The kitchen between representation and everyday experience : the case of sixteenth-century Antwerp....

For use by the Author only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV

Trading Values in Early Modern Antwerp

Editors / Redactie:Christine Göttler

Bart RamakersJoanna Woodall

Waarde en waarden in vroegmodern Antwerpen

LEIDEN . BOSTON2014

9789004272156_print_content_NKJ64_NKJ_64_2014 04-11-14 19:10 Pagina 3


Contents / Inhoud

7

8

38

76

108

138

162

186

214

248

272

298

348

370

Christine Göttler, Bart Ramakers &Joanna Woodall

Joanna Woodall

Arjan van Dixhoorn

Hubert Meeus

Sven Dupré

Inneke Baatsen, Bruno Blondé &Julie De Groot

Koenraad Jonckheere

Christine Göttler

Stephanie Porras

Ralph Dekoninck

Bart Ramakers

Raingard Esser

Sarah Joan Moran

Acknowledgements

Trading values in early modern Antwerp. An introduction

De wisselaer. Quentin Matsys’s Man weighing gold coins and his wife, 1514

The values of Antwerp and the prosperity of Belgica. Political economy in Guicciardini’s Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi (1567)

Printing vernacular translations in sixteenth-century Antwerp

The value of glass and the translation of artisanal knowledge inearly modern Antwerp

The kitchen between representation and everyday experience. The case of sixteenth-century Antwerp

An allegory of artistic choice in times of trouble. Pieter Bruegel’sTower of Babel

Wit in painting, color in words. Gillis Mostaert’s depictions of fires

Copies, cannibals and conquerors. Maarten de Vos’s The big fisheat the small

A graphic koiné for a new religious value. The visual translatabilityof the Evangelicae historiae imagines

Sophonisba’s dress. Costume, tragedy and value on the Antwerpstage (c. 1615-1630)

The diamond of the Netherlands. Histories of Antwerp in theseventeenth century

The right hand of Pictura’s perfection. Cornelis de Bie’s Het guldencabinet and Antwerp art in the 1660s



162



163

The kitchen between representation and everydayexperience The case of sixteenth-century Antwerp

Inneke Baatsen, Bruno Blondé, Julie De Groot

The Antwerp cuekene

Antwerp, 11 August 1568. Jan van Werfve and Aert de Hyldernis – both swornappraisers to the bench of Aldermen – make sure they make note of all themovable goods present in a dwelling called De gulden penne. Its previousresident, Sebastiaen Cuypers, had been condemned by the 'Council of Troubles',one of the many victims. of the rash of eradication of heresy and sedition ledby the duke of Alva.1 The inventory of confiscated goods allows us to rediscoverhow domestic space was furnished, decorated and experienced by sixteenth-century Antwerp city dwellers like Sebastiaen. After having recorded all thegoods present in the sumptuously furnished neercamere (lower room), theappraisers entered a room via the vuerganck (corridor) which they describedas the eerste cuekene (first kitchen). Situated at the rear of De gulden penne, thiskitchen presumably overlooked de plaetse (courtyard), where another room,specified as the waschuysken (laundry house) was located. Since Sebastiaen wasa school teacher, his abode was large enough to include a space described as aschoele (school) and sleeping facilities for his pupils. These children mostprobably dined in Sebastiaen’s kitchen as seating facilities and tablewareabounded, next to hearth equipment and storage furniture.

In addition to a canvas painting of Adam and Eve, a remarkable feature inhis kitchen was the print of the Vette cueken (Fat kitchen). Ever since its firstdesign by Pieter Bruegel (1525-1569) and publication by Hieronymus Cock (1518-1570) in 1563, this moralizing image had become a popular theme (fig. 1).2 Itwould repeatedly serve as a major source of inspiration to later artists such asHendrick Goltzius (1558-1617), David Teniers the Elder (1582-1649) and Jan Steen(1625/1626-1679).

As John Loughman and Michael Montias have shown, the location of thiskitchen scene in the kitchen itself was most probably not a coincidence.3

Encumbered as prints were with moralizing and didactic symbolism, thisexemplum contrarium served Sebastiaen well in warning his students againstsins like greed, overindulgence and luxury.4 The material culture of his ownkitchen, however, can hardly be seen as the culmination of modesty andinconspicuous consumption. Somehow mirroring the painted rich kitchen,Sebastiaen’s hearth was equipped with an iron bar with three ratchet systems,on which cauldrons could be hung. Apart from the more ‘common’ hearthequipment, he also possessed eenen yseren draeyenden spit (an iron turnspit).In the print, both the spitted piglet roasting below the cauldrons and the pancollecting the dripping fat thus signal another correspondence withSebastiaen’s kitchen. Three cupboards stocked with pewter plates, dishes and Detail fig. 1



164 Inneke Baatsen, Bruno Blondé, Julie De Groot

metal kitchen chattels were also part of the kitchen furnishings, as were amirror, chimney cloths and copper candlesticks. Finally, two tables, sometablecloths and a considerable amount of seating furniture completed thepicture of a well-furnished room. With nine rooms (if we exclude courtyardand corridors), De gulden penne can be considered one of the most spacioushouses among the sample of 92 confiscation inventories that will form thebasis of the analysis in this chapter. By contrast, a brief glance into the kitchenof Daniel van Aymeyen, whose dwelling consisted of only four rooms, revealsa clearly different material culture and domestic arrangement. Due to theconstraints of available domestic space and an analysis of what is called the‘artefactual grammar’ of the room,5 the kitchen seemed to have played adifferent role in Daniel’s household. The latter kitchen not only housed aconsiderably smaller variety of (pewter) tableware and kitchen chattels, it wasalso equipped with a specific type of bed, a sluyt spinnecoetse, suggesting thepresence of sleeping facilities in the cooking area. Dinner in this householdseems to have been held in neercamere, where a table and seating furniturewere installed.

1

Pieter van der Heyden after Pieter

Brueghel, Vette Keuken, 1563, engraving,

221 mm x 293 mm (Antwerp, Hieronymus

Cock), Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum (photo:

Rijksmuseum).



The kitchen between representation and everyday experience 165

Painted reality or moralizing concern?

Unfortunately, relatively little is known about the functional design of andeveryday practices in kitchens in sixteenth-century Antwerp dwellings. Thisscholarly neglect is even more regrettable since it was the sixteenth-centuryAntwerp art market that witnessed the appearance of a new ‘genre’6: kitchenand market scenery paintings. Apart from their market-stall paintings, PieterAertsen (c. 1508-1575) and Joachim Beuckelaer (c. 1535-1574) introduced andestablished the kitchen area as the prime locus of religious and/or moral actions,such as ‘Christ in the house of Mary and Martha and the dinner at Emmaus’.

In these keukenstukken (kitchen scenes), the kitchen is depicted as a spacedefined by its cooking facilities; witness the boiling, simmering stews, the freshmeats and vegetables already partially cut and sliced by the cook. The noveltyof these works was considered to be the meticulous painting and theundeniably genuine depiction of these foodstuffs, kitchen utensils andtableware in the foreground. Though it might sound rather teleological, kitchenand market scenes are often considered a meaningful prelude to still lifes oflater periods.7 Art historians have often labelled these kitchen pieces as‘inversions’, since attention is drawn first to the kitchen area in the foreground,whereas the major theme is always confined to another space in thebackground.8 Paradoxically, this technique in a way reasserted the kitchen as a‘backstage’ room as the major scene was located elsewhere in the house.

Typically, such paintings by Aertsen and Beuckelaer would include thecombination of a biblical scene – mostly in the background of the picture, butrelated to the main subject in the foreground – and a proliferation of utensilsand foodstuffs almost at the threshold between the painted scene and its viewer.Little agreement has been reached so far on the meaning of such religiousrepresentations in the everyday setting of the sixteenth-century kitchen.Indeed, the wealth and affluence of objects on display may have served thepurpose of contemplation on the moral implications of consumption, an issuewhich held centre stage in many polemic writings from Antwerp during the1560s.9 While the port town was at the apogee of its golden age, newcommodities and luxury items penetrated urban life at an ever-faster pace. This‘material renaissance’ triggered many contemporaries to reflect upon the(negative) moral dimensions of consumption and trade. By using the adageollas ostentare, or ‘to make a show of kitchen pots’, the humanist DesideriusErasmus (1466-1536) emphasised the importance of the everyday object, andmore specifically the ‘undignified object’.10 Inspired by the rhetoric and tricksof ancient satire, Erasmus believed ordinary things could convey messages ofgreat importance. Indeed, vegetables and kitchen utensils served to raise moralissues in an entertaining way, and during the sixteenth century their ‘modesty’could be used to put an ironic question mark behind the splendour, wealth andunstoppable drive towards the commodification of urban life.

These satirical and moralizing concerns seem to have lingered in the potsand pans depicted by Aertsen and Beuckelaer as well. J.A. Emmens and KeithMoxey, followed by, among others, Reindert Falkenburg, attribute moralizingallegorical qualities to these paintings.11 By visualising this ‘show of kitchen pots’in the foreground of his paintings, Aertsen reminded his audience of thepotential to discern satirical and moral messages in the painted kitchen




equipment. Erwin Panofsky, however, considered that Aertsen's panel paintingsviolated traditional conceptions of Renaissance art and he dismissed hisdepictions of ordinary sordid subjects as ‘northern aberrations’.12 In conveyinghis entertaining, satirical and allegorical message, Aertsen fell back upon a‘realistic’ depiction of kitchen utensils which to a certain extent referred to arecognisable sixteenth-century reality.13 Karel van Mander (1548-1606) in hisSchilder-boeck (1603) praised Aertsen in this respect: ‘He painted kitchen scenes,filled with all kinds of comestibles and foodstuffs as if they were real, as if theseobjects mimicked nature itself ’.14 Also, Aertsen’s pupil Joachim Beuckelaerarranged his still life purposely to include close-ups, particularly of thefoodstuffs and kitchen equipment. The heavily laden tables, kitchen dressersand bowls filled to the brim with all manner of food almost appear to intrudeon the viewer’s own space.15

Although the importance of this tradition has often been measured by theinfluence of ‘Aertsenesque’ themes (such as the kitchen) in later sixteenth- andearly seventeenth-century paintings by Dutch, Italian and Spanish painters likeJan Steen (1625/26-1679), Vincenzo Campi (c. 1536-1591) and Jacopo Tintoretto(1516-1594), little attention has been paid to the ways in which these paintersdefined their scenes as actual kitchens, recognisable to contemporary viewers.16

Which goods were selected for display – and, more specifically, whichhousehold functions and relations were used to provoke an association with‘the kitchen’ as depicted by these artists? Moreover, what was the culturalmindset which guided the choice of acceptable and necessary household objectsthat were, by their combined depiction, regarded as essential when making upthe stereotypical kitchen? In other words, how was the kitchen conceptuallyconstructed in the iconography of kitchen pieces?17

The kitchen dished up. Questions and set-upStrange as it may seem, historiography has hardly done justice to the kitchenas a subject worthy of being studied, and this holds especially true for thekitchen in Antwerp.18 By contrast, the dining room, studiolo or the salette,unsurprisingly mainly masculine venues in the home, have already attracted agreat deal of interest amongst scholars of the Renaissance. Our knowledge ofmore mundane and ‘ordinary’ rooms, however, is still in its infancy.19

The kitchen in many respects seems a much less attractive room, subjectto an histoire immobile of hardly changing everyday practices and associatedwith female and backstage labour. Whether or not this neglect and prejudiceis historically rooted in contemporary elite thinking and architectural treatisesremains open to discussion. Indeed, in his architectural treatise, Leon BattistaAlberti (1404-1472) drew a strong line between, on the one hand, those roomsin the house which were furnished to welcome visitors and organise convivialdinners; and, on the other hand, those parts of domestic space which had a less‘front stage’ character.20 While ‘front stage’ rooms are equipped with status-enhancing objects and fashionable decorum, status-threatening activities aresafely confined to backstage places in the home. According to Alberti, thekitchen was likely such a ‘backstage’ area, which – as in Aertsen’s andBeuckelaer’s pictures – needed to be located in close proximity to therepresentative rooms, yet at the same time was clearly isolated from them. In




humanist thinking this demarcation line coincided with a highly genderedconception of room use and the confinement of certain household functionsto specific rooms.21 Building on this, some authors have called the gradualappearances of such functionally specialised rooms as paving the way towards‘modern’ living patterns.22

However, it remains to be disputed if the appearance of a cooking spacecan be linked to the much-debated issues of functional specialisation, as thiswould imply a more or less linear process towards modern homes.23 Likewise,since claims about the kitchen as a space lived and experienced by sixteenth-century city dwellers have hardly been backed by empirical research, it remainsfar from certain whether the concept of functional specialisation was actuallyapplicable to the kitchen. Therefore, we urgently need to verify whether theideally and conceptually constructed divide between the kitchen as a backstagespace and the representative rooms as a front-stage place withstands anempirical check. As this chapter will show, the inventories which we haveanalysed reveal a more layered and nuanced view of the representations thatwere projected by painted visual images of the kitchen.

In the following pages we shall try to confront the ‘painted kitchen’ witheveryday practices inferred from the material culture of kitchens recorded inconfiscation inventories. This will be done by scrutinising how Antwerphouseholds of different social strata each gave proper meaning to the kitchenaccording to their own needs and values. In doing so, we will argue that themarked and distinct nature of the kitchen in sixteenth-century Antwerp didnot result in an Alberti-like divide of the home between public and private,masculine and feminine, but contributed rather to the development of thisplace into an important yet distinct social crossing for all members of thehousehold.

Unlike previous research on material culture in sixteenth-century Antwerp,in which notarial probate inventories figured centre stage, this paper isgrounded upon a database of inventories drawn from confiscation records andnotarial archives. While the former source privileged relatively higher segmentsof Antwerp society, which are consequently represented disproportionately,our research covers a broad range of the middle-class. In table 1, probateinventories are categorised according to the number of rooms the inventoriedhouseholds occupied. Category I, as indicated, comprises one-room dwellers;and category II, those in two or three rooms. The other categories are broader:category III, 4-7 rooms; category IV, 8-11 rooms; category V, 12-15 rooms. CategoryVI is a residual category, comprising 16 rooms. Evidence of the residents’professional occupations shows that categories III and IV represent the urbanmiddling groups. Indeed, if we check for the presence of (work)shops inAntwerp houses as a crude proxy for the social group of retailers and mastercraftsmen, inventories from categories III and IV turn out to be over-represented, with a clear centre of gravity in category IV (table 2). In both sourcesamples the majority of probate inventory testators of category IV also had ashop at home. Our inventory database thus seems particularly reflective of theurban middling layers.




Moreover, the inventories analysed in this paper were made right at the apexof Antwerp’s golden age. They were recorded in 1567-1570, a turning point afterwhich the city entered a period of decline caused by political, religious andeconomic uncertainty. The confiscation drafts were drawn up by the localofficials of the dreaded Raad van Beroerten (the Council of Blood), a centralcourt of justice headed and created by the ‘iron’ duke of Alba (1507-1582), whowas sent by the Spanish-Habsburg rulers to punish the instigators of thereligious troubles during the so-called Wonderjaar (1566-1567).26 In his attemptto purge the Low Countries of apostates and heretics, Alba created thisinstitution to summon all individuals suspected of heresy.27 If the suspects didnot appear after a third appeal, they were automatically judged guilty. Theythen were eternally banished and saw their movable and immovable propertiesconfiscated.

The kitchen. What’s in a name?Kitchens already appeared to be quintessential parts of urban dwellings by thefourteenth century. On 15 January 1395, a notice was written into the records ofthe Antwerp Aldermen that registered the rental details of a house called De

Table 1. Percentage of inventories with a (work)shop by social category.

Social category I II III IV V VI Total

(number of rooms) (1) (2-3) (4-7) (8-11) (12-15) (16)

Confiscation records 3 10 42 20 6 0 81

Notarial records(1560-1580)24 7 3 7 11 4 18 50

Table 2. Comparison of confiscation records and notarial probate inventories according to house size.25

Social category I II III IV V & VI

Confiscation records 0 0 21 50 33

Notarial records (1560-1580) 0 0 42 63 17




Baers, situated in the Hoogstraat. A detailed description of the rented propertywas included. It mentioned on the ground level an eetcamer (dining room),upstairs a slaepcamer (bedroom) and on top den soldere (attic). The notice goeson to describe the cleenen kelder (small basement) and the plaetse (courtyard)with a cuekene (kitchen).28 In fact, if we chart several of the rental records, someexamples suggest the mentioning of a cuekene probably dates back to muchearlier periods.29 Compared to the nomenclature used for the other rooms inthe house, the kitchen in our sample in fact occupies a rather exceptionalposition. Whereas most rooms are described by reference to their locationwithin the geography of the dwelling (for example, the lower room orneercamere, upper room or bovencamere and front room or voorcamere inSebastiaen Cuypers’s house), the ‘kitchen’ was not. It was the first room to beexplicitly referred to by its function rather than its location.30

Semantic analysis of the word ‘kitchen’ underlines this functionality. TheMiddle Dutch word cuekene – just as the Old English cycene, the German Küche,French cuisine and Spanish cocina – goes back to the Vulgar Latin cucina,referring to food preparation.31 Historiography, therefore, has become used todefining the kitchen as ‘a room predominantly used for cooking and work’.32

The specific naming of the kitchen as a specialist room somehow mirrored amaterial process that had originated in the medieval period. Indeed, practicalrearrangements and innovations of the late medieval house caused cookingpractices to move from the central hall to a more or less demarcated area: thekitchen.33 The development of improved ventilation systems and the relocationof the central fireplace to the side wall enabled the furnishing of a semi-demarcated or separate ‘fireplace’ for cooking purposes. 34

In sixteenth-century Antwerp a large majority of houses were equippedwith a kitchen (graph 1). Whilst still nearly absent in the smallest dwellings(categories I and II), an overwhelming share of the more spacious houses(categories III-V) had at least one kitchen. It could be argued, then, that inaddition to the obvious larger amount of domestic space available, the richerhouseholds required more spacious kitchen facilities because they presumablyreceived guests more often and had to equip their cooking areas accordingly.35

Keeping a higher number of household servants likewise required a largerkitchen. More importantly, some dwellings developed a second room next to

Graph 1.Presence of the cuekene in Antwerp Households (1567-1569) (N=92). Source:ARA - Kwitanties van de Rekenkamers te Brussel, T 576 - 3614 & 2917.

UnknownII (2-3 rooms)

III (4-7 rooms)

IV (8-11 rooms)

V (12+ rooms)

No kitchen %

Kitchen %

I (1 room)




their kitchen, called achtercuekene (back kitchen), cleene cuekene (smallkitchen) or keldercueckene (cellar kitchen). Among households of larger urbandwellings it was not unusual to have multiple kitchens. The notarial inventoriescorroborate this finding. No less than 83 percent of the households of categoryVI researched by Carolien de Staelen for the period 1560-1580 possessed two oreven more kitchens.

Turning back to the confiscation inventories, Aerdt Verbeke presents a nicecase. He lived as an armour maker in a spacious house in the AntwerpKuiperstraat.36 His inventory mentions two separately labelled kitchens: thecleyne ceuken (small kitchen) and the groote cueken (large kitchen). De Staelenand also Toon Caers have already pointed out that these two rooms were notjust linguistically differentiated from each other.37 The function of a room was,according to Gwendolynn Heley, ‘dictated by available space, linked to wealthin some cases, and to occupational and domestic requirements’.38 In mostrooms, a multiplicity of functions or at least multiple ‘functional capacities’were combined. Indeed, if more than one kitchen was present, the smallerkitchen tended to be used primarily for cooking and heating, while the largerkitchen seems to have had a more varied array of ‘functional capacities’: thecapabilities of rooms to effectuate certain daily practices.

Aerdt Verbeke’s groote cueken had the capacity to receive, entertain and/orimpress guests or family members, with its large table, four metal candlesticksand an enormous amount of splendid table amenities and dining accessories.Notwithstanding the presence of these rather luxurious ‘front stage’ objects,the larger kitchen did not repudiate its other functions either. The eetschapradeand the amaris, both cupboards with a clear reference to the storage offoodstuffs, also dominated this space. Furthermore, the hearth equipmentfound in the larger kitchen was such that it could also be used to prepare certaintypes of food. The roasting of meat, however, seems to have been done in thesmaller kitchen where a turnspit was installed. A ratchet system, used to holdkettles above the fire, was available in both kitchens. It could perhaps be argued,then, that people had a certain preference as to where they would preparecertain types of food; the more labour-intensive, time-consuming or smokypreparations in the smaller kitchen, and the simmering and boiling of stewsand soups in the larger kitchen. Jan Roelans, resident of a more modest dwellingof at least six rooms, had both a large and a small kitchen, the latter located inthe cellar.39 Again, his larger kitchen could be used for mixed purposes, but itshowed a clearer tendency towards sleeping, entertaining and dining – to whichthe large amount of luxurious household textiles, paintings and tableware bearswitness. The kitchen in the cellar, on the other hand, was more likely intendedas the main cooking space, although seating, sleeping and storage furniturewere not entirely absent there. The available evidence confirms the hypothesisput forward by both De Staelen and Caers: the so-called pronkkeukens or moreluxurious ‘front-stage kitchens’ were no prerogative of the seventeenth-centuryUnited Provinces, but already existed in sixteenth-century Antwerp.40 Yet onlythe ‘happy few’ enjoyed the luxury of multiple kitchen rooms.41

In short, kitchens figured in the majority of urban middle-class households,comprising families of not only the wealthy but also the less wealthy socialgroups of Antwerp society. However, though the presence of kitchens seemedto be rather wealth-inelastic, their functional capacities were not. Indeed, only




the highest social categories were able to furnish a pronkkeuken as well as asmall kitchen. In this way, different household values were traded between theavailable rooms within the constraints of domestic space.

We understand, however, very little about the way in which contemporarycity dwellers thought about the kitchen and how it was used. In spite of its oldetymological roots, the very definition of the characteristics that turned a roominto a kitchen was bound to contemporary and contingent ideas of domesticspace, material culture, gender patterns, room use and, of course, socio-economic status. Deborah Krohn further underlines that, although kitchenshad been distinct spaces in more wealthy and spacious houses, it was only withthe introduction of Aertsen’s and Beuckelaer’s kitchen pieces that the cookingplace in non-aristocratic dwellings ceased to be depicted as ‘a fireplace andwashing area along one wall of a multifunctional room’.42

Commensurately, the kitchens in houses of artisans, shopkeepers andtraders in sixteenth-century Siena developed from a more or less functionalstorage and cooking room into a comfortable, well-furnished social space.43 TheAntwerp kitchens, we will try to argue, closely resemble this Sienese pattern.In spite of the tendency of painted representations to focus on cookingactivities and female labour, in Antwerp – like Siena – everyday practices stillcoined the kitchen as ‘the central reference point of varied, multiple dailyactivities’44 and thus primarily as a multipurpose area.45 The growing diversityin late medieval and sixteenth-century material culture was paralleled by a risein cooking utensils, table accessories and furniture, which somehow incitedhouseholds to redefine the use of their available domestic space. It is exactlythese household goods, furnishings and embellishments that will be analysedin the ensuing pages in order to get a closer insight into the kitchen as it wasactually lived in.

Beyond the pots and pans…Almost all of Beuckelaer’s and Aertsen’s kitchen pieces show a hearth with somekettles or cauldrons hanging from a pot-hook, which could be lowered or raisedby a ratchet system according to the cuisson of the boiled food, situated rightfrom the kitchen door (fig. 2). Another familiar piece of hearth equipment werethe andirons, on which one or multiple spits could be rested and horizontalroasting could be kept under control ((in the picture, the leftmost housemaidis occupying herself with putting some poultry on the spit).46

The kitchen in this painting by Beuckelaer is thus essentially portrayed asa cooking area. The architectural framework depicts the cooking space as semi-demarcated, filled with kitchen utensils, prepared or yet-to-be-preparedfoodstuffs, storage furniture and, above all, the kitchen hearth. Additionalkitchenware was displayed on shelves or stored in large cupboards (calledschaprade or amaris).

Unsurprisingly, a search of the confiscation inventories for the presence ofcooking and hearth equipment yields broadly similar results; every kitchendisposed of cooking and heating facilities (table 3), indicating that no suchkitchen was exclusively used to impress guests; each could still be approachedas a working area. Ten inventories record the presence of rechtbanken or kitchenshelves on which food could be prepared. Moreover, the median number of




2

Joachim Beuckelaer, The four elements. Fire.

Kitchen scene with the parable of Christ in

the house of Mary and Martha in the back-

ground, 1570, oil on canvas, 158 x 216 cm,

London, National Gallery (photo: National

Gallery).

objects rises as one ascends the social scale (excluding category I, which is notrepresentative because it is a unique case). Besides, there was a higher varietyof (copper and iron) pans among the richer Antwerp households. Wealthierhouseholds might have at least three types of cooking pans, whereas the poorerhouseholds only seem to have needed or afforded one. Next to the common,undefined ‘pan’, richer urban dwellers also enjoyed frying pans, fruit pans, piepans and so on.

Wealthier households were more equipped to prepare refined andsophisticated meals. One major objection to the numbers presented above,however, brings up the question of material. Indeed, wooden and ceramickitchen utensils were very often not recorded or were hidden behind generaldescriptions such as ‘some earthenware’ as the officials deemed them not worthappraising.47

Moreover, cooking equipment was by no means confined to the kitchen.Yet, when we compare the amount of hearth and cooking equipment in thekitchen with similar utensils elsewhere in the house, the kitchen stands out asthe major and most dominant cooking area. It is, indeed, the only room yieldinga positive ‘ratio’48 when calculating the relative spread of hearth equipmentover different types of rooms. Taken the observed number of kitchens intoaccount, cooking equipment was relatively overrepresented there and, as




expected, heavily underrepresented elsewhere in the house. Cooking gear wasto be found primarily in the kitchen, although other rooms like the plaatse(courtyard) also contained a considerable amount of cooking gear (thiscourtyard probably functioned as a storage and washing area) (fig. 3). In otherwords, the emphasis in Aertsen’s and Beuckelaer’s paintings on cooking, andtheir presentation of the kitchen as a backstage space where kitchen maidswere working and preparing meals, is paralleled by the inventories, whichdocument a huge amount of kitchen utensils and hearth equipment stored andused in this room.49

One of the most obvious ways to control for the hypothesis of a graduallyincreasing functional specialisation of the kitchen relates to sleeping facilities.Kitchens were traditionally welcome venues for sleeping purposes. In order toscrutinise the situation for sixteenth-century Antwerp kitchens, we need asocial breakdown of the households from the analysed sample. As domesticspace in the city was limited and hence very expensive, it can be assumed thatsmaller dwellings were – in the absence of alternative space – more likely toretain some sleeping facilities in the kitchen.

Indeed, if we look at our data, we can conclude that the feasibility ofwithdrawing the sleeping function from the kitchen to adjoining spaces variedaccording to social class and more particularly according to the size of thedwelling. In more than half of the households in categories II and III, sleepingfacilities were recorded in the kitchen, whereas the curve is lower in categoryIV with only 35 percent and ends with 17 percent in category V. As one movesup the social scale, kitchens were less frequently used for sleeping purposes.Also, when part of the dwelling was dedicated to working activities (especiallyin shops and workshops), a considerably smaller share of domestic spaceremained, which restricted possibilities for functional specialisation. About 26percent of households in category III had a shop or workshop in their house ascompared with 53 percent of households in category IV. This illustrates nicelyhow pressure on domestic space seems to have determined the extent to whichhousehold functions were distributed across different rooms.

Although the available evidence suggests that this sleeping capacity wasstill present in a considerable number of sixteenth-century Antwerp kitchens,we need to stress that the kitchen was not (or was no longer) a preferred placeto sleep. On the contrary, graph 2 clearly demonstrates that, when considering

I II III IV V

Freq (%) Me* Freq (%) Me Freq (%) Me Freq (%) Me Freq (%) Me

HEATING 100 (24) 100 6.5 86 8.9 100 10.7 100 13.3

COOKING 100 (6) 100 2 80 8.5 94 8.1 83 13.4

Table 3.Heating and cooking facilities in Antwerp kitchens.(* Has been put in brackets because it is based on very low numbers.)




the relative distribution of sleeping furniture and textiles across different rooms,the kitchen does not show up as a place where sleeping furniture was morelikely to be present compared to other rooms. The front room, back room, lowerroom and upper rooms (largest share of rooms under heading ‘Room undef.’)were clearly (if present) preferred to the kitchen when it came to sleeping.

Furthermore, compared to other rooms, sheets, blankets and pillows wereless likely to be stored in the kitchen when compared to the number of bedsand bedframes. Some beds were not even fully made at the time the appraisersregistered all the available goods. This tendency towards a reduced importanceof sleeping in the kitchen seems to have continued in the first half of theseventeenth century. Indeed, a detailed scrutiny of the mattresses used in earlyseventeenth-century Antwerp kitchens shows that, unlike the living patternsin most of our neighbouring countries, the kitchen was no longer dominantlyused as a sleeping room, whereas other representative rooms on the groundfloor still were.50

Seating, dining and sociabilityHowever, crediting the sixteenth-century kitchen with having played a pivotalrole in the functional specialisation process, possibly fostered by a humanistconception of gender division and sophisticated domestic dining practices,simply does not stand when confronted with the confiscation inventories.51 Onthe contrary, the Antwerp kitchens were rather characterised by their multiple‘functional capacities’, and this multifunctional nature was by no means bornout of necessity and space constraints. As we will show, the multifunctionalnature of the kitchen even increased with the diversifying material culture ofthe sixteenth century. Could the kitchen be defined, then, as Lorna Weatherillhas surmised, as ‘a general living room where cooking was convenient toundertake’?52

Graph 2. Relative spread of beds and bed textiles/rooms (Antwerp, 1567-1569).

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4B

B

S

P

P

Bedframe (N=228)

Bed (N=235)

Saarge (N=361)

Sheets (N=318)

Peluwe (N=139)

Pillow (N=123)




Depictions of the kitchen in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Antwerpseem to expel the everyday activity of dining from the urban cooking area. Inthis respect, a clear demarcation line separates rural from urban representationsas far as the painted material culture of kitchens is concerned (‘rural’ kitchenscenes appear frequently, for instance, in the oeuvre of Maarten van Cleve).Hence, it seems that Aertsenesque iconography conceptually constructed theurban kitchen as a specialised room, where cooking and food preparation werethe main and only substantial household activities that defined the characterand importance of this room in an urban household (fig. 4).

The image of a table with tablecloth, tableware and chairs drawn up to itappears frequently in ‘peasant scenes’, whereas it is virtually absent frompaintings depicting a kitchen in an urban dwelling, like Christ’s visit to the houseof Mary and Martha. Considering the story of the visit of Christ to the house ofMary and Martha, we have to be cautious when connecting the depictedkitchen setting with the everyday reality of the urban dwelling. On the onehand, art historians have often stressed the symbolism and rhetoric of thesepaintings, whereby the kitchen as a workplace could metaphorically refer toMartha and her anxious preoccupation with housekeeping – in contrast to hersister Mary, who preferred listening to Christ’s lessons.53 On the other hand, inorder for such scenes to appeal immediately to the viewer, it was imperativefor the painter to show an immediately recognisable kitchen.54 In this respect,the choice to leave out dining equipment and seating furniture is interesting.

3

Joachim Beuckelaer, Christ in the house

of Martha and Mary, 1565, oil on oak,

113 x 163 cm, Brussels, Musées Royaux des

Beaux-Arts (photo: J. Geleyns / Ro scan).




Was 'the artist depicting a completely functionally specialised small kitchendedicated to cooking, which – as we have seen – might appear dominantly inthe more spacious dwellings?

When assessing the number of kitchens with seating capacity, almost allkitchens seem to have been furnished with some seats, stools, benches or chairs.Considering the hypothesis that, especially in more modest dwellings, thekitchen with its hearth was still lived in as the heart of the house, this does notcome as a surprise.55 Among seating furniture we encounter different types ofchairs, benches and small stools.

Spanish chairs can safely be considered as the showpieces of the moreprosperous late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century domestic interior.56

Their upholstered seating expressed comfort, while their symmetric design,attractive materials and, above all, their meticulous workmanship bestowed adistinctive splendour on their owners.57 Not unexpectedly, these luxuriousleather-backed chairs with armrests were especially found in front-stage roomsof Antwerp houses, such as the neercamere or lower room. However, this didnot prevent Spanish chairs from showing up in the kitchen as well. As can begleaned from graph 3, some kitchens housed a relatively large number ofSpanish chairs. The neercamere, however, with its extraordinary high ratio, wasstill the place where Spanish chairs – if present in the house at all – were placedand where they appeared in the greatest number.

4

Pieter Aertsen, Peasants by the hearth,

c. 1560, oil on wood, 142.3 x 198 cm, Antwerp,

Museum Mayer van den Bergh (photo:

Museum Mayer van den Bergh).




Leunstoelen (armchairs), driestaelen and/or drievoeten (both stools) were farmore likely to appear in the kitchen space, especially in comparison withbenches and plain chairs. Because of their multiple but always very practicalfunctions (to be seated near the fireplace, as a small side table, etc.), it is notremarkable that stools were common and placed mostly in the kitchen area,whereas they appeared far less in the neercamere. Stools were included inalmost every painted keukenstuk (kitchen piece), underlining once more theirnecessity in the kitchen. On the one hand, flexible stools and chairs seem tohave been preferred to less movable benches; the cooking area demanded acertain amount of flexibility with respect to space and movability offurnishings. This helps to explain the relatively low occurrence of benches andother less-movable collective seating furniture in the kitchen.58 The clearpresence of armchairs and high-backed chairs on the other hand, points at acompletely different functional capacity of the kitchen. Such comfortableseating furniture reveals the kitchen as a place where sociability could befostered for both residents and visitors. Sociability and leisure were thus notconfined to those areas of the house traditionally regarded as front-stageplaces, such as the neercamere, but were most probably also fostered in thekitchen space.

The mere presence of (semi-)luxurious seating furniture leads to thequestion whether some kitchens were also used for dining purposes. Somecomfortable chairs were undoubtedly part of a household’s dining furniture.Analysis of tableware possession has pointed out that new and renewedtableware was eagerly acquired by a considerable number of Antwerphouseholds, who began to furnish their houses accordingly, equipping one or

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Zetel (N=66)

Spanish chair (N=45)

Armchair (N=112)

Cushions (N=229)

Small bench (N=188)

Stool (N=140)

Bench (N=394)

Chair (N=531)

Graph 3.Seating furniture ratio/room (1567-1569).




more rooms for dining purposes.59 If we look at the preferred location oftableware in Antwerp houses, it is the kitchen which figures as the only roomwhere the presence of tableware was unexpectedly high. The high presence ofstorage furniture for tableware, like cupboards and shelves, could of courseexplain why most tableware was to be found in the kitchen. It is hard to inferdining practices from the presence of tableware only. Were most Antwerpkitchens indeed equipped for dinner? And if not, which other room or roomswere the preferred locations for meals?

Since recent findings for Bruges suggest that smaller houses already had aroom called eetcamere (dining room) from the late fifteenth century onwards,the low occurrence in Antwerp inventories as well as the near-absence of sucha room in the confiscation records is a rather remarkable observation.60 Thisdoes not imply that Antwerp households were unfamiliar with the concept ofeetcamere. Yet household inventories with dining rooms, such as the casesdiscussed by Claudia Goldstein and Carolien de Staelen, were probably only tobe found among the highest elites.61 Looking at the kitchens with ‘eating’ (ordining) capacities, we can conclude that for every social category, diningequipment was present in the kitchen, and this also holds true for the mostspacious and luxurious urban dwellings which enjoyed one or more tables withmatching chairs and tableware in the kitchen.

Obviously, many households had other rooms which were equallyequipped for this purpose. In both category IV and V, 50 percent of householdshad their neercamere adequately furnished to arrange dinner (graph 4). Whencalculating the ratio of the so-called schabelletafel, an easy-to-move-and-set-aside type of table in the different rooms, this piece of furniture mostlyappeared in kitchens, whereas the less movable Spanish tables, uutschuyvendetafele and opslaende tafele were usually placed in the neercamere. Althoughrooms such as the neercamere were probably preferred as more formal diningrooms, seating and dining equipment were often present in large quantitiesin the kitchen. This points at the preference to eat in the kitchen during onless formal occasions. The kitchen was thus far from a ‘backstage’ space in thesixteenth-century home.

Graph 4.Functional capacities of the kitchen. Frequency household count % (N=62).

Working

Sleeping

Display

Hygiene

Eating

Heating

Cooking

Seating

Storage




Table 4.Display facilities in Antwerp kitchens.

Category I II III IV V

Frequency 0 0 63% 71% 83%

Mean 0 0 3.2 2.8 2.8

Painting(Mn) 0 0 2 3 1.3

An analysis of display objects will serve to shed further light on the varied livedcultures of the place (table 4). Indeed, by now it will hardly come as a surprisethat quite often pieces of decoration are recorded in these spaces. In somekitchens, glasses and shining pewter tableware were on display in so-calledglazenberden (glass cases), instead of being stored in closed, opaque storagefurniture. This urge to display hollowware and pewter also occurs in theAntwerp kitchen scenes of Aertsen and Beuckelaer. The display was probablynot intended only to show off status, or to confirm the kitchen’s main functionas a food preparation space, using the dishes and saucers on display to servethe foodstuffs. Equally important, these shining objects were also deliberatelyand intentionally exposed for those who entered and used the kitchen to seeand take pleasure in.

The same argument applies to other pieces of decoration treasured in somekitchens. The mantelpieces and tables, for example, were often decorated withfine-woven cloths or tapestries, which clearly did not have a proper functionaluse but carried a more decorative value. These schouwcleeden (rugs) seem tohave been important features in the construction and representation of theconcept of the more elaborate kitchen, since they were depicted in nearly everykitchen scene by Aertsen and Beuckelaer. More importantly, schilderijen, troniesand contrefeytsels (portraits) also appeared in the kitchen, albeit in smallernumbers compared to rooms such as the neercamere.62 The quality of thesepaintings varied greatly, though, from cheap prints and worn-out paintings tovery small and larger religious panels and sumptuous still lifes. What is not verycommon in our five social groups, but nevertheless points very clearly to somekind of urge to decorate the kitchen with items divorced from an immediatepractical function in terms of cooking, is the occurrence of mirrors and games.Wealthy citizen Anthony Nieuwman, for example, situated in the fourth socialcategory, had an elaborate kitchen in which most decorative objects weretextiles, except for one presumably very expensive cristalyne or glass mirror.63

But in particular the presence of board games seems completely in line withthe use of the kitchen space as an important intra-household social crossing.Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the kitchen was not at all an exclusivefemale domain as is suggested by pictorial evidence and normative literature.On the contrary, both types of chairs, ‘male’ and ‘female’ alike, were relativelyover-represented in the kitchen area, marking this place as an important socialhub across gender lines (graph 5).




Conclusion

In the end, a strange paradox has come to the fore. The cultural idea of thekitchen as served up by painters like Pieter Aertsen and his follower, JoachimBeuckelaer, seems to recall the much-debated idea of functional and genderspecialisation, since most attention in kitchen scenes was given to cookingpractices. Such paintings gained in popularity throughout the sixteenth century,especially in Antwerp. In this chapter, kitchen scenes and contemporary ideasabout the kitchen and its implications for gender roles have been compared tothe everyday material reality as it was mentioned in inventories. And indeed,the cuekene figured as a clearly distinct, recognisable and frequently presentroom, as some 75 percent of the analysed households had such a room. It wasin fact the most important room to be labelled according to its function withinthe house.

Yet the objects that were recorded in this room tell a more layered andnuanced story.64 Apart from cooking and heating, the cuekene’s material culturebetrays other household activities to be situated here as well. The kitchen, inother words, embraced multiple household capacities. Rather than meregendered and low-status cooking places, kitchens were crossings for allmembers of the household and served different social purposes, not the leastas a venue for conviviality. Just as Sara Pennell has described for the early-modern kitchen in England, we can also argue that the sixteenth-centuryAntwerp kitchen provided a backdrop for the mix of different social, genderand age groups that crossed the household.65 At the very heart of domesticactivities, the hearth itself supported the kitchen in its role as a major nexus ofmultiple household capacities. Therefore, the sixteenth-century kitchen cannotbe reduced to one specific ‘genotype’-room, nor can it be grasped solely in termsof ‘functional specialisation’.66

The very emergence of prestigious and multifunctional ‘grand kitchens’ inhouses of rich dwellers summarises this paradoxical evolution. People whocould have afforded to withdraw some social activities from the kitchen (which

Graph 5.Ratio of male and female chairs/room (Antwerp, 1567-1569).

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

Kitchen Mezzanine Back room Front room Floor Lower room Room undef.

Female chairs (N=275)

Male chairs (N=142)




was predominantly associated with female labour) eventually preferred toinvest in multiple kitchen rooms, and in doing so enhanced the status of thekitchen space. Hence, rather than abandoning the place, the grand kitchen (aswas the kitchen for people with only one such a room) was laden with aprestigious, convivial and sociable set of values, and this was perhaps also thereason for the subject theme’s popularity in painting. In the end, it is temptingto interpret this favourable position of the kitchen in an urban context that wasgenerally known for its more equitable gender relationships as one of itssignificant and distinct ‘trading values’. The confiscation records evidenceseems to underscore this hypothesis. Contrary to architectural and humanisttheorising,67 the female character of the kitchen – and its ideology centredaround work and virtue, as Juan Luis Vives (1492-1540) saw it – was not at oddswith a key social role and with front-stage splendour. The interplay betweenkitchen scenery and kitchen scenes, moreover, may have given a specificcultural and ideological added value to daily practices – even though thespecific nature of this value still escapes present-day historians. In sum, thekitchen brought all members of a household together. In this respect as well,the actual kitchen deviated not only from the painted idioms, but also fromcontemporary architectural theory.

Notes1 Marnef & De Schepper 1994.2 Hollstein 1950, 287.3 Loughman & Montias 2000, 42.4 On the cultural significance of exempla

contraria, see: Hazelzet 2007, esp. 23-36.The use of kitchen chattels in moralizingand didactic iconography by, amongothers, Hieronymus Bosch and PieterAersten has been discussed by GerdBauer (Bauer 1987). Reindert Falkenburgpoints at the same moralizing-didacticmessage in Pieter Aertsen’s paintings,something he describes as ‘paradoxicalencomium’ (Falkenburg 1995).

5 Jütte 1996, 328.6 Falkenburg 1995.7 Emmens 1981, 221; Falkenburg 1995, 236-

237; Genaille 1989, 236-301.8 Emmens 1981, 198; Falkenburg speaks of

the ‘paradoxical encomium’ or‘paradoxical praise’ (Falkenburg 1995,238).

9 Buijs 1990; Riley 2012, 179-180.10 Emmens 1981, 204; Sullivan 1999.11 Moxey 1976; Emmens 1981; Falkenburg

1995.12 Sullivan 1999, 240.13 Peremans 1986.14 Van Mander 1669, fol. 243v: ‘Hy heeft hem

begheven te maken keuckens, metallerley goet en cost nae tleven, soeygentlijck alle de verwen treffende, dathet natuerlijck gheleeck te wesen’.

15 Welu 1984, 16.

16 McTighe 2004.17 Corbeau 1993, 364.18 With the exception of the

groundbreaking article by Sara Pennell(Pennell 1998). Also see Vickery 2009, 265.

19 Notice the near-absence of the kitchen inAjmar-Wollheim & Dennis 2006.Compare Thornton 1997; Vandenbroeck1990; McIver 2013, 159.

20 Goffman 1959; Albala 2012, 126-127; McIver2013, 162.

21 Currie 2006, 40; McIver, 2013, 166-167.22 Sarti 2002, 138-139.23 Vickery 1993.24 Unpublished database, courtesy Carolien

De Staelen.25 In order to calculate a reliable test, the

categories V and VI were merged. Thisresulted in a Chi² = 34.53 (p<0,000;Cramer’s V= 0.510). Clearly, both sourceseries targeted a fundamentally differentclientele.

26 Marnef & De Schepper 1994, 469-477.27 Marnef 2004, 291-307.28 Municipal Archives Antwerp

(Stadsarchief Antwerpen), Records of theAldermen (series ‘SR’ = Schepenregisters)1, fol. 61r, 102r, 207v; and also SR 2, fol. 117v,accessed 15 April 2014 fromhttp://users.skynet.be/antwerpiensia/Hoogstraat0709Baerzen.htm.

29 An example of this can be found in athirteenth-century document fromBruges regarding an agreement betweenBeatrijs, spouse of bailiff Diedric, and

Jhan die Wevel, on the feudalization of apiece of land through which Beatrijsreceived a property in Sint-Pieters-Kapelle. Included in this property were‘the best house with the kitchen attachedto it’ (‘metten besten huse ende dercoekene diere an vast es’) (Het Vroeg-middelnederlands Woordenboek, accessed14 June 2013 from http://gtb.inl.nl).

30 De Staelen 2006, 375.31 Accessed 14 June 2013 from

http://www.etymonline.com.32 ‘Einen Raum, der vorwiegend dem

Kochen und Wirtschaften dient’. Kaspar1995, 72.

33 Krohn 2008, 22; Erdmann 1986; Baudet1904, 129; Piponnier 1999.

34 Currie 2006, 39; Kaspar 1995.35 E.g., Crossley-Holland 1996, 29.36 National Archives Brussels (hereafter

NAB) – Kwitanties van de Rekenkamer teBrussel, T576-3614 (Antwerp) –09/03/1567, 7 folios.

37 De Staelen 2006; Caers 2010.38 Heley 2009, 126.39 NAB – Kwitanties van de Rekenkamer te

Brussel, T576 (Antwerp) – 25/03/1568, 4folios.

40 Corbeau 1993; Caers 2010; Kaspar 1995, 75,De Staelen, 2006.

41 Caers 2010.42 Krohn 2008, 22.43 Hohti 2010, 375.44 Pennell 1998, 202.45 Overton et al. 2004, 121.


http://users.skynet.be/antwerpiensia/Hoogstraat0709Baerzen.htm

http://gtb.inl.nl

http://www.etymonline.com

http://users.skynet.be/antwerpiensia/Hoogstraat0709Baerzen.htm



46 Crossley-Holland 1996, 33-34.47 Poukens & Provoost 2011, 176.48 Ratio = 4.43.49 E.g., Krohn 2008.50 Corbeau 1993, 357.51 Goldstein 2001.52 Weatherill 1988.53 Buijs 1990; Falkenburg 1995; Genaille 1989;

Moxey 1976.54 Syson 2006, 86-101; Nuechterlein 2005, 49-

80.55 Pennell 1998.56 De Staelen 2006, 273.

57 Fabri 1979.58 Some benches were probably not

recorded at all because they were fixed tothe walls.

59 De Staelen 2006.60 Our own observations, based on

systematic analysis of after-deathinventories (from the 1530s onward),inventories of burghers of illegitimatebirth (1438-1444) and the drafts kept bythe notaries of the Vierschaar (the benchof Aldermen in Bruges).

61 Goldstein 2001; Goldstein 2013; De Staelen

Bibliography

Ajmar-Wollheim & Dennis 2006M. Ajmar-Wollheim & F. Dennis (eds.), At home in Renaissance Italy,London 2006.

Albala 2012K. Albala, ‘Professional cooking, kitchens, and service work’, in: K.Albala (ed.), A cultural history of food, vol. 3: In the Renaissance,London & New York 2012, 117-133.

Baudet 1904F.E.J.M. Baudet, De maaltijd en de keuken in de Middeleeuwen, Leiden1904.

Bauer 1987G. Bauer, ‘In Teufels Küche’, in: I. Birsch et al (eds.), Essenund Trinkenim Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Sigmaringen 1987, 127-142.

Buijs 1990H. Buijs, ‘Voorstellingen van Christus in het huis van Martha en Mariain het zestiende-eeuwse keukenstuk’, Pieter Aertsen, The Hague 1990(Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 41), 93-128.

Caers 2010T. Caers, ‘Ende ierst inde coeken. Kook- en eetgerei in zestiende-eeuwsAntwerpen’, Antwerp 2010 (unpub. diss. Antwerp).

Corbeau 1993M. Corbeau, ‘Pronken en koken. Beeld en realiteit van keukens in hetvroegmoderne Hollandse binnenhuis’, in: G. Rooijakker (ed.), Mensenen dingen. Betekenissen van materiële cultuur, Volkskundig Bulletin 19(1993), no. 3, 354-379.

Crossley-Holland 1996N. Crossley-Holland, Living and dining in medieval Paris. The householdof a fourteenth-century knight, Cardiff 1996.

Currie 2006E. Currie, Inside the Renaissance house, London 2006.

De Staelen 2006C. De Staelen, Spulletjes en hun betekenis in een commerciële metropool.Antwerpenaren en hun materiële cultuur in de zestiende eeuw, Antwerp2006 (unpub. diss. Antwerp).

Emmens 1981J.A. Emmens, ‘“Eins aber ist nötig”. Zu Inhalt und Bedeutung vonMarkt- und Küchenstücken des 16. Jahrhunderts’, in: Kunsthistorischeopstellen, Amsterdam 1981, 189-225.

Erdmann 1986W. Erdmann, ‘Die Küche im Mittelalter. Archäologische undBaugeschichtliche Gedanken zu Herd, Herdnutzung und Hergerät’, DieLübecker Küche, Lübeck 1986, 9-51.

Fabri 1979R. Fabri, ‘La chaise d’Espagne dans les Pays-Bas des 17e-18e siècles’,L’Estampille 115 (1979), 29-38.

Falkenburg 1995R.L. Falkenburg, ‘Pieter Aertsen, rhyparographer’, in: J. Koopmans et al.(eds.), Rhetoric – Rhétoriqueurs – Rederijkers, Amsterdam 1995, 197-217.

Genaille 1989R. Genaille, ‘Réflexions sur le maintien des sujets réligieux dans lestableaux de genre et de natures mortes au XV’ième siècle’, JaarboekKoninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1989), 263-301.

Goffman 1959E. Goffman, The presentation of self in everyday life, New York 1959.

Goldstein 2001C. Goldstein, ‘Artifacts of domestic life. Bruegel’s paintings in theFlemish home’, in: J. de Jong et al. (eds.), The art of home in theNetherlands 1500-1800, Zwolle 2001 (Netherlands Yearbook for History ofArt 51), 173-193.

Goldstein 2013C. Goldstein, Pieter Bruegel and the culture of the early modern dinnerparty, Farnham & Burlington (VT) 2013.

Hazelzet 2007K. Hazelzet, Verkeerde werelden. Exempla contraria in de Nederlandsebeeldende kunst, Leiden 2007.

Heley 2009G. Heley, The material culture of the tradesmen of Newcastle Upon Tyne(1545-1642). The Durham probate record evidence, Oxford 2009.

2006, 116-118.62 The highest mean number of paintings –

three – was to be found in the fourthsocial category (Martens & Peeters 2002,881; Martens & Peeters 2006, 50).

63 NAB – Kwitanties van de Rekenkamer teBrussel, T576 – 3614 (Antwerp) –14/06/1569, 7 folios.

64 Pennell 1998, 205.65 Pennell 1998. 66 Pennell 1998.67 De Staelen 2006, 131-133.




Hohti 2010P. Hohti, ‘Domestic space and identity. Artisans, shopkeepers andtraders in sixteenth-century Siena’, Urban History 37 (2010), no. 3, 372-385.

Hollstein 1950F.W.H. Hollstein (ed.), Hollstein’s Dutch and Flemish etchings,engravings and woodcuts, ca. 1450-1700, vol. 3: Boekhorst – Bruegel,Amsterdam 1950.

Jütte 1996R. Jütte, ‘Daily life in late medieval and early modern Germany’, in: S.Ogilvie (ed.), Germany. A new social and economic history (1630-1800),London 1996, 327-353.

Kaspar 1995F. Kaspar, ‘Die Herdstelle als Indikator von Nahrungsgewohnheiten’, in:G. Wiegelmann & R.E. Mohrmann (eds.), Nahrung und Tischkultur imHanseraum, Münster & New York 1995, 69-96.

Krohn 2008L.D. Krohn, ‘Picturing the kitchen. Renaissance treatise and periodroom’, Studies in the Decorative Arts 16 (2008), 20-34.

Loughman & Montias 2000J. Loughman & J.M. Montias, Public and private spaces. Works of art inseventeenth-century Dutch houses, Zwolle 2000.

McIver 2013K.A. McIver, ‘Let’s eat. Kitchens and dining in the Renaissance pallazoand country estate’, in: E.J.Campbell et al. (eds.), The early modernItalian domestic interior, 1400-1700. Objects, spaces, domesticities,Farnham 2013, 159-173.

Marnef & De Schepper 1994G. Marnef & H. de Schepper, ‘Raad Van Beroerten (1567-1576)’, in: E.Aerts et al. (eds.), De centrale overheidsinstellingen van de HabsburgseNederlanden (1482-1795), Brussels 1994, 469-477.

Marnef 2004G. Marnef, ‘Roerig Brabant’, in: R. Van Uytven et al. (eds.), Geschiedenisvan Brabant, van het hertogdom tot heden, Leuven 2004, 291-307.

Martens & Peeters 2002M.P.J. Martens & N. Peeters, ‘Antwerp painting before iconoclasm.Considerations on the quantification of taste’, in: Economia E Arte Secc.Xiii-Xviii, Firenze 2002, 875-894.

Martens & Peeters 2006M.P.J. Martens & N. Peeters, ‘Paintings in Antwerp houses (1532-1567)’,in: N. de Marchi & H.J. van Miegroet (eds.), Mapping markets forpaintings in Europe, 1450-1750, Turnhout 2006, 35-53.

McTighe 2004S. McTighe, ‘Foods and the body in Italian genre paintings, about 1580.Campi, Passarotti, Carracci’, The Art Bulletin 86 (2004), 301-323.

Moxey 1976K.P.F. Moxey, ‘The humanist market scenes of Joachim Beuckelaer.Moralizing exempla or slices of life’, in: Jaarboek van het KoninklijkMuseum voor Schone Kunsten, Brussels 1976, 109-178.

Nuechterlein 2005J. Nuechterlein, ‘The domesticity of sacred space in the fifteenth-century Netherlands’, in: A. Spicer & S. Hamilton (eds.), Defining theholy. Sacred space in medieval and early modern Europe, Aldershot2005, 49-80.

Overton et al. 2004M. Overton et al., Production and consumption in English households,1600-1750, Abingdon 2004.

Pennell 1998S. Pennell, ‘Pots and pans history. The material culture of the kitchenin early modern England’, Journal of Design History 11 (1998), 201-216.

Peremans 1986P. Peremans, ‘De archeologica op de keukenstukken en demarkttaferelen van Joachim Beuckelaer’, in: J. Muylle & E.M. Kavaler(eds.), Joachim Beuckelaer. Het markt- en keukenstuk in de Nederlanden,1550-1650, Brussels 1986, 53-60.

Piponnier 1999F. Piponnier, ‘From hearth to table. Late medieval cooking equipment’,in: J.-L. Flandrin & M. Montanari (eds.), Food. A culinary history fromantiquity to the present, New York 1999, 339-346.

Poukens & Provoost 2011J. Poukens & N. Provoost, ‘Respectability, middle-class materialculture, and economic crisis. The case of Lier in Brabant, 1690-1770’,The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 42 (2011), 159-184.

Riley 2012G. Riley, ‘Food in painting’, in: K. Albala (ed.), A cultural history of food,vol. 3: In the Renaissance, London & New York 2012, 171-182.

Sarti 2002R. Sarti, Europe at home. Family and material culture 1500-1800, NewHaven & London 2002.

Sullivan 1999M.A. Sullivan, ‘Aertsen’s kitchen and market scenes. Audience andinnovation in northern art’, The Art Bulletin 81 (1999), 236-266.

Syson 2006L. Syson, ‘Representing domestic interiors’, in: M. Ajmar-Wollheim & F.Dennis (eds.), At home in Renaissance Italy, London 2006, 86-101.

Thornton 1997D. Thornton, The scholar in his study. Ownership and experience inRenaissance Italy, New Haven 1997.

Van Mander 1669K. van Mander, Het schilder-boeck, Utrecht 1969 [reprint Haarlem1604].

Vandenbroeck 1990P. Vandenbroeck, ‘De salette of pronkkamer in het 17de-eeuwseBrabantse burgerhuis. Familie- en groepsportretten als iconografischebron, omstreeks 1640-1680’, Monumenten en landschappen 9 (1990), no.6, 41-62.




Vickery 1993A. Vickery, ‘Golden age to separate spheres. A review of the categoriesand chronology of English women’s history’, Historical Journal 36(1993), 383-414.

Vickery 2009A. Vickery, Behind closed doors. At home in Georgian England, London2009.

Weatherill 1988L. Weatherill, Consumer behaviour and material culture in Britain, 1660-1760, London 1988.

Welu 1984J.A. Welu, ‘Joachim Beuckelaer’, in: cat. Worcester, Worcester ArtMuseum, The collector’s cabinet. Flemish paintings from New Englandprivate collections (J.A.Welu, ed.), Worcester 1984, 16-19.

Detail fig. 1


The kitchen between representation and everyday experience : the case of sixteenth-century Antwerp....

Documents

Transcript of The kitchen between representation and everyday experience : the case of sixteenth-century Antwerp....