for a difficult problem for restoration in practice due to the com-

32

plex relationship between on the one hand the desire for preser-
[12]
vation and on the other, the necessity for adaptation. The regu-
lations in regard to fire safety or, for example, environmental
The story of
norms are often difficult to combine with the longing for the
preservation of old buildings. Followers of Ruskin’s views would
be quickly converted once confronted with modern regulations
and the required permits for use. Not adapting would lead to
Goltzius’
buildings falling into disuse and therefore a high rate of loss. It
should be possible to plead for a more strategic monument care
that is based on the classification of monuments. The few top
monuments would then be preserved with great care while
objects of less importance would offer more room for adapta-
[13]
tion. A disadvantage of this is that the result for a large number
of monuments would be the generally scorned historical décor
in which the intrinsic value of the object is disregarded. It is the
opinion of the author that it is better to gain understanding of the
essence of the object; what makes the monument a monument.
From that starting point each object can be assessed on the possi-
ble means of adaption.

Conclusion
It is important that buildings be adapted without affecting their
monumental value. To achieve this, the values and characteristics
of a monument must be clearly determined beforehand.
Furthermore, the current adaptations need to be technically com-
patible with the monument. Research is necessary to achieve this:
no research, no preservation. The knowledge of historical back- 1 Before treatment reverse. Photo René Gerritsen
grounds and technical properties form two inseparable compo-
nents for a responsible treatment of monuments. Through well
founded research, the present monumental values and the techni- Without the availability of documentation of past
cal, chemical and physical conditions can be understood. Only
then can an intervention be properly considered. A restoration treatments it is often still possible to detect the conservation
project should be formulated primarily from the viewpoint of the
desire to preserve. This is a much more complex and serious exer- history of an object through the information found on the
cise than any discussion on the style that should be restored. In
this way historical monuments can survive in a responsible man- object itself. Research into the conservation history of
[14]
ner. A future without monuments is unthinkable.
the painting Jupiter and Antiope by Goltzius gave important
Han van der Zanden is the monuments consultant for the Amsterdam Office for Monuments and
Archaeology and member of the editorial commission of Cr. information not only for the treatment of the object, but
Photographs are from Bureau Monumentenzorg & Archeologie Amsterdam.
also for the history of paintings’ conservation in general.
[1] J. Ruskin, ‘ The Lamp of Memory’ The seven lamps of architecture, London 1849,
p. 320-360.
[2] C. Peters, ‘ Een oud verlangen naar het nieuwe’, Jaarboek Monumentenzorg 1991, p. 8-25.
[3] W. Schoonenberg, ‘Without reconstruction, no inner city, Cultural Heritage and the
future of the historic inner city of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 2004, p. 133- 148.
[4] P. Brunsmann, ‘Beleving van een monument’, Voetzoekers, 1976, 26/27.
[5] I. Pey, Herstel in Nieuwe Luister, Nijmegen 1993.
[6] W. Denslagen, Omstreden Herstel, Den Haag 1987.
[7] W. Denslagen, W, Romantisch modernisme. Nostalgie in monumentenzorg,
Amsterdam 2004.
[8] R. Glaudemans, ‘Zo goed als oud’, Amsterdam maakt geschiedenis, Amsterdam 2004,
p. 105-129.
[9] N. Nelissen, e.a., Herbestemming van grote monumenten: een uitdaging, Stichting
Pandenbank Noord Brabant, 1999.
[10] W. Kramer, ‘De heiligverklaring van bouwsporen’, Monumenten, 2002, p. ,5, 11.
[11] R. Brouwers (red.) e.a., Architectuurhistorisch onderzoek. Verslag van een symposium,
Stichting Wonen, 1988.
[12] J. van der Zanden, ‘Je ziet het niet vanaf de straat’, Monumenten en archeologie, 2002, 1,
Cr 3 2005

p. 152-161.
[13] A. van der Woud, ‘ Onbeschermde stads- en dorpsgezichten. Naar een strategische monu-
mentenzorg in de jaren negentig’, Archis, 1990, p. 8, 12-17.
[14] V. van Rossem, ‘De vermaerde koopstad van Amstelredam’, Amsterdam maakt geschiede-
nis, Amsterdam 2004, p. 17-47.
 33
Jupiter and Antiope
A study into its conservation history

Esther E. van Duijn

In September 2002 the conservation of the painting Jupiter and

Antiope by Hendrick Goltzius (1558-1617) was started at the conser-
[1]
vation studio of the Frans Hals Museum. The origins of the
painting could be traced back only to the beginning of the twenti-
[2]
eth century; the painting surfaced in a Swiss’ art gallery in 1906.
However on the conservation history, on any past treatments
[3]
nothing at all was to be found. Yet it was obvious that the paint-
ing had been treated in the past.

Its condition was moderate to say the least. It had been waxresin
[4]
lined in the past twice at least. It was discovered that for the sec-
ond lining, the first lining canvas had not been removed. The
second lining canvas had just been stuck against the first. So the
2 Before treatment, frontside. Photo René Gerritsen

3 Before treatment, detail of the

chalking retouchings. Photo René Gerritsen

Cr 3 2005

4 Before treatment, detail of waxresin lining and black glue underneath tacking
edges. Photo: author
ground and paint layers were supported by no less than three
canvasses, all introducing different internal stresses in the paint-
ing. It was therefore not surprising that the painting had structural
problems. There were several deformations on the lower half of
the painting. The waxresin lining was also failing, causing air pock-
ets between the original support and the lining canvas. Other rea-
sons for treating Jupiter and Antiope were its irregular and yellowed
varnish and old retouchings that not only were very discoloured,
but also covered a lot of the original paint layer. Of the old
retouchings some had darkened through ageing, but quite a few of
them – especially in the fleshtones of Antiope – had chalked or
become whitish in appearance.
This phenomenon – caused by a chemical reaction of the zinc
white pigment – is in the Netherlands nowadays often called Van
Bohemen’s disease, because it has often been observed on paint-
ings with retouchings by his hand. It is wrong to suggest however
that other conservators during the sixties and seventies didn’t
have similar problems. The name supposedly stems from the fact
that Nico van Bohemen was still using zinc white in his retouch-
ings long after this pigment was identified as the cause of the
problem. [5] The chalking of the old retouchings on Jupiter
and Antiope was the first clue about the conservation history of the
painting.
Conservation by Martin de Wild (1899-1969)
The stretcher of the painting gave the second clue, but it didn’t
point towards Van Bohemen. The stretcher was a sturdy one with
a double cross in the middle. It was made of pinewood and stained
a mahogany colour. Along all four edges on the backside remnants
of a stripe of black paint or glue could be seen underneath the
tacking edges of the lining canvas.
Because stretchers are a nineteenth century invention, it was evi-
dent that this one did not originally belong to the painting. That it
was actually twentieth century was made clear by the words DE
WILD HOLLAND that had been stamped into the wood of both
the top and the bottom bar of the stretcher.
35
5 During treatment, detail of strecher during lining with black glue clearly
visible. Photo: author
These words led us to the Dutch conservation family De Wild.
They were the two brothers Carel (1870-1922) and Derix (1869-
1932) and Derix’ son Martin, all three of them well known conser-
vators during the first half of the twentieth century. Of these three
names it was Martin’s that could be attached to Jupiter and Antiope.
This happened firstly when reading through the articles that
Martin de Wild published during the thirties about the technique
[6]
of waxresin lining. On a black and white photograph that went
with one of these articles a very similar kind of sturdy looking,
darkly stained stretcher could be seen with a dark tape covering
[7]
the edges. This dark tape on the photograph was soon associated
with the remnants of the black paint or glue on the stretcher of
Jupiter and Antiope. This association was confirmed by a lucky coinci-
dence during research into other aspects of this painting at the
Netherlands Institute for Cultural heritage (ICN) in Rijswijk. Here
the author observed by chance the backside of a painting hanging
in the depot. This painting – Winterlandscape by A. Achenbach
from 1858 – had a stretcher that looked exactly the same as the
6 Before treatment, detail of stamp on strecher. Photo: author
Cr 3 2005
36
Treatment of Goltzius’ Jupiter and Antiope (1912)
A complete description of the treatment of Jupiter and Antiope that started in
2002 would take up more space than is available here. The author would there-
fore like to focus on those aspects where the importance of the conservation
history came in. On the front of the painting were the varnish and retouchings
applied by Van Bohemen, as was soon discovered. Further research indicated
that Van Bohemen always – as far as is known today – used a manufactured
mastic-based varnish. For his retouchings he used oil paint. About mastic it is
known that it yellows considerably, as could clearly been seen on Jupiter and
Antiope. Both the mastic varnish and the oil retouchings would become ever
less soluble with aging. It was therefore not only esthetically important to
remove them, but also in terms of time. The longer was waited, the more diffi-
cult it would become to separate varnish and retouchings from the original lay-
ers, thus increasing the risk of damaging the original paint. Finally it was known
that Van Bohemen was a fast worker, who didn’t mind covering areas of original
paint during retouching for the sake of speed. It could therefore be predicted
that much original paint would become visible again after cleaning.
On the structural side of the story, one of the more important aspects that could
be reduced from the discovery of the two names Martin de Wild and Nico van
Bohemen, was that not only the second and visible lining was done with
waxresin, but also the first. The first lining had been assigned to Martin de Wild
and we know that he was a great champion of the waxresin lining technique.
After the discovery of the two names – as written in the article above – even
more of the conservation history of the painting was found. A third – unfortu-
nately nameless – conservator has treated the painting again after Van
Bohemen. The full story of this has been written down in the author’s thesis. In
short this person has treated the painting locally in the lower right hand corner
with heat to remove deformations in the support. The condition just before
treatment in 2002 showed clearly that this last treatment had worsened the
condition of the support, causing the deformations to return and – worse – the
three canvasses to delaminate. This delamination can be explained by the
use of heat. The aged resin and wax within the painting react differently to heat.
The wax melts around 63° C. Melting tests of some waxresin samples from the
painting indicated that the resin had already aged enough to melt only at tem-
peratures above 130 degrees Celsius. Such a high temperature is unlikely to
have been used during this last treatment. The consequence is a separation of
the melted wax and the non-melted resin in the structure of the painting, in
the end causing the delamination. This piece of information was vital for the
structural treatment of Jupiter and Antiope, because it was clear now that any
further use of heat would worsen the problem. In consultation with several
involved conservators it was – after much fruitful discussion – decided to
remove both the canvasses and scrape away as much of the waxresin as possi-
ble. Because the original canvas had lost its tacking edges and was very fragile
by now it needed a new lining. For this a cold lining method – a so called mist-
[1]
lining – was successfully used. No heat was used during the whole procedure.
Cr 3 2005
[1] J. van Och, R. Hoppenbrouwers, ‘“Mist-lining” and Low-pressure Envelopes: an alternative
lining method for the reinforcement of canvas paintings’, Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie
und Konservierung, 2003, heft 1, p. 116-128. If further information on any aspect of research
or treatment of Jupiter and Antiope is wanted, please don’t hesitate to contact the author.
7 Before treatment, detail of the lining with fold imprints in waxresin.
Photo: author
Jupiter and Antiope stretcher, including the stamps. Even more
important was that the tacking edges of the canvas and parts of
the stretcher bars were covered by a black plastic tape. This tape
had deteriorated heavily. The yellowed transparent plastic top
layer of the tape was peeling away, leaving a black coloured glue
on the wood underneath that looked very familiar. This then
explained the black remnants on the Goltzius’ stretcher. A quick
research into the ICN archive confirmed that Achenbach’s
Winterlandscape had indeed been treated by Martin de Wild in the
[8]
past.
Through the above the stretcher of Jupiter and Antiope could be
firmly attached to Martin de Wild; it then followed that one of the
two waxresin linings had very likely been done by him. He was
after all one of the pioneers in spreading the waxresin lining
[9]
method. Logically this would have to be the first of the two lin-
ings, because the black plastic tape had been removed in the past
and the remnants of glue were now covered by a new lining can-
vas. This tentative conclusion would be confirmed by the continu-
ation of the research, finding the conservator that had treated the
[10]
painting after Martin de Wild.
Conservation by Nico van Bohemen (1916-1990)
The clues that led to the name of the second conservator were
less obvious than those described above, but once found were
just as firm. Several small aspects did suggest the name Nico van
Bohemen from the beginning; of those aspects the chalking
retouchings have already been mentioned. Another was that Van
Bohemen had treated a lot of paintings for the ICN from the fifties
[11]
to the seventies. Jupiter and Antiope was owned by the ICN since
1946. A third aspect was the appearance of the waxresin on the
backside; the waxresin was very heavily applied and had a plasti-
cized look to it. The imprinting of folds could be seen, caused by
folds in the material that had covered the backside of the painting
[12]
during the waxresin lining on a vacuum hot table.
The backside – as described above – looked to the expert eyes of
[13]
Mireille te Marvelde a “typical Van Bohemen-lining”.

It was however a small, insignificant-looking label which had
been ‘overlooked’ at first that provided a more final proof. This
label – printed with the text “BIJLAGE No 157“ – was only recog-
nised for what it was after reading the internship report by Vera
Blok written for the Stichting Kollektief Restauratie Atelier in
[14]
Amsterdam. In this report description and explanation is being
given of similar labels (each with a different number). According
to his son – who is still alive today and was interviewed by Blok –
Nico van Bohemen used these labels to mark an incoming paint-
ing and its frame with the same number. He had a big and busy
studio and in this way he could always find back the right frame
for a painting after treatment. The recognition of such a label
on the stretcher of the Jupiter and Antiope made the name Nico van
[15]
Bohemen definitive at last.
Once the name Nico van Bohemen was definitive, more research
was done into his life and conservation techniques. Unlike Martin
de Wild Van Bohemen had published nothing, nor has he left us
with any archive. The obvious place to look became the ICN,
where we know he worked a lot during his career from the fifties
up to the early eighties. At the ICN no treatment reports of any
kind could be found – he never made any – but there is a long list
of paintings we know he treated, for the simple reason that they
were transported to his studio. The transport dates were kept in a
[16]
notebook. At the conservation studio of the ICN the author
closely studied some eight paintings on canvas treated by Nico
van Bohemen, focusing on the waxresin linings. This study gave
further prove that the appearance of the backside of the Jupiter
and Antiope was indeed quite typical for the linings done by Nico
van Bohemen, just as Te Marvelde had already predicted. Not
only the appearance of the waxresin on the canvas was similar,
also the type of nails, the spacing between the nails and the folding
of the tacking edges held similarities. Most notable however
was the type of lining canvas Van Bohemen almost invariably
used; this had a basket weave and the same threadcount in
[17]
all cases.
Conclusion
When starting the treatment of a painting it is important to get as
much of its conservation history as clear as possible. The more
there is to be found, the better informed and balanced the deci-
sions concerning its treatment can be. The usual method in the
study of the history of conservation is to start with the material
found in the archives and from there to go to the object itself. The
painting Jupiter and Antiope has shown that it’s also possible to take
the object itself as a starting point. Little pieces of information
– like the small label that Van Bohemen always used – can look
insignificant on its own, but taken together they can tell an inter-
esting story about the conservation past of a painting. This is what
makes it so important to gather and publish those little bits of
information. Only then will we get better informed about former
conservators and – even more important – about their methods
and techniques. It becomes increasingly clear that some conserva-
tion techniques – for example waxresin lining – can be attributed
to some conservator without having the more formal prove of
documentation, which tends to be more scarce the farther we go
back in history.
37
8 Before treatmen, detail of label used by Van Bohemen. Photo: author
I would like to thank all who helped me with this project. Especially I would like to thank Mireille te
Marvelde, paintings’ conservator at the Frans Hals Museum, without whose unending enthusiasm
for the history of conservation in general and specifically for this project I would never have come this
far. I would also like to thank Susanne Stangier, paintings’ conservator at the ICN, for her generous
help during my research at the ICN studio.
Esther van Duijn is a painting conservator. She is currently working part time at the ICN in
Rijswijk and at the Kröller Müller Museum in Ottelo and works as an editor for Cr.
[1] Jupiter and Antiope is signed and dated 1612. It measures 126,8 x 175,5 cm.
[2] For a complete record of the whereabouts of the painting from 1906 onwards, see appendices 1a
and 1b in the thesis: E. E. Van Duijn, afstudeerscriptie - Goltzius, De Wild en Van
Bohemen, drie namen, één schilderij, unpublished, June 2003.
[3] The Frans Hals Museum has the painting on long term loan from the Netherlands Institute for
Cultural heritage (ICN) since 1985. For conservation documentation both the archives of the Frans
Hals Museum and the ICN were consulted, yet nothing was found.
[4] A waxresin lining is a conservation treatment for paintings on canvas that has – in the
Netherlands and abroad – been used extensively in the twentieth century up until the seventies.
During the late sixties and early seventies it was finally realised that a waxresin lining may be effec-
tive in strengthening a canvas support, but that it was unacceptable as a conservation treatment. This
technique is non-reversible and can alter the appearance of a painting greatly, both on the front and
on the backside. It must however be realised that – especially early after its invention – conservators
were very skilled in this method. A lot of paintings would not have survived had it not been for a
waxresin lining treatment.
See also: M. te Marvelde ‘How Dutch is ‘The Dutch method’? A history of waxresin lining in its
international context’, Past Practise – Future Prospects – The British Museum,
Occasional Paper, no. 145, 2001, p. 143-149.
[5] E. E. van Duijn, ‘Meer dan een halve eeuw schilderijenrestauratie in Nederland’, Roerend
Erfgoed, ruim een halve eeuw rijkszorg voor collecties, Leiden 1997, p. 72-86.
[6] These articles were written by Martin de Wild and Stanley Cursiter and appeared in the maga-
zine Technical Studies in the field of the fine arts between January 1937 and April 1939.
[7] S. Cursiter and A. M. De Wild, ‘Picture relining’, Technical Studies in the field of the
fine arts, Vol V, Jan. 1937, no. 3, p. 157-178. The photograph is on page 175.
Cr 3 2005
It was common practise in these decades in the Netherlands to cover the tacking edges of a painting
and part of the backside of the stretcher with stripes of tape after a lining treatment. The reason
for this practise appears to be protection of the edges and a sense of neatness. Normally paper tape
would be used; as far as is known today Martin de Wild was the only one who used a non-paper tape.
[8] There was no evidence in the archives or on the painting itself that it had been treated by other
38

Introducing
Ruud G. van Schouten
Discipline: Conservation of wooden objects.

Specialisation, if any: Furniture. conservators afterwards.

Training: National Conservation Training School (now a depart-
ment of ICN), Amsterdam.
Previous work places: One
year part time as furniture conservator at
the Lakenhal Museum, Leiden.
How long have you been working as a conservator? I have been working
since 1982.
Do you think the profession has changed in this period? The profession has
become more professional.
as far as activities go,
Have your own activities changed in any way? Not
but certainly with the type of business I have. The first 10 years it
was a one-man practice, then it was 10 years as a company and for
the last two years it has been a one man-practice again.
Did any changes have anything to do with shifts in the profession, or was it a
personal reason? Not applicable.
Do you regret any changes in the profession? Yes,
I think the professionali-
sation has gone too far. While I support the notion of starting
a masters’ degree training, I do not agree with the statement that
only someone with a masters’ degree may call themselves a con-
servator. I am afraid that a structure of an inverted pyramid will be
created in the profession when it should be exactly the opposite
(such as with most professions). At the end of the day conserva-
tion is a hands-on trade that requires a broad base of craftsmen
and women and not a top heavy one with ‘doctors’ and ‘profes-
sors’.
[9] Ibidem (see note 6 and 7).
[10] For her thesis the author did further research into the life of conservator Martin de Wild, making
use of the extensive archive that De Wild has left us and that is now at the Netherlands Institute for
Art History (RKD) in The Hague. This information is enough to fill another article, which is indeed
planned for the near future.
[11] Ibidem (see note 5).
[12] See the thesis mentioned in note 2 for a more detailed explanation of the differences in appear-
ance of a waxresin lining done by hand (hot irons) or on a vacuum hot table.
[13] Mireille te Marvelde and Liesbeth Abraham – both paintings’ conservators at the Frans Hals
Museum in Haarlem – have supervised the author’s internship there from September 2002 to July
2003. Te Marvelde has specialised in the research in the history of conservation, in particular in
the history of waxresin linings.
[14] V. Blok, Stageveslag – Stichting Kollektief Restauratie atelier Amsterdam, unpub-
lished, 1999, p. 33-36. ‘Bijlage’ can be translated as ‘Appendix’.
[15] Unfortunately no matching label has been found on the frame of Jupiter and Antiope, but
it’s not unthinkable that the label has been removed from or has fallen off the frame since then.
[16] This notebook is not complete. Jupiter and Antiope was never found in it. If it would have been,
this story would have been shorter and less fun.
[17] The threadcount is 10 double threads over 8 double threads per square centimetre. This type of
canvas he used for most of his linings, especially from the sixties onwards, no matter what the origi-
nal canvas looked like.

Do you regret any changes in your own work? See the previous answer.

How do you see the position of the Netherlands conservators in comparison with
those internationally? I
do not know enough about that to be able to
give a useful answer.

How do you think the profession will develop in the future and what is your opinion
of this?Since we graduated from the Opleiding Restauratoren as
the first group, the trade has become more open in comparison
with the previous situation and that is naturally very positive.
Contact amongst colleagues has also greatly improved. The shad-
owy character of work places shut off from the outside world is
fortunately completely gone. To my mind this process, also inter-
nationally, will only go further. In addition, there is much more
research being done into new methods, materials, equipment
and appliances that advances the professionalism. The shift from
restoration to conservation is certainly positive, but also here is
the danger that it could go too far. In many cases, conservation is
insufficient and restoration is then necessary anyhow (where
Cr 3 2005

craftsmen/women and their knowledge are again needed).