Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age

How To Cite
Bakker, Piet. "Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age." In The Leiden Collection Catalogue. Edited
by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017.
https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/.
This page is available on the site's Archive. PDF of every version of this page is available on the Archive,
and the Archive is managed by a permanent URL. Archival copies will never be deleted. New versions areadded only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 2 of 29

Gerrit Dou (1613–75) apprenticed with Rembrandt van Rijn (1606–69)

Comparative Figures

between 1628–31, when he likely executed this early Self-Portrait at an
Easel (GD-112) (fig 1).

A mere eighteen years old, Dou establishedhimself as an independent artist shortly after Rembrandt’s departure,electing to stay in his native Leiden, where he resided continuously until
his death in 1675. Painting in Leiden entered a critical period beginning in
1631 when several of the city’s leading artists, including Rembrandt andJan Lievens (1607–74) both departed. This loss of talent hugely depleted
Leiden’s artistic milieu. Nonetheless, coinciding with this drain was thedawn of Dou’s remarkable career. His fame would soon spread not only
throughout Leiden, but also far beyond the borders of the Netherlands.
Dou was the cornerstone of a local school of painting that lasted deep into

Fig 1. Attributed to Gerrit
Dou, Self-Portrait at an Easel,
GD-112the eighteenth century. This school was characterized by a highly precise
and extremely detailed manner of painting in a small format. The paintersin Leiden working in this style became known as “the Leiden fijnschilders”
in the nineteenth century.[1] Among them was Frans van Mieris the Elder(1635–81), the only pupil of Dou to equal, if not surpass, his master. They
were without a doubt the two most important Leiden fijnschilders, although
there were also other highly deserving painters who are the subject ofanother essay in this catalogue.

Dou’s First Accolades
The first author to praise Dou and his exquisite painting style was the
Leiden burgomaster Jan Orlers (1570–1646). In his 1641 Beschryvinge

Fig 2. Gerrit Dou, Portrait of aLady, Seated with a Music Bookon her Lap, GD-116

van de Stad Leyden, Orlers commends Dou as “an excellent master,
especially in small, subtle, and intricate things.”[2] A year later, the Leiden
painter Philips Angel (1618–64) published his Lof der Schilder-Konst, inwhich Dou again assumes a leading role. This slender volume was theprinted version of a lecture Angel gave on the Feast of Saint Luke theprevious year to an assembly of colleagues and art lovers.[3] Dou, “Dienoyt ghenoegh ghepresen” (who can never be praised enough), is
mentioned twice in this treatise. In a passage regarding the ideal mannerofpainting,[4]

example.

Angel

urges

his

confrères

tofollow

Dou’s

Illustrating the integrity of the painter’s métier with several

specific examples, he notes “that fine, outstanding Gerrit Dou, who,
because he has granted the Honorable Gentleman Spierings the right offirst refusal, annually receives 500 guilders for this privilege.”[5] WhileFig 3. Gerrit Dou, The Young
Mother, 1658, oil on panel, 73.5
cm x 55.5 cm, Royal Picture
Gallery Mauritshuis, The Hague,© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 3 of 29“Heer Spierings” (discussed below) was not a patron in the true sense of

inv. 32

the word, the annual 500-guilder stipend provided Dou with a guaranteed
income. In a time when skilled laborers earned one guilder per day, thiswould have made Dou the envy of his colleagues.

The Dissemination of Dou’s Work
Orlers’s and Angel’s publications suggest that around 1640, Dou was themost successful painter in Leiden. Although Angel mentions Spiering’s
generous right of first refusal foremost as evidence of Dou’s merits, theartist’s economic success certainly was a key factor in Angel’s
endorsement of him as a role model.

Fig 4. Gerrit Dou, A Young
Woman at Her Toilet, 1666, oil on
panel, 58 x 75.5 cm, Museum
Boijmans Van Beuningen,Rotterdam, inv. no. 1186 (OK)Of Dou’s important status, there is surprisingly scant evidence to be foundin Leiden’s archives. He occupies a modest twelfth place among the mostfrequently cited artists in seventeenth-century estate inventories.[6] Whenone considers the number of paintings mentioned, he drops off the list
entirely. Dou’s paintings are listed in only thirteen estate inventories,
placing him thirty-second among Leiden painters. Remarkably, Dou’s
name does not occur once in Leiden inventories dating before 1650.
This meager presence is less meaningful than would appear at firstglance. Notaries did not really begin to include attributions of paintings in
documents until the 1650s.[7] Equally important, the artist’s laborious andtime-consuming manner of painting helps account for his low output—one,

Fig 5. Gerrit Dou, Old Man
Praying, GD-107

moreover, that may have been monopolized over a long period of time by asingle patron, Pieter Spiering. Dou charged a steep hourly fee, whichmeans that his paintings were so expensive that they were only withinreach of an extremely wealthy—and therefore small and exclusive—circleof buyers. In fact, it would have been surprising if Dou’s name did occur
frequently in estate inventories, both before and after 1650.
The earliest attribution of a painting to Dou in Leiden is found in a 1656
inventory of one of his pupils, Abraham de Pape (ca. 1620–66).[8] Alongwith numerous copies that De Pape made of Dou’s work, he owned two
originals, namely his portrait and “een oud mans tronie” (tronie of an old

Fig 6. Gerrit Dou, An Interior with
Young Violinist, 1637, oil on© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 4 of 29man). In that same year, “een stuk van Dou” (a painting by Dou) isrecorded among the many pictures owned by Johan Francois Tortarolis

panel, arched top, 78.9 x 60.2 cm,
National Gallery of Scotland,
Edinburgh, inv. NG 2420

(ca. 1600–53), a fabulously wealthy banker.[9] An additional eleven Leiden
deeds, drawn up between 1661 and 1697, all concern the holdings ofLeiden’s elite, including Johan de Bye and Franciscus de le Boë Sylvius,
who are each discussed in depth below.
The near absence of paintings by Dou in Leiden documents typifies thesituation in other Dutch towns as well. The very earliest mention of one ofhis paintings actually occurs in a Delft deed of conveyance of the linen
merchant Justus de la Grange (1623–64),[10] who in 1655 settled a debt
with several paintings, including one by Dou. De la Grange frequented
Delft regularly, but was more often to be found at Offem, his country estatenear Leiden, where he hung the paintings mentioned in his inventory. The

Fig 7. Gerrit Dou, Scholar
Interrupted at His Writing,
GD-102

merchant owed his great prosperity primarily to affluent Leiden relatives,
whose estates he had inherited. Thus, whether he actually bought Dou’s
painting cannot be determined with certainty.
Dating from 1655 is an invitation, written in French, from notary Willem deLangue (1599–1656) in Delft to purchase “en tout, ou en part” (in full, or inpart) his collection. Assembled between 1625 and 1655, it comprisedeighty-nine paintings by various Dutch masters, including “six pièces deGerrard Dou” (six paintings by Gerrit Dou).[11] Regrettably, these works are
not described, which may be why De Langue is rarely mentioned as apatron of Dou in the literature. Nothing is known about the relationshipbetween Dou and De Langue, but it should be remembered that De

Fig 8. Gerrit Dou, Portrait of Dirck
van Beresteyn, GD-111

Langue was a reputed collector and connoisseur. His invitation was aimed
at an international audience, perhaps the foreign diplomats residing
nearby in The Hague. The possibility that De Langue was acquainted withhis fellow townsman Pieter Spiering cannot be excluded.
In addition to the Leiden and Delft deeds, a Middelburg estate inventory
from 1676 lists “een principael van Gerrit Douw” (a principal [work] by
Gerrit Dou).[12] Works by Dou are also featured in the stock inventories of
the Amsterdam art dealers Johannes de Renialme (1657) and Gerrit
Uylenburgh (1674). De Renialme’s estate even contains five pictures by
the artist, one of which is by both Dou and Rembrandt.[13] The inventory of
the Amsterdam art dealer Laurens Maurits Douci (1669) owned anunspecified painting that, according to the appraisers Ferdinand Bol and

Fig 9. Gerrit Dou, The Dropsical
Woman, 1663, oil on wood, 85 x
67 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris,
inv. 1212, © Musée du Louvre,© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 5 of 29

Gerrit Uylenburgh, was jointly painted by Dou and Govaert Flinck.[14]Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Adrien
Didierjean / Art Resource, NY

There was an audience for Dou’s work in Rotterdam and The Hague as
well. For example, the 1680 inventory of collector and amateur painterJacob Loys (ca. 1620–78) lists “een vroutge met lampge van Gerrit Douw”(a woman with a lamp by Gerrit Dou).[15] Loys must have previously owned
other work by Dou, because the description of the painting just mentioned
does not match up with the work that French envoy Balthasar deMonconys (1611–65) described in his journal upon visiting the dealer in
1663 as “une femme qui tire du vin de Dau” (a woman tapping wine by
Dou).[16] Thanks to De Monconys’s writings, we know the name of anotherRotterdam owner of Dou’s work. Among the possessions of the merchant“Mr. Guèras” (perhaps Mr. Gerards?), the Frenchman encountered apainting by Van Mieris, “qui vont du pair avec celles de son maître Dou”

Fig 10. Gerrit Dou, Cat Crouchingon the Ledge of an Artist’s Atelier, GD-108(which goes hand in hand with those by his master Dou).[17] When De
Monconys later visited The Hague, he saw “une femme Dau” (a woman[by] Dou) at the home of the Lord of Noordwijk—presumably Wigbold vander Does (1611–69)—which he praised as being “parfaitement beaux”(perfectly beautiful).[18]The Prices for Dou’s Work
The fact that Leiden’s preeminent painter appears in only a handful of
Leiden inventories can easily be explained as a function of his pricing.
Dou’s exorbitant prices stemmed, in part, from his meticulous and timeconsuming manner of painting. The artist lived to paint and was a stickler
for perfection. He could spend days elaborating the tiniest of details, andFig 11. Gerrit Dou, Young
Woman in a Niche with a Parrot
and a Cage, GD-105

would work on a single painting for weeks on end. This meticulous style isevident in several works in The Leiden Collection, such as his delicate
Portrait of a Lady, Seated with a Music Book on her Lap (GD-116) (fig 2).
He charged a steep fee of six guilders per hour, and according to his
biographer Joachim von Sandrart (1606–88), a painting of Dou’s could
cost up to 1,000 guilders.[19] When Sandrart visited Dou around 1640 andcomplimented him on his extreme patience in painting a broomstick “derein schlechtes gröszer als ein Fingers Nagel ware” (which was hardly
larger than a fingernail), Dou responded that he would require at least
three more days to complete it. Soon thereafter, when Sandrart was in The
Hague to portray Pieter Spiering, the latter’s wife, Jeanne Doré, related
another story about Dou’s perfectionism: for a small portrait of Spiering

Fig 12. Gerrit Dou, Herring Seller
and Boy, GD-106© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 6 of 29

and his family that Dou had just recently completed, he had had Jeannepose in an armchair in his studio for five consecutive days in order to paintjust her hand![20] One can only imagine how many weeks it took the artist
to paint the entire portrait.
The excessive prices Dou received for his work are both confirmed andcontradicted by documentary evidence. One confirmation is theextraordinary amount of 4,000 guilders the States of Holland paid Dou forhis painting of The Young Mother in 1660, now in the Mauritshuis (fig3).[21] Another example is “een keuckenmeyt” (a kitchen maid) listed in theinventory of Johannes de Renialme, mentioned above, that was appraised
at 600 guilders. To De Monconys’s astonishment, in 1663 Dou asked theFig 13. Gerrit Dou, Old Woman at
a Window with a Candle, GD-103

same amount for a picture of a girl at a window.
Most of the prices of Dou’s paintings cited in seventeenth-century archival
documents, however, are lower. In 1678 the painters Dirck Santvoort andMelchior Hondecoeter appraised “een vrouwtie dat gekapt wordt met
openslaende deuren daerop een suygende vrouwtie bij de lamp” (awoman being coiffed, with a door opening outward on which is [painted] awoman nursing by candlelight) in the estate of the Amsterdam merchantFig 14. Gerrit Dou, Goat in a
Landscape, GD-114

Jan Rouyer, heir of the Leiden Dou aficionado Franciscus de le Boë
Sylvius, at 450 guilders, possibly Lady at Her Toilet in the Boijmans
Museum (fig 4).[22] This is not inexpensive, but three other paintings werevalued at 200, 150, and 100 guilders, respectively. In 1675 “een St.
Franciscus” (a Saint Francis) by Dou in the stock of Gerrit Uylenburgh wasestimated at 250 guilders. This amount is close to the 230 guilders that theDelft art dealer Abraham de Cooge paid the Utrecht merchant Dirck Scadein 1665 “voor een stukje van Dou, voorstellend een kluizenaar” (for a small
painting by Dou, representing a hermit), which may be one in the same, ora similar work as Old Man Praying in The Leiden Collection (GD-107) (fig5).[23] When the Danish scholar Ole Borch visited Jacob van Toorenvliet’s
studio in 1662, he saw a portrait by Dou of his brother Jan Dou that,
according to Toorenvliet, was worth 200 guilders.[24]Although most of these prices and valuations are lower than what Sandrart

Fig 15. Gerrit Dou, Self-Portrait,
1658, oil on panel, 52 x 40 cm,
Uffizi Galleria degli Uffizi,
Florence

quoted, they are still very high compared to what Dou’s colleagues
charged. Nevertheless, some archival records assign much lower prices toDou’s work. For example, the painting owned by Justus de la Grange wasworth a mere 10 guilders, and De Renialme had two relatively inexpensive© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 7 of 29

paintings worth 30 and 40 guilders. Given Dou’s working method andgenerally high prices, however, it is likely that these were copies or works
by followers. A lack of expertise on the part of the appraisers may also
have played a role here. A fascinating case study in this respect is theestate of Jan Rouyer. The appraisal of his paintings by Santvoort and
Hondecoeter had been preceded by another one, done by two secondhand goods dealers. Whereas Santvoort and Hondecoeter assigned
values of 450, 200, 150, and 100 guilders to the four works by Dou, theearlier estimates had been only 40, 35, 25, and 18 guilders,
respectively—a discrepancy of 782 guilders! The unduly low appraisal by
the second-hand goods dealers is undoubtedly related to the small format
of Dou’s works, as the size of a painting was an important, though by nomeans the only, factor in determining its value.[25]Pieter Spiering, “The Incomparable
Connoisseur”
Dou’s paintings were the preserve of a prosperous elite, among whom only
a true art lover would have been able and willing to pay the master’s
prices. The only connoisseur to be documented as a patron of Dou in thefirst phase of his career is Pieter Spiering (ca. 1595–1652) who, as noted,
appears in Angel’s Lof der Schilder-Konst. Aside from his role as an art
patron, Spiering was an agent in the service of the Swedish crown in The
Hague, a post he held almost continuously from 1634 to his death in 1652.
Pieter Spiering was the son of Francois Spiering, an Antwerp tapestry
weaver who established himself in Delft in 1591.[26] Spiering’s workshop
quickly grew into a successful enterprise with clients all over Europe.[27] In
1619 the workshop received its largest commission, a series of twentyseven tapestries in honor of the marriage of the Swedish king Gustav
Adolf. Pieter Spiering coordinated the project and accompanied theshipment to Stockholm, where he forged his first contacts with theSwedish court. He did not officially enter into the king’s service until 1626,
after which he held various very lucrative posts in the Swedish territories
around the Baltic Sea.[28] He amassed most of his vast fortune in theseyears.
In 1634 Spiering returned to the Dutch Republic as a Swedish agent in
The Hague. He acquitted himself so well that two years later he was© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 8 of 29

appointed the highest representative of the Swedish crown. In this position
he also oversaw Michel le Blon (1587–1658), the famous engraver and art
dealer. Le Blon had been a Swedish agent since 1618 and, just like
Spiering, was charged with providing his employer with all possible
information of political interest.[29] In addition to being diplomats, both men
were renowned art collectors. Back in the Dutch Republic, Spiering could
once again devote all of his attention to his collection, a passion that heacquired growing up in the home of his father, who also had a superb art
collection.[30] When the latter died in 1630, Pieter “inherited all of his
father’s art, both drawings and prints,” including “the prints by Albrecht
Dürer, wood and copper engraver, the prints by Lucas van Leyden, still
many other prints and books of prints, as well as drawings by many old
and modern art and reproductive engravers.” The holdings were valued ataround 2,000 guilders.[31]Whatever else Pieter Spiering owned can only be approximated, for no
catalogue of his collection has been preserved. It is known, however, thatin 1641 Spiering bought two volumes with drawings by Raphael, Julio
Romano, the Carracci, and Titian from Joachim von Sandrart for the
exorbitant amount of close to 3,500 guilders.[32] When the French
theologian and writer Francois Ogier (1597–1670) visited Spiering in The
Hague in 1644, he showed him these works, along with “sundry bookswith prints by Albrecht Durer, Lucas van Leyden, and others, drawings by
Raphael,” as well as “a number of paintings and a cabinet replete withmedals, reliefs of gold, silver, ivory, copper, wax.”[33] Spiering’s appetite
for collecting thus was not limited to paintings.
Spiering clearly appreciated the work of fijnschilders. For instance, in 1635
Le Blon tried to sell him a painting by Johannes Torrentius (1589–1644),“as you desire and delight in uncommon, fine, and detailed things.” If
Spiering was persuaded to acquire Torrentius’s painting, it would not havebeen his first purchase of the artist’s work, for Le Blon stated that he knewof no one “who has work by him, except for the King of England andyou.”[34]
Spiering owned at least thirteen pictures by Dou, and probably
more.[35] Writing about Dou in 1675, Sandrart recalled that he had seen“the best of his labor” at the home of “the most famous envoy Mr. Spieringin The Hague and elsewhere,” and went on to describe four works© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 9 of 29

precisely.[36] Two of them, An Interior with Young Violinist (fig 6) in
Edinburgh and the lost Young Lacemaker, are probably identical to two of
the ten pictures that Spiering consigned to Queen Christina of
Sweden.[37] Among these works was also one in The Leiden
Collection,
[38]

7).

ScholarInterrupted

at

His

Writing(GD-102)(fig

Although these works were listed as being in Christina’s collection,

they were probably sent to her only for approval, but were actually owned
by Spiering, who had them conveyed to Sweden in one or more
shipments. Christina does not appear to have been particularly taken withany of Dou’s pictures, for when her collection was inventoried in 1652, twoyears before her voluntary abdication, it was noted that they should be
returned to Spiering.[39]All we know about the relationship between Spiering and Dou is that
Spiering paid the artist for the right of first refusal, a right that—judging
from the pictures in the envoy’s possession—he regularly exercised. Howlong this arrangement lasted is not known. Neither Angel nor Sandrart
mentions when this annual stipend began or ended. The starting datewould have to be after 1634, when Spiering returned to the Dutch
Republic; the final date would be 1652 when Spiering died while on a
mission in London. If Sandrart indeed saw Dou’s An Interior with Young
Violinist while visiting Spiering, their contact existed by 1637, the date of
the painting.
In theory, their agreement could therefore have lasted from 1634 to 1652.
Given that Spiering paid the painter 500 guilders a year for his right, he
could have disbursed 9,000 guilders to Dou over the years without
receiving even a single painting. If Sandrart’s observation that Dou asked
prices ranging from 600 to 1,000 guilders is correct, then, on top of hisannual stipend, Spiering might have paid Dou up to 8,000–10,000 guilders
for the thirteen works mentioned as being in his collection. Such an
impressive sum would not have been a problem for the wealthy
Spiering.[40].
In addition to buying art for his own pleasure, Spiering also dealt in art.
Like Le Blon, he was a gentleman dealer, a side of him already evident
from the shipments of art he sent to Queen Christina.[41] In addition topaintings, Spiering also provided her with twenty-four ivory and forty-eightmarble sculptures. And in 1635, just one year after his appointment as the© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 10 of 29

Swedish agent in The Hague, the court instructed him to buy thirty-fivepaintings. He generally left the actual buying up to Le Blon, serving himself
as mediator.[42] The Swedish court also called directly on Le Blon—more
often, it would appear, than on Spiering—to acquire art. Le Blon may evenhave provided the court with a picture by Dou.[43] As a rule, however,people in the circles around the Swedish court continued to rely on
Spiering for their art purchasing.[44]The agreement between Spiering and Dou thus extended beyond assuring
Spiering access to the artist’s best work. For both Spiering and Le Blon,
who were continually gathering information for their Swedish employer,
love of art was not the sole motivation for their collecting passions. In
buying art they reinforced their own positions in the networks within which
they gathered information. For a diplomat of Spiering’s level, the realms ofpolitics and art were indelibly linked, and his reputation as a connoisseur
was key to the development of his diplomatic career. His high position inservice to Sweden guaranteed him access to the leading European courts
and thus to a broad potential market of influential art buyers. Conversely,
Spiering’s “unvergleichbare” (incomparable) love of art brought him into
contact with wealthy art lovers throughout Europe who, after seeking his
advice or buying art from him, subsequently turned to him as their politicalcorrespondent.[45] This dual function meant that the 500 guilders Spiering
paid Dou annually can also be understood as a business investment by agentleman dealer, and probably a lucrative one at that.
In addition to dealing in Dou’s work, Spiering may have served as anintermediary in portrait commissions extended to the artist, even if the“proof” is limited to him having a family relation with a single patron, thelawyer Dirck van Beresteyn (1627–53).

His jewel-like portrait in The

Leiden Collection (fig 8) seems to have been commissioned in the early
1650s and may have been intended as a gift for his betrothal.[46] It isconceivable that Spiering may have introduced Van Beresteyn to Dou as
Spiering was related to the Van Beresteyn family through his sister
Catharina, who was married to a full cousin of Dirck’s.[47] Another similar
instance is The Young Mother in the Mauritshuis in The Hague (fig 3). It is
not known who commissioned the painting, but the coat-of-arms of theDelft Van Adrichem family in the upper left—Dirck van Beresteyn was
married to Magdalena van Adrichem—reinforces the suspicion that
Spiering was somehow involved in the inception of this important painting,© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 11 of 29

which the States of Holland acquired in 1660 for an astonishing 4,000
guilders.[48]Although no other patrons of Dou are noted in archival records from Leiden
or any other Dutch cities, there was a small number of other affluent
Leiden art enthusiasts in the first half of the seventeenth century who could
afford pictures by Dou.[49] For example, Dou painted a portrait of the
Leiden lawyer Johan Wittert van der Aa (1604–70) in 1646, as well as a
double portrait of him with his wife.[50] Not surprisingly, Wittert van der Aa
was astonishingly wealthy.[51] Spiering’s unexpected death in 1652 could
have had serious financial implications for Dou were it not for the fact that
his reputation had become so great—in some measure thanks to Spieringand his important early support—that new benefactors soon presented
themselves.

After the Death of Pieter Spiering
There is nothing to indicate that Spiering’s death was problematic for Dou.
The Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna has two pictures that can be
related to transactions in the 1650s. These are Dou’s famous The Doctorof 1653, and Girl Lighting a Lantern, circa 1655.[52] Both were probably
acquired by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm (1614–62) when he was inBrussels as governor of the Southern Netherlands between 1647 and
1656. Given the dates of the two paintings, they must have entered thiscollection between 1653 and 1656, the year in which Leopold’s art
treasures were transferred to Vienna.[53] Perhaps Leopold personallycommissioned the paintings from Dou, but it is possible that they werebought by the Flemish painter David Teniers the Younger (1601–90), who
was Leopold’s court painter and keeper of his collection. Teniers’s work
was in great demand in the Dutch Republic, and perhaps on one of his
trips he visited Leiden to buy works by Dou for his employer.
An exceptional honor fell to Dou in 1660. In that year the States of Holland
decided to give several expensive gifts, including paintings, to the English
King Charles II on the occasion of his accession to the throne. Initially only
twenty-eight paintings by Italian masters were bought, but it was later
decided to include work by Dutch masters. Dou was asked to appraise a
picture by Pieter Saenredam (1597–1665) for this gift. The esteem Dou
enjoyed is clear from this request alone, and more evident from the fact
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 12 of 29

that he was also invited to contribute to the gift. Dou provided threepictures, two of which he painted himself: one of them was The Young
Mother of 1658 discussed above.
A signal compliment to Dou was paid by the Englishman John Evelyn who,
following a visit to the London court, noted in his book that on that day“were presented to his Majestie those two rare pieces of Drolerie, or rathera Dutch Kitchin, painted by Douce, so finely as hardly to be at all
distinguished from Enamail.”[54] The king himself had only praise; thepieces that pleased him the most were, along with the Titian, “die van
Douw en Elshamer” (those by Dou and Elsheimer).[55] Charles II was so
impressed that he even invited Dou to the court, an honor the artist
declined. He was certainly not in need of work; the 1660s marked the
beginning of the most fruitful period of his career. Of the 126 paintings
attributed to Dou, he painted 42 between 1660 and 1670.[57]Dou’s share in the “Dutch Gift” enhanced his growing celebrity anddefinitively established his standing abroad. When Cornelis de Bie(1627–ca. 1715), from Antwerp, commented in his Het gulden cabinet thatDou’s paintings “bear our spirits higher than the stars,” this accolade also
touches on his reputation: Dou’s star continued to rise with no end insight.[58] For instance, after visiting Dou in 1662, the Danish scholar Ole
Borch (1620–90) called the artist “the excellent painter of Leiden,” with noequal as a limner of miniatures in the world.[59] Borch waxed lyrical about
the painting known as The Dropsical Woman, now in the Louvre (fig 9).
Dou put the finishing touches to this picture shortly after Borch’s visit, andit soon found its way to the famous picture cabinet of Johan de Bye.[60]Until now it has remained unnoticed that Borch actually spoke about Dou
the previous year. When he visited the workshop of Jacob Toorenvliet on
28 May 1661, perhaps to collect his portrait, he saw in addition topaintings by Toorenvliet, work by Dou, whom he described as “anexceptionally talented painter […] of small pictures.” Borch wasstartled—as noted previously—by the value of a little portrait of Jan Dou:
200 guilders, “even though it was rather small.”[61] De Monconys was also
surprised by the price, though his admiration for Dou prevailed when henoted that the artist “is incomparable for the delicacy of his brush.”[62]Dou likewise received commendations from his fellow townsmen. In© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 13 of 29

Leiden deeds, he was introduced as “Monsieur,” a term of address
generally reserved for people of noble birth. He was even the subject of an
occasional poem. In 1662, for example, the Leiden notary Dirck
Traudenius (ca. 1606–68) praised Dou as “den Hollandschen Parrhasius,”
the Dutch Parrhasius, the renowned artist of antiquity who fooled the great
Zeuxis with his convincing depiction of a curtain.[63] Such praiseacknowledged the artist’s mastery of illusion and pointed to Dou’s
particular brand of architectural niche scene, in which curtains figure
prominently along one side. A fine example of this format dates from 1659,
Cat Crouching on the Ledge of An Artist’s Studio in The Leiden Collection(GD-108) (fig 9). Its popularity would continue throughout Dou’s lifetime
and is exemplified in three other works in The Leiden Collection, Young
Woman in a Niche with a Parrot and a Cage (GD-105) (fig 10),Herring Seller and Boy (GD-106) (fig 11), and Old Woman at a Window
with a Candle (GD-103) (fig 12).
Foreigners and compatriots alike flocked to Dou’s workshop. When Pieter
Teding van Berkhout (1643–1713), later the burgomaster of Delft, stayedwith relatives in Leiden in December 1669, he called on “the famous
painter Dou, who showed us three or four beautiful examples of art by his
hand.”[64] Given Dou’s fame, it is striking that Simon van Leeuwen, in his
1672 city chronicle, limits himself to expressing his great admiration for theart of “the outstanding painter of fine detail” and appreciates the fact thatDou “does not withhold [his talent] from any of his apprentices who showpromise.” Van Leeuwen devotes not a single word to royal and otherowners of Dou’s work, to whom the artist largely owed his great renown.[65]Dou’s Most Important Patron, Johan de Bye
Dou never lacked for praise, but he received the most from Johan de Byewho, after the death of Spiering, became the artist’s most important
patron. It is unclear when exactly “zyn grooten Mecenas” (his great
Maecenas) appeared on the stage, but considering De Bye’s age, it wasprobably not before 1652.[66] He bought Dou’s work regularly, and no one
owned more paintings by the artist than did De Bye; in 1665 he owned
twenty-seven, perhaps even twenty-nine paintings. In September of thatyear, De Bye had his pictures by Dou taken from his house on the
Hoogelandsekerkgracht to a rented room in the house of the still-life
painter Johannes Hannot (1633–84) in the Breestraat, where for a modest© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 14 of 29

fee (to be donated to the poor), art lovers and potential buyers could viewDou’s works.[67] Remarkably, this show included two of Dou’s
masterpieces now in The Leiden Collection: Young Woman in a Nichewith a Parrot and a Cage (fig 11) and Goat in a Landscape (GD-114) (fig13).
According to a seventeenth-century manuscript, De Bye came from one of
the “oldest and highly distinguished families of Leiden; his predecessors
have in said city already held the most exalted offices in the magistrate formore than 300 years, garnering great praise and repute, and leading
upright and irreproachable lives.”[68] This pedigree finds support in a few
early seventeenth-century archival records. For instance, Johan’s great
uncle, Jan Pieters de Bye, served several times as burgomaster, and his
brother as alderman. After the “wetsverzetting,” or “changing of thelegislatives,” of 1618, when Remonstrants were prohibited from holding
public office, the De Bye family vanished from the town council.[69]De Bye’s grandfather was a brewer in de Roscam, along the Rhine River,opposite the Houtmarkt. Johan de Bye grew up in this brewery. Hisparents, Pieter Fransz de Bye (1595–1633) and Aeltje Hasius († before1639), died when he and his sister Anna were still children. They found a
new home with Willem Fransz de Bye, their uncle and guardian, who took
over de Roscam around 1638.[70] Johan de Bye probably was registeredat the Leiden Academy in 1637 at the age of twelve.[71] The enrollment of achild was usually related to the tax benefits this conferred, including
exemption from beer taxes, a privilege that would certainly have appealed
to De Bye’s guardians. He enrolled at the Academy yet again in 1648, thistime as a law student.[72] As for his professional activities, all we know isthat he was appointed regent of the St. Elisabethgasthuis in 1663 and
1664, and that he invested in other people’s businesses.
Although no business agreement between De Bye and Dou has beenpreserved, there is one involving De Bye and another “artist,” the Leiden
watchmaker Willem Meester.[73] In May 1664 the two entered into an “actevan compagnie” (deed of partnership). De Bye would invest 7,200 guilders
in Meester’s business, and the watchmaker would repay him half after six
years and the remainder after twelve years. In exchange De Byestipulated: “that he, Meester, will not accept any work without previous
communication with and the express consent of Mister Johan de Bye,” and© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 15 of 29

furthermore that weekly he “will give [to De Bye] the legal half of all the
profit that I in any way come to receive or enjoy from my art ofhandiwork.”[74] Whether De Bye profited from his investment is doubtful.
Meester does not seem to have enjoyed much success. In 1674 he and his
wife, Margareta Hannot, a sister of Johannes Hannot, were each taxed
separately for a capital of 1,000 guilders.[75]De Bye was a devout Remonstrant who was highly regarded by his Leiden
fellow believers. Remonstrants in Leiden faced fierce opposition to theirreligious beliefs from the local authorities. The petition for permission tobuild their own church, which was submitted various times after 1662, wasgranted only in 1672. Until then, De Bye made his house available forreligious services.[76] The town council wanted none of this individual
initiative, and De Bye ultimately paid a steep price for his religious zeal. In
1664 he was forced to step down as regent of the St. Elisabethgasthuis,
and was frequently penalized with high fines. Tensions mounted, and attimes threatened to escalate. On at least two occasions, in 1662 and
1664, an angry crowd gathered before De Bye’s house. The second time,
the bailiff was barely able to prevent the plundering of De Bye’s house, afew windows having already been smashed. The unrest persisted, and in
the summer of 1665, by the order of the court, the pulpit and other church
furniture in De Bye’s home were dismantled. It takes little effort to imagine
the fate that De Bye’s collection would have faced had an angry crowdforced its way into his house. De Bye surely realized this, and it is notunreasonable to suppose that he moved his paintings by Dou to theBreestraat in 1665 in order to safeguard the most valuable part of hiscollection.

The Collection of Franciscus de le Boë
Sylvius
Another art lover with an above-average number of pictures by Dou—nofewer than eleven—also lived in Leiden, namely the famous professor
Franciscus de le Boë Sylvius (1614–72). In the literature, Sylvius is known
chiefly as the patron of Dou’s pupil Frans van Mieris the Elder, but if thenumber of pictures in his possession is the criterion, then his fondness for
Dou was even greater: he owned seven works by Van Mieris, four fewer
than by Dou.[77]© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 16 of 29

Sylvius was a renowned scholar and a medical doctor with a clientele
extending far beyond the Republic, and he lived in in Leiden incircumstances commensurate with his rank. When he died in 1672, he left
behind a sizeable collection of pictures, 172 works in total, in his splendid
home at 31 Rapenburg.[78] Unfortunately, the descriptions of the paintings
are too summary to identify them. The only Dou painting about which there
is some consensus is Lady at Her Toilet, now in Rotterdam (fig 3), which
is probably the work described as: “een stuck waerin een Jufr [ouw] voorde Spiegel” (a picture with a young lady before a mirror).[79]That Sylvius without a doubt possessed eleven costly pieces by such a
famous painter as Dou is remarkable, and thus it is surprising that thegenerally well-informed Houbraken makes no mention of Sylvius. Whether
Sylvius acquired all of the paintings directly from Dou remains to be seen.
It is entirely possible that he bought a few pictures from De Bye when thelatter housed his Dou collection at Johannes Hannot’s in the Breestraat.
Sylvius could also have obtained a few of De Bye’s pictures after thelatter’s death. Some of the cursory descriptions in their inventories could
refer to one and the same painting. For instance, Sylvius’s “het besgen”(old woman) could be De Bye’s “oude vrouw met een bouck” (old woman
with a book), and Sylvius’s “een heremyt in een cas” (a hermit in a case)could be De Bye’s “een kluysenaer biddende geknielt voor een kruijseficx
van buijtenen een kaers licht lamp ende doots hoofft’ (a praying hermit
kneeling before a crucifix; on the outside a candlelight lamp and skull).
Furthermore, Sylvius owned five “kaerslichten” (candlelights), and De Byeowned nine. It is thus quite possible that when De Bye’s possessions werebeing brought to the house of his young cousin Maria Knotter on the
Rapenburg (no. 35), a stop was made at the home of Sylvius (at no. 31) todeliver some of the works in the estate bought by the scholar.

After Dou’s Death
Dou did not long outlive De Bye and Sylvius, who both died in 1672. The
loss of his most important patrons seems to have had an impact on his
production. The last dated pictures are from 1672, and not a single
painting in the period to his death in 1675 can be dated with certainty.
Nevertheless, his work remained popular even after his death. At the end© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 17 of 29

of the seventeenth century, demand for his work was greater than ever,partly due to the interest of a few foreign princes. Dou left behind arelatively small oeuvre, however, and after his death it was not easy toobtain an original painting by his hand, as the Amsterdam agent of Cosimo
III de’ Medici, Guasconi, discovered. In 1676, the year of his installation as
Grand Duke of Tuscany, Cosimo ordered Guasconi to acquire works by
Dou, including a self-portrait. Only with great difficulty was the agent able
to procure two pictures. One of them was Dou’s 1658 self-portrait, now intheUffizi[80]

fiorini.

(fig

14),

for

which

the

agent

had

to

pay

800

Interestingly, Guasconi initially had another portrait in mind,

which was offered to him by an otherwise unnamed Leiden merchant. The
agent found the asking price of 315 guilders too high to simply proceedwith the purchase without Cosimo’s express permission. By the time thegrand duke consented, the merchant had already sold Dou’s self-portrait
to an art dealer in Antwerp, a “Mr. Gillis,” who had made a slightly higher
bid for the small likeness.[81]Although these amounts are steep, they are no higher than what Dou
commanded while he was alive. In the eighteenth century, it was derigueur for any self-respecting collection to have a picture by Dou, andamounts over 1,000 guilders were readily paid at auction for masterpieces
by the artist.[82] Even so, Dou’s popularity eventually waned. With the riseof Impressionism in the mid-nineteenth century, a reversal of opinion set inand his meticulous style was no longer admired; in fact, it was condemned
as being overly precise and fussy.[83] In the past few decades, however,there has been a renewed appreciation for his work, which has foundexpression in numerous publications and exhibitions and a reinvigorated
interest by art collectors, who have paid record prices for his paintings.
- Piet Bakker© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 18 of 29

Endnotes
1. For a survey of Leiden fijnschilders, see Eric Jan Sluijter, “Schilders van ‘cleyne, subtile ende curieuse
dingen’: Leidse fijnschilders in contemporaine bronnen,” in Leidse fijnschilders: van Gerrit Dou tot Frans
van Mieris de Jonge, 1630–1770 , ed. Eric Jan Sluijter et al. (Exh. cat. Leiden, Stedelijk Museum De
Lakenhal) (Zwolle, 1988), 15–55.
2. “Een uytnemend Meester, insonderheydt in cleyne, subtile, ende curieuse dingen.” Jan Orlers,
Beschryvinge van de Stad Leyden (Leiden, 1641), 378.
3. Philips Angel, Lof der Schilder-Konst (Leiden, 1642).
4. Philips Angel, Lof der Schilder-Konst (Leiden, 1642), 23.
5. “Die nette uyt-muntende Gerrit Dou, die jaerlicx om dat hy de Ed. Heer Spierings de eerste aanbiedinghe
van sijn stucken doet, 500 Carolus guldens tot vergeldinghe krijcht.” Philips Angel, Lof der Schilder-Konst(Leiden, 1642), 56.
6. A total of 258 inventories have been consulted. See Table 2 in the essay on Leiden fijnschilders and the
local art market in this catalogue.
7. See Table 1 in the essay on Leiden fijnschilders and the local art market in this catalogue.
8. Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives, notary S. van Swanenburgh, inv. 611, deed 118, 3 March
1656. This inventory is published in Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte derholländischen Kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts , 8 vols. (The Hague, 1915–22),
1858–61. However, not all of the paintings mentioned are given in the transcript.
9. Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives, notary S. van Swanenburgh, inv. 611, deed 124, 7
December 1656. See also Willem Johan Jacob Cornelis Bijleveld, “De boedel van J.F. Tortarolis te
Leiden,” Oud Holland 44 (1927): 183.
10. Gemeentearchief Delft, Notarial Archives, notary J. Spoors, inv. 1676, fol. 637-9v; A. Bredius,“Bijdragen tot de biographie van Pieter de Hooch,” Oud Holland 7 (1889): 161–68.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 19 of 29

11. “On De Langue, see Jaap van der Veen, Delftse verzamelingen in de zeventiende en eerste helft van deachttiende eeuw,” in Schatten in Delft: Burgers verzamelen 1600–1750, ed. Ellinor Bergvelt et al. (Exh. cat.
Delft, Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof) (Zwolle, 2002), 74–75, 157 (no. 9). See John Michael Montias,
Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century (Princeton, 1982),
236–38.
12. Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte der holländischen Kunst des XVIten,
XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts, 8 vols. (The Hague, 1915–22), 1044.
13. Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte der holländischen Kunst des XVIten,
XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts, 8 vols. (The Hague, 1915–22), 234–37, 1670.
14. Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte der holländischen Kunst des XVIten,
XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts, 8 vols. (The Hague, 1915–22), 423.
15. Unknown, “De nalatenschap van een kunstliefhebber uit de 17e eeuw,” Algemeen Nederlandsch
Familieblad (1883): no. 1, p. 2; no. 2, pp. 2–4; no. 3, p. 2; no. 5, pp. 4–5, and no. 6, pp. 3–5. The painting by
Dou is in no. 3, p. 2. For Jacob Loys, see Nora Schadee, ed., Rotterdamse Meesters uit de Gouden Eeuw
(Exh. cat. Rotterdam, Historisch Museum) (Zwolle, 1994), 287; and Jaap van der Veen, “Liefhebbers,
handelaren en kunstenaars: Het verzamelen van schilderijen en papierkunst,” in Ellinor Bergvelt and Renee
Kistemaker,

Dewereldbinnenhandbereik:

Nederlandse

kunst-

enrariteitenverzamelingen,

1585–1735 (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Amsterdams Museum) (Zwolle, 1992), 129, 130.
16. Abraham Bredius, “17e Eeuwsche reisherinneringen. (Journal des Voyages de Monsieur de Monconysetc. etc. Paris 1677),” Nederlandsche Kunstbode (1880): 412.
17. Abraham Bredius, “17e Eeuwsche reisherinneringen. (Journal des Voyages de Monsieur de Monconysetc. etc. Paris 1677),” Nederlandsche Kunstbode (1880): 412.
18. Abraham Bredius, “17e Eeuwsche reisherinneringen. (Journal des Voyages de Monsieur de Monconysetc. etc. Paris 1677),” Nederlandsche Kunstbode (1880): 413.
19. Joachim von Sandrart, Joachim von Sandrarts Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste von1675: Lebem der berühmten Maler, Bildhauer und Baumeister . 4 vols. Arthur R. Peltzer, ed. (Nuremberg,
1675–79) (Reprint: Munich, 1925), 195.
20. Joachim von Sandrart, Joachim von Sandrarts Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste von1675: Lebem der berühmten Maler, Bildhauer und Baumeister . 4 vols. Arthur R. Peltzer, ed. (Nuremberg,
1675–79) (Reprint: Munich, 1925), 195.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 20 of 29

21. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (The
Hague, 1753) (Facsimile edition, Amsterdam, 1976), 4. This is The Young Mother, oil on panel, 73.5 x 55.5
cm, signed and dated 1658, Mauritshuis, The Hague; Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou(1613–1675),” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990), no. A76; Ronni Baer, Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., andAnnetje Boersma, Gerrit Dou, 1613–1675: Master Painter in the Age of Rembrandt , ed. Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr. (Exh. cat. Washington, National Gallery of Art; London, Dulwich Picture Gallery, The Hague;
Royal Cabinet of Paintings, Mauritshuis) (New Haven, 2000), 106–7, no. 21.
22. Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Desolate Boedelskamer, inv. 604, fol. 245-255v, 26 and 27 January & 30
March 1678. Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” (Ph.D. diss., New York University,1990), no. A 114; Ronni Baer, Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., and Annetje Boersma,Gerrit Dou, 1613–1675:
Master Painter in the Age of Rembrandt , ed. K. Wheelock, Jr. (Exh. cat. Washington, National Gallery ofArt; London, Dulwich Picture Gallery, The Hague; Royal Cabinet of Paintings, Mauritshuis) (New Haven,2000), 128–29, no. 32. The paintings in Rouyer’s estate are not attributed. The identification relies entirelyon the provenance of his collection and the description of the objects. For a discussion of this inventory, see
Theodoor Herman Lunsingh Scheurleer, ed., Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht , 10
vols. (Leiden, 1986–92), 3:286–88.
23. Het Utrechts Archief, Notarial Archives, notary H. Van Zuylen, inv. U48a003, deed no. 79[Schuldbekentenis], 1 May 1666.
24. See footnote 61.
25. Another example is the double portrait of Sylvius and his second wife, Margareta Lucretia Schlezer (“tConterfeytsel vande Proffessor Silvius ende sijn huijsvrouw speelende op de Luijd” [the portrait ofProfessor Sylvius and his wife playing the lute]), the celebrated Music Lesson by Frans van Mieris the Elderin Dresden; Otto Naumann, Frans van Mieris (1635–1681), the Elder , 2 vols. (Doornspijk, 1981), 2:102, no.
89; Theodoor Herman Lunsingh Scheurleer, ed., Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht , 10
vols. (Leiden, 1986–92), 3:291. The two dealers had appraised it at 12 guilders, and the two painters at 85
guilders, yet again a great discrepancy. The appraisal of Santvoort and Hondecoeter, however, also seems
conservative compared to the amounts Van Mieris commanded at the time. See his biography and theessay on him in this catalogue.
26. For Pieter Spiering’s genealogy, see Eeltjo Aldegondus van Beresteyn, “Korte genealogie van het
geslacht Spieringh,” Kunsthistorische Mededelingen van het Rijksbureau Kunsthistorische Documentatie ,vol. 1 (1946): 13, as a supplement to Eeltjo Aldegondus van Beresteyn, “Twee portretten van Francois
Spieringh,” 10–12.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 21 of 29

27. Abraham Bredius, “De Tapijtfabriek van Karel van Mander den Jonge, te Delft, 1616–1623,”Oud
Holland 3 (1885): 1–22; Gerardina Tjaberta van Ysselsteyn, “Tapisserieën uit de weverij van François
Spiering,” Oud Holland 54 (1937): 164–72.
28. Unless otherwise mentioned, the information on Spiering is taken from Badeloch Noldus, “AnUnvergleichbarer Liebhaber: Peter Spierinck, the Art-Dealing Diplomat,” Scandinavian Journal of History
31 (2006): 173–85.
29. Herman de la Fontaine Verwey, “Michel le Blon: Graveur, kunsthandelaar diplomat,” Jaarboek
Amstelodamum (1969): 103–25; Badeloch Noldus, “Loyalty and Betrayal: Artist-Agents Michel le Blon and
Pieter Isaacsz, and Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna,” in Your Humble Servant: Agents in Early Modern
Europe, ed. Hans Cools et al. (Hilversum, 2006), 51–64.
30. Jaap van der Veen, “Delftse verzamelingen in de zeventiende en eerste helft van de achttiende eeuw,”
in Schatten in Delft: Burgers verzamelen 1600–1750 , ed. Ellinor Bergvelt et al. (Exh. cat. Delft, Stedelijk
Museum Het Prinsenhof) (Zwolle, 2002), 156 (Appendix I, no. 2).
31. “Alle de kunst by syn vader naergelaten, soo van teyckeningen als printen […] de printen van
Aelborduyer, houte copere snyder, de printen van Lucas van Leyden, noch veele printen ende
printboucken, als oock teeckeningen van veele oude en moderne kunst en plaetsnyders.” G. T. vanYsselsteyn, Geschiedenis der tapijtweverijen in de noordelijke Nederlanden : bijdrage tot de geschiedenis
der kunstnijverheid, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1936), 2:295–96 (doc. 640).
32. Christian Klemm, Joachim von Sandrart: Kunst-Werke u. Lebens-Lauf (Berlin, 1986), 339. He later
sent the drawings to Queen Christina of Sweden, who took them with her to Italy after her abdication.
33. “Plusieurs livres de tailles-douces d’Albert Dürer, Lucas [van Leyden], et autres, dessins de Raphaeld’Urbin […] un quantité de tableaux et un cabinet plein de toutes sortes de médailles, de reliefs d’or, argent,ivoire, cuivre, cire.” Badeloch Noldus, ‘An Unvergleichbarer Liebhaber. Peter Spierinck, the art-dealing
diplomat’, Scandinavian Journal of History 31 (2006), 178, quoted from A. Boppé,Journal de Congres deMunster, par Francois Ogier, aumonier du comte D’Avaux (1643–1647) (Paris, 1893), 39. See also Jaap
van der Veen, “Liefhebbers, handelaren en kunstenaars: Het verzamelen van schilderijen en papierkunst,”
in Ellinor Bergvelt and Renee Kistemaker, eds., De wereld binnen handbereik. Nederlandse kunst- en
rariteitenverzamelingen, 1585–1735 (Zwolle and Amsterdam 1992), 117–34.
34. “Also UE sin en vermaeck heeft in ongemeene, nette en uytgevoerde dingen […] die wat van hem heeft,als den Coninc van England ende UE.” Wilhelm Martin, Het leven en de werken van Gerrit Dou:
beschouwd in verband met het schildersleven van zijn tijd (Leiden, 1901), 43.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 22 of 29

35. Queen Christina owned ten paintings, and Sandrart saw four during his visit to Spiering (see next note).
Two of them seem to be identical to two in Stockholm. Along with these, Spiering also owned the portrait
that Dou painted around 1640 of Spiering’s family.
36. “Das fürnehmste seiner Arbeit […] de hochberühmten Herrn Residenten von Spiring in Gravenhaag undanderwärts.” Joachim von Sandrart, Joachim von Sandrarts Academie der Bau-, Bild- und MahlereyKünste von 1675: Lebem der berühmten Maler, Bildhauer und Baumeister . 4 vols. Arthur R. Peltzer, ed.
(Nuremberg, 1675–79) (Reprint: Munich, 1925), 195. These are: “[1] In einem verschloßenem Zimmer ein
Niederländisches junges sitzendes und Spitzen wirkendes Mägdlein, einer halben Spannen hoch: [2] Ein
altes Weib in einem Belz bekleidt sitzend/ und durch die Brillen auf der Nasen in einem Buch lesend: [3]Einen alten Mann in einem langen Bart/ der bey dem Feuer sitzt/ und seine Hände wärmet; [4] Ein
Lautenschlager an einem Tisch sitzend/ der vor ihme Bücher ligen hat/ ungefähr einer Spannen groß.” (In aclosed room [are] a Dutch boy sitting and a girl making lace, approximately half a span tall; [2] A seated oldwoman wearing a “Belz”/ and reading a book through her spectacles; [3] An old man with a long beard/
sitting by the fire/ warming his hands; [4] A lute player sitting at a table/ before him lie books/ approximately
one span tall).
37. The Young Violin Player might be [4] in the previous note, described in the Swedish inventory as: “Un
petit tableau ou un homme joue du violon selon la tabulature” (A small picture of a man playing the violin
following the tablature) (Wilhelm Martin, Het leven en de werken van Gerrit Dou: beschouwd in verband
met het schildersleven van zijn tijd [Leiden, 1901], 45 [no. III]); and The Young Lacemaker might be [1] inthe previous note and in Queen Christina’s inventory as: “Dito, ou est peint une Holandoise qui fait dupassement” (Ditto, in which is painted a Dutch woman making lace) (Wilhelm Martin,Het leven en de
werken van Gerrit Dou: beschouwd in verband met het schildersleven van zijn tijd [Leiden, 1901], no. VIII).
38. This is the painting with the description: “un viellard se met a escrire ayant devant luy un liure un globe
et un charnier” (an old man writing and before him a book, a globe, and a skull), currently known asScholar
Interrupted at His Writing (see GD-102).

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 23 of 29

39. For an enumeration of the paintings, see Wilhelm Martin, Het leven en de werken van Gerrit Dou:
beschouwd in verband met het schildersleven van zijn tijd (Leiden, 1901), 45. “Une Hollandoise qui fait dupassement” (A Dutch woman making lace) mentioned in Martin is a picture that Sandrart probably saw atSpiering’s: “ein Niderländisches junges sitzendes und Spitzen wirkendes Mägdlein” (A young Dutch boy
sitting and a young woman making lace), Joachim von Sandrart, Joachim von Sandrarts Academie derBau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste von 1675: Lebem der berühmten Maler, Bildhauer und Baumeister . 4
vols. Arthur R. Peltzer, ed. (Nuremberg, 1675–79) (Reprint: Munich, 1925), 195. Some publications
mention eleven pictures by Dou, but this is based on an erroneous reading of Christina’s inventory. “(8) Un
tableau avec un papillon qui tire son mancher d’un cocquille de noix” (A painting with a butterfly drawing
nourishment from a nutshell) is not by Dou but rather by Otto Marseus van der Schrieck (1619/20–78) (OlofGranberg, Svenska Konstsamlingarnas Historia från Gustav Vasas tid till våra [Gischichte derSchwedischen Kunstsammlungen 1525–1925], vol. 1, [Stockholm, 1929], 209, 228). This picture also
belonged to Spiering and was sent back with the Dous.
40. On the lucrative positions Spiering held for the Swedish crown, see Badeloch Noldus, ‘An
Unvergleichbarer Liebhaber. Peter Spierinck, the art-dealing diplomat’, Scandinavian Journal of History 31(2006), 175.
41. Christina owned more paintings that had come from Spiering; she possessed a medal with his portrait.
Charles Avery, “Francois Dieussart in the United Provinces and the Ambassador of Queen Christina,”
Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 19 (1971), 156–63. Granberg mentions a Lot and His Daughters, and apanel with the portraits of a man and a woman with their two children, among others. Olof Granberg,
Svenska konstsamlingarnas historia från Gustav Vasas tid till våra dagar: (Geschichte der schwedischen
Kunstsammlungen 1525–1925) (Stockholm, 1929), 212, 213, 214.
42. Badeloch Noldus, ‘An Unvergleichbarer Liebhaber. Peter Spierinck, the art-dealing diplomat’,
Scandinavian Journal of History 31 (2006), 176.
43. The Nationaal Museet in Stockholm owns a Penitent Magdalene by Dou that may possibly have been
named in Christina’s inventory (“no. 56, dito, avec des pais et une femme escheuelée, ayant aupres délle
une livre,” see G. Cavalli-Björkman, Dutch and Flemish Paintings II. Dutch Paintings, c. 1600–c. 1800
(Stockholm, 2005), 163, no. 168. According to an annotation, the picture was obtained from Michel le Blon
(Olof Granberg, Svenska konstsamlingarnas historia från Gustav Vasas tid till våra dagar: (Geschichte derschwedischen Kunstsammlungen 1525–1925) [Stockholm, 1929], 210). Should this description be correct,
it would mean that in 1652 not all of the Dous had been returned; that of Le Blon, in fact, remained in
Stockholm. To put this in perspective, it should be noted that Baer does not consider the painting to beoriginal (Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” [Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990],
no. C50).

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 24 of 29

44. Badeloch Noldus, ‘An Unvergleichbarer Liebhaber. Peter Spierinck, the art-dealing diplomat’,
Scandinavian Journal of History 31 (2006), 176.
45. Badeloch Noldus, ‘An Unvergleichbarer Liebhaber. Peter Spierinck, the art-dealing diplomat’,
Scandinavian Journal of History 31 (2006), 185.
46. Alternatively, Baer suggests that Van Beresteyn sat for Dou in 1647, when he left Delft to study law inLeiden. See Ronni Baer, “Dou and the Delft Connection: The Portrait of Dirk van Beresteyn,” in:Face Book:
Studies on Dutch and Flemish Portraiture of the 16th–18th Centuries (Leiden, 2012), 279–84.
47. After Dirck’s death this little portrait came into the possession of his older brother Zacharias van
Beresteyn van Hofdijck (1623–79). In his will of 21 September 1664, Zacharias bequeathed to his brother
Cornelis (VI) (1629–1716) his paintings and—mentioned explicitly—Dou’s portrait of his brother Dirck. See
Gemeentearchief Delft, ONA 2061, fol. 159). Eeltjo Aldegondus van Beresteyn and Willem Frederik de
Campo, Genealogie van het geslacht van Beresteyn, vol. 1 (The Hague, 1954), 253.
48. Neither Dirck van Beresteyn nor Magdalena van Adrichem (1639–84) were the commissioners, as was
supposed in B. Broos, Meesterwerken in het Mauritshuis (The Hague, 1987), 117. The marriage was rifewith scandal. The couple had to elope because Magdalena was only thirteen years old (Eeltjo Aldegondus
van Beresteyn and Willem Frederik del Campo Hartman, Genealogie van het geslacht van Beresteyn , vol.
1 [The Hague, 1954], 263). Given the coat-of-arms in the window, the commissioner should probably besought in the Van Adrichem family.
49. Such as Johan van Overbeke (1616–80), owner of a “Konstcabinet” (art cabinet), to whom Angel
dedicated his treatise. His father, Mathijs van Overbeeke, who died in 1638, also owned a splendid art
collection. When visiting it in 1628, Buchelius saw a painting by Rubens. In 1622 at the home of the lawyer
Hieronimus de Backere (1585–ca. 1674), he saw “een tronie na het leven van Toutian geschildert, ende
een ander seer exellent van Hans Holbein” (a tronie from life painted by Titian, and another very excellent[head] by Hans Holbein). Cornelis Hofstede de Groot,Arnoldus Buchelius, “Res Pictoriae”: Aantekeningen
over kunstenaars en kunstwerken, 1583–1639 (The Hague, 1928), 59–60, 63, 66. These paintings are notlisted in De Backere’s estate inventory, drawn up in 1678 a few years after his death, although a work by
Lucas van Leyden and four by Aertge van Leyden are (Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives, notary
P.C. van Scharpenbrant, inv. 1280, deed 183).

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 25 of 29

50. This is the portrait of Johan Wittert van der Aa in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (Ronni Baer, “The
Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” [Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990], no. A45). The identification
is based on the provenance of the painting, which remained in the family until 1808. The identification is
doubted, however, because it was auctioned without a pendant in that year. But in his will of 1667
(Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives, notary. A. Raven, inv. 780, deed 98, 8 January 1667), Wittert
mentions his own portrait separately from the other portraits, precisely because his was by Dou; a pendantof his wife, Ida Popta, by Dou thus did not exist per se. The double portrait of Johan Wittert and his wife by
Dou and Nicolaes Berchem (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou(1613–1675),” [Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990], no. A38) are also not mentioned in the will.
51. E.B.F.F. Wittert van Hoogland, Geschiedenis van het geslacht Wittert (Wittert van Hoogland en
Emiclaer, Wittert van Valkenburg, Wittert van Bloemendael, Wittert van der Aa) met de daaruit invrouwelĳke lĳn gesproten familiën, 2 vols. (The Hague, 1914).
52. Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990), nos.
A62, A67.
53. The “kaarslicht” (candlelight) picture was listed in an extensive inventory of the collection of 1659. See
A. Berger, “Inventar der Kunstsammlung des Erzhertogs Leopold Wilhelm von Östereich,” Jahrbuch der
Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses ,vol. 1 (1883): 79–177. According to alater annotation, the “Artsenbezoek” was also part of this shipment. See Eduard Ritter von Engerth,
Kunsthistorische Sammlungen des allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, Gemälde: Bescheibendes Verzeichnis ,vol. 2 (Vienna, 1884).
54. For Teniers and the Republic, see Hans Vlieghe, David Teniers the Younger (1610–1690): A
Biography (Turnhout, 2011), 46.
55. Esmond Samuel de Beer, ed., Diary of John Evelyn, vol. 3: Kalendarium 1650–72 (Oxford, 1955), 262.
56. Anne-Marie S. Logan, The ‘cabinet’ of the brothers Gerard and Jan Reynst (Amsterdam, 1979), 83–84
n. 96. Compare Eric Jan Sluijter, Leidse fijnschilders: van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge
1630–1760 (Zwolle, 1988), 36–37.
57. Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990).
58. “S’meenschen gheest schier hoogher als de starren [voeren].” Cornelis de Bie,Het gulden cabinet van
de edel vry schilderconst (Antwerp, 1661; reprint, Soest, 1971), 277.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 26 of 29

59. “De voortreffelijke Leidse schilder.” On Borch’s visit, see K. Madsen, “Une visite chez Dou et une note
sur Rembrandt,” Bulletin uitgegeven door den Nederlandschen Oudheidkundigen Bond 8 (1907): 228–30.
For the original Latin text, see Olai Borrichii, Olai Borrichii Itinerarium 1660–1665: The Journal of theDanish Polyhistor Ole Borch, 4 vols. (Copenhagen, 1983), 2:228.
60. Dropsical Woman, panel, signed and dated 1663, Musée du Louvre, Paris; Ronni Baer, “The Paintingsof Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990), no. A87.
61. “Een uiterst talentvolle schilder (…) van kleine werken […] ook al was het nogal klein.” The full originalLatin text reads: “Apud Tornflitium præter ipsius varias imagines, vidimus artificia qvædam Dawii(ingeniosissimi hîc pictoris in operibus minutis) inter alia effigiem fratris Dawii 200 florensis æstimatum,
satis qvidem minutam” (At Toorenvliet’s I saw, along with various paintings by himself, also a few pictures
by Dou [an exceptionally talented painter of small works here], including a portrait of the brother of Dou withan estimated value of 200 guilders, even though it was rather small). Olai Borrichii,Olai Borrichii Itinerarium
1660–1665: The Journal of the Danish Polyhistor Ole Borch , 4 vols. (Copenhagen, 1983), 2:135.
Translation based on the Dutch translation of the Latin by Dirk van Miert. Olai Borrichii,Olai Borrichii
Itinerarium 1660–1665: The Journal of the Danish Polyhistor Ole Borch , 4 vols. (Copenhagen, 1983),
1:134–35. For Borch’s portrait from 1661 in Frederiksborg, Denmark, see Jacob van Toorenvliet’s
biography.
62. Abraham Bredius, “17e Eeuwsche reisherinneringen. (Journal des Voyages de Monsieur de Monconys
etc.etc. Paris 1677),” Nederlandsche Kunstbode (1880): 412–15.
63. Wishing to keep Dou’s talent as the local pride of Leiden, Traudenius fervently hoped, and not in vain,that Dou would decline King Charles’s invitation to “Withal.” Arnold Houbraken,De groote schouburgh der
Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (The Hague, 1753) (Facsimile edition, Amsterdam, 1976)
3:33.
64. “Le fameux peyntre Douw, qui nous fit voyr 3 ou 4 belles pieces de son art et de sa mayn.” “Journal
Pieter Teding van Berkhout,” 30 December 1669, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague. Compare A. Frankvan Westrenen, Het schoolschrift van Pieter Teding van Berkhout: vergezicht op het gymnasiaal onderwijs
in de zeventiende-eeuwse Nederlanden (Hilversum, 2007), 38.
65. “Den uytnemenden klein-levend- Schilder […] voor geen van sijne opkwekelingen, die van eenige geest
sijn, verborgen houd/” S. van Leeuwen, Korte besgryving van het Lugdunum Batavorum nu Leyden(Leiden, 1672), 191.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 27 of 29

66. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (The
Hague, 1753) (Facsimile edition, Amsterdam, 1976), 3:5. De Bye’s biography is discussed below in thisessay.
67. Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archive, notary A. Raven, inv. 777, deed 341, 11 September 1665.
Transcripts of this deed are in Theodoor Herman Lunsingh Scheurleer, ed.,Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis
van een Leidse gracht, 10 vols. (Leiden, 1986–92), 3:486, Appendix 1, and Wilhelm Martin,Het leven en
de werken van Gerrit Dou: beschouwd in verband met het schildersleven van zijn tijd (Leiden, 1901),
171–73, Appendix IV. Twenty-seven pictures are mentioned in the notarial deed, but twenty-nine in theadvertisement. See Eric Jan Sluijter, Leidse fijnschilders: van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge
1630–1760 (Zwolle, 1988), 36–37.
68. “Aensienlijkste oudste geslachten van de stad Leyden, sijne voorouders hebben in deselve stad al overde 300 jaeren de waerdigste ambten in de Magistrature becleed, met groten loff ende reputatie, ende met
een oprechten en onbesproken leven.” S. P. Perdijk, “De opkomst der Remonstrantsch-Gereformeerde
Gemeente te Leiden,” Leids Jaarboekje (1915): 25–27. De Bye’s biography is in Cornelis van Alkemadeand Pieter van der Schelling, “Corte beschrijvinghe van de strenge en harde proceduren en vervolgingen
den Remonstrants-gereformeerde Christenen om de sedige oeffeninge hares Godsdiensts wedervarenbinnen de stad Leijden: Sedert de veranderinge vanden Jaren 1618 en 1619 tot den Jare 1675. Opgestelt
uit egte bewijsstukken en aantekeningen van die tijden,” Amsterdam University, Bijzondere Collecties, hs.
III A 9, fol. 216 r and v. Manuscript described in Catalogus der Handschriften VII (Amsterdam, 1923), 48,
no. 346.
69. Derived from the Leiden baptism, marriage, and marriage certificates register. See the lists of governorsof the various Leiden institutions in Jan Orlers, Beschrijvinge der stadt Leyden (Leiden, 1641), passim.
70. Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives, notary D.J. v Vesanevelt, inv. 348, deed 72, 27 January
1639.
71. Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno (The Hague, 1875), 285.
72. Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno (The Hague, 1875), 387.
73. For Willem Meester, see Daniel J. Roorda, “Het leven van Willem Meester,” Spiegel Historiael 16(1981): 614–23. Reprinted in Daniel J. Roorda, Rond prins en patriciaat (Weesp, 1984).

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 28 of 29

74. “Dat hij, Meester, geen werck en sal vermogen aen te nemen als mit voorgaende communicatie ende
expresse bewillegingh van de heer Johan de Bije voornomt […] ter handen [sal] stellen de gerechte helft vanalle de winsten, die ic in eeniger manieren van mijn const off hantwerck (… ) sal comen te ontfangen ofte tegenieten.” See Daniel J. Roorda, “Het leven van Willem Meester,” Spiegel Historiael 16 (1981): 614–23.
Reprinted in Daniel J. Roorda, Rond prins en patriciaat (Weesp, 1984).
75. Gerrit Jan Peltjes, Leidse Lasten: Twee belastingkohieren uit 1674 (Leiden, 1995), 51.
76. All of the information on De Bye and his position in the Leiden Remonstrant community is taken from S.
P. Perdijk, “De opkomst der Remonstrantsch-Gereformeerde Gemeente te Leiden, 23 August 1618 tot 7
Augustus 1679,” Leidsch Jaarboekje 12 (1915), passim.
77. On Sylvius as Van Mieris’s patron, see the essay on Frans van Mieris the Elder in this catalogue.
78. Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives, notary A. den Oosterlingh, inv. 1073a, deed 66, 6 April
1673. For a transcript of the inventory, see Theodoor Herman Lunsingh Scheurleer, ed.,Het Rapenburg:
Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht , 10 vols. (Leiden, 1986–92), 3a:335–42. For discussion of thecollection, see ibid., 282–95; Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘All striving to adore their houses with costly peeces’: Two
Case Studies of Paintings in Wealthy Interiors,” in Art and Home: Dutch Interiors in the Age of Rembrandt(Exh. cat. Denver, Denver Art Museum; Newark, Newark Museum) (Zwolle, 2001), 105–16.
79. His cousin Jean Rouyer inherited this painting. When the Amsterdam Chamber of Insolvent Estates
inventoried his estate in 1678, this painting was described as: “een dito sijnde een vrouwtie dat gekapt
wordt met openslaende deuren daerop een suygende vrouwtie bij de lamp” (a ditto of a woman being
coiffed, with a door opening outward on which is [painted] a woman nursing by candlelight). On this seenote 23.
80. This is the Self-Portrait, panel, 52 x 40 cm, signed and dated 1658, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence; Ronni
Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990), no. A75. Hans
Geisenheimer, “Beiträge zur Geschichte des niederländischen Kunsthandels in der zweiten Hälfte des XVII
Jahrhunderts,” Beiheft zum Jahrbuch der königlich preuszischen Kunstsammlungen, 27 (1911): 58.
81. Hans Geisenheimer, “Beiträge zur Geschichte des niederländischen Kunsthandels in der zweiten Hälfte
des XVII Jahrhunderts,” Beiheft zum Jahrbuch der königlich preuszischen Kunstsammlungen , 27 (1911):
57–58. Guasconi wrote about this portrait to Bassetti: “Ho ritrovato in Leyden un ritratto fatto di se med.mo il
Pittor Dou (…) ma è di grandezza dell’ incluso foglio; egli è vestito da camera con una beretta a togliere e
una pelliccia attorno, stando appoggiato con un gomito, e nell’ altra mano tiene la tavoletta dove sono sopra
i colori e giuntamente i pinelli.” This may be the Self-Portrait of Dou in the Louvre.
© 2017 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Gerrit Dou and his Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 29 of 29

82. On Dou and the prices his works fetched at auction in the eighteenth century, see, for example,
Koenraad Jonckheere, ““When the cabinet from Het Loo was sold”: the auction of William III’s collection ofpaintings, 26 July 1713,” Simiolus 30, no. 2 (2005), 56–116.
83. Eric Jan Sluijter, Leidse fijnschilders: van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge
1630–1760 (Zwolle, 1988), 9; Ronni Baer, Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr., and Annetje Boersma, Gerrit Dou,
1613–1675: Master Painter in the Age of Rembrandt , ed. Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. (Exh. cat. Washington,
National Gallery of Art; London, Dulwich Picture Gallery, The Hague; Royal Cabinet of Paintings,
Mauritshuis) (New Haven, 2000), 12–24.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection