USpIT^T^^YS^^^^^® BESLUIT VAN DEN SENAAT DER
™ VERDEDIGEN TEGEN DE BEDENKIN-
^^^ LETTEREN EN WIJSBE-
GEERTE, OP VRIJDAG 5 JULI 1935, NAM. 3 UUR, DOOR

V.nbsp;Letter from Count Jan van Nassau-Siegen, to
his brother Count Willem Lodewijk van Nassau,
written on December 10, 1608 . . . .125

1.nbsp;Frontispiece: Portrait of Jacques de Gheyn. Engraved ^^^^
atter his own design and edited by Hendrick Hondius.
rrmtroom, Amsterdam......

2.nbsp;Design for a medal commemorating the victory of
Nieuwpoort. Printroom, British Museum . . . 6

3.nbsp;Portrait of Prins Maurits and sketch of a ring with the
rrince s portrait on a medallion. Printroom, Amsterdam 6

11. Sheet with studies for figures in Simon Stevin\'s sailing
coach, plants and a swan. Masson collection, Académie
des Beaux-Arts, Paris.....

^^ a h^r^e^ ^^ preceding drawing with two sketches of
13. Peasant life. Printroom, Amsterdam .

schriftlr quot;i- P\'•stond den schrijver van een proef-
wL trnbsp;quot;^^Sen, dat het te Utrecht besproken werd,

ffiX O Mn\' quot;r n -quot;\'J ^\'^.^\'\'quot;\'•en aan de nagedachtenis van
rro essor ü. Marrucchi. Door Beider onderwijs werd ik op een wijze

quot;uym Romano Guarnieri, E. Mâle, R. Schneider, A. Michel en
A. Ventur, mag ,k nict verzuimen hier dankbaar te verme dèn

te beschouwen. Aan het eerste hoofdstuk korden ordë nn\'^quot;\'
bhceerde uittreksels van archiefstukken welke Dr A Rr^^®
zameld heeft, ten grondslag gelegd worden dank^L. •• u

de Heeren A, E. Popham, Dr. L. Burchard, F. Lugt, Mr A le Co?
g^mo de Bussy, Mr. W. G. Sehuylenbu\'rg en In hei büzoS;

Hartelijke dank wordt hier ook gebracht aan Mevrouw D Kuenen
Wicksteed, die de vertaling in het Engelsch op zieh wUde
^ deze ,„ korten tijd met groote toewijding voltooTde e^^n
Mejuffrouw J. D. van der Waals, die zoi vriendeIHk was Wi h.^
corngeeren der proeven haar steun te verkenen ^nbsp;^

That this dissertation has not been printed in its original Dutch form
may be justified by the interest, now shared by a very international
group ot students, for drawings in general and Dutch drawings in
particular The author will be glad if his choice of the English
language be understood in the way in which it was meant: as a
nomage to those who founded the first periodical devoted to
drawings exclusively, which has appeared in London ever since

Three painters, as grandfather, father and son, bore the name of
Jacques de Gheyn. Of these three it is the father who, by his com-
prehensive and original work achieved a name amongst the note-
worthy artists at the beginning of the 17th century. The following
study is devoted to him, so that it will be natural, when speaking of
hini, to say Jacques de Gheyn, while his father will be referred to
as Jacques de Gheyn the elder or the old de Gheyn and his son as
the younger de Gheyn. Both the older and the younger de Gheyn
were apparently of some significance in their time, and gain interest
by their connection with the celebrated artist. The older de Gheyn
IS known almost entirely from tradition l), chiefly from reports by
J^arel van Mander in his life of our subject 2). He is said first to
nave seen the light on board a ship, during a voyage made by his
parents over the Zuider Sea from Harlingen to Amsterdam. Al-
though these parents are said to have belonged to a patrician family
01 Utrecht, their names are no more known to us than the name of
nis wife, de Gheyn\'s mother. We may assume at any rate, that the
patronymic was originally quot;van den Gheynquot; and, when it had been
changed to quot;de Gainquot; under French influence, returned to Dutch
as simply quot;de Gheynquot;. It is not impossible that the grandparents
01 the older Jacques de Gheyn were Nicolaes van den Gheyn and
Maria Bogaert 3).

The elder Jacques, who practised glass painting, did not remain in
Utrecht, but was admitted to the guild in Antwerp in 1558, where

G. van Mander, Schilderboeck, of which in future we will quote the
«iition of 1618, fol. 207 verso—208 verso. The first commentary on this Life
2^2-^270° ^^ ^ Hijmans in his monumental edition, part II, 1885, pages

^^ In the genealogies Booth, State Archives, Utrecht, appears in part XII,
va^^ as daughter of Wouter Bogert Maria Bogaert, wife of Claes Jansz
an den Gheyn, whose children were: Dirck, Joris, Jan and Anna. The sup-
position that this Jan was the father of Jacques senior is attractive, because it
^uld explain the relationship of the young de Gheyn with the Wtenbogaerts
the same family. According to the facts given by Van Mander Jacques senior
must have been born about 1535. If we put the birth of Jan de Gheyn not later
jnan about 1515, we must conclude that Maria Bogaert was born about 1490.
Çer lather is mentioned as still living quot;in the Lynmerctquot; in 1535.
ne clue that led to these hypotheses, was given us by Dr. A. le Gosquino de
ussy. The place of Maria Bogaert in the genealogy Wtenbogaert is clearly
indicated in the family-tree at the end of H. G. Rogge\'s quot;Brieven en onuitge-
geven stukken van Johannes Wtenbogaertquot;, part I, Utrecht, 1868, opposite page
Hi Tnbsp;^^^ husband is given as quot;van de gege(?)quot;.

läbä. In 1580 the father is mentioned n Utrecht, where howpv/r
Van Maquot;nlquot;nbsp;quot; ^ Wn whe;e rdLd\'

cures, and at the end of his life even began to paint. It would be
interesting to know his stained glass windows, which van £der
admired so much m the Borgh church (S. Walburgal and at the
Minorites in Antwerp, but unfortunately they are no linger e^tlnt
and the possibility of finding specimens of Ls work isTot grS

uic üienaing ol light and shade 8). All that remains as almost cer-
tainly authentic work by the older de Gheyn by which to estimSe

loft w. h was completed by his son, but as this has all been
lost we have not sufficient material to clear up this question AH
J know of this work is through reports of van 4nder^ who speak

In the Printroom of the University of Göttingen is a drawing rJîvquot;^ ^ • .

to improve himself in engraving, an art he had already practised,
ne went to Hendrick Goltzius at Haarlem, with whom he spent a
long apprenticeship. We may assume, with Hirschmann l), on the
strength of dates upon his prints, that this apprenticeship began
about 1585, certainly not later. The skilful engraver was gradually
aeveloped, who presently put his own signature under engravings
macie trom subjects designed by Goltzius and others, and of which
goltzius remained the publisher.

In 1591 we hear that Arnoldus Buchelius visited de Gheyn in Am-
sterdam whither he had moved at an unknown date while still
Having h^is domicile in Haarlem. Thus it would seem that by this
time he had established himself as independent craftsman. Buche-
lius tells in his diary how on April 4th 1591 he travelled from the
mgue to Leiden and from there quot;vento prospero, sed vehementiquot;3)
reached Amsterdam in four hours\' time, where he visited his old
iriend the goldsmith Boonhoff, who took him to de Gheyn. quot;In-
pnium vidi floridum in eo florere cum tenerrimo stylo aereas
laminas venustis imaginibus occuparetquot; 4), thus runs the first
opinion expressed upon the young engraver. Having inspected his
worK, they invited him to join them in a visit to the celebrated col-
lection ot Jacob Razet and subsequently in the quot;Golden Falconquot;
pniditia sumere et largo proluere pectora Bacchoquot; 5). For the next
lew days he apparently remained one of the party, spending their
in the theatre, now inspecting the paintings of groups in
the Doelensquot; and finally abusing it in a quot;hospitium ut in limine
videbam castitati inimicumquot; 6). These were the years in which,
according to van Mander, de Gheyn quot;did for a great part detriment
to art through the attractions of youthful societyquot;. A year later
ßuchelius came again to Amsterdam 7), where he visited de Gheyn
o^ay 30th. De Gheyn showed him the 12 apostles, which he had

\'\' Künstler-Lexikon, Part XIII, page 530, etc., in which the
most complete biography of de Gheyn appears. Reliable chronological lists of
quot;n-nbsp;^^^^ ofnbsp;and son were first published by L. Burchard,

uie holla^ndischen Radierer vor Rembrandtquot;, Berlin, 1917, page 105 and page
L XT-nbsp;to consider critically the list of works published by Miss I. M. Blok

m Nieuw Ned. Biogr. Woordenboek, Part III, 1927, pages 468-469, our
catalogue in vol. II should be referred to.

engraved. From another document 1) we may conclude that this
series of engravmgs, for which the designs were made by Garel van
Mander 2), was just completed; as they are not dated, the period has
been difficult to determine. In the Print Room in Berlin there is a
letter to Isebrant Willemsen of March 3rd 1592, embellished by a
portrait of the messenger, de Gheyn\'s dumb pupil 3). At this period
his work seems to absorb him so completely, that he excuses himself
because the apostles demand that I remain constantly in their
cornpany, m order that they may take leave of me within a month
and terminate their sojourn with an honourable banquet which will
be paid for by Master Spruyt at the exchange, as they have lived
upon me for the whole year. As I believe they are resolved to go in
pilgrimage to Franckfort, I expect they will rejoice that their jour-
ney talis in the summer as they have hardly a shoe to their feetquot;
Ihus we see ^heyn esta^blished in his own studio in Amsterdam.
On August 11th 1591 the Rector of the Jesuits in Antwerp seems to
have made an effort to procure a passport from the States for him
to visit Antwerp 4), but as we cannot bring any of his work at this
period into connection with such a visit, it remains doubtful if he
ever executed any commission for them.

f? de Gheyn had devoted himself to reproducing drawings by
Goltzius Bloemaert, Corn. Cornelisz, van Mander and others, but
during this period he seems to have come to realize that he could
better express himself in independent work, which finally led him
to painting He began by engraving after his own drawings and
gradually dropped it a together, although for a long time he con-
tinued to make designs for prints. The first indication of de Ghevn\'s
painting is not found until 1598 or shortly before, when he was
received into the Lucas Guild of the Hague as painter and engra-
ver o. It strikes us, however, to hear van Mander mentioning
mainly collectors at Amsterdam being in the possession of his first
paintings 6). This would point to early training with the brush
ilt;or the present he continued to live in Amsterdam; in the same year
he appeared in the part of David in a Rhetoricians pageant acted

I) Drawing in Berlin K. K. We may remark here, that no references to any
literature concerning the single drawings are given in the notes of this volume
quot; containing them as numerously as possible

by the Rhetoricians in honour of Prins Maurits i). In the following
year, owing to his marriage according to van Mander, who per-
haps quotes his own words, he enjoyed quot;unusual and inconceivable
peace and quietnessquot;, which he turned to the benefit of his work.
His personality strengthened and developed rapidly in a variety of
directions and he was not afraid to undertake large commissions.
From the certificate of marriage (quot;ondertrouwquot;), drawn up on April
1st 1595 2), we learn that the bride was not a native of Amsterdam:
^e is registered as quot;Eva Stalparts van der Wijele, living in den
A f u^quot;\' ^^^ bridegroom lives at Amsterdam, in the Molensteech.
Although he followed his wife to South Holland, it was not the
Hague but Leiden that was their first home. In 1596 he made an
engraving for the quot;Kamerquot; of Retoricians with their devise quot;Love is
the Foundationquot; 3). The same year brought forth the portrait of Lu-
dolf van Gollen, who taught at Leiden 4). The will that he drew up
with his wife,was also passed by aLeiden notaryW. vanOudevlietS).
They then lived at the quot;Steenschuyr omtrent de Loyhallequot; and
had one son, Jacques de Gheyn junior, who at his 25th birthday was
to receive 3000 guilders. Further proofs of the prosperity which his
marriage with the daughter of a patrician family 6) brought him,
will be mentioned elsewhere.

In the meantime Jacques de Gheyn had carried out a number of
commissions both for the States and for the city of the Hague, which
explains, why he eventually wished to live in the neighbourhood
of the quot;Curia Hollandiaequot;. In 1593 the States General and the
magistrates of Utrecht and Gouda, the last represented by Cornelis
Ketel, paid him sums of money for his print representing the battle
of Geertruidenberg\'lt;). This was followed in 1597 by payments by

0 R. W. P. de Vries, De Blijde Inkomsten van Vorstelijke Personen te Amster-
dam, Amsterdam, 1879, page 2. Saul, the other principal person of the play,
was represented by Frans Volckertsz Coornhert, quot;schepenquot; of the town.

Extra-ord. register v. huw. saecken 1595. See Dr. A. D. de Vries, Biogra-
tische Aanteekeningen, etc. page 145.

J., pomp, the accounts of the pageant in 159G, published by Dr. J. Prinsen,
Bijdr. Hist. Gen., vol. XXV, page 474.

^ Not described by Passavant, but, amongst others in: Les oeuvres de Golt-
zms, de Gheyn et des Wierix, Vente Fred. Muller, 20—21 Nov. 1882, page 11,
no. 84.

There are three states of this print, of which amongst others Frits Lugt pos-
sesses copies, namely 1) the head only, 2) the completed figure before the
letter, 3) one with the text in the lowest border.

f J^ques de Gheyn is still called here quot;engraver of Antwerpquot;, his wife quot;Mis-
tress hva Stalperts van der Wiele, of Malinesquot;. The complete document will be
6?quot;? ^^ ^^^nbsp;^^ appendix IV.

f bee the family-tree, mainly taken from W. J. van Ham\'s genealogy of the
7) p (Vianen, 1854), added hereafter as appendix III.
TIT ^ramm, De Levens en werken, etc., page 570; Obreens Archief, part
m, page 35.

the States General and the States of Holland and West Friesland
for a simdar representation of the battle of TurnhoutT) He

is extant and which apparently was never published, he reeded
200 pounds in 1598, also at Leiden 3) ^nbsp;\' ^^^^^^^^

The letter written by Jan van Nassau to his brother Willem Lode-
wijk on December 10th 1608 4), from which we learn of the com-

n fT University city. His own origin andLn more
so that of h,s wife, would entitle him to mix with the well-tTdo
citizens bu he portraits which he made in this period inZate that
he was familiar with the elite of the University as well. For inl„ce
he was privileged to engrave the portrait of the then ySS
Hup de Groot, when m 1599 he returned from Paris 6) bLrinra
portrait of Henry IV presented by himself cut in a gem, an oma!
ment which is not forgotten in the portrait. In the same year ?he
youthful scholar provided de Gheyn with a number of appropriate

2)nbsp;G. van Loon, Histoire métallique des Pays-Bas, part I pafre 535 The
drawmg, identified by A. E. Popham, has recent / come ^o^the Briïïh

3)nbsp;Reproduced in the quot;Historische Atlas van \'s-Gravenhagequot;, published bv
^e Society die Haghe \' m 1915, first part, plate 1. The plan ^\'quot;o bind the
ZlW^.unbsp;« ûf Holland, which will be repîbliVdquot; was not

^x V through Captain J. W. Wijn, who was kind enough to proviSr^
DÔorwertr-nbsp;^^ ^^ ^^ ^^P^ - the Military^MuseuTcasUe

^ Passavant, no. 74. The gem itself is now in the possession of Baron O F
Groeninx van Zoelen in The Hague (ill no 1100 of f^i r-.f^i r
Grotius Exhibition, 1925). There a^re a least 2 tates of thj?
one does not yet show the lowest shadow of the hanl at thequot; h

biblical texts in Latin 1) for an allegorical drawing of Death from
which he intended to make a large engraving. But Grotius knew de
Gheyn even before his 15th year: the series of prints of carneval
mummers, which de Gheyn designed and engraved, bears lines
composed by de Groot in his 12th year 2). Apparently, therefore,
de Gheyn had made his acquaintance directly he came to Leiden as a
student. The portraits of two Leiden Professors, Ludolf van Gollen,
the geometrician and geodesist, and Carolus Clusius, the celebrated
^under of the Leiden quot;Herbal Gardenquot; 3), were also drawn by him.
1 ne Botanical Gardens themselves were not neglected and he
made a sketch in 1616, intended for a print, representing Pieter
rauw delivering his anatomical lectures 5). All of which shows
that his popularity in Leiden continued. Pauw\'s father-in-law
moreover, the renowned Jan van Hout, was drawn by him as early
as 1^6 and an engraving made of it 6). For Orlers, a nephew of
van Hout, de Gheyn designed the title page of quot;den Nassauschen
Laurencransquot;, quot;the Nassau Wreath of Laurelsquot; in 1610 7). He fur-
nished the illustrations for two volumes of poems by Daniel Hein-
sius in ] 606 and 1608 8). It is probable that de Gheyn owed al these
wmmissions to something more than his talent as a draughtsman.
1 ne fact that he consulted Hugo de Groot as to the titles of his
prints, by no means indicates that he was himself unlettered. His
appearance in a performance of the quot;Kamerquot; of Rhetoricians in
Amsterdam and the commission received from the Leiden quot;Kamerquot;,
are proof to the contrary. The only autograph letter that we possess
^d from which we have quoted above, is sufficient evidence that

J Passavant, no. 81—90. A series of these prints in states before with Lon-
aerseel s address and no further letters is to be found in the Bibliotheca Thy-
siana, Leiden.
^ Passavant, no. 1.
4) Copy in the Printroom, Amsterdam.

) One copy of this rare print is in Teyler\'s collections (Panpoeticon batavum),
a second in the Lakenhal at Leiden. It is not signed.

gt; Reproduced on the cover of the price catalogue of an Oranje-Nassau Li-
brary, W. P. van Stockum, The Hague, 1898. The model for the poorly
executed print quot;Curia Hollandiaequot; which it contains, illustrates the spirit of
the workshop of Jacques de Gheyn.

Spiegel van de Doorluchtige, eerlicke, cloucke, deuchtsame ende verstandege
vrouwen ... door Theocritus a Ganda, published in 1606 by Jod. Hondius in
Amsterdam, later under Heinsius\' own name. The very rare first edition,
Which was pointed out to us by Dr. M. D. Henkel, is in the University Library
Anbsp;(copy from the coll. V. van Gogh).

And: Emblemata Amatoria, originally published under the same pseudonym in
1608 w earlier. A. G. C. de Vries, the Dutch Emblemata, Amsterdam, 1899,
page XVIII, no. 21 etc. The copy of the coll. V. van Gogh is now in the pos-
session of Dr. J. Schretlen in Overveen.

for art and poetry. As might be expected, his Amsterdam reputation
followed him to Leiden, and here too we find him in the socieW
art CO lectors. It must have been something more than an accident
that placed his name as witness to a legal document beside that of
Bartolomeo Ferreris in 1601 2).

In how far portraits of such figures as the Prince of Gondé 3) Hen-
ry IV, and Marnix van St. Aldegonde^) indicate even more dis-
tinguished connections, it is hard to say. We know nothing of anv
foreign travd at this period, while it is hard to believe that the two
portraits of Tycho Brahe were taken by him from life 5). It is not
known that Brahe left his own country in 1586 to visit Holland and
It seems to be more probable that de Gheyn copied his engraving
at a later date from a portrait by Tobias Gemperlin, who made

printed a year after the death of the subject, which seems to indicate
that It was not taken from life. But the accuracy with which the
features are reproduced in these prints is very remarkable. A por-
trait ot a nobleman engraved in silver and of which only a few
specimens were printed we may assume to have been taken from the

fiquot;oriae of A. Buchehus, see above, page 78—79
Wurzbach, no. 4c. As the subsequent one from 1599, a circumstance which
m any case points to close relations with the French Court at that time Sere
are two states of this print. Of the first, before all the letters and before the

5)nbsp;Passavant no 2. J Huizinga has pointed out that the date only refers to the
example, not to the pnnt (Tien Studiën, Haarlem, 1926, pages 193-200) The

by de lt;^heyn in the following year proves, however, that he in 1586 was
Stw\'^ \' • r^,-; quot;«-207). The same authority has made it seem probably by
^ Tnbsp;the arms, that the print of the figL with the

hat must have originated later than that without a hat. We canLt however
agree with the opinion that the former is not from de Gheyn\'s hand dl the
less, because we have retraced de Gheyn\'s original design for it under the
name of Goltzius m the Print Room in Copenhagen. It doe^not seem sur
prising to us that he to some extent copied himsdf in thir\'aL because ii
concerned an improvement of the genealogynbsp;\' ^

life: we refer to a plaquette with the portrait of George Clifford,
Duke of Cumberland, from the year 1594, which is fully signed at
the back in delicate lettering 1). But unfortunately neither in this
case can it be discovered for certain whether it was made in London
or in Amsterdam.

^^^Pite of the sparsiness of printed and written data, we are thus
able to form some idea of Jacques de Gheyn\'s intellectual and social
position, especially in Leiden; but it is more difficult to penetrate
into his domestic life. We know the painter himself from a por-
^ait, undoubtedly designed by the master himself, which Hendrik
Hondius published in 1610, in his quot;Pictorum aliquot celebrium
praecipue Germaniae inferioris effigiesquot; (frontispiece)2). Here he is
seen in the foreground, pointing to a miniature that he holds in his
hand, while in the background he is again represented in a small
figure painting a large panel. In front of him is a flask and beside
it lie a palette, brushes, pencils, a burin and feather, attributes of his
versatile genius. His arm rests upon a block on which time and mor-
tality are symbolised in a circle, an emblem emphasized by a vase of
tulips standing by. The now elderly painter confronts us with his
penetrating gaze, with a look of ripe experience, very moving by its
mingled expression of wistfulness and firmness 3). With the care of
a master of form he has draped his cloak about his shoulders, but
there is a modesty in the symbolism, which counteracts any vanity
there may be in the pose. The gesture with which he points out the
^ry smallest of his work, seems to indicate his expectation that it

The little silver plate we found in the British Museum, in the Dept. of
yoms and Medals, to which it had been presented in 1920 (Gift Okeover). There
IS a proof in the Printroom there, in which the flowers in the border have
only been filled in with ink. An old copy is with Dr. J. C. J. Bierens de Haan
Unv. 11263), who reads the monogram as: quot;non (nihil?) sine Deoquot;, and refer-
red us to auction catal. Fred. Muller 20—21, Nov. 1882, no. 68.

A good reproduction occurs in Hymans-van Mander, see above, part II,
page 263. It is very tempting to suggest a self-portrait of de Gheyn at a youth-
ful age in the portrait which has been preserved in the Albertina, as the
Writer of the critical catalogue does; especially, because it might have been
irawn in a concave mirror. The resemblance however is neither in favour of
or in contradiction to this suggestion. The reference to the drawing in Am-
sterdam as another self-portrait is not sufficiently founded and is contradicted
by the inscription on the back (O. Benesch, Die Zeichnungen der Niederl.
bchulen, Vienna, 1928, no. 387).

1 1, ^^ Gheyn was not easily satisfied with himself and even possessed
ack of self-confidence, appears to be expressed by a line of poetry by Constan-
tyn Huygens in quot;Le revers de la Courquot; of 1628, which probably refers to the
lather:

ijerhaps this characteristic is connected with a certain ambition, of which we
shall give evidence later. See J. A. Worp, The poems of Constantijn Huygens,
^nd part, 1893, page 148, line 148.

will be this especially which will survive him. The general alle^orv
applied in this way, gains a personal significance.
This IS not the only portrait of de Gheyn. In the superscription at
the back of a masterly little pen drawing in the Fodor Museum in
Amsterdam he has revealed himself as the 18 year-old artist and
the subject of the work; showing himself in appearance yet a youth
J n drawing already a master. But the features are not yet
modelled by the inward life, it is not a characteristic quot;headquot;, so that
It throws less light upon his person than upon his work.
Unfortunately we have no authentic portrait of Eva Stalpaert van
der Wielen, de Gheyn\'s wife. He has sketched a few domestic scenes
the most interesting of which for us is found in Berlin Here a
mother and her little son are sitting by candle-light, looking at a
book of drawings on the open page of which are seen a cow and a
tree. Un the table beside an inkpot lie pen and pen-knife, de Ghevn\'s
own drawing implements and a candle snuffer. Did he draw this
picture-book for his son? We should like to think that his wife and
the young Jacques are represented here, but it is somewhat doubt-
ful, especially as regards the mother. Neither the year of her birth
nor the duration of her life are known; we only know that she was
born at Malines and we may assume that before her marriage she
lived most of the time at the Hague. Here her grandmother, Eva
van Mierop - no doubt her namesake - owned two houses in the
Voorhou 1), being the daughter of the well known Vincent van
Mierop, treasurer-general for all the Netherlands to the Emperor
Charles V. In the sale of these houses later the name of de Gheyn
figures. In one of these, on the North side, he lived until 1623; the
other, situated on the South side, was sold by him in 1613 with the
other owners, amongst whom we find the widow of his wife\'s uncle
Mr. Kutger van Hen, his brother-in-law Caspar Wiintjris master nf
the Mint of West-Friesland and Willem Dimrerh^sCnd of a

that Eva Stalpaert was no longer living at the time. It would seem
that she died young, and perhaps the will made in 1599 is a sign

0nbsp;Accordirig to the Hst published by A. ter Meer Derval of the inhabitants of

^fT^\'her 14 1613 quot;Jonkvr. Maria Stalperts van der Wyele widow
of Mr. Rutgert van lien, assisted by Johan van der Wyele and HenHck van
Hen for the one party, and Jacques de Gheyn for himself and fepresentTne
Jonkvr. Catharma Stalperts, widow of Cornelis Duyn, Caspar WijntgTs raste?

Elizabeth van Lambrouck for the other partyquot; sold a house on the South Side
of the Voorhou for 8000 pounds (Transporten. Communal Archives The
Hague; communicated by Dr. W. Moll).nbsp;^rcmves, ine

to she was already ailing and anticipating the approach of death.
1 he date of the birth of their son is also uncertain, it is usually sup-
posed to have been 1596, and was undoubtedly thereabouts i). He
must have been familiar with prints and paintings from his infancy;
as shall see later, he signed his own first production in 1614.
Ue Uieyn was not an only child, like his son; he had a sister Anna
^id two brothers, Steven and Isaac. At the marriage of the first to
Adrian van der Borch of Brussels on December 4th 1593, celebrated
at Amsterdam, he figures as witness 2). Later both Steven de Gheyn
and his sister, who early lost her husband — a surgeon — came to
^^^nbsp;In 1604 we hear of Anna again, as being sued by

one juffrouw Holmanni 3). On March 23rd 1608 she was re-married
to Govert Barson^). Steven de Gheyn we hear of only in Leiden,
between the years 1601 and 1619. During a journey to France, which
he undertook in 1601, he stayed at Rouen and there drew their
for Henry VIII and his court, which no doubt were
embellished with elegant illuminations of arms etc. and for which
handsomely paid 5). In 1603 he was married; on April 28th
1606 Steven de Gheyn of Antwerpquot; on the witness of Mr. Claes
Jansz Hieck was made inhabitant and citizen of Leiden, while Hieck
and^ another stand surety for him 6): a year later in the inventory,
made up after the death of his father-in-law Jan Simonsz Hyck, he
is designated as painter 7). Between 1607 and 1609, on the other
tlf Ai-^^ find him as host at the Red Lion. A bond, given him by
the Middleburg goldsmith Jacob Jansz for the delivery of works of
art, he sold in 1610. The last we hear of him is on January 16th 1623,
J^rom Brussels, where he is sick and no longer able to work. In 1651
his widow was still living in Leiden. All three brothers and their
brother-in-law Barson are named in a legal document, drawn up
^ Jacob J. Verwey, in which Jacques de Gheyn, living at the
Wague, and Steven de Gheyn living at Leiden appear as uncles and
t^tives of the orphans of Isaac de Gheyn. Govert Barson, Anna

As he in 1614 already signs prints as the engraver, the year of his birth
cannot be far from 1596.

^ Extraord. register v. huw. saecken. — Jacques de Gheyn had assisted her on
February 11, 1592 to draw up an authorisation for Notary S. Henrix, Amster-
fiam (Dr. A. D. de Vries, see above, page 144). — In 1594 Jacques, according
0 f, ^^^ before the same notary, is authorised to receive a sum of 800 carolus
guldens from Albrecht Fock in The Hague for his sister Anna, who has
married since.

Thieme-Beckers Kiinstlerlexikon, Part XIII, pages 534—
his l^Fenbsp;literature, also about the following communications concerning

de Gheyn\'s husband, is called quot;bookseller within Leydenquot; 1). Thus
Jacques de Gheyn himself, even after he had moved to the Hague,/
remained in constant connection with Leiden. There were further
grounds for this connection, as may be seen from a document drawn
up by the notary G. van der Laan on October 5th 1611 2), in which
the quot;E. Mr. Jacques de Gheyn, living at the Haguequot; empowers a
notary at Voorhout to draw up a sealed letter before thequot;Schepenenquot;
of Noordwijk, in which he promises according to the notice to fill
up the holes made in the ground in six acres (quot;morgenquot;) of pasture
land, from which the clay has been sold to the Burgomaster and
quot;Ontvangerquot; of Leiden. He signs it with the calligraphic signature
also found on his drawings. This is not the only time we hear of de
Gheyn\'s property in land. On January 1st 1621, we find another
document by a Leiden notary concerning the sale of quot;all the clay
at Noortwijk. two acres of land for 850 florins the acrequot; 3). From
another document it appears that his landed property came from
his wife. On November 24th 1601, he makes a petition to the
Hooge Raadquot;, in which he declares that quot;as being married to
mistress Eva Stalpertsdrquot; he is, with another, owner of the fourth
part of a house and grounds in quot;the dyked-in land by the western
Maasquot;. The tenant, who had rented it in 1596, had quietly sold it
to pay a debt; on November 1st it had realized 16.800 florins. He
requests the High Court to annul the sale 4). His son gradually came
into possession of these lands. On January 5th 1627 he was witness
in the transference of land near Spijkenisse for 1.667 florins 5). On
February 24th 1627 his honour Jacques de Gheyn the younger,
living at the Hague, sold quot;8 mergen of landquot;, near the village of
Strijen, for 4.400 florins. This time the elder Jacques de Gheyn is
the witness 6). And after his father\'s death on January 7th 1632 we
find the son, living at the Hague, renting out land near Soeterwoude
for 120 florins per year 7).

Following Jacques de Gheyn\'s life into the new century, we see a
very important commission to be connected with no less a person
than Prins Maurits himself. As we have said it was de Gheyn, pro-
bably at the order of the States, who designed the medal struck in
honour of the great victory in Flanders; if we may believe van
Mander, it was not the States but the quot;Stadhouderquot;, who further
ordered de Gheyn to make a painting of the renowned stallion, won

2 Obreens Archief, etc. part V, pages 40-41. Notary is Egb. de Witthe in
The Hague.nbsp;®

by Lodewijk Gunther van Nassau from the Archduke and presented
to Maurice. The painting is extant 1), and bears the date 1603. As van
Mander gives a chronological list of the few pictures known to him
before the publication of the quot;Schilderboeckquot;, 1604, this date is of
the greatest value for the study of his paintings. We will not enter
here into an analysis of the profile portrait of the celebrated horse,
who was portrayed more than once; the Stadhouder\'s favour, which
is evident from this commission, was probably won for the Gheyn
by his interest in military matters, shown in some of his earlier
prints; it may have been furthered by Ludolf van Gollen, appointed
by the Prince to the newly established school of engineering at Lei-
den. Generally speaking painting does not seem to have interested
Prince Maurice very much 2) but, when his cousin Jan van Nassau-
Siegen (1561—1623) engaged de Gheyn to work for him, no doubt
the condition that his art was to be placed indirectly at the service
of the well organised States army, would be very much to his
mind. The commission that de Gheyn received, was to compose an
illustrated handbook in which quot;The Handling of Weaponsquot; that is
to say the correct use of fire-locks, muskets and pikes, was demon-
strated in series of drawings representing the various positions and

This was a work of practical utility in training an army and was
first published in 1607, accompanied by the privilege of May 29th
1606, ten years at least after the commission for it was given, as
Prince Willem Lodewijk seems to have judged it unsafe to give it to
the public before the armistice was in sight 3). It was subsequently
reprinted many times, sometimes with Dutch or French text and
sometimes in the German, English and even Danish languages 4).
At what date de Gheyn removed to the Hague is unknown. On
January 1st 1601 he is still found as a witness in Leiden 5), while the
two houses where he lived in the Hague from 1603 up to his death
can be shown. From the quot;Appointmentsquot; of the quot;Rekenkamerquot; of
Holland in which quot;consent is given to Jacques de Gheyn to push out

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, catal. 1934, no. 980. Cf. Ned. Kunstbode Haar-
lem, 1880, page 239. The year with the signature is 1603, and the chronogram
gives the year of the capture, 1600. Another lifesize portrait of a horse, kept in
the same place, was formerly erroneously attributed to de Gheyn. This painting
dates from the second half of the 17th century.

F. W. Hudig, Frederik Hendrik en de kunst van zijn tijd, lecture given on
Oct. 1, 1928, Amsterdam, pages 7—10.

quot;Your Exc. did not then approve that such a thing should be allowed to be
put in printquot;. Evidently the prince did not wish the enemy to benefit from the
manual. Cf. our appendix V.

As quot;plaetsnyder (engraver) to Leidenquot;. Deed of Notary J. van Tethrode.
Note Dr. A. Bredius.

wech 1). On that side he might push out his backwall two and a
half feet, provided that he should pay yearly a recognition of three
groo en . Here we can recognise the house that had belonged to
hve Malpaert s grandmother, at the corner of the Voorhout, clearlv
marked upon his own map of the Hague, and which was sold by
father and son on May 2nd 1623 for 6600 pounds quot;with the
exception of the two stone figures by Michiel Angelo at pre-
sent lying in the court-yard, which they shall be allowed to remo-
ve at they own time and conveniencequot; 2). In 1627, two years be-
fore his death, we have one more sign of his prosperity his con-
tribution, including that for his son, who lived with him in the
register of the 500th penny is entered at 80 florins, a sum re-
presenting a considerable fortune, as is shown by the fact that
^mon Frisius paid only 20 florins 3). The exact spot in the Lane-e
Houtstraat where he was living at that time can be pointed out- it
is specified as being the fourth house from the Gasuariestraat to the
South; in the haerdstedegeldquot;, hearth tax of the same year, as
a house belonging to M. Kenniphovenquot;, in which dwelt as quot;tenantquot;
Jacques de Gheyn. Next door to him lived quot;Master Gonstantiin
Huygens, Secretary to his Excellencyquot; 4).

The father of this celebrated neighbour, knowing the value of a
liberal education for his sons, if he had had his way, would
have sent Gonstantine to take drawing lessons from de Gheyn
their two sons being moreover friends and contemporaries. But, as
Gonstantine writes in his diary: quot;Gum Jacobi Gheinii, artificis
praestantissimi, sed ut fortuna tunc jam lautiore, institutionis suae
Pf ^j\' operam frustra expetisset, Henricum Hondium ele-
git 5). Indeed, the time in which we hear of de Gheyn receiving
pupils, was long past. Van Mander 6) tells us in 1604 of Jan Saen-
redam, Zacharias Dolendo and Robert de Baudous; on the same
authority 7) we may assume that Gornelis Drebbel was included, and

1) From the Treasurer\'s Accounts of 1603 we take his payment of six pounds
^vuj^zaecke^van 5 roeden hart dacke by hem nieu gedaen maeckenquot; etc. Note

^ Communicated from the Deeds of Transfer, Archives of the town of The
Hague, by Dr. W. Moll.

on the authority of Orlersl)DavidBailly. It is unlikely that de Gheyn
formed other pupils after he had retired to the Hague to live upon
his ample competence. Drebbel is certainly the most remarkable of
his pupils. He was one of those ingenious minds who have been pio-
neers in many directions, an ability in itself which de Gheyn must
have appreciated in his pupil 2). It is therefore no surprise to find that
the discoveries he demonstrated to Huygens in London, aroused the
interest of both de Gheyn and his son. The interest taken by de
Gheyn in the inventions made in his vicinity is evident from his
monumental representation of the tour in Stevin\'s quot;Sailing Coachquot;,
for which print he received payment from de States of Holland on
May 9th 1603 3). We shall return later to the work itself, we need
only say here that de Gheyn must have known not only Simon
Stevinhimself,but most of the illustrious company who accompanied
Maurice on this expedition. It was even more natural that de Gheyn
should be keenly interested in the quot;chambre obscurequot; which Dreb-
bel constructed later, of which Huygens writes on March 17th 1622
from London i): quot;Le vieux de Gheyn sera aise d\'entendre que j\'ap-
porteray l\'instrumentquot;. This instrument might prove useful to the
painters themselves, van Riemsdijk has even pointed out that a good
deal of Johannes Torrentius\' exaggerated reputation was due to
it 5). In a letter written home on April 13th of the following year,
Huygens again refers to the quot;chambre obscurequot;; at the end of his
appreciative description of it he says C): quot;Les de Gheyns s\'y plaisent
merveilleusementquot;.

ihis expression, taken in connection with the one above, seems to
imply that father and son had gone over to London and visited
Cornelius Drebbel there, unless we are to assume that the instru-
ment was sent to them. There would be nothing surprising in the
son undertaking the journey; in 1618 he had resided for a time in
London, as is shown again in Huygens\' correspondence 7): quot;Le mal
est que chez Caron (the host of Huygens) je n\'auray pas tant de
loisir d\'apprendre l\'Anglais comme de chez eux, et puis son logis
est fort esloigné de la ville. De Gheyn a mieux choisi de se mettre
a table chez un bourgeois de Londres ou il ne scauroit parler autre

Cf. de Navorscher, 1871, pages 445—452 and 609—617, and 1872, pages
23—29.

letter no. 138. Cf. quot;Huygens\' Autobiographyquot; (Oud-Holland, IX, pages
119—120 and 132).

^ B. W. F. van Riemsdijk, Een schilderij van Johannes Torrentius, Feest-
bundel Dr. A. Bredius aangeboden, 1915, page 243, etc.

Worp, see above, part I, 1911, page 94, letter no. 143.
\'f Worp, see above, part I, 1911, page 22, no. 45.

que 1 Angloisquot;. And again 1): quot;Hier je menay de Gheyn veoir la
galerie a peintures du feu prince par l\'adresse de Gertains gentils
hommes anglois qui m\'ont grandement obligé. Celle du conte
d Arondel avec les antiquités etc. de Gheyn m\'avoit fait voir par
cy devant. Choses admirables en vérité. Au reste nous voicy au pais
le plus gentil du monde ou journellement nous voyons des palais et
paisages quot;om op clavecingeldexels te schilderenquot; 2)quot;.
Here he is undoubtedly speaking of the younger Jacques, who, it
will be remembered, published his Laocoön-print a year later
etched after the copy from the famous group which he found in
Arundel\'s collection of sculptures 3). He also accompanied Huygens
to Oxford, which instigated a passage in a retrospective poem of
Huygens 4):

quot;luvit et Oxonii sacros invisere colles
(Metkerko duce, Brasserio suavi comité, et qui
geiniades famae obstruxit cum Laude Paternae)
Et pluteos Bodleie, tuos, et millibus istis
Millia librorum generosis addita suis____quot;

The younger de Gheyn undertook other journeys as well. Do not
we find 5) that Jacques de Gheyn is permitted quot;to convey to Sweden
from this country by the hand of his son Jacques de Gheyn, without
payment of duty, in five cases, marked with the seal of the King
and numbered 1,2,3,4,5, eight pieces of art, both painted and made
with the pen, to show them to his Majesty, provided that the ap-
plicant furnishes proper security amp; that he shall bring back the
aforesaid cases, numbered as aforesaid, with the eight pieces of art,
both painted and made by the pen, within the term of three months
following, to this country and to the same office from which they
were dispatched on penalty of paying the duty due for the samequot;.
This voyage fell in the year 1620.

It is very striking that the de Gheyns, who evidently travelled a
good deal, should not have been attracted by Italy. quot;A pen drawing

3)nbsp;L. Burchard, Die holländischen Radierer vor Rembrandt, Berlin, 1917, page
173, no. 3. Cf. also the poem that Huygens wrote on this: Worp, Gedichten van
G. Huygens, part V, 139.

4)nbsp;quot;Moreover I visited with pleasure the hills of Oxon, (with as guide Meet-
kercke and as pleasant companion Brasser, and at the same time the son of de
(jrheyn, who eclipses the renown of his father with his own fame) and Bodley,
your book shelves, and the thousands of books added to those thousands which
you generously presentedquot;. Worp, Gedichten van C. Huygens, part VIII naee

of Naples, by Jacques de Gheynquot; that was sold in 1702 with Kor-
nelis Kool\'s collection l), might lead us to think that he had been
there, but that no record of it had happened to be preserved. It
seems to us, however, very unlikely, as then surely either van Man-
der or Huygens would have made some reference to it. And above
all, such a journey would inevitably have left traces upondeGheyn\'s
work, and of this there are no signs. On the contrary, as we shall
see later, his reaction against Italian influence was probably in-
tentional, so that a journey to the South, so full of attraction for
many, seems to have been purposely avoided by him.

But let us pause for a moment and consider the friendship between
the two young men, Huygens and de Gheyn. Was it the son or the
lather who asked Huygens to find a suitable text to accompany a
painting in which he had represented King David, sitting, in medi-
tation on a Psalm, surrounded by books, referred to by Huygens in
a letter to Cesare Galandrini in 1617 2) (sic): quot;un certo amico nostro
chiamato De Gheyn, pintore eccellentissimo, hiersera mi prego di
PJ^ovederlo di qualche sentenza Hebraica cavata da Salmi di David,
n D^^^ servirebbe d\'iscrittione sopra un quadro, nel quale ha dipinto
u Ke David posto a sedere tra\' suoi libri come in meditatione di
qualche Salmo, e\'l Spirto santo scendente sopra lui in forma di
Colombo.... I charatteri dovriano essere un poco grandetti e dis-
tmtamente formati co\' loro punti e accenti convenevoli. Poi da basso
SI potranno mettervi le stesse parole in latino che vorrei V. S. mi
mandasse insieme delle Hebraiche della translatione che le parra
megliorequot;.

^e have quoted this letter, because the conclusion immediately
^okes the younger de Gheyn\'s etchings, copiously provided with
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin mottos 3). At such a youthful age Huy-
gens would hardly have called the elder de Gheyn quot;un certo amico
nostroquot;.

Auction on 14 February 1702 (communication Institute for the Docu-
mentation of the History of Art and Iconography, The Hague).
\' A certain friend of ours, named de Gheyn, an excellent painter, asked me
yesterday evening to provide a text borrowed from the Psalms of David, which
ne wishes to write above a painting in which he has represented King David,
®quot;tmg amongst his books, as if pondering over a Psalm, while the Holy Spirit
descends upon him in the form of a dove ... The characters should be some-
what large and clearly shaped and provided with the necessary points and
f\'^^^^ts. Moreover the same words could be placed below in Latin. I should be
eholden to your honour if you would send me these, together with the Hebrew,
the translation which you consider bestquot;. Worp, see above, part I, 1911,
page 16, letter no. 36.

At the same time Huygens\' friendship for the older man is made
clear in his autobiography, where, as we know, he also gives most
interesting opinions on Rembrandt. He begins his appreciation of
de Gheyn thus 1): In primis Gheinium patrem summa artis vene-
ratione colui. Affectum etiam non vulgarem, nisi perpetua satis
amicitia, dum m vivis esset, sane inter ultima vitae suspiria abunde
demonstravi. Dum et postrema valitudine decumbenti, et mox
egregiam Creatori aminam pie reddenti, neque ficta neque coacta
sollicitudine adfui et quae pro tempore expedivit, Christiane
monui After this comes a criticism of de Gheyn\'s art, which sup-
plements van Mander\'s quot;lifequot;. It is of especial interest, because it
deals chiefly with his later work, which was unknown to van Man-
der. He pays tribute to his great versatility, a characteristic com-
fr^To^^^ ^^^ accompanying Hondius\' portrait of him in

quot;Geinius eximius Sculptor, Pictorque, ritus
Inventor felix, judicioque bonus.
Et Belli et Pacis pingens Insignia gratus
Ipse Duci Belli qui artibus egregius.quot;

A new gift in de Gheyn, that of architecture 3), is revealed in the
following words: quot;He was soundly acquainted with the laws of ar-
chitecture as delivered to us by the ancients and helped by his own
talents, applied them with great discrimination and delicacy, so
that, especially for this reason, at an advanced but still vigorous
age, he rendered great service to Prince Maurice. For this Hero
who all his life had taken no pleasure in building, began, towards\'
the end of his life, to make some attempts at it, which seemed to
promise the erection of greater monuments, if he had lived longer
Ihis is witnessed by the pavillion that he had built at the foot of the
Palace in the Hague in the garden, which de Gheyn had also
designed. He relied herein especially on the help and advice by de
Gheyn, who was not unwilling to refresh his spirit, hitherto
exhausted by more strenuous labour, with such agreeable work, and

^ ^^^ ^he greatest respect for de Gheyn, the father
as artist. My unusual affection for him I may not have shown enough by an
unmterrupted bond of friendship during his lifetime, but fully during the last
moments of his life For both while he suffered from his last illness and when
he shortly afterwards yielded his beautiful soul piously to his maker, I attended
him with a sohcitude that was neither assumed nor forced, and I spoke to him
m the Christian spirit th^ was suitable to that momentquot;. Published by J. A.
Worp in Oud-Holland, IX, page 111, etc.nbsp;^ J-

who, by the introduction of ornaments such as hedges, flower beds,
lountains, and other such decorations, exerted himself for a master
who was not ungrateful and who amply rewarded his industry. For
de Gheyn, first for Maurice and then for Frederik Hendrik (my
master) worked for a very high honorarium. He left unfinished the
work on which he had begun, of imitating in the Italian manner
high rocks standing in water, and transferred both the work and the
reward to his only son Jacob.quot; These expressions of Huygens are
of the greater value because no mention is made of the commissions
either in the accounts and other papers in the Royal Household
Archives (Koninklijk Huisarchief), nor in the documents of the
Nassau Domains in the General State Archives (Rijksarchief) l),
and they show that up to his death the prince continued to employ
de Gheyn, and that Frederik Hendrik had the work at the court-
garden continued. A pleasant description of this garden, sur-
rounded by two circular quot;galleriesquot; (hedges) and closed by a
daintily painted pavillionquot;, accompanied by two illustrations, is
tound in quot;Institutio Artis Perspectivaequot; by Hendrik Hondius 2).
l^uygens himself made an epigram upon quot;The Prince\'s Gardenquot;

quot;In Hortulum P. Maurittii dixuxXov
Quidni Mauritius geminos calcaverit orbes?
Orbis Alexandre non satis unus erat.quot;

^ut this does not give a full picture of de Gheyn\'s position at the
court of the Stadhouders. In the diary of Jan Brueghel, lately edited
yy J. Denuce, the following items are entered in the year 1627 :
Sold to S. de Gheyn, or Prince of Orange a large piece, being a
summer, the figures by Hendric van Balennbsp;— 500.0

^old to S. Jaques de Gheyn, being a Diana fishing in the water,
with many beasts from life done by mon Pere saliger — 300.0quot;
Ihus it seems that de Gheyn also purchased pictures for Prince
I\'rederik Hendrik and may have had some influence upon the choice

paintings which were to adorn the newly equipped palace.
It IS improbable that de Gheyn should have undertaken any new
great works during the last years of his life, but he probably re-
mamed active and even combative. This is indicated by Huygens,

the Royal Household Archives files 2340, 2345, 2349d, 2386, 2387, 2388,
^411, 2412, 2436, 2438, 2485, 2487 and 2397 c, i and g were referred to; in the
2) te Archives documents 765—774 (years 1617—1626) of the Nassau domains.

Ihe latin, first edition of 1622 gives a previous date for the designing and
construction; the Dutch edition appeared in 1623 as quot;Onderwijssinge in de
fx^^pective Gonste door Hendricus Hondiusquot; in The Hague.
IRQ P\' Poems, see above, part II, 893, page 229. The distich is of 20 April
^031. See also note 2.

while speaking of the clever charlatan Johannes Torrentius 1). The
latter had so bewitched the public with his still-life pieces, in which
no stroke of the brush could be detected, that they scented magic and
would put no other still-life painter on a line with him. This raised
the wrath and indignation of the Gheyn, who at that time was
devoting himself to flower painting. He challenged Torrentius to
a competition, quot;sub extremo dies vitaequot;, passionately offering one
of his own compositions to be compared with one of his frivolous
confrere\'s productions. It does not seem that a definite judgment
was ever pronounced, and Huygens recounts the affair with some
reserve; to us it reveals a trait in the character of the artist that we
should not have expected in the patient and painstaking miniature
painter.

Another note that we have not yet heard, sounds in the words set
under a drawing he made in an album for David de Kempenaer 2).
The drawing represents the ship labouring in the storm on the Lake
of Genezareth and underneath are two words quot;Fear Notquot;. It is a
brief commentary, but one which shows the now eldery artistinanew
light. As we turn the pages of this little quot;autographquot; album, mostly
filled by neat insignificant little landscapes, the sudden appearance
of this powerful and earnest drawing makes a deep impression upon
us. De Gheyn, originally the engraver of madonnas, saints, and
mythological subjects, like many others in Holland, found in his
later life a new expression for his convictions, an essentially Pro-
testant and Dutch expression.

In words too, he has given vent to his aversion to the catholic dog-
ma. Under a drawing, now in Berlin, where he adapts a composition
by Quinten Matsys 3), which represents a praying monk being
addressed by one who touches him on the shoulder, he writes the
following distych:

quot;Eenvoudich geloven en goede wercken
Gelt meer voor Godt dan hooge kerckenquot;.

I) Van Riemsdijk, see above, passim; A. Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, The
Hague, 1909, passim and page 4. The comparison, which may have been in-
vr ynbsp;as both de Gheyn and Torrentius may have painted

still-lifes for Frederik Hendrik, must have taken place shortly before the
begmning of the case of Torrentius, who was imprisoned on 30 August 1627.
^^nbsp;^nt by the Misses de Kempenaer of Arnhem for the Grotius

exhibition, held m The Hague 13-28 June 1925 (no. 1107 in the second, im-
proved edition of the catalogue).

There are but few of de Gheyn\'s own words that have been pre
served, they are quite inadequate to illustrate his occupations, cha-
racter, and opinions. But the little that they say is illuminating; his
last utterance is contemplative. Did he feel himself ageing and the
step of death approaching him? He died on March 29th 1629, sup-
ported in his illness and his last hours by the faithful Huygens. The
illiterate sexton wrote his name as quot;Jakys de Genckquot; in a bill for
ringing his funeral knell 1).

After his death it does not seem to have gone very well with his
solitary son. Huygens, in his autobiography, speaks with regret of
his incapacity to work, and from the sparseness of his work so far
known, it would seem that the years brought no improvement. We
must not be too hasty, however, in this respect; as will be seen from
the account of his work given at the end of this book, only the first
traces of his oeuvre have as yet been found. The young de Gheyn
grtainly remained in the Hague till about 1633, the year in which
Huygens wrote a series of ingenious distichs 2) on the portrait of
him by Rembrandt, which he considered bore little resemblance to
his friend, a portrait which unfortunately has been lost.
On October 30th 1634, however, in the list of canons of the chapter
of St. Marie at Utrecht we find: quot;Ernestus Ittersum resigns his
prebend in favour of Jacob de Gheyn, who has redeemed the obli-
gatory residence of one year for 50 g.quot;, followed on January 5th
1637 by: quot;To-day Jacob de Gheyn admitted to all rights, a vote and
a seat in the chapterquot;.

In the possession of this prebendary and the de-catholicised ca-
nonship, Jacob de Gheyn died a few years later on June 4th 16413).
In the death-register his demise is entered on July 15th: quot;His honour
Jacob de Gaing, canon of St. Marie, leaving collateral adult heirs
yom. 32-0-.quot; In the cathedral accounts the death of the still youth-
ful artist is confirmed: quot;Received for the tolling of the bells:
^ On June 5th 1641 died his honour Jacob de Gaing, canon of St.
Marie, with the great bell two hours ... 22 f. 10 st.quot; This proves
that de Gheyn could not have received Huygens as his guest at
^trecht in 1644. The error is due to a confusion with the small
rjver at Utrecht of that name, which originally may have provided
the name to the family, and along which the Squire of Zuylichem

quot;,1629, 2 April, Noch elyf posen over Jakijs de Genck ... 35 pond 15 stui-
^nuquot; Dr. A. Bredius). Huygens made a note in his Diary on March 29:

^Jbit Jacobus de Gheyn paterquot; (Worp, Oud-Holland, part III, appendix,
page 14).

\' The date appears from the list of provosts etc. by Daniel de Milan, Arch.
01 bt. Marie, State Archives, Utrecht, No. 22.

now travelled homewards 1). Besides we know that Huygens him-
self, after receiving the news of the premature death of his friend
while in camp at Gennep on June 24th, commemorated him in a
Latm epitaph 2). Nor did he forget him then. On 1642 he affixed
the following distich 3) to a portrait of the younger de Gheyn by
himself:

quot;Geiniadae caput impense pretiosa tabella est:
Quid si Geiniadae sit caput atque manus?quot;

Of this son of Jacob de Gheyn very little is known. A few early
works, a glimpse, furnished by Huygens, of his middle life, perhaps
the climax, and then no more — except an epitaph, which betrays
for the first time his talent for sculpture. It is composed by Barlaeus
and sent, as an echo from the heart, to his friend Huygens. We will
close our sketch with these words :

quot;Wassenariae, in praedio ter Kolven... Legi, quae in obitum Jacobi
Geinii scripsisti graviter et ingeniöse, etiam in Gennepam. Eidem
Geinio hoc distichon meum suspenderunt in Trajectino templo

quot;Praxitelem Xeusinque duplex discriminât urna.
Hie una Xeusis Praxitelesque iacent.quot;

1)nbsp;Oud-Holland III, page 41; the late F. G. Waller pointed out this humorous
mistake to us.

A treatment of the complete works of Jacob de Gheyn does not fall
within the scope of this study. We may assume that his graphic
work, well represented in the larger Printrooms, is familiar. Passa-
vant\'s oeuvre catalogue 1), compiled a considerable time ago and
completed by von Wurzbach, as well as various notes in studies on
Dutch prints have made it accessible. But the case is different with
his paintings. We know from van Mander that in 1604 de Gheyn
had begun to paint, and we have his list of the first paintings, but,
when we consider that after the appearance of van Mander\'s bio-
graphy de Gheyn hardly ever touched the burin or etching-needle
again, the very small number of pieces, mentioned by Hirschmann
m his concise biographical note 2), seems almost incomprehensible,
^e intend to deal principally with the drawings in this book, but
the fact that these were often used to serve the paintings, makes it
essential to consider what chance there is of extending our know-
ledge of his brush-work. At the same time it is impossible to give a
complete study of de Gheyn as painter — colour is of less interest
for our present purpose than composition and outline — in short it
niust be born in mind, that we only attempt an analysis of the
pamtings in so far as they bear upon the drawings.
The first thing to do is to search for pieces with signature and date.
Of these there are six known at present: the white Horse of Nieuw-
Poort from 1603 3), the Appearance of Christ with the Cross to the
Empress Helena from 1611 Flower Pieces from 1612 5), 1613 6)
and 1615 and the Schoolmaster instructing two Boys from

J- D. Passavant, Le peintre-graveur vol. Ill, 1862, pages 115—126. The
catalogue is not complete and the descriptions are insufficient. There is need
lor a critical oeuvre catalogue, such as Hirschmann wrote for Goltzius.
j In Thieme-Beckers Kiinstlerlexikon, part XIII, page 532.

See above, pages 12—13.
^ ^ the Episcopal Seminary at Bruges (panel, 60X45 cm.).

Gemeente-Museum, The Hague, since 1934. From the coll. Dimon, Per-
Pignan-Montpellier: copper, 583^X43gt;^ cm. The description of a still-life,
sold by auction on 14 April 1777 with the collection N. Nienhoff, corresponds
^ith this piece.

^ Coll. Dr. M. E. Kronenberg, Rotterdam, since 1934. From the collection
J:,red. Anth. White, London, who bought it in 1888 from a dealer in London.
!^opper, 39X28.5 cm. Exhibited in the Museum Boymans, Christmas 1934.
/ At present probably in private ownership in London. It was sold by auction
^^ Brussels on November 10, 1923, was with J. Goudstikker in 1924, and in
1929 with Leggath Bros, in London (panel, 109X74 cm.). We owe a photo-
graph of this to Sir Robert Witt.

^ fourth, floral still-life, undated, of about the same dimensions (canvas,
113X75 cm.), which belonged to the collection Hoogendijk, was lent in 1907 to
the Rijksmuseum and was sold by auction on May 6, 1913 by Fred. Muller,
Amsterdam (cat. no. 34).

It is only the war-horse that is earlier than 1604 and is described
by van Mander; none of the others which he mentions as if they
complete the oeuvre up to that date, have been found: quot;a pot of
flowersquot;, quot;a large glass containing a bunch of flowersquot;, quot;a skullquot;
and a quot;life-sized Venus with Cupid and two Satyrsquot;. Thus there is
no material for studying his first paintings. It is true, that to these
six pieces five may be added on the strength of signature or mono-
gram, namely: Crouching Venus with Cupid (Amsterdam) 2), Nep-
tune, Amphitrite and Amor (Cologne) 2), Caesar in his Tent (Ham
House) 3), Head of a Cow (Amsterdam, private property) 4) and a
Flowerpiece (owner unknown) 5),

If these works of ascertained authenticity were placed side by
side, the variety of the subjects would certainly be striking. In a
certain sense, too, their unconventional iconography is surprising.
The life-sized portrait of the stallion is unusual in this respect. The
conceptions of the mythological subjects seem to be original; Helena
kneeling before Christ, Caesar on horse-back dictating his dispatches
to his scribes, and the teacher with his two pupils, up to de Gheyn\'s
time do not occur as subjects of pictures at all. And if the head of the

Other floral compositions are mentioned: J. Denucé, De Konstkamers van Ant-
werpen, 1932, pages 16 and 31; in the inventory of Anna van Wely, widow of
Kiliaen van Renselaer, August 1670, Amsterdam, protoc. not. A. van der Ven
(commue. Dr. A. Bredius), in the auctions catalogues of the coll. H. d\'Acquêt,
25 April 1770; coll. St. Annaland 6 November 1725, The Hague, no. 55;
27 April 1774, Amsterdam, no. 70; 1 Sept. 1817, Antwerp, no. 174; and 17 Dec.
1832, Amsterdam (notes of Dr. G. Hofstede de Groot). A painting of fruit was
sold in the coll. baron Schönborn on April 16, 1738 in Amsterdam.
0 Collection Mrs. A. Schloss, Paris, Panel 59X70 cm. From count Schönborn,
Pommersfelden, auction 17 May 1867, Paris, no. 321. (Lit.: Cat. of this coll.
1857, no. 735; Parthey, Deutscher Bildersaal, Part I, pages 486—487); and coll.
Paul Mantz, 10 May 1895, Paris, no. 28. An old copy of this belongs to Mrs.
Waller-Beuker, Amsterdam.

In the auction of the coll. baron Putlitz, Frankfort, 31 January 1922, was a
painting, (which we do not know from autopsy), representing an old man
reading, a subject that both de Gheyn and his son dealt with in drawing.

3)nbsp;Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, Cologne, where it was found by Dr. E. Büchner
and exhibited since. From the coll. Wallraf. Canvas, 104X136 cm.

Others mentioned are: quot;Bacchus on a cloud with Ariadne, consoling her over
the departure of Theseusquot;, coll. Nie. Selhof, 28 March 1759, The Hague, no.
50; quot;Hercules, bound by Cupidquot;, life-size, coll. Seger Tierens, 23 July 1743,
The Hague, no. 357; and quot;Heraclite and Democritequot;, coll. Soeterwoude,
12 Aug. 1776, Leiden, no. 108.

4)nbsp;From auction 31 May 1927, Amsterdam, no. 18 and coll. M. A. G. van der
Leeuw, Rotterdam, Panel, 76X60 cm.

ox at first sight seems to be comparable to the fragment by Pieter
Aertpen from the high altar of the Nieuwe Kerk 1), the comparison
IS misleading. The remarkable thing is just this that de Gheyn
evidently painted a study from life for its own sake, while Aertszen\'s
ox was only a subordinate figure in the Nativity group.
It is only in the flower compositions, which are found amongst his
early work, that the painter follows in the footsteps of older
masters. As early as 1562 and in 1565, the year of de Gheyn\'s birth,
the young Tomring painted three vases of flowers, as solitary, erect
and symmetrically filled as de Gheyn\'s 2). It was probably Lode-
wyk Jansz van den Bosch who first introduced the naturalistic
still-life, of which van Mander gives a good description in his brief
study of the painter 3). Jacob Razet possessed a still-life by this
contemporary of the elder de Gheyn. In a later generation Jan
ßrueghel may have painted his monumental flower-compositions,
which in execution come very close to de Gheyn, before de Gheyn\'s
first efforts in that direction, which were contemporanious with
Bosschaert, van der Ast and Bollongier i). Similar work that we
know by Roelant Savery on the other hand, bears dates from 1609
^ 1624 and might have been inspired by de Gheyn\'s example, while
Baptista van Fornenburgh 5) and Jacob Vosmaer might be reckoned
as his early imitators.

De Gheyn\'s figure pieces show that he usually gave simplicity the
preference over complicity. Evidently the subject that he was re-
presenting bore the greatest interest for him, greater than the pro-
blem of combining a medley of movements and poses into a har-
monious whole. Where he seeks for a solution of this problem, his
bias for portraiture dominates over his composition. This comes out
very clearly in his principal work, the Caesar, of which we will here
give a more detailed analysis 6).

On the large canvas on the right we see Caesar, sitting on horse-
back, slightly turning to the left,where an elderly scribe sits, holding
a great book on his knees, the pen resting on the page and his eyes
turned to his general. Behind him the standard-bearer leaning upon
the army sign, bearing the name quot;D. Julius Caesarquot;, bends over his

\' Two of 1562: Landes-Museum der Provinz Westphalen, Münster; one of
1565 owned privately.

{ Cf. with regard to floral compositions in Holland, A. P. A. Vorenkamp,
^ydrage tot de Geschiedenis van het Hollandsche Stillevcn in de zeventiende
^euw, Leiden, 1933, page 114, etc.

{ Cf. in addition to Vorenkamp, see above: E. F. Kossmann, Das Niederlän-
dische Faustspiel des 17. Jahrhunderts, The Hague, 1910, page 101.

The painting was formerly called: Caesar sending the famous dispatch to
t^ome, by Giulio Romano.

shoulder. These two figures are so placed on the left as to counter-
balance to some extent the horseman on the right. A page holds the
horse by the bridle and behind the backturned covering of the great
tent four more figures are visible, reading, writing, and watching.
A suit of armour in heraldic style hangs against the great pole of
the tent. All this would be no unusual composition, if it were not
that the figures in the foreground are only painted from the waist
upwards. In this way the horse, which would otherwise have formed
a monumental base for the principal figure, sinks down and the
distance from the beholder, which every picture dictates for itself,
is made small. This corresponds to the method of execution. It
would be too much to say, that it reminded one of miniature
painting, but nevertheless there is something evident of his love of
minute detail. The details are defined with stolid industry and
within their bounds they are carefully modelled; it is a remarkable
compilation of fragments. There is hardly one head that sits pro-
perly on the neck and shoulders; the head of Caesar suggests that
it was copied from a model — perhaps a plaster cast 1); the horse,
(which is admirably rendered) if it were to carry his master, should
be brought further forward and raised higher up. If the light in the
tent had been tempered so that the figures were more obscured, it
would have given a much greater unity to the composition. The
strong local colouring has a disintegrating effect. There is yellow
and purple in Caesar\'s mantle, green in the sleeve of the foot-boy,
red and purple in the clothes of the first scribe. The colouring alto-
gether, though sober, is very variegated.

Pursuing our examination of the figures in this picture, we see, that
it is not only Caesar\'s head that is drawn from an earlier design.
We have already referred to a pen-drawing by de Gheyn in the
Printroom in Berlin, in which he has given a new spiritual in-
terpretation to the well known composition by Quinten Matsys of
two monks, one praying, while the other lays his hand upon his
shoulder. Almost the same group, reversed, is introduced into this
canvas in the two rearmost figures; here a youth is seen from in
front, reading, while behind him a man with a short beard and—like

0 Perhaps a small medal. In a letter to Huygens, J. Brosterhuizen writes in
November 1630: quot;Et a propos, Möns, de Gheyn a quantité de copies de plomp
de très belles medalles antiques. Serait il bien homme de laisser prendre quot;exi-
guum lumen de luminequot;? Monsr. votre frere luy est grandement familier. Si
par son intercession il me les veut prester, je vous en envoyeray en recompense
de très nettes copies de piastrequot;, J. A. Worp, Correspondence of C. Huygens,
part I, 1911, page 302 (letter 554).

At the auction of the inheritance of Pieter Isaackz, 1626, appeared: quot;Two heads
of Seneca and Nero by Jacques de Gheynquot;, which were sold for 17 gulden
10 stuivers (Oud-Holland III, page 180). This also points to de Gheyn\'s in-
terest in Roman history and the use he made of his collection.

the monk — spectacles on his nose, leans over his shoulder. It seems
obvious that this very original conception of the quot;dictatingquot; Caesar,
suggested no doubt by a passage in Plutarch\'s Life 1) must have been
due to a commission. We are at first tempted to think, considering
de Gheyn\'s work for Prins Maurits, that it might have been the
General himself, whom Huygens later compared to Alexander, who
ordered this scene to be painted. But there is an alternative that
proves to be the true one. Ham House, where the picture must have
hung, when de Gheyn was staying in London, had been built about
twelve years ago, in 1610, for Sir Thomas Vavasour and soon after
became the property of the Earl of Holderness. It is probable though
not certain, that the Caesar was placed there from the beginning, and
at any rate it must have come there at an early date, as during his
visit to England de Gheyn made a copy of the two writing figures 2).
Thus it seems probable, that this picture may be dated somewhere
about 1618, especially as its pendant on the staircase, a piece by
A. van Nieuwlandt, which is framed in the same way, is dated
1615.

The origin of another detail in the painting may be traced in the
following way. The head of Caesar\'s horse, taken by itself, is a
noble piece of painting. Schmidt Degener sees a relation between
this head and a study of a horse\'s head in Mr. Murray Bakker\'s col-
lection in Amsterdam 3). Xhis sketch is made from life, with bold
strokes of the brush; it is the head of a horse standing on the halter
seen from in front and slightly underneath, which gives a startling
iquot;eadjustment of the perspective, while the strong light from the left
throws up the shadows in a striking way. The build of the skull
^nst have been very well known to the painter, a fact which cer-
tainly points to de Gheyn. There are some characteristics common
to both horses, such as the lighting of the front rim of the ears and
the flowing of the mane; although the position of Caesar\'s horse\'s
head, which carries a heavy curb-bit, is more vertical. However just
it may be to connect the two pieces of work, one thing remains

JJ The translation of Ab. v. Z. v. N., published in Leiden in 1603, which de
^heyn probably used, says: quot;Hy (i.e. Caesar) sadt ghemeenlyc op een heer-

J^et brieven te dicteren rijdende te peerde over velt, en de twee schrijvers
^^ gnelijck werck ghevende, sooveel als sij schrijven mochten, noch segt Oppius
quot;^eer als twee....quot; (Cap. 5, fol. 315). Referring to Plinius, Van Mander
quot;mentions quot;Caesar dictators peerdtquot;, quot;the horse of Caesar the dictatorquot;, as an
example of the nature of horses, in his chapter about animals in painting (Cap.

information about Ham House we owe to Paul Oppe, who moreover very
enabled us to study the painting at our leisure on the spot.

puzzling; the treatment in the sketch is very broad for the miniature-
painter de Gheyn. This can probably be explained by assuming a
late date. It is dangerous to conclude that the Caesar was founded
on this study in any case. There is a drawing in Berlin that is more
likely the study for Caesar\'s horse and which may be ranged amongst
the drawings which can be brought into connection with the paint-
ings of 1603, the white stallion of Nieuwpoort. The horse\'s head
can be compared with a similar subject, the head of a cow, which
bears de Gheyn\'s monogram on one of the horns 1). This painting
which is characterised by the strong lighting that emphasises the
plastic element in the furrowed subject, presumably belongs to this
final period. Here, as in the horse\'s head, the colour is laid on in
contrasting very thin and much ticker layers, the dark colours in
particular are very sparely spread, while the light ones are very
thickly applied. We shall see later that de Gheyn\'s son made use of
this painting when he wanted to paint an ox\'s head in his picture
of St. Luke, another reason for putting this work down to later than
1620.

Thus we gradually extend the list of de Gheyn\'s later work, but it
is less easy to find the early work in connection with the war horse.
Our attention may therefore be concentrated upon the picture it-
self, painted for Prins Maurits in 1603. In contrast to the compo-
sition in Ham, of which we have given a full description, this is a
very simple subject: a groom, on the extreme left, is leading a horse
on the halter, which, seen from the side, almost entirely fills the
large canvas. The horse itself is represented stepping in the
same position as found in so many Italian equestrian statues, un-
doubtedly familiar to de Gheyn from small bronze modellos and
reproductions, as we should at least conclude from a drawing of a
stepping horse, in Brussels. The commission for this picture was
more in accordance with de Gheyn\'s nature than a complicated
composition like the one in Ham House, where, having no central
point of light, such as the young Rembrandt would have created,
he does not really succeed in giving a convincing unity, as we should
have expected from the passionate portrayer of nature. But this
horse-portrait with no further complications is most successfully
accomplished by an evenly distributed care for every detail. The
colours in this work are not extravagant, as they never were in de
Gheyn\'s painting, and not even very variegated; by a well conceived
contrast of a little red in the costume of the attendant with the

0 Private ppperty, Amsterdam. The intention of this painting can be inter-
preted in various ways. Comparison with the horse\'s head shows us that in any
case it was an object of study for the painter. One might, however, also think
of It as an emblem for a St. Lucas Guild. (Cf. for instance the title page of the
eighth part of Bloemaert\'s quot;Konstrijck Tekenboekquot;).

grey-white of the animal, the horse is made to shine forth in all its
splendour. Some time must have elapsed since his first essays in
colour before de Gheyn arrived at such a delicacy in the handling
of shades. We are reminded of van Mander\'s story, that he had
made himself a large specimen panel of colours, each numbered
apparently to correspond to numbered recipes for preparing the
pigment, by which device, according to van Mander, he had so
swiftly been able to master the technique of the palette.
Let us now consider the functions of movement and space in this
painting. Imagine for a moment the horse alone, placed on a dark
background; it then forms an image parallel to the surface of the
canvas, a picture without depth. Even as it is, space plays hardly
any part in it, although the background is broken by the stable-
door, to which the groom is bringing the horse, and by two windows,
which give a glimpse of the sky. On the contrary, de Gheyn fills the
whole scene with masses, which all stand at about the same distance
from the onlooker, and confines the space behind by another pa-
rallel field.

This characteristic peculiarity is so conspicuous that it seems to
betray a certain horror vacui, which induces him to fill up the can-
vas like a map, a method typical of the decorative artist, the designer
of ornaments and medals. This method of treatment gives rise to a
certain antithesis. Both the stableman and the horse\'s head are on
the extreme left of the space and draw the attention in that direction.
The painting would be ill-balanced, if the former had not his head
and shoulders sharply turned to the right. This gives a position of
the body, that does not seem quite natural to us, but which de
Gheyn, who had barely emancipated himself from the Haarlem
mannerism, may have considered permissible. The position is more-
over very characteristic; in his painting of Cupid aiming at Venus
in Amsterdam the same torsion is conspicuous; the last traces of it are
found in the position of the Christ figure at Bruges (Seminarium).
Similarity of mannerisms would naturally bring us on the track of
work done by the young painter. And indeed we find these again in
the Venus, above mentioned. This composition, barely confined
within its own limits, has a typically late 16th century character.
Grouching towards the left, with body and arms turned almost
frontal, the head bent more to the right, the massive Venus figure
reaches to the edges of the canvas in all directions, while the wide-
winged archer with a pair of doves fills up the rest of the space.
In the Venus, as Burchard points out, we can trace the essentials of
the quot;crouching Venusquot;, the well known antique fragment, which
Goltzius sketched during his visit to Rome, and which at that time
Was universally paraphrased in the paintings of the North. But
there are contortions, amplifications, and exaggerations which

bring the name of Spranger to our lips 1); the painter utilises the
nearness of his imaginary point of view to enlarge the massivity of
the leg stretching forward, just as his imaginary source of light,
which is found at a point on the left, near by, low down, is exploited
to increase the plastic accentuation. Here, too, the impression of
space is solely due to the volume of the figures. In the neutral
greyness of the background no form is discernible, and no ray of
light penetrates it. Even the sculptural appearance of the principal
figure is deceptive, as the hair of Venus flowing out on one side
and the curving line of her fingers solved in the flames of the heart,
which they hold, again betray the decorative designer, and the
effect is even stronger in the outlines of the figures and the slight
cadance in Amor\'s walk; a rythm formed by the play of waves one
upon the other.

In the absence of date-marks it is always dangerous to assign dates;
it has often been proved that a hypothetical dating is an indis-
pensable means of building up a historical theory, but that in the
absence of more convincing proofs than similarity of style, the best
we can attain is an approximate succession with undated works. In
all the following estimates of chronology this limitation must be
borne in mind. It applies in particular to our present case. The
Venus, according to its construction, is an earlier work than the
horse, but it is not mentioned in Van Mander\'s list. However, it
suffices for us that it is the most clear example of de Gheyn as late
manneristic painter.

Still following the line of mythology we come to the scene of the
sea-gods. They are represented half-length. Neptune, whose mas-
sive figure fills the right half of the canyas, leans to the left and
holds a Nautilus shell in his outstretched right hand. Amphitrite
floats half from him, but looks round at him while she lays her arms
about his shoulder. A sea-child, or Amor clings to her and toys
with the shell. The foreground with a sort of still life of exotic
shells, in which an obscure symbolism lurks, forms a somewhat dis-
connected base to the picture.

In this picture, too, we recognise the remains of a manneristic
expressionism, only traces, for the most striking thing is the
naturalistic strength of the painter. It is not the wave of the hair,
the slender fingers and the flowing line as substratum that we
notice as something unusual, but the modelling of the limbs and the
shells, which are unmistakably taken from nature. The realism in
partibus is a phenomenon which, as we know, accompanies the later
mannerism; in de Gheyn\'s Neptune we see what should be only an

accompaniment, becoming the most important part of the work. In
the Caesar mannerism with its exaggerations, in their melodious
expression, has quite disappeared, while as yet no true realism, fun-
damentally conceived and penetrating every detail, has taken its
place.

The Schoolmaster, on the other hand, is a fine example of true
realism, and bears the latest date that is found on paintings by de
Gheyn. The old schoolmaster, seen in half-length and turning to-
wards the right, counting the questions off on his fingers, is
examining his pupil, who, with his head raised and a paper in his
hand, stands before him. The other pupil, behind him, is listening
attentively. In the flat background we can discern a blackboard, on
which the signature and date are written, and above it a cartouche
with the title l):

As arrangement nothing could be simpler than this group, but it is
this very simplicity that throws the properties of the painting into
stronger relief. The pregnant representation of age and youth, the
personal expression of the features, hair, hands, and clothing are
all founded upon patient observation, upon a conscious striving to-
wards a goal, which the master now sees clearly before him.
In the character of the composition as such, which is indicative of
Jan Woutersz\' groups, there is the same simplicity that we have
noticed before. The two principal figures are looking at one another
and are both seen from the side, the master alone slightly turned
forwards. The pupil who is being interrogated, stands low in the
panel; the three figures are hardly enclosed within its limits. From
the position of the blackboard it may be deduced, that the wall
which bounds the scene at the back, runs quite parallel with the
picture. All horror vacui has completely disappeared; there is a new
economy confining the scene to three figures, of which only one is
rendered in definite activity, the other two remaining almost
passive, which undoubtedly is to the advantage of the work. The
clear light from the left binds the detached figures in space, just as
the frame does in a decorative sense.

The equally simple structure of his flower compositions relieves us
of the necessity of describing them. Their value for us is that they
confirm our conviction, that to paint a simple object in a perfect
and exquisite manner was now the aim of Jacques de Gheyn\'s
endeavour; the flowers placed together in a large vase have each
been separately minutely studied and are rendered according to

P Dr. L. Alma pointed out to us that this quotation is taken from Menander
(Mono-stycha ex Aldo, no. 16) and that the motto was translated into the Latin
form, more familiar to us: quot;Disciplina Vitae Scipioquot;.

their nature; the arrangement of them betrays the colourist. A
characteristic point is the placing of the vase in a niche, which
strengthens the frontality of the already decorative subject, but
which at the same time gives more play for light and shadow. If
we gauge the relation between conception and execution in these
works, we feel that the latter has engaged the lion\'s share of the
painter\'s attention and the former is obliged to be contented with
the function of an only little varied prolegomenon. The charm of a
fallen rose beside the bottle, of a spray of lilies or of a butterfly is
equivalent to the charm of the whole painting; the miniature painter
cannot deny himself.

But this does not complete the analysis of de Gheyn\'s flower com-
positions. Dr. J. G. van Gelder has lately made a study of Dutch
flower paintings, the important results of which we hope soon to see
published. It has already brought to light that the assumption of
the still life studies at the beginning of the 17th century being
usually painted from nature, is erroneous. The presence, in one
bouquet, of flowers that do not blossom at the same time may put
us on our guard. Van Gelder points out that quot;pattern booksquot; with
prints of flowers were used by painters, and draws attention to the
frequent appearance of similar details, both in the different works
of the same painter and in those of contemporaries and even of
consecutive generations. A few tulips or a spray of colombines,
arranged in a particular way, are often identical in three or four
pieces, and sometimes recur, changed only in colour, in different
works, a circumstance that can only be accounted for by supposing
that an engraved or perhaps a drawn copy had been the origin of
what became thus a mere type.

It is certain that de Gheyn\'s flower pieces are built up from a com-
bination of selected models. In those that have been preserved we
find plenty of examples of these repetitions. On looking closely we
see the same rose, the same tulip, the same iris painted again and
again. If we bear this in mind we realize what a preponderating
part the technical skill and graceful execution plays in these
works.

The Kunsthalle at Bremen l) contains a small unsigned panel,
equally simple in conception and drawn with the same reverence for
the delicacy of nature. It represents two mice, each nibbling at a
crust; beside them lies a candle stump. There seems no reason to
doubt the ancient assignation of this to de Gheyn, although the
drawing of mice in Amsterdam (plate 8) proves only that de Gheyn
was attracted by this subject. Here again the direction of the action
lies parallel to the picture and the background.

J. G. van Gelder drew our attention to a painting in Frankfort,
that represents a gambol of four rats i). This, even more than the
piece in Bremen, reminds us of the arresting drawing at Berlin of a
mouse\'s skeleton set up in a climbing position. But it is more dif-
ficult with this painting than with the one at Bremen to judge
the correctness of its attribution to de Gheyn. It must not be for-
gotten that animal compositions, found in Italy by artists such as
Ligozzi, were brought to great perfection in the North by Joris Hoef-
\'^agel in particular, which may have had great influence not only
upon de Gheyn but upon other miniature and animal painters as
well. Our purpose was to show that de Gheyn, once he had found his
own way, expressed himself best in simple subjects taken from na-
ture; in this respect he points towards the 17th century, which pro-
duced the most perfect pictorial work and still-life conceived in this
spirit.

There is yet another side of de Gheyn\'s art which must not be
peglected. We find drawings of the netherworld and witch fires,
m which the fantastic imagery echoes Hieronymus Bosch. These
drawings, the majority guaranteed by a signature, seem to find their
counterpart in a couple of paintings, both representing the Infernal
I^egions: a freeze-like panel at Amsterdam2) and a larger of normal
measurements in Leiden 3). On both a wide open mouth is seen at
the right, in the hollow of which devils hover over a multitude
which represents the seven headly sins. On both to the left a broad
pool of water extends, divided by bridges and burning towers, over
which the ghosts represented as naked human beings are driven to-
wards Charon\'s boat. On both phantastic figures are at work.
Fo support the assignation of these to de Gheyn we will point out
some correspondences in the details with other works of his: the
luouth on the right with its swollen lips corresponds to the fish\'s
gouth in the drawing in Vienna (Christ redeeming the souls from
Well) 4), the construction of the towers and bridges at different
distances and the plumes of smoke in the same works; the lumps of
creeper-covered Roman ruins in Leiden and the pillars of Pluto\'s
palace in the drawing at Brunswick and in all cases, finally, the
dense masses in movement. Movement characterises both pictures,
out the movement is chiefly confined to the direction from left to

Inv. 1681. Gift of P. Bottenwieser. Panel, 41,5X46,5 cm. Fragment?
^ Rijksmuseum, catal. 1934, no. 350.

The relief of the siege of Sodoma by J. de Gheyn, with many figuresquot;,
ox\'^^could imagine the painting in the style of the one mentioned here.
4) nnbsp;93X122 cm. Originally from the Town Hall.

^ O. Benesch, Beschr. Kat., Albertina, II, no. 365 (as C. van Mander, but
certamly by de Gheyn).

right. There is hardly any connection between foreground and back-
ground. The figures move parallel to the coulisses.
Although this movement distinguishes the nature of these pieces
from the Hells by Jeroen Bosch, in another respect there is simi-
larity; the masses consist of distinct parts, which strike the eye
separately. We need only mention Rubens\' conception of the fall
of the doomed, to realize the significance of collecting the figures
in streams, grouped so as to evoke a dynamic strife or unity. And
yet the Leiden painting contains certain elements which point in
the direction of Rubens, such as the subduing of whole groups in
shadow and the realism of the bodies in the foreground. While
Bosch is still the model, Italian influences seem to make themselves
felt in the foreground.

We have omitted to mention one particular in the Leiden painting.
While the work of punishment is in full swing and the Prince of
Darkness is being drawn on his chariot through the air, on the right
something unusual is happening. A stout Dutch citizen, supported
on his arms, leans over a rock to gaze upon this scene; beside him
kneels a praying nun and a youth in a cowl pulls violently at the
rope of a heavy bell, hung on a tree above the head of the enquirer.
Just in front of these three a soul is being released from a cauldron
by an angel, in spite of the devil who has taken his seat on the edge
of the vessel. This group seems to give a heretical tint to the picture:
it is obvious that the realistic representation of hell and purgatory
is being mocked at.

The two paintings, however, should not be assigned to de Gheyn
without reservation, however much the drawings may seem to
justify it. Jacques de Gheyn\'s biographers are silent about paintings
of such scenes; neither has mention of them been found in old in-
ventories. But we know that another Leiden painter, one of the
Swanenburgh brothers, must have painted witches\' sabbaths, sub-
jects which resemble de Gheyn\'s drawings even more closely. There
is a story 1) that Jakob Isaacz van Swanenburgh, who studied
painting in Venice, had set up his workshop in Napels — where he
subsequently married — beside the Carita. Here two agents of the
Inquisition took possession of one of his paintings, which represented
a witches\' sabbath. He was called before the Inquisition and only re-
gained his freedom with great difficulty. This happened in 1608.
It was some years later before he returned homewards and settled
in Leiden, where he continued to paint views of Rome, but where,
as before his departure, he may very naturally have ventured upon
fantastic subjects. The little that we know from his hand 2) is not

2) St. Peter\'s Place in Rome with a procession, 1628, Museum, Copenhagen;
the same subject, Museum, Augsburg.

sufficient to decide definitely if he was capable of painting these
Visions of Hell. At any rate he does not appear to have exercised any
influence upon his pupil Rembrandt.

It is not impossible that we should be justified in attributing one or
two more pieces to de Gheyn, at least tentatively, but we prefer to
keep our image of the painter, although it may be incomplete, at
any rate reliable and sincere. Who knows if we may not find some
landscape l) or some portrait 2), the existence of which is so pro-
bable, to enhance our knowledge.

But in spite of all difficulties it has become possible to see de Gheyn
as an original master. If we investigate in how far the old connection
with Goltzius is evident in both their paintings, the most we can
discern is a certain parallelism. The Nymph with Satyrs, which van
Mander describes, we may safely imagine in the spirit of Goltzius\'
Uanae from 1603 3). But with Goltzius the traditional mythological
and religious subject occupies the first place. It gives him full op-
portunity to display his power of composition and mastery over the
human form. For him none of the limitations count which so dis-
tinctly limit the character of de Gheyn\'s compositions; the rich
grouping of the principal figures on his canvases is also found in
Ivubens. But how about the feature in de Gheyn, that is new and
personal, the true realism, a forerunner of the great period of Dutch
art? Tradition tells us that Goltzius has painted animals; quot;a wolf
by Goltziusquot;, quot;four birds by Goltziusquot;, quot;a parrot by Goltziusquot;,
a lobster by Goltsquot;, we find mentioned in inventories As we
cannot form an idea of what these were like, it is not possible to
•^ake a comparison with de Gheyn\'s work. But we may say that
there is so far no reason to doubt de Gheyn\'s priority in the field of
pictorial pieces faithfully copied from nature. In fact it is still a
question, which of the two master engravers first took the palette
?n his hand. Hirschmann\'s research confirms what both van Mander
in his quot;Schilderboeckquot; and Johannes Tilman in a letter from 1603
States), that Goltzius began to paint in 1600. It is certainly re-

A quot;beautiful landscape full of trees, with a bridgequot; was sold by auction
Utrecht on 27 June 1825 under the number 16.
y A dignified portrait of a man in black clothesquot; was no. 38 of the coll.
X^g^hn van Claerbergen, sold 6 April 1846, Leeuwarden.
J\\ P/^-Holland, XXXIII, page 129 etc.; 0. Hirschmann, Hendrick Goltzius
4)®^aler, The Hague, 1916, page 42, etc. cat. no. 5.

e Gheyn, other than those already enumerated are mentioned: quot;a piece with
owan, Turkey, Partridges and other Game, on the ground a Melon with its
quot;nd and leavesquot;, coll. van Kinschot, 21—22 July 1767, Delft, no. 108; a quot;large
composition with much dead Gamequot; in coll. G. Hoet, 25 Aug. 1760, The Hague,
^.0-145, etc.

markable that de Gheyn\'s initiative in the same direction, so unusual
for a matured engraver, should be placed at the same time, if we
are to believe van Mander. Hirschmann attributes this to de Gheyn\'s
complete dependence upon Goltzius, a dependence that even in the
quot;Venus and Amorquot; — certainly one of the early mythological
paintings like the one which he quotes — is by no means proved. For
in this figure de Gheyn places himself more on a level with Bartho-
lomeus Spranger, and, in contrast to Goltzius, he interprets the
antique sculpture-forms with unusual freedom. But the hypothesis
regarding Goltzius\' influence would, moreover, prove that in 1603
de Gheyn had only been using the brush for one or two years; does
the portrait of the horse, which Hirschmann also quotes and which
would thus be the work of a beginner, show any influence of
Goltzius, or is it not rather a witness to the full originality of de
Gheyn?

There is yet another argument for de Gheyn\'s priority as painter,
but which must be preceded by a counter-argument, so that it is
difficult to make out, which side of the scale is the heaviest.
Orlers, in his Description of Leiden, has confined himself to an
estimate of the painters born in Leiden, that is the true Leideners l).
Amongst them, naturally, Jacques de Gheyn does not appear. His
pupil David Bailly, however, does: quot;... son of Master Pieter Bailly,
who when alive was an artful writer, he was born in Leiden in the
year 1584. His father, seeing that he by nature in his Youth was
inclined to Drawing and to the Art of Painting, let him first for
some time by himself and without any master take the same Art by
the hand, and on coming on occasion to the Workshop of the artful
Eng;raver Jacques de Gheyn, he conceived the wish to take the
Burin in his hand, and to practice in the Art for about a year and
according to his opportunities made good progress therein.quot;
He tells further that Bailly developed a desire to paint, and after
his apprenticeship to Jacques de Gheyn painted for some time with
Master Adriaen Verburgh, and finally in 1601 moved to Amster-
dam. Although this account seems to show that at the time de Gheyn
was an engraver and not a painter, there are things that must be
taken into consideration. We do not know at what date de Gheyn
moved to the Hague. His removal may have coincided with Bailly\'s
going to the non-engraver Verburgh.

Against this account by Orlers, we may place van Mander\'s decla-
ration, that his first painting quot;een cleen Bloem-potkenquot;, a small pot
of flowers, quot;noch teghenwoordigh tot d\'heer Heyndrick van Os
t\'Amsterdam isquot;: is still with Master Heyndrick van Os at Amster-
dam, which might be interpreted as a sign that it had been painted

there; and further, that de Gheyn is registered on his entry into the
^int Lucas Guild at the Hague before or in 1598, as painter and
engraver.

It may remain uncertain, whether de Gheyn took up painting at the
same time as, before or after Goltzius, anyhow van Mander has
given us many more particulars of his reason for doing so, than he
pves for Goltzius\' step: quot;but finding painting the most adequate
to resemble life or nature, the joy of painting became more and
jnore strong within him, so that, deserting engraving and printing,
ne regretted his wasted time, which he thought he had uselessly
pccupied therewith. Determined then to practise earnestly, he found
It very necessary to do much from life and at the same time quot;uyt den
gneestquot; (from the spirit), thus to learn all the rules of the art.quot;
As long as no new dates, especially any early works that are dated,
mow more light on the subject, we may be satisfied with our con-
clusion, that de Gheyn was irresistibly drawn to painting and was
ully conscious of his mission as a realist, who moreover could sketch
uyt den gheestquot;. Another problem is, whether this expression
meters to studies painted from life or to drawings? The studies on
panels made from animals\' heads seem to point to the first. We may
leave it to a new chapter to tell how devotedly de Gheyn in these
worked at drawing quot;nae \'t leven en met eenen uyt den

Jacques de Gheyn was a most versatile artist. If he had died at the
age of 35, we should respect him as glass-painter, as engraver and
publisher, as draughtsman and miniature-painter. If we obliterate
these years, we find another de Gheyn, who draws, paints, designs
maps, decorative sculptures, and medals, lays out gardens, and
builds and decorates garden-pavillions. Even if his talents had been
less universal, the question might arise, why should the drawings
in particular be singled out for examination; in the face of his
enormous versatility the question is certainly justified, and this is
the place to give a few words of explanation for our choice.
If what we have said above shows that the engraver de Gheyn is
only the youthful de Gheyn, and that the painter de Gheyn is only
the elderly de Gheyn, so that his whole personality is not revealed
either in his prints nor in his paintings, we may add to this that,
both in his young years and his older life, his work was always
based upon drawings. The drawings are the binding element in his
work, and not only this, but without his power of drawing it would
have been impossible for de Gheyn to master so many mediums, to
fulfil so many different functions l). His drawings, therefore, in
so far as they are designs, have a full right to a special study.
But this group is of far less significance than those pages which do
not gain their chief interest from a connection with more definitive
work. These comprise both light sketches and the most completed
compositions. They were undertaken for their own sake — as
can be proved — and are themselves an ultimate form of creation.

1) That de Gheyn, when he lived at The Hague, was considered a designer
is made clear from the Treasurer\'s accounts of 1607, according to which de
Gheyn is paid for the drawing of quot;certain persons who are carved in a stonequot;
in the facade of the new Madhouse (See Ned. Kunstbode 1881, page 380 etc.).
In the accounts and balance sheets of the quot;Plague house, lottery money and
structure (quot;timmeragequot;) of a new madhousequot; for the same year, we found the
following items, which prove that de Gheyn submitted his design for a pedi-
ment-stone, which was carved by a certain G. Cool in Gouda: quot;Paid Gregorius
Cool, sculptor of Ter Goude a hundred and twenty-six pounds for carving a
historical subject, which was carved by him at the order of the fathers of the
jlague house, standing above the gateway of the self-same house, item the
ixed sum of — 126 £quot; (in the margin): quot;With agreement of Burgomasters
and receipt of the Sculptorquot;. And: quot;Paid the shipper sailing on the Goude
thirty shillings as freightcost for carriage of the compartment standing in front
of the abovementioned new madhouse .... 30 sh.quot; We have searched in vain
for an illustration of the gateway, which has been demolished since.
On the other hand de Gheyn\'s talent for colouring sometimes stood him in good
stead when selling prints: the copy of the Wapenhandelingh which he supplied
to the trained-bands of The Hague Is entirely coloured by hand. He was paid
34 pounds for it (Obreens Archief, part II, page 118).
38

Their value is not relative; de Gheyn himself sent them to the King
of Sweden as specimens of his art.

f^or those who still remain unconvinced, a third and last argu-
quot;jent may be produced: the quality. There are many who, when
they hear the name of Jacques de Gheyn, first of all think of his
drawings, those especially who are familiar with the beautiful
^nes of leaves from de Gheyn\'s hand in the possession of the
1 lintrooms of Amsterdam, Berlin, and Vienna or in private col-
jections such as Frits Lugt\'s or the late Dr. C. Hofstede de Groot\'s, the
latter now unfortunately partly dispersed. Hardly one Dutch artist
before Rembrandt filled his sketch-books with such a rich world of
^sions as he did. If as an engraver he only occasionally rises above
Hendrick Goltzius, if his painting is only a modest herald of what
^as to be achieved later, his drawings are mature works of art,
proofs of a laborious, faultless and meticulous draughtsmanship.
W^hat is the best approach to the drawings? The usual way is to
treat them according to the order in which they were produced. But
chronology in itself does not give an interpretation of works of art,
and this approach is only of partial utility. It pre-supposes a steady
progress and gives a false satisfaction by a one-sided elucidation of
jnerely temporal evolution.

I hat is why the method we propose for discussing the drawings,
rests upon the conviction that, however wrong it may be to deny the
coordination of the fundamental characteristics of a work of art,
once having chosen our point of departure, we may regard the
varied field of drawings from three points of view: iconographie,
according to the subjects, stylistic, according to the form, and chro-
nological, according to the order in which they were produced.
The order in which we have placed these three norms has its signi-
ficance. In the first two cases something will be learned about the
character of the separate drawings, but also of the entity: the whole
pass of work. Moreover the second part helps to supplement the
lirst: a theme is not sufficiently defined by its mere identification
or titling. Style is very often involved in the more subtle discrimina-
tions of iconography, and vice-versa. In the same way the settlement
of a sequence may only be illuminating, when the change of form —
thematical form too — becomes evident. So the two first parts
prepare the way for the third. Both support the conclusions about de
^neyn\'s drawing-work with the results of a systematic investigation.
Although the reader will not be led through all the intricacies of
jne path, the same deductive method will be used for him as was
followed by the writer.

In proportion to the whole drawings-oeuvre, the group of religious
subjects is not great. It is principally confined to the New Testa-
ment. We know that de Gheyn was a Protestant, and valued quot;simple
faith and good worksquot;, as he protests in the motto above his para-
phrase of Matsys\' Praying Monks. The new title is significant, and
even more so the use of the same group in the quot;Caesarquot; at Ham
House, because de Gheyn feels himself entirely free from the
original iconographic function; this is, as we know, a characteristic
of the 16th century, which, for the first time, finds no significa in
the traditional forms, but a means for the personal expression of the
artist.

The drawings from which de Gheyn himself made engravings, his
Moses, his Virgin in the clouds, and other sacred scenes, are icono-
graphically traditional subjects, like the Patriarchs, the Apostles
and the Passion by van Mander, and the four Evangelists by Golt-
zius, which he copied 1). The demand for prints ran certainly on
conventional lines, and the pursuit of perfect technique naturally
drove the artist to classical examples as Dürer, Lucas, and Goltzius.
But, as de Gheyn\'s personality developed, he found engraving a less
satisfactory medium of expression. His most important allegories
are drawings, the masterpiece of which is the parable of the quot;Evil
Sowerquot; in Berlin 2).

On a ploughed field, curved as a hemisphere, the farmer lies
sleeping on the left under a tree, resting on his seed-bags and a flail;
beside him are seen the remains of his meal, a ham on a dish, a jar
and a napkin. Two horses are standing quietly munching in the
shade. Over the land passes the Evil One, sowing his seed. On the
right lie other fields at the foot of some hills; the peasants are
sleeping there under the trees. Twigs and branches are bending to
the wind, the clouds are driven like the tossing waves of the sea,
while goats, ridden by devils, race across them. All nature is slashed
by their progress.

This is an iconographic novelty, the originality of which can be best
appreciated, when we remember that this scene was common in the
period before de Gheyn. Since Patinier had created the free land-
scape, a religious subject, such as the Holy Family in Flight,
was used to justify most paintings of nature, the figures, however,

1)nbsp;E. Valentiner, K. v. Mander, see above page 86 etc. cat. nos. 3—15; and
Passavant nos. 129—132.

2)nbsp;On the back of this drawing is written in Dutch early 18th cent, writing:
quot;Herewith lie enclosed 50 Drawings of gacus de geyn, wonderfully drawn with
the pen. With much imagination very artistic. And rarequot;. In this collection,
probably of the best drawings of the master, this page was the first.

being put in at the last. A drawing by Hans Bol in the Printroom,
Amsterdam i), the parable of the devil sowing tares, with its small
figures, is a result of this connection, ignoring Brueghel\'s power-
ful transformation of landscape. Jacques de Gheyn, who was
fond of drawing all the elements of the composition: landscape,
animals, figures, each for itself, found an attractive challenge in
this subject. For him the supremacy of neither the one nor the other
element is essential. He can compel them as equivalents to express
his ideas, according to the spirit of the story. His interpretation is
always individual; by the satanic procession across the clouds, he
dramatises a story, hitherto only represented anecdotically. The
dramatic power that rules every line is truly imposing.
Fhe contrast to Hans Bol is doubly striking, because we find in de
Gheyn\'s youthful work an example of the kind of well-filled land-
scape, to which Bol\'s Seed-Sower belongs. A drawing in the collec-
tion of Veste Goburg looks at first sight like a fantastic mountain
landscape; tree-covered, peaked and hollowed rocks yield a view on
the right of islands and a harbour. Looking more closely, we discern
a Christ in the foreground, resisting the devil and on the highest point
We discern the second temptation. Here de Gheyn follows an older
tradition, which obstinately persisted far into the 17th century with
the Dutch landscape-painters, but which, as we have seen, he had

1603 already left behind him.
Now let us examine the drawing in Vienna which represents Christ
entering the promontory of Hell to release the souls. The compo-
sition is built up in three parts, the front plan, running upwards and
terminating in a huge monster, sitting on the gate by which Christ
IS entering in spite of numerous fiends, who try to bar the way with
a war chariot; the middle plan with the huge fish, which thrusts its
yawning mouth through an opening in the rocks; and the back
ground with the Styx, burning buildings, bridges, and Charon\'s
boat. The glow of the flames throws up in dark relief the devils
flying through the air, a body hanging on the gallows in the distance,
and the great monster above the gate. The composition is strongly
under the influence of Hieronymus Bosch, whose work was very
popular at the time. Although the redemption of the souls by
Christ is only visible after we have followed the resistance opposedby

the infernal powers, collected around the war chariot, the whole
scene being taken as an excuse for representing demoniac strategy,
jt cannot be denied that a certain unity can be felt in all this con-
fusion. This unity is chiefly due to the construction and the analysis
Would divert us from the iconographic side. The insignificant place,

111. E. W. Moes, Oude Teekeningen van de Holl. en VI. school in het
^yksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam, 1904, fol. 13.

taken by the principal figure in this drawing, is emphasized by a
comparison with the painting made shortly before, in 1597, by Jan
Brueghel, found in the Mauritshuis, the Hague 1). Here Christ and
behind Him Adam and Eve stand in a strong light in the fore-
ground; they attract our attention at once by their size. Souls and
devils throng about them in groups, in hopeful expectation and in
sullen despair; the flames of hell glow in the background. A com-
parison such as this shows very clearly how de Gheyn prepares the
way for Callot, whose witches and spectres were certainly an im-
mediate imitation of Dutch examples 2).

Another instance of de Gheyn\'s quot;militaryquot; interest, is found in a
sketch for a lost quot;Paul on the Road to Damascusquot; 3). At first sight
we see nothing but an army marching into the mountains, but in the
distance there is an interruption and some confusion; amongst a
group of soldiers Paul is lying upon the ground; a beam of light
falling from heaven, a horse rearing. This does not mean that
de Gheyn was indifferent to the essential subject, but he often
changes the accent, he thinks for himself and makes experiments;
for him there are no rules determined by tradition. Who draws in
a self-contained group the three Kings without the Virgin and the
Child? Jacques de Gheyn 4:). He does it of set purpose; the head of
the Moorish King was obviously prepared by a study after a plaster
model 5).

De Gheyn\'s originality often places us in a dilemma. How often it
forces us to acknowledge that we cannot decipher his subjects,
because we have not any analogies. For instance the seated Ezechiel
is early described in sales catalogues and the Dyce specimen 6) bears
the traditional title, but without this we should not have given this
name to it, but rather that of some Greek philosopher such as Empe-
docles. A standing high priest with a servitor (Berlin) may be a
fragment or a preliminary study; of what, for what? Who is the
splendidly drawn writer who sits with his feet trampling on coins,
inspired by a starry fronted angel, while an owl sits in a niche
behind him (Berlin)? Could it be the David, for whom Huygens
sought a suitable text? The attributes are not appropriate. A philo-
sopher? They suit him no more, than they do an Evangelist. Non-
biblical allegories raise similar problems. A youth sits at the parting
of two ways; on the right figures are dancing in a summer field, to

5)nbsp;This may be taken for certain, because a drawing in the Louvre, probably
by the young Jacques, shows this cast from two sides.

6)nbsp;Victoria and Albert Museum, London. The preliminary sketch is at Rot-
terdam.

the left a path leads upwards. A devil, an angel and a kneeling
form sway him hither and thither; to the left we seem to see Jacob
wrestling with the angel 1). Who is this 17th-century-Hercules?
A drawing in Budapest again places us in the country amongst the
flocks. Superficially we should think that the shepherd with his dog,
standing on the right, are indifferently looking on, while his flock
IS being slaughtered by another, who pursues them with a book
under his arm and a knife in his hand. Is de Gheyn wandering in
Greece with Hippocrates, visiting Democritos? If he is, he brings
us nearer to the source, from which this subject found its way to
the Dutch painters was it perhaps suggested by Huygens? The
preparation for this vivacious pen-and-ink scribble exists in Haar-
lem; here again we stand before a thematic curiosum. There
are two sitting figures, turned towards one another, both looking
at a dish that lies on the ground between them, towards which the
left hand figure points as if demonstrating. The other is the replica
of the sitting shepherd, in whom we suspected Hippocrates. Either
these are two studies for the same figure, but given a different
occupation, or the composition was fundamentally changed, but not
pnly the composition, the theme also. At all events the connection
IS in the form andquot; not in the subject; which is certainly striking in
such a remarkable resemblance. All this uncertainty applies to
sketchy leaves, and, as will be shown, to later work. It is this category
that is characterised by a search for new formulas. To realize a
completely finished work made with pen-and-ink, we cannot do
better than look at the Orpheus in the Underworld at Brunswick,
with its architectural masses, its water and clouds, its glimpses and
Veiling mists, and its innumerable figures in the air, on the earth
and water. Orpheus, playing before Pluto and Persephone, placed
as if by accident in a ruined grotto, is unobtrusive; here again a
whole world of fantasy is created. Beyond this, mythology and
fvornan history do not often appear; there is a Neptune (Oxford),
related to the painting, and a death of Seneca (Cologne), in which
the figures are grouped in almost the same way as by Rubens. But
the allegory, so dear to the second half of the 16th century is much
u^ore elaborate, and here too we can admire Jacques de Gheyn\'s
2j%inality. He drew, for the prints that Dolendo engraved, a series

Lugt Collection. Cf. Erw. Panofsky, Hercules am Scheidewege und anderc
quot;ildstoffe in der neueren Kunst, Leipzig, Berlin, 1930, where similar themes
^re represented in illus. 46, 61, 63, 64, etc. Hercules, however, remains every-
J^^here the central figure. The allegory with de Gheyn is conceived in an entirely
^hnstian spirit.

.j The composition shows special affinity to the early work of Jan Lievens,
Illustrated by H. Schneider, Jan Lievens, Harlem 1932, pi. 1 and described
page 117, no. 103. For the theme see W. Stechow, Oudh. Jrbk. IV, 1924, page34,
and K. Bauch, J. A. Backer, Berlin 1926, page 81, no. 57.

of symbolic figures, erroneously described as the Virtues and the
Deadly Sins l). The title page displays a terrestrial sphere sur-
rounded by eight figures: Fortune, Peace, Faith, Poverty, War,
Detraction, Vanity, and Riches. The title shows the intention:
quot;Omnium Rerum Vicissitudo estquot;. The 16th century, as we know,
was very rich in allegory; in this work of de Gheyn\'s, which shows
the vicissitudes of fortune in an original manner, there is as yet no
very startling novum. The same applies to his numerous and very
varied allegories on deaths). We will confine ourselves to the
analysis of two of these, the drawing in London, engraved by de
Gheyn himself in 1599 and provided with suitable texts by Hugo
de Groot and the well-known drawing of the Woman and Death in
the National Print Room at Amsterdam.

The first is a decorative fantasy, symmetrically constructed. Beneath
the wide opened curtains of a baldachin, a representation of the Last
Judgment is hung in a frame, flanked by pillars. Below in a niche,
crowned by a winged hour-glass, a naked child sits blowing bubbles;
beside him stand a king and a peasant. On the ground lie two
corpses in decay, one with a broken crown and sceptre, one with a
flail and spade. Right and left are vases, one filled with flowers,
the other with smoking incense. The upper corners are formed by
medallions, in which as type and anti-type the Fall and the Cruci-
fixion are represented; the frames bear a skull and a cherub\'s head;
on the edge of the baldachin a candle burns and on the dark side of
it an owl sits glowering. AH this is accompanied, on the cartouches,
by verses on mortality and can only be understood by a patient
deciphering.

The best commentary on this is a description of the drawing in
Anisterdam that followed it only one year later. On a chair, of
which only the upper rim is visible, a woman, turning to the right,
is seated, attired in domestic garments, close-fitting bodice, pipe-
collar and cap, peacefully sleeping. Her hands lie in her lap. Death,
in the form of a living skeleton, looming up from a flowing cloak,
bends whispering over her and lays his fingers upon her sleeve. But
with the right hand he plants a knife on the top of her head. quot;The
rest is silencequot;.

What have we to add to this? Although almost incomprehensible,
it is a fact that the same de Gheyn lived in these two widely sun-
dered worlds. The one, where the convention of philosophic sym-

1)nbsp;Six of them in the Welcker Coll., Amsterdam; the design for the title page
belonging to Mr. W. A. Engelbrecht, Rotterdam.

2)nbsp;It is so well known that these allegories usually belong to the 16th century,
that it is unnecessary to mention it in detail. quot;Aucun siècle ne fut plus familier
avec la mort que le XVIequot; says Mâle in his l\'Art religieux de la fin du moyen-
âge, 1925, page 352.

bols, literally translated, reigns, reveals him at the end of the 16th
century as the humanist, who dabbles in letters: pauca multis. In
the other he offers a new inspiration to the young century as the
despiser of text and moral, who will be seen, not read: multa paucis.
And we ask ourselves who it was that died in 1600, to have brought
about such a fundamental change; was it perhaps his wife?
In the quot;Eersamigh Paerquot; quot;the Reverend Couplequot;, the pious peasant
and his wife, on whom the blessing of heaven descends (Amsterdam)
and the quot;Fear Notquot;, Christ in the storm 1), we have scenes of this
kind, for which even a short motto is almost superfluous; in the
fatter, as in the quot;Evil Sowerquot;, the expressive landscape-painter in-
^eases the dramatic power of the biblical story.
One of the most striking expressions of de Gheyn\'s imagination are
his witch scenes. We do not so much refer here to the extravagant
sketch at Leiden, in which is seen a cart full of hags, drawn by a goat
through the flames, over which a bat is hovering; although the platter
and the cross, borne on high by a youth riding with them, gives to
this scene a specifically necromantic meaning. This drawing is in a
certain sense comparable with Hans Baldung\'s witch groups, un-
doubtedly known to de Gheyn. But there is a two-leaved sketch in
\'^hrist Church College, Oxford, which seems to be an entirely
original product of de Gheyn\'s brain. Before a house, which stands
on the left, witches are seated, brewing a concoction, while through
^n open arch in the cellar another is seen asleep. Behind the ter-
race on which the hags are seated, lies a field surrounded by trees;
on the right rises a huge and hideous bared skeleton of bird-like
form but without wings, on which a revolting pair of naked human
forms are perched. The monster bends forward, its skinny fingers
outstretched, its beak open, over a book lying open on the ground,
^s if it were uttering a formula before setting out on a raid. A cat,
a mouse, and a toad turn their backs upon the ceremony. We need
hardly say that no analogon exists for this nightmare; a witch scene
of this kind is nowhere to be found with Hieronymus Bosch.
An even more convincing proof that Jacques de Gheyn delved in
literature, and may even have arrived at his choice through an
actual witch trial 2), is yielded by two witch kitchens, one in Berlin
and one in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford. In both cases in the
centre of a large cellar ancient hags are occupied around a huge
cauldron. The Berlin specimen shows a candle-light procession, led

That they still actually occurred, and how slowly rational ideas penetrated,
appears from quot;The opinions of the Professors of the University of Leiden con-
cerning the wateriest of Witchesquot;, which was drawn up there in 1594 in con-
nection with a case. quot;D. Petrus Pauw, Professor medicinaequot; also signs. Printed
in the annexes of J. Scheltema, Geschiedenis der Heksenprocessen, page 81.

by Judith, a devil\'s dance round the fire, a figure riding a goat,
rising from the smoke and under a vault the most horrible of all
the foreshortened recumbent body of a youth, at which the rats are
snuffing; the one at Oxford (our plate 7) shows within an arched
space of masonwork a play of lantern- and candle-light with the
huge shadow of one of the women, which at least draws the atten-
tion away from a mutilated corpse. This reminds us that de Gheyn,
like Buytewech 1), had followed more than one anatomical section,
which had only recently become possible, with eager curiosity.
On a scribble at Dresden, an incoherent vision, and on a sheet of
studies at Frankfort we find many of the now familiar elements, and
the folio-print of a witches\' sabbath must have been engraved from
an important drawing by de Gheyn, which unfortunately has been
lost 2); while a ridiculous scene on the ice, a small sketch in the
Louvre, is on the other hand a pure drôlerie in the spirit of Hiero-
nymus Bosch.

Let us assure the courageous reader who has followed us so far,
that we now propose to accompany de Gheyn along more peaceful
ways. As a transition from this fantastic world we will choose the
so-called study leaves, which combine representations of various
kinds. Amongst these we also find imaginative images, a hama-
dryad, an Anthony or a Sebastian 3), a group of witches or monsters,
a Pallas or a fury. But there are also figures drawn from nature,
children and old people in every-day clothes or in eastern attire,
then again a lobster or a sod with flowers. For de Gheyn these are
no unusual elements, but, what strikes us most now, is the combi-
nation, and particularly so, because the study-leaves as a whole have
never been examined from an iconographie point of view and the
significance of iconography in de Gheyn\'s work fully justifies the
consideration of it.

We spoke of a connection; is there any other than the arbitrary
juxtaposition of these promiscuous sketches? As subjects they are
certainly entirely disconnected, in fact it would seem that he spe-
cially sought contrasts. Are we right to attribute this to a conscious
choice? Herein lies an interesting problem, to gain an insight into
which we cannot do better, than analyse one of the pages.
In the Printroom in Berlin there is a page with a sketch of some
sprays of vine, in which bunches of grapes hang, a melon amongst
its leaves, and the portrait of a woman, all very carefully drawn,
partly in chalk, partly in diluted ink. Nature has been meticulously
followed; for this drawing there can be no better qualification than

3)nbsp;De Gheyn, like Goltzius, probably painted a Sebastian. The large draw-
ing in Weimar, dating from his later period, points to this.

studies from lifequot;. On another leaf in the Berlin Print Room we
see in the centre a village street running between farms, one of
which lies on the water; to the left, above, a flock of sheep, wan-
dering through a mountain landscape under heavy foliage, left
below a rhubarb plant with its large crinkled leaves. Further in the
foreground some masses of rock, beside which a group of people
are seated, cooking their meal over a woodfire; further up a few
resting wanderers and tramps; and also, separated, two idealized
women\'s heads, and quite at the top a walking figure with his staff,
^ice repeated from a figure in a woodcut by Hendrik Goltzius i).
fhe somewhat sketchy character of this drawing, suggestive of a
tew jottings from life, might deceive us as to its character. Even
A ^^^^ clearly drawn plant would seem to be taken from nature.
And is not the village scene indicative of the country scenes that
Jan and Esaias van de Velde were soon to draw outside Haarlem,
^ile betraying its derivation from the country views, known as
Brueghel\'s little landscapesquot;? Let us acknowledge at once: at first
^ght we should think that it was a leaf from a country sketchbook,
■^nd yet we can easily prove the entire contrary. The variety of the
natural landscape, the Dutch village, combined with the mountains
and blocks of stone, render it highly improbable that they were all
observed in one sketching expedition. To this another circumstance
^ay be added. There seems to be some unity in the greater part of
the drawing. Rocks, plants, and foreground figures seem to be the
basis of a scene, which, leading past the peasants seated in the
iniddle plain, terminates in the village. If the connection between
these is not merely fortuitous, we must assume that the artist, after
hp had placed these components, changed his mind, and filled up
his paper with other casual ideas. What see;ns at first sight to be a
collection of scribbled scenes from nature, a leaf from a sketch-book,
proves to be in reality a number of specimens of the master\'s vir-
^osity with the imaginative pen.

quot;Ut we will not leave it at this one example, let us examine a
second drawing, this time with less heterogeneous subjects-). On this
Jeaf, to the left are sketched an old man with moustache and pointed
oeard in profile, to the right a youth three-quarter face, above an
jld woman in a cap. Nothing in the drawing itself could prevent us
ljquot;Om thinking that we certainly have here studies from nature,
sketched in their own surroundings. But it is very remarkable that
each of these heads has its iconographic replica in other drawings,
^he old man is represented in one of the two chalk drawings in
leyler\'s collection at Haarlem, the young man occurs again in a

0. Hirschmann, Verzeichnis des graph. Werks von H. Goltzius, Leipzig,
2^5, page 164, no. 380.
\' Koenigs Collection, Haarlem.

drawing in Brussels; the old woman is found amongst the group of
five travellers on a scribble in Stockholm. It cannot be denied that
the sketch with its unity of beautifully modelling pen lines, gives a
different touch to each of these three rather diverse studies. Let us
not regard the old woman as a study for the group in Stockholm;
the latter has essentially the character of a little scene observed on
a cart or a ferry. The relation of the two boys\' portraits is less clear.
The one in Brussels seems to be more cautiously, and more severely
modelled, the one in Amsterdam with more ease, more spontane-
ously seized, but the old man on the leaf in Teyler\'s portfolio could
not possibly have been made otherwise than from nature. This is
the case in almost all the figure studies in chalk. Apart from the
technique the two images stand too near together to permit the
suggestion of two separate séances from the same model. This makes
the analogy with the Berlin leaf clear. De Gheyn has repeated him-
self and shows us three specimens of his wonderful draughtsman-
ship, not an instantaneous sketch from nature.
We might be reproached with attaching an exaggerated importance
to this distinction. As long as both expressions are found beside
each other, as seems to be the case with de Gheyn, the de-
pendence of the artist upon nature is surely obvious enough?
Indeed, it is not this side of the question that we wish to illuminate.
We know that de Gheyn was an eager pupil of nature, this is
evident from the vitality of his work, even when carried on in his
studio. But we are startled by the conscious building up of his leaves
of study into a sample collection of independent specimens of his
virtuosity. It makes us aware that the collection thus created was
not a facile help to his work, but in its conception and execution a
completed work of art. At first sight it seems something like Michael
Angelo\'s sketches for the figures in the Sixtine Chapel. But it cannot
stand the comparison, we do not find in it the driving power, rather
something near to pedantry. One step further and we come to the
didactic quot;sketch-booksquot; of Bloemaert 1), of Rubens 2), and of
Boucher 3).

The human figure, which dominates in Goltzius\' work, has been
drawn by de Gheyn apart as well as in connection with some
function. The nude occurs as model study and as invention. Thus
a woman in a bare room sitting before a mirror to comb her hair,

1)nbsp;Posthumous edition of many of his sketches, engraved by his son Frederick,
which became very well known and remained until the 19th century one of the
most popular books in the painter\'s workshop.

3)nbsp;This so-called quot;Livre d\'Esquissesquot; contains the copies of the designs of
Bloemaert from Boucher\'s hand, which, thus adapted to fashion, probably had
a great influence on 18th century French art.

and whose position forms a variant of one of Michael Angelo\'s Six-
fme Youths, can only be understood as drawn quot;uyt den gheestquot; l).
A few excellent chalk studies, usually supported with the pen, have
on the contrary been copied in the studio from living models; a
Woman reclining on a couch (Braunschweig) is probably the study
lor a Danae or other mythological composition 2), which also ap-
plies to a pen drawing of two recumbent youths (Dantzig).
Omer drawings in chalk also show that a model was posed for them.
A he same youth who posed for a kneeling shepherd in the nativity3),
IS drawn again standing (Berlin) and finally three times from dif-
ferent sides on a leaf preserved in Amsterdam. The artist uses the
leftmost figure in his composition — later multiplied in etching —
^presenting country life4),the drawing being preserved in the Print
Room in Amsterdam (plate 13), another figure probably had a place
m an Adoration. Two studies in chalk from an old man at Haarlem
and three heads of a young man in the Lugt collection and Fodor
^re almost portraits. The evening, which inspired Rembrandt to
draw and etch, instigated de Gheyn to sketch some very intimate
domestic scenes; the merchant making up his accounts (Berlin), the
mother looking at a book of pictures with her little son (ibidem,
our plate 10). Here he registers his observation directly, trans-

J) We mean the figure to the right above the Persian Sibyl. De Gheyn\'s
arawmg is at Braunschweig.

K- ^^ pointed out elsewhere, for the painting described by van Mander,
^nich represented a Venus.
4)nbsp;property, Amsterdam.

J quot;\'■chard (Holl. Radierer, see above, page 30). In the first place the translation

. oth illustrations are only found printed on very heavy paper, which, even if it

S and print of the farmhouse, helps to show that the latter differs very sub-
stantially.nbsp;^

difficult to explain the origin of this print satisfactorily; it seems to
that the examination of the paper must be considered first and foremost.

muted into a pregnant little scene from life, a flash of insight of
which the significance goes far beyond the actual representation.
The 17th century carried this spirit further forward in paintings,
drawings and prints. Yet we can hardly find a prototype for these
drawings, a kind which, so far as de Gheyn is concerned, reached
their final expression in the complete painting of the schoolmaster.
A number of profane groups are of a more traditional character,
such as the archer and girl (Berlin), which served for a titled print!),
the old woman, talking to a man with a sausage in his hand 2), and
the peasant with his bride 3). These remind us of the stage plays of
that time and the genre-pieces by Brueghel\'s imitators. The name
of one of these, David Vinckeboons, comes into our mind when we
see quot;the Heathenessesquot; appear in de Gheyn\'s drawings; one sitting
with an infant to whom she has just given the breast (Vienna), a
second, strangely dressed, seen from the back (Oxford), a third
under a tree engaged in telling the fortune of an elegantly dressed
young lady (Braunschweig). So it goes on, with figures taken from
life; here it is a kneeling boy, setting a trap 4), there a fisherman
with his catch 5) or with a beerglass 6), then a maid-servant but-
tering a piece of bread (Berlin), then again a prisoner, with his
ragged garments and heavy chains, sombrely staring in front of
him 7). As we see, the choice is free, and there is no use in summing
up all the subjects, but in connection with the period in which they
fall, the freedom of choice itself is of the utmost importance.

De Gheyn was a master in the small portrait, and, as this was part
of his earliest work, it will be fruitful to compare him in this respect
with Goltzius. Like Goltzius, de Gheyn drew likenesses in silver-
point on prepared tablets. Almost all of these portraits, at the be-
ginning of the 19th century, bore Goltzius\' name. But the ground
on which they are drawn, is with de Gheyn usually rather more
yellow. Two of the portraits have been traced as studies for prints«),

1)nbsp;Of this large print there is a good, very much smaller repetition, with some
variations, which we do not consider a copy (example in the British Museum
in Londen).

4)nbsp;Two drawings, originally together, now in the Koenigs and Welcker Col-
lections.

7)nbsp;In the Louvre. One might perhaps more justly imagine it to be a lunatic,
because of the expression of the face and the fact that de Gheyn executed a
commission for the Hague quot;madhousequot; by designing a pediment (see above,
page 38, note I.

8)nbsp;The youthful Grotius (Fodor Museum, Amsterdam) and the poet R.V.D.
(Teyler Coll., Haarlem).

the delicacy of the others have enabled them to be distinguished
from the very closely related portraits by Goltzius. The oval bust-
portraits are often surrounded by an inscription, at least in the
prints, and in this they show a certain relation to the medal, where
the image is surrounded by an inscription to be read by turning
round the piece. When we see that the medallists repeatedly
endeavour to escape from this form and design a motto, on the
Reverse side at any rate, readable in one direction, we conclude that
It is due to a predominating tendency towards visuality in the 17th
century painters. Both in paintings and in portraitprints, the artists
struggle to become more comprehensible at first sight; the unity in
1650 was unity of vision, in 1550 and 1750 it was decorative unity.
fJe Gheyn\'s studies for portraits are seldom completed. Usually the
greatest emphasis is laid upon the head. In the print Ludolf van
Gollen\'s likeness only occupies a small place on an oval shield in the
centre; beneath it the circumference number of Metius is shown;
on each side the complicated cartouche is filled with armorial tro-
phies. The study for this whole border is extant l); the portrait is
only indicated by a few lines. Undoubtedly there will have been a
^Parate small study for the portrait, but this has not been found.
The study for the portrait of Marnix van St. Aldegonde, on the
other hand, is almost complete; text and border need only a little
^aboration 2).

The portrait of Abraham Gorlaeus, made four years later in 1601,
shows other tendencies 3). The goldsmith sitting at his table is re-
presented in his own room; the armorial shield is drawn in a realistic
^ay as if hanging on the wall. As, however, it is represented with
great elaboration, it is almost as important as the head, and does
pot fall into the back-ground, but has a very decorative effect. The
inscription stands below, not round about. A corresponding picce is a
portrait in private possession in Amsterdam, where the figure is
sitting in an arm-chair, his head turned towards the onlooker and
one hand stretched forward in demonstration (plate 6). There are no
examples of a freer position; the pose, even if it is a simple one,
remains conventional. The engraving-like portrait in Frankfort of
^ praying man in profile still seems to be derived from the old quot;por-
trait of the donorquot;, which persisted as far as Rubens and de Bray.
^ few studies of a death-bed are particularly moving. In one
(Ijrankfort), according to an inscription in tergo from the hand of
J^loos van Amstel, van Mander might be represented: the massive
head with the sunken eyeballs is seen at one time slanting from
above, at another almost in profile; a small harp is laid over him and

separately drawn. We ask ourselves whether this is a study from
which the serious minded artist made a complete picture, a painting
perhaps, or a miniature, such as arose from a little portrait of a
woman on her death-bed in Amsterdam, which for a long time was
erroneously supposed to represent Louise de Goligny. This study
was elaborately repeated on the signed delicate miniature in Lon-
don, with the husband standing beside her bed as chief mourner 1). It
bears the date of 1601. Both the pen sketch, wrought with majestic
certainty and beautiful reverence, and the miniature, rendered
slightly pompous by the heavy curtains, within which the dead
figure lies, the candle burning beside it and the dignified spouse,
belong to the most characteristic work produced by de Gheyn. In
this age painted portraits, especially of children in premature
death, were not unusual2). De Gheyn may have made some of these
too. In drawings they have been found sporadically earlier; we can
call to mind, for instance, two of the dead Erasmus 3). At any rate,
all we know of this kind by de Gheyn, are quot;non plus ultraquot;.
De Gheyn\'s predilection for military affairs was already evident
while he was working with Goltzius. In his studio he copied the
different figures of officers, whose jaunty airs and rich accoutre-
ments are rendered without detriment to the technical accuracy of the
reproduction i). At the same time these prints gave a new portrait-
form; the full length portrait, which Titian and Moro brought to
such perfection, now loses its repose and receives its accent from
the action, which varies from waving the colours to parading. When
de Gheyn had developed his own choice later on, such subjets do
not seem to have had much attraction for him. But he had scarcely
received his first commission, before he began to make sketches of
foot- and horse-men in a variety of positions in preparation for his

0 In the pointing attitude one can perhaps see a reminiscence of the print
engraved by A. Sadeler, which symbolises the death of B. Spranger\'s wife
C. Müller. This allegory, designed by Spranger in 1600, is based chiefly on
the old theme, while by the introduction of likenesses amidst the symbols,
symbolism and realism are so involved, that the reality of the unreal is only
enhanced. This dualism is one of the many transition stages from mannerism
to the new style.

^ We remind the reader of the portrait of Floris I van Pallandt, Duke of
Culemborg (who died on 29 Sept. 1598), in the orphanage there (reproduced
m the Bull. v. d. Oudh. Bd., second series, j.l., 1908, page 141). The portrait
m Bremen, which is called Dutch about 1600, could, to our mind, also be of
French origin. We need not here refer to the fairly numerous death-portraits
of this period; we recommend the collecting nf these for a scientific investi-
gation.

3)nbsp;Basel, Offentl. Kunstlg. (reprod. E. Major, Erasmus von Rotterdam, Basel,
b.A. illus. 15) and Haarlem, Teylers Stichting (incorrectly as by Holbein in
bcholten, Gat. rais. port. M. No. 46).

Work. The whole quot;Wapenhandelinghquot; is illustrated by engravings
of only one soldier in position; the horse-men series, on the other
hand, is in groups. If the former remind us both of Goltzius and
the Swiss drawings of pike-men, the horse-men bring us to Burgk-
jnair and Tempesta i), although Heemskerck\'s example should not
be forgotten here. The influence exercised by one and another
IS comprehensible, and the effect of Tempesta\'s work is seen
again, directly or indirectly in the younger de Gheyn. The most
attractive, to our mind, are the studies of a trumpeter, who is
playing on his instrument, from which a flag hangs. Although they
seem to be studies for the trumpeters on horseback, de Gheyn has in-
troduced two of them into a historical fantasy in Vienna, where
their costumes and types are borrowed from Dürer, so that they
give the impression of being designs for a pageant.

Landscape fills a very important place in de Gheyn\'s work. We
seldom have the feeling that we are looking at an actual landscape,
although it cannot be always said with certainty. As we have seen
that, what appeared to be a spontaneous sketch from nature, was
reality a masterly composition, so it is possible that vice versa
the landscapes that seem to be a composition, may have been true
to nature. It must be assumed that etchings like the profile of Schie-
dam and the map of the Hague are founded upon sketches taken
on the spot, but we have none of these. It may be said with certainty
of some trees and tree trunks, sometimes tentatively prepared with
chalk, like those in the Print Room, Amsterdam, in which a friend
of the artist\'s is sitting beside the massive trunk, sometimes besides
l^ld penlines completed by ink-wash, like two tree-trunks in the
Welcker Collection in Amsterdam. It was a much discussed question
at the time when de Gheyn was drawing his landscapes, whether
they should be taken from nature or not, and Carel van Mander\'s
didactic poem on the subject expresses this so entertainingly, that
We cannot resist quoting it here

quot;Nu zijn wij ghecomen, om drucx verstroyen.
Tot\'t schaduwich rijck der Hamadryaden,
Dats tot de Boomen, die al\'t werck vermoyen,
Als sij wel ghedaen zijn, jae gantsch vervroyen,
Oft anders ontcieren, dus waer te raden,
Een aardigh\' en fraeye manier van bladen.

.Here also there was a Dutch tradition, amongst others represented by the
Prints of Goornhert after Heemskerck and of Goltzius after Stradanus, The
^tter may have influenced Tempesta, whose quot;Vie de I\'Empereur Charles Vquot;
as m turn published in prints by C. Boel and de Gheyn the younger in 1614.
^ ^ap. 8 strophe 36, fol. 15, verso.

Op eenen goeden slach, hem aan te wennen,
Want hier in leyt de cracht, dit moetmen kennen.
A1 soudemen soecken op veel manieren
Nae t\' leven, oft handelingh aenghename,
Ghestadelijck op grondighe papieren,
Met sap al wasschende bladers te swieren,
Hopend\' ofmer al metter tijdt toe quaeme:
Doch, ten schijnt niet alst bemuysde lichame
Leersaem Const: want bladen, hayr, locht en laken,
Dat is al gheest, en den gheest leert het maken.quot;

quot;Now we are come, for sweet diversion.
To the shadowy realm of the Hamadryads,
That is the Trees, which embellish the work,
If they are well done, yes quite adorn,
Otherwise they spoil it, thus it were advisable,
A pretty and decorative manner of leaves,
To learn to make, with good skill,
For herein lies the strength, that one must admit.

Although we should seek in many ways
According to nature, or by a pleasant treatment.
Constantly on tinted paper,

To swing the leaves while washing with water colours.
Hoping that in time one would succeed:
Yet is does not seem, as drawing of muscled bodies,
A learnable art, for leaves, hair, sky and cloth.
All is spirit, and the mind teaches how to make it.quot;

Hence it may be seen that for studies of trees such as we have
described above, it was by no means a fixed principle that they
should be drawn from nature. De Gheyn, a painter of nature, re-
presented a generation later than van Mander, but moreover, like
him, aspires to a quot;pleasant treatmentquot;, inventing landscapes quot;uyt
den gheestquot;. This explains a drawing such as the quot;peasant lifequot;
after which the well-known etching was made. It is a composition,
not a reproduction of nature. The fact that the study for the farmer
is extant, is not the only proof, but also the fact that there are so
many figures occupied in so many different ways. The cow is just
being milked, a woman is sitting spinning on this side of the house,
others are entering the house or the dovecot.
If we compare with this the solitary youth who sits dreaming in a
field, surrounded by willows, with a church tower in the background
(Berlin), we see that the latter is much more like a sketch taken in
the country. The presence of the figure is remarkable. The desire
to quot;peoplequot; a landscape is very obstinate. But the function of the
54

%ure is new, it is modern: the traveller resting at the side of
fhe road, whose indolent attitude accentuates the feeling of spring
m the whole picture. This shade of feeling should not be under-
valued. Jan and Esaias van de Velde took their landscapes
from nature, but when they made prints of them, they introduced
figures, such as huntsmen, fishermen or skaters l). With de Gheyn
the figure is an integral part of the composition. The majority of
J6th century landscape pictures have titles of months or seasons.
In an interior by Harmen Hals one can find two little pictures of
summer and winter which are even hung together in one frame. It
^as long before landscape was emancipated, set free from the great
complex of ideas, in which it fulfilled in different ways a subor-
dinate, attributive function.

We know too little of de Gheyn\'s travelling to be able to say for
certain whether his imposing mountains scenes such as Mrs. Murray
ßaillie\'s specimen in London 2), are entirely inspired by Brueghel\'s
drawings. A page containing an amphitheatre and a rocky coast 3),
^hich could be a copy after de Gheyn, shows that the designer un-
derstood Roman architecture; that he should have visited Pola
seems a premature conclusion. The imaginary landscapes are full
of variety. Highly dramatic effects are attained in the mountain
view in the Dyce-collection 4), where a traveller is being robbed and
a sentinel is placed upon the tops of a mountain shoulder, wrapped
as repoussoir in black shadow in the foreground. The division of
importance between the landscape and the figures is the same as in
the Sowing of Tares.

A similar scene, in the neighbourhood of an army camp, is found
m Munich. The man with a lance, barked at by a dog while he is
stepping over a style, again gives the impression of an actual scene;
out the trees are evidently drawn from imagination and arranged
according to the necessities of the space. Various pages contain the
quot;lore fantastic ingredients of the late 16th century landscapes; the
overhanging and bridge-forming rocks, the very steep, cone-shaped
quot;fountain tops, up which nevertheless roads run, upon which castles
are built, over which bridges are thrown and which at the same time
iie beside quiet waters. Amongst the scenes on the water, the bridge
^ith a boatman receiving his fee (Berlin) is probably a fantasy, a
fitness to the priority of the realistically imagened landscape over
the realistic copy of nature. De Gheyn probably made sketches on
the shore; the ships on the sea and the fishermen on land at Frank-

2 CI. Jsz. Visscher included it in the landscapes left by Jan van de Velde,
when he published them in prints. Van Gelder, see above, pages 63—65.
gj ßurl. Mag. April, 1912.
4\\ tÎÎ PJ^ivate ownership, Amsterdam.

fort are moreover the preparation for the print of the Sailing Coach.
It will be as well to pause by this work. The preliminary studies and
toe inscription on the print prove that de Gheyn is the designer.
Presumably there was a large drawing for the whole work, which
unfortunately has been lost. But we have pen-and-ink drawings for
most of the figures, kept in the Masson collection in Paris (plate 11)
and in the Stadelches Museum in Frankfort. The origin of the figures
from loose sketches is still traceable in the picture, which does not
succeed in binding them into one atmosphere. The character of the
print is certainly to some extent instructive and decorative-below the
title, which runs along the whole length of the print, cartouches are
placed right and left with the legenda. Midway between these rises
the great mast of the sailing coach, which forms the centre of the
composition. It is seen from off the dunes with the sea behind it and
beyond that the full horizon. The right and left halves are filled up
symmetrically with sailing ships, the small sailing coach, horsemen,
fishermen, and onlookers. There is neither a crowd, nor great
animation and movement in the vehicles, nor a real quot;impression of
nature , so that the details are more interesting than the whole
while, by the absence of overlappings, they lend themselves to
minute scrutiny. Moreover lighting from behind has its dis-
advantages, as it throws shadows over the principal figures in the
coaches, so that a compromise had to be struck between the opposing
demands. In short, the magnitude and unusualness of the subject
was apparently beyond de Gheyn\'s power, but the attempt is new
and bold. Although the early date is of great importance, the print
may not be regarded as the prototype of the 17th century shore
landscape. Goltzius grasped the fact that the North Sea coast should
not be represented from angle, but looking from North to South
or from South to North, a shore with sea on one side and the dunes
on the other, thus yielding a subject of infinite variety and un-
explored problems l). Haarlem was the cradle of the pure sea-
shore-scape.

De Gheyn\'s love of nature was too great for him to have neglected
animals. This partiality he shared with Goltzius, who drew them 2);

1)nbsp;Compare his two prints, which represent the interest shown in the cacheiots
washed up in 1594 (?) and 1598. This theme, already previously represented
in prmts, led to many paraphrases.

2)nbsp;The prints of Goltzius seem to prove that some pen-drawings with animals
can also be attributed to him, i.e. the wild cat (?) in the Louvre (F. Luirt Inv
Gen., tome I no. 285, as de Gheyn) and the cat, mouse and lizard in Gro-
ningen (cf. I Q. van Regteren Altena, Maandblad v. Beeld. Kunsten, 1931,
pages 71—72). Both drawings were originally supposed to be by Goltzius.

It is obvious that with chalk larger studies were made. We refer here only
to the dogs head for the portrait of the son of Dirck de Vries, in Teyler\'s
collections.nbsp;/ ^

a camel l), a lamb, a dog 2) or a fish 3), Goltzius sometimes made
use of his studies in his compositions; the sitting dog in the Fodor
Museum is found in an Adam and Eve in Paradise in the Print
Room in Hamburgh), and so it may have been with de Gheyn, who
repeatedly introduced animals into his larger compositions. Van
Mander tells that the Emperor bought a flower piece from de
Gheyn and quot;a small Book wherein de Gheyn had made some flowers
^d other diversions from nature, with also many small beastiesquot;.
The collections in Vienna no longer possess this little book of
sketches, and we are afraid that it has long ago been pulled to
pieces and cut up. There are, namely, a few little drawings (Frank-
lort) representing insects and other small creatures, which might
have come from this book, as the date that is found on one of them,
1600, precedes the first edition of van Mander\'s book. One of these
minute watercolours represents a lizard; this creature is found in
almost exactly the same position in the large engraving of witches 5),
but also, and this is typical of the artist\'s method of work, metamor-
phosed as ornament to the helmet of Mars on a medal-shaped print
from 1600 6).

At the same time it does not seem that the masterly studies of horses,
cows, lions, or small animals should be regarded solely as studies
from nature for the parts of larger compositions. The horses, for
instance, certainly bear a relation to the stallion of Nieuwpoort and
Caesar\'s horse, but they have not the character of precise model-
studies; the stable boy holding the horse\'s head in the British Mu-
seum comes the nearest to this. The monumental drawing of a
grazing horse in profile (Berlin), strongly modelled with long and
short pen-lines, shows how the artist can lend a new vitality to
every detail of a subject, even when drawing from a living and
moving model. Even the shortness of the neck, which brings the

J^ The leaf from a sketch-book in München, which is reproduced in Old
Jl^aster Drawings, Dec. 1930, illus. 37 and 38, is without doubt the work of
\'^oltzius, with notes in his handwriting. Popham pointed out a leaf from the
same sketchbook in the British Museum. It is a pity that there should be an
inaccuracy in the accompanying article by J. Byam Shaw, who now also
?ffrees with our view of the autorship. The page is not dated, because 1619

a wrongly read inventary number 12196. The note at the joint, which is
pven by Byam Shaw as quot;das Thierquot;, should be read quot;de schuerquot; (shoulder).
J\'H addition to this drawing and that in London there is a camel in a coloured
drawing on a larger scale, also kept in the British Museum.

^ Amongst others Museum Fodor Amsterdam (cat. no. 68), K. K. Berlin (cat.
^ock-Rosenberg, page 34, no. 5943) and coll. F. Lugt, Paris.

\' üack of the portrait of Rutgerus Herbepaleta (of Würtzburg), 1579, Print-
joom, Copenhagen (Kustmuseets Aarskrift, 1917).
J, ^xecuted in black and coloured chalks, and watercolour,

grazing mouth into a different plane to the hoofs is not displeasing,
it merely increases the impression of vitality.
From a superficial inspection of the sketches of lions l) we might
conclude that the Dutch Lion was founded upon the study from
these wild beasts, made in some travelling menagery. Such a broad
style as is here revealed we should not expect in de Gheyn before
1600, while the lion drawings must have been completed earlier,
probably before the departure of Heemskerck and Barendsz to the
North in 1596, witness the supply of this print, which was found
on Nova Zembla, and which had apparently been taken by the
voyagers as bartering material 2). It must be acknowledged that
the engraving also is on a high level. The road has been laid open
for Rembrandt.

Three sketches in Leningrad of recumbent cattle foreshadow even
more clearly the approach of the new, powerful school, in this case
pointing in the direction of AlbertCuyp especially3). The voluminous
curves over the heavy frame of the animal are modelled with
accurate but free accentuation. And in contrast to this we have the
tender care expended upon the watercolour drawings of little frogs
and mice. The frogs were sometimes too much for him, the quot;thumbquot;
and quot;forefingerquot; in the touching water-colour in Amsterdam re-
mind us unexpectedly of human fingers, and on the study of pre-
served field mice (Berlin), meagre little carcasses whose expressive
position is as humorous as it is pathetic, a frog is drawn like a miser
with his arm on his breast clutching a heap of coins; here seriousness
and play melt together.

We now pass over a number of animal studies; the storks, which
interest him when the birds are to figure on either side of .the
weapons for the Hague, dogs, asses, plucked fowls, or little dead
birds fallen out of the nest. The aspect of death is an inexhaustable

2)nbsp;This discovery of several prints and collections of prints in numerous copies,
which are all kept in the Rijksmuseum, but unfortunately have been partly
p crushed together that all the prints cannot be recognized, is not only of
mportance as a supplement to our knowledge of methods of exchange in the
East Indies, but provides the historical investigator of graphic art with dates
where sometimes no data at all are known. After a cursory comparison be-
tween the notes we made, when going through these remains and the list
of prmts, left by Jacob van Neck in 1602 in Patani, which was published by
Dr. J. W. IJzerman (Memorial published on the occasion of the 75 years
Jubilee on 4 June 1926 of the quot;Koninklijk Instituut voor de Taal-, Land- en
Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch Indiequot;, page 84 etc.), it seemed to us, that
the discovery on Nova Zembla could be of use on some points for the difficult
^entification of this list. With regard to the knowledge of the prints of de
Gheyn, the list does not appear to provide useful dating.

3)nbsp;Compare for instance Cuyp\'s powerwul study of a recumbent cow in
Chantilly.

source of inspiration for him, it stimulates the serious side of his
nature, and in animals especially gives him an opportunity for
drawing them in convulsive movement or in a perfect rest. But a
skull or the shell of a tortoise also fascinate him — or was it his son
this time? — and he laid them before him in every possible light
and position. A number of these sketches are put in pairs on a page;
the sea-hedgehogfrom the front and the side with a lively description
of the colours below, seems as if it were for a scientific demon-
oration (Amsterdam). In the same way, but even more consciously,
Öürer learnt the cut of the Nürnberg women\'s costume at the end
of his life l); in the same spirit Saenredam rendered a commentary
on his quot;portraitsquot; of churches 2).

The sketch in Paris of a sitting huntsman with his dogs deserves to
be noticed. Here again we see a theme rendered in a manner not
become common property before far into the 17th century, in such
painters as Weenix. In 1620 we find de Gheyn once more, with
the pen in the hand, absorbed in the delicate beauties of nature.
Patiently he scrutinises the play of light and shadow on a spray
^ith three roses, conscientiously copying the shell-like curve of the
petals (Berlin).

The independent handling of his material has been insisted upon in
this study of his work, as one of de Gheyn\'s most characteristic
qualities, but now a final group of drawings shows him from another
angle, that of copyist. It is no wonder that such an inquiring spirit
as his should take an interest in the older art, which came into im-
niediate connection with his own work. We cannot imagine that
either Goltzius or de Gheyn could have formed their style without
a radical study and much copying of prints by Lucas van Leiden
and Dürer. Could the quot;master-printsquot; of Goltzius even have been
engraved without this foundation, however much his travels may
have italianised his style and impregnated it with antique forms?
We can hardly believe it. In de Gheyn\'s case it is even more easily
demonstrated; several drawings after the two earlier engravers
and after Weiditz betray his hand, although it is not the hand of a
heginner. A series of other similar copies may tentatively be set

^^ Compare I. Q. van Regteren Altena, Saenredam archeoloog, Oud-Holland,
^931, page l etc.nbsp;^ , , ,

Hirschmann, H. Goltzius (Meister der Graphik, page 27) has already
pointed out that quot;he only bccame connected with Dürer and Lucas of Leiden

the later period of his development, actually only after the Italian Journey
of 1590/91quot;. This connection, it seems to us, became stronger after that
period, while the relics of Italian impressions are joined together into a new
jdeal of form. In this way a renewed feeling for national traditions is deve-
loped in him after 1600, which also grew up in de Gheyn.

down as earlier work. A small watercolour at Frankfort is a literal
copy of a painting by Pieter Aertszen, which the Museum in Vienna
purchased from the Figdor collection; the signature upon it quot;T de
Gheyn fecit, anno 1612quot;, is at first deceptive, but really serves as
proof that author s rights in this sense were not yet a matter of
conscience even in 1612. As we have seen, de Gheyn gave a more
free interpretation of a composition by Quinten Matsys. His in-
terest in the antique was far behind that of Goltzius, but is expressed
in a number of scribbles from Roman busts, one of which, a Seneca
has been preserved at Rotterdam.

The surprising versatility of Jacques de Gheyn, even if he is con-
sidered only as a maker of drawings, is not characteristic of him
alone. In this respect, as in others, his work is the fruit of his age
It we compare him with other great draughtsmen, we see that Lucas
van Leiden designed only figures or quot;storiesquot;; that Maerten van
Heemskerck brought within his range not only figures, portraits,
and compositions, but the Roman veduta with its treasures of an-
tique art landscape, and even animals; that Brueghel, although
drawing from the source of Bosch\'s fantasies and, fashioning his
own visions of the world from that material, in contrast to him,
made his studies from life and annotated them with colour in-
dications; that Goltzius, covering the same field, gave an even
more independent existence to his drawings, but that de Gheyn
pushed forward his boundaries still further. He is comparable to
Rubens, to whom, although his inferior in natural movement, and
grouping, he is the equal in thematic ingenuity. Both Rubens and
de Gheyn were interested in the older art, de Gheyn more for the
northern masters 1), while Rubens leans towards the Latin side
Goltzius inclinations were also towards the South; his portraits
could never have been conceived without the influence of Italy 2)
Looking at Rembrandt, we see a connection with de Gheyn of a
different nature; they are akin in their love of the domestic 3) and
their scrutiny of nature. In both of them the search for comprehen-
siveness does not make them despise the small and even trivial
expressions of nature, and here de Gheyn leads the way for his
spiritual descendant.

1)nbsp;An exception in de Gheyn\'s work is a loan from the Moses of Michel-
Angelo in a drawing representing Neptune (Oxford), which does not weaken
the tendency of our discourse.

2)nbsp;It must be noted that Goltzius began to sketch these portraits before his
journey commenced. The technique (mainly red and black chalks) alone points
alre^y to an indirect or direct Italian influence (F. Zuccaro?)

Hirschmann (see above page 34) writes of Goltzius: quot;Humor und Innig-
keit bleiben ihm versagtquot;. This cannot be said of de Gheyn.

The expansion of theme since the beginning of the 16th century
m Holland follows statistically from these data. Is this a pheno-
menon that continued after de Gheyn\'s time? By no means. On the
contrary, after his generation had glimpsed new horizons, specia-
lisation began to show itself. In the 17 th century draughtsmen
began to be divided like painters, into landscape artists and por-
trait artists, into painters of still-life and of architecture. It is natural
to ask whether this expansion can be explained by itself. We might
be satisfied by pointing to the universality of the Renaissance and
the cultus of virtuosity. But new forms of expression, especially
where they are as vital as in de Gheyn, may certainly not be ex-
plained merely by a certain desire for excentricity. Rather is the
search for new ways of expression in itself the great driving power,
which inspired his generation in particular. If we abandon a causal
connection, the process can be sketched in rough lines thus: the
choice of themes in Dutch art about 1650 did not only expand in
regard to 100 years ago, but changed the position of its chief accent.
What fell away later, is still present about 1600, the theme is then
at its broadest. The expansion represented by Jacques de Gheyn is
a transition form from one world of art to the other.

Now that we turn from the micro-cosmos of the subjects of de
Gheyn\'s drawing oeuvre, through which we have travelled with
rapid strides up to the final limit, and before we begin a new jour-
ney, passing through the whole period of his artistic activity from
beginning to end, it is our purpose to examine the form he used,
the language in which he expressed himself. In this direction, too, we
shall find great variety of expression, but it will be our object to
search out the persistent traits. It is just this form which has often
enabled us to recognise un-marked sheets as the work of the master,
and to a certain extent the form may be regarded as constant; to
become familiar with the usual will be of more use to us than a study
of the unusual. Moreover, now that we are to some extent orientated,
and begin to feel at home in our subject, we shall be able to profit
by an investigation into the essentials. We shall therefore try to find
the common denominator of the whole of de Gheyn\'s work.
Jacques de Gheyn was by training an engraver. It is true that after
the death of his father he was able to complete his unfinished work
m stained glass, but it remains an open question, whether the youth-
ful artist gave the first place to engraving or to glass. At any rate
his work on glass is unknown, and the first productions of his hand
that have been preserved are the prints made in Goltzius\' work-
shop. Moreover, it should be remembered that as technique en-

graving is related to quot;glass-writingquot;,and a hand that was accustomed
to wield the tools of the painter on glass would find a certain sup-
port in the habitual manipulations.

The mastery of the engraving line achieved under Goltzius, which
early finds its equivalent in the drawings, never deserted de Gheyn,
although he only seldom made use of it in later years. If we con-
fine ourselves to the drawings, it is most remarkable to notice the
swelling and diminishing engraver\'s line executed with almost
pedantic care and persistence, in such a drawing as the seated quot;Eze-
chielquot; It is especially remarkable,because the drawing bears thedate
1613. While the lines in the books scattered round and the smoking
volcano are done more freely, the naked figure is modelled ac-
cording to the rules of art learned from Goltzius, with one, two or
three long parallel and crossing pure burin strokes. It happens that
the study for this composition can be seen in a passionately scribbled
sketch in Rotterdam. The pair of drawings are very instructive As
the worked-out composition is the final one, it shows that de Gheyn
persisted in feeling the graving-line as one of the best media even
alter he had abandoned the practise of engraving for painting. We
are accustomed to consider his diminished interest in engraving to
be due to the rise of other ideals; de Gheyn\'s etchings made about
1600 1) strengthen the idea that the change was made in response
to a growing feeling for the picturesque and a desire for more direct
contact with nature than could be reached with engraving. To some
extent this is certainly true, but, — our two examples teach us some-
thing more, that, ten years after these etchings were made, the in-
tegrity of the engraving line is still felt in his drawing, and applying
this deduction more generally we may say that the two pages,
executed in an entirely different manner being produced in one
year, it is equally possible that entirely similar ones may have been
produced in years widely separated from one another.
With this caution in mind that certain characteristics often re-
mained latent and unexpressed in the mind of the artist, we will
proceed to examine the character of the engraving line. The burin
begins to engrave at a point on the surface, ploughs through the
plate and finally comes to the surface again at another point. There
IS no drawing implement that achieves a similar result so well as
pen and ink. A well cut and flexible pen, such as the writing-masters
Jan van de Velde and Lieven Coppenol worked with, is capable of
making the beginning and end of a line to appear from nothing and
dissolve into nothing while the middle is broadened by heavy
pressure, just as the burin swells out where the depth comes. But the
engraver does not only draw his masterly lines, — with equal skill

^ lays them one beside the other in parallel layers, then covers
them in the shadows with cross lines, and where it is needed, weaves
the darkest parts together with a network of small strokes. This
process also can be followed by the pen. Finally, in the places where
a line would be too much, either in high lights or in deep shadows,
the most delicate shading can be given by the pricking of points or
diminutive lines. This effect the pen can also attain in a similar
Way.

After what we have said, it is not surprising to find that Jacques de
Gheyn drew principally with pen and ink. That the connection
between burin and pen line is not imaginary, is shown by the letter
in Berlin accompanied by the portrait of his dumb pupil; in the
pndst of his absorbing engraving work, he draws this likeness as if
it were an engraving itself. At the same time it should be noted that
the preliminaries for prints were not always made with the pen
alone; the figures for the quot;Wapenhandelinghquot; are shadowed with
diluted Indian Ink, and it is left to the engraver to translate the
jnk into cross hatching.

Wis full mastery over the stubborn pen naturally enabled Jacques
de Gheyn to use it in all manner of ways. Thus the freer play of
the etching needle can also be approached by the pen on paper: the
etchings of little landscapes were prepared by pen drawings. On
these sheets, the space occupied by the things is carefully cal-
culated, in broader sketches the style is so dominated by the free
jjrie that we grasp their form from its suggestive ductus. The pen-
line, which we thus see developing through its various stages of
subordination into independence, rests entirely upon the light curve,
^hich accommodates itself to the plastic form of its object. In the
n^ost unrestrained expressions, whose wildness it is true is only ap-
parent, the modulation remains, but encloses the object in a more
unpressionistic manner by giving an incomplete indication of the
outline, accentuating the essentials only. The quot;Archerquot; in Berlin
shows how an imitation of the burin gives rise to a new technical
scala, which includes the hairy fringe, the loop, especially where it
IS combined together in series, the wave and the zig-zag. The line
retains its traditional form only here and there and often terminates
abruptly. In the dark parts conscious use is made of the inkblotches;
parts of certain pages are even buried under so much black that the

has positively destroyed the paper,
^o realize the wide stretch of his technical adaptability, let us
^rn without transition to one of de Gheyn\'s miniature paintings,
^ere it would seem that Hoefnagel l) had shown him the way. Like

ILj- Chmelarz, Georg und Johann Hoefnagel, Oesterr. Jahrbuch. part XVII
^1890) pages 275—291: S. Killemann in Thieme Becker\'s Kiinstler-lexikon,

him he draws a fly or a beetle upon a square centimeter of paper,
with few but well considered colours; on a larger scale, without
sacrificing any of the delicacy, he renders a few mice or a frog.
They are done with a fine brush, sometimes with a little ink as well,
but this medium is so entirely appropriate that it is hardly per-
ceptible. The contrast is striking between these tiny objects, where
the essence of their being is caught by the minute and simple ren-
dering, and the bold sketches of the virtuoso, in which the play of
lines governs the aesthetic result. What did his contemporaries think
of these widely separated forms of art coming from the same hand?
We imagine that they accepted them both. De Gheyn himself sent
his pen productions to the King of Sweden, while the Emperor
purchased his book of miniature paintings. Huygens also had a
weakness for these delicacies. He compares them to his Hoefnagels
and to the portraits by Isaac Oliver, which he had seen at the house
of one of his sons, who was also a miniature painter 2); at the end
of his life he wrote a poem to answer Adriana la Thor and thank
her for quot;the posy drawn on parchmentquot; which she had sent to
him S).

For the little portraits drawn with the silver point the same is true
as for the coloured miniatures. Technical perfection is assumed as
a matter of course. When de Gheyn drew with chalk, it was as we
have seen, in the sketches from life. Most of his chalk drawings are
entirely or partially strengthened by the pen; after finding his form
he likes to make it as immutable as possible.

After this short survey of the technique we will consider the function
of the figure in de Gheyn\'s work. This question touches a funda-
mental quality; no painter who grew up in the period of mannerism
could escape the necessity of expressing himself in the human figure.
De Gheyn belongs by origin to that period, and the majority of his
prints, whether made from his own designs or those of others, reflect
the late mannerism, already passed through its crisis. As the number
of drawings belonging to the time when he was engraving, are li-

part XVII, page 193, etc. That de Gheyn became acquainted with Hoefnagel\'s
miniature paintings, at any rate when he lived at the Hague, appears prob-
able from the mention of this miniature painter by Huygens, who even com-
pares de Gheyn\'s miniatures with those of Hoefnagel and of Oliver. As we
know, Joris Hoefnagel was first cousin to Huygens\' father Ghristiaen.

2)nbsp;It is obvious that de Gheyn at an early stage was acquainted with English
miniatures of the 16th century, amongst others, portraits of Hilliard and
Oliver. Especially the portrait of Cumberland (who was portrayed by both),
engraved by de Gheyn in 1596, points to this. However, the miniature por-
traits from de Gheyn\'s hand fully retain their own character.

nuted, and mannerism completely declined at about the turn of the
century, we have not many examples of drawings in its style. But
We have some.

yne of these, intended for a print, is of a fisherman, sitting in the
dunes and shaking out his well-filled basket into a wooden tub
(Frankfort). The figure is posed frontally, the right leg thrust for-
ward, but the left in a kneeling position, and disappearing in a cleft
between the sandy mounds. He holds the basket up with his left arm
stretched across his breast, at the body it is supported by his un-
seen right arm. The melancholy head bent forward, under a hairy
cap, completes the powerful torsion of the figure. This torsion is
^^^fined to an elementary contraposto, but is unnatural in so far
that if, for a moment, the head or one of the legs be covered by the
hand, we should expect to see it completed in a different position
to what it actually is. The doctrine of mannerism sings of this atti-
tude thus 1):

\'\'But that we think of a variation,
Let the right arm stretch forward.
And the right leg sink backwards.
The left leg forward, while the left
Arm should fall behind with measure.
Always cross-wise, whether the Figures sit
Or stand, so shall theys;bend the face
Towards the arm, which shall be stretched forward.quot;

While we have this figure before us, it will be useful to analyse the
manner of drawing. We miss here the firm engraving line we have
spoken of, its place being taken by a spasmodic outline and a sure
quot;modelling with the wash. With this last modelé, the whole figure
would really have been sufficiently built up with one colour. The
uuty of the pen is now to increase the accentuations of shadows,
especially in those places where the garments might conceal the
torm of the body beneath. As the muscles are stretched in such an
Unnatural way, the pen lines accentuate their play, so that, as in so
many figures by the mannerists, this quietly occupied fisherman
(tor the large basket is resting upon a stone, and turning it out
cannot have needed much exertion) is transformed into an ath-
lete performing a difficult feat. The melancholy expression of
countenance with its dark shadows under eyebrows and beard are
perfectly appropriate to the exaggerated expression of the whole
tiffure.

drawings: we shall presently be able to account for the mutual dif-
ferences in the drawings by the order in which they were produced.
At the same time, even in the drawings which are made on entirely
different principles, some remnants of the manneristic habits of
which the fisherman is a specimen, have been accepted without pro-
test. We notice, moreover, that the women\'s faces, in so far as they
are not portraits or personal types, usually run to a point at the
chin, that the throat is slender and has no sharp lines, that the hands
and fingers have strongly marked joints and turned up ends. The
undulating line, too, so dear to the artist, is a survival more from
mannerism than from the earlier romanism. The line, by its single
course, possesses a more expressive power than an arbitrary stroke,
and is the supreme medium for expressing the plastic values of the
body in motion. De Gheyn uses it, but in moderation, without
strengthening his naturalism, nor metamorphosing it, as the former
generation did. In him the heroic, the effervescent enthusiasm are
lost, but with it the theatrical style disappears as well. The same
applies to his landscapes, so that they might be placed between
quot;conceptionsquot; and quot;observationsquot;.

De Gheyn and his contemporaries did not substitute a definite new
conception for the unity of style which the mannerists attained so
easily by the play of lines with which they filled up their space in
a decorative spirit. This was reserved for the younger man, Rubens,
as the generation of 1565 was still too much rooted in the late
mannerism, and remained in a somewhat isolated position.
A comparison with Rubens brings out another of de Gheyn\'s li-
mitations, he was completely blind to the antique. It is inconceivable
that Goltzius should not have shown him his drawings from antiques
which he brought back from his travels, and that de Gheyn did not
know the engravings to which they gave rise 1). And yet there are
no traces of this to be found in his work. It is all the more remarkable
because a subject such as the Caesar, which suggests a great archeo-
logical interest, is conceived entirely on his own initiative and quot;in
Dutch stylequot;. How many poses could he not have copied directly
from classical models; it does not seem so much as if he considered
it beneath his dignity, as that it never for a moment occurred to him
to do so. He only looked for a model for the head of Caesar and the
signum; the attitudes are his own. When we see and read, how
consciously Rubens made use of the ancient marbles for every
possible pose that he needed for his compositions 2), it becomes

1)nbsp;Hirschmann, Oeuvre-Ver^eichnis, no. 144 and specially nos. 145—147. The
drawings are, as one knows, kept in Haarlem (Teyler Stichting) and are more
numerous than those described in Scholten\'s catalogue.

2)nbsp;As appears from his treatise quot;De imitatione statuarumquot; and the work itself,

evident that de Ghey n takes his from a different, opposite world,
one not unknown to Rubens either. We come to see more and more
that drawing from living models must have been of supreme signi-
ficance for him. Van Mander may have written without hesitation
on his norms of bearing i):

fne Print Room in Berlin, so rich in specimens of various kinds,
possesses also a wonderful sheet with nine studies of the head of a
young man, drawn in all kinds of positions, even stronghly fore-
shortened. If it were not that a certain difficulty in determining
fKnbsp;axis is noticeable, we should not be able to believe that

^ere is no drawing produceable from the period preceding de
Jf neyn that is comparable with it. When we mark the rendering of
ne niass of hair, followed every time — that is nine times over —,
With inexhaustible patience, constant grasp of the twist of the curls,
the glossy light, and the playful nature of the material, we feel that
We are witnessing the birth of a new form of style. Placed beside
Jfiis, a good page of studies from heads, sketched by Abraham
poernaert, de Gheyn\'s contemporary — such as the one in Stock-
holm 2) — seems like a tame continuation of the Italian methods,
^ut this does not mean that in the single figure de Gheyn is entirely
^ee from tradition. The recumbent nude figure of a woman, which
^e are inclined to connect with a mythological painting such as van
Zander describes, although taken from a model, is a beautiful
variation on the Venus figure which Venice had revealed to the
northern painters 3). Bloemaert has drawn similar pages, which can
Ooast of an enduring influence, reaching as far as Boucher and
^\'ragonard, through their distribution in prints; the direct influence
^pon Backer and Flinck may also be attributed to him, still the
priority seems to belong to de Gheyn, even if not to Goltzius.
f^ut the national art furnished de Gheyn with even more congenial
jjiotives now and then. There is a study page in the Print Room at
München which contains an evident copy of Scorel\'s Mary Mag-
dalene, now in the Rijksmuseum at Amsterdam, there is another re-
pentant figure, probably also a copy, above it are a man\'s head in
the style of Lucas van Leyden, y_et another Mary Magdalene, this
l^^J^^^P^umably from Matsys. That he occasionally made use of

J, A he attitude lies between that of Titian\'s wellknown Danae\'s and Nicolaes
quot;upfer\'s Venus (Coll. Cook, Richmond), who no longer shows any restraint.

these studies is shown by the costume and hands of the kneeling
Empress Helena on the painting in Bruges, which are borrowed
from this Scorel.

His draperies, his quot;lakenenquot; de Gheyn studied on draped models.
They sometimes even assume such a dominating place that they
hamper the legibility of the bodily movements. There are upright
figures of the Virgin with the mantle enveloping the head, in which
the inflated contour is only broken, abruptly, by the hands. The
mantle has little cut, evidently a large piece of stuff was wound
about the model. But the draperies fulfil a function, by them a line
may be transformed in a composition; the sitting figure of the Pro-
phet (?) in Berlin would not be built up in so fine a spiral, if his
mantle were not thrown round him in such majestic undulations.
The difficulty that de Gheyn had, to achieve the same naturalness
in copying from a model as he had when sketching from his head,
is evident in a page of sketches in the Koenigs Collection in Haar-
lem, in which, besides one of the Mary figures referred to above,
there is a John in such a contorted attitude, that it looks as if the
model while in the act of posing had suddenly become paralysed
It is seldom that the figures are grouped with ease, as we have said
already in connection with his paintings. His interest in the ren-
dering of plasticity, and of volume sometimes makes de Gheyn
neglect his outlines; the more figures are placed together, the more
this is felt. It is only the simplest, most straightforward subjects
that he can render in an entirely satisfying way in this respect. Still
he sometimes turns a composition about; in a descent from the cross
in Amsterdam, the parallelism of the figure of Christ and one of the
women displeased him, so that he drew them differently on the
reverse side. The group itself is well built up, while the two external
crosses enclose the scene in an anti-naturalistic manner; if it were
not from the lively hand of the creator, it might almost be the work
of a Carracci l).

In the larger compositions figures always fill a subordinate place,
they are of smaller proportions. As the artist becomes more and
more interested in landscape, figuration gradually loses its arti-
ficial pose, and de Gheyn achieves his goal, to represent humanity
in its daily comings and goings. But his head is not even then
entirely free from his fantasies, on his sketch leaves we still find
grotesque heads, recognisable at once by their quot;isokephalyquot;, a form
which may be due to Hieronymus Bosch. This impression is
strengthened by a slight frieze-shaped sketch for a mocking of

0 De Gheyn shows now and then affinity to the artists of the school of the
Garracis. However, we think resemblances can more probably be explained
from the simultaneous creation of parallel work which partly draws from the
same source, than from direct influence.

Christ, where one of the soldiers is putting out his tongue, which
^rtainly must have been derived from an old Flemish example i).
fJe Gheyn was very fond of calling up the contrast between light
and shade. In the drawing of a figure the line performs the double
Junction of describing the outline and of shading; the expression of
tjght and shadow begins with the drawing of the figure, which is
the core and purpose of the work. He delights in deep shadows,
because between very dark and very light there is room for infinite
pegrees of shading. He takes note of quot;reverberacyquot;: the fall of light
jn the shadow due to reflection 2), but this without passion as his
interest is confined to the study of an isolated, plastic form. Usually,
jvith full length figures a short, deep shadow is drawn on the ground,
the character of which is in direct relation to the shadows in the
îlgure; the indication of surroundings generally goes no further,
the light falls almost invariably from the left, covered sources of
nght within the picture are seldom. The candle-lighted witches\'
Kitcnens would have given ample opportunity for introducing the
J^arayaggiesque forms, but they do not seem to have occurred to
nis mind. He only goes so far as to set figures in the foreground near
to the sources of light, so that they form a dark repoussoir. In the
drawing at Oxford (plate 7) he exploits the series: lantern — upright
Witch — shadow of witch on the ceiling, to throw a huge greyish
spectre upon the otherwise blank vault beneath which the group is
seated. An instance of this kind shows how nearly we have ap-
proached the solution found by Caravaggio and Honthorst to the
problem of wresting the illusion of great space from the contrast of
nght and dark. In de Gheyn there is a uniform distribution of the
equivalent elements, including the source of light, over the whole
surface. By superimposing these elements upon one another and
partially concealing them fr om the eye, the following generation
abandoned the decorative style for good. Rubens witnessed this
transition in his youth, but he, too, at first adopted the same point
Ol view unconsciously assumed by de Gheyn.
Although his quot;repoussoirsquot;, of whicli we spoke, are usually detached,
Joose masses, in the landscape in the South Kensington Museum
they are bound together by one tone into a foreground. The sentinel
on the hill is conceived in the shadow of a cloud, the darkness in
^nich he stands is exaggerated to form a contrast by which the
l^ide sketch of the landscape is expressed.

Jn completed compositions, that is completely filled surfaces, de
^neyn likes to keep the edges dark. This is the most essential

2) V ^^^ ^^ Grez-Collection, Museum, Brussels.
\' van Mander, who devotes a part of his Leerdicht to the ways of representing
tne reflection, etc., calls it i.a. \'Hegendaghquot;.

distinctive of pictures with an irradiating centre, as Kaufmann
characterises Rembrandt\'s paintings 1). If we examine the Oxford
witches\' kitchen once more in this connection, we see a striking
resemblance to the earliest work of Rembrandt, who although he
preferred to cover up his source of light, was a master in calling up
imposing shadows.

The problems of lighting have imperceptibly brought us to those in
connection with quot;spacequot;. In describing the paintings we have seen
that de Gheyn is usually content with a simple projection of his
scenes on a stage-like space with a flat background. His mature
work, the painting of the schoolmaster, showed us how the figure
absorbed his attention, and to what secondary places the sur-
roundings were relegated. Something the same is seen in such
diverse drawings as the little son looking at pictures, the old man
doing his accounts, the seated nude (Braunschweig) and the inspired
writer (Berlin).

It applies also to much more complicated compositions, such as the
witches\'kitchens we have just been looking at. The indication of one
of the walls of the chamber in these sketches is usually so summary,
that the point of view can hardly be ascertained. The rules of per-
spective do not seem to have been quite clearly kept in sight by de
Gheyn. If we did not know the contrary from Huygens, we should
incline to think that these rules were not of great interest to him.
Again and again we have the impression that a wall, parallel to
the surface, forms an angle of 135° and not 90° with the one pro-
jected on it from the onlooker\'s point of view. From this alone we
should arrive at a view point lying completely at one edge of the
picture or even beyond it. This phenomenon can be studied in the
painting of the white horse and in the drawing of the witches\'kitchen
in Oxford.

Having now paused both on the rendering of the figure and the
treatment of space, we are struck by the different amount of attention
given to each of these in proportion. Space and volume, convex and
concave, are in the end related magnitudes, they are both forms of
space. As plasticity was de Gheyn\'s preponderating interest, we may
conclude that his whole manner of seeing was founded upon the
plastic sense and only carried the sense of space with it in a se-
condary place. There is no study to be found for a single one of his
backgrounds, unless we like to take the sketches of the shore in
connection with the picture of the sailing coach as such, whereas in
how many sketches has he not made a study of the plastic nature
of an object, of a human head, or of the skull?

fhere is another form of space-suggestion than the interior: the
andscape. Landscape is perceptible in a multitude of plastic forms,
such as mountains, trees, and clouds; we may expect good results
J^om the modeller with the pen who made landscapes,
fhe mountain landscape in Mrs. Murray Baillie\'s collection may
c understood as an imposing piece of modelling. Here a wide
prospect in the mountains is revealed; to the left in the middle
gt; ^nbsp;crowns the blunt top of a hill, while far behind

It a huge mountain range arises, at the foot of which flows a river
Widening into a lake; to the right we look over an immensurable
undulating wooded landscape. In the intermediate planes lie other
rocks, villages, houses, and fields. Such a vision would be impossible
o one who had never seen the Alps, unless he had numerous
^amples before him. We know that Brueghel, according to van
Mander 1) quot;being in the Alpes, had swallowed down all the
uiountains and rocks, and having come home again disgorged them
Jipon canvases and panelsquot; and that van Mander could have added
0 these the drawings which were multiplied by prints. Brueghel\'s
conceptions lie ultimately at the base of de Gheyn\'s scenes; the
Work of both calls up illimitable spaces, and these are not seen from
the foreground, but from a fairly elevated position, so that it be-
cornes a pure panorama. And yet there is a difference in the method
ot drawing which modifies the first impression: Brueghel\'s pen
retains a certain dry reserve, shadows in short lines, binds only
httle, but asserts. Light sparkles everywhere. Both the mountain
passes and the atmosphere are arresting, they overwhelm us and
^Jj^ost take away our breath. De Gheyn creates, to one wave he
adds another, he seems to have searched through every field, he
^nows the qualities of every structure, and finds it of supreme in-
terest, the steep rocks are built up quite differently to the slopes,
and the maelstrom of chaos which wrought these hollows and
peaks seems to be still in working. Brueghel\'s landscapes are peace-
ul compared to this ceaseless motion. We need hardly say that
ue whole spirit of mannerism had driven the conception of land-
^ape in this direction.

^^ sheet we have been speaking of, is one of the few large land-
^^^Pcs in which there are no figures. This makes its visionary power
ail the more remarkable; it was not the custom to make a landscape,
unless a sketch from nature, and to forget the figures to animate it.

ue conscious omission is something that we must pay attention to,
especially as the consequences were so powerfully manifested in
17th century. ^

We know that landscape at the end of the 16th century in Holland
Schilderboeck, fol. 153, verso.

did not rest entirely upon the example of Brueghel. What Goltzius
contributed — to this we shall return more fully in the following
chapter — after his journey to Rome in 1591, was based upon
what he found there, Titian, Muziano, and Paul Bril. De Gheyn\'s
mountain landscapes would have been different without Goltzius.
They were all drawn later than Goltzius\'principal work in that direc-
tion. Of some of the drawings it is hardly possible to decide whether
they are the work of Goltzius or of de Gheyn, and we are driven more
and more to the conclusion that we ought to consider the possibility
of Mrs. Murray Baillie\'s landscape originating from the earlier artist.
De Gheyn\'s landscapes did not resemble those by Goltzius in every
respect. In his view of a canal from 1598 in private possession at
Amsterdam there is at most a relation to Flemish brothers to be
seen, the Brueghels, father and son. The influence of the latter can
be traced in the construction; the banks of the waters which occupy
the foreground, run along by the diagonals; a sloping sailing boat
hurries forwards. But while Brueghel\'s rivers usually flow through
wooded country 1), de Gheyn\'s flat country permits of a prospect
in which are seen a mill, a few houses, roads, and a small town in
the distance. The Dutch origin, in contrast to the Flemish, is un-
mistakably recognisable. It foretells Averkamp and van Goyen.
Popham has pointed out that the coast view in London is largely
derived from Patenier 2), its connection with the 16th century land-
scape is moreover perceptible from the overloading of components.
By his ingenious composition de Gheyn almost always succeeds in
reproducing a whole world of subjects on one sheet, especially
in his mountain landscapes. There is almost invariably a glimpse
of the sea with ships and harbours. There are grottos, curving roads
which disappear and reappear again higher up, the sky is cloudy
and full of life. As with Hendrick van Cleve, Paul Bril and the
quot;Kleinmeisterquot;, the mountains are crowned by fantastic castles. The
horizon line lies not far from the middle, if not absolutely in it.
The ductus is alternately very firm, even in the bending crowns
of trees, and wavering. The seam of a wood with bare trunks (Berlin)
taken on the spot, would remind us of Buytewech and Esaias van
de Velde, except that the line is less dryly matter of fact and more
emphatically undulating.

A study of de Gheyn\'s tree trunks finally induces a comparison
with Hendrick Bloemaert. Both de Gheyn and Bloemaert more than

1)nbsp;An early drawing of this type, although made more probably in the school
of the old Brueghel than by himself, is the view near quot;Basrodequot; in Berlin
(Bock-Rosenberg, see above, page 21, no. 5763). We may perhaps hypothe-
tically imagine Jan Brueghel\'s early work in this spirit.

2)nbsp;The painting of Patenier is reproduced by M. I. Friedländer, Die Alt-
niederl. Malerei, part IX, page CI.

any others at the beginning of the 17th century prepared for their
larger undertakings by a number of studies of the single compo-
nents. This strikes us particularly because both the masters were of
about the same age, so that we are inclined to seek a connection
between them in this respect, and ask to whom the priority
belongs.

The absence of dates on the drawings makes the investigation of
this by no means easy. It is true that in the prints from Bloemaert\'s
compositions 1) we notice that about 1603 and 1604 his interest is
rather suddenly changed from compositions based on figures, to
those in which landscape was the dominant factor, while after that
pure landscape in which humanity takes a modest place, is often
round. Van Mander\'s frank admiration for these landscapes ex-
pressed in his life of Bloemaert written in 1604 2), is a strong argu-
jnent in favour of Bloemaert\'s priority:

With the collectors there are to be found very pleasant landscapes
oy him, with some pleasant and droll peasants\' houses, farm imple-
quot;^ents, trees and grounds, things which there around Utrecht are
quot;luch to be seen, and by him are counterfeited, for he does very
^pll from nature, having a very pleasant manner of drawing
jyith the Pen, to which he adds some water colours to unusual
beauty. And being in all parts of art very experienced, he
bestows upon these things in painting great character and come-
quot;J^ess, sometimes making to come sunshine, dark or fiery skies
according to the needs or the work. Herein appear then beasts,
cattle, dogs and others, very naturally done from life with some
stories. These things, although not too much loaded with particu-
larities, look uncommonly and exceedingly well, and, to my mind,
^^ot to be bettered. Herein he makes sometimes mossy waters, or wells,
grown with flags and herbs, with water-lily leaves and flowers
iloating thereon: bringing in the front upon the foreground sundry
tine large plants or leaves of dock or others, well treated, and not
too much elaborated. The counterfeiting of nature he gives not too
^uch place quot;that his mind may not be hindered therebyquot;quot;. On the
^ther hand the dates upon the drawings vary from 1605 to 1650 3).

2} For instance the repudiation of Hagar, from 1603, engraved by J. Matham.
^^childerboeck, fol. 211, recto.

^ Ahe view of the sea-coast in the collection of Mr. F. Lugt dates from 1605.
^ated landscapes from earlier years have still to be found. Good examples ot
ß oemaert\'s work are: Landscape with Tobias and the Angel in München (inv.
and Hunter beside felled tree-trunk, coll. Welcker, Amsterdam (Gat.

Fodor, 1934, no. 16). Bloemaert also made numerous studies of various
Retails. However, the greater part of such sketches, of huts, bridges, melons
and flowerpots, turkies and storks, appears to belong to a somewhat later
P^nod, so that they prove that Bloemaert took part in the expansion of themes,
^^ they do not prove the fact that he was a pioneer.

As de Gheyn in landscape strikes out a somewhat new line of theme
in such drawings as quot;Peasant lifequot;, it is quite possible that Bloe-
maert furnished the inspiration for it. The same applies to the
studies of tree trunks, although de Gheyn finally gained a complete
mastery over Bloemaert in this direction. Moreover they are found
from Goltzius too. But there can be no lloubt that the seed of
naturalism which here becomes manifest, lay dormant even at an
earlier time. A tuft of flowers, the bark of a tree, a creeping thing,
objects which had gradually come to be drawn for their own sake,
the mannerists loved to introduce into their larger compositions as
accessories l). Those who have studied these accessories will learn
to see where the indestructible power of expression of the Dutch
primitives survived through an age with quite different ideals to
its own. This is the reason why, in spite of complete similarity
between landscapes and studies by Bloemaert and de Gheyn w\'e
may hazard the suggestion that both the Hague and the Utrecht
master as parallel phenomena each contributed to the revival which
manifests itself at the beginning of the 17th century in our
country. The studies of fragments of nature by both are cha-
racterised by the undulating line and the plastic expression. In
proportion as they advanced further into the century with sedater
step, they both gradually retreated from the enticing manifestation
of vitality and motion, which had been so essential to their younger
years.

In the foregoing treatment of theme and style we have tried as
much as possible to leave chronology out of the question. This
could not be done entirely; the striking difference between the two
pictures of death, on the one hand the elaborate allegory and on
the other hand the simple representation of Death coming to the
woman, referred to as a fact caused by the influence of different
time of production, — although it was only at most two years —
could not be ignored. Another chronological fact, although at the
time we laid no particular stress upon it as such, is the simultaneous
creation of two drawings in very diverse style of the same subject,
known as the quot;Ezechielquot;.

At the same time the examination of both subject and form has
convinced us that we have a right to speak of intrinsic values.
After a study of Jacques de Gheyn\'s themes, we perceive in him
spontaneous interest and imagination, a feeling for portraiture in

0 A striking example are the plants and animals in the foreground of the
large painting with Adam and Eve in Paradise by Cornelis Cornelisz in the
Rijksmuseum.

a wider sense than merely personal likenesses. Versatile talent, a
sense of plastic values in general and of the construction of the
figure in particular, with an imperfect conception of space, mastery
of technique to the finest details, all these we have learned to know
as the components of his style. And although we must use a certam
reticence in building up an image of de Gheyn from a combination
of all these qualities, we have certainly gradually come to form
some kind of picture of de Gheyn\'s artistic personality. In the
search for a satisfactory theory about his development, we shall
have some difficulty not to lose the assurance we have gradually
gained. The reason for this is contained at once in the word quot;theo-

which we ought to explain.
The drawings of Jacques de Gheyn can be easily recognised. A
number of reliably dated sheets showed us the way quite clearly,
after we had collected the guiding material, so that gradually a
wide oeuvre came to lie before us. It was not difficult to pick out
the most characteristic sheets and through them to form, to test
and to deepen our estimate of de Gheyn\'s work. We continually
^alized that we were engaged upon his most important productions.
The importance was in itself a guarantee of the legitimacy of our

Now we add to this another criterion, the date. For some years
plenty of dates are found, while for others we have to be content
with uncertain deductions. But there are some spaces of time in
^hich there is nothing whatever to go by. The large number of
these drawings should be a stimulus to us to follow out the whole
course of his life through this work, with the help of what we know
for certain. But this proves to be only possible in general features,
^hile it is not practicable to put dates to the majority of the separate
sheets. The case we have already referred to, where two such con-
trasting pieces of work are produced during the same period, does
i^ot stand alone. The more clearly the chronology is revealed, the
inore we perceive that by the side of new discoveries the old forms
^ntinue to exist, latent if not conspicuous.

i^hus the reserves that we must make throw their shadow betöre
them over every theory, however necessary it may be to build one, on

A his applies most especially to the beginning and end ot his
career. There is no doubt that his maturity would stand more
clearly before our eyes, if he had not formed his son after his own
quot;lodel. It has become evident that a small number of the sheets
attributed to de Gheyn were sketched by his son, and of others it
seems highly probable. It has not proved possible to draw a sharp
hne between the work of the father and the son. This fact blurs
the picture of the master\'s last work. But the well justified pride

that made him sign and date his drawings after 1598 has given
us at any rate a few data to go upon during his final epoch.
At the beginning of his life there are no such signs of pride to be
found. If de Gheyn did draw at that time, he certainly does not
seem to have attached the same value to it. So we must first explore
the hidden ways of this late ripening genius.
We find the first sketch in the letter in Berlin from 1592 to Isebrandt
Willemsz, where we have the portrait of the dumb messenger, which
we have already characterised as a drawing executed like an en-
graving.

This is followed in 1596 by the portrait in the Teyler Museum in
Harlem of Rutger Jansz. V. D., in preparation for the print made
in that year, one of Pieter Hugo de Boijs, signed at the back, and \'
probably also a similar one of the same shape, both kept in the
Print Room at Amsterdam — all three complete silver-point por-
traits. Besides these there is the border for the likeness of Ludolf
van Collen, also executed in 1596, but with the pen and the brush.
A page containing six storks may be brought into connection with
the map of the Hague, from the following year, to which year the
hasty sketch for a conversion of St. Paul may be reckoned equally.
The next years, 1598 and 1599, boast of some landscapes and the
first military figures, and probably of all studies of horsemen and
trumpeters. Here we have the feeling of standing on firm ground,
and the assurance that de Gheyn was devoting himself passionately
to drawing.

But it is a large gap that we are now called upon to fill or to
explain. Let us make an attempt at the first. Are there unsigned
drawings v/hich we should wish to count amongst the products of
the early years? To answer this question we must try to make a
review of his early prints. The earliest dates found on his prints
are 1586 and 1587. After this date we find every year something
that enables us to follow the development of the portrait and of
the figure groups fairly regularly. Leaving the portraits out of
consideration for the present, we may say that the second large
category contains at first exclusively prints after the designs of
other masters, the only exception to this being the first military
representation of 1587; in 1590 the standing officer which we
regard as a portrait and in 1593 the siege of Geertruidenberg. The
engravings of drawings by contemporaries are very numerous. We
are in no way surprised to find amongst these the jaunty pikemen
and flag-bearers from Goltzius 1) in which de Gheyn, with the
models before him, could concentrate his attention upon the
uttermost refinement of his skill with the delicate graver. It was

certainly of importance to the development of his technical ex-
perience that he suppressed his inclinations for draughtsmanship
at first and was satisfied with the part of reproducer. As long as
he was under the tuition of Goltzius, he can have learned little
quot;lore than perfection of technique, while his settling later in Am-
sterdam as a publisher seems to show that his ideal was still in this
direction.

The pikemen just mentioned were produced in 1589. When
looking at them we are satisfied that by that time de Gheyn had
obtained a complete technical mastery, especially in the repre-
sentation of forms and materials on a small scale. A year earlier
he had engraved van Mander\'s allegories on government repre-
senting a sage and a youthful king l), in which the same perfection
IS not to be found. 1589 is also the date of the large print of Card
^an Mander\'s quot;Adoration of the Trinity by Angelsquot;, finely
engraved in the same way 2), the Holy Family after Cornelis Cor-
nelisz 3) and Chrispijn van den Broecke\'s quot;Discordia inter Deosquot;
[he last shows that the engraver was not adequate to large under-
takings, its many dead spots are such as no print by Goltzius of
this period shows.

When Goltzius had left for Rome, de Gheyn seems to have found
his models at home chiefly amongst those artists whose hands
trembled with the last vibrations of mannerism. It is now that he
completely convinces us of the full effect of his years of ap-
prenticeship, so that the boldly chiselled prints, which he produced
^tter Bloemaert 5) and van Mander are truly worthy of the
school of Goltzius. Thus we see clearly the priority of a talent for
tine work over the power of expression with a bold line, which
^as necessary to reproduce the power and the mobility of the late
quot;manneristic drawings. Is it possible that the older de Gheyn had
noticed this quality in his son and therefore had advised him to
take up engraving rather than stained glass?

^Vt in spite of all this, it remains remarkable that de Gheyn should
still refrain from making his own designs. There is a drawing in
J-eiden, delicately executed in red chalk, in which the details, such as
the rather mechanical outlines of the foliage, point to an early date,
jhis drawing shows very well that de Gheyn was not by nature a
^«^signer, and that the reproductive character must be explained
^Ijh^absence of original invention. We see a Holy Family with

2) Valentiner, see above, page 117, nos. 146 and 147.
2) same, see above, page 103, no. 37.
Â Wurzbach, Niederl. Künstler-Lexikon, I, p. 584, no. 206a.
\' passavant, no. 205.

^ E-ff. Valentiner, see above, page 103, nos. 38-51, page 100, no. 14 and
P^amp;e 87, no. 5.

singing angels, where the seated Virgin with her wide-spread
prments reminds us irresistibly of Albert Dürer\'s MadonnL It
is quite evident that these had not been lost on de Gheyn If a
negative of Durers woodcut of the same object (B 99) is placed
beside the drawing m Leiden, the latter proves both in the con-
ception and in many of the details to have been borrowed from it.
Only the background in de Gheyn\'s picture is closed by two trees,
J u represents a mountain landscape with God the Father
and the Holy Ghost in the clouds above it. The angels too differ
very much. The origin of such a composition becomes even dearer
when we recognise the angel standing between Joseph and Mary
with raised wings as identical with one in the print taken from
van Mander s choir ot angels worshipping the Trinity, which we
have mentioned above. It is possible that both the other angels,
m so far as they are not copied from van Mander, and the trees
may have been taken from other examples, so that de Gheyn who
signs as inventor, may better be called the compiler. It is not so
much to expose this lack of originality that we have laid stress
upon these circumstances, as to illustrate a very common usage
and as comparison with de Gheyn\'s later work
Turning now to the portraits, we find new problems awaiting us.
f r\'j «fnbsp;the date 1592 is perfectly certain, the portrait

ot his dumb pupil, IS a very good touchstone. We know the de-
velopment of the Dutch engraved portrait fairly well. By Goltzius
we can follow it without much difficulty in drawing as well,
which we see to be independent of the painted portrait, which we
are therefore allowed to leave out of consideration. The technique
ot the Berlin sheet, in which as we have said the pen imitates the
burin with meticulous care, demonstrates that with de Gheyn por-
trait drawing was derived from the portrait print. It will, for this
reason, be useful to consider how Goltzius, in the years before de
Gheyn came to him, had devoted himself to the problems of por-
traiture, and with inexhaustible concentration had learned to catch
a likeness often on smal copper plates. At first these were some-
what hard and dry, but by degrees he mastered the art of giving
more emphasis and conviction, a freer pose and a lighting which
did justice to a 1 the features of the face. Jacob de Gheyn came to
him as a pupil when this process was well advanced and un-
doubtedly was fascinated by what his master achieved. De Gheyn\'s
hrst portraits show that the way had been paved for him, although
he did not reach at once the same technical standard, witness the

1590 1) we feel the solid basis that his apprenticeship had given
hun, as strongly as the spirit of the exacting teacher and the
born miniaturist. Since then the qualities of the portrait remain
practically unchanged. The silver plate with Clifford\'s likeness
from 1594 2) offers no new points of view. In the van Collen from
1596 the accessories predominate. It is only towards the end of
Jhe century that he is bold enough to attempt a more natural pose,
f his is, in the case of the Gorlaeus certainly borrowed from Golt-
zius, who several times took his subjects seated or standing by a
table in half-profile, but the landscape, which by Goltzius is seen
behind all these figures and the framing of it in a wall and
balustrade without any architectural relation in de Gheyn\'s por-
trait makes way for a complete interior, in which the merchant is
seen with his coins. The attribute of his subject is thus included
the representation. This is not the case with the Clusius, whose
comparatively small portrait is enclosed in a frame loaded with
Jjaturalistically rendered attributes. Notwithstanding these ela-
borations, when studying the series of portraits that ends with
Clusius, we gain the impression that de Gheyn had not much to
add to the essential conception of the portrait in which Goltzius
^ad instructed him. He deepened his insight by ever keener ob-
servation, and having reached a climax, finally abandoned his
subject, the portrait proper, and only once or twice gave a genre-
scene in its place. The first portrait after death is simultaneous with
jue last oval portrait that is dated 3). 1601 is a turning point,
it We look around in the years that Goltzius exercised his great
lutluence over de Gheyn, we see that even before he undertook his
journey to Italy he was seeking new ways. The bust picture of
goornhert 4) and the many majestically drawn heads R) which he
fetched at that time, especially with black and coloured chalk, bear
fitness of it. But we see the portrait as character type beginning
!2^^ppear elsewhere as well. The Wierix\'s have hardly attained it,

no. 4b.
jee above page 8 and 9.
Sn VJ^Icss we are to assume an unsigned portrait quot;en facequot; of quot;Georgy. a.
^Peilbergen, aetat. sua. 54quot;, to which Mr. W. Nijhoff kindly drew our attention,
of thnbsp;^ork, which seems to be very probable. According to the age

Ihe earliest date is found on the van Breen portrait in Frankfort of 1588;
as^ r impressive heads, however, arc those which originated after 1600, more
Sf , i^s than portraits, as for instance that in the Museum Boymans (1609),
low- ^^\'quot;troom (1610) and in Weimar (photograph Braun 79668). The fol-
anTe^ portraits are striking for their realistic perfection: that of Gian Bologna
stradanus, executed in Italy (colls. Teyler and Lugt), that in Stockholm and
And^K- (®^lf-Portrait) and with Mr. I. de Bruyn in Spiez, the latter of 1606.
this by no means ends the series.

their work at this time is at most comparable to Goltzius\' small
drawings i), but we have found an unexpectedly arresting specimen
of expressive counterfeiting by Jan Sadeler: the study for his print
representing S. Feyrabendius, kept in the Print Room of Amster-
dam under the name of Treodoor de Brij 2). The drawing is from
1587; technically it is on a line with the penwork of de Gheyn,
who also knew how to follow out the lines of a broad forehead or
a flowing beard. But what interests us most in this drawing the
expression of the quiet mouth and the look of deep experience in
the eye, these are values for the appreciation of which we seek in
vain by de Gheyn at that time.

Compared with these new imposing forms of portraiture, de
Gheyn\'s portrait of the young man is not a very significant phe-
nomenon. The pose of the hand on the breast and the gesture with
the hat are elegant forms without much meaning. It is an essentially
decorative idea to place it at the top of the letter, which is cut out
irregularly according to the form of the proudly swelling tunic
and the stiff folds of the cloak. The engraving line which forms the
outline of all this is irreproachable.

Before leaving the early portraits we must call attention to two
drawings. One is found in the Fodor Museum, and represents a
young man holding a pen in his hand. On the back there is a study
of a goat with huge horns and an autograph sign, obviously
referring to the sitter: quot;I D G (in monogram) out synde 18 Jaerquot;.
The monogram of the younger de Gheyn is different from his
father\'s, so that we are hardly allowed to suppose it to be a portrait
•nbsp;^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ himself. The conclusion that this

IS de Gheyn\'s earliest drawing, or even his very first trial of skill,
in 1583 or 1584 seems obvious. But just as we are arriving at this
conclusion, we are withheld by the surprising maturity of the
drawing. The head of the youth, faultlessly modelled, stands a
tritle detached above the goffered collar on the shoulders of the

1)nbsp;The portrait of Anna van Nassau (ill. Oud-Holland, 1919, page 74 and text
page 79)dates from 1587; from 1588 that of an unknown woman in Berlin(illus.
Bock-Rosenberg;no.4507),both by JanWierix and both very carefully executed
as miniatures. We were able to identify a silver-point portrait in Kiel (illus.
Der Bücherfreund 1921-22, page 418, as anonymous) as a first study for an
older work by Jan Wierix from 1579.

2)nbsp;Moreover, one can get acquainted with the artist\'s hand of Jan Sadeler in
a small portrait of Hoefnagel, drawn by him in 1591 in München, to which a
poeni has been added (Kunsthalle, Bremen). More portrait drawings by Aegidius
can be found, which however show his value as an artist who is true to
hie and sometimes elegant, but not impressive. The elegance appears for in-
stance, in his self-portrait in München (inv. 3825), the realism in studies such
as those in London, Cologne, Paris (Ecole des Beaux-Arts, no. 24290, as Pour-
bus), Vienna, Amsterdam and in private ownership

feclining figure, enveloped in a cloak. The expression of the eyes
is firm, clear and childlike at the same time. The cloak and collar
especially are sketched with an easy freedom which is only known
to us in much later work by de Gheyn, while this applies even
more distinctly to the drawing of the goat on the back. It is very
probable that the goat must have been drawn first, because the
leaf is cut off to fit into the frame of the portrait. Could this be
after all a particularly successful piece of youthful work? It is not
impossible. The pen is held in the left hand, which points to a
portrait of a youth of at most 18 years of age seen in a mirror and
made by himself. Otherwise there are various suppositions we can
make, but they do not seem very satisfactory: one is that only the
liead was originally drawn and the firm pen lines were added
later by de Gheyn, another that we have assumed too early a date
lor his birth so that the drawing is erroneously considered to pre-
cede the earliest engravings, or again that de Gheyn copied one
of his own early productions and in doing so translated it into his
maturer technique. None of these suggestions are very satisfactory
although there is most probability in the last. We are therefore
compelled to leave the question open, although we must point out
that a confirmation of the early origin would modify our hypo-
thesis that engraving furnishes the starting point of de Gheyn\'s
drawing style and throw a different light upon the beginning of
ms career.

The other portrait we mentioned is that of a seated woman in the
costume of about 1590 i), which tradition has assigned to de Gheyn.
It is a true likeness done from life; in which the artist has very
carefully followed the features of the model; the cap and the hair
escaping from it are treated with the utmost attention. The rest of
the costume, on the other hand, is more sketchily executed and
^e chair is little more than indicated.

I here are great contrasts in this drawing to what we have learned
to expect from de Gheyn\'s signed drawings. There is no line that
l^etrays the habitual use of the burin, it is all built up of numerous
^\'ather incoherent short scribbled pen strokes, especially in the dark
parts. But in spite of this we feel a certain indefinable quality of
de Gheyn in it. Is it a mistake to see something of de Gheyn\'s power
of observation in the part above the eye-brow, the planting of the
hair and the modelling of the face? If not, there is only one possi-
bility, it must be de Gheyn before he learnt from Goltzius how to
engrave. This possibility becomes even a probability when we
j^ecognise in the drawing the evident signs of immature work.
Clumsiness or inexperience speaks in the disproportion of the small

hand to the large head, in the unconvincing articulation of the right
arm, in the rigidity of the collar, in the light and shadow of the
tail of the cap, which are treated too independently of the whole.
But over against these defects there is a talent that is seeking
new ways through a lively observation and an ambition that
exceeds its executive power. Whatever we may say, this drawing
shows a personal vision. If we lay the self-portrait beside this
likeness it is evident that at most the boy\'s head, taken by itself,
can be compared to the woman\'s portrait. If both these works are
from the same hand, the latter is undoubtedly the earlier pro-
duction. It is the draughtsman of the boy\'s head only who possesses
the true élan with the pen, a sure stroke that might induce self-
confidence. Is it possible that de Gheyn may have drawn the
woman even at the age of 15 or 16 years?

Confining ourselves once more to signed drawings, we may range
under the time of apprenticeship to Goltzius an allegory on mor-
tality, in which a putto is seen holding a rose up to a mirror, at
Amsterdam and a Neptune and Amphitrite at Madrid l). In these
we recognise the engraving line, but sometimes in a rather clumsy
and always less masterly way than in the portrait at the top of the
Berlin letter.

Our hunt for drawings from the period of his apprenticeship closes
here for the present. It is hardly necessary to say that the last word
on this period is still far from having been spoken.

From Jacques de Gheyn\'s years in Amsterdam, as far as we know,
no dated drawings are extant, except a few portraits. It is not
easy to fill this gap by means of stray sheets without any dates.
Before making any attempt at this, let us glance at the Leiden
time, to form an idea of what the artist had attained by the time
he had established his name and begun to receive important com-
missions.

During this period de Gheyn\'s attention was directed in the very
first place to the military prints which he designed for Jan van
Nassau and which he either engraved himself or had done in his
own work-shop. The numerous studies for this comprehensive col-
lection reveal de Gheyn as one who can, when necessary, force his

1) The drawing in Amsterdam bears a monogram, which may be considered
as the prototype of his better known mark of later years; the one at Madrid,
Dr. J. G. van Gelder told us, is marked in the same way with the addition
of the word: Fecit. Both these pages justify the attribution of a standing female
nude, ascribed to Goltzius in the Printroom in Amsterdam, to either de Gheyn
in his early years, or one of his collaborators. The latter can be assumed, with
still more reserve, of an old man standing, published as Brueghel (Zeichnungen
aus Privatbesitz, plate 7).

style to be remarkably matter of fact. The commission was of a
technical character, his task was to demonstrate a set of mani-
pulations in an almost cinematographic series of drawings, so that
they could be followed without difficulty and easily learned, while
the equipment was accurately portrayed. The archer seen in profile
on three-quarters, without any further mounting, acquired a
monumental character by its very simplicity, which explains the
popularity of the type created by de Gheyn, down to the present

The commission for the series of horsemen gave him more scope
tor imagination and composition. The studies for this are indeed
01 a very different character to the bowmen and pikemen; the small
norses and their riders are modelled with pen and brush in all the
pride of swelling muscle, flowing mane and tail, tossing ostrich
Pmines and fluttering clarion banners. The foot soldier stood alone
on the page, but here the figures are usually pressed closely together
?nd the paper is filled to the very edge. The cavalry battle of 1599,
\\ Boymans Museum, is a composition which already has
.™wed figures in the foreground, leaving free the view of a
quot;nddle field; the heavy outlines of the individually treated shadows
separate these from one another piece by piece, and make the sun-
ight from the background unconvincing through a lack of atmos-
pheric sparkle. In a landscape in the Albertina from the same yearl)
^ne sparkle is suggested; the lines are less hard, more indicated than
coherently drawn by the pen. The light here and there breaks
tne contour, which is only created by the shadowing on a plane
vmg behind it. Shadow planes are formed by nervous zigzags in
gradated tones. The image of a plant in the foreground is a visionary
synthesis, where botanical interest prevails no longer, but that it is
thquot;^ upon a knowledge of pure form is proved by such plants in
ne drawing of the battle described above.

J-et us keep this contrast in mind and the year 1599, and let us try
|0 measure de Gheyn\'s powers more fully. There is undoubtedly an
mtimate connection between the drawings for the military prints
W described and a few busts of a warrior blowing his trumpet,
^tthough it is not certain whether they are the preparation or the
^sult, they are conceived in precisely the same manner as the horse-
^n blowing their trumpets in a drawing in London,
jvith the example of the quot;Wapenhandelinghquot; before us, we should
xpect the drawing of these single figures to be equally prosaic, with
jegular outlines and impeccable lavis. But these four sketches of
ruinpeters were not intended to be translated into prints, and this
reedom gave the artist new possibilities. The image is sketched

with a heavier pen, in the curving line of which light and shade are
already expressed with accomplished virtuosity. The large shadows
are easily washed in with the brush, here and there with emphasis,
elsewhere as a mere indication. Placing the pages in succession, we
see that the cautious beginning is soon abandoned for more freedom
and finally for a daring treatment. The one in the Print Room in
Amsterdam would then be the first of the series, in which the artist
is still restrained and draws the banner attached to the trumpet
with careful attention; on the drawing in Groningen, originating
from the Hofstede de Groot collection, the fringe of the banner is
stippled impressionistically, and the left hand resting upon the hip
more suggested than modelled; in those belonging to the Albertina
and Frits Lugt, in which the figure is turned round to the right,
we find an unconscious power of style, which brings us very near
to Rembrandt. It is quite clear that in these years de Gheyn finds
emancipation for his pen. If the trumpeters stood alone, we might
think that they were the result of a gradual process, but taken in
combination with the horsemen, the first free landscapes, such a
technically perfect but too elaborate composition as the allegory of
death and the delicate simplicity of the portrait of Marnix, we
realize how the pure draughtsman\'s ideal was gradually becoming
emancipated from the trammels which had confined it hitherto.
And now we turn our eyes in another direction. Is it not sufficiently
obvious that of the hundreds of drawings that can be collected from
his hand, a large number must have been made before he arrived
at this turning point? How far behind these years lies thequot;Vanitas!quot;,
the putto done with hesitating graver-strokes, and anatomically
hardly admissible. Even compared to the pupil\'s portrait of 1592,
this drawing seems to belong to a more primitive period, where at
most the forms of the plants, the waving hair, and the thick smoke
that curls up out of a vase are characteristic of de Gheyn: the whole
belongs certainly to his apprenticeship period. But it furnishes
some valuable evidence about his earliest manners; the hand holding
the mirror, with its broad thumb confirms us in attributing to de
Gheyn a page of studies of nothing but hands l), and to connect
these sketches executed in chalk with a sketch in Brussels (Coll. de
Grez) in which a masculine anatomy is found on one side and
studies of a hovering putto on the other. It was necessary to take a
glance at his later work, to date the last two drawings in his Am-
sterdam period: only standing at a distance we can recognise the
relationship between such widely different pieces of work as the
illustrated letter and these studies. The natural conclusion that
follows is that de Gheyn, who composed the Madonna and angels

in Leiden at this time also, had made, from the very beginning, a
versatile use of his pen, amplified with red or black chalk, even
though his skill was not equally masterly in all these techniques. This
would explain why we consider that a sheet of female heads, of an
entirely different style, in the Louvre, should be reckoned amongst
the Amsterdam productions, although they are so freely, almost
Recklessly sketched with the pen. The features here have very little
common with his later work, which was all founded upon obser-
yation from life, and the manneristic school is very distinctly felt
m the way the front figure is expressed. Notice the hands in parti-
cular: the left is recognizable by the long fingers with their tapering
up-turned points and the constriction where they join the hand,
jvhile the right hand\'is in the position so beloved of de Gheyn and
JUS time, with spread out first two fingers and thumb and the last
^0 folded down. One may compare them with the hands of a
Jurist Triumphant, designed for a print (K. K. Dresden), in the
same technique as the drawings of soldiers, although very likely
^ade earlier.

he studies of lions, which we have already mentioned in connection
^ith the engraving of a lion, are another example of sketches with
cualk, supported by pen and ink, a method we find applied to a
jurist on the Gross (Brussels) as well. If the connection between
these has been truly laid, the drawing would belong to shortly
oetore 1596, the departure to the North of Heemskerck, amongst
^hose bagage a number of the lion copies were found. The strong
resemblance in the handling of the chalk to the model study in
J^»quot;ussels, which from the drawing on the back we must consider to
]nbsp;^oi\'k» supports this date. It seems to us that the use of

^^alk indicates that de Gheyn drew the animals from nature. It is
^oreover almost impossible that he should have given such a
^arvellous reality to the drawings without a living model. Pre-
sumably after making the sketches, he retraced the ones that pleased
uim best with the pen at home. In this way a quot;page of studiesquot; was
formed which at present must stand for the first that can be dated,
and which by its early production — even before 1600 — may be
called an excellent example of de Gheyn\'s work as forerunner of
^loemaert i) and Rembrandt.nbsp;. ,

vve now return to the drawing of Christ upon the Cross with Mary
aud St. John on the left side, and a separate figure of Mary Magda-
J^^e at the foot of the cross (Brussels), this time with the purpose
examining the penwork. It is important to notice how different
^uis IS in the shadow that falls upon the garments of Mary and

St. John, which consists entirely of parallel lines running from
upper right to lower left, and the contours of the figure of Mary
Magdalene, which are formed by a multitude of tentative etching-
like lines which hardly surround it, so that it is more suggested than
outlined, in the manner of the young Jacopo Palma, when he used
the pen. Besides in the modelling of the body of Christ we find the
engraving line. All these considerations make us hesitate to assert
that de Gheyn\'s pen drawings, while he was working under Goltzius
and immediately after, really bore an exclusively engraving-like
character. The more we examine de Gheyn\'s work, the more versa-
tile it proves to be, even in technique.

This conviction stimulates a further search for expressions of that
greater freedom found in some parts of the drawing just referred
to. Something of this is to be seen in the sketched portrait of a boy,
kept in the Printroom at Berlin. It is true that the face is more care-
fully shadowed than the broad folds of the flowing cloak, but they
seem to have been rapidly executed and show no relation whatever
to the miniature character of the other early portraits. Although
the relationship is closest to the sketch of his pupil, yet the treatment
is distinguished by greater spontaneity, less premeditation and pure
desire to catch a likeness. At the same time, compared to the later
work, which was often done with the same impulsiveness, there is a
dissonance between the easy flow of the garments and hands and
the somewhat wooden head, less surrounded by light than the body.
The hard transition from the light forehead, in particular to the
dark hair is a conspicuous fault, which gives a want of unity to the
portrait altogether. These characteristics all seem to point towards
the Amsterdam period.

Let us now look at the first landscapes. We have already seen that
a wide mountain landscape from 1599 was more in the style of an
impression than of a portrait. We must assume that to have got so
far, de Gheyn must already have devoted some time to the subject,
starting from a more concrete idea of landscape. Here he shows
himself in advance of most landscape artists, not even excepting the
equally facile sketcher Coninxloo, who came to Amsterdam in the
year of the Gheyn\'s departure from there. His work from 1598
confirms this idea to some extent: the view of a Dutch canal i) with
its suggestive vistas, prospect, views, horizons, and the wide vaulted
sky, shows that the country with which he was familiar, originally
helped to direct his conception of nature. The imposing crowns of
the trees and the felled trunk in the landscape in Berlin 2) point to
actual observation at first hand. Although the whole composition is

reminiscent of the prints that Sadeler engraved from Bril\'s designs,
and the sky has not yet been given the important function of restful
dominant, the dramatic element in this small picture — here derived
irom the expressive torsi dear to the mannerists — already indicates
values which would later be of primary importance to Ruysdael.
Ihis reference to Ruysdael will be found justified if we compare
the drawing to the very different work of his contemporaries —
etore 1600 — anrl wifli an f «nnallv rnntrastinff landscape from

before 1600 — and with an equally contrasting landscape from
1598 drawn by de Gheyn himself, now in the Louvre. This sheet
snows a rippling lake amidst mountains, apparently composed from
jancy. But the fancy has arisen from an easily indicated source, the
r^dscapes of Hendrick Goltzius. Goltzius, figurist by origin, since
quot;e had seen the Alps and learnt to know the art of Girolamo Muzia-
no^^ and Paulus Bril, had applied himself to sketches with the pen,
^hich may be designated as fantasies borrowed from the Alps. We
^I\'e not able to point out drawings of this kind for each year after his
journey to Italy, but we can trace the slow development of the type,
it has found its way into Goltzius\' work, by the dated leaves
P^^served from before 1600, viz.:
|594 Mountains (Teyler Museum, Harlem) 1).
J595 Landscape with Venus and Adonis (Albertina, Vienna)

Table land (K. K., Dresden) 3).
J596 (?) Landscape with Mercury (Museum, Besançon).
1598 (?) Temptation of Christ (Museum Fourché, Orléans),
^s this list shows, we read the dates in these drawing somewhat
differently to van Gelder with whom we also differ in the dating
the unmarked leaves. The only landscape, in our opinion, that
Jquot;ay be brought into immediate connection with Goltzius\' Italian
travels is the very extensive view of a coast with antique ruins and
group of the Dioscuri, which is kept in Teyler\'s collection
amongst the anonymous Italians rgt;). The attribution is doubtful, but
quot;as at any rate the merit of directing attention to the drawing as
r epresentative of a landscape style which existed about 1580-1590,
^ mixture of North Italian and Dutch elements. There is hardly
^quot;y relation to be seen to the work of Muziano and the Bril brothers,
neghel s spirit is entirely absent. We are chiefly reminded of

3)nbsp;see above, no. 380.nbsp;. , .. „nbsp;,
isor Woermann, Handzeichnungen alter Meister im kon. K.K., Dresden,

^ Not described by Schölten. Until recently in portfolio K IV, no. 5. In the
IJtthand group of trees especially lurks a resemblance to prints from Pieter
^^quot;eghel\'s design.nbsp;^^

Hendrick van Cleve. The feeling of width in general is indicative
of Goltzius, so is the treatment of the sky by the pen, the rising
storks and the delicate execution of rocks far out in the sea. We
ask ourselves if he could not have executed it before his journey
to Rome, as he would hardly have drawn the Dioscuri in such a
feeble way, after having studied the group thoroughly on the spotl).
This idea gains support from a landscape with rocky islands in the
Koenigs Collection, which Frijszman first brought into connection
with the print (in reverse) by Goltzius from 1587 after a group of
Amor and Psyche by Spranger 2). The conception of the landscape,
constructed with fine pen lines, corresponds to that in the back-
ground of the sheet at Haarlem. We might suppose that this was
made on the journey through North Italy to Rome in 1590.
Although the hiatus between these two landscapes by Goltzius in
Teyler\'s collection is to be regretted, in so far as it obscures our
knowledge of his own development in this direction, for the in-
sight into the connection between his art and de Gheyn\'s, it is only
the later chronology that has importance. We shall not attempt
here to interpolate all the unsigned leaves by Goltzius chronolo-
gically, merely stating that in our opinion the landscape in the Lugt
collection 3), in Amsterdam 4), in possession of Count Lanckorons-
kyS), and in Stockholm G) are all later than 1595. Of the colour
woodcuts 7) we can readily assume an origin near 1600, and the
upright landscapes 8) which G. Gauw printed, with their strong
flavour of Titian, were undoubtedly designed long before they were
published. Our amendment of van Gelder\'s chronology includes the
drawing in Orléans. The year 1598, the last that is found upon these
mountain views, is of importance for our appreciation of the tech-
nique, and because here for the first time we notice in the treatment
of trees the distributed pointillé with which one of the Dutch scenes

1)nbsp;These studies, both those sketchily drawn and those completed, are kept in
Haarlem.

2)nbsp;Cat. coll. F. Koenigs, Haarlem, N. 92. Reproduced as J. Patenier in cat. of
the coll. C. Morin, 11 May 1927, Amsterdam (R. W. P. de Vries), no. 368.
Goltzius added the landscape to the model designed by Spranger (State Print-
room, Amsterdam). The print is Hirschmann\'s no. 322. The drawing by
Spranger is described by A. Niederstein, Rep. f. K.W. Jhrg. 52, page 24, no. 10.

6)nbsp;With this page, reproduced in Meders Albertina-edition no. 1165, Goltzius
approaches in stately breadth the style of de Gheyn\'s later years.

8)nbsp;V^ Gelder, see above, page 21. It is remarkable that the etchings by Frisius
from Goltzius\' landscapes, of 1608, show so much resemblance to de Gheyn\'s
work. It might be said that all contrast between the two masters has dis-
appeared here.

jn 1603 is entirely built up. The masses of rock, moreover, are more
quot;ghtly suggested, so that the light becomes sparkling, the same
quality which we have already noted in a landscape by de Gheyn
^om the same year, mutatis mutandis.

We have said before that the landscape by de Gheyn in the Louvre,
dated 1598, is not a completely new departure. Similar views of
quot;lountains, the course of the lines, and to a certain extent the treat-
uient of the trees in them, can be found in Bril and Goltzius, while
some influence of Brueghel, after whom de Gheyn etched a land-
scape in the same year i), is also perceptible. There is a concen-
tration, a continuity of sky and mountains, such as Goltzius never
gave, even the undulating lines with which the leaves of the trees
are modelled adapt themselves to a general line-scheme, which fills
the whole drawing. This decorative note accentuates the somewhat
abstract character of de Gheyn\'s mountain landscapes. As this con-
firms de Gheyn\'s familiarity with Goltzius\' landscapes from 1598,
^t IS all the more surprising to find that the two drawings which
may be supposed to have been sketched by de Gheyn before that
jjme, are further removed from Goltzius. In the studies of trees in
Jlt;otterdam 2) there is some resemblance to be seen with the large
free in the Albertina (1595), but as a whole the invention stands by
|tself. The idea of filling up the top of a composition with nothing
^ut trees is as new as the way of execution is old: a late mannerism,
^hich Goltzius had abandoned since his travels in Italy. The waving
crowns are very plastically rendered in strong light and shadow,
fue same which dominate the landscape in the temptation of Christ
m Veste Coburg, also built up of sharply outlined coulisses. It cannot
oe said that the massive cones of rock that Goltzius draws, are in
themselves more probable in a realistic sense than those here piled
^P; but the complete absence of atmosphere, which dissolves no
contour in light and forms nothing but silhouettes, shows very
Clearly that the drawing belongs to an earlier stage than those we
uave become familiar with from 1598. Amongst de Gheyn\'s land-
scape drawings we place this one for the present in the earliest

We now feel that by tracing the connection between Goltzius and
^^ Gheyn in this field, we have established the fact that about
1597—1598 de Gheyn was driven into freer roads by him and other
amp;reat masters, such as Coonixloo 3), which ultimately led him to

ine attribution is hypothetical and the drawing, if by de Gheyn, must be
^nearly work.

t^his is particularly true of the richly varied foreground and of the treat-
ment of the foliage of the trees, in which Coonixloo is able to gradate masses
quot; picturesque tones by only partly outlining them and improvismg the accents,

look upon landscape drawing as desirable in itself. It may be useful
to continue this comparison beyond 1598. Both of them now turned
their attention to the nature which surrounded them, and each in
his own way helped the sure development of the landscape that may
be called characteristically Dutch, in that it was taken from the sea
shore, the dunes and the fields, farms and low wooded ground of
Kennemerland.

Goltzius introduced this genre with the drawing, where the
distances are sensitively washed in, for Matham\'s print of a cache-
lot in 1598 1). The small etching of the same subject 2) is pro-
bably founded upon a similar study. His three studies of trees
cannot have been much later 3). In 1600 he made a light sketch of
the house of Bredero 4), in 1603 two views over the meadows near
Harlem taken from a dune, where everything has become lucid 5).
This is a remarkable transformation in a man of 40 years, who
forces himself to concentrate upon an ever simpler theme and makes
us forget that between the death of Brueghel and the year 1600 a
restless school of landscape over the whole of Europe had been
experimenting in all manner of directions. With the utmost eco-
nomy of means he achieves effects which opened the eyes of the
Haarlem artists for good. They follow eagerly: van Gelder has
given an excellent description of it in his work on fan van de
Velde.

Neither was de Gheyn idle in these years, and once, in 1602, he
expresses himself in his wide horizons as distinctly as Goltzius did.
The occasion for this was the print of the sailing coach which in-
duced him to visit the coast by the Hague many times. In sketching
the separate figures and groups which occur in the print, he once
drew the sea looking towards the horizon, with two fishing boats
lying at anchor, in that delicate, bright impression bridging the gap
between Brueghel and van Goyen This sketch follows very
strikingly upon a rocky coast, which — as Popham points out — is
borrowed from Patinier, where the scheme of composition is com-
plicated, and which is dated 1600 (London). We can say at most

a gift which both Goltzius and de Gheyn still lack, schooled as they are in
lines. Cf. the drawing by Coonixloo in Berlin (ill. Bock-Rosenberg, Cat. page
25, no. 12958). The drawing by Pieter Brueghel the elder (Bredius-Museum,
the Hague), proves moreover that de Gheyn at that time must have had more
than one page of his great predecessor before him and studied it thoroughly.

1)nbsp;Haarlem, Museum Teyler, wrongly as J. Matham in Scholten\'s catal. N. 80.

2)nbsp;111. Cat. coll. Nijland, III, 4-6 April 1911 (R. W. P. de Vries) no. 161.

3)nbsp;Printroom, Bremen, coll. F. Lugt and Coll. F. F. Madan (O.M.D. 1935,
IX, plate 68).

that de Gheyn is approaching Goltzius in this genre (see the ex-
quisite distances and the sky) and seems to feel justified in selecting
subjects which by their simplicity call for greater gift for compo-
sition if they are to interest the onlooker. In the same way the
bridgequot; in Berlin belonging to 1602, owes its attraction to the vista
seen through the wide arch of the bridge, the reflections in the
^ater, and the picturesque effect of the everyday business going on
around the shrine. This is story-telling landscape art, equal to the
productions so dear to Claes Jansz. Visscher a few years later. The
farm housequot; of 1603 is more epic, especially when laid beside what
was possibly the model, one of Goltzius\' clair-obscur prints 1). The
Wood-cut where a traveller is approaching a country house, by its
Simplicity contrasts strongly with the overloaded allegory of the

The landscapes which follow, remain somewhat in this overcharged
style, especially in the figuration, which is often drawn in slightly
quot;melodramatic action or lighting. But still de Gheyn introduces a
uew note into his art by making the whole form of nature contri-
butive to the dramatic intention and making it move with the scene
almost anthropomorphically. He attains this effect in the Devil
sowing Tares of 1603 (Berlin), in which the cloud masses for the
iirst time are used with powerful effect. In the Landscape with
ï\'obbers from 1609 2) the isolation of the sky from the land is com-
pletely obliterated, and action and counteraction are interwoven to
a symphonic unity. The dark column of cloud resembles the torso
of a deity leaning out of the heavens who puts the earth in motion;
the plunderers, however small in the midst of the convulsions of
nature, yet hold our look by a well placed figure of a sentinel on a
shadow-covered prominence and the sinister action of another

before leaving the subject of landscape themes we should mention
one more drawing, where, in contrast to the larger compositions, no
iterary flavour can be found except a certain lyrical back-ground,
^e ploughed field with a dreaming boy seated at its border (Berlin),
^he springlike atmosphere of this fresh landscape could only have
been caught on the spot. The irregular lines of the willow twigs,
^hich de Gheyn is otherwise so fond of binding in parallel curves,
rendered by short strokes and points; the outlines of houses.

We have in mind Hirschmann no. 380, a page which de Gheyn possessed
^L^self, judging by the use he made of it. One must also consider the intluence
Bloemaert — through which painting or other work can no longer be tracea.

church tower and foliage become blurred in proportion as they
recede into the distance, they are kept in a tone that nowhere
disturbs our mood. Over all this lies a white sky, barely indicated by
a few strokes: de Gheyn, who was so sensitive to nature, knew how to
express her silent moods.

We can now see that as landscape artist de Gheyn runs parallel
with Goltzius in bringing into view the essentially Dutch aspects
of nature, while on the other hand he brought a new note into the
mountain landscape. Here again we find the seeds of the classical
Dutch landscape, of which Ruysdael was later so great a master.
An important difference between these two is the absence of active
figures in Ruysdael, while de Gheyn dispenses with them only by
exception.

In the meantime we have passed to the Hague period, in which there
is no doubt that the drawing we have just considered was made.
Although it is time to pick up the thread again which we have
followed as far as 1598, the study in Dantzig leads us into a side
line, from which we can return to the important subject of the
figure.

The Dantzig drawing shows two nude figures drawn from life,
foreshortened, with one knee drawn up, lying upon the ground. He
took the faces from below, looking at chin and nose and from above
on the top of the head. These sorts of experiments with the pen on
unusual positions of the human body are not found in de Gheyn\'s
work earlier than 1604. Confining ourselves to these sketches we
notice that according to the theory of late mannerism they are con-
demned by the lines 1): quot;But sometimes we must refrain heads or
such things to foreshorten in unlovely manner, for that does hurt to
the grace.quot;

This kind of positions, which occurs so late in de Gheyn\'s work,
does really belong to an earlier phase, like Bloemaert\'s painting
representing the Death of the Niobides in Copenhagen from 15912),
which may be said to be built up of them. Compare the son of Niobe
expiring in the foreground to the mutilated corpse in the witches\'
kitchen at Oxford, and it is seen that the less foreshortened arm of
the latter would have pleased van Mander even less than that of the
first, though the positions are otherwise analogous. The same may
be said of the lefthand figure in the studies, which is practically the
reversed image of the other recumbent victims. It is not only the
resemblance to the drawing in Oxford, but the strong similarity in
idea and form with the foreshortened heads on the page in Berlin,

that makes it probable that the studies in question were made in
^is year. Although they prove a certain continuity in style from
bloemaert\'s first paintings to beyond 1604 — in 1608 de Gheyn still
made use of the study — we must not lose sight of the fact that in
the figures after 1600 a realism lurks which is absent in Bloemaert\'s
early work, at all events as principle purpose. Bloemaert\'s painting
\'Theagenes and Chariklea with the brigandsquot; from 1625 1) is a
yery good example of how all movement has disappeared, all drama
js excluded and its place is taken by repose. The relation of the
detail to the whole is fundamentally changed. The nude figure in
Its unheroic studio-pose makes an effect completely opposed to the
old melodrama. Jacob de Gheyn retains more of the dramatic spirit
than Bloemaert, and from time to time he makes use of it, so that
there is some ground for comparing the figures we have just
mentioned with some of Greco\'s later work, particularly the

beneath a dainty salamander which arches itself like a fibula,
painted with such meticulous care that the naked eye cannot detect
details, is a calligraphic monogram of Jacques de Gheyn and
Anno 1600quot; 3). Qn other sheets of paper we find butterflies,
beetles, and various insects with transparent wings and delicate
^ntennae: a new world has been opened to de Gheyn. It is not that
the animalquot; was not set in his programme: for the map of the Hague
^^ had made pen sketches of storks, he knew the lion and was
familiar with the horse. But the deeper contemplation, which
penetrates through the form to the inner being, seems only now to
pxercise its fascination over him. The presumption that often speaks
^^ his pen drawings, the boastfulness of his best soldier sketches,
^specially the trumpeters, the redundancy of his allegories lie far
oehind him. As a domesticated artist, a family man he had found
^e necessary peace in the long evenings for very elaborate work,
^he love of the minute, always characteristic of him, is intensified
casts its intimate charm over everything it approaches around
^quot;e portrait — the Gorlaeas of 1601.

^ noble pen drawing in 1601, the preparation for a miniature of
deathbed of a woman, is an unrivalled specimen of the spirit
^^ the time. In the miniature later drawn from this study, the immo-

rLr Leonardo\'s Golden Snake (Prado, ill. les Arts, 1917) stands m the same
j^\'ationship to the Laocoon of el Greco as the Theagenes and Chariklea by
natfonar\' to de Gheyn\'s work. The general lines of development are inter-

bihty of the rigid figure, and the quiet husband standing beside her
IS broken only by the swelling draperies of the voluminous curtain
around the bed, which encloses the whole scene. If de Gheyn had
drawn this at an earlier period, it would undoubtedly have been a
restless scene full of motion.

Not only a few pieces, but almost everything that we can bring
within the years 1600-1603 seems to show that de Gheyn had
definitely changed his course. Even in a print so full of sensation
as the witches sabbath l) we notice a delight in the presentment of
natural objects, which almost convinces us that the trees with their
rough basts and the luxurient landscape in the background had
taken the first place in the artist\'s interest.

The sketch leaves tell the same story. A whole series of studies 2)
may be grouped around the sailing coach, some of which are devoted
to the preparation of this picture — the majority of the figures
sitting m the coach and a number of fishermen and other figures
are found on them - while others suggest different things, goblins,
a lobster a swan, a horse seen from the side and from behind (plates
11 and 12) and plants, all treated with the same devotion and
admirably caught. The two studies in chalk of the bust of an old
man m Teylers collection belong to the same period; here at last
we iind the perception of character, the psychological insight of the
true artist, which we missed in the earlier portraits. In Goltzius and
bailer it is to be found earlier. A portrait of Clusius engraved by
de Gheyn m 1601 is surrounded by an elaborate frame full of small
details, which afford the master an opportunity to give full play to
his love for the products of nature. He becomes more and more
fascinated by still-life, an object that he lays before himself and
studies from every point of view, and which he can imbue with his
own spirit. At the same time he is attracted by large-size canvases:
his first large pictures, the Venus, which has unfortunately been lost
and the white stallion, were brought forth in this period
Then there are studies made out of doors. He must have sat
sketching for hours before the great elms 3), the twists of their
ancient roots, the bark and the peeled trunks, the fresh young
sprouts on the gnarled scars hold his eye captive and grow again in
tragic splendour on the large sheets of paper. The supple pen,
equal to every swell in the curve of the lines, travels unhesitatingly
over the paper, here and there softened by a wash of colour: Bloe-

2) The most important ones in Frankfurt a.M. and in the Masson Coll., Ac.
des Beaux-Arts, Pans.

maert\'s innumerable sketches of trees and trunks are child\'s-play
compared to these.

We can see what a completed composition by de Gheyn was like
at this time by looking at the quot;Fortunetellerquot; of 1605 (Brunswick),
which he judged worthy of multiplication in prints. Under a half
unbarked ancient oak tree, an old gipsy woman is standing, stiffly
wned to the right, with unkempt hair falling about her face. She
IS holding the hand of a young lady standing before her in an
elegant costume, whose well dressed head, rising delicately from
the high Spanish collar is modestly hung down, while with her left
hand she holds up her wide overskirt and her hanging purse. Behmd
her appears a maidservant and a little lap-dog stands barking in
the foreground, which is richly strewn with various growth. Behmd
the fortuneteller on the ground two other quot;heathensquot;, one carrying
^ child, are seated. All the parts of this rather simple scene are
exactly rendered in clear tones, calculated for engraving. The
S^oup is in rest, the figures are detached from each other in isolated
positions. It is only the tree sweeping from left to right that binds
the lefthand and righthand groups. But there is another connection,
Without which the representation would be less pregnant, an
emotional connection. The fell eye of the fortuneteller transfixes
the object of her scrutiny, and from this the young beauty averts
f.er head, while the maid looks on slyly; in the glance of the girl
sitting quietly on the left there is moreover some sauciness. In this
^cene, however anecdotical it may be in itself, there is more refine-
ment of expression than in 16th century analogues. De Gheyn had
a so expressed himself with less subtlety 1) and such an accom-
plished creation in this genre marks a new milestone. Ihe
heathensquot; found a sure place in Dutch art with the publication ot
print.

^ow that the regular preparation of engravings, to which de Gheyn
nad devofprlnbsp;ifion wns ffraduallv pushed

-- w cnat the regular preparation ot engravings, to wnicii uc
quot;ad devoted his best energies before 1600, was gradually pushed
completely into the background, and its place had been taken by
painting and drawing for their own sake, we may assume that the
production of drawings was very large. The innumerable sketches
^hich bear no date, but in which the style corresponds to the small
amount of dated work from these years, give general support to
^^is idea. But every attempt to assign even an approximate pJ^ce
the chronology to these sketches has so far been in vain. Ihe

f the chronology to these sketches has so far been in vain, ine
development during the last twenty years of the master s career
^scapes us almost entirely. Before reviewing these years and closing
his study, we will add a few remarks upon the general character of
^^e work UD to 1609.

As compared with the preceding period, there are no special cha-
racteristics of style to be noted since 1600. None of the sheets with
a later date show the decorative lines on the texture of which earlier
compositions were embroidered, and de Gheyn has dispensed with
van Mander\'s quot;academic proper posequot;. In the landscapes more than
in the figures a suggestion was left of those contortions, which the
mannerists logically derived from an imperative central motion.
His human figures are no longer mechanically built up from the
inside, as an organism of muscles in which every articulation must
be made evident, but observed and gaining an entirely new meaning
by the pressure of de Gheyn\'s regenerated interest. This consi-
deration, although it may not elucidate the chronology, throws a
clear light on drawings such as the fishermen in Frankfort, and the
quot;Vicissitudesquot;, both drawn for series of prints as belonging to an
earlier period, and thus having become out of fashion.
We count to the work of the transition period the two standing
figures of the Virgin with the mantle thrown over her head,
designed for a Calvary 1). The studies of the female nude are more
difficult to place. If we judge by the obvious connection of the
drawing in Brunswick with the lost painting mentioned by van
Mander, these studies would be placed pretty definitely in 1603,
together with the studies in Brussels (Coll. de Grez), Berlin (5949),
Darmstadt (No. 408) and with Frits Lugt. Portions of these pages
point to a close connection between the whole group, which cannot
well be separated from one another. It would not be surprising if
in that year, which is particularly rich in fine drawings from his
hand, de Gheyn had made sketches from life with supreme plastic-
capacity. Moreover we know that it was just in this year that he
drew from male models with chalk and pen 2), so that the use of this
material, otherwise seldom in his hand, as preparation for the nude
studies gives some support to the dating. The boys\' heads executed
in the same manner might belong to the same year 3).
There is one more group of more or less connected drawings that
we should like to place in an even later year. Let us review all the
works that are dated after 1606, not counting the paintings. Then
we have 1606 (?) the likeness of van Mander (?) on his deathbed
(Frankfort); 1608 (?) witches (Berlin); 1609 frogs and mice ske-
letons (Berlin); a landscape with brigands (Victoria and Albert Mu-
seum, London); 1610 Neptune (Oxford); 1612 copy of Christ with
Martha and Mary and the still life after Pieter Aertsz (Frankfort);
in 1613 the so-called Ezechiel (Victoria and Albert Museum, Lon-

2)nbsp;E.g. the shepherd studies in the Printroom, Amsterdam and privately
owned.

don); in 1620 roses (Berlin); in 1625 quot;Fear Notquot;, album leaf for
^avid de Kempenaer. Certainly this is a poor number of drawings

20 years of production,
■t he majority of these drawings are imbued with the same spirit,
that of complete absorption in the model, of which not a hair,
^ot a crease, not a thorn may be passed over. The draughts-
P^an in this mood, in contrast to the mannerist, who bases his one
Imagination on a maximum of succeeding impressions, defines his
stable point of view with the greatest certainty. His two sketches
the dead poet from different points of view are typical of his
position towards the phenomenon. We notice the same in the little
study of a sea hedgehog, drawn from in front and from the side
(Amsterdam). In the spirit of these sketches we constantly feel a
relation to that other student of nature, Albert Dürer. The rela-
tionship may have actually existed, at any rate it was significant
^s inspiration. Although de Gheyn pushed forward into a new era,
his work was always supported by older values, which he sought out
tor himself. His copies of prints by Dürer and Lucas van Leyden
a sufficient proof of this l). But these cases are a proof at the
same time that de Gheyn participated in what was going on around
as they do not stand alone in Holland at the beginning of the
century. In the later work of Goltzius we repeatedly find heads
Resigned in techniques like Dürers and in a style which leaves no
goubt as to their spiritual origin. The Bibliothèque Nationale m
pris possesses two etching-like copies of portrait drawings by
^ucas, made with the pen in Goltzius\' circle. The prints by Dolendo,
Jan Saenredam, and Nicolaas de Bruyn constantly remind us
ot both masters.

Ane consciousness of a quot;nationalquot; revival of art is supported by
y^ese and many more examples, and in de Gheyn\'s work it is evident
jn other ways as well 3). A short time ago we had the good fortune
to be able to collect the scattered remains of the sketchbook that he
jook with him to England. It is very remarkable that the nine eaves
ti-om this book that we now can study l), like the sketch-book that

^id Master Drawings, Dec. 1928, pi. 33, especially because Goltzius here
gPproaches de Gheyn\'s manner of drawing in a surprising manner.

mantle, which reminds Dürer\'s studies to his engraving of the same thieme
Beets, Zu Albrecht Dürer, Z. f. B.K. 1913, page 89). It was sold m Fans
June 26th, 1935, no. 113. We owe the photograph of it to Mr. L- Huteau^
In the Louvre, in London (British Museum and Coll. Oppé) and Amsterdam
ownership). See our catalogue, vol. II.

Durer carried with him through Holland, are all drawn with silver
pomt, and that the character of the jottings in a certain sense cor-
responds to Diirer\'s sketches l). Is it possible that de Gheyn was
acquainted with these travelling notes? It is not known in whose
possession they were at that date, and van Mander only refers to
other Dürer drawings in the possession of two Dutch collectors 2).
Between his biography of Dürer and de Gheyn\'s visit to London
— for the present we suppose only one journey in 1622 — there
lie 18 years, which might have brought the sketch book into Dutch
hands.

However this may be, the unexpected discovery throws light upon
what interested de Gheyn at the age of 57. He sketched a very tall,
narrow Tudor front, between two old 15th century wide town
houses, as well as a country shrine; then a silhouette of Hamp-
ton Court, which is of the greatest importance for the localisation:
de Gheyn\'s handwriting above it settles once and for all that it was
he who made it during his stay in London. Further there is a group
copied from his own painting of Caesar, showing that this piece
was probably then hanging in Ham House, which stands in the
road from London to Hampton Court. Had he been to look at it
after its delivery or after it had hung there for some years? Other
pages show us fragments of Holbein\'s wall painting, since destroyed
by fire, in the Guild Hall, the head of a boy repeated three times,
the harness of a horse and finally a grim still life formed of pieces
of a slaughtered horse, arranged several times in different ways.
The numbers up to 40 on the 10 pages show that at most a quarter
of the book has so far been found. A sketch book which contains
such simple objects as a pillary reveals his inexhaustible interest in

0 Remarkable moreover is the lion drawn by Dürer, which might have been
the model for de Gheyn\'s engraving. In that case de Gheyn must have become
acquainted with the book before 1596. Here attention must be drawn to two
recent attributions of silver-point drawings, which originally stood in Diirer\'s
name, and now dated about 100 years later. The portrait of a woman with
hood in Stockholm (Meder, Albertina-publication, no. 996, Lippmann, no 863)
was recently attributed to H. Goltzius by E. Tietze-Conrat (National musei
Arsbok, Stockholm, 1932, pages 27—30), in connection with a print, marked by
(?) Goltzius in 1606, with the same subject (Bartsch part III, page 111, no. 86).
K. T. Parker and J. Byam-Shaw now consider the studies of a standing female
nude (Lippmann no. 92) as by de Gheyn (Old Master Drawings, Dec. 1930,
page 57). In the latter case, at any rate, we take the dogmatic point of view
that Dürer made this drawing. To refer, in connection with the latter, to the
nude by de Gheyn (coll. F. Lugt) is unconvincing; especially the profile
and the hand of the woman standing on the right are marks of Dürer\'s
authorship.

^^nbsp;^^^ J®*quot;^® Edmheston in den Briel, who owned a sketchbook by Dürer

and Arnoudt van Beresteyn in Haarlem, who had proportion drawings, for
instance of the Adam and Eve (Schilderboeck fol. 131 verso).

everything that he meets with. As this book certainly belongs to his
later work, it removes all doubt as to the ultimate goal of de Gheyn\'s
art. The portrait of a painter seated before his easel (Munich)
also executed in silver point, the authenticity of which is confirmed
quot;y the sketch-book, and the eastern costume sketched on the back
of it, both point in the same direction, white roses drawn in 1622
give the final confirmation.

We have already referred to a group of drawings of which the
Wifying element is found in no work before 1610. The quality
that we mean may be approximately expressed by the words quot;im-
pressionistic breadth of treatmentquot;. One of the most characteristic
expressions is the Christ in benediction, with the globe in his hand
grussels, Printroom, under the name of A. Sacchi), the Mocking
^russels, col. de Grez), the Goat Ride (Leiden), the Death of Seneca
Cologne), the Devout Couple (Amsterdam), and the bust of a doctor

In how far do these drawings differ from those we have already
examined? In the first place by the absence of rigid contours; it
seems as if outlines are purposely avoided and are replaced by sug-
gesting lines. The necessary indications are not missing, but beyond
^nis the pen in rapid abrupt lines fills in the tones from dark to light,
X J ^^ ^^^^nbsp;seem to be less defined than looming up out of

Shadows and half-lights. While the drawing of curves demands a
certain premeditation, the flashing parallel strokes of which the
Shadows here consist make it clear that there was no time for hesi-
tation or calculation and that the conception of the image in his
Jhind coincided with its execution. The nervous hand and the
oroken outlines lend a vitality to the images which is only partially
^ue to the movement? portrayed, a vitality which brings the whole
^eene into unity and fills it with throbbing life.
^ rom a frenpi-nl liicf«,-;^-!]nbsp;^m^-vu if is fpmntinir to date this

vve know that artists who have readied tne pciiccuuxi ui
Pxactitude, often in later years know how to create an even deeper
impression by more subtle suggestion. Rembrandt is the most im-
Posing and universally known example of this. Impressionism,
f^ollowing upon a stubborn pursuit of realism, is not only compre-
hensible in the elderv c\\c. Ghevn. but even very probable. One

the first time what we have called impressionistic width of treat-
ment is found. This work shows that at any rate about 1613, when
de Gheyn was resolutely working his way towards nature, the
problems of light, which presented themselves to him with his new
ideals, were his primary preoccupation.

Problems of light and impressionism. Are these legitimate expres-
sions? The pictures we have enumerated are none of them borrowed
from reality. They were no visual impressions, no notes from life;
like his first landscapes, he quot;evolved them from his spiritquot;. In this
the whole 17th century may be contrasted to the 19th. In truth the
word impressionism, if we except the few artists who painted impres-
sions from nature, like Hals and Velasquez, cannot strictly be ap-
plied to our Golden Age. But yet the germ of the art which assigns
a higher place to the right interrelation of colours and lights for
attaining to an instantaneous visual legibility than to the coordina-
tion of images and the harmony of lines, lies dormant in such work
as de Gheyn brought forth in the inspired hours of his maturity.
In this work he reveals his susceptibility to the fresh horizons which
were opened by the new century.

because the arrangement and some features are obviously derived from a com-
position by the young van Dijck (compare e.g. Delacre, le Dessin dans l\'oeuvre
de van Dijck, 1934, plates 65—67).
100

In the preceding chapters we have carefully followed the work of
Jacques de Gheyn, and the more intimately we studied it, the more
were struck by the great differences in his manner of handling,
and the wide range of his subjects. The time has now come to take
leave of him, which we do not without the hope that we may have
induced others to pursue the inquiry further and find answers to the
many problems which we have been obliged to leave unsolved. But
cannot regard our task as completed, before we have made some

Jacques de Gheyn the younger died somewhat prematurely at
•Jtrecht in 1641, and, although the generation of artists did not die
out with him, his demise closed the tradition which the three
Jacques had created by their unbroken line of work from father to
son. Shortly before his death Jacques dictated to the notary Vastert
ms last will, a testament (see appendix VI) the contents of which
^row much light upon the conditions of both father and son i).
A ne social standing of the dying man, his family relationships, and
also his circle and the works of art with which he is surrounded, all
appear before us. He did not live in the Chapter House, where he
uad a room, but in the house of Mr. Gerrit van Helsdingen, in the
^te Maartensdamme, to whose child he leaves fifty gulden. He kept
a servant, who is to receive the same amount and in addition a
jnourning cloak and habitquot;; quot;the two maid-servants, Hving m his
lodgingsquot; will each receive fifty gulden. He leaves legacies of 8000
gulden to his cousins Abraham de Gheyn, Jacob van den Burch and
jnc latter\'s sister, while twelve hundred gulden will be distributed
JO the poor of the orphanage in Amersfoort. He appoints as chiet
heirs the children of his cousin Anna Wijntgens, widow of Jonk-
heer Bucho van Schroyestein, to whose son by a former marriage,
fJicolaas den Otter, he leaves quot;all his printed books in whichever
language they be, bound as well as unbound ... and all his, testa-
tors, books of art, drawings and prints and all other loose drawings
and prints done with the pen or otherwise on copper plates, etc. ,
^nile another cousin who is not unknown to the reader, the Am-
sterdam fiscal Johannis Wyttenbogaert, is appointed executor and
^^\'\'eover favoured with a number of pictures, mentioned by name,
therefore since 1641 Nicolaes den Otter was the owner ot the

greater part of the drawings of father and son, which have been
examined in this study, Wyttenbogaert received among others the
large flower-piece by Jacques de Gheyn which we have already
described — the terms leave this in no uncertainty — and which
doubtless was the same that Arnoldus Buchelius admired at the time
of a visit to de Gheyn on April 3, 1635, and said that the latter had
refused an offer of one thousand gulden for it out of piety to his
father i). On the same occasion, in addition to a number of drawings
and portraits, Buchelius also saw paintings by Rembrandt and Lie-
vens, which we find again as the legacy of Wyttenbogaert, and also
the collection of rare shells, mentioned by Buchelius in the same
breath, which has left such obvious traces in the work of father
and son.

Since the Museum in Melbourne has acquired the painting of two
old men discussing a text the pieces by Rembrandt and Lievens
which were left to Wyttenbogaert can all be traced; they are: the
old men in Melbourne and the old man sleeping by the fire in
Turin 3), painted by Rembrandt respectively in 1628 and 1629, the
Vertumnus and Pomona of the collection Thieme 4), and the girl\'s
head in Leipzig 5), both by Lievens. A third Rembrandt, the portrait
of the younger de Gheyn, is left by him to Maurits Huygens, who
had also been painted by the master C).

More paintings are mentioned in the testament. For Wyttenbogaert
a fair by Brouwer, portraits by Holbein and Lucas van Leiden and
the portrait of a count Brederode by a certain quot;master Roeloffquot; 7).
For Maurits Huygens a large portrait (by Rembrandt?), a large
Porcellis and three landscapes by Cornelis Vroom. For François
Wyttenbogaert, another cousin, who was cannon of St. Peter, land-
scapes by Wyttenbrouck and Carel de Hooch, the latter with
figures by Poelenburgh. To the same were left quot;two metal or
copper rearing horses of the same size, which are screwed into
wooden pedestalsquot;. With these we may conclude. The affluence in

2)nbsp;This painting was to be seen in 1934 at Mr. D. Hoogendijk\'s, who had
beautiful reproductions made of it.

/ii portrait of Maurits Huygens, kept in the Kunsthalle in Hamburg
(H. d. G., see above, no. 654) has a pendant which is now in Dulwich College
near London (see above no. 745). It has been supposed that this might re-
present the younger de Gheyn, painted at the same time as friend of Maurits
Huygens but there is a possibility that it might be a bad likeness of Con-
stantin Huygens (Onze Kunst, XI, 1907, page 163). Both portraits date from
the year 1632.

^hich Jacques de Gheyn lived is clearly indicated. Although we
cannot at present decide how he was related to some of the cousins,
^hom he mentions as his heirs, the data must ultimately prove suf-
ficient, and in any case there is no doubt that he was related, both

Oil his father\'s and his mother\'s side, to wellknown families and
belonged to the patrician circles of Utrecht l). From his grandfather
Johan Stalpaert he must have inherited the gift of church honours,
^e have become acquainted with the circle of his father already,
^ave seen how Huygens as friend of the son takes such an important
place in it that the intellectual level of the latter, his friends and

relations must be rated very high. His library appears to have been
extensive, while the information afforded as to his collections is
even more interesting.

We remember that these possessions came partly from his father,
they not only explain many copied drawings which we have al-
ready discussed, but express besides the humanistic mind of de
J-\'^eyn, and his taste for collecting, the result of which finally
became the possession of his son. Here there is an interplay of in-
spiration, which is specially characteristic of the period after 1600,
and which is noticeable in\'the de Gheyns as well as in Rubens and
{\\embrandt. This can be illustrated with examples. The names of
^olbein and Lucas van Leiden are already significant for those who
^ave read the previous chapters; the statuettes of rearing horses
g^Piain the genesis of such a drawing as the jumping horse in

Although all this refers to the art of the father, the testament is
important for an insight into the younger Jacques. When
1630 Huygens makes his notes, he regrets the inertia to which
nis too great prosperity has brought his friend. Had contemplation
gained the upperhand of the desire to exercise his art? About this
f\'^ne de Gheyn must have come into contact with Rembrandt and
A-ievens and have been one of the first, if not actually the very first
ytaecenas who bought their work. The choice of paintings is as
quot;??Portant as the fact of their purchase.nbsp;^ , ,

Ahere are two full-length paintings by Rembrandt of old men,
siting down, wrapped in heavy cloaks. Such figures appear in the
^ork of the son (whom we will now simply call Jacques). It woujd
obvious to assume an influence originating from Rembrandt,
Pnncipally as regards the subject, about the year of the purchase
^quot;t the series of prints representing the philosophers of Greece^)
early date of 1616, and decides the priority of Jacques

2) n ^rough the Stalpaerts can be tested.
3 ^oll-de Grez, no. 3092 (as quot;Rubensquot;),
^urchard, see above, page 172, no. 2.

sitting, heavily draped figures to those by the young Rembrandt, who
was then only 10 years old. Rembrandt\'s first work that can be used
as a comparison, is the picture of a Saint Paul of 1627 1), where he
shows himself an independent artist, and complete master of his
material. It will certainly be worth while to make a comparison
between the paintings which can be grouped with the St. Paul, and
Jacques\' work.

Beside the figures of his father Jacques\' etchings are distinguished
by a lack of variety, by a monotonous uniform structure, and by the
emphasis laid on the lighting. Look at the etching of 1617, of a
seated Matthew 2), who follows the text of a folio with his hand,
while an angel regards him from the right. A stiffly folded mantle,
divided by the light which falls from the right into large patches
of light and dark, covers the vigorous figure, above which the
heavily bearded head bends forward. The background is evenly
shadowed with horizontal, vertical, and cross lines, laid automa-
tically over eachother. Here also full emphasis has been given to
the plastic side, which however lacks the vivacious richness of half-
tones which gives such liveliness to a drawing by the father. The
same can be said of the drawings which we can attribute to Jacques
on the grounds of their convincing resemblance to these prints: the
shadow surface has melted into an opaque mass, like the equally
darkly clouded background. A drawing in Hamburg 3) may also
be included among Jacques\' work of about 1620, and we may put
this drawing as a specimen of the type beside a reproduction of
Rembrandt\'s Paul. Paul is represented in his cell, surrounded by
books, beside which the sword, his symbol, introduced into the still-
life, stands upright. He is seated gazing in front of him, his head
supported by his right arm, the left arm laid upon his folio. The
light falls through the narrow window from the left, it outlines the
monumental figure of the thinker, which in its turn stands out
against the bright sunlight on the wall, while all other objects melt
into a half darkness. The two principal elements: the gripping force
of the light and the concentration of the sage, vie with each other
for our attention, but neither of them predominates. In the core of
the conception they are of equal value and indivisible. Both cul-
minate in the centre of the picture, where the sunlight shines round
the head of the apostle, both radiate outwards, where the details
bring him and his work nearer to us, where shadows and reflexes

2)nbsp;Privately owned, Amsterdam. Size: 17.7X14 cm. (cut off) inscriptions
(underneath): I. S. Mattaeus Evangelista, (left above): I D G I (as monogram)
MDCXVII. From the coll. Vis Blokhuyzen, sold by auction on 8 November,
1869 in Rotterdam (no. 1169).

I he writing sage by de Gheyn, in any case a Biblical figure, may
be a Moses: his only attribute, against a completely grey back-
ground, is the Tables of the Law on the left. His seat disappears,
hke that of Paul, under a widespread mantle; his one foot is, as
^ith Rembrandt, placed on a stone. He bends over his writing
scroll, on which the quill is writing. A fold of his mantle has been
thrown over his head. The light falls from the left and divides the
quot;gure almost without shading into a white and black half. He is
hot lacking in a certain stateliness, his aquiline nose, his long hair
and beard, the heavy mantle leave no room for small details. The
lines are logically linked up together, and flow melodiously into
one another.

It is scarcely necessary to characterize more in detail the resemblance
and difference between the two works. The great similarity in theme
clearly connects de Gheyn\'s and Rembrandt\'s productions. But the
artistically interwoven richness of the painting and the simplicity
ol the etching are related — to put it in terms of music — as a
melody is to a symphony.nbsp;^nbsp;,

Although the abundance of etchings and drawings by Jacques de
^neyn, as the ones we described, excludes every doubt concerning
uis preference for such themes, a further indication of the con-
nection of his work with that of Rembrandt might be of the greatest
importance, seeing that the genesis of Rembrandt\'s earliest art is
npt yet clear to us. Although they are not as striking as those pre-
viously mentioned, we must mention one or two more points ot
Similarity. The great technical resemblance between a pen drawing
01 the head of an old man (Montpellier) with the seated Moses
permits us to attribute this drawing to the younger de Gheyn. It is
Known that Rembrandt as well as Lievens, in the years about 1629
^hen they worked in conjunction, by preference took old men as
tneir models, and saw in\'the reproduction of long wavy hair an
element the attraction of which was heightened by a strong light,
generally from the left. The same can be said of the head in Mont-
Pel ler, which shows heavy shadows along the bridge of the nose,
quot;nder the eyebrows, along the temples, and above the crown. But
^ot only de Gheyn had an eye for such a subject: we find a simi ar
jyork in the old man with pointing hand, illuminated by candle-
^\'ght, in the collection Welcker in Amsterdam, a large pen drawing,
yhich bears at the back the important inscription: quot;Simon de Frisen

^J- J- van Gelder pointed out to us the painting, dated 1608 of E. C.
der Maes in the Museum Boymans in Rotterdam, representing b . Jerome,
^ similar subject, a Hague work too, but treated much more in the Italian style

time when Rembrandt, having freed himself from the themes and
models which he had learnt from Lastman, found his own form
while working with Lievens. It is as if about 1627 — when deciding
upon this year we take into consideration the work before 1630
known up to now — an influence which emanated from the Hague
and especially from de Gheyn, a priori related to that of the Leiden
painters by its preference for massively modelled shadows, led him
to the treatment of new themes. This gives arise to the supposition
that Rembrandt and Lievens may have known the de Gheyns and
visited them at the Hague, and that Huygens first heard of them
through his artist neighbours. Such a hypothesis would explain the
evident influence of the father de Gheyn on Rembrandt as a
designer; with regard to Lievens, we may point to his early painting
of Hippocrates and Democritus i), a subject which, it is true,
was painted by Lastman, but that de Gheyn also sketched in a
drawing with some similar details; to a sketch of the son of two
children\'s heads with curly hair 2), a subject dear to Lievens too,
and finally, to drawings such as Lievens\' old man reading, in the
Louvre, which belongs to be group of old men seated, and to his
Mercury and Argus and reclining Faun, both in Dresden 3), which
are closely related to the art of both the de Gheyns in general con-
ception.

It is obvious that the influence of the de Gheyns on the art of the
promising young Leiden artists must not be overestimated; for
this they were too independent and sought their way in too indi-
vidual a manner. But the importance of our comparison is that it
furnishes a warning not to attribute their chiaroscuro to immediate
foreign influences only, while at the same time we would again
point to the witches\' kitchen we have already described in detail,
as a sign that the elder de Gheyn undertakes and solves problems
which Rembrandt only tackled more than twenty years after him.
Thus we see that de Gheyn junior has not only been the grand
seigneur with whom we become acquainted from his last will and
whom about 1630 Huygens in a friendly manner admonished not
to remain in an idleness unworthy of him. On the contrary, the
possibility that Rembrandt studied his work explains the extra-
ordinary praise which Huygens showered upon it, and the latter\'s
sorrow that one, whom he considers on a level with the greatest
painters and in whose early work he saw great promise, should have
lost his love of work.

2)nbsp;In Dr. Welcker\'s collection, Amsterdam (Hofstede de Groot-sale, Leipzig,
Nov. 4th, 1931, no. 288).nbsp;^

Huygens with such enthusiasm, has reached us — the works we
have collected are still very limited, although they include some
paintings, etchings and drawings — it is difficult to test his appre-
ciation by our own estimation. The cooperation with C. Boel in 1614
in copying a series of drawings by Tempesta, which represent the
exploits of Charles V l), proves his precocity. In 1616 follows the
lirst work which he began and completed independently: the series
of the Philosophers of Greece, etched on seven pages with a title-
Page. From the structure of this series, from the accompanying texts
oy Ausonius and from the Latin dedication to his father and teach^er
may conclude that Jacques was not far removed from his
Classical studies and that he sought his themes from literature, not
Irpm a similar collection of prints. Although we may assume that,
jvith such a contemporary and friend as Huygens, whose interest
tor the classics was indubitable, he shared this interest in a modest
J^ay, he shows in any case ingenuity in the method by which
ne has translated the quot;heptastichaquot; into images. The same can be
said of a print of the following year, in which we see Fortune
kneeling before a Hercules leaning on his club, before whom she
empties out a cornucopia filled with a variety of fruits (out of which
also falls a caduceiis) 2). Qn a cartouche above the monogram and
date we read: quot;Vertu mesure du bon-heurquot;. The print of Mat-
thew, perhaps the onlv one of four evangelists which has been pre-
^ei-ved, is also from 1617. With the Laocoon, dated 1619, founded
on a drawing from the model in Arundel\'s London collection his
early work is clearly rounded off. The etcher, who even in his tirst
prints shows himself so original, appears to dispose of a technical
ability which enables him to undertake such an anatomically ditti-
emt work and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.
We are in the dark with regard to de Gheyn\'s further development.
We certainly know of some other prints and there are ai\'awmgs
^^hich can be attributed to him on the ground of the etching. But both
gi\'oups arc so closely connected with the dated pages that one miist
assume that on the whole they originated at an early date. Ihe

I Burchard, see above, page 173, no. 3. The drawing m Gottingen of the
ame subject is, according to Dr. Stechow, a copy of this prmt^ It appears from
2nd volume of the quot;Paradigmata Graphicesquot;, etc., etched by Jfquot; ^e B.s-
(Joh. Episcopius), in 1671 at the Hague, that this was not the only
t^dy after antique sculptures made by the younger de Gheyn. Severa
hawings which he must have made in English and French collecUon o
\'^quot;Iptures were used by Episcopius for his prints, and the fact that Wytten
ert lent these for the purpJ^se, was a reason to him to dedicate this part

page of 1625, which is almost dotted, in the same album amicorum
in which the father drew, and the three etchings with strangely
deformed, partly fantastic faces of 1638 l), are playful expressions,
which do not give us sufficient material by which to judge the
twenty years between his first English journey and his death.
Luckily a rare coincidence has provided the key to our knowledge
of Jacques\' paintings. We found in the possession of an art dealer
in London two eight-sided canvases with seated figures of evan-
gelists, in which the ox of St. Luke appears to have been copied
from the cow\'s head by the father de Gheyn which we have already
discussed. These pieces, which once belonged to a quartet 2), had not
without reason been attributed to Ribera: the three old men and
their picturesquely ragged folios — this does not apply to the less
haggard, youthful John — especially the half naked figure of Mark
seen from behind, remind us of the powerful canvases of the sombre
genius of Napels. And yet the Dutchman is betrayed unmistakably
and if we look further, the young Jacques de Gheyn is evident to
one who compares these with his quot;paper artquot;. We recognise his love
for the plastic, for the broadly modelled, shapeless mantles seen in
a strong light, for the enormous folios, and at the same time the
slight discrepancies in the foreshortened view of a face. Smaller
details, such as the spectacles low down on the nose and a hand here
and there confirm this supposition definitely. Doubt is practically
excluded.

The great difference between this work and his father\'s paintings
is surprising. Not only is the broad, sometimes careless style of
painting, the effect of which is based upon a view from a distance,
diametrically opposed to the supersensitive care which the older de
Gheyn devoted to each detail; the difference lies deeper: in the in-
tention itself, in the nature of the artificer. We no longer have to
deal with descriptive realism, in which temperament is as it were
excluded, but with an emotional appeal, which makes its impression
by grand gestures. We also feel a gulf with regard to his own early
work. Not so much as regards the theme, as in the scale. Naturally
there is a close connection between this and the subject. But the refine-
ment of the early etchings contrasts with the conspicuous boldness
of these paintings. Moreover the solution to the problem of com-
position: how to force four seated figures into the eightsided canvas
in varying attitudes, has been sought in a more lively movement

0 Described as by B. Breenbergh in Bartsch part IV, page 177—179 nos 25—2S
and as by de Gheyn in Andresen, I, page 570; according to signature and date
1638 by the younger de Gheyn. To be compared with the drawing in the
Pierpont Morgan Collection, N. Y.

2) They appeared as such in the auction at Christie\'s, London, July, 19th, 1929,
under no. 122.

than was known from the etched and drawn work. And finally, the
similarity to the later work of a contemporary such as Terbruggen
points to an origin later than 1620. We can even go further and
seek the source of inspiration for certain forms in the Utrecht master,
^ho undertook a long educational journey to Italy before 1616, and
there devoted himself wholeheartedly to Caravaggio\'s precepts,
f^his is at any rate the most obvious explanation of the existence ot
a painting such as the Denial of Peter, formerly in Count Moltke s
collection in Copenhagen!), of which it is not at first sight apparent
whether it was painted by Terbruggen shortly before his death in
J 629, or the younger de Gheyn. We know de Gheyn\'s preference
tor the Matthew motif, of which the theme may be considered a
variant; it can be found originally in a drawing by his father .^);
the emotion on Peter\'s face belongs to that purely Italian pathos
^hich spread to Holland under the influence of the Utrecht school,
^s we know that Jacques de Gheyn settled in 1634 in Utrecht, it
IS natural to assume that paintings such as the Evangelists were
created after that period, as they should be considered as belonging
entirely to the Utrecht school. We must not, however, overlook the
tact that in the first quarter of the century also the Hague schoo
^ in so far as there could be question of such a quot;school at that
time — judging by the drawing by Frisius we have already men-
tioned, was seeking new solutions to the problems of lighting, lo
put the date of the Evangelists at about 1630—1635 is therefore not
entirely unjustified.nbsp;^^ . ,

^ittle can be said about the drawings of the later years If we judge
^y the greater freedom of movement, characteristic of these Evan-
gelists, and also by the heavv shadows, we can assume that a large
pen-drawing of a walking biVd, which is attributed to Bloemaert in
the collection van Eeghen, originated in the later years. But un-
fortunately it does not enable us to draw further conclusions.
Although up to the present we have noticed that the young de Gheyn
expressed himself in many respects differently from his lather,
fhere are strong resemblances between their works. In the early etcii-
\'ngs we already find points of contact - not with the considerable
f^phic work of the wellknown de Gheyn, who himself had a^eady
dealt with them — but the contemporary drawings of his Hague
period. We are not thinking of the line of the etchings, but speciaUy
the finer, luminous dotting, which enabled the Dutch etchers ot this
period to reproduce new nuances 3), and of which the younger^
^heyn made a sensitive use. In the etching which represents Mat-

2) TU ^•v-Sclmeider, Caravaggio und die Niederlände, Marburg, 1933, pi. 17b.
3. the seated writer in Berlin; see above, page 42.

thew, the angel is executed entirely in this technique, which greatly
enhances the supernaturalness of the apparition. We find this
dotting again in the drawings. For instance in the boy with cock\'s
feathers in his cap, whose face is modelled with points in con-
trast to his coat and hat, which are shadowed with crosslines. Here
the difference with his father\'s later drawings is not so great. For
the latter\'s portrait of Prince Maurice, engraved by Andreas Stock,
there is a small drawing signed by the older de Gheyn (plate 3),
which perhaps contains the first idea for the position l). Next to it
a ring with a medallion is drawn. Here also the features of the face
are indicated delicately with quot;pointilléquot;. But the line with which
the costume is drawn has a suppleness which we do not find in the
son. It appears to us that we must find a clue in this difference when
judging doubtful cases. The curve, so powerful as point of departure
for the technique of the engraver, no longer possesses the same value
for the etcher of a following generation. This does not mean that
no doubt exists concerning drawings such as the pages of a sketch-
book, on which heads had been drawn — two, three or four on a
page — frequently dotted, but with flowing modelling lines, full of
imagination and striking variation, but then again with discrepan-
cies in the structure, sketches which are as closely related to the
work of the older as to that of the younger de Gheyn. Their
existence proves at any rate that the latter continued to follow in
the footsteps of his father and owed a great part of his inspiration
to his father\'s models.

Thus we see that the younger de Gheyn must be regarded as the
most important follower of the art — more especially that of
drawing — of Jacques de Gheyn. In a certain sense also as the only
pupil who absorbed some of its characteristic qualities, those
by which it differed from the work of contemporaries. For, although
de Gheyn had several disciples, whose names are known to us
through van Mander, he soon refused pupils, as appears from Huy-
gens\' account. During the very time that his drawing passed through
a period of exceptional development, the first years of the 17th
century, the group of pupils, themselves prepared for engraving,
disappear, and their place is taken by a number of engravers to
whom de Gheyn must have only now and then entrusted the repro-
duction in copper of one of his designs. As a result the relationship
to his younger fellow artists became less close, and in this way de
Gheyn gradually became isolated. This isolation is in a way related

j) Although the original painting has been lost, we consider we can form an
idea of it from an old copy which is in the Museum in Nantes, under the
wrong name of quot;Pourbusquot; (illus. Amsterdam in de 17de eeuw, the Hague 1897,
vol. I, Reg. en Hist., page 146).

Jo the nature of his art. Hirschmann in his study on van Mander\'s
^arlem academy has pointed out that the circle with which van
Mander, Goltzius, and Cornelis Cornelisz had surrounded them-
selves, bore an aristocratic character, aristocratic in the sense that
a small number of cultured artists, with literary gifts, gave the tone
and were honoured personally as the designers of the newest \' in-
ventionsquot; 1). Jacques de Gheyn, one of those, who was also a member
05 a quot;Rederijkerskamerquot;, as a pupil of Goltzius soon belonged to this
circle and the various prints which bear his name certainly contri-
buted to make that name generally known. Virtuosity plays no small
part in his work, as in that of his master. The technical perfection
threatens in the beginning to stifle every deeper meaning in his art,
and even when he succeeds in making this subservient to a pure
realism, the stubborn perseverance in the execution of the finest
details reappears now and then, by which he is able to make such
a startling effect. It is moreover not insignificant that he became
acquainted with inventors, such as Simon Stevin and his own pupil
gornelis Drebbel 2), as well as the many Leiden scientists, whom
got to know. This made him familiar with the early development
different exact sciences. Though occasionally he strikes a reli-
gious note, he remains ultimately a rationalist. He presently dis-
pensed with the obsolete lucubrations, as the rhetorician m him
disappeared into the background, leaving finally only the many-
^ded artist.nbsp;fe . «

A he question arises therefore, whether de Gheyn influenced otlier
artists as well as his son. We will leave the engravers who learnt
^e trade from him, out of consideration, because the spirit ot
yoltzius, everything de Gheyn had learnt from this quot;sculptor and
inventorquot;, had been transmitted by him more or less unchan^d to
^is pupils. This is at any rate tlie case with the Dolendo s and Ure»-
m whose prints one immediately recognises the school ot Uolt-
21US. A following of slavishly copying engravers under his influence
carried far into the first quarter of the next century bal ast which
had already been made superfluous by many pioneers. Woudanus,
)vho knew de Gheyn\'s later work, draws more in his real spirit when
^^ reproduces some views of the Library, Herbal garden and
fencing Room of the Leiden University and has them etched by
f^anenburgh 3). Swanenburgh in his turn betrays a certain allinity
^t« de Gheyn\'s interest in the great Dutch feats of arms, m Ins drawn
Maurice with Nieuwpoort in the background iiie

3 G. Tieric has recently devoted a monograph to h.m Amsterdam,
/ Compare the illus. in Cat. of the University Exhibition in Leiden, teb.
4) p; pages 15, 17 and 22.

engravers Hondius and de Passe follow their own line. The drawing
technique of Andreas Stock i) and Cornelis van Kittensteyn 2) is
quite dependent of graphic technique. A large washed pen drawing
with the picture of a St. Jerome chastizing himself, by a certain
quot;petter Schmidtquot; 3) (Peter Schmidt?) of 1618 carried out entirely in
de Gheyn\'s spirit, stands alone and cannot be classified. In the
portraits on a smaller scale which Bailly first began to draw
in 1623 a last trace of the unexcelled miniatures of his old master
seems to linger. Orlers informs us that they drew praise from de
Gheyn. All these artists seem to retain hardly a trace of the
essence of de Gheyn\'s art, of his great achievement, which had given
such a supreme position to the art of drawing.
In the case of two artists of whom we should least expect it, we find
a stronger influence from de Gheyn than even his pupils appear
to have undergone. It is remarkable that one of them seemed to
come from somewhat the same circles as the aristocratic de Gheyns,
namely the quot;knightquot; Hendrick Goudt. On his arrival in Holland
with his collection of Elsheimers, which one might as well call his
quot;booty of Elsheimersquot;, this adroit dilettante filled the important
part of importer of an art, which, once it became known here,
exercised an influence on painting which is not yet sufficiently
appreciated. When Rembrandt had come to the end of his years in
Leiden and in contrast to Lievens no longer confined himself to the
painting of canvases with large and almost life-size figures and ap-
plied himself to cabinet-pieces with very small figures in large
spaces, half-lit, half enveloped in dark mystery, we must assume he
had made the acquaintance of the paintings of Elsheimer, who pre-
ceded him in this.

As we know, on the strength of the addresses on the back of some
drawings which formerly passed for Elsheimers, a small group of
drawings has been reunited under the name of Goudt. It then
appeared that the majority of these drawings differed from the
simpler, statelier work of Elsheimer by certain twisted curves, of
which some of the figures are even entirely composed. Drost very
justly realized that a Dutch influence must have been the cause and
mentioned the names of Goltzius and deGheyn^), the latter, it seems
to us, quite rightly. Without the later drawings of de Gheyn, to
which they are often closely related, Goudt\'s drawings cannot well

\') Compare e.g. his flute-player in the coll. Scheurleer (Municipal Museum
m the Hague). A beautiful signed portrait is in the Leiden Printroom.
^ Drawing in München, K. K. (no. 6261) and at Dr. A. Welcker\'s, Amsterdam.
Cf. also Jahrbuch des Allerh. Kaiserh. Vienna, 1911, page 358.

be explained i). They are based on a pure mixture of Elsheimer s
and de Gheyn\'s use of the pen and when considered in this light
^ey lose all pretentions to originality.

ihe other artist has remained anonymous up to the present, as the
names of Cornelis Cornelisz and Nicolaes de Bruyn, under which his
numerous sketches pass, are untenable 2). For the greater part they
represent groups of men standing in various garments, amongst
^hich peaked caps are prominent; they are immediately re-
cognisable by the remarkable proportions of the too heavy heads,
the too long noses and the small, as it were mutilated hands, ine
drawings are untidily sketched with long hairy lines. They lack all
refinement. The composition in London reminds one vaguely ot
Cornelis Cornelisz\' quot;Grotto of Platoquot;, which was generally known
in Haarlem and outside by the print which was cut from it. It seems
tairly obvious that some one from Harlem is concealed behind tne
anonymous artist. We readily give credit to the name of Carel van
f^ander, which appears on a page in Amsterdam and f
to a monogram — on one in Brunswick, and with which the son oi
the author of the Schilderboeck may be indicated. We may there-
fore assume that these sketches are early works of the artist, wno
tater became known as a designer for tapestries.
More closely related to the younger than the o der de Gheyn are
three drawings which may be connected with the painting ot the

repeating motifs which probably all occurred on a larger scale m nis uxawquot;.^.
^ome of which can be traced as the models. It enables us to imagme tne
foup of shepherds in the Annunciation, composed of two f\'fquot;/quot;
drawn for themselves on the sketch in Amsterdam. Even l^f.^^^^^^J^he
Goudt\'s authorship of a drawing attributed to de Gheyn m
Academy of Sciences of the U.R.S.S., to which Mr. M. Dobrok^
^.»•ew our attention. A reproduction of it appears in his

^terdam (both under the name of de Gheyn; without nrs .X-^ndon at?rib.
Rosenberg, see above, as Nic. de Bruyn, no. 767;nbsp;Dr T. G.

be said for certain by which of the Van Manders the drawi^^^
is, although the same K. van Mander II might be
van Mander there are sketches of 1627 in Bremen (126; Noah s D unKc
ffs). of 1670 in Hamburg (Study of figure) and in Leipzig (idem), all
Wenhagen.nbsp;113

so-called pseudo-van de Venne l). These are representations of
gipsy-hke female figures with their children and who appear to be
quarrellmg with one another. Characteristic of the anonymous ar-
tist are the protruding chins, which are broad at the end, the soiled
and crumpled clothes and the untidy surroundings. The romance of
gipsy life has developed further after de Gheyn\'s fortune-teller and
now leans to the tragic side of their existence. At the moment it is
not possible to give the unknown painter and draughtsman his true
name; it appears to us however that the familiar alternative: Ant-
werp or Holland, in his case must be decided in favour of the North.
His painted work and also the above-mentioned drawings have a
strong affinity with that of the youthful Leonhard Bramer.
If we look in a wider circle for a reflection of de Gheyn\'s art,
we must not exclude the early portrait which the amateur Huygens
drew of himself 2), if it were only for the sake of some strokes with
a silver stylet, because it proves so clearly that the influence of his
older friend, who once had refused him lessons, counted for more
than that of his own master. In itself this somewhat effaced portrait
is not a special work of art, but the knowledge that the silver stylet
also accompanied de Gheyn on his journey to England and the pre-
ference shown for the oval portrait point to some connection. This
appears most clearly in the calligraphic signature quot;Constanter
Londini lunis 1622quot;, in which at first sight one would seem to
recognise de Gheyn\'s sure hand. In the bold pen sketches by Tan
Bouckhorst 3) the last traces of de Gheyn\'s influence may be felt
Finally, if we turn to other countries, we find that de Gheyn has
had the greatest influence on Jacques Callot. This needs no proof,
because the congenial nature and parallel case of the two artists,
whose love for etching grew out of a thorough practice in the tech-

3)nbsp;Lit. e.g. M. D. Henkel, Le Dessin Hollandais, page 36 and plate XXVII
In this connection mention should also be made of a drawing, very closely

nique of engraving, is obvious. Although it is possible that such
similarly conceived compositions as their Ghost Stories 1) may be
traced to a common Italian and Flemish model, some picture by
Wsheimer, or even a Flemish follower of Pieter Brueghel, yet a small
drawing such as the mutilated beggar 2) is obviously imbued with
tne same spirit as de Gheyn\'s figures and is moreover drawn m a
similar manner. We must not lose sight of the inspiration which
produced the quot;Hellsquot; of both artists: they are no longer, as with
Bosch, facets of a well-ordered cosmic conception, but a pretext
lor making a display of their own ingenuity in ever madder in-
ventions and to call up a smile and a shudder at the same time,
l^ven if we cannot believe in a Dutch influence, we must realize
that the forms which we have met here and there, are not an idiom
confined to one special period, but that they possessed a certain in-
ternational validity. We must point out the resemblance between
certain pen-drawings of the school of Bologna, with which tliose ot
Ullot were also connected, and the drawing-art of deGheyn scircle.
As the influence of Italian masters on de Gheyn can be considered
negligible, we must regard these more as independent results irom
common sources of form.

The figure of de Gheyn when considered in its place in the whole
West-European art at the beginning of the 17th century, is almos
completely lost among the great mass of talent. The power was not
l^is to place himself with bold stroke at the head of one group ot
^,ytists. A limitation which would have brought him far m one
^\\rection, and established his name as that of a pioneer in one oi
other well-defined field. On the contrary, we almost rfgret a certa n
dissipation of his force, as a result of his desire and talent tor skiltui
versatility, especially when we see to what perfection he was aDie
to bring his smallest, his most delicate drawings.
.We must not however overlook the fact that this diversity was an
\'^tegral part of de Gheyn\'s nature. And for this very reason m our
opinion, although he was in various ways much o , lt;c
than many of his contemporaries, he retained a touch ot ama-
teurishnessquot;, in the original favourable sense of the word,an attitude
the mind which was very general at the time. On y a lew
^-^^tists have been able to rise above this modus and y^t letain heir
^rsatility. Never, though, without a bitter strugg e, such as Michel
Angelo experienced. It i; to the credit of de Gheyn as man ^
artist thit he must at times have felt bitterly dissatisfied with him

li The best example is his drawing in Stockholm (2471/1863). first study for
^ye print of 1635 (M. 139).

self. Here, where his humble admirer and exegete lays down the
pen, may de Gheyn\'s portrait of himself rise again before his
friends, with the words: quot;To the utmostquot;, in which he characterises
all human effort, and which he took for his device:

We have very little information about the 16th century windows
of the Oude Kerk, but it is not impossible that a study of the Dutch
glass-painters, who were contemporaries of the Crabeths, will throw
more light on this subject. The following seems to us to be certain
at the moment:nbsp;. .

1)nbsp;Pieter Aertszen can hardly be the author of the surviving
windows, which are not in any way related to his style ot
painting. On the other hand, the study for a window from 15W,
in Hamburg (reproduced Prestel-Gesellschaft, Hamburg, JNie-
derlander, I, pi. 3) is related to this style. Its existence proves
conclusively that Aertszen worked for monumental glass-
painting, so that it is not impossible that somewhere else in the
Oude Kerk a window may have been executed by him. Ihe
mistake, which first appears in Fokkens, at any rate as regards
the subjects, is probably founded on a confusion with the mam
altar, which P. Aertszen painted (cf. F. Lugt, Onze Kunst, March

2)nbsp;On the question of the authorship of the three surviving windows
we must take into consideration the great probability that these
are by two different hands. The resemblance in style between
the North-West and North-East windows does not exist between
these two windows on the one hand and the East on the other.
Although it became apparent that the archives of the JNeder-
duitsch Hervormde Gemeente in Amsterdam, which we were
kindly allowed to consult, will not produce new facts, much less
confirm Wagenaar\'s attribution of the three windows to IJig-
man (see also A. W. Weissmann in the Jaarverslag Kon. Uudn.
Gen. 1904, appendix concerning sixteenth century stained glass,
passim), there is no reason to doubt the possible trut^hnbsp;re-
marks, although Digman probably did not make the three but one
or two of the windows. We cannot consider an erroneous read ng
of quot;Degainquot; as quot;Digmanquot;, however tempting the S^oss appeared
at first as the work of Digman elsewhere, and speciaUy m
Gouda, can be traced. With regard to l^is mat er. Me . Dr r
Hintzen gave us the helpful information l^at the ninth sketch
there, which is attributed to L. van Noort, and which shows h^
style, is not signed by him like 11 and 13, but shows a mono^am
consisting of B and D. In the church accounts there is an item
on April 4,1561, on the name of quot;HansSenver,glass-maker f om
Antwerpquot;, to whom was paid the quot;glass of the P^P ^\'J.te «f m^^
waert. as Digman, his uncle, had received for it 8 «cmish p.
and then another, because the uncle had come to put in the glass.

The sketch of the window 13, presented by this prelate, is how-
ever signed by Lambert van Noort. It is therefore obvious to
assume that Digman completed this window and then received
instructions to design and make window 8 himself. The style of
this latter window, to which Digman must have largely contri-
buted, shows a striking resemblance to that of the two large
windows in Amsterdam. The architecture, in design as well as
the execution of the details, is in itself a strong proof that the
two Amsterdam windows, as well as the design, could also be
by Digman.

3) Two drawings show the composition of the East window with
the Death of Maryquot;, namely, a fairly large, somewhat rough
sketch, which is kept in the Oude Kerk, and the smaller meti-
culous drawing, executed in grey and red, in the Rijks Prenten-
cabinet. While the latter may be regarded as the original study
tor the window, we feel justified in attributing to the same hand
the design for one of the lost Hague windows in the South Ken-
sington Museum, London (ill. Oud-Holland XLIII, page 102)
a sketch in the British Museum (ill. Popham, catalogue of Dutch
and Flemish Drawings, etc. vol. V, 1932, plate LXXIX, no. 1)
and another in the former collection Hofstede de Groot (ill
auction cat., Leipzig, 7 November 1931, no. 232). We cannot

Finally, a comparison with the drawing in the Albertina at-
tributed to Wouter Crabeth (0. Benesch, Zeichnungen\' der
niederl. Schulen, Wien 1928, no. 106), as well as resemblances
to the work of Dirck (for instance, the sketch for Gouda\'s
window of 1555), make it possible for us to assume that one of
and probably Dirck, is the author of this window.

4j Van Mander informs us that the window of the old de Gheyn
IS on the West side of the church. The church had three chapels
here, namely the St. Elizabeth Chapel, the St. Cornelis Chapel,
and the Hamburg Chapel. Wagenaar makes no mention at all
Ol windows in the first two chapels, but only of a window in the
east, which represented the conversion of St. Paul,and which was
removed in 1621 quot;having become oldquot;. It is obvious to assume

Although an account book of the Hamburg choir has been pre-
served in the archives of the Lutheran congregation in Amster-
dam, this payment does not occur. Neither can the closing of the
accounts with the year 1579 and the resumption in 1594 have
been the cause that this item is lacking, as the choir was shut
after the quot;Alterationquot;.

contains a drawing in red chalk, supposed to be from a window
in the Oude Kerk, which no longer exists. This drawing how-
ever shows the composition of the fifth window in Gouda, pre-
sented by the Abbess of Rijnsburg, and therefore need not be
considered in this connection.

APPENDIX II. TEXT OF A LETTER FROM DE ^EYN TO
YSBRANT WILLEMSZ OF MARCH 3, 1592, IN WHICH THE
PORTRAIT OF THE MESSENGER IS DRAWN
(Berlin, Printroom)

quot;Seer goeden vrint Hr. Isebrant Willemsen. Ick sende u-liefen hier
mijnen Jongen den welken is vergeten vande tongeriem tesnijden
oversulckx gans ombequam u-liefen te botschappen dat ick wel van
u-liefen desen dach soot tepasse quaem wilde versocht wesen ende
dat hier om dat die Apostelen begeren dat ick gestadich bij tiaer

ende alsdan haren foye met een eerlyck bancket besetten het welcKe
wijt, haer heerschap spruyt, ten borse sal worden betaelt, dewijl sij
al t Jaer bij mij vertert hebben, ende sijn alsdan geresolveert soo
mij, donckt In pelgrimagie naer frankfoert tereysen. Mijn dunckt
sij welgeluckich sijn dat haer s reijsen In den somer comt want ^j
nau een schoen anden voet en hebben, vorder goeden vrmt iseoram
Willemsen soo u-liefen In desen mijnen Jongen iet siet het gene
u-liefen behaecht macht den selven houden hij fal hem In aiies
laten gebruijken het geene In sijnder macht is sonder daer iet tegen
te seggen gelijck ook sijnen mester die u-liefen hier meden den heer
bevelt.

APPENDIX III. ANCESTORS AND RELAT^^^^^ OF THE WIFE OF JACQUES DE GHEYN i)
Jacob Stalpaert v. d. W.=Maria van Arkel van Montfoort _

Vincent van Mierop=Maria Ruysch
treasures of all
the Netherlands
under Charles V, etc.
Eva van Mierop
dies in 1575

3. Vinceo 3)

dies in ^
married;

Vaniai^

5. (2?) Eva 4)
married in 1595
to Jacques de
Gheyn, Antwerp
1565—1629 the
Hague

2!nbsp;geslacht Sta\\pfj\\ Gh^\'/^le 1279-1853, Vianen 1854, and used, besides, our appendix VI.

3 ^r ^wi?quot; inbsp;quot;^»n^xf^^ ( 579-1630), contemporary V^ Vn, descends from a brother of this Adriaen.

J} llt;or Vmcents descendants see quot;De Nederlandsche Leeuwquot; 1912, P^l .St^\'P^ert

ror vmcents descendants see quot;De Nederlandsche Leeuwquot; 1912, paSquot;ctjlPaen
4) Van der Harn only mentions three daughters as children of Cornell«nbsp;and Elizabeth van Lambroeck but irives them first, fifth and sixth place.

f?frdau]Lrquot;fnbsp;1nbsp;\'Inbsp;^^/Wii\'^nbsp;Elizabeth va^LaX^^^^^^ ^Hhe same name and has made the

litth daughter of Cornells Stalpaert follow the fourth daughter of ^\'jof the \'\' \'quot;stead of the second of Cornells Stalpaert.nbsp;, ^ .

e deed m transfer, copied on page 10, note 2, justifies, in our or \'hypothetical intcrDolation on two of the three vacant places of the wives
ot Lornelis Duyn and Pieter Hugo Daenen.nbsp;j^j

APPENDIX III. ANCESTORS AND RELATI^^^^^ QF THE WIFE OF JACQUES DE GHEYN i)
Jacob Stalpaert v. d. W.=Maria van Arkel van Montfoort

Vincent van Mierop=Maria Ruysch
treasures of all
the Netherlands
under Charles V, etc.
Eva van Mierop
dies in 1575

5. (2?) Eva 4)
married in 1595
to Jacques de
Gheyn, Antwerp
1565—1629 the
Hague

The deed of transfer copied on page 10, note 2, justifies, in our oP\'^nbsp;hypothetical interpolation on two of the three vacant places of the wives
ot Cornells Duyn and Pieter Hugo Daenen.

Testament Sr. Jacques de Gheyn, plaetsnijder van Hantwerpen
ende Juffr. Eva Stalpart van der Wiele, van Mechelen, wonende
bmnen Leyden.

In den naeme Goods, ons Heeren, Amen. Bij den innehouden van
desen jegenwoordigen openbaren Instrumente zij kennelic eenen
yegehjcken dat m den jare van der geboorten ons Salichmakers Jesu
Christi duyssent, vijffhondert negenentneghentich, in de maent van
Augusto, opten lesten ende eenendertichsten dach derzelver maent
des savonts ontrent de docke vijff uyre in de twaelffste indictie,
regnerende dalder deurluchtichste ende grootmogenste prince ende
beeren, heere Rodolpho, die tweede gecozen Roomsch Keysser van
dyer naeme, altijt vermeerder srijcx etc. zijn XXVe jare zijnre
keyssemjcke onsen genadige heere, voor mij openbaer Notario ende
voor den nabeschreven getuygen gecomen zijn Sr. Jacques de
Gheyn, plaetsnijder van Hantwerpen ende Juffrouwe Eva Stalparts
van der Wiele van Mechelen, geechte man ende wijff, rediserende
binnen der stede van Leyden in den Graeffschappe van Hollant,
clouc ende gesont van lichaemen, gaende ende staende, heure rede-
nen, memorie, spraeche ende vijff sinnen na allen uuytwendigen
schijn ten vollen ghebruyckende, verclaerende dat zijluyden (aen-
merckende des mensschen leven als een schaduwe verganckelicken
te we^n, ende nyet sekerder te hebben dan de doot, ende nyet on-
sekerder dan de tijt ende uyre van dien) van sinnen ende meeninge
waeren bij forme van testamente ende uuyterste wille, van heure
elcx tijtelicke goederen, hen van God Almachtich verleent te dis-
poneren, ende voorsyen, dat die langstlevende van hem beyden be-
hoorhcke authoriteyt, ende onderhout bij heure beyder eenige zoon
Jacques de Geyn, zal mogen hebben, ende omdat heure beyder kind
ende zoon in alle gehoorsaemheyt bij de langstlevende zal moegen
werden gehouden, doende alle tzelve (soo zijluyden opentlicken
adsereerden) met goeden voorsyen wel bedacht ende beraden we-
sende, sonder bij yemant dairtoe geinduceert oft misleyt te zijne,
maer om zekere hoochdringe redenen elcx gemoet daertoe porrende.
Bevelende daeromme zij beyde elcx heure ontsterffelicke zielen in
de barmhertige handt des Almogenden, heuren Schepper ende
Salichmaker, ende heure dode lichamen dairde met een eerlicke
ende christelicke begravenisse, wederroupende, annulierende, doot
ende te nyete doende bij expres mits desen heure beyder contract
antenuptiael voor banden van huwelijk gemaect ende aengegaen,
die zij van onwaerden willen geacht ende gehouden te werdene.

O Textually from the protocols of Notary W. Oudevliet, 1599, nr. 63. fol.
204 vo—206 vo. Archives of the city of Leiden.

Verclaerden daeromme dat sijluyden den staet heurder gemeene
goeden rijpelicken hadden overgeleyt ende voorsagen, dat het voor
hen testateurs ende heure beyder gemeen zoon zeer nut ende prouf-
fijtelicken zoude sijn, dat die goeden ten besten doenlic onder de
macht van de langstlevende geregieert ende beseeten zouden wer-
den, ende dat zijluyden omme die voors. ende andere meer rede-
nen, elcx in zijn gemoet bekent geheelicken ende universalicken van
de goeden, bij elcx metter doot te ontruymen, disponeren, maeken
ende ordonneren bij desen, dat zij elc den anderen ende sulcx den
langstlevende van hem beyden, over ende wederover maecken bij
desen, den eygendomme van alle ende elcx heurluyder beyder
goeden, tzij roerende ende onroerende, in Brabant oft elders ge-
legen, linden, tinnenwollen, coper, houtwaren ende coopmanschap-
pen, actiën ende crediten, gelt, gout, silver, gemunt en de onge-
munt, gheen uuytgesondert, die deerste overlijdende van hem bey-
den metter doot ontruymen ende achterlaeten zal, omme daer mede
te doen zijne ofte hare vrije wille, zonder yemants wederspreeken.
Willende nochtans dat die langstlevende gehouden zal sijn den
voors. Jacques de Gheyn, heur beider gemeen zoon, als hij tot den
volcomen ouderdomme van XXV jaren oft state van eeren zal sijn
gecomen uuyte reycken aen gelde die somme van drye duyssent
carolus guldens te XL grooten tstuc eens. Ende zoe dzelve heure
zoon hem in alle onderdaniclieyt van de langstlevende bege^quot; ende
nae rade ende wille van dien huwelict ende doet, dat dzeütde heuie
beyder gemeen zoon gehouden zal wesen noch te cleden, uuyte
sctten ende habitueren, ende die nyet te min geduyerende deszelts
onmondicheyts, in cost, cleeren, leeren ende anders te onderhouden,
gelijc des langstlevendens staet respective zal vereysschen, dair
inne zij elcx heure zoon alsoe institueren, tot elcx heure crttge-
naeme, ende oock bewijsen bij desen voor desen voor zijne vaders
ofte moeders erff, willende dat hij dair mede uuyt zijn vaders oii
moeders boedel zal blijven. Ten ware die langstlevende voor de
groote vordernisse van heure beyder zoon, zonder zijne otte haere
groote quetse goet ende raetsaem bevonden \'t voors bewijs te ver-
meerderen, twelc zij elcx tgemoet ende die geschictheyt van de
langstlevende bij desen groutlicken betrouwen ^nde bevelen.
Hebben voorts zij testanten elcx den anderen ende sulcx den angst-
levende van heur beyden bij desen geordonneert ende gesteit o
momboers ende voochden van heure beyder zoon ende goeden tot
dat dzelve anders tot den volcomen ouderdomme van
oft state van eeren zal sijn gecomen, belastende uuytdruckc cke^
bij desen heure voors. beyder gemeen zoon dat hij zonder believen
van den langstlevenden hem tot huwelicke state nyet en z^l mogen
begeven, ende de langstlevende alle eere ende onderdanich^t za
bewijsen ende malcanderen beminnen ende in eeren houden vooris

es heure testanten beyder uuyterste wille dat indien heure voors.
beyder zoon beneden oft boven zijn XXV jaren gehuwelict oft on-
gehuwehct zonder kint oft kinderen achtergelaeten te hebben bij
tleven van de langstlevende quame te sterven, dat die voors. goeden
van heure voorn, zoon, alsoe overlijdende, tsij die in manieren voors.
bewesen, vermeerdert oft elders vercregen zullen zijn, erven ende
besterven zullen op te langstlevende ongehuwelict blijvende. Ende
de langstlevende mede stervende willen zij testanten dat des langst
geleeft hebbende goeden gaen, succederen ende erven sullen aen
de sijden daer die van daen zullen sijn gecomen, te weten die goe-
den, gecomen van Juffrouw Eva Stalperts van der Wiele aen haer
sijde bloede ende geslachte ende die van Sr. Jacques de Geyn ge-
comen sullen zijn aen sijne sijde bloede ende geslachte mits dat de
veroeverde ende geconqueesteerde goeden halff ende halff zullen
werden gepaert ende gedeelt aen weder zijden.
Verclaerden mede doors. testateurs elcx heurluyder uuyterste wille
ende mede bij desen onderlinge verdragen te wesen, dat oft nae de
doot van de eerst overlijdende gebeuren mochte, dat het den langst-
levende beheffde oft gelegen ware hem oft haer tot huwelicke state
weder te begeven, in sulcken gevalle die langstlevende gehouden zal
sijn heur beyder gemeen soon te laten volgen alsulcke goederen als
deerste afflivige metter doot ontruymt ende achtergelaeten zal heb-
ben, mits dat die langstlevende sijn ofte hare leven lang voor uute
goeden van de eerst verstorven hebben zal een lijffpensie van hon-
dert ende vijftich carolus guldens ten prijse voors. tsiaers, ingaende
ten dage die goeden in den voors. geval zouden mogen werden
gescheyden. Hebben voorts gewilt dat oft gebeurde (dat oft God
wd nyet geschien en zal) dat heur beyder soon oft sijne descenden-
ten in sijn plaetse, oft yemant van zijnen oft beuren twegen, in rechte
ofte dair buyten directe ofte indirecte, in eeniger manieren jegens
dese heure uuyterste wille wilde opposeren, ofte buyten des langst-
levendens consent hem begeven tot huwelicke state, ofte den langst-
levende moeyelicken zijn omme staet oft inventaris van goeden te
hebben, dat dzelve onwillige ende jegendoenders in allen ende
elcken der voors. gevallen nijet meer van elcx goeden en zal ge-
nyeten dan elcx zijne legittime portie van alsulcke goeden als zij
elcx van hem testanten in sijn regart sonder uuyterste wille gemaect
te hebben overlijdende, geerft zouden hebben ende oversulx als
heure zoon ende descendenten in zijn plaetse nae rechte zal mogen
competeren den zeiven mits dien instituerende ende substituerende
daer inne bij desen tot elcx heure erffgenamen.
Behoudende voorts volcomen machte omme desen te muteren, ver-
anderen, vermeerderen ofte verminderen onder heure elcx handen
alleen oft voor notaris ende getuygen, oft voor twee getuygen alleen
ende dat daer van yet bleecke. Alle tzelve willen zii testanten van
124

alsulcke crachte, waerde, machte ende effecte te wesen oft in dit
heure testament mede geinsereert stonde. Verclaerende de voorn,
testateurs tgunt voors. staet, heure elcx testament, leste ende
uuyterste wille te wesen. Willen ende begeren dat tzelve effect sal
sorteren, als testamente, codicille, gifte uuyt zaecke des doots, ofte
eenige andere uuyterste wille, soe tzelve nae rechten ofte costumen
van den lande alderbest subsisteren zal mogen, nyet jegenstaende
eenige solemniteyten nae rechten in desen noodich, nyet waerge-
nomen en waren, versouckende de voorn, testateuren aen mij notaris
ondergeschreven dese heure testament ende unterste wille in een
publijcke acte geredigeert ende daer van een ofte meer instrument
oft instrumenten in de beste vorme gemaect ende gelevert te wer-
den. Geschiet ende gepasseert aldus binnen der stede van Leyden
op Steenschuyr ontrent Loyhalle ten woonhuysse van de testanten,
ten dage, uyre, jare, maent, indictie ende keyserrijcke voors. In
presentie van den eersamen Dirck Joppensz. van Alphijn, schoe-
naker ende burger der voors. stede ende Cornelis Cornelisz. Boelen
van Amstelredam, residerende binnen Leyden als gelooffwaerdige
getuygen hyer toe bij den testanten selver speciaelijk met mij notaris
versocht ende gebeden.

Wolgeborener freundlicher lieber bruder. Wegen des uberschikten
kriegsbuchs thue gegen S. L. midi freundlich bedanken Nicht
zweiflend werde S Excell. sich noch zuerinnern wissen, dasz icn
dasselbe vor ungefehr zehen oder zwölf jaren m Haagen ^urcn ge-
melten meister verfertigen und abreiszen lassen. -) Ihre ^xceli. aoer
damals nicht vor gut gefunden solches in truck ausgehen laszen
Weil es aber geschehen, so hette die ubung der reiterei welche ich
Ihme dem meister auch gegeben, nicht ubell dann gestanden In
ahnsehung zue pferdt, wie El. weiszlich mit langen röhren, pisto en
^dt seittenwehr umbzugehen, undt solches mit nutzen undt ohne

State Archives, Wiesbaden, H.S.K. 925. fol. 53. The paper is obviously an
^nsigned minute.nbsp;, , , .

schade seines mitgesellen zue brauchen viel schwerer als zue fus
und hat also diese ubung eben sowohl ihre praecepta als dTe zue
fues Es wirdt auch oft zue Heidelberg und Baszell dLh d e hlren
undt Raterschaft m.t solcher ubung |roszer fleisz gebracht Doch
kan der abrisz von der reuterei wan es S exc gut finden und der
me,s er keine copie mehr davon hatte, hienunde? geschkkt Terden
Weil auch der meister sich im buch in etlichen stucken vlTtoszen
wie ich in fleisziger durchsuchung deszelben befunden, aL habe ich

Und ist alljereit durch diese und dergleiche fcrieesexercitia „nd
Übungen etlichen groszen [schramm] hVsen und Sern weil sie
mcht uf em einzigen puncten antworten können, das maul ge! onft

welche sich m Ungern gebrauchen laszen und itzo uf letzt gehaltener
inusterung zuDill[g]en gewesen, öffentlich gegen unparfeiX
standen, dasz sie bei dem kleinen werck mehr gesehen und relernet
als die ganze zeit so sie in Ungern gewesen. Wie ich däfafch von

Mei ge[ ]furst Christian und ich ahn meinen geringen ort haben
m kriegsubungen ein eigen Methodum angefangenln dem einer
^m andern etliche puncten ex tempore daruf zu resolviren vorgfbt
Wie S 1 einliegendt mit letra B signirt zu sehen.nbsp;^

reftwiZ ^A^ ^ angenehme möglich dienste zue leisten be-
Taltln ^ undt schuldig bin neben empfehlung Gottes nicht ver-

I quot; gewiszer geschoszen werden auch viel zierlicher
stehet als wan es vor sich hencket.

langendt. Ist solches zwar an sich selbsten gut: man kan aber viel
^it gewinnen wan man denselbigen zum laden gar nicht braucht.
Dan wan man das pulver ins rohr gethan hat und nur ein wenig
den rohr mit den schafft uff die erden stöst, so setzt sich das pulver

Kugeln wie im krieg breuchlich so kan man sich auch hirmit ohne
uem ladtstocken behelfen, oder zum wenigsten die zeit mit den
pulver ufzustoszen sparen.

Die mosquetierer belangendt hat sich der meister im ersten puncten
verstoszen dasz er an stat die forcet in die rechte handt zu nehmen
gesetzet hat mosquet.

It. dasz in demselbigen gedacht wirt bändlein an die forcetten zu
inachen und dieselbe im laden damit zu schleiffen. Ist solches in
viel weg verhinderlich und verliehret man damit viel zeit und ist
beszer als keine darahn sein.

^ei 5 puncten. Es ist viel leichter und sicherer wan in der lincken
handt die mosquet und forquet zugleich gehalten wirt, dasz die
torquet uff der erden nach geschleiffet werde, auch die gabel uff
der forquet nicht neben die mosquet gehalten werde sondern dasz
die mosquet jederzeit im schleiffen der forquet uff der gabel ruhe,
welches dan dem lincken arm undt hand mercklich zu hulff kombt
nnd kaum halb so schwer ist als wan die forquet schwebendt neben
uer mosquet gehalten wirt, sintemahl die mosquet und forquet
zweierlei gewicht und dicke gibt, da dargegen die schweiffende
f^orquet die mosquet zum halben theil hilfft tragen und in der handt
bei weitem nicht so verhinderlich ist.

fehlt es auch offt dasz wan man anschlagen will dasz man oit
ein fehlgriff thut, und die mosquet nicht uff die gabel kombt und
^it gefahr und verseumung der zeit sich fornen nahe der erden

ßei dem 17 puncten hat es eben die meinung was die geratigkeit
aes leibs im anschlagen anlanget wie mit dem 11 punct bei den
schützen, und ist bei demselbigen puncten auch ausgelaszen ehe der
jnosquetierer anschlaget dasz er zuvor die pfan aufthue.
^ei dem 13 punckt die furquet belangendt hat es ebenmeszige mei-
nung wie bei dem funfften und wan man sich eilen soll, greift mp
^ohl drei mahl nach der gabel ehe man sie faszet, welche auch bis-
weilen den Soldaten im marchieren zwischen die beine kombt, oder
^nder so neben ihm gehen darau dretten.nbsp;, i.

^le doppelsoldner belangendt. Bei der 20 punckten werden die
spies zu kurz gehalten, dan der spitz billig ein ehlen vor der lincken
handt damit man im notfal desto geschwinder damit stoszen könne
Vorgehen soll, welches sonsten wan er zu kurz gehalten wirt nicht
geschehen kan und stehet auch nich so wohl.

geschloszen seindt dasz keine seinen gesellen so vor ihn gehet, wan
er semen spies in der eil über sich heben will, unversehens verletzt.

Inden naeme des Heeren. Amen. Bij den inhouden van desen open-
baren Instrumente zij kennelick een ygelick dient behoort, dat inden
jaere naede geboorte ons lieffs Heeren Jesu Christi XVI^ een ende
veertich op den derden dach der maent Juny ten zes uren naede
no^ ouden stijll voor mij, Gerrit Vastert, openbaer notaris, bij den
L. Hove van Utrecht geedt ende geadmitteert, binnen Utrecht resi-
derende, ende den getuygen nae benoemt, daer toe versocht, in
eygenen persoone is gecompareert den E. Heere Jacob de Geyn
canonick der kercke van Ste Marien t\'Utrecht, mij notaris bekent,
zieckehck van lichaem te bedde leggende, edoch sijn verstant, me-
morie ende vijff sinnen wel machtich sijnde, als claerlick bleecke,
D welcke overdenckende \'s menschen sterffelicke nature ende alhier
op der aerden niet zeeckerder te zijn dan die doot, noch onseecker-
der dan die ure vandien, ende willende daer omme deselve on-
seeckere ure mit testamentaire dispositie sijner tijtelicke goederen
voorcommen, verclaerden gemaeckt te hebben zijn testament, leste
ende uutterste wille in maniere naevolgende, alvorens bevelende
sijn ziel, wanneer die uut sijn lichaem sali comen te scheyden, in
handen van Godt Almachtich, sijnen Schepper ende Zalichmaecker,
ende sijn lichaem der kerckelicke begravinge inde Domkercke alhier
t Utrecht. Ende voorts casserende, revocerende ende te niet doende
alle voorrende testamenten, codicillen, giften, maecken ende do-
natien, bij hem, comparant, voor date deses eenichsins gedaen ende
gemaeckt, alle d\'zelve houdende voor nul crachteloos ende van on-
waerden: Waer mede comende tot nieuwe dispositie sijner tijtelicke
goederen, hem, comparant, bij Godt almachtich verleent, in crachte
vande opene brieven van octroye, bij den comparant respectivelick
geimpetreert soe vande Hoochmo. Heeren Staten van Hollant ende
W^tvrieslant van date den 6en Septembris a° 1622, als vanden
E. Hove van Utrecht voorss. in date den 7en Marty 1635 daervan
sijnde, verclaerden den heer comparant, testateur, voor eerst ge-
maeckt ende gelegateert te hebben, als hij legateert mitsdesen, aen
^jn, comparants, neve Johan Wttenbogaert, ontfanger over het
Quartier van Amsterdam, den grooten blompot daer een tros lelien

1) From the protocols of Notary G. Vastert. Archives of the city of Utrecht,
«tal., suppl. no 209-A 9. In 1661 the accounts gave rise to a judicial inquiry.
The executor, Mr. Huybert de Schepper then gave a justification of his admi-
nistration to the coheirs Viglius and Adriaen van Schroyestein (Acts in the
same archives, cat., 2nd part, nos. 2475 and 2476).

boven uut comt, geschildert van des comparants vader za., soe die
staet in sijn ebbenlijst besloten in een houten casse, alsmede alle sijne
coquilien ofte zeeschelpen, soe rare suyvere als ruwe onsuyvere,
mit oock alle sijne mineralia, steene ende zeegewassen, geene uut-
gesondert, soe in zijn, comparants, jegenwoordich logement wesen-
de als op die camer boven het capittelhuys vande kercice van bte
Marien alhier binnen Utrecht, ofte daer die hier nae souden mogen
worden gebracht ende op sijn, comparants, overlijden bevonaen.
Item noch een schilderije van Rembrand gedaen, daer twee oude
mannekens sitten ende disputeren, den eenen heeft een groot boucK
op sijn schoot, daer comt een sonnelicht in. Noch een out slapent
manneken bij een vuyr sittende, sijn hant inden bosem hebbende,
mede van Rembrand gemaeckt. Noch een fraye vrouwe tronige mit
een out wijff daerbij, van Jan Lievens geschildert. Noch een joncK
lâchent meyskens tronigen, oock van Jan Lievens geschildert. £.nde
geeft hij, testateur, noch aenden voorn, sijnen neve Wttenbogaert
zeecker coffer boven op geteyckent mit numero twee mit witte taeis-
gens ofte nageltgens ende dat mit alle t\'geene int selve cotter is
ende op sijn, testateurs, overlijden zall worden bevonden. JNocn
maeckt aenden selven sijnen neve een schilderije van een boere Kcr
mis, van Brouwer, schilder, mitsgaders twee conterfeytsels mit
swarte cantjes binnen de lijst, ende daertoe noch twg cleyne con-
terfeytsels, t\'eene gedaen van Lucas ende t\'ander van Holbeen, en^
noch PPn Vün mr Pn^lnff vvpsende VI heer van brederooe. ncui

gedisponeert, ofte daer van hij nae desen niet particulierlick disno-
neren sail, hoe ende waer deselve op date van s^ overlijden bev?n-

S/ou Annn w\'^ Schro jesteyn outste dochter van d\' voorn.
Jottrou Anna Wijntjes alle sijne goude ringen mit diamanten ende

mogen sijn. Noch legateerde ende maeckte hij, t^tateur aen s^n
neve Nico aes den Otter, voorsoone van sijn n chte Anna WiL?es
voornt alle sijne gedruckte boucken in wit taele die oock 2! soe
uthnbsp;ongebonden, mit alles wat tot sijn, comparant quot;ijve

pen ofte andersins gedaen op copere platen etc., waer die bevonden
worden, alleenlick uutgesondert het geene hij, testateur aen sS
voorn, neve den ont anger Wttenbogaert gemaeckt heeft ende in^quot;
voorss. coffer geteyckent mit no. 2 berustende sal sijn. Noch maèck
ende legateert hij, comparant, aen sijn neve Jacob van der Burch
raedt van sijn Gen. den heere van Brederode, ofte bij sijne voorafquot;
lijvicheyt aen syne wettige descendenten ende erffgenamen! d\\om-
me van een acht duysent Car, guldens. Item aen ^jn, com^aranTs
mchte Anna van der Burch, weduwe wijlen zijn neve HenrTwou:
terss. van Veen, tot Amsterdam ofte bij haere voor aff «viTeyt

erffgenimen oock de somme v7n
eens acht duysent gel.jcke guldens, als mede aen sijn, comparants

twee dienstmaechden, jegenwoordich in sijn logement woonende
yder vijftich guldens. Ende in alle sijn, comparants vordere goede-
ren, roerende, onroerende, heerlicke ende allodiale, geit, gout
ver gemunt ende ongemunt actiën ende crediten hoe ende ^n

institueren, als hij dede mitsdesen, de samentlicke kinderen van sijn
voorn, nichte Joffrou Anna Wijntgens, weduwe van Jo\'^ Bucho van
Schroijesteyn. Behoudens dat deselve sijne nichte Joffrou Anna
Wijntjes aen alle de voorss. goederen, die hare kinderen in crachte
vanden voorss. institutie van hem, testateur, sullen comen te erven,
daer aen sali hebben ende genieten de volle lijftochte ende vrucht-
gebruyck haer leven langh geduyrende. Welcke lijftochte hij, com-
parant, aende selve sijne nichte mits desen is legaterende, als hij
aende selve sijne nichte noch is gevende sijn, comparants, recht
vande gifte ende collatie vande beneficien der vicarien ende jus
patronatus, hem aencomende van zijn za. grootvader mr. Johan
Stalpart, ende bij hare afflijvicheyt aen hare wettige descendenten
ende erffgenamen, waervan hij, comparant, alsoe vermochte, soe
hij seyde, te disponeren in crachte vanden 9e articule vande gene-
rale cavel cedule, gedaen voorde Heere mr. Leonardt de Voocht de
1612, daervan sijnde. Voorts heeft hij, comparant, testateur,
genomineert ende geconstitueert, als hij dede mits desen, tot execu-
teur van desen sijnen testamente ende mede tot momboir over de
onmundige kinderen, die in crachte deses van hem, comparant sul-
ien comen te erven, den E. Johan Wttenbogaert, ontfanger tot Am-
sterdam, zijn neve voornt., den selven vrundelick versouckende
omme den selven laste te willen aenvaerden, mits dat sijn E. totte
bediening ende actuele administraetie der voorss. laste ymant nae
sijn discretie om redelick loon sal mogen constitueren ofte su^ti-
tueren, in cas sijn E. ongelegen waer sulcx selffs te verrichten. Den
wekken oock een ofte meer tottet voorss. executeurschap ende mom-
berschap respectivelick neffens hem sali mogen assumeren, ende in
cas van afflijvicheyt surrogeren ofte substitueren successivelick niit
gelijcke macht, soe lang d\'voorss. laste geduyren zall. Waermede
den heer, comparant, verclaerden te secluderen ende uuttesluyten
uutet voorss. momberschap die vander E. Vroetschappe Weescamer
ende Gerechte deser stadt, ende alle andere weesmeesteren ende
oppervoochden, niet willende, dat aen hun E. eenige de minste
openinge van sijn, testateurs, nalatenschap gedaen, veel mm reecKe-
ninge, bewijs ofte reliqua geexhibeert ofte gepresteert sali mogen
worden, sulcx wel expresselick prohiberende, niet jegenst^ende
lt;ienige ordonnantiën ofte statuten airede contrarie gequot;jaeckt
naemaels noch te ordineren, alle deselve voor soe veel in hem s
niits desen deroguerende. Alle twelcke voorss. staet hij, t^tateur
verclaerde te wesen sijn testament, laeste ende uutterste wille, he^
welcke hij wilde en mitsdesen ordineerde, dat nae zijn
overlijden onverbreeckelik nae gecomen ende ^chtervolcht sali
worden, tzij als eenich testament, codicille, este ende uutterste
wille, als gifte onder de levende ofte uut saecke des doots g^da^^^
soe tselve alderbest sal mogen subsisteren in crachte van den voorss.

octroye als andersins, niet jegenstaende eenige costumen ofte lant-
rechten ter contrarie, ende off alle solemniteyten nae rechten ofte
anders gerequireert hierinne niet genoechsaem onderhouden en
waren, op alles die goedertieren rechten aenroepende. Versoucken-
de den Heer comparant, testateur hiervan bij mij, notario, gemaeckt
ende hem gelevert te worden instrument in behoorlicker forme,
d welcke is dese.

Aldus gepasseert t\'Utrecht ten huyse van Mr. Gerrit van Helsdin-
gen, staende op Ste Martensdamme, ter presentie van Evert van
Wijck ende Willem Janss., schoppater vanden Dom, borgers
t Utrecht, als getuygen hiertoe versocht, die deses neffens den heere
comparant, testateur, ende mij, notario, mede onderteeckent hebben
ten jare, maende, dage, ure ende plaetse voorss.

l.Het standpunt van Rector B. H. Klönne, dat het wapen van
Amsterdam bij hernieuwde officiëele vaststelling in 1898 een
kroon had behooren te ontvangen waarvan de vorm ontleend
lt;^Üdperk van Maximiliaan en niet aan dat van
Kudolt 11 bhjtt, ondanks de uitvoerige weerlegging van Mr W
R. Veder, gerechtvaardigd.

Amsterdamquot;, Amsterdam 1899; W. R. Veder-
\'tSde S^nnbsp;voorstelling van het wapen van Amsterdamquot;. tSI

2.nbsp;De inrichting van topografische atlassen in Rijks- en Gemeente-
archieven beantwoordt niet aan de eischen, die thans te dien
aanzien gesteld moeten worden.

3.nbsp;De laïciseering van de themata in schilder- en beeldhouwkunst
sedert de 16de eeuw mag geen reden zijn om de iconographic
der jongste eeuwen in mindere mate of op andere wijze te bestu-
deeren dan die van Middeleeuwen en Renaissance.

4.nbsp;Distycha en andere korte gedichten onder de prenten der Re-
naissance zijn als een voortzetting der Middeleeuwsche tituli op
muurschilderingen e.d. op te vatten.

5.nbsp;Het valt te betreuren, dat door kunsthistorici nog geen gebruik
werd gemaakt van de hun door de wet geboden gelegenheid om
de archeologie van Indië, China en Japan te kiezen als examen-
vak.

6.nbsp;De beoefening der kunstgeschiedenis in Nederland zal in de
toekomst op een hooger plan gebracht kunnen worden door een
systematischer werkwijze. De door kunsthistorische Instituten
en Musea bijeengebrachte middelen staan daartoe thans ten
dienste; evenwel ontbreekt nog een centraal lichaam, dat ge-
meenschappelijk overleg bevordert en dat in staat is programma
en werkverdeeling, beide onontbeerlijk, te ontwerpen.

uitspraak: quot;Vielleicht ist es nicht bloss ein un-
gluckhcher Zufall, dass uns von Goltzius keine Studien nach
Michel Angelo erhalten geblieben sindquot; is onhoudbaar (O
Hirschmann, Hendrick Goltzius, Meister der Graphik 1919
blz. 149).nbsp;\'

8.nbsp;De „naturalistische neigingquot; van Goltzius wordt door Lindeman
onderschat. (C. M. A. A. Lindeman, Joachim Anthomsz Wte-
wael, 1929, blz. 213).

9.nbsp;Te oordeelen naar zijn werk, heeft Pieter Saenredam oudheid-
kundige belangstelling bezeten. Aan de bewijsgronden daar-
voor, genoemd in Oud-Holland, 1931, blz. 1 v.v. kunnen de
situatie-teekeningen van het beleg van Haarlem toepvoegd
worden, die zich bevinden in den topographischen atlas. Ge-
meente-archief, Haarlem, welke op daar eveneens aanwezige
voorbeelden uit den tijd van het beleg teruggaan en waarin,
hoewel ze als anoniem gelden, de hand van Saenredam herkend
kan worden.

10.nbsp;De rood-krijt-teekening, voorstellende een staande heilige Mag-
dalena, afkomstig uit Vasari\'s verzameling (Rijks Prentencabi-
net, Leiden; Ital. tent. Amsterdam, 1934, no. 600) is volgens den
stijl van Giorgione\'s hand. Indien de oude naam Palma waar-
heid bevat, moet de gelijkenis van het vroegste werk van f\'aima
Vecchio met dat van Giorgione grooter geweest zijn, dan men
vermoedt.

11.nbsp;Aan de Hollandsche invloeden, die in de Fransche schilderkunst
van de 18de eeuw waarneembaar zijn, liggen ten deele indruk-
ken, door schilders in Italië opgedaan, ten grondslag.

12.nbsp;Per una piü ampia comprensione della figura del quot;Cortegianoquot;
nel noto libro del Conté Baldassare Castiglione e opportuno a
lettura del capitolo IV di J. Huizinga quot;Herfsttij der Middel-
eeuwenquot;



•r. r


■f \' v \';•	■. , . ; .