Искусствовед

57. This paragraph is based upon Giltaij in Rotterdam 1991, p. 219. 58. Ibid., p. 215, no. 43. 59. See Worcester 1979, no. 34, for an undated painting by Van Vliet that includes the monument, and a photograph of the monument itself. As Welu (in Worcester 1979, no. 34) notes, the monument is also seen in Van Vliet's view  of the Oude Kerk dated 1654 in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (see fig. 122 here). De Witte's panel of about 1651-52 formerly in the VanDuyn collection, Rotterdam (Liedtlce 1982a, fig. 77), shows the Van Lodensteyn monument as the main focus of attention, whereas in the early painting exhibited here (cat. no. 91) it merely adds two picturesque putti to the scene. 6o. For the whole story, see Montias I989, pp. 207-9, 333-34 (doc. no. 341). Montias wisely cautions that their criticism may have been exaggerated by the Fromantiou faction and that there were few Italian pictures in the Netherlands by which connoisseurs might judge controversial works. On t

47. For an introduction to the subject of Huygens as artistic adviser to Frederick Hendrick, see The Hague 1997-98a, pp. 31-32, and the essay by Vander Ploeg and Vermeeren, pp. 34-60; and Ottenheym's essay on architecture in The Hague I997-98b, pp. 105-25. See Huygens 19n-17 for his correspondence. 48. As is evident, for example, in Washington, The Hague I99S-96, p. so. Broos relates that when Pieter Teding van Berkhout was on his way to visit Vermeer on May 14, I669, he encountered Huygens and two other gentlemen, an ambassador and a member of the Dutch parliament: ''Although it does not say explicitly that all four men visited Vermeer, we may assume that Huygens and his friends did not linger at the city gate." But would Huygens, then seventy-three years old, and his political colleagues drop their plans in order to tag along with young Teding van Berkhout? And if they did, would the diarist have failed to record the fact? 49. Montias 1989, chap. 13.

31. Broos 1993, p. 3I3. The question is discussed further in Liedtke 2ooo, pp. I91-99. 32. As discussed in Liedtke 2000, pp. 199-202. On Van Bronchorst, see Doring 1993· 33· Ebeltje Hartlcamp-Jonxis in Amsterdam 1993-94, p. 420, under no. 78; see also her biography of Spiering on pp. 3I6-I7. 34. SeeM. I. E. van Zijl's essay on Delft tapestries in Delft 198I, pp. 202-9. 35. The relationship is explained in Montias I989, p. 247. In addition, Pieter Claesz van Ruijven's sister Pieternella was Spiering's godchild. In the seventeenth century this usually indicates a strong bond between families. 36. As emphasized by Broos in Washington, The Hague 1995-96, p. 49. See especially Montias 1989, pp. I8o-8I, on Monconys's visit to Vermeer, and Naumann 1981, vol. I, p. 26, on his visit to Van Mieris. 37· Wheelock in Washington, The Hague 1995-96, p. 23 (see also Broos on p. 49). An obvious answer would be that the balcer, Hendrick van Buyten, was a possibl