Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age

How To Cite
Bakker, Piet. "Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age." InThe 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

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 2 of 27

The year 1631 marked a turning point for painting in Leiden.[1] An abrupt

Comparative Figuresend came to a period during which, sustained by a favorable economy, thenumber of painters had grown without interruption. This growth began in
all of the cities in the Dutch Republic (fig 1) around 1610 and lasted until
around mid-century in most of them. This was also true in Leiden, although
it ground to a temporary halt in 1631 with the sudden departure of several
painters, ushering in a period of artistic stagnation lasting close to a

Fig 1. Figure 1

decade. By far the best-known painter to leave Leiden was Rembrandt van
Rijn (1606–69) (fig 2), who moved to Amsterdam to run the workshop of
the famous art dealer Hendrik Uylenburgh (ca. 1587–1661). His friend Jan
Lievens (1607–74) (fig 3) headed to London shortly thereafter in the hopeof being appointed a court painter.[2] In that year, Leiden lost even morepainters who today rank among the most important of the seventeenth
century. For instance, the highly successful landscapist Jan van Goyen(1596–1656) traded in his native city for The Hague; and even though thestill-life painter Jan Davidsz de Heem (1606–84) was not born in Leiden,
he had been working there for quite some time when he left to try his luckin Antwerp in 1631.
This exodus cannot be attributed to deteriorating economic circumstances.

Fig 2. Rembrandt van Rijn, SelfPortrait with Shaded Eyes,
RR-110On the contrary, around 1630 the textile industry in Leiden—the mainstayof the local economy well into the eighteenth century—entered a period ofspectacular expansion that would last until the late 1650s.[3] The reasonsfor leaving, thus, would have been personal, motivated by the belief offinding greater success elsewhere; this is certainly true for Rembrandt andLievens. Regardless, this loss of talent was a serious drain on Leiden’sartistic life.[4] By the end of the 1630s, however, the situation changed withthe success of Gerrit Dou (1613–75) (fig 4), whose star would rise rapidly
in Leiden and shine beyond the country’s borders. Dou would found a local
school of painting in Leiden that would extend late into the eighteenth
century—Louis de Moni (1698–1771) was the last important artist—whose“members,” since the nineteenth century, have been known as the “Leidse

Fig 3. Jan Lievens, Self-Portrait,
JL–105fijnschilders” (Leiden fine painters).[5] The term fijnschilder refers to a
specific manner of painting: a highly precise and extremely detailed facture
and a small-scale format. This essay examines their position in the local
art market, as well as the liefhebbers, the “art lovers” or connoisseurs of
their work.[6] It will not, however, focus on the two leading Leiden
fijnschilders Dou and Van Mieris, since they are discussed in separate
essays. The artists considered in this essay are Quiringh van Brekelenkam© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 3 of 27(after 1622–ca. 1669), Jan van Staveren (1613/4–69), Dominicus van Tol(1630/5–76), Peeter Leermans, Jacob Toorenvliet (1640–1719), Pieter
van Slingeland (1640–91), Carel de Moor (1655–1738), the brothers Jan(1660–90) and Willem van Mieris (1662–1747), and Frans van Mieris theYounger (1689–1763), all represented in The Leiden Collection. Before
discussing these fijnschilders, however, it is important to understand thenature of the Leiden painters’ community and the changes it underwent in
the course of the seventeenth century.

The Artistic Climate in Leiden in theSeventeenth Century
Until 1578, painting in Leiden, as elsewhere in the Netherlands, was doneFig 4. Gerrit Dou, Self-Portrait
Holding a Portrait of His Parents
and Brother, ca. 1649, oil on
panel, 27 x 23 cm, Herzog Anton
Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig(see JvS–101)

on commission. With its constant need for altarpieces and other devotional
paintings, the Catholic Church was the most important patron. When after
1578 the Dutch Reformed Church became the official religion in the
Northern Netherlands, demand for devotional paintings virtually stopped,
although altarpieces and devotional pictures continued to be made for“hidden churches.”[7] The Lutherans similarly felt the need to decorate
their churches, from which Joris van Schooten (1587–1651)—himself aLutheran—profited.[8] Artists, however, had to look for new markets. They
found them in part in public institutions on a local and regional level.[9] For
example, in 1594 the Leiden town council engaged Claesz van
Swanenburg (1537–1614) to paint seven monumental allegories for the
Saaihal, which occupied the artist until 1612.[10] Other institutions, too,Fig 5. Gerrit Dou, Portrait of Dirck
van Beresteyn, GD-111

engaged artists. Leiden still boasts six civic guard paintings by Joris van
Schooten and several group portraits of regents by Pieter Leermans,
Mathijs Naiveu (1647–1726), and Carel de Moor, among others.[11]Interestingly, except for Rembrandt and Lievens, the stadholder’s court in
The Hague did not patronize Leiden artists.[12] The fact that the court
never granted Gerrit Dou or Frans van Mieris commissions, despite theirinternational reputation and the interest shown them by foreign rulers, may
relate to the personal preference of Frederick Henry and Amalia van
Solms

for

painters

from

Utrecht,

HaarlemandtheSouthern

Netherlands.[13] Timing, however, was also a factor. Dou and Van Mieris
garnered their great fame during the first Stadholderless period, which

Fig 6. Frans van Mieris, Portraitof a Fifty-Two Year Old Man,
FM-104lasted from 1650 to 1672.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 4 of 27

Leiden painters found their most important new patrons among burghers,
particularly for portraiture (fig 5) and (fig 6). While burghers only rarelycommissioned portraits of themselves before 1600, they did so withincreasing frequency in the seventeenth century. Moreover, portraits wereno longer the sole preserve of the elite. They could be ordered in all
shapes and sizes and for every imaginable price. In Leiden up to thirty
percent of all of the paintings in homes on and nearby the elegant
Rapenburg were portraits.[14]The Anonymous Mass Market and the Call fora Guild
Most Leiden painters pinned their hopes on the free market, which had

Fig 7. Gerrit Dou, Self-Portrait,ca. 1645–46, oil on panel, 12.4 x
8.3 cm, Aetas Aurea Holding SA

become very active since the beginning of the Twelve Year’s Truce in
1609.[15] An important consequence of the suspension of hostilities wasthat the free movement of people and goods between the Northern and theSouthern Netherlands was possible again for the first time since theoutbreak of the revolt. The Truce was a windfall for the art dealers from theSouthern Netherlands, who crossed the border to the Republic in droves
to sell their wares. They not only did so at the various weekly and annual
fairs—the only days on which dealers from elsewhere were officiallyallowed to trade their goods—but also outside of the designated market
days. This trade proved highly lucrative, in part because the dealers could[16]

offer pictures they had brought with them for relatively low prices.

Fig 8. Jan van Stavaren, Esther
Before Ahasuerus, JvS-100

Initially, the painters in the Northern Netherlands fell back on a provenrecipe to protect their interests: protecting local production by prohibiting
imports. Painters in all of the cities of the Republic petitioned their local
governments to protect them from foreign imports. They generally found a
ready ear, and were permitted to amend the guild privileges, mostly
stemming from the Middle Ages, to suit their needs.[17]Fig 9. Table 1

In Leiden the situation was somewhat different from the other Dutch cities.
In 1609 a group of painters presented itself at the town hall to found apainter’s guild. Despite their efforts, the Leiden painters failed to convince
the town council. The burgomasters, however, did prohibit the import ofpaintings for a year. They also promised to prolong the prohibition annuallyshould it prove necessary, which they did until 1617, when a rise in local
demand for paintings made the prohibition unnecessary. By then Leiden© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 5 of 27

artists had also discovered that specialization and/or a cost-reducing
painting technique resulted in higher production and lower prices, whichplaced them in a better position in the market.[18]In 1642 Leiden artists once again sought to found a painter’s guild, thistime to protect local artists from competition from their compatriots. The
painters were enraged that “diversche personen woonachtich in andere
Steden ende Provincien hen onderstaen dagelijcx binnen dese Stadt te
komen met hunne Schilderijen, ende daer mede buijten d’Ordinarisen
jaermarckten, niet alleen voorstaen, maer oock deselfde presenteren by

Fig 10. Table 2

openbaere vendue te vercoopen, ende te gelde te maecken: ende insonderheijt met deselfde door dese Stadt omme-loopen ende vercoopen”(various persons living in other cities and provinces force them [the local
artists] to endure their daily presence with their paintings in this city, andthis in part outside of the official annual fairs, and not only this, theypresent them [the paintings] for public sale to make money; and especiallywander around the city peddling them [their wares]).[19] On 14 April 1642,
the city council forbade non-Leiden painters from selling paintings, prints,
and drawings in Leiden outside of the annual fairs.[20]The request to establish a guild was submitted just two months after theFig 11. Table 3

publication of Lof der Schilderkunst, a speech the painter Philips Angeldelivered at a gathering of colleagues and art lovers in Leiden on 18
October 1641. The desire for a guild was fueled both by the need forprotection and the desire for social status.[21] Angel’s treatise was intended
to demonstrate the relevance and dignity of painting, and the career ofGerrit Dou, Leiden’s leading artist in these years, was his greatest
example. According to Angel, an artist’s status was determined primarily
by the deference wealthy art lovers accorded an artist. A special example
of such homage, one without peer in the Republic, was the astonishingFig 12. Quiringh van
Brekelenkam, Fisherman and His
Wife in an Interior, QB-100

amount of 500 guilders that “the incomparable art lover” Pieter Spiering
paid Dou annually for the right of first refusal for any painting heproduced.[22] That Angel held up Dou’s work to his confreres as an
example worth following is thus entirely understandable.[23]First Pupils, or Followers?
Around 1640 Dou was by far the most successful painter in Leiden. The
price of his work could run as high as a thousand guilders.[24] Even without© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 6 of 27

Angel’s encouragement he would have been a model worth emulating.
That Dou had pupils is certain, but upon reading the recollections of Dou’s
workshop by the painter Joachim Sandrart (1606–88), it is unclear how apupil with average talent could have learned the craft from a teacher who
was so utterly absorbed in his own work.[25] Dou had such high personal
standards when it came to discipline and neatness that one wonders
whether he was qualified to pass on the craft to others. Typifying his
attitude to work was an uncompromising perfectionism. Dou lived for his
art; he was absent from his workshop only when weather conditions
prevented him from working. Moreover, he performed certain tasks himselfthat other colleagues delegated to their pupils. For instance, he preparedFig 13. Gabriel Metsu, Young
Woman Seated in an Interior,
Reading a Letter, GM-103

all of his own paints and ultimately ground the pigments on glass,according to Houbraken. He made his own brushes, and was so afraid of
irregularities in the paint surface from dust that after painting he stored his
palette, brushes and paint in a dust-free cabinet. When he resumed work
the next day, he waited as long as was necessary for the dust to settle,
and only then would he take out his equipment from the cabinet withupmost care and begin to paint. That he was also fearful of dust while
painting emerges from some of his self-portraits, in which can be seen how
he protected himself against it by placing a parasol above his easel (fig 7).
In 1642 Leiden was home to around thirty fine art painters, a number ofFig 14. Jan Steen, Prayer Before
the Meal, JS-116

whom worked in Dou’s technique, among them Jacob van Spreeuwen(1609/10–after 1650), Johan van Staveren (1613/14–69) (fig 8), Pieter
Cornelisz van Egmondt (ca. 1614–64), and Isaac Koedijck (1617/18–ca.
1668). An anonymous, late eighteenth-century Leiden manuscript assertsthat Dou trained Van Spreeuwen (“Discipel van G. Douw” [disciple of G.
Dou]), Van Staveren (“de kunst geleerd bij Gerard Douw, en volgde zijnmanier” [learned the art from Gerrit Dou, and followed his manner]); andKoedijck (“ook [was] uit het school van Gerard Douw” [also [was] from theschool of Gerrit Dou]). The author of this manuscript, who did not mention
Van Egmondt, included Koedijck, Van Staveren and Van Spreeuwen in alist of Dou pupils.[26]Surprisingly, if one is to judge from a study of seventeenth-century Leiden

Fig 15. Pieter van Slingeland,
Portrait of a Man Reading a Book
, PvS-100

estate inventories that contain at least one attributed painting, these Dou
followers do not seem to have been very successful in selling theirpaintings.[27] As seen in Table 1 (fig 9), a total of 3,756 paintings are listed
in these inventories, 1,950 of which carry an attribution. These works were
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 7 of 27

attributed to 465 different artists, 147 of whom were from Leiden or
worked there for some time.[28] Of this first generation of Dou’s students,
only Van Staveren is mentioned often enough in these documents that his
name recurs in Table 2 (fig 10).
Van Spreeuwen is mentioned but 15 times, while Van Egmondt’s nameappears only 7 times. Koedijck’s name is missing entirely; not only inLeiden, but also in Amsterdam, where he probably spent more time
between 1640 and 1652 than in his hometown.[29] However, if one is tojudge by the number of inventories in which works by these painters occur,
their place in the Leiden artistic firmament seems even less significant(see Table 3 (fig 11)).

Fig 16. Jacob
Toorenvliet, Doctor’s Visit,
JT-102For example, the majority of Van Staveren’s paintings belonged to a single
owner who, moreover, was related to him: the clergyman Eduard
Westerneyn, the husband of the painter’s sister Alida van Staveren, who
had lived with her brother until she married in 1636 and was also his soleheir.[30]A cautionary note is nevertheless called for here since, with the exceptionof Van Spreeuwen, most of Dou’s followers practiced a second occupationthat provided an additional source of income. Van Staveren came from aregent family, sat on the town council, and even became a burgomaster.
Koedijck, too, was from a distinguished family, and was called a

Fig 17. Domenicus van Tol, Boywith a Mousetrap by Candlelight,
JT-107“merchant” on several occasions. Van Egmondt was also a merchant, adraper. He initially lived in comfortable circumstances, but went bankrupt
in 1650, at which time he may have begun to paint seriously: he paid his
first contribution to the Guild of Saint Luke only in 1661, just three years
before his death.[31] Thus, with the exception of Van Spreeuwen, painting
was not the main pursuit of the first generation of fijnschilders working inDou’s manner. This craft did not determine their social success or failure.
Nevertheless, the work of these artists probably found greater favor thanwould appear from the inventories. For instance, in the above-mentioned
manuscript, Van Staveren is glossed as follows: “men hier te lande [pleeg]
veele fraaijen stukjes van hem te zien, waar in men zeijde dat zijn meester

Fig 18. Jacob
Toorenvliet, Alchemist, JT-107[ = Dou] de laatste hand zoude gelegd hebben” (one was wont to say thatthey had seen many beautiful pieces by him in this country, to which it wassaid that his master [Dou] had put the finishing touches). However, “[d]e© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 8 of 27

konsthandelaars hebben de meesten en besten (…) al overlang opgekogt
en buijtenlands voor schilderingen van Douw verkogt” (the art dealers had
already long ago bought up the most and best of them […] and sold them
abroad as paintings by Dou). This situation applied to Van Spreeuwen as
well, of whom “[m]en zegt, dat er hier te lande stukjes van hem plegen tezijn, die zeer na by die van zijn meester kwamen, en door handelaars naar
elders gevoerd zijnde, voor die van Douw zouden verkogt zijn” (it is said
that in this country there are pieces that come very close to those by his
master, which having been shipped elsewhere by dealers are apparently
sold as being by Dou).[32] The actions of these art dealers may explain why
few works by these painters are found in the Netherlands. It also seems

Fig 19. Willem van Mieris, Diana,
Goddess of the Hunt, WM-101

plausible that the export of their paintings assumed serious proportions
after Dou’s death in 1675.
Another possible explanation for the dearth of references to these artists in
Leiden inventories is that the attributions of their works were not known.
Then, as now, it would have been difficult for a notary’s clerk to distinguishbetween the work of Van Spreeuwen, for example, and that of other Dou
followers. Their paintings, particularly their genre scenes, may have been
listed as “anonymous.”[33]Adriaen van Gaesbeeck, Abraham de Pape,
and Quiringh van Breklenkam

Fig 20. Jan van
Mieris, Courtesan Counting
Money, JM-101

Towards the end of the 1640s, three more fijnschilders joined the ranks ofthose mentioned above: Adriaen van Gaesbeeck (1621–50), Abraham dePape (ca. 1620–66), and Quiringh van Brekelenkam (ca. 1622–after 1669). As in the case of other fijnschilders, one seeks in vain for their names in
Houbraken’s Schouburgh, although they are similarly noted by the
anonymous eighteenth-century biographer who calls them pupils of Dou.
The author is brief with respect to Van Gaesbeeck, who died young: “Hij is
al mede uit het school van G. Douw, dog blauwer en kouder van coloriet,
gelijk ook wat swaarmoediger” (He, too, is from the school of G. Dou,although with a bluer and colder palette, and somewhat more
somber).[34] The author also deals summarily with De Pape, who “heeft zijn
stukjes zeer uijtvoerig bewerkt in de manier van zijn meester” (whofashioned his pieces very elaborately in the manner of his master).[35] Thisobservation finds confirmation not only in De Pape’s extant work, but in theinventory of his stock.[36] Among the almost 100 paintings in it, there were
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 9 of 27

at least 16 copies of works by Dou. Descriptions of subjects were present,
too, such as “een vroutgen die een haen plockt” (a woman plucking achicken), “een vioolspeelder” (a violin player), “een kleen hermitgen” (asmall hermit), and “een spelde werckster” (a bone lacemaker).
It is noteworthy that De Pape’s stock was also large in scope, which raises
the question of whether he, like Van Staveren, may have had difficulties inselling his paintings. Nevertheless, it is evident that De Pape did not haveto make a living from painting. He had inherited so much real estate thathe could live very comfortably from the rental income. Aside from thetwenty-seven houses he owned and a small fortune in bonds, hepossessed a large library, which indicates that he must have been acultivated individual.[38]The position of Adriaen van Gaesbeeck in Table 2 (fig 10) is also inflated,since forty-three pictures are part of a single estate, that of his father
Cornelis van Gaesbeeck, who was called a deputy bailiff in 1652.[37] Given
that Adriaen died in 1650, it may be assumed yet again that thisrepresents his stock. As Van Gaesbeeck was active as a painter for only
four years, the limited distribution of his work may have been due to thebrevity of his career.
The first fijnschilder to develop a personal style was Quiringh van
Brekelenkam.[39]

Accordingtotheanonymouseighteenth-century

biographer, Van Brekelenkam followed Dou “op eene lugtige manier” (in alight manner).[40] Dou’s influence is evident in Brekelenkam’s work, but
Hofstede de Groot noted correctly that Brekelenkam derived his use ofcolor, compositional structure, and rendering of figures from Gabriel Metsu, his through-views in interiors from Pieter de Hooch, and his chiaroscurofrom Nicolaes Maes.[41] Brekelenkam succeeded in molding all of these
influences into a style that garnered much success in Leiden (fig 12). Hisname is listed next to fifty-five paintings in no fewer than twenty
inventories. It is striking that two individuals owned an exceptional numberof his paintings: the wealthy Catholic merchant Hendrick Bugge van Ring
had eighteen pieces, and the innkeeper Pieter van Grient eleven, possiblyas many as sixteen. [42]Despite this success, Brekelenkam ended his years in poverty. According
to his eighteenth-century “biographer,” Brekelenkam had a large family© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 10 of 27

which required a high production rate to support, “tgeen oorzaak is
geweest dat veele slegte stukjes van hem inde wereld zijn gekomen, diehij maar schielijk afgeroffeld heeft om maar geld in handen te krijgen”(leading him to produce many bad paintings, which he simply dashed off toearn some money). Indeed the prices that he charged for his work were ofa very different order than those commanded by Dou. The value of theassessed paintings in inventories varies from four to sixteen guilders,
prices that do not necessarily imply “dashed off” work, but certainly
indicate that Brekelenkam was not working for the high end of the market.
Brekelenkam probably also suffered from the crisis in the art
market—already felt in other cities for some time—that affected Leiden in
the 1660s. Although he was not the only fijnschilder who faced financial
difficulties, the hardships were particularly acute in his case because his
social background was less elevated than that of, for example, De Pape
and Van Staveren. Brekelenkam’s father was a simple tailor without any
assets.

Years of Flowering and the First Signs of
DeclineIn the 1640s, when the second generation of fijnschilders appeared inLeiden, there were no signs of a crisis in the art market. On the contrary, tojudge from the growing number of active painters, it would have appearedthat the city was on the verge of a period of great flowering. Although thedeparture of Rembrandt, Lievens and other preeminent painters in theearly 1630s did initially lead to artistic stagnation in Leiden, the early
1640s welcomed the portraitist Pieter Dubordieu (1609/10–78), the still-life
painter Pieter de Ring (ca. 1615–60), and the portrait and history painterAbraham van den Tempel (1622/3–72). Not long thereafter, Jan Steen(1626–79) and Gabriel Metsu (1629–67) (fig 13) also became active inLeiden. The local painters’ community would reach its maximum level in
1649 with a total of fifty-four painters.
The gradual rise in the number of painters would ultimately lead to someproblems. As mentioned above, in 1642 the request of the Leiden painters
to found a guild had been denied, but the town council would grant it in
1648. Prior to this date, thirty-one Leiden artists had joined together in
1633 in an informal group that met every two weeks, at which times theyrecorded the sales of their paintings. They also complained about the© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 11 of 27

swelling stream of paintings from elsewhere, which undoubtedly led
the town council to permit the painters’ community to found a guild. Yet it
never became a guild in the real sense of the word.[44] While the painters
annually elected to the board called themselves “deken” (dean) or“hoofdman” (headman), in the eyes of the burgomasters they were simply“opzienders” (supervisors), charged with regulating the painting trade.
Considerable quantities of paintings had been imported to Leiden for along time, as is indicated by the large share of non-Leiden painters
represented in the 258 Leiden estate inventories. Almost 49 percent of the3,756 attributed paintings were works by non-Leiden artists. Many of theseimported paintings came from Haarlem: of the 1,806 non-Leiden
attributions,

693

(more

than

38

percent)

haveaHaarlemprovenance.[45] This situation became acute in the early 1640s because of
the marked rise in the number of artists in Leiden, who started saturating
the market. A number of these artists had moved to Leiden from other
cities. For example, three painters from Delft settled in Leiden in the1640s, and no less than nine in the 1650s, including in 1655 Hendrick van
der Burgh (1627–88), the brother-in-law of Pieter de Hooch, and Barent
Fabritius (1624–73), whose brother Carel had died in the disastrous
gunpowder magazine explosion in Delft. Jan Steen, who had left Leiden
earlier in 1649, also returned from Delft in 1657, although he only stayed inLeiden for a short period of time.
It seems as though in 1642 painters did not realize that the arrival of evermore new colleagues would overwhelm the Leiden market. Although theactual decline set in only in the 1670s, when the Leiden textile industry had
passed its peak, the first signs were visible already in the 1650s, whenmore painters left the city than arrived there from elsewhere. Gabriel
Metsu was also among those who left Leiden in the 1650s. Around 1655
he found his way to Amsterdam, where the demand for paintings—judging
from the number of painters—would stagnate only in the 1660s.[46] Jan
Steen left Leiden, once again, in 1660 and settled in Haarlem (fig 14). The
painters who had earlier come from Delft, Van der Burgh and Fabritius, left
for Amsterdam that same year, as did Abraham van den Tempel(1622/3–72). Moreover, the profession began to lose some of its appeal to
the young local talent: the number of Leiden-born painters who establisheda workshop in the 1650s was significantly lower than in the preceding
decade, a trend that persisted in the following decades.[47]© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 12 of 27

Gerrit Dou and Frans van Mieris had no need or desire to leave Leiden.
They did not work for the open market but for a select group of art lovers
who, even when they did not live in Leiden, knew how to find their way totheir workshops. Leiden was not the only city where the diminishing
demandfornewpaintings

would

seriously

affectemployment

opportunities: ultimately, not a single city would escape the decline.

Pieter Cornelisz van Slingelandt, Jacob
Toorenvliet, and Dominicus van Tol
Pieter Cornelisz van Slingelandt (1640–91), like Frans van Mieris, belongs
to the generation of Leiden fijnschilders who embarked on their careers
between around 1655 and 1665. Like Van Mieris, Van Slingelandt was apupil of Dou; the city chronicler, Simon van Leeuwen, held them both inhigh regard: in 1672 he noted “dat sy haar Meester gelijk werden, ende
waar het mogelijk, te boven sullen gaan” (that they are equal to theirmaster, and may possibly go on to surpass him).[48] He had achieved fameas early as 1663, when the French traveler Balthasar de Monconys
mentioned Van Slingelandt, only just then active as an independent
painter, together with Dou and Van Mieris, creating the impression that heviewed them as equals. Slingelandt’s refined painting style is evident in his
small-scale Portrait of a Man Reading a Book (fig 15), now in The Leiden
Collection. It is thus not so surprising that along with paintings by Dou andVan Mieris, Cosimo de’ Medici also owned work by Van Slingelandt, eventhough no visit to his workshop is documented.[49]Van Leeuwen commented on the prices that Van Slingelandt charged forhis work. When De Monconys offered the painter “60 escus” for a small
painting, the painter demanded 400 guilders for it. Five years later, in
1668, his prices were even more exorbitant, as he charged 1500 guilders
for a portrait.[50] We associate these kinds of prices only with Dou and Van
Mieris. Like them, he based his prices in part on the number of hours that
he worked, which could add up. Regarding the above mentioned portrait,
Houbraken noted that “hy een maand of zes weken heeft zitten schilderen
over een Bef met kant” (he spent a month or six weeks painting a lacejabot).[51]All of this augured well for a successful career, yet in the end Van
Slingelandt did not attain the same fame that Dou and Van Mieris enjoyed© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 13 of 27

both in and outside of the Dutch Republic. Financially, too, his career left
much to be desired.[52] A contributing factor to his financial difficulties
surely was “zyne tydslytende wyze van schilderen” (his time-consuming
manner of painting), which kept production low.
Leiden estate inventories list only three owners of his paintings, with a totalof seven works. Four of the paintings belonged to a single owner, theMennonite cloth merchant Cornelis van Houck, who, at his death in 1684,
possessed two portraits and “twee ebbehoute kasjes” (two ebony cases)
by Van Slingelandt.[54] The artist’s relationship with the cloth merchantmust have been special, because Van Houck stood surety for him in a
protracted legal battle over a portrait.[55] In the wealthy Van Houck, Van
Slingelandt may have hoped to find a benefactor comparable to De Bye(for Dou), but four paintings—no matter how expensive—are too few tojustify such a conclusion. That estate inventories, however, do not convey
every detail about the distribution of his work is evident from the fact that a
few dozen portraits are attributed to the artist, indicating that he did notlack for work.[56]Two of Van Slingelandt’s contemporaries, the slightly older Dominicus vanTol (ca. 1635–76), and Jacob Toorenvliet (1640–1719), who also hadstudied under Dou, had less artistic success. Toorenvliet did not join the
Guild of Saint Luke, probably because he worked in the workshop of his
father Abraham Toorenvliet, the well-known glass painter. He would leave
Leiden, not in 1670 as has always been assumed, but much earlier, in or
shortly after 1662; and not for Rome (although he would visit the Eternal
City) but Vienna (fig 16).[57] What exactly prompted him to do so is hard togauge. He set off for Vienna not long after a few pictures by Van Mieris
and Dou entered the imperial collection, and perhaps thought that as apupil of Dou he stood a good chance of finding an appointment at or close
to the court.[58] His hopes do not seem to have materialized; however,much is still unknown about Toorenvliet’s Vienna period.
Upon completing his training Van Tol, who was Dou’s nephew, may haveworked for some time as his uncle’s assistant, for he joined the Guild ofSaint Luke only in 1664, thus at a relatively advanced age. The earliest
mention of a painting by him, “een nachtje” (a nocturnal scene), occurs in
the 1665 estate inventory of the wine merchant Joris van der Lip.[59] One
such night scene is in The Leiden Collection: Boy with a Mousetrap by© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 14 of 27

Candlelight (fig 17). According to the anonymous eighteenth-century
biographer, of all of the fijnschilders, Van Tol “’t allernaast bij zijn ooms
manier gekoomen en heeft zig daar bij gehouden” (most closely
approximated his uncle’s manner and stuck with it).[60] His public—the
middle range of the market—was entirely different however. Interest in his
work seems to have been limited. His move to Utrecht in 1669 appears tohave been dictated by a lack of success. His situation did not improvewhen he reestablished himself again in Leiden in 1675. In fact, hecontinued to be dogged by debt, and when he died in 1676, his widow had
to hand over his estate to his creditors.
Van Tol was not the only Leiden fijnschilder to feel the pinch in selling his
work in the 1660s. Johannes van Swieten, whose pictures appear only in
his own estate inventory, also experienced this difficulty in selling his
works. Fortunately for him, his family was well off and he could switch to adifferent occupation. As of 1657 he is mentioned in the archives only as acloth merchant. Ary de Vois—the only fijnschilder not trained in Leiden to
be discussed here—could not ward off adversity after a promising startwhen he first settled in Leiden in 1653. Only eighteen of his paintings arefound in six estate inventories, two of which were those of his colleagues
Abraham Toorenvliet and Johannes van Swieten, who owned five and twoof his paintings respectively.[61] From other archival documents, De Vois
appears to have regularly stood surety for others who borrowed large
amounts. De Vois’ situation seems to have changed after 1673, when hedivested some property, including fifty paintings, to settle a debt to his
brother.[62] From then on all of the documents relating to him concern
financial problems.

The Decline Persists
The misfortunes encountered by painters such as Van Tol, Van Swieten,
and perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent by Van Slingelandt and De Vois,
were caused by a number of factors that affected the entire Dutch art
market in the 1670s (Table 1 (fig 9)). The market for new paintings had
simply become saturated, and there was ever less space for them on thewalls of homes. The durability of works of art was also in part why painterswere progressively troubled by the secondary market. Rather thanpaintings being distributed among heirs, probate estates came to be
auctioned with increasing frequency, which meant that the supply of© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 15 of 27

second-hand paintings rose proportionally. Bankruptcies, too, generated a
growing supply of second-hand work and, given that this financial
instability intensified in times of war, the supply around 1672 wasenormous. Moreover, the shrinking economy reduced purchasing power, adevelopment with disastrous consequences for the lower range of themarket. When the economy collapsed in the Year of Disaster, the art
market followed suit; it never recovered, except for the highest range, theone in which Dou and Van Mieris were active in Leiden.[63]Other contributing factors to this recession were new developments ininterior design.[64] Particularly influential were the refinements in thehouses of the elite, the only group to remain unaffected by the shrinking
economy; in fact, fortunes in this group only multiplied.[65] Many wealthy
individuals retired from business life or assumed full-time board positions.
With increasing frequency, meetings were held in private homes, andmaking a good appearance became paramount. There was ever more tochoose from to display wealth and status. Paintings had to vie for a placeon the wall with other decorative objects, such as tapestries and gilt
leather hangings, or luxury colonial wares such as porcelain and lacquerware.[66] Furthermore, painting experienced increasing competition fromother types of painted work such as painted wall hangings, which became
increasingly fashionable after 1660. Fixed paintings also appeared more
often above doors and mantelpieces, and on ceilings.[67] The growing
demand for ceiling paintings and for painted ornamental decorations
signaled the radically changing role of the fine art painter in interior display.
Just as earlier growth had followed an independent pattern in every city,
so too did the period of decline. The turning point was first reached in Delft(see cities in Table 1 (fig 9)), which already took place in the early 1640s,
thus well before the city witnessed the achievements of Johannes Vermeer(1632–75), Pieter de Hooch (1629–84), and Carel Fabritius (1622–54). In
Leiden, this point was reached more than a decade later, around 1660.
Between 1648, the year in which the Guild of Saint Luke was founded, and1655, the number of painters hovered around fifty. In the next ten years
there were always around forty painters active in Leiden, but this number
only diminished thereafter, from thirty-nine in 1665 to eighteen in 1682 andaround ten in the 1690s.
As can be seen in Table 1, the decline was not equally dramatic© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 16 of 27

everywhere, but it was, nonetheless, definitive. The good times were gone
once and for all after 1660, and fallout was inevitable. Several fine art
painters switched to other professions. Others developed from specialists
into generalists in hopes of attracting a broader public, or turned todecorating the houses of the wealthy. One such artist was Jan Mortel(1652–1719) who, according to the anonymous eighteenth-century
biographer, began painting portraits in Leiden in 1672, but soon stopped inorder “bloemen en fruijtstukken te maken, het zij voor schoorstenen oftheetafels en al waar geld mede te winnen was” (to paint flower and fruit
pieces, whether for overmantles or tea-tables, and anything that would
make money).[68] It is hardly surprising that in the last quarter of the
century a boy would think twice about becoming a painter. More and moreworkshops stood empty because painters had either left the city or had
died and their studios were no longer taken over by a new generation.
Table 2 (fig 10) would seem to indicate that the fijnschilders as a groupwithstood the crisis fairly well, yet, as has been seen, the crisis had aserious financial impact on many fijnschilders. Not spared were membersof the last generation of fijnschilders who, with the exception of Abraham
Snaphaen (1651–91) and Jacob van der Sluijs (1660–1732), had trained
under Dou or Van Mieris. Mathijs Naiveu (1647–1726), Bartholomeus
Maton (1641/5–after 1693) and Abraham Snaphaen, who began working
as independent masters in 1670, all left Leiden around 1680 and moved to
Amsterdam, Stockholm and Dessau, respectively. Jacob van der Sluijs
followed suit a year later. He moved to Amsterdam to complete his training
under Jacob van Toorenvliet, who had just returned to the Republic after
spending close to twenty years abroad (fig 18). Both artists moved to
Leiden in the 1680s, where they struggled financially. Van der Sluijs
supplemented his income by working as a bailiff.
In contrast, two other Leiden fijnschilders, Carel de Moor (1655–1738) andWillem van Mieris (1662–1747) (fig 19), did find success in the lastquarter of the seventeenth century and thereafter.[69] Like his father,
Willem van Mieris became a famous painter who commanded steep prices
for his work and enjoyed privileged patronage, including that of several
foreign princes. His most important benefactor was the fabulously wealthy
Leiden cloth manufacturer Pieter de la Court van der Voort (1664–1739),
who granted him numerous commissions, chiefly after 1700. Willem’s
brother Jan van Mieris (1660–90) also benefited initially from the© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 17 of 27

patronage of the De la Court family (fig 20), but in 1688 he decided toseek his fortune in Italy, where he died in 1690. Carel de Moor, who
studied with both Dou and Frans van Mieris, rapidly developed into afamous artist whose reputation extended well beyond Leiden.[70] Much like
Willem van Mieris, De Moor was not dependent on the free market. He had
wealthy patrons and amassed a vast fortune primarily painting portraits.
The Leiden elite eagerly frequented his workshop and could easily afford
the high prices he charged.

Conclusion: The Leiden Fijnschilders in
Perspective
In examining the Leiden fijnschilders and their position in the local
painters’ community, it is useful to review the situation in Delft. Montias, inhis book about the artistic character of Delft, touched on the concept of a“painters’ school.”[71] According to him, a local “painters’ school” could
develop only when the community was large enough. The interaction
between the artists would then be sufficient to give rise to a “painters’
school” with typical artistic features associated with the city. Montias did
not indicate the size of this “critical mass,” although in Delft—where such aschool had arisen around Vermeer, De Hooch, and Fabritius circa
1650—the number of active artists was about thirty-five.
At first sight the situation in Leiden seems comparable to that in Delft. Bothcities accommodated a school of painting with a recognizable individual
character, which arose in a painters’ community large enough to sustain it.
Yet there are also differences. The Delft school lasted only a few years,
while the Leiden school endured far into the eighteenth century. Montias
explained the Delft school’s brief life as being due to the rapid decline in
the number of painters, which soon dropped below the critical mass. Given
how long the Leiden school held out, one might assume that the criticalmass in Leiden remained constant all these years, and yet as
demonstrated in Table 2 (fig 10) this was definitely not the case.
Upon further consideration, the situations in these two cities have muchless in common than initially would seem to be the case. The Leiden
school of painting was not, as in Delft, the result of mutual interaction andreciprocal influences, but chiefly the work of two brilliant painters, Gerrit
Dou and Frans van Mieris, teacher and pupil, in which the pupil (Van
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 18 of 27

Mieris), after first working in the style of his teacher and then deriving
inspiration from painters from elsewhere, developed his own style. Gerrit
Dou was its bedrock. After Rembrandt’s departure in the early 1630s, heindependently developed the smooth and detailed manner of painting
about which Angel waxed so lyrical in his address of 1641. Some took
Angel’s advice to heart and followed Dou’s style, sometimes so literallythat their work can hardly be distinguished from that of their model. This
desire to emulate Dou’s manner proved to be a windfall for art dealers
who, according to the anonymous eighteenth-century biographer, boughtup the best pieces and sold them abroad as originals by Dou.
The financial success of Dou’s followers fell far short of that of theirmaster. Many of them had no need for such success per se, as they also
plied another trade, particularly painters of the first two generations.
Brekelenkam was the first pupil of Dou to set his own artistic course, adecision that, judging from the dissemination of his work, did him no harm.
Nevertheless, even he proved to be helpless in the face of the crisis in theart market that began to manifest itself seriously in Leiden as of the 1660s.
The same fate awaited most of Dou’s followers; not even Van Slingelandt
could live up to the high financial expectations. Except for Dou and Frans
van Mieris, commercial success was granted to only two painters of thelast generation: Willem van Mieris and Carel de Moor.
The success enjoyed by Willem van Mieris did not come of its own accord.
Cloth merchant Pieter de la Court van der Voort’s patronage was
doubtless dictated by the artist’s own work, but his ability to copy the workof Dou and his father had been equally important. Van Mieris did this soskillfully that most of the copies cannot be distinguished from the originals,
and De la Court had no qualms about including them in his collection as
such. There is a similar anecdote about De Moor. In 1773, the well-known
Leiden collector Johan Aegzn van der Marck owned no fewer than elevenworks by the artist. Regarding the finest painting of “een Juffertje die een
brief gelezen hebbende in de hand heeft, en een oude koppelaarster, diehaar dezelve gebragt heft” (a young lady reading a letter, and an old
procuress, who brought it to her), the eighteenth-century biography notedthat it “… bij alle kenners [is] gehouden voor’t alderbeste kabinetstukje dat
hij ooit gepenseeld heeft, zijnde in’t Juffertje veel van de oude Frans van
Mieris, en in’t oude vrouwtje van Gerard Douw die, (….), beide zijn
meesters geweest zijn” (… is considered by all connoisseurs as the very
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 19 of 27

best cabinet picture that he ever painted, with much of the old Frans van
Mieris evident in the young lady, and of Gerrit Dou in the old woman, […]both of whom had been his masters). These two stories illustrate that eventhe most accomplished and successful Leiden fijnschilders after Dou andVan Mieris never managed to emerge fully from the shadows of theirillustrious predecessors.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 20 of 27

Endnotes
1. I would like to thank Willemijn Fock for allowing me to consult the hundreds of copies and transcriptionsof the Leiden estate inventories that she has collected in the course of the years for the interdisciplinary
research on the Rapenburg in Leiden.
1. For a more general survey of painting in Leiden in the 17th century, see Christiaan Vogelaar, “Schilderen
en bouwen voor burgers en stad,” in Simon Groenveld (ed.)Leiden. De geschiedenis van een Hollandsestad, II (Leiden, 2003), 148–171.
2. See the biographies of Rembrandt and Jan Lievens in this catalogue.
3. Jan de Vries and Ad van der Woude, Nederland 1500–1800. De eerste ronde van moderne
economische groei (Amsterdam, 1995), 333–343. See Boudien de Vries, Jan Lucassen, Piet Lourens andHarm Nijboer, “Het economisch leven: spectaculair succes en diep verval,” in Simon Groenveld (ed.),Leiden. De geschiedenis van een Hollandse stad, II, 1574–1795 (Leiden, 2003), 84–107.
4. This loss was compounded a year later when the highly successful marine painter Jan Porcellis (ca.
1585–1632) died in Zoeterwoude, near Leiden.
5. For a survey of the Leiden fijnschilders, see Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘Schilders van ‘cleyne, subtile endecurieuse dingen.’ Leidse fijnschilders in contemporaine bronnen,” in Eric Jan Sluijter (et al.), Klein maar fijn.
De Leidse fijnschilders van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge: 1630–1770 (Exh. cat. Stedelijk
Museum De Lakenhal) (Leiden, 1988), 15–55.
6. The question of who were their clients is not new; it has been posed frequently, and in the meantime haseven been the subject of a modest historiography. See: Eric Jan Sluijter (et al.), “‘Schilders van ‘cleyne,
subtile ende curieuse dingen.’ Leidse fijnschilders in contemporaine bronnen,” in Eric Jan Sluijter,Klein
maar fijn. De Leidse fijnschilders van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge: 1630–1770 (Exh. cat.
Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal) (Leiden, 1988), 36–46. For important Leiden collections, see also
Theodoor Herman Lunsingh Scheurleer (et al.), Het Rapenburg. Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht , 7
vols. (Leiden, 1986–92), passim.
7. Xander van Eck, Clandestine Splendor. Paintings for the Catholic Church in the Dutch Republic (Zwolle,2008). For commissions extended by the Catholic Church, see the biographies of Pieter de Grebber andAbraham Bloemaert in this catalogue.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 21 of 27

8. Lili Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford and J. Happee, Beeld en Gelijkenis. Schilderingen in een Schuilkerk.
De geschilderde panelen in de Evangelisch—Lutherse Kerk te Leiden (Leiden, 1980).
9. Martin Jan Bok and Gary Schwartz, “Schilderen in opdracht in Holland in de 17e eeuw,” Oud Holland 23(1991): 189.
10. Rudolf Ekkart, Isaac Claesz. van Swanenburg 1537–1614. Leids schilder en burgemeester (Zwolle,
1998).
11. All of these works are presently the property of the Stedelijke Museum De Lakenhal. See M.L. Wurfbain,
Catalogus van de schilderijen en tekeningen. Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal—Leiden (Leiden, 1983).
12. Peter van der Ploeg and Carola Vermeeren, Vorstelijk Verzameld. De kunstcollectie van Frederik
Hendrik en Amalia (Exh. cat. Mauritshuis, The Hague) (Zwolle, 1997); *Princely Patrons: The Collection ofFrederick Henry of Orange and Amalia of Solms; Koenraad Jonckheere, The Auction of King William’s
Paintings 1713 (Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2008).
13. Peter van de Ploeg and Carola Vermeeren, “‘Uijt de penningen van de zeeprinsen ’. De stadhouderlijke
schilderijenverzamerling,” *“From the ‘Sea Princes’ Monies’: The Stadholder’s Art Collection,” in Peter van
der Ploeg and Carola Vermeeren, Vorstelijk Verzameld. De kunstcollectie van Frederik Hendrik en Amalia(Exh. cat. Mauritshuis, The Hague) (Zwolle, 1997), 34–60, esp. 55–58. See the biographies of Rubens, De
Grebber, Bloemaert, Ter Brugghen, Rembrandt, Lievens, and Flinck in this catalogue.
14. According to an estimate by Marten Jan Bok and Gary Schwartz, portraits constituted around one
quarter of the total production of paintings in the seventeenth century. See Martin Jan Bok and Gary
Schwartz, “Schilderen in opdracht in Holland in de 17e eeuw,” Oud Holland 23 (1991): 183–195.
15. Martin Jan Bok, Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt, 1580–1700 (PhD. diss. Utrecht
University, 1994), 97–130.
16. Eric Jan Sluijter, “Over Brabantse vodden, economische concurrentie, artistieke wedijver en de groei
van de markt,” in Reindert Falkenburg (et al.), Kunst voor de markt 1500–1700. Nederlands
Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek (1999), 113–143.
17. G.J. Hoogewerff, De geschiedenis van de St. Lucasgilden in Nederland (Amsterdam 1947), passim.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 22 of 27

18. A good Leiden example is Jan van Goyen, who with his monochromatic landscapes not only renewed
the genre, but also introduced a novel, timesaving technique. This innovation increased his productivity
substantially, allowing him to offer his generally high quality work for a relatively low price. A successful
strategy, as emerges from countless mentions of his work in estate inventories in Leiden and elsewhere,
and the many painters who followed him. John Michael Montias, “The influence of economic factors onstyle,” De Zeventiende Eeuw 6 (1990), 49–57; Eric Jan Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider, virtuoos
en vernieuwer,” in Christiaan Vogelaar (ed.), Jan van Goyen (Exh. cat. Leiden, Stedelijk Museum De
Lakenhal) (Zwolle, 1996), 38–59.
19. Regionaal Archief Leiden (from now on: RAL) GA 849 vol. 1 Deecken ende Hooftmansboeck van ’t
Gilde van St Luijcas Ordre beginnende anno 1648, fols. 3–5. Published in Abraham Bredius and Wilhelm
Martin, “Nieuwe bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van het Leidsche St. Lucasgild,” Oud Holland 18 (1904):
123–124.
20. Auctioning pictures in public was prohibited, with the exception of those in the estate of someone who
had died, or the stock of painters and dealers who had died in Leiden or closed down their business. The
town council also appointed three supervisors to ensure that the rules were strictly followed. Godefridus
Joannes Hoogewerff, De geschiedenis van de St. Lucasgilden in Nederland (Amsterdam 1947) 177–178;
Eric Jan Sluijter (et al.), “‘Schilders van ‘cleyne, subtile ende curieuse dingen.’ Leidse fijnschilders incontemporaine bronnen,” in Eric Jan Sluijter et al., Leidse fijnschilders: Van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van
Mieris de Jonge, 1630–1760 (Exh. cat. Zwolle: Uitgeverij) (Waanders, 1988), 29–31; Klein maar fijn. De
Leidse fijnschilders van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge: 1630–1770 (Exh. cat. Stedelijk Museum
De Lakenhal) (Leiden, 1988), 29–31; (Miedema, 1989), 189–91.
21. Hessel Miedema, “Kunstschilders, gilde en academie: over het probleem van emancipatie van de
kunstschilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden van de 16de en 17de eeuw,” Oud Holland 101 (1987): 1–34.
22. For Pieter Spiering, see the essay on Dou in this catalogue.
23. See Eric Jan Sluijter, De lof der schilderkunst. Over schilderijen van Gerrit Dou (1613–1675) en een
tractaat van Philips Angel uit 1642 (Hilversum, 1993).
24. See the essay on Dou in this catalogue.
25. Rudolf Arthur Peltzer, Joachim von Sandrarts Academie der Bau-, Bild-, und Mahlerey Künste von1675 (Munich, 1925), 195. See the essay on Dou in this catalogue.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 23 of 27

26. Van Egmondt is missing in this “survey”. See Fred. G. Meijer, “Pieter Cornelisz van Egmondt, een
kennismaking,” Oud Holland 104 (1990), 256–269. On the anonymous manuscript, see RAL, Bibliotheek
Leiden en omgeving, LB 254, port. 41a, Lijste van schilders, die binnen de Stad Leyden gebooren zijn, offaldaar gewoond en de kunst geoeffend hebben , (anonymous, unpag.). Although the author of themanuscript creates the impression of being well informed, there is no supporting evidence that these artists,
who were practically Dou’s contemporaries, trained with Dou. Van Spreeuwen, for example, lived a mere
hundred meters away from Rembrandt, and like Dou and Isaac Jouderville (ca. 1612–45/8), may havestudied with that master.
27. Several thousand inventories spanning the seventeenth century are preserved in the Regionaal Archief
Leiden (RAL) in the archives of the Weeskamer (WK), the Notarieel Archief (NA), and a number of familyarchives. Cornelia Willemijn Fock and her students systematically combed through the various protocols forthe seventeenth century. A total of 258 inventories were collected with names of painters, among whichwere the 120 documents (the ones with the most interesting collections) used for the research on thepossession of paintings in Leiden for the Rapenburg project. See Cornelia Willemijn Fock,“Schilderijenbezit in Leiden in de zeventiende eeuw,” in Lunsingh Scheurleer (et al.) 1990, V, pp. 1–36.
Attributed paintings occur chiefly in the estates of wealthy burghers. See John Michael Montias,Artists andArtisans in Delft. A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth-Century (Princeton 1982) 222. The 120
inventories from the period 1600–99 for the Rapenburg project counted a total of 2,130 attributions. That is
approximately 60 percent of the 3,756 in the new selection, which with 258 documents is more than twiceas large.
28. Notaries recorded attributions only regularly as of the 1630s. This gradually came to an end after 1670,
and was rarely done anymore in the 1680s and 1690s. The same applies to describing the depictions. As of
the 1680s, notaries increasingly mention just the number of paintings. Only portraits are then still
distinguished.
29. Koedijck may have been primarily an art dealer (he is called a “koopman” [merchant] on several
occasions), as is suggested by his continual shuttling back and forth between Leiden and Amsterdam.
30. Van Staveren, who died in 1669, five years before an inventory of Westerneyn’s estate was drawn up,
had bequeathed the paintings from his studio to Alida. Thus, the large number of paintings in this inventory
point to the fact that Van Staveren lacked success as an artist. RAL, NA not. J. van der Stoffe, inv. 1192,
deed 34. An (incomplete) transcription of the holding of paintings is in Abraham Bredius and Otto
Hirschmann, Urkunden zur Geschichte der Holländischen Kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten
Jahrhunderts (Martinus Nijhoff, 1915–22), 2183–86.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 24 of 27

31. The guild’s records, however, note that: “d’voornoemde Egmont voor veele jaren een schilder geweestis” (the above-mentioned Egmondt had been a painter for many years). RAL, GA, inv. 849, Deeken ende
Hooft-Mans Boeck, fol. 139.
32. See Rudolf Arthur Peltzer, Joachim von Sandrarts Academie der Bau-, Bild-, und Mahlerey Künste von1675 (Munich, 1925), 195. See the essay on Dou in this catalogue.
33. Until the 1630s the percentage of genre paintings in relationship to the total ownership of paintings inLeiden and Delft is about the same, fluctuating between 1 and 4.5 percent. The situation in Leiden changed
subsequently. The percentage of genre paintings there rises strongly from 6.4 percent in the 1630s to 17.4
percent in the 1670s. An increase is also visible in Delft for the first time in the 1670s, although it remained
limited to 7.4 percent. Cornelia Willemijn Fock, “Schilderijenbezit in Leiden in de zeventiende eeuw,” inLunsingh Scheurleer (et al.) 1990, V, 19; John Michael Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft. A SocioEconomic Study of the Seventeenth-Century (Princeton, 1982), 242.
34. RAL, Bibliotheek Leiden en omgeving, LB 254, port. 41a, Lijste van schilders, die binnen de Stad
Leyden gebooren zijn, off aldaar gewoond en de kunst geoeffend hebben, (anonymous, unpag.).
35. RAL, Bibliotheek Leiden en omgeving, LB 254, port. 41a, Lijste van schilders, die binnen de Stad
Leyden gebooren zijn, off aldaar gewoond en de kunst geoeffend hebben, (anonymous, unpag.).
36. RAL, NA not. S. van Swanenburgh, inv. 611, deed 118. For an (incomplete) transcription of theinventory, see AAbraham Bredius and Otto Hirschmann, Urkunden zur Geschichte der Holländischen
Kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts (Martinus Nijhoff, 1915–22), 1858–61. Cf. Eric Jan
Sluijter (et al.), “‘Schilders van ‘cleyne, subtile ende curieuse dingen.’ Leidse fijnschilders in contemporaine
bronnen,” in Eric Jan Sluijter, Klein maar fijn. De Leidse fijnschilders van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris
de Jonge: 1630–1770 (Exh. cat. Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal) (Leiden, 1988), 196.
37. RAL, NA not. S. van Swanenburgh, inv. 611, deed 118. For an (incomplete) transcription of theinventory, see Abraham Bredius and Otto Hirschmann, Urkunden zur Geschichte der Holländischen Kunst
des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts (Martinus Nijhoff, 1915-1922) 1858–61. Cf. Eric Jan Sluijter(et al.), “‘Schilders van ‘cleyne, subtile ende curieuse dingen.’ Leidse fijnschilders in contemporaine
bronnen,” in Eric Jan Sluijter, Klein maar fijn. De Leidse fijnschilders van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris
de Jonge: 1630–1770 (Exh. cat. Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal) (Leiden, 1988), 196.
38. RAL, NA not. A. Raven, inv. 758, fol.188, 23 May 1652.
39. See the biography of Quiringh van Brekelenkam in this catalogue.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 25 of 27

40. The quote is taken from Angelika Lasius, Quiringh van Brekelenkam (Doornspijk, 1992) 11.
41. Cornelis Hofstede de Groot, Holländische Maler, I, (1907) 465–66. Cf. Angelika Lasius, Quiringh van
Brekelenkam (Doornspijk, 1992), 13.
42. Inventory Pieter de Grient, innkeeper (RAL Weeskamer, WK 1391d, 13 December 1656), and Henric
Bugge van Ring (RAL NA not. L. van Swieten, 1005 [deed 10] 30 March 1667). If De Grient indeed owned
sixteen pictures—his inventory is not quite unequivocal on this point—then the total number of attributions
to Brekelenkam is sixty.
43. See Rudolf Arthur Peltzer, Joachim von Sandrarts Academie der Bau-, Bild-, und Mahlerey Künste von1675 (Munich, 1925), 195. See the essay on Dou in this catalogue.
44. This was different for the house painters. After initially functioning as a side car in the guild, as thecentury progressed they increasingly gained power and pressured the guild to meet their own needs. See
Piet Bakker, “Crisis? Welke crisis? Kanttekeningen bij het economisch verval van de schilderkunst in
Leiden na 1660,” De Zeventiende Eeuw 27 (2011).
45. Followed by Amsterdam 242 (13 percent), The Hague 180 (10 percent), Utrecht 89 (5 percent), Delft 86(5 percent), and Rotterdam 85 (5 percent). Attributed to foreign painters (Southern Netherlands, Italy) are
188 (10 percent) paintings. A relatively high number of attributions, 211 (11 percent), could not be
topographically located for a variety of reasons (painters with the same name; unidentifiable names).
46. For the development of the Amsterdam art market in the period 1620–79, see John Michael Montias,“Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam. An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions,” in David
Freedberg and Jan de Vries (ed.), Art in History/History in Art. Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch
Culture (Santa Monica, 1992) 331–72; John Michael Montias, “Works of Art in a Random Sample of
Amsterdam Inventories,” in M. North (ed.), Economics and the Arts (Cologne, 1996), 67–88; John MichaelMontias, “Artists named in Amsterdam Inventories,” Simiolus 31 (2005): 322–47.
47. In 1640s 22 local painters set up a workshop, in the 1650s only 12, and in the 1660s only 9.
48. Simon van Leeuwen, Korte besgryving van het Lugdunum Batavorum nu Leyden (Leiden, 1672),
191–92.
49. The Bubble Blower, signed and dated 1661, Uffizi, Florence.
50. For this family portrait, see the biography of Van Slingelandt in this catalogue.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 26 of 27

51. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen , 3 vols.
(The Hague, 1753; reprint, Amsterdam, 1976), 3, 162.
52. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen , 3 vols.
(The Hague, 1753; reprint, Amsterdam, 1976), 3, 162. In 1674 he, or rather he and his brothers as theheirs, were taxed on a fortune of 7000 guilders. Naturally, this does not suggest poverty, but neither does it
represent great prosperity, certainly when we realize that the amount in part concerned four, or possibly,
five brothers and sisters. Jan Peltjes, Leidse Lasten: Twee Belastingskohieren uit 1674 (Leiden:
Nederlandse Historisch Data Archief, 1995), 76.
53. Jan Peltjes, Leidse Lasten: Twee Belastingskohieren uit 1674 (Leiden: Nederlandse Historisch Data
Archief, 1995), 76. For Cornelis van Houck, also see the biography of Van Slingelandt in this catalogue.
54. RAL, NA not. L. van Overmeer, inv. 978, deed 125, 12 October 1684.
55. See the biography of Van Slingelandt in this catalogue.
56. See Rudolf Ekkart, “Twee portretten door Pieter van Slingelandt,” Leids Jaarboekje (1992), 93–8.
57. On Toorenvliet’s sojourn in Vienna and Rome, see his biography in this catalogue.
58. See the essay on Dou and the biography of Toorenvliet in this catalogue.
59. RAL NA not. P.G. van Tielt, inv. 905, deed 156, 27 March 1665. Another four owners are apparent.
Their estates date between 1688 and 1705 and concern possible acquisitions from Van Tol’s second
Leiden sojourn after 1675. See Van Tol’s biography in this catalogue.
60. Rudolf Arthur Peltzer, Joachim von Sandrarts Academie der Bau-, Bild-, und Mahlerey Künste von1675 (Munich, 1925), 195. See the essay on Dou in this catalogue.
61. Inv. Van Swieten: RAL, NA, not. H. Brasser, inv. 416, deed 42, 31 March 1662; inv. Toorenvliet, in RAL,
Bibl. Leiden en Omstreken, inv. 67504 (f) Aantekeningen over Leidse schilders en de kunsthandel,(unpag.), 1692.
62. RAL, NA not. P.A. van Scharpenbrant, inv. 1103, deed 146, 6 November 1673.
63. Martin Jan Bok, Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt, 1580–1700 (PhD. diss. Utrecht
University, 1994), 121–127.
© 2017 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age
Page 27 of 27

64. Cornelia Willemijn Fock, “Het interieur in de Republiek 1670–1750: (g)een plaats voor schilderkunst?,”in Ekkehard Mai (et al.), De Kroon op het werk. Hollandse schilderkunst 1670–1750 (Exh. cat. WallrafRichartz-Museum, Cologne & Fondation Corboud; Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht; Museumslandschaft
Hessen-Kassel, Kassel) (Cologne, 2007), 63–84.
65. The share of the wealthiest 1 percent of the population in the total wealth rose from 33 to 59 percent inLeiden between 1623 and 1722. Lee Soltow and Jan Luiten van Zanden,Income and Wealth Inequality in
The Netherlands, 16th–20th Century (Amsterdam, 1998), 37–41 (Tables 3.6 and 3.7).
66. Cornelia Willemijn Fock, “Het interieur in de Republiek 1670–1750: (g)een plaats voor schilderkunst?,”in Ekkehard Mai (et al.), De Kroon op het werk. Hollandse schilderkunst 1670–1750 (Exh. cat. WallrafRichartz-Museum, Cologne & Fondation Corboud; Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht; Museumslandschaft
Hessen-Kassel, Kassel) (Cologne, 2007), 64.
67. Cornelia Willemijn Fock, “Het interieur in de Republiek 1670–1750: (g)een plaats voor schilderkunst?,”in Ekkehard Mai (et al.), De Kroon op het werk. Hollandse schilderkunst 1670–1750 (Exh. cat. WallrafRichartz-Museum, Cologne & Fondation Corboud; Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht; Museumslandschaft
Hessen-Kassel, Kassel) (Cologne, 2007), 68–71.
68. Rudolf Arthur Peltzer, Joachim von Sandrarts Academie der Bau-, Bild-, und Mahlerey Künste von1675 (Munich, 1925), 195. See the essay on Dou in this catalogue.
69. Unless otherwise stated, for information on Van Mieris the reader is referred to his biography in thiscatalogue.
70. De Moor’s workshop had formerly been that of Dou, and he rented it from Anthonia van Tol. RAL, Bibl.
LB 67504, “Aant. over Leidsche schilders en over de kunsthandel.” In this document is a transcription of adocument in which in 1715 Notary Dirck van Torenvliet, as the guardian of the fideicommissary goods of
Anthonia van Thol, rents Dou’s previous house on the Galgewater to De Moor for another five years for 100
guilders annually. De Moor lived here certainly as of 1710, and probably earlier. Toorenvliet rented thepremises to someone else in 1720.
71. John Michael Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft. A Socio-Economic Study of the SeventeenthCentury (Princeton, 1982), 179–82.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection