Young Man Blowing a Torch to Light aCandle
Godefridus Schalcken and Studio(Made 1643 – 1706 The Hague)ca. 1692–96
oil on canvas
112.8 x 90 cm
GS-106© 2020 The Leiden CollectionYoung Man Blowing a Torch to Light a Candle
Page 2 of 8

How to cite
Jansen, Guido. “Young Man Blowing a Torch to Light a Candle” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue,2nd ed. Edited by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017–20. https://theleidencollection.com/artwork/a-youngman-blowing-a-torch-to-light-a-candle/ (archived May 2020).
A PDF of every version of this entry is available in this Online Catalogue's Archive, and the Archive ismanaged by a permanent URL. New versions are added only when a substantive change to the narrativeoccurs.

This rather large canvas shows a young man with long wavy hair, depicted

Comparative Figures

half-length, holding in his left hand a piece of burning wood, which he hasapparently taken from the fire in a brazier to his right. Blowing on the red-hotwood, he sends sparks swirling into the air. He probably needs a flame tolight the candle in the simple brass sconce with a wide candle-ring and ahandle with an eyelet, which he grips with his right hand. The young woman
behind him gazes at the viewer; her hair is put up in a style called à laFontange.[1] As evident from the exceptionally large pearl drop adorning her
left ear and the pearl necklace she wears, this woman is dressed à la modeand belongs to the upper class. The bunch of onions hanging on the wall andthe shelf above the young man’s head indicate, however, that the scene isset in a less than elegant room, which is obviously a kitchen or pantry.
This composition is most closely related to Boy Blowing on a Firebrand toFig 1. Godefridus Schalcken, Boy
Blowing on a Firebrand to Light aCandle, 1692–96, oil on canvas,
75 x 63.5 cm, National Gallery of
Scotland, Edinburgh, NG 2495

Light a Candle (fig 1), a work that Godefridus Schalcken painted for one ofhis most important patrons, Robert Spencer, 2nd Earl of Sunderland(1641–1702), some time between the spring of 1692 and the autumn of1696, the period in which he worked in England.[2] At Althorp, Lord
Spencer’s country estate in Northamptonshire, the painting was seen in theearly eighteenth century by the engraver George Vertue (1684–1756), whopraised it highly by quoting the epigram that John Elsum had published on
this work in 1700: “A Night-piece of a Boy blowing a Firebrand; suppos’d bySchalcken. Striving to Blow the Brand into a Flame, he brightens his own
face, and the Author’s Fame.”[3] The painting, which has been in Edinburgh© 2020 The Leiden CollectionYoung Man Blowing a Torch to Light a Candle
Page 3 of 8since 1989, must have been held in high regard, considering the fairly large
number of old copies of it that are known.[4] The artist, too, must have beensatisfied with that work, as he used it as the model for the present painting,Fig 2. El Greco, Boy Blowing on
an Ember to Light a Candle, ca.
1570–75, oil on canvas, 60.5 x
50.5 cm, Museo Nazionale di
Capodimonte, Naples, Q192

most likely originating in the same period.
The most striking difference between the two paintings is that in the Leiden
Collection’s painting the elegantly dressed woman is seen in an ordinary
setting. Somewhat less conspicuous is the difference in artistic quality
between the two canvases. The consistently higher quality of the canvas inEdinburgh suggests that it was painted entirely by Schalcken. In the painting
discussed here, the effects of artificial lighting—the piece of burning wood,
the flying sparks, and the glowing hearth—are also rendered with great
virtuosity, allowing us to see in these elements the master’s touch. The
figures, however, seem less skillfully rendered: the young man’s hands andhis coat, as well as the female figure behind him, are painted stiffly and withlittle tonal differentiation, which strongly suggests that Schalcken’s studioassistants had a hand in their execution.[5]From the beginning of his career, Schalcken had pupils working in his studio.
His sister Maria (ca. 1645–before 1700) must have been one of the first to
join his studio when he returned to Dordrecht.[6] Beginning in about 1675, hefrequently took his pupils along to the notary to witness various documents
he had drafted.[7] Unfortunately, no such documents exist from Schalcken’stime in England, but we may safely assume that he ran his London studio inmuch the same way. Only the painter Gramagli, active as a portraitist inEngland, can be named as a possible pupil of Schalcken in London.
Gramagli is recorded only once in this context, in an account written by Allart
de la Court (1688–1755) of a tour he made of England in 1710. While in
Exeter he described the following meeting: “On 11 June we visited a Dutch
painter named Gramagli, who had been a pupil of Schalken [sic]; [he] was aportrait painter, but of the worst sort.”[8] Be that as it may, if indeed Gramagli
was Schalcken’s pupil in London, he was probably not the only assistant in
his teacher’s studio.
The canvas in Edinburgh and the Leiden Collection painting come from along tradition of works in which a young man blows on a smoldering piece ofwood, a subject that demanded an exceptionally high degree of technicalskill to realize the necessary lighting effects. One of the first painters toportray this subject was Domenikos Theotokopoulos, known as El Greco(1541–1614), who painted a number of works in Rome around 1570–75,
including Boy Blowing on an Ember to Light a Candle (fig 2), of which© 2020 The Leiden CollectionYoung Man Blowing a Torch to Light a Candle
Page 4 of 8

several contemporary copies exist.[9] In the same period, the subject wasalso painted in Venice, mostly as part of large history or genre pieces.
The blowing-on-embers motif soon became particularly popular among themany followers of Caravaggio in northern and southern Europe. In theNetherlands the “Caravaggisti” were concentrated in Utrecht, which is why
such masters as Gerrit van Honthorst (1592–1656), Hendrick ter Brugghen(1588–1629), and Abraham Bloemaert (1566–1651), to name only a few,
painted subjects of this kind. In Leiden, where Schalcken had been trainedby Gerrit Dou (1613–75), Jan Lievens (1607–74) was the one who
introduced this subject. In a panel painting that dates from around 1624–25,
Lievens portrayed a young man blowing on a torch in a series of the Four
Elements.[10]The popularity of this subject was certainly boosted by the discovery of its arttheoretical legitimation in the form of an ekphrasis, a pictorial description ofan artwork from antiquity. Pliny, for example, gives in his Naturalis historia
the names of two Greek artists, each of whom had produced a legendary
work in which a boy blows on a fire that has almost gone out, and in which
the reflection of the fire on the boy’s face was deemed the result ofexceptional artistic skill.[11]It is unlikely, however, that ekphrasis was of paramount importance toSchalcken. The utmost faithfulness to life in the depiction of artificial
illumination was surely his top priority. Nevertheless, in the work of
Schalcken a flame—whether that of a torch, candle, or lamp—often served asa metaphorical representation of the spark of passion that could be ignited
between two people (see GS-103). Even so, it is unclear whether this type of
spark was intended in Young Man Blowing a Torch to Light a Candle,
considering that the bejeweled woman in the background is too far removed
from the youth to suggest an amorous context. In any case, it was theartist’s aim to amaze the viewer with his brilliant rendering of various kindsof fire and glow, and their reflections on objects in the immediatesurroundings.

- Guido Jansen, 2017

© 2020 The Leiden CollectionYoung Man Blowing a Torch to Light a Candle
Page 5 of 8Endnotes

1. The hairdo was named after the marquise de Fontange, who was praised by her lover, LouisXIV, when she appeared at court in the summer of 1680 with her hair piled high on her head,after which this hair style remained hugely popular among all women of standing until about
1710.
2. The ninth child born to the Schalckens was named Godefridus after his father and baptized inThe Hague on 3 February 1697. Therefore, Schalcken and his family probably left London at
the end of 1696, since it is unlikely that he would have subjected his heavily pregnant wife toa dangerous journey.
3. For Vertue and Elsum’s epigram, see Kenneth J. Garlick, “A Catalogue of the Pictures atAlthorp,” Walpole Society 54 (1974–76): 76, no. 585. George Vertue, “Vertue Note Books
volume II,” Walpole Society 20 (1931–32): 16, refers to Epigrams upon the Paintings of theMost Eminent Masters, Ancient and Modern, with Reflexions upon the Several Schools ofPainting, by J. E., Esq. (London, 1700). The verse in question is epigram 137. George Vertue,“Vertue Note Books volume V,” Walpole Society 26 (1937–38), 57, describes the connection
between the artist and Robert Spencer: “Schalcken painted several pictures for Ld
Sunderland which were to be seen amongst his collection—at his Seat in Northamtonshire [sic]—called Althorp—by this it appears that Noble Lord encouraged him and patronized hisworks.”
4. Thierry Beherman, Godfried Schalcken (Paris, 1988), no. 326; because Beherman had neverseen the work with his own eyes, he incorrectly included it in his book as a copy. He also
listed another copy that was in fact known to him. The National Gallery of Scotland lists atleast five more copies; with thanks to Christian Tico Seiffert, senior curator. The large numberof copies was undoubtedly prompted by the many prints published after this painting in theeighteenth century; the website of the British Museum gives the names of Richard Purcell(active ca. 1746–68), Philip Corbut (active ca. 1746–66), Charles Spooner (1720–67), JohanFaber the Younger (ca. 1695–1756), and James Wilson (active ca. 1760–80) as the makers
of prints after the painting.
5. It is no coincidence that in 2006 this painting, which is not entirely convincing, was sold by
Christie’s in Amsterdam as “attributed to Schalcken”; evidently the specialists at this auction
house did not consider it a completely autograph work by the master.
6. On 26 July 1682, in Dordrecht, the banns (marriage announcements) of Maria Schalcken andSeverijn van Bracht were published; Dordrecht city archives (Erfgoedcentrum DiEP), ONA
20.243 (unnumbered) Notary Govert de With, 20 April 1683. The couple had at least one
daughter, Anna (b. 1683), and one son, Cornelis (b. 1685). In July 1700 her husband once
again had his banns published, so by that time he was a widower. For her Self-Portrait at the© 2020 The Leiden CollectionYoung Man Blowing a Torch to Light a Candle
Page 6 of 8Easel, incorrectly recorded by Beherman as a work by Godefridus, see Thierry Beherman,Godfried Schalcken (Paris, 1988), no. 61; for this very painting, now in the De Mol vanOtterloo collection, see Frederik J. Duparc, et al. Golden: Dutch and Flemish Masterworks
from the Rose-Marie and Eijk van Otterloo Collection (Exh. cat. Salem, Peabody Essex
Museum; San Francisco, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco; Houston, Museum of Fine
Arts Houston) (New Haven, 2011), 279–81, no. 57, with outdated biographical information.
For more information about Maria, see Marloes Huiskamp’s note online, which includes
several details supplied by myself.
7. This, at any rate, is the picture that emerges from the many notarial documents in Dordrecht
and The Hague that bear Schalcken’s signature alongside those of various pupils.
8. “Den 11 Juny gongen wy by een Hollandse schilder genaamt Gramagli, welke een Discipel
was geweest van Schalken; was een Portretschilder dog van de slegste soort.” Felix
Driessen, De reizen der De la Courts 1641–1700–1710 (Leiden, 1928), 99. De la Court called
the town Exon or Exchester. Nicolaas de Roever also knew this document, but had read thename of the painter as “Giamagli,” which is why Hofstede de Groot recorded him as such asa pupil of Schalcken in his Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis; this name wassubsequently misspelled in yet another way by Beherman, who recorded it as “Giamali.” See
N. de Roever, “Een bezoek aan den Ridder Adriaen van der Werff, kunstschilder, in1710,” Oud Holland 5 (1887): 70; Cornelis Hofstede de Groot, A Catalogue Raisonné of theWorks of the Most Eminent Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century Based on the Work ofJohn Smith, ed. and trans. Edward G. Hawke, 8 vols. (London, 1907–28), originally publishedas Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten höllandischenMaler des XVII. Jahrhunderts, 10 vols. (Esslingen and Paris, 1907–28), 5: 440; and Thierry
Beherman, Godfried Schalcken (Paris, 1988), 28. Nothing else is known about this painter.
9. Harold E. Wethey, El Greco and His School, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1962), 2: 78–79, nos. 121 and122, and 2:195, nos. X-137–X-140, for the copies. See also David Davies, John H. Elliott, andXavier Bray, et. al., El Greco (Exh. cat. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art; London,National Gallery) (London, 2003), 221–31, nos. 63/65.
10. Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., ed., Jan Lievens: A Dutch Master Rediscovered, (Exh. cat.
Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art; Milwaukee, Milwaukee Art Museum; Amsterdam,Museum Het Rembrandthuis) (New Haven, 2008), 7–8, with ill.
11. Jan Bialostocki, “Puer sufflans ignes,” in The Message of Images: Studies in the History of Art(Vienna, 1988), 139–44. Pliny refers in his Naturalis historia at 34:79 and 35:138 to the two
antique artworks, one by Lycius, the other by Antiphilus.

Provenance© 2020 The Leiden CollectionYoung Man Blowing a Torch to Light a Candle
Page 7 of 8Private collection, Northern Europe.[1](Sale, Christie’s, Amsterdam, 16 November 2006, no. 70 [to Johnny Van Haeften, Ltd.,
London, and Salomon Lilian, Amsterdam]).
From whom acquired by the present owner in 2006.

Provenance Notes

1. Unfortunately, nothing is known about the earlier whereabouts of this rather large painting. A
note made by Hofstede de Groot, kept at the RKD (Netherlands Institute for Art History) inThe Hague, reveals that in August 1926 he assessed a painting by Schalcken for the art
dealers Duret and Baumgartner in Geneva. He noted: “Twee levensgroote figuren, bijkaarslicht. Echt, maar te groot om aantrekkelijk te zijn. Verz. Comtesse de Broussillon,vroeger Julien Gréau rue de Verneil Parijs” (Two life-size figures by candlelight. Genuine, but
too large to be attractive. Collection Comtesse de Broussillon, formerly Julien Gréau rue deVerneil Paris). RKD Databases, Excerpts, HdG-fiche 1481675. Regrettably, there is noinformation on its measurements or support.

Exhibition History
Kansas City, Missouri, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, on loan with the permanentcollection, January–December 2009 [lent by the present owner].
Brooklyn, Brooklyn Museum, on loan with the permanent collection, March 2013–March 2016
[lent by the present owner].

References
Franits, Wayne. Godefridus Schalcken: A Dutch Painter in Late Seventeenth-Century
London. Amsterdam, 2018, 171 (as by Godefridus Schalcken and Workshop).

Versions
Versions and Copies

1. Godefridus Schalcken, Boy Blowing on a Firebrand to Light a Candle, oil on canvas, 75 x
© 2020 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Young Man Blowing a Torch to Light a Candle
Page 8 of 863.5 cm, signed bottom center “G. Schalcken,” National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh, NG2495.

Technical Summary
The support, a single piece of medium-weight, plain-weave fabric, has been lined. All four tacking
margins have been almost entirely removed, and narrow remnants of unprimed fabric remain.
Cusping along the upper and lower edges suggests the original dimensions have not beensignificantly altered. There are no wax collection seals, canvas stamps, inscriptions or labels
along the lining or stretcher.
A light-colored ground has been thinly and evenly applied. The paint has been applied smoothly inopaque layers blended wet-into-wet with no use of impasto. The shadows along the figure’s flesh
tones and garments have been applied in thin glazes. Highlights along the flame, glowing embers,
and candleholder have been applied with slightly raised brushwork.
No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images captured at 780–1000 nanometers and nocompositional changes are noted. There is no X-radiograph of the painting.
The painting appears to be unsigned and undated.
The painting has not undergone conservation treatment since its acquisition in 2006 and remains
in a good state of preservation.

© 2020 The Leiden Collection