RKD STUDIES

Adriaen van de VELDE

... which owe a debt not to Wijnants but to Paulus Potter (1625–54), Nicolaes Berchem (1621/2–83) and Karel du Jardin (1626–78). Adriaen van de Velde also frequently contributed staffage of animals and figures to other artists’ works, notably Jacob van Ruisdael (1628/9–82), Meindert Hobbema (1638–1709), Frederik de Moucheron (1633–86), Jan van der Heyden (1637–1712; see DPG155) and Jan Wijnants. He also produced etchings occasionally. His numerous drawings from life reveal his working methods more than is the case with any of his contemporaries.Britton in 1813 believed that there were two Adriaen van ...

... tering place are a common theme in Adriaen van de Velde’s work. The figure of the drinking animal here is reminiscent of that in two drawings by the artist of cows grazing (Related works, nos 1 and 2a, b) [2]. The cow in the background is based on a drawing in the Courtauld Gallery (Related works, no. 3) [3]. The golden light that suffuses the composition seems to indicate that the picture was produced late in the artist’s short life, a suggestion supported by Hofstede de Groot’s observation that the drinking cow recurs in a picture dated 1669 (Related works, no. 4).The small picture was probably still in the Netherlands or France in the late 18th century, as it was copied by the Flemish landscape painter Balthasar Paul Ommeganck (1755–1826; Related works, no. 5a); see also DPG145, where Ommeganck emulated Paulus Potter and Aelbert Cuyp (1620–91). It has not proved possible to trace its provenance before its appearance in Desenfans’ Insurance list of 1804. Interestingly Bourgeois, and probably earlier Desenfans, had paired it with DPG324 (manner of Potter), as appears in Britton’s inventory of 1813.12 Bourgeois may have painted DPG324 to make the pair.In 1949 was at £100 the cheapest of the sixteen Dulwich paintings, which were then valued by Thomas Agnew and Sons (the most expensive being Rembrandt’s Girl at a Window at £33,000)....

David Teniers II DPG95, DPG76

... château of Rubens, no doubt an example that Teniers wished to follow both socially and artistically. Other recognizable views by Teniers include Het Sterckshof, in the National Gallery (Related works, no. 2) [2].Others châteaux by Teniers seem to be imaginary, but no doubt had some basis in reality. A picture in Montpellier (Related works, no. 3a) [3], for example, derives from a drawing of an unidentified château (Related works, no. 3b) [4], but it is notable that in the painting the artist has added a bridge and omitted the buildings visible to the right in the drawing. That could be the case for DPG95 as well. Unidentified castles frequently appear in the background of his peasant scenes, for example in DPG31, Gipsies in a Landscape. Interestingly, the composition of the castle is similar, in reverse: high main building, twin round towers in front. Unfortunately it has not proved possible to identify the castle shown in DPG95.The figures in DPG95 have traditionally been said to be Teniers and his wife, but that seems fanciful. The man in the red cloak and the elderly workman appear in different poses in a number of other works (e.g. Related works, nos 2, 3a, 4, 5) [2-3, 5-6]. The pair also appear in larger groups, as in the Village Feast in the Prado (Related works, no. 6) [7]. The boy and the dogs, too, recur again and again. No doubt they were stock figures. As the paintings vary considerably in size, it does not seem that they were intended to be part of a coherent series.Interestingly, DPG95 is not the only picture of a castle by Teniers that Desenfans owned: in 1786 he offered a similar picture at auction, probably selling it to Lord Lansdowne in the early 1790s.201...

... Teniers’ œuvre. And the two pictures have many characteristic elements of Teniers’ mature style – a pointing figure, silvery skies, an earthy palette, and a shepherd leaning on his staff in the distant background. A drawing on the London art market (Related works, no. 1) [8] was thought to be Teniers’ first attempt at the central figure grouping, with two men talking and one urinating. The group in the drawing is facing in the opposite direction and with the middle figure with his back to the viewer (instead of walking to the left in the picture); however it is not in Teniers’ usual drawing style, and seems likely to be a copy after a Teniers design, be it in reverse. A more convincing drawing has a similar group of three men, but with a castle rather than a church in the background (Related works, no. 2) [9]. The figure of the urinating man appears in another picture (Related works, no. 3).If the additions are taken away, the width is more than twice the height [11], an unusual format for a landscape, though not in Teniers’ œuvre (Related works, no. 5); a picture in Mannheim (Related works, no. 6) [10] had later been divided into two more conventional landscape shapes.209It is unclear when DPG76 entered Bourgeois’ collection. The Evening Mail inventory of 1790–91 mentions ‘A landscape with figures’ and ‘A ditto with cattle and figures’, both by Teniers, in the Drawing Room; elsewhere in the inventory these are called ‘two large pictures’, and they are not in the Teniers Room. They may be DPG76 and DPG95.210...

After Peter Paul Rubens DPG1

... ies, now in Sarasota (c. 1625; Related works, no. 1c).814 The putti in The Rape of Orizia by Boreas (c. 1615) are also close in style, depicted in a mythological context and not in a garland (Related works, no. 1d). Two fragments of an Immaculate Conception in the Rubenshuis in Antwerp (early 1620s) have cherubs very similar to those in DPG1 (Related works, nos 1e–f). As often with Rubens’s designs the motifs get different meanings: (allegorical) putti are made into (Christian) cherubs and vice versa. The catalogue of the Calonne sale (London 1795) – at least Buchanan’s version of it – saw a connection with Rubens’s work for the Banqueting House in London, but the babies there are very different in form and detail.A possible maker is the Flemish artist Hendrik Abbé (1639–after 1677),815 because DPG1 bears some resemblance to a monogrammed drawing in the Albertina, Vienna, dated 1677: there a group of babies are holding hands, flying around the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove (Related works, no. 3a) [2]. That drawing was published by De Maere & Wabbes as Project for a fresco, but it could equally well be a design for a print. If Abbé is the artist, DPG1 cannot have been painted before 1660, as he was baptised in Antwerp on 28 February 1639. There are two drawings that are called Abbé, both in Vienna. No paintings by him are known, which makes it difficult to attribute DPG1 to him. He was probably not the artist Habé who was also a collector and dealer in Rubens’s drawings in Italy.816 A drawing that is annotated Habé allievo di Vandyke (Habé, pupil of Van Dyck) seems to have been made by a completely different master (Related works, no. 3b). Hendrik Abbé was too young to have been a pupil of Van Dyck (or Rubens), as he was only two years old when Van Dyck died in 1641.In the 19th century almost all the paintings in the Dulwich Gallery were on display, including DPG1, as can be seen in a drawing by James Stephanoff (1786/8–1874), which was acquired in 2012 (Related works, no. 4) [3]....

Cornelis van POELENBURCH

... e spent in England as court painter to Charles I of England (1600–1649) in 1637–41. His small landscapes always contain Biblical, mythological or genre figures and are mostly painted on panel or copper. In his earlier work he preferred subjects from the Old Testament, and many different types of genre figures. Later, his subjects are more often from the New Testament, and the figures in the mythological scenes are nearly always bathing nymphs. Throughout his career he painted mythological subjects, suitable for princely patrons including Cosimo II de’ Medici (1590–1621) and Prince Frederik Hendrik of Orange (1584–1647). The Dutch nobleman Willem Vincent, Baron of Wyttenhorst (1613–74), had 57 pictures by Poelenburch.4 The landscapes in all Poelenburch pictures feature gently sloping hills, rock formations and Classical ruins, often with plants depicted in detail in the foreground. He frequently collaborated with other artists; Jan Both (1615/22–52), for instance, often painted the figures in his paintings.Poelenburch’s highly polished style was famous across Europe in his day, and continued to be so, except for a period from the mid-1850s when his works began ...

... ostly oak was used. It was formerly catalogued as by Breenbergh, but in 1972 Chiarini assigned it to Poelenburch, an attribution that has largely been accepted. It contains his leitmotivs of a gently sloping Italianate landscape and an antique ruin. Sluijter-Seijffert suggested that Breenbergh might have painted the figures,18 but in 2002 Laurie Harwood noted that Poelenburch occasionally painted elaborately dressed figures, as in his two versions of Athena helps Ulysses hide the Treasures of the Phaeacians (Related works, nos 3a, 3b); moreover she proposed that these figures might reflect the influence of Abraham Bloemaert, whose acquaintance Poelenburch must have renewed on his return to Utrecht in 1627.19 This contradicts the suggestion that the picture was painted while Poelenburch was still in Italy. It is also possible that Poelenburch remembered Bloemaert’s example when he worked in Italy.While it has generally been assumed that the picture is a simple Arcadian landscape, it may well be a pair to Mercury stealing the Flocks of Apollo by Poelenburch, which illustrates events from Book Two of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Related works, nos 2a, 2b) [2]: they are similar in size, shape, and composition.20 Whether or not the pictures are a pair, the elaborately dressed figures in DPG338 would suggest that some narrative was intended. Ian Dejardin suggested that the subject could in that case be Jacob stealing the Flocks of Laban. The costumes would be appropriate for one of the patriarchs, and the prominent heavily loaded mule could be Rachel’s, on which she had hidden Laban’s family idols. The male figure could be either Jacob or conceivably Laban himself. It is not uncommon that a mythological scene is paired with a Biblical one....

... other hand, Alexander Keirincx?); Beresford 1998, pp. 178–9; Sluijter-Seijffert 2016 p. 101, 349, no. 175 (Italian period); Jonker & Bergvelt 2016, p. 156 (1660s); RKD, no. 286254: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/286254 (Sept. 25, 2017).EXHIBITIONBath 1999, n.p., no. 6 (A. Sumner).TECHNICAL NOTESTwo-member panel. There are old wormholes in the lower panel. The back edges are bevelled except at the bottom. There is some browning in the trees, indicating the use of a copper green pigment that has discoloured. The flesh tints appear to have faded, probably due to the discolouration of a fugitive pigment. There is some minor abrasion. There are pentimenti under the figures. There is minimal retouching, most of which is in the sky area. Previous recorded treatment: 1867, ‘revived’, varnished, frame regilded; 1949–53, Dr Hell; 1980, paint consolidated, surface cleaned, National Maritime Museum, C. Hampton.RELATED WORKS1a) Cornelis van Poelenburch, Arcadian Landscape with Dancing Shepherds, monogrammed C P, panel...

Netherlandish School DPG396

... tury).TECHNICAL NOTESThe appearance and condition of this painting are very poor. The panel is composed of four vertical members. The joins are separating. There are seriously raised blisters in the paint surface and many flaked paint losses, some with mismatched old restoration. The varnish is considerably discoloured and dark. The surface is covered with dust. Previous recorded treatment: 1914, cracked: repaired and varnished by Holder; 1961, blisters reported to Dr Hell....

... d Anna of Saxony. Moro was available in the Netherlands between 1561 and 1571, the years the last couple was married. In addition, the portrait of Anna of Saxony in Poland is nowadays attributed to Circle of Antonio Moro (see also below for the pictures in Mantua). In all likelihood, Moro painted the originals of the two portraits of William of Orange and Anna of Saxony, but which unfortunately have been lost.The former identification of the sitter as the Duchess of Suffolk was based on the text in the Cartwright inventory. It has not been possible to connect it with a portrait of a duchess of Suffolk or of any other British lady of rank.10DPG396 was formerly ascribed to the Anglo-Flemish School, or to a Netherlandish artist.11 The previous association of the picture in Poland with Frans Pourbus I (1545/6–81) is unconvincing. The similarity to a group of portraits after Antonio Moro, originally dating from the mid-1550s, is far greater. The Dulwich picture has much in common with some portraits in Mantua from this group, though those are of higher quality; they are part of a series of beauties, one of whom is Anna van Buren (1533–58), the first wife of William of Orange.12 Just as Anna van Buren’s portrait was paired with a portrait of William (by Antonio Moro and workshop) now in Kassel,13 the Dulwich picture was probably paired with a portrait of William when he was Anna of Saxony’s husband, perhaps similar to the image in the print by De Bruyn, where he is shown as an older man than in the Kassel portrait, with a beard.Were it in good condition, DPG396 might look like the portrait of Mary Beaton (1543–98) attributed to the school of Anthonis Mor at Kenwood House (Related works, no. 4) [5]. Probably by the same hand is a portrait of a girl in Kingston, Ont., there not very convincingly attributed to circle of Lucas de Heere (1534–84) (Related works, no. 3) [4].Diana Scarisbrick analysed the jewellery of this lady of high rank and suggested that actual pieces were portrayed.14 The carcanet (a jewelled necklace or collar) and ‘matching bilament trimming hood and girdle’ were very fashionable from the 1540s onwards. The bracelets might have been a wedding present, but while the date of her marriage, 1561, makes that possible, it is known that she inherited a great deal of jewellery from her mother: might that be what is depicted?15...

British School DPG413

... smaller than DPG413, which is in size and composition somewhat comparable to DPG358. It shows a lower-class boy with a candle and a girl with a mousetrap (Related works, no. 1) [1]. Such prints travelled around Europe at amazing speed. Similar large-scale ‘rustic’ heads are also found in Northern Italy, which is likely to be the reason why Murray attributed DPG413 to the Italian School (Related works, no. 2).10 It is most probable, however, that Cartwright purchased pictures that were produced locally in London.The way the figures are lit from below is very like The Soldier and the Girl by Gerard van Honthorst (1592–1656) in Brunswick (Related works, no. 3) [2]. Honthorst specialized in this kind of light effect, which he developed from Italian (Caravaggio (1571–1610)) and Spanish (El Greco (1541–1614)) examples. The girl there is blowing fire tongs in the light of a torch and the soldier grabs her bare breast: the painting has an explicit sexual meaning.The figures in DPG413 are much younger than Honthorst’s soldier and girl, at least the boy is, and our girl with the mousetrap is decently covered by her dress. However the mousetrap had an amorous meaning in Dutch emblematical publications of the early 17th century: in Daniël Heinsius’s Emblemata Amatoria (1607/8) and Jacob Cats’ Sinne- en Minnebeelden (1627) mousetraps with mice in them and often a cat lurking, with or without a Cupid, are warnings not to be trapped by lust. The boy’s candle is a warning of the brevity and danger of lust.11 In paintings by fijnschilders such as Gerard Dou (1613–75) and Adriaen van der Werff (1659–1722; Related works, nos 4–6) [3] the mousetraps are accompanied by children, who seem to be playing with them (or with birdcages, which have the same meaning). Why in Cartwright’s inventory the figures are called ‘fools’ is not clear, as they do not have any attribute that refers to jesters (such as the fool’s cap seen in Cartwright’s Jester, DPG512). Probably he thinks they are foolish, because they will be trapped by the symbolic candle and mousetrap....

Flemish School DPG404

... the accessories are painted suggested to Jeffree a Flemish hand trained in Antwerp. DPG404 was probably made in London in the 17th century by a Flemish-trained artist, as it is likely that such cheap pictures (valued in 1686 at £2) were recently made in the city where they were acquired by William Cartwright before 1686. However there are also some Italian elements, and the elegance, clothing, hair and jewelry point to an Italian Mannerist artist. A similar lady with comparable jewelry and informal dress appears in a picture in the Château of Anet, recently acquired for the Château and attributed to Francesco Salviati (1509–63; Related works, no. 1) [1]. Salviati had worked in France around 1554. That the lady was supposed to represent Diana can be deduced from the presence of a quiver over her shoulder. The attribution to Salviati was based on a stylistic comparison with Salviati’s frescoes in the Palazzo Sacchetti and Palazzo Farnese in Rome.2 The Dulwich picture was clearly not intended as a portrait, and the lady not necessarily as Diana, because there is no quiver or other attribute of Diana. The jewelry and costume...

Dutch School DPG174

... he townscape is probably to be found among the Dutch artists in the circle of Claude, who was working in Rome with the Both brothers and Herman van Swanevelt for the Buen Retiro Palace from 1639 to 1641.14 They probably all knew each other before 1639.The earliest references to this painting in Dulwich sources gave Claude as the artist, until Mrs Jameson began to doubt its authorship. In 1858 Denning believed it to be a Claude, but suggested another painter for the staffage. From then on it was considered to be a good contemporary copy of Claude’s painting in the Louvre of c. 1636, which Claude had painted for the French ambassador in Rome, M. de Béthune, with a different group of figures bottom right (Related works, no. 2) [2]. Claude’s painting in turn was based on a painting by Herman van Swanevelt now in Cambridge, possibly dated 1631, with a totally different staffage and architecture fragments differently distributed in the foreground (Related works, no. 1) [1]. The only other major difference is that Claude shows a larger part of the Arch of Septimius Severus on the left. According to Roethlisberger, Claude never made a painting so closely related to a work by another artist.15 It seems that apart from this instance Claude did not copy or let himself be inspired. Claude also made an etching and two drawings of the same scene around this time (Related works, nos 3–5).According to Roethlisberger, ‘The precise, fluid handling, clear colours, and reddish-brown tints [of DPG174] are not based on Claude but imitate Swanevelt, without quite achieving his refinement.’16 So possibly the copyist knew both the Swanevelt of 1631 (?) or other Swanevelt pictures and the Claude of 1636. DPG174 was attributed to Swanevelt by David Howarth in 1985.17 However Sue Russell strongly rejected the attribution on stylistic grounds (but without having seen the painting itself); she also pointed out that in the 1630s and 1640s Swanevelt was far too busy to make copies after a painting that was itself a copy of one of his own works.18Instead, Sue Russell suggested Jan Asselijn (c. 1610/15–52) or Jan Miel (c. 1599–1664) for DPG174, but neither is convincing. It would be interesting if DPG174 was indeed an answer by Swanevelt himself to Claude’s Louvre painting, but the specialists are surely correct about the difference in style in both the townscape and the figures. The small group of cardplayers bottom right is remarkably close to the figures in the Barber Scene in Göttingen by Andries Both, datable between 1635 and 1641 (Related works, no. 7) [3]. Denning in 1858 also suggested, among others, Andries Both as the painter of the figures....

Philips Wouwerman DPG77, DPG97

... scene with horsemen resting at an inn. The use of ‘PH W’ in monogram dates it to before 1646, when Wouwerman changed his signature to variants on ‘PHILS. W’ (‘PHILS’ in monogram). His earliest known work is dated 1639, so it would seem that DPG77 was produced between those dates, when he was in his early twenties. Wouwerman’s pictures from this period are strongly influenced both stylistically and in subject matter by the everyday scenes of Pieter van Laer, with features such as the use in the foreground of sombre earthy browns enlivened by areas of local colour, and the diagonal created by the silhouette of the inn and the road. Duparc suggested that DPG77 dates from 1642/3.18 The man lying down in the left foreground has some similarity to a figure by Cornelis Saftleven (1607–81) in a drawing and a painting of about the same time (Related works, nos 2a, 2b) [1-2].If indeed this and DPG79 were sold in 1776 from the collection of Jean Pâris de Monmartel, Marquis de Brunoy (1690–1766), they were sold as pendants. In 1842 Mrs Jameson suggested that they were two pictures ‘sold from the collection of the Marquis de Brunoy, in 1749, for 216l’. Both date and price do not agree with the only recorded Brunoy sale, in 1776, but the pairing was echoed by later writers.19 In 1795 they appeared not as a pair in the sale of pictures owned by Desenfans, and the presence of the later type of signature, ‘PHILS . W’, on DPG79 seems to suggest that they were not created as such. They were inherited by Bourgeois in 1807.20...

... llers, c. 1816–20, aquatint, 224 x 177 mm (Cockburn 1830, no. 22). DPG [5].31DPG97 is an early work, similar to the Horseman at Rest in Leipzig (Related works, no. 1) [3], which is dated 1646. Frederik Duparc has suggested a date of c. 1647–9,32 which seems likely, given the signature style of ‘PHILS . W’ (‘PHILS’ in monogram), which came into use in 1646. The diagonal skyline and coarse figures are typical of Wouwerman’s work when he was heavily under the influence of Pieter van Laer. On the other hand, Richter & Sparkes and later Hofstede de Groot suggested that the depth of colouring shows the influence of Isaac van Ostade (1621–49), who was also living in Haarlem when Wouwerman painted this picture.The Grey Horse in the Rijksmuseum, from about the same period, is similar in colouring and dimensions, and seems to depict the same horse with a red saddle, facing the other way (Related works, no. 2) [4].According to Desenfans’ 1802 catalogue DPG97 was apparently acquired from a collector in Amsterdam. As it does not seem to appear in Dutch sale catalogues between 1790 and 1802 it is likely that its earlier provenance will continue to be obscure....

Jan WEENIX

... he became a member of the Guild of St Luke in Utrecht, and in 1668 he provided the painting required for admission. In 1675 he was living in Amsterdam, of which he was by then a citizen. From 170...

... n 2018b, pp. 94–6, 127, no. 15; RKD, no. 52741: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/52741 (March 24, 2017).EXHIBITIONSLondon 1976, p. 95, no. 122 (C. Brown); London/Washington/Los Angeles 1985–6, pp. 118–19, no. 34 (I. Gaskell); Tokyo/Shizuoka/Osaka/Yokohama 1986–7, pp. 142–3, no. 37 (in Japanese; I. Gaskell); Birmingham 1989–90, [p. 30], fig. XVII, pp. 50–51, 264, no. 14 (C. Wright & R. Lockett); Bath 1999, no. 12 (A. Sumner); Madrid/Bilbao 1999, pp. 138–9, no. 34 (I. Dejardin); Houston/Louisville 1999–2000, pp. 202–3, no. 73 (D. Shawe-Taylor); London 2002, p. 201, no. 57 (L. B. Harwood); Williamsburg/Fresno/Pittsburgh/Oklahoma 2008–10, pp. 88–9, no. 30 (I. A. C. Dejardin).TECHNICAL NOTESPlain-weave linen canvas. Reddish-brown ground with grey imprimatura. Wax-resin lined; the original top and bottom tacking margins are absent and the right and left tacking edges have been incorporated during a previous lining and retouched to widen the painting. There is slight weave emphasis from the lining treatment, and some areas of the paint appear slightly flattened. The paint is sound, with some small losses around the edges related to frame abrasion. There is disturbing blanching in the middle distance, foreground shadows, rocks and ruins, which has been partially retouched. The central tree has been extensively restored and now appears slightly too dark. There are white spots in the upper sky, which may be ‘protrusions’ that have d...