Пост 145. Вермеер и Дельфтская школа, Часть 3. Живопись в Дельфте с 1600 по 1650 годы, Вальтер Лидтке, 60

76. See Rotterdam, Frankfurt 1999-2000.

77. For these works by De Gheyn, see Van Regteren Altena 1983, cat. IIP, nos. 3-6, 13, pis. 4-7, 11.

78. The attribution of A Teacher Instructing His Pupils (fig. 6o) to Van Vliet and its relationship to the works by De Gheyn were first considered in Wansink 1987, pp. 8-9, figs. 10-12. A date of about 1626-28 seems plausible. The De Gheyns are catalogued in Van Regteren Altena 1983, cat. IIP, nos. 18, I9, pls. I7, 19.

79. Possibly of circumstantial interest is the Lot and His Daughters by Van Couwenbergh that was owned by Judith Willems dr van Vliet when she died, in I650 (Maier-Preusker 1991, p. I67) - of interest, that is, if she wasVan Vliet's daughter.

8o. Ibid., p. I65.

81. See ibid., pp. I76-86, figs. 13- I8.

82. Compare ibid., figs. I, 2, 10; the woman in figs. 6, 7, 9; the man in figs. I5, 18-20. There are many other examples not illustrated in the article.

83. See ibid., pp. 173, 183-84, figs. 15, 16.

84. Ibid., p. I65, for this remark and the basic biographical details.

85. As is suggested by Jacob Vosmaer's early trip to Italy and his service as captain

major in a civic guard (Montias I982, pp. 46, 150-60, in the notes). Concrete information about the family is lacking, and this is reflected in Montias's uncharacteristic confusion of Wouter with Jacob Vosmaer on several pages (including pp. 46, I95).

86. Maier-Preusker (I99I, no. A8) correctly records the canvas as dated I630, while in Amsterdam, Jerusalem 1991-92, no. 23, the painting is said to be signed in monogram but not dated.

87. The subject of the lost painting is identified in Maier-Preusker I991, pp. 189-90, figs. 27, 28 (print after Rubens), and no. A6, as "Semiramis having her husband Onnes put to death." See also Plomp I986, pp. 110-11, no. I4. Maier-Preusker's comparison of the Cimon and Pero with a work by Rubens (Rubens 1991, pp. 196-97, figs. 38, 39, no. A26) is less convincing; there are more plausible prototypes in Utrecht, by Van Baburen, Moreelse,

and others, and the known evidence can hardly be considered complete (see the composition by a so-called follower of Abraham Janssens, in the Sotheby's, London, sale of December I6, 1999, no. 350 ).

88. Plomp I986, pp. 111-12, no. I6, and Maier-Preusker I99I, p. I89, figs. 30, 3I,

and no. A24.

89. Blankert 1978, p. 11, referring specifically to Van Couwenbergh and Palamedesz.

Wheelock (1981, p. I6) mentions Van Couwenbergh in connection with illusionistic murals and observes that "the House of Orange ... amplifies our understanding of the artistic climate in Delft?' However, the same author, in Washington, The Hague 1995-96, p. I7, groups Van Couwenbergh and Bramer with Palamedesz, the "aged" Van der Ast (he was

fifty-six in I650 ), and the eclectic landscapist Pieter van Asch as the major artists in Delft and concludes that "it seems unlikely that any of these painters inspired the young Vermeer.'

90. See, for example, Montias 1989, pp. I06-7.

91. Wheelock in Milwaukee I992- 93, p. 21.

92. On "craftsmen" see above, p. 60. For Van Couwenbergh's works at the princely palaces, see chap. I and especially nn. 26, 29. I assume that Maier-Preusker 199I, under no. C13, the Venus and Adonis of 1642, is correct in stating that Van Couwenbergh received 600 guilders for the painting, but this is not what the account book says according to Slothouwer 1945, p. 302, under 736 fol. I4IV (700 guilders to Van Couwenbergh, namely, 400 guildersfor the Offer to Venus and 300 guilders for the Venus and Adonis).