JJAN A N DAVIDSZ. D A V I D S Z . DE D E HEEM H EEM Utrecht U trecht 11606 606 – 1683/84 1683/84 Antwerp Antwerp
1147 47 New New Bond B ond S Street, tree t, LLondon ondon W W1S 1S 22TS TS Telephone: Telephone: +44 +4 4 (0)20 (0)20 7493 7493 3939 3 93 9 FFax: ax : + +44 4 4 (0)20 (0)20 7499 7499 3278 327 8 E Email: mail: p firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
JAN DAVIDSZ. DE HEEM Utrecht 1606 – 1683/84 Antwerp
A still life of a vase of flowers, a silver tazza and two pewter dishes of fruit on a table draped with an oriental carpet and a red cloth This painting is for sale On exhibition at the XXVI Biennale des Antiquaires Stand N05 Grand Palais Avenue Winston Churchill 75008 Paris 14th – 23rd September 2012
RICHARD GREEN Telephone: +44 (0)20 7493 3939 firstname.lastname@example.org JONATHAN GREEN Mobile: +44 (0)7768 818 182 email@example.com MAT THEW GREEN Telephone: +44 (0)20 7499 4738 firstname.lastname@example.org
JAN DAVIDSZ. DE HEEM Utrecht 1606 – 1683/84 Antwerp
A still life of a vase of flowers, a silver tazza and two pewter dishes of fruit on a table draped with an oriental carpet and a red cloth
Signed lower left: J.D.De Heem R Oil on canvas: 45 x 36 in / 114.3 x 91.4 cm Frame size: 57 x 48 in / 144.8 x 121.9 cm Painted circa 1671 PROVENANCE:
Sale Amsterdam, Tideman, de Winter, et. al., 18th March 1767, lot 9: ‘Een zeer Fraay en Ryk Ordonnantie zynde een Tafel overdekt met een Tapyt, op dezelve staat een Fles, met veelderley zoorten van Bloemen, en een Tinne bord met Persike, een Zilverde schaal met veelderley Vrugten, verder is dit Stuk zeer uytvoerig Transparant en delicaat op Doek geschildert. hoog 44 duim, breed 34 duim’. (A very beautiful and rich composition, being a table, covered with a carpet, on which stands a bottle holding many types of flowers, a pewter dish with peaches, a silver dish with many types of fruit, also, this piece has been painted very elaborately, transparently and delicately’ (sold 148 Guilders to Bosboom); Probably collection François Pauwels, Brussels; his sale, Brussels, De Marneffe, 22nd August 1803 and following days, lot 31: ‘Un brilliant et magnifique tableau, représentant un bouquet de fleurs des plus belle espèces, fruits, insects de tous genres, oiseaux, et autres petits animaux; le tout groupé avec art; il est pose sur une table sur laquelle se trouvent des vases, plats d’argent, tapis, fleurs et fruits; cet ouvrage parfait dans ce genre aimable, et l’une des compositions marquantes de ce grand peintre, comme de ses plus heureuses pour l’execution, la finesse des details et cette grande fraîcheur de coloris qui peut se comparer à la nature, est un chef-d’oeuvre. T haut 42 pouces, sur 35’ (sold 980 Francs to Theys); Collection P.J.F. Vrancken (or Francken); his sale, Lokeren, 15th May 1838, lot 66: ‘Les fleurs les plus gracieuses de forme et de couleur composent un bouquet, posé sur une table que couvre un tapis de Smyrne; des fruits séduisans par une heureuse maturité, tells que pêches et oranges garnissent des assiettes à côté desquelles on aperçoit une coupe d’argent qui semble ciselée par Cellini. On connait ce tableau pour être le chef-d’oeuvre de l’artiste. Toile 41 = 32 ½ p.’ (sold 1800 Francs to Chaplin); Collection Albertus Brondgeest (1786-1844), Amsterdam (uncertain when); Collection H.W. Jephson, Malvern Wells; sold London, Christie’s, 24th May 1907, lot 96; ‘A bowl of Flowers and Fruit on a Table, with birds and butterflies, Signed, 44 in x 35 in’ (sold £357 to Huggins); with Dowdeswell Gallery, London; Collection Baron August Janssen, Brussels; his sale, Amsterdam, F. Muller & Co., 21st April 1921, lot 4, illus.; sold 10.800 Guilders to van Buuren on behalf of a private collector, The Netherlands; by descent to his great-grandchild
Amsterdam, Frederik Muller & Co., Old Pictures, Dresden Delft-ware and Chinese porcelain (the Boreel-collection), Old Prints and Drawings, 1907, cat. no.14 Utrecht, Centraal Museum, Jan Davidsz de Heem en zijn kring, 16th February-14th April 1991/Braunschweig, Herzog-Anton-Ulrich Museum, Jan Davidsz de Heem und sein Kreis, 9th May-7th July 1991, cat. no.33 LITERATURE:
M-L. Hairs, Les peintres flamands de fleurs au XVIIe siècle, Paris/Brussels 1955, pp.140, 219 M-L. Hairs, Les peintres flamands de fleurs au XVIIe siècle, Paris/Brussels 1965, pp.271, 383 S. Segal, A Flowery Past. A Survey of Dutch and Flemish Flower Painting from 1600 until the Present, Amsterdam 1982, pp.49, 53 (note 9) E. Greindl, Les peintres flamands de nature morte au XVIIe siècle, Sterrebeek 1983, p.360, no.18 M-L. Hairs, Les peintres flamands de fleurs au XVIIe siècle, Paris/Brussels 1985, vol. 1, p.397 ; vol. 2, p.29 Exh. cat. Fine Old Master Paintings Principally of the Dutch and Flemish Schools, David Koetser, Zürich 1989, under cat. no.12 (note 4) S. Segal, Flowers and Nature. Netherlandish Flower Painting of Four Centuries, The Hague 1990, p.219 (note 5) P. Sutton in exh. cat. The Age of Rubens, Boston 1993, p.516 (note 2) S. Segal, Jan Davidsz de Heem en zijn kring, The Hague 1991, pp.18, 27, 30, 31, 37, 53 (note 57), 102, colour pl., 193-196 (cat. no. 33, illus.), 225 (under cat. no.51) F. Fox Hofrichter, Review of the exhibition Jan Davidsz. de Heem and his circle, Utrecht and Brunswick, Burlington Magazine, June 1991, p.404 A. Wallert and J. Dik, ‘The scientific examination of a seventeenth-century master-piece’, Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung 21 (2007), Heft 1, pp.38-51, passim To be included in the forthcoming catalogue raisonné of the work of Jan Davidsz. de Heem by Fred G Meijer
The still life presented here is quite unique in Jan Davidsz. de Heem’s oeuvre. There is no other example in which he combined such an elaborate vase of flowers with other prominent still-life motifs in this manner. Also, the painting has been very well preserved, which allows us to enjoy the extremely high quality of de Heem’s mature painting technique to its full advantage. While the bouquet of flowers – combined with branches of fruit, ears of wheat and other plants – is the most prominent motif in this still life, it is rivalled to some degree by the elaborately detailed silver tazza carrying several types of fruit. The stem of this tazza is made up of the figures of the satyr Silenus, mentor of the young Bacchus, whom he is holding up, while Bacchus supports the dish of the tazza. Silenus is standing astride a large dog, which seems to be barking up at Bacchus. While no such silver object has been identified, it is likely that de Heem portrayed an existing vessel, perhaps at the request of a patron. In any case, the dish appears to be an exquisite piece of craftsmanship. The two flat plates of fruit in front of the vase are polished pewter examples, which were in daily use, rather than silver ones. The composition of this still life is very well balanced. The bouquet of flowers occupies most of the space above the diagonal from upper left to lower right. It is also concentrated in the centre third of the picture plane, while the tazza and the prominent orange are the dominating motifs of the vertical outer thirds. The diagonal from lower right to upper left is accentuated by an oblique group of lighter flowers in the centre of the bouquet. De Heem has distributed his colour accents – whites, blues, reds and orange tones – evenly across the picture plane. In addition, he has left empty spaces at upper left and right, allowing the composition to breathe, and also to be able to show the rays of light falling from the upper left. Through inclusion of the ears of wheat that meander through the bouquet, the artist has suggested movement and depth. The sense of depth is also enhanced by the overlapping of flowers and stems. The image is enlivened through the inclusion of a flying goldfinch and a great tit, to the left of the bouquet, and by a variety of butterflies, moths and insects. On the tazza and on the plates, there is a selection of fruit, all of which, except for the orange, were quite common species. This also is the case for most of the flowers, but it is interesting to note, as Sam Segal has observed, that Jan Davidsz. de Heem included various species in the bouquet that are not common to such arrangements in still life, such as curly-leaved endives, flowering broad bean, and common rue. The inclusion of ears of wheat and of branches of fruit – gooseberry and cherry – in a floral bouquet also appears to have been a de Heem invention. The number of species that de Heem shows us, of flowers, fruit and creatures, is also remarkable. There are over forty species of plant life, two different birds, a snail and about a dozen different butterflies and insects to be found (see the identification chart). Throughout his career, de Heem was a keen observer of reflections. The most obvious here is that of the window, including the sky and clouds outside, on the surface of and inside the green glass vase, but there is also a subtle play of reflections on the surfaces of the tazza and of the shiny pewter plates.
Only four times in his entire career did de Heem opt for an oriental carpet to cover a table in his still lifes. The earliest example, from 1629, is now in the Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, Budapest (inv. no.3931), while a large, luxury still life from 1641 in the Brussels Municipal Museum (inv. no.K 1878/5), and medium-sized still life in a private collection from c. 1642 also precede the present painting by several decades. The painting presented here is the first and only one in which de Heem placed a vase of flowers on a table covered with such a rug. Oriental carpets were a popular motif in Dutch still lifes from the third quarter of the seventeenth century. While this was mainly due to the influence of the Amsterdam artist Willem Kalf (1619-1693), de Heem does not appear to have been directly inspired here by Kalf’s soft, creased and propped-up examples. The red cloth covering part of the carpet is also a unique feature in a de Heem still-life. He often employed white napkins in his compositions in a similar manner, but this is the only example in which he has opted for a tinted one, probably in order to preserve a tonal unity, rather than to place a bright accent. ICONOGRAPHY
Jan Davidsz. de Heem’s paintings, apart from his explicit vanitas still lifes, rarely appear to bear a profound message. First and foremost, they are a celebration of the endless variety of God’s Creation and of that of man-made objects, as well as of the master’s illusionistic abilities with paint on a flat support. De Heem’s still lifes tend not only to equal, but to surpass the possibilities of photography since, from a liberal arrangement of details that are in themselves true to life, he would create an imaginary reality. The composition we see before us in a painting such as this one could not be recreated in real life, if only because of the fact that several species flourished in different seasons, or simply because birds and insects cannot be trained to obey instructions. While the white lily that sits prominently on top of the bouquet is commonly associated with the Virgin Mary, there appears to be no further indication of a religious connotation in this painting. Neither can the presence of the notorious drunkards Bacchus and Silenus in the decoration of the tazza – a drinking vessel – be thought to bear out any firm meaning on the painting as a whole. The prominent orange at lower right, however, may be a reference to the House of Orange, perhaps even specifically to the young William III of Orange. During his Utrecht years Heem appears to have found a keen clientele among those who wanted to restore the Stadtholder to power. It may also well be that de Heem consciously alluded to the Four Elements here, with the flying creatures representing Air, the flowers and fruit representing Earth, the water in the vase and the dew drops representing Water and with the vase itself and the metal objects, as products of fire, as representatives of the latter element. In fact, a somewhat similar composition by de Heem, probably the painting now in the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm (inv. no.NM6958) was described in 1682 as ‘Een seer curieusen Blompot, Vruchten en andere aardichheden, synde de vier elementen vol wercx’ (A very remarkable vase of flowers, fruits and other curiosities, being an elaborate representation of the Four Elements). This is the only more-or-less contemporary description of a work by de Heem referring to a painting’s iconography.
DATING AND SIGNATURE
Although Jan Davidsz. de Heem did not date any of his floral compositions, a hypothetical chronology can be suggested for them. On the basis of those observations, the painting presented here can be dated towards the end of de Heem’s sojourn in Utrecht, so around 1671. The bouquet is closely related to a group of flower pieces by de Heem that can be connected, in terms of motifs, style and palette, with paintings by Abraham Mignon that must have originated during the time that both artists shared the Utrecht studio; the second half of the 1660s and the first two years of the 1670s. For instance, the tulip at upper right in the painting presented here also appears, in some cases slightly altered, in several of Mignon’s flower pieces. The details in fig 1 show the tulip from the present painting at upper left, a detail of a de Heem in Florence (which is shown upside-down) at lower left, while the other details are from paintings signed by Mignon. The quality of the handling of the tulip in the central image (a Mignon in a private collection, no.77 in M. KraemerNoble’s 2007 monograph on the artist), however, suggests that this specific tulip, Fig. 1. Details of a tulip in seven still lifes in contrast with other flowers in the signed by Jan Davidsz. de Heem (left) and painting, was done by de Heem, as was by Abraham Mignon (centre and right). probably the blossom next to it. Compilation by the author. Since some of the Mignon tulips must date from after 1672, it would appear that he retained the study for it in Utrecht. Thus, de Heem will have painted his bouquet before returning to Antwerp, when he could still have access to the study for it. The prominent inclusion of the orange at lower right might also indicate that the painting was done in Utrecht rather than in Antwerp, but on the other hand, several de Heem still lifes from the years after his return also include an orange. While there is clearly a relationship in style and handling with de Heem’s only dated still life from after 1655, a garland of flowers and fruit from 1675 (fig 2), the painting presented here must have originated earlier, in view of its stylistic connections with the Utrecht group of floral bouquets. The still life presented here is signed J.D.De Heem R. During the seventeenth century, most painters signed their works with their names, followed by an ‘f’ for the Latin fecit (made this). So did Jan Davidsz. de Heem until about 1660, when occasionally he started to replace the ‘f’ with an ‘R’, as in this painting. Signatures with the addition ‘f’ also occur after 1660, however. No convincing explanation for this ‘R’ has ever been put forward by scholars. Unconvincing suggestions range from ‘Ridder’ (suggesting that the artist had been knighted, which was not the case), to variants of ‘retouched’, suggesting that paintings signed in this manner were partly executed by pupils, but finished by de Heem himself. None of these suggestions seems to make sense, however, since the sixteen to eighteen works signed in this manner belong to the artist’s most successful, detailed and elaborate pieces. All of them were painted after his return to Utrecht, but also after moving back to Antwerp in 1672 he kept adding the R as before, so the ‘R’ is also not specifically related to his Utrecht sojourn.
This Still life of a vase of flowers, a silver tazza and two pewter dishes of fruit on a table draped with an oriental carpet and a red cloth was painted by Jan Davidsz. de Heem around 1671, towards the end of the artist’s sojourn of some fifteen years in Utrecht, and when he was at one of the peaks of his painting career. It can be regarded as belonging to the very upper tier of de Heem’s oeuvre. This still life proves him to be one of the most gifted painters of flowers and still life of the seventeenth century and its excellent state of preservation allows the viewer to appreciate and enjoy his work to its best advantage. JAN DAVIDSZ. DE HEEM AS A PAINTER OF FLORAL STILL LIFES
Jan Davidsz. de Heem was a highly inventive still-life painter and he is justly considered one of the foremost protagonists of Netherlandish still-life painting of the seventeenth century. He was active for well over fifty years and he was arguably the most influential still-life painter of his time, leaving a substantial oeuvre of some 275 presently known works, including only two known drawings, plus at least a few dozens of lost or missing paintings. He worked on a wide range of formats, mostly choosing panel and occasionally copper as the support for his smaller works, and canvas for the larger pieces. Among a broader public, de Heem is best known for his floral still lifes as well as for the large, luxurious compositions that he painted particularly during the first half of the 1640s, such as the impressive canvas from 1640 in the Musée du Louvre, Paris (inv. no.1321). His predilection for flowers as the sole subject of his still lifes only occurred later in his career. Occasionally he had introduced a small bouquet of flowers, in 1628 (painting with Galerie de Jonckheere, Paris in the 1990s), 1638 (Prague, Národní Galerie v Praze, inv. no.O 9315) and 1642 (two examples in private collections in Britain) and there are some early efforts of small single bouquets and garlands of flowers from around 1644. A well-known early bouquet by de Heem, combining a vase of flowers with fruit and vanitas motifs, is in the Alte Pinakothek in Munich (inv.no.568). De Heem probably painted it in 1645, but it was ‘modernized’ by the Antwerp flower painter Nicolaes van Verendael (1640-1691), most likely during the second half of the 1660s. An ‘untouched’ variant of this composition from the same year is in a Belgian private collection (fig 3). Although he occasionally included some flowers (mostly roses) in his compositions during the following period, de Heem appears to have abandoned painting single bouquets in a vase for another five years after 1645. Subsequently, the first modest examples date from about 1651 (formerly Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich, inv. no.1968, sold 1928) and 1652 (with Dr. R. Grosse, Berlin-Hallensee, 1932). Only around the time of his move back to Utrecht, during the second half of the 1650s, floral bouquets started to become a significant aspect of de Heem’s oeuvre. Relatively early examples, presumably from the late 1650s and early 1660s, include a panel in the de Mol van Otterloo collection, U.S.A., one in the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid (inv. no.1964.4) and an example on copper in a private collection in Montreal (with Richard Green in 1987). It is not easy to reconstruct a firm chronology for de Heem’s flower paintings, since none of them are dated. Jan Davidsz. de Heem dated
his still lifes fairly regularly up to 1655, but only one dated example, from 1675, survives from the next two and a half to three decades of his artistic activity. Initially, de Heem must have been inspired for his floral compositions by the bouquets and garlands by the Antwerp master Daniel Seghers (1590-1661). Seghers was a pupil of Jan Brueghel the Elder and a Jesuit priest, and a highly regarded trendsetter of flower painting in Antwerp during the second quarter of the seventeenth century. De Heem elaborated on Seghers’s elegance but appears to have aimed for images that were more baroque than his example’s almost ascetic compositions. While Seghers depicted choice flowers using a rich palette, he placed them in unassuming vases on a plain wooden table with at most a single flower or creature at the foot. He usually left some space between the individual flowers and built his bouquets up mainly in height. Mostly, his flowers appear to stand perfectly still, as if placed in a vacuum. De Heem, in contrast, would crowd his table tops with small flowers, fruit, insects and snails, while his blooms rise from the vase in a firework-like fashion, and are seemingly caught in a breeze. From the outset, de Heem was keen on rendering his subjects in great detail, and Seghers’s meticulous botanical accuracy must have inspired him to no small degree. De Heem appears to have studied the flowers he painted individually and with minute attention, probably producing individual studies of them before composing his bouquets. Occasionally, he employed such studies for several paintings. Once in he was working in Utrecht – and perhaps even earlier – de Heem must have seen examples of the floral still lifes by Willem van Aelst (1627-1683/84). That Dutch artist had spent about a decade abroad, first working in Paris and subsequently at the Medici court in Florence, after which he settled in
Fig. 2. Jan Davidsz. de Heem, Garland of flowers and fruit, signed and dated 1675, oil on canvas, 25 x 31 in / 64 x 80 cm. Private collection.
Amsterdam in 1656. In France and Italy van Aelst had developed an elegant style and refined technique. He can be held responsible for introducing a curve, usually from lower left to upper right, in the composition of floral still-life bouquets; compare for instance his exquisite bouquet from 1663 in the Mauritshuis in The Hague (inv. no.2). In several of Jan Davidsz. de Heem’s bouquets from his Utrecht years, such a curve can be observed, for instance in an example in an American private collection (fig 4).
Fig. 3. Jan Davidsz. de Heem, Still life with a vase of flowers, fruit, a crucifix and a skull, signed, oil on canvas, 43 B⁄e x 34 B⁄e in / 110 x 87 cm. Private collection, Belgium.
Fig. 4. Jan Davidsz. de Heem, Still life of flowers, signed, oil on panel, 21 B⁄c x 16 in / 54.6 x 40.7 cm. Private collection, U.S.A.
In the field of floral still life, there certainly must have been a degree of competition between de Heem and van Aelst. Another colleague and competitor was Abraham Mignon, who came to de Heem’s studio, probably as an advanced pupil, in 1664, and who worked with him until de Heem returned to Antwerp in 1672, after which Mignon is believed to have taken over the Utrecht studio. Mignon was a highly talented artist whose fascination with detail must have equalled that of de Heem. Within the studio, this appears to have inspired a healthy competition between the older and younger artist. Their palettes are very similar during those years and occasionally they must have done some work on each other’s paintings. While in general de Heem’s and Mignon’s works can be distinguished from each other quite easily, since de Heem’s handling is somewhat softer and more fluent than Mignon’s, details can come extremely close in style and handling. Also, both artists appear occasionally to have used the same studies of individual flowers in their paintings. During the 1660s, de Heem painted some of his most magnificent flower pieces, many of which have long ago found their way into major museum collections, such as the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (inv. no.1487), the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister in Dresden (inv. nos.1265 and 1267), the Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum in Innsbruck (inv. no.683) and the Museum der bildenden Künste in Leipzig (inv. no.1578). Also after his return to Antwerp, the artist continued to paint floral bouquets, such as the one in the Mauritshuis, The Hague (inv. no.1099) and a second example in Leipzig (inv. no.653), but while the quality of his work remained exceptionally high, his production lessened and it must have come to a virtual halt sometime during the early 1680s. A very late floral still life by de Heem, probably painted during that time, is in the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, ca (inv. no.F.1973.6.P).
Jan Davidsz. de Heem was born in Utrecht to a family of Flemish descent, at Easter time 1606, which would have been the last week of April. His father, David Jansz. van Antwerpen, was a musician and not, as most early literature would have it, a painter. He died in 1612 and de Heem’s mother remarried a year later to a bookbinder and book dealer of German origin. In the spring of 1625 the family moved to Leiden, where the artist’s mother had been born. There, the painter started to use the surname de Heem, and there his artistic career kicked off. However, the first mention of the young artist can be found in the records of the orphanage board in Utrecht, from which we learn that in February 1625, still registered as ‘Jan Davidtsz. van Antwerpen’, he was planning a journey to Italy. The funds for that trip, however, were not granted, probably out of fear that his virtually bankrupt stepfather would usurp them before they could be put to their proper use. Who trained the young de Heem in Utrecht has not been recorded, but in all likelihood it was the still-life painter Balthasar van der Ast (1593/4-1657). De Heem’s earliest paintings were clearly inspired by van der Ast’s compositions, and the fact that he liberally borrowed motifs from recent works by that master during his early years suggests that he must at least have had intimate knowledge of van der Ast’s production around 1624. In December 1626, Jan Davidsz. de Heem married Aletta van der Weede, a girl from his native city, Utrecht. They had several children, and the baptism in April 1631 of their son Cornelis, the later still-life painter, is the last sign of de Heem’s presence in Leiden. Probably due to debts, he must have left the city shortly after, without further notice. Probably he moved to Amsterdam – his work from the following years shows an affinity with that of Jan Jz. den Uyl, who was working there, while several of his friends, among them Pieter Potter (1597/1600-1652) and Rembrandt (1606-1669), moved to Amsterdam around the same time – but there is no record of him there. Some five years later, by March 1636, de Heem had settled in Antwerp, enrolling as a master painter in the local guild of St Luke some time during the administrative year 1635-1636, and registering as a poorter (citizen) on 28th August 1637. Around that time, Jan Lievens (1607-1674), with whom de Heem was acquainted from his Leiden years, drew his portrait (fig 5). During the following years de Heem’s artistic career started to flourish, certainly from 1640 Fig. 5. Jan Lievens, Portrait of Jan onwards, but biographical details remain scarce. Davidsz. de Heem, c.1637, black During the 1640s he painted a substantial body chalk, 10 B⁄c x 8 in / 265 x 202 mm. of work and registered several pupils with the British Museum, London. Antwerp guild. In March 1643, Aletta van der Weede died and a year later the painter remarried. His new wife, Anna, was a Catholic and a daughter of Antwerp’s foremost harpsichord maker and a
prominent citizen, Andreas Ruckers. The couple had four daughters and two sons, of whom Johannes, born in 1650, is supposed by some to have become a painter, but if so, no examples of his work are recorded. In 1658 Jan Davidsz. de Heem was registered by the Antwerp council as a buitenpoorter (citizen outside of town). This indicates that he retained his civil rights, but was no longer a permanent resident. Most probably already around that time he spent considerable amounts of time in his native city, Utrecht. He must have moved there permanently by the early 1660s, even though only from 1665 onwards his presence in Utrecht is actually documented. Indirect proof of his move to Utrecht before 1660 is the apprenticeship of Maria van Oosterwijck (1630-1693) with de Heem, which was referred to by contemporary biographers. She is recorded to have moved from Leiden to Utrecht in May 1660. Another pupil during de Heem’s Utrecht years was Abraham Mignon (1640-1679). Mignon was first trained by Jacob Marrel (1613/14-1681) in Frankfurt am Main, but according to the biographer Arnold Houbraken his teacher brought him to Utrecht to work with de Heem when he was twenty-four years old, which age he reached in 1664. Mignon would remain active in Utrecht until his death in 1679. Another pupil, Elias van den Broeck (1651/52-1708), engaged as such for two years in 1669, appears to have followed his master upon his return to Antwerp in 1672. In that year, the French invaded Holland and the Dutch became embroiled in the third English War, and as a result the economy came to a virtual standstill. De Heem must have decided that the chances of selling his paintings in Antwerp were higher than they were in Utrecht. From his work and activities, de Heem comes across as an energetic personality who moved around a lot to follow artistic and financial opportunities, and as someone who seemed to have negotiated his way between the Catholic and Protestant factions in the Netherlands. He was raised a Protestant, but later moved freely in Catholic circles in Antwerp. He received and accepted commissions from the pious Archduke and Prince-Bishop Leopold Wilhelm in Brussels. But also, many of his still lifes from the Utrecht period – and the following years – include prominent oranges, as a plain reference to the Protestant House of Orange. During the 1660s, factions propagated the return of the Stadtholder and William III of Orange was restored to that position in 1672. De Heem appears to have been closely associated with these Orangist sympathisers. Very little is documented of the artist’s life after his return to Antwerp. Only two documents from that period, dealing with property issues and dating from August and September 1683, are recorded. After 1675 he appears to have painted only a few still lifes. The only mention in the ledgers of the Antwerp guild is the payment of his death dues, sometime during the financial year 1683-1684, perhaps in April 1684. No burial records have been traced, however, neither for Jan Davidsz. de Heem nor for his wife, Anna Ruckers.
Fred G Meijer Curator, Department of Old Netherlandish Painting, Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie, The Hague.
IDENTIFICATION OF FLOWERS, FRUIT, BIRDS, INSECTS AND OTHER ANIMALS
Flowers: 1. Wheat 2. Provins Rose 3. Small Morning Glory 4. White Rose 5. Pot Marigold 6. Opium Poppy 7. French Rose 8. Rattle 9. Carnation 10. Endive 11. Marguerite 12. Gooseberries 13. Love-in-a-Mist 14. Rock Madwort 15. Chamomile 16. Cow Parsley 17. Corn Poppy 18. Corn Flag 19. Hollyhock 20. Tulip 21. Rue 22. Corn Poppy 23. White Lily 24. Hollyhock 25. Wheat 26. Tulip 27. Common Groundsel 28. Elder Iris hybrid 29. Opium Poppy 30. Hollyhock 31. Broad Bean 32. Opium poppy var. 33. Hollyhock 34. Durmast Oak 35. Peony
Triticum aestivum L. aristatum Rosa x provincialis L. Convolvulus tricolor L. Rosa x alba L. Calendula officinalis L. Papaver somniferum L. Rosa gallica L. x R. x alba L. subplena Rhinanthus angustifolius C.C. Gmelin Dianthus caryophyllus L. plenus albo-rubrus Cichorium endivia L. var. crispa L. pallida Leucanthemum vulgare Lamk. Ribes uva-crispi L. Nigella damascena L. semiplena Alyssum saxatile L. var. compactum Vilm. albescens Matricaria recutita L. Anthriscus sylvestris (L.) Hoffm. Papaver rhoeas L. Gladiolus segetum Ker Alcea rosea L. duplex ruba Tulipa stellate Hook. x T. praecox Ten. Ruta graveolens L. Papaver rhoeas L. semiplenum Lilium candidum L. Alcea rosa L. plena coerulea Triticum aestivum L. Tulipa clusiana Vent. x T. agenensis DC. Senecio vulgaris L. Iris sambucina L. x. I. pallida Lamk. Papaver somniferum L. rubrum Alcea rosea L. plena rubra Vicia faba L. Papaver somniferum L. var. fimbriatum Loud. purpureum Alcea rosea L. duplex lilacina Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. Paeonia officinalis L. plena
Fruit: 36. Cherries 37. Apricots 38. Peas 39. Grapes 40. Plum 41. Cornel 42. Strawberry 43. Peach 44. Orange
Prunus avium (L.) L. Prunus armeniacus L. Pisum sativum L.ssp. sativum Vitis vinifera L. Prunus domestica L. Cornus mas L. Fragaria moschata Duch. Prunus persicus (L.) Batsch Citrus aurantium L.
Birds: a. Goldfinch b. Great Tit Butterflies: c. Buff Ermine (at 2) d. Red Admiral (on 23) e. Large Tortoiseshell (at 23) f. Garden Tiger Moth (on 34) g. Peacock (on 36) Other Insects and Snails: h. Longhorn Beetle (on 4) i. Earth Bumble (near 9) J. Rhinoceros Beetle (on 10) k. Field Bumblebee l. Caterpillar Emperor (at 26) m. Caterpillar Great White (at 41) n. Cockchafer (right of 41) o. Wood snail (on 7)
Aromia moschata (L.) Bombus terrestris (L.) Oryctes nasicornis (L.) Bombus agrorum Fabr. Saturnia pavonia (L.) Pieris brassicae (L.) Melolontha melolontha (L.) Cepaea nemoralis (L.)
19 5 15 14
Spilosoma lutea (Hufn.) Vanessa atalanta (L.) Nymphalis polychloros (L.) Arctia caja (L.) Inachis io (L.)
Carduelis carduelis L. Parus major L.
32 4 h
RICHARD GREEN Richard Green has assisted in the formation and development of numerous private and public collections. UNITED KINGDOM
Altrincham: Dunham Massey (NT)
Ottawa: The National Gallery of Canada
Aberdeen: City Art Gallery
Barnard Castle: Bowes Museum
Fredericton: Beaverbrook Art Gallery
Bedford: Cecil Higgins Museum
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cheltenham: Art Gallery and Museum
Cincinnati, OH: Art Museum
Canterbury: Royal Museum and Art Gallery Chester: The Grosvenor Museum Coventry: City Museum
Dedham: Sir Alfred Munnings Art Museum Hampshire: County Museums Service Hull: Ferens Art Gallery
Ipswich: Borough Council Museums and Galleries
Leeds: Leeds City Art Gallery Lincoln: Usher Gallery
Liskeard: Thorburn Museum
London: Chiswick House (English Heritage) Department of the Environment The Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood The Museum of London
National Maritime Museum National Portrait Gallery
National Postal Museum Tate Britain
The Wimbledon Lawn Tennis Museum Lydiard Tregoze: Lydiard House
Boston, MA: Museum of Fine Arts Gainesville, FL: Harn Museum of Art
Houston, TX: Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation Los Angeles, CA: J Paul Getty Museum
New Haven, CT: Yale Center for British Art New York, NY: Dahesh Museum
Southsea: Royal Marine Museum
Stirling: Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum York: York City Art Gallery
Darmstadt: Hessisches Landesmuseum Hannover: Niedersachsisches Landesmuseum
Karlsruhe: Staatliche Kunsthalle
Speyer am Rhein: Historisches Museum der Pfalz
Rochester, NY: Genessee County Museum St Louis, MO: Missouri Historical Society Sharon, MA: Kendall Whaling Museum Toledo, OH: Toledo Museum of Art
Ventura County, CA: Maritime Museum
Amsterdam: Joods Historisch Museum Utrecht: Centraal Museum SOUTH AFRICA
Durban: Art Museum
Washington, DC: The National Gallery
Williamstown, MA: Sterling and Francine
The White House
Clark Art Institute
Winona, MN: Minnesota Marine Art Museum Worcester, MA: Worcester Art Museum
Courtrai: City Art Gallery
St Helier: States of Jersey (Office)
Berlin: Staatliche Kunsthalle
Pasadena, CA: Norton Simon Museum
Richmond: London Borough of and Orleans House Gallery
Omaha, NE: Joslyn Art Museum
Richmond upon Thames
Compiègne: Musée National du Château
Ocala, FL: The Appleton Museum of Art
Norwich: Castle Museum
Plymouth: City Museum and Art Gallery
Antwerp: Maisons Rockox
Madrid: Real Academia de Bellas Artes de Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza Museo Nacional del Prado SWITZERLAND
Zurich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum THAILAND
Bangkok: Museum of Contemporary Art
Tröense: Maritime Museum EIRE
Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland
This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated (without the publisher’s prior consent), in any form of binding or other cover than in which it is published, and without similar condition being imposed on another purchaser. All material contained in this catalogue is subject to the new laws of copyright, December 1989. All sales are subject to our standard terms and conditions of sale (March 2006). Copies are available on request or can be viewed on our website.
1147 47 New New Bond B ond S Street, tree t, LLondon ondon W W1S 1S 22TS TS Telephone: Telephone: +44 +4 4 (0)20 (0)20 7493 7493 3939 3 93 9 FFax: ax : + +44 4 4 (0)20 (0)20 7499 7499 3278 327 8 E Email: mail: p email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org