matter; Denning commented that ‘there is a sad want of refinement in his works’, and he was thought to be as uneducated as the people he depicted. Recently his intellectual standing was emphasized in the exhibition Jordaens and the Antique in Brussels and Kassel, 2012–13.3LITERATUREJaffé 1968; D’Hulst 1974; D’Hulst 1982; D’Hulst 1993; D’Hulst, De Poorter & Vandenven 1993; D’Hulst 1996; Van der Zwaag & Cohen Tervaert 2011, pp. 34–40, 58–9; Vander Auwera & Schaudies 2012; Saur, lxxviii, 2013, pp. 312–15 (B. U. Münch); Ecartico, no. 4178: http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/4178 (Feb. 18, 2018); RKDartists&, no. 42880: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/42880 (Dec. 5, 2019)....

... ng story about duplicity, but also added several figures associated with moderation and immoderation to form ‘a homespun version of sacred and profane love’.31 The scene is set outside. The strong light and dark contrasts in most of these Satyr and Peasant compositions are related to Caravaggio, with Rubens possibly sometimes as intermediary.32 Another possible beginning of Jordaens’s series is a drawing now in the Louvre, where the scene is set in a stable (Related works, no. 3b) [8]; the composition looks a bit like the Gheeraerts print (Related works no. 2) [7]; an ox is added. Somewhat later are the versions in Göteborg and Brussels, after which a print by Lucas Vorsterman I was made (Related works, nos 3d.I–III) [9-10]. There the scene is set in a farmhouse; the open door shows blue sky with white clouds; a wickerwork chair is introduced, and a baby; the satyr’s torso is based on an ancient statue of the dying Seneca, which itself went back to an Antique statue of an African fisherman.33 When the Munich picture (Related works, no. 3c) was made is unclear. It is an elaborated version of the Brussels and Göteborg pictures, again with an ox; the scene is completely inside a farmhouse, with no open doors or windows.Jordaens moved from an upright format in his first version – if that was indeed the initial design (Related works, no. 3a) – to one almost square (Related works, no. 3d.I–III) [9-10], and on to the landscape format of the versions in Kassel (Related works, no. 1a) [4] and Munich (Related works, no. 3c). There are changes in the figures: the peasant and his wife now seem to have three children, one on the mother’s lap, one beside the satyr and one with his face above the head of the eating peasant; the young woman of the Göteborg/Brussels versions has disappeared, and her straw hat is now on the head of an old woman; and the setting seems to be near the satyr’s grotto. DPG293 is closest in composition to this Kassel version, with some changes in the face of the boy beside the satyr and in the background. It might be a copy made by a professional, meant as the model for a print or as an independent work of art.34 Stylistically it seems nearest to the oil sketches in Antwerp and Bucharest (Related works, nos 4a, 4b) [12-13], where it looks as though Jordaens had added sand to his paint. There are also versions of the Kassel painting where the baby has a bonnet and the same set of people are depicted inside a farmhouse, where kitchen utensils hang from the wall (Related works, no. 1c) [6]. Some twenty years later Jordaens painted yet another version, where the low, comic aspects of the subject are dominant (Related works, no. 3f) [11] and the composition is similar to that of his paintings The King Drinks and The Porridge Eater.35...

... 26.5 x 150 cm...

... historisches Museum, Vienna, GG, 1106)].37Murray thought this was probably a 19th-century English copy.38 The whereabouts of the painting after which it is a copy are now unknown (Related works, no. 1) [14]. The copy was made before the prime version was enlarged.There is some similarity to the caricature-like figures in a painting by Frans Francken currently in the Residenzgalerie, Salzburg (Related works, no. 2). However Murray was most probably right when he assessed DPG625 as 19th-century English....

Anthony van Dyck DPG127

... 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....

... 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]....

Karel du JARDIN

... ised 27 September 1626–Venice, buried 9 October 1678Dutch painter, etcher and draughtsman...

... e 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/ecartico/persons/2652 (March 6, 2017); Levert 2017; RKDartists&, no. 24701: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/24701 (April 11, 2020)....

... 86–7, 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...

... g, 162 x 242 mm. RPK, Amsterdam, RP-P-OB-4636 [7].283a) Karel du Jardin, The Worn-out Horse, 1652, etching, 153 x 136 mm. RPK, Amsterdam, RP-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....

... du Jardin, Young Peasants crossing a Ford, c. 1657–60, signed K. DV. IARDIN. fe, canvas, 49.5 x 45.5 cm. Hermitage, St Petersburg, 792 [14].383a) Karel du Jardin, The Country Woman and the Sumpter crossing a Brook, signed K. DV. JARDIN fec., etching, 164 x 199 mm. BM, London, J,28.49 [15].393b) Karel du Jardin, The Standing Ox and the Calf lying down, 1658, etching, 201 x 167 mm. RPK, Amsterdam, RP-P-H-1331 [16].40The authorship of this painting has been in doubt since 1843, and its condition makes a reliable attribution very difficult. Both composition and staffage feature in accepted paintings (Related works, nos 1a [12] and 2) [14], but the composition is rather weak. The woman stands isolated, in a strange pose, whereas in the related works the way she holds her head makes sense: she is engaged in conversation. Often this kind of picture was made after prints, but no direct relation to a print by or after Du Jardin (such as Related works, no. 1b) [13] has been found. However a similar woman appears in a print by Du Jardin, as does an ox (in reverse) in another print (Related works, nos 3a, b) [15-16]....

Meindert HOBBEMA

... ised 31 October 1638–Amsterdam, 7 December 1709Dutch landscape painter and draughtsman...

... larly influential on the Norwich School, especially on John Crome (1768–1821) and on John Constable (1776–1837).5 In 1850, at the sale of the collection of Willem II of Orange, King of the Netherlands (1792–1849), in The Hague, Richard Seymour-Conway (the 4th Marquess of Hertford (1800–1870), purchased A Watermill (Wallace Collection, London, P99) for ƒ27,000, a record price for a landscape.6 At the time of his death Bourgeois owned three paintings attributed to Hobbema, but only Wooded Landscape with a Water-mill is still considered to be autograph.7LITERATUREBroulhiet 1938; Stechow 1968, pp. 76–9; Giltaij 1980, pp. 168–85, 203 (list of drawings), figs 42–4, 50–51; Sutton 1987c; Keyes 1995; Loughman 1996; Saur, lxxiii, 2012, pp. 436–7 (L. Pijl); Ecartico, no. 3731: http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/3731 (June 5, 2017); RKDartists&, no. 38627: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/38627 (June 5, 2017)....

... ern Painters (1873 edn) Ruskin illustrated an engraving after some leaves in the foreground of this picture in order to criticize Hobbema for straying away from naturalism, accusing him of ‘a mechanical trick or habit of hand for true drawing of known or intended forms’.31 In one sense he is correct: Hobbema’s paintings are not naturalistic: rather, he modifies reality for the greater good of the composition. Illustrative of the way he worked is the comparison between a later drawing of a specific place, a watermill at Deventer, set in the town, and an earlier painting in which the mill is placed in the countryside (Related works, nos 1b, 1c). He probably made drawings of particular sites, and then played variations on them in his painted compositions.While Wooded Landscape with a Water-mill is primarily a brilliant example of Hobbema’s landscapes, the relatively large figures on the near bank may be by another artist, as Denning already suggested in 1858.32 In 1982 Brown, following Broulhiet, thought they were all painted by Hobbema himself,33 but they are more distinctive than in most of Hobbema’s paintings. However an attribution to Adriaen van de Velde, for instance, is doubtful, as they do not look for instance like the figures by Adriaen van de Velde in Jan van der Heyden’s DPG155.Although numerous pictures attributed to Hobbema passed through Desenfans’ and Bourgeois’ hands it has not proved possible to identify this one with any certainty. Mrs Jameson in 1842 sent a somewhat mixed message: ‘This is a beautiful picture, full of that rural repose which Hobbema conveyed as no other painter has done: but it gives no adequate idea of the charm of his finest works.’ In general the picture was appreciated at Dulwich. Even Ruskin was grudgingly laudatory, praising Hobbema for ‘a bit of decently painted water’ – if only in comparison to the way he thought Willem van de Velde had done in DPG68.34 Moreover in the 19th century it was twice selected to be copied by the students of the Royal Academy, and in the 20th century it was twice chosen to be illustrated in a selection of the Dulwich pictures (in 1912 and 1954)....

Anthony van Dyck DPG90

... of DPG90. The strong suggestion that Pontius’s print was made after DPG90 (see Related works, no. 3a) indicates that the painting now in Dulwich was regarded by Pontius (and Van Dyck) as the most important version. The Cambridge painting differs from DPG90 principally in the angle of the Virgin’s head, but there are other differences too: the face of the Virgin is less idealized and more ‘Flemish’; she wears a brooch at her neck in the shape of a cherub; the white cloth around the Christ Child is drawn back further, and he does not grasp his mother's dress with his left hand, he merely touches it; the sky in the background is less distinct. Moreover in Cambridge Mary’s hair is dark and covered with a head cloth, whereas in Dulwich her hair is blonde and much more visible (the head cloth rests on her shoulders). The figure of the Christ Child is replicated in Van Dyck’s Virgin and Child with St John the Baptist in Munich (Related works, no. 2o) [5], where the features of the Virgin are similar to those in the Cambridge painting. The classical ‘Italian’ features of the Virgin in the Cambridge and Munich paintings, her emotive gaze, and the obvious stylistic influence of Titian and Guido Reni (and Raphael) would suggest that they were painted after Van Dyck’s visit to Italy. Glück (1931) proposed that DPG90, on the other hand, was painted earlier.In all three paintings the Christ Child stands on a volute, which along with the plinth and column in the background alludes to his birth in the Classical era, and which was also a common symbol of fortitude. John Peacock (2000a) noted that below the volute in the Dulwich painting a face in profile can be made out, which slightly resembles a detail in another painting by Van Dyck, The Continence of Scipio in Oxford (Related works, no. 2q): in the foreground there is an antique architectural fragment with volutes and two heads of gorgons, which still exists (Museum of London).342 In the 1620s Van Dyck often featured similar architectural fragments, as in the Portrait of George Gage with two Attendants in the National Gallery (Related works, no. 2r), where the fragment is probably an allusion to Gage’s collection.343Peacock argues a contrast between the gaze of what he sees as Medusa (who is one of the three gorgons) in DPG90 and that of the Virgin: the stare of Medusa, who petrified anyone who looked her in the face, ‘reduces spirit to earthbound matter’, which is, of course, the opposite of the Virgin’s gaze and the experience of the devotional viewer.344 However the head is not very prominent in the Van Dyck paintings of the Virgin and Child, and it does not look like Medusa: there is not the traditional hair made up of snakes, indeed no hair at all is visible.345 Only if you knew the antique fragment with the heads of the gorgons, or Van Dyck’s painting of the Continence of Scipio, could you know that the face hidden in DPG90 was originally a gorgon’s head, which could have been meant as Medusa (Related works, no. 3a.I–III) [6-7]. The inscription does not refer to any contrast between Christian and pagan gazes.346There is another difference between the first proof of Pontius’s print and the later states, not noticed by Peacock and other scholars: in the first state the Christ Child’s genitals are exposed (as they are in DPG90), seemingly as in Italian Renaissance tradition.347 This seems to be an important difference: in almost all the painted versions by Van Dyck himself the genitals are visible, while in most of the prints they are covered, except for the print by William Finden, which was made after the painting now in Cambridge (Related works, no. 3d). The painted copies with covered genitals were probably made after the prints. It is not clear why Pontius changed this (or why Van Dyck made Pontius change this, if he did). Luijten suggests that it could have been done because of the dedication to Antonius Triest, Bishop of Ghent.348The composition of the Madonna and Child was very popular, as can be seen in the many variants and painted copies (Related works, nos 2a–2n, 2p.I–III, 2s). Many reproductive prints were also made (Related works, nos 3a.I–III, 3b–3e).349 In the 17th century Hieronymus Janssens depicted it as part of an Antwerp collection of paintings (Related works, no. 4a). And in Pieter Christoffel Wonder’s Patrons and Lovers of Art (c. 1826–30; Related works, no. 4c) [9], which is a kind of prefiguration of how the National Gallery was supposed to develop, the version now in Cambridge is depicted above a Madonna in a roundel by Raphael, and as a pendant of Rubens’s Chapeau de Paille.350 Although a version of this Van Dyck composition never made it into the national collection, DPG90 and its variants were at the time considered to be a canonic image which should have been included in the National Gallery.351The early provenance of DPG90 is difficult to establish given the plethora of paintings of the Virgin and Child attributed to Van Dyck in 18th- and 19th-century sale catalogues. It cannot be the Van Dyck Madonna and Child recorded in Desenfans’ sales in 1786, since that was smaller. It first appears in Desenfans’ 1804 Insurance list, which valued DPG90 at £800.352 It seems likely, however, that DPG90 is the painting that Le Brun withdrew from sale in 1791, as size, support and valuation would all seem to match: if that is the case, then DPG90 was probably one of the works obtained by Desenfans for Stanislaus II Augustus, King of Poland, a notable collector of works by Van Dyck, for whom Desenfans started to collect in 1790.The painting was lent to the Royal Academy many times to be copied by its pupils....

Aelbert CUYP

... lord William Turner (1775–1851) and John Constable (1776–1837). In the Desenfans/Bourgeois home there was a special room, the Library, with pictures by Cuyp (see Britton 1813), and the Gallery’s first Keeper, Ralph Cockburn (1779–1820), included, among the fifty Dulwich pictures after which he made aquatints, seven works by ‘Cuyp’, of which only four are still considered to be by Cuyp.4At Dulwich it is possible to follow the artist’s development from his early work in the style of Van Goyen (DPG348) through the slightly later DPG4 and DPG128 to his later manner, strongly influenced by the idealization of the Dutch Italianates (DPG124).Two 19th-century German visitors singled Cuyp’s work out among the Dulwich pictures. Johann David Passavant (1787–1861) cites him along with ‘D. Teniers, Ph. Wouwerman, W. Van der Velde, Joh. Both, Ruysdael and Ostade’ as a producer of many excellent Dutch (sic) pictures. Gustav Friedrich Waagen (1797–1868) notes DPG192, DPG124, DPG128 and DPG96 but omits DPG4 and DPG348.5 In the Illustrated London News of 1856 the Cuyps in Dulwich were praised more in general, while the Cuyp that had come to the National Gallery with the collection of John Julius Angerstein (1735–1823) in 1824 was mentioned separately: ‘There is a very beautiful Cuyp, in his sunniest golden hue, in the National Gallery; and several of his works in the Dulwich collection.’6...

... o/persons/2272 (March 17, 2018); RKDartists&, no. 19498: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/19498 (Feb. 26, 2020)....

Gerard DOU

... tarted to paint highly illusionistic still life pictures which he used as shutters to protect his meticulously created paintings (e.g. Related works, no. 9) [2]. He also began to paint unidealized male and female nudes.In the early catalogues Dulwich had, in addition to A Woman playing a Clavichord (DPG56), two other paintings thought to be by Dou: DPG50 (since 1892 assigned to Brekelenkam) and DPG191 (ascribed variously to Dou and Elsheimer in catalogues between 1817 and 1880; now given to Schalcken). His work was included by Smith in the first volume of his œuvre catalogues of Dutch and Flemish painters (1829), which is a sign of the esteem in which he was held, and also of the availability of his work on the art market at the time. He was highly valued in 18th- and 19th-century European collections until modernism triumphed and more painterly artists came to be preferred: the French art historian Théophile Thoré-Bürger (1807–69) in 1858 was one of the first to criticize Dou, for ces espèces de jongleries en peinture (these juggling acts in paint).3 Dou is now once again appreciated.LITERATUREBaer 1990; Baer 1996; Baer 2000a and b; Saur, xxix, 2001, pp. 176–80 (D. Beaujean); Baer 2009/1990; Ecartico, no. 2579: http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/2570 (Dec. 25, 2017); RKDartists&, no. 23986: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/23986 (Dec. 27, 2017)....

... is...

... e/images/250405 (Dec. 25, 2017).EXHIBITIONS?Leiden 1665; London/Leeds 1947–53, n.p., no. 11 (A. Blunt; wrongly described as signed); London 1976, p. 37, no. 32 (C. Brown); Ten Paintings 1980, pp. 26–7, no. 8 (C. Brown text from London 1976); Amsterdam 1989, pp. 56–9 (P. Hecht); Frankfurt 1998, pp. 42–3, no. 6 (B. Werche); Houston/Louisville 1999–2000, pp. 160–61, no. 51 (I. A. C. Dejardin); Washington/London/The Hague 2000–2001, pp. 124–5, 142–3, no. 30 (R. Baer); Madrid 2003, pp. 110–11, 238 (English transl.), no. 8 (A. Vergara); Rotterdam/Frankfurt 2004–5, pp. 160–62, no. 40 (F. Lammertse); New York 2010, pp. 42–5, no. 5 (X. Salomon); Rome 2012, pp. 120–21, no. 8 (A. K. Wheelock); London 2013, pp. 38–9, no. 4 (M. E. Wieseman); Paris/Dublin/Washington 2017–18, p. 243, no. 4.1 (M. E. Wieseman).TECHNICAL NOTESSingle-member oak panel. There is a damaged seal (possibly of Bourgeois) on the back. Pale green-grey ground. There are small pentimenti, including a tassel hanging from the crimson cushion and a fold under the right-hand page of the music. Infrared photography has revealed a metal ewer underneath the tablecloth, indicating that the composition of the still life in this area changed somewhat during execution. The paint surface is in good condition, with slight wear and some small restored losses. Previous recorded treatment: 1936, woodworm holes filled; 1967, reframed after burglary; 1989, cleaned and restored.Apparently not signed or dated. The 1947 catalogue says that there was a ‘GDov’ signature (GD as monogram), but that could not be found in 1976.22 In general the painting is a bit rubbed, which shows especially in the face of the girl: in the UV photograph the outline of the face is sharper. An infrared photograph shows changes in the table on the right: originally there was a ewer, as in Lady at her Toilet in Rotterdam (Related works, no. 8) [4], which is also depicted on the shutters around the Dropsical Woman in the Louvre (Related works, no. 9) [2].The composition is similar to that of Lady at her Toilet (Related works, no. 8), so the rather indistinct space in the background of DPG56 is probably here also meant as a wall covered with decorated leather, as is visible in the UV photograph.23RELATED WORKS1) Gerard Dou, A Young Lady playing the Virginal, panel, 39 x 32 cm. Johnny van Haeften, London, 2012 (formerly Gould collection, New York; Alfred de Rothschild, 1884; Earl of Northbrook; William Wells of Redleaf, 1810; ?Gildemeester sale, Philippe van der Schley, Amsterdam, 11 June 1800 (Lugt 6102), lot 34; ?Maréchal d’Issenghien, Paris, in or before 1754 (Descamps, ii, 1754, p. 223);24 ?Johan de Bye, Leiden, 18 Sept. 1665, no. 23;25 Baer B 6 [5].262) Copy: Gabriel de Saint-Aubin, black chalk sketch made in the margin of the catalogue at the comte du Barry sale, Paris, 1774. Institut national d’histoire de l’art, Coll. Jacques Doucet, Paris [6] .273) ?Version: (Pupil of ) Gerard Dou, Girl playing the Harpsichord, panel, 38 x 30.5 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (formerly Imperial collection, Berlin, 1913; Potsdam Palace, 1842; Sanssouci, Berlin, 1763–86); Baer C 67, p. 3 [7].284) ?Copy after 3: ?Dominicus van Tol,29 Girl playing a Virginal, panel, 33 x 27.5 cm. Essex County Council, Chelmsford Shire Hall, 10; not in Baer [8].304a) Copy after 3: Cornelis-Henricus van Meurs after Gerard Dou, Young Woman at the Virginal, c. 1720–30, etching and engraving, 317 x 268 mm. RPK, RM, Amsterdam, RP-P-1908-292 [9].315) Follower of Gerard Dou, Girl and Man at a Clavichord (The Music Lesson), panel, 60 x 46.4 cm. Gemäldegalerie, Dresden, 1764 [10].326) Copy (after DPG56?): Balthasar Beschey sale, Antwerp, Cauldron, 1 July 1776, lot 182 (Lugt 2565).337) (including a depiction of no. 1) Adriaan de Lelie, The Art Gallery of Jan Gildemeester, signed and dated A. de Lelie f. Aº 1794–95, panel, 63.7 × 85.7 cm. RM, Amsterdam, SK-A-4100 [11].348) Gerard Dou, Lady at her Toilet, signed and dated Gdov 1667, panel, 75.5 x 58 cm. BvB, Rotterdam, 1186; Baer Cat. 114 [4].359) Gerard Dou, Still Life with Silver Ewer, Basin and Cloth, shutters of The Dropsical Woman, 1663, panel, each 102.5 x 82 cm. Louvre, Paris, 1214 (and 1213); Baer Cat. 87 [2].3610) Gerard Dou, The Young Mother, 1658, panel (rounded at the top), 73.5 x 55.5 cm. MH, The Hague, 32; Baer Cat. 76.3711) Gerard Dou, An Interior with a Young Violinist, signed and dated G. Dou 1637, 32 x 23.5 cm. NGS, Edinburgh, NG 2420; Baer Cat. 26.3812a) Cornelis Norbertus Gijsbrechts, Trompe-l’œil with Trumpet, Celestial Globe and Proclamation by Frederick III, signed and dated Cornelius Norbertus Gijsbrechts F Ao 1670, canvas, 132 x 201 cm. SMK, Copenhagen, KMSst461.3912b) Cornelis Norbertus Gijsbrechts, Trompe-l’œil. Paintings, Painter’s Tools and a Flower-Patterned Table-Cover in the Artist’s Studio, probably 1670, canvas, 132 x 199 cm. SMK, Copenhagen, KMSso812 [12].4013) Johannes Vermeer, A Young Woman seated at a Virginal, c. 1670–72, canvas, 51.5 x 45.5 cm. NG, London, NG2568.4114) Johannes Vermeer, Young Woman seated at a Virginal (or Woman in Yellow), c. 1670 or later, canvas, 25.5 x 20.1 cm. The Leiden Collection, N...

... motif in Dou’s work.56Dou's influence has often been seen in Vermeer’s Young Woman seated at a Virginal in London (Related works, no. 13), and there are indeed many similarities, as there are with Vermeer’s Woman in Yellow (Related works, no. 14) [13], generally dated c. 1670–75. Vermeer might have seen Dou’s works in the 1665 exhibition. The paintings have in common the position of the keyboard, nearly parallel to the image but not quite, the position of the body, the hand and the head, and also the gaze. The tapestry in Vermeer’s London picture is also Dutch. His instrument, however, is much larger, and its lid is decorated with a painted landscape.Other artists whose work shows appreciation or at least knowledge of Dou’s work are Michiel van Musscher and Johann Jacob Dorner. Van Musscher in a Self-Portrait used almost the same tapestry as Dou (Related works, no. 15) and in a double portrait of 1669 he placed a very similar vase with flowers on the windowsill (Related works, no. 16). In 1765 Johann Jacob Dorner painted Duke Maximilian III Joseph of Bavaria in his workshop (Related works, no. 17) [14]; the position of the Duke, the tapestry, and the open window are clearly based on Dou’s composition, while the clavichord has been transformed into a lathe.57 It is fascinating to see how a 17th-century Dutch bourgeois interior is transformed into an 18th-century Bavarian princely image....

Jan Both DPG8, DPG12, DPG15

... d to Both); Jonker & Bergvelt 2016, pp. 38, 41 (Both); RKD no. 284648: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/284648 (June 12, 2017).TECHNICAL NOTESMedium plain-weave linen canvas, glue-lined onto similar. The canvas has been prepared with a thick grey ground, composed of several layers. The paint surface is very worn, especially in the sky, trees and landscape. The signature is no longer present. Previous recorded treatment: 1867, repaired, ‘revived’, revarnished and frame regilded; 1911, cleaned, Holder; 1952, conserved, Dr Hell....

... 1 May 1963, lot 73, as F. de Moucheron; Major O. M. Leigh collection, Liverpool).132) Jan Both, Man washing his Feet, panel, 45.5 x 66 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (in the Colonel Gray collection).143) Copy: Ralph C...

... to Utrecht, as he painted most of his pictures during that period. While the way the light unifies the composition clearly shows the influence of Claude, Both favours a greater naturalism, which would in turn influence artists including Cuyp, Salomon van Ruysdael and Jacob van Ruisdael....

... a Colonel Gray (Related works, no. 2); it is possible that that was Related works, no...

... t to disappear, and the detail in the trees has been significantly abraded. Previous recorded treatment: 1867, ‘revived’, varnished and frame regilded; 1911, cleaned, Holder; 1996, glue paste lined, cleaned and retouched, S. Plender.RELATED WORKS1) Prime version: Jan Both, Banks of a Brook, canvas, 56 x 70 cm. KMSKA, Antwerp, 26 [2].232) Jan Both, Carts stuck in a Southern Landscape, signed Both, canvas, 67 x 79.5 cm. Staatliches Museum, Schwerin, G 109 [3].24An Italianate landscape. The scene is dominated by the trees along the riverbank, illuminated by the morning sun. In the distance are a lake and a large hill.This is a version, most probably by Both himself, of his painting in Antwerp (Related works, no. 1) [2], which is dated by Burke c. 1641–5. It has suffered from overcleaning, as Smith, Jameson and Denning noted, probably some time before the 19th century. The same landscape with different staffage (horsemen instead of shepherds) appears in a variant by Both in Schwerin (Related works, no. 2) [3]....

... ge of a Lake, engraving (in reverse), design 177 x 142 mm, plate 214 x 159 mm. Inscribed in the centre ‘Du Cabinet de Mr. Poullain’; lower left ‘J. Both et Moucheron’; lower right ‘Barns, sc.’ Basan 1781, p. 12, pl. 62 [4].342) Copy: Ralph Cockburn after DPG15, A Landscape: Morning, c. 1816–20, aquatint, 230 x 179 mm (Cockburn 1830, no. 25), DPG [5].35A Northern landscape, bathed in Southern light. Burke suggested that the painting dated from Both’s period in Rome between c. 1638 and 1642, but this is uncertain: that it is on oak panel would suggest that it was painted in Northern Europe, thus in 1642 or after. There is a French 18th-century engraving corresponding to the picture, in reverse (Related works, no. 1) [4], where it is ascribed to Jan Both and Frédéric Moucheron, and said to be in the Poullain collection. Confusingly, the accompanying text and that of the Poullain sale describe a different painting, said to be a collaboration between Moucheron and Adriaen van de Velde.36Denning thought it formed a pair with DPG10. The two may have been placed thus in the gallery, but it was not the intention of the artist....

Chaerles de HOOCH

... enburch (1594/5–1667). De Hooch has dated only a few paintings, such as the picture in the Rijksmuseum [1]. In the 18th and 19th centuries many of his works seem to have been attributed to Breenbergh (as DPG23 and DPG26 were).5LITERATUREBlankert 1978/1965, pp. 89–90; Salerno 1977–80, i, p. 262; Van der Willigen & De Kinkelder 1993–98; not in Turner 1996; Goosens 2001, p. 423; Pijl 2012b; Gestman Geradts 2017; Ecartico, no. 3822: http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/3822 (May 25, 2017); RKDartists&, no. 39447: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/39447 (May 25, 2017)....

... bottom leftForms a pair with DPG26...

... harles de Hooch).TECHNICAL NOTESSingle-member oak panel with horizontal wood grain, chamfered on the reverse. The grain is clearly visible through the paint layers and there is some minor tenting along the grain in the bottom left. The sky has some drying cracks and there is a diagonal scratch through the figure in the bottom right corner. Some retouchings appear slightly matt. There is a pentimento of a figure under the dog towards the bottom right. The bluish colour of the greens in the landscape and foliage indicates that their blanching and fading is due to the discolouration of a fugitive yellow pigment. Restored by Dr Hell 1952–3....

... 26 – Landscape with a Roman Ruin...

... istinctly on rock, lower right: H[. . . ][t?]/1633...

... ome. Roethlisberger considered that the ruin derived from a drawing by Breenbergh dated 1626 (Related works, no. 4) [3], which indeed is generally similar in composition, with the dark foreground and the ruin on the right; there are however many differences in the detail of the ruin between that drawing and the Dulwich picture, such as the stairs in the drawing, absent from the painting. Part of the ruin in DPG26 could equally well be inspired by the Basilica of Maxentius or Constantine, for instance, as there are several arches below and next to the main building. De Hooch seems to have been strongly influenced by Breenbergh throughout his career, and this could be an example of his copying one of Breenbergh’s motifs. It is presumed that De Hooch visited Italy; copying images by Breenbergh may have been an attempt to assimilate the style of the first generation of Dutch Italianates. It is also quite possible that De Hooch was inspired by prints or drawings of Italian ruins by other Dutch artists, which he freely combined.The two pictures are first documented in 1813, when they appear as by Breenbergh in Britton’s inventory of the Bourgeois collection. It is very likely that they are one of the numerous pairs of ruin landscapes attributed to Breenbergh that appear in late 18th- and early 19th-century sale catalogues. A seal on the reverse of the Landscape with a Roman Ruin is, unfortunately, badly damaged and illegible....