Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art
Bulletin.
http://www.jstor.org
On the basis of newly discovered documents, this article establishes with a high
degree of probability that Pieter Claesz. van Ruijven was Vermeer's patron
throughout most of his career. He lent Vermeer200 guilders in 1657; his wife left
the artist a conditional bequest of 500 guilders in her testament of 1665; he witnessed the testament of Vermeer'ssister Gertruy in 1670. There were twenty paintings by Vermeerin the estate of Van Ruijven's only daughter and heir, Magdalena,
which she owned jointly with her husband, Jacob Dissius. The division of the estate
in 1685 shows that paintings by Emanuel de Witte, Simon de Vlieger, and Vermeer,
which had probably been acquired by Pieter van Ruijven, were allotted to Jacob
Dissius' father, Abraham. After Abraham's death these paintings reverted to his
son Jacob. The backgrounds and collections of other contemporary clients of Vermeer, including the baker Hendrick van Buyten, are briefly discussed. Finally, it
is conjectured that Vermeer had access to Leyden collectors and artists via his
patron Van Ruijven.
Pieter Claesz. van Ruijven
It has long been known that Gerard Dou and his pupil Frans
van Mieris, who preceded Vermeer in the art of "fine painting," sold the bulk of their paintings to a few preferred
collectors who may be considered their patrons.1 From circumstantial evidence, which I think the reader will find
compelling, I will show that Vermeer also had a patron,
named Pieter Claesz. van Ruijven, during the greater part
of his career. Van Ruijven lent Vermeer money and his wife
left him a bequest in her testament. Van Ruijven was the
father-in-law of Jacob Dissius in whose collection
Abraham Bredius found nineteen paintings by Vermeer a
century ago.2
Pieter Claesz. van Ruijven was a first cousin of Jan Hermansz. van Ruijven who married Christina Delff, the sister
of the painter Jacob Delff and the granddaughter of Michiel
van Miereveld.3 Jan Hermansz.'s grandfather, Pieter Joostensz. van Ruijven, having sided with the Remonstrants
during the Oldenbarnevelt episode of 1618, was barred by
Stadhouder Maurits from appointment to any higher state
or municipal functions. It is probable that Pieter Claesz.
himself, like other members of his family, was a Remonstrant. His father, Niclaes Pietersz. van Ruijven, was a
brewer in "The Ox" brewery and a master of Delft's Camer
van Charitate (in 1623 and 1624). His mother, Maria Graswinckel, the daughter of Cornelis Jansz. Graswinckel and
Sara Mennincx, belonged to one of the most distinguished
of Delft's old patrician families. Two of Sara Mennincx's
sisters, Maria and Oncommera, were married in succession
to Franchois Spierinx, the famous tapestry-maker of Flemish origin who settled in Delft some time before 1600. The
son of Franchois Spierinx and Oncommera Mennincx,
named Pieter Spierincx Silvercroon, became Sweden's envoy to Holland. It was this same Pieter Spierincx who paid
Gerard Dou an annual fee of 500 guilders in the late 1630'sto
secure the right of first refusal on one painting per year.4
Dou's patron was thus the son of Pieter Claesz. van Ruijven's great-aunt. He was also the godfather of Pieter
Claesz.'s sister Pieternella who was baptized in the New
Church in Delft on 9 May 16425when Pieter Claesz. was
eighteen years old. Living as he did in his parents' household, he could not have failed to meet his mother's first
VERMEER'S PATRONS
69
6 Pieter Claesz. van Ruijven, son of Niclaes Pietersz. van Ruijven and
Maria Graswinckel, was baptized in the Old Church on 10 December
1624. The witnesses were Hermanus van der Ceel (the notary of Vermeer's
father's family from 1620 to 1626), Baertge Adams, and Adriana Munnincx. (Delft G.A., Old Church, Baptism files.) Adriana Munnincx was
probably a sister of Pieter Spierincx's mother, Oncommera.
7 Nederlandsche leeuw, xxIx, 1911, col. 198. The family's brewery business seems to have failed some time after Niclaes Pietersz.'s death (ca.
1650). (Delft G.A., records of Notary W. Assendelft no. 1867, 12 August
1658.)
dates in these and other sources are based on the artist's stylistic evolution,
from which their probable sequencing is inferred. The assumption implicit
in these dates is that the evolution of Vermeer's style from 1656 to 1668
and from 1668 to 1675 (the only dates for which we have evidence) was
steady through time.
8Delft G.A.,
husband.13
12 Pieter van Ruijven was no stranger to Leyden. About the time he drew
up his testament, he was involved locally in a suit over the purchase of
shares in the United East India Company that had belonged to the wealthy
estate of Johannes Spiljeurs (Delft G.A., records of Notary W. van Assendelft, May 1663, act no. 3316, and Leyden G.A. Rechterlijk Archief
92, fol. 202, cited in a letter from P.J.M. de Baar to the author).
13 Leyden G.A., records of
Notary N. Paets no. 676, 19 October 1665,
acts nos. 97, 98, and 99.
14Magdalena van Ruijven, daughter of Pieter van Ruijven and Maria van
Ruijven (who often used her husband's name instead of her own), was
baptized in the Old Church on 12 October 1655. The witnesses were Jan
van Ruijven (the notary), Maria van Ruijven (the sister of Pieter Claesz.),
and Machtelt de Knuijt (almost certainly the sister of Maria de Knuijt);
Delft G.A., Old Church, Baptism files.
70
15These were
Rpformed preachers who had been expelled from Habsburg
Bohemia, France, and other Catholic territories.
16Beresteyn, 148.
19Delft G.A., records of Notary G. van Assendelft no. 2128, fol. 31415v, 11 February 1670.
20Delft G.A., records of Notary A. van de Velde of 30 June 1674, fol.
377.
21 Delft
G.A., Huizen protocol, Pt. III, no. 3439/491A, fol. 767. The other
house, situated on the Oude Delft, is recorded in pt. III, no. 4128/1180A,
fol. 923.
VERMEER'S PATRONS
22 A
daughter of Pieter Claesz. van Ruijven and Maria de Knuijt named
Maria was baptized on 22 July 1657 in the Old Church. A son named
Simon was baptized in the same church on 27 January 1662 (Delft G.A.,
Old Church, Baptism files). Both these children must have died early since
no other heir beside Magdalena was ever mentioned.
23 Beresteyn, 418.
71
72
Dissius had borrowed from his father to pay various expenses connected with Magdalena's death.
After the unmovable assets, the notary's clerk listed the
movable goods in each room of the Dissius house. In the
front hall, he noted eight paintings by Vermeer, together
with three more paintings by Vermeer in boxes, all of unspecified subjects. The front hall also contained a seascape
by Porcellis and a landscape. In the back room there were
four paintings by Vermeer, two paintings of churches, two
"tronien"(or "faces"),two night scenes, one landscape, and
"one [painting] with houses." This room also contained a
chest with a viola da gamba, a hand-held viol, two flutes,
and music books. In the kitchen, which was apparently also
a bedroom, there was a painting by Vermeer(the one missed
by Bredius), two "tronien," a night scene, two landscapes,
a "littlechurch"and a "painter."In the basement room there
were two paintings by Vermeer plus a landscape and a
church. The list closed with two paintings by Vermeer and
two small landscapes whose precise location in the house
was not specified.
Two years later, in April 1683, the estate was divided
between Jacob and his father, Abraham Dissius.33The introduction to this notarial document setting forth the terms
of the division stated that Jacob Abrahamsz. Dissius and
Magdalena Pieters van Ruijven had owned the goods in the
estate in common and that Magdalena had left as her heir
her father-in-law Abraham Jacobsz. Dissius in conformity with her testament of December 3 and the act of superscription of 10 December 1680. Actually, the testament,
confirmed by the act of superscription, had named the survivor of the two testators as universal heir. Magdalena's
father-in-law Abraham Dissius was only to inherit the bulk
of the estate in case both testators died without children,
neither having remarried, and Magdalena's mother was also
deceased. Maria de Knuijt had indeed died, and Magdalena
had left no children, but, since Jacob was very much alive,
it is not immediately obvious why he had to give up half
of the estate to his father. I have already cited S. A. C.
Dudok van Heel's suggestion that the marriage contract
may have contained a clause that allowed Abraham to share
in his daughter-in-law's estate. In any event, the succession
had not proceeded without controversy. It was only after
Magdalena's heirs ab intestato, who must have included
her husband, her father's sisters Sara and Maria, and her
mother's brother Vincent de Knuijt, had appeared with
Abraham Dissius before the commissioners of the High
Court of Holland on 18 July 1684 and again on 16 February
1685 that the decision was handed down that prescribed
the division of the estate half and half between Abraham
Dissius and his son Jacob. It was probably also the com-
36Jacob seems to have been the only one of six children fathered by Abraham Dissius who survived infancy. It is worth noting that Jacob Dissius,
in his testament of 7 February 1684, made his father his universal heir
(Delft G.A., records of Notary P. de Bries, no. 2326, act no. 15).
37Blankert, doc. no. 62 of 14 October 1695, 154.
38 Ibid.
VERMEER'S PATRONS
73
74
44On Herman van Swoll, see Willem van de Watering, "The Later Allegorical Paintings of Niclaas Berchem," in Exhibition of Old Master
Paintings, Leger Galleries, London, 1981. I am indebted to JenniferKilian
for this reference.
45 S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, "Hondervijftig advertenties van kunstverkopingen uit veertig jaargangen van de Amsterdamsche Courant," Jaarboek Amstelodamum, LVII,1980, 150. In the advertisement for the sale
of 1699 in the Amsterdamsche Courant, it was said the collection had
been formed "with great trouble over a period of many years." "The Allegory of the New Testament"was singled out as "an artful piece by Vermeer of Delft" (ibid., 160).
46 Blankert, 147.
47Delft G.A., Orphan Chamber. Estate papers (boedel) no. 264 of Adriaen Hendricksz. van Houten, shoemaker. The names and ages of the
heirs (Hendrick, Emerentia, and Adriaen) leave no doubt that this "Van
Houten" was Hendrick van Buyten's father. Note, incidentally, that Adriaen Hendricksz. was acquainted with Vermeer's father (J.M. Montias,
"New Documents on Vermeer and His Family," Oud-Holland, xcI, 1977,
276).
48Delft G.A., records of Notary D. Rees, no. 2144 of 1 April 1669.
49 Delft G.A., Orphan Chamber, Estate papers (boedel) no. 265 Ix.
50 Delft G.A., Baptism files, 21 September 1631, and Betrothal and Marriage files. The betrothal took place on 27 November 1683.
51 Delft G.A., Orphan Chamber, Estate papers (boedel) no. 673 I and ii.
VERMEER'S PATRONS
left
for Amsterdam and continued to be productive there. Porcellis was initially a Haarlem artist but also worked in Amsterdam and Soetermeer.) The Van Buyten collection probably had not changed very much from the 1650's or 1660's
until the baker's marriage in 1683, with the likely exception
of the two paintings he had acquired from Vermeer'swidow
shortly after the artist's death as collateral for a large debt
incurred for bread delivered: the "person playing on a cittern" and the painting "representing two persons one of
whom is sitting writing a letter."'3 The first of these may
be The Guitar Player in Kenwood or, less probably, the
Woman Playing a Lute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
75
is that the lady in the Beit picture is actually writing, whereas the lady
in the Frick Collection has been interrupted by her maid and has dropped
her pen. In my view, this is only a small inaccuracy on the part of the
notary's clerk. The Frick picture, which is substantially bigger than the
Beit Vermeer (71 x 59cm), is much more likely to have been seen as a
"large painting." The Love Letter in the Rijksmuseum, if this reasoning is
correct, would be the picture in the Dissius Collection sold in 1696 called
"Eenjuffrouw die door een meyd een brief gebracht wordt" (A lady who
is brought a letter by a maid).
Regarding the possibility that the "person playing on a cittern" may
have been confused with a lute player (e.g., the painting by Vermeer in
the Metropolitan Museum), one would have expected the contemporaries
of Vermeer to know the difference between a cittern and a lute. Nevertheless, it should be observed that the Kenwood picture can be traced
back to a public sale in 1794 when it was described as "a woman playing
on a lute" (Blankert, 169). Another version of the Kenwood picture also
exists (now in the Johnson Collection in Philadelphia), which most art
historians have deemed to be a copy after the Kenwood original. The late
hairstyle of the guitar player in the Johnson picture (let alone the weak
execution) would seem to rule it out as a candidate for the painting that
was once in the Van Buyten Collection.
ss Blankert, 55.
76
Bibliography
Beresteyn, E.A. van, Grafmonumenten en grafzerken in de Oude Kerk te
Delft, Assen, 1938.
Blankert, A., with contributions by R. Ruurs and W. van de Watering,
Vermeer of Delft, Complete Edition of the Paintings, Oxford, 1978.
Naumann, O., Frans van Mieris the Elder, 2 vols., Doornspijk, 1981.
Wheelock, Arthur K., Jr., Jan Vermeer, New York, 1981.
1656 to the end of his career, with a somewhat greater probability of the
lower estimate.
ss For a balanced view of Vermeer's reputation in the 18th century, see
Blankert, 62-65. He argues that the appreciation for Vermeer's quality
among connoisseurs persisted, even though his paintings were frequently
attributed to other artists with a greater contemporary reputation.