© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lazarus and the Rich Man or “In Luxury Beware”
Page 2 of 10Lazarus and the Rich Man or “InLuxury Beware”

ca. 1677

Jan Steen(Leiden 1626 –1679 Leiden)

80.3 x 64.8 cm

oil on canvas
inscription and signature in dark paint, onstonework, lower center:“In weelde
ziet toe JSteen” (“JS” in ligature)
JS-106
Currently on view at: The National Museum ofChina, Beijing

How To Cite
Kloek, Wouter. "Lazarus and the Rich Man or “In Luxury Beware”." 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

Lazarus and the Rich Man or “In Luxury Beware”
Page 3 of 10“In weelde siet toe” (In Luxury Beware), the proverb that inspired Jan

Comparative Figures

Steen’s painting, is literally set in stone on the bench in the foreground.
Sitting on this bench is an enticing Bacchanalian reveler, who, with grapevines encircling her head, strums her cittern while gazing out evocatively at
the viewer, as though inviting him to take part in the merrymaking. The bigboozer behind her, wearing a red hat crowned with a cock’s feather,smilingly raises a glass of wine in one hand while clutching a jug close tohis side with his other. The festive music provided by the woman, thebagpiper and the flute player could not have created a very harmonious

Fig 1. Jan Steen, “In Luxury
Beware”, 1663, canvas, 105 x
145 cm, Kunsthistorisches
Museum, Vienna, 791

sound, but one senses that the quality of the music was not their principle
concern.[1] Despite the woman’s come-hither look, the slashes on the large
man’s blue pants and on the bagpipe player’s sleeves are consistent with
sixteenth-century fashions, which reminds the viewer that the scene is nottaken from contemporary life, but is an allegorical depiction of the proverb.
In a similar fashion, the actions of the children—one of whom offers amorsel of cake to a barking dog while another holds up a bunch ofgrapes—relate thematically to the proverb “Sine Cerere et Baccho friget
Venus,” (Without Ceres and Bacchus, Venus would freeze). The proverbmeans that love cannot flourish without food and drink.
The key to understanding the full thematic implications of the painting,however, is not to be found in the foreground figures but on the terrace inthe right background, where Steen depicted the parable of Lazarus andthe Rich Man (Luke 16:18–21). Here Steen has followed a narrative modelFig 2. Cornelis Bega, Young
Woman Playing a Lute, 1662,canvas, 35 x 32.1 cm,Gemäldegalerie Staatliche
Museen, Berlin, inv. 871, © Foto:
Gemäldegalerie der Staatlichen
Museen zu Berlin – PreußischerKulturbesitz
Fotograf/in: Jörg P. Anders

used by artists in the circle of Pieter Aertsen (1508–75) and Joachim
Beuckelaer (1533–74). In paintings by these artists, the true meaning of ascene is only revealed upon discovering the significance of seeminglysubordinate passages in the backgrounds of their paintings, acompositional structure known as the paradoxical encomium, or ironic
eulogy.[2] The origin of this rhetorical trope lies in literature, and wasextensively used by Desiderius Erasmus in his Lof der zotheid (“In Praiseof Folly”), published in 1511. Jan Steen often drew inspiration fromErasmus and the works of Aertsen and Beuckelaer, but he seldom applied
the principles of the paradoxical encomium as thoroughly as he did in thispainting.[3]In the background of Steen’s painting the rich man sits at a table in thecompany of a young woman and a young man, while a waiter pours him aglass of wine. Lazarus lies before the table with his right hand raised and© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lazarus and the Rich Man or “In Luxury Beware”
Page 4 of 10

his left hand holding a begging bowl while a greyhound licks his sores. A
maidservant, pointedly crossing her arms, feeds a white poodle standing
on its hind legs to beg for this gift.[4] The pains taken by the girl to train adog are in stark contrast to her unpitying attitude toward Lazarus. This
motif relates to the story’s moral lesson about caring for those lessfortunate than oneself, for after Lazarus died he went to heaven, whereas
the rich man ended up in hell. When the rich man saw Lazarus sitting in
Abraham’s lap, he asked if Lazarus could bring him a sip of water, but thisrequest was refused. His entreaty to send Lazarus to warn members of his
family about the consequences of their behavior was also refused.
In the seventeenth century, the story of Lazarus and the rich man wasconnected with the necessity of doing good works, as is seen in two group
portraits

paintedin1624

byWernervandenValckert(1585–1627), Regents and Regentesses of the Leper House inAmsterdam. In his depiction of the male regents Van der Valckert
portrayed Lazarus sitting in Abraham’s lap.[5] This painting also includes adepiction of one of the acts of mercy: clothing the poor. The doctrine ofdoing good works held that it was possible to improve one’s chances ofentering heaven by performing good deeds. This theme was generally
treated with extreme caution in the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic
since, according to the doctrine of predestination to which the Calvinists
adhered, it was impossible to bring about any change whatsoever in God’s
preordained plan. This issue was clearly known to the regents of the Leper
House, hence it is surprising that Van den Valckert referred so overtly to
the Lazarus story in this work. Nevertheless Lazarus and lepers were atthat time almost synonymous. For Catholics like Jan Steen, however, thedoctrine of good works remained important, and it is probable that Steen
painted Lazarus and the Rich Man for a Catholic patron.
Lazarus and the Rich Man has a number of connections to other works bySteen. For example, in a painting of a dissolute household, dated 1663,
Steen inscribed the proverb “In weelde siet toe” on a piece of slate at thelower right (fig 1). Instead of illustrating this proverb with a biblical subject,as he did in the Leiden Collection painting, Steen here introduced anumber of pictorial motifs that allude to other proverbs warning about
insatiable desires stemming from excessive luxury, among themworldliness, avarice, gluttony, and lasciviousness.[6] In 1667 Steen
portrayed the story of Lazarus and the rich man in a lavish but not© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lazarus and the Rich Man or “In Luxury Beware”
Page 5 of 10

overcrowded scene.[7] The motif of the rich man in the background of thepainting appears in reverse in The Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra of
1667 in Göttingen.[8] The motif of the poodle standing on its hind legs
appears a number of times in Steen’s paintings, in, among others, a workin Nivaa and a painting in Cape Town.[9] The one quite distinctive figure inthis painting is the lady playing the cittern, which does not otherwise
appear in Steen’s works. As Mary Ann Scott has rightly observed, Steen
derived this figure from Cornelis Bega’s (1631–64)Young Woman Playing
the Lute of 1662 in Berlin (fig 2).[10] Steen must have remembered thatpainting when he moved from Haarlem to Leiden.
The Leiden Collection painting is stylistically similar to other works fromthe last years of Steen’s career, including Merry Company on a Terrace(The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York), Family of Jan Steen (TheMuseum of Fine Arts in Budapest), and Garden Party of the Paets Family ,dated 1677, and must date from the same period.[11]-Wouter Kloek© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lazarus and the Rich Man or “In Luxury Beware”
Page 6 of 10Endnotes
1. In Steen’s Adoration of the Golden Calf in Raleigh (see 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 Havenand London, 1996], no. 47), the drum, triangle, and tambourine sound simultaneously,
whereas the panpipe lies abandoned.
2. On the paradoxical encomium, see Rosalie L. Colie,Pradoxia epidemica: The RenaissanceTradition of Paradox (Princeton, 1966); and Reindert Falkenburg, “‘Alter Einoutus’: Over deaard en herkomst van Pieter Aertsens stilleven-conceptie,” Nederlands KunsthistorischJaarboek 40 (1989): 41–66, esp. 56–59.
3. Having attended the Latin School, Jan Steen knew the work of Erasmus, whose textbooks
continued to be used in schools until well into the eighteenth century. Ironically, Steen’s
Village School, now in Edinburgh, shows the portrait of Erasmus lying on the ground in acorner of the painting; see 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 and London, 1996), 232,
no. 41. Presumably Steen also knew the Adagia, Erasmus’s collection of proverbs. Even
more so than Adriaen van de Venne, his immediate precursor as a painter of proverbs,
Steen must have been influenced by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1525–69), whose work wascertainly connected with Erasmus’s Adagia; see Walter Gibson, Figures of Speech:
Picturing Proverbs in Renaissace Netherlands (Berkeley, 2010), esp. 8–11.
4. In general the motif of the trained dog was used in the seventeenth century to indicate
inquisitiveness, or an eagerness to learn (“leer-sucht”). On this subject, see Jan Baptist
Bedaux, The Reality of Symbols: Studies in the Iconology of Netherlandish Art
1400–1800 (The Hague, 1990), 109–69.
5. On these two works by Van den Valckert, see Korthals Altes in Jonathan Bikker et al.,Dutch
Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, vol. 1, Artists Bornbetween 1570 and 1600 (Amsterdam, 2007), 370–71, nos. 282 and 283.
6. For the Vienna painting, see: 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 and London, 1996), no. 21.
7. In that painting the anecdotal prevails (a boy urinating in the jug intended for Lazarus, forinstance, and a girl coaxing a dog to stand on its hind legs, the latter motif not reallyappropriate to this context), yet its refined and detailed execution makes it a truemasterpiece.
8. Karel Braun, Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen (Rotterdam, 1980), no. 283.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lazarus and the Rich Man or “In Luxury Beware”
Page 7 of 10

9. Karel Braun, Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen (Rotterdam, 1980), nos. 161 and 260 (fig. inreverse). For the latter painting, see Hans Fransen,The Michaelis Collection: The Old Town
House, Cape Town; Catalogue of the Collection of Paintings and Drawings (Zwolle, 1996),
143–44, no. 63, color ill. XLII.
10. Mary Ann Scott, Cornelis Bega (1631/2–1664) as Painter and Draughtsman (Ph.D. diss.,
University of Maryland, 1984), 87–88. With regard to Steen’s familiarity with Bega’s figure
studies, see also 94–95. Bega often made counterproofs of his drawings. As stated by Scott(pp. 144 and 163, n. 42), based in part on information from Lyckle de Vries (unpublishedcorrespondence), the frequent occurrence of figures in reverse in the work of Jan Steenmight be connected with the frequent use of counterproofs by the Haarlem draughtsmen ofthat time.
11. Karel Braun, Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen (Rotterdam, 1980), no. 1980, no. 373; H. PerryChapman, Wouter Th. Kloek, and Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., Jan Steen, Painter andStoryteller, ed. Guido Jansen (Exh. cat. Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art;
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (New Haven and London, 1996), no. 49

Provenance
C. Hoogendijk, Amsterdam, by 1899 (his sale, Muller’s, Amsterdam, 14 May 1912, no.
76).1[1][Goudstikker, The Hague, 1920, no. 108].
Onnes Collection, Nijenrode (his sale, Fredrik Muller, Amsterdam, 10 July 1923, no. 40[6,500 guilders]).
Preyer Collection, The Hague, before 1934.
G. J. Willink Collection, Winterswijk, before 1934; [D. Katz, Dieren, 1934–37].
A. Bronkhorst Collection, The Hague, 1937.
[Schaeffer Galleries, New York, by 15 Sept 1937 ($9,000.); D. Katz, Dieren, by 21 May
1938; Miedl/Goudstikker, Amsterdam, by 14 August 1940].
Adolf Hitler, by 17 October 1940, Linz, no. 1107; Collecting Point Munich, 7 July 1945, no.
4414.
[Restituted to Katz, 11 December 1947].
H. Wetzlar Collection, Amsterdam.
[Bourghouts, Utrecht].
(Sale, Paris, Galerie Charpentier, 6 June 1958, no. 40 [Julius Weitzner, London and NewYork, by 1959]).
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lazarus and the Rich Man or “In Luxury Beware”
Page 8 of 10

Bob Jones University Art Museum, Greenville, S.C., 1959 [acquired from Weitzner for$15,000].
John Koch (1902–78), New York, by 1980.
Saul P. Steinberg Collection, New York, until 2000 [Richard L. Feigen & Co., New York,2000].
Private collection, Barrington, Ill., until 2006 [Johnny van Haeften, London, 2006].
From whom acquired by the present owner.

Provenance Notes

1. Cornelis Hoogendijk was a remarkable collector both of Old Masters and of works bycontemporary artists, such as Paul Cézanne, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, and Vincent van Gogh.
His collection, including the modern works, was on loan to the Rijksmuseum until his death in
1911. After the museum was presented with quite a few Old Masters from his estate, all therest was put on sale. See Herbert Henkels, “Cézanne en Van Gogh in het Rijksmseum voor
moderne Kunst in Amsterdam: De collectie van Cornelis Hoogendijk (1866–1911),”Bulletin
van het Rijksmuseum 41 (1993): 155–295. The loan of Lazarus and the Rich Man to theRijksmuseum is mentioned on 217, its sale in 1921 on 246.

Exhibition History
Amsterdam, Rijksmusem, 1907–12 [lent by Hoogendijk].
The Hague, Collection Goudstikker, Pulchri Studio, November, 1920, no.108.
The Hague, Kunstzaal Kleykamp, “Tentoonstelling van schilderijen door oud-Hollandsche
en Vlaamsche meesters uit de collectie Katz te Dieren,” 1934, 21, no. 60 [lent by D. Katz].
Nijmegen, “’Huize Belvoir,’ Tentoonstelling van 16e en 17e eeuwsche hollandsche,vlaamsche en italiaansche schilderijen,” 15 July–1 September 1936, no. 61 [lent by D. Katz].
Dieren, D. Katz, “Tentoonstelling van belangrijke 16e en 17e eeuwsche Hollandsche
Schilderijen,” 3 July 1937–15 September 1937, 26, no. 94.
Los Angeles, Los Angeles Museum of Art, “An Exhibition of Old Masters,” 5 April 1938–1
May 1938 [lent by Dr. Hans Schaeffer].
Stadhuis, Deventer, “Tenteoonstelling van oude meesters der 16e en 17e eeuw in het
stadhuis te Deventer,” November 1948, no. 36.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lazarus and the Rich Man or “In Luxury Beware”
Page 9 of 10

South Hadley, Mass., Mount Holyoke College Art Museum, “Wine and Spirit: Rituals,Remedies, and Revelry,” 2 September–12 December 2010; Rochester, University ofRochester, Memorial Art Gallery, 29 January–10 April 2011 [lent by the present owner].
Ithaca, Cornell University, Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, “An Eye For Detail: DutchPainting From the Leiden Collection,” September 2014–January 2015 [lent by the presentowner].
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
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, 1:23, no. 58. Translated from Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis
der Werke der hervorragendsten holländischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts . 10 vols.
Esslingen and Paris, 1907–28.
Catalogus van schilderijen, teekeningen en beelden in het Stedelijk Museum . Amsterdam,
1911, no. 2250c.
Catalogue de la Collection Goudstikker à Amsterdam . Exh. cat. The Hague, Pulchri Studio.
Amsterdam, 1920, no. 108.
Trautscholdt, E. “Steen.” In Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler. Edited by U.
Thieme and F. Becker. 37 vols. Leipzig, 1907–50, 31:511.
Tentoonstelling van schilderijen door oud-Hollandsche en Vlaamsche meesters uit decollectie Katz te Dieren. Exh. cat. The Hague, Kunstzaal Kleykamp. The Hague, 1934, 21,no. 60.
Tentoonstelling van 16e en 17e eeuwsche Hollandsche, Vlaamsche en Italiaansche
Schilderijen. Exh. cat. Dieren, 1936, 20, no. 61.
Tentoonstelling van belangrijke 16e en 17e eeuwsche Hollandsche Schilderijen . Exh. cat.
Dieren, D. Katz. Dieren, 1937, 26, no. 94.
Erasmus, Kurt. Catalogus van de tentoonstelling van oude meesters der 16e en 17e eeuw
in het stadhuis te Deventer. Devener, 1948, no. 36.
De Groot, Cornelis Wilhelmus. Jan Steen: Beeld en Woord . Utrecht and Nijmegen, 1952,
23, 25, 35–36, 63–64.
De Vries, Lyckle. “Jan Steen ‘de kluchtschilder.’” Ph.D. diss. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen,1977, 70, 88, 168.
© 2017 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lazarus and the Rich Man or “In Luxury Beware”
Page 10 of 10

Kirshchenbaum, Baruch D. The Religious and Historical Paintings of Jan Steen . New York,1977, 135, no. 58, fig. 103.
Braun, Karel. Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen. Rotterdam, 1980, 142, no. 367.
Westermann, Mariet. The Amusements of Jan Steen. Zwolle, 1997, 286, no. 13.

Technical Summary
The support, a single piece of fine, plain-weave fabric with tacking margins removed, has been
lined. Two layers of paper tape extend into the face of the painting along all four sides. Broadcusping along the upper and lower edges and slight cusping along the vertical edges indicatesthat the support dimensions have not been significantly altered. Old tack holes visible in the Xradiograph along the right vertical edge indicate the painting was previously secured along theface of the painting. There are three import stamps and six paper labels, but no wax seals orstencils along the lining or stretcher.
A light-colored ground has been thinly and evenly applied. The oil paint has been applied in thin,opaque layers of rich paste blended wet-into-wet with lively brushwork and no use of impasto.
Areas such as the blue sky in the upper left corner have been painted more thinly, allowing thelight-colored underlayer to show through.
No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images captured at 780–1000 nanometers.
Compositional changes visible in the images include the chin of the white dog standing on its
hind legs along the right side of the composition, which appears to originally have been raised
more vertically. The position of the fingers of the small boy in the lower left corner appear to havebeen shifted, as has the profile of the second figure from the left, gazing at the rich man.
The painting is inscribed and signed in dark paint on the stonework along the lower center, but isundated.
The painting has not undergone conservation treatment since its acquisition in 2006 and remains
in a good state of preservation.

Technical Summary Endnotes© 2017 The Leiden Collection