TEFAF Maastricht by Richard Green

25th–30th June 2022 MECC Maastricht Forum 100 6229 GV Maastricht The Netherlands Stand number: 301 Following the fair, these paintings will be on view at 147 New Bond Street, London W1S 2TS

Penny Marks Director +44 (0)7720 848 586 pennymarks@richardgreen.com

Richard Green Chairman +44 (0)20 7493 3939 richardgreen@richardgreen.com

Jonathan Green CEO +44 (0)7768 818 182 jonathangreen@richardgreen.com

www.richardgreen.com paintings@richardgreen.com

Paintings are sold subject to our standard terms and conditions of sale, copies of which may be obtained on request and are also available on our website

JA N VA N G OY E N

A view of Rupelmonde Castle on the Scheldt, with boats in the foreground 2

SA LO M O N VA N R U YS DA E L

River landscape with sailing boats by a village 3

JA N DAV I D SZ . D E H E E M

CONTENTS

D I R C K D I R C K SZ . SA N T VO O R T

Portrait of a young girl holding buttercups, with her dog beside her 5

G E R R IT A D R I A N SZ . B E R C K H E Y D E

The Oudezijds Heerenlogement, on the confluence of the Grimburgwal and the Oudezijds Voorburgwal, Amsterdam 6

G O D F R I E D S C H A LC K E N

Portrait of a girl in a pink dress, with a parrot in a forest landscape 7 Inside cover (detail): Jan van Goyen A view of Rupelmonde Castle on the Scheldt, with boats in the foreground Left (detail): Rachel Ruysch Still life of a bouquet of pink and white roses, poppy anemones, primroses, forgetme-nots, jonquils, daffodils, snowballs, honeysuckle and a tulip in a glass vase, with a bird’s nest

R AC H E L R U YS C H

Still life of a bouquet of pink and white roses, poppy anemones, primroses, forget-me-nots, jonquils, daffodils, snowballs, honeysuckle and a tulip in a glass vase, with a bird’s nest

JA N VA N G OY E N Leiden 1596 – 1656 The Hague

A view of Rupelmonde Castle on the Scheldt, with boats in the foreground Signed with initials and dated lower centre: VG 1651 Oil on panel: 26 ¼ × 35 5/8 in / 66.7 × 90.5 cm Frame size: 35 × 44 in / 88.9 × 111.8 cm In a black polished Dutch seventeenth century style frame PROVENANCE:

Mrs Herbert E Jones, Hove, Sussex; her sale, Christie’s London, 27th May 1921, lot 30 (£378 to Peacock) A Buttery, London, 1924 J Goudstikker, Amsterdam, from whom purchased in 1925 by Jonkheer Christianus Theodorus Franciscus Thurkow (1882–1970), 1 Plein 1813, The Hague Christie’s London, 14th December 1990, lot 91; where acquired by a private collector, Germany LITERATURE:

MF Hennus and C Veth (eds), ‘Tentoonstellingen’, Maandblad voor Beeldende Kunsten, vol. II, 1925, pp.318– 19, illus. W Bernt, The Netherlandish Painters of the Seventeenth Century, London 1969, vol. I, fig. 445 (as River scene, with provenance incorrectly given as private collection, Lübeck) H-U Beck, Jan van Goyen 1596–1656, Amsterdam 1973, vol. II, p.322, no.705, illus. Few artists have captured the spirit of the Netherlands, with its waterways mirroring huge skies, as well as Jan van Goyen. He could work effortlessly on every scale from small cabinet paintings to the expansive size employed here. Van Goyen was master of the ‘tonal’ landscape, using soft, gradated hues of brown and pale blue to conjure up the moisture-laden, wind-ruffled terrain. His works of the 1630s have a golden-brown hue. He returned to ‘tonal’ landscapes at the start of the 1650s, the era in which this view of Rupelmonde Castle was made. Strong, horizontal compositions are also

characteristic of this phase, giving an airy sense of panorama. Van Goyen travelled the length and breadth of the Netherlands throughout his career, making brilliantly atmospheric sketches in black chalk, which he used as inspiration for his oil paintings back in the studio. Sometimes, as here, his oils incorporate a recognisable topographical feature. In others, the combination of waterways, distant churches and cloud-fretted skies conjures up the essence of the northern Netherlands,

without revealing a specific location. The deep love of the unassuming Dutch landscape sprang from a sense of national identity: the northern Netherlands had revolted against its Spanish Habsburg overlords in the 1580s. The conflict, although sporadic, was not resolved until the Treaty of Münster in 1648, three years before this painting was made. Van Goyen travelled south to Antwerp and Brussels, the most important towns of the Spanish Netherlands, at the end of the 1640s. Rupelmonde Castle, which features in his black chalk sketches of circa 1648 (Kupferstichkabinett, Dresden),1 guarded the confluence

of the rivers Rupel and Scheldt. The Scheldt is the key artery leading to Antwerp, then the Spanish Netherlands’s chief port, and a river of crucial strategic importance for centuries. The imposing Rupelmonde Castle was built by the Counts of Flanders in the twelfth century, with seventeen towers encircled by a moat. It brings a strong horizontal emphasis to van Goyen’s composition, fluidly painted to evoke sunlight and shadow playing over windows, towers and walls. The castle levied a toll from passing ships. Van Goyen’s foreground is filled with a vivid sense of everyday life. The figures packed into

the boats are painted with virtuosic delicacy with the brush tip, almost ‘drawn’ in oil paint, so that clothing, features and even personalities can be made out. The cows grazing by the river side are carefully grouped, in silhouette or face-on, for maximum emphasis against the silvery line of the river current. More than two-thirds of the composition, however, is occupied by the magnificent sky, with clouds spiralling from left to right, forming castles-in-the-air made radiant by the hidden sun. Rupelmonde Castle was destroyed during the wars against the French in 1678. Today only the base of one tower survives, surmounted by a tower of red Tournai

limestone, built as a hunting lodge by Baron de Feltz in the nineteenth century. A smaller view of Rupelmonde Castle by Jan van Goyen, dated 1650, is in a private collection.2

1 Beck, op. cit., vol. I, p.277, no.846/60, illus. 2 Beck, ibid., vol. II, p.319, no.701, illus.

SA LO M O N VA N R U YS DA E L Naarden after 1603 – 1670 Haarlem

River landscape with sailing boats by a village Oil on panel: 9 3/8 × 13 1/8 in / 24 × 33.5 cm Frame size: 14 × 17 ¼ in / 35.6 × 43.8 cm In a black and brown polished Dutch seventeenth century style frame Painted circa 1645–50 PROVENANCE:

Mrs Michel van Gelder, Uccle near Brussels, 1914 John Mitchell Gallery, New York, May 1950 EA Jyost, 1952 Christie’s New York, 29th January 1998, lot 116; Richard Green, London, 1998; private collection, USA; by descent LITERATURE:

Wolfgang Stechow, Salomon van Ruysdael, Berlin 1975, p.142, no.474 Salomon van Ruysdael’s favourite theme was the river landscape. He painted many examples between 1631, the date on the National Gallery, London’s painting1 and his last dated river scenes of 1667. In these works he favoured calm waters, narrow, diagonally receding river banks and windswept skies. Very often the static shadow of a fisherman’s rowing boat or a ferryboat in the foreground provides a repoussoir, enhancing spatial recession. Like other Dutch landscapists such as Jan van Goyen (1596–1656) and Meindert Hobbema (1638–1709), Salomon van Ruysdael enjoyed creating variations on his favourite themes and designs, but each work considered individually betrays nothing of a formula or recipe, indeed has a freshness and compelling immediacy.

was made, van Ruysdael was employing stronger colour contrasts and a crisper handling to achieve a composition that is both serenely classical and radiant with light. An exquisite range of blues is the keynote here. Intense cobalt blue in the sky throws into relief the fluffy white clouds drifting across the scene. Ruysdael uses delicate, horizontal slicks of paint at the horizon to depict the clouds reflected in the water, opening up a band of radiance at the left of the painting which takes the eye far into the distance, where the opposite bank of the broad waterway can faintly be discerned. The depth of the painting is enhanced by the shadowed band of water in the foreground and the brown tones of the riverside buildings and church, which act as repoussoirs.

In the 1630s and early 1640s van Ruysdael explored the fashion for ‘tonal’ landscapes in a gentle palette of soft greens and browns, building atmosphere through interlinked hues, in parallel with his contemporary Jan van Goyen. By circa 1645–50, when this River landscape

The painting gives a lively sense of everyday life. In the left foreground, a ferry boat laden with five passengers sets off for the village, while another travels in the opposite direction. In the middle distance on the left, its blade-like sail piercing the sky, is one of the shallow-

draught cargo boats that transported goods around the watery northern Netherlands far more efficiently than the rutted, muddy roads. More boats cluster round the quayside. With extraordinary control of the brush tip, Ruysdael conjures up figures and a cart loading or unloading goods which are only a few millimetres high, yet read perfectly despite their miniature size. Groups of ducks are judiciously arranged to emphasize the line of the shore, while a pair of birds skims the water in the right foreground, their forward movement balancing the retreat of the ferry boat on the left. An oval of floats supporting a fishing net below the cottages is, like

the cargo boats, another subtle indicator of economic activity: fish was, unsurprisingly, a major part of the Dutch diet. The church spire, an important feature of any village, casts its benign protection over human endeavour and the natural world. Ruysdael conjures up a scene that any of his contemporaries would have recognised as containing the essential elements of life in their hard-won nation.

1 Inv. no.1439; Stechow, op. cit., cat. 435, fig. 10.

JA N DAV I D SZ . D E H E E M Utrecht 1606 – 1683/84 Antwerp

Still life with apricots on a pewter plate, a cut lemon and other fruit, with a rummer of white wine and a Venetian-style wine glass on a table covered with a green cloth, wreathed with a vine branch Signed and dated lower left: JD. De heem. ƒ. A° 1652 Oil on panel: 14 1/8 × 21 ½ in / 36.2 × 53.7 cm Frame size: 22 × 29 1/4 in / 57 × 74.2 cm In a black polished Dutch seventeenth century style ripple frame PROVENANCE:

Possibly collection Widow Janssens, Antwerp; her sale, Antwerp, Mertens, 23rd August 1808, lot 12 (52 francs to Andreas Bernardus de Quertenmont [Kwartemon])1 FW Smallpeice Collection; his deceased estate, Christie’s London, 26th March 1971, lot 59, illus. (as dated 1632; 18,000 gns. to Richard Green); Richard Green Gallery, London, 1971 (as dated 1632, advertised in The Connoisseur, July 1971, p.11, colour illus.); private collection, UK; Richard Green Gallery, 1974; private collection, UK EXHIBITED:

Utrecht, Centraal Museum/Brunswick, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Jan Davidsz de Heem en zijn kring, 1991, cat. by S Segal, no.14, illus. in colour London, Richard Green Gallery, The Cabinet Picture. Dutch and Flemish Masters of the Seventeenth Century, 1999, cat. by C Wright, pp.164; 165, illus. in colour; 192 LITERATURE:

Burlington Magazine, June 1971, pl. XXI (‘Notable works of Art now on the Market’)

F Lewis, A Dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Flower Fruit and Still Life Painters 15th to 19th Century, Leigh-on-Sea 1973, pl. 20 (as dated 1632) E Greindl, Les peintres flamands de nature morte au XVIIe siècle, Sterrebeek 1983 (2nd, revised edn.), p.361, no.80 (as dated 1632) Orbis pictus – Natura morta in Germania, Olanda e Fiandre, XVI-XVIII secolo, Galleria Lorenzelli, Bergamo, 1986, exh. cat. by P Lorenzelli and A Veca, p.176, fig. 85 (as dated 1632) S Segal in exh. cat. Jan Davidsz de Heem en zijn kring, Centraal Museum, Utrecht/Herzog Anton UlrichMuseum, Brunswick, 1991, pp.17, 18, 38, 41; 83, illus. in colour; 150, 151 (cat. no.14, illus.) C Grimm, ‘Authenticity and Authorship’, pp.28–43 in exh. cat. The Lure of Still Life, Bergamo/Düsseldorf 1995, p.32, colour detail pl. 10 (erroneously with caption of pl. 11: the correct caption is that printed with pl. 9) S Craft-Giepmans, Hollandse Meesters. Catalogus van de schilderijen van Hollandse meesters zeventiende en achttiende eeuw, Museum Mayer van den Bergh, Collectie Smidt van Gelder, Antwerpen, Antwerp 2006, p.178, fig. 3 FG Meijer, Jan Davidsz. De Heem 1606–1684, Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 2016, vol. 1, pp.176, 178, 180 (colour illus.), 181, 322 (detail of signature), 366 (colour illus.); vol. 2, p.182, cat. no A 160 To be included in FG Meijer, Jan Davidsz. De Heem (1606–1684), Zwolle, 2021 or 2022, cat. no. not yet established

The painting depicts a still life upon a wooden table covered for the most part with a green tablecloth. At front left is a shiny pewter dish holding several apricots, surrounded by plums and another apricot. To the right of the dish is a cluster of fruit including a half-peeled lemon, some figs, two cherries and part of an orange. Behind, from left to right, are a bunch of white grapes, a rummer of white wine and a Venetian-style wine glass of white wine. The foliage belonging to the grapes hovers over the rummer, a caterpillar is crawling on one leaf, another on the stem. To the left, on a plum leaf, is a red admiral butterfly (Vanessa atalanta), and on the fig branch and leaves are a speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria) and a large locust. To the right, on the front edge of the table, sits a moth (Abraxas grossulariata). To the far left, just above the table, a spider hangs down from its thread. A nail, hammered into the back wall, casts an oblique shadow. This still life is an excellent example of the work of Jan Davidsz. de Heem from the first half of the 1650s, a period in which the artist was very prolific and produced some of his best works. It is in an excellent state of preservation, which allows the present-day viewer still fully to enjoy the fine details and the richness of de Heem’s palette. 1652 was a particularly productive year for the artist, with six extant dated works, and another twelve that were most likely painted in the same year or shortly before or after it. To the previous year, 1651, I currently assign fifteen still lifes, five of which are dated, and sixteen to 1653, including nine dated ones. The majority are still lifes on a table, mainly of fruit, in cabinet formats. During those years, Jan Davidsz. de Heem will already have served an international clientele, in addition to the wealthy Antwerp bourgeoisie and Flemish nobility. Among his clients in the Northern Netherlands was the important Amsterdam dealer and collector Marten Kretzer (1598–1670), to whom de Heem had an impression of a print after Rubens dedicated in 1652, the year the present still life was painted. However, if this still life is indeed, as conjectured, the one auctioned in Antwerp in 1808, it may well have been bought by – or painted for – an Antwerp collector and have remained in that city for the next century-and-ahalf. Jan Davidsz. de Heem (or: Johannes de Heem) was born in Utrecht, where his father, David van Antwerpen, a musician, had moved from Antwerp. In 1625, the young painter, with his mother and stepfather, moved

to Leiden, where he is recorded until 1631. His teacher is unknown, but many of his earliest known paintings (from 1626–28) show a strong dependence on the work of the Utrecht still-life painter Balthasar van der Ast. Upon leaving Leiden, he may have spent some time in Amsterdam, but by the spring of 1636 he had settled in Antwerp. He paid his membership fees to the Antwerp guild for the first time in the administrative year 1635/36 (which runs from September to September). By 1660, but possibly as early as 1658, he had settled in Utrecht again; he may already have spent longer sojourns there during the previous years. However, he was not recorded as a member of the Utrecht guild until 1669, as far as we can tell now. Following the French invasion in 1672, de Heem returned to Antwerp, where he was buried on 10th February 1684. Jan Davidsz. de Heem was one of the most distinguished and influential still-life and flower painters of the seventeenth century. In the course of his career of some sixty years, more than any other still-life painter, he explored new areas and tried new styles and techniques, developing new approaches, as well as emulating the work of others, always in a highly individual manner. His success was substantial and he attracted a large following, in the Northern as well as in the Southern Netherlands, and abroad. To some degree, his influence on still-life painting can still be felt today. Still lifes of fruit form a red thread through Jan Davidsz. de Heem’s oeuvre. One of his earliest known paintings, still somewhat naïve, is of a basket of fruit in the style of his presumed master, Balthasar van der Ast, juxtaposed with the figure of a young man, probably the artist himself.2 Only in the 1640s, in Antwerp, however, de Heem fully developed as a painter of still lifes of fruit. In 1675, the artist and writer Joachim von Sandrart claimed that de Heem had moved to Antwerp because ‘there one could have rare fruit of all kinds and sizes, plums, peaches, cherries, oranges, lemons, grapes, and others in finer condition and state of ripeness to portray from life’. Rather, it was the artistic climate in Antwerp, as well as the taste and preference of his clientele that brought de Heem prominently to include a rich choice of fruit in his still lifes. In his large, sumptuous still lifes from the first half of the 1640s, such as the one in the Louvre, Paris, from 1640,3 de Heem would include clusters of fruit in more elaborate compositions. Only in the later 1640s, pure still lifes of fruit begin to appear, of which a painting now in Karlsruhe, most likely painted in 1649, can be considered as an early example of the type of composition discussed here.4

still life from the following year, 1653, that was with Richard Green in 1989.9

From 1650 to about 1655, still lifes of fruit form a prominent group in de Heem’s oeuvre. After his move to Utrecht in the late 1650s, that share is taken over by floral compositions. However, also in this period, still lifes only of fruit constitute a minority; often fruit is combined with crayfish or (an) oyster(s), like in an excellent example, probably painted in 1651, that was with Richard Green in 1994,5 or one from 1652 in the Statens Museum in Copenhagen.6 A pure still life of fruit, also from 1652 and, exceptionally, painted on copper, in is the collection of the National Trust at Tatton Park. Previously it had a pendant, of which the location is now unknown.7 Of this group, the still life discussed here is perhaps the most restrained in atmosphere and the most balanced in composition, notwithstanding the opulence of the fruit that is presented. Plums, apricots and cherries were certainly grown locally, grapes, figs and citrus fruit were more of a luxury, grown locally in greenhouses, or imported from France or Spain. In any case, a table filled with fruit of high quality like this one will certainly have radiated a sense of luxury, particularly since it was unlikely that all this fruit would be available simultaneously. De Heem, too, never had this group in front of him to portray. It was composed with the aid of studies that the artist kept of individual pieces he had studied. The tablecloth, for instance, is virtually identical to that in the still life in Copenhagen, while it is also present in a still life in a private collection that also features the same wine glass à la façon de Venise,8 most probably also painted in 1652. The vine leaf hovering over the rummer was undoubtedly based on the same model as the one over the silver cup at Tatton Park and together with virtually the same red admiral butterfly, it is also featured in a

It is unlikely that Jan Davidsz. de Heem intended to invest this still life with any profound symbolism. The opulence and variety of fruit can be interpreted as praise to God’s Creation as well as a reminder that such luxury is bound to this life on earth. That this is temporal is subtly indicated by some minor blemishes on some of the pieces of fruit and by the presence of a notorious pest creature, the locust. The little caterpillar above the grapes seems to have been included as a visual pun: it mimics the curve of the branch right next to it. De Heem’s main aim in such pieces, next to creating a pleasing combination of opulence and stillness, is the display of his uncanny skills of verisimilitude. We immediately believe that, rather than looking at a piece of wood covered with oil paint, we are really regarding a variety of mouth-watering fruit upon a table, that has attracted butterflies and other creatures. Dr Fred G Meijer

1 Described as: ‘Des Abricots sur une assiette d’argent, un citron entamé, des figues, des prunes, une grappe de raisins blancs, des cerises, des verres à vin &c. placés sur une table couverte d’un tapis verd; des belles feuilles de vigne & des insectes achevent ce morceau qui est une imitation exacte de la nature, sur bois, h. 33 centimêtres l. 49 centimêtres, h. 12 1/2 pouces l. 18 1/2 pouces [Les Cadres ne sont point partie de la Mesure]’ (sight size?). The buyer, Andreas Bernardus de Quertenmont (1750–1835), was an Antwerp artist and director of the Antwerp art academy. 2 Jan Davidsz. de Heem, signed and dated 1626, oil on panel, 13 ¼ × 27 in / 34 × 69 cm. Dutch art market, 1965. 3 Jan Davidsz. de Heem, signed and dated 1640, oil on canvas, 58 ½ × 80 in / 149 × 203 cm. Louvre, Paris, inv. no.1321. 4 Jan Davidsz. de Heem, signed, oil on panel, 14 × 21 in / 35.4 × 53.3 cm. Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe, inv. no.362. 5 Jan Davidsz. de Heem, signed, oil on panel, 9 ½ × 13 ¼ in / 24.3 × 34 cm. Private collection, Rhineland, 1995. 6 Jan Davidsz. de Heem, signed and dated 1652, oil on panel, 13 ½ × 19 ¾ in / 34.5 × 50.5 cm. Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen, inv. no. KMSsp392. 7 Jan Davidsz. de Heem, both signed and dated 1652, oil on copper. National Trust, Tatton Park, 15 ¼ × 22 ¼ in / 38.7 × 56.5 cm, and oil on copper, 15 ½ × 22 ½ in / 39.4 × 57.2 cm, London art market, 1955. 8 Jan Davidsz. de Heem, signed, oil on panel, 13 × 19 in / 33.3 × 48.5 cm. Private collection, on long-term loan to the Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art, Luxembourg. 9 Jan Davidsz. de Heem, signed and dated 1653, oil on canvas, 18 ¾ × 24 ¼ in / 47.6 × 61.6 cm. Private collection, USA.

D I R C K D I R C K SZ . SA N T VO O R T 1610 – Amsterdam – 1680

Portrait of a young girl holding buttercups, with her dog beside her Inscribed and dated upper right: Aetatis. Sua.6. / Anno . 1632 . Oil on panel: 45 × 33 ¾ in / 114.3 × 85.7 cm Frame size: 53 ½ × 42 ¼ in / 135.9 × 107.3 cm In a black and brown Dutch seventeenth century style ripple frame PROVENANCE:

Private collection, Europe Richard Green, London, 1979; private collection, UK This portrait was made when Santvoort was only twenty-two, a mere fourteen years older than his sitter. It is his earliest known dated portrait of a child, a type of sitter which he made something of a speciality. Within the context of a formal portrait, Santvoort captures the little girl’s solemn, questing intelligence as well as her flawless, pearly complexion and fine blonde hair. She is both the repository of her family’s dynastic hopes and a delightful, well-loved individual. Child portraiture was popular in the seventeenth century Netherlands, both among the aristocracy and the high bourgeoisie who impelled the economic powerhouse of Amsterdam, where Santvoort spent all his career. Despite – and because of – high infant mortality, children were treasured for themselves and as symbols of the future. Boys were trained up to inherit businesses. Girls formed marriage alliances which brought wealth and made family networks all the stronger. As Rudi Ekkart has commented, ‘Santvoort’s most striking gift was his ability to portray children, where his gifts of precise observation and his uncluttered style produced some delightful results’.1 Here the little girl is set against a plain grey background, standing on a black-and-white chequered stone floor. She wears the restrained, dark clothing fashionable in the northern Netherlands in the first decades of the seventeenth

century. The fashion for wearing black was originally linked to Spanish influence when the whole of the Netherlands was under Spanish Habsburg control. Among northern Netherlandish Protestants, it signified a rejection of showiness which reflected the purity and piety of the soul within. Within these constraints, the high status of the child is obvious. Her gown of black – an expensive dye in itself – is of fine, figured material with a brown satin underskirt. Her collar and closefitting cap are edged with exquisite lace and she wears triple-banded gold bracelets on both wrists. The dark colours of the girl’s costume are offset by a pair of costly pale kid gloves, edged with coral ribbon, and by the buttercups which she holds in her right hand. Buttercups symbolize her unmarried state, while gloves were often given as betrothal presents. It is possible that this painting was made to mark a betrothal, not for an imminent marriage, but the promise of an alliance when the girl had reached her mid-teens. The dog, as well as being a charming companion for a child, is a symbol of fidelity. Upper class children were expected to teach good behaviour to their pets, as well as to submit themselves to adult instruction and conduct themselves always in a seemly and gracious manner.

1 ‘Santvoort, Dirck’, The Dictionary of Art, London 1996, vol. 27, p.805.

G E R R IT A D R I A N SZ . B E R C K H E Y D E 1638 – Haarlem – 1698

The Oudezijds Heerenlogement, on the confluence of the Grimburgwal and the Oudezijds Voorburgwal, Amsterdam Signed lower right: g berck Heyd. Oil on panel: 12 ⅜ × 16 1/8 in / 31.5 × 41.5 cm Frame size: 17 ½ × 21 ½ in / 44.4 × 54.6 cm In a black polished Dutch seventeenth century style frame Painted circa 1670 PROVENANCE:

JW Nienhuys, Bloemendaal Frederik Muller & Cie, Amsterdam, 30th November 1926, lot 447 (as De drie grachtjes) P Smidt van Gelder Jr., Amsterdam B de Geus van den Heuvel, Nieuwersluis, by 1961; his sale, Sotheby’s Mak van Waay, Amsterdam, 26th April 1976, lot 5 Nijstad Oude Kunst BV, The Hague, by whom sold on 1st November 1978 to Professor Dr Drs Anton CR Dreesmann, Laren, inv. no.A28; his estate sale, Christie’s Amsterdam, part V, 16th April 2002, lot 1222; where acquired by Marianne L Dreesmann-van der Spek, inv. no.A007; by inheritance EXHIBITED:

Utrecht, Centraal Museum, Nederlandse Architectuurschilders 1600–1900, 1953, no.11, illus. Amsterdam, Museum De Waag, 1956 Delft, Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof, Er was eens... Ons land gezien door schilders in vroeger tijden, 17th May–1st August 1956, no.43 Arnhem, Gemeentemuseum, Collectie B de Geus van den Heuvel te Nieuwersluis, 11th December 1960–26th February 1961, no.5, pl. 72 Delft, Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof, 30e Oude Kunst- en Antiekbeurs: der Vereeniging van Handelaren in Oude Kunst in Nederland, 19th October–8th November 1978, p.75, illus.

The Hague, Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen Mauritshuis, Terugzien in Bewondering. A Collector’s Choice, 1982, exh. cat. by M Cramer, John Hoogsteder and Saam Nijstad, pp.56–57, no.10, illus. South Bend, IN, The Snite Museum of Art, On Loan from Holland: A Dutch Treat, Selections of XVII and XVIII Century Dutch Art from the Collection of Dr ACR Dreesmann; A Bicentennial Celebration of Relations between the United States and the Netherlands, 17th October–26th December 1982, exh. cat. C Rosenberg (ed.) and FM Simons, p.52, no.1, fig. 14 Amsterdam, Gebr. Douwes Fine Art BV, Old Master Paintings until 1805, 190th Anniversary Exhibition, 27th November 1995–19th January 1996, no.3, illus. LITERATURE:

CM Lawrence, Gerrit Adriaenz. Berckheyde (1638–1698), Haarlem Cityscape Painter, Doornspijk 1991, p.63, under no.74

dignitaries arriving or departing in the barge. The Oudezijds Heerenlogement was demolished in 1876 and its portal transferred to Keizersgracht 365, where it still stands. Right of the Oudezijds Heerenlogement is the warehouse known as ‘The Coat of Arms of Amsterdam’,2 with a merchant inspecting the barrels being delivered. On the left, in brilliant sunshine, is the dwelling built in 1609 known as the House on Three Canals, which still survives remarkably unchanged. In the distance, beyond the bridge which gives access to the Oudezijds Heerenlogement, is the entrance to the SintPietersgasthuis, a convent converted into a hospital.3

Gerrit Berckheyde specialised in views of Dutch cities, a genre which flourished after the 1648 Treaty of Münster granted the United Provinces formal independence from Spain. Although he lived all his life in Haarlem, Berckheyde made a number of paintings of Amsterdam, the economic powerhouse of the northern Netherlands, which was easily reached from his home town by an hourly barge service. ‘In Haarlem there’s art, but in Amsterdam there’s money’, declared a Haarlem Painters’ Guild New Year greeting.1 From 1654 to 1672 no Stadhouder (representative of the sovereign) was appointed. The Dutch cities consolidated their power and expanded as local economies grew and trade to the Americas, Africa, the Far East and India brought luxuries such as silk, spices and porcelain to the Netherlands. Magnificent new houses sprang up along the canals and pride in the cities fuelled the work of cityscape specialists including Pieter Sanredam (1597–1665), Jan van der Heyden (1637–1712) and Berckheyde himself. This view depicts the Grimburgwal, just south of the Dam, with the Oudszijds Voorburgwal opening up to the left and the end of the Oudezijds Achterburgwal beyond. The magnificent building on the right is the Oudezijds Heerenlogement, built in 1647 by Philips Vingboons (1608–1688) as one of the city’s four official inns. It welcomed important visitors including Amalia van Solms in 1655, the Stadhouder and future King of England William III in 1672, and Tsar Peter the Great of Russia, who came to Amsterdam in 1697 to study shipbuilding and naval technology. In Berckheyde’s painting, two elegant couples descend the steps to the canal, while a trumpeter at the window salutes 26

Berckheyde’s composition is built on rhythmic contrasts: the shadowed Oudezijds Heerenlogement and the sunlit House on the Three Canals; the stepped gable in shadow opposite the one in the sun; the downward curve of the bridge and the upward curve of the barge passing under it. He softens the urban scene with three judiciously placed trees. The figures range from well-dressed bourgeoisie to tradesmen and a market woman with goods balanced on her head. Although seemingly casually arranged, they are in fact deployed at careful intervals, leading the eye across the painting and into the distance, where the tiny figure of a woman catches a shaft of light as she passes under the gate of the Sint-Pietersgasthuis. The calm and meticulous view breathes classicism and balance, a reflection of a well-ordered society. Another version of this view is in the Amsterdam Museum.4 The viewpoint and the fall of light are the same, but the details of the staffage are different. For example, in the foreground a trumpeter stands on the prow of an open barge bearing wealthy passengers, while another boat is rounding the curve of the canal in the distance. There are barrels in front of the warehouse, but no figures, as in the Richard Green version.

1 ‘Te Haerlem is de Konst, maer t’Amsterdam het Gelt’; quoted in Cynthia Lawrence, Gerrit Berckheyde, Doornspijk 1991, p.50. 2 See M Révész-Alexander, Die Alten Lagerhäuser Amsterdams, ‘s-Gravenhage 1928, p.70. 3 Known as the Binnengasthuis since the nineteenth century and used as a hospital until 1981. The complex is now part of the University of Amsterdam. 4 Signed lower right: g. Berck Hey. Oil on panel: 12 ¾ x 16 ¾ in / 32.5 x 42.5 cm. Inv. no.SB 329. The description of the topographical details in the Richard Green painting is indebted to Dr Norbert Middelkoop’s catalogue of the Amsterdam Museum version, AM Collection online. We are grateful to him for providing further details about the Richard Green version.

G O D F R I E D S C H A LC K E N Made, near Dordrecht 1643 – 1706 The Hague

Portrait of a girl in a pink dress, with a parrot in a forest landscape Signed lower left: G. Schalc Oil on canvas: 17 × 13 ¾ in / 43.2 × 34.9 cm Frame size: 23 ½ × 20 ½ in / 59.7 × 52.1 cm In a black polished Dutch seventeenth century style ripple frame Painted circa 1692–98 PROVENANCE:

Probably by descent in the Goddard family to Ambrose William Goddard (1892–1987); John William Hesketh Goddard (1928–2012), North Cerney, Wiltshire; by descent to his grandchild Godfried Schalcken studied with the Leiden fijnschilder Gerrit Dou (1613–1675), acquiring his delicacy of touch and sensitivity to light effects. He painted candlelit genre scenes, religious and mythological subjects, but also had a lucrative portrait practice, working in his native Dordrecht and in The Hague, the seat of the Court. From 1692 to 1698 Schalcken worked in England, where from 1688 the Prince of Orange co-ruled as William III with his cousin Mary II. Dutch cultural influence was strong and, according to the Dutch painter and biographer of artists Arnold Houbraken, Schalcken was very successful in London. This portrait, which was unknown to Thierry Beherman when he compiled his catalogue raisonné of the work of Schalcken, published in 1988, may represent a member of the Goddard family, among whose descendants it has been preserved. The girl’s hair, swept high back off her face, suggests a date in the 1690s. The treatment of the drapery, less crisp than Schalcken’s earlier style, may have been influenced by the bravura brushwork of his rival London portraitists, including Sir Godfrey Kneller and Michael Dahl. The pearly complexion of the sitter, with its soft contours and living bloom, is characteristic of Schalcken.

The child is presented on the edge of a forest, dressed in clothes which hover between contemporary dress and a fantastic outfit that might be worn for a masque. A rich blue silk wrap billows around her; her dress is a deep, rose-pink satin, offset by a lace-edged white chemise. The feathers in her hair, the forest and the parrot which she holds set up associations with an ‘Indian Queen’, an exotic creature who treads lightly through poetry and myth. This is a beloved child, displayed almost as an otherworldly being. Parrots appear frequently in seventeenth century female portraits, their dazzling plumage, as here, complementing the luxurious costume of the sitter. Brought from the Dutch colonies in Brazil and Asia, they became expensive and prestigious pets. They could be taught to speak and in the context of a child portrait symbolized a willingness to learn and a lesson in responsibility towards a ‘lower’ creature. In a hierarchical society, this young girl of the élite would be taught to guide her dependents with kindness but firmness. The parrot in this painting is a blue-fronted amazon (Amazona aestiva) from South America, known for their intelligence and playful natures. The same species of bird appears in a work by Gerrit Dou, Young woman in a niche with a parrot and cage, c.1660–65 (Leiden Collection, New York).

R AC H E L R U YS C H The Hague 1664 – 1750 Amsterdam

Still life of a bouquet of pink and white roses, poppy anemones, primroses, forget-me-nots, jonquils, daffodils, snowballs, honeysuckle and a tulip in a glass vase, with a bird’s nest Signed and dated upper left: Rachel Ruysch / 1738 Oil on canvas: 17 ¼ × 15 ¼ in / 44 × 39 cm Frame size: 25 × 23 in / 63.5 × 58.4 cm In a black and brown polished Dutch seventeenth century style knull frame PROVENANCE:

M et Mme Léon Cotnareanu, 24 avenue Raphaël, Paris (their address partially legible on a label on the reverse); private collection, Deauville, France; Guy Le Houelleur, Hôtel des Ventes, Deauville, 31st January 1999, lot 1; Richard Green, London, 1999; from whom acquired on 22nd March 1999 by Mr and Mrs Barge-Dreesmann, Brasschaat; by descent The painting will be included in the forthcoming catalogue and monograph of Rachel Ruysch by Dr Marianne Berardi, currently in preparation Over the course of her long and distinguished career as one of Holland’s preeminent flower painters of the Dutch Golden Age, Rachel Ruysch excelled in painting several types of still lifes, ranging from quite simple sprays of flowers without any sort of container, to medium-sized bouquets in a vase, to truly magnificent, large floral extravaganzas crawling with insect life. The latter often contained one or more exotic fruits, legumes and cacti as well. Ruysch’s most ambitious flower paintings date roughly from 1700 to 1720. During these years she produced commissioned paintings for a host of wealthy Dutch businessmen, such as the Leiden textile merchant Allard de la Court van der Voort. She also counted among her patrons foreign nobles and aristocrats such as the Prince of

Anhalt-Koethen (an early patron of Johann Sebastian Bach), Tsar Peter the Great, the Elector Palatine of Dusseldorf and the Florentine Grand Duke, Cosimo III de Medici. The paintings such discerning collectors desired from Ruysch were the finest she produced – of tremendous compositional complexity and meticulous finish, achieved through layers of delicate glazing, keen observation, and an astonishing assurance of touch. These were understandably canvases that demanded a full year, if not two or more, to complete. Today, most of these works are in museum collections. This densely arranged bouquet of flowers in a dark vase with a bird’s nest beside it is one of the most ambitious late works by Rachel Ruysch to have emerged on

the market in the last twenty years. She painted it in 1738, when she was seventy-four years old, and still fully in command of the artistic powers which led poets and biographers to celebrate her achievements with appellations such as ‘art goddess’, ‘art heroine’ and ‘Amsterdam Pallas’. This bouquet represents an important benchmark within Ruysch’s oeuvre because it marks the beginning of the painter’s late-career resurgence after roughly a decade of slowed production (circa 1725–1735). The reasons for this period of decline in her output remain speculative, though one factor was likely the enormous financial windfall she had in 1723. That year, the artist, her husband (portraitist Juriaen Pool II) and her son Georgio won the jackpot in the Holland lottery amounting to 60,000 guilders – a considerable fortune that would have removed the necessity of painting for a living. As it turns out, however, painting the world of plants was much more than a profession for Rachel Ruysch. It was an avocation which started when she was quite young, and judging from both extant works and documentary evidence, her output increased again quite noticeably during the course of the 1730s and continued for the remainder of her life. In fact, from 1738 to 1748 (the latter being the year of her last known work), Ruysch produced at least one painting every year, excepting 1744, despite her advancing age. In both 1746 and 1747, for example, she is known to have painted two pairs of companion flowerpieces with fruit (one pair in the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Lille, and the other in the Kurpfälzischen Museum der Stadt Heidelberg).1 Most she signed and inscribed with both the date and her age as if to stress, with unabashed pride, that she was still going strong into the sixth decade of her career. Beginning in the early 1720s, Ruysch made tentative steps towards lightening up the backgrounds of her bouquets, as well as her flowers themselves, in an effort to remain au courant and follow the prevailing international artistic trend towards a brighter, blonder palette associated with the Rococo. Flower painter Jan van Huysum (1682–1749), her younger contemporary, set the model for this brighter style in Dutch flower painting which did away with the rich dark backgrounds Ruysch embraced for most of her career. That inky backdrop was a convention most flower painters of the seventeenth century embraced, since its contrast with the illuminated bouquet enabled the flowers, leaves, and stems to stand in high relief, thereby creating an

almost magical degree of three-dimensionality and verisimilitude. When Ruysch created the present work, her shift to the brighter style became far more noticeable than anything she created earlier, making it a critical transitional painting. She achieved the more ‘modern’ look through a few different strategies, which nonetheless allowed her to maintain the signature three-dimensionality which was her artistic trademark and therefore something she would have been loath to compromise. In this painting, the artist substituted the dark background with one having a lighter, greenish cast to it. Next, she massed a cluster of large pastel pink and creamy white flowers deliberately in the large central zone of the bouquet. These roses, poppy anemones – a very eighteenth century flower – and primroses occupy so much of the picture surface that they immediately impart a brighter tonal effect overall. Quite importantly, Ruysch also made her arrangement far more compact than anything she painted earlier, such that all the leaves and flowers fit tightly next to, between, and among one another, almost in the manner of a jigsaw puzzle. Arranged in this way rather than more loosely as she had in the past, the blossoms are lit more evenly with less turning into and away from the light source as they did in the earlier bouquets which had yielded a darker effect overall. Described another way, Ruysch cut down on the intensely contrasting chiaroscuro to differentiate the plants from one another in space. Instead, she relied more heavily upon chromatic contrasts to describe the flowers’ relationships to one another: pink sits against white, white against blue, blue against burgundy, green against orange. For the most part, the judicious colour contrasts are enough to carry off the illusion, relying on tiny spots of darkness in the negative spaces only when necessary, such as between the two central roses she needed to push forward spatially to create roundness in the front of the bouquet. Although Ruysch does not fully adopt the Rococo’s palette shift to a cooler blue in this painting, she is moving in that direction by including a larger-thanusual zone of blue flowers on the left side of the arrangement. Sprays of forget-me-nots as well as a light blue double hyacinth are featured. The prevalence of blue in the Rococo palette can be attributed in large part to the availability of a new blue pigment, Prussian blue, which as its name suggests was discovered in Germany early in the eighteenth century. Interestingly,

Rachel Ruysch has a special connection to the pigment because she seems to have been the first Dutch artist to use it. Conservation tests reveal that she used it in her 1716 bouquet in the collection of the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Unlike its prohibitively costly predecessor ultramarine blue, made from pulverized semi-precious lapis lazuli, Prussian blue is synthetic, easier to obtain as a result, and also a colour that has tremendous staining power. A little dab can tint a great deal of white blue. Ruysch’s source for the pigment was almost certainly her sister Anna and brother-in-law Isaac Hellenbroeck, who were dealers in artists’ pigments in Amsterdam. Despite these newer features, this work possesses the hallmarks of Rachel Ruysch’s signature bouquets. One is a preference for strong red and red-orange accents at regular intervals throughout the composition. Another is the bouquet’s construction around a cluster of the densest flowers in the heart of the design (the roses and poppy anemones). From this tight centre, Ruysch spins graceful arcs to upper right (in the form of a dominant tulip) and towards the lower left (along a sprig of honeysuckle). This type of arrangement introduces both a sense of movement and of asymmetrical interest to a design that its essentially round. Ruysch had begun placing birds’ nests containing eggs at the foot of her flower arrangements around 1730 – probably in response

to a vogue that was popularised by Jan van Huysum. Before 1730, Ruysch often included both birds and their egg-filled nests in her paintings – although only in her fruit pieces, which she staged in outdoor grotto settings. A close examination of the present bouquet reveals the inclusion of water droplets and several insects including a beetle on the tulip stem, a bumblebee on a silhouetted leaf on the right, and both a large bluebottle fly and sand wasp on the polished pink marble slab in the foreground. There are three works Rachel Ruysch produced from the period circa 1739–1743 with which this painting can be most closely compared. A bouquet dated 1739 with an equally prominent striped tulip, with a bird’s nest beside the vase, was with Richard Green in 1991 (private collection).2 On this painting of 1739, Ruysch signed her name in full, in red paint as she has in the present work, and indicated both her age (76) and the year (1739). Ruysch gave full rein to the cool blueish palette in this work, dispersing more blue flowers throughout the bouquet rather than zoning them, and also using tints of Prussian blue judiciously in some of the whites as well. A superbly preserved bouquet on panel dated 1740 and inscribed with the artist’s age of 77 (private collection, UK), also features the cool palette, light background, the oversized flame tulip, and the densely constructed arrangement featuring numerous blue flowers including a dusty miller (although not the bird’s nest).3 The third painting with strong compositional similarities and floral choices to the present picture is a bouquet of 1743, which was formerly in the collection of Mrs HamiltonBrowne (UK) in 1956 (present owner unknown).4 Close inspection of this carefully painted bouquet reveals a number of pentimenti, or changes to the composition, made by the artist during the course of its production. Over the years as the paint naturally ages and becomes somewhat more transparent, such adjustments made by the artist reveal themselves in a delicate, ghostly manner. Far from being in any way disfiguring, the pentimenti are wonderful and important glimpses into the working process of an artist for whom very few surviving drawings are known. In this painting, for example, one can discern how Ruysch painted over a rather large flower on the far-right side of the bouquet just above where a bumblebee perches on the edge of a leaf. The shadowy circular area appears to be compositional adjustment, overpainted in order to lighten up a spot that would otherwise have been too dense to balance the more delicate left side of the bouquet where the forget-me-nots are placed. Smaller buds terminating on

a stem take the place of the overpainted flower (probably a peony), giving an airier effect. Immediately above that zone is the end of a poppy leaf with an undulating margin where one can discern that the artist shortened its length. Perhaps she did not want it to have such a long protruding point. Additionally, the very slight halo appearing around the leaf suggests Ruysch very carefully refined its gorgeous lacy margins – particularly since the leaf reads prominently as a silhouetted shape against the lighter background niche. She clearly wanted to get that piece of draughtsmanship absolutely perfect. Interestingly, the present work, which emerged from private collections in the 1990s, can be traced to collections in France, where the Rococo trend had first originated. Based on the partial address of the label preserved on the back of the work, the painting once hung in the Parisian address of Yvonne and Léon Cotnareanu. Cotnareanu was the Romanian-born second husband of Yvonne Coty, whose first husband, François Coty, founded Coty Cosmetics. Following his marriage to Yvonne, Cotnareanu served as director of Coty for a period. Among his many interests, Cotnareanu was an enthusiastic collector of rare books, manuscripts and paintings.5 The present work did not appear in the Cotnareanu sale on 14th December 1960 at the Musée Galliéra, Paris, suggesting it may have remained in the family. A tantalizing piece of the provenance for the painting, hinted at through the black wax seal on the reverse of the stretcher bearing the initials GS, has yet to be solved. Dr Marianne Berardi

1 See MH Grant, Rachel Ruysch 1664–1750, Leigh-on-Sea 1956: Lille paintings, p.43, nos.197 and 198; Heidelberg paintings, p.43, nos.201 and 202. 2 Oil on canvas, 20 × 16 in / 51 × 41 cm, signed and dated 1739 and inscribed with the painter’s age, Aet. 76; Grant, op. cit., p.38, no.143, pl. 37. Exhibited Mauritshuis, The Hague, The Mauritshuis in Bloom. Bouquets from the Golden Age, 1992, no.22. 3 This work is signed in full, dated 1740, and inscribed AET 77 at upper left. Oil on panel, it measures approximately 20 × 16 in / 51 × 41 cm and may be identical with the work listed as the work dated 1740 in the death inventory of the artist’s husband Juriaen Pool, valued at 1,000 guilders. 4 Grant, op. cit., p.38, no.145, pl. 38 (dated 1743, not 1745 as listed in Grant). 5 Tiepolo’s Time unveiling Truth of circa 1758 in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (inv. no. 61.1200), for example, was a work formerly in the Cotnareanu collection sold in the collector’s 1960 sale, lot 14.

JA N VA N G OY E N Leiden 1596 – 1656 The Hague

SA LO M O N VA N R U YS DA E L Naarden 1600/03 – 1670 Haarlem

Jan van Goyen was a prolific painter and draughtsman whose career spanned more than thirty-five years. During his early life he was influenced by Esaias van de Velde, the first Dutch painter to abandon the mannerisms of the Flemish style in favour of more naturalistic landscape views. He then began to paint in the new Haarlem landscape idiom, distinguished by its atmospheric quality and monochromatic palette, richly varied in tone. Van Goyen, Pieter de Molijn and Salomon van Ruysdael were the principal exponents of this style.

Salomon Jacobsz. van Ruysdael was born in Naarden in Gooiland. He was originally called Salomon de Gooyer (Goyer), but he and his brother Isaack (1599–1677), who was also an artist, supposedly adopted the name Ruysdael from Castle Ruisdael (or Ruisschendaal), near their father’s hometown. Salomon spelled his name Ruysdael (or occasionally Ruyesdael) as distinguished from his gifted nephew, the landscapist Jacob van Ruisdael (1628/29–1682). In 1623 Salomon entered the painters’ guild in Haarlem (as Salomon de Gooyer). He was named a vinder of the guild in 1647, a deacon the following year, and a vinder again in 1669. His earliest dated painting is of 1626 and he was praised as a landscapist as early as 1628 by the chronicler of Haarlem, Samuel Ampzing. He was called a merchant in 1631 and dealt in blue dye for Haarlem’s bleacheries. His wife, Mayken Buysse, was buried in St Bavo’s Church on 25th January 1660. Like his father, Salomon was a Mennonite and in 1669 was listed among the members of the ‘Vereenigde Vlaamsche, Hooghduitsche en Friesche Gemeente’ when he was living in the Kleyne Houtstraat. As a Mennonite he could not bear arms but contributed to Haarlem’s civic guard. Although Salomon seems to have lived in Haarlem his entire life, he made several trips through the Netherlands, making views of, among other places, Leiden, Utrecht, Amersfoort, Arnhem, Alkmaar, Rhenen and Dordrecht. The artist was buried in Haarlem in St Bavo’s on 3rd November 1670.

Van Goyen was born in Leiden in 1596 and from 1606 was the pupil successively of the Leiden painters Coenraet van Schilperoort, Isaac Claesz. van Swanenburgh, Jan Arentsz. de Man and the glasspainter Cornelis Cornelisz. Clock. He then studied for two years with Willem Gerritsz. at Hoorn. Van Goyen went back to Leiden and worked on his own; at the age of about nineteen he travelled in France for a year and from 1617–18 he was the pupil of Esaias van de Velde in Haarlem. Van de Velde strongly influenced the style of van Goyen’s early paintings from 1620 to 1626. Van Goyen went to The Hague in 1632, where he acquired citizenship in 1634. During that same year he worked in Haarlem, painting in the house of Isaac van Ruysdael, the brother of Salomon. He was a hoofdman of The Hague Guild in 1638 and 1640, and in 1651 he painted for the Burgomasters’ Room in The Hague Town Hall a panoramic view of the town, for which he received 650 guilders. Despite his astounding rate of production, van Goyen was constantly beset with financial difficulties; he incurred great losses in the ‘tulipmania’ of 1636–7 and died insolvent. The work of Jan van Goyen is represented in the National Gallery, London; the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; the Louvre, Paris; the Nationalmuseum, Stockholm; the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Although Salomon’s teacher is unknown, his early works of c.1626–29 recall the art of Esaias van de Velde (1587–1630), who worked in Haarlem from 1609–1618. In addition to van de Velde’s influence, these early works reveal many parallels with the art of Jan van Goyen (1596–1656). Together with van Goyen, Pieter de Molijn (1595–1661), and Pieter van Santvoort (1604/05–1635), Salomon was one of the early ‘tonalist’ landscapists of his generation. In addition to landscapes, numerous river views and seascapes with calm, never stormy waters, Salomon executed a few still lifes in his later years. Salomon was the father of Jacob Salomonsz. van Ruysdael (c.1629/30–1681), who also became a landscapist.

The work of Salomon van Ruysdael is represented in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; the Mauritshuis, The Hague; the Louvre, Paris; the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; the Hermitage, St Petersburg; the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid; the National Gallery, London; the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

JA N DAV I D SZ . D E H E E M Utrecht 1606 – 1683/84 Antwerp

D I R C K D I R C K SZ . SA N T VO O R T 1610 – Amsterdam – 1680

Jan Davidsz. de Heem (or Johannes de Heem) was born in Utrecht, where his father, David van Antwerpen, a musician, had moved from Antwerp. In 1625, the young painter, with his mother and stepfather, moved to Leiden, where he is recorded until 1631. His teacher is unknown, but many of his earliest known paintings (from 1626-28) show a strong dependence on the work of the Utrecht still-life painter Balthasar van der Ast. Upon leaving Leiden, he may have spent some time in Amsterdam, but by the spring of 1636 he had settled in Antwerp. He paid his membership fees to the Antwerp guild for the first time in the administrative year 1635/36 (which runs from September to September). By 1660, but possibly as early as 1658, he had settled in Utrecht again; he may already have spent longer sojourns there during the previous years. However, he was not recorded as a member of the Utrecht guild until 1669, as far as we can tell now. Following the French invasion in 1672, de Heem returned to Antwerp, where he was buried on 10th February 1684. Jan Davidsz. de Heem was one of the most distinguished and influential still-life and flower painters of the seventeenth century. In the course of his career of some sixty years, more than any other still-life painter, he explored new areas and tried new styles and techniques, developing new approaches, as well as emulating the work of others, always in a highly individual manner. His success was substantial and he attracted a large following, in the Northern as well as in the Southern Netherlands, and abroad. His influence on still-life painting can still be felt today.

Dirck Santvoort was born in Amsterdam into a family of painters. He was the son of Dirck Pietersz. Bontepaert (1578–1642), grandson of Pieter Pietersz. and the greatgrandson of Pieter Aertsen (1508–1575), famous for his genre and religious scenes often featuring kitchen still lifes. Dirck probably studied with his father, whose work no longer survives.

The work of Jan Davidsz. de Heem is represented in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; the Mauritshuis, The Hague; the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; the Hermitage, St Petersburg; the Louvre, Paris; the National Gallery, London; the Prado, Madrid; the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; the National Gallery of Art, Washington DC and Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

Dirck specialized in portrait painting, both single portraits of adults and groups such as The governesses and wardresses of the Spinhuis, 1638 (Amsterdam Museum). He was the leading painter of children in Amsterdam towards the middle of the seventeenth century. His first known dated child portrait is the 1632 Portrait of a young girl holding buttercups, with her dog beside her (Richard Green Gallery, London). The last dated works that can be firmly attributed to him are from 1645. Santvoort seems to have become wealthy and largely ceased painting, although he remained active in the painters’ guild.1 He was its Dean in 1658 and was still acting as an assessor of paintings in 1678. Santvoort married twice, the first time in 1641 to Baertjen Pont, with whom he had a son named Rembrandt in 1648, and secondly in 1657 to Tryntje Riewerts (d.1689). He died in Amsterdam in 1680. Santvoort was superb at capturing both the radiant complexion of a child and their air of questioning innocence. Earlier works such as the portrait of the thirty-month-old Willem van Loon, 1636 (Museum van Loon, Amsterdam) are formal and precise, with exquisite attention to the black and white costume. His portraits of Martinus Alewijn and his sister Clara Alewijn, both of 1644 (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) are full of colour and reflect a sophisticated handling of the fashionable pastoral portrait style. The work of Dirck Santvoort is represented in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; the Amsterdam Museum; the Six Collection, Amsterdam; the Museum van Loon, Amsterdam; the Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem; the Museum Boijmans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam; the Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen; the National Gallery, London; the Musée Fabre, Montpellier; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and Cleveland Museum of Art. 1 See Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum/Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Pride and Joy: Children’s Portraits in the Netherlands 1500–1700, 2000–2001, exh. cat. by Jan Baptist Bedaux and Rudi Ekkart, p.158.

G E R R IT A D R I A E N SZ . B E R C K H E Y D E 1638 – Haarlem – 1698

G O D F R I E D S C H A LC K E N Made, near Breda 1634 – 1706 The Hague

Baptised in Haarlem on 6th June 1638, Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde was the son of a butcher, Adriaen Joppen Berckheyde, and his wife, Cornelia Gerritsdr. Pancier. His brother, Job (1630–1693), who was eight years his senior, probably taught him to paint. In the 1650s, the two brothers made an extended trip to Germany, but they had probably both returned to Haarlem by 1654, when Job was admitted to the Haarlem Guild of St Luke. In 1660, Gerrit, too, joined the Guild, and produced his first signed and dated works the following year. During this period, he shared a house with Job and his sister, Aechje, in the Sint-Jansstraat, close to the Grote Markt. None of the siblings seems to have married. Gerrit specialised in city views, particularly of his native Haarlem, the northern Netherlands’s commercial capital, Amsterdam, and The Hague, seat of the Court. He also made views of German cities and idealised, Italianate countryside.

Godfried Schalcken was born in 1634 at Made, north of Breda, the son of a clergyman, Cornelius Schalckius, and his wife Aletta Lydius, who came from a distinguished Dordrecht clerical family. In 1654 the family moved to Dordrecht, where Schalckius became Rector of the Latin School. According to Houbraken, Godfried was a good student of languages but preferred to paint. He studied with Rembrandt’s pupil Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627–1678) in Dordrecht from 1656 to 1662 and with the fijnschilder genre painter Gerrit Dou (1613–1675) in Leiden, acquiring Dou’s exquisite delicacy of execution.

From 1666 to 1681, Gerrit was a member of the Haarlem rederijkerskamer called De Wijngaardranken (The Vine Branch), an association to which many artists belonged. In 1679 the two brothers signed a lease on a house next to the bell-tower, near St Bavo’s church in Haarlem. Both brothers held offices in the painters’ guild during the 1680s and 1690s. Job died in 1693 and, five years later, Gerrit drowned in the Brouwersvaart, while taking a shortcut through a private garden after leaving a tavern. He was buried in the nave of the St Janskerk on 14th June 1698. The work of Gerrit Berckheyde is represented in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; Amsterdam Museum; the Maurithuis, The Hague; the Albertina, Vienna; the Hermitage, St Petersburg; the Louvre, Paris; the National Gallery, London; the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Detroit Institute of Arts.

By 1675 Schalcken was back in Dordrecht, that year becoming ensign of a civic guard company. In 1679 he married Françoise van Diemen, daughter of a wealthy officer from Breda. He became Dordrecht’s most fashionable portrait painter and built up an international reputation for portraits and genre scenes by candlelight. Schalcken also painted Biblical and mythological subjects and portraits historiés, and made etchings. He attracted the attention of wealthy Court patrons at The Hague and in 1691 became a member of The Hague painters’ confraternity. Schalcken spent 1692–8 in London specialising in portraits, including one of William III by candlelight (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam). By 1698 he was back in The Hague. In 1703 Schalcken went to Düsseldorf to execute religious works for Johann Wilhelm, the Elector Palatine. He died in The Hague in 1706. Schalcken’s pupils include the portrait and genre painter Carel de Moor (1656–1738) and the candlelight painter Arnold Boonen (1669–1729), as well as his own sister and nephew. The work of Godfried Schalcken is represented in the British Royal Collection; the National Gallery, London; the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; the Uffizi, Florence; the Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe; the Kunsthalle, Hamburg; the National Museum, Stockholm and the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

R AC H E L R U YS C H The Hague 1664 – 1750 Amsterdam Rachel Ruysch was the most successful Dutch woman artist of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. Like her rival Jan van Huysum (1682–1749), she regularly sold her sumptuous flowerpieces for prices exceeding 1,000 florins – a sum representing almost three times the annual wage of a contemporary tradesman. Ruysch was born in The Hague in 1664. Her parents Maria Post (1643–1720) and Dr Frederik Ruysch (1638–1731) had close ties with artistic and scientific communities, which afforded Ruysch many intellectual and economic advantages as a flower painter. Maria Post was the daughter of the Stadhouder’s architect Pieter Post, who designed the Huis ten Bosch, the royal residence in The Hague. Dr Frederik Ruysch was a distinguished anatomist and botanist who became the youngest president of Amsterdam’s Surgeons’ Guild in 1666 and helped to build up the Amsterdam botanical garden into one of the most richly-stocked gardens of its type in the world. He also assembled an extensive cabinet of scientific curiosities, which Rachel assisted him in preparing. The collection eventually became a celebrated tourist attraction and the first public natural history museum in Europe. He sold it to Peter the Great and part of it survives in St Petersburg.

The work of Rachel Ruysch is represented in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; The Mauritshuis, The Hague; the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Brussels; the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; the Museum der Bildenden Künste, Leipzig; the National Gallery, London; the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; the National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington DC; the Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena and the San Diego Museum of Art.

Ruysch first studied with the Delft-born still-life specialist Willem van Aelst from 1679 until his death circa 1683. After working in van Aelst’s cool and elegant, but rather hard manner for roughly a decade, she began to develop a style of her own. Her bouquets possess a stronger sense of atmosphere, a greater variety of plant and insect types, and a warmer colour scheme. Ruysch married a local portraitist, Jurian Pool the Younger (1666–1745), with whom she had ten children. The couple entered the painter’s guild in The Hague in 1701. In 1708 Ruysch’s flowerpieces attracted the attention of Johann Wilhelm, the Elector Palatine of Dusseldorf, who invited her to become one of his court painters. She worked for him from 1708 until his death in 1716, and under his generous patronage her art reached the pinnacle of its expression. Ruysch lived until the age of eighty-six and died in Amsterdam in 1750.

L I S T O F M U S E U M S & N AT I O N A L C O L L E C T I O N S Richard Green has assisted in the formation and development of numerous private and public collections including the following: UNITED KINGDOM Aberdeen: City Art Gallery Altrincham: Dunham Massey (NT) Barnard Castle: Bowes Museum Bedford: Cecil Higgins Museum Canterbury: Royal Museum and Art Gallery Cheltenham: Art Gallery and Museum Chester: The Grosvenor Museum Coventry: City Museum Dedham: Sir Alfred Munnings Art Museum Hampshire: County Museums Service Hull: Ferens Art Gallery Ipswich: Borough Council Museums and Galleries Leeds: Leeds City Art Gallery Lincoln: Usher Gallery Liskeard: Thorburn Museum London: Chiswick House (English Heritage) Department of the Environment The Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood The Museum of London National Maritime Museum National Portrait Gallery National Postal Museum Tate Britain The Wimbledon Lawn Tennis Museum Lydiard Tregoze: Lydiard House Malmesbury: Athelstan Museum Norwich: Castle Museum Plymouth: City Museum and Art Gallery Richmond: London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and Orleans House Gallery St Helier: States of Jersey (Office) Southsea: Royal Marine Museum Stirling: Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum York: York City Art Gallery

CANADA Fredericton: Beaverbrook Art Gallery Ottawa: The National Gallery of Canada

FRANCE Compiègne: Musée National du Chateau Paris: Fondation Custodia

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Boston, MA: Museum of Fine Arts Cincinnati, OH: Art Museum Dayton, OH: The Dayton Art Institute Gainesville, FL: Harn Museum of Art Houston, TX: Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation Los Angeles, CA: J Paul Getty Museum New Haven, CT: Yale Center for British Art New York, NY: Dahesh Museum Ocala, FL: The Appleton Museum of Art Omaha, NE: Joslyn Art Museum Pasadena, CA: Norton Simon Museum Rochester, NY: Genessee County Museum San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library St Louis, MO: Missouri Historical Society Sharon, MA: Kendall Whaling Museum Toledo, OH: Toledo Museum of Art Ventura County, CA: Maritime Museum Washington, DC: The National Gallery The White House Williamstown, MA: Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute Winona, MN: Minnesota Marine Art Museum Worcester, MA: Worcester Art Museum

GERMANY Berlin: Staatliche Kunsthalle Darmstadt: Hessisches Landesmuseum Hannover: Niedersachsisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe: Staatliche Kunsthalle Speyer am Rhein: Historisches Museum der Pfalz

BELGIUM Antwerp: Maisons Rockox Courtrai: City Art Gallery

SWITZERLAND Zurich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum

DENMARK Troense: Maritime Museum

JAPAN Kanagawa: The Pola Museum of Art, The Pola Art Foundation HOLLAND Amsterdam: Joods Historisch Museum Rijksmuseum Amersfoort: Museum Flehite Utrecht: Centraal Museum SOUTH AFRICA Durban: Art Museum SPAIN Madrid: Real Academia de Bellas Artes de Sun Fernando Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza Museo Nacional del Prado

THAILAND Bangkok: Museum of Contemporary Art

IRELAND Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland

Catalogue by Susan Morris. Photography by Sophie Drury. Graphic design by Chris Rees Design Limited. Published by Richard Green. © Richard Green (and any applicable image right owners/artists or their estates) 2022. Database right maker: Richard Green. All rights reserved. Paintings are sold subject to our standard terms and conditions of sale, copies of which may be obtained on request and are also available at www.richardgreen.com. Richard Green is the registered trade mark of Richard Green Master Paintings Limited registered in the EU, the USA and other countries. Printed in England by Hampton Printing (Bristol) Ltd. Event Number: 6398.

147 New Bond Street London W1S 2TS

+44 (0)20 7493 3939 paintings@richardgreen.com www.richardgreen.com

33 New Bond Street London W1S 2RS