OCULIStudies in the Arts of the Low Countries

Series Editors:

Eric Jan SluijterUniversiteit van Amsterdam

Jennifer M. KilianAmsterdam

Volume !!

"#$%&''( )#%*"+$$&$

, + $ ' - * , . # % # / " . % 0 1 . 2 2 . ' 3’4

5 ' . % , . % 0 4!6!7

$2.,$ .%,$&%',.#%'2 '&, ,&'($ ', ,+$ $%(

#/ ,+$ (-,*+ 0#2($% '0$

)#+% 8$%)'3.%4 5-82.4+.%0 *#35'%9:;;<

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Jonckheere, Koenraad. The auction of King William’s paintings (!6!7) : elite international art trade at the end of the Dutch golden age /Koenraad Jonckheere. p. cm. -- (Oculi : studies in the arts of the low countries, ISSN ;=:7–;;77; v. !!)English translation of the dissertation defended at the University of Amsterdam in Sept. :;;>.Includes bibliographical references and indexes.ISBN =6<-=;-:6:-?=@:-7 (hb : alk. paper) -- ISBN =6<-=;-:6:-?=@7-; (pb : alk. paper)!. William III, King of England, !@>;-!6;:--Art collections. :. Painting--Private collections--Netherlands--Amsterdam. 7. Art auctions--Netherlands--Amsterdam--History--!<th century. ?. Painting--Collectors and collecting--Europe--History--!<th century. >. Art--Marketing--History--!<th century. I. Title.N>:6:.:.W>>J>> :;;<6;6.?’?=:7>:--dc:: :;;6;?=!!6ISBN =6< =; :6: ?=@: 7 (Hb, alk. paper)ISBN =6< =; :6: ?=@7 ; (Pb, alk. paper)

© :;;< – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfi lm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P. O. Box 7@::? · !;:; ME Amsterdam · The NetherlandsJohn Benjamins North America · P. O. Box :6>!= · Philadelphia PA !=!!<-;>!= · USA

! ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirementsof American National Standard for Information Sciences —Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z"#.$%–&#%$.

This book was published with the support of:

%1#

The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art

4.,'

Dr. Hendrik Muller Vaderlandsch Fund

M.A.O.C. Gravin van Bylandt Foundation

Cover illustration: Simon Fokke, An auction in the Oudezijds Herenlogement.Pen and brush on paper, :>.? x :@.? cm, Amsterdam, Gemeentearchief

76

!. ‘Anno !@@6: den :6. Januari Donderdag avond tusschen = en half !; is Jan geboren, en den 7;de gedoopt in de Westerkerk’ (The year !@@6: the :6th of January, Thursday evening between = and =:7; Jan was born, and baptised in the Westerkerk on the 7;th) his father recorded in the family register. Quote from Van Beuningen van Helsdingen !<<6, pp. !7!-!7:. See also Frederiks !<==, pp. !>=-!@:. The author describes a set of annotations on parchment concerning the Jan van Beuningen family, which he confused with those of the states-man Coenraad van Beuningen (!@::-!@=7). The an-notations were penned by Hendrik van Beuningen (father) and Isaac Samuel van Beuningen (brother).

". Van Beuningen n.d., pp. !:;-!6@; Elias !=@7, vol. ., pp. 7?:-7?>.

#. ‘Onijndige Expedietio, met lust en vuur volbragt, zijn sooveel getuijge van mijn altoos waakende ijver, [...] Die wel reekent, en wijnig slaapt, mist selde in het berijke van sijn doel.’ Jan van Beunin-gen, Amsterdam, :; December !6!:. Leeuwarden, Tresoar (RAF), Stadholder’s Archive, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. !=, Let-ter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, !" Decem-ber #$#!.

$. I am grateful to Piet Bakker for notifying me of a number of letters by Jan van Beuningen in the Royal Archives in The Hague.

%. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7><, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, % February #$#&.

diplomats on the one hand and the Dutch art-loving milieu on the other. Countless archival documents sketch a subtle image of the man who because of his experience in this area was considered the person best suited to run the most pres-tigious auction of his day.

*-&&.*-2-3 A.,'$ – Jan van Beuningen was born in Am-sterdam in !@@6 to the merchant Hendrik van Beuningen and Maria Le Thor, who came from a distinguished Amster-dam family of merchants.? Jan was the oldest of their nine children and grew up on the Singel.> His paternal grandfa-ther hailed from Nijmegen, but emigrated to Danzig in the fi rst half of the seventeenth century. The family accrued a certain wealth by selling grain from the Baltic region to the Republic. The fi rm sent the oldest son, Jan’s father Hendrik, back as a factor to Amsterdam, where he ultimately stayed.

O% ? F$8&-'&9 !6!7, Jan van Beuningen wrote ‘I fully ex-tend my services’ (Ik oB re mij in alle dienst), to his patron-ess Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel.7 This statement refers to his appointment as director of the auction of the paint-ing collection of Stadholder-King William ... from the gal-lery at Het Loo Palace held eleven years after the monarch’s death. As the director of this auction, the Amsterdam art lover would steer it in the right direction. To gain a better understanding of this auction and the in-ternational art trade in this period, it is worthwhile delv-ing deeper into the person of Jan van Beuningen. From the source material, he emerges as someone who played a key role in the formation of several aristocratic picture collec-tions in Germany and England. In the course of this book it will become clear just how crucial Jan van Beuningen and other agents were as links between princes, noblemen and

*+'5,$& :

,+$ #&0'%.4',.#%#/ ,+$ '-*,.#%

'. ,+$ '&, 2#A$& '%( ,+$ 8&#"$&‘This never-ending mission, completed with passion and fi re,is the witness of my ever vigilant zeal [...].He who calculates well and sleeps little, rarely fails to achieve his goal.’!

,+$ (.&$*,#&4+.5 #/ 3$&*+'%, '%( (.52#3', )'% A'% 8$-%.%0$%:

7<

$# Johan Gole, Portrait of Jan van Beuningen, engraving, 7?.> x :>.; cm, c. !6!>, Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, inv. no. RP-P-!=;=-!7=7

7=

&. Amsterdam, GAA, access number >;66, Exchange Bank Archive (uninventoried).

'. Amsterdam, GAA, access number >;66, Exchange Bank Archive (uninventoried).

(. Van Beuningen n.d., p. !7;.). Van Beuningen n.d., pp. !@>-!@=.

drik died in !@=6, his widow and their sons took over the business. Finally, at a relatively late date, Jan set up his own company operating under his own name.6

Jan van Beuningen married Catharina Constantia van Leeuwen in !@=>.< The couple had seven children. The old genealogical table of the family informs us that they re-mained highly internationally oriented. Naturally, there were close contacts with the relatives in Danzig. However, family members were also domiciled as factors elsewhere. Two of Jan’s brothers – Isaac Samuel and Jonathan – were dispatched to London and Curaçao, respectively. Jonathan was a governor of the West-Indian island from !6!@ to !6:;. Isaak Samuel stayed in England as a business partner for some time.= Jan van Beuningen, thus, was charged with the weighty responsibility of managing the family’s trad-ing company from Amsterdam. In addition to the Baltic Sea trade, which given the family ties with Danzig was self-ev-ident, Jan van Beuningen was also actively involved in in-

Jan van Beuningen was privileged to a fi ne education. From the correspondence it emerges that he was classically trained and wrote relatively good French. His letters are liberally sprinkled with Latin mottos and phrases. He used the mag-ister’s title, which suggests he read law at university. Natu-rally, as the merchant’s oldest son he would also have been trained to take over his father’s business. The Current Ac-count Ledgers of the Amsterdam Exchange Bank confi rms that this was, indeed, the case. Hendrik and his children had an account there under the name ‘Hendrik van Beuningen and sons’ (Hendrik van Beuningen en zonen).@ When Hen-

$$ Pieter van den Berge after Gérard de Lairesse, Achilles among the daughters of Lycomedes, engraving, ><.> x ?>.@ cm, c. !@=>, Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, inv. no. RP-P-!=;?-?7@!

?;

The culmination of Jan van Beuningen’s ambitions was undoubtedly the fact that on :> March !6!7 – thus shortly be-fore the auction – he was raised to the peerage by Emperor Charles A..!? ‘When, years ago, a great fi re broke out here and our house, our furniture and all our personal belongings – among other things our patents of nobility – were lost [...],’ he began his letter to the emperor of : March !6!7.!> Thanks to the mediation of Anton Ulrich von Braunschweig, the ‘renovatio nobilitatis’ was clinched less than a month later. Just how proud he was of this tribute can be deduced from the portrait Johan Gole engraved of him around !6!> (fi g. :!).!@ It depicts Jan van Beuningen in the same pose as Em-peror Charles A in the famous likeness by Titian.!6

Van Beuningen proved to be an art lover already as an ad-olescent. He fi rst presented himself as a patron in !@=>. In that year Pieter van den Berge published a series of prints of paintings by Gérard de Lairesse. The engraving after Achil-les among the daughters of Lycomedes bears a dedication to Jan van Beuningen (fi g. ::).!< Ovid’s lines of verse about Achil-les’ fortunes gird the coat of arms.

dustry as appears from the fact that he owned a brick kiln along the Vaartse Rijn in Utrecht certainly as of !@<=.!; He also owned plantations on Curaçao.!!

At the same time Van Beuningen’s star was rising in pub-lic oC ce in Amsterdam. In !@=> he was a bookkeeper of the Dutch East-India Company (A#*) and of the Exchange Bank.!: Both positions put him at the very heart of the fi nan-cial world of the Republic. On the board of the A#* he be-came familiar with speculations in stocks. At the Exchange Bank he surely will have met the Republic’s wealthiest mer-chants and representatives of foreign bankers. In !6;? Van Beuningen was commissioner of the Post OC ce, a lucrative and rewarding position. Two years later he was a lieuten-ant of the civic guard and in !6;= a captain. In !6!: he was appointed a director of the West-India Company (WIC).!7 Three years later he became governor of Curaçao, relieving his younger brother Jonathan. He sailed out on !7 May !6:; and set foot on the island on ? July. He held this post for a mere two months: for he died on the West-Indian island on !< September !6:;, followed by his widow only a few months later.

van Leeuwen with a four line inscription by Jan van Beuningen.

$'. ‘Les instigateurs de cette lotterie etoient de cer-taines gens qui possedoient je ne scai quelles Sei-gneuries, & biens immeubles, qui leur apportaient fort peu de revenu [...] la étans contraint de les vendre par une urgente & absoluë nécessité d’ar-gent & ne pouvans cependant trouve personne qui voulît les acheter, l’example de la lotterie de Lon-dres leur fît naitre la pensée d’en faire une pur ce-la.’ Leti !@=6, pp. !7=-!@<.

$(. Amsterdam, GAA, access number >;66, Ex-change Bank Archive (uninventoried), Current Ac-count Ledger !;6, vol. : account no. !??! B ., Cur-rent Account Ledger !;<, vol. : account no. !??! B ., Current Account Ledger !;=, vol. : account no. !??! B . A certain Elias was also involved. I was un-able to identify him convincingly.

$). ‘On vit arriver a Amersfort une afl uence incroy-able de Peuples, ce qui n’est pas fort surprenant [...] on ne voyoit par les Rues que des Chariots en des Chaizes roulantes & sur les Canaux que des Barques remplies de gens.’ Leti !@=6, pp. !7=-!@<.

%*. Fokker !<@:, pp. !;;-!;@; Huisman & Kopper-nol !==!, pp. !;>-!;<. The authors confuse this lot-tery with one organised a few months later by a number of other initiators that was much less suc-cessful. From the archives in the Exchange Bank of Amsterdam and the descriptions by Leti it clearly emerges, however, that Van Beuningen, Nijs and Elias were the very fi rst to devise a lottery mod-elled on that of William ... in London held a year earlier.

%#. Elias !=@7, vol. .., pp. <!:-<!?.

#(. Pieter van den Berge after Gérard de Lairesse, Achilles among the daughters of Lycomedes, engraving, ><> x ?>@ mm, c. !@=>, Amsterdam Rijksprenten-kabinet, inv. no. RP-P-!=;?-?7@!. On the series of prints, see Van Tatenhove !==6, pp. !@-:6. On the print and the painting, see Broos !==>, pp. :!-:@; The Hague !==7b, pp. !6:-!6=.

#). ‘Treurspel, voor het meerder gedeelte berijmt was door den Heere Jan van Beuningen, en mij voor zijn Wel-Edelhere vertrek naar Curaçao ter-hand gesteld [...].’ Van Beuningen et al. !6:7.

$*. Haverkamp & Péchanterés !6;=.$#. Von UB enbach !6>?, vol. .., p. ?!<; Von UB en-

bach !6>?, vol. ..., p. 7?!.$$. Houbraken !6!<-!6:!, vol. .., p. :=; Von UB en-

bach !6>?, vol. ..., p. 7??.$%. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von

Hessen-Kassel, inv. nos. 7>< and 7>=, Letters from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, #$#&-#$#'. Leeuwar-den, Tresoar (RAF), Stadholder’s Archive, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. !=, Let-ters from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, #$#!.

$!. Adinolfi !==?, pp. :6-77; Van Eeghen !=@<, pp. 6?-!;!.

$". Dudok van Heel !=6>, pp. !?=-!67. Gerbrandus’ brother-in-law and the uncle of both sisters was Ferdinand van Collen, Burgomaster of Amster-dam. Elias !=@7, vol. ., p. 7?7. Isaac Jan Nijs was also married to a scion of the Van Collen family, namely Susanna. Van Eeghen !=@<, pp. 6?-!;!.

$&. Van Miert :;;?, pp. 7?6-7>;. In the Library of the Vrije Universiteit (VU) in Amsterdam is a por-trait engraving (Portret !.LEE.;;!) of Gerbrand

#*. Utrecht, GAU, NAU, inv. no. U!!@a! deed >;, Agreement regarding the closing down of the brick kilns due to the threat of overproduction, #( February #()*. Utrecht, GAU, NAU, inv. no. U!!@a! deed >:, Agree-ment regarding the closing down of the brick kilns due to the threat of overproduction, # June #()*. Utrecht, GAU, NAU, inv. no. U!!;a7 deed ::@, Agreement regarding the termination of a lease on a house on the Vaartse Rijn, #* November #(*#. He proved to be a good business-man. He reached agreements concerning prices and production with other brick kiln owners. In other words, he set up a cartel.

##. Van Beuningen n.d., p. !7:.#$. Utrecht, GAU, NAU, inv. no. U!::a! deed !@:,

Dispute concerning a lost box, * October #(*'. Utrecht, GAU, NAU, inv. no. U!:>al deed 7?, Procuration for collecting a bill of exchange, #! November #(*'.

#%. Broos !==>, pp. :!-:@.#!. Elias !=@7, vol. ., pp. 7?:-7?7. A transcript of the

patent of nobility is in the National Archives. The Hague, National Archives, Archive of the Van Beu-ningen Family, inv. no. :.:!.:7;: Archive of Jan van Beuningen, no. !.

#". ‘Wann aber der für Jahren alhier entstandene Grosse Brand auch unser Hauss und alle Meubels ja fast alle Habseligkeiten und unter andern auch unsere Documenta Nobilitatis uns dergestalt con-sumiert [...].’ Van Beuningen n.d., pp. !7:-!??.

#&. Johan Gole, Portrait of Jan van Beuningen, engrav-ing, 7?> x :>; mm, c. !6!>, Amsterdam Rijkspren-tenkabinet, inv. no. RP-P-!=;=-!7=7.

#'. Titian, Portrait of Charles A with a dog, canvas, !=: x !!! cm, Madrid, Museo del Prado.

?!

berg. In !6!7 he married Elisabeth van Leeuwen, the sister of Jan van Beuningen’s spouse, Catharina Constantia. Their fa-ther, Gerbrandus van Leeuwen, was a professor of theology at the Athenaeum Illustre, from which the University of Am-sterdam later originated.:@

The earliest collaboration between Jan van Beuningen and Daniël Nijs took place long before they became related through marriage. In !@=> they organised the so-called ‘lot-tery of Amersfoort’ (loterij van Amersfoort). A contemporary described them as follows: ‘the organisers of the lottery were certain people who owned I don’t know which manors and eB ects that brought them only a modest income [...]. Being forced to sell them due to an urgent and utter need for cash and fi nding no one who would buy them, the example of the lottery of London inspired them to hold their own [lot-tery] to this purpose.’:6 Approximately !@,;;; lots were is-sued at :> guilders a piece. Accordingly, the organisers of the lottery were counting on a turnover of at least ?;;,;;; guil-ders! They fell just short of that amount as appears from the receipts for the lottery in the archives of the Amsterdam Ex-change Bank.:< More than 76=,>;; guilders worth of notes were sold, and more than !>,;;; lots – which, after all, were expensive – were sold throughout the Republic, the South-ern Netherlands, Germany and England. The name of just about every regent family appears in the list of subscribers. Foreign noblemen and diplomats bought dozens of lots. As planned, the draw began on !> February !@=>. It lasted more than a month. ‘One saw arriving in Amersfoort an incredi-ble stream of people, which is not all that surprising [...], the streets were teeming with carriages and “chaises roulante” and the canals were fi lled with boats packed with people,’ wrote eye-witness Gregorio Leti two years later.:= Amers-foort was overrun for days. This lottery sparked oB a veri-table rage of smaller and larger such events in the Repub-lic after 6; years of relative calm in this respect.7; It was an unexpected success, which must have procured its initiators years of fame and probably also certain wealth. It cannot be determined exactly how much they earned from this endea-vour, but given the turnover it must have been a tidy sum. It bespeaks both the entrepreneurial spirit of the organis-ers and Jan van Beuningen’s ability to successfully run large events, a skill that surely stood him in good stead later with the organisation of the Het Loo auction.

Not only did he have an infl uential family, Van Beuningen could also rely on an extensive network of friends and ac-quaintances. The name of Pels surfaces frequently in archi-val material relating to Van Beuningen.7! According to con-temporaries, the family then operating under the company name ‘Andries Pels and Sons’ (Andries Pels en Soonen) was

Poetry and painting continued to dictate Jan van Beunin-gen’s cultural life. He did more than only assemble a nota-ble picture cabinet. Later, he also found time to translate Prosper Jolyot de Crebillon’s tragedy, Idoménée (!6;>), the fi rst edition of which appeared in !6:7. Jacob Voordaagh, who completed the rhyming translation after Van Beunin-gen’s death, wrote in the foreword that the ‘Tragedy, was largely set to rhyme by Mr Jan van Beuningen and me be-fore his Excellency’s departure for Curaçao [...].’!= A trage-dy by Nicolas de Péchantrès of !6;7, translated by the writer Jan Haverkamp, De dood van Nero (The death of Nero) in !6;=, was dedicated to ‘the honourable Mister Jan van Beunin-gen’ (den Edele Heere Jan van Beuningen).:; It bespeaks his engagement in the cultural life of the Republic of his day. However, Jan van Beuningen had other interests as well. In addition to paintings, he collected drawings and shells, as was recounted by the Von UB enbach brothers after visiting his cabinet.:!

It would seem that Jan van Beuningen had brought a part of his cultural baggage with him from Italy. The German tourists, the Von UB enbach brothers, as well as the paint-er-biographer Arnold Houbraken indirectly refer to the fact that he once visited the country, perhaps as part of a Grand Tour or in his student years.:: We know that he travelled ex-tensively. For instance, in the years !6!7-!6!> he spent several weeks in Paris and Vienna. For business he sailed regularly on his private yacht to The Hague, Friesland or Middelburg. In short, he did not hesitate to leave Amsterdam every now and then, as is confi rmed in many of his letters.:7

This conduct presupposes an environment enabling such a life. And, a reconstruction of his acquaintances and rela-tives, indeed, attests to an extensive network of cultivated intellectuals. For instance, Van Beuningen’s previously men-tioned brother-in-law, Daniël Nijs, was the grandson and namesake of arguably the most famous gentleman-dealer of the seventeenth century. Nijs Senior negotiated one of the single largest art transactions during the Ancien Régime, namely the acquisition of the lion’s share of the cabinet of Vincenzo Gonzaga of Mantua for Charles . of England.:? Nijs came from a Southern-Netherlandish merchants’ fam-ily, but emigrated to the Doges’ city. He made a fortune and bought the island of Cavallino near Venice where he built a palazzo. In the course of his life he amassed a vast collec-tion of paintings and curiosities. His grandson, Daniël Nijs, grew up in the double canal house on the Keizersgracht (no. >66) his father, Isaac Jan, had designed by Philips Vingboons in !@@>. However, he sold the house and its contents – in-cluding the remains of the picture collection of Daniël Nijs Senior – after Isaac Jan’s death in !@=;.:> Daniël held sever-al less prestigious regencies and owned a manor in Muider-

?:

the poet Andries Pels with the aim of propagating French Classicism and which greatly infl uenced literary life in Am-sterdam around !6;;.?! The dedications to Van Beuningen in books and his own translations of French tragedies fi t perfectly within this cultural context. The fact that he also owned masterpieces by the painter Gérard de Lairesse only confi rms this.?: This painter-writer was an important fi gure in Nil Volentibus Arduum.

Several European monarchs and dignitaries also belonged to the select circle frequented by Jan van Beuningen. At the top of the list, naturally, was Landgrave Karl . von Hes-sen-Kassel and his daughter Maria Louise, for whom he or-ganised the auction. After all, Maria Louise had inherited the paintings from her husband Johan Willem Friso who, in turn, had inherited them from William .... Accordingly, it is worth describing briefl y the nature of the personal relation-ship between Jan van Beuningen and these noblemen. His correspondence with Maria Louise provides a great deal of information in this respect.?7 Jan van Beuningen travelled frequently to Soestdijk and Leeuwarden to personally in-form the princess about the business matters he was look-ing after on her behalf, including the auction. The trust she placed in him was expressed in the repeated permission she gave him to lodge in her domains for personal reasons. A prerogative he was only too eager to take advantage of. For instance, he was partial to the Kruitberg, an estate in Sant-poort that William ... had acquired as a country house. He once even oB ered to buy this hunting lodge, where he stayed on a regular basis.?? These visits did not escape notice, and were not always appreciated by the housekeeper, for after a stay in !6!7 she complained about the fact that Van Beu-ningen and his servant ‘had taken the bedclothes from the gallery in the countess’ room and slept in them; the table in the room [was] covered with fi lth and wetness, as if soldiers had lodged there.’?> Maria Louise was unfazed by this. For his services, she even gave Van Beuningen the freedom to lodge at will at Soestdijk Palace. Another privilege he gladly accepted, for example in !6!>. He sent her the following re-quest, asking whether he could eat there at his own expense ‘with three or four befriended couples.’?@

Conversely, Maria Louise lodged at least twice at Van Beu-ningen’s on the Keizersgracht (no. :@=) in Amsterdam.?6 In so far as we know, he fi rst put his house at the princess’ dis-posal in July !6!7, to which she responded that ‘we will accept with pleasure the obliging oB er you make us of your house, but only for our personal use.’?< The agent made the same oB er again just after the auction on July :@th !6!7: ‘I under-stand that Your Majesty is inclined to make a trip to Soestdijk via this city, I therefore should like to put this house and all

the most aD uent in all of Amsterdam. This is confi rmed in the tax assessment register.7: Andries Pels (!@>>-!67!), a namesake and cousin of the better-known poet, founded the fi rm in !6;6 which was disincorporated only in !66?. The company traded in luxury items, insurance and money. An-dries Pels was called the ‘banker of France’ and maintained close ties with James Brydges of Chandos. As mentioned ear-lier, Chandos was paymaster-general of the forces abroad for the British crown and in this capacity guaranteed the fi nanc-ing of the War of the Spanish Succession.77 Via Jan van Beu-ningen, Pels also fi nanced Landgrave Karl . von Hessen-Kas-sel.7? Andries Pels was a private commissioner in Amsterdam for the King of Sweden and was succeeded by Pieter Pels as resident of the same court.7> Andries Pels’ family, thus, was highly infl uential. The ties between Jan van Beuningen and Pels are disclosed in a number of archival documents. For example, as men-tioned, Van Beuningen regularly put in for large amounts at Pels’ fi rm and in !6!> rented a warehouse from it for ::,;;; guilders.7@ Later, in !6!<, Van Beuningen also gave Andries Pels power of attorney to collect outstanding debts on his behalf.76 This authorisation and the numerous transactions involving prodigious amounts, as appears from the archives of the Exchange Bank and the notarial archive of Amster-dam, at the very least evidence a relationship based on mu-tual trust. This would also be apparent at the auction of Wil-liam ...’s picture collection: the fi rm of Andries Pels and Sons bought fi ve paintings for a total of ?6<> guilders. Pels undoubtedly belonged to the group of friends that, accord-ing to Van Beuningen, ‘had emptied the purse so complete-ly for the auction’ that they could buy no more art for a full year.7< His relationship with Adriaen Bout, Jacques Meyers and other bidders at the auction is addressed below. Naturally, Jan van Beuningen’s personal and business network extended much further, both in Amsterdam and in other towns in the Republic. From the correspondence with Princess Maria Louise it emerges that he maintained con-tact with the Van Assendelft, Trip, d’Orville, Coymans, Van Schuylenburch and other families.7= However, it is diC cult to determine just how close these relationships were. For in-stance, after visiting Amsterdam the Von UB enbach broth-ers wrote that Jan van Beuningen was very familiar with all of the cabinets in Holland.?; This implies that he saw them on more than one occasion, and by extension that virtual-ly no one denied him entry to his or her collection. Inciden-tally, he too welcomed visitors to his cabinet, because after a chance meeting at a print dealer’s he invited the broth-ers to come to his home at their convenience. It would seem that Jan van Beuningen’s network partly overlapped that of Nil Volentibus Arduum, a literary society founded by

?7

no. 7><, Letter from Maria Louise to Jan van Beunin-gen, July #$#&.

!). ‘Ik versta dat Uwe Doorlugtige Hoogheijt gesint is, een rysie, oover deze stad, naar Soestdijk te nee-me, ik biede mijn huys en alles tot disposietie aen.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7><, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, # August #$#&.

"*. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, #! August #$#&.

"#. ‘De jonge prins slaapt als een roos, gaat des mid-dags uijt rije, en heeft een toeloop van mensche die ongeloofl ik is. Men seegent hem de lante voix.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, #! August #$#&.

"$. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, #) November #$#&. See also Jonck heere :;;?, pp. <<-!:!.

"%. Van Beuningen n.d., p. !7:."!. The Prince of Hannover later became King

George . of England. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Let-ter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, & Novem-ber #$#%.

"". See Chapter ?A."&. ‘I saw the notorious monarch dine eight days

before his death’ (Ik heb die berugte monarch agt daage voor zijn dude sien speijsen). The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, #' September #$#'.

!%. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. nos. 7>< and 7>=, Letters from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, #$#&-#$#'. Leeuwar-den, Tresoar (RAF), Stadholder’s Archive, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. !=, Let-ters from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, #$#!.

!!. Kruitberg was once the country house of Hen-drik Reynst (father of the famous art lovers Ger-rit and Jan) and Balthasar Coymans. William ... bought the estate in !@<: for 7;,;;; guilders. After the death of the stadholder-king, the estate fell in-to disrepair, as mentioned by Jan van Beuningen. His bid was not accepted. Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer !=6?-!=6@, vol. ., p. @76; Mobron & De Graaf !==6.

!". ‘Het beddegoet van de saal genomen en in de gravinne kamer gevondene en hebben daerop ge-slapen, de tafel op de saal vol vuyligheyt en nat-tigheyt, het is of daar soldaten gelogeert hadden.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, !' March #$#&. The housekeep-er’s written complaint is in a separate fi le.

!&. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, !# May #$#'.

!'. Keizersgracht :@=. The house he died in was on the Herengracht near the Koningsplein. Amster-dam, GAA, NAA, inv. no. >;6> no. <>>6 deed !@, Es-tate inventory of Jan van Beuningen, $ February #$!#.

!(. ‘De obligante aanbiedinge die u ons van syn huijs doet, sullen wij met plaisir edoch maar voor onse persoon alleen aannemen.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv.

was Anton Ulrich who had recommended him as ‘old nobil-ity’ (oude adel) in Vienna.>7 Other good friends included the ruling Elector of Hannover, and Friedrich Anton Ulrich von Waldeck, who dined at the Amsterdam merchant’s home.>? James Brydges of Chandos visited him in !6;>.>> He even saw the French Sun King, Louis E.A, with his own eyes at a ban-quet in Versailles.>@ As a nobleman, Van Beuningen had ac-cess to the palace.

These bonds of friendship with the highest of European no-bility undoubtedly were related to the services he rendered and the position of trust he enjoyed. In the case of the Land-grave von Hessen-Kassel and his daughter Maria Louise, Jan van Beuningen’s banking activities certainly played in his favour. Soliciting so much money in a time of war was enor-mously risky. Equally important here was his knowledge as a connoisseur and art buyer.

that it oB ers at your disposal.’?= Again, the countess accept-ed the invitation and stayed with her two children and her chargé d’aB aire in Amsterdam for a few days between < and !: August of that year.>; It was a turbulent visit, for Prince William, her son and heir to the throne, became feverish af-ter a hunt and was required to stay in bed. ‘The young prince sleeps like a rose, goes riding in the afternoons, and receives an unbelievable surge of people. They bless him with a slow and soft voice,’ Van Beuningen wrote.>! The royal audiences in no way detracted from the wealthy merchant’s prestige. Maria Louise, incidentally, was not the only distinguished guest at his table. He maintained equally close contacts with Duke Anton Ulrich von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel. In fact, he called him a friend. This friendship was reward-ed when the monarch agreed to be the godfather of Anto-nia Ulrica, Jan van Beuningen’s youngest daughter.>: Van Beuningen also owed him the ‘renovatio nobilitatis,’ for it

%$. Elias !=@7, vol. .., p. <!7.%%. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no.

ST >6->< (6! vols.), Correspondence of James Brydges of Chandos, #(*%-#$%%. See also Chapter ?A.

%!. Amsterdam, GAA, NAA, inv. no. >;6> no. ?::> deed !;?, !!; et al., Debenture of Jan van Beuningen on commission of Baron van Dalwig, plenipotentiary for Landgrave Karl von Hessen-Kassel to Andries Pels and Sons, #$ and #) January #$#&.

%". Schutte !=<7, pp. 7!=-7:;. His parents were Pau-wels Pels and Antoinette von Sandrart of Frank-furt. She was probably a cousin of the famous painter-writer Joachim von Sandrart.

%&. Amsterdam, GAA, NAA, inv. no. >;6> no. ?:7: deed :7, Obligation of Jan van Beuningen to Andries Pels and Sons for the lease on a warehouse, & July #$#'. Van Eeghen !=6;b, pp. :!6-::?.

%'. Amsterdam, GAA, NAA, inv. no. >;6> no. 6=6= deed >, Procuration of Jan van Beuningen to Andries Pels, ! August #$#).

%(. ‘voor de vercooping de buijdell so leedig hadden geclopt.’ See Chapter >.

%). The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. nos. 7>< and 7>=, Letters from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, #$#&-#$#'. Leeuwar-den, Tresoar (RAF), Stadholder’s Archive, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. !=, Let-ters from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, #$#!.

!*. Von UB enbach !6>?, vol. ..., p. 7?!.!#. This Andries Pels was an uncle of the Andries

Pels who founded the fi rm of Andries Pels and Sons. De Vries !==<; Emmens !=@<, p. 67 B .; Elias !=@7, vol. .., pp. <!:-<!?.

!$. See Appendix B:.

??

tleman-dealer. Collecting and dealing in works of art went hand in hand. He did not attempt to amass a complete col-lection, but rather tried to sell oB masterpieces to befriend-ed rulers or fellow collectors – as long as this enhanced the reputation of his own cabinet. It is not clear whether he al-so intended to make a profi t in this way. There is equally lit-tle doubt that dealing was an essential aspect of his collect-ing aC nity. For instance, in the aftermath of the auction of the paintings from the inheritance of William ..., on > May !6!? he wrote the following to Maria Louise: ‘I took no eB ort to answer your question regarding what to do with the left-over works of art, they must await buyers this year. I expect them daily. Their number is too small to warrant organising another auction, and [I] also know that last year the friends emptied their purses to such an extent that they have noth-ing left. Allow me, at my discretion, to arrange for the rest. I will not sleep, and listen about. Since the sale not a single work in my cabinet has been sold.’>= Selling was simply part and parcel of his enthusiasm for art. This immediately brings us to the third aspect of Jan van Beuningen as a gentleman-dealer. He organised at least two auctions in the beginning of the eighteenth century. In !6!7 he set up, as is now clear, the public sale in the Oudezijds Herenlogement in Amsterdam of the paintings the stad-holder-king had collected for Het Loo. He also auctioned much of his own picture collection in Amsterdam in !6!@ be-fore leaving for Curaçao.@; The two auctions were exception-al compared to other sales in this time (Graph !). Both the proceeds and the average prices were far higher than nor-mal. At the Het Loo sale an average of <<: guilders (median :<< guilders) per lot was paid and at Van Beuningen’s :<@ guilders (median !?> guilders). In the period !@<;-!6?; on average a lot cost !!@ guilders (median ?! guilders).@! When this is incorporated in a graph breaking down the number of lots by price, it becomes clear just how exclusive the two sales were.@: Jan van Beuningen’s own painting collection, thus, had quite a reputation of its own. When a portrait by Anthony van Dyck was auctioned more than >; years later, the fact that it had once been in his cabinet was mentioned as extra recommendation.@7

As announced in the Amsterdamsche Courant, a second auction was organised after Van Beuningen’s death;@? unfortunate-ly, no catalogue of this event has been preserved. However, judging from Jan van Beuningen’s estate inventory drawn up by Notary Commelin on 6 February !6:!, it probably con-sisted largely of works that had been bought in at the previ-ous sale.@>

,+$ '&, 2#A$&, ,+$ ($'2$& – In a letter from !6!; to the Ghent gentleman-dealer Francisco-Jacomo van den Berghe, the Amsterdam art lover Isaak Rooleeuw typifi ed his friend Jan van Beuningen as follows: ‘Because what one fi nds here in private hands is not exceptional; or what is good is not for sale, unless by chance, in time. However, in the case of Mr Van Beuningen, presently the greatest art lover of the city – because it pleases him to amuse his eyes with change – good friends can always obtain something beautiful.’>6 Rooleeuw was not the only one to extol Van Beuningen. Words of praise are also found in the notes made by the Von UB en-bach brothers, who visited his cabinet in the spring of !6!;: ‘On Thursday :: May, we encountered Mister Van Beunin-gen on the Singel, close to the Reguliersgracht in the house of the Alderman Reaal. He had met us in the shop of Nico-laes Vischer, were my brother was buying prints and had in-vited us, as an amateur of drawings to his [house], to show us his paintings, of which he was a great amateur and con-noisseur. We saw there, in three large rooms and a small cab-inet, a wonderful stock of some !>; pictures by the most fa-mous painters. We scrutinised them, the one after the other, and especially appreciated the paintings in which Rubens had painted the fi gures and Brueghel the landscapes. The pictures all had the most expensive carved and gilded frames.’><

Several aspects of Jan van Beuningen’s life make him unique in an art-historical respect. In the fi rst place, he had a collection of paintings that was exceptional by the stan-dards of the time in the Republic. Second, he is a prime ex-ample of what art historians would later come to call the gen-

?>

&*. See Appendix B:. Catalogue of the painting col-lection of Jan van Beuningen.

&#. See Appendix A;.&$. For the explanation of this graph, see Appen-

dix A!.&%. Lugt =>:, lot no. !:. ‘A Spanish portrait, three-

quarter length with a hand, life-size, being a no-bleman by A. van Dyck, this comes well honour of Mr Van Beuningen, and subsequently of De Wit, high ?! thumbs, wide 7: thumbs’ (Een Spaans Por-tret Kniestuk met een Hand, levensgroote, zynde een Edelman, van A. van Dyck, dit komt wel eer van de Heer van Beuningen, en naderhand van De Wit, hoog ?! duim, breed 7: duim). It must have been sold before the auction of !6!@.

&!. Dudok van Heel !=6@, pp. !;6-!::.&". The catalogue is known only thanks to its inclu-

sion in Hoet !6>:, vol. ., pp. !==-:;?. For the estate inventory, see Amsterdam, GAA, NAA, inv. no. >;6> no. <>>6 deed !@, Estate inventory of Jan van Beu-ningen, $ February #$!#. See also Appendix B:.

Meistern. Wir sagen sie nach einander etliche mal mit vergnügen an, musten aber insonderheit etli-che Stücke bewundern da Rubens die Bilder, Bru-gel aber die Landschaften [...] dazu gemalet. Die Gemälde waren sonst alle in den kostbahrsten ge-schnizten und vergüldeten Rahmen [...].’ Von Uf-fenbach !6>?, vol. .., p. ?!<.

"). ‘Ik had niet eenig werk om uw vraage wat met de oovergebleevene cunststukke te doen, is te be-antwoorde, die moete dit jaar coopers uijt de hand aB wagte, welke daageliks te gemoet sie, om een vercooping aente legge, is het hoopie te cleijn, en ook weet dat de vrinde voorleede jaar, de buijdell [...] so leedig is geclopt datter niet ooverig is, laat mij met believe de verdere bewerking bevoole. Ik sall niet dutte, als maar its hoore, mij cabinet heeft seedert de vercooping, geen stuk gelost [...].’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, ' May #$#%.

"'. ‘Want ’t geen hier by particulieren is, is niet son-derlings; of daar wat goeds is, is niet te koop ten-zij bij geval waar omtrent de tijd en goede occa-sie moet worden waargenomen. Dog by heer van Beuningen, tegenwoordig de grootste liefhebber van de stad, omdat het hem behaagt zyn oog door verandering te vermaken, is voor goede vrien-den wel wat fraaijs te bekomen.’ Duverger :;;?, pp. 6>-6@.

"(. ‘Den :: may Donnerstags Morgens befanden wir den hern von Boeningen op den Lingel [Sin-gel] by de Reguliers toren in het huys van de Heer Scheepe Royal [Reaal]. Er hatte uns in [Nicolaes] Vischers Laden, als mein Bruder kupfer[-stiche] kaufte, angetroB en, und uns als ein Liebhaber von der Zeichnung zu sich gebeten, um seine Gemäl-de, davon er ein grosser Liebhaber und kenner war zu sehen. Wir fanden bey ihm in drey grossen Zimmern und einem kleinen kabinet einen vor-treD ichen Vorrath etwa von hundert und fünf-zig der schönsten Stücke, von den berühmesten

$% Hans Rottenhammer and Velvet Brueghel, The fall of Phaeton, copper, 7= x >?.> cm, The Hague, Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis, inv. no. :<? (B:, lot no. >?)

?@

huis in The Hague, but once hung on the walls of Van Beu-ningen’s home.@< The history of Dou’s panel is one of a kind. It was part of the famous !@@; Dutch Gift which the States of Holland and West-Friesland presented to Charles .. of Eng-land. William ... brought it back to the Republic and dis-played it at Het Loo.@= When Jan van Beuningen went there in December !6!: to appraise the paintings to be sold at auc-tion he was instantly drawn to it. He shared this with Maria Louise and noted that he had taken it ‘in his valise’ (in ’t va-lies). Because it required special care he had refrained from shipping it with the other pieces destined for sale.6; The Dou, however, was never oB ered at auction because England was demanding its return along with a part of William ...’s property.6! This claim eventually expired and Van Beunin-gen tried to sell it as his own property at the auction of !6!@.

+.4 #1% *#22$*,.#% – What did Jan van Beuningen’s own collection comprise? Thanks to Gerard Hoet’s !6>: pub-lication of sales catalogues we know what paintings were in Van Beuningen’s cabinet in !6!@.@@ They were largely by Ital-ian and Southern-Netherlandish masters. No less than 7; of the <@ works (7?%) had an Italian attribution. And :! paint-ings (:?%) were given to Southern-Netherlandish masters. Twenty-fi ve works (:=%) were ascribed to painters from the Republic. The remaining works were of French and German origin. The auction fetched :?,@>6 guilders and the collec-tion was an anthology of what was then – and in many cas-es still is – considered to be the very best. Accordingly, the prices paid for the various paintings refl ect their outstand-ing quality. He owned works by close to the entire top 7;% of the most expensive painters in this period.@6 He had three paintings ascribed to the Carracci brothers, as well as two each attributed to Raphael, Jacopo Bassano and Gentileschi and fi nally works by Titian, Tintoretto, Perugino, Parmigia-no, Giordano, Caravaggio and others. In their midst were al-so works by Rubens and Van Dyck, Rembrandt, Dou and Van den Eeckhout, Rottenhammer, Bril and Brueghel. Many of them still grace great collections today. What follows is a survey of these works. Three paintings, The fall of Phaeton (fi g. :7) by Hans Rot-tenhammer and Velvet Brueghel, the Nymphs fi lling the horn of plenty (fi g. :?), by the latter and a pupil of Rubens and The young mother by Gerard Dou (fi g. :>) are now in the Maurits-

&&. Hoet !6>:, vol. ., pp. !==-:;?.&'. See Appendix A:.&(. See Appendix B:, lot nos. >?, 76 and ><. The

Hague !==7b, pp. 6=-<!.&). Slot !=<<, pp. ?@->6.'*. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von

Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, ## April #$#&. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, #! August #$#&.

'#. The Hague !=<<, pp. 6=-<;.

$! Jan Brueghel the Elder and a pupil of Rubens, Nymphs fi lling the horn of plenty, panel, @6.> x !;6 cm, The Hague, Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis, inv. no. :7? (B:, lot no. 76)

?6

$" Gerard Dou, The young mother, !@><, panel, 67.> x >>.> cm, The Hague, Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis, inv. no. 7:

?<

This attempt failed and the painting was bought in at !7!; guilders.6: It subsequently re-entered the stadholder’s col-lections, along with some other paintings that Van Beunin-gen kept at home after the Het Loo sale.67

That Van Beuningen was very familiar with Dou’s work is evidenced several times in the sales catalogue of !6!@. The well-known Grocer’s shop that then went under the hammer might be the one today found in the Louvre.6? Previously, he had sold three Gerard Dous to James Brydges, including the Young violinist (fi g. =?), the Girl at a virginal (fi g. =7) and the Woman with a basket of fruit (fi g. =>).6>

In the course of time Jan van Beuningen had managed to amass a collection with a number of veritable masterpieces. Already famous in his own day was a series of scenes from the Old Testament attributed to Luca Giordano.6@ Accord-ing to Arnold Houbraken, the series was a sample of the art-ist’s mastery and Van Beuningen had personally assured him that Giordano had produced each one in two days.66

'$. Jan van Beuningen received the painting at his home on !: August separately from the other bought in paintings, which he would later resell. He aC rms his penchant for the painting in a letter to Maria Louise. Houbraken did not know what had become of the pictures: ‘In the same is depict-ed a woman with a child on her lap, and a girl play-ing with it. King William subsequently had this work shipped from England and placed in Het Loo, but where it now is I do not know’ (In het-zelves stont verbeelt een Vroutje met haar Kintje op den schoot, en een meisje dat met het zelve speelt. Dit stukje is naderhant door Koning Wil-lem uit Engelant vervoert en op ’t Loo geplaatst, maar waar het thans is weet ik niet). Houbraken !6!<-!6:!, vol. .., pp. >. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, #! Au-gust #$#&.

'%. See Chapter @.'!. See Appendix B:, lot no. >=.'". Collins Baker & Baker !=?=, p. 67; Amsterdam

!=<=, p. 7:. For the reasoning, see also Chapter ?A. Appendix B:, A:-A7 and A?.

'&. See Appendix B:, lot nos. !6-:> and A@-A6.''. Houbraken !6!<-!6:!, vol. .., p. :=. See Appendix

B:, lot no. :>.'(. Jonckheere :;;?, p. !;6.'). Houbraken !6!<-!6:!, vol. ., p. :@=. For the time

being it is impossible to determine which portrait it was. It had been resold before !6!@.

(*. Van Gelder !=6?, p. !6>. Cambridge !=<:, pp. !;=-!!;. See also Appendix B:, lot no. 7=.

(#. The Rembrandt Research Project now calls this a workshop painting. This hypothesis is not gen-erally accepted. Among others, the Hermitage still considers it to be a Rembrandt. Bruyn et al. !=<:-!=<=, vol. 7, pp. >77->?!. See also Appendix B:, lot no. ?;.

($. Sumowski !=<7, vol. :, p. 6?7. See also Appendix B:, lot no. >!->:.

(%. Wieseman :;;:, cat. no. 6;, :!=. This amount is extravagant in comparison to other works by this master in this period. See Appendix A: and Ap-pendix B:, lot no. >7.

(!. Wieseman :;;:, cat. no. ?=, :;;-:;!. See Appen-dix B:, lot no. >;.

(". The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, & November #$#%.

(&. Moes !=!7, pp. ?-:?; Korthals Altes :;;7a, p. !?= B . This painting is presently unknown.

('. See Appendix B:, lot no. 7?.

$& Rembrandt (?), Adoration of the Magi, panel, !::.@ x !;? cm, London, Collection of Her Majesty the Queen (B:, lot no. 7=)

?=

and Paul and Barnabas before the high priest.<: For a Masquerade by Caspar Netscher (fi g. :6) no less than =<; guilders were paid.<7 For the Girl singing and a lute player on a balcony (fi g. :<) 7;; guilders were counted out.<? Not surprisingly, the latter two works eventually found their way into German princely collections in the mid-eighteenth century. The Masquerade, which now hangs in Kassel, undoubtedly evoked memories for Wilhelm A... von Hessen-Kassel, as he had been a guest in Jan van Beuningen’s home in !6!?.<> The prince will have jumped at the chance to buy the painting when it was of-fered to him. Another picture that wound up in Kassel was a genre scene of a mother at a cradle by Pieter van Slingeland. The art lover Valerius Röver bought it for @:; guilders at the auction of !6!@. In turn, Wilhelm A... bought the Röver col-lection, including this scene, en bloc.<@ At Van Beuningen’s he undoubtedly also saw another painting acquired for the gallery in Kassel during his reign, the ‘Meleager and Atalan-ta [...] gracefully [painted] by P. Paul Rubens’ (Meleager en At-talante [...] gracelyk door P. Paul Rubbens).<6 There are sev-

Two canvasses were also sold to Duke Anton Ulrich before !@=6 (fi gs. !7? and !7>).6< Nine remaining paintings from the series were sold at the sale to Sibrand van der Schelling for a total of :@=; guilders. Also according to Houbraken, Jan van Beuningen had once owned a famous self-portrait of Rem-brandt.6= The likeness was not in the auction and therefore must have been sold prior to it. Another Rembrandt, the Adoration of the Magi (fi g. :@), fetched a tidy !>;; guilders – an astonishing amount for a painting by the master at that time.<; On average, a painting then attributed to Rembrandt cost only !?; guilders (median ?6), whereby his work was not at the absolute top end of the market. Another picture by the master, David’s farewell to Jonathan (fi g. 7;), went for a mere <; guilders to Osip Solovyov, the agent of Tsar Peter the Great, who immediately shipped it oB to St Petersburg.<! I will re-turn to this later. The Amsterdam art lover also owned work by less obvious Northern-Netherlandish artists, for example two paintings by Gerbrand van den Eeckhout, namely Christ in the Temple

$' Caspar Netscher, Masquerade, !@@<, panel, ?6 x @7.> cm, Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. no. GK :=: (B:, lot no. >7)

>;

masters cannot be recovered. He seems to have had ‘a life-size angel’ (engel, levens groote) by Caravaggio at home. An exception is the Landscape with the road to Emmaus, described in the catalogue as ‘the travellers on the road to Emmaus, three fi gures in a landscape’ (de Emausgangers, 7 Beeldjes in een Land schap), which may have been auctioned as a work by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Rubens in !=@>.=7

,&'($ – This can only have been a fraction of what Van Beu-ningen once owned. Von UB enbach noted that in !6!; Van Beuningen still had !>; works in two large rooms and a cab-inet.=? Yet the sales catalogue lists only <@ lots. The estate in-ventory mentioned a few bought in works from the auction. And, in the decades before the auction of !6!@ he, indeed, re-peatedly sold superb pictures for high amounts to other col-lectors, mostly monarchs. Jan van Beuningen’s ‘clientele’ – he called them friends – cannot be fully reconstructed, but as emerges in the course of this study it largely coincided with the buyers present at the Het Loo auction. In addition, what is known about his art dealing activities sheds some light on the type of people to whom he resold art. In fact, it confi rms his status as a purveyor to royal households. Just look at the

eral versions of this scene and various European noblemen displayed an interest in it at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The Duke of Marlborough, whom Van Beunin-gen must have known through his agent John Drummond, owned a version (now in The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York).<< That a painting of The drought during Phaeton’s journey by Hans Rottenhammer (fi g. :=) also found its way to Kassel illustrates once again just how familiar William A... was with Van Beuningen’s collection.<=

Works by presently less famous, but at the time highly valued masters, such as Gérard de Lairesse, were also found in Jan van Beuningen’s cabinet. One of these was ‘Antiochus and Stratonice, !@ fi gures in the courtyard, entirely of his best kind [...]’ and at !:;; guilders it was one of the most ex-pensive works in the auction.=; He also had two scenes by Adriaen van der WerB , a Susanna and the elders and an Ecce Ho-mo.=! Finally, he owned a genre scene with a lewd old man by Frans . van Mieris (!@7>-!@<!).=: Other paintings are more dif-fi cult to trace. Sometimes there are several related versions, and sometimes the descriptions are not precise enough. This applies, for instance, to portraits by Titian, Tintoret-to and Rembrandt. Most of the pictures ascribed to Italian

((. John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, had a version in Blenheim. In Kassel is a version (good workshop copy) that was acquired by Wilhelm A... von Hessen-Kassel. Woodstock !<@:, p. :?; New York !=<?, pp. !@?-!@<. See Appendix B:, lot no. ?=.

(). See also The Hague !==7b, pp. :=!-:=7.)*. ‘Antiochus en Stratonice, !@ fi guurtjes en in ’t

Binne Paleys heelyk van zyn beste zoort [...].’ Am-sterdam !=<=, pp. :6<-:6=. A smaller, earlier ver-sion is now in Schwerin: Gérard de Lairesse, Stratonice and Antiochus, !@67, oil on panel, 7!.> x ?@.> cm, Schwerin, Staatliches Museum. See Ap-pendix B:, lot no. ??.

)#. The Ecce Homo is a small copy of the painting commissioned by the Count Palatine, Johann Wil-helm, now in Munich (Munich, Alte Pinakothek, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. no. :::). The version in the Van Beuningen collection is now in Moscow. The painting was bought by Solovyov for Tsar Peter the Great. See Gaehtgens !=<6, pp. :=>-:=6. See Appendix B:, lot no. ?>. Gaehtgens makes no mention of a painting by Van der WerB depicting a Susanna and the elders.

)$. Only a single copy of this painting has been pre-served. The original is lost. See Appendix B:, lot no. @?. Naumann !=<!, p. !;=.

)%. London, Sotheby, < December !=@>, no. >. See Ertz !=6=, p. ?=7. Van Beuningen bought the painting from the Flemish gentleman-dealer Jan van der Block. Duverger :;;?, p. <>. See also Ap-pendix B:, lot no. 7<.

)!. Von UB enbach !6>?, vol. .., p. ?!<.

$( Caspar Netscher, Girl singing and a lute player on a balcony, !@@>, panel, ?7.> x 7? cm, Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. no. !7?6 (B:, lot no. >;)

>!

)". The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7><, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, % February #$#&.

)&. See Chapter ?A. Collins Baker & Baker !=?=; Johnson !=<?; Jenkins :;;!.

)'. Collins Baker & Baker !=?=, pp. @=-6=. See Ap-pendix B:, A:-A7 and A?.

)(. Amsterdam !=<=, p. 7:. Pieter Spiering Sil-vercrona was the agent of Christina of Sweden. Joachim von Sandrart described the painting.

James Brydges, who would also send an agent to the Het Loo auction, was a fabulously wealthy English nobleman. A con-fi dant of the British crown, he was above all a generous pa-tron of the arts.=@ His contemporaries aptly nicknamed him Princely Chandos. He began collecting at a young age, and later surrounded himself with artists and musicians, in-cluding Georg Friedrich Händel, who spent two years at his estate Cannons, where Brydges kept a large part of his art collection. After the death of the Duke of Chandos, the pal-ace was dismantled and sold piece by piece on account of the great value of the building materials; no one seems to have been in a position to buy it lock, stock and barrel. This daz-zling wealth characterises the collector’s possibilities and passion. Jan van Beuningen had maintained contact with Chandos and his agent in the Republic, John Drummond, since !6;>.=6 They occasionally dealt in paintings, such as Gerard Dou’s Young violinist (fi g. =?) from the collection of the aforementioned Pieter Spiering Silvercrona, the Girl at a virginal (fi g. =7) and the Woman with a basket of fruit (fi g. =>).=<

Osip Solovyov, agent and buyer for Tsar Peter the Great in Holland, was also a member of this select group of indi-viduals who acquired paintings from the collection of Jan

following list: Tsar Peter the Great, Anton Ulrich von Braun-schweig, Eugen Frans von Savoyen-Carignan, James Brydg-es of Chandos, Lothar Franz von Schönborn, and so forth. He also maintained friendships with other prominent sov-ereigns, such as Karl . von Hessen-Kassel and Georg Ludwig, Elector of Hannover: clearly, he was not just any old art deal-er, but rather a trusted agent – albeit unoC cial – to members of the highest European aristocratic and noble circles. He re-ceived them at home and regaled them with a tour of his fa-mous cabinet. He was not lying when he said ‘I fully extend my services,’ as he once wrote his patroness.=>

$) Hans Rottenhammer, The drought during Phaeton’s journey, !@;?, copper, 7= x >; cm, Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. no. @;? (B:, lot no. ?=)

>:

%* Rembrandt (workshop?), David’s farewell to Jonathan, panel, 67 x @!.> cm, St Petersburg, Hermitage, inv. no. 6!7 (B:, lot no. ?;)

>7

Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, ( May #$#&.

#*(. Lugt :7=.#*). See Appendix B:, lot no. ??.##*. See Appendix B:, lot no. >>.###. For the Laurens van der Hem auction (Lugt :7<),

see Hoet !6>:, vol. ., p. !?< (lot no. !7). See Appen-dix B:, lot no. ?;.

##$. Hoet !6>:, vol. ., pp. !>=-!6!. See Appendix B:, lot no. >:.

##%. Hoet !6>:, vol. ., pp. !6:-!67. Hoet calls the man Gerard van Sypes. However, it is really Everard van Sypesteyn. Van Kretschmar !=@=, pp. !!?-!6?. See Appendix B:, lot no. @;.

##!. Hoet !6>:, vol. ., pp. !<?-!<>. See Appendix B:, lot no. :@.

#*%. Hoet !6>:, vol. ., pp. <;-<>. See Appendix B:, lot no. @:.

#*!. See Chapter ?D. This is an abridged and re-worked version of Jonckheere :;;?.

#*". The Hague, KHA, inv. no. 7>=, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, #) November #$#&.

#*&. ‘Dierbare vrouwe [Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel] en haar geseegent kroost, historischerwijse verbeelt.’ The project was probably not realised, for Anton Ulrich passed away a few months later.

#*'. ‘De vercooping tot Rotterdam, van den heere Paats hebbe bijgewoont, ’t was een lust des her-te, de animeusheijt, van de liefhebbers te sien en-te hoore hoe dat ze ƒ :[;;;]: 7[;;;]: ?;;;: voor plankies van !: :: voet besteede, ik hebbe mij por-tie meede van.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria

before !@=6 and still grace the Herzog Anton Ulrich-Mu-seum (fi gs. !7? and !7>). As mentioned above, Duke Anton Ulrich and Jan van Beuningen had very close personal ties. Jan’s younger daughter was called Antonia Ulrica, and the duke was her godfather.!;> Almost casually, he even mediat-ed the commission for a portrait of the ‘The well-loved wife [Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel] and her blessed oB spring as a portrait historié,’ at the request of Anton Ulrich.!;@

Where Jan van Beuningen himself bought paintings is not entirely clear. In any case he bid at auctions, as he himself confi rmed in one of his letters to Maria Louise: ‘I attended the sale of Mr Paets in Rotterdam. It was entertaining to see the animosity of the art lovers and hear that they spent :;;;, 7;;;, ?;;; guilders for little panels measuring ! to : feet. I also bought a portion.’!;6 And, this portion was substan-tial.!;< Lot number :>, the most expensive painting on which he bid, was the aforementioned history scene by Gérard de Lairesse depicting the story of Antiochus and Stratonice.!;= He paid !>>; guilders for it. He acquired another classical scene, Aeneas leaving from Troy by ‘Bartholet’ (Bertholet Flémal), for 6;; guilders.!!; And, he most likely bought many more paintings. Jan van Beuningen attended other high-profi le auctions as well. At the Van der Hem sale, also in !6!7, he bought Rembrandt’s David’s farewell to Jonathan.!!! That same year he bid at the Cornelis van Dijk sale, paying <? guilders for the above-mentioned work by Gerbrand van den Eeck-hout, Paul and Barnabas before the high priest.!!: A year later he paid 7;> guilders for a Susanna and the elders by Adriaen van der WerB at the sale of the Everard van Sypesteyn collection in Utrecht.!!7 One year later, on < May !6!>, at a small auction in Amsterdam he bought a Holy Family attributed to Sebas-tiano del Piombo.!!? It cost him 7>; guilders. A few days later

van Beuningen. From !6;6 to !6!6 he was the tsar’s commis-sioner in Amsterdam, where he was also active as a dealer. He rented a house on the Herengracht, number >:6. Solovy-ov was no stranger to the Van Beuningens, for Daniël Nijs, Jan’s brother-in-law, let him a warehouse on the Ossemarkt for some time.== We know of two transactions between So-lovyov and Van Beuningen.!;; At the auction of Jan van Be-uningen’s collection in !6!@, the tsar’s agent bought no less than fourteen pieces which shortly thereafter were shipped to Russia to grace Peter the Great’s cabinets, including Rem-brandt’s David’s farewell to Jonathan (fi g. 7;).!;! However, the two had earlier dealt in art. At least, this is what the court painters Georg Gsell and Jacob Stahlin reported in their de-scription of the collections of paintings in Marly and Mon-plaisir in St Petersburg: ‘Abraham and Melchisedech, origi-nal by Pie tro Cordono [da Cortona]. This present piece was previously part of the painting collection of Frantz d’Orville [Jan François d’Orville], a famous connoisseur and art lover from Amsterdam. From him, it was acquired by H. van Bön-ing [Jan van Beuningen], director of the East-India Company and from him it was bought by Soloviow [Solovyov].’!;: The painting was not included in the sale of d’Orville’s collec-tion, which means that Van Beuningen had already bought it. Yet in !6;> he also bid at the d’Orville auction. He almost certainly acquired the above-mentioned ‘Baptism of John in the Jordan River, the landscape by Bril and the fi gures by Rottenhammer’ (De doop van Johannes in de Jordaene, het land schap van Bril en de beelden van Rottenhammer) there.!;7

Other individuals, such as the great patron Anton Ulrich von Braunschweig, also bought art from Van Beuningen.!;? Two paintings from the series of scenes from the Old Tes-tament attributed to Luca Giordano already changed hands

)). Amsterdam, GAA, NAA, inv. >;6> no. @@7!, Lease on a warehouse owned by Daniël Nijs to Osip Solovyov, the Tsar’s commissioner, #! July #$#$.

#**. Van der Veen !==@, pp. !7:-!7=.#*#. See Appendix B:, lot no. ?;.#*$. ‘Abraham und Melchisedes [...], original von

Pietro Cordono [...] Dieses gegenwärtige Stücke hat sonst Frantz d’Orville, ein berühmter Kunst-verstandiger und Liebhaber, ein Kaufmann zu Amsterdam unter seinen Schilderijen besassen. Von dem selben kam es an, bewindhabber der Ost Ind. Compagnie und von diesen kaufte es Soloviow.’ Cf. description of the cabinets by Gsell and Stählin. With thanks to Mrs Jozien Driessen for a copy of her transcription of the estate inven-tory.

>?

Unlike Jan van Beuningen, a wealthy and prominent mer-chant who sold art almost as a pastime, Jan Pietersz. Zomer (fi g. 7!) worked full-time as an art broker, as he was wont to call himself.!:> To this day, he is profi led in numerous pub-lications as the premier art dealer at the end of the Golden Age. This reputation warrants some fi ne tuning and revi-sion.!:@

When, in !6!:, the decision was taken to auction the paint-ings from the Het Loo Palace, Zomer was already a well-known appraiser. Although certainly not a neophyte, Van Beuningen simply did not have the same amount of experi-ence. The two had known each other for years, which is en-tirely understandable under the circumstances. Amsterdam collectors and dealers depended on one another for informa-tion about ‘old masters’. Zomer and Van Beuningen had al-

ready met in !6;7 at the appraisal of some paintings owned by Otto Roger Costart of Paris, after an ordinance Van Beu-ningen had obtained from the Amsterdam Aldermen’s Bench. The expertise of the painters ‘Backhuizen, Van der Plas, Huchtenburgh, and Van Overbeek, as well as that of the broker Jan Pietersz. Zomer’ (Bakhuijsen, van der Plas, Hugtenburg, ende Overbeke, mitsgaders de Makelaar Jan Pietersz. Zomer) was invoked to confi rm Jan van Beunin-gen’s previous judgment of the paintings.!:6 Costart’s depu-ty, however, instructed the notary to record that he deemed this inspection to be ‘null, and of no value whatsoever.’ Presumably, Van Beuningen was responsible for involv-ing Zomer as an external appraiser in the project to auction oB William ...’s picture gallery. However, he seems to have had some reservations regarding the collaboration. A few

abroad, and the dissipation of the total credit of the bourse, are the reasons why I fi nd myself in such straitened circum-stances [...] I saved myself through pawning,’ he wrote in the summer of !6!>.!:! He continued to be plagued primarily by the unpaid bills of exchange. Nevertheless, the damage was less than expected, for he seems to have been able to travel to Paris and ‘the two empires’ (Austria-Hungarian Empire?) without any appreciable impediments.!::

To recapitulate, despite the fact that until now nothing about him was known, Jan van Beuningen can by typed as a prominent art lover. However, this did not mean that he had any diC culty reselling a painting when a notable prince or connoisseur proved willing to pay a high price for it. What-ever the case may be, the dividing line between art lovers and dealers was blurred in the seventeenth and eighteenth century.!:7 Apparently, collecting and dealing constituted a dyad. Jan van Beuningen allied himself with this tradition. His ‘clientele’ was probably more diverse than can be deter-mined today. The lack of archival material, though, makes it particularly diC cult to recover the private transactions with friends and colleague-collectors. James Brydges, Anton Ulrich and many other ‘friends’ dispatched agents to the Het Loo auction. This had every-thing to do with the person of Jan van Beuningen. He laid the contacts and kept the bidders abreast of the event.!:? It should come as no surprise that they heeded what he said. I discuss their network and their dealing with Jan van Beu-ningen in greater detail in Part .. of this book. First, howev-er, let us turn to Jan Pietersz. Zomer as a broker at the auc-tion.

he paid :;!; guilders for an Adoration of the Magi ascribed to Rembrandt.!!> In !6;@ and !6;6 Van Beuningen attended the public sales of the cabinets of Jan de Walé and Petronella de la Court.!!@ He bought a Nativity by Bassano and one by Tin-toretto, respectively. Even earlier, in !6;!, at the sale of his friend Isaak Rooleeuw, Jan van Beuningen had bid on one of the most expensive paintings by Dou, ‘the famous grocer’s shop, with four fi gures.’!!6 Finally, in !6;= he bid on a land-scape by Rottenhammer and Brueghel – or Bril according to Van Beuningen’s catalogue – of a scene of ‘Parnassus en de Muzen,’ or Mount Parnassus and the Muses.!!<

This enumeration suggests that Van Beuningen built his col-lection largely through purchases made at auction. He was familiar with the system and even regularly bid himself. The amounts he paid for each of these acquisitions were excep-tionally high. Considering what he got in return one might even argue that they were poor purchases. He certainly suf-fered substantial losses on some of them. This may have had to do with the nature of the sale. For example, in !6!: he wrote that pieces he was able to sell privately fetched far more than ones that had to be sold post-haste at auction.!!= Why, then, did he sell everything he owned in !6!@? Two rea-sons can be forwarded. First, he was preparing to leave for Curaçao as governor of the West-India Company. Second, he appears to have lent far too much money to the Landgrave of Hessen-Kassel and his daughter Maria Louise, whereby he found himself in straitened fi nancial circumstances after !6!>.!:; While he did not go bankrupt, he did have to mind his pennies more. ‘The considerable sum the Royal house of Hesse continues to owe me, the loss of substantial sums

)'% 5.$,$&4F. F#3$&, +,,---.,,/ (0/1-2/)

>>

NAA, Dispute concerning an appraisal of two paint-ings, !) February #$#&, inv. >;6> no. ><;= folio ?@6. The painters were: Ludolf Bakhuizen (!@7;-!6;<), Jan van Huchtenburgh (!@?6-!677), David van der Plas (!@?6-!6;?) and Michel van Overbeek. Abra-ham du Pré was a leading collector. His collec-tion was auctioned in Amsterdam on !7 May !6:=. (See Hoet !6>:, vol. ., pp. 7?!-7?7.) Abraham du Pré appears to have been a family acquaintance. Jan van Beuningen’s brother, Isaac Samuel, was lat-er the executor of his estate and guardian of his grandchildren: ‘[...] that the late Isaac Samuel van Beuningen, in his life governor of the patented company for commerce of this province and co-executor of the estate, and co-guardian of the un-derage heirs of his grandparents [Abraham du Pré and Petronella Oortmans]’ ([...] dat wijlen de heer Isaac Samuel van Beuningen, in leven Bewindheb-ber van de geoctroyeerde compagnie van comercie deser provincie was geweest enne mede Executeur van het testament, mede voogd over de minderja-rige erfgenamen van zijn grootouders [Abraham du Pré en Petronella Oortmans]).’ Utrecht, GAU, NAU, Receipt with regard to the estate of Abraham du Pré, !! July #$%), inv. no. U!=!a! deed :;<.

#$'. ‘Op huijden, den :< Februarij des jaars !6;7 heb ik David Walschaart notaris Public, bij den Hove van Holland geadmitteert, binnen Amster-dam residerende, ten verzoeke van Christito van Boonevaal als gemagtigde van Otto Roger Costart, woonende te Parijs, mij des namiddags omtrent drie uuren vervoegd ten huijse van Abraham du Pré, koopman binnen deeze stad, alwaar toemaals mede gekomen is Hendrik van Beuningen, bene-vens de Schilders Bakhuijsen, van der Plas, Hug-tenburg, ende Overbeke, mitsgaders de Makelaar Jan Pietersz. Zomer: En heb ik notaris daar op den voorn: Hendrik van Beuningen geinsinueert, en togezegt, dat de voorn. Boonevaal, versant heb-bende, dat aldaar, ter requisitie van Jan van Beu-ningen, uijt kragte van zeker apoitement van den E. Agtb: geregte deezer Stad, inspectie zoude ge-nomen van twee Schilderijen, hij insinuant de zel-ve inspectie hield voor nul, en van geener waar-den; ende dat de zelve mits dien het regt van zijn insinuants principaal in geenen deele zouden ko-men te prejudiceren; werdende de zelve inspec-tie alleen toegelaten ter obedientie van den ge-melden apointemente [...].’ Amsterdam, GAA,

##". See Appendix B:, lot no. 7=.##&. Hoet !6>:, vol. ., pp. =7-=? and !;?-!!;. See Ap-

pendix B:, lot nos. = and ?.##'. ‘Het bekende kruydeniers winkeltje, met vier

fi guuren.’ Hoet !6>:, vol. ., pp. @:-@7. See Appen-dix B:, lot no. >=.

##(. Hoet !6>:, vol. ., pp. !7!-!77. See Appendix B:, lot no. @6.

##). Leeuwarden, Tresoar (RAF), Stadholder’s Ar-chive, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. !=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Mr de Her-toghe, !" December #$#!.

#$*. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letters from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, #$#&-#$#'.

#$#. ‘De consideraabele somme soo mij het door-lugtig huijs van Hesse schuldig blijft, het verlies van tosienlikke somme buijten Lands, en het to-taale credit ter beurse uijtgestorve, is de oorsaake dat mij seer benard vinde [...] ik hebbe mij gerett door verpanding.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, !& July #$#'.

#$$. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, #' and !' September #$#'.

#$%. Van der Veen !==7, pp. !?>-!<<.#$!. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von

Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, ( May #$#&.

#$". S.A.C. Dudok van Heel wrote the authoritative article on Jan Pietersz. Zomer. Dudok van Heel !=66, pp. <=-!::. Nicolaas Verkolje (after A. Boone), Portrait of Jan Pietersz. Zomer, mezzotint, Amster-dam, Rijksprentenkabinet.

#$&. Muizelaar & Phillips :;;7; Dudok van Heel !=66, pp. <=-!::.

%# Nicolaas Verkolje (after A. Boone), Portrait of Jan Pietersz. Zomer, mezzotint, Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet

>@

prints were involved, an appeal was often made to Zomer. It was, therefore, natural for him to maintain sound con-tacts with members of the town council and leading regent families, for instance the Sixes, primarily Willem and Pieter Six Senior and Junior.!7< This family counted many collec-tors and art lovers and in his capacity of broker Zomer liter-ally had the run of their house. For example, he organised the auction of the collection of Jan Six in !6;:, and that of Pieter, two years later in !6;?. And, it was also Jan Pietersz. Zomer who introduced John Drummond and Charles Dave-nant, the agents of James Brydges of Chandos, to the young-er Pieter Six. They were on the lookout for paintings to em-bellish Chandos’ country house. On this occasion they also called upon the heirs of Six’s brother-in-law, Burgomaster Joan de Vries, who likewise owned a notable art collection.!7= But more on this later. Other regent families, like the Feite-mas, the Van Lenneps or the heirs of Coenraad van Beunin-gen, also had reason to rely on Zomer’s services.

'55&'.4$& '%( '-*,.#%$$& – A brief passage from the travel diary of the – in the meantime well-known – Von UB enbach brothers neatly summarises what Zomer stood for: ‘In the morning of !@ February [!6!!] we went to the bro-ker Johann Pietersen Sonern [Jan Pietersz. Zomer]. We vis-ited him because we had heard that in addition to organis-ing auctions of pictures and other artful things, he owned a good stock himself and could give good advice. He showed us some fi ne paintings but apologised for not showing his prints and drawings – he owned some 7;,;;; of those – on account of the cold. They were stored in a room where he could not make fi re. He is a man of about @; and quite cour-teous, for he told us a lot about other beautiful cabinets, which we noted down so as to visit them afterwards.’!?; Par-ticularly the German travellers’ brief sentence to the eB ect that Zomer had enumerated the most important cabinets il-lustrates his central role in the Amsterdam connoisseurs’ mi-lieu around !6;;. By the end of his life, Jan Pietersz. Zomer could indeed bank on an unparalleled level of expertise. As an appraiser in public and private service he knew the ma-jority of the art collections in Amsterdam. There is no doubt that he kept a record of all of the appraisals and auctions in which he was directly or indirectly involved.!?! According-ly, he knew the provenances, attributions and sales prices of thousands of works of art like no one else. Moreover, he had an enormous print and drawing collection on which to fall back on for more diC cult attributions.!?: While others had to rely on visits to the collections of their connoisseur ‘friends’ to build up their expertise, Zomer had a passe-par-tout, as it were. It is striking just how systematically the term broker is

weeks after the fi rst appraisal in early December !6!:, Van Beuningen wrote to his patroness ‘I shall see how it goes with the broker Zomer.’!:< Van Beuningen’s misgivings about the broker’s appraisal are understandable. Zomer’s reputation among a sector of the art-loving public was not all that good, at least in the later lines of verse ridiculing him penned by Jan Goeree: ‘This is Jan Piet the broker, in art a joker.’!:= That brokers were not held in high esteem in the seventeenth cen-tury also emerges from Jacob Campo Weyerman’s character sketch of an art dealer that opens with the words: ‘There was and still is an old Dutch proverb: When our Lord gives us a merchant, then the Devil oB ers a broker.’!7;

Nevertheless, they both evidently deemed the collabo-ration in appraising the paintings at Het Loo as a qualifi ed success. At the end of December !6!:, Zomer and Van Beu-ningen together even appraised the estate of Maria Sautijn, widow of the famous publisher Joan Blaeu.!7!

/&#3 02'44 5'.%,$& ,# 8&#"$& – Jan Pietersz. Zomer’s career is peculiar. He was almost >; years old when he reg-istered with the Brokers’ Guild. In his youth he had been trained as a glass painter.!7: Neither his parents nor his fam-ily had any connection with art dealing. Moreover, he him-self (initially) displayed no interest in pursuing art brokering full time. In !@67 he took over the glass business of his uncle, with whom he had studied.!77 An ambition to devote himself fully to the appraisal and sale of paintings, prints, drawings and rarities evidenced itself only fi fteen years later. He prob-ably arrived at this under the infl uence – and pressure – of Adriaen Hendrick de Wees, who had preceded him as a bro-ker and merchant of prints and drawings and with whom he was well acquainted.!7? It is not entirely clear how he estab-lished his reputation as an appraiser as of !@<6.!7> And, it is equally diC cult to discern how he was able to make himself so indispensable. The fact is, though, by the end of his life, anno !6:?, he was a key fi gure in the Amsterdam art market. He dominated the auction world; a business he was instru-mental in professionalizing largely by means of newspaper advertisements and catalogues, as emerges below. In the eyes of his contemporaries, Jan Pietersz. Zomer’s greatest trump was his sound judgment of value.!7@ He cer-tainly was not lacking in experience. Between !@<6 and !6:? he was involved with no less than @: collections of paint-ings. Of them, ?7 inventories and appraisals had to do with deaths, != others with bankruptcies.!76 Hence, the munici-pal magistrate was an important, if not the most important commissioner of the appraiser and broker. The magistrate was responsible for having ‘desolate’ and ‘insolvent’ estates appraised for the sake of either the orphans or creditors. In the event that collections of paintings or drawings and

>6

#!!. ‘Weergaloos groot kabinet of verzameling van ongemene konstige en uytmuntende tekeningen van Italiaense, Franse, Duytse en Nederlandse, so oude als nieuwe meesters, met groote moeyte en kosten in meer dan >; jaren by een vergadert.’ Du-dok van Heel !=6@, p. !::.

#!". Dudok van Heel !=6>, pp. !?=-!67; Dudok van Heel !=6@, pp. !;6-!::. See also Appendix A7.

#!&. An additional argument for this is the absence of an account at the Exchange Bank in the name of Jan Pietersz. Zomer. As will emerge from this study, the settlement of a large part of the trade in luxury items, among others, with royal houses, transpired via this Exchange Bank.

#!'. See Chapter ?A.#!(. Bille !=@!, vol. ., p. !><. On art brokers in partic-

ular, see Bille !=@!, vol. ., p. !@> B .#!). Bille !=@!, vol. ., pp. !>6-!><. According to

Noordkerk, as of !6?@ they received ! percent for the appraisal and ? percent for the organisa-tion. This was clearly not the case at the time of the Het Loo auction. Zomer twice received ! per-cent. See Appendix C!a. At the time, verbal agree-ments were probably still made in keeping with the ancient tradition in the Brokers’ Guild. Noord-kerk !6?<, vol. .., pp. !;@;-!;@!; Noordkerk !6?<, vol. ..., p. !@<?.

#%'. Muizelaar & Phillips :;;7, pp. !6>-!<7.#%(. De Boer !=?<, pp. !;-7?.#%). Collins Baker & Baker !=?=, p. 6;. See Chap-

ter ?A.#!*. ‘Den !@. febr. Morgens giengen wir zu Johann

Pietersen Sonern Maakelaer. Wir besuchten ihn, weil wir gehöret, das er lauter verkoopingen von Schilderyen, und was sonst zur Kunst gehöret, hatte, davon einen guten Vorrath selbst besitze, auch von dergleichen gute Nachricht geben kön-ne. Er zeigte uns einige schöne Schilderyen, wegen der Prenten oder Kupferstiche aber entschuldigte er sich, das er, ob er deren wohl über dryssig tau-send hätte, selbige wegen kälte nicht zeigen könn-te, in dem sie in einem Zimmer wären, da er kein Feuer machen könnte. Er ist ein Mann von sech-zig Jahren, und ziemlich höfl ich, wie er mir denn gar viele schöne Cabinete anzeigte, welche wir no-tirten, um sie hernach zu besehen.’ Von UB enbach !6>?, vol. ..., p. >7=.

#!#. Just like a merchant kept his ledger and all im-portant papers up to date. Keeping abreast of attri-butions, appraisals and the contents of collections must have been crucial in his role as expert, ap-praiser and broker, respectively.

#!$. S.A.C. Dudok van Heel is thanked for drawing this to my attention.

#!%. Von UB enbach !6>?, vol. ..., pp. >7=->?;.

#$(. ‘Ik sall sien hoe het met de maakelaar Soo mer stele.’ The Hague, KHA, Inventory B!, no. :>A, List of paintings found in the art cabinet and galleries at Het Loo, (-$ December #$#!. Published by Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer !=6?-!=6@, vol. ., pp. @=>-6;;.

#$). ‘Dit is Jan Piet de makelaar, in de kunst een kakelaar.’ On the publications of these two satires by Goeree, see Floerke !=;!, p. 66; Dudok van Heel !=66, p. !;?.

#%*. ‘Daar was en is als noch een Oud Nederduijts Spreekwoordt, het welk zegt: Daar ons Heer een Koopman geeft, daar geeft de Duijvel een Make-laer.’ Brussels, KB Albert ., Manuscripts Depart-ment, inv. no. .. !@;<, Manuscript Jacob Campo Wey-erman, vol. ., p. !.

#%#. Amsterdam, GAA, NAA, inv. >;6> no. ?6=6, Estate inventory of Maria Sautijn, &# December #$#!, pp. >@-6<.

#%$. Dudok van Heel !=66, p. =!.#%%. Dudok van Heel !=66, p. =>.#%!. After his death, Zomer became the guardian of

the children. Dudok van Heel !=66, p. =6.#%". Muizelaar & Phillips :;;7, p. !<;.#%&. ‘Joan Pikerse Somer [...] who is esteemed the

best judge of paintings in Holland,’ according to the agents of James Brydges of Chandos. San Ma-rino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >< vol. !, Let-ter from Charles Davenant to James Brydges, &" October #$"', p. ?<.

dealer, but as a mediator in artistic matters. He lacked the capital to buy and eventually resell exclusive – and conse-quently expensive – works of art.!?@ He lived from the com-mission on appraisals and auctions. And, he made a profi t from intermediary commissions, for instance those between the agents of the Duke of Chandos and Pieter Six.!?6 As Clara Bille, too, noted in her book on the cabinet of Gerrit Braam-camp, brokers did not make a fortune.!?< While they did re-tain a signifi cant sum from a lucrative auction, it was really only a fraction of the total proceeds. For the Het Loo auction, Zomer received !% of the proceeds. Another example is the broker Pieter Kerckhoven, who presented an invoice in !67@ and together with two colleagues received just under :% of the turnover;!?= an amount that had to be split three ways. Brokers, thus, earned relatively little. At the Het Loo auc-tion, Jan van Beuningen had a :% commission (!!7! guilders), twice what Zomer got. This, though, was peanuts compared to the thousands of guilders in unpaid bonds Landgravine Maria Louise owed Van Beuningen. Based on the informa-tion that has come down to us, the average proceeds from an auction organised by Jan Pietersz. Zomer (solely paintings) amounted to <;7! guilders. An average yield of ! percent, or <; guilders, per auction meant that one was mighty insignif-icant in the realm of the great merchants. The average price

used in documents relating to Jan Pietersz. Zomer. Equal-ly striking is how little is known about his art dealing activi-ties – in the literal sense of buying and selling paintings. Al-though he showed several pictures to the Von UB enbachs, they seemed unimpressed by his collection, while they praised to the hilt those of numerous other individuals.!?7 Even the newspaper advertisement placed on > September !6:? in the Amsterdamsche Courant for the auction of paint-ings and rarities from Zomer’s own estate was lukewarm at best. In contrast to the notice of his print collection (‘peer-less large cabinet or collection of unusually artful and no-table drawings by Italian, French, German and Dutch, both old and new masters, assembled with great eB ort and ex-pense over more than >; years’), Zomer’s pupils and follow-ers Jan van Zutphen and Gijsbert Hol profi led the picture sale almost timidly as containing ‘artful and pleasant paint-ings’ (konstige en plaisante schilderijen).!?? Clearly, it could not hold a candle to the dozens of art collections Zomer himself had advertised using countless superlatives.!?> One may assume that the pupils, well-versed in the meth-ods and customs of their master, would also have done this here had there been occasion to do so. There wasn’t. This ex-plains why the designation broker surfaces so consistently. Jan Pie tersz. Zomer did not earn his stripes as a regular art

><

As mentioned above, Jan Pietersz. Zomer seems to have been the fi rst to systematically place advertisements for auctions in the Amsterdamsche Courant. With one exception, adver-tisements were placed for all of the preserved catalogues he wrote. The auction system in Amsterdam was undeniably professionalised at the end of the seventeenth and begin-ning of the eighteenth century. One can only come to this conclusion when looking at the graph (Graph !) of advertise-ments and catalogues that were then disseminated. Art bro-kers went to greater lengths to expand their market. As the graph makes clear, from !6;; to about !6!=, Zomer played a signifi cant role in this development, exerting great infl u-ence on the organisation of auctions of which catalogues and advertisements have been preserved. This is why these auc-tions fell into the more expensive market segment.!>< In the years just after !6;; he placed virtually all of the announce-ments himself. Accordingly, I conclude that he did this for just about every auction. Nevertheless, Zomer did not invent the newspaper advertisement as a publicity stunt. Booksell-ers who organised auctions had been doing this for ages. Be-fore Zomer appeared on the stage, though, it was rarely if ev-er done for auctions of paintings (Graph :). He systematised its use. Whether he also methodically printed catalogues is unclear, but does seem to have been the case.!>=

When did Zomer advertise an auction? Can a clear system be discerned? Indeed it can. On average he placed an advertise-ment sixteen to seventeen days before an auction.!@; In it-self this is no surprise. It allowed Amsterdammers to free up their schedules for the sale or send someone to it on their be-half. The information about the time span between the ad-

of a painting at the better auctions in the period !@<;-!67=, as mentioned earlier, came to !!@ guilders.!>; Zomer’s at-tempts to professionalize the auction system must be un-derstood within this context. After all, greater interest in-creased the chances of a higher bid, and higher prices spelled more brokerage.!>! Just how he did this yields interesting in-formation, which is also useful in analysing the sale of the collection of Het Loo.

The sources used for calculating this information warrant some interpretation.!>: Key here is the Catalogus of naamlyst van schilderyen, met derzelver pryzen zedert een langen reeks van jaaren zoo in Holland als op andere plaatzen in het openbaar verkogt (Catalogue or list of names of paintings with prices sold in public in the course of many years both in Holland and elsewhere).!>7 This collection of sales catalogues assembled by the art dealer Gerard Hoet and published in !6>: consti-tutes the most important pool of sales lists from the peri-od !@<?-!6>: at our disposal. In addition, in !=6>-!=6@ Du-dok van Heel published a survey of all of the advertisements for art auctions in the Amsterdamsche Courant from the peri-od during which Jan Pietersz. Zomer was active.!>? By com-bining these and other sources, it becomes possible to de-termine how Zomer, as an art broker, could guarantee the success of an auction.!>> To the extent that it could be ascer-tained, between !@== and !6:? Zomer was involved in no less than <> public auctions,!>@ @7 of which had paintings for sale. The sales catalogues of 7> – thus more than half – of all of the auctions of paintings run by Zomer have been pre-served. This is assumed to be representative of the situation as a whole.!>6

#"*. See Appendix A; and A:. This is based on the auctions known to us chiefl y thanks to Gerard Hoet’s compilation. Hoet !6>:.

#"#. This also applies to a certain extent to high ap-praisals.

#"$. The nature and signifi cance of the source mate-rial is explained more extensively in Appendix A;.

#"%. Hoet !6>:. In !66; Pieter Terwesten published a supplement of Hoet’s Naamlijst up to !66;. Ter-westen !66;. These volumes are often referred to as Hoet-Terwesten.

#"!. Dudok van Heel !=6>, pp. !?=-!67; Dudok van Heel !=6@, pp. !;6-!::.

#"". Montias noted that in exceptional instances ‘catalogues’ were already being printed in the ear-ly seventeenth century. As none have come down to us, one assumes that they were more probably placards than catalogues. Montias :;;:, p. :7.

>=

#"&. Muizelaar & Phillips :;;7, pp. !6>-!<7.#"'. Zomer did not become aD uent by organising

auctions and making appraisals. As a broker he al-so undoubtedly received a certain percentage on normal intermediary commissions, as in the case of Chandos’ agents. See Chapter ?A.

#"(. See Chapter :B and Appendix A;.#"). That evident changes were taking place with

respect to the auctioning of paintings and the printing of catalogues also emerges from the fact that the Guild of St Luke altered its regulations re-garding catalogues three times, in !6;!, !6;: and !6;?. See Noordkerk !6?<, vol. ..., pp. !767-!76?.

#&*. See Appendix A7.#&#. Dudok van Heel !=6@, pp. !;6-!::.#&$. See Appendix A7.#&%. See Appendix A7.

,'82$ !The number of days between the advertisement and the auction compared to the average and median proceeds

Average Median proceeds of the of auctions proceeds

Announcement ! to !? days before auction ƒ >;:= ƒ :?!;Announcement !> to := days before auction ƒ ><<> ƒ ?7;7Announcement more than := days before auction ƒ !>,><! ƒ !?,7=<

,'82$ :Average and median prices per auction and per lot of painting auctions organised by Jan Pieters. Zomer

Lots Proceeds Average Median per auction per auction price per lot price per lot

Average >: ƒ <;7! ƒ !?? ƒ <;Median ?: ƒ ?;<6 ƒ !;< ƒ 6;

ing out these sales from the calculations in the table, the av-erage auction organised by Jan Pietersz. Zomer fetched on-ly >!;> guilders. In the event of more exclusive auctions, other partners were drawn in or Zomer was brought on board as an expert. This was most likely the case for the sale of William ...’s col-lection in the Oudezijds Herenlogement on :@ July !6!7. As an art expert with an international reputation and good contacts in other countries, Jan van Beuningen was charged with its general management. Jan Pietersz. Zomer advised on the appraisal and the auction itself.

vertisement and the planned auction becomes even more in-teresting when the proceeds and average prices are linked to the respective date (Table !).

From this table we can ascertain that the earlier an auction was announced, the higher the turnover and the higher the average price. In other words, Jan Pietersz. Zomer expanded the market in accordance with the appraised and expected proceeds. This means that he gave potential buyers outside of Amsterdam or even Holland the opportunity of mak-ing the necessary arrangements. In doing this for some auc-tions, he was anticipating an international circle of buyers. As emerges in the next chapter this was the case with the Het Loo auction. It was no accident that Jan van Beuningen ad-vertised it @6 days ahead of time. For his own collection he even did this !:= days prior to the sale itself.!@! Thus, foreign buyers had two to four months to arrange matters with their agents. The preserved catalogues of painting auctions organised by Jan Pietersz. Zomer allow us to calculate the average pro-ceeds, average price and average number of lots of such an auction. This also yields several interesting fi ndings (Ta-ble :).!@:

The average number of lots at Zomer’s auctions was >:, with a median of ?:. On average the proceeds were <;7! guilders. The median of the proceeds (?;<6 guilders) makes it equally clear that this number must be modifi ed substantially. The enormous proceeds from a few auctions involving Zomer, such as the one of Het Loo, sent the average proceed amounts soaring. In addition, it is striking that in most of these cases he was not the only person involved; he worked with some-one else at six of the ten most lucrative auctions.!@7 Factor-

@;

%$ Hans Holbein the Younger, Portrait of King Edward A. as a child, panel, >6 x ?? cm, Washington, The National Gallery of Art, Andrew W. Mellon Collection, inv. no. !=76.!.@? (B!, claim 77)

@!

made to the list with the names of the buyers and the prices that Jan van Beuningen drew up after the auction. This is only numbered, and allows room for mistaken interpretations which, in fact, happened in several cases. A correct overview is printed in Appendix B!. See The Hague, KHA, inv. no. B! no. :>A, List of paintings found in the art cabinet and galleries at Het Loo, (-$ December #$#!. The Hague, KHA, inv. no. A!; no. :6, Brief description of the sold, unsold and inherited paintings of Het Loo, n.d. (shortly after :@ July !6!7).

#'#. Perhaps he was relying on an existing list, but it could also have just been plain carelessness.

#'$. Confusing a shepherd and a satyr, for instance, can make an appreciable diB erence. See Appendix B!, lot no. =.

#&'. Duverger :;;?, pp. 6>-6@. The Hague, KHA, Ar-chive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7><-7>=, Letters from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Lou-ise, #$#!-#$#'. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >< vol. 6, Letter from John Drummond to James Brydges, * December #$#", p. =7.

#&(. The Hague, National Archives, Archive of de Nassau Domains Council !><!-!<!!, inv. no. !.;<.!! no. 6:, Minutes of the council, #" March #$#&.

#&). Leeuwarden, Tresoar (RAF), Stadholder’s Ar-chive, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. !=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Mr de Her-toghe, !" December #$#!.

#'*. ‘Liste van schilderijen op het Loo int konst-cabinet, en galderije gevonden.’ This list is print-ed in the publication of the Orange inventories. Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer !=6?-!=6@, vol. ., pp. @=>-6;;. In footnotes reference is sometimes

Nowhere do the minutes of the Nassau Domains Council give evidence of interference in the choice of the organiser for the auction.!@< In fact, it would appear that this council which, after all, controlled the management of the Nassau palaces, was consulted only after the decision was made. Ma-ria Louise requested formal permission for the transporta-tion of the art to Amsterdam on 6 March !6!7, while the earli-est preserved letter from Jan van Beuningen to her secretary, Christiaan de Hertoghe, dates from :; December !6!:, more than six months before the actual auction. Moreover, this letter makes clear that agreements regarding the sale had been made prior to this date.!@=

And so, on @ and 6 December !6!:, Zomer and Van Beunin-gen met at Het Loo to walk through the galleries and the two cabinets and exchange views on the picture collection. Jan van Beuningen took the notes. He entitled the apprais-al list: ‘List of paintings found in the art cabinet and galler-ies at Het Loo.’!6; What follows is an enumeration of !;7 en-tries. Not every picture was given a number and the author jumped from number ?@ to @7 seemingly without reason.!6! Some pendants or series are categorised under a single num-ber. Comparing this list to the fi nal sales catalogue one notes that he did not always describe the paintings accurately and that confusion sometimes arises as to which painting be-longed to what number.!6: Converted and corrected, the list records !;@ paintings distributed throughout three rooms:

O% @ '%( 6 ($*$38$& !6!:, Jan van Beuningen and Jan Pie tersz. Zomer walked through the galleries describing and appraising all of the paintings there.!@? Two weeks later, Van Beuningen wrote to Christiaan de Hertoghe, Maria Louise’s secretary, that he had the utmost confi dence in the success-ful outcome of the sale, for when princes coveted something they were willing to spend a fortune acquiring it.!@> Had he already tested the water with his royal friends, or did he simply know them well enough to be able to gauge their in-terest? The correspondence between Maria Louise and Jan van Beuningen, which begins with the letter regarding the appraisal, presents a clear picture of how Van Beuningen guided the auction to a successful close and of the strategic decisions he took.!@@ They also allow us to reconstruct the or-ganisation of the auction in detail, which is what I will do in the following paragraphs.

,+$ '55&'.4'2 – That the Landgrave and his envoy in The Hague, Johan Reinhard Baron von Dalwig, with permis-sion from the commissioners of the ‘Nassause Domeinraad’ (Nassau Domains Council), approached Jan van Beuningen for the organisation of the public sale goes without saying. After all, he was the leading art lover in Amsterdam and he promoted Maria Louise’s fi nancial interests. Moreover, he had served as an agent and proxy for her father, Landgrave Karl, during the War of the Spanish Succession.!@6 Jan Pie-tersz. Zomer assisted as an expert in the matter.

#&!. The Hague, KHA, Inventory B! no. :>A, List of paintings found in the art cabinet and galleries at Het Loo, (-$ December #$#!.

#&". ‘Mijn Heer, Hoog geagte, en Waarde Patroon. [...] ik can Uedele nu voor seeker segge dat wan-neer het cabinet van ’t Loo vercoft wierd int pu-bliq, het geen !;;; duccate sall scheele, want een groot prins, die persons, een capitaal stuk begeer-de, dan iszer geen prijs te wagte, als die uijt passio gegeeve word; quam het in mijn hand, en men gaB mij ordre bij occasie te vercoope dan souwder apa-rent meer doorden tijt van coomen. Ik sall sien hoe het met de maakelaar Soomer stelle en de mesna-ge weete te betragte.’ Leeuwarden, Tresoar (RAF), Stadholder’s Archive, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. !=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Mr de Hertoghe, !" December #$#!.

#&&. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7><-7>=, Letters from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, #$#!-#$#'.

8 . ,+$ 5&'*,.*'2 #&0'%.4',.#%

@:

the settlement of the account of the auction (August !6!7). The fi rst appraisal, which he had drawn up with Zomer in December !6!:, was revised upwards. While the members of the Nassau Domains Council cast doubts on the estimated prices, this was not the immediate cause.!<: ‘It is incompre-hensible that the paintings at Het Loo were so expensive, and are worth so little,’ Doecke van Hemmema, commissioner of the Domain Council, complained to Maria Louise.!<7

The initiative lay in Kassel. At the second appraisal, which had taken place in January !6!7, the Landgrave von Hes-sen-Kassel’s court painter, Franz Ludwig RauB t, had been brought in as an additional expert. From a letter we learn that RauB t had revised the valuation list – to Jan van Beunin-gen’s evident dissatisfaction.!<? ‘RauB or RuC left Wednes-day. He did not know the cabinet and knows as little about prices as I do about horses, time teaches us much though [...],’ he testily informed Maria Louise on !? January !6!7.!<> Incidentally, the ‘English’ paintings were not re-evaluat-ed at the second appraisal. Apparently, this time the claim was taken into consideration. Doecke van Hemmema’s com-ments, incidentally, shed some light on a matter we only barely comprehend, namely William ...’s acquisition poli-cy. In his view, he paid too much for many of the paintings, meaning that the stadholder-king was prepared to lay out substantial amounts of money for his cabinet. From an art-economic point of view, a double valuation with a minimum price is highly interesting. To my knowl-

the ‘konstcabinet’ (art cabinet), the ‘cabinet van den con-ing’ (the king’s cabinet) and the ‘groote galderie’ (large gal-lery).!67 In scope, it was certainly not one of the large Europe-an princely collections at that time.!6? The gallery as such did not make much of an impression on visitors and was men-tioned only in passing in the travel diaries.!6> Zacharias Con-rad von UB enbach, for instance, only noted Hans Holbein’s Portrait of King Edward A. as a child (fi g. 7:).!6@ Not a word was devoted to any other work.

Initially, no account was taken of the British claim that part of the goods was property of the crown.!66 And, all of these pictures were appraised as well. The former supervisor of the stadholder’s collection, the painter Robert Duval, may have subsequently given his advice.!6< The appraisal list, namely, was supplemented with another list of paintings ‘which ac-cording to the keeper Duval, were reclaimed by Her Majesty, the queen of England.’!6=

The appraisal itself is of more than usual importance be-cause it concerns a double valuation – not to be confused with what is now customary in sales catalogues.!<; The val-uation was not intended as a price indication for the pub-lic, but rather as a guideline for the organisers. This appears from the fact that the lowest valuation counted as the mini-mum. In other words, should the paintings fail to fetch the minimal estimate they would have to be bought in.!<! Jan van Beuningen included an adjusted double valuation with

#$#&. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, ## April #$#&.

#)#. Huygens and others avidly debated the cor-rectness of the triple attribution. Van Gelder !=6=, p. 7@. See also Appendix B!, lot no. !6.

#)$. See Appendix B!, lot no. !@.#)%. Unless Robert Duval was also helping. Howev-

er, as he did not sign the document – like Zomer and Van Beuningen – this possibility is well-nigh excluded.

#)!. See Appendix B!, lot no. !7.#)". See Appendix B!.#)&. See Appendix B!, claim !:.#)'. Appendix no. <6. The Hague, KHA, Archive of

Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, !! August #$#&.

#)(. See Appendix B!, lot no. !<b.#)). ‘Gaf men mij ordre bij occasie te vercoope dan

souwder aparent meer doorden tijt van coomen.’ Leeuwarden, Tresoar (RAF), Stadholder’s Archive, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. !=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Mr de Hertoghe, !" December #$#!.

$**. Leeuwarden, Tresoar (RAF), Stadholder’s Ar-chive, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. !=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Mr de Her-toghe, !" December #$#!.

weert.’ Slot !=<<, p. >6 note :7. This letter can no longer be found in the archive of the Nassau Do-mains Council.

#(!. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, !! August #$#&.

#(". ‘RauB of RuC vertrok woensdag. Hij kende de cabinet niet en is ignorant in prijze als ik in Paard, nu de tijt leert veel [...].’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, #% Janu-ary #$#&.

#(&. See Appendix B!, lot no. 76.#('. See Appendix B!, lot no. 7?.#((. Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer !=6?-!=6@,

pp. @?6-@=?.#(). I suspect that there were, indeed, earlier estate

inventories and that Doecke van Hemmema based his judgements on them.

#)*. From his correspondence with Maria Louise, it is evident that he helped draught this invento-ry with the uninformed deputies from the Nas-sau Domains Council. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, ' April

#'%. The ‘6 watercolours after Raphael’ (6 stuck wa-terverwe naar de Rafaëls) were listed as paintings. See Appendix B!, lot no. @@-6:.

#'!. Bott :;;7, pp. !:-:>.#'". Van Strien !==<, pp. :>6-:@?; Harris !=6?.#'&. Von UB enbach !6>?, vol. .., pp. 76@-766; The

Hague !=<<, pp. !!@-!!6. See Appendix B!, claim 77.#''. See Chapter !A.#'(. Robert Duval had been supervisor of Wil-

liam ...’s collections in England since !@<:. Bren-ninckmeyer-de Rooij & De Heer !=<<, p. !?.

#'). ‘Die volgens het zeggen van den Kunstbewaar-der du Val door Hare Majesteit de coninginne van Groot-Brittanniën zijn gereclameerd geworden.’ Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer !=6?-!=6@, vol. ., pp. @==-6;;.

#(*. The Hague, KHA, inv. no. B! no. :>A, List of paintings found in the art cabinet and galleries at Het Loo, (-$ December #$#!.

#(#. See Appendix B!.#($. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von

Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, ' May #$#&.

#(%. ‘Zynde onbegrijpelijk dat de kunst van de schil-derijen op ’t Loo soo duyr betaelt is en soo weynig

@7

exerted no infl uence on its outcome. The most eloquent ex-ample is the description of the famous painting of the Three tronies: ‘Two women and a man, half length, the man wear-ing a cap with the letters GH, by Titian, Giorgione and Pal-ma Vecchio’ (Twee vrouwen en een manspersoon tot aen de middel, hebbende de man op de muts een cijfer GH, door Ti-tiaen, Georgon en Palema) (fi g. !!7). In this, he proved him-self an expert, well aware of the old attribution debate con-cerning this painting, which had even involved Constantijn Huygens Junior.!=! A ‘Virgin with four saints’ (Lieve Vrouw met vier santen) was by either ‘Polidoor Venetiano’ or ‘Pal-ma il Vecchio’ (fi g. !?:).!=: Van Beuningen kept several op-tions open and rarely took all too radical decisions with re-gard to questionable attributions. During the fi rst walk-around in December !6!:, Van Beu-ningen and Zomer mostly relied on their own experience and personal knowledge for the various attributions.!=7 Yet it would appear that other people also infl uenced the attri-butions, albeit indirectly. For instance, in the catalogue Van Beuningen writes that art lovers called a painting by ‘Bar-tholomeo Manfredi’ ‘The fi ve senses’ (De vijf sinnen).!=? Hence, the cabinet at Het Loo does not seem to have been entirely unknown to Dutch collectors and some of the paint-ings were even the subject of discussion. In the end, by pres-ent-day standards, the appraisers made relatively few ‘in-correct’ attributions.!=> Given the historical context – there were no ‘catalogues raisonnées’ or photographic reproduc-tions – this was a diC cult feat at best. Notably, as I indicat-ed earlier, they built in a certain margin for attributions and took account of material aspects. For example, in a letter Van Beuningen wrote that a painting of the Virgin and Child was either by Rubens or Van Dyck,!=@ leaving aside the cor-rect attribution.!=6 That his knowledge was vast is beyond dispute. He thought that a Portrait of Emperor Charles A was a likeness by Rubens after Titian.!=< Such a comment presup-posed a thorough art historical foundation; you had to know that Rubens copied portraits of Charles A by Titian.

'-*,.#%? – Contrary to what has been suggested above, Jan van Beuningen did not consider an auction the most appro-priate means of disposing of the pictures in the galleries and cabinets of Het Loo. He even wrote: ‘Were I assigned to sell privately, more would be earned in the course of time.’!== This passage from the above-quoted letter of :; December !6!: makes it clear that while he resigned himself to organis-ing an auction, he remained convinced that from a fi nancial point of view it would be more profi table by far to ‘private-ly sell’ the works of art.:;; What is more, he was probably thinking about selling the collection gradually, or even en bloc.

edge, this is the fi rst time it can be demonstrated that min-imum prices were set beforehand at this sort of voluntary auction. The consequences of this are crucial to our appreci-ation of the auction system then. It implies that a minimum value had to be allocated to a painting and that ‘similar’ paintings thus fell into the same price range. Accordingly, if an authentic painting by Rubens, for instance, fetched more than a thousand guilders, this was not a coincidence: such a price was anticipated and assumed. The prices at certain vol-untary auctions – such as Jan van Beuningen’s – were rea-soned, refl ecting a consensus among the various market par-ties and, therefore, cannot be summarily dismissed as fl ukes. Conversely, to a certain extent the prices paid serve as good indicators of quality, because in the market, prices fl uctu-ated between limits based on the judgment of the experts. The realisation that price and quality are linked can also be discerned at a micro level, as an analysis of the descriptions of the paintings on the valuation list teaches us. For exam-ple, next to number :@ Jan van Beuningen noted that a ‘Gro-cer’s shop by night’ (Avondwinckeltje) by Gerard Dou was ‘seriously cracked and split’ (seer geborste en gespleete) and therefore worth only :;; to ::> guilders.!<@ Somewhat fur-ther he describes a Portrait of a man with a ring as ‘overcleaned and overpainted’ (ofgewasse en overschildert).!<6 The ap-praisers arrived at a fi ne-tuned fi nal judgment factoring in material aspects. That this attention to condition was any-thing but unique resurfaces throughout this book.

Another question concerns the origins and quality of the at-tributions. To what extent did the appraisers rely on old-er estate inventories or use other sources? To the best of my knowledge, no older estate inventories have been preserved. William ... bought the domain of Het Loo in !@<? and be-gan construction of the hunting lodge, or pleasure palace, in !@<>. An inventory of the moveable property does not seem to have been drawn up immediately after the stadholder-king’s death; the earliest known one is from < April !6!7.!<< This postdates Zomer and Van Beuningen’s appraisal and was drawn up at the last minute – the paintings were al-ready in Amsterdam on !! April.!<= Jan van Beuningen, who had just left for Apeldoorn to oversee the shipment, will have helped Messrs. Hertoghe and Verschuer with the de-scriptions of the paintings in the estate.!=; This inventory reveals much more about Van Beuningen’s approach to at-tribution than appears at fi rst sight. In comparison to these two artistic ignoramuses, he displayed his expertise, as they humbly noted. Consequently, the description of the paint-ings in the estate inventory of Het Loo dated < April !6!7 af-fords unique insight into Jan van Beuningen’s views on art. As Jan Pietersz. Zomer was not present at this valuation, he

@?

Permission for the shipment took some doing because the decision in part lay with the Nassau Domains Council, which since the death of Johan Willem Friso had also pro-moted the interests of his heirs. The following resolution can be read in the minutes of their daily meeting in The Hague on Friday, !; March !6!7: ‘Received and read, a mis-sive from the Princess Dowager of Orange, [...] relaying that at Het Loo are some expensive pictures, which her Majesty is inclined to have removed in so far as they are not aC xed above the doors or mantelpieces, and sell at a convenient moment for the sake of her Royal Majesty’s children [...].’:;< After receiving written permission for the shipment, Jan van Beuningen hurried to Het Loo to supervise the packing of the paintings. He arrived there on > April. ‘There is no more pleasant assignment imaginable than this,’ he informed his patroness.:;= From that moment the plans gained momen-tum and preparations for the auction took fi nal form.:!; Tra-ditionally, leading collectors had crates made for the ship-ment of art and other luxury items: paintings were wrapped in linen and placed on beds of straw in a chest.:!! In this case, the paintings were taken out of their frames, put in seven whitewood crates and conveyed by water to Amsterdam.:!: The frames were wrapped in paper and packed separately.:!7 The paintings arrived in Amsterdam on !! April; the frames were shipped later. Van Beuningen personally took with him ‘The large Dou, and > other [works]’ (De grote Douw neevens > andere), not in a crate, but rather ‘in a valise’ (in ’t valies) because they required greater care. Large paintings were traditionally conveyed over water, while smaller works were taken personally or entrusted to the stage-coach.:!?

The costs of shipping the works from Apeldoorn to Am-sterdam were steep. ‘For expenditures made on the trip to collect the art with Mr Bruyn,’ Jan van Beuningen not-ed !!; guilders in his ledger.:!> There were also some addi-tional costs ‘for a load on the carriages’ and ‘to two servants from here to Het Loo to remove the paintings’; 7< guilders and ?! guilders, respectively, were entered as expenditures. The crates themselves cost a total of !>: guilders. Adding up these expenses, even before the art arrived in Amsterdam, more than 7?: guilders had been disbursed on shipment alone. A whitewood crate in which eight to ten pictures (un-framed) could be secured thus cost about :! or :: guilders. Adding up personnel wages, working hours and the cost of transport, almost >; guilders per crate, or fi ve to six guilders per painting was paid. Bearing in mind the fact that some !; percent of the paintings auctioned in this period only fetched fi ve guilders or less at auctions, this can safely be considered a high amount.

In itself, this notion was not entirely absurd. At that very moment, sovereigns were actively speculating on who would secure the celebrated cabinet of Queen Christina of Sweden.:;! For years, just about every collecting ruler had been bidding against one another, while Christina’s heir, Livio Odescalchi, waited to see which way the wind would blow. Not known as an avid art lover, even William ... was interested in acquiring this collection, according to his sec-retary Constantijn Huygens Junior.:;: More than a decade earlier, Maximilian .. Emanuel von Wittelsbach had bought the collection of Gisbert van Colen in Antwerp.:;7 In !6!!, August ‘The Strong’, the King of Poland, acquired the com-plete collection of his agent Christoph August von Wacker-barth.:;? Jan van Beuningen’s own patron, Anton Ulrich von Braunschweig, also obtained Jean-Baptiste Tavernier’s entire collection of porcelain and enamel.:;> Van Beunin-gen, thus, had plenty of models in this respect and the idea seemed eminently feasible. The European elite would most certainly bid liberally for the collection of Stadholder-King William .... Obviously, it would have been to Van Beuningen’s person-al advantage had he been able to store and display the more than <; – later auctioned – paintings in his house for some time. It would have brought him a year and a day’s worth of royal visits to his residence from ruling princes and fa-mous art lovers. The ensuing prestige would have occasion-ally been translated into hard cash for his own collection. This was not to be, however. Because of the increasingly dire need of money, the quick lucre of a public auction was cho-sen for. Incidentally, from the correspondence in its entirety it emerges that Van Beuningen would also be availed by this, for as mentioned above he was one of the princess’ greatest creditors. Ultimately, though, a small part of the Nassau col-lection nevertheless found its way into Jan van Beuningen’s cabinet. Some pictures that either did not fetch the estimat-ed price or were not included in the auction for various rea-sons were transferred to his house on the Keizersgracht to ‘await buyers.’:;@

,+$ 4+.53$%, – In the fi rst quarter of !6!7, the months af-ter the appraisal, little correspondence transpired between Jan van Beuningen and Maria Louise. Only on ! April did ‘the director’ again raise the subject of the auction: ‘Most serene Princess, most merciful Princess and Lady. I respectfully kiss the order by which you honour me. Monday evening forth-coming, I’ll travel to the famous Het Loo via Harder wijk to faithfully and diligently fulfi l your most serene highnesses’ instructions concerning the transportation of the paintings. Inspector Bruin will accompany me and his advice sought so that everything can be carried out in quest of perfection.’:;6

@>

coach, he must have thought about the adventures of the aforementioned Venetian art dealer Daniël Nijs. Van Beuningen certainly knew him given the family relationship. Nijs loaded some of the paint-ings he had bought from the Gonzagas in Man-tua for Charles . of England on a ship. It ran into a storm and a corrosive acid fell onto the crates, ru-ining part of the valuable freight. Fortunately, he had shipped the more fragile paintings by land and they arrived in London unscathed. Brown !==>, pp. ?7-?>.

$#". ‘Voor de oncoste op de reijs gevallen by het aB haelen van kunst met monsieur Bruyn.’ See Ap-pendix C!a. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, !! July #$#'.

$#&. ‘aen vragt voor de wagens’ and ‘aen twee knegts van hier na ’t Loe om het aB te nemen van de schilderijen.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Ma-ria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, !! July #$#'. See Appendix C!b.

$#'. Dudok van Heel !=66, p. !;!. Zomer witnessed his marriage. Duverger :;;?, p. 6@.

$#(. ‘oppassen, waken en schoonmaken van de kunst’ and ‘voor ontpakken, lijmen en gespannen van de kunst.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, !! July #$#'. See Ap-pendix C!b.

$#). ‘Als een liefhebber genegen is iets uit zyn kabi-net te verkopen, moet men het zelfs niet met ver-achtinge behandelen, maer in tegendeel allen luis-ter byzetten om ’t aen den man te helpen.’ Van Gool !6>;-!6>!, vol. .., p. 7=>. See also Korthals Altes :;;7a, p. !7@; Korthals Altes :;;7c, pp. 7?->@.

gelast aen geenen die haer dese laste sal vertoo-nen, onder Recepisse te laeten volgen, alle de schil-derijen, onder haere bewaringe, zijnde de welcke als boven in geene muijren sijn vast gemaeckt en die vervolgens bequamel van daer getransporteert sullen konnen werden. Waer op gedelibrert zijn-de, is goed gevonden de concherge, van ’t huijs ’t Loo Hester Otte, te lasten, en ’t ordonneren, soo als haer gelast en geordonneert werd mits desen aen geenen die haer dese ordre, mitgaders een au-thorisatie van haer Hoogheyt sal vertoonen, onder behoorlijke recipisse te laeten volgen alle de schil-derijen opt voornoemde Huijs onder haere bewa-ringe, zijnde dewelcke als boven in geen muijren sijn vastgemaeckt.’

$*). ‘Aangenaamer commissio, dan deeze, can niet uijtgedagt worden.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, ' April #$#&.

$#*. ‘Hoopte in haar hoogste ordre te sulle volwoe-re bij resumptie vande instructio, vinde dat geen oogenblik moet versuijme om alles voor sondag te conne afdoen. Maandag moet in stee zijn, Tis woensdag vroeg, dat dit afsende, zonder dat werk begonne is, de post passeert hier vroeg, ’t geschiet omte bewijse dat in actio ben [...].’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, ' April #$#&.

$##. For example, see Antoine Watteau, L’enseigne de Gersaint, canvas, !@7 x 7;@ cm, Berlin, Charlot-tenburg.

$#$. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, ## April #$#&.

$#%. Duverger :;;?, p. ?>.$#!. When Jan van Beuningen was deliberating on

whether to take certain paintings with him by

$*#. StuB mann !=@<, pp. !!-!7=.$*$. Huygens !<6@-!=!>, vol. ., p. >!6; Huygens

!<6@-!=!>, vol. .., p. ::.$*%. Krempel !=6@, pp. ::!-:7<.$*!. Niedner !=!;, pp. <@-==.$*". Braunschweig :;;:, pp. !?-!>.$*&. ‘coopers uijt de hand aB te wagte.’ The Hague,

KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, ' May #$#%.

$*'. ‘Doorlugtigste Vorstinne, Gnadigste Vorstin-ne en Vrouwe. Ik kusse eerbiedig het uijtgedrukt bevel waarmeede uwe Doorlugtige Hoogheijt mij begenaadigt. Maandag avond, aanstaande sall mij oover Harderwijk, naar het beroemde Loo begeeve om de beveele, van uw Doorlugtige Hoogheijt aan-gaande het transport van schilderijen trouw en vlijtig uijt te voeren. Den controlleur Bruin sall mij geleijde en beijde ooverweeging geschikt wor-de, om alles soo na moogelik aan de uijterste or-dre te volvoeren [...].’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7><, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, # April #$#&.

$*(. ‘Ontvangen en gelesen, een missive van me-vrouwe de Princesse Douariere van Orange, [...] inhoudende dat mits er op het Loo, eenige koste-lijke schilderijen sijn, haer Hoogheyt wel gene-gen soude wesen om de schilderijen, voor soo veel deselve niet boven deuren of schoorsteenen sijn vastgemaeckt, van daer te doen wegnemen en ter gelegener tijt ten proC jte van Hoog Furstelijcke kinderen te gelde te doen maken [...].’ The Hague, National Archives, Archive of the Nassau Domains Council !><!-!<!!, inv. no. !.;<.!! no. 6:, Minutes of the council, #" March #$#&. The letter continues: ‘[...] versoekende in den name van hooge furstelijke cu-ratele dat desen raede geliefde te doen expedieren, een ordre, waar bijde castelijnse op ’t Loo werde

Jochem Kook received his wages ‘for unpacking, gluing and restretching the art.’:!< Muys and Kook, thus, worked to-gether on various paintings in need of a touch up. Thorough restorations were foregone, though, for in the catalogue a number of pictures were described as slightly damaged. Pri-ority was given to restretching and reframing, and primar-ily cleaning the paint layer. The idea that a painting had to look good at its sale was not alien to Van Beuningen. In fact, he was prepared to invest considerable amounts to drive up the value of the collection. The artist’s biographer Johan van Gool specifi ed this notion a half century later as follows: ‘if an art lover is inclined to sell an item from his own cabinet, one should not treat it with scorn, but on the contrary add all lustre to help dispose of it.’:!= The exceptionally high proceeds illustrate the extent to which Jan van Beuningen succeeded in this endeavour.

One wonders why all the paintings were conveyed to Am-sterdam at the beginning of April while the auction was scheduled for the end of July? A period of more than three months yawned between the transport and the sale, and the oC cial viewing days were limited to the three days preced-ing the auction. The only possible explanation would seem to be the fact that several of the works were in need of resto-ration, as Van Beuningen declared in the account he drafted shortly after the auction (fi g. 77).:!@ The director of the auc-tion paid Jochem Kook and Jan Muys :! guilders and !< stui-vers and !:: guilders, respectively. The ebony frame maker Jan Muys lived in the Runstraat and was a friend of Jan Pie-tersz. Zomer, the Flemish art dealer Gillis van der Vennen, and Isaak Rooleeuw, an Amsterdam art lover and acquain-tance of Van Beuningen.:!6 Muys was paid for ‘minding, guarding and cleaning the art.’ And the otherwise unknown

@@

agent representing the Elector Palatine at the Het Loo auc-tion. In a letter of !6:= to the Flemish art dealer Francisco-Jacomo van den Berghe, he allows that in connection with an auction of his paintings, he, ‘... placed your paintings at the top, because here the leading and best [works] are usu-ally set there. Yet they are not the fi rst to be sold. One be-gins with some general [works] and if one sees that the lead-ing art lovers are present then one sells the best.’::! This is signifi cant new information. The knowledge that the fi rst numbers in a sales catalogue were then considered the best lots in the entire bunch means that we can now identify with fair certainty the most important works of art in sales cata-logues of which there are annotated copies. Anyone inter-ested in knowing which paintings ranked highest aestheti-cally and fi nancially need only look at the fi rst lots in a given catalogue. Van Beuningen must have had this in mind when he informed his patroness that he had rearranged the list of paintings.::: He placed the history paintings by Van Dyck and Rubens, which he obviously deemed the most impor-tant, at the beginning. Not coincidentally, they fetched the highest price. He then listed Italian masterpieces by Titian, Palma il Vecchio and Veronese, among others. The various portraits by Rubens after Titian and by the Venetian mas-ter himself were much less to the buying public’s taste. With lot numbers :? and :> – respectively Bassano’s Annunciation to the shepherds and Rubens’ The tribute money (fi g. !;:), again two history paintings – some more expensive works fol-lowed yet again.::7

,+$ *','2#0-$ – Along with the shipment, in his corre-spondence with Maria Louise, Van Beuningen discussed sev-eral other relevant matters. He announced that he had re-arranged the estate inventory such that it was immediately usable for the catalogue. This is important, because it indi-cates that, in fact, a great deal of thought went into the or-ganisation of works for auction. The numbering of the lots was not random, but followed a well-considered scheme. Al-though we are in the dark as to the specifi cs, at the Het Loo auction, the order was as follows: history paintings came fi rst, followed by genre scenes, landscapes, and portraits. Per genre, Southern-Netherlandish masters preceded Ital-ian and Northern-Netherlandish masters on the list. This structure, however, was not consistently followed. The at-tributed quality and the related monetary value of a work of art could disturb this classifi cation. Clearly, Jan van Beuningen had no intention of sav-ing one or more masterpieces for the end of the sales cata-logue, but rather put the most important lots at the top of the list. A simple graph shows us that this was customary (Graph 7).::;

The fi rst lot was usually considered the most important. Lot numbers two through ten also stood out. The remaining lots were classifi ed somewhat more randomly. In the course of the auction the average price per lot decreased slightly. That this was common practice emerges not only from the graph but also from a remark made by Adriaen Bout, the

$$*. Source, see Appendix A;.$$#. ‘Ick heb uedele schilderijen bovenaan doen

plaatsen, omdat men de voornaamste en beste al-hier gewoon is boven te setten. Doch die worden darom niet in ’t begin verkoft. Men begint met eenige gemeene en als men siet dat de voornaam-ste liefhebbers present syn dan verkoopt men de beste.’ Duverger :;;?, p. :@<.

$$$. See Appendix B!.$$%. See Appendix B!, lot nos. :? and :>.

@6

%% Bill of expenses auction of Het Loo (The Hague, KHA, inv. no. A!;, no. :6 folio 7 verso, Onkosten over de verkoope en Taxatie van de schilderijen gevallen, n.d.)

@<

identifi ed, a brief summary of several of the players – some represented by their agents – aB ords an idea of its signifi -cance: Jan van Beuningen, James Brydges of Chandos, ‘grif-fi er’ Fagel, Lothar Franz von Schönborn, and Johan Hen-drik van Wassenaar Obdam.::= The proceeds and the average prices corresponded. The paintings went under the hammer for an average of >@7 guilders (median :<; guilders) and in total fetched more than 7?,7=> guilders, making it one of the most important public sales of the fi rst half of the eigh-teenth century.:7;

Several practical novelties were introduced at the Paets auction, which Jan van Beuningen instantly adopted for the sale of the stadholder-king’s collection. Above all, these in-novations took account of the wishes of an international and illustrious buyers’ public. In contrast to the traditional Zomer catalogues, Jan van Beuningen included the dimen-sions of many of the paintings in his catalogue entries, just as Paets’ heirs had done.:7! While this might seem like a tri-fl ing matter, it was of utmost importance for the targeted international buyers’ public. As is known, monarchs hung their paintings frame to frame and from fl oor to ceiling on the walls of their cabinets and galleries.:7: An empty space needed to be fi lled with a canvas or panel of a suitable size. Accordingly, dimensions and descriptions were vital for those unable to travel to the auction. Jan Pietersz. Zomer, who concentrated primarily on a local clientele, never gave a thought to this matter. In contrast, having had the run of many a monarch’s house, Jan van Beuningen did fi nd this of interest. In fact, he gave the dimensions of the most im-portant works in the catalogues of the auction of Het Loo and the one of his own collection. To my knowledge, this was only the second time that dimensions were included in a sales catalogue.:77 The fi rst was at the Adriaen Paets auction. Because Zomer had never done this previously, we may as-sume that for the sale of William ...’s paintings Jan van Beu-ningen followed the example set by the Paets auction. In the course of the eighteenth century, ever more major paintings were listed with their dimensions in sales catalogues, chief-ly for the most lucrative auctions. The signifi cance of this seemingly minor addition for art historical research can-not be suC ciently underscored, for it allows the provenance of paintings to be reconstructed with much greater preci-sion.:7?

The explicit mention of the number of fi gures in a paint-ing is another novelty that must be credited to Jan van Beu-ningen. Zomer rarely, if ever, did this. Even when he later described his own collection, Van Beuningen regularly gave the number of ‘fi gures’ in a scene.:7> He was responsible for descriptions in the Het Loo catalogue, such as ‘Love with four fi gures’ (de liefde met vier beelden) or a ‘School teacher

In this early stage – the moment of transportation – the print-ing of a catalogue was already being taken into account. For this task, Van Beuningen drew on his own experience and on other models. For example, on !! April, having just re-turned to Amsterdam with the paintings from Het Loo, he instantly set oB for Rotterdam to attend the sale of Adriaen Paets’ collection (fi g. 7?).::? This auction was a great success. He undoubtedly had this in mind when he began giving fi -nal form to the auction in early May.::> Accordingly, it is worthwhile discussing the Paets sale in greater depth. Adri-aen Paets’ cabinet was one of the most distinguished picture collections in Rotterdam, if not the Republic.::@ During his life he amassed a broad range of Italian, French, Southern- and Northern-Netherlandish art.::6 Paets belonged to the fi nancial, cultural and intellectual elite of Rotterdam. The society painter par excellence, Adriaen van der WerB , and the Huguenot philosopher, Pierre Bayle, were members of his circle of friends. This group of culture enthusiasts also counted the infl uential collectors Nicolaes Anthonij Flinck and Jacques Meyers, who are discussed in detail below.::< Al-though not all of the buyers at the Paets auction have been

%! Catalogue of the Paets auction, Rotterdam, :@ April !6!7

@=

for the paintings bought for Van Wassenaar Ob-dam. Korthals Altes :;;7a, p. !76. Noordhey was Paets’ brother-in-law and a governor of the A#* in Rotterdam.

$%). ‘In tussch sall onder de hand gaan bekent maake dat dit cabinet sall te coop comen en ten tijde aan alle edelen in Duitsland zal sturen met de melding dat het zijn majesteits [William ...] kunstkabinet is. Voor Vrankrijk en Engeland sall meede sorge.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, ( May #$#&. See Ap-pendix C!a.

$!*. ‘Engeland, geen mentie van de coning te ma-ken.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, ( May #$#&. See Appen-dix C!a.

$!#. See Chapter !A.$!$. Lugt :?:.$!%. See Keblusek !==6. This also includes drawings

and prints.

$%*. See Appendix A?.$%#. See Appendix A7.$%$. See, for example, Anton Ulrich von Braun-

schweig and Johann Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg. Gerkens !=6?; Korthals Altes :;;7b, pp. :;@-:!<.

$%%. Lugt !=7<. An annotated copy is at the RKD in The Hague. In it are mentioned catalogues that have been rediscovered as of !=7<. Compare also with: www.idcpublishers.info/lugt.

$%!. It should be noted that dimensions then and now do not always match up perfectly. Measuring with or without the frame, precisely or approxi-mately, etc., can cause minor diB erences. Also, in the course of time, paintings have sometimes been enlarged or reduced in keeping with the owner’s wishes.

$%". See Appendix B! and B:.$%&. See Appendix B!, lot nos. 7> and ?. This could

also have been related to the determination of the price at the appraisal. See Bok !==<, pp. !;7-!!!.

$%'. ‘fi jn pampier en dat in ’t frans en hollands.’ On-ly a Dutch version of the catalogue has been pre-served.

$%(. Jacob Noordhey may have been the man be-hind the Paets auction. Philips van Dijk paid him

$$!. This was announced in the Amsterdamsche Cou-rant of !> April: ‘Sale on :@ April in Rotterdam at the house of the late Mr Adriaen Paets, in his life collector of the Admiralty on the Maas, etc., his cabinet of beautiful and excellent paintings by celebrated Italian and other masters, including @ capital pieces by Adriaen van der WerB . Cata-logue [in] French and Dutch’ (Verkoop op :@ april te Rotterdam in ’t Sterfhuis van den Heere Adriaen Paets Zalr., in zijn leven ontfanger van de Admira-liteyt op de Maze enz, desselfs nagelaten Kabinet van Schoone en uitmuntende Schilderyen van ver-maerde Italiaense en andere Meesters, onder an-deren van @ kapitale stukken van den Ridder van der Werf. Catalogus Fr./Ned.). Dudok van Heel !=6@, p. !;=.

$$". The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, ( May #$#&.

$$&. See Appendix A>.$$'. Delahay & Schadee !==?, pp. 7@-76; Gaehtgens

!=<6, pp. ?<->:.$$(. Van Gelder !=6?, pp. !@6-!<7. See Chapter 7.$$). Collins Baker & Baker !=?=, pp. @=-<7; Gaeht-

gens !=<6, p. ?@?; Korthals Altes :;;7a, pp. !7@-!@6.

an expressly international public. The catalogue for the Het Loo auction was the fi rst of the new type. That a French version of the catalogue was published also seems to have been a trump to play for the auction’s interna-tional potential. Jan van Beuningen was aware of this possi-bility and also instructed that the catalogue be printed ‘on fi ne paper, and in both French and Dutch.’:76 In this, he was again most likely inspired by the Paets sale.:7<

When they were printed, Van Beuningen sent the catalogues to all four corners of the world: ‘In the meantime I will make it known that this cabinet is up for sale and in due time [the catalogue] will be sent to all the nobles in Germany with the mention that it is his majesty’s [William ...] art cabinet. I will also attend to France and England.’:7= In the margin of a letter, Jan van Beuningen wrote: ‘England, make no men-tion of the king’ (fi g. 7>).:?; Mindful of the controversy sur-rounding the inheritance, this was not an idle intention.:?! Fate would have it that the provenance is given in Jan van Beuningen’s handwriting in the only extant copy of the cat-alogue (fi g. !).:?: European royal courts were accustomed to receiving catalogues. The antecedent of this custom can be found in the older bibliophilic interest, for traditional-ly book auction catalogues were sent around by agents.:?7 However, this was new for art auctions. The practice intro-duced by Jan van Beuningen became widely accepted for these kinds of auctions, largely through his agency, in the

by Gerard Dou with > fi gures’ (Schoolmeesterje van Gerard Douw met > beeltjes).:7@

A third innovation Van Beuningen implemented almost systematically and with which he did, in fact, ally himself with Zomer’s tradition, is the addition of quality criteria. This includes comments related to materials, fi gures and painting techniques. Regularly recurring qualifi cations are: ‘Outstandingly delightful, as one has rarely seen by him, powerfully depicted, very pleasant, capital’ (uytmuntend heerlijk, zoals men weynig van hem gezien heeft, krachtig verbeeld, zeer plaisant, kapitael) or ‘extraordinary’ (extraor-dinair). With this, he explicitly judged a work’s aesthetic val-ue. He also distinguished between fi gures that were small (klein leven) and ‘life-size’ (levensgrote) – something Zomer never did. Van Beuningen even commented on the colour (‘pleasantly coloured’ [aengenaam gecoloreert]) and the physical condition of a number of paintings (‘a bit cracked’ [iets geborsten]). All told, these descriptions transform this catalogue into an exceptionally thoughtful and reliable doc-ument for its time.

Carefully comparing the preserved sales catalogues up to !6!7 – including those by Zomer – with the sales list drawn up by Jan van Beuningen, one is astonished by the diB erence in quality and sheer amount of information. Catalogues published for a primarily regional buyers’ market, such as those by Zomer, contrast sharply with those intended for

6;

%" Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise dated ( May #$#& about the catalogue (Appendix C!a)

6!

7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, ( May #$#&. See Appendix C!a.

$!(. See Appendix A7.$!). ‘Eenen bequamen tijt ofte saisoen om te

voijageren voor de lieB hebbers.’ Duverger :;;?, p. :>>.

$"*. ‘Want de Residentio der Magnaaten sall haast in Uijtregt cesseren, en die vrinde aparent meede well een stuijvertie emploieere.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Lou-ise, ( May #$#&. The Peace of Utrecht was signed on !! April !6!7. The diplomats stayed on for a few months to hammer out the details.

$"#. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7><, Letter from Maria Louise to Jan van Beuningen, # July #$#&.

,+$ (',$ '%( ,+$ 52'*$ – The spring auctions were tra-ditionally held from March to May (Graph ?).:?< Springtime was the season of choice for organising sales of works, as the Hague art dealer Jacob Bart described: ‘A fi tting time or sea-son for the art lovers to travel.’:?= And April was clearly the very best month. Whoever called on the city then could eas-ily purchase art. The leading merchants left the city for their country houses during the summer, whereby the market di-minished greatly, after which the number of auctions rose somewhat again in September and October. Public sales of art and estates ground to a halt in the winter months. On-ly real estate was then sold at auction. The cold weather un-doubtedly played a decisive role in this.

In order to set a date for the Het Loo auction, Van Beunin-gen explicitly referred to the peace negotiations that had just taken place in Utrecht. Closed on !! April !6!7, the Peace of Utrecht was followed by a fl urry of deliberations. He was counting on the end of that diplomatic parleying. ‘For the residency of the magnates will surely cease in Utrecht, and those friends apparently want to spend some money.’:>; In this way he once again confi rmed the great interest that the ruling princes and their envoys had displayed in the collec-tion of the stadholder-king.

No correspondence has been uncovered concerning the ap-proaching auction from the period between @ May and ! Ju-ly !6!7.:>! Undoubtedly, preparations for it were ongoing. An advertisement appeared on := May and in the course of these two months the catalogues were also printed and sent out. On the fi rst of July the princess thanked Van Beuningen

$!!. Jonckheere :;;?, pp. =:-=>.$!". ‘in de courante van alle plaatse.’ The Hague,

KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, ( May #$#&. Dudok van Heel !=6@, pp. !;6-!::. For the letter, see Appendix C!a.

$!&. According to Adriaen Bout, an advertisement in the Haagsche Courant (anno !6::) cost 7@ stui-vers per placement. Duverger :;;?, p. :>7. In the announcement in the Amsterdamsche Courant, Van Beuningen also alerted the reader that anyone who had not been sent a catalogue could still pro-cure one from him or Jan Pietersz. Zomer.

$!'. We know the contents of the placard thanks to the table of contents that Van Beuningen includ-ed in his letter of @ May !6!7. The Hague, KHA, Ar-chive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no.

course of the eighteenth century.:?? As an agent he was fa-miliar with the bibliographic custom and used it to his own advantage for an auction of paintings. By sending out the catalogues himself he could be certain that every monarch so approached was kept abreast. Because paintings are not books, he also included the dimensions and judgments of quality in the descriptions. It permitted those eager to buy, but unable to travel to Amsterdam in person, to form a some-what sounder opinion. However, Jan van Beuningen was also counting on oth-er buyers, whom he did not contact personally. He placed an advertisement ‘in all the local newspapers’ and printed a pamphlet.:?> We have the advertisement as it appeared in the Amsterdamsche Courant of :; May !6!7 and the text of the pamphlet is largely known thanks to his description of it in a letter of @ May !6!7.:?@ The text of the advertisement and the placard was fairly neutral. As I noted earlier, neither the pamphlet nor the advertisement divulge the stadholderly origins of the cabinet.:?6 Reading between the lines of this letter, it is clear that he planned to circulate this information unoC cially, like a rumour.

These passages from the correspondence of Jan van Beunin-gen express his ambitions as an art enthusiast and art buy-er. There can be no doubt that he enjoyed a certain status at home and abroad both personally and as a connoisseur. This surely played a role in the decision to put him in charge of organising this prestigious event. He knew the market and had suC cient experience, networks and standing to bring the auction to a good end. We can assume that the mention of his name in the catalogue inspired confi dence.

6:

sume that the viewing days and the auction of the collection of William ... transpired in a similar fashion. The choice of location evidently followed set patterns. The logement was the place par excellence for brokers to dis-pose of goods. This was related to the fact that the innkeeper of the establishment had a monopoly on auctions. In addi-tion to sales under distress by the aldermen, which had been a privilege of the Nieuwezijds Herenlogement since !@>6, the keeper of the Oudezijds Herenlogement Inn had the privilege for the ‘accommodations’ of a majority of the pub-lic auctions.:>< This is why Jan Pietersz. Zomer held most of the auctions he was involved with at the inn on the Grim-burgwal (Graph >). If, for some reason, this building was un-available, he went to the Nieuwezijds Herenlogement in-stead. When a sale entailed the contents of an entire estate, the house of the deceased usually proved the best venue, but Zomer had little to do with such sales. Only rarely was a mar-ket square or other public space chosen as a stage.

Auctions in Amsterdam were traditionally divided into two kinds, namely estate sales and voluntary sales, as noted by Wagenaar.:>= There was an essential diB erence between the two. Voluntary auctions took place at someone’s own initia-tive. They were held because the seller willingly wanted to dispose of property. Paintings or other lots could be bought in if they failed to reach the estimated price. The sale of the collection of William ... fell under the voluntary category. Es-tate sales were organised by the Orphanage, which managed the property of orphans, and by the Chamber of Insolvent Estates, which was charged with the fi nances and property

for his ‘wise counsel and dedicated diligence.’ In the same missive Maria Louise accepted Van Beuningen’s invitation to stay with him during her upcoming incognito sojourn in Amsterdam. She made the trip in order to be present in per-son at the auction.:>:

The auction was held in the Oudezijds Herenlogement (fi g. 7@).:>7 In !@@7, William Lord Fitzwilliam penned a short sen-tence capturing perfectly the atmosphere of the chosen loca-tion: ‘There are two public houses called Heeren Logements, where all great persons and ambassadors are entertained.’:>? The luxurious inn was located on the Grimburgwal in the heart of the old city.:>> Many foreign nobles and diplomatic delegations had stayed there for brief or protracted periods of time while visiting the Dutch metropolis. Jan Wagenaar described the Oudezijds Herenlogement in his portrayal of Amsterdam around !6@;: ‘Inside, the house is provided with a large number of spacious rooms, and among others with a substantial hall adorned with hangings in which great ban-quets are held, and in which household gems, tapestries and valuables are also exhibited which, here as in other leading inns, are publicly sold, for which purpose some lower rooms in the east wing of the building bordering the courtyard al-so serve.’:>@ Wagenaar continued: ‘Before the west wing, in the courtyard, is a raised platform on posts serving as a seat for the secretary, auction master, sellers, brokers and oth-ers, who here virtually the entire year, usually on Mondays, sell houses, manors, bonds and other immovable property, both at voluntary auctions and – especially from the fi rst of November to the fi rst of February – under distress.’:>6 I as-

lijk verkocht worden, ten toon worden gesteld: ten welken einde ook enige benedenvertrekken in den oostelijke vleugel van ’t gebouw, langs de plaats dienen.’ Wagenaar !6@;-!6@<, vol. ..., Book ., pp. 6>-6@.

$"'. ‘Door den westelijken vleugel, op de plaats is een hoog verdek op stijlen getimmerd dienen-de tot eene zitplaats voor den secretaris, afslager, verkoopers, makelaars en anderen, alzo hier, ge-noegzaam het gantsche jaar door in ’t gemeen den maandags huizen, hofsteden, obligatien en ande-re vaste goederen, zo bij willige verkoopinge, als, inzonderheid van den eersten november tot den eersten februarij bij executie geveild en verkocht worden.’ Wagenaar !6@;-!6@<, vol. ..., Book ., pp. 6>-6@.

$"(. Van Eeghen !=6;a, pp. :>-7!.$"). Van Eeghen !=@=, pp. @>-!;:; Montias !===b,

p. !;=; Montias :;;:, pp. !>-!=.

$"$. ‘wijse directie en meermaals beproefden yver.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, #) July #$#&. In another letter dated a few weeks later (!< July) he also invites her secretary to stay with him for the duration of the auction.

$"%. Simon Fokke, An auction in the Oudezijds Heren-logement, pen and brush on paper, :>? x :@? mm, Amsterdam, Gemeentearchief, inv. no. Spl. @!>M.

$"!. Van Strien !==<, p. 77.$"". No study of substance on the Oudezijds Heren-

logement exists.$"&. ‘Van binnen is het huis voorzien van een groot

getal ruime vertrekken, en onder anderen van eene aanzienlijke behangen zaal, alwaar dikwils groote maaltijden gehouden zijn, en in welke ook huissierraden, kleederen en kostbaarheden, die hier gelijk in andere voorname herbergen, open-

67

%& Simon Fokke, An auction in the Oudezijds Herenlogement, pen and brush on paper, :>.? x :@.? cm, Amsterdam, Gemeentearchief, inv. no. Spl. @!>M

6?

guilders. In the course of three years Van Beuningen was to pay ? percent interest, an amount of more than @7 guilders. Moreover, by their own account, after the auction the bro-kers had sold two more paintings for :<; guilders to a cer-tain ‘De WolB ’. Again, they claimed a commission of : per-cent on that amount. The bombshell dropped on Van Beuningen on :: July !6!>. After the fi nding of the Bench of Burgomasters and Aldermen of Amsterdam, Van Beuningen considered lodg-ing an appeal at the Court of Holland. Enraged, he wrote to Princess Maria Louise: ‘Who fails to punish evil, strengthens the villain. Mostly the Supreme Court alters the fi ndings of the Bench of Aldermen. Maybe the broker Zomer will decide to reach an agreement when he hears of my appeal, which could be unpleasant. I cannot forget this base deceit. Recon-sider what might be best, for I would happily pay for the costs of the appeal.’:@7

Sadly, the truth of the matter will never be known, but Van Beuningen was ordered by the Amsterdam Bench of Bur-gomasters and Aldermen to pay oB his arrears to Zomer, and he does not seem to have appealed their decision. Per-haps Van Beuningen’s threat achieved the desired result and Zomer ‘reached an agreement’ with him.:@?

That Van Beuningen’s pride was hurt and that he felt ag-grieved should come as no surprise. A lawsuit in no way ben-efi ted his reputation as a trustworthy and loyal gentleman-dealer. After all, it was on the basis of his reputation that Maria Louise and Karl . von Hessen-Kassel had appointed him director of the auction in the fi rst place. For the same reason, various rulers frequented his house on the Keizers-gracht. He needed a verdict placing him in a bad light like a hole in the head.

of insolvent, bankrupt merchants or civilians. Rembrandt fell victim to the latter institution, for instance.:@;

As the oC cial representative of the city, the auctioneer – or ‘vendumeester’ in Van Beuningen’s terminology – took @ percent of the proceeds of the voluntary auctions. In his ledger Van Beuningen entered 7?;@ guilders as expenses for the rights of the city. That this amount is more than the to-tal proceeds of many other auctions in the same period, yet again underscores the sale’s exclusivity.:@!

' 8'( $%(.%0: ,+$ 2'14-., 8$,1$$% F#3$& '%( A'% 8$-%.%0$% – Up to and throughout the auction, col-laboration between Pietersz. Zomer and Jan van Beuningen went smoothly. Afterwards, anything that could go wrong, did. A confl ict arose concerning payment of the broker’s commission to Zomer. When neither gentleman could reach an agreement with the other, Zomer hauled Van Beuningen before the tribunal of the city of Amsterdam, the Bench of Burgomasters and Aldermen. The dispute bore upon two fi -nancial matters, in particular Zomer’s commission on the estimate, and a premium of ! percent on two private pur-chases. While our information on this legal skirmish is un-clear and decidedly one-sided, it nevertheless appears that social concerns were paramount, at least in Jan van Beunin-gen’s mind. The quarrel revolved around the issue of whether the amount (! percent of the estimated proceeds) to which Jan Pietersz. Zomer and his assistant Johannes Staets had a right, had already been paid. The broker accused Van Beu-ningen of having paid only 7;; guilders for appraising the paintings, while Zomer was entitled to >:> guilders.:@: Ac-cording to the invoices in Staets’ possession, this was >:?

Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Maria Louise, !! July #$#'. Included in Appendix C!a. To prove his innocence, Van Beuningen attached a transcript of the accounts in his ledger and a copy of the two outstanding invoices drafted by Jo-hannes Staets to this letter, in which he fulminat-ed against Zomer. Curiously, one of them is post-dated (@ August !6!@), which may be related to the calculation of Staets’ commission as Zomer’s as-sistant (7 times ? percent on Zomer’s own com-mission).

$&!. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, !! July #$#'. I found no leads in the archives of the Court of Holland in the Na-tional Archives in The Hague.

$&*. Amsterdam !===-:;;;.$&#. The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von

Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7><, Letter from Maria Louise to Jan van Beuningen, !! July #$#'.

$&$. Supposedly ! percent of the sum of the low-est estimate. These might have been Jan Pietersz. Zomer’s standard fees for appraisals and public sales.

$&%. ‘Die het quaade niet straft, sterkt den boos-wiggt. Het hoB verstaat meerendeels de senten-tio van Scheepe anders. Wie weet of den maakklaar [Zomer] niet opcoomt tot accoort, wanneer van apel hoort dat rouw conne weezen. Ik can dat vuijl bedrog niet verduwe. Denk nog eens wat best is, ik wil met vreugt de coste van appel betaalen.’ The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-

! " # $ % %, + $ ' - * , . # %,

, + $ ' & , 2 # A $ & 4' % (

, + $ . % , $ & % ' , . # % ' 2, & ' ( $

6@

%' Anthony van Dyck, Rest on the fl ight into Egypt, canvas, :!> x :<>.> cm, St Petersburg, Hermitage, inv. no. >7= (B!, lot no. !)

66

#. ‘In den jare !6!7, heb ik een stuk 7 voet hoog, en ? breet, van hem [Jan Brueghel the Elder] gezien, daar ik en alle konstminnaars uuren lang, zonder ons te konnen verzadigen, met verwonderinge op stonden te kyken; [...] Dit stuk van ’t Loo gebragt, werdt te Amsterdam in ’t Heeren Logement !6!7. den :@ van Hooimaant verkogt voor :<:> guld. De twee Figuren die in ’t zelve waren, verbeeldden Pomona en Vertumnus, door Rubbens geschil-dert.’ Houbraken !6!<-!6:!, vol. ., p. <@. See Appen-dix B!, lot no. 6.

$. ‘Ja de bevindinge heeft ons doen zien hoe als

eenige van zyne voorname werken in ’t licht ge-stelt worden, en gelegentheit gegeven is omze te konnen zien [gelyk toen die stukken in ’t jaar !6!7 van ’t Loo gebragt op ’t Heere Logement te zien waren] de menschen om de zelve als de muggen om het licht zworven.’ Houbraken !6!<-!6:!, vol. ., p. !<;. This was the most expensive painting of all, and fetched !:,;>; guilders. See Appendix B!, lot no. !.

%. The Hague, KHA, inv. no. A!;, no. :6 folio : recto, List of paintings which according to the numbers of the catalogue were sold in Amsterdam, #$#&.

rience, when several of his outstanding works are displayed and the opportunity arises to look at them (just as when these works were shown in !6!7 in ’t Heeren Logement af-ter having been brought from Het Loo Palace) people gath-er round like moths to the fl ame’ (fi g. 76).: This typifi es the mood of the art lovers and bidders in the days leading up to the auction. The sale itself was a veritable society event for prominent Europeans and aD uent collectors in the Republic, as ap-pears from the list of all the buyers kept in the Royal Archive (fi g. 7<).7 Most of the bidders turned out to be the agents of princes and prominent collectors, although a few monarchs did come to Amsterdam to attend the auction in person.

T+$ A.$1.%0 ('94 prior to the auction were a great suc-cess. Many dignitaries and connoisseurs wended their way to the Oudezijds Herenlogement on :7, :? and :> July to take a look at the celebrated collection. One of them was the painter-writer Arnold Houbraken. ‘In the year !6!7, I saw a piece by him [Jan Brueghel the Elder] measuring three feet high by four feet wide, which I and all of the art lovers looked at insatiably with wonderment for hours; [...] This painting from Het Loo was sold in Amsterdam at the Heren Loge-ment on :@ July !6!7 for :<:> guilders. The two fi gures in said painting, representing Pomona and Vertumnus, were painted by Rubens.’! Somewhat further on in his opus he had this to say about a painting by Anthony van Dyck that he had seen during the same viewing days: ‘Yes, in our expe-

.%,&#(-*,.#%

6<

%( List of buyer’s names (The Hague, KHA, inv. no. A !; no. :6, Corte staet van de verkochte, onverkochte en vereerde schilderijen van het Loo, n.d., shortly after :@ July !6!7)

6=

#. One rightly wonders if this was coincidental.$. The Hague, KHA, inv. no. A!;, no. :6 folio : recto,

List of paintings which according to the numbers of the catalogue were sold in Amsterdam, #$#&. See Appendix B!, lot nos. ! and 6.

%. Delahay & Schadee !==?, pp. 7!-?:; Gaehtgens !=<6, pp. ?<->=.

!. Delahay & Schadee !==?, pp. 7!-?:.

". Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, during the time of the Het Loo auction, the Elector Palatine Johann Wilhelm, and the duc d’Orléans were bus-ily speculating on who would buy Christina’s pic-ture collection.

&. ‘Men laet een yegelijck weten dat men op Maen-dagh den !> November !@66 ende volgende da-gen sal publieckelijck verkopen haer langhjari-ge vergaderde collectie van seer uytnemende rare

geschiedenissen, als gedaen by de alderbeste Ita-liaensche, Hoochduytse en Neerlantsche Meesters mede [...] Statuen soo hele als halve Beelden eer-tijds gekoomen van d’Heer P. Rubens [...].’ Dudok van Heel !=6>, p. !>?.

'. Wittert also disposed of most of his collection a few years before his death by means of a public sale. See Chapter 7A.

(. Dudok van Heel !=6>, p. !><; Lugt > and Lugt !>:.

able and wealthy collectors, the literature on them and their activities is superfi cial. Without insight into their cultural environment, it is almost impossible to gain an understand-ing of why they, in particular, bid alongside the rich foreign rulers at the sale of the stadholder-king’s collection. This chapter sheds light on the milieu in which Wittert, Meyers and Van Biesum operated. As collectors in Rotterdam they did not simply appear out of thin air. Not only did they have distinguished models, they were in a position to vie with contemporaries such as Reinier van der WolB , Adiaen Paets and Josua van Belle Senior and Junior, each of whom owned an important and extensive collection.7

C#22$*,#&4 /&#3 R#,,$&('3 were well represented at the auction of the pictures from Het Loo. Cornelis Wittert van Valkenburg, an aD uent merchant from the Zuid-Hol-land port, snapped up the two paintings so glowingly de-scribed by Arnold Houbraken.! The art dealer Willem van Grondesteyn bid on his behalf.: Wittert’s fellow townsman, Jacques Meyers, who owned a huge art collection, also had himself represented. He sent Quirijn van Biesum, a baker-art dealer with whom he frequently collaborated, to Amster-dam. The collector and son of the painter Govaert Flinck, Ni-colaas Anthonij Flinck, also came to own a few of the Het Loo works in a roundabout fashion. Even though around !6;; Rotterdam was home to many

*+'5,$& 7

(#3$4,.* .%,$&$4,

' . &#,,$&('3 '&, 2#A$&4

Although they could not have known him personally, Rei-nier van der WolB would have been a familiar fi gure to am-bitious collectors such as Wittert and Meyers. He was the fi rst known great collector in this city on the Maas River and a model for all who came after him. His father was a regent who had made a fortune as a brewer. In his free time, Van der WolB amassed a collection of antique sculptures, cam-eos, coins and paintings, buying them at the highest end of the market. His suppliers and friends were highly regard-ed art experts or collectors. For example, he often worked with the painter David Beck, who sent him works from Ita-ly.? Beck was court painter to Christina of Sweden and trav-elled with her on the peninsula.>

Van der WolB ’s collection, which was auctioned in his lifetime, must have made a great impression. ‘Herewith let it be known that on Monday, !> November !@66 and days following, the public auction will be held of an outstanding and precious collection assembled over a long period of time consisting of superb rare history pieces by the very best Ital-ian, German and Dutch masters including [...] statues and busts that formerly belonged to Mr P. Rubens [...],’ he thus announced himself at the public sale of part of his collection in the Amsterdamsche Courant on !< March !@66.@ He died two years later.6 And, four years later the remnants of the once so illustrious collection were sold in the ‘Confery Kamer’ in The Hague.<

&#,,$&('3: ' *#22$*,#&4’ *.,9

<;

tron was brisk.!? For instance, James Brydges of Chandos instructed the Rotterdam banker Walter Senserf (fi g. =6) to attend the Paets sale. Senserf counted out 76;; guilders for a panel depicting Sarah presenting Hagar to Abraham (fi g. =@) by Adriaen Van der WerB that Chandos later gave to Robert Walpole.!> Lothar Franz von Schönborn’s court painter, Jan Joost van Cossiau, who also attended the Het Loo auction, acquired another painting by the same master there.!@ But both bought much more, indeed. The Elector of Mainz se-cured a ‘splendid work by Jan Liss’ (fraei stuk van Johan Liss) (fi g. ?!) and Chandos a Sacrifi ce of Noah by Bassano.!6 The Liss originally came from the Philip de Flines collection, which Paets had visited together with Van der WerB .!< Lothar Franz waxed eloquent about lot number ?, for which he paid !::> guilders: ‘A capital painting by Joachimo Assareto, depict-ing the Judgment of the God of the forests Tmolus and Mi-das, between Apollo and Pan’ (fi g. !;6).!= The painting still hangs in Pommersfelden and is now ascribed to Alessandro Turchi.:; I will return to this and other acquisitions later.:!

Paets’ fellow townsman, Josua van Belle Junior, also found something to his liking at the auction. He was ‘very nice and, for a Dutchman very courteous,’ wrote Zacharias Conrad von UB enbach referring to his visit to the wealthy

That Van der WolB ’s collection merited royal interest is not a coincidence. William ... probably bought several paintings at this sale, which were later included in the Het Loo auction. Pictures mentioned above, such as a Sleeping An-gelica by Giorgione, a Portrait of a Swiss nobleman and a Holy Family by Parmigianino, came into the hands of the stad-holder-king.= Other works of art, such as Palma il Vecchio’s Adoration of the shepherds (fi g. 7=) – now attributed to Boni-fazio de’ Pitati – and Paris Bordone’s Mars and Venus with Flora and Cupid (fi g. ?;) were bought by Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck.!; These two paintings eventually found their way into the collection of Robert Walpole, which Catherine the Great later bought en bloc for the Hermitage.!! And these are but a few examples.!:

If Van der WolB set the tone in Rotterdam, the following generation of art lovers, such as Adriaen Paets, Nicolaas An-thonij Flinck and Josua van Belle Senior, did not fail to hold their own.!7 Paets, mentioned above, who had bought works from the Van der WolB collection, died in !6!: and his col-lection was auctioned shortly after the closing of the Peace of Utrecht in April !6!7. International interest in the collec-tion assembled by Adriaen van der WerB ’s mentor and pa-

%) Bonifazio de’ Pitati, Adoration of the shepherds, panel, 6@ x !!=.> cm, St Petersburg, Hermitage, inv. no. 77

<!

). See Appendix B!, lot nos. :!, :@, :6.#*. Lugt >, lot nos. !@ and !<. Paris Bordone, Mars and

Venus with Flora and Cupid, canvas, !;< x !:= cm, St Pe-tersburg, Hermitage, inv. no. !@7. Bonifazio de’ Pitati, Annunciation to the shepherds, panel, 6@ x !!=.> cm, St Pe-tersburg, Hermitage, inv. no. 77.

##. Dukelskaya & Moore :;;:, pp. !!; and !>@.#$. Meijer gives more examples. Meijer :;;;,

pp. 766-?!6.#%. Adriaen van der WerB , Portrait of Nicolaas Anthonij

Flinck, canvas, <> x @< cm, present whereabouts un-known.

#!. The Amsterdam University Library has a copy – pre-viously unknown – of Gerard Hoet’s Catalogus of naam-lyst van schilderyen with annotations of buyers primar-ily at Rotterdam auctions, including those of Adriaen Paets, Jacques Meyers and Cornelis Wittert. It is an un-known yet incredibly valuable source. Hoet !6>:: copy Amsterdam University Library, UBM: !7!= E !6-!<.

#". Dukelskaya & Moore :;;:, pp. :>@-:>6.#&. Gaehtgens !=<6, p. ?@?.#'. Meijer :;;;, p. 7=>. Johan Liss, Merry company, canvas,

@? x ?= cm, Pommersfelden, Collection of the Count of Schönborn.

#(. Gaehtgens !=<6, pp. >:->6.#). ‘Een capitael stuk van Joachimo Assareto, verbeel-

dende het Oordeel van den Boschgodt Tmolus en Mi-das, tussen Apollo en Pan.’ Hantsch & Von Freeden !=7!-!=>>, vol. !, pp. 7!6-7!<; see also Kersting :;;7, p. :6.

$*. Bys & Bott !==6, p. 77.$#. See Chapter ?B.$$. ‘sehr artiger und vor einen Holländer sehr höfl icher.’

Von UB enbach !6>?, vol. ..., pp. 7!7-7!>.$%. Delahay & Schadee !==?, pp. 7@-76.$!. Lugt ?;:.$". Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, Portrait of Josua van Belle,

!@6;, !:> x !;: cm, Dublin, The National Gallery of Ire-land.

$&. Moes !=!7, p. ::; Mainz !==@, pp. !@@ and :><.

merchant’s son.:: Just like his father and Adriaen Paets, he was a director of the Rotterdam chamber of the A#*.:7 A fair number of Spanish paintings were listed in the sales cata-logue of the Van Belle collection. This was related to a year-long sojourn on the Iberian peninsula.:? He owned work by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo and Jusepe de Ribera. A Por-trait of Josua van Belle Senior (fi g. ?:) by Murillo also graced the collection.:> For the rest, the Von UB enbachs were im-pressed by the many Velvet Brueghels and the landscapes by Daniël Seghers. Van Belle’s other gems included Gérard de Lairesse’s Death of Germanicus (fi g. !;7) and Rottenhammer’s Rest on the fl ight into Egypt (fi g. ?@), which later found their way to Kassel as part of the collection of Valerius Röver.:@

None of the above-mentioned collectors were present at the Het Loo auction, but this brief introduction outlines the ex-tent to which art was collected in Rotterdam’s better circles. And, also mingling in this milieu were Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck, Cornelis Wittert van Valkenburg and Jacques Mey-ers, who did seize the opportunity aB orded by the auction of the stadholder-king’s pictures to augment their own col-lections. The following paragraphs explore their wheelings and dealings in greater depth.

!* Paris Bordone, Mars and Venus with Flora and Cupid, canvas, !;< x !:= cm, St Petersburg, Hermitage, inv. no. !@7

<:

$'. ‘schilderijen, marbere statuen, papierkonst, teekeningen en prenten, uitgezondert als daar on-der niet zullen werden verstaan te zijn begrepen de schilderijen van de hand van Heer testateurs vader.’ Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. :::! deed 7;, Settlement of the will of Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck, # March #$!&. The paintings by Govert Flinck, thus, were not bequeathed to Nicolaas’ son Govaert. It is not clear what happened to them.

$(. JaB é :;;:, vol. ., pp. !@-!6.$). ‘Gelukkig zijn ze die [...] uit eigen konstkundige

oogen zien kunnen, en uit een talloos tal de egte uit de met schyn geferniste, en met logens vergul-de stukken weeten te onderkennen. Zulke, daar de Heer N.A. Flink mee onder geteld word, konnen aan elk die hunne Konstkabinetten beschouwen, straks doen zien, dat zy goede Keurmeesters zyn.’ Houbraken !6!<-!6:!, vol. .., p. :=>.

%*. See Chapter ?A.

%#. Gaehtgens !=<6, pp. ?<->6.%$. StuB mann !=@<, p. :=; Gibson-Wood :;;;.%%. See Appendix B!, lot no. ::.%!. Logan !=6=, p. !>;.%". This could help explain why some of the previ-

ously mentioned paintings that were recorded on the shipping list vanished from the Nassau collec-tion, like the damaged Grocer’s shop by night (Avond-winckeltje) by Gerard Dou. See Appendix B!, lot no. 76.

%&. Lugt <?6; Terwesten !66;, p. !;!.%'. The Hague, KHA, inv. no. A!;, no. :6 folio : rec-

to, List of paintings which according to the numbers of the catalogue were sold in Amsterdam, #$#&. See Chap-ter ?A.

%(. See Chapter ?A.%). The Hague, KHA, inv. no. A!;, no. :6 folio : rec-

to, List of paintings which according to the numbers of the catalogue were sold in Amsterdam, #$#&.

!*. The Hague, KHA, inv. no. A!;, no. :6 folio : rec-to, List of paintings which according to the numbers of the catalogue were sold in Amsterdam, #$#&. Weyerman !6:=-!6@=, vol. ..., p. :!>; Altena !=<6, pp. <;-<!.

!#. The biographical information on Cornelis Wit-tert van Valkenburg is largely found in Wittert van Hoogland !=!?, pp. !:?@-!7;6. However, not all of the particulars are correct.

!$. Wittert van Hoogland !=!?, pp. !:?=-!:>;.!%. Fockema Andreae et al. !=>:, pp. =;-=!.!!. Wittert purchased several other domains from

the States of Utrecht in !6!@: Lange Ruige Weide, Kortehoef, Hoogbrugge and Driebrugge. The ac-quisition of domains recalls the life of Jan van Beu ningen, also nouveau riche, who also bought his way into the elite in this manner.

!". House number ?:??b.!&. Wittert van Hoogland !=!?, p. !:?=. The num-

bers !<!6 and !<!<.

!# Johan Liss, Merry company, canvas, @? x ?= cm, Pommersfelden, Schloss Weissenstein, Count von Schönborn collection

!$ Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, Portrait of Josua van Belle Senior, !@6;, #$" x !;: cm, Dublin, The National Gallery of Ireland

<7

Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck, was also a bosom friend of this court painter.7! He travelled with him to Amsterdam (!@=:) and Antwerp (!@=@). And Flinck is also known to have re-ceived visits from leading art experts such as Pierre Crozat and Jonathan Richardson.7:

Titian’s putative Portrait of Pietro Aretino was one of the many masterpieces in the collection of Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck. How he came to own it remains a mystery.77 Origi-nally, the portrait was in the Reynst collection. In the mid-seventeenth century works from this notable collection of Italian art were bought by the States of Holland and West-Friesland for the so-called ‘Dutch Gift’, which the States gave to Charles .. of England.7? Returned to Holland by Wil-liam ..., the picture was bought in for !:> guilders at the Het Loo auction and included in the list of works to be sent to Leeuwarden. However, it does not seem to have reached Friesland, and it would appear that Jan van Beuningen sold it privately to Flinck.7> Three decades after his death, on ? November !6>?, his heirs sold the likeness along with the rest of his old collection.7@ It has since vanished without a trace. After the Het Loo auction, Flinck attempted to sell an-other painting from the stadholder’s collection. In !6!< he oB ered Rubens’ The tribute money (fi g. !;:), which had gone to a certain ‘Block’ at the sale, to the Duke of Chandos.76

Both of these obscure transactions are actually typical for Flinck. He did not operate in the foreground, but rath-er under the lee of Wittert and Jacques Meyers. As will lat-er emerge from his correspondence with Chandos, it is diC -cult to get a handle on his comings and goings. He kept his own art collection close to his chest!7<

Close to ?; years elapsed between the sales of the Paets and Van der WolB collections. During this time, the Rotterdam art market remained relatively dormant. However, this changed after !6!7. Jacques Meyers’ and Quirijn van Biesum’s incipient art dealing around the end of the century took oB . Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck was getting older and there was a possibility that his famous collection, too, might come up for sale. In this, though, one was sorely mistaken, for Flinck bequeathed the ‘paintings, marble statues, drawings and prints, except for the paintings made by the testator’s fa-ther [Govert Flinck]’ to his three children.:6 Anthonij’s old-est son, Govaert Flinck, was given usufruct of the house and its contents. Nothing could be sold without the permission of his two sisters and co-inheritors, Ingenalia and Hillegon-da. And, so it came to pass, though an exception was made for the drawings, which were sold to the Duke of Devonshire just after Nicolaas Anthonij’s death.:< The other collections, in particular those of antique sculptures and paintings, re-mained largely intact into the second half of the eighteenth century. Flinck was reputed to be a formidable connoisseur. Arnold Houbraken stated it as follows: ‘Fortunate are those who [...] with artistic insight can distinguish from count-less numbers between the genuine and the false works gild-ed with lies. They, among whom may be counted Mr N.A. Flinck, can demonstrate that they are good judges of quality to anyone who views their art cabinets.’:= Moreover, Flinck had good international contacts; James Brydges of Chandos, for instance, trusted his judgment, as discussed below.7; On his own, or together with Adriaen van der WerB , he inspect-ed and appraised pictures for the English duke. Like Paets,

%.*#2''4 '%,+#%.) /2.%*"

*#&%$2.4 1.,,$&, A'% A'2"$%8-&0

While Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck apparently succeeded in procuring several paintings from Het Loo in a private fash-ion, Cornelis Wittert van Valkenburg publicly dazzled the art lovers with his purchases. His representative – Willem van Grondesteyn, alias ‘the gatekeeper’ (Portier) – bought two genuine masterpieces from the stadholder’s collection for no less than !?,<6> guilders.7= According to Jacob Cam-po Weyerman, he was an art dealer from Rotterdam who had risen from being a peat hauler to keeper of the Schie-dam Gate.?;

Cornelis Wittert came from a distinguished family.?! He was born in Rotterdam on :; April !@6: and baptised in the Remonstrant church a day later. He married twice. He was

7; at the time of his marriage to Elisabeth Maria van Rijs-burch in Leiden. Two years after her death, in !6;6, Wittert wed his second wife, Maria Jacoba Persyn van Ouwendyck, in Delft.?: He had largely inherited his fi nancial latitude. In !6;6 he acquired the manor (vrije heerlijkheid) of Valken-burg, which had earlier belonged to the Van Wassenaar and De Ligne families and where Torenvliet Castle lay.?7 This splendid manor was Cornelis Wittert’s summer retreat.?? He also had a house ‘in de boompjes,’ Rotterdam’s prestigious waterfront, where he lived initially.?> He sold this former residence of his parents on the embankments near the Maas for 7<,;;; guilders in !6:?. One year earlier, thus in !6:7, he had bought two houses along the Delft canal,?@ which he occupied in the winter. In the summer, Wittert moved to

<?

"$. The above-mentioned copy of Gerard Hoet’s Catalogus of naamlyst van schilderyen, also contains annotations of some of the buyers at this auction. Hoet !6>:: copy Amsterdam University Library, UBM: !7!= E !6-!<.

"%. Dukelskaya & Moore :;;:, p. ?7:. They incor-rectly state that John Ellys (!6;!-!6>6) bought it at the auction. Perhaps he transported the painting to England.

"!. Houbraken !6!<-!6:!, vol. ., p. <@."". Moes !=!7, p. :7."&. Horn :;;;, p. >;@."'. See Appendix B7, lot no. !?."(. Mainz !==@, pp. !!@ and 7;@; Moes !=!7,

pp. ::-:?. See Appendix B7, lot no. !=.

!'. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. :@>: deed !;> p. ?@@ B ., Receipts and outstanding debts of the inheri-tance of Cornelis Wittert van Valkenburg, #! December #$&(. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. :@>: deed !;@ p. !?77 B ., Partition of the estate of Cornelis Wittert van Valkenburg, #! December #$&(.

!(. Lugt ?;@ and ?:<.!). The Hague, KHA, Archive of Maria Louise van

Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. 7>=, Letter from Jan van Beu-ningen to Maria Louise, #! August #$#&. See Appendix B!, lot no. !.

"*. That Meyers and Wittert knew each other is cer-tain. They both did business with the Flemish art dealers Gillis van der Vennen and Francisco-Jaco-mo van den Berghe. Duverger :;;?, p. !=@.

"#. See Appendix B7.

The two crown jewels came from the collection of Wil-liam .... The large Rest on the fl ight into Egypt by Anthony van Dyck (fi g. 76) also fi gured at the top of the Rotterdammer’s sales list of !67!. The fi rst auction of the Wittert van Valken-burg collection was held in that year. The canvas was bought in, and put up for sale again in !677, after his death, at a sec-ond public auction.>: Through the mediation of his envoy Hamilton, Robert Walpole put down at least !:,!>; guilders for it.>7 The second painting that once graced the gallery at Het Loo was the Vertumnus and Pomona by Rubens and Velvet Brueghel, the other panel Houbraken praised so highly on the viewing days.>? Valerius Röver bought it for !6;; guil-ders at the second auction of Wittert’s collection.>> It sub-sequently went to Kassel, from where it disappeared during the Napoleontic Times.>@ Some other pictures from the Wit-tert collection took the same route as the Rubens. The fami-ly of Darius before Alexander the Great, a copy after Paolo Vero-nese (fi g. ?7), came from the Meyers collection, but moved via Wittert to Röver and ultimately to Kassel, where it still hangs today.>6 The same applies to the Lucretia by Bertholet Flémal (fi g. ??), a pupil of Nicolas Poussin.>< A small panel by Pieter van der WerB , depicting Three maidens giving fl owers to Amor (fi g. ?>) is now also in the Kassel Gemäldegalerie.>= Earlier I mentioned a copper panel by Hans Rottenhammer, namely the Rest on the fl ight into Egypt (fi g. ?@).@; It came from the Josua van Belle collection and followed the same path. Wittert owned other famous paintings by renowned mas-ters. To gain a better understanding of their range and qual-ity I will give a brief enumeration of them. Hanging on his wall was a portrait of a family with six fi gures by Anthony van Dyck. This likeness presented the Portrait of Johan 333 van Nassau-Siegen and his family (fi g. !!?).@! That this painting was in Holland around !6!< is certain. Lothar Franz von Schön-born, who had his court painter Jan Joost van Cossiau skim

Toren vliet Castle and when he was older to his other coun-try house, Schiezicht. Of the many other estates and houses he owned, here mention is made only of the two dwellings on the south side of the Molenstraat in The Hague, which he bought in !6!;. He did so most likely because he spent time there every now and then. Apparently he managed his wealth well. Upon his death on :: June !677, Wittert left his three children – Elisabeth, Adrianus and Cornelis – an enormous inheritance.?6 A rapid calculation of the worth of the goods, bonds and the like in-cluded in the partition of the estate of !67@ reveals that his fortune exceeded more than a half million guilders, perhaps even reaching close to a million. The free domain of Valken-burg alone was estimated at more than 7;;,;;; guilders. To-gether, the auctions of Wittert’s paintings in !67! and !677 fetched >:,;;; guilders.?< This was but a fraction of his vast fortune, which explains why Cornelis Wittert van Valken-burg was in a position to outbid even the Elector of Mainz, Lothar Franz von Schönborn, for Anthony van Dyck’s Rest on the fl ight into Egypt (fi g. 76).?=

A separate study would be necessary to fully interpret the milieu in which Wittert circulated. Obviously, he lived, lord-like, in luxurious surroundings replete with paintings and books. Naturally, many of the people with whom he shared this passion were friends. Only it is not possible to recover just how close these ties were. He left very few written traces behind. Did he keep company with Jacques Meyers, Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck or Jacob Senserf, for example?>; How could he not have!

,+$ 1.,,$&, A'% A'2"$%8-&0 *#22$*,.#%>! – Corne-lis Wittert is known to us primarily for his fabulous art col-lection, which can be partly reconstructed and which was clearly far above the market average (Graph @).

<>

"). Mainz !==@, p. 7:7; Moes !=!7, pp. ::-:?. See Ap-pendix B7, lot no. ?>.

&*. Mainz !==@, p. 7:7; Moes !=!7, pp. ::-:?. See Ap-pendix B7, lot no. 77.

&#. Barnes et al. :;;?, p. 77@.&$. ‘Ich weiss ein Stück in Holland von dem von

Deyk, so zwahr nur ein famillestück von dem haus Nassau mit sehr viel portraits representirt, es sol-le aber gross und eins von den allerbesten sein so dieser grosse künstler jemahlen gemacht hat. Es hatt sollen umb :;.;;; fl . VerkauB t werden, mann ist aber schon herunder bis auB 6;;; undt derB -te wohl endlich pro >;;; gelassen werden. O... warumb ist der esel nicht da.’ Hansch et al. !=>>, p. ??@.

&%. Wittert nevertheless knew Van Cossiau, as ap-pears from a missive by Gillis van der Vennen to his patron Francisco-Jacomo van den Berghe. See Duverger :;;?, p. !=@.

&!. See Appendix B7, lot no. ?.&". Blunt !=@@, p. !76. See Appendix B7, lot no. >.

This painting is now called Nymph, satyr, faun and cupids.

&&. See Appendix A7.&'. See Appendix B7, lot no. :>.&(. See Appendix B7, lot no. :6.&). See Appendix B7, lot no. :@.

the Northern-Netherlandish market in search of choice works of art, wrote the following on !> January of that year: ‘I know of a piece in Holland by Van Dyck, indeed a family piece of the House of Nassau with lots of portraits. It must be marvelous and one of the very best this great artist has ever made. It was meant to be sold for :;,;;; guilders, but they lowered the price substantially, namely to 6;;; and in the end it went for >;;;. Oh... Why is the ass [Van Cossiau] not there!’@: Just as at the auction of William ...’s collec-tion, here too, Cornelis Wittert was at cross purposes with the elector.@7 The history of Nicolas Poussin’s Furius Camil-lus (fi g. ?6) is discussed later on.@? Before it came into Wit-tert’s possession, it had been part of Jacques Meyers’ exten-sive Poussin collection. Wittert owned a history painting, a Fable from Ovid (fi g. ?<), by Poussin.@>

Wittert was also undoubtedly a great fan of the work of Gerard Dou. He boasted no less than seven paintings by this master, who was extremely popular on the art market at that time.@@ Three of them fetched more than !;;; guilders at the fi rst auction in !67!. The ‘old crone with a herring and a laughing boy’ (Besje met een haring en Laggende Jongen) commanded !?7; guilders, and is now in the Hermitage.@6 Another panel, a Dentist pulling out a girl’s tooth (fi g. ?=) circu-lated on the art market in the course of the twentieth cen-tury.@< Wittert also owned four cheaper and less ‘detailed’ paintings by Dou. The Girl with a milk jug leaning out a win-dow, for example, realised 7;; guilders.@= The so-called Kitch-

!% Paolo Veronese (copy), The family of Darius before Alexander the Great, canvas, ?6 x =:.6 cm, Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (B7, lot no. !?)

<@

!& Hans Rottenhammer, Rest on the fl ight into Egypt, copper, :? x !=.> cm, Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (B7, lot no. 77)

!" Pieter van der WerB , Three maidens giving fl owers to Amor, panel, 77.7 x :>.6 cm, Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. no. GK 7:; (B7, lot no. ?>)

!! Bertholet Flémal, The death of Lucretia, canvas, !!@.7 x !76.> cm, Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. no. GK ?@< (B7, lot no. !=)

<6

'*. See Appendix B7, lot nos. :< and :?.'#. See Appendix B7, lot nos. 7! and 7:.'$. Kirschenbaum !=66, pp. !!<-!!=. See Appendix B7, lot no. @;.'%. Kirschenbaum !=66, pp. !:<-!:=. See Appendix B7, lot no. >=.

All this is but a fraction of what graced the walls of Wittert’s houses. It goes without saying that he was an important and illustrious art lover. However, he distinguished himself in one way from other art lovers. Unlike the majority of collec-tors in the beginning of the eighteenth century, Cornelis Wit-tert van Valkenburg did not sell much, if anything, from his own art collection. If Jan van Beuningen and Jacques Mey-ers took pleasure in receiving noblemen and showing them their richly stocked art rooms, this Rotterdammer avoided drawing attention to himself. Arnold Houbraken and Ja-cob Campo Weyerman visited numerous leading art lovers and gentlemen-dealers, penning a number of paragraphs on their experiences, but they make no mention whatsoever of Wittert van Valkenburg. The same is true of the travel jour-nal kept by the Von UB enbach brothers. The Rotterdam no-bleman seems to have been a stranger to them too.

en maid is now in the Louvre and the Doctor’s visit hangs in Angers,6; and cost !7>; and =;; guilders respectively. Oth-er works by Leiden fi jnschilders in Wittert’s collection, such as the Portrait of a couple (fi g. >;) and the Old violinist, were by Frans . van Mieris,6! which went under the hammer for 6:> and <;; guilders. At the Quirijn van Biesum auction, Wittert bought a painting by Jan Steen depicting The wrath of Ahasuerus (fi g. >!).6: According to the catalogue, a version of the Rest of the Holy Family on the fl ight into Egypt, also owned by the Rotter-damer, was painted by Steen and Jan Lievens.67

!' Nicolas Poussin, Furius Camillus and the schoolmaster of Falerii, canvas, <! x !77 cm, Pasadena, Norton Simon Foundation, inv. no. F !=6;, !? P (B7, lot no. ?)

<<

von Schönborn at the Het Loo auction. The elector was not amused. When he once again put a spanner in the works for Lothar Franz in !6!< and bought Van Dyck’s Portrait of Jo-han 333 van Nassau-Siegen and his family (fi g. !!?), the elector snapped, and reviled his court painter as an ass for letting the opportunity slip through his fi ngers. Perhaps this ex-plains why Wittert preferred to collect without undue fan-fare.

Be that as it may, in the course of the years Wittert assem-bled a limited yet exquisite cabinet of purchases made from some of Holland’s most distinguished collections, such as those of William ... and Jacques Meyers. The auction in !677 even drew the attention of Robert Walpole. It remains con-jecture, but Wittert seems to have collected for his own plea-sure, thereby diB erentiating himself from virtually all oth-er Dutch art enthusiasts. In this he was prepared to go very far indeed. As mentioned above, he outbid Lothar Franz

!( Nicolas Poussin, Nymph, satyr, faun and cupids, canvas, =@.> x 6>.> cm, Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (B7, lot no. >)

!) Gerard Dou, Dentist pulling out a girl’s tooth, panel, 7? x ::.> cm, Dr O. Hoste collection (Bruges, !=<7) (B7, lot no. :6)

<=

"* Frans . van Mieris, Portrait of a couple [Mr Brouwer and his wife?], panel, :>.6 x :;.> cm, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art, John G. Johnson collection (B7, lot no. 7!)

=;

ate Quirijn van Biesum sheds a great deal of light on the con-noisseurs then active in Rotterdam. The city’s substantial in-volvement in the international art trade also becomes clear in the context of the Het Loo auction. Rotterdam was home to two prominent art dealers, each authoritative in their own area. Jacques Meyers operated in the highest market seg-ment and supplied the European royal courts; Van Biesum provisioned the average buyer and did chores for Meyers. By joining forces, they sold paintings to people from every station in life. Their stock ranged from shopworks costing a few guilders to masterpieces worth thousands.

U%,.2 %#1, Jacques Meyers was the only Rotterdam col-lector to have been subject to some investigation. J.G. van Gelder’s !=6? article on Meyers in the Rotterdams Jaarboekje has served as the standard for all publications on Rotterdam collecting at the end of the Golden Age.6? All subsequent texts have relied on it to a greater or lesser extent and pro-vided little new information.6> In this chapter, I substantial-ly expand on the image sketched by Van Gelder on the basis of new source material, placing the international art dealing of Meyers and other Dutch art lovers in a fresh perspective. A more thorough analysis of Meyers and his business associ-

8 . )'*G-$4 3$9$&4 '%( G-.&.)% A'% 8.$4-3 : ,+$ .%,$&%',.#%'2 '&, ,&'($ .% &#,,$&('3

4$5'&',$ 1#&2(4, 3-,-'2 .%,$&$4,4

)'*G-$4 3$9$&4’ *-&&.*-2-3 – Like so many merchants in Holland, Jacques Meyers came from the Southern Nether-lands.6@ He was, and always remained, a Catholic and main-tained close contacts with his immediate family in Brussels, Antwerp and Ghent throughout his life. He married twice. On 7! March !@<< he wed Margareta van der Monde, and nine years later – two years after Margareta died – Meyers married Catherina Sallet from Antwerp.66

Meyers made a fortune as a merchant, his profession as given in notarial deeds. He dealt chiefl y in wine and other luxury goods in the Southern Netherlands, the Bordeaux region, Rijsel (Lille) and Great Britain.6< In this, he worked with the by now familiar fi rm of Andries Pels and Sons.6= Along with his positions as chartering broker and ship own-er he also made a fortune with trade in A#* capital and in bonds. Banking was a third source of income. For instance, Jacob Noordhey – the brother-in-law of Adriaen Paets and organiser of his auction – owed Meyers more than !@,;;; guilders at ? percent interest in !6;>.<;

In addition to paintings, luxury items and paper curren-cy, Jacques Meyers also owned much real estate inside and outside the city ramparts.<! In Rotterdam itself he had four houses with adjoining grounds and outside of the Schiedam Gate he cultivated rare fl owers and orange trees at a coun-try manor.<: His most prominent place of residence in the city, where he died, was ‘located on the north side of the Wijn haven, extending to behind the Wijnstraat’ and boast-ed wall decorations by Johannes Glauber and ceiling paint-

ings by Elias van Nijmegen.<7 Moreover, he owned substan-tial country estates with a cloister, houses and farmlands in Dommelen, south of Eindhoven. On :? April !6!@, he bought yet another house with a garden and two garden houses in The Hague.<? All toll, this amounts to a more than substan-tial capital in real estate.

Yet all of this represented only a fraction of his total wealth. The list of goods found in the house where he died attest to the luxurious surroundings in which Meyers lived.<> Gold, silver and diamonds were everywhere and paintings hung even in the maidservant’s room. Jacques Meyers was a well-read man with a small library and maps on the walls.<@ He had city atlases by Blaeu, ‘a Halma French and German dic-tionary’ and books of all size.<6 He kept his miniatures and drawings in a portfolio (meridiaan papierboek). A particu-larly interesting object in the estate was located ‘In the room behind the hallway’ (In de kamer agter de gang), namely ‘the easel for paintings’ (de ezel voor schilderijen).<< On it he placed the pictures that were scrutinised by the experts. ‘In this room was a black case on a painter’s easel, which the host opened with a key, and in which I saw an elegant-ly carved frame, with the work itself [Virgin and child by Cor-reggio] covered by a green silk curtain, which when opened, obligingly revealed the artistic scene to the curious gaze of the eager onlookers,’ according to Jacob Campo Weyer-man after he had called on Meyers.<= The estate inventory of !6:7, from which all of this can be deduced, constitutes the

=!

françois & fl amend, composé sur le modèle des diction-aires de Richelet [...] Dat is, het groot Fransch en Neder-duitsch woordenboek. Eerst ontworpen door C. Rouxel en F. Halma [...] verbetert en herstelt en in orde gebracht door François Halma, Amsterdam !6;<. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. 7?>. According to the notary, a catalogue of the library was going to be printed. To date this has not been found.

((. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. 7!=-7:!.

(). ‘In die kamer stont een zwart kasje op een schil-dereseltje, het welk den Traktant opende met een sleutel, en waar in ik een cierlyk gebeeldhouw-de lyst zag staan, zynde het stukje zelfs [Ma-donna met kind van Correggio] bedekt met het voorhangsel van een groen zyde gordyntje, dat opgeschooven zynde, het konstafereel ten bes-ten gaf aan de nieuwsgierige blikken der graage konstkykers.’ Weyerman !6:=-!6@=, vol. ..., pp. 7:7-7:6.

)*. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. :::; deed :7@, Documents concerning the settlement of the will of Qui-rijn van Biesum, #! November #$!!, pp. !:>:-!:>7.

)#. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. :::; deed :7@, Documents concerning the settlement of the will of Quir-ijn van Biesum, #! November #$!!, pp. !:>:-!:>7. Dan-saert !=7:, pp. !77, !7< and !@6.

)$. Incidentally, this is still the case.)%. Delmarcel !=<>, pp. :=-??.

followed in the catalogue of Antiquariaat Forum, where it was oB ered for sale in :;;?: ‘Inventa-ris van den boedel en de nalatenschap die wijlen de heer Jacques Meyers in sijn leven koopman ge-woont hebbende binnen Rotterdam in de Wijn-straat, en aldaer op den vijfentwintigsten septem-ber des jaers !6:! overleden, metterdoot ontruijmt ende nagelaten heeft, zijnde in geschrifte gestelt ten sterfhuijze door den notaris Gommer van Bor-tel. (Rotterdam, !6:=). Folio (7!> x :;> mm).’

($. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. !=7-!==.

(%. ‘gelegen aan de noordzijde van de wijnhaven, strekkende tot achter in de wijnstraat.’ Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. !=7-!==. Van Gelder !=6?, p. !<!; Fremantle !=6>, pp. ??-?>.

(!. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !@:7 deed (", Deed concerning the trade of Jacques Meyers. The Hague, Hague Municipal Archive, NADH, inv. no. @=7 p. ::>, Deed of the purchase of a house by Jacques Meyers, :? April !6!@.

(". Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. :=7 B .

(&. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. 7:;.

('. ‘dictionarium van halma frans en Duits.’ Claude Rouxel and François Halma, Le grand dictionaire

'!. Van Gelder !=6?, pp. !@6-!<7.'". Gaehtgens !=<6, pp. ?<->=; Delahay & Schadee

!==?, pp. 7!-?:.'&. Part of the biographical information is pub-

lished in Van Gelder !=6?, pp. !@6-!<7. He came from Sint-Truiden. Rotterdam, GAR, DTB regis-ters, inv. no. T !>.;>7. See also the online digital genealogy: www.rotterdam.digitalestamboom.nl.

''. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Es-tate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#.

'(. For example, Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !@!< deed :, !?!, !@>, !<:, !<>, Deed concerning the trade of Jacques Meyers. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !@:: deed :=, !!:, !6>, Deed concerning the trade of Jacques Meyers. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !@:; deed 6, Deed concerning the trade of Jacques Mey-ers. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !@<: deed !6<, Deed concerning the trade of Jacques Meyers. Rotter-dam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !@<7, ?!, Deed concern-ing the trade of Jacques Meyers. These are but a few of many examples.

'). Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !@<6 deed !7=, Deed concerning the trade of Jacques Meyers.

(*. Van Gelder !=6?, p. !6<. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !@:: deed :<7, Deed concerning the trade of Jacques Meyers.

(#. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. >=-?!?. There is a transcript of this that was once owned by Josua van Belle Junior, another leading Rotterdam collector. It was described as

ron, traded with the Rotterdam native from Paris. The broth-ers’ social signifi cance should not be underestimated. Jean bore the title of agent-general in Brussels for the Knights Hospitaller of St John – also known as the Order of Malta.=! A better calling card for audiences with the highest Catholic noblemen was unimaginable. Founded during the crusades in !!!7, this order was the most important social network of just about all of the high, ancient noble families in southern Europe. Their base of power was on Malta and virtually ev-ery ruling Catholic monarch was a member of the society.=: Moreover, the grand masters and their courtiers in La Valet-ta kept up their end on the art market. In !6;; the ‘Orde van Sint-Jan van Jeruzalem’ bought a series of wall hangings af-ter old designs by Rubens from the weaver Jodocus de Vos in Brussels through the agency of Boscheron’s predeces-sor.=7 With the title of agent-general, Jean Boscheron also received the best possible recommendation for conducting business with the ancient Catholic European nobility. Mey-ers undoubtedly also profi ted from this. The ‘bundle of pa-pers concerning the matter of Malta’ found in Jacques Mey-ers’ ‘oC ce’ (bondel papieren rakende de zake van Malta die op het negotiecomptoir) suggests that he served as the or-

most important source for our knowledge of Jacques Mey-ers’ art dealing practices. The inventory of moveable and im-moveable property was occasioned by a dispute over the in-heritance between Maria Meyers, a daugther from his fi rst marriage, and the children from his second one. The many outstanding debts aB ord a fi ne image of his contacts and trading network. Jacques Meyers’ circle of friends and ac-quaintances speaks volumes with respect to his prestige and infl uence in the highest international echelons. This certain-ly applies to his dealing in art. The following is an overview of this network. It is a long list of names, which I wish to convey straightaway to make clear how Meyers functioned as a spider in an international web. Most of the individuals are also discussed later.

)'*G-$4 3$9$&4’ %$,1#&" – An overview of Meyers’ in-ternational contacts must begin with the Boscheron broth-ers. They were undoubtedly his most important business contacts and friends. While Jean – or Johannes – Boscheron bought art and other luxury items in the Southern Nether-lands, particularly in Brussels and Brabant, Meyers did the same for him in Holland.=; Jean’s brother, François Bosche-

=:

)'. ‘vierendertig zoo groote, middelslag, als kleine stukken schilderij met vergulde lijsten waarvan eenige zijn gezegeld met een signet in rood lak,’ Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. 7!=, 77! and 7??. Van Gelder !=6?, p. !6=.

)(. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. :<=-:=;. Van Gelder !=6?, p. !<;. There was an Edward Browne (!@??-!6;<) who visited the Re-public in !@@<, and whose travel diary was pub-lished. However, he had already passed away (Browne & Leeuwe Dirkx !@<:). I could not identi-fy this namesake.

)). Duverger :;;?.

)!. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. 76!.

)". François Boscheron in Paris can perhaps be identifi ed with the poet and biographer ‘Bosche-ron’ who was the leading correspondent in Paris of the Journal Littéraire and who wrote a biography of Philippe Quinault. Brooks !=66, pp. !=-:<. Little else is known about him.

)&. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. !?!-!?7.

"# Jan Steen, The wrath of Ahasuerus, canvas, !:< x !@@.> cm, Birmingham, The University of Birmingham, The Barber Institute of Fine Arts (B7, lot no. @;)

=7

where he died.=6 The seal was that of the agent-general of the Order of Malta and the paintings, along with some oth-er pictures in the house, belonged to Jean Boscheron. Other works with shared ownership were stored with their factor, Edward Browne, in London.=<

Jean Boscheron was not Jacques Meyers’ only important business partner in the Southern Netherlands with contacts with the Order of Malta. Francisco-Jacomo van den Berghe, a Ghent art lover and buyer, also had such connections and supplied quite a few paintings to Meyers and Van Biesum.== Van den Berghe ran a business in paintings from the Flem-ish city. Gillis van der Vennen, an art dealer from Brussels, served as his errand boy conveying paintings back and forth between Paris and Amsterdam. On these journeys he regu-larly stayed over in Rotterdam. Van Biesum was their prin-

der’s Northern-Netherlandish agent.=? François Boscheron doubtless held equally prominent positions in Paris aB ord-ing Meyers a foot in the door both in the Southern Nether-lands and at the French court.=>

Whatever the case may be, Jacques Meyers found excel-lent art dealing partners in the Boscheron brothers. This is bolstered by the fact that after Meyers’ death, Jean Bosche-ron had the right to sell privately or publicly all of the paint-ings left in the house of the deceased. Evidently, he felt that an auction was the best option, for the lion’s share of the col-lection went under the hammer in !6::. He kept some un-known paintings with him in Brussels to dispose of person-ally.=@ Even then, not everything was sold. In !6:7, two years after Meyers’ death, there were still ‘thirty-four large, me-dium, and small paintings with gilded frames, several of which are sealed with a signet in red lacquer,’ in the house

"$ Nicolas Poussin, Apollo and the Muses on Mount Parnassus, canvas, !?> x !=6 cm, Madrid, Museo del Prado, inv. no. :7!7 (B?, cat. no. ?)

=?

in Gramont and Meyers’ collections should come as no sur-prise. His father had given the duc de Gramont the afore-mentioned series with The story of Amor and Psyche by Luca Giordano.!!;

Not everyone who worked with Meyers belonged to the Eu-ropean aristocracy, but usually did hold high oC ces, such as Jan Frans Douven and his son Bartholomeus.!!! Jan Frans Douven, who came from Roermond, was court painter in Düsseldorf in !@<:.!!: In this position he came into contact with the highest European nobility and had access to nu-merous royal collections. He was keeper of the art cabinet in Düsseldorf, in which capacity he also travelled to Vienna, Italy, Denmark and several German principalities. Douven, who was obviously familiar with art dealing in the Repub-lic, also travelled throughout the Low Countries on various occasions. On these trips he bought works of art for his em-ployer, who was collecting intensively in these years.!!7

Was Douven’s outstanding debt (@7<@ guilders) to Mey-ers somehow related to this? Probably, for around !6:7 there was still a stock of art in Meyers’ house in which they both had a share. ‘On the fi rst fl oor above in the small room; @> paintings by Van Poelenburgh in gilded and black frames, for half of which Mr J.Fr. Douven at Düsseldorf is to be com-pensated,’ the notary’s clerk recorded in the estate invento-ry.!!? Meyers fulfi lled an important role for the Elector Pala-tine, as becomes clear from his intervention when a delivery of works of art from Brussels encountered some diC cul-ties.!!> Because shipment of a number of paintings by Vero-nese was not forthcoming, the elector charged other agents in Italy to look for quality works by this Venetian master. Meyers fl ew into a rage at the missed opportunity and gave Van den Berghe, who had mediated, a dressing-down. Bartholomeus Douven fi rst lived with his father in Düs-seldorf, and later became court painter to the Elector of Co-logne.!!@ In January !6:! he pawned six of his paintings to Jacques Meyers in exchange for a loan of :;?; guilders.!!6 Meyers knew Douven well. He had previously hired the young painter to make copies of two pendants by Gerard Dou (fi gs. >7 and >?) in his cabinet, the originals of which are now in St Petersburg.!!< Meyers and Bartholomeus Dou-ven were clearly closely connected, which also gave the Rot-terdam art dealer access to the Prince-Bishop of Cologne.

By now it should be clear that as a merchant, banker and an art dealer, Jacques Meyers had the best imaginable interna-tional contacts. Of this there is no doubt. The names just listed represent but a fraction of the countless art lovers at home and abroad who took the trouble of visiting the mer-chant’s cabinet. One of them was the writer-painter Jacob

cipal partner in the Dutch Republic and often took care of practical matters. Meyers was their wealthiest customer in the city on the Maas River. For instance, he bought twelve copper panels with the Story of Amor and Psyche (fi g. @;) by Lu-ca Giordano from Van der Vennen for 6;;; guilders, which I discuss extensively below.!;; He acquired Rubens’ Christ, John and two angels (fi g. @7) in the same way.!;! Meyers later bought much more from him, including Van Dyck’s Self-por-trait with a sunfl ower (fi g. <=) and the Lamentation of Christ (fi g. !7;).!;:

Jacques Meyers also introduced Boscheron and Van den Berghe to other prominent collectors in the Republic. The burgomaster of The Hague, the notorious art collector Sam-uel van Huls, did business with both of them. Adriaen Bout, the agent of Johann Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg traded art with them, and this applied as well to a third collector of standing who appears as a debtor in Meyers’ ledger, name-ly ‘griC er Fagel’.!;7 An important collector of art and antiq-uities, François Fagel the Elder – clerk of the States General – was not unknown in Rotterdam. He was personally ac-quainted with Van der WerB and Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck, and thus also most certainly with Jacques Meyers.

Regents were not Meyers’ only friends and business rela-tions. If one wonders whether Samuel van Huls bought paintings from him, the same question arises upon see-ing the notarial deed dated !! December !6!@ in which King Frederick .A of Denmark, at that moment sojourning in The Hague, admitted owing Meyers 7;;; guilders.!;?

In addition to the Danish ruler, various other monarchs were also indebted to the Rotterdam dealer. Maximilian .. Emanuel von Wittelsbach, for example, had dozens of out-standing bills and thus must have been one of Meyers’ major customers.!;> Was he an unoC cial agent of the elector who also collected art passionately? That they knew each other is beyond dispute. Meyers, it turns out, was well acquaint-ed with Johannes Franciscus Matthias, Baron von Heyden-feldt.!;@ This nobleman was Maximilian .. Emanuel’s envoy to the Republic during the War of the Spanish Succession. Together with the elector himself, Meyers served as a wit-ness at the baptism of Von Heydenfeldt’s son in Rotterdam on < November !6!:.!;6

Another elector, Friedrich Wilhelm . of Brandenburg, al-so owed Meyers money, as did King Philip A of Spain in the amount of !>;; guilders.!;< This was certainly related to the acquisition of paintings by Nicolas Poussin, among others. For instance, Poussin’s Apollo and the Muses on Mount Parnas-sus (fi g. >:), which Meyers had acquired from the cabinet of the duc de Gramont, entered the Spanish royal collection before !6?@.!;= That the Spanish king displayed an interest

=>

Poelenburch met vergulde en swarte lijsten, waarinne den heer J. Fr. Douve te Dusseldorp de eene helfte is te compenserende.’ Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. 7:<. Van Gelder !=6?, pp. !@6-!<7. Most of these paintings probably came from the collection of Poelenburch’s great-est patron, Willem Vincent van Wyttenhorst. I am grateful to Nicolette Sluijter-SeijB ert for draw-ing my attention to this. See Sluijter-SeijB ert !=<?, pp. 77-7?.

##". Duverger :;;?, pp. !7<-!7=.##&. Houbraken !6!<-!6:!, vol. ..., p. ?;:; Van

Gool !6>;-!6>!, vol. ., p. !7@; Thieme and Becker !=:!-!=>;, vol. .E, pp. >!=-?:;.

##'. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. ::?. Six works by the young Douven were in-deed auctioned in !6::. See Appendix B?.

##(. Korthals Altes :;;7a, p. 7>. See Appendix B?, lot nos. :7! and =:-=7.

Catholic, Leeuwenstraat). See also the online digital genealogy: www.rotterdam.digitalestamboom.nl.

#*(. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. :7?-:7>.

#*). See Appendix B?, cat. no. ?. See Meyers !6!?, pp. @-6; Blunt !=@@, p. =;. On the collection of the duc de Gramont, see BonnaB é !<<?, p. !:<; and Schnapper !==?, pp. 7<<-7<=. Doubts about the provenance have been voiced, yet the fact that some paintings from the Meyers collection found their way to Spain in just this time eliminates all doubt.

##*. Van Gelder !=6?, p. !67. See Appendix B?, cat. no. :7.

###. Levin !=;@, pp. !:7-:?=; Levin !=!!, pp. !-!<>.##$. Houbraken !6!<-!6:!, vol. ..., p. 7?< B .; Weyer-

man !6:=-!6@=, vol. ..., p. !<: B .; Thieme and Beck-er !=:!-!=>;, vol. .E, p. >:;.

##%. Möhlig !==7, pp. :@-??. See Chapter ?C.##!. ‘Op d’eerste verdieping boven in ’t kleyn

kamertje: vijfenzestig stukjes schildery van Van

#**. Duverger :;;?, p. !:@. See Appendix B?, cat. no. :7.

#*#. See Appendix B?, cat. no. !6.#*$. Duverger :;;?, pp. !?7-!??. For a complete

overview, see Appendix B?.#*%. Duverger :;;?; The Hague, Hague Municipal

Archive, NADH, inv. no. !@==, pp. :>=-:@;, Objec-tion to a letter of exchange, ) June #$"$. On Van Huls as a collector, see Plomp :;;!. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. :6>. Heringa !=<!, pp. >>-!;=.

#*!. The Hague, Hague Municipal Archive, NADH, inv. no. @=7 p. >6=, Acknowledgement of debt by the King of Denmark to Jacques Meyers, ## December #$#(.

#*". Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' september #$!#, pp. ::6-:7?.

#*&. Schutte !=<7, p. !<>.#*'. Rotterdam, GAR, DTB registers, < Novem-

ber !6!:, inv. no. 7>, Baptism of Joseph Maximilianus Emanuel Mathias Johannes van Heydenfeldt (Roman

"% Gerard Dou, A nude woman combing her hair, panel, :> x != cm, St Petersburg, Hermitage (B?, lot no. =7)

"! Gerard Dou, A nude woman washing her feet, panel, :?.> x != cm, St Petersburg, Hermitage (B?, lot no. =:)

=@

I saw the likenesses of the above-mentioned gen-tleman and his wife, both by Theodoor Netscher, life-size’ (Ten huize van de konstlievenden Jaques Meyers, voornaam Koopman tot Rotterdam heb ik eenmaal de Konterfytsels van dien bovengenoem-de Heer en van zyn Huisvrouw gezien, beiden by Theodoor Netscher gekonterfyt, levensgrote). Weyerman !6:=-!6@=, vol. .A, pp. !>:-!>7.

#$$. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. :@7. Simons !==;.

#$%. He was the son of the much more famous painter Caspar Netscher (!@7=-!@<?).

#$!. Weyerman !6:=-!6@=, vol. .A, pp. !?;-!?<.#$". The close link between Matthew Decker and

Theodoor Netscher emerges from the latter’s will. Simons !==;, p. :!. Decker evidently made Netscher wealthy through a good investment.

#$&. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !?, Letter from James Brydges to Jacques Meyers, !" April #$#(, p. !7. See Appendix C:.

#$'. A good and extensive article has been devot-ed to this collection and its history, see StuB mann !=@<, pp. !!-!7=. A substantial portion of it later found its way to the Hermitage in St Petersburg (Empress Catherine the Great).

#$(. StuB mann !=@<, p. 7?.#$). Elector Johann Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg

also displayed an interest in buying this collec-tion, but the negotiations fell through. This might have been due to the sudden interest of the duc d’Orléans. Möhlig !==7, p. 7!.

#%*. He noted this in a letter to the Duke of Devon-shire. StuB mann !=@<, p. :=.

#%#. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. ::?. Jacques Meyers’ ledger contained another statement of arrears on the part of Crozat, namely !!: guilders and !6 stuivers. Van Gelder mistakenly noted that Meyers sent paintings by Bartholomeus Douven to Paris. Van Gelder !=6?, p. !6<.

#%$. StuB mann !=@<, p. !7:. See Appendix B?, cat. no. !:.

#%%. StuB mann !=@<, p. !:?.#%!. Glorieux :;;:a, pp. :7?-:7>.#%". Duverger :;;?, pp. :!<-::;.#%&. Gaehtgens !=<6, p. ?><; Van Gelder !=6?, p. !<:.#%'. Adriaen van der WerB , The judgement of Paris,

canvas, @!.< x ??.< cm, London, Dulwich Picture Gallery.

#%(. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. :@<.

#%). Schutte !=<7, p. ?;:.#!*. Collins Baker & Baker !=?=, p. 6=.#!#. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>,

Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. ::!. The painting was auctioned together with the Meyers collection in !6:: (see Appendix B?, lot no. >=), at which time it fetched a modest 6> guil-ders.

lyk om met hem te spyzen.’ Weyerman !6:=-!6@=, vol. ..., pp. 7:7-7:6. Weyerman meant !6!< and not !@!<.

#$*. ‘Een obligatie onder de hand van J. Weijermans en ten zijnen lasten, groot vijfhondert gulden, in dato !> november !6!6 [...] inhoudende pand met-ter minne van drie stukjes schilderij.’ Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. ::;-::!.

#$#. According to Jacob Campo Weyerman, Theo-door Netscher also painted the portraits of Mey-ers and his wife. ‘At the home of the art-loving Jacques Meyers, leading merchant in Rotterdam,

##). ‘In het jaar duyzent seshondert achtien stak ik over naar Engelant, [...] toen ik genootzaakt was van my eenige dagen door tegenwind op te hou-den tot Rotterdam, welke gelegendheyt ik waar-nam om het vermaart Konstkabinet van Jaques Meyers, Koopman en Konstkooper in die Stad woonachtig, te gaan kyken. Die Heer had de be-leefdheyt van my dat heerlyk Kabinet na genoegen te laaten zien, en dewyl ik het geluk had van hem te behaagen door myne openhartige konstkennis, alzo ik verscheyde konsttafereelen voor onecht keurde, dewelke hem voor echte origineelen waa-ren op de mouw gespelt, verzogt hy my vriende-

"" Adriaen van der WerB , The judgment of Paris, canvas, @!.< x ??.< cm, London, Dulwich Picture Gallery

=6

this particular trip Crozat stopped in Rotterdam where he met Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck, among others, and bought paintings from Jacques Meyers.!7; In his estate, the nota-ry found an .#- concerning a promise of payment of :<;; guilders signed by Crozat and dated :! March !6:!.!7! Cro-zat certainly took one work with him back to Paris, namely a Nymph, satyr, faun and cupids by Nicolas Poussin (fi g. ?<).!7: Whether the Temptation of St Anthony by David Teniers also came from the Meyers collection cannot be confi rmed, be-cause the painting in question later vanished from the Her-mitage and I do not know the measurements of the version in the Rotterdammer’s collection.!77 Another acquaintance of Meyers in Paris was the artist and art dealer André Tram-blin. He taught at the Académie de Saint-Luc and ran an art shop on the Quai de Gesvres.!7? He was an associate of both Francisco-Jacomo van den Berghe and Boscheron.!7> In a let-ter, Tramblin thanked Meyers for having supplied a paint-ing by Adriaen van der WerB in !6!=.!7@ This depiction of The judgment of Paris (fi g. >>) went down very well with the French art lovers and instantly found a buyer in the person of the duc d’Orléans.!76 Because Van der WerB was such an evident success in the French capital, Tramblin ordered fi ve more panels, this time from the master himself.

Two lesser well-known fi gures are also worth mentioning as business partners of Jacques Meyers. The fi rst is Johan Hallungius.!7< Hallungius earned his living as solliciteur-militair and agent-resident in The Hague for the princes of Saxony-Gotha-Altenburg, among others. In !6!? he was ac-credited by August Wilhelm von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüt-tel as ambassador to Great Britain.!7= I mention him because he traded art with James Brydges of Chandos, oB ering him Tintoretto’s Last Supper which, incidentally, the British no-bleman turned down.!?; The second is Johan Dirven. The identity of this man – who had pawned a Virgin and Child by Correggio to Jacques Meyers in exchange for @;; guilders in gold ingots – is a mystery solved by Jacob Campo Weyer-man.!?! His account is so illustrative of Meyers as a person and an art dealer, that I herewith give the fl oor to this writ-er: ‘During supper he asked me if I had ever seen a painting brushed by the great Coreggio. To which I answered no, and he countered by saying he would let me see it. This promise fi lled my soul with such excessive joy that I could not refrain from blurting out a question in the fi rst fl ush of pleasure; a painting by Correggio sir? Yes a painting by Correggio, sir, he answered with a smirk, the equal of which you will probably not encounter in any region. [...] Well, Campo, how do you like this jewel of art? I answered quite candidly: Not at all, my Lord, and if you paid more than the worth of the frame, the case and the curtain, then you have been heinously de-

Campo Weyerman. ‘In the year !@!<, I crossed to England, [...] when I was obliged by contrary winds to spend a few days in Rotterdam, whereupon I took the opportunity of vis-iting the celebrated art cabinet of Jacques Meyers, merchant and art seller in this city. This gentleman had the courtesy of allowing me to view that delightful cabinet at my pleasure and while I had the fortune of pleasing him with my open-hearted knowledge of art, I vetted various pictures as false which had been sold to him as originals, he kindly asked me to sup with him.’!!= At Jacques Meyers’ death in !6::, Wey-erman still had a few accounts to settle: ‘an informal I.O.U. by J. Weijermans, and to his account a full >;; guilders, dat-ed !> November !6!6 [...] consisting of three paintings as col-lateral.’!:; Another painter with a substantial debt to Mey-ers was Theodoor Netscher.!:! In the estate inventory, the notary’s clerk recorded that Meyers’ ledger contained an en-try to the eB ect that the heirs of Theodoor Netscher in The Hague had yet to pay !!<@ guilders.!:: The milieu in which Theodoor Netscher occasionally spent time partly overlaps that of his creditor. The Van Wassenaars, lords of Duiven-voorde, extended major commissions for family portraits to the young Netscher.!:7 This distinguished noble fami-ly, which owned a signifi cant art collection, was also part of Meyers’ circle of acquaintances. That they had recourse to Netscher is hardly surprising knowing that he had spent al-most twenty years in the Paris salons, establishing a repu-tation there as a portraitist.!:? The King of Prussia, one of Meyers’ ‘customers’, summoned the young Netscher to his court. The Duke of Devonshire, who later bought Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck’s collection of drawings, also employed him for some time. The same applies to Matthew Decker, one of London’s richest citizens and a good friend of James Brydg-es of Chandos.!:> And so it is hardly a coincidence that Mey-ers relied on Netscher to accompany several paintings he was sending to England for inspection (by Chandos, among others).!:@

In addition to princes, artists and Dutch regents, a few lead-ing foreign collectors also feature as debtors in Jacques Mey-ers’ estate inventory. One of them was Pierre Crozat in Par-is.!:6 In the shadow of the French court, this wealthy banker assembled one of the most important French collections of all times. He was a confi dent of Philippe .., duc d’Orléans and regent of France, on whose behalf in !6!; he negotiated the acquisition of what was left of the collections of Chris-tina of Sweden. To this end he made protracted trips to Ita-ly and the United Provinces.!:< In !6:!, for example, he trav-elled to Amsterdam to tend to bank matters for the duc d’Orléans. The duke was in dire need of liquid assets to con-clude the purchase of Christina of Sweden’s paintings.!:= On

=<

#!'. To date, Van Gelder’s article on Meyers has al-so constituted the point of departure with re-gard to Van Biesum’s business. Van Gelder !=6?, pp. !@6-!<7.

#!(. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. ::!6 deed 6?, Estate inventory of Quirijn van Biesum, &" April #$!", pp. >@:-@6=. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. ::!<, Settlement of the partition of the estate of Quirijn van Biesum, #! July #$!#, pp. =??-!;6:.

#!). Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. ::!6 deed 6?, Estate inventory of Quirijn van Biesum, &" April #$!", pp. >@:-@6=.

#"*. ‘’t west eijnde van de Hoogstraat en op de zuijdzijde van de Houttuin.’ Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. ::!6 deed 6?, Estate inventory of Qui-rijn van Biesum, &" April #$!", pp. >@:-@6=.

#"#. I found very few notarial deeds in the course of my investigation.

#"$. Von UB enbach !6>?, vol. ..., p. 77:. See Appen-dix B?, lot no. 6?.

dien vroomen Priester Dirven, die op de zelve ma-nier ’s Konings roermaaker Micharius had opge-ligt voor een kapitaal van ses duyzent guldens, en daar door dien deugdzaamen Geldersman had berooft van de vruchten zyns arbeyds, en van ge-heel zyn werkzaam leeven. Den Konstliefhebber Jaques Meyers kruyste zich van boven tot onder over dien doortrapten en eerloozen Kapellaan van Eere; en na eenige andere diskoerssen nam ik myn afscheyt, en ik vertrok na myn Herberg om den oosten wind af te wachten.’ Weyerman !6:=-!6@=, vol. ..., pp. 7:7-7:6.

#!!. See Appendix B?, lot no. >=.#!". Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>,

Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. ::;-::!.

#!&. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. :@6-:@= and :=;-:=!. Schutte !=<7, pp. !?=-!>;.

#!$. ‘Over de maaltyd vroeg hy my; Of ik ooit een schil-dery gepenceelt by den grooten Coreggio had gezien? waar op ik repliceerde van Neen, en hy vervolgde, wel dan zal ik ’er uw een laaten kyken. Die belofte vervulde myn ziel met zulk eene onmaatige blydschap, dat ik my niet kon weerhouden van vraagsgewyze uyt te galmen in die eerste verukking; Een schildery van Coreggio, myn Heer? Ja een schildery van Coreggio, myn Heer, andwoorde hy mees-muylende, wiens wedergaa ghy mogelyk in geene andere Luchtstreeken zult ontmoeten. [...] Wel, Campo, hoe be-valje dat konstjuweel? en ik andwoorde vrymoediglyk; Gants slegt, myn Heer, en zoje’er iets boven de waarde van de lyst, het kastje, en het gordyntje hebt voor betaalt, benje ’er op een schelmachtige wyze mee bedroogen. Hy zweeg stil, en sprak; Laat ons in de Eetsaal gaan, en een fl es wyn drinken [...].’ Weyerman !6:=-!6@=, vol. ..., pp. 7:7-7:6.

#!%. ‘Na dat Meyers een eynde had gemaakt van die pandbeleening, begon ik hartiglyk te laghen [...] en ik verhaalde hem eenige byzonderheden van

G-.&.)% A'% 8.$4-3 – Meyers’ business partner, Quirijn van Biesum, came from another milieu altogether.!?6 When the German tourists, the Von UB enbach brothers, visited him in !6!!, he was still making a living as a baker, but de-voting ever more attention to dealing in paintings. Virtual-ly nothing is known about his life. He resided on the west side of the Botersloot in Rotterdam from where he ran his art shop.!?< He had two sons, Cornelis and Adriaen. Corne-lis did not survive his father, and in !6!= Adriaen was living in Isfahan, Persia.!?= He left behind a wife and three daugh-ters in Rotterdam. While the baker-art dealer managed to amass a certain amount of capital in his life, he certainly did not have the same social standing or wealth as his associate Jacques Mey-ers. In addition to the house on the Botersloot, he owned two properties with houses on ‘the west side of the Hoog-straat and on the south side of the Houttuin.’!>; For the rest, Quirijn van Biesum’s estate inventory gives little evidence of luxury. His collection of paintings, which was actually his stock, was his greatest capital. Unlike his well-heeled and in-fl uential contemporary, Meyers, Van Biesum rarely consult-ed a notary.!>! He did not have to issue procurations to give power of attorney to representatives in other countries. Nor did risky deals oblige him to guarantee contracts legally. During their visit to Van Biesum, the Von UB enbachs were shown a painting by Peter Paul Rubens, The raising of the Brazen Serpent (fi g. >@),!>: which he considered to be his fi nest piece. From the estate inventory drawn up after his death in !6:; we now know that Jacques Meyers owned half of this work. This detail vividly expresses the balance of power be-tween the two Rotterdam merchants. Van Biesum played

ceived. He kept silent, and then said: let us return to the din-ing room, and drink a glass of wine.’!?: Jacques Meyers then told Weyerman the story of an old chaplain by the name of Dirven, who had once invited him to visit his cabinet. After a tour through the various rooms they partook of a meal to-gether. During dinner the chaplain oB ered him the paint-ing by Correggio. He was willing to pawn it because he had fallen on hard times through a succession of misfortunes. Meyers agreed. ‘After Meyers had concluded the pawnage I began to laugh heartily,’ Weyerman continued, ‘and I re-counted some details about this pious Priest Dirven, who in the same way had swindled the king’s helmsman Micharius for a fortune of @;;; guilders, and so had robbed the virtu-ous man from Gelderland of the fruits of his labour, and of his entire working life. The art lover Jacques Meyers crossed himself from top to bottom about this scurrilous and un-scrupulous Chaplain of Honour; and after a few more dis-courses I took my leave, and went to my inn to await the east-ern wind.’!?7 The little painting was auctioned with the rest of the Meyers collection in !6:: and fetched 6> guilders.!?? Incidentally, Weyerman neglected to relate that he, too, had pawned three paintings to Meyers for a loan worth >;; guil-ders.!?>

In conclusion, I will list just a few more of Jacques Meyers’ customers. Their names and titles yet again confi rm the in-ternational status of his venture. The Cardinal of the Arch-bishopric of Malines, the Bishop of Antwerp, and Count Jo-hann Wenzel von Gallas, imperial ambassador in London and The Hague during the War of the Spanish Succession, all owed money to the Rotterdam art dealer and wine mer-chant.!?@

==

"& Peter Paul Rubens, The raising of the Brazen Serpent, panel, !>= x !?? cm, London, The Samuel Courtauld Trust, Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery, Princes Gate Collection (B?, lot no. 6?)

!;;

door Gerard Hoet, : vols., The Hague !6>:. Copy in the Amsterdam University Library, inv. no. UBM: !7!= E !6-!<.

#&'. Meyers !6!?. The only known copy of the cata-logue is in the library at the Rotterdam Munici-pal Archive (GAR). The archive bought it in !=67. Fritsch and Böhm had then just taken over the publishing house of Reinier Leers. Lankhorst !=<7, p. !:= B .

#&(. Appendix B? includes an overview of the Mey-ers collection, along with all of the descriptions from the collection catalogue.

#&). ‘On n’a pas jugé à propos de dresser cette Des-cription de Tableaux, selon les tems auxquels les Peintres qui les ont faits ont vêcu, ni selon les Rangs que les Connoisseurs donnent à leurs Ouvrages: mais, comme il y a dans ce Cabinet une Quantité de Tableaux du Poussin plus considéra-ble qu’aucune de celles qu’on a jamais vues, soit chez les Princes, soit chez les Particuliers, on a cru qu’on ne seroit pas mal de la comencer par ceux-là, & de la continuer par ceux de chaques Maitre, dont il y en a un plus grand nombre.’ Meyers !6!?.

before the death of Count Johann Wenzel von Gal-las (!6!=).

#"'. Höfl er !<@=, pp. 7-<.#"(. This was recently published by Erik Duverger.

See Duverger :;;?.#"). Duverger :;;?, pp. ?<, >@ B .#&*. Duverger :;;?, pp. !:?-!:@, !:=, !?6, !><.#&#. Duverger :;;?.#&$. See Chapter ?C.#&%. One wonders whether Van Biesum bought this

collection himself. In my view, Meyers was cer-tainly involved in this. After all, he had the capital Van Biesum lacked.

#&!. Duverger :;;?, p. !=@.#&". Duverger :;;?, pp. :;-:7.#&&. The copy of Gerard Hoet’s list of sales cata-

logues mentioned earlier kept in the UBA, Rare Books Department, lists the buyers for some auc-tions, including those at the Jacques Meyers sale. See Gerard Hoet, Catalogus of naamlyst van schil-deryen, met derzelver pryzen zedert een langen reeks van jaaren zoo in Holland als op andere plaatzen in het open-baar verkogt: Benevens een Verzameling van lysten van verscheyden nog in wezen zynde cabinetten / uytgegeven

#"%. Duverger :;;?, pp. !76-!7< and !?@.#"!. ‘Een stuk Schilderijen berustende te Weenen

onder de directie van Sr. Raison, Stalmeester van Hr. Den grave Gallas, zijnde de helfte gemeen toekomende aan dezen boedel, ende den boedel van Crijn van Biesem.’ Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. :=;-:=!.

#"". ‘Een Partije Schilderijen berustende tot Praag onder de directie van Dunbier, gemeen als boven toekomende.’ Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' Sep-tember #$!#, pp. :=;-:=!. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. ::!6 deed 6?, Estate inventory of Quirijn van Biesum, &" April #$!", pp. >@:-@6=. The paintings that had been sent were: ‘A Bacchanal by Guer-cino da Cento; Hans Frederick Elector of Saxony by Rubens; a doubting Thomas by Spagnoletto [Jusepe de Ribera]; by the same a St Jerome be-ing fed by ravens; [a work] by Van Balen, Brueghel [did] the landscape; a still life with fruit by Jan Da-vids de Heem; an Entombment of Christ by Bassa-no; a St Jerome by Caravaggio; triumph of children by Rubens; two pieces by Gerard Hoet; a snakebite by Rubens; a deer hunt by Rubens; a sacrifi ce by Rembrandt; a copy after Rubens; a beheading of Holophernes by Manfredo; a Giovanni Benedet-to Castiglione; a Bathsheba by Jan Lievens; Diane bathing by Jacob van Loo; a battle by Van der Meer; [a work] by Mosiae [?]; [a work] after Wouwer-man; [one] after Horemans; two battles by Broers; an Ovidius company; a copy after Caracci; a tron-ie in the manner of Van Dyck; a female tronie; a tronie by Levina; another one by Wouwerman, all due to the deceased’ (Een Bagenaal door Guarci-jn del Cento; Hans Frederik Ceurvorst van Saxen door Rubbens; Een door Spanjolet daar Thomas in de wonde steekt; Een dito Jeronimus, die gespijst wordt door Ravens; Een door van Baale, Brugel ’t Landschap; Een door Jan Davidse de Heem stil leven en vrugten; Een grafl egging Christus door Bassan; Een door Michelange Carvasio, Jeronimus; Triomph nadeed kinderen door Rubens; Door Ge-rard Hoet twee stuks; Slangebijting door Rubbens; Hertejagt, door Rubbens; Door Reijnbrant oB er-hande; Een Copije naar Rubbens; Een Manfredo onthoofding van Holifernus; Een Benedito Caste-lion; Een Batseba door Jan Lievense; Een door Ja-cob van Loo Bat van Diane; Van der Meer Batalies; Door Mosiae; Naar Wouwerman; Naar Hormans; Door Broers twee batalies; Ovidius gezelschappe; Een Copie naar Carats; Een Tronij de manier van van Dijk; Een vrouwe tronij; Een Tronij door Le-vina; Nog een van Wouwerman, den overleden in ’t geheel toekomende). The most important works were auctioned with Meyers’ collection in !6::. See Appendix B?.

#"&. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie !<6>-!=!:. On-line: http://mdz:.bib-bvb.de. The paintings were there already at the time of Quirijn van Biesum’s death. They were probably sent to Prague shortly

"' Description du cabinet de tableaux de Mr. Meyers, à Rotterdam, Rotterdam, !6!?

!;!

‘*'8.%$, ($ ,'82$'-E ($ 3&. 3$9$&4, H &#,,$&-('3’!@@ – Invaluable for the history of art commerce in the Republic is the catalogue Jacques Meyers had printed up by Fritsch and Böhm in Rotterdam in !6!?: Description du cabi-net de tableaux de Mr. Meyers, à Rotterdam (fi g. >6).!@6 While the acquisition of the only known copy of this catalogue by the Rotterdam Municipal Archive in !=67 stimulated J.G. van Gelder to write an article on Meyers’ collection, he did not analyse the text thoroughly nor did he investigate fully the vicissitudes of the collection, tracking down only a small por-tion of the paintings mentioned.!@< I propose analysing this catalogue because its layout is crucial to our understanding of the conventions in the international art trade in Holland at the end of the Golden Age.

It opens with an introduction explaining the layout of the publication: ‘We have deemed it inappropriate to draw up this Description of Pictures along the timelines in which the painters who made them lived, or the ranking that connois-seurs give their works. However, as this cabinet contains a quantity of paintings by Poussin more considerable than ev-er seen before, either in the collections of princes or in pri-vate hands, we found it felicitous to begin with those works, and continue with the masters by whom there is the largest number.’!@= Meyers immediately and unequivocally high-lighted the jewel in his collection. His group of Poussins was unique, and he knew it. He could not live up to the an-nouncement that the number of works by a given master

Because Quirijn van Biesum operated in a lower market seg-ment and could only hope to deal with people like Gallas with Meyers’ support, it is diC cult to determine the con-stellation of his own circle of acquaintances, his social net-work. Fortunately, his correspondence with the gentleman-dealer Francisco-Jacomo van den Berghe in Ghent has been preserved and Van Biesum divulges a great deal of informa-tion between the lines.!>< He turns out – and thus most like-ly Meyers as well – to have been well acquainted with Jan van Beuningen.!>= They corresponded, and traded the oc-casional painting. It is unimaginable that Van Beuningen did not inform them personally of the upcoming sale of the cabinet from Het Loo. In fact, Quirijn van Biesum knew al-most everybody who came to Amsterdam on that :@ of July !6!7. For instance, he had frequent contact with Willem van Grondesteyn who had bought those two wonderful paint-ings for Cornelis Wittert.!@; Together they arranged many acquisitions. He knew Adriaen Bout just as well.!@! Bout reg-ularly travelled from The Hague to Rotterdam and on those trips he invariably called on Van Biesum and Meyers. Bout was the agent of Johann Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg. He kept in touch with Meyers, regularly buying art from him. Above all, however, Bout was an art lover who shelled out vast amounts buying and selling pictures for and from his own collection.!@: He sold his entire collection of close to >; paintings to Van Biesum in !6!; for a tidy :;,;;; guilders.!@7

Jan Joost van Cossiau, who attended the auction on behalf of the Elector of Mainz, Lothar Franz, was also acquainted with Van Biesum and Meyers.!@? The Antwerp painter-art dealer Jan Pieter Bredael who turned up at the Oude zijds Herenlogement for the Het Loo auction was also part of this complex network.!@>

the local market and could only dream of the exclusive and lucrative agreements his patron entered into with rulers and regents and for which he ostensibly served as an errand boy. He went to collect paintings for Meyers and himself from Francisco-Jacomo van den Berghe in Ghent and accompa-nied shipments to the Elector Palatine, Johann Wilhelm, in Düsseldorf.!>7 And, these were not the only transactions by far. Together they sent dozens of paintings to Prague and Vi-enna: ‘A consignment of paintings deposited in Vienna un-der the supervision of Mr Raison, equerry of his lord, Count Gallas, half belonging to this estate, and half to the estate of Crijn van Biesum.’!>? Somewhat later, the notary’s clerk wrote the following while drafting Meyers’ estate inven-tory: ‘A consignment of paintings deposited in Prague un-der the supervision of Dunbier, co-owned as above.’!>> The person mentioned was none other than Johann Wenzel von Gallas – or his son Philip Joseph.!>@ In his day, Johann Wen-zel was an infl uential diplomat in the emperor’s service.!>6 He travelled often to The Netherlands as an ambassador and conducted negotiations during the War of the Spanish Suc-cession. And, he was stadholder of the province of Limburg in the Southern Netherlands for awhile in !6;=-!6!;. The Count of Gallas was a major builder. In Prague he renovat-ed the Baroque Clam-Gallas Palace as we now know it, and during his stay in Vienna he lived in the so-called Lobkowitz Palace. We must assume that the paintings were intended as decoration for these palaces. His son, however, was not fa-vourably disposed to anything the Rotterdam art lovers had sent. Rubens’ The raising of the Brazen Serpent (fi g. >@), Rem-brandt’s Adoration of the Magi (fi g. :@) and most of the other pictures were returned after !6!= and sold oB with the rest of Meyers’ collection in Rotterdam in !6::.

,+$ *#22$*,.#% A$&4-4 ,+$ 4,#*"

!;:

#'*. The Description makes no mention of the Poe-lenburchs, suggesting that he acquired them af-ter !6!?.

#'#. See Chapter :B.#'$. ‘Quelques Connoisseurs doutent néansmoins

qu’il soit de ce Peintre célebre.’ Meyers !6!?.#'%. Roger de Piles (De Piles !6!>) even recommend-

ed the use of prints for connoisseurship in the ti-tle of his book Abregé de la vie des peintres. Avec des re-fl exions sur leurs ouvrages, et un traité du peintre parfait, de la connoissance des desseins.

#'!. ‘pas si empâté de Couleur; mais il est fi ni jusques aux Extrémitez d’une maniere extraordi-naire, & ordonné aussi magnifi quement que le Su-jet la demande.’ Meyers !6!?.

#'". ‘Mais pour satisfaire les Curieux de ces fortes de Particularitez, il ne sera pas inutile de faire en peu de Mots leur Histoire, & de dire comment ils sont venus dans ce Cabinet. Mr. de Chantelou, Maitre d’Hôtel du Roi, Ami & Bienfaiteur du Pous-sin, lui demanda les Copies des Septs Sacremens qu’il avoit peints pour le Chevalier del Pozzo, & qui avoient fait beaucoup de Bruit à Rome; mais, le Poussin, rempli d’Amitié & de Reconnoissance pour Mr. de Chantelou, lui fait à loisir ceux don’t nous parlons. Il n’est pas possible de confronter ces Tableaux ensemble, pour en connoitre la Dif-férence; les uns se trouvant présentement à Rome, & les autres à Rotterdam: mais, si l’on prend la peine d’examiner les Estampes qu’on a gravées des uns & des autres, on verra facilement combien ceux-ci l’emportent sur les premiers.’ Meyers !6!?.

#'&. De Piles !6!>; Houbraken !6!<-!6:!.#''. Pomian !=<6, pp. !@7-!=?; Glorieux :;;:b;

McClellan !==@, pp. ?7=-?>7.#'(. Van Gelder !=6?, p. !6@.#'). San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6

vol. =, Letter from James Brydges to Walter Senserf, !% November #$#&, p. :@6.

#(*. Van der Veen !==@, pp. !7:-!7=. Gersaint’s shop would become the perfect melting pot of an osten-sibly private art cabinet and a place to do business, whereby he, as an art dealer, placed himself on the same level as the art lovers and connoisseurs. He thus countered the negative image traditional art dealers had in political and fi nancially powerful milieus. McClellan !==@, p. ??7.

#(#. ‘Maer een verstandig konstkenner moet zich schier half dood lachen, als hij den dommen konst uijl, de namen van eenige konstschilders hoort uijtstameren, want die behandelt hij ge-lijk als een jongen, die pas begint te leezen, de He-breeusche namen in Genesis behandelt, en echter is hij onbeschaemt genoeg om aen fatsoenlijke wel opgevoede persoonen den baard te willen opzet-ten door zijne achterstraets onkunde.’ Brussels, KB Albert ., Manuscripts Department, inv. no. .. !@;<, Manuscript Jacob Campo Weyerman, vol. ., In-troduction.

was the criterion for determining the sequence in the cata-logue, as emerges from the following pages. Notwithstand-ing the numerical argument, the works by Rubens and Van Dyck – of which he only had a limited number – followed.!6; Here I would like to focus on the brief remark that experts classifi ed artists and art works according to their reputed importance. This is what Jan van Beuningen and Adriaen Bout also did in drawing up sales catalogues, as discussed above.!6! The paintings to which they attached the greatest artistic and monetary value were listed at the beginning of the catalogue. Just like Van Beuningen, Meyers’ reasoning was so subtly phrased that he eB ectively silenced any criticism of his attri-butions from the very start. For example, in the description of a painting attributed to Raphael, he noted: ‘Some con-noisseurs nontheless doubt that it is by this famous paint-er.’!6: While for other paintings he included as much of their provenances as possible, referred to the known literature on them (Félibien and others) or established their authenticity on the basis of prints, here he acknowledged some misgiv-ings.!67 It was a rhetorical device. In those instances where he suggested no doubt whatsoever, he eB ectively muzzled all discussion as to authorship. In addition to provenance, dimensions, literature and ref-erences to prints, Meyers also included aesthetic judgments in his catalogue. He discussed the facture, the lineation and the palette of various paintings. In other instances he praised the drapery or gracious fi gures. He described Poussin’s Rape of the Sabine women (fi g. @?) as ‘not pasted with colours, but fi nished in the extreme in an extraordinary way and com-posed as magnifi cently as demanded by the subject.’!6? Per-haps even more telling is the following passage in which he talks about the Seven Sacraments (fi g. ><): ‘But to convince the art lovers of their strong particularities, it is worthwhile devoting some words to their history and recounting how they entered this cabinet. Monsieur de Chantelou, Master of the King’s Household and Maecenas of Poussin asked him [Poussin] for copies of the paintings of the Seven Sacraments that he had made for the Chevalier Del Pozzo and which had caused such a furor in Rome. Full of friendship for and grati-tude to De Chantelou, Poussin painted at his leisure the ones we are talking about. It is impossible to confront these en-sembles of pictures and discern their diB erences. One series is presently in Rome and the other in Rotterdam, but should one make an eB ort to examine the prints engraved after both series, one can easily distinguish the extent to which this [second series] surpasses the fi rst one.’!6> In this way he located the sales catalogue – and may well have been the very fi rst to do so – within the accepted art-historical tradition. The descriptions of works of art, namely, would have read-

!;7

Meyers and many others began as art lovers and from that perspective resold important paintings to interested rulers. They assembled a collection as enthusiasts and subsequent-ly sold them as connoisseurs to wealthy friends and acquain-tances. Art was not their primary source of income, but a diversion that enhanced their reputation and social stand-ing and which eventually could also fatten their purse. This helps to explain why Pieter de la Court, artistic advisor to Tsar Peter the Great, recommended bypassing the regular art trade where profi t was the primary source of income, and place trust in art lovers instead.!<; In his Vertoog over de konst-handelaars en het caracter van een konstkoper, the introduction to an unpublished book on art dealing, Jacob Campo Weyer-man defends the same position: ‘But a prudent connoisseur must laugh almost to death upon hearing the dumb art owl stammering the names of artists just like a boy who is just learning to read pronounces the Hebrew names in Genesis, and who is shameless enough in all of his backward igno-rance to want to show oB before decent and well-bred peo-ple.’!<!

ily been at home in De Piles or Houbraken.!6@ He anticipat-ed what the more famous French art dealer, Edmé-François Gersaint, would systematically implement in his sales cata-logues.!66

Although prices are nowhere mentioned, there can be no doubt that the catalogue was intended to pique the interest of art-loving men of substance. This can be amply demon-strated on the basis of newly discovered archival material.!6< Even before the duc de Gramont’s Italian paintings arrived in Rotterdam in !6!7, Jacob Senserf – an acquaintance of Mey-ers and an agent of the Duke of Chandos – informed his em-ployer of the opportunity.!6= The Description was published a year later, and the following year some of the paintings that had been described were conveyed to Cannons, Chandos’ palace, for his approval. The Description du cabinet de tableaux de Mr. Meyers thus occupies a place somewhere in between a sales catalogue and a description of a cabinet. As such, it is an exceptional document. Basically, it lays bare the essence of the way in which exclusive art was traded in the Repub-lic at the end of the Golden Age. Jan van Beuningen, Jacques

"( Nicolas Poussin, The eucharist [from the Seven Sacraments series], canvas, !!6 x !6< cm, Edinburgh, The National Gallery of Scotland (on loan from the Duke of Sutherland) (B?, cat. no. !)

!;?

came into Meyers’ hands through the mediation of Francisco-Jacomo van den Berghe.

$*%. See Appendix B?, cat. no. ?.$*!. The dimensions of the Triumph of David in the

Prado do not agree with those of the scene that Meyers, according to the catalogue, owned. How-ever, the description does correspond. Proba-bly Meyers or even the typesetter made an error and the canvas was 7 feet and 7 thumbs, or inches, high. If so, the measurements are identical. More-over, the dimensions in the Meyers catalogue are, as such, completely out of proportion. See Appen-dix B?, cat. no. >. Given the many other purchas-es by the Spanish ruler from Meyers this option is entirely possible. The following paintings found their way into the Spanish collection: Appendix B?, cat. nos. ?, >, !;, 77. Blunt !=@@, p. :6. See Ap-pendix B?, cat. no. >.

#)!. Collins Baker & Baker !=?=, p. 6<.#)". Weyerman !6:=-!6@=, vol. ..., p. 7:?.#)&. See Appendix B?, cat. no. ?<.#)'. Van Gelder !=6?, pp. <:-!<7.#)(. Duverger :;;?, pp. !>: and !>=-!@;.#)). Moes !=!7, p. :7.$**. See Appendix B?, cat. no. :7. The series was

bought at the auction in !6:: by Jacob Senserf and Son for Sir Gregory Page.

$*#. Ferrari & Scavizzi !=@@, pp. :!;-:!!.$*$. The duc de Gramont, thus, cannot be iden-

tifi ed as Anthony Hamilton, Duke of Gramont, as asserted by Delahay and Schadee. Delahay & Schadee !==?, p. 7<. It was Antoine ..., duc de Gra-mont, who had received the series by Luca Gior-dano from the Spanish ruler’s wife. The paint-ings were sold by the Paris art dealer Germain and

#($. ‘a rendu à la France un Trésoir qui lui avoit été enlevé.’ Dubois de Saint-Gelais !6:6, A..

#(%. Blunt !=@@, pp. 6@-6=.#(!. There is a pamphlet from !@>> in which the

cabinet of Willem de Langue is recommended. This pamphlet closely resembles a kind of sales catalogue avant-la-lettre. Van der Veen :;;:, p. 6?.

#(". Logan !=6=, pp. 76->>.#(&. Van Gelder !===, pp. !7=-!?;; Baudet !=<>.#('. Van Gelder !=6?, p. !6@.#((. Van Gelder !=6?, pp. !@6-!<7.#(). For a complete overview of the collections, see

Appendix B?.#)*. See Appendix B?, cat. no. !.#)#. Blunt !=@@, pp. 6@-6<.#)$. Nougaret !66@-!6<;, p. !:<.#)%. See Appendix C:.

ger de Piles, Michel de Marolles, André Félibien and others published descriptions of famous French cabinets.!<< How-ever, their aim was in no way comparable to that of Meyers, namely to sell.

,+$ *#22$*,.#% #/ )'*G-$4 3$9$&4!<= – A number of paintings in the Meyers collection have already been noted in the preceding paragraphs. They constituted a small sam-ple of his entire holdings, as will become clear below. What follows is an enumeration of several masterpieces in his col-lection. In addition, an attempt has been made to indicate where he acquired them and to whom he resold them. In my opinion, this is the best way of illustrating the breathtaking scope of his collection and underscoring the importance of the Rotterdam merchant’s role in the international trade in exclusive art.

Obviously, Nicolas Poussin’s Seven Sacraments (second series) constituted the pièce de résistance (fi g. ><).!=; The paintings that this famous French master produced (!@??-!@?<) for his patron, Paul Fréard de Chantelou, were known to every Eu-ropean collector of standing.!=! Obviously, the highest Eu-ropean nobility hotly speculated on and talked about who wanted or could buy Meyers’ series and who was prepared to fork out the asking price of tens of thousands of guil-ders. John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough will have been one of the many prospective buyers.!=: He was rumoured to have been ready to pay >;,;;; crowns for it. James Brydges of Chandos also inquired as to the price, but could not meet it.!=7 Ultimately, the lucky buyer was the duc d’Orléans. The Sacraments were sold within two years following the publi-cation of Meyers’ catalogue, for in the autumn of !6!@ they were already in the gallery of the French Duc-Régent.!=? Ja-

Meyers’ catalogue illustrates perfectly the idea that trad-ing in exclusive art was not business, but rather a kindness among friends. He purchased several undisputed master-pieces at home and abroad, about which he notifi ed a select group of interested parties. It appears to be nothing more than a description of a cabinet, but for wealthy individidu-als unafraid of reaching deep into their pockets, everything was for sale. This emerges from the instant response of the Duke of Chandos, who evidently was just as capable of read-ing between the lines as we are. Equally aroused, incidental-ly, was Philippe .., duc d’Orléans and regent of France. This nobleman with a passion for collecting ‘has rendered a trea-sure to France [Seven Sacrements by Poussin (fi g. ><)] that was stolen from her,’ as Abbé Dubois de Saint-Gelais formulat-ed it in !6:6.!<: As a matter of fact, it was this keeper of the regent’s collection who travelled to Rotterdam to negotiate the sale.!<7

So, what could Meyers have based his publication on? He probably did not have any immediate models because to my knowledge his was the very fi rst printed sales catalogue.!<? However, there were some predecessors in a variety of shapes in the United Provinces and elsewhere. In the mid-seven-teenth century, for instance, Gerard Reynst had prints made of a large part of his collection of mostly Italian art, which he published as such.!<> Although its layout diB ered from Jacques Meyers’s catalogue, the so-called Caela turae repre-sented an early public disclosure of a private collection. At the end of the seventeenth century collection catalogues were regularly published in the Northern Netherlands to further the intellectual discourse on the classifi cation of col-lections of curiosities.!<@ As Van Gelder rightly noted, France enjoyed a tradition of printing collection catalogues.!<6 Ro-

!;>

example, he had also managed to obtain the twelve-part se-ries of the Story of Amor and Psyche (fi g. @;) that Luca Giorda-no had painted for the king of Spain. The series had a very interesting provenance.:;; As noted above, the widow of Charles .. of Spain gave it as a present to Antoine ..., duc de Gramont, Maréchal de France. Around !6!7 the command-er’s heirs were struggling fi nancially, a situation Meyers took advantage of and bought the twelve little copper pan-els from them.:;! In !6!7 the heirs of the duc de Gramont dis-posed of a substantial part of their collection. Jacques Mey-ers was one of those fortunate enough to profi t from this.:;: In addition to Luca Giordano’s series, another ten paintings in Meyers’ cabinet originally came from the French fi eld marshal’s collection, including Nicolas Poussin’s Apollo and the Muses on Mount Parnassus (fi g. >:), now in the Prado.:;7 An-other picture by the same master and from the same French collection was The triumph of David (fi g. @!).:;? Two paintings by Peter Paul Rubens, a Satyr with a woman and a basket of fruit

cob Campo Weyerman thought that the regent had paid !;;,;;; guilders for them.!=> The sale of Poussin’s famous series opened doors for the Duc-Régent. Meyers’ depiction of Hagar and Ishmael by Pier Francesco Mola (fi g. >=) was also already in the duke’s collection before !6::.!=@ With the help of Tramblin, Meyers also sold Adriaen van der WerB ’s The judgment of Paris (fi g. >>) to the French regent.!=6 The pres-ence of Poussin’s series in Rotterdam must have made quite an impression. Meyers owned them certainly since !6!:, and as early as July !6!7 Gillis van der Vennen was able to report that the merchant was overrun by the ambassadors of France and their retinues.!=< The visits by powerful would-be buy-ers were undoubtedly alternated with visits by art aC ciona-dos. To name but one, in !6!? well-known art collector Va-lerius Röver paid him a call in order to behold the famous series.!==

Other paintings in Meyers’ collection were no less high-ly regarded by other contemporary European art lovers. For

") Pier Francesco Mola, Hagar and Ishmael, copper, :6 x 77 cm, Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. no. 7=7 (B?, cat. No. ?<)

!;@

$*". For the pictures by Rubens, see d’Hulst & Vandenven !=<=, pp. !7@-!7<; Antwerp :;;?, pp. !?7-!?>; and Appendix B?, cat. nos. !@ and !>.

$*&. See Appendix B?, cat. no. !6.$*'. London-New York !=@<, pp. >6-><.$*(. See Appendix B?, cat. nos. ?;, :<, 7<, ?!.$*). See Appendix B?, cat. no. ??.$#*. See Appendix B?, cat. no. :=; Antwerp :;;!,

p. ?:@.$##. Schnapper !==?, pp. 7<<-7=;.$#$. See Appendix B?, cat. no. :.$#%. Duverger :;;?, p. !>7. See Appendix B?, A7.

&* Luca Giordano, The glorifi cation of Psyche [from the series: The story of Psyche], copper, >6.> x @=.= cm, Hampton Court Palace, Royal Collection, Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth .. (B?, cat. no. :7)

&# Nicolas Poussin, The triumph of David, canvas, !;; x !7; cm, Madrid, Museo del Prado, inv. no. :7!! (B?, cat. no. >)

!;6

Parisian collections clearly were an artistic reservoir for the art dealer and collector Meyers. And, this is not surpris-ing for someone who obviously maintained so many good contacts: Crozat, Boscheron, Tramblin, and many others were listed in his address book. Meyers bought the Rape of the Sabine women by Nicolas Poussin (fi g. @?), a painting once owned by Cardinal Richelieu, from the heirs of Bénigne de Ragois de Bretonvilliers following the mediation of the art dealers Germain in Paris and Van den Berghe in Ghent.:!: In some instances we even stumble across traces of acquisitions by Meyers on the Paris art market that cannot be recovered in the catalogue. Writing to Francisco-Jacomo van den Ber-ghe of !6!:, Germain noted that he would send a few more paintings by Poussin from the de Bretonvilliers collection, namely the pendants The worship of the Golden Calf and the Passage through the Red Sea (fi gs. @> and @@) and a third paint-ing the Triumph of Galatea.:!7 Jacques Meyers’ track record as

and David and Abigail (fi g. @:), also came from the duc de Gra-mont’s cabinet.:;> This was also the case with a third paint-ing by Rubens, namely Christ, John and two angels (fi g. @7).:;@ Rubens is said to have personally given it to the fi eld marshal at the insistence of the Spanish king.:;6 He also shipped Ital-ian paintings attributed to Palma il Vecchio (Susanna), Ales-sandro Turchi (Joseph and the wife of Potiphar) and Caravag-gio (John the Baptist and the Incredulity of St Thomas), and Carlo Cigniani (Repentant Magdalene) to Rotterdam.:;< He did the same with a series of the Four seasons ascribed to Paul Bril and Carracci.:;= The last entry in the list of works that, accord-ing to him, he had bought from the duc de Gramont was a painting by or after Raphael with a scene of Venus drying her feet (known from the print by Marcantonio Raimondi).:!; Although I could not trace these paintings with certainty, given their provenance they must have been of superlative quality.:!!

&$ Peter Paul Rubens, David and Abigail, canvas, !6<.> x :?= cm, Detroit, The Detroit Institute of Arts, Gift of James E. Scripps, inv. no. !<<=-@7 (B?, cat. no. !>)

!;<

cising painter.:!< The same applied to Jean Pointel, who awarded Poussin various commissions including the Noli me tangere.:!= Meyers, thus, bought these paintings direct-ly from the original owners. SuC ce it to say that this cabi-net of Poussins was unique in Europe at the beginning of the eighteenth century. One has the impression that Mey-ers was intent on snapping up all the works by the French master that came onto the market, and thereby acquiring a monopoly. The last two paintings with a French provenance came from the cabinets of ‘Mr. Perrault’ and ‘Mr. Le Prési-dent de Steuil’: Guido Reni’s Adam and Eve (fi g. @6) and a Dio-genes by Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione (fi g. @<).::; With Mr Perrault, Meyers was referring to Charles Perrault, the sci-on of a distinguished family who made a name for himself as a writer and art critic. He bore the title of Amateur honorai-

an art buyer excludes virtually all doubts that these three paintings only remained in his collection for a very brief pe-riod and were resold already before !6!?.:!? This fi nds confi r-mation in the fact that the Rape of the Sabine women was part of the same shipment. Another smaller version of Poussin’s The worship of the Golden Calf found its way into the invento-ry of Quirijn van Biesum, although I suspect that he bought this work, too, together with Meyers.:!> It was acquired by Nicolaas Anthonij Flinck after Van Biesum’s death. It was later lauded by the writer-painter Jonathan Richardson, who had seen it during a visit to his collection.:!@

There would seem to be no end to Meyers’ Poussin collec-tion. Via the engraver Jean Pesne he acquired the Furius Ca-millus (fi g. ?6) from Michel Passart, the French king’s Maitre des Comptes.:!6 Passart had once been a patron of the classi-

&% Peter Paul Rubens, Christ, John and two angels, canvas, =: x !:: cm, Salisbury, Wilton House Trust, The !<th Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery (B?, cat. no. !6)

!;=

re de l’Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture, which readi-ly trumpets his penchant for the fi ne arts.::! I was unable to identify the Président de Steuil. The painting by Guido Re-ni came into the possession of Prince Eugen Frans von Sa-voyen-Carignan before !6::. This distinguished collector al-so visited Meyers’ cabinet.

Not all of the Rotterdam merchant’s art had previously cir-culated in Paris art cabinets. He also bought paintings on the Northern-Netherlandish market, such as at the sale of the collection of William .... Van Biesum was able to land An-thony van Dyck’s Rinaldo and Armida (fi g. @=), one of the mas-terpieces at this sale, for his patron.::: He had already resold it by !6:: and the painting now hangs in the Louvre.::7 In ad-dition to this history painting, Meyers also owned four por-

$#!. For both paintings, see Blunt !=@@, pp. !6-!< and <=.

$#". See Appendix B?, A?.$#&. Blunt !=@@, pp. :! and !:<.$#'. See Appendix B?, cat. no. 7.$#(. He also owned the Testament of Eudamidas, now

in Copenhagen. Blunt !=@@, p. !!;. Nicolas Pous-sin, Testament of Eudamidas, !!;.> x !7<.> cm, Co-penhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst, inv. no. >>=.

$#). This work is sometimes called a copy. Madrid !=@7, p. >!@; Blunt !=@@, p. !6:. Incidentally, the Rotterdam art dealer considered the work as the original.

$$*. See Appendix B?, cat. nos. 7; and 77.$$#. The Dictionary of Art. www.groveart.com.$$$. See Appendix B?, cat. no. ::.$$%. This is in contrast to Van Gelder’s assertation

that the painting from Het Loo is the version in Sanssouci. Van Gelder !=6?, p. !6?.

&! Nicolas Poussin, Rape of the Sabine women, canvas, !>? x :;@ cm, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (B?, cat. no. :)

!!;

&" Nicolas Poussin, The worship of the Golden Calf, canvas, !>? x :!? cm, London, The National Gallery (B?, A!)

&& Nicolas Poussin, Passage through the Red Sea, canvas, !>? x :!; cm, Melbourne, National Gallery of Victoria (B?, A:)

!!!

&' Guido Reni, Adam and Eve, canvas, :66 x !=@ cm, Dijon, Musée de Dijon (B?, cat. no. 7;)

!!:

inet, but he also owned fi ne paintings by other French paint-ers. Claude Lorrain’s Christ’s sermon on Mount Tabor (fi g. 67) in the Frick Collection in New York and the pendants by Nico-las Bertin (fi gs. 6? and 6>) in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam once graced the walls of Meyers’ house on the Wijnhaven.:7; The Rijksmuseum now also owns The mystical marriage of St Catherine (fi g. 6@) by Sébastien Bourdon.:7! Hendrik van He-teren bought these and other paintings at the auction in !6::, and they entered the Rijksmuseum with part of his col-lection at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Another two landscapes by Gaspar Dughet (fi g. 66) moved to Kassel with the collection of Valerius Röver from Delft in !6?=.:7:

In addition to French and Southern-Netherlandish mas-ters, Italian artists were also well represented. As mentioned above, he had managed to secure signifi cant numbers of these paintings in Paris. The Italian corpus spanned two cen-turies of art production: from Raphael to Luca Giordano. If authentic, as was asserted in the catalogue, Raphael’s Vénus

traits by the Antwerp master: ‘The Prince de Carignan (fi g. 6;), Miladi Pembroke, the famous Jabag [Everhard Jabach] and a Brussels counselor.’::? The likeness of Jabach original-ly came from the collection of Francisco-Jacomo van den Ber-ghe.::> At the time of the auction of his picture collection in !6::, Meyers still owned several works by Rubens not listed in the collection catalogue of !6!?, a number of which can be identifi ed. This applies to the earlier mentioned The raising of the Brazen Serpent (fi g. >@) and the oil sketch of the Carrying of the cross (fi g. 6!).::@ The Stag hunt, attributed by Meyers to Rubens and Frans Snijders, was probably the lost workshop copy from Sanssouci in Potsdam.::6 Other Antwerp masters were also to be found in Meyers’ collection. A painting by Abraham van Diepenbeeck of the Holy Family near a cradle is now in Lyon.::< David .. Teniers’ Ghent kermis (fi g. <<) was still circulating on the art market at the end of the twentieth century. And, Brouwer’s A man playing a lute and a woman sing-ing (fi g. 6:) is now in the Victoria and Albert Museum.::=

Poussin may well have had the upper hand in Meyers’ cab-

&( Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione, Diogenes, canvas, =6 x !?> cm, Madrid, Museo del Prado (B?, cat. no. 77)

!!7

ers was able to prise them from the collection is very real in-deed. He, too, must have known this celebrated collection, part of which had been reproduced in prints and published. Yet none of the many preserved versions can be identifi ed with the descriptions in Meyers’ catalogue. However, this is possible in the case of Carlo Dolci’s St Cecilia, with Herod (fi gs. 6< and 6=) as its pendant.:7? The Elector of Saxony at Dres-den bought these scenes – once made for Cosimo ... de Me-dici – from Jacques Meyers.:7> The same prince probably also acquired the little copper panel by Alessandro Turchi repre-senting Lot and his daughters.:7@

More problematic is the identifi cation of the two Caravag-gios described in the !6!? sales catalogue. The ‘Jeune homme ou berger avec un belier,’ doubtless depicted a young John the Baptist with a ram.:76 This is possibly the painting now

sortant du bain must have been the oldest. Unfortunately, on-ly Marcantonio Raimondi’s print of the painting, to which Meyers himself had referred, can be recovered. The oft-men-tioned Story of Amor and Psyche, painted by Luca Giordano in the second half of the seventeenth century, was the most re-cent Italian work. The intervening centuries were represent-ed by paintings by Palma il Vecchio, Paolo Veronese, Bassa-no, Caravaggio, Guido Reni, Francesco Albani and others. Most of the Italian pictures have already been mentioned, but there were more. The two Jacopo Bassanos from Mey-ers’ collection, namely the Entombment of Christ and the An-nunciation to the shepherds, call to mind two paintings with the same descriptions in the Reynst collection, which had made such a furore in the Republic a half century earlier.:77 Given his interest in exclusive provenances, the chance that Mey-

$$!. ‘le Prince de Carignan, Miladi Pembroke, le Fameux Jabag et un conseiller de Bruxelles.’ See Appendix B?, cat. nos. !<-:!. Milady Pembroke was one of Philip Herbert, ?th Earl of Pembroke’s (!><?-!@>;) wives. His fi rst wife was Susan de Vere, and his second Anne CliB ord (!>=;-!@6@).

$$". Duverger :;;?, pp. @, =, !:, !;!, !:<.$$&. See Appendix B?, lot nos. 6? and 6@; d’Hulst

and Vandenven !=<=, pp. <6-=;; Held !=<;, pp. ?66-?6<.

$$'. See Appendix B?, lot no. 6>; Balis !=<@, pp. :!7-:!6.

$$(. See Appendix B?, lot no. !=?.$$). See Appendix B?, cat. no. 6>; London !=67,

pp. ?<-?=.$%*. See Appendix B?, cat. no. ?@; New York !=@<,

vol. ... Paintings: French Italian and Spanish, >;->>; see Appendix B?, lot nos. :;>-:;@; Verroen !=<>, pp. !6-@!.

$%#. See Appendix B?, cat. no. ?=.$%$. See Appendix B?, cat. nos. >>->@. Boisclair !=<@,

pp. !<6-!<<.$%%. See Appendix B?, cat. nos. 7@-76; Logan !=6=,

pp. !!;-!!?.$%!. See Appendix B?, ?:-?7; Van Gelder !=6?,

pp. !@6-!<7.$%". Dresden !=:=, vol. .. Die romanischen Län-

der: Italien, Spanien, Frankreich und Russland, pp. :::-::?. The paintings are somewhat smaller than indicated in Meyers’ catalogue but seem to have been turned into octagons.

$%&. See Appendix B?, A6.$%'. See Appendix B?, 7=. Bert W. Meijer suggest-

ed that the work in the Galleria Doria Pamphilii in Rome may be the version from Jacques Mey-ers’ collection. In my view, the idea that the paint-ing in Basel is from the Meyers collection is far more likely. Meijer :;;;, pp. 766-76<; Cinotti !=<7, pp. >:! and >>6->><; Basel !=>6, vol. .. Die Kunst bis !<;;.

&) Anthony van Dyck, Rinaldo and Armida, canvas, !77 x !;= cm, Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. no. !:7> (B!, lot no. @ and B?, cat. no. ::)

!!?

in Basel. The description of the Doubting Thomas accords per-fectly with the depiction in the painting at Sanssouci, but the dimensions Meyers gave are substantially larger than those of this original and all of the other known copies.:7< Given the price (>: guilders), the St Jerome that entered the collection between !6!? and !6:: was probably a mediocre copy. Even the copy after Correggio discussed by Weyerman fetched more in !6::.

Naturally, Meyers’ cabinet included paintings by North-ern-Netherlandish artists, yet these painters received scant attention in the sales catalogue of !6!?. Meyers summarily mentioned the names of Wouwerman, Dou, De Lairesse and Both, and only at the very end. However, from the auction catalogue it emerges that he did in fact own a considerable number of works by Northern-Netherlandish masters. Nu-merically, Cornelis van Poelenburch took the lead: Meyers owned dozens of paintings by him. ‘We have seen hundreds of pretty, though usually small works of art by Poelenburch, but nowhere a greater number with a private art lover than with Jacques Meyers, a merchant in Rotterdam, who had hung a small cabinet with them,’ Jacob Campo Weyerman wrote after visiting the Rotterdam dealer.:7= Weyerman’s fi ndings are confi rmed by the estate inventory in which it is noted that ‘on the fi rst fl oor, upstairs in the small room: [there were] @> paintings by Van Poelenburgh with gilded and black frames.’:?; As mentioned above, Meyers co-owned them with Jan Frans Douven.:?! A few of Van Poelenburch’s pictures can be identifi ed on the basis of the description and the dimensions, including the Christ on the cross (fi g. <;), Mer-cury and Herse (fi g. <!) and the small pendants of bathing men

$%(. Potsdam !=6>, p. :7; Cinotti !=<7, pp. ?<=-?=!.$%). ‘Wy hebben honderde schoone, doch meest

kleyne Konststukken van dien Poelenburch gezien, maar nergens by een particulier Liefheb-ber een grooter getal gevonden, als by Jaques Mey-ers, een Koopman tot Rotterdam, die er een kleyn Kabinet mee had behangen.’ Weyerman !6:=-!6@=, vol. ..., p. 777.

$!*. ‘Op d’eerste verdieping boven in ’t kleyn ka-mertje: vijfenzestig stukjes schildery van Poelen-burch met vergulde en swarte lijsten.’ Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, p. 7:<.

$!#. It is highly doubtful whether these @> paint-ings should be added to the 7@ in the auction. This would add up to !;! works.

'* Anthony van Dyck, Portrait of Prince Francis Thomas von Savoyen-Carignan, canvas, !!?.@ x !;?.=, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. no. 6<: (B?, cat. no. !<)

'# Peter Paul Rubens, The carrying of the cross [oil sketch], panel, 6? x >> cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. A7?? (B?, lot no. 6@)

!!>

'$ Adriaen Brouwer, A man playing a lute and a woman singing, panel, 76 x :=.: cm, London, Victoria and Albert Museum, inv. no. CAI.<; (B?, cat. no. 6>)

!!@

his fellow townsman and acquaintance.:?< A few of them were designs for prints in the Histoire d’Angleterre, d’Ecosse, et d’Irlande by Isaac de Larrey,:?= and another one was the de-sign for the portrait print of the Duke of Marlborough.

Although the above enumeration seems extensive, this nev-ertheless brief overview gives a good fi rst impression of the astounding wealth of the Rotterdam merchant’s cabinet. It was simply one of the most exclusive collections the Repub-lic had ever seen and except for several rulers only a few Eu-ropean collectors could even come close to it. How diB erent-ly assembled was the collection of Quirijn van Biesum.

A'% 8.$4-3’4 *#22$*,.#% – Thanks to two preserved sales catalogues (!6!6 and !6!=) we know what Quirijn van Biesum’s stock consisted of.:>; No less than :<= pictures were oB ered at the fi rst auction. Approximately half of Van Biesum’s collection then changed hands. No prices were noted in the sales catalogue next to any of the paintings sold in !6!6. Quite remarkably, though, the copy of the catalogue

and women (fi gs. <: and <7).:?: Meyers’ owned no fewer than nineteen paintings by Philips Wouwerman at the time of his death,:?7 some of which – like The riding school (fi g. <?) – are now in the Rijksmuseum. Anyone suspecting that Rembrandt would also be well represented in such a collection would be sadly disappoint-ed. Only a single work by the master hung in Meyers’ cabi-net. ‘The three Magi with the Christ Child in the stable, by Rembrandt... known for its straw roof with Woerden roof tiles’ (fi g. :@) in all probability is now in the English royal collection.:?? The two atypical paintings by Gerard Dou (fi gs. >7 and >?) of nude women, copies of which he had made by Bartholomeus Douven, are now in the Hermitage in St Pe-tersburg.:?> Caspar Netscher’s Vertumnus and Pomona is pres-ently the property of the Duke of Sutherland.:?@ Work by Gérard de Lairesse was also crucial: and, pendants by him of the Judgment of Paris and the Judgment of Midas are now part of the Methuen collection at Corsham Court.:?6 Finally, I men-tion the name of Adriaen van der WerB . In !6:: Jacques Mey-ers still had a scene of Adam and Eve and several grisailles by

'% Claude Lorrain, Christ’s sermon on Mount Tabor, canvas, !6!.? x :>=.6 cm, New York, The Frick Collection (B?, cat. no. ?@)

!!6

$!$. See Appendix B?, lot nos. !!=-!>7.$!%. See Appendix B?, lot nos. ==-!!6.$!!. ‘De drie Koningen met het Kind Jesus in den

Stal, door Rembrandt [...] bekent door zyn stroo dakje met Woerdense Pannen.’ See Appendix B?, lot no. !@<; Van Gelder !=6?, p. !6>; Cambridge !=<:, pp. !;=-!!;.

$!". See Appendix B?, lot nos. =:-=7; Korthals Altes :;;7a, pp. :@<-:@=.

$!&. See Appendix B?, lot no. =?; Duverger :;;?, p. !::; Wieseman :;;:, pp. :<<-:<=.

$!'. See Appendix B?, lot nos. <<-<=.$!(. Gaehtgens !=<6, pp. :<<-:<=. Present where-

abouts unknown. See Appendix B?, lot no. <>.$!). De Larrey !@=6-!6;6. See Appendix B?, lot nos.

:@7-:@?.$"*. Lugt :@! and :6?. See also Appendix A?. In con-

trast to what is said in the catalogue of the exhi-bition Rotterdamse Meesters uit de Gouden Eeuw, !?> paintings were sold at the auction in !6!6. Delahay & Schadee !==?, p. 76.

'! Nicolas Bertin, Joseph and the wife of Potiphar, panel, 7< x 7: cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. A?; (B?, lot no. :;>)

'" Nicolas Bertin, Susanna and the Elders, panel, 7< x 7: cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. A?! (B?, lot no. :;@)

'& Sébastien Bourdon, The mystical marriage of St Catherine, canvas, <@.> x !;7.>, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. A>7 (B?, cat. no. ?=)

!!<

$"#. Both auction catalogues are published in Du-verger :;;?, pp. :;;-:;< and :::-::=. Moreover, the descriptions of the paintings in Van Biesum’s estate inventory seem to have been literally taken over from the catalogue of !6!6. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. ::!6 deed 6?, Estate inventory of Qui-rijn van Biesum, &" April #$!", pp. >@:-@6=.

$"$. Lugt :6?; Hoet !6>:, vol. ., p. ::@ B .$"%. ‘Around that time, he [Paulus Potter] painted

a fairly large scene for the Dowager Princess Ama-lia, born Countess von Solms, a work of art that was to serve as an overmantel in one of the prin-cipal rooms at the old court. However, a courtier, who was well respected by this princess, prevented this by saying that a urinating cow was far too ugly an image for her royal eyes, whereupon the artist kept the painting, which was rejected in courteous terms. This infamous painting remained for many consecutive years with the family of the honour-able Mr Mussart, alderman of the city of Amster-dam, and was known by the name of the “pissing cow”. From there it came into the possession of the art buyer Quirijn van Biesum, residing in Rot-terdam. A. Houbraken writes that the art-loving Mr Jacob Hoek purchased the picture from the aforementioned Q. v. Biesum for the sum of two thousand guilders, and placed it in his renowned art cabinet facing the universally notorious work of art by Gerard Dou we previously described; we are unable to inform the reader whether it can still be seen there or has since moved elsewhere’ (Om-trent die tijd schilderde hy [Paulus Potter] een taamelijk groot Tafereel voor de Princesse Doua-riere Emilia, gebore Gravinne van Zolms, welk Konststuk op het oude Hof tot een schoorsteen-stuk zou dienen in een van de voornaamste ver-trekken. Doch een Hoveling, die wel gezien was by die vorstin, verydelde dat voorneemen, met te zeg-gen; Dat een pissende Koe eene al te leelyke Spie-gel was voor haare Prinselyke Oogen, en daar op behielt den Schilder de schildery, dewelke wiert afgekeurt in beleefde termen. Dat berucht Konst-tafereel heeft ’t zedert veele achtereenvolgende jaaren berust, in de Familie van den Edelen Groot-achtbaaren Heere, den Heere Mussart, Schepen der stad Amsterdam, bekent by den naam van het pissent Koeitje, van waar het geradeed in de han-den van den Konstkooper Quirijn van Biesum, woonachtig binnen Rotterdam. A. Houbraken schrijft, dat den konstbeminnenden Heere Jakob van Hoek dat Tafereel van den voornoemden Q. v. Biesum kocht voor een som van twee duyzent guil-derss, en plaatste in zijn vermaart Konstkabinet, vlak tegens over het alom beruchte en by ons reeds beschreeven Konststuk van Gerart Douw; doch of het aldaar noch te Seen, dan of het elders is ver-huyst, konnen wy den Leezer niet zeggen). Wey-erman !6:=-!6@=, vol. .., p. :;>. The Hague !==>, pp. ==-!;!. Paulus Potter, The farmyard [Urinating cow], panel, <! x !!>.> cm, St Petersburg, Hermit-age, inv. no. <:;.

in the University Library at Ghent does include notations of the prices of the paintings sold in !6!=.:>! This suggests that the auctioneer did not print a new catalogue in !6!=, but ‘reused’ the old one and brought in new lots. We know what the new lots were thanks to Gerard Hoet, who includ-ed them in his !6>: compilation of catalogues.:>: The person who annotated the catalogue certainly had it with him at the time of the second auction in !6!=. Either he was not present two years earlier, or did not make notes then. Incidentally, between !6!6 and !6!= the baker-art dealer Van Biesum acquired another <; paintings, the majority of which went for peanuts at the sale under distress.

When Weyerman was delayed in Rotterdam waiting for a favourable wind to make the crossing to England, he visit-ed the art collection of Jacques Meyers. Perhaps he paid Van Biesum the same courtesy. That the artist-writer knew the Rotterdam baker and art seller is a given, as emerges from a story concerning Paulus Potter’s Urinating cow (fi g. <>). Once owned by Van Biesum, this panel now hangs in the Hermit-age and is one of the very few paintings from the Rotterdam art buyer’s enormous stock that can be pinpointed with cer-tainty.:>7

We may assume that what was bought at the fi rst auc-tion by the under-represented public was the most highly appreciated.:>? Several of these paintings can be identifi ed with some reservation. Anthony van Dyck’s Portrait of Cesare

'' Gaspar Dughet, Landscape with fi shermen, canvas, >; x @@.> cm, Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (B?, cat. no. >>)

!!=

$"!. Duverger :;;?, p. :;<. Quirijn van Biesum la-mented the poor turnout in a letter.

$"". Anthony van Dyck, Portrait of Cesare Alessandro Scaglia [Abbé de Verue], canvas, :;;.@ x !:7.: cm, Lon-don, The National Gallery, inv. no. @>6>. Barnes et al. :;;?, no. ... !:6.

$"&. ‘daar de Dochter de vader spijst door Babure,’ Dirck van Baburen, Cimon and Pero (Caritas Romana), panel, !:6 x !>!.! cm, York, York City Art Gallery, inv. no. 6<<. Utrecht !=<6, pp. !=!-!=:.

$"'. Nicolas Poussin, The worship of the Golden Calf, canvas, ==.? x !:<.@ cm, San Francisco, The M.H. de Young Memorial Museum.

$"(. Kirschenbaum !=66, pp. !!<-!!=. See Appendix B7, lot no. @;.

Alessandro Scaglia in The National Gallery in London (fi g. <@) is almost certainly from the Van Biesum collection.:>> One also wonders whether ‘the daughter feeding the father by Baburen,’ is not the Cimon and Pero by the Utrecht Caravag-gist Dirck van Baburen now in the York City Art Gallery.:>@ Many paintings are known to us by their title, but their provenances are not complete, their dimensions are lacking and the descriptions given by Van Biesum are insuC ciently precise. The quality of Quirijn van Biesum’s collection was far less than that of Jacques Meyers, as refl ected in the pric-es (Graph 6), and limits the possibilities for recovering the paintings. Meyers sold to noblemen, whose collections are generally better documented. Moreover, the descriptions in Van Biesum’s catalogues are much more summary, under-mining our eB orts to trace them. Nevertheless, Van Biesum had a few highlights, whose quality far exceeded that of his average wares. Nicolas Poussin’s The worship of the Golden Calf – which, as indicated above, I believe belonged to Jacques Meyers – is undoubtedly the most famous.:>6 Another can-vas with a more or less complete provenance was one of the versions of the story of The wrath of Ahasuerus (fi g. >!) painted by Jan Steen.:>< It is now in Birmingham and can be identi-fi ed thanks to the fact that Cornelis Wittert bought it at the auction.

'( Carlo Dolci, St Cecilia playing the organ, canvas, =@.> x <! cm, Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (B?, cat. no. ?:)

') Carlo Dolci, Salome with the head of John the Baptist, canvas, =@.> x <! cm, Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (B?, cat. no. ?7)

!:;

$"). ‘Mijn vercooping gaat tot nog toe geweldig slegt. Op morge wert mijn schoonste vercogt, hope beter sal gaan [...] maar ik vreese dat slegt sal gaan, ik sie geen een liefhebber van vreemde.’ Duverger :;;?, p. :;<.

$&*. Duverger :;;?, p. :>7.

on the other hand, owned a greater than average number of paintings that fetched high prices. The diagram actually gives a distorted picture, because Meyers had already sold most of the masterpieces before the auction. His collection, thus, was even more exclusive than might be inferred from the graph.

Van Biesum was keenly aware of the source of the problem. His art collection did not have suC cient allure to entice crowds of wealthy bidders. At the time of the fi rst auction of his paintings, he wrote despairingly to Francisco-Jaco-mo van den Berghe: ‘Until now my sale has fared poorly. Tomorrow my best [works] will be sold, hopefully it will go better [...] although I fear it will not go well, I don’t see a sin-gle foreign art lover.’:>= While every self-respecting connois-seur at home and abroad fl ocked to Rotterdam in !6:: for the auction of Meyers’ cabinet, according to the Hague art dealer Jacob Bart, they failed to make an appearance at the Van Biesum sale.:@; His collection had little appeal outside of Rotterdam.

Jacques Meyers and Quirijn van Biesum vividly illustrate the diB erences between the two segments of the art market around !6;;. Van Biesum had a good sense of the market, but due to a lack of capital could in no way compete with Meyers’ buying power. As shown in the following graph (Graph 6), which is based on the prices paid at both of their auctions in !6!= and !6::, respectively, Van Biesum sold lit-tle to nothing in the highest market sectors. Jacques Meyers,

(* Cornelis van Poelenburch, Christ on the cross, panel, >@ x ?= cm, London, Apsley House, Duke of Wellington collection (B?, lot no. !!=)

(# Cornelis van Poelenburch, Mercury and Herse, panel, 77 x ?? cm, Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (B?, lot no. !:@)

!:!

($ Cornelis van Poelenburch, Bathing men, copper, !? x !6 cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. A7!! (B?, lot no. !?;)

(% Cornelis van Poelenburch, Bathing women, copper, !? x !6 cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. A7!: (B?, lot no. !?!)

(! Philips Wouwerman, The riding school, canvas, ?< x @: cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. A?66 (B?, lot no. !!!)

!::

‘The crude native of Brabant, Van der Venne, was an art buyer who negotiated on the basis of another man’s purse, and who sheared the sheep while his master tended the hogs,’ Jacob Campo Weyerman recalled.:@> ‘He bought very expensive paintings [...] for the Ghent gentleman Van den Berghe, church warden of St Bavo, in Paris and elsewhere, and while conducting business at fairs he acquired more [works] that appealed to his own taste than suited his mas-ter’s interests, and thus incurred for the old gentleman so many and such burdensome bills of exchange that he lay in bed at night sweating rather than sleeping.’:@@ Weyerman’s observations fi nd confi rmation in the documents. Van der Vennen bought such an enormous stock that Van den Ber-ghe was ultimately ruined. In !67! he was unable to pay oB a debt to Adriaen Bout amounting to a mere !;;; guilders.:@6

The most important factor of the Van den Berghe-Van der Vennen duo in Holland was Quirijn van Biesum.:@< He knew Gillis van der Vennen for years before entering into collabo-ration with Van den Berghe and apparently trusted him im-plicitly.:@= When, in !6;@, Van der Vennen visited Van Bie-sum again for the fi rst time in years, he had every reason to believe that the quality of the two paintings by Giovan-ni Benedetto Castiglione and the small painting by Alba-ni oB ered to him would be good. He wrote instantly to Van den Berghe, the owner, asking whether it would be possible to have them sent to him so that he could either buy them himself or ‘debiteere’ (sell) them to a friend.:6; Other paint-ings that caught Van Biesum’s eye that year were Rubens’ Last Judgment (fi g. !:=) and Drunken Silenus (fi g. <6).:6! In the meantime, the Ghent art dealer bought dozens of works by

'*G-.4.,.#% – Like every internationally oriented mer-chant, Jacques Meyers had several domestic and foreign fac-tors and business partners who furnished him with merchan-dise. One of his suppliers of paintings was Francisco-Jacomo van den Berghe, the Ghent art dealer mentioned previous-ly.:@! Van den Berghe came from a family of Antwerp nota-ries, but moved to Ghent at the end of the seventeenth cen-tury. He was introduced to collecting at an early age, for his father assembled a modest collection of works of art in the family home.:@: Probably inspired by this, Francisco-Ja-como profi led himself increasingly more emphatically on the Flemish and the international art market around !6;;. He bought large numbers of paintings primarily in Par-is, shipping them on to Flanders, Brabant and fi nally Hol-land, where he found eager customers in Jan van Beunin-gen, Jacques Meyers, Quirijn van Biesum and Adriaen Bout, among others. Francisco-Jacomo van den Berghe hardly travelled him-self. He relegated this pleasure to Gillis van der Vennen, with whom he worked in a partnership as of !6;>.:@7 This painter-art dealer from Brussels shuttled back and forth be-tween Paris and Amsterdam for almost fi fteen years selling and buying paintings. In Paris he bought primarily French, Flemish and Italian works for the Dutch market, which from there were sold to the English and German markets. In the Republic, Van der Vennen acquired Dutch art for the Southern-Netherlandish and French collectors. The wealthy art lovers, such as Van den Berghe and Meyers, fi nanced ev-erything, while the art dealers, such as Van Biesum, Van der Vennen and others, handled all practical matters. For his share, Van der Vennen raked in half of the profi ts.:@?

$&). Duverger :;;?, p. !<.$'*. Duverger :;;?, p. !<.$'#. Duverger :;;?, pp. !=-:; B . Other sales includ-

ed works by Gerard Dou, Jean François Millet, Sal-vator Rosa and Van der Kabel.

$'$. Duverger :;;?, pp. :6-:<.$'%. Duverger :;;?, p. 7@ B . It is not known which

paintings he then oB ered.$'!. ‘Denckt mijnheer Van den Berghe dat wij La-

zarus zijn en daarover geen gevoelens hebbe. Dat meer is, ick hebbe sedert dien tijt naer Weene ge-sonde en hebbe advijs dat se daar gearriveert sijn en ick kan se van Gendt niet become.’ Duverger :;;?, pp. !7<-!7=.

$'". Duverger :;;?, pp. A..-A....$'&. BonnaB é !<<?, pp. !>=-!@;.

beurs negotieerde, kogt hij meer na zijn zinnelijk-heid als na ’s meesters interest en trok zoo veele en zoo zware wisselbrieven op dien ouden heer dat hij ’s nachtss ley te zweten in stee van te slapen.’ Brussels, KB Albert ., Manuscripts Department, inv. no. .. !@;<, Manuscript Jacob Campo Weyerman, vol. ., p. 6@.

$&'. Duverger :;;?, p. :6:. Note that payment was done with bills of exchange. These fi nancial prob-lems are probably why Van den Berghe’s book-keeping has been preserved.

$&(. The surname of Quirijn van Biesum’s wife was Van den Bergh. It is not clear if she was related. GAR, DTB registers, Baptism of Adrianus van Biesum, !" April #($*, inv. no. :=, Baptism Remonstrants. See also the DTB registers online: www.gemeen-tearchief.rotterdam.nl. Rotterdam.

$&#. Erik Duverger discovered their archive and published countless documents in it. They dem-onstrate that Jacques Meyers and Quirijn van Bie-sum were important partners of the duo. Duver-ger :;;?.

$&$. Duverger :;;?, pp. ...-A.$&%. Duverger :;;?, pp. A-A....$&!. Duverger :;;?, pp. @-6.$&". ‘Den onbehouwen, Brabandschen van der

Venne was een konstkoper die op eens anders beurs negotieerde en die de schapen schoor en zijn meester de varkens.’ Brussels, KB Albert ., Manu-scripts Department, inv. no. .. !@;<, Manuscript Ja-cob Campo Weyerman, vol. ., p. 6@.

$&&. ‘Hij kocht seer duure schilderijen op [...] voor den Gentschen heer Van den Berg, schepen van Sint Bavo, zo te Parijs als elders en dewijl hij op die

.%,$&%',.#%'2 '&, ,&'($

!:7

(" Paulus Potter, The farmyard [Urinating cow], panel, <! x !!>.> cm, St Petersburg, Hermitage, inv. no. <:;

primarily Dutch masters from Quirijn van Biesum, Jan van Beuningen, Jacob Noordhey and Francis Greenwood to ship to Brabant and Paris.:6:

Shortly after Van der Vennen’s visit, Van Biesum left for Düsseldorf with a number of paintings. On that trip he spoke with Johann Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg about the new acquisitions. He urged Van den Berghe to send the pic-tures as quickly as possible so that they could also be oB ered to the elector.:67 Johann Wilhelm was interested primari-ly in work by Rubens. I investigate this in greater detail in another chapter. Here, it should be noted that even though Van Biesum made it understood to the Ghent dealer that he was the key fi gure, in fact Jacques Meyers was holding the reins. When Van den Berghe postponed delivery once again Meyers howled with rage, while previously he had kept a low profi le: ‘Does Mr Van den Berghe think that we are Lazarus [drunk] and therefore have no feelings about this? More-

over, since then I have sent [things] to Vienna, and been in-formed that they arrived, while I cannot obtain them from Ghent.’:6? When real problems arose in conjunction with the elector, Meyers joined the debate. His personal interests were evidently greater than those of Quirijn van Biesum.

This notwithstanding, Meyers and Van Biesum had out-standing suppliers in Van den Berghe and his partner. Van der Vennen had, after all, succeeded in building up excellent contacts in Paris.:6> Good ‘friends’ included not only the art dealers Tramblin and Germain, who maintained close ties with the high French nobility, but courtiers, one of the most important of whom was Pierre de la Porte, the Entrepreneur des bâtiments du Roi.:6@ He had a distinguished collection, from which he – and later his heirs – sold paintings, and he had access to the collections of the regent, Philippe .., duc d’Orléans. Tramblin, Germain and De la Porte shepherd-

!:?

$'). Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. ::!6 deed 6?, Estate inventory of Quirijn van Biesum, &" April #$!", pp. >@:-@6=.

$(*. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. ::!6 deed 6?, Estate inventory of Quirijn van Biesum, &" April #$!", pp. >@:-@6=. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' Septem-ber #$!#, pp. :=;-:=:.

$(#. Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. !>:6 deed !>, Estate inventory of Jacques Meyers, !' September #$!#, pp. :=!-:=:.

$($. Only a Deposition of Christ by Bassano was not auctioned with the rest of the Meyers collection. The painting did belong to him, though, for it was still listed in the catalogue of !6!?.

$(%. Quirijn van Biesum relied on another factor in the British capital. Since December !6!@, Ben-jamin Stanton had been trying ‘to sell [works] for as many pennies as possible in London and of the amount he would earn above 6?< guilders, he would pay half to the deceased as well as the same entire amount [6?<]’ (om voor de meeste Pennin-gen te Londen te verkopen en ’t geene hij daer voor boven de seven honderd agt en veertig guilders meerder zoude maken daarvan zoude hij de helft aen den overleden betalen nevens ’t zelve geheele Capitalen).’ Rotterdam, GAR, NAR, inv. no. ::!6 deed 6?, Estate inventory of Quirijn van Biesum, &" April #$!", pp. >@:-@6=.

$(!. See Appendix C:.$(". Jacob and Walter Senserf called it such. In my

view, this refers to Meyers’ purchase of the nu-merous Italian paintings in the duc de Gramont’s cabinet.

$(&. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. =, Letter from James Brydges to Walter Senserf, !% November #$#&, p. :@6.

$('. A pistole was a Spanish coin worth more than 6 guilders as of the fi rst half of the seventeenth cen-tury (Van Gelder :;;:, pp. :6?-:6>). Thus, this was close to !?;;-!>:; guilders. San Marino, HL, Bry-dges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. =, Letter from James Brydges to Walter Senserf, !% November #$#&, p. :@6.

$((. ‘[Je] suis bien faché de voir que notre petit commerce soit en danger de perir dans son com-mencement. Ce n’est pas monsieur que je dite que les Tableaux que vous m’avez envoyé ne valent pas le prix que vous en demandez; mais sachant par l’expérience des autres que le plaisir de la peinture quelque agreable qu’il soit, est assez dangereux a cause de la depense qui l’accompagne, je me suis resolu a n’exeeder pas dans les achats que je ferai un tel prix.’ San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !:, Letter from James Brydges to Jacques Meyers, #$ February #$#(, p. :6!. Only the letters of Chandos to Jacques Meyers have been preserved. See Appendix C:.

$(). San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !7, Letter from James Brydges to Jacques Meyers, #( January #$#(, p. :!.

$''. Brulez !=>=; Denucé !=7!; Denucé !=?=.$'(. ‘Quam het in mijn hand, en men gaB mij ordre

bij occasie te vercoope dan souwden aparent meer doorden Tijt van coomen.’ Leeuwarden, Tresoar (RAF), Stadholder’s Archive, Archive of Maria Louise von Hessen-Kassel, inv. no. !=, Letter from Jan van Beuningen to Mr de Hertoghe, !" December #$#!.

(& Anthony van Dyck, Portrait of Cesare Alessandro Scaglia (Abbé de Verue), canvas, :;;.@ x !:7.: cm, London, The National Gallery, inv. no. @>6>

!:>

half belonged to Jean Boscheron, the other to Jacques Mey-ers.:<7 Clearly, the concept of the ‘spreading of risks’ was not unknown to these exclusive gentleman-dealers. The will-ingness to send paintings on spec to distant lands – with all of the inherent risks – was oB set by sharing responsibility.

Regrettably, little information about the transactions just described has come down to us. Fortunately, thanks to the preserved correspondence this lack is partly compensat-ed for by our extensive knowledge of the dealings between Jacques Meyers and the Duke of Chandos.:<? Their associa-tion began in !6!7, a particularly busy year for gentleman-dealers such as Jacques Meyers and their international cli-entele. First there was the Paets auction, and then the sale of the collection of William .... In this period, moreover, Mey-ers acquired many masterpieces from France. Even before the Description du Cabinet, which would make all of this pub-lic, was printed (!6!?), a lively correspondence took place be-tween James Brydges of Chandos and his Rotterdam agents Jacob and Walter Senserf about the arrival in the city on the Maas River of an ‘Italian cabinet.’:<> Chandos rather liked the idea of acquiring a work from this famous collection.:<@ He responded: ‘I am oblig’d to you for the notice you give me of the pictures lately come over from Italy, but as I am now pretty well stockt, I would not increase my number, except if it was for the sake of a very valuable one (I mean in good-ness not in price). That which you recommend of Herodias with St. John Baptist’s head, though the work may be fi ne, yet the subject is too melancholy to be pleased with the sight of and therefore to qualify that, I would at the same time buy the companion of it the St. Cecilia, but then the price is too dear and if I could not have them both for :;; or ::; pis-toles, I had rather let them alone.’:<6 Which is, in fact, what happened. After that, correspondence concerning Meyers’ cabinet lay dormant for two years, which does not mean that the contacts had ceased, for on !6 February !6!@ Chan-dos answered a letter from Jacques Meyers: ‘I’m quite cross to fi nd that our little enterprise is in danger of disappearing before it has even started. It is not so, Sir, that I deem the pic-tures you sent unworthy of the price you place on them, but knowing from experience with other [pictures] that no mat-ter how enjoyable the pleasure of paintings may be, it is dan-gerous because of the accompanying expenses. I have there-fore decided not to exceed in my purchases the price I set on them.’:<< In the meantime, the British nobleman had re-ceived several paintings from Meyers, as well as the printed catalogue of his cabinet.:<= Having misplaced the catalogue, he asked for a new copy with annotations of the asking pric-es. He had heard that Meyers owned some paintings by Ni-colas Poussin as well as the Seven Sacraments, about which he

ed the Flemish art dealer into the Parisian nobility. I sus-pect that François Boscheron in Paris and his brother Jean in Brussels had the same sound contacts and that they, too, supplied art to Meyers. In this way the Rotterdam merchant disposed over at least two trading conduits with Paris.

4'2$ – Jacques Meyers not only bought international works of art, he also sold them to the European aristocracy. This echoes the art and luxury goods businesses of the South-ern-Netherlandish fi rms of Dela Faille (sixteenth century), Forchondt and Musson (seventeenth century).:66 Given his close familial and professional ties with the Southern Neth-erlands, the notion of being a ‘court purveyor’ of art and lux-ury goods, like his illustrious Antwerp predecessors, would certainly have crossed Meyers mind. The questions I would like to pose now are practical in nature. How did Meyers or-ganise this international art trade and how did it fi t into his business enterprise? In his case, trading in French wine and cognac was his primary source of income. It constituted the basis of his vast wealth and continued to be the core of his business. Import and export alternated in rapid succes-sion and guaranteed a constant fl ow of money. Art dealing, in contrast, transpired in an entirely diB erent manner. The trick was patience. He seems to have turned Jan van Beunin-gen’ quoted words into deeds: ‘Were I assigned to sell pri-vately, more would be earned in the course of time.’:6<

Meyers’ fortitude emerges clearly from his intercourse with various European dignitaries, such as Count Johann Wenzel von Gallas, who had := paintings brought to him for inspection before !6!=. Together with Quirijn van Bie-sum, Jacques Meyers had them sent to this imperial diplo-mat in Prague and Vienna.:6= The best works came from the Meyers collection, the lesser ones from Van Biesum. Local re-sponsibility was in the hands of the nobleman’s confi dants: in Vienna this was the equerry ‘Raison’ and in Prague a cer-tain Mr ‘Dunbier’.:<; I was unable to fi nd any information on either of them. Van Biesum, incidentally, was not the on-ly partner in this joint-venture. Together with Jean Bosche-ron, Jacques Meyers had sent some other paintings to the imperial capital. This shipment was also intended for Jo-hann Wenzel von Gallas. Unfortunately, Meyers’ estate in-ventory makes no mention of what had been sent for his ex-cellency’s approval.:<! Most of the paintings were returned to Rotterdam after the death of Johann Wenzel (!6!=):<: and auctioned with the rest of Meyers’ collection in !6::. We are groping in the dark with regard to the fate of Van Biesum’s share, which consisted chiefl y of copies. Other paintings destined ‘for sale outside of the country’ (voor koopmanschap buyten ’s lands) were in London under the supervision of the factor Edward Browne. Again, one

!:@

$)!. The Virgin and Child by Guido Reni and the Turchi are not mentioned in the Déscription! The Turchi may be the version now in a German pri-vate collection. Verona !===. See Appendix B?, A6. For Teniers, see Appendix B?, cat. no. @>.

$)$. ‘Hier was hij, volgens gewoonte, by de grooten van dat ryk ten eersten bekent en gezien, en ge-noot veel eer van den Ridder Matheus Dekker, een Amsterdammer van geboorte, die met koopman-schap groote schatten heeft gewonnen [...]. Dees’ bracht onzen betaelmeester by alle lords en pairs van ’t ryk.’ Van Gool !6>;-!6>!, vol. ., pp. !<@-!=;.

$)%. See Chapter ?A.

$)*. The amount is not mentioned in the letters that have come down to us.

$)#. ‘’t jaer !6!> stak hy [Netscher] naer Engelant als betaelmeester der @;;; mannen krygsbenden, die de staet aen koning George den eersten overdeet, om de rebellen in Schotlant tot gehoorzaamheid te verplichten.’ Van Gool !6>;-!6>!, vol. ., pp. !<@-!=;. Note that Netscher too oscillated between art, war and diplomacy.

(' Peter Paul Rubens, Drunken Silenus, panel, :!:.> x :!7.> cm, Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek

!:6

our by Sir Matthew Decker, an Amsterdammer by birth, who amassed immense wealth through trading [...]. The lat-ter introduced our paymaster to all of the lords and peers of the empire.’:=: The realisation that Matthew Decker was al-so Chandos’ trusted confi dant makes it crystal clear just how small the world was at that time. It would not be surprising if the agreement for the entire transaction had already been made by Decker himself in Netscher’s presence at Jacques Meyers’ home in !6!7. At that time Matthew Decker was stay-ing with Jacob Senserf in Rotterdam, where they established an organisation that would enable them and James Brydg-es to buy paintings at the sale of William ...’s collection.:=7 This is discussed again later on. The paintings that Meyers shipped to England were not by lesser masters. Chandos was most pleased by Lot and his daughters by Alessandro Turchi, a Virgin and Child by Guido Reni and David .. Teniers’ Ghent kermis (fi g. <<).:=? He al-

had clearly already been informed and which continued to interest him. This time, he inquired as to their defi nite ask-ing price. Despite his vast wealth, James Brydges could not come up with this amount.:=;

So much for the negotiations about the paintings still in Rotterdam. In the meantime, Meyers had shipped a number of paintings to England hoping for the best. They were en-trusted to Theodoor Netscher for the crossing. As mentioned above, he was well acquainted with and perhaps even a con-fi dant of Meyers. However, he was also a protégé of Mat-thew Decker, a London merchant of Dutch origins. In ‘the year !6!>, he [Netscher] crossed to England as paymaster of @;;; soldiers, whom the state transferred to King George ., in order to force the rebels in Scotland into obedience,’ Jo-han van Gool wrote about Netscher.:=! ‘And,’ the artist’s bi-ographer continues, ‘here he was, as usual, known and seen by the great men of that empire, and accorded signal hon-

(( David Teniers, Ghent kermis, panel, <7.7 x !!7.> cm, present whereabouts unknown

!:<

ginalité ne m’ont couté quelques uns que la moi-tié de cette somme que je paye pour le votre, com-me par exemple la copie apres Raphael du Pape Leon E avec les deux Cardinaux par Andrea del Sarto (dont parle Giorgio Vasari) ne m’a couté que cent pieces. Pourtant je ne dis pas cela en dessein de vous rabattre quelque chose du prix dont nous sommes convenus. Je me souviens bien de vous l’avoir promis, au cas que je trouvois à mon gré le tableau & je sçai qu’en honneur je m’y dois tenir. C’est pourqoi j’ai prié mon bon ami Mr. Senserf de vous faire toucher ces 7;;; fl et vous aurez la bon-té de lui en donner quittance là-dessus.’ San Ma-rino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !?, Let-ter from James Brydges to Jacques Meyers, !% August #$#(, p. !@6. This incidence is treated in greater detail in the following chapter.

%*!. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !;-!@, Letters from James Brydges of Chandos to Henry Davenant, #$#%-#$#*.

%*". San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !?, Letter from James Brydges to Jacques Meyers, ' October #$#(, p. :!;.

%*&. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !?, Letter from James Brydges to Walter Senserf, ' Oc-tober #$#(, p. :;6.

%*'. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !?, Letter from James Brydges to Walter Senserf, !% August #$#(, p. !@>.

%*(. See Appendix C:.

!?? and !@6. Mentioned there is that a certain ‘Prins Ofeus’ bought it at Meyers’ house in January !6!?. Gillis van der Vennen, who wrote this, was not always well informed. The name, incidentally, is unknown to me.

$)). See Appendix B?, A@. I also wonder wheth-er Poussin’s Galatea and Acis was not the Galatea in Chandos’ house in Saint-James’ Square, a work that was already given away or sold before !6?6. Georg Friedrich Händel composed the opera Acis and Galatea in !6!< in the years he lived with Chan-dos. Could he have been inspired by Poussin’s painting? San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST <7, An Inventory of his Grace the Duke of Chandos in St. James’ Square, #* June #$!'. See Appendix B?, A7.

%**. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !?, Letter from James Brydges to Jacques Meyers, !) May #$#(, p. >=.

%*#. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !?, Letter from James Brydges to Jacques Meyers, !) May #$#(, p. >=. See Appendix B?, A<.

%*$. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !?, Letter from James Brydges to Jacques Meyers, #! June #$#(, p. =;. Unfortunately, I was unable to se-curely identify either painting.

%*%. ‘En verité c’est une piece excellente & par ra-port a cela je n’ai aucun lieu a regretter que je l’ai dans ma galerie, mais pour le prix je ne suis pas vous celer que je le compte bien cher. Les ta-bleaux qu’on m’a envoyé d’Italie des meilleurs maitres que Guido et de leur meilleure facon dont j’ai des preuves incontestables de leur ori-

$)". The Paolo Veronese was probably the Martyr-dom of St Justina. Meyers bought this painting, like the Turchi, via Van den Berghe from Pierre de la Porte in Paris and had it in his property at that moment. De la Porte had bought the painting from the duc d’Orléans who kept it in the Louvre. Duverger :;;?, pp. !;!, !::-!:7 and !:<. See also Appendix B?, cat. no. :?.

$)&. ‘Ceux que je souhaitetai le plus sont la Mado-na et Infant de Guido Reni; Loth et ses Filles par Alexandre Veronese et le Foir de Gand de Teniers, mais le prix qu’il m’en a demandé est si excessi-ve, que de longtems je ne pouvois me resoudre a y songer. J’ai en fi n pourtant lui oB ert une somme (il me semble) asses considerable pour les deux pri-mieres, laquelle J’entens ne vous est pas agreable. Je suis bien faché de ne pouvoir pas oB rir une som-me plus large, et je vous prie d’attribuer la faut a ma bourse, plutot qu’au manquement de la bonne volonte a repondre a vos souhaits. Pour prevenir neanmoins la peine et l’hazard que le renvoy de ces tableaux donnera, si vous me laisseres monsieur les trois surnommees à deux cens livres sterling, je les prendrai sur ce pied la.’ San Marino, HL, Bry-dges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !7, Letter from James Brydges to Jacques Meyers, #( January #$#(, p. :!.

$)'. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST >6 vol. !:, Letter from James Brydges to Jacques Meyers, !" March #$#(, p. 7:7.

$)(. San Marino, HL, Brydges Papers, inv. no. ST <7, An Inventory of his Grace the Duke of Chandos Seat att Cannons, #* June #$!'. Duverger :;;?, pp. !;!, !:<,

() Anthony van Dyck, Self-portrait with a sunfl ower, canvas, @!.> x 6>.: cm, Cheshire, Eaton Hall (Duke of Westminster collection)

!:=

oB er was accepted, but would usher in the beginning of the end of the good rapport between the two men.7;:

Still, Chandos raved about the Reni: ‘In truth, it is an ex-cellent piece and therefore I in no way regret having it in my gallery, but, as to the price, I do have to confess that I fi nd it to be expensive. Of the paintings sent to me from Italy by the best masters and in the best manner, and of which I have proof that they are originals, some cost me only half of what I paid for yours; for example the copy of Raphael’s Pope Leo E with two cardinals by Andrea del Sarto (which Vasari speaks of) has cost me merely !;; pieces. Nonetheless, I have not said this to knock down the price we agreed on. I well re-member promising it to you, should I fi nd the painting to my liking and I am well aware that in all honour I must abide by it. That is why I have begged my good friend Mr Senserf to oB er you the 7;;; guilders, for which you will [certainly] be kind enough to give him a receipt.’7;7 In the meantime, Hen-ry Davenant was providing Chandos with countless paint-ings from Italy for far lower prices.7;? Chandos’ frustration was therefore understandable. In a fi nal attempt to regain favour, Meyers sent Chandos’ wife a painting as a gift.7;> But to no avail. The gift was grate-fully acknowledged, yet no further business transpired. To cap it all, Jacob Senserf ruined Jacques Meyers reputation with Brydges through gossip and backbiting, and the lat-ter decided to never again do business with the gentleman-dealer from Rotterdam.7;@ No one less than Nicolaas An-thonij Flinck seized the opportunity this presented, and had Senserf introduce him to Chandos as a reliable connoisseur and art lover – but more on this later.7;6

A fascinating picture of how a gentleman-dealer functioned on the international art market unfolds in the nine letters from Chandos to Jacques Meyers.7;< He was at home in the world of agents and diplomats, had a choice cabinet and was ready to sell the pictures he had collected over many years for a ‘reasonable’ price. To this end he was willing to have catalogues printed up, drawings made or even send the paintings themselves on approval. The many costs (cata-logues, sketches, transportation, etc.), and risks apparently did not outweigh the fi nancial and social benefi ts. Is this not the same trend that can be discerned in the life and art deal-ing of Jan van Beuningen?

ready had four paintings by Gerard Dou, and therefore was not interested in the two from Meyers’ cabinet. The subject of the painting by Paolo Veronese was too melancholy for him.:=> Chandos then tried to play an extra trump: ‘The ones I desire the most are the Madonna with the Infant by Guido Reni, Lot and his daughters by Alexander Veronese and the Ghent Kermis by Teniers, but the price he asks is so exces-sive, that I was unable to consider it for a long time. I have nevertheless oB ered him an amount – it seems considerable to me – for the fi rst two [paintings], but which, I have heard, is not to your liking. To my great displeasure I fi nd I cannot oB er you a larger sum, and ask you to assign this disappoint-ment to my purse, rather than a lack of good will in meeting your wishes. To nevertheless compensate you for the eB ort and the risk that the shipping of these paintings will incur, should you, Sir, give me the three named paintings for :;; livres sterling, I would take them on this basis.’:=@ Meyers did not jump at the proposal and only the Reni stayed with Chandos. The rest was returned to Meyers under the super-vision of Netscher.:=6

However, the exchange between Chandos and Mey-ers does not tell the whole story. Jacques Meyers, namely, bought a famous painting by Anthony van Dyck from Fran-cisco-Jacomo van den Berghe that was resold again before !6!? and surfaced in Chandos’ collection before !6:>.:=< This was the Self-portrait with a sunfl ower (fi g. <=), which Van den Berghe had bought from De la Porte in Paris.:== After receiv-ing a new catalogue in !6!@ annotated with the prices and supplemented with sketches of some of the paintings de-scribed, Chandos was tempted once again. ‘Permettez moi Monsieur de vous faire oB re de 7;;; gildres pour votre ta-bleau de Guido Rheni du sujet dont j’ai receu l’esquisse. Je serois en verité bien aise d’avoir un de ce maitre là pour ce-lui de la madonne & l’Infant, quoi qu’il soit d’une tres bonne main, personne pourtant de nos connoisseurs le veulent re-connoitre pour un de Guido Rheni,’ wrote the British noble-man.7;; As was customary at Chandos’ court at Cannons, the palace then still under construction, the London connois-seurs’ world had gathered to inspect the new acquisitions. Although praised, the Virgin and Child was not accepted as an authentic Guido Reni. The English art lover then set his sights on another work by Reni, a sketch of which had con-vinced him of its quality. The scene depicted an Angel waking Elijah and Brydges oB ered Meyers 7;;; guilders for it.7;! The

!7;

)* Michael Dahl, Portrait of James Brydges, :?7.= x !?6.7 cm, Denver, The Denver Museum of Art, Berger Collection