Sacrifice of Iphigenia

1671

Jan Steen(Leiden 1626 –1679 Leiden)

oil on canvas
134.6 x 172.7 cm
signed and dated: “Jan Steen / 1671”
JS-112Currently on view at: The National Museum ofChina, Beijing

How To Cite
Kloek, Wouter. "Sacrifice of Iphigenia." 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

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 2 of 14

Jan Steen’s late biblical and mythological paintings often surprise andComparative Figures

bewilder the viewer, and none more so than this monumental work of
1671. Here the young, beautiful Iphigenia has been brought to an altar tobe sacrificed to appease an angry goddess, yet the scene has little of thegravity one would expect from such a serious subject. Surrounding thedemure heroine, dressed in virginal white, are an array of theatrical types
that seem to overplay their parts: the blood-thirsty executioner, the oldcrone yelling at the crying child, the despairing father, a conniving priest,
supercilious soldiers, and a crowd of curious onlookers awaiting thedenouement of the action.
No one has expressed their bewilderment about this work more forcefully
than Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723–92), who could not restrain himself fromrailing that “the countenances are so familiar, and consequently so vulgar .

Fig 1. Jan Steen, Supper at
Emmaus, ca. 1665–66, oil oncanvas, 134 x 104 cm,
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, SKA-1932. . that one would be almost tempted to doubt, whether the artist did not
purposely intend to burlesque his subject.”[1] Indeed, Reynolds’s
comments raise questions about how one should approach thismasterpiece, conceived in a manner totally contrary to classicizing pictorial
traditions, not only ones to which Reynolds adhered in the eighteenth
century, but also those current during Steen’s own lifetime.
Not all of Steen’s biblical and mythological scenes are humorous or
satirical: see, for example, his Supper at Emmaus in the Rijksmuseum (fig
[2]

1).

So when Steen did opt to introduce humor to a serious subject suchas the sacrifice of Iphigenia, one needs to ask why and for what intent?

Fig 2. Jan Steen, Moses
Trampling Pharaoh’s Crown, ca.
1670, oil on canvas, 78 x 79 cm,
Mauritshuis, The Hague

The question is particularly intriguing because Steen only depicted thisstory from the Trojan War once, in this large painting that he executednear the end of his career. To some extent the answer lies in Steen’s
fascination with the theater, but it also revolves around his awareness ofthe social, political, and religious disputes in the Dutch Republic. As
discussed below, it is likely that Steen decided to depict this subject in asatirical manner as a means to comment critically on the complicatedtheological and political power struggles occurring in the seventeenthcentury Dutch Republic.
The dramatic scenario surrounding the sacrifice of Iphigenia was the focus
of Euripides’s influential play Iphigenia at Aulis (408–6 B.C.). The story

Fig 3. Nicolas Beatrizet,
presumably after Francesco
Salviati, The Sacrifice ofIphigenia, ca. 1553–55,
engraving, 320 x 445 mm, British
Museum, London, 1951,0407.80,© The Trustees of the British
Museumunfolds at the very beginning of the Trojan War, shortly after Parisabducted Helen, the wife of Menelaus, and took her to Troy. Menelaus’s© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 3 of 14

brother, Agamemnon, was the leader of an expedition of Greek warriors
who gathered at Aulis, a port in central Greece, to set sail for Troy toretrieve Helen. When unfavorable winds prevented his fleet fromdeparting, the seer Calchas discovered that the goddess Diana wasdelaying the ships as an act of revenge against Agamemnon, who had
previously killed a stag in her sacred woods. Calchas told Agamemnon
that to appease the goddess, he would have to sacrifice his daughter

Fig 4. Jan de Baen, The Syndics,
1675, oil on canvas, 152 x 315
cm, Stedelijk Museum De
Lakenhal, Leiden, inv. S 12

Iphigenia. Agamemnon thus summoned Iphigenia and his wife,
Clytemnestra, to Aulis under the pretext that their daughter would be
married to the young hero Achilles—a ruse devised by Ulysses. Achilles,
initially ignorant of the deception, became incensed when Agamemnon’s
trickery came to light and attempted to prevent Iphigenia’s death.
Ultimately, however, Iphigenia volunteered to be sacrificed so that her
father’s ships might sail for Troy. When the noble maiden was led to thealtar, Diana herself intervened and spared Iphigenia by allowing a stag tobe slain in her stead.
Jan Steen could have read Euripides’s play when he was at the Latin
School in Leiden, probably in the form of Erasmus’s Latin translation of the
Greek text. Although Steen’s painting reflects the essential narrative of the
Greek author’s play, his distinctive interpretation of the narrative indicatesthat Euripides’s text was not his only source of inspiration. Also importantfor him was the 1617 play Iphigenia by the Dutch playwright Samuel
Coster (1579–1665).[3]Coster, a medical doctor, founder of the Duytsche Academie and a man oflibertine ideas, satirized in his Iphigenia the extremism of the orthodox
clergy. This was quite daring in these years of strong antagonism between
two factions of the Dutch Reformed Church: the Remonstrants and theCounter-Remonstrants. The religious dispute became a political power
struggle when Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (1547–1619), the mostprominent Dutch politician of the era, sided with the first, more liberalgroup, while Prince Maurits of Orange (1567–1625), the commander inchief of the Dutch forces, opted for the orthodox Counter-Remonstrants.
By 1617, Coster could not know that this dispute ended with the drama of
the execution in 1619 of the old leader, Oldenbarnevelt, ordered by Prince
Maurits. The dominance of the Couter-Remonstrants lasted during thefollowing decades.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 4 of 14

In his play, Coster stressed the dilemma Agamemnon faced, a leader who
did not know which advice to follow. In order to stress this antithesis,
Coster introduced a second priest, the seer Euripylus, who demanded
strict obedience to religious rules, in contrast with the priest Calchas whoplays a moderate role. At the first performance of the play, it must havebeen evident to the public that in calling for the sacrifice of a young
maiden, Euripylus mirrored the uncompromising attitude of the orthodox
calvinist preachers of the time.
Coster deliberately confronted his audience with moral problems, worded
in former times, but still topical. In the introduction to his play he stated thatthe poets of antiquity did not just leave the play to posterity as aninvention, but that they meant it as:a painting on the wall, in which observant people can measure the courseof the World, and can determine how Hypocrisy, under the cloak of
Religion, displays his character. How Hunger for political and financial
power, under the guise of sincerity, even if it results in total upheaval,
glorifies its knavery and makes it work to her benefit.[4]In 1630, when Coster’s play was put on the stage again, the Amsterdam
clergymen forced the burgomasters to ban all public performances of
Coster’s Iphigenia. However, the issues that Coster raised had ongoingcurrency within the Dutch Republic throughout most of the seventeenth
century.
In 1670–71 the young Prince Willem III of Orange (1650–1702) was about
to come of age, and it was unclear what his role in the Republic should be;
the debate over personal liberty, religious tolerance, and overbearing
church interference in civic life had flared up again; and noted philosopher
Baruch Spinoza (1632–77) had published his acclaimed Tractatus
Theologico-Politicus in 1670, in which he attacked the Protestant church
leadership’s interference in secular society and argued for individual
liberty. So it is hardly surprising that in 1671 Jan Steen turned to Coster’s
politicized version of Iphigenia as the basis for his pictorial message ofcaution. It is not so clear whether the two priests may be recognised in
Steen’s painting. Evidently, the man with the mitre is the bad guy, but isthere—maybe the man with the fur cap to the right—a second priest? It isvery well possible that Steen just followed Euripides’ play, while at the© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 5 of 14

same time referring to the interpretations of Coster.
Jan Steen staged the scene across the canvas as though it were atheatrical performance. The young victim kneels with her eyes closed
before an altar erected under a statue of Diana. Her executioner, thepersonification of evil, eagerly awaits the fateful command from a
despondent Agamemnon who holds his head in despair while resting his
right arm on his walking stick. A bearded priest wearing a bishop’s miter,probably Calchas, possibly Euripylus, emphatically urges him to act.
Behind Agamemnon stands a helmeted soldier looking askance toward
Agamemnon, likely Ulysses, who conceived the plan to bring Iphigenia to
Aulis. At left, mirroring Agamemnon, an old woman leaning on a stick may
be Agamemnon’s wife, Clytemnestra, who accompanied Iphigenia to
Aulis. Steen also added a number of figures not mentioned in literarysources to enhance his narrative. The crying youngster with a broken bow
and arrow represents Cupid, disappointed that he was not able to kindle
the flame of love between Iphigenia and Achilles. The young woman
kneeling in front of the altar helps fulfill Diana’s wish to sacrifice a stagrather than Iphigenia by draping laurel vines around its neck. Steen
enriched the right foreground with a translucent bottle of oil and a basket ofroses half-covered by a splendid piece of Indian chintz.[5]Steen made use of a variety of visual sources, including his own work, inconceiving this painting. For example, the figures of the priest andAgamemnon derive from comparable figures in his Moses Trampling
Pharaoh’s Crown, ca. 1670 (fig 2).[6] Steen must also have consulted theprint The Sacrifice of Iphigenia by Nicolas Beatrizet (1515–after 1565),
then thought to have been based on a design by Michelangelo(1475–1564) (fig 3).[7] Steen not only took over the image of the stag fromthis print, but also the pose of Iphigenia with her crossed arms.[8]Steen likely made this large painting for Willem van Heemskerck(1613–92), a leading cloth manufacturer in Leiden and a man of great
erudition.[9] In 1675, Van Heemskerck, who appears as a cloth merchantand syndic in a group portrait by Jan de Baen (1633–1702) in Leiden’s
Lakenhal (fig 4), was also an accomplished glass calligrapher, poet, andthe author of several plays.[10] It was in these latter capacities that his
image was included in Panpoëticon Batavum, a collection of paintings ofDutch poets that Aernout van Halen (1673–1732) created in the early© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 6 of 14

eighteenth century. Steen’s acquaintance with Van Heemskerck, his
senior by 10 years, probably stemmed from his earlier childhood. The
house belonging to Van Heemskerck’s grandfather stood on the Nieuwe
Rijn next to the house of the painter Isaac Claesz van Swanenburgh(1537–1614).[11] In 1647 Steen’s family lived on the south side of the
Nieuwe Rijn, diagonally opposite these houses. After Steen’s return to
Leiden in 1670, the two men would have likely reconnected because of
their shared interest in the arts and theater.
Van Heemskerck is one of the few contemporary owners of Steen’s workwhose name is known. In his collection was not only Sacrifice ofIphigenia but also Peasants Merrymaking Outside an Inn (JS-108), bothof which were inherited by Van Heemskerck’s descendent, Leonard van
Heemskerck.

Itisremarkable

that

that

two

of

Steen’slarge

paintings—both nearly two meters wide—were owned by one person and,
centuries later, are again in the hands of a single owner.
Steen’s dramatic figures, with their accentuated gestures and facial
distortions, reflect his abiding interest in the theater. A number of his
paintings have been connected to plays, and he repeatedly used stage
props, such as curtains, in his works. Sacrifice of Iphigenia, in particular,
resembles the spectacular tragicomedies of the playwright and director of
the Amsterdam theatre Jan Vos (1612–67), whose works were performedin Amsterdam during the 1650s and 1660s. It seems probable that Steen’s
inherent theatrical inclinations led him to pursue an equivalent mode inpainting in the 1670s, when Vos’s extravagant productions had comeunder attack by classicists seeking a purer form of theater.[13] In the
mid-1670s Amsterdam’s theater, which had been rebuilt in 1665, had
become subject to strict regulations by the church. It banned all kinds ofpieces, particularly those referring to political and religious disputes, as
had been the case with Coster’s Iphigenia, which had not been performedin the theater since 1630.
Not all plays, however, were performed exclusively in public theaters.
Plays were also read out loud in domestic settings. In the second half ofthe seventeenth century, Holland had small reading societies at whichroles were allocated to the members and plays were read aloud in agroup.[14] It is entirely possible that Steen and Van Heemskerck belonged
to the same play-reading club and that they both participated in the© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 7 of 14

reading of a piece, such as Coster’s Iphigenia. Steen, a Catholic, and Van
Heemskerck, a Remonstrant, would certainly have sympathized with themockery of the fanatical Reformed clergymen that had caused the play to
be banned from the stage. This painting, with its array of theatrical posesand gestures, may well have been made with such a recitation in mind.
Steen’s comic mode is greatly beloved the world over; however,historically he has not been without his critics. Sir Joshua Reynolds, in
his Sixth Discourse, written for students of the Royal Academy in 1774,
characterized Jan Steen as a master who, if he had lived in Rome and hadreceived instruction from Michelangelo and Raphael instead of from
Adriaen Brouwer and Jan van Goyen, could have become a great artist:“he would have ranged with the pillars and supporters of our Art.”[15] As
already noted, in his Eighth Discourse of 1786 Reynolds lashed out at theprime example of Steen’s failings, Sacrifice of Iphigenia.[16] Reynold’s
criticisms have a ring of truth, particularly as seen from a classicist
vantage point, but here the English painter and critic entirely misses
Steen’s cautionary political commentary. Steen, who loved to makeviewers laugh, does not in any way ridicule the heroism of Iphigenia, butrather emphasizes the weaknesses and deceitful behavior of thosesurrounding her. His intent, almost certainly, was to mock the selfrighteous behavior of seventeenth-century theologians, much as the
playwright Samuel Coster had done earlier in the century.
I am most grateful to Arthur Wheelock and Henriette Rahusen forthoughtful comments on the first draft of this entry.
-Wouter Kloek© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 8 of 14

Endnotes
1. Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses on Art, ed. Robert R. Wark, (New Haven, 1975), 236.
2. In this respect, the range of Steen’s history paintings differs little from that of his genre
scenes, in which he painted both quietly reflective images (JS-116) and raucous scenes thatemphasize the foibles of human behavior (JS-103).
3. In 1671, the same year that Steen painted this work, the story of the sacrifice of Iphigenia
was once again introduced in a text that Steen would have known, Joost van den Vondel’s
Dutch translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. However Ovid’s text, which appears in book12, only briefly mentions Iphigenia’s sacrifice, so it is unlikely that his account affected
Steen’s interpretation of the story. It is unlikely that Steen referred to Joost van den Vondel’s
play Ifigenie in Tauren, 1666. Vondel’s play, a translation of Euripides, deals with a later
episode in the life of Iphigenia: the period in which she was entrusted, as a priestess in
Tauris, with the task of sacrificing strangers to Diana. Vondel’s play gives only a shortsummary of Iphigenia’s earlier life, and there is no mention of the prophecy of Calchas, or ofthe dilemma faced by her father.
4. Samuel Coster, Iphigenia–Treurspel (1617) in R. A. Kollewijn, ed., Samuel Coster’s werken(Haarlem, 1883); see pp. 223–24 for Coster’s introduction, in which he outlines his play. On
the importance of Samuel Coster, see Mieke B. Smits-Veld, Samuel Coster, ethicusdidacticus (Groningen 1986).
5. Around 1668 Steen discovered the possibilities offered by chintz in the rendering of colorful
still-life details. See, for example, his Samson and Delilah of 1668 in Los Angeles andhis Marriage of Tobias and Sarah in San Francisco (H. Perry Chapman, Wouter Th. Kloek,
and Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., Jan Steen, Painter and Storyteller , ed. Guido Jansen (Exh. cat.
Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (New Haven andLondon, 1996), nos. 34, 45. Ebeltje Hartkamp-Jonxis has kindly identified the chintz. On thesubject of chintz, see E. Hartkamp-Jonxis, Sits: Oost-west relaties in textiel (Zwolle, 1987).
6. Steen made a drawing of that subject and used it, with some adjustments, for the painting in
the Mauritshuis in The Hague. The painting is generally dated to ca. 1670; the drawing wasprobably made slightly earlier. The authenticity of the drawing is not undisputed. It is
assumed that it was produced under the master’s supervision by a pupil in his studio; see
Wouter Kloek, Jan Steen 1626–1679 (Zwolle, 2005), 47–49. See also A. van Suchtelen, In
het Mauritshuis: Jan Steen (The Hague, 2011), 18–21, where the drawing’s authenticity is
not doubted.
7. Today the design is attributed to Francesco Salviati. See Wouter Th. Kloek, Jan Steen
1626–1679 (Zwolle, 2005), 65–66.
8. Steen often showed off his grounding in art by borrowing images from his illustrious© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 9 of 14

predecessors. See Mariët Westermann, The Amusements of Jan Steen (Zwolle, 1997),
chap. 5, and Wouter Th. Kloek, Jan Steen 1626–1679 (Zwolle, 2005), 67–73. In addition toPieter Bruegel, Lucas van Leyden, Adriaen van Ostade, Rembrandt, and Raphael,
Michelangelo, too, thus deserves a place in Steen’s gallery of past masters who served as
his role models.
9. Van Heemskerck’s friends included Constantijn Huygens, who wrote several poems for him,presumably as a token of gratitude for engraved glasses. In 1677 Huygens honored him witha poem devoted to the painter Maria van Oosterwijck and her maidservant and pupil,
Geertje Pieters (see 1677:027).
10. Ingrid

Moerman,“Kalligrafie:

echtenationale

dilettantenkunst,”Nieuw

Letterkundig

Magazijn16 (1998): 23. For an assessment of his glass engravings, see: P. C. Ritsema van
Eck and H. M. Zijlstra-Zweens, Glass in the Rijksmuseum, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1993–95).
11. Van Heemskerck’s grandfather was burgomaster of the city of Leiden and his wife was a
granddaughter of the Leiden painter and burgomaster Isaac Claesz van Swanenburgh, who
occupied a key position in the artistic life of Leiden around 1600. Nevertheless, it would
seem that, for financial reasons, Van Heemskerck could not have played a role as a patron
until relatively late in his life. As early as 1641, he declared bankruptcy as a cloth
manufacturer, and even though he served at various times as dean or senior officer of thecloth finishers’ guild from 1645 onward, he continued for a long time to be plagued byfinancial difficulties. By the 1670s, however, he seems to have put such troubles behind him.
12. See Mariët Westermann, “Steen’s Comic Fictions,” in H. Perry Chapman, Wouter Th. Kloek,
and Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., Jan Steen, Painter and Storyteller , ed. Guido Jansen (Exh. cat.
Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (New Haven andLondon, 1996), 63, where she argues that by “casting his history paintings of the late 1660s
and 1670s in deliberately retardataire, non-classicist modes, Steen created a comic mode ofhistory that was consistent with his identity as a comic artist.”
13. Only in 1702 was a playhouse opened in Leiden. It was the second permanent theater in
Holland, after that of Amsterdam.
14. Anna de Haas, De wetten van het treurspel: Over ernstig toneel in Nederland,
1700–1772 (Hilversum, 1998), 209–13.
15. Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses on Art, ed. Robert R. Wark (New Haven, 1975), 109–10.
Although Reynolds might already have seen Steen’s Sacrifice of Iphigenia by this time (after
the sale in Leiden in 1771, it was sent to London, where it appeared at auction again in
1773), it is more likely that he did not see the piece until a later time.
16. Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses on Art, ed. Robert R. Wark (New Haven, 1975), 236.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 10 of 14

Provenance
Willem Jacobsz. Van Heemskerk (1613–92), Leiden, until 1692; by descent to Willem
Willemsz. Van Heemskerck (1648–95), Leiden, until 1695; by descent to Johanna van
Sorgen (1646–1729), Leiden, until 1729; by descent to Leonard van Heemskerk(1689–1771), Leiden, until 1771 (his sale, Leiden, Delfos, 2 September 1771, no. 10 [toFouquet]).
Fouquet Collection (his sale, Langford’s, London, 10 February 1773, no. 58).
(Sale, Christie’s, London, 16–17 February 1781, no. 94 [White]).
Lady Cremorne, 1842.
Rawdon Collection, 1854.
A. Preyer Collection, Versailles, 1926 (sale, Amsterdam, Frederik Muller & Co., 8 November
1927 [Everh. Bakker for Vullinx, The Hague, for 115 guilders]).
[Jacques Goudstikker, 1928–40].
Confiscated by the Nazis, Hermann Göring, Carinhall, 13 July 1940; transported toBerchtesgaden, no. 5311, collecting point Munich, 1945, no. 5355.1[1]Collection Dienst Voor’s Rijks Verspreide Kunstvoorwerpen, The Hague, 1948–60, on loan
to the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 1948–60, inv. SK-C-1399.
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 1960–2006, inv. SK-A-3984.
Restituted to Jacques Goudstikker’s heir, Marei von Saher, Greenwich, Conn., 6 February
2006 [Simon Dickinson, New York, 2008].
From whom acquired by the present owner.

Provenance Notes

1. The painting was hung in the Carinhall Entry Hall after its confiscation by Göring.
Extensive documentation of the painting while it was in Nazi hands is available on theDeutsches Historisches Museum website.

Exhibition History
London, The British Gallery, 1835.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 11 of 14

London, Barbizon House, 1922, no. 33
Leiden, De Lakenhal, “Jan Steen,” 1926, no. 60.
Amsterdam, “Catalogue des Nouvelles Acquisitions de la Collection Goudstikker,”
May–June 1928, no. 34.
Brussels, “Cinq siècle d’art: Exposition Universelle et Internationale,” 1935, no. 782.
The Hague, Mauritshuis, “Herwonnen Kunstbezit.” March–May 1946, no. 60.
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, on loan with the permanent collection, 1948–1958 [lent by
Collectie Dienst voor’s Rijks Verspreide Kunstvoorwerpen].
The Hague, Mauritshuis, “Jan Steen in het Mauritshuis,” 1958–59.
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, exhibited with the permanent collection, 1960–2006.
Athene, Nationale Pinakotheek. “Griekse Goden en Helden in de tijd van Rubens en
Rembrandt,” 28 September 2000–8 January 2001; Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum 3
February–8 May 2001.
Greenwich, Conn., Bruce Museum, “Reclaimed: Paintings from the Collection of Jacques
Goudstikker,” 9 May 2008–7 September 2008; New York, The Jewish Museum, 15
March–2 August 2009; San Antonio, The McNay Art Museum, 7 October 2009–10 January
2010.
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, on loan with the permanent collection, July 2012–April 2013
[lent by the present owner].
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, on loan with the permanent collection, January 2010–present.
Paris, Museé du Louvre, “Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection: The Age of Rembrandt,”
22 February–22 May 2017 [lent by the present owner].
Beijing, National Museum of China, “Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The
Leiden Collection,” 17 June–3 September 2017 [lent by the present owner].

References
Reynolds, Sir Joshua. “Discourses XIII.” In Sir Joshua Reynolds: Discourses on Art. Editedby Robert R. Wark. San Marino, 1959.
Smith, John. A Catalogue Raisonnè of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch, Flemish, andFrench Painters. 9 vols. London, 1829–42, 9:495, no. 57.
Waagen, G. F. Treasures of Art in Great Britain: Being an Account of the Chief Collectionsof Paintings, Drawings, Sculptures, Illuminated Mss. 3 vols. London 1854–57, 2:250.
Van Westrheene, T. Jan Steen: Étude sur l’art en Hollande. The Hague, 1856, 123, no. 105.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 12 of 14

Hofstede de Groot, Cornelis. A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent
Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century Based on the Work of John Smith . 8 vols.
London, 1907–27, 1:27, no. 74. Translated from Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis
der Werke der hervorragendsten Höllandischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts . 10 vols.
Esslingen and Paris, 1907–28.
Hirschmann, O. “Die Sammlung A. Preyer im Haag.” Cicerone 15 (January 1923): 134–35.
Bredius, A. Jan Steen. Amsterdam, 1927, 39.
Catalogue des Nouvelles Acquisitions de la Collection Goudstikker Exposée àAmsterdam. Amsterdam, 1928, no. 34.
Van Gils, J. B. F. Op de Hoogte, Geillustreeeerd Maandschrift. Haarlem and Amsterdam,
1937, 92.
Heppner, A. “The Popular Theatre of the Rederijkers in the Works of Jan Steen and His
Contemporaries.” Journal of Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 3 (1939): 22–48.
De Jonge, C. H. Jan Steen. Amsterdam, 1939, 55–57.
Gudlaugsson, S. J. De komedianten bij Jan Steen en zijn tijdgenooten. The Hague, 1945,
66.
De Groot, Cornelis Wilhelmus. Beeld en Woord. Utrecht and Nijmegen, 1952, 69, no. 8.
Martin, Wilhelm. Jan Steen. Amsterdam, 1954, 23, 56, 71, fig. 62.
Scherer, Margaret R. The Legends of Troy in Art and Literature. New York, 1963, 247–48.
Von Criegern, Axel. “Abfahrt von einem Wirtshaus: Ikonographische Studie zu einem Themavon Jan Steen.” Oud Holland 86 (1971): 27, n. 37.
De Vries, Lyckle. “Achttiende- en negentiende-eeuwe auteurs over Jan Steen.” Oud Holland
87 (1973): 233, fig. 4.
Breninkmeyer de Rooij, B. De schilderijen gallerij van Prius Willem V op het Buitenhof te
Den Haag. Amsterdam, 1976, 152, 153, fig. 6.
Van Thiel, P. J. J. All the Paintings of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam . Amsterdam, 1976,
521–22, A. 3984.
Kirshchenbaum, Baruch D. The Religious and Historical Painterings of Jan Steen . New
York and Montclair, 1977, 20, 50–52, 64–65, 78, 141, no. 74, fig. 82.
De Vries, Lyckle. Jan Steen “de kluchtschilder.” Ph.D. diss. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen,1977, 12, 68, 167.
Rijksmuseum Kunst-Krant 5 (January, 1979): 163–66.
Braun, Karel. Alle tot nu toe bekende schilderijen van Jan Steen. Rotterdam, 1980, no. 342.
Haverkamp-Begemann, Egbert, et al. The Robert Lehman Collection. 14 vols. New Yorkand Princeton, 1987, 7:283.
De Vries, Lyckle. Jan Steen Prinsjesdag. Bloemendaal, 1992, 43, 44, 64, 70, 93.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 13 of 14

Wright, Christopher. The World’s Master Paintings: From the Early Renaissance to thePresent Day. 2 vols. London and New York, 1992, 369.
Westermann, Mariët. The Amusements of Jan Steen . Zwolle, 1997, 31, 83, fig. 2, 279,
302–3.
Kloek, Wouter Th. Een huishouden van Jan Steen. Hilversum, 1998, 35, 75.
Chapman, H. Perry, Kloek, Wouter Th. and Wheelock Jr, Arthur K.Jan Steen, Painter andStoryteller. Edited by Guido Jansen. Exh. cat., Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art;
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. New Haven and London, 1996, 14, fig. 6.
Schoon, Peter and Paarlberg, Sander, eds. Greek Gods and Heroes in the time of Rubens
and Rembrandt. Exh. cat. Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum; Athens, Nationale Pinakotheek.
Athens and Dordrecht, 2000, 308–9, no. 76.
Kloek, Wouter. Jan Steen 1626–1679. Amsterdam, 2005, 65–66.
Bikker, Jonathan, et al. Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum
Amsterdam. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 2007, 1:32.
Sutton, Peter. Reclaimed: Paintings from the Collection of Jacques Goudstikker . Exh. cat.
Greenwich, Conn., Bruce Museum of Arts; New York, The Jewish Museum. New Haven andLondon, 2008, 206–9, no. 28.
Yeide, Nancy H. Beyond the Dreams of Avarice: The Hermann Goering Collection . Dallas,
2009, 73, A373.

Technical Summary
The support, a single piece of plain-weave canvas, has been wax-lined onto a similar secondary
canvas and stretched onto a 7-member stretcher. X-radiography reveals cusping at all fouredges, indicating that the original painted dimensions have not been altered. There is a modest
amount of retouching densest in Iphegenia’s sash and in several large patches left of theexecutioner and along the left edge.
A light gray ground has been applied, followed by a thin transparent brown underlayer, used totone the gray. This double ground structure of brown over gray is evident at abraded areas ofsurface and is occasionally left visible between painted forms, such as between theexecutioner’s profile and the sky. The paint has been applied in thin, opaque layers with a limited
use of glazing and economic use of ground and underpainting. For example, the ground is left
exposed surrounding the tip of the executioner’s blade and acts as the background. Some areas
also show localized underpaintings, for instance in the blue drape around the kneeling woman’s
shoulders, the form was first established with white paint and bands of blue and pink to create
shadows, followed by a transparent blue glaze overall.
Infrared examination reveals two sketching campaigns beneath the final painted surface. First, a© 2017 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 14 of 14

dry medium was used to describe the general location of folds in the textile in the foreground.
Second, there is a dark-colored fluid oil sketch of the entire composition in broad cursory strokes.
Slight compositional changes visible as pentiments include changes the top of the king’s chair,
which was originally curved, minor alterations of various figures, and a widening of the tree trunk
behind the executioner, which extends past the planned reserve detected in the sky.
The painting is signed and dated in dark paint along the lower left corner: ‘JanSteen/1671’.
The painting was restored in 1995 while at the Rijksmuseum and examined by the Boston
Museum of Fine Arts in 2011. It is in a good overall state of preservation.

Technical Summary Endnotes© 2017 The Leiden Collection