RKD STUDIES

Pieter NEEFS I

... ish painter and draughtsman...

... Steenwijck moved to London, leaving Pieter I the only painter of church interiors in Antwerp. After 1617 it seems that Neefs standardized his compositions and commercialized his studio. By 1640 his son, Pieter II, was working with him. The younger Neefs is never listed as an independent master in the Guild of St Luke. Sometimes the father signed as ‘Den Avden Neeffs’ (the elder Neeffs).6 The son’s last known dated painting is of 1675. The figures in both artists’ paintings were provided by Frans Francken II (1581–1642) and Frans Francken III (1607–67) and Bonaventura Peeters I (1614–52). Scenes were probably painted to be held in stock, though it is possible that a patron might say he wanted the interior of a specific church, with a mass, a baptism, a funeral, or some such activity. Only very rarely would a patron order the depiction of a specific event (see DPG141, Related works, no. 3b)....

... s I and II); RKDartists&, no. 59042: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/59042 (Neefs I; 20 Feb. 2018)....

... (?), 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....

Adriaen BROUWER

... ish painter and draughtsman, active also in the northern Netherlands...

... uented. Brouwer was also interested in scenes involving the senses, and most particularly in a new activity in the 17th-century Netherlands, smoking. These allowed him to experiment with a variety of expressions that verge on caricature, as in The Smokers (c. 1636; Metropolitan Museum, New York) [2]. This picture, one of the two that are signed in full, includes portraits of Jan Lievens (1607–74), Joos van Craesbeeck (1605/6–60), Jan Cossiers (1600–71), Jan Davidsz. de Heem (1606–84) and, and a self-portrait of Brouwer. Such expressions are also present in his scenes of quack doctors and their suffering patients. A similar interest in expressions is seen in the self-portraits of Rembrandt (1606/7-1669), and it is tempting to suggest that there may have been some relationship between the two artists; certainly Rembrandt owned six pictures by him. During Brouwer’s lifetime his works were avidly collected, and the inventory of the collection of Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) reveals that he owned seventeen pictures by him. Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641) included him in his series of famous men, the Iconographia. Between the 17th and 19th centuries many prints were made after Brouwer’s paintings, in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy, and also in England....

... p://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/1443 (Oct. 1, 2017); RKDartists&, no. 13036: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/13036 (April 3, 2020)....

... 243) Willem Basse, previously attributed to Adriaen van Ostade, Man urinating, etching on paper, 16.5 x 11 cm. BM, S.1546.25An autograph picture by Brouwer, previously thought to be a copy of a signed picture formerly in the d’Arenberg collection, last seen publicly when it was offered for sale in 1981 (Related works, no.1) [3]. Knuttel had considered it to be a copy, on the basis of photographs; Konrad Renger echoed that opinion, although, according to his letter, he had never seen the d’Arenberg version.26 It should however be noted that the photograph in the RKD which purports to be the d’Arenberg picture is in fact an old pre-conservation photograph of DPG108.27 This has no doubt misled many scholars attempting to establish the primacy of one picture over the other.The scene is a high-ceilinged room in a tabagien, an inn for smokers. In the left foreground two men sit smoking pipes. One, in white, wearing a cap with a small clay pipe tucked into its band, hunches forward to light another pipe. Next to him a figure in a pink overshirt and red hat leans back, with one hand on his hip, after inhaling; Knuttel noted that he might be smoking the belladonna and hemp mixture available in certain secret Flemish taverns. Behind them at another table two men drunkenly sing. In the background are more drinkers, while in the right foreground a figure in red trousers and brown shirt rests his head drunkenly on a post. His penis is hanging out of his trousers, a detail seldom seen in 17th-century Netherlandish painting, although there is a print by Willem Basse (1613/14 – 1672; previously attributed to Adriaen van Ostade) that originally showed the same; in later versions it was scratched away (Related works, no. 3).The scene is typical of Brouwer’s œuvre in its innovative focus on the exaggerated facial expressions of its coarse participants and its basic impropriety. Hazlitt in 1824 commented that it ‘almost gives one a sick headache’. With its high quality it continues to be called a picture by Brouwer, and until the d’Arenberg picture reappears doubt must remain regarding its primacy over DPG108....

Carel de MOOR II

... included in Smith’s 1829–42 biographies of Dutch (and some Flemish and French) painters.LITERATUREEkkart 1974, pp. 10–14; Sluijter, Enklaar & Nieuwenhuizen 1988, pp. 45, 182–5; Ekkart 1996c; Aono 2011, on CD-rom, pp. 183–4; not yet in Saur or AKL online (7 July 2020); Aono 2015, p. 188; Ecartico, no. 5475: http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/5475 (Karel de Moor II, alias Carel de Moor; Jan. 12, 2018); RKDartists&, no. 57499: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/57499 (Jan. 12, 2018); Fowler to be published....

... not match, and DPG116 is vertical, while no. 1a is horizontal. The suggestion by Paul Matthews that DPG116 has a pair in a portrait of an artist (Related works, no. 2) [3], also attributed by Gudlaugsson to De Moor, is highly unlikely. Although they are about the same size, their scale is different, they are different kinds of picture – a self-portrait and a genre picture – and they face in the same direction.22 More recently, Eric Jan Sluijter altered the attribution on the DPG116 mount in the RKD to Jan van Mieris, probably without taking into account the existence of the signed De Moor picture (Related works, no. 1a) [2].DPG116 does look like an engraving by Cornelis Bloemaert II (c. 1603–92) after his older brother Hendrick Bloemaert (c. 1601–72; Related works, no. 7) [4]. That was part of a series of four showing boys all with different animals, of c. 1625. The series was very popular: we find various versions for another sixty years, and even painted versions – after the prints. In the print a boy is shown holding a bird’s nest in his cap (so not with a bird-pot), and two lines of verse saying effectively ‘If you find a nest, take it before someone else takes it’, which according to De Jongh exemplifies human rapacity.23 There are however differences between the print and DPG116: in the painting the boy appears to care for the bird and its nest rather than to be stealing it.The provenance of the picture is unclear. Smith, in his text about Pieter van Slingelandt, gives two entries, nos 7 and 17, which, he suggests, might be the same picture. Hofstede de Groot in 1913 and Bille in 1961 agree with that. However when you read the descriptions in the sale catalogues, it seems that the picture in the Van Zaanen sale (1767) is not the same as the one in the Braamcamp sale (1771) and the Locquet sale (1783), mainly because a bird-pot is mentioned, which is missing from the other descriptions. Moreover a maid is mentioned in het verschiet (in the distance) which probably means that she was outside, while in the other catalogue descriptions the maid is inside the house. The Locquet picture might or might not be the one in the Paris sales (Tolozan 1801 and De Séréville 1812), but if it was it could clearly not have been purchased by Bourgeois, who died in 1811. None of the descriptions matches DPG116: at the simplest we are not looking at a furnished room, there is no dog or maid, and the child’s clothes are black, not coloured.In 1949 DPG116 was valued by Thomas Agnew and Sons at £900 (the cheapest of the sixteen Dulwich paintings was £100 for Adriaen van de Velde, DPG51, the most expensive £33,000 for Rembrandt, DPG163)....

Francina Margaretha van HUYSUM

... an Jansz. Gildemeester (1744–99).LITERATUREEllens & Segal 2006, pp. 24, 26, 342–3; not in Ecartico (April 23, 2020); RKDartists&, no. 372349: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/372349 (Francina Margaretha; 10 Jan. 2018)....

... ; Murray 1980b, p. 16; Beresford 1998, p. 138 (Michiel van Huysum); Ellens & Segal 2006, pp. 24–6 (possibly Francina Margaretha van Huysum); Jonker & Bergvelt 2016, pp. 118–19 (Michiel or Francina Margaretha van Huysum); RKD, no. 118297: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/118297 (7 Jan. 2018: Francina Margaretha van Huysum).EXHIBITIONLondon 1999b (ill. detail; no cat. no.; c. 1730).TECHNICAL NOTESSingle-member oak panel with vertical grain, bevelled at the back edges. The ground preparation is white and over this the paint is quite thinly applied. This painting has suffered severely from overcleaning in the past: the yellow glazes of the leaves and grapes have been removed, along with much body paint. There is an area of noticeable abrasion to the lower-left corner and the edges have suffered wear from the frame. The paint surface has a fine craquelure all over. The signature is damaged: it has been converted at some time to read ‘Jan van Huysum’. Previous recorded treatment: 1881, surface dirt removed; 1947–70, Dr Hell....

... al 2006, pp. 24, 342 (note 89) (Francina Margaretha van Huysum); Jonker & Bergvelt 2016, pp. 118–19 (Michiel or Francina Margaretha van Huysum); RKD, no. 118295: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/118295 (Jan. 7, 2018; Francina Margaretha van Huysum).EXHIBITIONLondon 1999b (no cat. no.) c. 1730?TECHNICAL NOTESSingle-member oak panel with vertical grain, bevelled at the back edges. The ground preparation is white and over this the paint is quite thinly applied. This painting has suffered severely from overcleaning in the past: the yellow glazes of the leaves and grapes have been removed, along with much body paint. There is an area of noticeable abrasion to the lower-left corner and the edges have suffered wear from the frame. The paint surface has a fine craquelure all over. The signature is damaged: it has been converted at some time to read ‘Jan van Huysum’. Previous recorded treatment: 1881,surface dirt removed; 1947–70, Dr Hell....

... llections, the Dulwich pair with Gerret Braamcamp (1699–1771) and the Cambridge pair with Cornelis Ploos van Amstel (1726–98). It is well known that these 18th-century Amsterdam collectors had warm relations with contemporary artists. Among other things, they allowed them to make copies of masterpieces in their collections of paintings and drawings. An example is Oswald Wijnen (1739–90), whose drawn copies, now kept in Haarlem (Related works, nos 2a, 2b) [3-4], were probably made at Ploos van Amstel’s, possibly for him.28 After the 2016 catalogue was published Charles Dumas brought to my attention another drawn copy by the 18th-century Dutch auctioneer and artist Jan Matthias Cok (1720–71), now in Frankfurt (Related works, no. 3). That drawing – with about the same dimensions as DPG61 – has an inscription that refers to the original by ‘Van Huysum’, meaning Jan van Huijsum. Cok knew both Gerret Braamcamp and Cornelis Ploos van Amstel.29 In the catalogue of the sale of Braamcamp’s drawings in 1768 20 drawings by Cok are mentioned, among them three that are most probably copies of pictures in Braamcamp’s collection.30 The Ploos van Amstel sale catalogue in 1800 includes 20 drawings by Cok as well, most of them copies after 17th-century Dutch masters, possibly in Ploos’s collection.31 Hence it is just as likely that Cok made this drawing after a painting in the collection of Braamcamp as after one in the collection of Ploos van Amstel. Another Amsterdam sale catalogue of 1799 shows that Cok seems to have made a copy, now lost, after its pair, Related works, no. 1a (or DPG42).32 In any case the images of a Chinese bowl with fruit and Delft vase with flowers were popular in 18th-century Amsterdam....

Jan van HUIJSUM

... ised 15 April 1682–Amsterdam, 8 February 1749, buried 13 February in the WesterkerkDutch painter and dra...

... Wilhelm I von Preussen (1688–1740), and many Amsterdam merchants. Sir Robert Walpole (1st Earl of Orford; 1676–1745) commissioned four paintings from him, and Sir Gregory Page (2nd Baronet; c. 1695–1775) six. After his death, too, his work was sought after and was very expensive, as his paintings stayed in excellent condition thanks to his delicate technique. Van Huijsum’s manner powerfully influenced 18th-century flower painting in Europe.LITERATUREHaberland 1996a; Kolfin 2006; Segal, Ellens & Dik 2006; Saur, lxxvi, 2013, pp. 102–3 (G. Seelig); Ecartico, no. 407: http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/407 (as Jan van Huysum II; Jan. 6, 2018); RKDartists&, no. 40849: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/40849 (Jan. 6, 2018)...

... 1.5 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)....

... Adonis annuaViolet Auricula - Primula x pubescens violaceaPeony - Paeonia officinalis plenaWallflower - Erysinum cheiriLondon Pride - Saxifraga umbrosaPansy - Viola tricolorA. Small Tortoiseshell - Aglais urticaeB. 13-spot Ladybird - Hippodamia tredecimpunctataC. Hoverfly - Syrphus vitirpennis?D. Rose Sawfly - Emphytus cinctus?E. Black Ants (9) - Lasius nigerF. Moon Spot Hoverfly - Scaeva pyrastriG. Honey Bee - Apis melliferaH. Wasp Hoverfly - Syrphus ribesii...

... 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....

Jan (Sanders) van HEMESSEN

... ish painter and art dealer...

... abas (fl. c. 1525–50). He influenced the Antwerp painters Pieter Aertsen (c. 1508–1575) and Joachim Beuckelaer (c. 1533–c. 1574).LITERATUREWallen 1983; Wallen 1996; De Clippel 2011; Ecartico, no. 3631: http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/3631 (Hemisksem c. 1500–Antwerp after 1556; Nov. 26, 2017); RKDartists&, no. 37345: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/37345 (Nov. 26, 2017)....

... 6 (Probably Flemish);4 Richter & Sparkes 1892, p. 140, no. 76; Richter & Sparkes 1905, p. 142; Cook 1914, p. 275, no. 505;5 Cook 1926, p. 255; Cat. 1953, pp. 48, 61 (Unknown); Murray 1980a, p. 81 (Circle of Mabuse; c. 1520/30);6 Murray 1980b, pp. 18–19;7 Beresford 1998,...

Attributed to Anthony van Dyck DPG73

... tributed to Sir Francis Bourgeois, Standing Man with Outstretc...

... s with horses by Van Dyck2a) Principals, St Martin dividing his Cloak2a.I) 1621, panel, 170 x 160 cm. Parish Church, Zaventem.2002a.II) Canvas, 258 x 243 cm. Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 405878.2012b) Principals, St Sebastian bound for Martyrdom2b.I) Canvas, c. 1615–18, 144 x 117 cm. Louvre, Paris, MI.918.2022b.II) Canvas, 223 x 160 cm. National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh, 121.2032b.III) Canvas, c. 1621, 229 x 159 cm. Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich, 371.204 2c.I. Oil sketch, Armed Soldier on Horseback, canvas, 91 x 55 cm. Christ Church Picture Gallery, Oxford, 246.2052c.II) A (modern?) copy after 2c.I, canvas, 85 x 54 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Sotheby’s, 26 Oct. 1988, lot 51; Sir Evelyn De La Rue, bt by 1910).206Other artists3a) Titian, Charles V at the Battle of Mühlberg, 1548, canvas, 335 x 283 cm. Prado, Madrid, P00410 [4].2073b) Titian, Portrait of Philip II, 1551, canvas, 193 x 111 cm. Prado, Madrid, P00411 [5].2083c.I) Peter Paul Rubens after Titian (breast piece), The Emperor Charles V, canvas, 92.5 x 76 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Sotheby’s, New York, 28 Jan. 2005, lot 586 [manner of Rubens]).2093c.II) Peter Paul Rubens or Anthony van Dyck after Titian (no. 3a, breast piece), The Emperor Charles V, canvas, 75 x 55.5 cm. Courtauld Institute of Art, Princes Gate Collection, London, P.1978.A5.351.2103d) Modello, Peter Paul Rubens, St Martin dividing his Cloak, c. 1612–13, panel, 36 x 48.5 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Sotheby’s, 6 Dec. 1972, lot 102) [6].2113e) Jan Boeckhorst, The Horses of Achilles, c. 1632, canvas on panel, 105.5 x 91.5 cm. NG, London, NG156.2123f) Jan Boeckhorst, Castor and Pollux abducting the Daughters of Leucippus, pen and brown ink with brown wash over black chalk, heightened with white, on carta azzurra, 245 x 290 mm. Devonshire Collection, Chatsworth, 993A.2133g) (Model for tapestry) Jacques Jordaens, Head of a Horse, gouache over red chalk on paper, 47 x 43.9 cm. Musée des Beaux-Arts et d’Archéologie, Besançon, D.3762.2143h) Giorgio de Chirico, White Horse in the Woods, 1948, canvas, 50 x 40 cm. Present whereabouts unknown.215...

... r looks more like another Titian painting (in reverse), a portrait of Philip II of 1551, also in the Prado (Related works, no. 3b) [5].The source for Titian and thus also for Van Dyck is the Roman sculpture of Marcus Aurelius in the Piazza del Campidoglio in Rome (known through many prints), though that horse is more upright: Van Dyck made his horse seem more in movement, by depicting the left front leg obliquely and the right front leg raised. Where the circumstances surrounding Titian’s project are well known, those around Van Dyck’s are unclear. The date, before he left for Italy, suggests Antwerp or London as its place of origin. As mentioned under DPG127, Samson and Delilah, the circumstances in which several of these early paintings arose, and who their patrons were – if there were any – are completely unknown.In his early years Van Dyck made several other compositions with horses, as part of a larger scene. For St Martin dividing his Cloak (Related works, nos 2a.I, II) he might have been inspired by a Rubens of the same subject (Related works, no. 3d) [6]; Van Dyck’s St Martin is on a horse that is going to the left. In St Sebastian bound for Martyrdom (Related works, nos 2b.I–III) the white horse is subordinate to the main subject. In the study in Oxford the horse is moving towards the viewer, and a compact man with a helmet is riding on it (Related works, nos 2c.I, II); it is not known what composition Van Dyck meant this to be used in.Van Dyck clearly seems to have been intrigued by this kind of pale horse with a long curly mane: he tried several positions for it in his works. It was a popular type in Flanders, as can be seen in 17th-century paintings by Jacques Jordaens and Jan Boeckhorst, and in Italy in the 20th century – all apparently modelled on Van Dyck horses (Related works, nos 3e–3h)....

Arent de GELDER

... 26 October 1645, baptised 11 November 1645–Dordrecht, 27 August 1727, buried 29 August in the Grote Ker...

... h it owes a debt to Rembrandt, is indisputably his own, both in his colour scheme and in his application of paint.LITERATURELilienfeld 1920; Sumowski 1983–94, ii (1983), pp. 1154–277; Moltke 1994; Moltke 1996; Sluiter 1997; Schoon & Sluiter 1998; Sluiter 2006; Saur, li, 2006, pp. 176–8 (as Gelder, Arent de; G. Sluiter); De Witt, Van Sloten & Van der Veen 2015; Ecartico, no. 3128: http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/3128 (as Aert de Gelder; 4 Jan. 2018); RKDartists&, no. 30757: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/30757 (as Arent de Gelder; 1 Mar. 2018)....

... 26 – Jacob’s Dream...

... ised in the wet paint; AD as monogram) (signature found during the cleaning of the picture in 1946)...

... nt of some trees; above, the night sky has opened to reveal a brilliant light that picks him out in the darkness. Hovering near heaven in the beam of light (rather than a ladder) are two white, shrouded, winged figures of angels.Although Rembrandt seems never to have painted this subject, he did produce an etching of the subject with a ladder in 1655, and five drawings from throughout his career survive.39 Other Rembrandt pupils including Ferdinand Bol (1616–80) and Gerbrand van den Eeckhout (1621–74) painted the scene with much larger figures,40 as was usual in Italian art as well. The ultimate source for the composition would seem to be Rembrandt’s etching of The Angel appearing to the Shepherds of 1634 (here shown in a counterproof: Related works, no. 1) [2]. In a drawing of the same scene in the British Museum, recently attributed to De Gelder by Martin Royalton-Kisch (c. 1670–90), the figures are much larger than those in the present painting (Related works, no. 2) [3]. What De Gelder changed in the Dulwich picture, painted much later (see below), is the scale: Jacob is a tiny figure in an endless landscape, where two angels are descending from the clouds in the luminous sky.Desenfans acquired the picture as a Rembrandt in or before 1802, when it appeared in his sale of that year. Murray suggested that it might be one by De Gelder which was in the collection of Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Le Brun (1748–1813) before it was sold at Christie’s in 1785, while Frederiksen found another Jacob’s Dream mentioned in 1768. In both cases no dimensions are given, so they might be the other known Jacob’s Dream by De Gelder, now in the Oskar Reinhart Collection, Winterthur, which is considerably larger, with much larger figures, but cut down on the right side (Related works, no. 3) [4].41 Moltke pointed out that this larger work was in England from at least 1857, when it was recorded in the collection of Viscount Dillon at Ditchley, Oxfordshire, on loan to the Manchester exhibition of 1857. Moltke also noted that Arent de Gelder’s inventory of 1727 (f. 281) included ‘1 groot stuk, verbeeldende Jacob en den engel’ (1 large piece, depicting Jacob and the angel), which presumably refers to the larger treatment of the theme in Winterthur.The picture was much admired in the 19th century as an authentic Rembrandt. It even figures in a depiction of Rembrandt’s studio of 1841 by John Scarlett Davis (1804–45/6; Related works, no. 9) [7], next to the Nightwatch and The Shipbuilder and his Wife. Patmore described the painting as ‘extraordinary’; Mrs Jameson wrote, ‘I know nothing more wild, visionary, and poetical, than this little picture’; and Hazlitt asserted that ‘No one else could ever grapple with this subject, or stamp it on the willing canvas in its gorgeous obscurity, but Rembrandt!’ As Christopher White has noted, others impressed by it included Robert Browning, Francis Kilvert and Samuel Palmer (1805–81).42 Joseph Mallord William Turner (1775–1851) seems to have been inspired by it in a more general way (Related works, no. 11). A drawing by John Constable (1776–1837) is a magnificent interpretation of De Gelder’s painting (Related works, no. 6) [5]. The visionary quality of De Gelder’s treatment of space and light, ‘sometimes reminiscent of Doré and sometimes of Goya’,43 appealed to that part of the 19th-century British audience who were used to and attracted by the images of William Blake (1757–1827), Johann Heinrich Füssli or Henry Fuseli (1741–1825) and John Martin (1789–1854)....

Aelbert Cuyp DPG4, DPG128

... istance...

... 5 mm. Teylers Museum, Haarlem, P*42 [1].441b) Aelbert Cuyp, Standing Shepherd, c. 1642–6, black chalk, grey wash, 191 x 96 mm. Private collection (VdS), Vorden, the Netherlands [2].451c) Aelbert Cuyp, Five Sheep lying down, c. 1644–8, black chalk, brush in grey, grey wash, 155 x 199 mm. Present whereabouts unknown (I. Q. van Regteren Altena collection sale, 8–10 July 2014, lot 53) [3].461d) Aelbert Cuyp, Cow lying down, black chalk, with brush drawing in grey wash, corrected in white (mostly oxidized), 75 x 140 mm. BM, London, 1836,0811.113; Hind 36 [4].471e) Aelbert Cuyp, Three Cows on Grass with Dock Leaves, black chalk, with grey, yellow and red wash, 139 x 190 mm. BM, London, Gg,2.294; Hind 33 [5].48Paintings2a) Aelbert Cuyp, Landscape near Rhenen: Cows at Pasture with a Shepherd playing the Flute, c. 1650–55, canvas, 170 x 229 cm. Louvre, Paris, 1190; Chong 115 [6].492b) Aelbert Cuyp, View of Rhenen, panel, 67.5 x 90.5 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Hoogsteder & Hoogsteder, The Hague, 1991); Chong 83 [7].502c) Jacob and Aelbert Cuyp, A Couple with their Daughter, Sheep, and a Dog. Rhenen in the Background, signed and dated JG cuyp. Fecit. / 1641 (JG in monogram), canvas, 106.5 x 148.5 cm. Museo Nacional de Arte Decorativa, Buenos Aires, 3591; Chong 18 (then in Switzerland) [8].512d) (with the same standing shepherd as in 1b) Aelbert Cuyp, A Landscape, signed, c. 1647, panel, 48 x 73.5 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Sotheby’s, New York, 17 Jan. 1985, lot 173); Chong 67.522e) (with the same standing shepherd as in 1b) Aelbert Cuyp, Cattle and Herders with the Huis te Merwede in the Distance, signed, panel, 38.1 x 50.8 cm. NG, London, NG1289; Chong 138.532f) (with a standing shepherd similar to that in 1b) Aelbert Cuyp, Landscape with Shepherds and Shepherdesses, panel, 77.5 x 107.5 cm. Private collection, Belgium; Chong 77.542g) Copy: D. A. Ross collection, Victoria, B.C.55Prints3a) Aelbert Cuyp, Cows, first of a series of etchings, 68 x 73 mm. BM, London, S.7314 [9].563b) Copy: Ralph Cockburn, A Landscape, with Cows, c. 1816–20, aquatint, 166 x 231 mm (Cockburn 1830, no. 3). DPG [10].573c) Copy: John Cousen (1804–80), The Noon-day Rest, etching, 222 (trimmed) x 274 mm, lettered state. BM, London, 1861,1109.56. Working proof 210 x 282 mm. BM, London, 1926,0331.110 [11].58Lent to the RA to be copied in 1879 and 1930....

... n Amsterdam private collection (Related works, no. 1c) [3],61 the cow on the left in a drawing in the British Museum (Related works, no. 1d) [4], and the cow lying down seen from the back in a drawing with other animals, and plants, also in the British Museum (Related works, no. 1e) [5]. Cuyp’s animals in his drawings and etchings (Related works, no. 3a) [9] are much more bony than the animals in his paintings, which in general look more prosperous.This painting was selected by Cockburn to be reproduced in his series of prints after Dulwich paintings (Related works, no. 3b) [10], and was included in Hall’s Gems of European art (Related works, no. 3c) [11], as was Herdsmen with Cows (DPG128)....

... g of a warm, still, summer evening’); Athenaeum 1876, p. 135;75 Sparkes 1876, p. 48, no. 169; Francis Kilvert in 1876, see Plomer & Kilvert 1944, pp. 319–20;76 Richter & Sparkes 1880, p. 46, no. 169;77 Wallis 1881, p. 222;78 Havard & Sparkes 1885 (‘first-rate example of this painter’); Richter & Sparkes 1892 and 1905, pp. 32–3, no. 128; HdG, ii, 1908, p. 74, no. 237e (Bryan sale, lot 39, as in Buchanan) and p. 97, no. 330 (Engl. edn 1909, p. 78 and p. 101); Cook 1914, pp. 75–6, no. 128;79 Cook 1926, pp. 71–2, no. 128; Reiss 1953a, p. 33, no. 185;80 Reiss 1953b, p. 46, no. 185; Cat. 1953, p. 17; Paintings 1954, pp. 5, [59]; Burnett 1969, pp. 377, fig. 15, 380 (notes 20–22); Reiss 1975, pp. 77, 206, no. 44 (c. 1646); Murray 1980a, p. 48 (‘Probably a late work, c. 1660’); Murray 1980b, p. 12; Chong 1992, n.p., no. 80; Chong 1993, pp. 257, 323–5, no. 80; Chong 1995, pp. 46–7; Bobak, Spring & Tasker 1995; Chong 1996b, p. 294; Edwards 1996, pp. 56–7 (fig.); Beresford 1998, p. 83;81 Shawe-Taylor 2000, p. 63; Buvelot & Buijs 2002, pp. 86 (fig. 11b), 87, 202–3, under no. 11 (H. Buijs); Salomon 2010, pp. 16–17, fig. 10; Shawe-Taylor 2010, p. 158 (under no. 38); Bijl & Kloek 2014, p. 96; Jonker & Bergvelt 2016, pp. 60, 61, 66; Enklaar & Paarlberg 2021, pp. 38–39 (J. Loughman); RKD, no. 225945: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/225945 (July 21, 2022)....

... 26, no. 97; Aberystwyth 1947, p. 8, no. 8 (M. Ellis); London 1952–3, p. 42, no. 185; The Hague 1970, n.p., no. 64 (fi...

... from their time in Italy, most notably Jan Both. The painting seems intended to depict an Italian scene. Here, as in the View on a Plain with Rhenen in the Distance (DPG4), Cuyp experimented with contrejour lighting effects to depict the hazy landscape. Unlike that work, however, which seems to be slightly earlier, the warm orange tones of the setting sun have not been allowed to dominate the picture as a whole, at the expense of the vibrant greens of the landscape and the blue of the sky. The highlights on the foliage at the left were to become a defining characteristic of Cuyp’s subsequent œuvre. The result is an Arcadian landscape every bit the equal of Claude but with recognizably contemporary figures. On the right are sloping cliffs, a motif that Cuyp used in at least two other pictures (Related works, nos. 2a, 2b) [13-14].Also as in the View on a Plain, motifs appear of which Cuyp had made drawings (see the drawing with seated shepherd boys in the Fondation Custodia, Related works, no. 1) [12] and etchings (the series entitled Cows, Related works, no. 3a) [15], though there the similarity is more general, and the animals are more bony than in the painting)....

Aelbert Cuyp DPG60, DPG348

... ainting; the later additions were removed in 1998, leaving the original panel in its current state, with thin edges of non-original panel along the bottom left to protect its uneven edges. It is now set into a wooden panel tray for support. The ground shows through in some areas of abrasion in the sky. This work formerly had the remnants of a group of cattle in the foreground centre left. Analysis showed these were post-17th-century additions and they were removed in 1998. Previous recorded treatment: late 18th/early 19th century, repainted (presumably the cattle were added at this point), Sir Francis Bourgeois; 1948–68 and 1970–72, partially cleaned, Dr Hell; 1998, technical analysis L. Sheldon; later panel additions removed, A. Reeve; cleaned and restored, S. Plender....

... is had based them on the cattle in a view of the Old Maas near Dordrecht, the left half of a painting by Cuyp (Related works, no. 2a.I) [2] of which half an 18th-century copy exists, by Abraham van Strij I, that is more or less faithful (Related works, no. 2b) [4]. In 1759 Aert Schouman made a drawing (Related works, no. 2c) [5] after the supposed original complete picture (Related works, nos 2a.I and 2a.II) [2-3].A surviving preparatory drawing does not include cows (Related works, no. 1) [1]. The additional strips, probably also added by Bourgeois, were removed in 1998, technical analysis having revealed that they were post-17th century; they are now in store at Dulwich. The composition in its present condition, probably more or less original, is close to A River Scene with Distant Windmills, although that has a higher sky (Related works, no. 3) [6].The provenance of the painting is difficult to trace. It was probably acquired by Desenfans or Bourgeois in the late 18th century on the London art market....

... an Goyen, Salomon van Ruysdael and Herman Saftleven II. It most markedly recalls the work of Van Goyen, although Cuyp’s light is brighter and has greater contrast. The thick impasto and light key are particularly noteworthy. It was probably executed c. 1640–41. Details of the landscape background recur in a portrait group by Jacob and Aelbert Cuyp that is dated 1641 (Related works, no. 1) [9] and Reiss also noted that the goat in profile (the second from left) derives from no. 13 of the drawings made by Aelbert’s father Jacob Cuyp and engraved for Diversa Animalia Quadrupedia published by Claes Jansz. Visscher (c. 1587–1652) in the same year (Related works, no. 2) [10]. On stylistic grounds, however, it is unlikely that Landscape with Cattle and Figures is a collaboration between father and son.34 Chong has observed that two of the cows are repetitions of those seen in Cuyp’s Road through Dunes (Related works, no. 3). Another early Cuyp is in the Samuel Collection, London (Related works, no. 4).The same goat (second from the left) is also depicted in the early Orpheus charming the Animals (Related works, no. 5) [11].There is some doubt as to whether Landscape with Cattle and Figures is the work described in the catalogue of Noel Desenfans’ 1802 sale. While many details match, the text there has the goats on the right and the tree on the left. However, at the time the descriptions were reversed: while we now describe pictures from the standpoint of the viewer, in the 19th century they did it the other way round. Sparkes, in his 1876 catalogue of the Dulwich collection, referred to its ‘feeble grey sky’, and thought the picture was not by Cuyp himself, a view which seems incredible. Sense was restored in the next catalogue, amended by Richter (1880), where it is called ‘a particularly important work of the master’....