Demonstration of Wax Figures
Follower of Jan Havicksz. Steen, possibly Richard
Brakenburgh (Haarlem 1650–1703)(Leiden 1626 – 1679 Leiden)

ca. 1685–95
oil on canvas
68.5 x 55.3 cm
JS-102© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 2 of 8

How to cite
Kloek, Wouter. “Demonstration of Wax Figures” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 3rd ed. Edited by Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr. and Lara Yeager-Crasselt. New York, 2020–23. https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/ (archivedDecember 2023).
A PDF of every version of this entry is available in this Online Catalogue's Archive, and the Archive is managed by apermanent URL. New versions are added only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

Adults and children gaze in amazement at the contents of a cabinet containing wax

Comparative Figures

figurines that a young man holds up for them to see. He is undoubtedly one of theSavoyards—natives of Savoy—who were well known as itinerant musicians (often
seen with a hurdy-gurdy and a monkey) or, as in this case, showmen whodemonstrated their tricks for a small fee. Although Savoyards generally had a badreputation, no one in this crowd seems the least bit wary of his presence. Thisshowman has attracted a range of onlookers, including an adolescent girl holding a
toddler in her arms and two or three boys at her right, one of whom has placed his left
arm on the shoulder of a smaller lad wearing a hat. A milkman and his wife are so
engrossed in the performance that they do not notice that a dog is lapping up milkfrom the milkman’s pail. An inquisitive young girl, hoping to enjoy the performance,
enters the courtyard through the gate at the left. A young woman watches the goingson from the door of the building as an older man stares at her, transfixed by her

Fig 1. Jan Steen, Little Alms Collector,
ca. 1665, oil on panel, 59 x 51
cm, Petit Palais, Paris, Legs Dutuit,
1902, PDUT00930

beauty. To the right of the children, an elderly woman observes the scene through apince-nez, unaware that the showman’s young accomplice is reaching into her purse tosteal from her. The boy simultaneously points at her and looks at the viewer, his
mocking expression signifying both her stupidity and her gullibility.
The theme of this painting is “appearances are deceiving and people are inclined to bedeceived.” This aphorism, popularized by Sebastian Brandt, well known as the authorof Narrenschip (Ship of Fools) of 1494, is based on a saying attributed to Petronius(ca. 27–66 A.D.) “Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur” (the world wants to bedeceived, so let it be deceived).[1] Brandt was also the compiler of Paradoxa, acollection of proverbs that appeared in 1542 and was responsible for the wide
dissemination of many proverbs. Jan Steen, who often based his pictorial themes on

Fig 2. Willem van Mieris, Peepshow,1718, oil on panel, 58 x 49 cm,Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, SK© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 3 of 8such proverbs, used his illusionistic manner of painting to reinforce the idea ofA-4941

human deception and the absurdity of the world.
The façade of the building providing the backdrop to the assembled company issimilar to that in Jan Steen’s painting Little Alms Collector, ca. 1665, a depiction of thechildren’s parade held at Whitsuntide (fig 1).[2] Despite the similarity of the building
and the gate in these two paintings, however, numerous small differences indicate thatthe scene is not an accurate rendering of an existing location.[3] One difference, forexample, is the flaking plaster on the building in Little Alms Collector, which is absent
in Demonstration of Wax Figures.
Despite the compositional connections to Little Alms Collector, there are reasons todoubt the attribution of Demonstration of Wax Figures to Steen. First of all, theexecution is quite smooth and too uninspired to be the work of this master. Onesearches in vain for the expressive rendering of clothing that Steen so depicted withpainterly brilliance, often executed wet-into-wet.[4] The meticulous execution of theheads of the secondary figures—such as the woman standing in the doorway and thegirl holding a hoop, approaching from the left—is not typical of the cursory character
in which the master depicted his supporting actors. Moreover, the facial features of
the cutpurse cannot be reconciled with figure types from Steen’s own hand.[5]One possibility is that the painting is based on a lost original by the master. This
theory is premised, in part, by the existence of another slightly different version of
the painting, also executed by a follower of Steen.[6] Both versions may derive from alost original by the master or, given the differences between them, from two lostoriginals.[7] In the Leiden Collection painting, for example, the girl approaching fromthe left has in her hands a hoop and a stick; in the other version she holds a littlewindmill on a stick.[8] The two figures in the doorway are also different: instead of ayoung woman and an older man leering at her, one sees a boy in a red cap and ayoung woman in a white cap who leans towards her companion. The clothing of theSavoyard’s apprentice is also completely different in these two works.
With the regard to the dating, it is significant that a milkman occupies a central
position in another of Steen’s compositions, Milkman, which the artist executed in thelate 1650s. The composition of this work is also similar, for the scene takes place in acourtyard with an archway opening to a distant vista.[9] These similarities suggest thatSteen’s original composition, on which the Leiden Collection painting is based,probably also dated from the second half of the 1650s.
Perhaps Richard Brakenburgh, a follower of Jan Steen, who often created heads suchas those of the background figures in this work, was the maker of the presentpainting. Although there is insufficient evidence to definitely attribute the work tohim, it may be assumed that the painting was executed in the late seventeenth century,© 2024 The Leiden CollectionDemonstration of Wax Figures
Page 4 of 8

at a time when Brakenburgh was making his many free imitations of Steen, including,for example, Feast of Saint Nicholas and Little Alms Collector, a work for which heunmistakably drew inspiration from Steen’s painting in the Petit Palais in Paris.[10] An
X-radiograph has revealed that the present work is painted over a male portrait, thestyle of which is not in keeping with that of Steen’s few known portraits.[11]The theme of Demonstration of Wax Figures was the focus of a painting by Willem
van Mieris (1662–1747), Peepshow (fig 2), which the Leiden artist made in 1718 forthe prosperous Leiden collector Allard de la Court, who purchased it for the hugesum of 1,000 guiders.[12] In those days Van Mieris’s painting was also called ’t Fraaij
curieus, a title that imitates the cry (“vrai curieux”) that the Savoyards sang in praiseof their marvelous peepshows. The painting’s Dutch title, Rarekiek, is derived fromkijken (to look) and raar (strange, rare, or curious), the latter not so much in the senseof “strange” (the usual meaning of the Dutch word), but rather in the English sense of“curious” or “exceptional.” As opposed to Demonstration of Wax Figures, Van
Mieris’s emphasis lies on the onlookers’ surprise and the detailed depiction of thepeasant interior, not on the deceit of simple folk who let themselves be fooled.

- Wouter Kloek, 2017

© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 5 of 8Endnotes
1. Similar sayings occur in the writings of Saint Augustine and Martin Luther.
2. Cornelis Hofstede de Groot, A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch Painters of
the Seventeenth Century Based on the Work of John Smith, ed. and trans. Edward G. Hawke, nos. 304,307, 311, 8 vols. London, 1907–28. Originally published as Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis derWerke der hervorragendsten höllandischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts. 10 vols. Esslingen and Paris,
1907–28, and Karel Braun, Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen (Rotterdam, 1980), no. 246. See, in particular,
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, 1996), no. 26 (text by Arthur Wheelock).
3. The building is also similar to that in an etching by Adriaen van Ostade (1610–84/85), The Knife
Grinder (B. 36), which the artist executed around 1653. A preparatory drawing is preserved in theBritish Museum in London; see S. William Pelletier, Leonard J. Slatkes, and Linda Stone-Ferrier,Adriaen van Ostade: Etchings of Peasant Life in Holland’s Golden Age (Exh. cat. Athens, GA.,
University of Georgia, Georgia Museum of Art; Lawrence, KS, University of Kansas, The Spencer
Museum of Art; Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Museum of Art) (Athens, GA., 1994), 184–85,266, no. 36. The resemblance was observed by Dominique Suhr.
4. This technique, which is characteristic of Steen’s work, was first described by Marigene Butler in “AnInvestigation of the Technique and Materials Used by Jan Steen,” Bulletin of the Philadelphia Museum ofArt 78 (1982–83): 45–46. See also Martin Bijl, “The Artist’s Working Method,” 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, 1996),
89.
5. Doubt was first cast on the attribution to Steen at the RKD (Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische
Documentatie/Netherlands Institute for Art History), where the work was classified by Fred Meijer as
by a follower of Steen, possibly Richard Brakenburgh.
6. In 1972 this painting was offered at an auction at Paul Brandt, Amsterdam on 16–19 May 1972, no. 92.
In 1973 it was in the possession of L. Worms in Antwerp. It had formerly been in the collection of H. E.
ter Kuile, Enschede and was with the art dealer D. Katz in Dieren.
7. See, for instance, The Merry Family, in versions in the Rijksmuseum and in the Philadelphia Museum ofArt. See also The Marriage of Tobias and Sarah in Braunschweig and what is presumed to be an earlier
version on the art market. For these works, see, respectively, Karel Braun, Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen(Rotterdam, 1980), no. 134, no. 216, no. 281, and no. 308.
8. Children with toy windmills were seen as symbols of childlike innocence; see also the Dutch expression“met molentjes lopen” (literally “to walk with windmills”).
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 6 of 8

9. For an image of this 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, 1996), 124, fig. 3. This composition also survives in twoversions. Karel Braun, Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen (Rotterdam, 1980), nos. B-65 and 65a, wrongly
doubts the attribution of both paintings to Steen. The first piece, presumably Steen’s original, was shownat an exhibition devoted to Steen that was held at the Mauritshuis, 1958/59, no. 8.
10. This latter painting was sold at auction in Vienna, Christie’s, 29–30 October 1996, no. 48, ill.
11. The few portraits by Steen, such as the famous Burgomaster of Delft and the four small portraits that
Steen made for Gerrit Schouten provide no support for an autograph attribution. The Self-Portrait in theRijksmuseum, which has a complicated genesis and shows that Steen had an unexpected side as aportraitist, is the closest in comparison to the overpainted portrait. However, the similarities areinsufficient grounds for an attribution. On these portraits, 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, 1996), nos. 7, 29, 40.
12. See Reinier Baarsen et al., Nederlandse kunst in het Rijksmuseum 1700–1800 (Amsterdam, 2006), no. 13(text by Duncan Bull).

ProvenanceCharles-Auguste-Louis-Joseph de Morny (1811–65), Duc de Morny, Paris, by 1862.
E. Martinet Collection, Paris (his sale, Chevalier Duchesne, Paris, 27 February 1896, no. 39).
Boissière Collection, Paris (his sale, Chevallier, Hôtel Drouot, Paris, 19 February 1883, no. 46 [2,600francs]).
Sir Joseph Robinson, Bart (1840–1929), London (his sale, Christie’s, London, 6 July 1923, no. 90,bought back); by descent to his daughter, Princess Ida Labia (1879–1961), Cape Town; by descent toher son (his sale, Sotheby’s, London, 7 December 1988, no. 97).
(Sale, Sotheby’s, London, 11 December 2003, no. 68 [Salomon Lilian B. V., Amsterdam]).
From whom acquired by the present owner.

Exhibition History
London, Royal Academy of Arts, “The Robinson Collection: Paintings from the Collection of the late
Sir J. B. Robinson, Bt.,” 2 July–14 September 1958, no. 43 [lent by the Princess Ida Labia].
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 7 of 8

Cape Town, South Africa, National Gallery of South Africa, “The Joseph Robinson Collection Lent bythe Princess Labia,” April 1959, no. 59 [lent by the Princess Ida Labia).
Zurich, Kunsthaus, “Sammlung Sir Joseph Robinson 1840–1929 Werke europäischer Malerei vom 15.
bis 19 Jahrhundert,” 17 August–16 September 1962, no. 39 [lent by an heir of Princess Ida Labia].
Ithaca, NY, Cornell University, Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, “An Eye For Detail: Dutch Painting
From The Leiden Collection,” 20 September 2014–21 June 2015 [lent by the present owner].

References
Vernier, Valery. Les Joyaux de la peinture. La Galerie de M. le comte de Morny. Paris, 1862, as by JanSteen.
Legrange, Léon. “La Galerie de M. le duc de Morny.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 14 (1863): 299–300, as byJan Steen.
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. Edited and translated by Edward G. Hawke, 1:67, no. 216. 8 vols. London, 1907–1928. Originally published as Beschreibendes und kritisches
Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten höllandischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts. 10 vols.
Esslingen and Paris, 1907–1928.
“Collected by a South African Millionaire: Paintings from the Robinson Collection,” The Illustrated
London News 233, no. 6213 (1958): 30, as by Jan Steen.
“The Robinson Pictures (Capetown’s Gain: London’s Loss),” The Connoisseur 142 (November, 1958):
97, no. 7 and no. 43, as by Jan Steen.
Braun, Karel. Jan Steen: Alle tot nu toe bekende schilderijen. Rotterdam, 1980, 147, no. A-125, as by JanSteen.
Hecht, Peter. De Hollandse fijnschilders van Gerard Dou tot Adiaen van der Werff. Amsterdam, 1989,
128, as by Jan Steen.

VersionsVersions and Copies
1. Follower of Jan Steen, Wax Figure Seller, oil on panel, 51.5 x 41 cm, current whereabouts unknown;
formerly Engelbert Hendrik ter Kuile, Enschede; [D. Katz, Dieren]; (sale, Paul Brandt, Amsterdam,16–19 May 1972, no. 92); L. Worms, Antwerp, by 1973.

© 2024 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 8 of 8

Technical Summary
The support, a single piece of fine, plain-weave fabric, has been lined. All four tacking margins have been
removed and paper tape extends into the face of the painting along all four sides. Cusping and old turnovercreases along all four outer edges of the composition suggest the original image dimensions are about 2 cm
smaller than the present stretcher dimensions in both directions. There are three paper labels but no wax
seals, import stamps or stencils along the lining or stretcher.
A light-colored ground has been thinly and evenly applied followed by paint applied with loose fluid
brushstrokes in thin, smooth, glazes and no use of impasto.[1]The X-radiograph reveals an earlier composition, a half-length portrait of a young male gazing at the viewer,
oriented upright, below the present composition.[2] No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images
captured at 780–1000 nanometers and there are no compositional changes visible in the images or as
pentimenti.
The painting is unsigned and undated. A “JSteen” signature previously located along the upper right corner of
the architectural arch, was removed during a past conservation treatment because it was found to be soluble
and thus believed to be false.
The painting was cleaned and restored in Amsterdam in 2004 and remains in a good state of preservation.

Technical Summary Endnotes

1. The painting was examined on-site without a stereomicroscope. Magnification provided by a 5X
Optivisor.
2. According to Dominique Suhr, Leiden Collection Curator, this male figure appears to beuncharacteristic of Steen and is probably by a different hand.

© 2024 The Leiden Collection