Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Jan Steen(Leiden 1626 – 1679 Leiden)

1671
oil on canvas
134.6 x 172.7 cm
signed and dated: “Jan Steen / 1671”
JS-112© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 2 of 15

How to cite
Kloek, Wouter. “Sacrifice of Iphigenia” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 2nd ed. Edited by Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017–20. https://theleidencollection.com/artwork/the-sacrifice-of-iphigenia/ (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 narrative
occurs.

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 to besacrificed to appease an angry goddess, yet the scene has little of the gravity
one would expect from such a serious subject. Surrounding the demure
heroine, dressed in virginal white, are an array of theatrical types that seem
to overplay their parts: the blood-thirsty executioner, the old crone yelling at
the crying child, the despairing father, a conniving priest, supercilious
soldiers, and a crowd of curious onlookers awaiting the denouement of theaction.
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 . .
. that one would be almost tempted to doubt, whether the artist did not

Fig 1. Jan Steen, Supper at
Emmaus, ca. 1665–66, oil oncanvas, 134 x 104 cm,
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, SKA-1932

purposely intend to burlesque his subject.”[1] Indeed, Reynolds’s comments
raise questions about how one should approach this masterpiece, 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 1).[2] So
when Steen did opt to introduce humor to a serious subject such as theFig 2. Jan Steen, Moses© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 3 of 15

sacrifice of Iphigenia, one needs to ask why and for what intent? Thequestion is particularly intriguing because Steen only depicted this story fromTrampling Pharaoh’s Crown, ca.
1670, oil on canvas, 78 x 79 cm,
Mauritshuis, The Hague

the Trojan War once, in this large painting that he executed near the end of
his career. To some extent the answer lies in Steen’s fascination with thetheater, but it also revolves around his awareness of the social, political, andreligious disputes in the Dutch Republic. As discussed below, it is likely that
Steen decided to depict this subject in a satirical manner as a means tocomment critically on the complicated theological and political power
struggles occurring in the seventeenth-century 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 unfolds
at the very beginning of the Trojan War, shortly after Paris abducted Helen,
the wife of Menelaus, and took her to Troy. Menelaus’s brother,Fig 3. Nicolas Beatrizet,
presumably after Francesco
Salviati, The Sacrifice of Iphigenia,
ca. 1553–55, engraving, 320 x 445
mm, British Museum, London, 195
1,0407.80, © The Trustees of the
British Museum

Agamemnon, was the leader of an expedition of Greek warriors whogathered at Aulis, a port in central Greece, to set sail for Troy to retrieve
Helen. When unfavorable winds prevented his fleet from departing, the seer
Calchas discovered that the goddess Diana was delaying the ships as an actof revenge against Agamemnon, who had previously killed a stag in her
sacred woods. Calchas told Agamemnon that to appease the goddess, hewould have to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia. Agamemnon thus summoned
Iphigenia and his wife, Clytemnestra, to Aulis under the pretext that theirFig 4. Jan de Baen, The Syndics,
1675, oil on canvas, 152 x 315 cm,
Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal,
Leiden, inv. S 12

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 to beslain in her stead.
Jan Steen could have read Euripides’s play when he was at the Latin Schoolin 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 indicates that
Euripides’s text was not his only source of inspiration. Also important for 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© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 4 of 15

factions of the Dutch Reformed Church: the Remonstrants and the CounterRemonstrants. The religious dispute became a political power struggle when
Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (1547–1619), the most prominent Dutch politicianof the era, sided with the first, more liberal group, while Prince Maurits ofOrange (1567–1625), the commander in chief of the Dutch forces, opted forthe 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 CouterRemonstrants lasted during the following decades.
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 strictobedience to religious rules, in contrast with the priest Calchas who plays amoderate role. At the first performance of the play, it must have been 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 informer times, but still topical. In the introduction to his play he stated that thepoets of antiquity did not just leave the play to posterity as an invention, butthat they meant it as:a painting on the wall, in which observant people can measure thecourse of the World, and can determine how Hypocrisy, under the cloakof 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 tocome of age, and it was unclear what his role in the Republic should be; thedebate over personal liberty, religious tolerance, and overbearing churchinterference in civic life had flared up again; and noted philosopher Baruch
Spinoza (1632–77) had published his acclaimed Tractatus Theologico© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 5 of 15

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 ofIphigenia as the basis for his pictorial message of caution. 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 is there—maybe the man with the
fur cap to the right—a second priest? It is very well possible that Steen justfollowed Euripides’ play, while at the same time referring to theinterpretations of Coster.
Jan Steen staged the scene across the canvas as though it were a theatricalperformance. The young victim kneels with her eyes closed before an altar
erected under a statue of Diana. Her executioner, the personification 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 ahelmeted soldier looking askance toward Agamemnon, likely Ulysses, whoconceived 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 literary sources 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 tosacrifice a stag rather than Iphigenia by draping laurel vines around its neck.
Steen enriched the right foreground with a translucent bottle of oil and abasket of roses 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), thenthought to have been based on a design by Michelangelo (1475–1564) (fig 3).[7] Steen not only took over the image of the stag from this print, but also thepose 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 merchant and syndic in a
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 6 of 15

group portrait by Jan de Baen (1633–1702) in Leiden’s Lakenhal (fig 4), wasalso an accomplished glass calligrapher, poet, and the author of several
plays.[10] It was in these latter capacities that his image was included
in Panpoëticon Batavum, a collection of paintings of Dutch poets that
Aernout van Halen (1673–1732) created in the early 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 thepainter Isaac Claesz van Swanenburgh (1537–1614).[11] In 1647 Steen’sfamily lived on the south side of the Nieuwe Rijn, diagonally opposite thesehouses. After Steen’s return to Leiden in 1670, the two men would havelikely 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), both ofwhich were inherited by Van Heemskerck’s descendent, Leonard van
Heemskerck. It is remarkable that that two of Steen’s large paintings—both
nearly two meters wide—were owned by one person and, centuries later, areagain 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 performed in
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 come underattack 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 of pieces, particularly
those referring to political and religious disputes, as had been the case with
Coster’s Iphigenia, which had not been performed in 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 of theseventeenth century, Holland had small reading societies at which roles wereallocated to the members and plays were read aloud in a group.[14] It is
entirely possible that Steen and Van Heemskerck belonged to the same play© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 7 of 15

reading club and that they both participated in the reading of a piece, such as
Coster’s Iphigenia. Steen, a Catholic, and Van Heemskerck, a Remonstrant,
would certainly have sympathized with the mockery of the fanatical
Reformed clergymen that had caused the play to be banned from the stage.
This painting, with its array of theatrical poses and gestures, may well havebeen made with such a recitation in mind.
Steen’s comic mode is greatly beloved the world over; however, historicallyhe 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 had received
instruction from Michelangelo and Raphael instead of from Adriaen Brouwer
and Jan van Goyen, could have become a great artist: “he would haveranged with the pillars and supporters of our Art.”[15] As already noted, in
his Eighth Discourse of 1786 Reynolds lashed out at the prime example of
Steen’s failings, Sacrifice of Iphigenia.[16] Reynold’s criticisms have a ring oftruth, particularly as seen from a classicist vantage point, but here theEnglish painter and critic entirely misses Steen’s cautionary politicalcommentary. Steen, who loved to make viewers laugh, does not in any way
ridicule the heroism of Iphigenia, but rather emphasizes the weaknesses anddeceitful behavior of those surrounding her. His intent, almost certainly, wasto mock the self-righteous 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 for thoughtfulcomments on the first draft of this entry.

- Wouter Kloek, 2017

© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 8 of 15

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 wasonce 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 book 12, 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)inR.

A.

Kollewijn,ed.,

SamuelCoster’s werken (Haarlem, 1883); see pp. 223–24 for Coster’s introduction, in which heoutlines his play. On the importance of Samuel Coster, see Mieke B. Smits-Veld, Samuel
Coster, ethicus-didacticus (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, 1996),
nos. 34, 45. Ebeltje Hartkamp-Jonxis has kindly identified the chintz. On the subject of chintz,
seeEbeltjeHartkamp-Jonxis

andHillieSmit,

European

Tapestries

in

the

Rijksmuseum (Amsterdam, 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 (Amsterdam, 2005), 47–49. See also Ariane van Suchtelen, Jan
Steen in the Mauritshuis (The Hague, 2011), 18–21, where the drawing’s authenticity is not
doubted.
7. Today the design is attributed to Francesco Salviati. See Wouter Kloek, Jan Steen© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 9 of 15

1626–1679 (Zwolle, 2005), 65–66.
8. Steen often showed off his grounding in art by borrowing images from his illustrious
predecessors. See Mariët Westermann, The Amusements of Jan Steen (Zwolle, 1997), chap.
5, and Wouter Kloek, Jan Steen 1626–1679 (Zwolle, 2005), 67–73. In addition to Pieter
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

Magazijn 16 (1998): 23. For an assessment of his glass engravings, see: Pieter C. Ritsema
van Eck and Henrica 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 the cloth finishers’
guild from 1645 onward, he continued for a long time to be plagued by financial 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, 1996), 63,
where she argues that by “casting his history paintings of the late 1660s and 1670s indeliberately retardataire, non-classicist modes, Steen created a comic mode of history thatwas 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.
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 10 of 15

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 [to Fouquet]).
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]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 the Deutsches
Historisches Museum website.

Exhibition History
London, The British Gallery, 1835.
London, Barbizon House, 1922, no. 33
Leiden, De Lakenhal, “Jan Steen,” 1926, no. 60.
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 11 of 15

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].
Shanghai, Long Museum, West Bund, “Rembrandt, Vermeer and Hals in the Dutch Golden
Age: Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection,” 23 September 2017–25 February 2018 [lentby the present owner].
Moscow, The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, “The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer:
Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection,” 28 March 2018–22 July 2018 [lent by the present
owner].
St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, “The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer:
Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection,” 5 September 2018–13 January 2019 [lent by thepresent owner].
Abu Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi, “Rembrandt, Vermeer and the Dutch Golden Age.
Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection and the Musée du Louvre,” 14 February–18 May
2019 [lent by the present owner].

References© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 12 of 15

Reynolds, Sir Joshua. “Discourses XIII.” In Sir Joshua Reynolds: Discourses on Art. Edited byRobert R. Wark, 315. 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, Gustav Friedrich. Treasures of art in Great Britain: being an account of the chiefcollections of paintings, drawings, sculptures, illuminated mss. 3 vols. London 1854–57. 2:
250.
Van Westrheene, Tobias. Jan Steen; étude sur l’art en Hollande. The Hague, 1856, 123, no.
105.
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 translatedby Edward G. Hawke, 1: 27, no. 74. 8 vols. London, 1907–28. Originally published as
Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten höllandischen
Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts. 10 vols. Esslingen and Paris, 1907–28.
Hirschmann, Otto. “Die Sammlung A. Preyer im Haag.” Cicerone 15 (January 1923): 134–35.
Bredius, Abraham.

Jan Steen. Met honderd platen bevattende 101 afbeeldingen in

photogravure van zijne beste werken. Amsterdam, 1927, 39.
Catalogue des Nouvelles Acquisitions de la Collection Goudstikker Exposée à Amsterdam.
Amsterdam, 1928. no. 34.
Van Gils, Johan Baptist Franciscus. Op de Hoogte. Amsterdam, 1937, 92.
De Rooij, B. Breninkmeyer. De schilderijen gallerij van Prius Willem V op het Buitenhof te
Den Haag. Amsterdam 1976, p. 152, 153, fig. 6.
Heppner, Albert. “The Popular Theatre of the Rederijkers in the works of Jan Steen and his
Contemporaries.” In Journal of Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 3 (1939–40): 22–48.
De Jonge, Caroline Henriette. Jan Steen. Amsterdam, 1939, 55–57.
Gudlaugsson, Sturla J. De Komedianten bij Jan Steen en Zijn Tijdgenooten. The Hague,
1945, 66.
De Groot, Cornelis Wilhelmus. Jan Steen: Beeld en Woord. Utrecht and Nijmegen, 1952, 69,
no. 8.
Martin, Wilhelm. Jan Steen. Amsterdam, 1954, 23, 56, 71, no. 62.
Scherer, Margaret R. The Legends of Troy in Art and Literature. New York, 1963, 247–8.
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, no. 4.
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 13 of 15

Van Thiel, Pieter J. J. All the Paintings of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. Amsterdam, 1976,
521-22, A. 3984.
Kirshchenbaum, Baruch D. The Religious and Historical Paintings of Jan Steen. New York.
Montclair, 1977, p. 20, 50, 51, 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 York andPrinceton, 1987, 7: 283.
De Vries, Lyckle. Jan Steen Prinsjesdag. Bloemendaal, 1992, 43, 44, 64, 70, 93.
Wright, Christopher. The World’s Master Paintings: from the early Renaissance to thepresent day. 2 vols. London and New York, 1992, 369.
Westermann, Mariet. The Amusements of Jan Steen: Comic Painting in the SeventeenthCentury. Zwolle, 1997, 31, 83, fig. 2, 279, 302-303.
Kloek, Wouter. Een huishouden van Jan Steen. Hilversum, 1998, 35, 75.
Chapman, H. Perry, Wouter Th. Kloek, and Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. Jan Steen, Painter andStoryteller. Edited by Guido Jansen, 14, no. 6. Exh. cat. Washington D.C., National Gallery ofArt; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. New Haven, 1996.
Schoon, Peter and Sander Paarlberg, ed. Greek Gods and Heroes in the Age of Rubens andRembrandt. Exh. cat. Athens, National Gallery–Museum Alexandros Soutzos andNetherlands Institute; Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum. Athens, 2000, 308-309, 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 C. Reclaimed: Paintings from the Collection of Jacques Goudstikker. Exh. cat.,Greenwich, Bruce Museum; New York, The Jewish Museum. New Haven and London, 2008,
206-209, no. 28.
Yeide, Nancy H. Beyond the Dreams of Avarice: The Hermann Goering Collection. Dallas,
2009, 73, A373.
Ducos, Blaise, and Dominique Surh. “Sacrifice of Iphigenia.” In Masterpieces of The Leiden
Collection: The Age of Rembrandt. Edited by Blaise Ducos and Dominique Surh, 28, no. 4.
Exh. cat. Paris, Musée du Louvre. Paris, 2017.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “Sacrifice of Iphigenia.” In Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces of
The Leiden Collection. Edited by Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 162; 190, no. 71. Translated by Li
Ying. Exh. cat. Beijing, National Museum of China. Beijing, 2017.
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 14 of 15

Long Museum, West Bund. Rembrandt, Vermeer and Hals in the Dutch Golden Age:
Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection. Exh. cat. Shanghai, Long Museum, West Bund.
Shanghai, 2017, 180–81.
Van Gulick, Rosalie. “The Critical Fortune of Jan Steen’s Old Testament Paintings.” In Prideand Persecution: Jan Steen’s Old Testament Scenes. Edited by Robert Wenley, Nina Cahill,
and Rosalie van Gulick, 39, fig. 24. Exh. cat. Birmingham, U.K., The Barber Institute of Fine
Arts, University of Birmingham. London, 2017.
Kloek, Wouter. “Jan Steen, His Repertoire of Motifs and History Painting.” In Jan Steen’s
Histories. Edited by Ariane van Suchtelen, 32, 39–40, no. 13. Exh. cat. The Hague,
Mauritshuis. Zwolle and The Hague, 2018.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “The Leiden Collection and the Dutch Golden Age.” In The Age of
Rembrandt and Vermeer: Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection. Edited by Polina
Lyubimova, 19; 30. Translated by Daria Babich and Daria Kuzina. Exh. cat. Moscow, The
Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts; St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum. Moscow,
2018.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra.” In The Age of Rembrandt andVermeer: Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection. Edited by Polina Lyubimova, 194–95; 245,
no. 64. Translated by Daria Babich and Daria Kuzina. Exh. cat. Moscow, The Pushkin State
Museum of Fine Arts; St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum. Moscow, 2018.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “The Leiden Collection and the Dutch Golden Age.” In Rembrandt,
Vermeer and the Dutch Golden Age. Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection and the
Musée du Louvre. Edited by Blaise Ducos and Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 26. Exh. cat. Abu
Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi. London, 2019. [Exhibition catalogue also published in French andArabic.]Blanc, Jan. “Being Modern, Being Dutch: The Seventeenth-Century Invention of the GoldenAge.” In Rembrandt, Vermeer and the Dutch Golden Age. Masterpieces from The Leiden
Collection and the Musée du Louvre. Edited by Blaise Ducos and Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 39.
Exh. cat. Abu Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi. London, 2019. [Exhibition catalogue also publishedin French and Arabic.]
Ducos, Blaise, and Lara Yeager-Crasselt, eds. Rembrandt, Vermeer and the Dutch Golden
Age. Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection and the Musée du Louvre. Exh. cat. Abu
Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi. London, 2019, 181, no. 94. [Exhibition catalogue also published in
French and Arabic.]

Technical Summary
The support, a single piece of plain-weave canvas, has been wax-lined onto a similar secondary© 2020 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Sacrifice of Iphigenia
Page 15 of 15

canvas and stretched onto a 7-member stretcher. X-radiography reveals cusping at all four edges,
indicating that the original painted dimensions have not been altered. There is a modest amountof retouching densest in Iphegenia’s sash and in several large patches left of the executioner andalong 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 the executioner’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 exposedsurrounding 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
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.

© 2020 The Leiden Collection