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

ca. 1685–95
oil on canvas
68.5 x 55.3 cm
JS-102© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 2 of 8

How to cite
Kloek, Wouter. “Demonstration of Wax Figures” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 2nd ed. Edited byArthur K. Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017–20. https://theleidencollection.com/artwork/the-demonstration-of-waxfigures/ (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.

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

Comparative Figurescontaining wax figurines that a young man holds up for them to see. He is
undoubtedly one of the Savoyards—natives of Savoy—who were well known
as itinerant musicians (often seen with a hurdy-gurdy and a monkey) or, as inthis case, showmen who demonstrated their tricks for a small fee. AlthoughSavoyards generally had a bad reputation, no one in this crowd seems theleast bit wary of his presence. This showman has attracted a range of
onlookers, including an adolescent girl holding a toddler in her arms and twoor three boys at her right, one of whom has placed his left arm on theshoulder of a smaller lad wearing a hat. A milkman and his wife are soengrossed in the performance that they do not notice that a dog is lapping up
milk from the milkman’s pail. An inquisitive young girl, hoping to enjoy theperformance, enters the courtyard through the gate at the left. A young

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

woman watches the goings-on from the door of the building as an older man
stares at her, transfixed by her beauty. To the right of the children, an elderly
woman observes the scene through a pince-nez, unaware that theshowman’s young accomplice is reaching into her purse to steal from her.
The boy simultaneously points at her and looks at the viewer, his mocking
expression signifying both her stupidity and her gullibility.
The theme of this painting is “appearances are deceiving and people areinclined to be deceived.” This aphorism, popularized by Sebastian Brandt,
well known as the author of Narrenschip (Ship of Fools) of 1494, is based ona saying attributed to Petronius (ca. 27–66 A.D.) “Mundus vult decipi, ergo

Fig 2. Willem van© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 3 of 8decipiatur” (the world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived).[1] Brandtwas also the compiler of Paradoxa, a collection of proverbs that appeared inMieris, Peepshow, 1718, oil on
panel, 58 x 49 cm, Rijksmuseum,Amsterdam, SK-A-4941

1542 and was responsible for the wide dissemination of many proverbs. JanSteen, who often based his pictorial themes on such proverbs, used hisillusionistic manner of painting to reinforce the idea of human deception andthe absurdity of the world.
The façade of the building providing the backdrop to the assembled company
is similar to that in Jan Steen’s painting Little Alms Collector, ca. 1665, a
depiction of the children’s parade held at Whitsuntide (fig 1).[2] Despite thesimilarity of the building and the gate in these two paintings, however,numerous small differences indicate that the scene is not an accurate
rendering of an existing location.[3] One difference, for example, is the flaking
plaster on the building in Little Alms Collector, which is absent
in Demonstration of Wax Figures.
Despite the compositional connections to Little Alms Collector, there arereasons to doubt the attribution of Demonstration of Wax Figures to Steen.
First of all, the execution is quite smooth and too uninspired to be the work ofthis master. One searches in vain for the expressive rendering of clothing
thatSteenwet-into-wet.

so[4]depictedwith

painterlybrilliance,

often

executed

The meticulous execution of the heads of the secondary

figures—such as the woman standing in the doorway and the girl holding ahoop, approaching from the left—is not typical of the cursory character inwhich the master depicted his supporting actors. Moreover, the facial
features of the cutpurse cannot be reconciled with figure types from Steen’s
own hand.[5]One possibility is that the painting is based on a lost original by the master.
This theory is premised, in part, by the existence of another slightly different
version of the painting, also executed by a follower of Steen.[6] Both versions
may derive from a lost original by the master or, given the differences
between them, from two lost originals.[7] In the Leiden Collection painting, forexample, the girl approaching from the left has in her hands a hoop and astick; in the other version she holds a little windmill on a stick.[8] The twofigures in the doorway are also different: instead of a young woman and anolder man leering at her, one sees a boy in a red cap and a young woman ina white cap who leans towards her companion. The clothing of theSavoyard’s apprentice is also completely different in these two works.
With the regard to the dating, it is significant that a milkman occupies acentral position in another of Steen’s compositions, Milkman, which the artist© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 4 of 8

executed in the late 1650s. The composition of this work is also similar, forthe scene takes place in a courtyard with an archway opening to a distantvista.[9] These similarities suggest that Steen’s original composition, on
which the Leiden Collection painting is based, probably also dated from thesecond half of the 1650s.
Perhaps Richard Brakenburgh, a follower of Jan Steen, who often createdheads such as those of the background figures in this work, was the makerof the present painting. Although there is insufficient evidence to definitely
attribute the work to him, it may be assumed that the painting was executedin the late seventeenth century, at a time when Brakenburgh was making his
many free imitations of Steen, including, for example, Feast of Saint Nicholasand Little Alms Collector, a work for which he unmistakably drew inspirationfrom Steen’s painting in the Petit Palais in Paris.[10] An X-radiograph has
revealed that the present work is painted over a male portrait, the style ofwhich is not in keeping with that of Steen’s few known portraits.[11]The theme of Demonstration of Wax Figures was the focus of a painting byWillem van Mieris (1662–1747), Peepshow (fig 2), which the Leiden artist
made in 1718 for the prosperous Leiden collector Allard de la Court, whopurchased it for the huge sum of 1,000 guiders.[12] In those days Van
Mieris’s painting was also called ’t Fraaij curieus, a title that imitates the cry(“vrai curieux”) that the Savoyards sang in praise of their marvelouspeepshows. The painting’s Dutch title, Rarekiek, is derived from kijken (tolook) and raar (strange, rare, or curious), the latter not so much in the senseof “strange” (the usual meaning of the Dutch word), but rather in the English
sense of “curious” or “exceptional.” As opposed to Demonstration of Wax
Figures, Van Mieris’s emphasis lies on the onlookers’ surprise and thedetailed depiction of the peasant interior, not on the deceit of simple folk wholet themselves be fooled.

- Wouter Kloek, 2017

© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 5 of 8Endnotes

1. Similar sayings occur in the writings of Saint Augustine and Martin Luther.
2. Cornelis Hofstede de Groot, A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent DutchPainters of the Seventeenth Century Based on the Work of John Smith, ed. and trans.
Edward G. Hawke, nos. 304, 307, 311, 8 vols. London, 1907–28. Originally published asBeschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten höllandischen
Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts. 10 vols. Esslingen and Paris, 1907–28, and Karel Braun, Alleschilderijen van Jan Steen (Rotterdam, 1980), no. 246. See, in particular, H. Perry Chapman,Wouter Th. Kloek, and Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., Jan Steen, Painter and Storyteller, ed. GuidoJansen (Exh. cat. Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (NewHaven, 1996), no. 26 (text by Arthur Wheelock).
3. The building is also similar to that in an etching by Adriaen van Ostade (1610–84/85), The
Knife Grinder (B. 36), which the artist executed around 1653. A preparatory drawing ispreserved in the British Museum in London; see S. William Pelletier, Leonard J. Slatkes, andLinda Stone-Ferrier, Adriaen van Ostade: Etchings of Peasant Life in Holland’s Golden Age(Exh. cat. Athens, GA., University of Georgia, Georgia Museum of Art; Lawrence, KS,
University of Kansas, The Spencer Museum of Art; Ann Arbor, University of Michigan
Museum of Art) (Athens, GA., 1994), 184–85, 266, no. 36. The resemblance was observed byDominique Suhr.
4. This technique, which is characteristic of Steen’s work, was first described by Marigene
Butler in “An Investigation of the Technique and Materials Used by Jan Steen,” Bulletin of thePhiladelphia Museum of Art 78 (1982–83): 45–46. See also Martin Bijl, “The Artist’s WorkingMethod,” in H. Perry Chapman, Wouter Th. Kloek, and Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., Jan Steen,Painter and Storyteller, ed. Guido Jansen (Exh. cat. Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art;
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (New Haven, 1996), 89.
5. Doubt was first cast on the attribution to Steen at the RKD (Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische
Documentatie/Netherlands Institute for Art History), where the work was classified by Fred
Meijer as by a follower of Steen, possibly Richard Brakenburgh.
6. In 1972 this painting was offered at an auction at Paul Brandt, Amsterdam on 16–19 May
1972, no. 92. In 1973 it was in the possession of L. Worms in Antwerp. It had formerly been in
the collection of H. E. ter Kuile, Enschede and was with the art dealer D. Katz in Dieren.
7. See, for instance, The Merry Family, in versions in the Rijksmuseum and in the Philadelphia
Museum of Art. See also The Marriage of Tobias and Sarah in Braunschweig and what ispresumed to be an earlier version on the art market. For these works, see, respectively, Karel
Braun, Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen (Rotterdam, 1980), no. 134, no. 216, no. 281, and no.
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 6 of 8308.
8. Children with toy windmills were seen as symbols of childlike innocence; see also the Dutch
expression “met molentjes lopen” (literally “to walk with windmills”).
9. For an image of this painting, see H. Perry Chapman, Wouter Th. Kloek, and Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr., Jan Steen, Painter and Storyteller, ed. Guido Jansen (Exh. cat. Washington
D.C., National Gallery of Art; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (New Haven, 1996), 124, fig. 3. This
composition also survives in two versions. Karel Braun, Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen(Rotterdam, 1980), nos. B-65 and 65a, wrongly doubts the attribution of both paintings toSteen. The first piece, presumably Steen’s original, was shown at an exhibition devoted toSteen that was held at the Mauritshuis, 1958/59, no. 8.
10. This latter painting was sold at auction in Vienna, Christie’s, 29–30 October 1996, no. 48, ill.
11. The few portraits by Steen, such as the famous Burgomaster of Delft and the four small
portraits that Steen made for Gerrit Schouten provide no support for an autograph attribution.
The Self-Portrait in the Rijksmuseum, which has a complicated genesis and shows that Steen
had an unexpected side as a portraitist, is the closest in comparison to the overpainted
portrait. However, the similarities are insufficient grounds for an attribution. On these portraits,see H. Perry Chapman, Wouter Th. Kloek, and Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., Jan Steen, Painterand Storyteller, ed. Guido Jansen (Exh. cat. Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art;
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (New Haven, 1996), nos. 7, 29, 40.
12. See Reinier Baarsen et al., Nederlandse kunst in het Rijksmuseum 1700–1800 (Amsterdam,2006), no. 13 (text by Duncan Bull).

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

© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 7 of 8

Exhibition History
London, Royal Academy of Arts, “The Robinson Collection: Paintings from the Collection ofthe late Sir J. B. Robinson, Bt.,” 2 July–14 September 1958, no. 43 [lent by the Princess Ida
Labia].
Cape Town, South Africa, National Gallery of South Africa, “The Joseph Robinson Collection
Lent by the Princess Labia,” April 1959, no. 59 [lent by the Princess Ida Labia).
Zurich, Kunsthaus, “Sammlung Sir Joseph Robinson 1840–1929 Werke europäischer Malerei
vom 15. bis 19 Jahrhundert,” 17 August–16 September 1962, no. 39 [lent by an heir ofPrincess Ida Labia].
Ithaca, NY, Cornell University, Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, “An Eye For Detail: Dutch
Painting From The Leiden Collection,” 20 September 2014–21 June 2015 [lent by the presentowner].

References
Vernier, Valery. Les Joyaux de la peinture. La Galerie de M. le comte de Morny. Paris, 1862,
as by Jan Steen.
Legrange, Léon. “La Galerie de M. le duc de Morny.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 14 (1863):
299–300, as by Jan Steen.
Hofstede de Groot, Cornelis. A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch
Painters of the Seventeenth Century Based on the Work of John Smith. Edited and translatedby Edward G. Hawke, 1: 67, no. 216. 8 vols. London, 1907–1928. Originally published as
Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten höllandischen
Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts. 10 vols. Esslingen and Paris, 1907–1928.
“Collected by a South African Millionaire: Paintings from the Robinson Collection,” TheIllustrated London News 233, no. 6213 (1958): 30, as by Jan Steen.
“The Robinson Pictures (Capetown’s Gain: London’s Loss),” The Connoisseur 142(November, 1958): 97, no. 7 and no. 43, as by Jan Steen.
Braun, Karel. Jan Steen: Alle tot nu toe bekende schilderijen. Rotterdam, 1980, 147, no.
A-125, as by Jan Steen.
Hecht, Peter.

De Hollandse fijnschilders van Gerard Dou tot Adiaen van derWerff. Amsterdam, 1989, 128, as by Jan Steen.

Versions© 2020 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Demonstration of Wax Figures
Page 8 of 8Versions and Copies

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

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

Technical Summary Endnotes

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

© 2020 The Leiden Collection