Библиография к "Перспективе в Дельфтской школе"

1. Gary Schwartz in Vancouver 1986, pp. I39-4I, quoting Liedtke I982a, p. 11.

2. Haak 1984 is helpful here, since it includes a survey of Dutch art firstly by quarter-century and secondly by place. See also exhibition catalogues devoted to local schools, for example, Dordrecht I992-93, The Hague 1998-99a, Leiden I988, Rotterdam I994-95, and (on Utrecht) San Francisco, Baltimore, London I997-98.

3. See Haak 1984, pt. 4.

4. See Montias I982, pp. 2I4-I5, on De Renialme.

5. As reviewed in ibid., pp. I77-78.

6. One could add Bramer and quibble about others, but the point is that Delft catmot be compared with Antwerp, Utrecht, Haarlem, Amsterdam, or even Leiden as an exporter of artistic forms. Michael Montias stressed tlus point in a letter to the present writer dated January 4, 2000. He was defending his description of the Delft school as "provincial" before 1650 ("I may have overstressed
the point"). "But surely innovation and 'rayonnement' have something to do with the notion of centrality in a culture." Montias is right, in my view, but the term "provincial" has other implications, as noted in the next paragraph.

7. Liedtke I982a, p. II.

8. Slive I995, p. I38, repeating lines first published in 1966.

9. Haak I984, p. I79 (section head in pt. 2, on Dutch painting about I600-1625).

11. Blankert I978, p. 30.

11. See Montias 1982, pp. 2IO-I5, on De Cooge and Johannes de Renialme.

12. Both quotes are from one sentence in Wheelock I977a, p. 233; also given in Wheelock 1975-76, p. 178.

13. See Wheelock I975-76, pp. I70-78, I82-84, on Houckgeest, De Witte, and the possibility of Saenredam's influence. As discussed in Liedtke 2000, chap. 3, the engraving reproduced by Wheelock as fig. 3 is not after De Witte but after Cornelis de Man. Wheelock rightly sees Houckgeest's influence in this work (p. 182).

14. On this subject, see also Liedtke 2000, pp. 8I-83, and the sources cited there. Montias ( I982, p. 246) concludes on the basis of inventories that "a large percentage of all the households in Delft, rich and poor, seem to have hung portraits of the reigning stadhouder and his family on their walls."

15. Van Vliet's canvas (on which see Liedtke 1982a, p.110, no. 132, fig. 62) is in the Bowdoin College Museum of Art, Brunswick, Maine.

16. See ibid., pp.105-14, for an oeuvre list of church interiors by Van Vliet.

17. See Brunswick 1978, no. 40, which exhausts this approach to the picture.

18. On the general meaning of Dutch paintings of church interiors, see Liedtke 1976b. Some relevant remarks are also found in Liedtke 1979a, on townscapes as expressions of civic pride. On the various subjects of "architectural painting;' see also Liedtke 1985.

19. Principally in Liedtke 1982a and in Liedtke 2000, chap. 3.

20. On Van Delen's painting, see Liedtke 2000, p. 86.

21. As noted in Wheelock 1975-76, p. 180, followed by Slive 1995, p. 269.

22. Jantzen 1910, pp. II3-18.

23. Van Bleyswijck 1667-[8o ], vol. 2, p. 852.

24. Houckgeest's Imaginary Catholic Church of 1640, owned by the Rijksdienst Beeldende Kunst, The Hague; see Liedtke 1982a, p. 32 and fig. 12, and Liedtke 2000, chap. 3, fig. 129.

25. See Liedtke 1982a, pp. 52-54, and Liedtke 2000, pp. 108-9, on Houckgeest's probable use of the perspective or "drawing" frame (the term "glass frame" is a misnomer). My Ph.D. dissertation (Liedtke 1974) and L. de Vries 1975, pp. 39-40, made the same suggestion independendy. Houckgeest could not have used a camera obscura. His angles of view are too wide and the church
interior was too dark for this drawing device to be practical (quite apart from the question of whether portable camera obscuras were available in 1650, which is debatable: see Hammond 1986 and Delsaute 1998).

26. Jantzen I910, pp. 97, 163, no. 184, fig. 45; Wheelock 1975-76, pp. 181-82, fig. 12; Liedtke 1982a, pp. 35, 40-41; and Lakin in Delft 1996, pp. 53-54. Not considered in L. de Vries 1975. It is catalogued in Van Thiel et al. 1976, p. 582, no. A1971, as attributed to Van Vliet. The present writer examined this painting and the other Rijksmuseum Houckgeest (no. 40 in this catalogue) in the conservation studio with curator Wouter Th. Klock and
conservator Martin Bijl in December 1997. They agreed that the canvas appeared to be by Houckgeest. It is rather worn and there are retouches in some areas, for example, in the base of the nearest column (where the picture may have been signed in monogram). My earlier reading of an "h G" signature at the lower left (see Liedtke 1982a, p. 99, under no.1) now strikes me as implausible.

27. Pieter Steenwyck's Vanitas Still Life (Allegory of Admiral Tromp's Death)) probably painted about 1656, is in the Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal, Leiden; see Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal 1983, pp. 320-21, no. 409, and Delft 1996, p. 33, fig. 24.

28. See Rotterdam 1991, pp. 163, 315 (where the document of May 27, 1651, is reproduced).

29. For a review of Houckgeest's work from 1650 onward, see Liedtke 2000, pp. 106-21.

30. C. Brown 1981, pp. 152-53 (doc. no. 24), and Montias 1982, pp. 164-65. Obreen (1877-90, vol. 1, p. 37) and Manke (1963, p. 63) note that De Witte paid the outsider's fee of 12 guilders when he joined the painters' guild.

31. For these docrnnents and their sources, see Bredius 1915-22, vol. 5, pp. 1831-32, and Manke 1963, p. 64.

32. Manke 1963, pp. 1-2, 65.

33. Compare Bredius 1915-22, vol. 5, p. 1832, and Liedtke 2000, pp. 121-22.

34. See the documents listed in Manke 1963, p. 65. On Manke's reading of Amsterdam poems dating from 1650 and 1654 as references to De Witte (her "documents" of 1650 and 1654 ), see Liedtke 1982a, p. 84, n. 24.

35. See Manke 1963, pp. 65-66, and Liedtke 2000, p. 122.

36. Liedtke 1982a, pp. 8-96, discusses De Witte in Amsterdam. See also Rotterdam 1991, pp. 183-209.

37. Houbraken 1718-21, vol.1, pp. 282-87.

38. See Liedtke 1982a, figs. 28, 28a, 73, 73a.

39. A fuller account of De Witte's work in Delft is found in Liedtke 1982a, pp. 76-84, and in Liedtke 2000, pp. 121-27.

40. On Van Vliet's influence outside of Delft, see Liedtke 1982a, pp. 68-75.

41. Bredius 1915-22, vol.1, p. 238, cited in Rotterdam 1991, p. 211, n. 5. For Van Vliet's estate, see Obreen 1877-90, vol. 5, pp. 284-87.

42. The Pieterskerk has two aisles to either side of the nave, which turn into a third bay in each of the transept arms, in effect creating an aisle along the western side of the transept. See Kunstreisboek voor Nederland 1969, pp. 438-39, for a history and plan.

43. Van Bleyswijck 1667-[80 ], vol. 2, p. 852. When I described Van Vliet as the only living artist discussed in Van Bleyswijck's Beschryvinge der stadt Delft  (Liedtke 1982a, p. 57), I had not known that it was substantially expanded in 1680. The book bears only the date usually given, 1667, although it refers to later events and dates in vol. 2.

44. See Amsterdam, Toronto 1977 for an old-fashioned survey of Dutch cityscapes (no. 7 is Van de Venne's print, which illustrates a poem in Jacob Cats's Sinne-beelden of 1618).

45. See Amsterdam, Toronto 1977, p. 67, fig. 1, no. 8, and Dumas 1991, p. 15, fig. 4, no. 57.

46. Stechow 1966, pp. I24, 125; see also Amsterdam, Toronto 1977, pp. 19, 20, where the same lines are quoted approvingly.

47. Friedlander 1949, p. 188, as quoted by Wattenrnaker in Amsterdam, Toronto 1977, p. 20.

48. John Walsh not only repeated Stechow's comparison between this composition and that of Esaias van de Velde's View of Zierikzee (Gemaldegalerie, Berlin) but also considered its design to be "rivaled in power only by contemporary landscape panoramas of Koninck" (see J. Walsh 1973, caption to fig. 30, and compare Stechow 1966, p. 53). Thore-Biirger, in 1866, compared Koninck
and Rembrandt; see Wheelock 1995a, p. 73. See also Liedtke 2000, pp. 223-24.

49. On the meanings of townscape painting, see Liedtke 1979a.

50. On Vander Heyden's view of the Oude Delft of 1675, see Lokin in Delft 1996, pp. 124-26, fig. 114, and, for the much later version in the Detroit Institute of Arts, fig. 115. In the same essay ("Views in and of Delft, 1650-1675") Lakin discusses De Hooch, Steen, and Vrel, conceding that Vrel's street scenes "do not really fit in the seventeenth-century tradition of the townscape" (p. 103 ).

51. Published in Plomp 1996a, p. 55, fig. II. To judge from the small reproduction, there is room for doubt. The type of composition, strong contrasts of light and shadow, and sharp articulation of the architecture are more reminiscent of Gerrit Berckheyde than of Daniel Vosmaer: compare Lawrence 1991, figs. 22-27. Compare also works by Van der Heyden, for example,
Wagner 1971, nos. I45, 146.

52. See Bal\.ker 1995a on the changing concept of what was schilderachtig.

53· On the cityscape by Vermeer and the church interiors by De Witte in the Dissius sale, see Montias 1989, pp. 250-51, 25+-55. It is not likely that the De Wittes were paintings done in Amsterdam of non-Delft subjects. On Van Ruijven and Vermeer, see also Liedtke 2000, chap. 5, n. 10.

54 Van Hoogstraten 1678, p. II.

55· Van Bleyswijck 1667-[80 ], vol. 2, p. 854. In some copies of the book the first line is altered to read, "Thus died this Phoenix when he was thirty years old"; and the last line is altered to read, "Vermeer, who masterfully was able to emulate him." See Blankert 1978, pp. 147-48; C. Brown 1981, pp. 159-60 (which gives the entire biography of Fabritius by Van Bleyswijck and the poem by Bon in Dutch and English); Montias 1989, p. 326 (doc. no. 315); Wheelock in Washington, The Hague 1995-96, p. 28, n. 30; and Broos in Washington, The Hague 1995-96, pp. 51-52, who enthusiastically favors "Blankert's somewhat hesitantly expressed opinion, that it was Vermeer who prevailed upon Bon to make this adjustment."

56. My translation, based on the Dutch and English in C. Brown 1981, pp. I59- 60 (see also his chap. 4 for a sensible analysis of this and other records of Fabricius's reputation).

57. See C. Brown 1981, chap. 1, for a biography of Carel Fabricius, and pp. 16-17 and notes on the significance of"Timmerman" and "Fabricius" Carel's father was the first to take the name, evidendy as a reference to scholars who had adopted it. See Miedema 1980, vol. 2, p. III7, for men named Fabricius or Fabritius in various professions, most of them in positions of authority.

58. See Liedtke 1995-96, pp. 26-27, on Fabricius's work in the 1640s. C. Brown 1981, no. 1, pls. r, 13-18, for the Warsaw picture; C. Brown 1986 on the Mercury and Argus; and Duparc 1986 on the Hermes and Aglauros. Van Hoogstraten's praise of the composition and spatial effect of The Night Watch was accompanied by criticism of its darkness, an opinion typical of the 1670s; see Haverkamp-Begemann 1982, pp. 66-67.

59. C. Brown (1981, no. R1) rejects the canvas in the Rijksmuseum, which may be the "Saint John's Beheading by Fabricius" sold in Amsterdam in 1687 and 1696 (see Brown's entry under "Provenance"). On the attribution, see Liedtke 1982c and Liedtke 1995-96, p. 26.

60. See C. Brown 1981, under no. 2, and p. 150 (under doc. no. 17).

61. The information on the Deutz brothers comes from a valuable article: Bikker 1998; see especially pp. 291-93.

62. C. Brown 1981, pp.148-49 (doc. nos. 11, 12).

63. Ibid., p. 154 (doc. no. 32) and p. 152 (doc. no. 23) for Agatha van Pruyssen's testimony.

64. Montias 1982, p. 87, note hh. De Hooch seems to have postponed this obligation for about fifteen months, De Witte and others for less than a year.

65. See C. Brown 1981, pp. 149-52 (doc. nos. 14-17,20, 23).

66. See J. Brown 1986, pp. 202-4, on Velazquez and Titian, and Van de Wetering in Berlin, Amsterdam, London 1991-92, val. I, pp. 16-22, on Rembrandt and Titian.

67. Meaning The Beheading of John the Baptist and the Portrait of Abraham de Potter in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, and, in the Groninger Museum voor Stad en Lande, Groningen, the Man in a Helmet; C. Brown 1981, nos. 2, 3, RI, pls. 2 and 19, 3 and 20, and fig. 59.

68. Here the present writer takes exception to Wheelock's remarks in Washington, The Hague 1995-96, pp. 20, 98, which describe a similar "mood" in sleepy figures by Fabritius and Vermeer and refer to "Rembrandt's philosophy'' and "an emotional character'' in paintings like The Sentry (no. 20 in this catalogue).

69. C. Brown 1981, pp. 59-60.

70. Wheelock in Washington, The Hague 1995-96, p. 19, amid more meaningful remarks. On p. 20 it is suggested that De Hooch's arrival in Delft in 1654 and Jan Steen's the following year "may also have led Vermeer in this direction" (the representation of "naturalistic light and perspective").

71. As noted in the text above, a double portrait of the young painter Pieter van der Vin and his wife was recorded in his estate in 1655 (see n. 30 ). A portrait of Balthasar Deutz (1650) was just mentioned (see n. 61). See C. Brown 1981, no. 2, for the Portrait of Abraham de Potter; tronies by Fabritius are recorded by Brown as doc. nos. 33, 43, 47, and 51 (both works cited in doc. no. 31, a Leiden inventory of 1662, were probably by Barent Fabritius ). See also C. Brown 1981, pp. 37, 81, fig. 30, on the large Family Portrait (said to have been signed and dated 1648), which was destroyed by fire in the Boymans Museum, Rotterdam, in 1864. The large canvas was supposedly inscribed "CARO FABRITIUS 1648.'' Little else speaks in favor of his authorship. The composition, which may be imagined more reliably from the museum's 1862 catalogue entry than from the watercolor made from memory by Alphonse de Steurs, would be expected of Barent Fabricius.

72. The following account of illusionistic works of art by Fabritius cited in seventeenth-century documents derives from the more extensive review in Liedtke 2000, pp. 64-65.

73· C. Brown 1981, pp. 157-58 (doc. no. 47). Works by Van Goyen, Jan Steen, and others were also in the collection.

74. Ibid., p. 154 (doc. no. 30); see also Liedtke 1976a, p. 65 and n. 11

75. On the frame of De Witte's painting in the Wallace Collection, London, see Manke 1963, no. 12; Liedtke 1982a, p. 82, fig. 74; and Liedtke 2000, p. 71 and fig. 90. For Dou, see Sumowski 1983-[94 ], val. 1, nos. 308, 309, and for Vermeer, see Wheelock 1995b, p. 375 (on Woman with a Balance) no. 73 in this catalogue).

76. As noted in Liedtke 1976a, p. 65, and C. Brown 1981, p. 124. Koslow 1967, pp. 54-55, no. 5, discusses the View of a Voorhuis.

77. See above, p. 116 and n. 63.

78. Wijnman 1931, p. 137, and C. Brown 1981, p. 157 (doc. no. 40).

79. See above, p. II3 and n. 45.

80. See Dumas 1991, pp. 650-51, under no. 59, with numerous illustrations. 

81. See ibid., pp. 222, 653, and especially 234, n. 29, citing the relevant literature.

82. For the text of this record, see C. Brown 1981, p. 153 (doc. no. 28).

83. Van Hoogstraten 1678, pp. 174-75, as translated by the present writer.

84. As suggested in C. Brown 1981, p. 86, n. 31. In a letter of August 28, 1997, Rudolf E.O. Ekkart (director of the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie in The Hague) informed the present writer that no one else living in Delft about 1650 could have been called "Dr. Valentius.''

85. Christopher Brown (1981, p. 86, n. 31) found no contemporary account of the house. The present author's inquiry at the Gemeentearchief, Delft, was equally discouraging.

86. Wijnman 1931, p. 140.

87. For an introduction to anamorphic images dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see Baltrusaitis 1977. Of more general interest are Mastai 1975 and Leeman 1976. An excellent case study in the use of perspective to create an illusionistic ceiling is found in Pirenne 1970, chap. 7, which mostly discusses Fra Andrea Pozzo's architectural vision of heaven (into which Saint Ignatius ascends) painted on the barrel vault of Sant'Ignazio,
Rome, in the 1690s. All four books cited here are revealingly reviewed in Edgerton 1979, pp. 131-34.

88. Van Hoogstraten 1678, p. 274, and, for Peruzzi ("Baltazar da Sienna"), p. 308. See C. Brown 1981, pp. 51, 161, for the passage in English, and Mastai 1975, fig. 101, for one of Peruzzi's illusionistic murals.

89. Delft 1994, pp. 232-33, no. 19. The sheet is inscribed on the left, "three feet wide at the staircase;' and below, "and 7 feet long;' which would have been nearly the same size as the same measurements in the English system (Amsterdam foot equals 28.31 em; English foot equals 30.48 em). As Plomp observes in Delft 1994, p. 232, this comparatively small space would have been normal for a staircase landing in the average burgher's house.

90. See chap. 3, p. 68 and n. 127. Vredeman de Vries's plate is illustrated with Bramer's drawing in Delft 1994, p. 233; see also pp. 63-64, fig. 22.

91. See above, p. 118 and n. 75.

92. See Brusati 1995, pp. 65, 285, n. 30, 361, no. 76, fig. 41, and Liedtke 2000, p. 73, fig. 94·

93. In particular his ]acobskerk in The Hague of 1651 (formerly in the Kunstmuseum, Dusseldorf: see Liedtke 1982a, pp. 42-43, fig. 26, and Liedtke 2000, p. II9, fig. 150.

94. See Brusati 1995, pp. 102-8, 126, 208, 365, no. 92, fig. 145. Van Hoogstraten himself was probably not important for Fabritius in Delft, or even aware of his work there until later on. The Dordrecht painter was mostly in Vienna (as well as Rome and Regensburg) between the middle of 1651 and early in 1656, when he returned to his hometown. He remained there until his years
in England (1662-68), after which he lived in The Hague (1668-71) and then returned to Dordrecht.

95. See Delft 1994, p. 22, for the document, and pp. 63, 200, for Plomp's description of the work. The location is often described as a corridor in Van Bronckorst's house, for example by Huys Janssen in the same catalogue, p. 22. On p. 23 it is claimed that Bramer also painted frescoes at the princely palaces ("see doc. 1649"), but one fails to find any evidence specifically of fresco in the relevant documents.

96. Ibid., pp. 23, 63 (wrong about the price on the latter page); see also pp. 200, 245, n. 4/

97. Plomp makes this connection in ibid., p. 245.

98. Van Bleyswijck r667-[8o ], val. 2, p. 566, and Delft 1994, pp. 24-25 (with the original text and a looser translation), 64-65. On the civic-guard building in Delft, see also Delft 1981, p. 143.

99. Catalogued in Delft 1994, pp. 176-78, no. 50; see pp. 24-25 on the presumed repairs.

100. Most of this description is based on the entry in Delft 1994, pp. 176-78, under no. 50 (see n. 6 on the king). The triptych was also described in Haarlem 1988, no. 87; see also no. 108 for a silver-gilt crown of a "shooting king" (late sixteenth century).

101. 'Vichmann (1923, pp. 16-18) suggested that the main scene represents The Rape of the Sabine Women; Christopher Brown (1981, p. 53) doubted this, but the present writer is inclined to accept it (Liedtke 1992-93a, p. 29 ). See also Delft 1994, pp. 28, 66, noting the problem of reconciling the various images with the uncertain or multiple functions of the room in the 1660s.

102. See Delft 1994, pp. 204-5, 255-57, nos. 34, 35, and p. 314, no. 22.

103. C. Brown 1981, p. 53, and Liedtke 1992-93a, p. 29.

104. As noted in C. Brown 1981, p. 53.

105. Details of the ceiling are illustrated in ibid., fig. 46 (angels), in Milwaukee 1992-93, p. 11, fig. 6 (angels); and in Delft 1994, p. 68, fig. 27a (Christ).

106. Hofrichter in Milwaukee 1992-93, no. 17. The hypothesis is considered "not implausible" in Delft 1994, p. 65.

107. See chap. 1, n. 56.

108. The quotes are from Kemp 1990, pp. 129, 131.

109. The quotes are from Jane ten Brink Goldsmith's entry on Delft in Muller 1997, p. IOI.

110. This is the closing line in Ilja M. Veldman's entry on the Delft school in Dictionary of Art 1996, vol. 8, p. 669.

111. The quotes are from Wheelock 1973, p. 73, and Wheelock in Washington, The Hague 1995-96, p. 27. Wheelock refers explicitly to a portable camera obscura (for example, in Wheelock 1981, p. 140 ). Other scholars have doubted that a portable version of the device was available to artists in the 1660s (see, for example, Hammond 1986, pp. 301-2, and Delsaute 1998).

112. As discussed in Liedtke 1975-76. The issues touched upon in this paragraph are discussed at length in Liedtke 2000, chaps. 2 and 3. 

113. Kemp 1990, p. 183, noting that "this picture holds good in Holland no less than in Italy and Britain.'' He cites Salomon de Caus, Hendrick Hondius, Samuel Marolois, Niceron, and other authorities.

114. Pepys I985, p. 655 (entry for August I9, I666). See also Liedtke 1991b, pp. 229-32; Brusati 1995, pp. 92-95; and Liedtke 2000, p. 79.

115. For example, in the preface of Dubreuil 1642-49 the author complains that modern painters do not actually learn the principles of perspective practice but simply copy the examples in treatises. See Huygens's criticism of the Dutch scientist and engineer Cornelis Drebbel (I572-1634) in Huygens I971, pp. 117-23.

116. Matthey 1973, pp. 35I, 353

II7. Pepys I985, p. 588 (entry for February 2I, 1666).

118. Ibid., p. 415 (entry for August I3, I664-).

II9. See Liedtke I991b, pp. 229-30. The quotes are from Pepys 1985, pp. 83 (entry for October 3, 1660, on the "King's closet"), 890 (entry for March 15, 1668, on the "deal Board"), and 1006 (entry for April 11, 1669, on the flower piece by "a Dutchman newly come over, one Everelst"). The letter-rack still life was perhaps by Van Hoogstraten, although Edwaert Collier, Wallerant
Vaillant, and other artists made the same kind of work.

120. See Liedtke 1991b, p. 229, and sources cited, and Brusati 1995, pp. 93, 202-9, 364--65, no. 89, fig. 141, pl. XIV.

121. On Niceron and the "classic phase of anamorphosis" in the 1630s and 1640s, see Kemp 1990, pp. 210-11.

I22. The drawings are discussed more thoroughly in Liedtke 2000, pp. 25, 231.

123. Delft 1994, pp. 245-47, no. 27, suggesting a date in the early 1650s.

124. Liedtke 1976b, p. 131, figs. 8-10.

125. See C. Brown 1981, pp. 154--57 (doc. nos. 34--37).

126. Ibid., p. 150 (doc. no. 17); see also Montias 1982, p. 196.

I27. This paragraph derives from Liedtke 1992-93a, p. 30, where the Ponce picture was dated "about 1652?" (in the caption to fig. 25). The conjecture was supported too readily in Delft I996, p. 101, fig. 83 ("c. 1652").

128. By Lokin in Delft 1996, p. 103, who credits Michel van Maarseveen of the Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof in Delft.

129. See Kemp 1990, p. 2II.