Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
How to cite
Bakker, Piet. “Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue,
2nd ed. Edited by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017–20. https://theleidencollection.com/essays/gerritdou-and-his-collectors-in-the-golden-age/ (archived May 2020).
A PDF of every version of this essay 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.

© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 2 of 26

Gerrit Dou (1613–75) apprenticed with Rembrandt van Rijn (1606–69)
between 1628–31, when he likely executed this early Self-Portrait (?) at an
Easel (fig 1). A mere eighteen years old, Dou established himself as anindependent artist shortly after Rembrandt’s departure, electing to stay in his
native Leiden, where he resided continuously until his death in 1675.
Painting in Leiden entered a critical period beginning in 1631 when several of
the city’s leading artists, including Rembrandt and Jan Lievens (1607–74)
both departed. This loss of talent hugely depleted Leiden’s artistic milieu.
Nonetheless, coinciding with this drain was the dawn of Dou’s remarkablecareer. His fame would soon spread not only throughout Leiden, but also far
beyond the borders of the Netherlands.
Dou was the cornerstone of a local school of painting that lasted deep into
the eighteenth century. This school was characterized by a highly precise
and extremely detailed manner of painting in a small format. The painters in

Fig 1. Attributed to Gerrit
Dou, Self-Portrait at an Easel, oil
on panel, 66.6 x 50.9 cm, The
Leiden Collection, New York, inv.
no. GD-112.

Leiden working in this style became known as “the Leiden fijnschilders” inthe nineteenth century.[1] Among them was Frans van Mieris the Elder(1635–81), the only pupil of Dou to equal, if not surpass, his master. They
were without a doubt the two most important Leiden fijnschilders, although
there were also other highly deserving painters who are the subject of theessay Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age in thiscatalogue.

Dou’s First Accolades
The first author to praise Dou and his exquisite painting style was the Leiden
burgomaster Jan Orlers (1570–1646). In his 1641 Beschryvinge van de Stad
Leyden, Orlers commends Dou as “an excellent master, especially in small,
subtle, and intricate things.”[2] A year later, the Leiden painter Philips Angel(1618–64) published his Lof der Schilder-Konst, in which Dou again assumes
a leading role. This slender volume was the printed version of a lecture AngelFig 2. Gerrit Dou, Portrait of aLady, Seated with a Music Bookon her Lap, ca. 1640–44, oil on
panel, 27.2 x 20 cm, The Leiden
Collection, New York, inv. no.
GD-116.

gave on the Feast of Saint Luke the previous year to an assembly ofcolleagues and art lovers.[3] Dou, “Die noyt ghenoegh ghepresen” (who cannever be praised enough), is mentioned twice in this treatise. In a passage
regarding the ideal manner of painting, Angel urges his confrères to follow
Dou’s example.[4] Illustrating the integrity of the painter’s métier with several
specific examples, he notes “that fine, outstanding Gerrit Dou, who, because
he has granted the Honorable Gentleman Spierings the right of first refusal,
annually receives 500 guilders for this privilege.”[5] While “Heer Spierings”© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 3 of 26(discussed below) was not a patron in the true sense of the word, the annual
500-guilder stipend provided Dou with a guaranteed income. In a time whenskilled laborers earned one guilder per day, this would have made Dou theenvy of his colleagues.

The Dissemination of Dou’s Work
Orlers’s and Angel’s publications suggest that around 1640, Dou was themost successful painter in Leiden. Although Angel mentions Spiering’s
generous right of first refusal foremost as evidence of Dou’s merits, theartist’s economic success certainly was a key factor in Angel’s endorsementof him as a role model.
Of Dou’s important status, there is surprisingly scant evidence to be found in

Fig 3. Gerrit Dou, The Young
Mother, 1658, oil on panel, 73.5
cm x 55.5 cm, Mauritshuis, The
Hague, inv. no. 32.

Leiden’s archives. He occupies a modest twelfth place among the mostfrequently cited artists in seventeenth-century estate inventories.[6] When one
considers the number of paintings mentioned, he drops off the list entirely.
Dou’s paintings are listed in only thirteen estate inventories, placing him
thirty-second among Leiden painters. Remarkably, Dou’s name does notoccur once in Leiden inventories dating before 1650.
This meager presence is less meaningful than would appear at first glance.
Notaries did not really begin to include attributions of paintings in documents
until the 1650s.[7] Equally important, the artist’s laborious and timeconsuming manner of painting helps account for his low output—one,
moreover, that may have been monopolized over a long period of time by asingle patron, Pieter Spiering (1595–1652). Dou charged a steep hourly fee,
which means that his paintings were so expensive that they were only within

Fig 4. Gerrit Dou, A Young
Woman at Her Toilet, 1667, oil on
panel, 58 x 75.5 cm, Museum
Boijmans Van Beuningen,Rotterdam, inv. no. 1186 (OK).

reach of an extremely wealthy—and therefore small and exclusive—circle ofbuyers. In fact, it would have been surprising if Dou’s name did occur
frequently in estate inventories, both before and after 1650.
The earliest attribution of a painting to Dou in Leiden is found in a 1656
inventory of one of his pupils, Abraham de Pape (ca. 1620–66).[8] Along withnumerous copies that De Pape made of Dou’s work, he owned two originals,
namely his portrait and “een oud mans tronie” (tronie of an old man). In thatsame year, “een stuk van Dou” (a painting by Dou) is recorded among themany pictures owned by Johan Francois Tortarolis (ca. 1600–53), afabulously wealthy banker.[9] An additional eleven Leiden deeds, drawn up
between 1661 and 1697, all concern the holdings of Leiden’s elite, including
Johan de Bye (1621/22–70/72) and Franciscus de le Boë Sylvius (1614–72),
who are each discussed in depth below.

Fig 5. Gerrit Dou, Old Man Praying, ca. 1665–70, oil on panel, 18 x
12.7 cm, The Leiden Collection,© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 4 of 26

The near absence of paintings by Dou in Leiden documents typifies the

New York, inv. no. GD-107.

situation in other Dutch towns as well. The very earliest mention of one of his
paintings actually occurs in a Delft deed of conveyance of the linen merchant
Justus de la Grange (1623–64),[10] who in 1655 settled a debt with several
paintings, including one by Dou. De la Grange frequented Delft regularly, but
was more often to be found at Offem, his country estate near Leiden, where
he hung the paintings mentioned in his inventory. The merchant owed his
great prosperity primarily to affluent Leiden relatives, whose estates he had
inherited. Thus, whether he actually bought Dou’s painting cannot be
determined with certainty.
Dating from 1655 is an invitation, written in French, from notary Willem deLangue (1599–1656) in Delft to purchase “en tout, ou en part” (in full, or inpart) his collection. Assembled between 1625 and 1655, it comprised eightynine paintings by various Dutch masters, including “six pièces de Gerrard

Fig 6. Gerrit Dou, An Interior with
Young Violinist, 1637, oil on panel
with arched top, 78.9 x 60.2 cm,
Scottish National Gallery,
Edinburgh, inv. no. NG. 2420

Dou” (six paintings by Gerrit Dou).[11] Regrettably, these works are notdescribed, which may be why De Langue is rarely mentioned as a patron of
Dou in the literature. Nothing is known about the relationship between Dou
and De Langue, but it should be remembered that De Langue was a reputed
collector and connoisseur. His invitation was aimed at an international
audience, perhaps the foreign diplomats residing nearby in The Hague. The
possibility that De Langue was acquainted with his fellow townsman Pieter
Spiering cannot be excluded.
In addition to the Leiden and Delft deeds, a Middelburg estate inventory from1676 lists “een principael van Gerrit Douw” (a principal [work] by
Gerrit Dou).[12] Works by Dou are also featured in the stock inventories of the
Amsterdam art dealers Johannes de Renialme (1657) and Gerrit Uylenburgh(1674). De Renialme’s estate even contains five pictures by the artist, one ofFig 7. Gerrit Dou, Scholar
Interrupted at His Writing, ca.
1635, oil on oval panel, 24.5 x 20
cm, The Leiden Collection, New
York, inv. no. GD-102.

which is by both Dou and Rembrandt.[13] The inventory of the Amsterdam art
dealer Laurens Maurits Douci (1669) owned an unspecified painting that,
according to the appraisers Ferdinand Bol and Gerrit Uylenburgh, was jointly
painted by Dou and Govaert Flinck.[14]There was an audience for Dou’s work in Rotterdam and The Hague as well.
For example, the 1680 inventory of collector and amateur painter Jacob Loys(ca. 1620–78) lists “een vroutge met lampge van Gerrit Douw” (a woman
with a lamp by Gerrit Dou).[15] Loys must have previously owned other workby Dou, because the description of the painting just mentioned does notmatch up with the work that French envoy Balthasar de Monconys (1611–65)
described in his journal upon visiting the dealer in 1663 as “une femme qui

Fig 8. Gerrit Dou, Portrait of Dirck
van Beresteyn, ca. 1652, oil on© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 5 of 26

tire du vin de Dau” (a woman tapping wine by Dou).[16] Thanks to De
Monconys’s writings, we know the name of another Rotterdam owner ofoval silver-copper alloy, 10.2 x 8.2
cm, The Leiden Collection, New
York, inv. no. GD-111.

Dou’s work. Among the possessions of the merchant “Mr. Guèras” (perhaps
Mr. Gerards?), the Frenchman encountered a painting by Van Mieris, “quivont du pair avec celles de son maître Dou” (which goes hand in hand withthose by his master Dou).[17] When De Monconys later visited The Hague, hesaw “une femme Dau” (a woman [by] Dou) at the home of the Lord of
Noordwijk—presumably Wigbold van der Does (1611–69)—which he praised
as being “parfaitement beaux” (perfectly beautiful).[18]The Prices for Dou’s Work
The fact that Leiden’s preeminent painter appears in only a handful of
Leiden inventories can easily be explained as a function of his pricing. Dou’s
exorbitant prices stemmed, in part, from his meticulous and time-consuming
manner of painting. The artist lived to paint and was a stickler for perfection.
He could spend days elaborating the tiniest of details, and would work on a

Fig 9. Gerrit Dou, The Dropsical
Woman, 1663, oil on panel, 86 x
68 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris,
inv. no. 1213, © Musée du Louvre,Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Adrien
Didierjean / Art Resource, NY.

single painting for weeks on end. This meticulous style is evident in several
works in The Leiden Collection, such as his delicate Portrait of a Lady,
Seated with a Music Book on her Lap (fig 2). He charged a steep fee of six
guilders per hour, and according to his biographer Joachim von Sandrart(1606–88), a painting of Dou’s could cost up to 1,000 guilders.[19] When
Sandrart visited Dou around 1640 and complimented him on his extreme
patience in painting a broomstick “der ein schlechtes gröszer als ein Fingers
Nagel ware” (which was hardly larger than a fingernail), Dou responded that
he would require at least three more days to complete it. Soon thereafter,
when Sandrart was in The Hague to portray Pieter Spiering, the latter’s wife,
Jeanne Doré, related another story about Dou’s perfectionism: for a small
portrait of Spiering and his family that Dou had just recently completed, he
had had Jeanne pose in an armchair in his studio for five consecutive days in

Fig 10. Gerrit Dou, Cat Crouchingon the Ledge of an Artist’s Atelier,
1657, oil on panel, 34 x 26.9 cm,
The Leiden Collection, New York,
inv. no. GD-108.

order to paint just her hand![20] One can only imagine how many weeks it
took the artist to paint the entire portrait.
The excessive prices Dou received for his work are both confirmed andcontradicted by documentary evidence. One confirmation is the extraordinary
amount of 4,000 guilders the States of Holland paid Dou for his painting of
The Young Mother in 1660, now in the Mauritshuis (fig 3).[21] Anotherexample is “een keuckenmeyt” (a kitchen maid) listed in the inventory ofJohannes de Renialme, mentioned above, that was appraised at 600
guilders. To De Monconys’s astonishment, in 1663 Dou asked the same© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 6 of 26

amount for a picture of a girl at a window.
Most of the prices of Dou’s paintings cited in seventeenth-century archival
documents, however, are lower. In 1678 the painters Dirck Dircksz Santvoort(1609–80) and Melchior Hondecoeter (1636–95) appraised “een vrouwtie dat
gekapt wordt met openslaende deuren daerop een suygende vrouwtie bij delamp” (a woman being coiffed, with a door opening outward on which is[painted] a woman nursing by candlelight) in the estate of the Amsterdam
merchant Jan Rouyer, heir of the Leiden Dou aficionado Franciscus de leBoë Sylvius, at 450 guilders, possibly Lady at Her Toilet in the Boijmans
Museum (fig 4).[22] This is not inexpensive, but three other paintings werevalued at 200, 150, and 100 guilders, respectively. In 1675 “een St.
Franciscus” (a Saint Francis) by Dou in the stock of Gerrit Uylenburgh(1626–79) was estimated at 250 guilders. This amount is close to the 230
guilders that the Delft art dealer Abraham de Cooge (before 1606–afterFig 11. Gerrit Dou, Young Woman
in a Niche with a Parrot and aCage, ca. 1660–65, oil on panel,
24.8 x 18.4 cm, The Leiden
Collection, New York, inv. no.
GD-105.

1680) paid the Utrecht merchant Dirck Scade in 1665 “voor een stukje vanDou, voorstellend een kluizenaar” (for a small painting by Dou, representing
a hermit), which may be one in the same, or a similar work as Old Man
Praying in The Leiden Collection (fig 5).[23] When the Danish scholar Ole
Borch (1626–90) visited the studio of Jacob Toorenvliet (1640–1719) in
1662, he saw a portrait by Dou of his brother Jan Dou that, according toToorenvliet, was worth 200 guilders.[24]Although most of these prices and valuations are lower than what Sandrart
quoted, they are still very high compared to what Dou’s colleagues charged.
Nevertheless, some archival records assign much lower prices to Dou’s
work. For example, the painting owned by Justus de la Grange was worth amere 10 guilders, and De Renialme had two relatively inexpensive paintings
worth 30 and 40 guilders. Given Dou’s working method and generally highFig 12. Gerrit Dou, Herring Seller
and Boy, ca. 1664, oil on panel,
43.5 x 34.5 cm, The Leiden
Collection, New York, inv. no.
GD-106.

prices, however, it is likely that these were copies or works by followers. A
lack of expertise on the part of the appraisers may also have played a role
here. A fascinating case study in this respect is the estate of Jan Rouyer.
The appraisal of his paintings by Santvoort and Hondecoeter had beenpreceded by another one, done by two second-hand goods dealers.
Whereas Santvoort and Hondecoeter assigned values of 450, 200, 150, and100 guilders to the four works by Dou, the earlier estimates had been only
40, 35, 25, and 18 guilders, respectively—a discrepancy of 782 guilders! The
unduly low appraisal by the second-hand goods dealers is undoubtedly
related to the small format of Dou’s works, as the size of a painting was animportant, though by no means the only, factor in determining its value.[25]Fig 13. Gerrit Dou, Old Woman at
a Window with a Candle, 1671, oil© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 7 of 26

Pieter Spiering, “The Incomparable
Connoisseur”

on panel, 26.5 x 20.5 cm, The
Leiden Collection, New York, inv.
no. GD-103.

Dou’s paintings were the preserve of a prosperous elite, among whom only
a true art lover would have been able and willing to pay the master’s prices.
The only connoisseur to be documented as a patron of Dou in the first phaseof his career is Pieter Spiering who, as noted, appears in Angel’s Lof derSchilder-Konst. Aside from his role as an art patron, Spiering was an agent in
the service of the Swedish crown in The Hague, a post he held almost
continuously from 1634 to his death in 1652.
Pieter Spiering was the son of François Spiering (1550–1630), an Antwerp

Fig 14. Gerrit Dou, Goat in a
Landscape, ca. 1660–65, oil on
panel, 19.6 x 24.9 cm, The Leiden
Collection, New York, inv. no.
GD-114.

tapestry weaver who established himself in Delft in 1591.[26] Spiering’s
workshop quickly grew into a successful enterprise with clients all over
Europe.[27] In 1619 the workshop received its largest commission, a series oftwenty-seven tapestries in honor of the marriage of the Swedish king Gustav
Adolf (1594–1632). Pieter Spiering coordinated the project and accompanied
the shipment to Stockholm, where he forged his first contacts with theSwedish court. He did not officially enter into the king’s service until 1626,
after which he held various very lucrative posts in the Swedish territories
around the Baltic Sea.[28] He amassed most of his vast fortune in theseyears.
In 1634 Spiering returned to the Dutch Republic as a Swedish agent in The
Hague. He acquitted himself so well that two years later he was appointed
the highest representative of the Swedish crown. In this position he also
oversaw Michel le Blon (1587–1658), the famous engraver and art dealer. Le
Blon had been a Swedish agent since 1618 and, just like Spiering, wasFig 15. Gerrit Dou, Self-Portrait,
1658, oil on panel, 49.2 x 33.9 cm,
Gallery Uffizi, Florence, inv. no.
1882.

charged with providing his employer with all possible information of politicalinterest.[29] In addition to being diplomats, both men were renowned art
collectors. Back in the Dutch Republic, Spiering could once again devote allof his attention to his collection, a passion that he acquired growing up in thehome of his father, who also had a superb art collection.[30] When the latterdied in 1630, Pieter “inherited all of his father’s art, both drawings andprints,” including “the prints by Albrecht Dürer, wood and copper engraver,the prints by Lucas van Leyden, still many other prints and books of prints,
as well as drawings by many old and modern art and reproductive
engravers.” The holdings were valued at around 2,000 guilders.[31]Whatever else Pieter Spiering owned can only be approximated, for no
catalogue of his collection has been preserved. It is known, however, that in© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 8 of 26

1641 Spiering bought two volumes with drawings by Raphael (1483–1520),
Giulio Romano (1499–1546), the Carracci, and Titian (1490–1576) from
Joachim von Sandrart (1606–88) for the exorbitant amount of close to 3,500
guilders.[32] When the French theologian and writer Francois Ogier(1597–1670) visited Spiering in The Hague in 1644, he showed him theseworks, along with “sundry books with prints by Albrecht Durer, Lucas van
Leyden, and others, drawings by Raphael,” as well as “a number ofpaintings and a cabinet replete with medals, reliefs of gold, silver, ivory,
copper, wax.”[33] Spiering’s appetite for collecting thus was not limited topaintings.
Spiering clearly appreciated the work of fijnschilders. For instance, in 1635
Le Blon tried to sell him a painting by Johannes Torrentius (1589–1644), “asyou desire and delight in uncommon, fine, and detailed things.” If Spiering
was persuaded to acquire Torrentius’s painting, it would not have been his
first purchase of the artist’s work, for Le Blon stated that he knew of no one“who has work by him, except for the King of England and you.”[34]
Spiering owned at least thirteen pictures by Dou, and probably
more.[35] Writing about Dou in 1675, Sandrart recalled that he had seen “thebest of his labor” at the home of “the most famous envoy Mr. Spiering in The
Hague and elsewhere,” and went on to describe four works precisely.[36] Twoof them, An Interior with Young Violinist (fig 6) in Edinburgh and the lost
Young Lacemaker, are probably identical to two of the ten pictures that
Spiering consigned to Queen Christina of Sweden (1626–89).[37] Amongthese works was also one in The Leiden Collection, Scholar Interrupted at
His Writing (fig 7).[38] Although these works were listed as being inChristina’s collection, they were probably sent to her only for approval, butwere actually owned by Spiering, who had them conveyed to Sweden in one
or more shipments. Christina does not appear to have been particularly
taken with any of Dou’s pictures, for when her collection was inventoried in
1652, two years before her voluntary abdication, it was noted that theyshould be returned to Spiering.[39]All we know about the relationship between Spiering and Dou is that Spiering
paid the artist for the right of first refusal, a right that—judging from thepictures in the envoy’s possession—he regularly exercised. How long thisarrangement lasted is not known. Neither Angel nor Sandrart mentions when
this annual stipend began or ended. The starting date would have to be after
1634, when Spiering returned to the Dutch Republic; the final date would be
1652 when Spiering died while on a mission in London. If Sandrart indeed© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 9 of 26

saw Dou’s An Interior with Young Violinist (fig 6) while visiting Spiering, theircontact existed by 1637, the date of the painting.
In theory, their agreement could therefore have lasted from 1634 to 1652.
Given that Spiering paid the painter 500 guilders a year for his right, he could
have disbursed 9,000 guilders to Dou over the years without receiving evena single painting. If Sandrart’s observation that Dou asked prices ranging
from 600 to 1,000 guilders is correct, then, on top of his annual stipend,
Spiering might have paid Dou up to 8,000–10,000 guilders for the thirteen
works mentioned as being in his collection. Such an impressive sum would
not have been a problem for the wealthy Spiering.[40]In addition to buying art for his own pleasure, Spiering also dealt in art. Like
Le Blon, he was a gentleman dealer, a side of him already evident from theshipments of art he sent to Queen Christina.[41] In addition to paintings,
Spiering also provided her with twenty-four ivory and forty-eight marble
sculptures. And in 1635, just one year after his appointment as the Swedish
agent in The Hague, the court instructed him to buy thirty-five paintings. He
generally left the actual buying up to Le Blon, serving himself asmediator.[42] The Swedish court also called directly on Le Blon—more often, it
would appear, than on Spiering—to acquire art. Le Blon may even haveprovided the court with a picture by Dou.[43] As a rule, however, people in thecircles around the Swedish court continued to rely on Spiering for their art
purchasing.[44]The agreement between Spiering and Dou thus extended beyond assuring
Spiering access to the artist’s best work. For both Spiering and Le Blon, whowere continually gathering information for their Swedish employer, love of art
was not the sole motivation for their collecting passions. In buying art they
reinforced their own positions in the networks within which they gathered
information. For a diplomat of Spiering’s level, the realms of politics and art
were indelibly linked, and his reputation as a connoisseur was key to thedevelopment of his diplomatic career. His high position in service to Sweden
guaranteed him access to the leading European courts and thus to a broadpotential

marketofinfluential

artbuyers.

Conversely,

Spiering’s“unvergleichbare” (incomparable) love of art brought him into contact withwealthy art lovers throughout Europe who, after seeking his advice or buying
art

from

him,

correspondent.

[45]

subsequently

turned

to

him

as

their

political

This dual function meant that the 500 guilders Spiering

paid Dou annually can also be understood as a business investment by agentleman dealer, and probably a lucrative one at that.
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 10 of 26

In addition to dealing in Dou’s work, Spiering may have served as anintermediary in portrait commissions extended to the artist, even if the“proof” is limited to him having a family relation with a single patron, thelawyer Dirck van Beresteyn (1627–53). His jewel-like portrait in The Leiden
Collection (fig 8) seems to have been commissioned in the early 1650s andmay have been intended as a gift for his betrothal.[46] It is conceivable that
Spiering may have introduced Van Beresteyn to Dou as Spiering was related
to the Van Beresteyn family through his sister Catharina, who was married toa full cousin of Dirck’s.[47] Another similar instance is The Young Mother inthe Mauritshuis in The Hague (fig 3). It is not known who commissioned thepainting, but the coat-of-arms of the Delft Van Adrichem family in the upper
left—Dirck van Beresteyn was married to Magdalena van Adrichem(1639–84)—reinforces the suspicion that Spiering was somehow involved in
the inception of this important painting, which the States of Holland acquiredin 1660 for an astonishing 4,000 guilders.[48]Although no other patrons of Dou are noted in archival records from Leiden
or any other Dutch cities, there was a small number of other affluent Leiden
art enthusiasts in the first half of the seventeenth century who could afford
pictures by Dou.[49] For example, Dou painted a portrait of the Leiden lawyer
Johan Wittert van der Aa (1604–70) in 1646, as well as a double portrait ofhim with his wife.[50] Not surprisingly, Wittert van der Aa was astonishingly
wealthy.[51] Spiering’s unexpected death in 1652 could have had serious
financial implications for Dou were it not for the fact that his reputation had
become so great—in some measure thanks to Spiering and his importantearly support—that new benefactors soon presented themselves.

After the Death of Pieter Spiering
There is nothing to indicate that Spiering’s death was problematic for Dou.
The Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna has two pictures that can be
related to transactions in the 1650s. These are Dou’s famous The Doctor of
1653, and Girl Lighting a Lantern, circa 1655.[52] Both were probably acquired
by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm (1614–62) when he was in Brussels as
governor of the Southern Netherlands between 1647 and 1656. Given thedates of the two paintings, they must have entered this collection between
1653 and 1656, the year in which Leopold’s art treasures were transferred toVienna.[53] Perhaps Leopold personally commissioned the paintings from
Dou, but it is possible that they were bought by the Flemish painter David
Teniers the Younger (1601–90), who was Leopold’s court painter and© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 11 of 26

keeper of his collection. Teniers’s work was in great demand in the Dutch
Republic, and perhaps on one of his trips he visited Leiden to buy works by
Dou for his employer.[54]An exceptional honor fell to Dou in 1660. In that year the States of Holland
decided to give several expensive gifts, including paintings, to the English
King Charles II on the occasion of his accession to the throne. Initially only
twenty-eight paintings by Italian masters were bought, but it was later
decided to include work by Dutch masters. Dou was asked to appraise a
picture by Pieter Saenredam (1597–1665) for this gift. The esteem Dou
enjoyed is clear from this request alone, and more evident from the fact that
he was also invited to contribute to the gift. Dou provided three pictures, twoof which he painted himself: one of them was The Young Mother (fig 3) of
1658 discussed above.
A signal compliment to Dou was paid by the Englishman John Evelyn who,
following a visit to the London court, noted in his book that on that day “werepresented to his Majestie those two rare pieces of Drolerie, or rather a Dutch
Kitchin, painted by Douce, so finely as hardly to be at all distinguished fromEnamail.”[55] The king himself had only praise; the pieces that pleased him
the most were, along with the Titian, “die van Douw en Elshamer” (those by
Dou and Elsheimer).[56] Charles II was so impressed that he even invited Dou
to the court, an honor the artist declined. He was certainly not in need ofwork; the 1660s marked the beginning of the most fruitful period of his
career. Of the 126 paintings attributed to Dou, he painted 42 between 1660
and 1670.[57]Dou’s share in the “Dutch Gift” enhanced his growing celebrity anddefinitively established his standing abroad. When Cornelis de Bie (1627–ca.
1715), from Antwerp, commented in his Het gulden cabinet that Dou’s
paintings “bear our spirits higher than the stars,” this accolade also touches
on his reputation: Dou’s star continued to rise with no end in sight.[58] For
instance, after visiting Dou in 1662, the Danish scholar Ole Borch (1620–90)
called the artist “the excellent painter of Leiden,” with no equal as a limner ofminiatures in the world.[59] Borch waxed lyrical about the painting known as
The Dropsical Woman, now in the Louvre (fig 9). Dou put the finishing
touches to this picture shortly after Borch’s visit, and it soon found its way tothe famous picture cabinet of Johan de Bye.[60]Until now it has remained unnoticed that Borch actually spoke about Dou theprevious year. When he visited the workshop of Jacob Toorenvliet on 28 May
1661, perhaps to collect his portrait, he saw in addition to paintings by© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 12 of 26

Toorenvliet, work by Dou, whom he described as “an exceptionally talented
painter […] of small pictures.” Borch was startled—as noted previously—by thevalue of a little portrait of Jan Dou: 200 guilders, “even though it was rather
small.”[61] De Monconys was also surprised by the price, though hisadmiration for Dou prevailed when he noted that the artist “is incomparable
for the delicacy of his brush.”[62]Dou likewise received commendations from his fellow townsmen. In Leiden
deeds, he was introduced as “Monsieur,” a term of address generally
reserved for people of noble birth. He was even the subject of an occasional
poem. In 1662, for example, the Leiden notary Dirck Traudenius (ca.
1606–68) praised Dou as “den Hollandschen Parrhasius,” the Dutch
Parrhasius, the renowned artist of antiquity who fooled the great Zeuxis withhis convincing depiction of a curtain.[63] Such praise acknowledged theartist’s mastery of illusion and pointed to Dou’s particular brand ofarchitectural niche scene, in which curtains figure prominently along one
side. A fine example of this format dates from 1659, Cat Crouching on theLedge of An Artist’s Studio in The Leiden Collection (fig 9). Its popularity
would continue throughout Dou’s lifetime and is exemplified in three otherworks in The Leiden Collection, Young Woman in a Niche with a Parrot anda Cage (fig 10), Herring Seller and Boy (fig 11), and Old Woman at a
Window with a Candle (fig 12).
Foreigners and compatriots alike flocked to Dou’s workshop. When Pieter
Teding van Berkhout (1643–1713), later the burgomaster of Delft, stayedwith relatives in Leiden in December 1669, he called on “the famous painter
Dou, who showed us three or four beautiful examples of art by his hand.”[64]Given Dou’s fame, it is striking that Simon van Leeuwen (1625–82), in his
1672 city chronicle, limits himself to expressing his great admiration for theart of “the outstanding painter of fine detail” and appreciates the fact thatDou “does not withhold [his talent] from any of his apprentices who showpromise.” Van Leeuwen devotes not a single word to royal and other ownersof Dou’s work, to whom the artist largely owed his great renown.[65]Dou’s Most Important Patron, Johan de Bye
Dou never lacked for praise, but he received the most from Johan de Byewho, after the death of Spiering, became the artist’s most important patron.
It is unclear when exactly “zyn grooten Mecenas” (his great Maecenas)
appeared on the stage, but considering De Bye’s age, it was probably not
before 1652.[66] He bought Dou’s work regularly, and no one owned more
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 13 of 26

paintings by the artist than did De Bye; in 1665 he owned twenty-seven,perhaps even twenty-nine paintings. In September of that year, De Bye had
his pictures by Dou taken from his house on the Hoogelandsekerkgracht to arented room in the house of the still-life painter Johannes Hannot (1633–84)
in the Breestraat, where for a modest fee (to be donated to the poor), art
lovers and potential buyers could view Dou’s works.[67] Remarkably, thisshow

included

two

of

Dou’s

masterpieces

now

in

The

LeidenCollection: Young Woman in a Niche with a Parrot and a Cage (fig 11)
and Goat in a Landscape (fig 14).
According to a seventeenth-century manuscript, De Bye came from one of
the “oldest and highly distinguished families of Leiden; his predecessors
have in said city already held the most exalted offices in the magistrate formore than 300 years, garnering great praise and repute, and leading uprightand irreproachable lives.”[68] This pedigree finds support in a few earlyseventeenth-century archival records. For instance, Johan’s great uncle, Jan
Pieters de Bye, served several times as burgomaster, and his brother asalderman. After the “wetsverzetting,” or “changing of the legislatives,” of1618, when Remonstrants were prohibited from holding public office, the De
Bye family vanished from the town council.[69]De Bye’s grandfather was a brewer in de Roscam, along the Rhine River,opposite the Houtmarkt. Johan de Bye grew up in this brewery. His parents,
Pieter Fransz de Bye (1595–1633) and Aeltje Hasius († before 1639), diedwhen he and his sister Anna were still children. They found a new home with
Willem Fransz de Bye, their uncle and guardian, who took over de Roscam
around 1638.[70] Johan de Bye probably was registered at the Leiden
Academy in 1637 at the age of twelve.[71] The enrollment of a child wasusually related to the tax benefits this conferred, including exemption frombeer taxes, a privilege that would certainly have appealed to De Bye’s
guardians. He enrolled at the Academy yet again in 1648, this time as a law
student.[72] As for his professional activities, all we know is that he wasappointed regent of the St. Elisabethgasthuis in 1663 and 1664, and that heinvested in other people’s businesses.
Although no business agreement between De Bye and Dou has beenpreserved, there is one involving De Bye and another “artist,” the Leiden
watchmaker Willem Meester.[73] In May 1664 the two entered into an “actevan compagnie” (deed of partnership). De Bye would invest 7,200 guilders in
Meester’s business, and the watchmaker would repay him half after six
years and the remainder after twelve years. In exchange De Bye stipulated:© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 14 of 26“that he, Meester, will not accept any work without previous communication
with and the express consent of Mister Johan de Bye,” and furthermore thatweekly he “will give [to De Bye] the legal half of all the profit that I in any way
come to receive or enjoy from my art of handiwork.”[74] Whether De Bye
profited from his investment is doubtful. Meester does not seem to haveenjoyed much success. In 1674 he and his wife, Margareta Hannot, a sisterof Johannes Hannot, were each taxed separately for a capital of 1,000
guilders.[75]De Bye was a devout Remonstrant who was highly regarded by his Leiden
fellow believers. Remonstrants in Leiden faced fierce opposition to theirreligious beliefs from the local authorities. The petition for permission to build
their own church, which was submitted various times after 1662, was granted
only in 1672. Until then, De Bye made his house available for religious
services.[76] The town council wanted none of this individual initiative, and De
Bye ultimately paid a steep price for his religious zeal. In 1664 he was forced
to step down as regent of the St. Elisabethgasthuis, and was frequently
penalized with high fines. Tensions mounted, and at times threatened to
escalate. On at least two occasions, in 1662 and 1664, an angry crowd
gathered before De Bye’s house. The second time, the bailiff was barely
able to prevent the plundering of De Bye’s house, a few windows having
already been smashed. The unrest persisted, and in the summer of 1665, by
the order of the court, the pulpit and other church furniture in De Bye’s homewere dismantled. It takes little effort to imagine the fate that De Bye’scollection would have faced had an angry crowd forced its way into his
house. De Bye surely realized this, and it is not unreasonable to supposethat he moved his paintings by Dou to the Breestraat in 1665 in order tosafeguard the most valuable part of his collection.

The Collection of Franciscus de le Boë Sylvius
Another art lover with an above-average number of pictures by Dou—no fewer
than eleven—also lived in Leiden, namely the famous professor Franciscus dele Boë Sylvius. In the literature, Sylvius is known chiefly as the patron ofDou’s pupil Frans van Mieris the Elder, but if the number of pictures in his
possession is the criterion, then his fondness for Dou was even greater: heowned seven works by Van Mieris, four fewer than by Dou.[77]
Sylvius was a renowned scholar and a medical doctor with a clientele
extending far beyond the Republic, and he lived in in Leiden incircumstances commensurate with his rank. When he died in 1672, he left
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 15 of 26

behind a sizeable collection of pictures, 172 works in total, in his splendid
home at 31 Rapenburg.[78] Unfortunately, the descriptions of the paintings
are too summary to identify them. The only Dou painting about which there issome consensus is Lady at Her Toilet, now in Rotterdam (fig 3), which isprobably the work described as: “een stuck waerin een Jufr [ouw] voor deSpiegel” (a picture with a young lady before a mirror).[79]That Sylvius without a doubt possessed eleven costly pieces by such a
famous painter as Dou is remarkable, and thus it is surprising that thegenerally well-informed Houbraken makes no mention of Sylvius. Whether
Sylvius acquired all of the paintings directly from Dou remains to be seen. It
is entirely possible that he bought a few pictures from De Bye when the latterhoused his Dou collection at Johannes Hannot’s in the Breestraat. Sylvius
could also have obtained a few of De Bye’s pictures after the latter’s death.
Some of the cursory descriptions in their inventories could refer to one andthe same painting. For instance, Sylvius’s “het besgen” (old woman) could
be De Bye’s “oude vrouw met een bouck” (old woman with a book), andSylvius’s “een heremyt in een cas” (a hermit in a case) could be De Bye’s“een kluysenaer biddende geknielt voor een kruijseficx van buijtenen een
kaers licht lamp ende doots hoofft’ (a praying hermit kneeling before acrucifix; on the outside a candlelight lamp and skull). Furthermore, Sylvius
owned five “kaerslichten” (candlelights), and De Bye owned nine. It is thus
quite possible that when De Bye’s possessions were being brought to thehouse of his young cousin Maria Knotter on the Rapenburg (no. 35), a stop
was made at the home of Sylvius (at no. 31) to deliver some of the works inthe estate bought by the scholar.

After Dou’s Death
Dou did not long outlive De Bye and Sylvius, who both died in 1672. The lossof his most important patrons seems to have had an impact on his
production. The last dated pictures are from 1672, and not a single painting
in the period to his death in 1675 can be dated with certainty. Nevertheless,his work remained popular even after his death. At the end of theseventeenth century, demand for his work was greater than ever, partly due
to the interest of a few foreign princes. Dou left behind a relatively small
oeuvre, however, and after his death it was not easy to obtain an original
painting by his hand, as the Amsterdam agent of Cosimo III de’ Medici,
Guasconi, discovered. In 1676, the year of his installation as Grand Duke of
Tuscany, Cosimo ordered Guasconi to acquire works by Dou, including a self© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 16 of 26

portrait. Only with great difficulty was the agent able to procure two pictures.
One of them was Dou’s 1658 self-portrait, now in the Uffizi (fig 15), for which
the agent had to pay 800 fiorini.[80] Interestingly, Guasconi initially had
another portrait in mind, which was offered to him by an otherwise unnamed
Leiden merchant. The agent found the asking price of 315 guilders too highto simply proceed with the purchase without Cosimo’s express permission.
By the time the grand duke consented, the merchant had already sold Dou’s
self-portrait to an art dealer in Antwerp, a “Mr. Gillis,” who had made aslightly higher bid for the small likeness.[81]Although these amounts are steep, they are no higher than what Dou
commanded while he was alive. In the eighteenth century, it was de rigueur
for any self-respecting collection to have a picture by Dou, and amounts over
1,000 guilders were readily paid at auction for masterpieces by theartist.[82] Even so, Dou’s popularity eventually waned. With the rise of
Impressionism in the mid-nineteenth century, a reversal of opinion set in andhis meticulous style was no longer admired; in fact, it was condemned as
being overly precise and fussy.[83] In the past few decades, however, there
has been a renewed appreciation for his work, which has found expression innumerous publications and exhibitions and a reinvigorated interest by art
collectors, who have paid record prices for his paintings.

- Piet Bakker, 2017

© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 17 of 26

Endnotes

1. For a survey of Leiden fijnschilders, see Eric Jan Sluijter, “Schilders van ‘cleyne, subtile
ende curieuse dingen’: Leidse fijnschilders in contemporaine bronnen,” in Leidse fijnschilders:van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge, 1630–1770, ed. Eric Jan Sluijter, Marlies
Enklaar, and Paul Nieuwenhuizen (Exh. cat. Leiden, Museum De Lakenhal) (Zwolle, 1988),
15–55.
2. “Een uytnemend Meester, insonderheydt in cleyne, subtile, ende curieuse dingen.” Jan
Orlers, Beschryvinge van de Stad Leyden (Leiden, 1641), 378.
3. Philips Angel, Lof der schilderkunst (Leiden, 1642).
4. Philips Angel, Lof der schilderkunst (Leiden, 1642), 23.
5. “Die nette uyt-muntende Gerrit Dou, die jaerlicx om dat hy de Ed. Heer Spierings de eerste
aanbiedinghe van sijn stucken doet, 500 Carolus guldens tot vergeldinghe krijcht.” Philips
Angel, Lof der Schilderkunst (Leiden, 1642), 56.
6. A total of 258 inventories have been consulted. See Table 2 in the essay Leiden Fijnschilders
and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age in this catalogue.
7. See Table 1 in the essay Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age inthis catalogue.
8. Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives, Notary S. van Swanenburgh, inv. 611, deed 118,
3 March 1656, published in Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte
der holländischen Kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts (The Hague,
1915–22), 1858–61. However, not all of the paintings mentioned are given in the transcript.
9. Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives, Notary S. van Swanenburgh, inv. 611, deed 124,
7 December 1656. See also Willem Johan Jacob Cornelis Bijleveld, “De boedel van J.F.
Tortarolis te Leiden,” Oud Holland 44 (1927): 183.
10. Gemeentearchief Delft, Notarial Archives, Notary J. Spoors, inv. 1676, fol. 637-9v; Abraham
Bredius, “Bijdragen tot de biographie van Pieter de Hooch,” Oud Holland 7 (1889): 161–68.
11. On De Langue, see Jaap van der Veen, “Delftse verzamelingen in de zeventiende en eerste
helft van de achttiende eeuw,” in Schatten in Delft: Burgers verzamelen 1600–1750, ed.
Ellinoor Bergvelt et al. (Exh. cat. Delft, Museum Prinsenhof Delft) (Zwolle, 2002), 74–75, 157,
no. 9. See John Michael Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of theSeventeenth Century (Princeton, 1982), 236–38.
12. Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte der holländischen Kunst des
XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts (The Hague, 1915–22), 1044.
13. Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte der holländischen Kunst des© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 18 of 26

XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts (The Hague, 1915–22), 234–37, 1670.
14. Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte der holländischen Kunst des
XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts (The Hague, 1915–22), 423.
15. “De nalatenschap van een kunstliefhebber uit de 17e eeuw,” Algemeen Nederlandsch
Familieblad (1883): 2–5, nos. 1–3, nos. 5–6. The painting by Dou is no. 3, p. 2. For Jacob
Loys, see Nora Schadee, ed., Rotterdamse Meesters uit de Gouden Eeuw (Exh. cat.
Rotterdam, Historisch Museum) (Zwolle, 1994), 287; and Jaap van der Veen, “Liefhebbers,
handelaren en kunstenaars: Het verzamelen van schilderijen en papierkunst,” in De wereld
binnen handbereik: Nederlandse kunst- en rariteitenverzamelingen, 1585–1735, ed. Ellinoor
Bergvelt and Renee Kistemaker (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Amsterdams Museum) (Zwolle,1992), 129, 130.
16. Abraham Bredius, “17e Eeuwsche reisherinneringen. (Journal des Voyages de Monsieur deMonconys etc. etc. Paris 1677),” Nederlandsche Kunstbode (1881): 412.
17. Abraham Bredius, “17e Eeuwsche reisherinneringen. (Journal des Voyages de Monsieur deMonconys etc. etc. Paris 1677),” Nederlandsche Kunstbode (1881): 412.
18. Abraham Bredius, “17e Eeuwsche reisherinneringen. (Journal des Voyages de Monsieur deMonconys etc. etc. Paris 1677),” Nederlandsche Kunstbode (1881): 413.
19. Joachim von Sandrart, Joachim von Sandrarts Academie der Bau-, Bild- und MahlereyKünste von 1675: Lebem der berühmten Maler, Bildhauer und Baumeister, ed. Arthur R.
Peltzer (Nuremberg, 1675–79, reprinted in Munich, 1925), 195.
20. Joachim von Sandrart, Joachim von Sandrarts Academie der Bau-, Bild- und MahlereyKünste von 1675: Lebem der berühmten Maler, Bildhauer und Baumeister, ed. Arthur R.
Peltzer (Nuremberg, 1675–79, reprinted in Munich, 1925), 195.
21. Arnold

Houbraken,

DegrooteschouburghderNederlantsche

konstschilders

enschilderessen (The Hague, 1753), 3: 4. This is The Young Mother, 1658 (Mauritshuis, The
Hague); Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” (PhD diss., New York
University, 1990), no. A 76; Ronni Baer, Gerrit Dou, 1613–1675: Master Painter in the Age of
Rembrandt, ed. Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. (Exh. cat. Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art;
London, Dulwich Picture Gallery; The Hague, Mauritshuis) (New Haven, 2000), 106–7, no.
21.
22. Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Desolate Boedelskamer, inv. 604, fol. 245-255v, 26 and 27 January& 30 March 1678. Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” (PhD diss., NewYork University, 1990), no. A 114; Ronni Baer, Gerrit Dou, 1613–1675: Master Painter in theAge of Rembrandt, ed. Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. (Exh. cat. Washington, D.C., National Galleryof Art; London, Dulwich Picture Gallery; The Hague, Mauritshuis) (New Haven, 2000) 128–29,
no. 32. The paintings in Rouyer’s estate are not attributed. The identification relies entirely on
the provenance of his collection and the description of the objects. For a discussion of this© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 19 of 26

inventory, see Theodoor Herman Lunsingh Scheurleer, Cornelia Willemijk Fock, and A.J. vanDissel, eds., Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht (Leiden, 1988), 3: 286–88.
23. Het Utrechts Archief, Notarial Archives, Notary H. Van Zuylen, inv. U48a003, deed no. 79[Schuldbekentenis], 1 May 1666.
24. See endnote 61.
25. Another example is the double portrait of Sylvius and his second wife, Margareta Lucretia
Schlezer (“t Conterfeytsel vande Proffessor Silvius ende sijn huijsvrouw speelende op de
Luijd” [the portrait of Professor Sylvius and his wife playing the lute]), the celebrated Music
Lesson by Frans van Mieris the Elder in Dresden; Otto Naumann, Frans van Mieris(1635–1681), the Elder (Doornspijk, 1981), 2: 102, no. 89; Theodoor Herman Lunsingh
Scheurleer, Cornelia Willemijk Fock, and A.J. van Dissel, eds., Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis
van een Leidse gracht (Leiden, 1988), 3: 291. The two dealers had appraised it at 12
guilders, and the two painters at 85 guilders, yet again a great discrepancy. The appraisal ofSantvoort and Hondecoeter, however, also seems conservative compared to the amounts
Van Mieris commanded at the time. See his biography and the essay Frans van Mieris the
Elder and His Four Leiden Patrons in this catalogue.
26. For Pieter Spiering’s genealogy, see Eltjo Aldegondus van Beresteyn, “Korte genealogie van
het geslacht Spieringh,” Kunsthistorische Mededelingen van het Rijksbureau Kunsthistorische
Documentatie, vol. 1 (1946): 13, as a supplement to Eltjo Aldegondus van Beresteyn, “Tweeportretten van François Spieringh,” 10–12.
27. Abraham Bredius, “De Tapijtfabriek van Karel van Mander den Jonge, te Delft,
1616–1623,” Oud Holland 3 (1885): 1–22; Gerardina Tjaberta van Ysselsteyn, “Tapisserieën
uit de weverij van François Spiering,” Oud Holland 54 (1937): 164–72.
28. Unless otherwise mentioned, the information on Spiering is taken from Badeloch Noldus,“An Unvergleichbarer Liebhaber: Peter Spierinck, the Art-Dealing Diplomat,” Scandinavian
Journal of History 31 (2006): 173–85.
29. HermandelaFontaine

Verwey,“MichelleBlon:

Graveur,

kunsthandelaar,

diplomat,” Jaarboek Amstelodamum (1969): 103–25; Badeloch Noldus, “Loyalty and
Betrayal: Artist-Agents Michel le Blon and Pieter Isaacsz, and Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna,”
in Your Humble Servant: Agents in Early Modern Europe, ed. Hans Cools, et al. (Hilversum,2006), 51–64.
30. Jaap van der Veen, “Delftse verzamelingen in de zeventiende en eerste helft van deachttiende eeuw,” in Schatten in Delft: Burgers verzamelen 1600–1750, ed. Ellinoor Bergvelt
et al. (Exh. cat. Delft, Museum Prinsenhof Delft) (Zwolle, 2002), 156 (Appendix I, no. 2).
31. “Alle de kunst by syn vader naergelaten, soo van teyckeningen als printen […] de printen van
Aelborduyer, houte copere snyder, de printen van Lucas van Leyden, noch veele printen
ende printboucken, als oock teeckeningen van veele oude en moderne kunst en© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 20 of 26

plaetsnyders.” Gerardina Tjaberta van Ysselsteyn, Geschiedenis der tapijtweverijen in denoordelijke Nederlanden : bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der kunstnijverheid (Leiden, 1936), 2:
295–96 (doc. 640).
32. Christian Klemm, Joachim von Sandrart: Kunst-Werke u. Lebens-Lauf (Berlin, 1986), 339. Helater sent the drawings to Queen Christina of Sweden, who took them with her to Italy after
her abdication.
33. “Plusieurs livres de tailles-douces d’Albert Dürer, Lucas [van Leyden], et autres, dessins deRaphael d’Urbin […] un quantité de tableaux et un cabinet plein de toutes sortes de médailles,
de reliefs d’or, argent, ivoire, cuivre, cire.” Badeloch Noldus, “An Unvergleichbarer
Liebhaber: Peter Spierinck, the art-dealing diplomat,” Scandinavian Journal of History 31(2006): 178, cited in A. Boppé, Journal de Congres de Munster, par Francois Ogier, aumonier
du comte D’Avaux (1643–1647) (Paris, 1893), 39. See also Jaap van der Veen, “Liefhebbers,
handelaren en kunstenaars: Het verzamelen van schilderijen en papierkunst,” in De wereld
binnen handbereik. Nederlandse kunst- en rariteitenverzamelingen, 1585–1735, ed. Ellinoor
Bergvelt and Renee Kistemaker (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Amsterdams Museum) (Zwolle,1992), 117–34.
34. “Also UE sin en vermaeck heeft in ongemeene, nette en uytgevoerde dingen […] die wat van
hem heeft, als den Coninc van England ende UE.” Wilhelm Martin, “Het leven en de werken
van Gerrit Dou beschouwd in verband met het schildersleven van zijn tijd” (PhD diss.,
Universiteit Leiden, 1901), 43.
35. Queen Christina owned ten paintings, and Sandrart saw four during his visit to Spiering (seeendnote 36). Two of them seem to be identical to two in Stockholm. Along with these,
Spiering also owned the portrait that Dou painted around 1640 of Spiering’s family.
36. “Das

fürnehmste

seinerArbeit[…]dehochberühmten

Herrn

Residenten

vonSpiring in Gravenhaag und anderwärts.” Joachim von Sandrart, Joachim von Sandrarts
Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste von 1675: Lebem der berühmten Maler,
Bildhauer und Baumeister, ed. Arthur R. Peltzer (Nuremberg, 1675–79, reprinted in Munich,1925), 195. These are: “[1] In einem verschloßenem Zimmer ein Niederländisches junges
sitzendes und Spitzen wirkendes Mägdlein, einer halben Spannen hoch: [2] Ein altes Weib ineinem Belz bekleidt sitzend/ und durch die Brillen auf der Nasen in einem Buch lesend: [3]Einen alten Mann in einem langen Bart/ der bey dem Feuer sitzt/ und seine Hände wärmet;[4] Ein Lautenschlager an einem Tisch sitzend/ der vor ihme Bücher ligen hat/ ungefähr einer
Spannen groß.” (In a closed room [are] a Dutch boy sitting and a girl making lace,approximately half a span tall; [2] A seated old woman wearing a “Belz”/ and reading a bookthrough her spectacles; [3] An old man with a long beard/ sitting by the fire/ warming his
hands; [4] A lute player sitting at a table/ before him lie books/ approximately one span tall).
37. The Young Violin Player might be [4] in the previous note, described in the Swedish inventory
as: “Un petit tableau ou un homme joue du violon selon la tabulature” (A small picture of a
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 21 of 26

man playing the violin following the tablature) (Wilhelm Martin, “Het leven en de werken van
Gerrit Dou beschouwd in verband met het schildersleven van zijn tijd” [PhD diss., Universiteit
Leiden, 1901], 45, no. III); and The Young Lacemaker might be [1] in the previous note and in
Queen Christina’s inventory as: “Dito, ou est peint une Holandoise qui fait du passement”(Ditto, in which is painted a Dutch woman making lace) (Wilhelm Martin,“Het leven en de
werken van Gerrit Dou beschouwd in verband met het schildersleven van zijn tijd” [PhD diss.,
Universiteit Leiden, 1901], no. VIII).
38. This is the painting with the description: “un viellard se met a escrire ayant devant luy un liure
un globe et un charnier” (an old man writing and before him a book, a globe, and a skull),currently known as Scholar Interrupted at His Writing, ca. 1635 (The Leiden Collection, NewYork).
39. For an enumeration of the paintings, see Wilhelm Martin, “Het leven en de werken van Gerrit
Dou beschouwd in verband met het schildersleven van zijn tijd” (PhD diss., Universiteit
Leiden, 1901), 45. “Une Hollandoise qui fait du passement” (A Dutch woman making lace)mentioned in Martin is a picture that Sandrart probably saw at Spiering’s: “einNiderländisches junges sitzendes und Spitzen wirkendes Mägdlein” (A young Dutch boy
sitting and a young woman making lace), Joachim von Sandrart, Joachim von Sandrarts
Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste von 1675: Lebem der berühmten Maler,
Bildhauer und Baumeister, ed. Arthur R. Peltzer (Nuremberg, 1675–79, reprinted in Munich,1925), 195. Some publications mention eleven pictures by Dou, but this is based on anerroneous reading of Christina’s inventory. “(8) Un tableau avec un papillon qui tire sonmancher d’un cocquille de noix” (A painting with a butterfly drawing nourishment from anutshell) is not by Dou but rather by Otto Marseus van der Schrieck (1619/20–78) (OlofGranberg, Svenska Konstsamlingarnas Historia från Gustav Vasas tid till våra [Gischichte derSchwedischen Kunstsammlungen 1525–1925] [Stockholm, 1929], 1: 209, 228). This picture
also belonged to Spiering and was sent back with the Dous.
40. On the lucrative positions Spiering held for the Swedish crown, see Badeloch Noldus, “AnUnvergleichbarer Liebhaber: Peter Spierinck, the art-dealing diplomat,” Scandinavian Journalof History 31 (2006): 175.
41. Christina owned more paintings that had come from Spiering; she possessed a medal withhis portrait. Charles Avery, “Francois Dieussart in the United Provinces and the Ambassadorof Queen Christina,” in Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 19 (1971), 156–63. Granberg mentions
a Lot and His Daughters, and a panel with the portraits of a man and a woman with their twochildren, among others. Olof Granberg, Svenska konstsamlingarnas historia fra?n Gustav
Vasas

tid

till

va?ra

dagar:(Geschichtederschwedischen

Kunstsammlungen1525–1925) (Stockholm, 1929), 212, 213, 214.
42. Badeloch Noldus, “An Unvergleichbarer Liebhaber: Peter Spierinck, the art-dealing diplomat,”
Scandinavian Journal of History 31 (2006): 176.
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 22 of 26

43. The Nationaal Museet in Stockholm owns a Penitent Magdalene by Dou that may possibly
have been named in Christina’s inventory (“no. 56, dito, avec des pais et une femme
escheuelée, ayant aupres délle une livre,” see Gorel Cavalli-Björkman, Dutch and Flemish
Paintings II. Dutch Paintings, c. 1600–c. 1800 [Stockholm, 2005], 163, no. 168). According toan annotation, the picture was obtained from Michel le Blon (see Olof Granberg, Svenska
konstsamlingarnas historia fra?n Gustav Vasas tid till va?ra dagar: (Geschichte derschwedischen Kunstsammlungen 1525–1925) [Stockholm, 1929], 210). Should thisdescription be correct, it would mean that in 1652 not all of the Dous had been returned; thatof Le Blon, in fact, remained in Stockholm. To put this in perspective, it should be noted that
Baer does not consider the painting to be original (see Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit
Dou (1613–1675),” [Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990], no. C 50).
44. Badeloch Noldus, “An Unvergleichbarer Liebhaber: Peter Spierinck, the art-dealing
diplomat,” Scandinavian Journal of History 31 (2006): 176.
45. Badeloch Noldus, “An Unvergleichbarer Liebhaber: Peter Spierinck, the art-dealing
diplomat,” Scandinavian Journal of History 31 (2006): 185.
46. Alternatively, Baer suggests that Van Beresteyn sat for Dou in 1647, when he left Delft to
study law in Leiden. See Ronni Baer, “Dou and the Delft Connection: The Portrait of Dirk van
Beresteyn,”

in

Face

Book:

Studies

on

Dutch

and

FlemishPortraiture

of

the

16th–18th Centuries Liber Amicorium Presented to Rudolf E.O. Ekkart on the Occasion of his
65th Birthday (Leiden, 2012), 279–84.
47. After Dirck’s death this little portrait came into the possession of his older brother Zacharias
van Beresteyn van Hofdijck (1623–79). In his will of 21 September 1664, Zacharias
bequeathed to his brother Cornelis (VI) (1629–1716) his paintings and—mentioned
explicitly—Dou’s portrait of his brother Dirck. See Gemeentearchief Delft, ONA 2061, fol. 159;
Eeltjo Aldegondus van Beresteyn, Genealogie van het Geslacht van Beresteyn (The Hague,1941) 1: 253.
48. Neither Dirck van Beresteyn nor Magdalena van Adrichem were the commissioners, as was
supposed in B. Broos, Meesterwerken in het Mauritshuis (The Hague, 1987), 117. The
marriage was rife with scandal. The couple had to elope because Magdalena was only
thirteen years old (see Eltjo Aldegondus van Beresteyn, Genealogie van het geslacht van
Beresteyn [The Hague, 1941] 1: 263). Given the coat-of-arms in the window, thecommissioner should probably be sought in the Van Adrichem family.
49. Such as Johan van Overbeke (1616–80), owner of a “Konstcabinet” (art cabinet), to whom
Angel dedicated his treatise. His father, Mathijs van Overbeeke, who died in 1638, also
owned a splendid art collection. When visiting it in 1628, Arnout van Buchell (1565–1641) saw
a painting by Rubens. In 1622 at the home of the lawyer Hieronimus de Backere (1585–ca.
1674), he saw “een tronie na het leven van Toutian geschildert, ende een ander seer exellent
van Hans Holbein” (a tronie from life painted by Titian, and another very excellent [head] by© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 23 of 26

Hans Holbein). Cornelis Hofstede de Groot, Arnoldus Buchelius, “Res Pictoriae”:
Aantekeningen over kunstenaars en kunstwerken, 1583–1639 (The Hague, 1928), 59–60, 63,
66. These paintings are not listed in De Backere’s estate inventory, drawn up in 1678 a few
years after his death, although a work by Lucas van Leyden and four by Aertge van Leyden
are (see Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives, Notary P.C. van Scharpenbrant, inv.
1280, deed 183).
50. This is the portrait of Johan Wittert van der Aa in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (see Ronni
Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” [PhD diss., New York University, 1990], no.
A 45). The identification is based on the provenance of the painting, which remained in thefamily until 1808. The identification is doubted, however, because it was auctioned without apendant in that year. But in his will of 1667 (see Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives,
Notary. A. Raven, inv. 780, deed 98, 8 January 1667), Wittert mentions his own portrait
separately from the other portraits, precisely because his was by Dou; a pendant of his wife,
Ida Popta (1604–64), by Dou thus did not exist per se. The double portrait of Johan Wittert
and his wife by Dou and Nicolaes Berchem in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (see Ronni
Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” [PhD diss., New York University, 1990], no.
A 38) are also not mentioned in the will.
51. E.B.F.F. Wittert van Hoogland, Geschiedenis van het geslacht Wittert (Wittert van Hooglanden Emiclaer, Wittert van Valkenburg, Wittert van Bloemendael, Wittert van der Aa) met dedaaruit in vrouwel?ke l?n gesproten familiën (The Hague, 1914).
52. Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” (PhD diss., New York University,1990), nos. A 62, A 67.
53. The “kaarslicht” (candlelight) picture was listed in an extensive inventory of the collection of1659. See Adolf Berger, “Inventar und Kunstsammlung des Erzhertogs Leopold Wilhelm vonÖstereich,” in Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses(1883), 79–177. According to a later annotation, the “Artsenbezoek” was also part of thisshipment. See Eduard Ritter von Engerth, Kunsthistorische Sammlungen des allerhöchsten
Kaiserhauses, Gemälde: Bescheibendes Verzeichnis (Vienna, 1884), vol. 2.
54. For Teniers and the Republic, see Hans Vlieghe, David Teniers the Younger (1610–1690): A
Biography (Turnhout, 2011), 46.
55. Esmond Samuel de Beer, ed., Diary of John Evelyn. Vol. 3, Kalendarium 1650–72 (Oxford,
1955), 262.
56. Anne Marie Logan, The ‘cabinet’ of the brothers Gerard and Jan Reynst (Amsterdam, 1979),
83–84n96. Cf. Eric Jan Sluijter, Leidse fijnschilders: van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris deJonge 1630–1760 (Zwolle, 1988), 36–37.
57. Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” (PhD diss., New York University,1990).
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 24 of 26

58. “S’meenschen gheest schier hoogher als de starren [voeren].” Cornelis de Bie, Het gulden
cabinet van de edel vry schilderconst (Antwerp, 1661, reprinted in Soest, 1971), 277.
59. “De voortreffelijke Leidse schilder.” On Borch’s visit, see Karl Madsen, “Une visite chez Dou
et une note sur Rembrandt,” Bulletin uitgegeven door den Nederlandschen Oudheidkundigen
Bond 8 (1907): 228–30. For the original Latin text, see Olai Borrichii, Olai Borrichii Itinerarium
1660–1665: The Journal of the Danish Polyhistor Ole Borch (Copenhagen, 1983), 2: 228.
60. Dropsical Woman, signed and dated 1663 (Musée du Louvre, Paris); Ronni Baer, “The
Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990), no. A 87.
61. “Een uiterst talentvolle schilder (…) van kleine werken […] ook al was het nogal klein.” The full
original Latin text reads: “Apud Tornflitium præter ipsius varias imagines, vidimus artificiaqvædam Dawii (ingeniosissimi hîc pictoris in operibus minutis) inter alia effigiem fratris Dawii
200 florensis æstimatum, satis qvidem minutam” (At Toorenvliet’s I saw, along with various
paintings by himself, also a few pictures by Dou [an exceptionally talented painter of small
works here], including a portrait of the brother of Dou with an estimated value of 200 guilders,even though it was rather small). Olai Borrichii, Olai Borrichii Itinerarium 1660–1665: The
Journal of the Danish Polyhistor Ole Borch (Copenhagen, 1983), 2: 135. Translation basedon the Dutch translation of the Latin by Dirk van Miert. Olai Borrichii, Olai Borrichii Itinerarium
1660–1665: The Journal of the Danish Polyhistor Ole Borch (Copenhagen, 1983), 1: 134–35.
For

Borch’sportrait

from

1661

in

Frederiksborg,

Denmark,

see

Jacob

van

Toorenvliet’s biography in this catalogue.
62. Abraham Bredius, “17e Eeuwsche reisherinneringen. (Journal des Voyages de Monsieur deMonconys etc.etc. Paris 1677),” Nederlandsche Kunstbode (1881): 412–15.
63. Wishing to keep Dou’s talent as the local pride of Leiden, Traudenius fervently hoped, andnot in vain, that Dou would decline King Charles’s invitation to “Withal.” Arnold
Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (The
Hague, 1753) 3: 33.
64. “Le fameux peyntre Douw, qui nous fit voyr 3 ou 4 belles pieces de son art et de sa mayn.”
Koninklijke Bibliotheek The Hague, “Journal Pieter Teding van Berkhout,” 30 December
1669. Cf. A. Frank van Westrenen, Het schoolschrift van Pieter Teding van Berkhout:vergezicht op het gymnasiaal onderwijs in de zeventiende-eeuwse Nederlanden (Hilversum,2007), 38.
65. “Den uytnemenden klein-levend- Schilder […] voor geen van sijne opkwekelingen, die van
eenige geest sijn, verborgen houd/” Simon van Leeuwen, Korte besgryving van het
Lugdunum Batavorum nu Leyden (Leiden, 1672), 191.
66. Arnold

Houbraken,

DegrooteschouburghderNederlantsche

konstschilders

enschilderessen (The Hague, 1753), 3: 5. De Bye’s biography is discussed below in this essay.
67. Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archive, Notary A. Raven, inv. 777, deed 341, 11© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 25 of 26

September 1665. Transcripts of this deed are in Theodoor Herman Lunsingh Scheurleer,
Cornelia Willemijk Fock, and A.J. van Dissel, eds., Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een
Leidse gracht (Leiden, 1988), 3: 486, Appendix 1, and Wilhelm Martin, Het leven en de
werken van Gerrit Dou: beschouwd in verband met het schildersleven van zijn tijd (Leiden,1901), 171–73, Appendix IV. Twenty-seven pictures are mentioned in the notarial deed, but
twenty-nine in the advertisement. See Eric Jan Sluijter, Leidse fijnschilders: van Gerrit Dou tot
Frans van Mieris de Jonge 1630–1760 (Zwolle, 1988), 36–37.
68. “Aensienlijkste oudste geslachten van de stad Leyden, sijne voorouders hebben in deselve
stad al over de 300 jaeren de waerdigste ambten in de Magistrature becleed, met groten loff
ende reputatie, ende met een oprechten en onbesproken leven.” S. P. Perdijk, “De opkomst
der Remonstrantsch-Gereformeerde Gemeente te Leiden, 23 augustus 1618 tot 7 augustus
1679,” Leids Jaarboekje (1915): 25–27. De Bye’s biography is in Cornelis van Alkemade andPieter van der Schelling, “Corte beschrijvinghe van de strenge en harde proceduren en
vervolgingen den Remonstrants-gereformeerde Christenen om de sedige oeffeninge hares
Godsdiensts wedervaren binnen de stad Leijden: Sedert de veranderinge vanden Jaren 1618
en 1619 tot den Jare 1675. Opgestelt uit egte bewijsstukken en aantekeningen van dietijden,” Amsterdam University, Bijzondere Collecties, hs. III A 9, fol. 216 r and v. Manuscript
described in Catalogus der Handschriften VII (Amsterdam, 1923), 48, no. 346.
69. Derived from the Leiden baptism, marriage, and marriage certificates register. See the lists ofgovernors of the various Leiden institutions in Jan Orlers, Beschrijvinge der stadt
Leyden (Leiden, 1641), passim.
70. Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives, Notary D.J. v Vesanevelt, inv. 348, deed 72, 27
January 1639.
71. Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno (The Hague, 1875), 285.
72. Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno (The Hague, 1875), 387.
73. For Willem Meester, see Daniel J. Roorda, “Het leven van Willem Meester,” Spiegel
Historiael 16 (1981): 614–23, reprinted in Daniel J. Roorda, Rond prins en patriciaat (Weesp,
1984).
74. “Dat hij, Meester, geen werck en sal vermogen aen te nemen als mit voorgaende
communicatie ende expresse bewillegingh van de heer Johan de Bije voornomt […] ter
handen [sal] stellen de gerechte helft van alle de winsten, die ic in eeniger manieren van mijn
const off hantwerck (… ) sal comen te ontfangen ofte te genieten.” Daniel J. Roorda, “Hetleven van Willem Meester,” Spiegel Historiael 16 (1981): 614–23, reprinted in Daniel J.
Roorda, Rond prins en patriciaat (Weesp, 1984).
75. Gerrit Jan Peltjes, Leidse Lasten: Twee belastingkohieren uit 1674 (Leiden, 1995), 51.
76. All of the information on De Bye and his position in the Leiden Remonstrant community istaken from S.P. Perdijk, “De opkomst der Remonstrantsch-Gereformeerde Gemeente te© 2020 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Gerrit Dou and His Collectors in the Golden Age
Page 26 of 26

Leiden, 23 August 1618 tot 7 Augustus 1679,” Leidsch Jaarboekje 12 (1915): passim.
77. On Sylvius as Van Mieris’s patron, see the essay Frans van Mieris the Elder and His Four
Leiden Patrons in this catalogue.
78. Regionaal Archief Leiden, Notarial Archives, Notary A. den Oosterlingh, inv. 1073a, deed 66,
6 April 1673, transcribed in Theodoor Herman Lunsingh Scheurleer, Cornelia Willemijk Fock,and A.J. van Dissel, eds., Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht (Leiden,1988), 3a: 335–42. For discussion of the collection, see ibid., 282–95; Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘All
striving to adore their houses with costly peeces’: Two Case Studies of Paintings in Wealthy
Interiors,” in Art & Home: Dutch Interiors in the Age of Rembrandt (Exh. cat. Denver, Denver
Art Museum; Newark, Newark Museum) (Zwolle, 2001), 105–16.
79. His cousin Jean Rouyer inherited this painting. When the Amsterdam Chamber of Insolvent
Estates inventoried his estate in 1678, this painting was described as: “een dito sijnde een
vrouwtie dat gekapt wordt met openslaende deuren daerop een suygende vrouwtie bij delamp” (a ditto of a woman being coiffed, with a door opening outward on which is [painted] awoman nursing by candlelight). On this see endnote 23.
80. Self-Portrait, signed and dated 1658 (Uffizi Gallery, Florence); Ronni Baer, “The Paintings ofGerrit Dou (1613–1675),” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990), no. A 75. Hans
Geisenheimer, “Beiträge zur Geschichte des niederländischen Kunsthandels in der zweiten
Hälfte des XVII Jahrhunderts,” Beiheft zum Jahrbuch der königlich preuszischen
Kunstsammlungen 27 (1911): 58.
81. This may be the Self-Portrait, ca. 1660/652 (Musée du Louvre, Paris). Hans Geisenheimer,“Beiträge zur Geschichte des niederländischen Kunsthandels in der zweiten Hälfte des XVII
Jahrhunderts,” Beiheft zum Jahrbuch der königlich preuszischen Kunstsammlungen, 27(1911): 57–58. Guasconi wrote about this portrait to Bassetti: “Ho ritrovato in Leyden unritratto fatto di se med.mo il Pittor Dou (…) ma è di grandezza dell’ incluso foglio; egli è vestito
da camera con una beretta a togliere e una pelliccia attorno, stando appoggiato con un
gomito, e nell’ altra mano tiene la tavoletta dove sono sopra i colori e giuntamente i pinelli.”
82. On Dou and the prices his works fetched at auction in the eighteenth century, see Koenraad
Jonckheere, “‘When the cabinet from Het Loo was sold:’ the auction of William III’s
collection of paintings, 26 July 1713,” Simiolus 30, no. 2 (2005): 56–116.
83. Eric Jan Sluijter, Leidse fijnschilders: van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge
1630–1760 (Exh. cat. Leiden, Museum de Lakenhal) (Zwolle, 1988), 9; Ronni Baer, Gerrit
Dou, 1613–1675: Master Painter in the Age of Rembrandt, ed. Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. (Exh.
cat. Washington, National Gallery of Art; London, Dulwich Picture Gallery, The Hague; Royal
Cabinet of Paintings, Mauritshuis) (New Haven, 2000), 12–24.

© 2020 The Leiden Collection