w.

PETER MITAJELL
--A

^Pf

The

appreciation of flower paintings, their

beauty and the technical

skill

of their

grown greatly in recent years.

Peter Mitchell's book responds to this
increased general interest and is at the same
time a valuable work of reference. He
painters, has

follows the evolution of flower painting

through four centuries, notably

in its great

period in seventeenth- and eighteenth-

century Holland, Flanders, France and

Germany. He continues with the

painters

of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,

assesses the British

and American

contributions, and gives botanical artists

their

due

place.

The book

begins with a concise, analytical

introduction in which the author traces,

from Classical times by way of the illuminated manuscripts of the Middle Ages, the
particular influences, developments,

techniques and styles relevant to the various

schools of flower painting,

down

work of several contemporary

to the

artists.

He

thus provides an invaluable historical

framework

for the heart of the book, the

more than 320

and biographical
These are of flower
the Western schools, in
critical

studies that follow.

painters of

all

alphabetical order, and each artist

represented by

at least

one

illustration.

work concludes with an extensive

graphy and an index of

is

The

biblio-

artists.

Peter Mitchell's books include Dutch

Painting,

An

Introduction to Picture Collect-

zndjfan van 0$,

ing

written

entries in the

He

is

1 744-1808,

and he has

many of the Dutch and Flemish

Oxford Companion

to Art.

graduate of the Courtauld Institute

of Art.
I.uropean Flower Painters contains 48

pages

of

colour and

and white

more than 330 black

illustrations,

reproduced from

paintings in galleries and private collections

in

many

different parts of the world.

BOSTON
PUBLIC
LIBRARY

PETER MITCHELL

European
Gfbwer^ainters

INTERBOOK INTERNATIONAL B. V.
Schiedam
1981

Peter Mitchell 1973

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint,

microfilm or any other means without written permission from the
publisher.

Published by:

Interbook International B. V.
97, Lange
3111

CC

Haven

Schiedam

The Netherlands
This book was designed and produced by

George Rainbird Ltd,

Marble Arch House, 44 Edgware Road, London W2
Editor and Picture Researcher

Mary Anne Norbury

Designer Margaret Fraser

Indexer

Myra Clark

Filmsetby BAS Printers Ltd, Wallop, Hampshire

ISBN: 90.6397.032.3

Reverse of frontispiece
vase a long col', signed

1.

REDON,

'Fleurs

du champs dans un

22'/2xl3in.(57x33cm)
Frontispiece 2.

9'/4x6 5 /8

in.

SAVERY, signed and dated 1611

(23.5x16.7 cm)

Contents

List of Colour Plates

Foreword

Introduction

Biographies

33

Bibliography

263

Exhibition Catalogues

265

Illustrations:

Acknowledgments and

Photographic Credits

265

Index of Artists

271

Colour Plates

i.

RED ON, Odilon,

'Fleurs du

champs dans

un vase a long col\ signed

157.

reverse offrontispiece

185.
2.

S AVERY, Roelandt, signed and dated 1611

frontispiece

GOES, Hugo

van der,

Portinari Altarpiece,

c.

detail

37.

ARELLANO, Juan

de, signed

37

38.

LINARD, Jacques,

signed

37

39.

AST,

72.

AELST,

Willem van, signed and dated 1663

55

73.

BAUER,

Francis, 'Stanhopea insignis Frost'

56

85.

BOSSCHAERT,

86.

BEERT,

200.

HINZ, Johann Georg

146

201.

KESSEL, Jan

147

202.

JOHN,

38

Ambrosius the Elder, signed

Augustus, signed

148

BRUSSEL,

259.

OS, Jan

260.

SOREAU,

68

261.

MONNOYER, Jean-Baptiste, signed

188

77

279.

PICART, Jean-Michel,

197

280.

REDOUTE,

68

185

and dated 1635

188

Isaak

signed

Pierre Joseph, 'Canterbury Bells',

signed and dated 1787

198

RENOIR,

215

138.

CHARD IN, Jean-Baptiste-Simeon

105

320.

139.

EHRET,

106

321.

140.

FLEGEL,

322.

SPAENDONCK,

155.

96

305.

Georg, Stilleben mit Blumenstrauss\

IN-LATOUR,

MATISSE,

340.

341.

GAUGUIN,

Paul, signed and dated 1889

216

dated 1709

225

226 and 227

Gerard or Gerardus van,

228

VALLAYER-COSTER,

Anne, signed and dated

237

178(2?)

108

Henri, Les Animones\ signed and

Pierre Auguste, signed

signed and dated 1785

107

dated 1924
[56.

304.

17

374.

117

375.

86

187

RUYSCH, Rachel, signed and

SEGHERS, Daniel, signed
ROESEN, Severin, signed

95

van, signed

120.

Ignace Henri Jean

Theodore, signed and dated 1890

176

Mary, signed

CEZANNE, Paul
CHAGALL, Marc, signed

FAM

175

MARREL, Jacob, signed

78

1638

1878

258.

Paul Theodorus van, signed and

Georg Dionysius, signed and dated 1744

158

MOSER,

67
signed and dated 1624

157

257.

66

dated 1789

141.

145

van, signed

KOKOSCHKA, Oskar, signed

217. MANET, Edouard, signed
242. MONET, Oscar Claude, signed and dated
243. MIGNON, Abraham

65

Osias the Elder

BONNARD, Pierre, signed

BOSSCHAERT, Johannes,

c.

dated 1726

216.

Balthasar van der, signed

CARAVAGGIO
99. BRUEGHEL, Jan the Elder

119.

136

the Elder, detail from a flowerpiece 20

89. Follower of

100.

135

19

1475

BRUEGHEL, Jan

88.

de, signed

118

199.

from the

19.

87.

signed and dated 1612

II,

GOGH, Vincent van, signed

HUYSUM, Jan van, signed and

186.
18.

GHEYN, Jacques de
HEEM, Jan Davidsz.

VERELST,

Simon

Pietersz, signed

VERENDAEL, Nicolaes van

WALSCAPPELLE, Jacob, signed

238
255

256

Foreword

The

writer of a general book on flower painting

is

like a butterfly

on one bloom and then another in the rich, manysided bouquet presented by the history of flower painting. To

alighting

first

attempt to

visit

one aspect

risks the neglect

every detail

impossible; to linger too intently on

of another. Compromise, a supposedly
is

English attribute, has been the aim, with some reference, however

many fascinations rather than the comprehensive study of one of them, as would be found in a specialist
book. If, as advertising would have us believe, one flower is worth a
fleeting, to the subject's

million words, in
arts has the

my

view one illustration

same verbal

value.

Thus

in dealing

a dictionary

with the visual

of flower painters

where space allows for only one in ten to be illustrated seems unsatisfactory. Although an alphabetical layout has been followed in
the biographies, this book, because it is not several volumes but one,
is

clearly not a dictionary of flower painters. It

is

a selection over a

wide field of time and place with every artist, great and small,
to allow the reader to

make comparisons between

illustrated

schools, centuries,

and so follow visually the story of flower painting.

Representatives of American flower painting have been included
they drew on European traditions and then made a contribution of
individuals,

their

own

to the genre. Selection inevitably

this choice has

means omissions but

been made carefully

to be representative, in the sense

that the reader finding his or her flower painter not included might

nonetheless be able to place or assess the artist by comparison with

is included. The interpretation of flowers by the great

one who

masters, particularly of the nineteenth century, has been given

precedence over

many

lesser figures

specialist flower painters their

because although they were not

works were widely

influential.

Another

advantage of this principle, especially in the early twentieth century,

has been to demonstrate a simple fact that sometimes escapes the
historian

great art

flower painting reflects, as readily as any other genre, the

movements, Mannerism, the Baroque, Impressionism,

Expressionism, and so on.

Obviously only paintings showing flowers have been illustrated,

and whereas I occasionally use the term still-life in its comprehensive
sense, I have usually meant by 'still-life', paintings without flowers.
The artificiality of such a distinction is recognized and many superb
still-life painters, Louise Moillon for one, whose work chanced not
to include flowers are excluded. For one artificiality imposed, one
is removed. The separation of flower painting from the work of the
great botanical draughtsmen seems unrealistic, so their vellums and
watercolours are presented alongside the

oil

paintings.

FOREWORD

Compromise has again been the guide with the biographical entries.
The aim has been to give all available information about the artist,
except for the great non-specialists, where a detailed biographv
would be superfluous. The general reader must bear with the press
of factual matter of interest to the specialist, and the latter must
bear with my attempts to make such data more palatable to the
former. Emphasis has been laid on cross reference so where an artist
who painted flowers is mentioned in the course of another's bio-

graphy, his Christian names are omitted if he has a separate entry,

except where this might cause ambiguity. The length of entries is

governed by the availability of information, the need for commentary

in the context as a whole, and does not necessarily reflect the relative
stature of one artist against another. Duplication of certain facts is
inevitable as each entry may be consulted independentlv.
W here a well-known example cannot be bettered I have used it
even though previously illustrated, and balanced this by manv

new unpublished

works. British readers have been favoured onlv

choosing frequently from the relatively few flower paintings
in British public galleries, with particular emphasis on the unique

in

my

collections at

been

Oxford and Cambridge. Flower paintings have alwavs

many works illustrated are inevitablv

private delight and

inaccessible to the reader in the original.

The source for any treatment of flower painting lies in the work
of the renowned specialist writers. I have envisaged the text, which
as I have suggested is subordinate to the corpus of illustrations, as
a

means of bringing

found

in the

to the reader

some of the wealth of information

now unobtainable books of

these great experts. I am

therefore deeply and repeatedly indebted to Bergstrom, Blunt, Bol,
Fare, Gerdts, and Hairs in their respective fields, and to the more

general work of Sterling and Rewald. The catalogue of the

1964
Naples exhibition of Italian Still-Life is the best source for the
school. I have also referred very usefully to the work of Alice Coats,
Paviere, Grant, Bazin, Lauts, and many writers of exhibition
catalogues. I am particularly grateful to Ingvar Bergstrom, Michel
Fare, and William Gerdts for their generous help with photographs.
\\ here a name appears as a source without further explanation, the
details will

be found

in the bibliography.

The tedium

of footnotes

has been abolished.

Acknowledgments are the proper content of a Foreword, but the

most difficult part. Mr John Hadfield, who has been the soul of
tolerant understanding of a part-timer's problems,

and

Man

Anne

Norbury (Mrs Sanders), the most tenaciously persuasive and skilled

of all picture researchers, have between them made the book possible.
Raymond Kaye has, with meticulous care, weeded from the text innumerable errors on

glance

at

my part and made many detailed

the sources of illustrations shows

improvements.

how many museum

curators have been most kind, and I sincerely thank all those fellow
dealers and private collectors who have provided colour trans-

parencies and

Among

photographs, on

many

occasions without charge.

private collectors special mention

must be made of Lord

Fairhaven whose kindliness and co-operation are matched onl\ b\

FOREWORD

the magnificence of his bequest

to the Fitzwilliam
bridge. The staff of the Witt
Photographic Library

Museum, Cam-

of the Courtauld
Art Reference Library at the Victoria
and Albert Museum have been consistently
helpful.Miss Constance
Barnes o Sotheby's and David Dallas of
Christie's have put up with
continual requests for information
on the sales of their respective
firms. Malcolm Uttley, our firm's
secretary, has typed the whole
manuscript and copious correspondence
with willing
A C. Cooper Ltd and Derrick Witty have been responsible expertise
for much
photographic work.
Institute

My

and

of the National

wife, 'dans lejardin de

ma vie lafleur la plus exquise\ has been

and superbly intelligent helper at every
stage of the book
and above all tolerated the author at work!
Lastly, I am
my father who has brought me up in the love of flowerindebted to
a patient

My partiality for certain

paintings

artists, particularlv

of the early seventeenth

century, is too evident to disguise.
One takes humble refuge in the
words of Goethe, a great enthusiast of flower
paintings, who wrote
that, what is written without
partiality is not worth repeating'.
JUIle *97 2

PETER MITCHELL

3.

RUBENS,

'Pausias

and

Hoi y ~ (>i

in.

Sir Peter Paul

(ilycera',

(209 X

c.

i<>4

and

BEERT,

Osias the Elder,

1615 18

cm.)

5.

10

(opposite)

RINK),

Benedetto, 'A Rose', earl) 15th centurj

Introduction

How could he hope to

win the love of the fair Glycera ? She lived at Sicyon and her skill
in composing bouquets and garlands of flowers had made her
famous throughout the Peloponnese. Pausias, a shy person, decided
that his best chance lay in painting one of his superb flower pieces
and offering it to Glycera. At the sight of this masterpiece she was
enraptured and fell in love with its creator. Just as Apelles, the
Pausias the flower painter had a problem.

greatest painter of Antiquity, court artist to Alexander the Great,

was famed

for his painting of grapes that

made

the

mouth

so his follower Pausias was acclaimed for this flowerpiece.

considered one of the finest works of the century and

many

water,
It

was

copies

were made. Two thousand years later, Rubens and Osias Beert
combined their talents to depict Pausias with Glycera in his moment
4.

Roman Mosaic
.

in

(64-5 X

04

cm.)

of triumphant courtship

From

the Greeks, the

They

flower painting.

with flowers in fresco

(ill.

3).

Romans

inherited their love of

still-life

and

homes and villas

and mosaic, and were equally intrigued by their
delighted in decorating their

eye-deceiving (trompe V oeil) possibilities. Pictures of foodstuffs, as

realistic as Apelles' grapes,

pictures'.

When

his host's table

had

new

were called by the Greeks 'strangerby all that

his attention was directed to 'attacking'

guest's appetite was unsatisfied

to offer,

one of these still-lifes the beginning of a long history of deception

by the skill of the painter that was to enjoy its greatest revival in
nineteenth-century America. 111. 4 is a famous basket of flowers
made in very fine mosaic of the most brilliant colours. It is a Roman
decorative work of great realism, perhaps after a Greek example.
The sensitivity of the artist to the individual modelling of each flower
and the setting of the whole against a dark background, so that the
colours stand out more sharply, seem to span the centuries to
:

compare with Johannes Bosschaert's basket of 1624 (ill. 88).

Indeed until the Renaissance nothing was achieved to equal the
skill and knowledge of these artists of the ancient world. They, in
their turn, had advanced far beyond the stylized use of flowers and
plants as decorations in the older arts of Egypt.

Medicine, the practical use of flowers, was as

much

responsible

for their study and depiction by man

decoration and associations of love. Like the work of Apelles and
Pausias the herbals of Classical times have not survived, but in the

as any considerations of

century before the mosaic reproduced, a Greek,

Dioscorides, produced in five volumes De Materia medica. The

first

century

A.D., a

11

_d

INTRODUCTION

work of Dioscorides was unsurpassed as an authority until the

seventeenth century, and countless later herbals are merely copies
or extracts from this source.

The

process of repeatedly copying

resulted in crude representations of flowers, in rather schematic

form, until a revival of Naturalism began in the fifteenth century.

Venetian herbal of the early years of that century which,

whatever its limitations to our modern eyes, has unmistakable
refinement in the context of what had gone before. The roses, their
leaves, thorns, and stems, are treated with delicacy and the flower is.
deliberately shown in different profiles with considerable accuracy.
111.

is

If a rose

seems an unlikely inclusion among herbal

plants,

one has

only to think of rose-hip syrup.

jJinnMfniritfmmifli.'lriqiu) *-

nomuiranirnfl.^taumsgr

j,

Birr. ifpunuis *-ta

(moi5iiun:gtD^tu6iuuifli
o!g.Tis

DnsioWauur.

groigi.'rtfntriuii

6. 'St

-^

inolflWDdpilini.T,'
-4 **-.
fmnrntpiinSis pur nwr ^r i. (bratusgttDgni6tt<)))iibtr.a) 3>
rannnuunifftmis.dHfmim) 4 fT mmo imiijqjiflof
cuiflt) (Ttiilm mini

nnitommii fimla:noiid|(i)i %.
ranjn:R:i ramr Digmmtrcn-

in;

c.

^JCv

wwnnBt>inr.mas ,rt*E

'-

^*.

&&*

George and the Dragon', from the Bedford Breviary,

1425

Apart from the textbook nature of herbals, the fifteenth century

offers clear examples of the process of gradual separation of flowers
from the narrative scenes of miniatures and oil paintings, allied to a
concern for their detailed appearances. A French manuscript (ill. 6)
of about 1425 is typical of the decorative use of flowers in illumination.
The blues and reds and golds are raised up from the page in enamel
brilliance, swirling in patterns like the ancestors of an Art Nouveau
wallpaper. In the upper right, a vase stands out with its symmetrical
flowers separately presented with no overlapping, a miniature forerunner of the early style of easel flowerpieces. By the latter part of
the century the process had gone ahead in a remarkable fashion,
towards the end of the long history of the manuscript, destined to
be supplanted by the spread of printing. 111. 7 by the Master of
Mary of Burgundy is a manuscript where the border decoration
seems to outweigh the narrative content. The flowers and insects
have been studied with close attention and are more lifelike to the
onlooker than the doll-like figure of the Virgin who, unlike the
flowers, has little modelling and casts no shadow.
Of about the same time as this manuscript are two remarkable

examples of the painting of flowers in oil. They are the outstanding

flowers of the fifteenth century and surpass all those that previously
appeared as attributes in Madonna and Child panels, the portraits
of saints, or as foreground details in famous paintings like the
'Adoration of the Lamb' at Ghent by the Van Eyck brothers, from
the earlier part of the century. Of course Jan van Eyck was a superlative

master of

still-life,

and had he painted

a flowerpiece the

equal

at the National Gallery, London,

would have been second to none. 111. 18 is a detail from an altarpiece commissioned from the Flemish artist Hugo van der Goes
by Tommaso Portinari, the Medicis' agent at Bruges. Portinari
gave the altarpiece to a church at Florence and this wondrous painting
is today one of the treasures of the Uffizi Gallery in that city. In the

of details in the Arnolfini couple

it

centre foreground of the 'Adoration of the Shepherds' stands a

sheaf of wheat and two vases of flowers. In this detail the hands of
a

kneeling angel on the

left

are seen, above the blue edge of the Virgin's

edge of the Child's foot lying

on the ground with the broken lines of the halo of shining light
surrounding Him is clearly visible. Yet the eye is naturally drawn
to the flowers. Never before had flowers been accorded so prominent
robe, and

12

in the top right corner the

INTRODUCTION

nor had they been painted with such

a place in a religious scene,

mastery.

The

long-established symbolic meaning of flowers would

have been immediately apparent to anyone who entered the church.

One must not forget how important such 'messages' were when
few could read.
The blue garden iris was a royal flower, an attribute of the Madonna
as Queen of Heaven. From it had derived the fleur de lis, emblem
of the royal house of France. The orange lily is not the L. candidum,
seen from the earliest times as the symbol of the Madonna's purity,
especially in Annunciations. The Duccio panel of 131 1 in the
National Gallery, London, is a typical instance. This orange lily
is a royal symbol too for the Christ Child as King of Heaven: 'I am
the flower of the field, and the lily of the valley'. Royalty is balanced
by humility. The violets which grow meekly hiding their flowers
beneath their leaves had become an obvious symbol of humility.
They are scattered on the ground just as the Infant lies on the same
ground. Perhaps the white ones are allusions to the purity of the
Babe. The glass vase with its beaded base may have been, in its
transparency,

reference to the Virgin Birth.

The

carnations, three

small ones in this glass, were well-known symbols of the Incarnation

of Christ. Perhaps the inclusion of three

is a

reference to the

Trinity. Elsewhere, for example, the pansy with

its

Holy

three petals

was sometimes shown for the same reason, and was in early times
known in England as the Trinity herb. Incidentally, the juice of the
carnation was thought to be a specific against the plague and it
appears held in the hand in a layman's portrait, a symbolic protection
for the sitter.

The

came to be called columbine (from the Latin

dove) because of the shape of the petals. In the illustration

aquilegia

columba,

the outline of the dove

best seen in the topmost flower's upper

is

Thus the columbine was an obvious choice for symbolizing

the Holy Ghost. The Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit with which the
Child was endowed at birth were represented by its seven petals.
Some artists adapted their columbine to accommodate this idea,
although botanically inaccurate. Hugo van der Goes, as one sees in
the right-hand flower, was guided by Nature alone as one would
petal.

expect in so

[MttOfttTKH
tf

mint tuit mil

j
U'tUVilKlduKO

Kmrmtt

iiimu\

lifelike a painting.

Bread and wine, the substances of the Mass, are represented by

the wheatsheaf and the grapes and vines that decorate the pottery
\ase. The grapevine or grape leaf was an emblem of Christ the
Saviour who had said, 'I am the true vine'. Grapes, as a reference

Communion

wine, are a favourite fruit with painters. Single

cars of wheat appear later in flowerpieces, with De Heem and
Mignon for example, as symbols of the Resurrection, a seed to fall
to the

and be reborn
corn of wheat
it

die,

it

in
fall

new

'Verily, verily,

life:

into the

bringeth forth

ground and

much

fruit'

die,

say unto you, Except a

it

abideth alone: but

if

(John, 12:24).

Christianity had adapted the pagan symbols easily to new meanings.

The palm of the Roman victor became the attribute of the resurrected
7

MASTER OF MARY Ol

the

Douce manuscript, 1485-90

I'.i

RG1 ND1 apagefrom

martvr

in his victory

over death.

Goddess of Love, became

The

rose, the attribute of

symbol of pure love and

Venus

sacrifice.

'3

INTRODUCTION

The flowers of the Portinari altarpiece would clearly form a painting

in themselves,

but neither Portinari nor any other patron would have

a painting of flowers in the 1470s. The

dreamed of commissioning

moment when
in itself

was

the flowerpiece or

still

still-life

would become

a subject

long way ahead.

Vases of flowers were, however, shown on their own in a certain

The Portinari family appear on the hinged wings of the
great central panel in the traditional place for donors. In the Thyssen
sense.

Collection there

is

a portrait of a

has been detached from

its

of the young man's portrait

donor by Hans Memling which

centrepiece or pendant.
(c.

1490)

is

On

a vase of white

the reverse

lilies,

purple

and columbines (ill. 8). This would have shown when the
was closed, and there may have been a Madonna on the
other wing to whom the flowers would have been appropriate. The
letters I.H.S. inscribed on the jug as a religious motif have many
readings, of which Jesus Hominum Salvator is the best known.
irises,

altarpiece

What

marvellous tour de force the painting of the jug is. In the

a mirror behind the open
wings of a triptych so that the visitor can see the other side of the
a

Louvre the curators have helpfully placed

8.

MEMLING,

Hans, 'Vase of Flowers', verso of a portrait of

young man, c. 1490

ii^ x 87 in. (287 x 21-5 cm.)

wing without the impractical necessity of constantly touching the

wing to close it.
Albrecht Diirer, like Leonardo da Vinci, drew flowers for their
intrinsic interest in the spirit of scientific curiosity that marks the
High Renaissance and leads directly to the spirit of the specialist
flower painters a century later. The individuality of every specimen
becomes apparent. 'In the wonderful works of Nature ... we
cannot find one part in one model precisely similar to the same
part in another. Let us be attentive, therefore, to the variations of
forms
Endeavour to vary ... as much as possible, for Nature
abounds in variety ad infinitum', wrote Leonardo in his treatise on
painting. A few years later, in 1 508, Diirer made one of his astonishing
watercolours where we sense how attentively he scrutinized this
specimen of Iris germanica on its long stem (ill. 9). How readily a
painter armed with such perfect detailed studies could put flowers
.

into his oil paintings without further reference to the living model,

(opposite

9.

left)

DURER,

Albrecht, 'An

Iris',

signed and

dated 1508
30} x

i2jj in.

(77-5x31-3 cm.)

10. (opposite above right) DURER, Albrecht, attributed

'The Madonna with the Iris', signed and dated 1508

584 X 48J

in.

to,

and use them repeatedly.

111. 1 1 is a detail from the 'Virgin and Child' ('The Madonna with
the Iris') in the London National Gallery. Although the work is
signed and dated 1508, as can be seen in this detail, the painting is
now only attributed to Diirer. It shows (ill. 10) the Madonna in
her traditional hortus conclusus, the enclosed garden, which invited
so many flower and plant details from painters and illuminators.
Durer's flower and plant studies were unsurpassed in their century,
and an inspiration to the founders of independent flower painting at
the end of the sixteenth century. The monogram of Ambrosius
Bosschaert the Elder is clearly modelled on that of the German
master. Durer's work also emphasizes how in general the study of
flowers progressed more rapidly in drawing and watercolour, an
artist's private mediums, than in oils. Flowers in oil paintings were

(149-2 x 117-2 cm.)

still

'4

(opposite below right) Detail of

ill.

10

subordinate.

An

interest in flowers

was part of that all-round learning

to

which

i5

INTRODUCTION

aspired, in accordance with the

Leonardo and Diirer

Humanist

Man. The most important botanist of the

de Lecluse (Carolus Clusius), born in
Charles
was
sixteenth century

ideal of the Universal

perfectly corresponded to these ideals of all-embracing

learning. Apart from being one of the founders of modern botanical
studies, de Lecluse knew Greek, Latin and half a dozen modern

who

1526,

and studied law, philosophy, history, cartography,

zoology. One forms a mental image of these scholars immersed
continually in their books in order to acquire such knowledge but
thev were of course often adventurous active men who travelled
widely. De Lecluse, a Lutheran, was French by nationality although
born in what was then Flemish territory, studied in France, worked
languages,

for the

Hapsburg Emperors

famous botanical gardens

at

Vienna, and became director of the

Leyden in 1593 until his death in 1609.
at

university city of Leyden, de Lecluse was in close

contact with one of the founders of flower painting, Jacques de
Ghevn II, who painted his portrait and studied specimens in the

In the

Dutch

between the botanist and the flower

painter retained their importance: Bauer and Sir Joseph Banks,
Redoute and L'Heritier, Odilon Redon and Clavaud, the examples

botanical gardens.

The

links

are numerous.

Lecluse led an expedition to Spain and Portugal, whose

languages he spoke, in company with two members of the famous
south German banking family and art patrons, the Fuggers. The

De

journey resulted in two hundred new species which were published

in 1576. Travel and exploration are an integral part of flower painting.
It is difficult for us to look at flower paintings with the eyes of those
in earlier

times

when

the introduction of

new

flowers provided a

continual procession of excitements. The reader will see how the

artists enlivened their bouquets of well-known and cultivated and

wild flowers with exotic novelties discovered by de Lecluse and

from Turkey and Persia became known in

Europe in the 1570s, and the reader will see many crown imperials
and the more modest chequered snakes-head fritillary (Fritillaria
meleagns) in the illustrations. Artists saw how perfectly the crown
others.

The

fritillaries

imperial lent itself to the role of top flower in a composition. The

passion flower so impressed the Jesuit missionaries in North and

South America that they brought it back to Europe. The name, from
the Passion of Our Lord, derives from a resemblance of the corona
to the Crown of Thorns, and the stamens form a Cross. The chrysanthemum became a most popular flower when introduced from
Japan in the nineteenth century and was a favourite with the Impressionists. Of the most celebrated new flower, the tulip, something
will

be said presently.

New World

Spanish-owned lands of Florida

and Mexico (whence the dahlia, for example, came to Europe) - was a
fruitful hunting ground in the quest for new flowers. In 1961 the
British Museum acquired a rare album of drawings dating from the
1580s, by a French-born artist, Jacques Lemoyne de Morgues,
from which ill. 12 is taken. Lemoyne went to Florida in the 1560s
The

especially the

and amid many adventures and hardships may well have encountered

16

new

no drawings survive. When

Protestant, returned to France from the perilous swamps^
Spanish attacks he found not refuge but the horrible massacre of
St Bartholomew in 1572 when so many Huguenots died. Religious
persecution, as will be seen in the lives of Bosschaert and others,
flowers, although

played a decisive part in the introduction of flower painting to

Lemoyne fled to England where he was welcomed by Sir
Walter Raleigh, himself recently returned from the coasts of Florida
Holland.

and Virginia. So began England's role as a host to the flower pajnters

of Europe. Second to none in the love of flowers and gardens, the
English have not been blessed with great flower painters and were
therefore eager patrons of the masters from across the Channel:
Verelst, Monnoyer, Bauer, Redoute, are obvious examples.

La Clef des Champs was published

before the artist's death.

Lemoyne's
two years

at Blackfriars in 1586,

The woodcut

illustrations

appear crude

compared to the sensitivity of his drawings and emphasize the gulf

between the original and the reproduction, imposed by the limitations
of technical processes. However, printed books were very important
14.

and

RING, Ludger Tom, A

(above)

15.

and dated 1562

(63X 24 5 cm.)

pieces, signed
,'.

in.

spreading the reproductions of flowers, as with other subjects,

and were not confined to the herbal or botanical approach. Technical
advances were rapid with the introduction of metal-plate engraving.
in

pair ot flower-

The

12.

(opposite ab,\e)

*I)o'_'

13,

LEMOI NE DE MORGLKS, Jacques,

Roses", signed and dated [585

(21

\> 14:3 cm.)

(opposite below)

COLL

\I.R

\driaen, Florilegium

print

book designed to show the decorative

possibilities of flowers arranged in vases and other vessels. 111. 13
is a fine plate from a florilegium engraved by Adriaen Collaert,
published in the 1590s. One has only to compare the rich but symmetrical profusion of such a bouquet with those of Roelandt Savery
to see how the early flower painters must have appreciated the work
of Collaert, de Bry and other skilled engravers.
florilegium was a flower

In the late sixteenth century, flower painting, like landscape

16.

(below)
-si in

IRCIMBOLDO,
(78 4

04

cm.)

Giuseppe, 'Spring'

painting,

came of

bondage

as

age. Flowers finally freed themselves from their

symbolic and decorative servants to the main subject

of a painting. Yet they were destined to wait for centuries before

their

coming of

age, so

welcome

to artists

and

collectors,

among theorists and academics.

Ring, a German portrait painter, made

would

receive recognition

Ludger

Tom

a pair

of

flower paintings in 1562 which have traditionally been called the

independent flowerpieces (ills. 14 and 15). They may, with

and irises, have had a special symbolic purpose. Experts
have suggested that they were the doors of a herbalist's or chemist's
cupboard and the inscription on the vases is, 'God is in the word,
in the plants (in herbis), and in the stones'. Yet there are other
examples of Ludger Tom Ring's flower painting, and can they be
explained in the same way ? It seems more probable to the present
writer that they are what they appear to be - independent flower
paintings, and if more examples of flowerpieces from this period
had survived these famous panels would seem less of an isolated
first

their lilies

phenomenon.
The most famous fantasies of early flower painting are the works
of Arcimboldo (ill. 16) that delight children and grown-ups alike.
Obviously they stand outside the central story except as an early
instance of the portrayal of seasons or months by flowers.

17

INTRODUCTION

The
is

history of flower painting, like the history of art in general,

the reconstruction of a puzzle where

many

pieces are missing.

Some may

be accurately imagined in their absence, some mav vet

be discovered. Xo flowerpiece in oils survives by the Antwerp-born

Georg Hoefnagel (1542- 1600), although he is known to have

painted them. His miniatures testify to his observation and skill as a
flower painter and represent the earliest surviving independent
artist

examples of the Flemish school. 111. 17 is a tiny watercolour on parchin an ornamental vein, the culmination of flowers in
miniatures. The tulip with tiny hatched strokes is perfectly rendered.
Perhaps Hoefnagel made use of a magnifying glass, as these came

ment of 1594

The invention of the

microscope was another advance aiding those who pursued the studv
of Nature in the spirit of scientific naturalism, epitomized by
Hoefnagel's motto, 'Xatura sola Magistra' (Nature the sole Master).
It is tempting to wonder if Hoefnagel left one of his flowerpieces
behind during his stay in England, when he made a well-known
engraving of Nonesuch Palace.
More tangible, and more tantalizing, is Lodewijck Jansz. van den
into general use in the sixteenth century.

Bosch

(Jansz. is the customary abbreviation of Janszoon, 'Jan's son').

Karel van Mander, one of the principal early sources for Dutch art,
writing in 1604 tells of his work: '.
who painted fruit and flowers
very beautifully, which later he often showed in a glass of water,
.

17.

HOEFXAGEL,

6f x 4I

in.

Georg, signed and dated 1594

(16-1 x 12 cm.)

and on which he spent so much time, patience and care that they
seemed entirely natural. He also painted the heavenly dew on flowers
and plants, and furthermore, all kinds of insects, butterflies, small
flies and so forth, as one can see in his paintings which are found here
and there in the houses of patrons of art.' Van Mander goes on to
tell of his figure paintings and cites two important collections with
Van den Bosch flowerpieces. Few important collections were to be
without flower paintings. Alas, nothing remains of the work of the
earliest noted flower painter in the Northern Netherlands.
Neither Ludger Tom Ring, Hoefnagel, nor Van den Bosch were
specialist flower painters, or more explicitly, were exclusively flower
painters. Indeed flowers may have played a small part in their work.
Hard on their heels came the founders of independent flower painting,
Ambrosius Bosschaert, a specialist, Jan Brueghel, Jacques de Gheyn
II, and Roelandt Savery. In the present writer's view it is but an
accident of survival that no dated flowerpiece exists from these
masters before 1600. The wonderful drawing of De Gheyn, ill. 20,
with

its

purple

De Gheyn,

fritillary,

bears this date. Authorities have said that

Brueghel, and Savery were concerned with the other

subject matter in their repertoire and turned to flowers later.

How

then was Ambrosius Bosschaert, born in 1573, who painted flowers

and fruit exclusively, occupied until 1606, the date of his earliest
if not in painting flowerpieces that have perished,
remained undiscovered, or are known but undated? If the northerners,
Germans, Flemish and Dutch, became the greatest exponents of
flower painting, it was in its origins a simultaneous and international
evolution. Caravaggio was also born in 1573.
Naturally the development of gardens went hand-in-hand with

dated work,

iH

(opposite)

Altai pii.Lt.

si/c ol

18

GO!

S,

Hugo

\an der, detail from the Portinari

1475

whole, 99J X

19J in

(1^1 X 27? cm.)

wmmm

INTRODUCTION

the flourishing of flower painting.

noblemen or

One

tends to think of the great

owners of the famous gardens, but the

simple pleasures of the countryside were shared by all in the rural life
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 111. 21 is a Flemish
painting of the early eighteenth century that presents a charming if
idyllic image of the simple pleasures of country life. Patrons called
rich burghers as

upon the flower painter

or of a

new

make

rarity successfully introduced into their gardens.

the blooms that

seem today

quilt of colours

to cover

made by

possessions of the wealthy few.

the tulip on a mission to

BRUEGHEL, Jan

the Elder, detail from a

size

of whole, 49 x 37^

20.

GHEYN, Jacques de

in.

(1245 x

962

cm.)

records of their choicest blooms,

hinted above, was the prize possession.

tulip, as

work

to

19. (opposite)

flowerpiece

Holland

The

at tulip

The

ancestors of

time in

patch-

countless flowers were then the rare

An Austrian diplomat had encountered

Turkey

1554 and brought back seeds to

Europe. Although Charles de Lecluse may not have been solely
responsible for its introduction into Holland, he certainly met the
diplomat at Vienna and obtained seeds from him and later cultivated
the tulip at Leyden.

mind by

in

Today our debt

to

de Lecluse

the delicate pink and white striped tulip

Soon the

is

brought to

known

as.

Tulipa

throughout Europe in a wave of

horticultural fashion without parallel. It was the striped variety that
was the real prize and sums were paid for the bulbs that defy belief,
hundreds of pounds for a single rarity. Speculators came into the
market and the entire Dutch nation seemed victim to a tulip fever
that has since been called tulipomania. Wilfrid Blunt's book of that
title is a splendid account of the furore caused by this flower, which
we grow or buy at florists today without a thought. Even when the
dizzy market crashed in the late 1630s substantial sums were still
paid for bulbs and the number of varieties increased prodigiously.
clusiana.

\s with every

tulip spread

new

flower

it

offered an artistic challenge to the

artist, gratified

the client, and gave a special cachet to the finished

work.

111.

22

is

painted

it

in

now rare tulip books, in this

new variety bloomed, the artist

page from one of the

case by Jacob Marrel.

As

a grower's

watercolour with complete accuracy and noted the

name. These drawings were doubly useful. They served as catalogues

which a travelling salesman could show to a potential client, and
provided the artist with a working model. Flower painters worked
from their studies so that they could introduce a flower into a bouquet
at any time. A plant would have withered long before the artist could
have completed his painting if he had tried to work from live models,
and the drawings were records of a bloom which he might not have
a second chance of seeing. As a practical method it allowed the
painter to compose bouquets with each variety of flower, shown with
faultless precision. Then when one stands back from a detailed
scrutiny, one realizes that what seemed the most natural bouquet
imaginable could not in fact exist in nature. Spring tulips and
daffodils are arranged with summer roses and carnations. Artists
treasured their vital drawings and it can be seen how Ambrosius
Bosschaert the Elder, for example, must have passed them to his
sons, for certain flowers are obviously derived from the same study.
A century later an enterprising grower in London, Robert Furber,
commissioned a series of paintings from Casteels, to be engraved in

II,

'Three Tulips and

a Fritillary'

signed and dated 1600

io|x8

in.

(27-5x22-5 cm.)

21

INTRODUCTION

much more

month showed
in the
list

elaborate catalogue

(ill.

23).

The prints
number

the appropriate flowers each with a

for each

identified

key below, and were coloured by hand and sent out with a

of subscribers in the frontispiece.

It

was

a catalogue

combined

with a florilegium, designed to be of interest whether the recipient

How satisfying it would be to know the

whereabouts of the original paintings Their only surviving equivalent,
the Twelve Months of Jacobus van Huysum, of about contemporary
date, was not so far as is known intended for the same purpose.
Furber also published the Twelve Months of Fruit in 1732.
Flower painters in the service of commerce would be an engaging
subject in itself. Innumerable artists designed for fabrics, porcelain,
wallpapers, and revived the decorative role which the flower had
always played from ancient times. Pattern books like that of Prevost
were published, as they were for furniture makers and architects.
Some of the finest porcelain and tapestries were produced in Paris
in the eighteenth century where many Dutch and Flemish artists,
from the greatest to the least, were employed. The silk industry of
Lyons is another obvious example of such employment. To represent
this aspect of flower painting the work of an exceptional artist has
been chosen. Jean Pillement, born at Lyons in 1727, is best known
for his enchanted paysages, among the most beautiful of Rococo
landscapes. He was also a master of decorative art and one of the
prime innovators of chinoiserie in Europe. Pillement felt free to
invent flowers, fleurs de fantaisie, to be woven into silk fabrics (ill.
24). They are highly personal and, by coincidence, resemble the
watercolour studies of imaginary flowers by Odilon Redon a century
placed an order or not.

21.

SNYERS,

32^x22!

in.

Pieter, 'La Fleuriste', signed

(83-5x58 cm.)

or so later.

To what extent the religious symbolism of flowers retained its

meaning in the seventeenth century is a difficult question. It is
tempting to think that the scientifically minded, wealthy Dutch
patron, keen gardener and botanist of the early seventeenth century,
was only interested in the flowers and how they were painted, and
little concerned with symbolism. If this were entirely so, why would
Jan Davidsz. de

Heem have painted the Munich canvas (ill.

182) with

one does not heed',

its inscription 'but the most beautiful flower of
referring to the crucifix above the paper ? Why does Jan van Huysum
in the eighteenth century paint lilies in a vase inscribed with a
quotation from the Sermon on the Mount: 'Consider the lilies of
the field ... I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not
arrayed as one of these' ? The probable explanation is that these
isolated instances were special commissions and that in general
flowers and fruits lost their traditional meanings. That a different
all

kind of symbolism replaced them

If the reader reflects

M ARREL, Jacob, page from a tulip book

1

22

'"

(44

5*

34

cm -)

undeniable.

impress itself upon him

more and more. Who in our northern climes walks into their drawing
room and is confronted by a carefully arranged bouquet abounding
with butterflies, lizards, caterpillars, bird's nest, and insects? Once
the Council of Trent had outlined religious imagery in the 1560s,
flower and still-life painters could discreetly continue, by symbolism,
illustrated, the artificiality of

22.

is

on the bouquets of the seventeenth century

them

will

INTRODUCTION

The theme

to present the desired teachings.

the period

that predominates in

that of the vanitas, the vanity of man's fragile and

is

transitory existence

on

this earth, relieved

by the prospect of salvation

and resurrection.
Flowers were in themselves perfect symbols of transience. 'Even
as the rose flourisheth in the morning, and yet doth quickly languish
at eventide, so we, who but now were living are tomorrow a paltry
shadow', wrote an anonymous author in 1654. The prominence of
dewdrops may also have been a further symbol of transience, for
they disappear very rapidly in the heat of the day.
is

man

The

caterpillar

in his earthly existence before freeing himself in resurrection,

The butterfly was from

symbol of the soul and, by extension, so was the bird.
The spider was a symbol of fragility. Flies were carriers of plague
and as such the representatives of sin and evil. All the lizards, snakes,
frogs and their like were creatures of decomposition awaiting the
end of the human body's brief existence. Occasionally the artists
painted fruits and leaves that are decayed or eaten to emphasize
the point. The ear of corn, as already mentioned, was a symbol of
resurrection. The egg in its nest was one of the most ancient symbols
of resurrection. Ivy and laurel, the evergreens, represented enduring
fame, which is why ivy appears above in the Seghers garland around
the portrait of Rubens. Occasionally an overturned bowl or glass
shows the easily upset vanity of man, just as books point to the futility
of human learning. The watch which Van Aelst enjoyed painting
was again a reminder of how soon time would run out for us mortals.
These themes were elaborated in still-life painting with skulls,
snuffed-out candles, hour-glasses and many other less obvious
as the caterpillar turns into a butterfly.

Greek times

WIIII.S.
i)l

in.

alter '\la\',

from The Twelve Months of

1730 b\ Robert Furbcr, London

(34-9 X 24 H cm.)

Flowers, published

in

symbols.
All this rather depressing sign language

regardless of whether the

its

didactic content,

it

set certain

is

important because,

the onlooker was impressed by

artist or

formulae for the presentation of

flower compositions which persisted long after symbolism had ceased

have any meaning. How long and how deeply effective it was, is,

to

1ft

as with the flowers, a matter of debate.

&*

T$
1

Ml

NT

',

(24 x 40

VI

Jean,' Fleurs de fantaisie'

tm

was, the painter had the

the patron delighted in their accurate portrayal.

'
24 PI I.I
x 15^
9J

it

fascinating attendant creatures and

many

opportunity of depicting

As

/-

Dutch were

rare collector's items, but

Shells for the

by including

shells

from

both the East and the West Indies, as with Van der Ast, ill. 40, the
artist made a quietly contented reference to the power of the Dutch
nation whose possessions encompassed the seas.
When the layman is confronted with the great flower paintings,

and eighteenth centuries, the most

manage to paint such things?

particularly of the seventeenth

frequent question

is

how

did the artists

the question which the person pretending to some

knowledge of the subject most dreads. It we turn to the scanty evidence
of letters and contemporary remarks, scattered notes offer little real
In truth

it

is

help. Brueghel's correspondence with Cardinal

latter's secretary has, like

many

Borromeo and the

artists' letters to their

patrons, an

element of falseness. That is to say, all the trials and

recounted to assure him of the hardships of a painter's

tribulations are
lot: veiled

23

INTRODUCTION

and soon, and eulogies about

delivery is due only to
forthcoming masterpieces whose delayed
is
artist's skill. Relevant information
their extreme demands on the
poor
very cold days nor in
disappointing. He could not paint on
have imagined. He had to go to Brussels
light two facts we mav well
One's sympathies are entirely with the
to study a particular flower.
how, in the lifetime of one man and
artist but the answer as to
painted so many pictures
excluding school pictures, Jan Brueghel

paid
hints that he should in fairness be

how many
clear idea can be gained as to
defies explanation.
ill.
like
99
in a major project
hours work were actually involved

No

the present writer

is

be imagined.
inclined to think fewer than might
It
flowerpiece.
Brueghel
privately owned

from a
that is common to so
shows not onlv the minute detail of finish
of technique with
manv flowerpieces, but the extraordinary fluidity
great artist or craftsman
which thev were created. The skill of the
able,
to do their work, but in being
lav not simply in being able
a
make
to
to do it fast enough
by their extraordinarv dexterity,
priming to show through the transliving Brueghel used the chalk
passages, just as his friend Rubens
parent, as opposed to the opaque,
the great
is the special property of
did to give that luminositv which
Bosschaert seemed to hide
Flemish masters. Bv contrast Ambrosius

Ill

in

is

detail

sheen, glazed in a very different

his brushstrokes in a limpid

way

nor records from

are no
but equally mysterious, and there
method.
his hand about his working
delay in completing
Van Huvsum assured a patron in 1742 that the
to find a yellow
unable
he had been
a painting' was simplv because
counter and one which
previous vear. A difficult excuse to
letters

rose the

of
confirmed by the appearance of the dates
from
(ill. 197)- To construe
consecutive years on the same painting
even
painting,
more than a year for a
this that Jan'van Huvsum took
a
case
this were strictly the
such a masterpiece,' is misleading. If
produced two hundred and
working life of fiftv vears could not have
worked on
likely explanation is that he

some experts

fiftv

believe

paintings.

is

The most

and therefore one of them could span a

guarded his secrets and allowed
calendar vear. Van Huvsum jealously
gave her daughter a dowry
no one to see him at work. Rachel Ruysch
taken
girl, which were said to have
of three of her flowerpieces, lucky
remarks apply: she may have
seven vears to produce. The same
but this seems difficult
worked on them over a period of seven years,
several paintings at once

to imagine.

Weverman wrote

that

Van

Aelst took four days over

seems more credible.

the painting of a carnation, which
was not painted in
What is certain is that this tvpe of flowerpiece
the artist reweek,
after
doubt week
a dav' Dav after dav, and no
problem is one o light.
turned to 'his easel. The most intriguing
shadow and e%er>
The light falls from an exact place and every
alone could have ensured
faultlessl) in place. Knowledge
reflection

is

the artist must have worked in

received the same light at
varying light and his studio cannot have

that

no error

vsas

made because

different times of the year.

Van Huvsum's drawings

that

24

one might expect, but

minutiae
are not the detailed studies of
tight.
are
paintings
are as broad as his

INTRODUCTION

~
.

K lSk jr^>

** ~~
-

*
-

ti0

^J***~

L
1

j*5S^S^^
|

rv

111. 25 is a preparatory drawing for ill. 197. Obviously Van

Huysum
was concerned to design the composition and fix the bouquet in
terms of light and shade. Nonetheless, the task of working from individual flower studies to compose bouquets impossible in nature,
yet so real in detail and so convincingly lit, is an artistic challenge

of the highest order.

Painters, as suggested above, have never doubted the value of the

flowerpiece as a challenge, as a means of instruction and, above all,
-'

9
A.

as a subject the equal of

flowerpiece or

any other. Indeed in some respects the

more demanding. There is no narrative
no evocative religious personage, no sitter

still-life is

to hold the attention,

whose character is portrayed, it is simply pure painting. In the

seventeenth century Caravaggio declared that it required of him
as much skill to paint a flower as a figure. In the eighteenth century
Largilliere told the

young Oudry

the nineteenth century

Manet

to learn

said that

by painting flowers; in
was 'the touchstone

still-life

of the painter'.
In the eyes of the academies of painting, the tradition persisted
that subjects could be divided into categories of differing merit.
History painting was the highest calling of the artist, still-life the

The

gulf between theory and practice was absurd. Pillars of

the academy painted still-life or collected examples from the hand
of others just as theorists breached their own doctrines. Yet the
lowest.

modest
25.

HLYSLMJan
4 in. (47

van

5x35-6 cm.)

station accorded to still-life

lingers with us even today.

Many

had many consequences and

who looks eagerly for an

a reader

example of one of the great flower painters in their national museums

may be disappointed unless they have been received as a bequest,
for they are unlikely to have been purchased. Brueghel and Bosschaert
are not to be found in Trafalgar Square.
Private collectors have never been misled by such theories. The
supposed lack of intellectual nourishment in the flowerpiece has
:

never prevented their seeing its qualities as a painting. The present

writer belongs to Rembrandt's Carcass school of thought whereby
it doesn't matter what you paint but how you paint it. Fine flower
paintings have always found devotees

Maria

de'

in the

Low

Medici

among

great collectors.

When

no finer gift could be

envisaged than a De Gheyn flowerpiece (for which the State paid
the artist one thousand guilders). When a French duke wanted to
present a gift to Louis XIV, a man who might be said to have had
everything, he chose a Mignon flowerpiece which was hung in the
innermost sanctum at Versailles. The works of Daniel Seghers were
eagerly accepted by the great princes to whom they were sent, Charles
II of England among them.
It is not by chance that the three artists chosen at random as
examples in the last paragraph worked in the seventeenth century
visited the Netherlands,

Countries.

glance at the illustrations will show to

what extent the practice of flower painting in the seventeenth,

eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was dominated by Dutch
and Flemish artists. Such indisputable truths do tend to provoke
the nationalistic pride of those
sarily relegates the

who

work of other

feel that their reiteration

artists to a

neces-

secondary place. Admit-

25

INTRODUCTION

tedly, like all generalizations,

reader

may

still

find

it

it

has obvious limitations, but the

easier to follow the history of flower painting

with developments in Holland and Flanders as a starting point.

Fortunately within the last decade we have become far better in-

formed about the French, Italian, Spanish, German and American

schools, and their unjust neglect compared to the popularity of the
Netherlands. Their contribution is self evident and the history of
flower painting is far more complex than can yet be clearly understood. For example, if the emergence and growth of independent
landscape and flower painting in the late sixteenth century was, as
mentioned above, in the hands of northerners, who would deny
that it could not have taken place without the theoretical groundwork of the Renaissance, a crucial chapter in the history of man
largely initiated by Italy ?

The word

when

'early'

significance, rather like

colours'.

The work

its

applied to flower painting has a special

use in the term 'Early English Water-

of the founders of flower painting in the North,

De Gheyn, has characteristics at once

and beloved by the devotees of the early flowerpiece, yet

Brueghel, Bosschaert and

distinctive

difficult to describe.

was akin

to the

had, like each

The

early concept of painting a flowerpiece

contemporary group
paid

portraits. It

share and

is

as if

demanded

each flower

be portrayed
as clearly as the next. Thus there is often an absence of overlapping
so that each flower may be seen clearly, both in small simple bouquets
where such a requirement poses few problems, and in the large
upright bouquets with many flowers that Brueghel, Bosschaert, and
sitter,

its fair

to

Savery also painted. The vases are centrally placed against a closed
background - with the exceptions of a few Bosschaerts, notably the
famous panel of 162 1 (ill. 77). Nothing distracts the onlooker from
the flowers, which are symmetrically presented in a balanced bouquet.
To use the word 'naive' of works painted with such sophisticated
skills seems absurd, yet there is, because of the manner of presentation, a naive charm, a wondrous innocent joy in the early
flowerpiece never to be recaptured. When one speaks of progress,
of 'more advanced work', of 'stylistic change', the terms are, of
course, relative because what is gained in one sense is lost in another.
One feels, rightly or wrongly, that the artists were themselves devoted
to their work in a way that was unique. Perhaps the soul goes out of
flower painting in the latter part of the seventeenth century.

The

illustrations

show how

the early founders painted both very

simple and very elaborate bouquets in the same

spirit and they form

remarkable contrast within one artist's work and the genesis of
many future developments. The towering bouquets of Brueghel and
Savery seem less naturalistic than their simple panels and one might
be tempted to think of the latter as later in date or more advanced

than the former. Yet this

is

not so. For example, Savery's

panel (frontispiece) dates from 161

1,

his elaborate, large-scale

little

work

Utrecht from 1624 (ill. 325). We know from the work of Brueghel,
Bosschaert, and Savery that they turned from one type to another.
Both had their adherents. The tall, upright, elaborate bouquet, one

at

of

20

the archetypal early flowerpieces,

is

clearly followed

by Binoit

26.

HINOIT,

35 x 22]

Peter, signed and dated 1627

in. (8()

x 56-2 cm.)

INTRODUCTION

(1627) and lesser artists like

Berghe.

The

Hoecke (ill. 191),

small, simple bouquet, often

Vosmaer, and Van den

dominated by tulips,

continued to be painted without artifice by the three Bosschaert

children and his brother-in-law, Balthasar van der Ast, and many

minor

artists in their

whom

very few

more remarkable

contrast.

wake. Jacques de Gheyn, of

flowerpieces have survived, presents a

The watercolour of 1600 (ill. 20) has

much

of the naive charm

already referred to, but by contrast his bouquet of 1612 (ill.
157) has
a Mannerist note with the tulips agitated like flames. Again, the
seeds of future developments lie in such devices.
All the great founders of flower painting became known throughout
Europe either in their own lifetime or soon afterwards. Brueghel
and his heir, Seghers, who both journeyed abroad, were internationally
celebrated artists whose influence was far-reaching. Linard's basket
of flowers in the Louvre (ill. 38) is indebted to those of Brueghel

before him. Savery followed in the steps of Hoefnagel by working

Emperor Rudolf at Prague. Spain and Flanders both belonged
to the Hapsburg Empire and many works by Brueghel, who was
for

Bosschaert the founder of a family of artists, thus readily made

way across the Pyrenees as part of a regular export business.
The explosion of talent and activity in the North, the most conlike

their

centrated in the history of

Dutch

art,

art,

encompassing the Golden Age of

sent ripples throughout Europe.

Daniel Seghers took the idea of the garland which Brueghel had
used and changed it into a format followed by a host of painters.

One of his pupils, Luyckx, went to work for the King of Spain,
but both his garlands and his rare bouquets were known throughout
Europe. Picart's oval panel (ill. 279) reflects the influence of the
Seghers bouquet.

The

use of the word 'decorative' in relation to flower painting

misleading. Apart from

is

an early flowerpiece,
even a small one, is a wonderfully decorative object in a room. Yet
in the first half of the seventeenth century this was not in the minds
of the painters, nor their patrons. Flowers were painted as botanical
records, for their own beauty, with the utmost fidelity. If their
colour and vitality lit up a room, so much to the good, but this was
simply a secondary appeal. They were never intended to decorate.
Very broadly speaking the development of flower painting in the
seventeenth century is an increasing awareness of the decorating
role of the flowerpiece coupled, in the hands of the great masters,
to a desire to keep to the staggeringly conscientious standards of
craftsmanship set by the founders.
The growing influence of Louis XIV's taste, especially after his
invasion of Holland in 1672, set new standards of elaboration and
elegance which Europe eagerly followed. Canvas, which allowed
greater size and required far less preparation, replaced panel and
copper. De Heem, shared by both the Dutch and Flemish schools,
stands as a link between the earlier traditions and the role of the
decorative flowerpiece. His influence releases the decorative impulses
of Flemish art, dominated by the spirit of Rubens, whose disciples
Fyt and Snyders, although primarily concerned with still-life and
its

intrinsic qualities,

27

INTRODUCTION

27.

BOLLOXGIER,

27I x 21^

28. (right)

in.

(68

Hans, signed and dated 1639

x 54-5 cm.)

SCHRIEK,

Otto Marseus van, signed and dated

1661

23^x

19

in. (59-

ix 483 cm.)

game

subjects, painted flowers in the

would suggest

that Fyt's 'Noli

influenced Italian

artists,

same

me Tangere'

who favoured

vein.
(ill.

The

present writer

154) seems to have

the horizontal format and

outdoor setting - Campidoglio and Belvedere for example. Naturally

differences of climate play an important part in the mode of life and
the formation of tastes, as well as the possibility of cultivating flowers.
Fruit and still-life are predominant subjects in the Italian, Spanish
and American schools. In France, too, visited by Fyt and Ykens,
the example of rich Flemish decorative still-life was absorbed and
transformed by French artists. In the eighteenth century Desportes
and Oudry were responsible for superbly refined still-lifes, but
flowers often played a minor role in their compositions, as they had

done

in the

In the

work of the Flemish forerunners.

Low

Countries the painting of flowers flourished to the

The Dutch collector of the 1630s could choose

detriment of still-life.

a flowerpiece by Bollongier, Marrel, Ambrosius Bosschaert the

Younger, or a superb still-life by Pieter Claesz., or Heda. There
were no heirs to these masters of the monochrome 'breakfast-piece'.
By contrast the growing of flowers, the numbers of new varieties,

28

INTRODUCTION

29.

MOXXOYER, Jean-Baptiste,

32 x 40+

in. (81-3

Overmantel

x 102 9 cm.)

proliferation of gardens, the prosperity of

a new merchant class
many other factors assured the rapid growth in the

and

popularity of

flowerpieces.

In response to changing tastes, sophistication

replaced simplicity.
Vases could be set off-centre, bouquets arranged
asymmetrically,
stems and foliage made to present lines and
patterns in a much
more contrived manner than ever before. The
decorative effects to
be obtained with individual booms, the open
tulip, the poppy, began
to be explored. Ideas only touched
upon in the earlier masters,
sometimes perhaps unwittingly, were now experimented
upon with
studied care. The 1660s offer several
interesting comparisons,
elaborate compositions and increased decorative
of flower painting: Van Aelst, a traveller in
France and

illustrating the
'feel'

more

Italy,

many
changing mood
like

so

predecessors

and

contemporaries,

perfectly

72);

Marseus van Schriek's work of

(ill.

illustrates

the

shows the new mood of the exotic, paralleled in

Italy
Spain by Perez, in France by Baudesson. Obviously not
all painters were abreast of the
latest styles nor did tastes change
uniformly throughout Europe. Minor painters were
often content
1661

by

(ill.

Cam,

28)

in

to follow traditional paths. Helena Rouers' work (ill.

312), of the
same year as Van Aelst's, might have been painted thirty years earlier
to compare with the Marrel of
1635 (iU. 258). Tomas Hiepes's work
of 1 664 makes the same point. Walscappelle and
Mignon, for example,
reflect in their respective

colour illustrations both the older traditions

and the more flamboyant Baroque

Flanders, the cradle of

style.

and flower painting, lost its inand theonce mighty Antwerp school which boasted Brueghel,
Beert and Hulsdonck turned to dull decorating canvases,
by the end
still-life

spiration

of the century. Verendael stands therefore as a rather isolated figure

among Flemish-born artists in the later seventeenth century. The
workshop productions to meet decor requirements, established
by
the Monnoyers, Van Huysums, Verelsts in their own countries

and

29

INTRODUCTION

England, were far from the spirit of the early masters. Canvases
were shaped to go over doors, mantelpieces, as flowers were called
upon to play their part in the increasingly important concept of the
over-all decoration of a room. Need it be said again, tastes differ
and terms are relative who would disdain the best work of any of
these excellent painters? The decorative style was international and
the distinctions of schools less evident and less significant. Very
broadly speaking, the pattern was set for flower painting in the
eighteenth century. Botanical illustration with great names like
Ehret, Bauer, Spaendonck and Redoute (ill. 30) sustained and
:

nourished the earlier virtuosity.

By contrast to Flanders, Holland carried the tradition of flower
painting gloriously into the eighteenth century. While all other
genres lost impetus and

Dutch

artists fell into sterile repetitions

of

what had gone before, flowers alone inspired two new names worthy
of their illustrious forerunners Rachel Ruysch, who as a girl was
briefly the pupil of Van Aelst, and Jan van Huysum. The 'Phoenix
of flower painters', Van Huysum, perfected a technique and a gift
:

for elegant composition, refined to the last detail, that captured the

and patrons alike. He released the palette

from the traditional tones, freed backgrounds from their dark and
neutral role, to make his works the perfect compliment to the
French furniture and decor of the Age of Elegance. Comparatively
few, even among the wealthy, could hang such prizes in their salons
because their possession was disputed by kings and princes, let alone
commoners. Cold and mechanical are the adjectives unjustly used
of Van Huysum's work. He successfully blended the craftsmanship
and devotion of the early masters to the decorative needs of a different
age. To criticize, in the terms mentioned, is simply to acknowledge
that Van Huysum did not recapture 'the soul' which, as I have
imagination of

suggested,

artists

somehow

left

flower painting in the later seventeenth

century. Naive, mysterious

and the

last quality

charm

is

the last thing his works possess

one should expect of them.

Reflections, variations, adaptations of the Van Huysum manner

continued to influence flower painting not only in the remaining
half of the eighteenth century after his death, but far into the nineteenth century. It was a dangerous formula in the -hands of lesser
mortals. The patronage and majesty of Paris, which began to es-

European painting, drew many Dutch

and Flemish flower painters who inspired French painters and perfected their own styles under the impact of French elegance. Others,
like Jan van Os and Van Brussel, remained in Holland. The most
important artist to go to Paris was Gerard van Spaendonck, equally
gifted as an easel painter and botanical draughtsman, the master of
Redoute, Prevost, and countless others, his younger brother Cornells
among them. Van Dael was another important name to come to
Paris. Redoute, under the patronage of French rulers from Marie
Antoinette to Louis Philippe, established his world-wide reputation.
Sevres porcelain, Gobelins tapestries, Lyons silks were created with
the help of flower painters and exported throughout the world.
New engraving processes led to superb flower books and prints.
tablish itself as the centre of

30.

REDOUTE,

Pierre Joseph, 'Paeonta moutan varb\ signed

and dated 1812

i8|x 13! in. (46-3x33-3 cm.)

INTRODUCTION

Vienna, a long-established centre of flower interest where Charles

de Lecluse had worked, experienced a revival of flower painting in
the early nineteenth century, the so-called Old Vienna School
where
Nigg succeeded Dreschler and continued the activity into the second
half of the century. A comparison of the Austrian Drechsler's
excellent canvas to the flowerpiece of a

dated 1808
to the Van

Dutchman, Linthorst, both

132 and 227), underlines the international conformity
Huysum formula in the work of two artists not working

(ills.

at Paris.

The reader must pause among the extraordinary profusion of

flower painting in this period to reflect on one small bouquet which
stands serenely apart from all that was taking place around it. Two
or three years before Gerard van

Spaendonck arrived in Paris in

Edinburgh bouquet (ill. 138). Whereas
flowerpieces seem to perpetuate the larger, 'towering'

1766, Chardin painted the

many

later

bouquets of the early seventeenth century, the simplicity of this

work takes one back to the small copper and oak panels in which
Bosschaert and Brueghel painted a modest few flowers in a glass.
Chardin rekindles the poetry of the early masters and at the same
time looks forward, in the observation of light, to the Impressionists.

What Chardin had

to say was forgotten in the plethora of flower

painting that followed in Paris, to be revived by Manet, Cezanne

and many others. Yet, despite the known admiration of the Impressionists and Fantin-Latour for Chardin and his 'rediscovery' in
their era, it was Odilon Redon who most closely approached the
of Chardin's only surviving flowerpiece.
In the nineteenth century individuals are more important than
schools, and the reader must simply compare and contrast the many
spirit

flower paintings because there

is no clear story to tell. As FantinLatour said in 1865, 'I think in fact the era is past of schools and
artistic movements'. National characteristics remain, of course, as
seen when comparing the works of Huygens, Jean Benner-Fries
and Waldmuller, all painted in 1848. The intensely Victorian mood

Edward Ladell does not represent 1862 when one sees that
Lafarge's mysterious creation was painted in the same year. It is

of

undeniably fascinating to look across the works of different artists

in the same year and it has been the aim of this book to offer a unique
opportunity to do so. Such comparisons are instructive but should
not readily serve as the basis for a developing narrative, except in
the familiar context of painting in general. If it is otherwise, what

should we construe from comparing the work of Courbet and Heade

in the same year, 1863, or from the fact that Van Gogh painted his
famous Sunflowers a year after Harnett's canvas of 1887, or tnat
Fantin-Latour's Roses in the National Gallery, London, are of the
same period as Cezanne's Tulips at the Art Institute of Chicago, or
from the contemporary activity of Matisse, Derain, Dufy, in the mid1920s, Chagall and Georgia O'Keeffe in iQ27,Vlaminck and Kisling
in

about 1930? Should one not above

all,

delight in the breath-

taking variety and richness of the bouquet offered to us

all

by the

history of flower painting?

Today

the finest flower paintings are

much

sought after

in a

way

31

INTRODUCTION

-jfcW
was not envisaged before World War II. It is amusing to think
that the Roelandt Savery of 1611 (frontispiece) was bought in 1934
for 80, repurchased in the early 1950s for 800, and then when
it came up for auction in 1965 it brought 8,000 - a figure that
now, seven years later, seems quaintly outmoded. Flower paintings
are now restored to the status they held for so long. Their abstract
qualities and timeless content seem to appeal as much to the modern
as to the traditional taste. It is to be hoped that the reader will look
at a flowerpiece and see beneath its innocent exterior the many
centuries of art, history, science, travel, commerce, romance and
symbolism that are the history of flower painting.
that

The

31) with which the story began was a

favourite subject with artists over a long period. The reader will note

studio of Apelles

that in this

example

it

that holds the place of

32

is

(ill.

a flower painting, as

honour

in the

much

foreground.

as

any other,

31.

HAECHT,

Willem van, 'The Studio of Apelles'

4 I I X 57 n (105 x 150 cm.)

>

Biographies

ADRIAENSSEN,

Alexander (1587-1661)

flemish

Alexander Adriaenssen, son of a musician, was born at Antwerp. His

apprenticeship with Arthur van der Laeck began very early and by the
age of twelve he was inscribed as a scholar of the Antwerp Guild, becoming
a free

member

For the next

in 16 10.

years there

fifty

absence of documentary information. There

is,

at present, a baffling

no mention of Adriaenssen
elsewhere than in Antwerp where he died in 1661. His friendship with
Rubens and Van Dyck is established. Rubens owned one of his paintings
and his wife Isabella Brandt was godmother to one of Adriaenssen's children.
Van Dyck painted his portrait and the inscription on an engraving of this
portrait describes him as a flower painter. Yet the greater part of his work
without flowers.

appears to consists of

still-life

would be of

like, after

or the

fish

is

typical Adriaenssen

the style of Joachim Beuckelaer.

Much

and drink, of which a few are enriched with a

vase of flowers. Only five pure flowerpieces are known, one garland, and
one instance where Adriaenssen painted flowers around a Holy Family
with St John the Baptist by Simon de Vos, a work included in the Steele de
rarer are still-lifes of food

Rubens exhibition

Of the pure

The

type of flower.
the

in

1967

flowerpieces,

the

at

some

nine striped tulips

Leonard Koetser (iallcn

flowers the

title of

Musccs Ro\aux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels.

composed of only one

are unusual in being

is

the engraving

dated 1635, once with

Whenever Adriaenssen paints

in a glass vase

outstanding.
is

justified; the

esteem of

his distinguished

friends merited.

one

is

33

111.

panel of the same

Argcnti Collection in

London, and the

of these rare Still-lifes

1640, was formerly in the

year,

with flowers.

glass jug with the gilt rim appears in several other works, e.g. in the

VOOT Schone Kunsten, Ghent.

The approach

is

very

much

in the

Museum
Antwerp

brushwork, oxer a lightly primed panel, whose warmth

Adriaenssen uses to glow through glazes and transparent colour. Rich
colours are mellowed by the warm atmospheric effects which Adriaenssen
tradition of fluid

often seeks in his work.

of

The

both his palette and the

It

is

chosen

iris, a

vitalitv

smoky Antwerp

blue,

is

a perfect instance

of his brushwork.

not acceptable that such an accomplished flower painter could have

to paint so few flowers

of others, must

appK

to

and so many

fish.

The same

made
new examples

remarks,

that the discovery of

Adriaenssen

would be most instructive and welcome.

AELST, Willem
The

son

of a

of the guild

van (1625 26-after 1683)

Van \clst was horn at Delft and became

notary,

there

in

1643.

He was

dutch
member

pupil of his uncle Evert van Aelst

wo \ears later, in 1645, he went to Paris where an important

colon) of Dutch and Flemish artists had long been active. In 1649 he went
lorence and Rome, and apparently remained in Italy until 1656, working
to
(t6o2-S2)

32.

AELST,

12^ x 9^

in.

signed and dated 1670

(31-8 x 24-8 cm.)

33

AELST

33.

ADRIAENSSEN,

i6| x 23J

in.)

signed and dated 1646

(425 x 603 cm.)

for a time as court painter to

Duke

of Tuscany.

Aelst, in
Italian

common

Known
with

Ferdinand

II,

as Guillielmo

many northern

the Medici, and the

d'Olando

artists

having the cachet of an

sojourn behind them, continued to sign his Christian

Fitahenne after his return to

Amsterdam

Grand
Van

to the Italians,

in 1657. It

is

name
was

said that he

a
a

Van Schriek while in Rome, but this is not especially

Van Aelst's work. It is more likely the two artists were simply

pupil of his friend

apparent in

working together rather than one teaching the other.

The quarter of a century from Van Aelst's return
death after 1683 - the year of his latest dated picture detail

but rich

in

production.

Van

to
is

Holland

until his

sparse in recorded

Aelst's considerable importance

is

not

confined to flower painting. His very susbstantial output included,

in

addition to pure flowerpieces, flowers and fruit, conventional

of

fruit

still-lifes

and other food without flowers, and game pieces of shot birds on

own or with hunting equipment in the

their

usual Uroplue de chasse style. Different

subjects are not confined to different periods, as he turned readily from one
at the same date.
As suggested in the Introduction, Van Aelst marks an important turning
point in the development of the flowerpiece in the seventeenth century.
He was an innovator in the type of strongly asymmetric composition as
seen in ill. 72, a tendency only hinted at in De Heem's work. While never

type to another

neglecting the detail of a single flower, Van Aelst began arranging the
whole bouquet into a pleasing, decorative shape with an S running diagonally

34

ARELLANO

from the top

idea of

right, in this case a

making the flowerpiece

poppy, to the bottom left carnation. The

whole a decorative thing apart from the

as a

moves right away from the spirit

way to the eighteenth century.
Simon Yerelst, Lachtropius and De

inherent decorative quality of flowers

of the earlier part of the century, pointing the

Professor Bergstrom considers that

among

Lust,

others, cultivated the type of flowerpiece created

by Van

Aelst.

This particular composition

in the Mauritshuis,

The Hague, example

of 1663, with the ribboned open pocket watch, and the similar undated
painting in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, appear to be variants of the

The last-mentioned painting

dated 1659 and 1660; the significance of this detail in flower painting is
discussed in the Introduction. All three pictures have silver vases, or more
canvas in the Michaelis Collection at Capetown.
is

show the same vase (probably the work of a Dutch silversmith,

Lutma) whose eddies and curves accord so perfectly with the rhythms of
likely

the composition.

Elegance and sophistication are also the keynotes for Van Aelst's palette,
a whole range of cool blues from the darkest to the lightest shade as

with

the most distinctive feature, together with a curious misty grey coolness

Like his famous pupil, Rachel Ruysch, Van Aelst could

in all his colours.

turn from the familiar full-scale bouquet in a vase to superb small canvases

of a few flowers on a ledge, as

The paucity
artists like

shown

in

ill.

of known facts, by no means

Van

Aelst,

is

32.

uncommon even

with influential

particularly aggravating in the context of his youth-

where he overlapped briefly with the great still-life painter,

Willem Kalf. Certainly Van Aelst was successful in the French capital,
but the interesting and familiar question of who influenced who remains
open. If French artists could hardly fail to be impressed by Van Aelst's
work, to what extent does his delicacy of palette, with his pinks, blues,
greys, and his general sense of elegance derive from significant contact
with French art ; It says much for Van Aelst that so discerning an artist
as Philippe de Champaigne should have owned one of his works.
ful stay in Paris

ANGERMEYER, Johann
Angerme\cr was

active at

teacher Byss.

34

III.

is

Adalbert (1674-1740)
Prague, where he worked

abouts of

a fine pair

were sold

at

la

Czech
in the style

of his

at

There

are four examples

the

of small copper panels, signed and dated 1705, which

May 1933 and of which there are photographs in

London.

ARELLANO, Juan
de

(26 x 19 cm.)

Christie's in

the Witt Library,

Born

in.

Neue Residen/, Bamberg, and two at the

Schleissheim. It would be instructive to know the where-

of Angerme\cr\ work
Schloss,

ANGERMEYER

10$ x 7^

small and typical canvas which reveals the same

anachronistic qualities as the work of his master.

Ncua

34.

Spanish

de (1614-1676)

1614, Arellano was the pupil of Juan de Solis and Juan

Coite. In common with main young artists, he copied paintings by

at

Santorcaz

in

other masters, especially those of the famous Italian flower painter Nuzzi

Madrid, produced a very large number

and became the head of a studio with many assistants. His son,
Jose de Arellano, closcl> imitated him but his pupil and son-in-law,
Perez (see p. 199), was a follower with individual character. In the third
quarter of the seventeenth century Arellano's fame was celebrated, long
(see p. 187). Arellano, established at

of paintings

before his death

Not only
period, but

at

Madrid

in

1676.

Arellano the best-known Spanish flower painter of any

asked to name another Spanish master, most people would

is
if

be hard pressed.

The

nift

of

Spanish

artists,

including the greatest, has

35

ARELLANO

'$B

been for still-life not flowers. In the era of decorative flower painting in
the second half of the century, Arellano was to Madrid as Monnoyer was
to Paris and Nuzzi to Rome. Like them he became, through large-scale
production, synonymous with a style. Paintings conforming in style, but
not in quality, were nonetheless put under his name, aggravating the
uneven quality of his own authentic work. A further complication with
Arellano is that irreproachable paintings are unsigned - seven out of ten
in the

*
w n

None

of the problems of a large output,

to several painters in the decorative

expansion of the second half

of the seventeenth century, should be allowed to obscure the stature of

^Kk/*)F*

\<Lj

Prado, Madrid, for example.

common

-J* '-Wt -

Juan Arellano

at his best.

The very close ties between Spain and Flanders, or more aptly the Spanish
Netherlands, guaranteed that the impact of Seghers was quickly

U d

Li

ARELLANO

35.

27 x 22

in.

(68-6 x 59-9 cm.)

felt at

Madrid. Under his sway Arellano painted garlands in the 1650s which
must have seemed the height of fashion, but seem now the least interesting
aspect of his work. The influence on Arellano of Seghers and Nuzzi, the
Fleming and the Italian, are perfectly illustrated in a later bouquet, ill. 35.
The brushwork has become looser with sharper accents of impasto, like
the highlights of the glass, and the simple format of Seghers, a few flowers
in a centrally placed vase, is transformed by a picturesque, mouvemente
effect. It is not simply a question of curling tendrils and cavorting morning
glories; the central flowers seem to rotate on curved stems around the hub
of the passion flower. The vivid blues, reds and whites, accentuated against
a warm brown background, are Arellano's favoured colours.
111. 37, a magnificent flower painting, is totally larger and more lavish
in concept. Yet the same remarks apply. The canvas seems filled with
flowers right to the bottom of the basket. Movement and flamboyance are
still the characteristics of the whole and the parts. Even the Madonna
lilies seem to be growing before the viewer's eyes. The appearance of
Arellano's bouquets and baskets has been perfectly described - as if shaken

by

sudden gust of wind.

basket of comparable quality, with blue

has found

its

way over

irises

the Pyrenees to the Besancon

but without butterflies,

Musee

des Beaux-Arts.

ASSTEYN, Bartholomeus Abrahamsz.

dutch
(1607-^. 1667)
Bosschaert tradition was continued at Dordrecht by Bartholomeus
Assteyn. Born at Dordrecht, he became a guild master there in 1631. The

The

from 1631 to 1646. There are dated works

from 1628 to the latest in 1667. In the latter year he made a will and presumably died soon afterwards. A gouache drawing of a tulip by Assteyn
was exhibited at the Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Bonn, in 1968.
Fortunately, Assteyn nearly always signed and dated his work, otherwise
confusion could arise with another B.A., Balthasar van der Ast, whose style
Assteyn closely follows in his fruitpieces and combined fruit and flower

births of eight children are noted

36.

ASSTEYN,

24 x 31!

in. (61

signed and dated 1643

x 793 cm.)

panels.

37. (opposite above)

ARELLANO,

]]l X 41^ in. (84 X 105

38. (opposite

18

36

X 24

111

below)

signed

cm.)

LINARD,

(46 / 6l cm.)

signed

Important, too,

is

the

influence

of another Utrecht resident,

Johannes Bosschaert. The comparison of a typical Assteyn basket of flowers,

ill. 36, and ill. 88 by Bosschaert needs no elaboration. Equally, Assteyn's
bouquets in glass vases, as in the Dordrechts Museum, are closely linked
to the few examples by Bosschaert. Their contact may have resulted from
Bosschaert's stay at Dordrecht as Bol suggests, but one way or another,
Assteyn had first-hand acquaintance with his and Van der Ast's work.
Even at his best, the drawing artel quality of Assteyn's work is subordinate
to these masters. He sought to temper his colours by a warm, golden tone
which tends to be too pronounced. Possibly some pigments in glazes have
lost their opaqueness, and brown laying in shows through more than originally

intended.

The

effect

can spoil rather than enrich Assteyn's colours.

f>

s
__

'

viL

^V

AST

40.

AST,

22x35}

AST, Balthasar van der (1593/4-1657)

The second most important member of the

signed

in.

(55-9x90-3 cm.)

at

dutch
Bosschaert dynasty was born

Middelburg. Balthasar van der Ast became closely linked with the

Bosschaert family by the marriage of his elder sister to Ambrosius Bosschaert

By 1609 Van der Ast's parents were dead

and he came under the care of his sister and brother-in-law. Nothing more
is known until he joined the Utrecht Guild in 1619, at the same time as
Savery (see p. 229). By the time he made his move to Utrecht, the young
Van der Ast had benefited from a thorough training by his famous brotherin-law. It is worth recalling that his brother Johannes, or Hans van der Ast,
was very probably a fellow pupil. An example of this little-known artist
is seen in fig. 22 of Bol's 1969 publication. In 1632, the year of Vermeer's
birth, Balthasar moved to Delft where, having married the following year,
the Elder (see p. 58) in 1604.

he apparently settled until his death in 1657.

More paintings by Van der Ast are known than by any of the Bosschaerts,
partly because unlike them he was accorded a normal life span. Perhaps,

he was a more energetic painter, experimenting with different comand painting with slightly freer technique. Such quantitive
remarks are relative, but it would seem there are probably not more than
250 known works. Van der Ast echoes much of his brother-in-law's approach
too,

positions

\l

}1
(.

BRIET,

1690

H{ / ii| in
V\

(oppowtc)
IS in

AST,

signed

(53 X }8 (in

'Red-hot Poker'.

(21 X

286 cm.)

terms of clarity, precision, and intensity of colour, and shares that

devoted sense of wonder which typifies the early masters of the flowerpiece.
Yet to the development of flower painting he gave as much as he received.
Van der Ast broadened and perfected the range of different subjects only
in

latent in the elder Bosschaert's

work: the flowerpiece, the fruitpiece, the

39

AST

fruitpiece with shells,

and

combination of them

all.

Shells, collected as

avidly as rare blooms, are special to the artist. Perhaps under the influence
1

work lizards and exotic parrots.

which ill. 39 is an impeccable example, is the
rarest category of his work. This distinctive oval panel has obvious affinities
with Ambrosius Bosschaert, yet the symmetry of the bouquet is somewhat
relaxed with flowers jutting out below and aside and the prominent top
flower, a breath-taking blue iris, is retained. This undated bouquet belongs
to the early 1620s by comparison with the similar type of composition,
slightly larger in size, in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Van der Ast was
fond of carnations and, like Bosschaert, could paint a simplified bouquet
of all the same flowers or a very few varieties - for example, the carnations
of Savery he also added to

The pure

all

his

flowerpiece, of

Mrs de Boer at Philadelphia in 1963, and the bouquet

and white Chinese vase in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
111. 40 shows Van der Ast's all-embracing type of composition. Curiously
neglected in the specialist literature, this Toledo example is comparable
in style and stature with the Rijksmuseum horizontal painting. The
Amsterdam panel is signed and dated twice, 1620 and 1621. The Chinese
vase in these paintings appears in several others. Whatever the different
nuances of coloration between Bosschaert and Van der Ast, the latter often
strove for the same misty, pearly surfaces as the former. Van der Ast may
be called the more progressive, neither a derogatory nor a laudatory term
in this context, but his similarities to the master, twenty years his senior,
are very marked.
Van der Ast developed these larger and atmospheric display pieces to a
remarkable extent. This was brought home to many by the opportunity
of seeing the previously unknown painting from Douai, exhibited in Paris
in 197 1. A skilful joiner succeeded in providing Van der Ast with an oak
panel measuring nearly 53 inches in height by 39 inches. The artist used
it for a massive display of flowers in vase and basket, fruits, shells, against
an architectural background. One could hardly agree with the cataloguer
that it is one of the artist's most accomplished masterpieces, nor with the
suggested symbolic content. What was impressive was the impact of Van
der Ast's colour on such a large scale, and the degree of finish. Sustained
over the whole it is a Herculean labour. This elaborate and decorative
tendency was no doubt due to the influence of Flemish artists, whose styles
were more closely watched by Utrecht than by the rest of Holland.
At Utrecht, Van der Ast had as a young pupil Jan Davidsz. de Heem,
and thus forms a vital bridge by which flower painting crossed from its
early states with the founders to worthy successors.
The work of Assteyn (see p. 36) is equal to the style of Van der Ast and
possible confusion is aggravated by the similarity of their names.
of 1622 exhibited by
in a blue

AUBRIET, Claude

French
(1665-1742)
Chalons-sur-Marne, Aubriet was engaged by Jean Joubert to
assist in the preparation of the famous velins du roi. Eventually he succeeded his teacher as official painter at the Jardin du Roi (now the Museum
National d'Histoire Naturelle) in Paris, and joined the ranks of Robert,
Spaendonck and Redoute with his contribution of 394 velins to the hundred
or more volumes preserved at the museum. Before taking up his position
at the Jardin du Roi in 1706, Aubriet had the good fortune to travel with a
celebrated botanist, Tournefort, to the Aegean and the Black Sea. The
journey lasted more than two years, and Aubriet made countless drawings
of newly discovered plants. Thanks to Tournefort, new lilies, the phlox
and sweet peas were introduced into western Europe. 111. 41 is a page from
a collection of drawings m the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
Born

40

at

BAREN

42. (opposite above)

i64 x 13

in.

43. (opposite below)

384 x 247

BABCOCK,

(419 x ^y

in.

signed and dated 1865

cm.)

BAERS,

(978 x 622 cm.)

The kniphofia, or red-hot poker, was brought to Europe from the Cape
Good Hope in 1707, although it was not a popular flower until the
nineteenth century. The name of Aubriet is known to all gardeners by the
popular Aubrietia named after him. On his death in 1742 his position as

of
signed and dated 1629

director at the Jardin

44. (below)

27^ x 19I

in.

45. (bottom)

24 x 29+

du Roi was taken by

his pupil,

Madeleine Basseporte.

BA ILLY
(69 x 50 cm.)

BABCOCK, William P.

BAKER

Of the many American artists named Babcock, William is the best-known.

He was principally a landscape painter and spent much of his life at Barbizon,

in. (61

749 cm.)

having
at the

first

American

(1826-1899)

studied with' Couture on arrival in Paris from his native Boston

age of twenty-one. Babcock exhibited regularly at Paris and Boston,

showing flowerpieces as well as landscapes. He died at Paris.

111. 42 is one of Babcock's flowerpieces which, while not remarkable,
have a certain lyrical note with transparent shadows and flickering background. Painterliness could be expected from a Couture pupil, but the
influence of Corot's and Millet's rare flowerpieces is brought to mind.
Babcock does not seem affected by the work of the younger La Farge,

who

also exhibited at Boston.

BAERS, Jan
111.

dutch
or Johannes (?-i64i)
is the only known work of Jan or Johannes Baers, active at

43, of 1629,

Utrecht until his death there in 1641. Not surprisingly in a close follower,
individual flowers in this large and impressive panel were borrowed from
the elder Bosschaert; for example, the little narcissus at the bottom of
the bouquet from

Mrs

Goelet's example (see p. 57).

Bol, 1969, correctly suggests that a painting (from the

Amsterdam

Willem Russell

1970 as by Baers is in fact by

Vosmaer. Thus, ill. 43 remains the only known Baers: which, despite
having been published previously, has yet to prompt the discovery of another
Collection) exhibited at

in

painting by him.

BAILLY, Jacques
The

II

French

(1700-1768)

Bailly family enjoyed a successful career at Paris for several generations.

founder, also called Jacques, was highly thought of by Andre Felibien

and is famed for inventing a method of painting on marble. His grandson,
Its

contemporary of Portail. In 1731 a marriage document refers to Bailly as painter to the king and curator of the royal collection.
111. 44 with its gouache body colour is much harder and crisper than
the work of Portail and an interesting comparison may be made with the
work of his German contemporary, Barbara Regina Dietzsch, ill. 128. Both
bouquets are arranged in similar metallic vases and have a trail of morning

Jacques Bailly

II,

was

glories reaching the table.

BAKER, John

British
(1736-1771)
of the
members
founder
Like Mary Moser, John Baker was one of the
august
the
less
Royal Academy in 1768, but he had begun his career in
setting of a factory

exhibited in the

where he painted the decorations on coachwork.

first

four annual exhibitions at the

the age of thirty-five.

death

at

relied

on the Dutch masters.

111.

45 shows

Academy

how much

He

until his

English

artists

flemish
Anthonie van der (1616-1686)
Among the numerous followers of Seghers (see p. 232), Jan van der
Baren is an interesting figure. Born at Brussels in 1616, he was ordained
and became chaplain to Archduke Leopold-William and Emperor Leopold I.
In 1659 he made an inventory of the Archduke's collection which included

BAREN, Jan

4i

BAREN

eleven of his

own

paintings, including landscapes.

garlands have been traced. Information about

made

his will

1686.

He

left

in

Of

these eleven, two

Van der Baren comes from

Vienna some time between 1662 and

his

death there in

careful instructions that his flower studies were to be sent

back to Flanders.

Van der Baren's best-known work,

illustrated in

Warner and elsewhere,

an architectural altarpiece with festoons of flowers held by putti from

above and flanked by two fine glass vases of flowers. The religious scene
is depicted as if a painting set in this altarpiece.
is

Only two conventional flowerpieces by Van der Baren are known. One
it shows a vase of flowers standing in an open
window this work, illustrated in Bernt, is in the Kunsthistorisches Museum,
Vienna. The other, ill. 46 of 1663, is close in style to the two vases in the
Musees Royaux des Beaux- Arts, Brussels, example of 1641. Not suris

not so conventional in that

:

prisingly

Van der Baren's

clarity against a

dark background, and general

presentation, derive from Seghers' bouquets (e.g.

ill.

320).

The

palette

is

Reds, whites, and blues are the dominant colours with an unusual
purple-striped tulip set off by a golden-orange butterfly. This is certainly

delicate.

Van der Baren and must be a guide to discovering

who played his part in the diffusion

the best example of

other bouquets by this priest painter

of the Seghers style throughout Europe.

BATIST, Karel
Very

living at

in 1663.

centre.
46.

BAREN,

22^ x 29^

signed and dated 1663

(56-5

in.

x 41-6 cm.)

is

(active from mid-i7th century)

dutch
known of the life and work of Karel Batist. He is recorded
Amsterdam in 1659 and became a member of the guild at Alkmaar

little is

111.

The

47

is

bottom

a large canvas, boldly signed in capitals at the

garlands and stone niche are familiar, but here the centrepiece

symbol of

a glass of wine, occasionally seen in this type of flowerpiece as a

the Eucharist.

Another signed example with

illustrated in Bernt,
if

is

De Boer

they are both the work of the same

glass vase of flowers

in

Amsterdam

so completely different in style that

is

artist.

On

it is

in

1957, and

to be

wondered

a small canvas, a

simple

well painted with a free Impressionistic touch.

It is

an intriguing technique in seventeenth-century Holland.

pair of paintings at the

Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool,

are very

tentatively attributed in the catalogue to Batist.

BAUCHANT, Andre (1873-1958)

French

Born at Chateau-Renault, a small town to the north of Tours, Andre

Bauchant was by training a nurseryman and market gardener. At the end
of World War I Bauchant returned home from the army to find his nursery
destroyed and his wife insane. For solace he turned to painting. Bauchant
was 'discovered' by Le Corbusier in 1921 when he saw a flower painting
in the windows of a florist in Chateau-Renault. Bauchant worked at his
painting for over thirty years, isolated from trends and fashions, a naive
artist in the true sense, painting the landscapes and country life of his
native district. His early work with plants resulted in enduring interest in
the flowerpiece: a vase of marguerites dates from his eighty-first year.
111. 48 is one of the most charming canvases Bauchant ever painted. Surely
the artist must have had in mind the open background settings which were
used by Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder over three centuries earlier.

S
\
47
47I x 41} in. (121-5 x 106 cm.)
J i

42

FRENCH
BAUDESSON, Nicolas (161 1-1680)
Born at Troyes, the son of a carpenter and sculptor, Nicolas Baudesson
must be accounted one of the most important figures in French flower
painting of the seventeenth century. His lather was in the employ of a

BAUER

nobleman who probably helped to send Nicolas to Italy, where he stayed

from the 1630s until 1666, although he was in Paris in 1640 when his son
Francois was born. In Rome he was undoubtedly influenced by Nuzzi.
In Paris Baudesson became in 1671 a member and, in 1673, counsellor
of the Academy, and in the latter year exhibited four paintings including
his reception piece for the Academy. Apart from the prestige in the eyes of
the Academy of a long stay in Italy, Baudesson's contemporary reputation
was imposing even before his return to Paris. Felibien, writing in the 1660s,
stated: 'le pere Zegre [Daniel Seghers], Mario di Fiori [Nuzzi], Baudesson,
will always have a reputation for flowers'. Many great collections included
his work right into the eighteenth century. Mariette engraved his work in

the

740s.

However, the

scale of his output, his habit of not signing, confusion with

and with Monnoyer, Fontenay, Arellano and

tended to leave many paintings unrecognized and so
obscure Baudesson's true stature to modern eyes. His close friendship in
his son Francois (1640-1713),

Nuzzi, have

48.

BAUCHANT, signed

14^ x 17!

in.

(368 x

45-

and dated 1939

cm.)

Rome

all

artist Mignard, who also came from Troyes

Le Brun, earned Baudesson the latter's hostility. Le Brun
favoured Monnoyer in the handing out of official patronage,

with the great French

and was

a rival to

therefore

although Baudesson was represented

at Versailles.

49 is an unpublished example, illustrating how impressed Baudesson

was with the chiaroscuro effects of Italian painting, Nuzzi in particular.
111.

The

strong blues and reds of the flowers stand out dramatically against a

very dark brown background, yet the touch and colour of the flowers

should enable them to be distinguished from the similar works of Nuzzi

or even Arellano. Baudesson put his flowers in baskets, in glass, metal,

and terracotta vases, usually centrally placed, and composed the bouquet
without the superabundance of some of his contemporaries.
111. 50 is an excellent example, recently identified as the work of Baudesson.
No doubt others will follow. The narcissi put in with a painterly yet delicate
touch are especially pleasing; similar ones can be seen in a comparablesized canvas at Toulouse. It would be interesting if some details of the
chronology of Baudesson's work were known. Perhaps the tulips and
poppies in a basket, ill. 49, might be from the Italian period and ill. 50
painted in France.

Catherine Duchemin, the

pupil of Baudesson.
4.,

BAUDESSON

22^x314

in.

(56

x79

The

first

woman

admitted to the Academy, was a

family tradition was carried on into another

generation by his grandsons, Nicolas and Joseph Baudesson.

cm.)

BAUER,
Most of

Austrian

Ferdinand (1760-1826)

the major botanical artists

seem

to

owe

their early success to the

patronage of an enthusiastic botanist. Thus Ehret was encouraged by Dr

Trew, Redoute by L'Heriter, Francis Bauer by Joseph Banks. Ferdinand
Bauer, younger brother of Francis, had the good fortune to meet John
Sibthorp, an Oxford professor,

who

visited

Vienna

in

1784. Ferdinand

a prolonged botanical survey in the Levant.

Years later the records of the journey were published in ten handsome
volumes, entitled Flora Graeca, still preserved in the Oxford Botanic
Gardens. With his appetite whetted for foreign travel, Ferdinand ac-

accompanied Sibthorp on

companied another botanist, Matthew Flinders, on a voyage to Australia

that was to last five years. 111. 51 of the Lechenaultia formosa is one page
from the volume Bauer hoped to publish as a record of this journey, but
he could find neither engravers nor patrons to support his plans. After
the failure of the project, Ferdinand returned to his native Austria, although
he continued to work for English patrons. A copy of a book on conifers
was highly praised by Goethe, himself a keen botanist.

43

BAUER

BAUER, Francis (1758-1840)

Born near Vienna, Francis Bauer was the second son of an

Austrian
artist,

Lucas

Bauer, court painter to the Prince of Liechtenstein. Following in his father's

profession, Francis showed a precocious skill and had a drawing of an

anemone engraved when he was only

fc
^zXri

thirteen. In 1778 he left Vienna to

younger brother Ferdinand in England. A fortunate meeting with
Sir Joseph Banks resulted in Francis' life-long appointment as draughtsman
to the Royal Gardens at Kew, where his salary was paid by Banks himself.
For nearly fifty years he was in residence at Kew recording in careful
botanical studies both the native plants and all those brought to England
by plant collectors and travellers. In the judgment of Wilfrid Blunt, Francis
Bauer was 'the greatest botanical illustrator of all time'. 111. 73 is one of
Francis Bauer's Kew plants, No. 104, an orchid called Stanhopea insigms
Frost. The careful drawing shows how completely he understood the
structure of plants. Indeed, through his study of plants, and his ability
to draw cross-sections and enlarged details, Bauer proved himself a competent and well-informed botanist.
join his

* ^* -^P
.'>

^1

BEERT,
The

Osias the Elder

(c.

flemish

1580-1624)

date and place of birth of Osias Beert the Elder are not documented.

In 1596 he was apprenticed in the Antwerp Guild and from this a birthdate of c. 1580 is assumed. In 1602 he was a master in that guild, and

between 1605 and 16 18 he instructed five apprentices. Beert died at Antwerp

in 1624. He is thought to have been a cork merchant. Ykens (see p. 262) was
his nephew and pupil. The position of his son of the same name is obscure.
50.

BAUDESSON

16^ x 12I

in.

(42 x

325 cm.)

only within the

It is

last thirty

years that Beert's role as a flower painter

has been assessed. Curt Benedict's 1938 article was a starting point. Before
then Beert was known principally as an important master of the early

Antwerp

breakfast-piece.

Some

in glass or tigerware vessels,

of these included small vases of flowers

but the discovery of pure flowerpieces followed

the usual pattern, namely a careful examination of early flowerpieces

including those attributed to other

artists.

It

is

worth mentioning

this

point because newspaper publicity tends to concentrate on the dusty attic

come when

discovery. In reality art-historical discoveries often

person has

The

a close

and fresh look

known

at a

a qualified

painting on public exhibition.

which
by his very individual characteristics. His abundant
bouquets are large and have the archaic charm and brilliance of colour of
the earliest flowerpieces. It is inconceivable that Beert did not study Jan
task of identifying the flowerpieces of Osias Beert, few of

are signed,

is

facilitated

Brueghel's (see p. 63) work thoroughly. Indeed, several of the paintings

were previously attributed to Brueghel.

identified as Beerts

crowded and less stiff than other larger

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, the Kunsthalle,
Hamburg, and the Brera, Milan. These three museum examples have a
crown imperial lily as top flower, but here the 'top-flower effect' is not
111.

86

is

in fact slightly less

Beerts, to be seen at the

pronounced, and the preference

is

for the

martagon

lily.

Beert's tulips are

often of the waisted shape with their broad petals curving to sharp points

and, like those of

De Gheyn

(see

157), white with fused stripes.

ill.

His

favourite flowers are the blue love-in-the-mist and large roses, seemingly

too heavy for their sinuous, spiky stems.

the

left

The

rose hanging

downwards

with a closed bud nearby and cyclamen with prominent leaves

to

are,

again, personal motifs.

There

much
;i

15

.K,

14! in.

44

Ferdinand, 'Lechenaultia formosa\ signed

(s-2 7 x 36*2 cm.)

is

throughout Beert's work

sense of that turbulent

a part of early Flemish flower painting. Beert's

number under forty and

111. 3 is a Rubens of

the rarit\ of panels like

ill.

86

known
is

vitalit]

so

flowerpieces

acute.

the story of Pausias and Glycera, recounted in

BELIN DE FONTENAY

the Introduction. The reader would no doubt now look at the vase of
flowers to the right, notice the overall, symmetrical, well-filled bouquet,
the pronounced top flower, the hanging rose, the cyclamen leaves, the lovein-the-mist, and then identify Rubens' collaborator,

the Elder. Bergstrom was the

to

first

do so

c.

1615, as Osias Beert

in 1957.

DE FONTENAY,

BELIN
Jean-Baptiste (1653-1715)
French
Jean Baptiste Belin, sometimes Blin or Blain, was born at Fontenay near
Caen to a family of Calvinist painters. His father, realizing his son's ability,
him to Paris in his teens to study with the great Monnoyer. In 1685
the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which had previously allowed a
sent

good measure of toleration to Protestants, posed Belin a twofold problem.

Unless he renounced Calvin's heresy he could neither enter the Academy
nor marry Jean-Baptiste Monnoyer's daughter Marie. Having decided to
become a Catholic, he achieved both these ambitions two years later.
The Academy extended a special welcome to him, to mark their joy at his
conversion and to encourage others to follow his example. Many did not
do so and France suffered an incalculable loss, not only of craftsmen of many

men of every kind to the benefit of England and Holland.

Belin became the rival and equal of his father-in-law with eventually
more than sixty paintings by him listed in the royal inventories of Versailles,
the Trianon especially, Meudon, and Marly where he worked for Madame
trades, but able

de Maintenon.

One

of his tasks

at

Marly, which gives an insight into the

Louis XIV's time, was to ornament

role of the decorator-flower painter in

52.

BELIN DE FONTEN AY,

de fleurs\ signed

63^ x 51

in.

''Portrait

d'unefemme entoure

with flowers the lead surrounds of the goldfish ponds. The decoration was
be renewed each year. In another instance the royal gardeners found it

to

(162 x 130 cm.)

impossible to grow a hedge and commissioned a hornbeam hedge to be

artificially and to be painted by Belin. Naturally Belin also functioned,

made

like Monnoyer, as decorator to private patrons and as designer at the

Gobelins tapestry and Savonnerie carpet factories. He was lodged in the
Louvre with an annual pension of four hundred livres. In 1699, on the
death of his father-in-law, Belin succeeded him as counsellor at the Academy,
and is noted exhibiting four paintings at the Salon of that year. He also

exhibited at the Salon of 1704.

Two character references are worth mentioning, lest too idyllic an

image be formed of the

life

of the distinguished royal flower painter: Belin

in an appalling manner; and in 17 13 the

sixty-year-old painter appeared before magistrates with a bleeding head

apparently ill-treated his wife

wound

after

being in a brawl. Belin died

in Paris in 1715.

His son, of the

same Christian names, was also a painter and his dates are 1688- 1730.
Jean Marc Ladey was the best-known pupil among those who continued
the

Monnoyer

tradition into the eighteenth century.

Stylistically the

work of Belin

his father-in-law. Belin's

is

penchant

not easily distinguished from that of

for foreign 'rarities'

may be

help in

him from Monnoyer. For example, he introduced the single

of
ear
wheat, a new motif Belin may well have seen in the work of Dutchschooled painters like Mignon. When he treated the familiar peony,
separating

rose and tulip, they tend to be smaller and less flamboyant than those of

Monnoyer. Belin makes the same use of the bejewelled

plates

and gold

vases of the royal collections, baskets, architectural and open-air settings

that characterize the older artist's work.

J3
1

('

BELIN DE FON1 ENA1

\X

in

}4

/ iH

cm)

The

large canvas at Sevres, signed

and dated 1697, is a magnificently decorative example with all these elements
and a monkey overturning a basket of fruit into the foreground.
III. 53, by complete contrast, measures only 13^ x 11 inches. It is difficult
to discern the initials with which, according to Grant's catalogue of the
Broughton Collection, 1952, the canvas is signed. The flowers themselves,

45

BELIN DE FONTENAY

especially the aquilegia, are not typical of Belin.

on

this scale

Nor can another example

be readily cited, when Belin's work

habitually in a large

is

format. Nonetheless, on grounds of quality of execution and beauty of

palette
54. (above)

8x

BELLENGE,

11 in. (21

(above right)

324

x 454

n.

signed and dated 1772

x 28 cm.)

55.

it is

One

BELVEDERE

challenge the attribution.

how

naturally and successfully with portraitists

Caen

(82 x 115 cm.)

difficult to

of the delightful examples of

(ill.

52). It is clearly

is

flower painters combined so

at the

Musee

des Beaux-Arts,

signed to the bottom right, although he did not

shown at the Royal

Academy, London, in 1958 in the Age of Louis XIV exhibition. The anemones, roses and wide open tulips are seen in profusion, the favourite
sign the majority of his works. This example was

flowers of Jean-Baptiste Belin de Fontenay.

BELLENGE, Michel-Bruno

French

(1726-1793)

one of a pair of small panels by Michel-Bruno Bellenge, of which

the fruitpiece is signed and dated 1772. Although he used to be called a
'smaller master', the painterly quality and naturalness of this charming
bouquet immediately attracts one to Bellenge. His output from eighteenthcentury descriptions was clearly too diverse for any one painting to be
called characteristic, but it would not be surprising to find the painterliness
illustrated here his most enduring claim to attention. Perhaps it was what
attracted Boucher, who owned two of Bellenge's works.
111.

54

is

Born at Rouen in 1726, Bellenge came to Paris

known of him until his late thirties when he entered

early,

but nothing

is

Academie Royale

the

Although apparently well-known and a regular Salon exhibitor,

on more than one occasion. His principal work,
when employed, was as a designer at the Savonnerie carpet factory. In

in 1762.

he was

in financial straits

1777, for example, he painted an exotic cartoon of stars, crescents, pearls,

l
encircled by garlands of flowers with turbans and diverses ant res ornements\
for a carpet destined for the queen's

Bellenge, from his

Turkish boudoir

at

Fontainebleau.

Salon of 1763 onwards, suffered a bewilderingly

contradictory critique. Diderot, the most eminent opinion of the time, w.i^
generally unenthusiastic while another writer, incorrectly it would seem,
placed
56.

BENNER-FRIES,

29X

46

23^

in.

signed and dated 1X4K

(73'7X 59-7 cm.)

first

him above Vallayer-Coster. Bellenge,

like

many others, had to

own school, the

survive the inevitable comparison with Chardin in his

full

impact of Van Huysum, and,

latterly, the

young Spaendoncks. Diderot

BEYEREN
Hi

X
o
OS
id

describes an elaborate decorative exhibit of 1767 with

{
large vase, bowls of fruit, draped curtain, etc., as far rei
simplicity of the example illustrated of five years later as^_
here representing Picart painting a hundred years before. Diderot^

who

had previously called Bellenge 'the victim of Chardin', found merit

this work, calling it a painting 'my friend Chardin would not disdain'.

in

BELVEDERE,

Andrea (c. 1652-1732)

Italian
Naples, Andrea Belvedere was the pupil of Giovanni Battista
Ruoppolo. He enjoyed enormous popularity in his own time and worked
Born

at

King Charles II from 1694 to I I 00 Soon after his return from the
Spanish court Andrea abandoned painting for the theatre.
for

He was one of the principal painters in Naples during the last third of
the seventeenth century. At this time the Neapolitan School reached its
most exuberant phase with strongly coloured bouquets of flowers arranged
with fruit and flowers before a landscape background. In 1674 Abraham
Brueghel took up residence in Naples and his compositions must have
impressed and influenced the younger artist. Two exceptional small vases
in the Museo Correale, Sorrento, each containing a few flowers, reflect
the principles of Recco both in their simplicity and restraint. However,
the major part of Andrea Belvedere's oeuvre is much more elaborate,
as is shown by another painting in the museum at Sorrento: a canvas of
over two metres and much more typical of his popular style. 111. 55 is not
so large but has that same vitality. The shadows falling on the light stonework are particularly well painted and the romantic effect of dawning day
in the background is a favourite motif.
57

BENNER,

7H*57l

>n-

signed and dated 1866

(98"5 X '45

cm.)

BENNER, Jean

(1836-1906)
French
Jean Benner was born at Mulhouse, the son of Jean Benner-Fries. In 1866
he is known to have visited Capri and in 1869 he was made a Chevalier of
the Legion d'Honneur. He learned painting from his father and carried

on the

style

in the year

of Van Dael and Spaendonck.

of Benner's

visit to

111.

57, a very large canvas painted

Capri, retains the symmetrical composition

of Van Dael. Like his father, he worked at the textile-printing factory in

Mulhouse. He died at Paris in 1906.

BENNER-FRIES, Jean
Among

(1796-1849)

the French artists influenced by the Flemish

French
Van Dael and the

Dutch Spaendonck brothers was Jean Benner-Fries. Born

in Switzerland,

and London before settling for the major part of his

career at Mulhouse in Alsace. At Mulhouse, a centre of fabric manufacture,
Benner-Fries worked as a designer of patterns for chintz printing. In the
Musee de PImpression sur Etoffes at Mulhouse there are examples of his
he worked

in Paris

paintings for this work.

111. 56 is a fine example of his conventional flowerpiece, signed and
dated 1848, with an elegant, diagonal composition offset by the two large
parrot tulips. His son, Jean Benner was also a flower painter.

BER, Jacob (1786-1863)

Among the many pupils of Spaendonck
land,

who

French
was Jacob Ber, born

in the

Rhine-

painted flowers on porcelain at the Sevres factory. Ber also

achieved success with conventional flowerpieces, exhibiting regularly in

the 1820s and 1830s. In 1833, n s two exhibits were described as 'after
Van Huysum'. A group of ladies were his pupils. Jacob Ber died at Paris.
'

II

111.

rifned
in

(55

5x43 cm

58, an

undated panel, is signed with the Christian and surnames

which was his customary signature.

together, 'Jacobber',

47

BELIN DF

BERGHE,

van den (c. 1590-c 1642)

dutch
recorded in 1619 on the committee of the painter's
guild of Middelburg, and two years later as deacon. In 1622 he was paid
for a painting depicting the fire of Middelburg church in 1568. A flowerChristoffel

Van den Berghe

piece

is

is

recorded in an inventory of 1637. Such were the facts entered in

twenty years has a single example of

dictionaries, but only within the last

his

work been

identified.

59, dated 1617, with rather stiff tulips,

111.

wild flowers interspersed

among

an

iris

to the top,

and

little

the cultivated flowers, clearly stems from

Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (see p. 54). The latter did not leave Middelburg until 1 614, so why should not Christoffel have been his pupil? Yet
Van den Berghe is far from being a mere imitator. His tulips are elongated
in a personal way, and the treatment of the niche and crowded foreground
are more akin to Savery than Bosschaert.
Bol, 1969, has made a most detailed study of Van den Berghe. He has
illustrated three more paintings convincingly attributed to the artist by
reference to the Philadelphia Museum of Art example. Apart from stylistic
comparisons, Bol points to unusual flowers depicted by Van den Berghe.
In ill. 59, behind the stem of the iris is a nasturtium from Peru which
had been introduced into flower-loving Middelburg. Equally, the snowwith their dark blotches to the centre of each petal, to
beneath the top tulip, are also seen in one of the newly

flakes (Leucojum)

the upper

left,

attributed paintings.

Bol also reproduces a fourth painting, a vanitas, of a completely different

style,
59.

BERGHE,

14! x 29!

in.

signed and dated 1617

(375 x29 cm.)

influenced by Flemish

artists.

He suggests that

it is

much

later

work,

1640, and that the painter had been in contact with the south. Although
this vanitas has the C.V.B. monogram, it is difficult to imagine that Van
den Berghe's style could have changed so radically.
No doubt other paintings, not necessarily flowers, may emerge to resolve
such problems and tell us more of this intriguing and individual follower
of the Bosschaert tradition at Middelburg.

c.

BERJON,
The group

Antoine (1754-1843)
of painters gathered around the

French
silk factory at

Lyons was headed

by Antoine Berjon and Saint-Jean. Born the son of a butcher, Berjon

started to study medicine but soon entered the silk factory at Lyons as a
designer.

He

spent several years in Paris at the turn of the century, ex-

and 1799, but returned to Lyons to become

Professor of Flower Design at the Ecole des Beaux- Arts at Lyons, a position
hibiting in the Salons of 1798

he held until 1823

when he was replaced by

Thierriat.

des Beaux-Arts at Lyons, dates from 18 10 and

of his larger bouquets.

The

flexibility

same

60, in the

Musee

of stems, the lightness of petals'.

interesting study of beautifully painted shells

dates from the

111.

an outstanding example

flowers are painted with freshness, and in the

words of Fare, 'he knew the

An

is

and

coral, also at

Lyons,

year.

BERNARD, Jacques Samuel

(1615-1687)

French

Samuel Bernard was one of the fourteen founder members

Royale at Paris, membership of which was to be the goal
Academic
of the
Born

at Paris,

many generations.
Academy excluded this founder member on

of artists in France for

In

[ON,igned
1

48

(107-5 X ^7

cm

68 1 the

religious grounds,

Belin de Fontenay he changed his religion,

was a Protestant, but

was re-elected to the Academy and died a Catholic. Bernard enjoyed a
successful career, having been the pupil of Simon Vouet and the miniaturist
Louis du Guernier I, and was praised by Lc Brun, a fellow pupil ofVouet
and also a founder member of the Academy. 111. 61, which is signed and
as he

ho. HI

like

BEYEREN

dated 1663, is a fine bouquet in a shallow vase.

bee orchids form two rigid diagonals.

BERRE, Jean-Baptiste
down

The

stock and the spray of

flemish

(1777-1838)

and
Antwerp-born Berre painted a variety of different subjects.
Thus he made his debut at the Antwerp Salon in 1802 with a Mater
Dolorosa'. His flowerpiece at the age of twenty-two, ill. 62, is elegantly
accomplished, and although not generally mentioned as a flower painter,
there must be other examples of this genre by Berre.
In 1808 he was attracted, with so many Dutch and Flemish artists, to
the splendours of Napoleon's Paris; and in the next thirty years there
became a regular Salon exhibitor. His works entered many notable collections of the Empire and Restoration. From 1822 until his death in 1838
Berre was lodged at the Jardin des Plantes.
His delicately painted panel of 1798 is well composed. Pinks dominate
from the pale shade of the geraniums at the top of the deep pink of the
bottom roses, all set off by the different light greens of the foliage.
Before settling

to a very successful career in Paris as a painter

sculptor, the

'

French
know whether

BESSA, Pancrace

(1772-1835)
In the case of an artist like Pancrace Bessa

it is

difficult to

he would have succeeded without instruction from Redoute, or whether

is unjustly overshadowed by the great master. Born at Paris in 1772,
Pancrace Bessa studied at the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle with
both Spaendonck and Redoute, working on the famous velins himself from
1823. Between 18 10 and 18 13 he collaborated with Redoute on a series of

he

6l.

BERNARD,

13JX

10?

in.

signed and dated 1663

watercolours to illustrate the botanist Francois Michaux's Forest Trees of

America. Like his teacher, Bessa made stipple engravings of his paintings,

(35 x 27 cm.)

but to some extent the growing popularity of the sentimental flowerbook both in France and in England led him away from more serious botanical
work. 111. 63, of the geranium, is an example of his skill as a watercolourist.
Bessa was also a regular exhibitor at the Paris Salons from 1806 until 1831

and taught painting to the royal Duchesse de Berry.

BETTINI, Domenico

Italian

(1644-1705)

Born at Florence, Bettini was at first the pupil of Jacopo Vignali. Then
he went to Rome where he studied with Nuzzi. In about 1670 he went to
the d'Este Court in Modena where works by Bettini are recorded. In 1700
he moved to Bologna and stayed there until his death. He is one of the
artists who helped to spread the ideas of Nuzzi outside Rome, However,
the introduction of light backgrounds is his own. 111. 65 is one of an outstanding pair. The use of a rock as a pedestal for the bouquet is a picturesque
feature of

many

Italian still-lifes

Born

at

belies their sophistication.

dutch
620/21-1690)
for his
attention
The Hague, Abraham van Beyeren would claim
guild
a
painting, and also produced excellent marines. He became

BEYEREN, Abraham van

still-life

which

(1

1640 and from then until 1657 constitutes the

longest settled period of a debt-ridden and itinerant career. He lived and
worked for several years in both Delft and Amsterdam, and is mentioned
probably
at Leyden, Alkmaar, and Overschie where he died in 1690. He

member

at

The Hague

in

moved on when creditors became too difficult and like many Dutch artists
Van Goyen for example - was constantly obliged to paint himself out of
debt. Certainly his output was very large and he continued painting until
<>2.

BERRE, signed md
19 m (64 H / 4X
-

dated 170X
<

m.)

the end of a long

Whatever

his

life.

misfortunes

in his

own

lifetime, in ours

Van Beyeren

is

49

BEYEREX

63.BESSA

64. (right)
2'5i

x i8

BEYEREN
in.

(64 x 46 cm.

the acknowledged master of painting fish - an industry then so vital in

the economic life of Holland. Thus, his oeuvre ranges from simply pre-

under the influence of his

brother-in-law, De Putter, to large canvases of De Heem-inspired bouquets.
The absence of dating makes it difficult either to judge when he painted
what or to trace a development.
only three known
111. 64, in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, is one of
flower canvases - all very similar in general and in detail, like the marble
sented small panels of

fish,

probably,

at first,

and pocket watch. The brushwork is free to the point of sketchiness

with thin, dry strokes, dragged over the canvas, resulting in much transparency. Naturally, the occasional notes of impasto have great weight in
such a style of painting. With Van Beyeren tissues and textures are subordinated to the way he wants to use the brush and not vice versa, yet without

shelf

loss of a

warm,

finish that

rich coloration.

No

the French Romantic painter

his still-lifes.

in a

is

made

Dutch

to the

degree of

flowerpiece.

It

was

Van Beyeren which was to interest

Theodore Gericault, who made a copy after

perhaps this quality of painterliness

one of

concession

might normally be expected

in

BINOIT

BIGEE, Charles
Nothing
dates.

is

111.

(active

c.

66

is

flemish

1733-1759)

known of Bigee, who was

active at Malines

between the above

one of a large pair of signed canvases which represent the

familiar eighteenth-century continuation of the

tions.

The bouquet

is

Antwerp decorative traditreated in a stylized manner, though of considerably

better quality than the setting and 'extras'.

BIGI, Felice Fortunato

(c. 1644-after 1700)

Italian
not represented in the great Italian still-life exhibition
at Naples in 1964, Bigi was a north Italian painter active during the second
half of the seventeenth century. Details of his life are known only from an

One

of the few

artists

inscription on a painting of c. 1680 in which he signs himself as Felice

Fortunato Bigi, citizen of Parma, aged 36, painted at Verona. 111. 67 is
similarly signed, although the date is only legible as 17
? The wicker
basket filled with abundant blooms seems to be typical in his work and of
much higher quality than the rather formless putti. Thieme Becker says

that Bigi

was

also the teacner of the flower painter

Domenico Levo.

BIMBI, Bartolommeo

(1 348-1725)
Italian
Like his contemporary Scacciati, Bimbi was a pupil of Lorenzo Lippi at
Florence and also worked for the Medici family. There are records of
paintings collected by the Medicean Duke Cosimo III of unusual and
often grotesque animals and plants. A sheep with two heads is listed.

Several of the examples which represented Bimbi at the Naples still-life

exhibition in 1964 were in a less extreme but nonetheless fanciful botanical
vein.

None

of the exhibits appears to rival the quality of a pair of flower-

Messrs Leegenhoeck, Paris. 111. 68 is one of

on the stone plinth. The tuberoses are especially
the bouquet and the foreground cherries are painted with

pieces in the possession of

65.BETTINI
zHx 20I

in

this pair, signed

(71 x 53

cm.)

attractive in

with

initials

great delicacy. In the pendant, the bird

pair are perfectly

is

to the

bottom

right

and the

harmonized when seen together.

BINOIT,

Peter (1590/93-1632)
German
Cologne, Peter Binoit must be regarded as one of the most important early German masters of the flowerpiece. At some time after 161
he became a member of the Daniel Soreau studio at Hanau, near Frankfurt.

Born

at

His fellow students there included Stosskopf and the Italian still-life
and Isaak,

painter, Francesco Codino, as well as Soreau's twin sons Peter

the distinguished

two among

Daniel Soreau's niece; he

is

his eleven children. In 1627 Binoit

recorded several times

at

Hanau and

married

Frankfurt,

and died in the former town in 1632. He also painted fruitpieces.

His earliest dated work is of 161 1 in the Hessisches Landesmuseum,
Darmstadt, which holds the largest representation of his work. This copper
panel sets the pattern for a group of smaller works, notably the examples,

both of 16 13,

at

the

Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum, Budapest and Narodni

is on a wooden panel. These two

Galerie, Prague, although the latter

paintings, unlike the

Darmstadt one of 161

1,

have the stag beetle to the

of the vase, which seems almost a hallmark of Binoit's work.

It could
have been inspired by the engravings of Hoefnagel who had made a long
stay in Frankfurt. This stag beetle inevitably brings to mind the little Diirer
drawing of this insect recently sold at Sotheby's, London, for 58,000.

left

Like

'Velvet'

Brueghel,

Binoit

occasionally

painted

remarkable large

bouquets, such as a panel at Darmstadt of 1620 over a metre in height and

containing over a hundred varieties of blooms. Again, like Brueghel, he

BIGEE

66
60

64J

in

lu'ncd

(is? X

tM

5CID

was called upon

Pommersfeldcn.

to repeat this

bouquet and there are replicas

at

Mainz and

51

BINOIT

26 illustrates the latest dated work by Binoit, a copper panel signed

monogram which he usually employed either in Roman or script
capitals. The bouquet, in an ornamented stoneware vase, follows the style
111.

with the

of 'Velvet' Brueghel, whose work must have been known to Binoit, in that
large cultivated flowers are surrounded by many small wild flowers. The
front edge of the vase is filled with them. His fondness for the brilliant

red and white anemones is evident from their appearance in the earliest
Darmstadt example, sixteen years earlier, in the same position. Indeed,
many flowers appear in both this example and the large Darmstadt panel

of 1620, for example the acid yellow aconites and the rare yellow and
orange nasturtium with its long pointed tail (see Christoffel van den
Berghe). The colours are bright in a very light key and the overall effect
typical not only of Binoit, but of the

is

Soreau

circle.

67.

BIGI,

24! x 15

signed and dated

in.

(63

17

x 38 cm.)

dutch

BLOEMERS, Arnoldus (1792-1844)

of con-

Arnoldus Bloemers, active in his native Amsterdam, is

siderable ability. His style derives from a study of Van Os and he exhibited
is
at Haarlem, Amsterdam, and Rotterdam from 1825 to 1843. 111. 70
has
Bloemers
dominated by three large pink peonies and a crown imperial.
included, on the marble plinth to the left, two dahlias, a flower introduced
from Mexico as recently as 1804. Through the Fairhaven Bequest, there
Museum, Cambridge.
is now an excellent example at the Fitzwilliam
an

artist

Hungarian
c. 1670-1724)
His love
Vienna.
in
studied
Bogdani
Hungary,
Jacob
in
Eperjes
Born
entered
he
where
Holland
him
to
drew
doubt
no
flowers
and
still-life
of

BOGDAM, Jacob (active

at

When the latter became William III of

him
as court painter and there are a number
accompanied
Bogdani
England,
He died at Finchley in 1724. Often
Collection.
Royal
of his paintings in ine
his flowerpieces, destined as overand
pictures
bird
he painted decorative
usually on a large scale. 111. 69 is
are
panelling,
mantels, and to be set into
the service of William of Orange.

one of a

pair, painted for

Queen Anne. The

format, over twice as high as

into a decorative scheme.

The

it

style of

broad, was no doubt meant to

work of his contemporary, Jean-Baptiste Monnoyer,
who worked in England at the end of the seventeenth century.
fit

is

painting recalls the

BOLLONGIER, Hans

(c.

dutch

1600-after 1655)

Born at Haarlem, Bollongier became a member

and is again mentioned at Haarlem in 1642.
Whatever the paucity of factual information, one of the best-known
Dutch flowerpieces is the panel of 1639 by Bollongier in the Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam (ill. 27). There need be no apology for reproducing this example
lit
again because it is far and away his best. Brilliantly and dramatically
from the left, the red and white tulips seem to be flickering with movement
of the
like the flames of a fire: an effect accentuated by the wavy edges
of the guild there in 1623

Red and white is a feeble description of the shades of vermilion,

mauve of the stripes, with a yellow and red tulip to the bottom
bouquets are bathed in a warm, browny golden atmosphere
Bollongier's
right.
of the panel used to show through semi-transparent
oak
pinkish
with the

parrot tulips.

crimson, and

Contrasting with these thinly painted passages, the flowers are

done with really rich impasto. This is especially marked in a simple bouquet
of 1644 in the Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem. There are a number of dated
works from the 1630s and 1640s which confirm that Bollongier kept to
glazes.

the

same

basic type of centralK placed bouquet, strongly

with insects and

is

rightly

lizards in

counted among

lit

from the

BIMBI,

28^ x i6|

in.

signed

(715 x 425 cm.)

69. (opposite above)

68x33

in.

BOGDAM

(172-5x83-9 cm.)

left,

the shadows

<l

the foreground shelf. Bollongier

the followers

of

the Bosschaert style.

More

68.

pre-

BLOEMERS,

70. (opposite

below)

24$ x 29 J

(62 x 75 cm.)

in.

signed

BONNARD

he must have been influenced by the younger Bosschaerts then active

Utrecht - an influence possibly transmitted by Anthony Claesz. II of
Amsterdam. This is speculation, as is the thought that the model for his
freedom of brushwork could have been Haarlem's great figure, Frans Hals.

cisely,

in

Having acknowledged the Bosschaert

Bollongier interpreted

it,

tradition,

it is

as well to stress that

especially in his masterpiece at

Amsterdam,

in a

very individual way.

How inexplicable that Bollongier should be the only notable flower painter
of the period

at

flower-loving Haarlem.

French
BONNARD, Pierre (1867-1947)
The major exhibitions organized in 1967 to mark the centenary of his
birth made us aware of Pierre Bonnard as never before. The Royal Academy,
London, much to its credit, did justice to this great painter who had become
one of its honorary members in 1940, at the instigation of Augustus John.
Walking round the exhibition, the first sensation was colour. Bonnard's
sense of colour was a gift that formed the basis of his painting 'Colour
can be better justified than drawing', he said. All his instinctive love of
nature and of life is expressed in his colour which seems to grow in radiance
throughout his career. Bonnard's is a carefree love which dwells only on
happiness and joy; ugliness and sadness have no place in his work. Then,
the viewer was struck by the variety of subjects and sizes on which he
:

worked. At the end of the exhibition, the experience left the visitor very
contented but paradoxically no nearer to defining the art of Pierre Bonnard.
Perhaps the mistake is in trying to do so, in seeking to hang an essentially

independent

artist

on

In this context, by

convenient art-historical peg.

very title, the centenary exhibition underlined the

its

span encompassed by Bonnard's eighty years. Born as

was lavishly entertaining Bismarck at the Paris World
Exhibition, Bonnard lived through Impressionism, Post-Impressionism,
Pointillism, Fauvism, Cubism, and beyond to the austerity of postwar

unbelievable

Napoleon

III

Europe before his death in 1947.

These movements and influences he felt during so long a life are reflected
in his many flower paintings. Flowers might have been invented for Bonnard,
so perfectly do they suit his philosophy and approach as an artist. When
addressed by a young admirer as 'Master', Bonnard quickly corrected the
speaker, 'I am only a pupil, a pupil of Nature, and I am not certain of
being a good pupil'. In his earliest flowerpieces, Bonnard's interest in
Japanese art is often apparent, as is the impact of Gauguin's work at Pont-

Aven, the 'pattern-making' symbolism, then so important for Bonnard

and his friends. Then again, sometimes the technique is not linear in this
sense but dabs and dots like an interior by his fellow explorer of domestic

Edouard Vuillard.
which the writer is especially grateful to the direct descendants
of the artist's wife, dates from about 19 10. It is painted on wood, which
intimacy,
111.

87, for

the artist uses to 'show' throughout the composition as a colour, a characteristic of many paintings on panel and cardboard. Bonnard's palette has

lightened from the closing years of the previous century and shadows
become more intensely colourful. Compared to the 'linear', controlled

work of those earlier years, the brushwork

Impasto is still strong though not as marked
in the

Metropolitan

Museum

of Art,

(In later flower paintings, the paint

New
is

is

much more

Impressionistic.

as in a painting like

York, also of the

'Anemones'
first

decade.

altogether thinner and applied in

vigorous strokes.) This bouquet seems to reflect Bonnard's admiration

whom he often saw, in the south of France especially, and Monet
for

less

Renoir

whom

he called upon

at

Giverny.
53

BONNARD

Bonnard's 'Field Flowers', ill. 87, are most typical for the red of the
poppies, perhaps the most important colour on Bonnard's palette and used
in every
title is in

shade again and again. Another beautiful example with the same
the Albright Art Gallery, Buffalo, New York. Indeed, there are a

group of flowerpieces painted before World

War

where the

brilliant red

poppies are the arresting note: for example, the bouquet of 19 14 illustrated
in colour in the Dauberville catalogue from a Swiss collection.

BORELY, Jean-Baptiste (1776-1823)

Borely

is

museum

at the

who

a painter

appears to be

of his native Montpellier.

1807, suggests by

its

format that he

French

known
111.

only from a landscape by him

71,

which

of painters working in the Lyons region designing for the

signed and dated

is

may have belonged

to the large

group

manufacturers.

silk

BOSSCHAERT, Abraham (c. 1613-1643)

dutch

Middelburg, Abraham was the junior in age and ability of Ambrosius

Bosschaert the Elder's (see below) three painter sons. The recorded facts
are few. Abraham was active in Utrecht where he was a witness at his
brother's marriage in 1634, and where he himself married the following
year. In the later 1630s he worked in Amsterdam but returned to Utrecht,
where he died in 1643 at about thirty years of age. No evidence exists as
to what illness, hereditary or contracted, ended the lives of the three brothers
Johannes (see p. 60) died at the same age and Ambrosius the Younger (see

Born

at

p. 58) senior brother, at thirty-six.

71.

BORELY,

13x93

in. (33-

signed and dated 1807

ix

25-

cm.)

From tke small number of his known paintings, Abraham does not
appear to have followed his father closely, as did Ambrosius the Younger.
Nor does the influence of Van der Ast, significant for Johannes, appear
markedly. Abraham favoured an oval format: for example, ill. 74, recorded
Bol page 91, and a similar painting illustrated in Bergstrom, page 87,
where the same pale blue and white Chinese vase holds the bouquet. Similar
vases were used by different members of the family, particularly Van der
Ast. The signed and dated pair on copper, belonging to Lord Fairhaven,
are also oval. The latter are not mentioned by Bol in his rather brief section
on the artist.
in

The panel illustrated has a distinctive cool, silvery tone with a light grey
background, pale reds, yellows and pinks. Although there is no relationship in composition, style nor individual flowers, this rather elegant and
subtle, cool tonality and the well-suggested spaciousness of the background are a reminder that Savery was the leading flower painter in Utrecht
until his death in 1639.

Abraham seems

to

have been particularly fond of the striped tulip and

the large pink rose with the outer petals drawing back.

spider hanging on

its

thread from a purple

The

fritillary is

motionless

an entertaining

and not part of the regular family repertoire. Yet the more characterAbraham's treatment of drops of water in an elongated rather
than round shape on the stone ledges. Apart from the 'pointers' which
such mannerisms provide, the spindly signatures of Abraham and Ambrosius
the Younger, often confused, have now been identified. Each signs with
an initial A only and the surname, but with Abraham the A and capital B
are joined and slope to the left against the natural right-hand slant of the
detail,

istic detail is

rest

of the signature.

BOSSCHAERT,
Born
72. (opposite)
',

54

in.

1. 1.

(62*5 X

SI
40.

signed and dated 1603

cm.)

at

Antwerp

Ambrosius the Elder (1573-1621)

1573, Bosschaert, in common with

in

so

artists, fled the strife

and religious persecution of the south

northern provinces.

He

left

as a child with his parents,

flemish
main Flemish
to settle in the

who

settled

in

BOSSCHAERT

Middelburg, the prosperous capital of Zeeland, but his presence there is

not documented until 1593 when he is noted as a member of the guild
board. Bosschaert's career divides into three parts: the early years in
Middelburg,
in

Breda.

On

period in Utrecht from 1616 to 1619, then his

a visit to

The Hague from Breda

last

73. (opposite)

10

x 12I

in.

BAUER,

(483x3 13

Francis, 'Stanhopea insignts Frost'

cm.)

two years

in 162 1 to deliver a special

commission he was taken ill and died.

By his marriage to Maria van der Ast in 1604 he had three sons, Ambrosius,
Abraham and Johannes, and gained a brother-in-law, Balthasar van der
Ast, all specialist flower and still-life painters. Maria's father was a man
of property; from its sale in 1609 trie couple benefited by several hundred
pounds. This detail is important because when coupled with the fact that
the artist was also active as an art dealer - one important shipment of
paintings went to England in 16 12 - it may help to explain the very small

number of paintings Bosschaert produced. Alternatively, his works may

well have commanded such prices that he was under no necessity to paint
more than two or three each year. Again, one is tempted to think when
confronted with the paintings themselves that he would need half a year's

work

each one. Yet this cannot be so because the extraordinary thing

for

produced about fifty-five known works in his twentyfrom 1593 to 1621, twelve of these were definitely
painted in the last three years at Breda, including two of the largest and
most elaborate, making an average of a painting every twelve weeks.
Even more intriguing is the mystery of Bosschaert's early years in
Middelburg. Two paintings, a fine one now in the Cleveland Museum of
Art, Ohio, and a small and excellent one previously in the possession of
the Hallsborough Galleries, London, bear the date 1606. These are the
earliest known dated works. What happened in the thirteen previous years
from 1593 when Bosschaert, at the age of twenty, would have been a fully
qualified artist ? The appearance of an unknown Bosschaert flowerpiece is
rare enough, but should a painting of this earliest period come to light,
would perhaps answer questions not only about one of the founders,
it
is

that although he only

eight-year working

life

but about the \er\

origins of flower painting in the early seventeenth

century.

Two

75 and 77) are published

for the first time. A weak studio replica of ill. 77 is shown in Bol, plate 28b.
The 1607 example is interesting to the experts in showing a Savery-like
of the examples reproduced here

encountered

lizard, not

Utrecht

in

the most

1619,

in a

Bosschaert before. Savery (see

same time

the

at

(ills.

famous Bosschaert of

as Bosschaert.

The

p.

229) was in

third one

(ill.

85)

is

and so outstanding that no apology

all

need be made

for reproducing it yet again.

example, the best-known is a bouquet of 1619, formerly in
I)r German's Collection, and now in that of Mrs Goelet. Bosschaert was the
only flower painter to paint these bouquets against an open landscape

\tter this

background in this way.

Looking from the earliest type of Bosschaert of" 1607, ill. 75, to the latest
work in the year of his death, 1621, the most striking realization is how little
Bosschaert changed. The tulips themselves have changed from the early
undulating effect of the leaves with a pronounced ribbing, but the artist
remains faithful to
with

little

symmetric composition presenting each flower

overlapping.

The

links

clearly

with the botanists, referred to in the

Both bouquets seem to loom

mysterious fashion, with a radiancy
of (o| our which, in the writer's opinion, was never to be surpassed by
an\ of the hundreds of flower painters which the seventeenth and later
Introduction,

out ot

.1

(intiiries

come

to

mind

in this context.

smok) dark background

produced

\s to the

in

brushwork on these

ompletel) different from the vigorous touch

of

little

copper panels,

it

other Flemish masters

74.

BOSSCHAERT,

14I x

1 1

in.

Abraham, signed
(375 x 28 cm.)

57

BOSSCHAERT

Brueghel and Seghers. The effect is to hide any trace of how the flower
when one looks closely, Bosschaert has achieved this finish
without laboriousness4 It would be unrewarding to attempt a verbal description of what the eye can barely comprehend, the mystery of how
Bosschaert painted his unique bouquets. In the words of Bol, 'the radiant,
transparent lucidity is like an echo of Jan van Eyck and a prelude to Vermeer'.
like

built up, but

is

The

continuity of Bosschaert's work can further be emphasized by

favourite flowers and motifs repeated

many

daffodil, centre right in

ill.

flower both purple and yellow with

iris

The Hague, are

moved up to

fly

The downward-pointing

75, can be seen years later in

right beneath the yellow fritillary.

way, the yellow

For such detective work,

times.

Bosschaert's paintings offer endless possibilities.

The
its

latter

is

ill.

85, lower

definitely a characteristic

distinctive chequering. In the

and the purply striped

same

tulip separated in the Mauritshuis,

together in the 1621 painting with the transparent dragonthe top in the

latter.

In the same vein the treatment of the cyclamen and

its

leaves

(ill.

75)

is

very similar to the Cleveland example and basically the same fourteen years
(ill. 77). Although Bosschaert may have kept the same drawings to
work from, the minute botanical accuracy and the freshness of his invention

later

suggest constant study of live flowers.

The

personification, as

it

were, of the early flowerpiece, Bosschaert in

founder role had an influence that went far beyond his immediate circle,
mentioned above, to set an approach and style to flower painting that
remained unchanged until the middle of the century. Ambrosius Bosschaert

his

the Elder

is

unique figure and

it

is

Dynasty by L.

J.

Bol, to

which

all

alone among flower

modern study: The Bosschaert

fitting that he,

painters, has been the subject of a superb,

subsequent writing on the subject, not

least this entry, are indebted.

BOSSCHAERT, Ambrosius the Younger (1609-1645)

dutch

Following tradition the eldest of Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder's three

sons bore his father's name. Ambrosius the 'Younger was baptized at
Arnemuiden near Middelburg in 1609, but the main part of his life was
spent at Utrecht, which became the family centre after the death of Ambrosius
the Elder in 1621. When Ambrosius the Younger married at Utrecht in
1634, present were his mother, his youngest brother Abraham and, as
man, Savery. Balthasar van der Ast, brother of the widowed

his best

Maria Bosschaert, had by then moved to Delft otherwise he would not

have missed his nephew's wedding. As mentioned elsewhere, the three
Bosschaert brothers died young - Ambrosius at Utrecht in 1645, aged
thirty-six.

Although only twelve when

his father died in

1621,

Ambrosius must

have studied thoroughly with him. His early work, both flowers and fruitpieces, closely follow his father's and his adoption of the same interlaced

AB monogram

when the painting is not dated. By

His bouquets took on a more
more
independent.
the 1630s he had become
loosely composed appearance with curving elegant lines and he began
could lead to confusion

painting very large canvases of elaborate compositions, quite unlike anything

would have contemplated. One of these canvases, nearly five feet

same collection as the little oval example illustrated, is distinguished by a full-size monkey. 111. 76 is an example of 1634, in perfect
condition, which marks the beginning of this transition. Appropriately,
his signature is half-way freed of his father's monogram type. There is still
the flat-topped A and capital B, though separated, with now the remainder
of the surname following in script. After this date the whole signature is
in a calligraphic script without trace of the pronounced A and B. The
his father

high, in the

58

76.

BOSSCHAERT, Ambrosius

dated 1634
16 x 11 in. (407 x 28 cm.)

the Younger, signed and

BOSSCHAERT

75. (opposite)

BOSSCHAERT,

Ambrosius the Elder, signed

and dated 1607

95X7! in. (251 x 195 cm.)
77. (right)

BOSSCHAERT,

Ambrosius the Elder, signed and

dated 1621

I2f x 8t

78.

in.

(31-6x21-6 cm.)

BOSSCHAERT, Jan

40 X 32

in.

Baptifte, signed

ioi-6 x 81-3 cm.)

similarities to his father's

work, emphasized by the copper on which the

is the choice of flowers. Colouring is

elder so often worked are evident, as

very strong, with oxblood and white columbines, and a large blue

top flower, set off by the brilliant yellow rose. Yet the whole

is

iris

much

as

less

and the treatment of individual flowers, like the striped tulip, quite
Ambrosius cannot be said to be as talented as his brother
Johannes, his work is more varied and his style evolved in a more 'modern'
static

distinctive. If

vein.

BOSSCHAERT, Jan

flemish
Baptiste (1667-1746)
Antwerp, Jan Baptiste is unrelated to the Bosschaert dynasty of
the earlier part of the century. Nor is there any relationship between the
decorative Antwerp flowerpiece, typified by ill. 78, and the work of the
forerunners. Bosschaert was the pupil of the obscure Jean Baptiste de
Born

at

59

BOSSCHAERT

Crepu from 1685

Xo

to 1689,

and became

a guild

member

in the early 1690s.

Antwerp, where he died.

Like Yerbruggen the Younger, Bosschaert undoubtedly produced mam
such flowerpieces and garlands, although they are far from abundantly
available today. This example is of particular interest in being signed.
The same type of urn with putti was used in a larger canvas sold at ParkeBernet, New York, in 1971, having been previously exhibited at the
Allentown Art Museum, Pennsylvania, in i960.
further notations are available of his

life at

BOSSCHAERT, Johannes

(1610 11-c. 1640)

d<_tch
only reasonably firm biographical fact about Johannes, the second son
of Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (see p. 54), is his date of birth, 1610 or

The
161

The

1.

significance of this fact will

emerge presently. Paradoxically,

of the most gifted of the three sons, the least information survives.
Clearly, Johannes studied with his father until the latter's death in 1621.
Then, aged about ten, he probably came under the care of his famous
uncle, Balthasar van der Ast (see p. 39) at Utrecht. Nothing could have
been more natural than that Balthasar should instruct his nephew, just
as the boy's father had instructed him in his own debut. Johannes' widowed
mother went to live with her brother in 1628, but Bol shows some evidence
that Johannes may not have stayed with his family in Utrecht, but may
have gone to live in Dordrecht. The date of his death is an estimation.
Taking the established birthdate, c. 1610, and the evidence of a complete
mastery of his art in a dated work of 1624, ill. 88, the conclusion is inescapable: Johannes Bosschaert was a child prodigy of almost Mozartian precociousness. The idea of a boy of fourteen producing an adequate painting
is not remarkable in the period; the astonishing thing with Johannes
Bosschaert is to be confronted with such superlative work at this age.
Both the format and composition are the artist's characteristic ones.

They

are not those of his father but rather of

influence

is

Yan der

also seen in the particular clarity of colour

treatment of the flowers. Johannes also painted fruit

Ast.

and

The

latter's

slightly broader

still-lifes in his

uncle's

manner, without flowers. The upright bouquet in a glass at the Centraal

Museum, Utrecht, of 1626 seems to be an isolated exception to the usual
horizontal format in the work of Johannes. That Johannes used some of
his father's repertoire of individual flower studies is immediately apparent.
The fritillary on the lower left can be seen in his father's paintings in the
Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen, and Mrs Goelet's collection. In the Maurits-

same flower is to the lower right in opposite profile.

shows in the very centre of the big bouquet, the striped
anemone that Johannes uses to the left in the basket beneath the iris.
When Ralph Warner was writing his now very rare book on flower painting,
the identity of Johannes Bosschaert was not established. His manner of
signing his panels with an I for J, a common usage, followed by a B, as in
Isaac Bosschaert
ill. 88, or the surname in full, led Warner to call him
huis example,

The same

when
79

BOUILLON, signed
|6j in. (88 x

17 cm.)

ill.

85, the

plate also

illustrating a similar painting in his possession.

Eschewing comparative judgments and meaningless superlatives, nonetheless I feel this entry would be incomplete without a comment about the
illustrated painting (ill. 88). The quality and perfection of this example
may serve as a yardstick by which to measure not only the few known
works by Johannes Bosschaert but, hopefully, those that still await discovery.

BOUILLON,
Of the
in

60

flemish
Michel de (active mid-i7th century)
appear
not
do
known
and
the)
de Bouillons of Tournai, very little is

reference books.

Jean de Bouillon was the master of Philippe de

BROECK

Champaigne, but how he was related to Michel de Bouillon is not established.

Michel", born at Tournai and master there in 1638, only a few works
are identified. They range from small simple bouquets as seen in the
exhibition Fleurs et Jardins dans I'Art Flamand at the Museum voor Schone
Kunsten, Ghent, in i960, signed and dated 1654, to a very large fruit and
flowers against an architectural background as illustrated in Fare (plate 213).
It is difficult to imagine that these are the work of the same artist. 111.
79
from Tournai, garlands around a 'Flight into Egypt', must presumably
relate to de Bouillon's garlands around a 'Christ at the Column', the centrepiece in grisaille at Douai. Although the latter is mentioned by Hairs and
Fare, no reference is made to the Tournai canvas.

Of

BRANDT, Albertus Jonas (1788-1821)

dutch

contemporary of Bloemers, this artist spent his short life as a stilllife and flower painter at Amsterdam, where he was born and died. His
teachers were Jan Evert Morel and Van Os, and like them, he has a
style that derives from the Van Huysum tradition. The similarities to
Morel can be seen in a comparison of ill. 80 with ill. 247 by Morel. Brandt
has here included several choice flowers which were his favourites honeysuckle, rhododendron, mallow and, top right, lemon blossom.
:

BRAY,

80.

Dirk de (active 1651-1678)

dutch
Son of the history and portrait painter, Salomon de Bray, Dirk de Bray
was active at Haarlem from 165 1 to 1678. Later he became a monk in a
Brabant monastery. Apart from hunting and game pieces, which were his

BRANDT

26gx2i|

in.

(67

x55 cm.)

De Bray was a book

He was also a bookbinder.

principle genre,

woodcuts.

illustrator

employing etching and

Only two flower paintings by Dirk de Bray are known - one in the
Van den Bergh collection in Holland, illustrated in Bol, 1969,
and the slightly smaller panel in a private collection (ill. 81). Both are
dated 1671. Looked at without the evidence of this date, De Bray's simple
bouquet could be much earlier, by comparison with Bollongier (ill. 27)
and Calraat (ill. 98). Yet the placing of the vase in the background with
large flowers lying in front would obviously have been unusual with
the earlier masters. Equally, the effect of airiness and depth are very
marked, as if the bouquet were standing in an open sunlit garden. De
celebrated

Bray's arrangement of colours is also distinctive. He has placed each strongly

coloured flower against a conventional grey and green background with
little

overlapping.

With the exceptions of two daffodils at the top and

bloom held in the glass vase is a shade of

three blue columbines, every

red fused with white.

white.

The

The

three narcissi lying in the foreground are pure

painterliness of every part of the picture

is

seen best of

all

in

way towards the

spectator. Obviously the desirability of such flowerpieces give them a
status quite different from De Bray's other work and leave one wondering
where the other bouquets are which he must have produced.
the furriness of the wonderful caterpillar, wending his

BROECK, Elias van

dutch
den (1650-1708)
Broeck's place of birth appears uncertain, but by the age of fifteen he was
a pupil in the studio of Kick (see page 153) at Amsterdam. In 1673 he

became a master in the Antwerp Guild and in 1685 moved back to Amsterdam, where he stayed until his death in 1708. The story that he was forced
to leave Amsterdam because of rumours that he cheated over butterflies
is delightful. Instead of painting them, he was accused of sticking real ones
Hi

MR AY,

l6

ijj

in.

signed and dated 1671

(40-7 x 34-3 cm.)

on the canvas!

The

painting in the Ashmolean, Oxford

(ill.

83),

is

his best

known.
61

BROECK

Unfortunately, at the time of writing, it cannot be seen nor photographed

Underneath, the
to advantage because of dirt and discoloured varnish.
be cleaned. The
will
soon
doubt
no
and
order
good
in
appears
painting
like the side
more
looks
and
band,
diagonal
broad
in
a
is
arrangement
poppies
top and
red
Large
vase.
in
a
contained
bouquet
a
than
of a wreath

bottom

set off a series

82.

BRUEGHEL,

50 x 69

in.

Abraham, signed

(127 x 175-5 cm.)

of reds contrasting with huge cabbagy, greeny blue

and delicate, with delicate touches in

leaves. Textures are rather papery

details.

For example,

to the right in the very

poppies escape the shadow and catch

background two closed, red

behind the bouquet.

light shining

BRUEGHEL, Abraham (1631-1697)

Born

at

Antwerp

in

1631,

Abraham Brueghel was

flemish
the second son of Jan

Brueghel the Younger. As a young boy he learned painting from his father
and obviously showed a precocious talent, for his father recorded the sale
of
of a painting by Abraham in 1646 when he was only fifteen. At the age
service
the
entered
immediately
and
Italy
eighteen Abraham was sent to
of Prince Antonio Ruffo at Messina in Sicily. (Prince Antonio Ruffo is
best

known

commission to Rembrandt for the 'Aristotle ContemIomer\ in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,

for his

plating a Bust of

sent to Sicily in 1654.)

(>2

84. (opposite)

BRUEGHEL,

14 x 10 in. (35-6X

254 cm.)

Ambrosius

BRUEGHEL

Nine flower paintings by Abraham date from his year of arrival,

1649.
to Rome in 1659 where he married an Italian woman

His success took him

in 1660 and became

a member of the St Luke Academy in 1670. Soon

Abraham is recorded in Naples and probably died there.
Abraham Brueghel painted flowerpieces in the style of his father

after 1671,

At first
and occasionally these early works have been attributed to him. However,
when he arrived in Italy, Abraham at once turned to painting garlands in
the manner of Seghers and worked in collaboration with Carlo
Maratta
and other Italian figure painters. An example of his garland painting hangs
in the Pitti Palace, Florence. Abraham Brueghel is best known,
however,
for his large fruit and flower compositions made during the last
thirty years
of his life. It seems most likely that the Flemish artist, working away from
his compatriots, adapted himself to the taste of his Italian patrons
and to
the influence of his colleagues in

Rome and

of Brueghel's mature style and

closely related to the

Naples.

82 is a fine example
work of Campidoglio
and Andrea Belvedere. Signed and dated 1674, was painted in Naples.
With several separate bunches of flowers set against a background of a
waterfall, fountain and dramatic sky, the very abundance of the composition
is

111.

characterizes the Neapolitan school.

Individual flowers have a certain

precision and tightness inherent in a northern artist, especially one with
the name Brueghel. According to Hairs, Abraham Brueghel retained his
family's interest in living flowers for in letters to his patron, Prince Ruffo,
he talks of his flower studies and, like Van Huysum, apologizes for delays
as the flowers are not yet in

83.

BROFXK,

36 x 27J

in.

signed

(915 x 69 9 cm.

BRUEGHEL,

bloom.

Ambrosius (1617-1675)

flemish

Born at Antwerp in 1617, Ambrosius was the son of Jan 'Velvet' Brueghel
and his second wife Catherina van Marienberghe, and thus the half-brother
of Jan Brueghel

II.

Information

is

lacking about the

Ambrosius Brueghel and many paintings by other

and work of
Brueghels have

life

lesser

been wrongly assigned to him, especially those with AB monograms

which may more probably be by Abraham Brueghel or even Ambrosius
Bosschaert. It is difficult to agree with Hairs that a monogrammed copper
panel dated 1647, on the London market in 1952, was not by Ambrosius
Brueghel. Equally, an unsigned basket of flowers, available in 1959, seemed
indisputable.
In 1639 Ambrosius made preparations for a journey abroad of which
nothing is recorded. He re-appeared at Antwerp two years later and in

1645 joined the guild there. Because he rose to eminence in guild and civic
before his death in 1675, noted as a flower painter, it is all the more
tantalizing that the rare flowerpieces under his name are there by attribution,
life

although there are signed landscapes. Attributions to Ambrosius Brueghel

more nearly approaches the style and quality

of his father's work than does his half-brother or any other member of
are based on the fact that he

On

these grounds

one of a pair of panels from a dismay be confirmed in its longstanding assignment as an early work of Ambrosius Brueghel. The flowers have the clear
brightness of colour so characteristic of Antwerp, and the brown shelf
the family.

ill.

84,

tinguished private collection,

has the transparency of Brueghel. Comparison

may

readily be

made with

example in the Ashmolean,

similar wealth of striped and solid colour tulips, and

'Velvet' Brueghel's smaller bouquets, like the

Oxford, with

its

forget-me-nots on the shelf.

BRUEGHEL, Jan
Born

at

the Elder (1568-1625)

Brussels, Jan Brueghel received the

Brueghel,

less

flemish
nickname

'Velvet' or 'Flower'

misleading sobriquets than the 'Peasant' Brueghel which his

63

BRUEGHEL

illustrious father Pieter Brueghel was

called. The surname is variously
spelled, often without the addition of the
after the G. Jan's mother

was the daughter of two artists: her father, Pieter

Coecke van Aelst and
Mane Bessemers Verhulst, a miniaturist and watercolour
painter.

When

Jan's father died in 1569 it was his maternal grandmother,

Marie Bessemers
who took charge of the one-year-old. Although no example

of her work
no reason to doubt Van Mander's statement
that she
instructed her grandson in watercolour painting
and that he then learned
oil painting from Goetkindt in the
1580s at Antwerp. In 1589 the twentyone-year-old Jan began his travels. Leaving for Italy
via Cologne, he visited
Naples and then Rome, where he is noted in
1593 and 1594. Cardinal
Borromeo on a visit to Rome met the artist and took him
back with him to
Milan in 1595. Although Brueghel took leave of the cardinal
remains, there

year, the latter

is

became

a very loyal patron.

the following
precious letters between
information about, and insight

The

them have been preserved and provide some

life and work of Jan Brueghel.
Returning through Flanders and
Holland, Brueghel established himself in Antwerp from
1597 and married
two years later. From this marriage to Isabella de
into the

Jode, daughter of an
engraver, was born one child, Jan Brueghel the Younger,
a painter who
imitated and commercialized his father's work.
Soon

widowed,

'Velvet'

Brueghel married again in 1605 and had ten children. At

the risk of leaving
the reader dazzled by this galaxy of Brueghels, it
would be opportune to
mention three of these eleven children.
Ambrosius Brueghel (see p. 84), an excellent flower painter,
continued
his father's tradition, if not at his level. Of
the daughters, Anna married the
painter David Teniers, and Paschaise married
Hieronymous van Kessel
and became the mother of Jan van Kessel (see p.
152).
'Velvet' Brueghel became prosperous and famous
in Antwerp and far
beyond that city. Like Savery he visited Prague in
1604 where he was
much esteemed by Emperor Rudolf II; in 1606 and 1616 he was
at Nuremberg. His landscapes with figures, allegories and
flower paintings were sent
to delight patrons all over Europe.
Through his appointment as court painter to the Archdukes
Albert and
Isabella he gained many privileges, and
permission to study plants and
flowers in the ducal palace gardens. During the last
ten years of his life he
collaborated most successfully with his friend Rubens,
whose affectionate
admiration probably meant more to him than all the
official plaudits and
gold chains he received. Brueghel also added flowers
to the paintings of
other artists but often his addition is so superior
that the result seems
unbalanced.
It would be superfluous to enumerate
the details of Brueghel's biography,
even though it is more fully documented than with
most artists of that

period.

When

cholera struck

Antwerp

in 1625,

among

the victims were

Jan Brueghel and three of his children.

Portrait painters often

when they

do

are painting their

flattery or fee.

collection of

their best

own

work not

for commissions, but

friends in an informal vein without

Rubens' portrait of Jan Brueghel and his family in the

Seilern, London, is such a picture. It perfectly
conveys

Count

the gentle kindly nature of the artist, to which

many sources testify, and
which is so strongly suggested by his own wondrous
flowerpieces.
Having said that the life was unusually well documented,
it must

be

added

that this

is

a relative

term. Question marks

still

>

abound.

It is generally
held that Brueghel only turned to painting
flowers in the latter, post-1600,
part of his career. Surely he must have
painted watercolour studies of
flowers with his grandmother and ventured to
paint them in oils before

86 (overleaf left) BEERT

[8
x 14 in. (45-8 x 35-6 cm.)
-

8?
18

64

RrKC 1HrDT
""^ ""
17^%?*'

Xc
!

(()Vcrlcaf right)

x 14J

in.

BONNARD

(45-8x37-5 cm.)

8igned

^^

-r

H
VW^mHHm^ammmi

BRUEGHEL

As with Ambrosius Bosschaert (see p. 54), how satisfying it would be

an example of a Brueghel flowerpiece could be found the date of which
began with 15 and not 16!
if

Like his friend Rubens, Jan Brueghel was possessed of that torrential
which the thought alone leaves us rather breathless.
Flowers of every kind, in every vessel, woven into every garland, conjured
into every composition, Brueghel painted them all. A Brueghel tub
is
creative force of

homely term often used to describe the most majestic of his creations.
99 shows a famous one which, like Noah's wooden Ark, seems to
hold every flower in creation. Nearly two hundred flowers of forty different
the
111.

species, painted with a joyous vitality,

matching the life force of Nature

Introduction, shows the astonishing verve and
fluidity of Brueghel's brushes painting over the white priming of the panel,
which is so skilfully used to give transparency to the brilliant colours. It
herself.

111.

in

19,

the

was only through the gift of this technique, where the artist seems almost
be drawing in wet paint, that Jan could bring to completion, not one
such magnum opus, but repeat and vary the composition a dozen times.
The famous panel in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich, is repeated, for example,
to

in a smaller version, in the Kunsthistorisches

Museum, Vienna.
breadth and sweeping strokes does not, of course, mean that
Brueghel considered the least sacrifice of detail. On the contrary he gazed
on his subject with the scientific eye of his age; so that from the stamens
of the crown imperial at the head to the fibres on the roots of the cyclamen

To

talk of

at the foot, all is perfection.

This complete cyclamen with its corm in earth

another bouquet with irises also at Vienna. His contemporaries appreciated how flowers were explored and described by being
shown not only in different varieties - especially the roses here - but by

was used again

in

depicting an individual bloom from different angles.

Of course the treatdemocratic and the snowdrop receives the same attention as the
exotic lily. To stand back from the great Brueghel tubs is to behold a
magnificent composition of colours, to draw near is to be awestruck by the
ment

is

brushwork and the degree of microscopic exactitude. The same is true of

the many garlands Brueghel painted around centrepieces by others,
especially Rubens. The example in the Louvre, Paris, a Rubens 'Madonna
and Child' encircled by Brueghel's flowers, takes the eye from a distance.
Yet even from a few paces away, one cannot see what Brueghel has somehow put into this wreath. A few birds stand out but from close up it can
be seen that there are thirty of them at least. The attitude of the tawny

monkey

in the lower part is only explained when it is seen that he has

caught one of these tiny birds in his paw. Such details are only incidents
the complexity of the garland, but they illustrate the all-embracing vision

just
in

as well as the ceaseless inventiveness of Brueghel's

mind.
90 shows a less opulent garland in a quite different setting but it is
made up with the unerring sense of colour and variety which, like clarity,
came as second nature to Brueghel. The gold vessel, the jewellery, the pearls
on the purply-pink shelf do not clash so much as complement the sharp
111.

clarity of the reds, blues, yellows,

blade of the gold knife has the

HH (opposite above)

BOSSCH U.RT, Johannes,

signed and

dated 1624
Mi x 2i\ m (36-8 x 54-6 cm.)

and whites of Brueghel's wreath. The

signature and date 1618. Brueghel

artist's

may have wanted to let jewels challenge his flowers, confident of the outcome. He wrote to Cardinal Borromeo on an earlier occasion, 'I leave it
to the judgment of Your Lordship whether these flowers do not surpass
gold and jewels'. Commentaries on Brueghel's flowerpieces soon lead the
writer into contradictions and bafflement: natural, yet highly contrived;
sophisticated, but joyfully primitive; simple, subtle, refined, what words

89 (opposite below) Follower of

zH / )H m (712^ <>o o m
(

CAR A VAGG 10

may be

ruled out?

Obviously, the choice of illustrations to represent Jan Brueghel the

69

BRUEGHEL

90.

BRUEGHEL, Jan

i8| x 2oi

in.

(476 x

52-

the Elder, signed and dated 161J

1

cm.)

flower painter could be

It is well to recall

made time and again without fear of duplication.

again that flowers represent a smaller part of his
whole

oeuvre. So many come to mind - a simple bouquet

in a prunted glass, as
used by the Bosschaerts, is now in a London private
collection. The same
glass appears again, for example, in the Brera,
Milan, copper panel of 1608,
and in the Ashmolean, Oxford, both simple bouquets of
the same kind. The
Oxford panel has also the same tulip to the top right.
Again, his use of
flowers in allegories, as in the Prado, Madrid, is
fascinating. A book of the
present size would not be excessive for Jan Brueghel alone.
111. 91 shows what might be called a half-way
stage between these smaller
bouquets, which are closest to the contemporary format
of Bosschaert and
Savery, and the mighty four-foot panels like those in
Munich. In symmetry,
plain background, and every aspect of
presentation, it conforms to the
familiar format of the early flowerpiece. A very
similar vase occurs

again

in

bouquets
there

lilies;

at

is

the Staatliche

Museen,

Berlin,

which

also have

imposing

also a similar vase at the Detroit Institute.

In contrast to the

more famous examples illustrated here, the Brueghel

National Gallery, Ottawa, was only acquired ten years ago.
Yet ten
years is a long time in the present desire for flower painting
and the resultant
in the

scarcity.

BRUSSEL,

Paul Theodorus van (1754-1795)

dutch
Zuid Polsbroek, Holland, Van Brussel became the pupil
of Jan
Augustini at Haarlem. His first employment was in designing
and painting
wallpapers at Haarlem. After his marriage in
1774 Van Brussel specialized
in flower and fruit painting although all
examples known to the author date
from the 1780s and early 1790s. He later lived
at Amsterdam where he
died at the age of forty-one, it is said by drowning.
A flowerbook of 1794
was illustrated with plates after Van Brussel
watercolours, and an example
Born

70

at

91. (opposite)

283x211}

in.

BRUEGHEL, Jan

(73x543

cm.)

the Elder, signed

71

BRUSSEL

of his excellent work in this

medium

is

in the Albertina, Vienna.

The way

which flower painters repeated compositions, probably most often by

commission, was demonstrated in the Royal Academy exhibition of 1954,
Europe in the 18th Century, when a superb example of 1790 was shown with
in

a replica.

Van

Brussel belongs with the group of

Huysum manner

Dutch

artists

following the

Van

and early nineteenth century,

notably Van Os, the Spaendoncks, Hendriks, Linthorst, and Van Leen.
111. 100 is one of a pair of panels, said to come from William II of Holland's
collection - the pendant is fruit and flowers - both in mint condition. The
derivation from the Van Huysum style is too apparent to need elaboration
but there is, with Van Brussel, a strong linear effect in the flowers and
foliage, emphasized here in the morning glories, for example, or the white
iris. Just how transparent the petal of the pink peony is, has been shown
by seeing through it the stem of the top tulip. Van Brussel is seldom without
decorated vase and birds' nest.
In the manner of Van Os, rather than Van Huysum, Van Brussel painted
pyramids of fruit and flowers. However, when he tried to introduce fruit
on to the marble shelf of a conventional flowerpiece, like the one illustrated,
the results seem less satisfactory. A canvas in the Wallraf Richartz Museum,
Cologne, not in overall terms of the stature of the London panels, has the
bird's nest

in the later eighteenth

moved

in front of the vase to

grapes and a melon, and

make way

for a large

bunch of

an example of this tendency to over-abundance.

is

BRUYERE,

French
Elise (c. 1776-1842)
In the nineteenth century sketching and painting joined music as one of

the desirable accomplishments and occupations for young ladies. Flower

painting, in

which

ladies

have frequently excelled, was an ideal subject.

Elise Bruyere, nee Lebarbier,

must be counted

a 'professional'

and not

merely a gifted amateur; indeed, of the many ladies who studied flower
painting under Van Dael, the great Fleming, she was the most distinguished.
She first exhibited at the Salon in 1802 and became a designer for the
Sevres porcelain factory. There is an interesting work now at the Musee
Classe des Beaux-Arts, Valenciennes, which, unfinished at her death in
1842, was completed by Chazal and then exhibited in the Salon of 1844.

The

rose in

ill.

92, with beautiful

to Chazal's roses,

ill.

106.

rhododendron, has obvious

similarities

Her husband held an important government

post as Inspector General of bridges and roads.

BRUYN, Johannes

dutch
Cornelis de (active c. 1763-f. 1828)
Middelburg,
one
of the
In 1763 De Bruyn is mentioned in the guild at
vital centres of flower painting a century and a half before. He is noted at
Utrecht from 1800 to 1810, and at Amsterdam from 1816 to 1828. 111. 93,
a very decorative canvas of 1801, has luxuriant foxgloves {digitalis)

con-

trasted with the spikiness of the thistles.

BYSS, Johann Rudolf (1660-1738)

Born

Solothurn

at

in

Swiss

Switzerland, Byss was the son and pupil of Franz

a young man he went to Prague where he became the curator

Count C/.ernin's collection. In 1689 he married and in 1694 is recorded
as a burgher of the city. In 1705 Byss moved to Vienna and gained the
and Joseph I. Two years later he visited Rome,
patronage of Leopold
where he had the honour to be received by the pope. It is supposed that
Byss also travelled to Holland and England but there seems to be little

Josef Byss. As
of

evidence
his

72

life,

of his

presence

in these countries. In the last

Byss worked for the aristocracy

in

twenty-five years of

Pommersfelden, Bamberg, and

92.

BRUYERE,

13x9!

in. (33-

signed

ix

24-

cm.)

BYSS

93. (opposite)

}o X 25

in

(76

BRUYN,
2

63

signed and dated 1801

urn

04 (right) BYSS, signed and dated 1701

19$ x 13$ in. (50 X 34 cm
)

Mainz. He died at Wurzburg in 1738. His sister Maria Helena Byss (16701726) and Angermeyer were pupils.
Byss was by no means confined to flowers and painted religious and
figure subjects and landscapes. Birds feature in many of his paintings: for
example the 'Landscape with Birds' of 1704, in the Narodni Galerie,
Prague (seen at the Victoria and Albert, London, exhibition, Baroque in
Bohemia, 1969). At the Neue Residenz, Bamberg, there is a bust of a child
in a

niche surrounded by flowers.

sketchbook with studies of carnations

is preserved at
94, of 1701, at the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Kassel, appears to be one of his finest flowerpieces. In every
respect, format and symmetry, this bouquet might belong to the earlier

Wurzburg.

seventeenth century, with

111.

its

rather archaic insects filling the shelf.

The

frog lurks in the shadows and one must look closely to see it. How interesting
it would be to know if Byss studied the work of Savery which he could
have encountered at Prague and Vienna.

73

CAFFI

CAFFI, Margherita

(active

c.

1660-after 1700)

Italian

The paintings of Margherita Caffi tell more of the artist than any documents.
Almost nothing is known of the artist's life. She appears to have been
born

in the

north of

Italy,

perhaps

at

came from Cremona. Old sources say

Vicenza or Venice. Her husband

that she

worked

for the

Tyrolean

court of Archdukes Maximilian and Leopold, and there are certainly

examples of her work in the museum at Innsbruck. A pair of paintings in

Milan are signed and dated 1700. Other examples

at Barcelona and Madrid, and in
Florence. 111. 95 is an early example of Caffi's painting, being signed and
dated 1662. Although nothing is known of her teachers, the style of her
flowers makes it difficult to believe that she was not influenced by Nuzzi
- compare ill. 264. This light and airy manner of painting with its highly
decorative overtones may well have interested the young Guardi.

a private collection in

of her work are to be found in Spain

CAGNACCI, Guido (1601-1663)

Italian
Cagnacci was born at San Arcangelo near Rimini and was the pupil of
Guido Reni at Bologna. After a painstaking search of documents the art
historian M. Zuffa has established that he was in Rome around 1620, and
must have come under the influence of Caravaggio's followers. After working
in Rome and then returning to his native Rimini, Cagnacci was called to
Vienna

in 1660.

There he worked

for

King Leopold

until his death in

1663.

95.

CAFFI,

235 x 18J

signed and dated 1662

in. (59-

x 48 cm.)

Most of Cagnacci's paintings have religious or classical subjects painted

Guido Reni however, two flowerpieces have recently been

in the style of

These were brought together at Naples in 1964, so that

a direct comparison could be made. One of these, ill. 96, comes from the
Pinacoteca Comunale, Forli, the other from the Museum of Fine Arts
in Boston. Both pictures show a few flowers arranged in an old wine flask
whose raffia wrapping is coming loose.
They give a sense of violent movement, exemplified by the tight twists
and curls of the raffia and are strongly lit, thus creating intense shadows.
111. 96 is immediately striking and southern, but above all the exceptional
finesse and detail make it an outstanding Italian flower painting. From a
few simple flowers in a homely vessel standing on wooden boards the artist
has created a work of immense dignity. With no concessions to the decorating
tendencies of contemporary Italian flower painting, Cagnacci has found
in complete simplicity monumentality and sincerity.

attributed to him.

The influence of Caravaggio is so strong that in

1954 Swarzenski published

the Boston picture as a Caravaggio and even after the 1964 Naples exhibition,

another biographer of Caravaggio, Rizzoli, still felt hesitant. Comparison

with a painting of 'Woman with Dogs' by Cagnacci, in the Brera, Milan,
suggests a date of c. 1640, thus thirty years after the death of Caravaggio.

CALRAAT, Abraham

dutch

van (1642-1722)

Just as paintings with the initials B.v.A. were once very reasonably given to
Balthasar van der Ast, so certain works marked A.C. were given to Aelbert

We

know now that the B.v.A. was Bartholomeus Assteyn, and the
A.C., Abraham van Calraat, both active at Dordrecht.
Abraham van Calraat, also spelled Kalraet, was born there in 1642, the
son of a sculptor, and died in 1722, which may be something of a record
Cuyp.

age for the period. In addition to sunlit landscapes, horses, and so on, in
close imitation of Cuyp, Calraat occasionally turned to still-life as did Cuyp

Van der Ast style,

98 is the only known

himself. Calraat's still-lifes of fruit are indebted to the

CAGNACC1

96
27 X 20J

74

in.

(68*5 / 51-2 cm.)

but the tonality

is

much warmer.

flowerpiece by Calraat signed with

Intriguingly
initials.

The

ill.

tulips, striped

with different

CAMPIDOGLIO

reds, arc

much

in

the style of Bollongicr and the influence of

To

Van der Ast

waxy
lib takes the eye, but the most unusual flower is the iris in the centre whose
white petals are dabbed and spotted with black, with little orange diamonds
is

not in fact \cry apparent.

set in the black

the top, the brilliant scarlet of the

97.

CAMPIDOGLIO

39^x52^

in.

100-3 x

i33cm.)

ends

As remarked upon with

I)e Bray, it is interesting to find a panel of this

being
into
painted
well
the second half of the seventeenth century.
type

IMPIDOGLIO,

Verj

little

is

known

Michelangelo
of

C^ampidoglio. B) tradition, he was

the onl\

documents

between 1658 and

refer to

him

ITALIAN

di (1610-1670)

\lichele Pace, better

a

as

known

pupil of the

working

as

Michelangelo

Roman

di

fwravanli, but

for Cardinal Flavio Chigi

97 was actually painted for

Cardinal Chigi, since the landscape background of a park is very similar
to one in Ajaccio assigned to his patronage. The composition of fruit and
1

665.

It

flowers arranged around

made

with
in

possible that

Abraham Brueghel,

the background.

the other, but the\

ill.

stone fountain on which

Campidoglio and dated

typical of

appear

is

Ft

is

ill.

1660.

82,

parrot perches

A comparison must

where similar

trees

is

again be

and fountains

not possible to sa\ which artist influenced

must have studied each other's work.

75

CAMPROBIN

CAMPROBIN, Pedro de (1605-after 1674)

Spanish
Born at Amalgro, Pedo de Camprobin became the pupil of Luis Tristan
at Toledo at the age of fourteen. From 1630 he settled at Seville where he
came under the influence of the great Spanish master of still-life, Zurbaran.
Camprobin, together with Murillo, Herrera, and Valdes Leal, was a founder
of the Seville Academy in 1660. He is last noted as a member of this academy
of painting and drawing in 1674, but the exact date of his death is unknown.
He is perhaps most distinguished as a painter of pure flowerpieces, but
Camprobin also painted still-lifes.
On the evidence of ill. 101, one of a pair of signed and dated canvases of
1665, Pedro de Camprobin is a most accomplished flower painter. His work
presents a fascinating dichotomy. It is both archaic and progressive. Thus
the fine vase with classical ornaments, looking very

much

seventeenth

later

century, stands next to a plain glass bowl with two flowers, whose stems
are seen completely through the water, a characteristic of early fifteenth-

century
is

no

Madonna

panels.

Throughout the

parallel to the juxtaposition of

ment and

book there
Their align-

illustrations in this

two such differing

vessels.

spacing, bowl well to the front of the uncluttered shelf,

may echo

the frieze-like arrangement of Zurbaran.

By

contrast to the solemnity of his work, Camprobin's touch and delicacy

of brushwork produce an almost eighteenth-century mood. In the same

way, the treatment of individual flowers

The study of Spanish flower painting

recalls
is

Seghers and Brueghel.

a difficult task, as yet in its early

by commore important than Camprobin, nor question

stages. Nonetheless, neither the lack of biographical information,

CALRAAT,

1.

19

parison with other artists no

signed

x ijin. (48-3x38-1 cm.)

marks about the impact of foreign influences, should be allowed

to

obscure

the evidence of his work.

CARAVAGGIO, Follower of (c. 1630)

Italian

from the hand of Caravaggio (1573-1610), who

declared that it required of him as much craftsmanship to paint a good
picture of flowers as of figures, no flowerpiece has been discovered. Colour
ill. 89 has been attributed to Caravaggio, but its description at the Philadelphia exhibition of 1963 as 'Follower of Caravaggio c. 1630' seems
correct. This does not imply a belittling of its merits nor its suitability to
represent Caravaggio, whose influence was so important in Italian still-life
and flower painting. The Follower was clearly familiar with the still-life
and flower details that play an important part in so many of Caravaggio's
works. When Caravaggio arrived in Rome, before 1590, and before coming
under the protection of Cardinal del Monte, he painted pictures to sell
and keep himself. He painted himself, cheaper than a model, as 'Boy with
a Basket of Fruit', 'Boy bitten by a Lizard', and, perhaps the best-known

The

sad truth

is

that

of these, as 'Bacchus', in the Uffizi

at

Florence.

The

quality of the fruits

outweigh the human content, and seem, like

other early still-lifes, to include figures grudgingly. Admittedly, this is
slightly sweeping because Caravaggio, like the young Rembrandt, was

and the glassware, seems

to

learning from painting his own reflection and trying out different facial
expressions. This applies particularly to the 'Boy bitten by a Lizard' whose

and hands are expressive; but still the eye is drawn to the glass vase
its stems in the water and droplets of water on the outside, all caught
in the strong contrast of light and dark, the dramatic chiaroscuro of Caravaggio, continued and elaborated in all his work. As the vase in the centre
is so similar, did the painter of ill. 89 know this painting? Did he know
the vine leaves lapping over the edge of the ledge in the 'Ailing Bacchus
in the Galleria Borghesc, Rome, and put them on the left here ? The lute
player in the Hermitage, Leningrad, had a dark glass vase of flowers with
face

with

<><>

(opposite)

V) y

7'>

Mh m

15

EGHEL,

I2 4 '5 x '/' 2

<-'m.)

Jan the Elder

jfr
"

<

>..

CARLSEN

iris

to the top, similar but less elaborate than the

one here. Going on into

Caravaggio's later work, the very light shelf, of palest stone or marble,

with the scattered fruits casting such shadows, immediately brings to mind

Emmaus'

the white tablecloth of the 'Supper at

in the National Gallery,

London. If a date of c. 1630 is accepted, then of course the painter could,

as seems probable, have been familiar with much of Caravaggio's work,
and could put together different details, or ideas, from various works into
one superb independent flower and still-life painting. Such an artist could
have produced several different paintings inspired by still-life details which
Caravaggio so clearly savoured himself as a painter, and gave such prominence to throughout his work. The books and skull from the St Jerome
in the Galleria Borghese, together with the scattered pearls from the Magdalen in the Galleria Doria Pamphili, Rome, coins from the 'Calling of
St Matthew', could become a vanitas still-life. The quantity of mandolins
and other instruments, with several minutely detailed sheets of music,
would compose a superb allegory of music.
It is

unthinkable that Caravaggio, so clearly a lover of

still-life,

did not

paint independent flowerpieces which are lost or destroyed, and they need

not have been confined to the very

Rome. On

service of Cardinal del

of

first

years of poor apprenticeship in

the contrary, by 1596, Caravaggio was a mature artist in the

fruit against a

Monte.

It

was

in this year that

white background which

he painted the basket

famous. Del

justly

is

Monte

sent his canvas as a gift to his fellow cardinal, Federico Borromeo, for his
gallery at
irresistible.

Milan (where it remains).

If one assumes, contrary

An

art-historical flight of fancy

to other writers, that

painted flowers in the earlier part of his career as suggested in

did he accompany Cardinal Borromeo, with

when

Milan,

the prelate visited

Rome

whom

1595? If

in

cardinals presented to one another their proteges, and

to

is

Jan Brueghel
his biography,

he was in service in

perhaps the two

would be intriguing

101.

CAMPROBIX,

3o|x2iiin.

(78

x54

signed and dated 1665

cm.)

so,
it

know what Brueghel and Caravaggio thought of each other. Perhaps

had already met Caravaggio when the Fleming was in

again, Brueghel

Rome

in

The

1593 and the following year.

work of Tommaso Salini

still-life

position of the

basket of
illustrated

fruit.

example

Many anonymous

here,

is

illustrated in Sterling

rare but the frieze-like

is

com-

akin to Caravaggio's Milan

artists reflect, less ably

than the master

the influence of Caravaggio, the painter of fruit and

flowers.

CARLSEN,

American
Emil (1853-1932)
Born in Denmark, Emil (.arisen was the brother of the director of the
Danish Royal Academy. He moved to America in 1872 and taught at the
Chicago Art Institute before going to Paris in 1875. Carlscn studied the
work of Chardin closely and pair*ed similar subjects against a dark background. Having already established himself in New York art circles,
Carlsen's work sold readily, especially his yel'ftw roses. This income sustained him during his two years' stay in Paris, and on his return to America
he seems to have remained best-known as the painter of yellow roses.
III. F02 of iS(>7 is of yellow roses and violets. Contact with Impressionism
lightened his palette and backgrounds but his basic approach stopped short
of using an Impressionist breaking up of colours and brushstrokes. It is
Manet rather than Monet, so to speak. The exhibition at Hirschl and
\dler Gal'vries, New York, in 197 1, where this typical example was seen,
offered an exceptional opportunity to admire Emil Carlsen. There was a
still-life with brass bowl and white duck, in^jhe Chardinesque manner
described, and a large canvas of white and VWlow chrysanthemums of
1885, rivalling the work of Chase. It was possible to appreciate the very

100. (opposite)

30! x 24I

in.

BRUSSEL,

(78-4 x

signed and dated 1789

6r 2 cm.)

79

CARLSEN

102.

CARLSEN,

i5s x 14!

in- (40-3

103. (right)

signed and dated 1897

x 37-8 cm.)

CASSATT,

23^x i8in.

signed

(59-7 x 46-3 cm.)

high standing that Carlsen, a specialist in the genre, enjoyed throughout

his career.

His son Dines Carlsen (1901-1966) followed his father's

CASSATT, Mary (1844-1926)

Mary

Cassatt

came from

wealthy Pittsburgh banking family.

mid-twenties she travelled to France,

Italy,

style.

American
From her

Spain and Holland, studying

the old masters and completing her education. Against her family's pre-

ferences she settled in Paris to study painting. She first exhibited at the
Salon of 1874 and continued to do so, although her attention had been
attracted by the work of Manet and especially Degas. In 1877 the latter

asked her to join the group and exhibit with them. She did so with enthusiasm,

like

in 1874, and gave up the life of a lady Salon

She became the best-known American-born artist of

Berthe Morisot

exhibitor for good.

the nineteenth century.

Mary Cassatt painted only two known independent flowerpieces, dateable

about 1889, although she used flowers in her figure compositions like her
contemporaries. 111. 103 is a very Impressionistic work compared to the
strongly linear note of much of her art. Yet it has the crispness and delicacy
that are also characteristic.

The

inclusion of

Mary

Cassatt,

who

painted

fewer flowerpieces than others unrepresented, has an ulterior motive.

80

CASSATT

Outside France, the greatest wealth of French Impressionist painting is

United States. American resistance was far shorter-lived than that
of France and England. Indeed, the English painters and collectors were
in the

the slowest of

all

104.

CASTEELS,

28 x 39

in.

(712 x

signed and dated 1720

99-

cm.)

Frenchmen. One example will suffice.

posthumous retrospective
Paris in 1884, but confessed that he had

to appreciate the

Philip Wilson Steer attended with interest the

exhibition of Manet's work in

never heard of the painter.

In 1873 a

Degas

young American

lady, Louisine

Waldron Elder, purchased

pastel in Paris at the suggestion of her friend,

Mary

Cassatt. Louisine

married the sugar magnate H. O. Havemeycr and the Havemeyer Collection

became one of the great pioneer collections of French painting in America.

The collection,

like

those of so

many

of those early enthusiasts,

now

enriches

museums. The visitor to the Metropolitan Museum of Art,

New York, cannot but be amazed by its richness and scope (the two Monet
flowerpieces are referred to in his entry). In another Degas pastel in the
rhe nation's

collection

Mary

Mary

is

the model.

Cassatt not only helped the Havemeyers, purchased paintings

tried to sell whenever possible, but gave financial support to

Durand-Ruel in his efforts to forward the cause of Impressionism. With
her means and social position she was a grca^help to him in launching his

herself,

8l

CASSATT

New York in 1886. Her brother, a director of the

Pennsylvania Railroad, lent works which he had bought through his sister's
enthusiasm. The exhibition was very far from a sell-out and must have
been a bitter disappointment. Yet the seeds were sown and by 1890 there
were a dozen keen collectors in New York besides A. J. Cassatt and the
pioneer exhibition in

Havemeyers. From there, America went from strength to strength ahead

of other nations and the debt to the early help of Mary Cassatt is incalculable.

CASTEELS,
Born
he

is

flemish

Pieter (1684-1749)

Antwerp, Pieter Casteels belonged to

the most significant member. Casteels is
at

although guild records

as early as 1708,

at

a family

of painters of which

said to have

Antwerp show

been

in

England

his enrolling there

about 17 12. His very decorative flowerpieces and bird subjects found a
ready following in England where he spent his career before his death at
Richmond upon Thames in 1749. 111. 104, a signed and dated canvas of 1720,
in

is

an exemplary example of the type of flowerpiece that enriched

rooms

mam-

was very fond of baskets for these

overdoor or overmantel canvases with their low viewpoint. A large overdoor
shaped to accommodate the curved top of the doorway was sold in a Paris
auction in April 1957. Casteels painted an important series, the Twelve
Months of Flowers, for Robert Furber, a nurseryman at Kensington.
These were engraved with a numbered key to each flower in its season and
elegant

at the period. Casteels

published in 1730 as

catalogue to interested buyers (see

ill.

23 in the

The whereabouts of the originals are unknown at the time

The Twelve Months of Fruits followed in 1732. Casteels, like

Introduction).

of writing.

contemporary active in England, Bogdani, remains one of the

best-known decorative 'all-rounders' (flowers, fruit, and birds) who made
his name in England.
his older

CEZANNE, Paul
The tedium
a

French

(1839-1906)

of going through customs might be alleviated by thinking back

hundred years

customs supervisor Victor Chocquet. The history

to the

of patronage and collecting, especially with flower painting, abounds with

the

names of princes and merchant

but even

among

a vastly

princes,

and the fortunes they spent

enlarged collecting public in the more democratic

times of the later nineteenth century, Victor Chocquet deserves special

admiration.
the

With only

870s built up

the resources of a customs supervisor, he had by

a fine collection

of Delacroix watercolours.

When

the

Impressionists began to be known, Chocquet was as unconcerned by the

general outcry and ridicule which greeted

of speculation.

The

thrill

of backing his

them

as

he was by any thought

own judgment

discovered must have been intense. In another man,

of the

artists

he

might have remained

a private satisfaction. Chocquet became for the Impressionists, and especially
for Cezanne, an unhesitating champion. As Duret later wrote, 'Chocquet
became a sort of Apostle'. Through Renoir, whose work he bought so
enthusiastically, Chocquet met Cezanne. How Cezanne must have warmed
to a

man who had

it

collected his consistent hero, Delacroix. In his small

Aix, Cezanne hung one picture, a large watercolour of flowers

by Delacroix - perhaps the one which he copied, not as a young apprentice,

bedroom

at

but around 1900, a painting now in Moscow. As Cezanne later wrote to

Chocquet, 'Delacroix acted as intermediary between you and me', and it is
said there

were

tears in the eyes of both as they looked

collection of his watercolours.

1877 portrait of his friend,

The

whom

public were

82

something of

a crisis for

through Chocquet's

moved. Cezanne's

he painted several times, was, as Rewald

recounts, 'an object of special derision'.

cipitated

less

Cezanne

Inadvertently, Chocquet
at

home.

pre-

In a letter to the artist

CEZANNE

'Madame Cezanne and little

1878 he asked to be remembered to
no
respectable banker, who read the letter
Paul' To Cezanne's father, a
suspicions
confirmed his worst
doubt the revelation of his son's fatherhood
before his father s death
months
few
a
out,
of the artistic life. As it turned
Hortense Fiquet did become in reafity Madame
in 1886 Cezanne married and

at

Aix

in

with Les
Cezanne was pleased to be asked to exhibit
Chocquet asking for the loan of the Mmson
Vingt at Brussels and wrote to
also
Paris) to send to Belgium^ However,
du Pendu' (now in the Louvre,
with invitations to
authorities were less forthcoming
in .880, the Paris
over the
intervene on the artist s behalf
exhibit and Chocquet tried to
several years afterwards Cezanne
World Exhibition. At this time and for
Provence, steadily working. Although
was much of the time secluded in
Wt
h
in the early .890s, his ' h
diabetes began ,0 attack him
one problem was solved. After long
him comfortably off, so that at least
Caillebotte bequest was accepted
wrangles some at least of the staggering
Cezanne saw his work enter a
and
by the authorities of the Luxembourg,
Cezannes sold at auction
Paris. In 1894 Duret's three

^Three' years

later

public gallery in

wTsome

interest

and

few weeks

later the stock

of Pere Tanguy with

remained very much at threeSamples also came up: nonetheless, they

and materials in return
canvases
had given Cezanne
fire once Tanguy
S
Chocquet probab y
that
gallery
nd i w aJin his little pioneer
fo'r wor
put on a show of
Vollard,
young successor,
bough, his firs, Cezanne. His
P.ssarro, his
premises.
newly-opened
Cezanne the following year at his
enrap ureck
were
Degas
even
Renoir,
all

memo" m the Impressionist phase,

Sne or two critics, as before, wrote

laudatory articles, but

and a few collectors

interest in the
general public found more
The
known.
was really
of motion
exhibition
public
the first
brothers who were putting on

a small circle of artists

among

Sne

Lum're

was st, 1 only

Chocquet, that

it

like

period of
Cezanne the early .890s were a
or without support, for
enindiscriminate
The
- a kind of synthesis of his art.
arnstic matu ty
Impressionism
with
and the long flirtation
hus IsiTof his volatile youth
structure
the demands of geometric
painting
his
weTcThTnKs of he past. In

Pl

With

were approached by
into nature',
111

to

is

as painstakingly slow a

Cezanne wrote.
work dated from these

brush as ever.

o , ,,
years, 1890 to 1894.

see

more

lucidly

fmnne found
touno
Cezanne

perished too quickly for a

fruit because they
,bfficu ,v with flowers and
even when he w*ifinaUy
weeks ,0 do such a painting,

pmtlho warned

Ltisfied that the sparse

"
in

technique and

GaChC,

'

TadVr

mood

^P^J^L"SS

elements^ the

with

^^^^teo-n
"w"

S m pZ.

in purs
gr
misgivings, had progressed

of perfection.

The

&

sale.

83

CEZANNE

Still-life with and without flowers occupies a major part of Cezanne's

work and, in this respect as in others, he set the pattern for the Cubists,
and the twentieth century. It was Cezanne's still-lifes that Manet had
admired in the earliest years when they were both inspired by Chardin.
At the end of Cezanne's career, Maurice Denis in his painting 'Hommage a
Cezanne' showed Redon, Vuillard, Bonnard, and Vollard gathered round
a Cezanne still-life. The place of still-life in Cezanne's life is not surprising.
All writers agree that to some extent every picture he painted may be

regarded as

a still-life.

In 1899 the 'Vase of Tulips', now in the Chicago Art Institute, was sold
together with thirty-one other Cezannes from the collection of the late

Victor Chocquet.

CHAGALL, Marc (1887Flowers

Russian

language of love, a very ancient tradition, has found intense

expression in the work of Marc Chagall. 111. 120 of 1927 belongs to that
time

as the

when

Chagall's happiness in his marriage to Bella reached a blissful

summit. They had met for the first time in 1909, the year before the artist
first came to Paris and they married in 19 15 after Chagall returned to his
native Russia. He had decided to settle in Paris in 1923 and it was a Paris
of contentment, with the anxieties and struggles of his earlier stay and the
opposition in Russia largely a thing of the past. Perhaps in the prime of
his life, he was never again to know such idyllic pleasure for the 1930s were
to bring shadows to Europe, the agony to Chagall of the suffering of the
Jews symbolized by Goebbels' order to burn his paintings at Mannheim,
crisis, and another war meaning flight from France to refuge in the United
States. When the uplifting news came that France had been liberated and
they could return to their adopted country, it was crushed by the death of
Bella on 2 September 1944.
The art of Chagall, which is the wondrous unspoilt world of a child's
imagination, is more bound up with flowers than that of any other modern
artist. Chagall has put them into his paintings at all times, woven into his
tapestries, built them into his great church windows, modelled them into
ceramics and bas reliefs. For Chagall, flowers are symbolic and synonymous
with love. If one thinks of a typical Chagall, it is of his 'Anwureux' either
together in the middle of a bouquet or floating free in the sky with a great
bunch of flowers linking sky to earth, and expressing the mood which the
lovers feel.

The

attitude of the lovers in this

image from the

in the

circus, so

much

little

canvas

a part of

(ill.

Russian

is perhaps a mental
and so strong a motif

120)

life

deeply religious art of Chagall, which he shares with Rouault.

couple seem to catch each other

like

The

acrobats in mid-air. This example

perfectly evokes the mysterious, Byzantine and supernatural qualities of

Chagall, like the images of his friend Apollinaire's poetry.

It is

Chagall's

unique fashion of folklore and fantasy. His sense of the beauty and colour
of flowers had been identified at this period through working in the Mediterranean light at Mourillon on the gouaches for the illustrations to Vollard's
edition of La Fontaine's Fables. Unlike artists of the past who turned from
other, often religious subjects, to paint flowers, with Chagall they are not
divorced but rather part of his religious intensity.

They

are

hymns of

Paradise in the spirit of his upbringing in the Chassidic doctrine that

is

in the

decoration of a

flowers that will also be religious'.

own wedded
love of

84

God

Once, when asked to participate

church, Chagall was told 'you could do a bouquet of

present in every manifestation of

bliss, he does
mankind. Simplicity

life.

If,

in this

is

bouquet, Chagall

tells

of his

most universal terms of the

the magic of Chagall. In this context and

so in the simplest,

CHARDIN

engageChagall's words at the time of his

looking at this testament of love,
relevant.
particularly
marriage, seem
ment at the start of this wonderful

y penetrant*

fleurs

(I

room and the blue

simply opened the w.ndow of my

love and the flowers

air,

came

in).

CHARDIN, Jean-Baptiste-Simeon

^1*1^*1

(1699-1779)

facets of Edinburgh
indifferent to the many historic
Even thelover of painting
P
at the
and be drawn to a work of gemus
Should feel he p u ll from afar
by
JeanVase'
Scotland - 'Flowers in a Porcelain

Nattnal Gallery of

the biographical
t:^' besup ern uou g* onCharSn,
published

details.

first

Wildenstein's

ed ion in Enghsh of
standard work among the
portraitist,

The

revised

in ,o 3 3,

the

Chardin,
many books and articles devoted to
one instance, flower
still-life master, and in

S enre painter,
flowercanvas is now the only surviving
painter Although the Edinburgh
the
four others dating then,
Chardin, Wildens.ein catalogues
piece o> en
of
Salon
the
on e of which was exhibited at
6
and
Chardm's art reached its full mastery
d
/he e
peas in their porcelain
carnations, tuberoses and sweet
his simpk bouquet of
power and intensity
a work of such shimmering
ase rtransformed into
Impressionism to another
forward in time through
it seems to race
Cezanne
whose art was late in its full maturity,
nainter
P
about Chardin and
information
is the
So toaikd and comprehensive
exhausted. Yet in
tempted to think it a sub,ect
h,s work hat one might be
he
to say something new
befng faced with a struggle
r ato tste d of
Chardin. The aspect mos neglec^d
tort finds muchyet to explore in
and Fare, is the influence
although referred to by Sterling

pecbv

^ uts

hv Wildenstein
"of Rembrandt.

How

name to
tempting .0 link one great

br
thought the same thing of Rem
aris
Pans
T
u Aved
A
ramp to
fo p
came
When Jacques-Andre-Joseph
andl

me

I720 s
in the,17

Yet t-naroin s e
y
and now in the Louvre, Pans.
rather than ^Dutch
Flemish
a
show
a v\ do
sn1
comment on t
Largillicre was asked to
there so ve ry
have,
'You
remarked
their author, he

^*^
^ ''
,

he met

when
know ng
,

fine pic
P tures.

of Flemish art.
change. Gradually,
wen a profound
underwent
P
s work_und
In the 1730s, Chardin
of his
F lification
iveway
the tnv al
are _
the anecdotal incident,
very
few
e
stl .lifes. A
spaced wrth,th 1 e v a b
fully arranged and
an endkssly

^
^^Sb^P^

85

CHARDIN

tempting to compare

Rembrandt's 'Carcass' which was not to

same way, there might be a parallel
with Rembrandt in that Chardin's evolution in the 1630s came about
when he suffered the loss of his wife and two-year-old daughter in 1635.
Certainly, he moved away from the picturesque exuberance of Flemish
It is

it

to

enter the Louvre until 1857. In the

art

towards the calm, almost meditative light of the Dutch masters, towards
understanding of the artist whom his friend Aved so admired.

a better

Chardin's evolution reaches

fulfilment in works of pure painting

its

It was the supreme technical mastery

prompted not only Cezanne's remark but the admiration of so many
painters and craftsmen in other fields. If the title 'a painter's painter' has
any meaning, then Chardin above all deserves it. Diderot wrote in 1763:
'This is unfathomable wizardry. Thick layers of colour are applied one
upon the other and seem to melt together. At other times one would say
Draw near, and
a vapour or light foam had breathed on the canvas
everything flattens out and disappears; step back and all the forms are
re-created'. Bachaumont wrote: '.
he places colours one next to another
without hardly mixing them, in such a way that his work looks a bit like
a mosaic'. It might have been written of the juxtaposition of colours in an
Impressionist painting. Yet how closely Diderot's comments echo what
Felibien had written of Rembrandt's brushwork in the previous century.
How closely Chardin's famous pastel 'Self-portrait' in the Louvre, near
the end of his life, recalls the utter directness of Rembrandt's late selfportraits. Just as Carel Fabritius, the pupil of. Rembrandt, painted the
famous chaffinch now in the Mauritshuis, The Hague, which forms a clear
link between Rembrandt and Vermeer, so Chardin might be said, if a
famous phrase may be adapted, to have redone the magic light of Rembrandt
but in golden sunshine. Even the unfinished look of this bouquet, unusual

such

'Flowers in a Porcelain Vase'.

as

that

in

Chardin, seems to

this 'wizardry'

who wrote

recall the earlier master's

we could do worse than

approach. In the face of

follow the advice of

Andre Gide

1893 'There is always a gain to be had from taking, before

great figure, an attitude of receptive humility'.

The

in

vagaries of taste

would account

for

nineteenth century, before the revival with

paintings, in

common

unwanted. Marcille,

with

many

a collector

many

footnotes. In the early

Manet and Cezanne, Chardin's

other works of the ancien regime were

of modest means, 'rescued'

many

of these

eighteenth-century French paintings completely against the taste of the

day.

Among

Marcille's thirty Chardins was this bouquet which he had

discovered and bought for a few francs at a demolition firm's premises.

CHASE, William

American
Merritt (1849-1916)
played a decisive part in the career of one of the best-known of
American nineteenth-century painters, William Merritt Chase. When he
Still-life

New York from Indiana he began painting still-lifes which sold

and when he returned home in 1871 he continued to concentrate
on the same subject. The merits of his still-lifes induced a group of local
patrons to sponsor Chase's attendance at the Munich Academy in 1872,
the centre for so many American artists in the 1870s: twenty-five were
enrolled between 1870 and 1874. Few still-lifes from this early period are
known, but Gerdts points out that Chase must have known the work ol
Schuch, a Munich celebrity at the time. Chase returned to America in
1877 but began travelling widely in Europe in the early 1880s, and made
went

to

readilv,

subsequent

H \si
\2\ in

86

signed

(39X

31-1 cm.)

visits.

Chase was an impressionable artist and his work reflects the fact. His
many fish still-lifes seem rooted in the traditional, old-master-studying,
Munich approach; then again, other still-lifes were influenced b\ Yollon,

CLAESZ.

whose work he collected enthusiastically. Vollon of course was in turn

influenced by Chardin. Chase's landscapes and genre scenes were derived
from contact with Paris, Manet, and, as regards his genre scenes, especially
Alfred Stevens, a Belgian-born Parisian. Chase owned a quantity of Stevens'
work and examples like a 'Friendly Call' of 1 895, in the Washington National
Gallery (Chester Dale Collection), showing two ladies in an interior, are
clearly influenced by Stevens. The Chester Dale Collection also has one
of the rare flowerpieces by Chase, who usually painted kitchen still-lifes
with or without fish: a large canvas of chrysanthemums. This flower, as
mentioned with Renoir, was very popular in the later nineteenth century.
The brushwork is Chase at his most Impressionistic, but the dark background would not appear in a truly Impressionist work.
Chase was something of an institution and his New York studio was
filled with the bric-a-brac and paraphernalia of the successful nineteenthcentury painter, which he used, like Alfred Stevens, as a setting for his
fashionable ladies in an interior. In his role as a teacher for over fifteen
years, both in New York and Philadelphia, he influenced hundreds of
young painters. Chase also helped instigate the exhibition of contemporary
French art in America, notably the New York show, called the Pedestal
Exhibition, of 1883, which as well as Manet and the Barbizon painters
included some Impressionists.
111. 105, from his native state, is a most unusual example of his treatment
of flowers and may emphasize the eclectic side of his artistic personality.
Instead of Munich or Paris influences, here we seem to be confronted with
a Heade humming-bird hovering around a bouquet as mysterious as one of
La Farge's: this is a work of thoroughly American inspiration, it seems.

CHAZAL,

French

Antoine (1793-1854)

Born at Paris, Antoine Chazal was a versatile artist who painted religious
and historical subjects as well as flowerpieces, and drew botanical, animal
and medical studies. Chazal was a pupil of Gerard van Spaendonck and
Misbach, and first exhibited at the Salon of 1822 and did so regularly
until 1853, including a joint exhibit with Klise Bruyere in 1844. He was
appointed to a professorship at the Jardin des Plantes and was awarded the
Cross of the Legion d'Honneur in 1838. In the tradition of his teacher
Gerard van Spaendonck, Chazal's Flore putoresque were published in 1825.
However, his contribution, with other artists, to a fine volume of crocuses
was not published and is now in the library at the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew. Chazal also illustrated several medical books. In his role as a botanical
and animal draughtsman at the Jardin des Plantes he was commissioned to
make forty watercolours of plants in 1840 for the Medical School in Lexington, Mass., where they are still to be found.
111. 106 is a delicate bouquet of summer flowers with pink roses dominant
against pale, soft green foliage. The obvious accomplishment calls for no
comment, and Chazal must here represent the many French artists who
continued, in their own way, the Van Spaendonck traditions into the
nineteenth century, combining the skills of the flower painter in oils with
those of the botanical draughtsman in watercolour, gouache, and pastel.

106.

CHAZAL,

I2| x 9^

in.

signed and dated 1845

24- 1 cm.)

(324 x

'

CL

US/.., Anthony

II (c.

DUTCH

1616-f. 1652)

At Amsterdam the Bosschaert tradition was sustained by two artists of

the same name, Anthony Claesz. I (1592- 1636) and Anthony Claesz. II
(t .

1616-1652).

Works

are rare in each case. Bol considers, contrary to

others, they were not father and son and gives an earlier birthdate for

Anthony
in

II

of r6o6/8.

The

older

artist,

10 7, signed with a Bosschaert-style

1

of

whom

monogram and

marriage
is

is

recorded

principally

known
87

CLAESZ.

107.

CLAESZ., Anthony

i8ix 13!

II,

signed and dated 1642

(47x34-3 cm.)

Hoogendijk Gallery, Amsterdam,

for a large panel of 1632 formerly with the

and

in.

illustrated in Bol.

Claesz. II is the more accomplished artist whose best works,

example ill. 107 of 1642, have a fine tonality, and compare very favourably
with the contemporary bouquets of the Bosschaert brothers Ambrosius
and Abraham.

Anthony

for

CLAEUW, Jacques de

(c.

dutch

1620-f. 1687)

Dordrecht, Jacques de Claeuw is principally known for his still

lifes and vanitas subjects. Some of the latter have a few flowers. In 1642
he was one of the founders of a painters' association, the Brotherhood of

Born

St

at

Luke

were

as they

The Hague and

called, at

Dordrecht. Four years

later

he moved to

1649 married one of the daughters of Jan van Goyen.

Then, in 165 1, he moved to Leyden and eventually to Zeeland; mention
is made of his insolvency. The five years at The Hague from 1649 to 1651
in

are thought to be
111.

108, of

65

when he painted
1, is

a striking

flowers.

work, energetically painted with

unlike most flowerpieces of the mid-century.

There

is

the

transparently thin passages contrasted with strong impasto,

upon

in

the work of

Van Beyeren, with

into contact. His broad

88

approach

is

whom De Oaeuw

freedom

same blend of

commented
came

certainly

exemplified by the loaded brush with

10S. (opposite left)

1

CLAEUW, Jacques

65

27 J x iql

in. ((h)

x 50

cm.)

de, signed

and dated

CLARE

which the shell and its reflection in the vase are painted. The archaic stone
niche and the general conventionality of the format belie the 'modern'
note of De Claeuw's bouquet.
It could be thought contemporary with works of Calraat and De Bray.

CLARE, George

(active 1864-1873)
British
two brothers who painted still-lifes during the Victorian era,
George Clare worked in Birmingham exhibiting at the major galleries in
London. The manner of painting, with its high degree of finish achieved
by delicate stippling, derives from the still-life painter William Hunt,
who specialized in painting bird's nests. In ill. 109 the light key set by the
pale yellow primroses and the blue-green eggs in the nest against a mossy
bank was much admired by contemporary critics like John Ruskin and
Thackeray for its 'lack of falsehood'.

The

elder of

CLARE,

Oliver (active

c.

1865-1875)

British

The younger

brother of George, Oliver Clare painted in a similar manner,

although the handling of each individual flower is slightly freer. 111. no is

109.

CLARE,

24 x 20

no.

6x9

in. (61

George, si
x 50-8 cm.)

CLARE, Oliver, sigiu

in.

(152 x 239 cm.)

89

CLARE

9x6 inches. Again the influence of William 'Bird's

obvious, for the composition of primulas and lilac is arranged

a small painting of only

Nest'

Hunt

around the

is

nest.

CLAUDOT, Jean-Baptiste-Charles (1733-1805)

Born

French

Badonviller in the Vosges, Claudot was a painter of architectural

and landscape capricci, occasionally with flowers. With fruit and game
at

birds added, he produced excellent overdoors and similar decoration.

Claudot was responsible for the ornament of a house at Nancy in 1744,

and there are also two flower examples in the Musee des Beaux-Arts there,
of which ill. in is one. The landscape and sky are of a superior order to
the inferior backdrops of some of his contemporaries. Claudot was a friend
of Jean Girardet and Joseph Vernet, and as a young pupil Jean-Baptiste
Isabey was apprenticed to him. He died at Nancy in 1805.

COMOLERA, Melanie de (active

in.

CLAUDOT

57i x 99i in (14 6 x I2 5

-

cm

French

1816-1854)

Melanie de Comolera appears to have spent the major part of her career
in London, which may explain why she is one of the very few French
artists not mentioned by Fare. Recorded working at the Sevres porcelain
factory for two years from 18 16, in 1827 Melanie became flower painter to
the Duchess of Clarence who became Queen Adelaide on the accession
of her husband as William IV in 1830. On the evidence of her inscription
on a painting at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Fairhaven Bequest),
she subsequently held the same position to Queen Victoria. Melanie exhibited
at the Salon between 1817 and 1839, at the Royal Academy, London, from
1826 to 1854, ana at the British Institution in 1830-1832. 111. 112, like the
Cambridge example, has an inscription below the signature in which
she described herself as a pupil of Cornells van Spaendonck. Apart
from the evidence of this inscription, there are clear stylistic reasons for
grouping her among his pupils. Whereas the Cambridge canvas is a conventional vase on a marble ledge, with flowers only, ill. 112 is a pleasing
composition of fruit and flowers, and includes a nest with blue eggs. Among
the flowers arranged on the sill, the vivid blue of the delphinium rises from
behind a white hibiscus, with purple and yellow heartsease (wild pansies)
"

HHH|
t

^Btj

Ws

IP<tN
Bfci-i?

*\

Bw^c^^sfl
K\ -*JT^

Nu

a3B^

\*^H

9m"-v

112.

21

-9b>\rfi

in.

in the centre.

^^H
1

COMOLERA, signed

X25

Ik

^ Yi

(53-4x63-5 cm.)

CONSTABLE, John (1776-1837)

fc^^t

The

British

artist whose 'limited and abstracted art

is

to be found under every

- loved flowers as much as every

other manifestation of nature. John Constable painted no 'finished' flowerpieces and few flower sketches, and one might easily forget that they were,

hedge, and in every lane' - as he put

it

in the context of the day, as daring as his landscapes.

and dated 1839

much

He

could not

live

by

and portraiture was hard

work for fifteen to thirty guineas. Circumstances left him little chance or
leisure to paint flowers for his own pleasure, but had he lived in another
age they would have been exhibited and acclaimed as much as any aspect
of his work. Constable was at his most dynamic in his oil sketches, often
more arresting to our modern eyes than the finished picture they were in
preparation for. 111. 113 is sketched on brown millboard and belongs to the
unique collection of Constable's work in the Victoria and Albert Museum,
London. The visitor can see two other flowerpieces of similar type and a
the sale of his landscapes for

of his

life,

different study of poppies.

Constable often sketched and painted on paper or board and when it

has been subsequently mounted, on panel in this ease, the surface settles

down

in the

able, as has

(JO

paper become more noticecatalogue seems to

course of time and the lines

in the

happened

The museum

in this

example.

CORINTH

mistake this perfectly natural effect for deterioration, but this is not the case.
These flowers are dated 'July 26th, 1814', although the last two figures
of the year are difficult to decipher. However, 18 14 would be correct
stylistically, a period when Constable was achieving the freedom and
power in oil that he had already with pencil and watercolour. According to

correspondence - like Van Gogh's, a unique record of an artist's life,

work and character - Constable would have been in London that day.
He was seeing Farington about his prospects of becoming an A.R.A. and
no doubt Maria Bicknell, whose courtship, one of the longest in art history,
ended with their marriage in 1816. Perhaps it was a wet day and he was
occupying himself with flowers, as the Impressionists were to do when
his

landscape was

difficult.

how much he was ahead of

realized

compared

If Constable's flowers are

formal flowerpiece of the period, say the

Van Dael of 1816,

his

time and

to a typical

it will be
remarkable precursor
ill.

117,

of developments in France.

Later on in the 1820s Constable formed a close friendship with the

Henry Philips who advised him on the wild flowers for the fore-

botanist

ground of his paintings, like the 'Cornfield' now in the National Gallery,
London. A sketchbook of the latter half of 1814, also in the Victoria and
Albert Museum, shows a typical pencil study of foliage, in this case dock
leaves, and there are many studies of trees, but surprisingly flowers are
quite rare. Only John Crome produced drawings of this kind, in England,
that are of comparable quality.
In 1833 Constable was deeply delighted by the famous compliment
paid to his work by a lady and wrote to Leslie to say, 'I told her half of this,
if I could think
deserved it, was worth all the talk and cant about pictures
in the world'. Her words were - and although intended for a landscape,
lend themselves to Constable's flowers
'How fresh, how dewy, how
I

exhilarating'.

CONTE,

MeifTren (c. 1630-1705)

French
Meiffren Conte is strictly a painter of trophies and only rarely are these
enlivened with flowers. 111. 114, from the Musee Classe des Beaux-Arts,
Valenciennes, is an example. Conte came from an old Marseilles family
and

first

studied with his brother-in-law before going to

Rome

There, he no doubt knew the work of Francesco Fieravino which

From

669

to 167

he was active

He

at

is

in

113.

CONSTABLE,

i9^x

13 in. (49-5x33-

dated July 26 18(14)

1 cm.)

1651.

similar.

Aix and then went to Paris where he

home

to Marseilles and was employed

drawing master to officers and pilots at the arsenal.
His son, Sauveur, followed his Retire of trophy painting and worked at
the Gobelins tapestry works
Conte delights in the intricacies and richness of these superb examples
of the goldsmith's art. Another superb example with flowers is at the
Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe, with the two identical gold pitchers.

stayed until 1680.

then returned

as a

CORINTH,

German
Lovis (1858-1925)
Tapiau (now (hardejsk) in East Prussia, Lovis Corinth spent his
childhood in a country village where his father was a master tanner. Recognizing his talent, his father sent Lovis to the Academy at nearby Konigsbcry, whence he graduated in 1880 to Munich. From 1884 to 1887, he was
in Paris studying with Bouguereau and Bastien Lepage, and exhibited in
Born

at

the Salon of 1884.

At

first

his

interest

la\

not with the

Impressionists but with the old

Rembrandt and, among more recent artists, Courbet.

By ifpo Berlin had become the artistic centre of Germany with the presence
of Wilhclm Leibl, Max Liebermann and Max Slevogt and here Corinth,
masters, Hals and

<)i

CORINTH

German Impressionism. In 191

Corinth became the acknowledged leader of the group as chairman of the
with others, developed the school of
Berlin Secession.

111.

115 dates from this year and marks the high point of

his career, for in the winter of 19 11

he recovered only slowly, his

Corinth suffered

a stroke

late paintings reflecting his

from which

disturbed health

movement and colours. The bust of Michelalmost hidden beneath the profusion of flowers painted

with their cloudy frenzied

angelo's

David

is

in thick, bright colours.

COURBET,
Even today

114.

5 if in.

French

famous as Gustave Courbet is still in the process

of full appreciation: both the intrinsic merit of his own work and the range
of its complex influence. These are the major concerns. In a necessarily
lighter vein, the life of the artist seems to cry out for portrayal in an epic
motion picture.
The most dramatic scene in such a hypothetical film would be Courbet's

CONTE

39|x

Gustave (1819-1877)

(100 x 131 cm.)

a painter as

toppling of the

Vendome Column

in the

uproar of the

Commune

the culminating gesture of a radically republican nonconformist.

in 1871,
It is

im-

most elegant square in Paris without looking up and

thinking what a gesture it must have been. In the repression that followed,
Courbet was fined and imprisoned for six months. The prison authorities
allowed him his easel and brushes, but a live model was out of the question.
Courbet therefore concentrated on painting flowers, which his sister Zoe
and many visitors, Eugene Boudin and Monet among them, brought him.
The celebrity of the quantity of flowerpieces and still-lifes, like the 'Trout',
produced in these circumstances can be misleading. Courbet, in fact,
painted a group of very important flowerpieces in 1862 when staying with
his writer friend Baudry at Saintes in the west of France. They were
exhibited at the town hall there in 1863 with five flowerpieces contributed
by Fantin-Latour, and later a number were exhibited at Paris in 1867.
In the words of Fare, Courbet 'achieved at this period an incomparable
series of flowerpieces'. 111. 116 dates from 1863, the year in which one of
Courbet's earliest admirers died - Eugene Delacroix.
In 1855 when Courbet, the apostle of Realism, had three controversial
works refused for the Paris World Exhibition, he characteristically constructed his own Pavilion of Realism to show his work for a small admission
charge. Delacroix had been one of the few visitors; the one-man show
was generally shunned. It included a flowerpiece of that year now at the
Kunsthalle, Hamburg, with a lighter background and, naturally, a less
broad touch than the Glasgow Art Gallery and xMuseum example illustrated.
Courbet was supposed to have rejected, as leader of a group of artists
in the 1840s, the Romanticism of Delacroix as firmly as the academic
ideals of Ingres. Yet his flowerpieces derive their particular quality from
a grandeur that is certainly not divorced from Delacroix nor from the
Baroque of the Neapolitans and Spaniards that Courbet had carefully
studied in the Louvre. The younger generation could hardly fail to be
impressed by Courbet's audacity of attack with brush and palette knite,
which makes him a precursor of Impressionism. Perhaps more far reaching
possible to cross the

115.

CORINTH,

54! x 7 8|

in.

(139

signed

x200 cm.)

was the admiration of Cezanne who spoke of Courbet's 'unlimited talent

for which no difficulty exists'. If his remarkable flowerpieces are more
attached to the past than Courbet would have cared to admit, they thus
in a more far-reaching sense than he could have envisaged.
Apart from his fellow Frenchmen, Courbet's most important influence
was in Germany, where he made several stavs. Schuch was impressed and
so were many American artists who studied at Munich during the 1870s.

looked ahead

16.

COURBET,
wii in.

92

signed and dated 1863

(759 x

,01 '3 cm.)

Novotny has assessed the flowerpieces of Courbet most perceptively:

'in

DAEL

117

(ritjht)

33J x 26

in.

DAEL,

signed and dated 1816

(84 x 66

cm

crowded compositions of his still-lifes with flowers and animals, he

was blessed with a facility for achieving great crescendos'. Later, Van
Gogh, another naive spirit, achieved something similar in still-lifes that
were larger than life.
the

DAEL, Jan

flemish
Van Dael is
Dutch- and Flemish-born artists who

Frans van (1764-1840)

After Redoute and the Spaendonck brothers, the younger

perhaps the best-known of the

achieved such acclaim in their long careers

of the

Antwerp Academy

1786, a fully qualified master at the

found favour from the

at Paris.

Having been

a pupil

Van Dael left for Paris in

age of twenty-two who seems to have

early in his teens,

first.

Changes of regime

like their subject matter, unperturbed.

left

Van Dael,

these flower painters,

arriving in the France of

Louis XVI, first exhibited at the Salon in 1793 when Robespierre was in
power, found favour with Napoleon, Josephine, later Marie Louise,
Louis XVIII, was awarded the Legion d'Honneur under Charles X in
1825, and lived on for a decade of Louis-Philippe's reign.

Apart from easel pictures, Van Dael was employed in the decoration of
at the Sevres porcelain works. For
some vcars his studio was at the Sorbonne and there he instructed a
chateaux and his designs were used
large

group of pupils of

whom Van

Pol and Elise Bruyere were the

93

DAEL

most accomplished. Naturally, Van Dael was friendly with Redoute and
Gerard van Spaendonck; it was beside the latter that he was buried at
Pere-Lachaise cemetery. III. 1 17 is a superb example of 18 16 from the palace
of Fontainebleau, one of several examples in the French national collections,
resulting from Van Dael's illustrious patronage in his lifetime. Gerdts
notes that the exhibition of Van Dael's work in America as early as 181
was influential. One French patron, Eugene de Beauharnais, son of Josephine
by her previous marriage, was posted to Germany and as Due de Leuchtenberg accumulated some of Van Dael's finest work at Munich. There are a
of baskets of flowers at Lyons. Van Dael also painted fruitpieces,
and flowers and fruit pendants in the usual manner. While not the equal
of Gerard van Spaendonck, Van Dael's attention to detail and delicacy are

fine pair

highly praiseworthy.

DAFFINGER,
At Vienna

in

Moritz xMichael (1790-1849)

1948 facsimile illustrations were published of an

415 watercolour studies

Kiinste.

Some

Akademie der Bildenden

years later, the Medici Society reproduced one of the leaves

of this album and

known

in the library of the

Austrian
album of

it is

only in this rather fortuitous way that

it

has become

that Daffinger ever painted flowers.

Moritz Michael Daffinger, son of a painter on porcelain, was a wellportraitist influenced by Sir Thomas Lawrence who visited Vienna.
After the death of his only daughter in 1841 Daffinger suddenly turned for

known

consolation to the study of the native plants of Austria,

many

of them the

wild flowers of the mountains that are such a feature of the Austrian spring.

The

project occupied Daffinger until 1846. His training as a porcelain

painter and portrait miniaturist contributed to his mastery of the water-

colour

medium, exemplified by

his primroses

from

this

album

(ill.

118).

DELACROIX, Ferdinand

French
Victor Eugene (1798-1863)
been made in the hope of showing
a characteristic example, ill. 121 may seem at first glance a departure from
this principle. The inclusion of Delacroix, who is not necessarily thought
of as a flower painter, and beyond that, the illustration of an unusual work,
have been to emphasize not only that the oeuvre of Delacroix was allIf the present choice of illustrations has

embracing, but that within

given subject, in this case flower painting, his

style could vary astonishingly.

a small canvas of 1 833, is strikingly different to the larger, Baroquethat Delacroix later painted. Among the best known
flowerpieces
inspired
111.

118.
1

if

DAFFINGER,
x 8

in.

(28-9 x

1842-49

204 cm.)

is

12

the overturned basket in the Metropolitan

Museum

an 'outdoor' Monnoyer

which might be compared

bouquet on a pedestal at Lille, Musee des Beaux-Arts,
also compares to the seventeenth-century master.
to

111.

121

is

oil

in.

Of

New

261).

The

York,
large

in horizontal format,

sketch with the barely suggested vase, and

background, very thinly

course, as might be expected from the palette of one of the

Antwerp blues and grey-greens

flickering

brushed

painted like an

of Art,
(ill.

in the

century's great colourists, the dahlias are beautiful accents of red, white,

orange, and pale yellow, but

it

is

the brushwork that seems so advanced.

Cezanne later especially

mention Cezanne's name alone
is misleading because one would be hard-pressed to name a French painter
of the nineteenth century who did not admire some aspect of Delacroix's

The

effect

is

akin to one of his watercolours, which

admired and hung

\<)

(opposite)

CEZ W\l.

(59-7 * 42-2 cm.)

94

in his

room

at Aix.

To

work, painted and written. 'Hommage a Delacroix', to use the title of FantinLatour's canvas, united the most diverse of men from Redon to Renoir.
Eighty years after Delacroix's journey to North Africa, Matisse followed
the

same

path.

DE LA PORTE

121. (left)

DELACROIX,

22^ x 19^

in. (57-

122.

According

to the sale catalogue of a

Monsieur

Villot in 1865,
(ill.

signed and dated 1833

x 489 cm.)

DE LA PORTE

25! xzii

after the artist's death, the flowerpiece illustrated

in.

(65

x54

cm.)

two years

121) was painted at

house at Champrosay. The cataloguer added that it was the

and its success encouraged Delacroix to paint flowers. Having
touched on Delacroix's heritage, and then looking at this picture with its
particular brushwork, there is a temptation to wonder if he, in his turn,
was influenced by an artist he greatly admired, John Constable. In his
journal of 1H23, Delacroix wrote of seeing a Constable sketch for the second
his (Yillot's)
artist's first,

time

'admirable, quite incredibly

fine'.

DE LA PORTE,
111.

122

is

FRENCH
Henri Horace Roland (1724-1793)
work
apparently
only
most unusual example of De la Porte's

paralleled by a similarly treated orange plant at the Staatliche Kunsthalle,

Karlsruhe.

De

la

Porte, born at Paris,

where he died

in 1793,

was

a pupil

ofOlldry and also strongly influenced by Chardin. He was a regular Salon

exhibitor. Diderot's remark that he, like Anne Vallayer Coster, was a
'victim of Chardin' was unjust, although De la Porte is less independent
of Chardin's example than Vallayer Coster. The simplicity and realism
ill. 138. Having
would be guilty of the same fault

of ill. 122 obviously compares with Chardin's vase of flowers,

stressed the influence of Chardin, one

Hderol
of painting.

if

one

failed to

applaud the excellence of such

a beautiful piece

120. (opposite)

i8|x 13^

in.

CHAGALL,

(463

x336

signed

cm.)

97

DENYS

DEXYS, Jan

(active

dutch

1645-r. 1690)

c.

Confusion remains over the identity of this little-known Dutch painter,

active at Amsterdam and Delft. Warner (1928), who spells the name Denysz.,
illustrates an example with a worn signature reading 'Joa. Denies'. 111. 123

Museum

is

in the Fitzwilliam

is

obviously by the same

(Fairhaven Bequest) and, although unsigned,

The blue silk cloth on the marble ledge is

artist.

shot with red which the artist has flicked in with a few touches

among

the

white of the highlights. At the top of the bouquet, the yellow pigment of
the iris has largely deteriorated which slightly disturbs the composition by
failing to balance the three tulips. All the flowers are painted
velvety" finish contrasting

Bernt

illustrates a fruitpiece,

as Isaak Denies.

many

with the sharp highlights of the

artists

probably by the same

Each of the three paintings

influenced by

Van

artist,

silk

with

a soft

and

glass.

but gives the name

Denys among

cited places

the

Aelst.

DERAIN, Andre (1880-1954)

French
Audacity and discipline were the opposing forces which tugged so strongly
at the intelligence and sensitivity of Andre Derain. In the end he went his
own way, independently, like Bonnard.
What an impact the bubbling cauldron of turn-of-the-century Paris must
have had on the twenty-year-old Derain, the son of a well-to-do pastrycook
from Chatou, a small village on the river Seine to the west of the capital.
For all the expansive, radical talk of his friend Vlaminck, no one really
knew what was being corked up in this cauldron. Certainly Derain tasted
all the ingredients in the years before the World War I
Gaugin and Van
Gogh were gone but now better understood, and colour, primary colour,
seemed the intoxicating force, as Vlaminck had asserted it was. The two
young friends became the principal disciples of their older friend Matisse
in the Fauvism of those years. Derain met Picasso and flirted with Cubism.
Yet from his earliest years he had studied in the Louvre, read, and informed
himself of the history of art as ardently as he debated the issues of the
moment. He could not disguise from his acute mind the weaknesses he
saw in these different 'movements', and questioned the wisdom of his
youthful enthusiasms. After 1920 Derain reacted against much that had
gone before, and in becoming more conservative experimented with different
styles as mood and very varying subjects dictated. It was, perhaps, a gradual
evolution, undeterred by the opinion of others, rather than a conscious
;

123.

33

DENYS

x29 m.

(83-9x73-70111.)

decision or reaction in the ordinary sense.

III. 124, exhibited in 1967 in London from the collection of Mr Yul
Brynner, dates from this postwar period, c. 1925. In its simplicity and
comparatively sombre colours, impasto touches, vibrancy and mellowness,
it perfectly represents the less acclaimed work of this period, Matisse,
Courbet, Vlamink, Vollon, Manet, Monticelli - the old and the new upon

which Derain drew

freely

and individually.

No

one was more aware than

he that his path could not lead to satisfaction, neither for himself nor those
who had earlier looked to him for future greatness. Derain once said that
to find the wine that suits him; that a wine existed for every
'Have you found yours?' he was asked. The answer was 'No'.

everyone ought
124

DERAIN,
20

in.

signed

(44-4 x

palate.

508 cm.)

DESPORTES,
Louis

XIV

French
Alexandre Francois (1661-1743)
Queen Anne of England, and Jan Sobieski of Poland

of France,

head the impressive

list

of patrons of Alexandre Desportes. Born the son

of a farm worker, Desportes' painting gave him entry into the highest
He was apprenticed to a hotelier in Paris, but turned to
the study of painting with the Flemish animal painter Nicasius (also called

society in Europe.

Bernaerts).

98

When

his teacher died,

Desportes used only nature and

his

DIAZ

126. (right)

41x37

in.

DESPORTES

(105

x94

cm.)

own

genius as his guide. Indeed, critics remarked on the unusual manner

of painting nature studies

as court painter at

in the

open

air.

Warsaw he returned

After two very successful years

to Paris

where he was granted

royal lodgings at the Louvre.

In 17 1 2 he was well received in the court of

many commissions

Queen Anne and worked on

His son, Claude, who was

for the English aristocracy.

commissions as far
was best known for
and
Munich.
Desportes
away as Vienna, Rome, Tunis
pieces,
although he someand
hunting
trophy
his still-lifes with dead game
example
with
gun and drinking
times included flowers. 111. 126 is one such
open tulips,
The
striped
bottle arranged with dead game and a bouquet.
occur
again
in
ill.
from
Sevres.
anemones, and lilac are favourites which
125
acquired
the
Manufacture
by
This is one of a number of Desportes' paintings
de Porcelaines du Roy at the end of the eighteenth century.
Among twenty or more examples of Desportes' work in the Louvre is
also a successful artist, recorded that his father sent

in the same vein with superbly painted blooms.

Flowers play a much more significant part in the work of Desportes than
with his two famous contemporaries, de Largilliere and Oudry.

an outstanding canvas

FRENCH
Virgile de la Pena (1807-1876)
Bordeaux to Spanish emigres, Diaz was principally a landscape
painter. He formed part of the Barbizon School with Theodore Rousseau,
Jean Francois Millet and Charles Francois Daubigny, exhibiting regularly

DIAZ, Narcisse
Born

at

99

DIAZ

from 1834 to 1849. In 1864, Monet and Renoir visited

A friendship grew up between them and Diaz,
Diaz.
Barbizon and met
able to help him by paying for his paints and
was
aims,
admiring Renoir's
meeting with Diaz resulted in a lightening
his
that
brushes. Renoir said
in the Paris Salons

Although Diaz was principally occupied with forest

scenes and rather sombre landscapes, he also painted flowerpieces. His
and
earlv bouquets were fairly conventional in the manner of the Dutch
his
shows
and
work
later
is
a
111.
Paris.
127
Flemish artists who worked at
by
indicated
are
petals
of
the
outlines
move towards Impressionism. The
of his

own

palette.

bold, impasto touches of pure colour

lit

with a strong chiaroscuro

and the whole

is

rather romantically

effect.

German
(1706-1783)
here reRegina
Barbara
The elder daughter of Johann Israel Dietzsch,
who
musicians
and
presents an important family of painters, engravers
her
father,
her
flourished in eighteenth-century Nuremberg. As well as

DIETZSCH, Barbara Regina

brother Johann Christoph (17 10-1769) and her sister Margareta (1726-1795)
were all employed like Barbara at the Nuremberg court. Their work was

sought after by collectors in the Netherlands and England. 111. 128, a gouache
on parchment, shows her master}- of the medium. The sharp, hard finish
coupled with the symmetrical bouquet, dark background, stone arch and
displav of insects in the foreground is reminiscent of German art in the
previous century. The artist drew extensively for engravers and on her death

127.

DIAZ,

io| x 8^

in.

signed
(27-3 x 21-6 cm.)

over a hundred gouache paintings of birds, insects, and flowers were listed
128. (left)

DIETZSCH

20^ x i8|

in.

120. (above)

16J x

IOO

in.

(53 x 46 cm.)

DOGARTH
(41 x 28 cm.)

DOLCI

130.

DOLCI

2-\x

2 \\ in.

132. (right)

(70x55 cm.)

DRECHSLER,

signed and dated 1808

34i x 27I n (87-6 x 705 cm.)

>

in

the Griiner residence at

landscapes,

is

Nuremberg. The work of the

Bamberg.

family, including

well represented at

DOGARTH, Oscar Robert (1898-1961)

Oscar Dogarth carried on the

Austrian
our

style of early flower painting until

times, faithful to the traditions of the so-called

Old Vienna School

own

hundred

years earlier. In fact, ill. 129 seems to recall the even earlier style of a seventeenth-century bouquet. Just as Dogarth learned from his father Franz,
so he, in turn, instructed his son Erich Josef, born in 1927.

DOLCI,

Carlo (1616-1686)

Dolci was a Florentine painter trained

number of

Italian
in the

studio of Vignali.

He

painted

His contemporary
Baldinucci records that in his youth Dolci made several paintings of
fruit and flowers. The artist must have known the works of Justus Sustermans, Van Aelst, and Marseus van Schriek, who all visited Florence. His

large

vase of flowers,

ill.

religious subjects

130,

is

and

unsigned but

portraits.

fully

documented. The vase

decorated with the Medici coat-of-arms, surmounted by

1

DONGEN,
J

in

signed

30 X HH

<)

cm.)

It is

very probable that the picture was

made

is

a cardinal's hat.

for Cardinal

Leopold

(a

Medici) between 1665 and 1675.

101

"

DONGEN

DONGEN, Kees van (1877-1968)

The

dutch

precociously talented Kees van

Dongen

left his

native Holland for

and it is with the fashionable life of the French

most readily associated. Van Dongen, who assumed

Paris at the age of twenty,

is-.

capital that his

work

is

French nationality in the 1920s, painted portraits, elegant scenes of the

boulevard, circus, and cabaret, with unerringly brilliant draughtsmanship.
His humour varies from the witty barb to mocking ridicule like a cross
between Toulouse-Lautrec and Dufy, but without attaining the greatness
of the former nor the charm of the latter. Each of the three young artists,
Derain, Vlaminck and Van Dongen, who exhibited at the Salon d'Automne
in 1905, under the leadership of Matisse, went his own way because Fauvism
was a phase rather than a movement. As with Derain, there may be disappointment that the early promise of Van Dongen, who also later exhibited
with the German Expressionists, was not fulfilled by the typically superficial
works described. Yet no one would now deny his gifts nor the importance
of his part in the formative years of Fauvism. 111. 131, of yellow chrysanthemums in a glazed brown jug, is a very satisfying example of his art:
the colour of the Fauve, a hint of the Expressionist, in a piece of pure painting
where flowers, as the subject, impose a not unwelcome relief from the
ingredient of amusing commentary.
;

^t^.**.
133.

DUFY,

15^x15!

in.

signed
(38-7x38-70111.)

DRECHSLER, Johann Baptist (1756-1811)

Johann Drechsler, both by the merits of his own work and
a

founding

among

the

figure,
first to

is

;i?

7*.

ji^i
1

DUFY,

%' jgJH

'.

of the Viennese school.

a long period

more 'Baroque' compositions of

the later eighteenth century.

French

Raoul (1877-1953)

Raoul Dufy began

long career in his native

the inspiration of Boudin's

work which he saw

Normandy,
in the

ELI

)9| /

102

jojj in.

(101 x

785 cm.)

painting under

museum
came

at

Le Havre.

back, as

it

were,

and gave the same witty, elegant commentary

on Deauville as Constantin Guys had made on Paris society of the Second
Empire. Of course, Dufy was not limited to Deauville; his sophisticated,
witty gaze fell as readily on Paris, Boston, or Arizona. If Matisse was the
decisive underlying influence in his calligraphic style, Duty's light-hearted
gaiety is his own. 111. 133 dates from the 1920s, and the gouache medium
is particularly appropriate to Dufy's style. He often dabs colour on first
to the pleasures of the coast

134.

was

Petter, Hartinger

After briefly sampling Fauvism, the Cezannesque, he

~1

He

by an important group of artists including

and Dogarth.
Starting at the age of sixteen painting flowers in the Vienna porcelain
factory, Drechsler rose to be Director of Porcelain Design at the Vienna
Academy in 1807. At the same time he established himself as a master of
conventional flower painting. Among the earliest examples are a pair of
1783 at the Muzeum Narodowe, Warsaw, but the majority of his canvases
and watercolours are dated between 1790 and 1809.
111. 132, a notable canvas seen in 1970 in London, dates from 1808.
Drechsler was aware of Van Huysum, but there is no direct similarity,
indeed Drechsler's softer finish on canvas and quite distinctive palette
single him out immediately from the contemporary Dutch and Flemish
artists indebted to Van Huysum. Individual colours are bright and strong,
freely juxtaposed without the attention to patterns of colour found in others.
Purples of all shades are scattered through the bouquet: the plums on the
marble ledge, the lavender poppy, the lilac, even a butterfly's wings. A
brilliant red amaryllis to the upper left holds its own. Drechsler's bouquet
is elaborate, but well controlled and naturalistic in forgoing the strong
diagonals of

artist

take a specialist interest in flower painting, a lead which

was followed over

Wegmeyr, Nigg,

**

an outstanding

Austrian
his position as

EHRET

and puts the outline into

in patches,

the reverse of the conventional

it,

approach, Arthritis, as with Renoir, overshadowed Dufy's later years, but

suffering never dulled his pleasure-loving senses nor caused
his

dictum, 'my eyes were

made

EHRET, Georg Dionysius

No

firm dividing line can be

to efface that

is

him

to forget

ugly'.

German

(1708-1770)

drawn between the

and those of the botanical draughtsman.

made

which

Many

skills

of the flower painter

oil painters, like

Marrel,

individual flower studies as a preliminary stage in the composition

of a flowerpiece, and these studies were works of art in their

Ehret ranks among the outstanding botanical

illustrators,

own

right.

but his name

is

found in dictionaries of painters. Who would not be delighted to

frame and hang such perfect flower studies as Ehret's mauve and white
rarely

striped tulip

(ill.

Although the

139)?
details of his career are

known from an

autobiographical

sketch of 1758, Ehret has been more recently brought to life by Wilfrid
Blunt. Georg Dionysius Ehret was born in Germany, but since he spent
the most productive and successful years of his

life in

England, he has been

Handel, as an English artist. He was born to a humble market

in 1708 and as a young boy learned drawing from
his father, when not working as a gardener. Soon he was employed as a
gardener by the Margrave of Baden, where his delight and preoccupation
adopted,

like

gardener

at

Heidelberg

with drawing eventually resulted in his dismissal. Ehret

now abandoned

gardening for drawing and worked for various patrons with some success.
During the early 1730s, he travelled extensively in Europe, making drawings

and examining the plant

life

of France, Holland and England. At this "time

he was independent, without the backing of a patron, although

a friend in

135.

ELIAERTS,

signed

35|x 2 8in. (90x71 cm.)

to buy his work. When he was

Holland he sought an introduction to the great Linnaeus, a meeting that
was rewarded with a commission to prepare drawings for his Hortus
Cliffortianus published in 1737. In 1736 Ehret journeyed to England for a
second time and settled, marrying the sister-in-law of Philip Miller, a
famous plantsman and author of The Gardener's and Florist's Dictionary,
dated 1724 and the earliest work of its kind. Through Miller, Ehret met the
celebrated Sir Hans Sloane, founder of the British Museum, and also made
the acquaintance of the Duchess of Portland, staunch friend and patroness
for the rest of his life. Dr Mead, another patron, was a keen botanist and
the 'Dodecatheon Nieadia painted by Halszel (ill. 167) was named after him.
Among collections of Ehret's drawings, that of the Victoria and Albert
Museum, London, is outstanding. 111. 139, from this collection, is an excellent example on vellum dating from his finest years. As is the case
with most of his drawings, the study is signed and dated. The mauve and

Nuremberg, Dr Trew, was always ready

in

white tulip with

its

bluish-green leaves

is

a perfect

blend of scientific truth

and an artistic composition of flower and foliage. The sharply

volumes
outlined
suggest a complete master of his watercolour and bodycolour medium. Another example in the same collection is the famous
drawing of an auricula, 'The Duke of Cumberland', dated 1740 and
to nature

affectionately

known

to gardeners as a 'dusty miller'

because of the white

floury substance on the leaves and petals, so well suggested by Ehret. Just
as

seventeenth-century

artists

made preparatory studies of flowers for

made drawings before painting
The Natural History Museum, London,

inclusion in a painted bouquet, so Ehret

his finished studies

has a

on vellum.

number of notebooks, once

the property of Sir Joseph Banks,

filled

with spontaneous sketches of the highest quality.

As a result of his success, Ehret was lionized by the aristocracy and

gave instruction, in the artist's words, to 'the highest nobility in England'.

136.

ELLIGER,

10 x

-]\ in.

signed and dated 1653

(25-4 x iq-

cm.)

103

ELI

ELI, Johann Heinrich Christian (1800-1881)

little is known of this nineteenth-century

Very

Brunswick.

He

artist

German
who was born at

painted porcelain at the factory in Fiirstenburg and flower

Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum at Brunswick. One

an arrangement of dahlias and hollyhocks on a stone shelf; the other, ill.
134, is a thoroughly archaic and fanciful work in the format of a seventeenth-

paintings hang in the

is

century painting.
iris

and

lilies

It is

not unreasonable to think that the prominence of the

revive their traditional place as attributes of the

and that by the same token the passion flowers point

Madonna

to the ultimate destiny

of the Christ Child.

ELIAERTS, Jean

Francois (1761-1848)
flemish
As his gallicized Christian names suggest, Eliaerts was one of the colonv
of Dutch and Flemish artists active at Paris. Having studied at the Antwerp
Academy, he spent much of his life in France, exhibiting at the Paris Salon
from 1810 until his death in 1848. 111. 135 brings to mind Van Dael but the
little

bird

which was

War

is

rather individual and appears again in an example of 1810

in the possession of

Knoedler and Co.,

New York,

before

World

II.

Swedish
ELLIGER, Ottmar (1633-1679)
Ottmar Elliger was a cosmopolitan flower and still-life painter, born at
Gothenburg in Sweden, the son of a doctor. He was sent to Antwerp and
there he became a follower of Seghers whose style he took to Germany as a
court painter to the Elector of Brandenburg.

ENNEKING, signed and dated

I2 i x 9z m (3 8 x 242 cm.)
137.

five. Elliger also

1879

I-

worked

at

Hamburg and

at

He

died at Berlin aged forty-

Amsterdam where,

in 1660,

he married the sister of the Dutch flower painter, Walscappelle.

111. 136 is one of a pair of small early panels signed with a monogram and
dated 1653, tightly finished and brilliantly coloured in the manner of one
of the Bosschaert children. This example with its exceptionally light back-

ground must be considered outstanding; later works on canvas, as in the

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, are more representative of the Seghers influence
and all other examples appear to have dark backgrounds.
Elliger also painted flowers on a ledge as in the picture in the Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford, a small panel with very similar roses to a comparable
painting of 1662 in Gothenburg, where there are several examples. His
fondness for insects is apparent in most of his flower paintings.

ENNEKING, John J.

(1841-1916)

American

Europe on an American painter is demonstrated in two paintings by John Enneking of Boston. A still-life of 1869
shows fruit surrounding a glass bowl filled with honeycombs. The honeycombs dub the work American, but even without them the painting could
be placed in the right school on stylistic grounds.
111. 137, of 1879, was painted after Enneking had returned after four
years in Europe in 1876. Clear bright colours and homely presentation
are superseded by atmospheric sophistication in the painting, just as

One

instance of the impact of

straightforward edibles have been replaced by delicate roses in a silver

vase. Like his landscapes, which were his principal subject, Enneking's
138. (opposite)

17! * '4i

in.

flowers reflect a blend of Barbizon or pre-Impressionist influence rather

CHARD IN

than full-bodied Impressionism.

(438 x 36 2 cm.)

139. (overfed left) EHRET, sinned and dated 1744

20^ x 14] in. (52 7 x 362 cm.)

140. (overleaf right)

2o\ x 16J

104

in.

GEL, f.

(525 x 41 cm.)

1638

ENSOR, James (1860-1949)

bek;un

James Ensor has been recognized

An isolated and
as the precursor of much of twentieth-century art. Born at Ostend, where
his English father and Belgian mother kept a souvenir shop, Ensor rareh
entirely original artist,

ES

141. (opposite)

ig^x 23J

in.

142. (right)

FANTIN-LATOUR,

(48-9 x

ENSOR,

44ix 3 8iin.

(113 x

signed and dated 1890

603 cm.)

signed and dated 1883

975 cm.)
left his

home town,

apart from three years spent as a student at Brussels.

controversial artist in his

own

lifetime,

it

is

now acknowledged

that

Ensor's best work was achieved before 1900 with his 'Entry of Christ
into Brussels' of 1888, his masterpiece. Fantastic masks and grotesque
figures and skeletons are the subjects generally associated with Ensor, but
ill. 142 is also an early work, painted when the artist was only twenty-three.
Although obviously different from the flowerpieces of his Flemish predecessors, the arrangement is a traditional display of flowers reminiscent, not of
his French contemporaries, but of Courbet and Delacroix. Soon, even
Ensor's still-lifes were to suggest hidden symbols of mystery and violence
by the addition of humourless carnival masks, paintings that were to impress

the pioneer Expressionists like Nolde.

ES, Jacob Foppens van

The

long

life

(c. 1

596-1666)

flemish

of Jacob van Es was probably spent in his native Antwerp

where he became a guild member in 1617, married, and died in 1666.

Although the naturalistic appearance of his flowers was praised in a contemporary notation, pure flowerpieces are very rare in the work of Van
Es, which consists principally of rather austere, simply composed still-lifes.
A typical example is at the Ashmolean, Oxford, and there is an outstanding
fruitpiece at the Pinacoteca, Turin.
111. 143 is a comparatively larger panel among the four or five which are
the only published flower bouquets presently known. Like the still-lifes

of Van Es,

it

is

distinguished in two ways: the restraint of the composition

IO()

ES

143.

ES, signed

22 x i6f

in.

(56 x

415 cm.

and the cool refinement of the colouring. Subtle shades of grey, pink,
yellow, and green, all in a cool overall tonality, are the characteristics of
Van Es's palette. Thus, if this bouquet of roses, another at the Musee
des Beaux-Arts, Strasbourg, and a small panel of three roses and an iris
(Lugt Collection, Paris) were placed together, their continuity would be
immediately apparent.
When Van Es does add flowers to a fruitpiece, they are usually of the
same complete simplicity, like the two carnations in a glass next to a bowl
of plums in a small panel at Capetown (Michaelis Collection). Van Es
painted his flowers with a firm, sure touch giving them a convincing volume
and standing against a plain background, with few frills, recalling Seghers,
but the tonality of

Van Es

is

so distinctive as to

make

it

a strictly limited

comparison.

EVERBROECK,
A

flemish
Antwerp Guild in 1661,
Amsterdam. His garlands are usually composed

Frans van

(c.

1638-after 1672)

pupil of Joris van Son, Everbroeck was in the

and by 1667 was working

in

of fruits but the rare flower ones, such as

Agnes, place Everbroeck

10

among

the

ill.

144 of 1668 surrounding St

numerous followers of Seghers. Bernt

144.

EYKRBROI

47 x 38

in. (1 i(jx

K, signed and dated 1668

q6-6 cm.)

FANTIN-LATOUR

states that

he painted the occasional very rare pure flowerpieces without

citing an example,

FAES,

and none

known

is

Pieter (1750-1814)

flemish

Even by the standards of the

subject, there

information about Pieter Faes,

111.

to the present writer.

who was

145, an outstanding example,

is

a surprising

is

a pupil at the

absence of any

Antwerp Academy.

signed and dated panel of 1790 with

the notation 'a Anvers (at Antwerp) which Faes often added to his work.

Like his Dutch contemporary Van Os, his style follows the lead of Van
Huysum and he also painted fruit and flower compositions of which an
example, dated 1794, is at the Stedelijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,
Bruges. In ill. 145 it is the purple and yellow auriculas next to deep red
ones which give the strongest colour accents.

FANTIN-LATOUR,

Ignace Henri Jean Theodore

(1836-1904)
The question of

the best flower painter

FRENCH

who

is

is

palpably argumentative

and inconclusive. Change the question to who deserves the title of bestflower painter and all is surely simplified: Henri Fantin-Latour.
For over a century his work has been admired and collected throughout
the English-speaking world. Leaving aside his native France, it is difficult
to think of a significant public gallery without an example of Fantin's

known

work.

Whether Fantin-Latour would be pleased

flower painter

is

to

be called the best-known

very doubtful. Although interested in literature,

it

was

Fantin's intense passion for music which most inspired him. After his last

away from familiar

was to Bayreuth in
1876 for the first performance of his great hero Wagner's The Ring. Fantin
longed to be acclaimed for the misty scenes which he painted as they
floated into his imagination under the stimuli of Wagner, Berlioz, and
Schumann. 'Never', he wrote in a letter, 'have I had more ideas in my
head and yet I am obliged to paint flowers. While doing so I think of
Michelangelo
in front of the peonies and roses.' Obliged he was because
'though the mind may dwell in the Dusk of the Gods, the stomach knows
visit

to

England

surroundings

that the

in

in the

dawn of

1864, his only recorded journey

remaining forty years of

necessity

is

his life

145.

FAES,

215 x 16

in.

signed and dated 1790

(54X 407 cm.)

not far away'. Perhaps he inherited this

romantic strain from his Russian mother. However,

his father, a

modest

painter at Grenoble, saw that his training as an artist began promptly.

Yet from 1850, when the fourteen-year-old Fantin started to study in Paris,
he seemed unsettled, although a very conscientious worker. Staying neither
with Lecoq de Boisbaudran, nor with Courbet, nor the Ecole des Beaux\rts,

own

he took to copying the old masters

the Louvre, both for his

in

living. One of his commissions for a Veronese copy was for a Mr Beecher Stowe, brother-in-law
of the famous Harriet whose momentous novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, had

instruction and as a

appeared

means of making

in 1852.

Copying

in the

Early on, he met

Louvre was

Manet

pastime for Fantin.

he became close friends, joining

a consistently fortunate

there with

whom

him

in the Salon des Refuses in 1863, but never later interesting himself in
Impressionism nor, really, in any 'ism'. (In the City Museum and Art

Birmingham, there is, in addition to two flowerpieces, an 1859

which was refused by the Salon of that year.)
In England, Fantin met Edwin Edwards, a lawyer who was a keen amateur
painter and Royal Academy exhibitor. Like Whistler, who had persuaded
Fantin to visit England, Edwards was drawn to the quiet, retiring and
impecunious young Frenchman and his work. Gradually Edwards made
Gallery,

portrait of his sister

II

FANTIN-LATOUR

146.

FANTIN-LATOUR, signed

24I x 29^

147.

in. (62-9

FANTIN-LATOUR,

22 x 25!

in.

(55-9

and dated 1866

x 74-9 cm.)

signed and dated 1874

x 64-8 cm.)

him known in England. Two years later, Fantin was back again and always
remembered his happy days at Sunbury, near London, staying with the
Kdwards. Their portrait of 1875 is in the Tate Gallery, London.
Fantin's attention began to turn more and more to flowerpieces which
were finding buyers in England, even if the Parisian public was uninterested.
In 1869 Whistler wrote from London saying how well the flowerpieces

12

FANTIN-LATOUR

were

selling.

Two years later Edwards travelled to Paris and

took to

London

available flower paintings. His

works were to appear at the Royal Academy

and elsewhere, and in 1883 Fantin was elected a member of the Institute
of Painters in Oil in England. Before he died there were paintings hanging
as far away as Melbourne. Fantin ventured to exhibit a still-life for the
first time at the Paris Salon of 1866. This picture is now in the National
Gallery of Art, Washington (ill. 146) - what a debut! Like most things in
the Chester Dale Collection, it is superb. However many Fantins one
may see, this early example remains in the mind with the red and white
of the camellias, the blue book and white china against the open oranges.
The simplicity seems to suggest that Fantin, like Manet in the 1860s,
was inspired by Chardin. He used oranges in another painting of the
same year, now in Toledo Museum for Art, Ohio. Although one would
not for a moment suggest an equality between Fantin and the eighteenthcentury genius Chardin, it is easy to see why the painter Jacques-Emile
Blanche later wrote, 'How much his canvases are those of a grandson of
Chardin'. Fantin's brushwork became looser and he worked the background
very freely on occasions. Placing the bouquet against grey cardboard as a
backdrop, he first put the background all over the canvas, using a scraper
in the wet paint to produce his characteristic surface. 111. 147, radiant pink
and yellow chrysanthemums of 1874, has a particularly thin and flickering
background, with an unusual repoussoir in the foreground blooms. There
are other examples of Fantin at the Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum,
together with the many famous paintings which Sir William Burrel, a
pioneer collector of French nineteenth-century painting in the United
Kingdom, gave to Glasgow.
Two years after the 1874 chrysanthemums, Fantin married Victoria
Dubourg whom he had met, need one add, copying in the Louvre. Manet
was a witness at the wedding. His marriage brought great happiness and
he settled down to a very quiet life of work and domestic bliss. Although he
was active as a portraitist and the group portraits, especially the 'Atelier
aux Battgnolles' in the Louvre, are famous, it was flowers that increasingly
claimed his attention. A year would pass when he painted nothing else.
His work as a lithographer from the 1880s was intrinsically important, and
all

FERGUSON,

148.

20^ x 16

Redon studied lithography with him.

Whatever his feelings about the necessity to paint flowers in this exacting
way year after year, his instinct and training would never allow him to
slacken his efforts; although there is some unevenness in quality throughout
basket of roses in the National Gallery,

London

Roses are the flowers with which Fantin's name

here
to

a perfect

is

imagine

signed

x 40-7 cm.)

^'

he was simply incapable of painting a poor flowerpiece.

his large oeuvre,

The

in. (52-

example of

his

unique

(ill.

will

141),

is

dated 1890.

always be linked and

ability to paint

them.

time when the rose has not been popular, but

It is difficult
its

glory was

increased in the nineteenth century. In 1760 Linnaeus enumerated twenty

varieties.

century

later there

were twelve thousand.

again, 'Fantin studied each flower, each petal,

were

human

face ...

dissects, analyses,

it

is

its

To

grain,

quote Blanche

its tissue,

as if

an individual flower, not simply a type.

and reconstructs, and

is

it

He

not just content to communicate

an impression'. Refinement and elegance never triumphed over poetic

charm and the twin

Latour

in their

By the rH^os

forces of

Romanticism and Realism always held Fantin-

sway.

awakening to Fantin's flower paintwords about him must rest, not with this English pen,
but with the eloquent Leonce Bencdite writing in 1899:
the Paris collectors were

ings and the closing

this decorator of fairylands, this organizer of apotheoses, disdainful of

the nature of earth, of the essence of trees, of verisimilitude, of the time of

149.

FLEGEL,

9 x 6|

in.

(229 x

signed
17-

cm.)

113

'

FANTIN-LATOUR

day proved himself to be the most attentive, the most conscientious observer
in grasping the secret of life through the fragile and divine pulp of flowers.
He was respectfully moved by this substance woven in light, as if in front of
the transparent and animated marble of the body of a woman. In a warm
atmosphere, against the light depths of grey backgrounds, the gloriously
blooming roses, the proud dahlias, the lascivious carnations, the dishevelled
chrysanthemums, the sonorous tulips with their metallic brilliance, and the
beautiful gold and red fruit, amber-toned, shining or velvety, come gently
to life with a profound vegetative existence, under the caress of this muted
chiaroscuro, which seems to be the emanation of their mysterious souls.

FERGUSON, William Gowe (1632-1695)

Born
to

Ferguson studied

in Scotland,

France and

sidence at

On

his

way he

British

own country

visited

Utrecht and

The Hague, where he remained from

to tradition,

Most of

Italy.

in his

before journeying
later

took up re-

1661 to 1668. According

he paid his rent there by supplying the landlord with paintings.

with dead birds in the manner of Van

his paintings are still-lifes

Aelst, but

ill.

148

is

a rare signed flowerpiece

dominated by viburnum and

curiously rounded roses.

FLEGEL, Georg

German

(1563-1638)

Georg Flegel is predominantly a painter of still-lifes of different foods;

paintings whose individuality is such that it would be misleading to compare them with contemporary Netherlandish treatments of the same subject.
Flegel very occasionally introduced flowers into the panels.
150.

FORNENBURGH,

97 x -\

in. (24-1

signed and dated 1625

x 18-4 cm.)

**

bouquet

'.

<

111.

140

is

the

where a complete flower bouquet

quite
different
from those still-lifes where
dominates the painting. This is
he simply added one or two blooms in a glass which are no more than a
detail, as in Aschaffenburg and the Narodni Galerie, Prague, for example.
Olmiitz, where Flegel was born, is in present-day Czechoslovakia, but by
1597, Flegel had become a burgher of Frankfurt-am-Main, which suggests
that he had been living there for some time previously. He probably went
to Frankfurt, like Daniel Soreau, to find religious tolerance and apparently
settled in the city until his death in 1638. There he associated with the
Soreau workshop, centred at nearby Hanau, and developed a friendship
with the Flemish Valckenborch brothers. Among Flegel's distinguished
patrons were the Archduke Ernst of the Tyrol, and Maximilian of Bavaria.
Flegel was the teacher of Marrel and had three sons who followed his
profession. At Speyer there is a 'meal-piece' with a vase of mixed flowers
and a parrot in the foreground - another rare instance of a complete flower
outstanding instance of his doing

in Flegel's

work.

It

so,

cannot, however, be equated with the stature

of the masterly example from the Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart.

Flegel was responsible for an important album of watercolour studies of
flowers which originally contained

no

leaves, but

owing

to

war damage,

numbered and some are signed with

Flegel's monogram, as in ill. 149. Three of these leaves are dated 1627,
1629, and 1630. He also illuminated a prayer book for Maximilian now in
the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek at Munich. Cut flowers, insects, cherries,
decorate the margins in the traditional manner particularly reminiscent of
Georg Hoefnagel (see Introduction).
only seventy-nine remain. These are

151.

FORTE

30^x39]

in.

(77 x 101 cm.)

FORNENBURGH, Johannes Baptista van

(active 1608-f. 1649)

dutch

cover a period from

at
influence of De
early
the
mentions
correctly
62
Van
Gelder
1608 to 1
1.
which
an important
niche
of
in
a
flowers
Fornenburgh's
)
in
1
2
Gheyn (see p.
1
Active

114

The Hague, Fornenburgh's known works

FYT

example was exhibited at Messrs De Boer in Amsterdam in 1970. In the

1 620s Fornenburgh worked closely in the manner of the Bosschaerts. His
monogram I.B.F. was in pre-World War II times identified as that of
Johannes Bosschaert (see p. 60) with 'F' for fecit. 111. 150, of 1625, is his
best-known work, a little panel of good quality clearly illustrating his place
among the followers of the Bosschaerts. The midnight blue and white
columbine against the blood red Turk's cap lily are distinctive.
This notable example of a minor but rare master was formerly in the
Gemeentemuseum, The Hague: their decision to sell it must be among
the most inexplicable made.

FORTE, Luca

(active

Forte belongs to the

c.

first

1630-1670)

Italian

generation of Neapolitan painters of

still-life.

known of his origins but he may have spent some of his formative
years in Rome, a city still dominated by the spirit of Caravaggio. It is
recorded that Luca Forte was the master of Porpora. Two paintings in

Little

is

the Molinari Pradelli Collection, Bologna, are

of fruits, some of which recur in

ill.

The

151.

filled

with a great variety

quinces, apples, pomegranate

and lemon are arranged on the simple wooden shelf in the

so popular with the followers of Caravaggio.
favourite flower with the earlier Italian

Cagnacci flowerpiece,

in the

simple blooms

still-life

Luca

The

manner

frieze-like

tuberose seems to be a

painters, for

it is

also

dominant

its few
handled with great delicacy which relieves the rather

is

heavy and crowded

ill.

96.

Forte's glass vase with

fruit.
152.

FROMANTIOU, Hendrick de (1633/4-after

Born

at

Maastricht, Fromantiou, whose

name

dutch
1695)
suggest French extraction,

He was at The Hague in

1658 and

painter to the court at Berlin in 1670. In 1682 he travelled to

London

is

apparently well recorded in his travels.

FROMANTIOU, signed

33i x 26!

in.

(84 x 68 cm.)

1684 to Danzig; he died at Berlin near the end of the century. He

must also have lived at Amsterdam because there he married the daughter

and

in

of the painter Philips

As

Wouwerman.

a still-life painter

of Van Aelst. Yet

of elegant dead birds, Fromantiou follows the style

Fromantiou is impressively individual.

copper panel of 1668 in the
Leegenhoek Collection, Paris, which was exhibited at Ghent in i960 and
is illustrated in Bol (1969). 111. 1 52 is a flowerpiece in the Herzog Anton Ulrich
Museum, Brunswick, with the same good qualities. The rose in the centre
is similar in style to one in the Paris example. It is reasonable to assume
that the Brunswick canvas, ill. 152, is later than the Paris example of 1668
and dates from the artist's years in Germany.
Although these two flowerpieces are the only ones at present traceable,
Fromantiou is clearly an accomplished flower painter whose career was

Of

in his flowerpieces

these, the best

known

is

a beautiful little

not confined to Holland.

FYT, Jan

flemish

(1611-1661)

Jan Fyt painted the same

Snyders, in which flowers are included with varying degrees of promtype of all-inclusive still-lifes as his master,

inence. But unlike Snyders, he occasionally painted pure flowerpieces,

both garlands and bouquets. These are few and

many would

place his

animal pictures, particularly of dogs, and his game pieces above his achieve-

ments

as a still-life

and flower painter. Fyt was born

joined the guild in 1629, and spent

\

le

then

111.

at

made

153

is

prolonged stay

in

bouquet, seen

in

a rare

Laren, Holland,

in

1958.

two years

Rome
is

Antwerp

in 161 1,

(1633 and 1634).

before returning to Antwerp.

London

What

at

at Paris

in 197 1, and previously exhibited

immediately striking is the sheer

153.

FYT,

31$ x 27

in.

signed
(80 x 68-6 cm.)

115

FYT

Br

^St*
..*,:

*
.

'

&^ii-t

im*
**

W^mJ^^k
-TTlil

in

i*PW

_^
painterly verve typical of the great

teacher Snyders. Yet with Fyt there

and he

far

Antwerp masters, not

is

least

of Fyt's

greater sensitivity and refinement,

154.

FYT,

462 x lli

''Noli

me Tangere\ signed

m (n8x
-

197 cm.)

surpasses his master as a painter of flowers.

154 is a famous canvas over six feet wide in the Musees Royaux des
Beaux-Arts, Brussels. Fyt's handling has naturally broadened in a work
of such proportions and if a small detail were seen in a photograph, as in a
111.

programme of long ago, one might be tempted to think it the

brushwork of a nineteenth-century master like Delacroix or even Courbet.
The red stocks and the red and yellow carnations stand out against the
dark brown rocks, with a miniature waterfall tumbling onto red carnations
strewn on the ground - the same earthenware jug, filled with different
flowers and tipped rather dramatically away from the spectator, appears
in a conventional-sized canvas in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
(Marley Bequest). If the date of this canvas were known it could be said
television

with certainty that Fyt's use of a landscape setting, with highly picturesque
details like the waterfall,

work,

''Noli

me Tangere\

was the
is

result of his Italian stay.

at first inexplicable until

The

title

of this

one looks closely into

the middle distance and sees the figures in the traditional postures of that

when still-life had not

become an independent genre and the artist had to

subject. In this respect, Fyt harks back to the period

entirely freed itself to

however nominally, a traditional subject to which the flowers and

were theoretically subordinate.
Fyt's travels to Prance and Italy were a major factor in diffusing the
innovations of Antwerp, the home of the opulent, spontaneously magnificent
still-life, throughout Europe.
retain,
fruit

[l6

55. (opposite

28J x 36]

in.

above)

156. (opposite below)

73 x 92

in.

MATISSE,

signed and dated 1024

(73 x 92 cm.)

GAUGUIN,

(i86x 234 cm.)

signed and dated

889

GAUGUIN

GALLE, Hieronymus
Born

(1626-after 1679)

flemish

Antwerp, Galle was registered in the guild at about the age of

twenty. He painted flowers, fruit and game subjects and, in one instance,
a vanitas with flowers. This vanitas belonged to the Kahenko collection,
which included a notable Savery landscape, and has remained untraced
since the Russian revolution. Hairs reads the date after the signature as
1 68-, whereas it appears from the photograph to read 166-: a thoroughly
at

art-historical point.

On the evidence of

ill. 1

58, a fine panel of 1 643,

Hieronymus Galle achieved

noteworthy place in the wake of Seghers by the age of seventeen. This

bouquet is clearly more elaborate than Seghers, but the richly assured
brushwork lifts Galle above the mundane Seghers entourage. His garlands
a

are less distinguished.

GALLET, Jean-Baptiste (1820-1848)

The most

French

short-lived flower painter recorded in the present

volume was

Lyons in 1820 he died at the age of twentybasket of flowers was exhibited at the Salon of 1850, having been
completed after Gallet's death by Saint-Jean. 111. 159, of 1846, knows

Jean-Baptiste Gallet; born at

eight.

mind

the artist's delicacy and brings to

158.

GALLE,

27 x 20

in.

signed and dated 1643

508 cm.)

(68-6 x

the format of the Borely,

ill.

71

markedly superior. No doubt Gallet was associated with the

silk industry of his native Lyons. There is also an example of his work at
the Musee de l'Ain, Bourg-en-Bresse.
to

which

it is

GALLIS,
111.

160

is

dutch

Pieter (1633-1697)

a rare, signed flowerpiece

amateur painter specializing

by Pieter

in still-life,

not surprisingly, a similarity to Rootius

town

to the north of Amsterdam.

fritillaries at

Gallis, active at

Hoorn

as an

game and landscape. There

who was

also active at

is,

Hoonn, a

With the exception of the spring-flowering

high-summer bouquet with

the top, Gallis here presents a

wheat and barley

ears, a detail to

GARZONI, Giovanna

which the

artist

seems attached.

(1600-1670)

Giovanna Garzoni was celebrated

for her fine portrait miniatures.

Ascoli Piceno, she spent the early part of her

life in

Italian
Born at

Florence. In 1630 she

Naples and by 1651 was in Rome, a member of the Academy of

St Luke. The gouaches of fruit and flowers all appear to date from her
period in Florence. 111. 161 is one of a large group and, in contrast to the
other Italian painters, is a true botanical study with truth to nature being
more important than artistic harmony.
Compared with her usual small-scale paintings this drawing is quite
large and octagonal, although the handling still retains a precise miniatur-

moved

ist

to

technique.

GAUGUIN, Paul (1848-1903)

Thanks to Somerset Maugham, among others,
Gauguin is to be transported in our imagination
islands. Familiarity has not
trary, countless facets
159

M.I.I.

25J

in.

(83

157. (opposite)

17I

signed and dated 1H4O

x65

cm.)

GHEYN,

(58

x44 cm.)

signed and dated 1612

dimmed

French
for us to think of Paul
to the exotic

the appeal of the story.

of modern urban

life,

South Sea

On

the con-

or rather the desire to escape

from its pressures, serve only to intensify our fleeting fancies to emulate
Gauguin's search for a Polynesian Utopia. Is it not perverseness therefore
to choose an example painted in Brittany in 1889 and not in Tahiti? No,
because in reality the impact of Tahiti was not vital to the art of Gauguin
except for new subjects and, whatever he may have imagined, the merits
of this famous painting (ill. 156) could not have been enhanced by Tahiti
or anywhere else.
119

GAUGUIN

Long

before

Gauguin

actually set sail in 1891 for his

he dreamed and spoke of working there.

childhood years in Peru, his voyages as a

He reminded

first

stay in Tahiti

his friends of his

sailor, and how recently he had

been to Panama - there reduced to digging on the canal - and painted in
Martinique in 1887. His appearance and behaviour easily convinced manv
that he was indeed a Primitive, but not in the way he intended. In retrospect
the inevitability of his departure seems to make itself repeatedly felt in his
work before he went. His formation was complete.
Flowers and still-life were often painted by Gauguin from his earliest
'amateur' years, a choice of subject which no doubt came to form part of

predominant theme of Impressionism.

Gauguin's dissatisfaction with Impressionism, which he had collected and
interpreted himself under Pissarro, was part of a general movement in the
1880s. His objection, that all had been sacrificed to the pleasures of the eye
to the detriment of the spirit, was bound to come sooner or later. Cezanne
tackled the problem in his own classic, profound manner. Writers sought
to break new ground with verbal pictures. Cezanne was unquestionably
inspirational to Gauguin but their solutions were independent; Cezanne
would not have relished the suggestion that he was responsible for the
'Chinese images' of Gauguin. Synthesism was the dull name given to
Gauguin's innovations at Pont-Aven intended to simplify line and colour
so that they could, without freeing themselves from the subject entirely,
form a decorative and expressive pattern. It was not enough to describe
the subject the idea or emotion suggested by the subject must be portrayed.
Naturally this is more easily seen in Gauguin's figurative subjects than in
a reaction against landscape, the

the present flowerpiece. Sometimes the subjective feelings aroused in the

painter are too personal to be readily conveyed to the onlooker.

used symbols, and

and, although
different

later

much

Gauguin

explanatory inscriptions, in a more explicit way

hailed by the Symbolists, his imagination

is

totally

from Redon's.

Of all Gauguin

none conveys more vividly than ill. 156 the

had been fulfilled without
leaving civilization. It could have been painted in Tahiti. The division of
the canvas, in this case by the coral pink shelf and glowing yellow background, is very characteristic. Even the basket of flowers in the Nasjonalgalleriet, Oslo, does not challenge the splendour of these bouquets. Very
unusual is the inclusion of a Japanese print. Japanese prints had been
shown at the Cafe Le Tabourin in 1887, and in 1889, the World Exhibition
brought Central and South American art to Paris. Van Gogh was a constant
enthusiast. Degas, who had been among the first enthusiasts of Lejaponisme,
understood better than most the work of Gauguin and collected it. Gauguin
flowerpieces,

feeling that his longing for another existence

160.

GALLIS,

2C^x

signed

15 in. (52 x 38

cm.

absorbed these influences so deeply that he may not have been fully aware
of their importance himself and, if he were, was not the one to acknowledge
them by the inclusion of print. Probably the whole arrangement was
spontaneously arranged and the print was simply to hand, pinned with
others around the studio walls at Le Pouldu (near Pont-Aven). Brushwork,
line, spacing, a new perspective, are full of sublety in this famous example.
The jug on the right is a ceramic by Gauguin, one of his many media,
preserved today in Copenhagen. Clearly a self-portrait of the

artist, is

it

symbol, not without a mocking sadness, of his presence among serene

nature?
It has been suggested that the absence of ears and the closed eyes are
a reference to how his friend Van Gogh, in his first mental disturbance,
cut off his ear and had lain unconscious for three days: a tragedy that
had marked the end of Gauguin's tumultuous few months living with

Vincent

120

at Aries.

GHEYN

GHEYX, Jacques de II (1565-1629)

flemish
Like Savery, Jacques de Gheyn II occupies a special position among the
founders of flower painting. Neither artist was a specialist in flowers,
neither was significantly influenced by their contemporaries Bosschaert and

won favour with

Brueghel, and both

Savery's flowerpiece of 1600

is lost,

Emperor Rudolf II.

Gheyn's gouache of 1600 remains,

the great collector

De

and is thus the earliest dated flower painting.

Jacques de Gheyn II was born at Antwerp in 1565 but his father, also a
painter, came from Utrecht. The De Gheyns were Protestant and their
return to Holland may have been for religious reasons, in common with
many of the early flower painters. In 1585 he was a pupil at Haarlem of
the famous engraver Hendrick Goltzius, who left for Rome in 1590. The
following year De Gheyn moved to Amsterdam where he lived until 1595.
20,

ill.

He

then stayed

Leyden

at

until 1598. In this year he registered with the

The Hague and settled there until his death in 1629.

De Gheyn was a truly versatile artist. Draughtsman and

guild at

engraver at

the outset, painter, architect and garden designer to Maurice of Nassau,

he was esteemed by the most distinguished men of his time. Commissions

the Stadtholder, and were linked with the friendship of his

came from

famous secretary and poet, Constantijn Huygens, who was

Van Mander

such an admirer of Seghers.

first efforts in oils

1604 stated that

in

were flower studies from

all

seasons.

to

become

De Gheyn's

The same

source

us that he painted a large bouquet which, like the book of studies,

tells

was owned by Rudolf II. This is a lost work not among the three known
bouquets by De Gheyn that have survived.
De Gheyn would have studied blooms in the celebrated botanical gardens
at Leyden, whose director from 1593 to 1609 was the great French botanist,
Charles de Lecluse (Clusius). De Gheyn, who painted his portrait, was
on terms of friendship and mutual respect with Lecluse. He painted the
tulip whose popularity had been largely instigated by the botanist. 111. 157,
in the F.

Lugt Collection,

Paris, perfectly illustrates the spirit of scientific

naturalism shared by artist and botanist.

and vigorously

157 of 1612, the

ill.

lost painting

may have
De Gheyn in

dated work, that

turned for

such

now

a gift

So enthusiastic

and

may

it

said. It

to his oil paintings, like colour

is

famous

Ambrosius Bosschaert's
Dutch States General
hundred guilders. Maria de'

1606, the year of

to

him

this painting

that the

on her

a flower lover as the

yet be

just possible that a

represented an intermediary stage. Such

flowerpiece, at a fee of six

a special

Medici was presented with

in that year.

was

it

scientific in its observation,

It is

one turns

same cannot be

of 1606

was the stature of

earliest

When

naturalistic.

the United Provinces

queen would have treasured

visit to

found among the tangled wealth of France's

public collections.

In the 1612 copper panel

De Gheyn's

wonderful bouquet departs from

naturalism to follow the conventions of the early flowerpiece, with

161.GARZONI
2 6|

x 31!

in.

(67 x 80 cm.)

its

Mannerism. The scientific observer becomes the artist. A very

bouquet thrusts upwards from an impossibly small and narrow-necked
vase, with the flowers symmetrically splayed as if held by the unseen ribs
of a fan. The voluminous impact of the whole bouquet is intensified for
being confined in a stone niche, not a new device. Of course there is no
loss of accuracy in the depiction of individual flowers, and the artist's
studies (ill. 20) served him as models in this and the other two known
examples, one of 6 3 in the Boymans-van Beuningen Museum, Rotterdam,
the other thought to be in England and dated 161 5. The wavering tulips,
like the flames from some giant gas jet, dominate all the bouquets of De
Gheyn and set the mood of restless vitality throughout the bouquet. This
mood is accentuated in the work of Vosmaer, an artist much influenced
lingering

tall

121

GHEYN

162.

GLACKENS,

24 x 18

De Gheyn. An Englishman, George Gage, writing to Sir Dudley

Carleton from The Hague in 161 7, attested to the fame of De Gheyn but
by

found his bouquets too angular and hard with an over-arranged composition
by comparison with 'Velvet' Brueghel: an interesting but not especially
discerning comment.

GLACKENS, William J.
A

(1870-1938)
member of the Ash Can School, William Glackens

in this context, or

more

American
is

the last representative

correctly, the latest chronologically, of the great

contribution of Pennsylvania to American

still-life

and flower painting,

beginning with the Peales. Glackens moved away from his early style
towards both the colour and technique of Renoir, which is most strongly

apparent

in his flowerpieces like

belongs to the

artist's heirs

and

is

ill.

162. 'Flowers in a

dated

c.

kept to flowers and not painted fruit in the

particularly fond of zinnias,

which appear

way

122

Museum,

St I-ouis, in 1966.

that

Renoir did.
examples.

in several

lustrated example, together with several others,

Art

Quimper

Pitcher'

1930. Glackens appears to have

was exhibited

at

He was
The ilthe City

in. (61

signed

x 45-8 cm.)

GOGH

GOGH,

Vincent van (1853-1890)

dutch
tell you that I have had a note from Gauguin
saying that he has not written much, but that he is quite ready to come
south as soon as the opportunity arises'
'Now that I hope to live with
Gauguin in a studio of our own, I want to make decorations for the studio.
Nothing but big flowers. Next door to your shop, in the restaurant, you
know there is a lovely decoration of flowers I always remember the big
'I

write in great haste to

sunflowers in the

window

there. If

carry out this idea there will be a

dozen panels. So the whole thing will be a symphony in blue and yellow.
I am working at it every morning from sunrise on, for the flowers fade so
soon, and the thing is to do the whole in one rush.' Vincent wrote this
letter to his brother Theo from Aries in August 1888. He explained that
he had three different variants of sunflower 'going'. The story continues
in his next letter: 'I am now on the fourth picture of sunflowers' (this is
ill. 186). 'This fourth one is a bunch of fourteen flowers, against a yellow
background, like a still-life of quinces and lemons that I did some time ago.
Only as it is much bigger, it gives a rather singular effect, and I think this
one is painted with more simplicity than the quinces and lemons. Do you
remember that one day we saw a very extraordinary Manet at the Hotel
Drouot, some huge peonies with their green leaves against a light background? As free in the open air and as much a flower as anything could
be, and yet painted in a perfectly solid impasto'
'That's what I'd call
simplicity of technique. And I must tell you that nowadays I am trying
to find a special brushwork without stippling or anything else, nothing
but the varied stroke. But some day you'll see.'
Although Van Gogh speaks of decorating the studio he later made it
clear that the sunflowers were for the little bedroom, intended for Gauguin
or Theo if he came to stay. When he did, his brother assured him, 'You
will see these big pictures of sunflowers, twelve or fourteen to a bunch,
crammed into this tiny boudoir with its pretty bed and everything else
dainty. It will not be commonplace'.
Vincent's enthusiastic concern to prepare the spare room has that unsophisticated and touching simplicity which characterizes so many of his
thoughts and deeds. The sunflowers are innocent of the irony of their welcome. When Gauguin did arrive in September discord mounted in a few
months to the tragic violence of Christmas Eve, 1888, when Vincent cut
off his own car and Gauguin left. Yet their meeting in Paris had been of
vital importance to Van Gogh. Kach in the intensity of his own emotions
sought a new freedom lor painting. Freedom of line and colour to express
feeling
Van Gogh was the father of Expressionism and showed the Fauves
the under-dimensions of colour. 'I want to express by red and green the
terrible human passions', wrote Van Gogh. However, his sunflowers
were painted in that summer of 1888 which, in the terms of the extraordinary
life of this man, was a period of happiness. In a bouquet of oleanders painted
in the same month (August) he placed a copy of Zola's Joy of Living next
to the vase, with the title clearly painted, a symbol of what he felt when
painting flowers. Perhaps Van Gogh sensed what these few months meant
to him when he later wrote of the sunflowers symbolizing 'gratitude'.
Their unique radiance evokes rather the words of Delacroix, that precursor
of so much, whom Van Gogh admired, that, 'yellow, orange, and red inspire
and represent ideas of joy and richness'. Van Gogh's love of painting sun.

and he considered them among his best work, just

name through countless reproductions
throughout the world. Whatever their differences Gauguin admired the
sunflowers, and apart from Van Gogh's many self-portraits, the famous
portrait is by Gauguin showing him painting the jar of sunflowers.

flowers

is

well attested

as they are forever linked to his

123

GOGH

Besides this series of seven paintings of sunflowers, some purely in

yellows and ochres,

many

some with green backgrounds, Van Gogh painted

flowerpieces before and after this time.

To

this

Dutchman

still-life

and flower painting seemed a natural inheritance. The observation of the

texture and character of these sunflowers by drawing, impasto, and colour,
is as accurate as any flower in painting. As well as admiring Manet he
copied flowerpieces by Monticelli. It was partly by painting flowers, when
he first came to Paris in 1886, that he gained an understanding of the Impressionists' ideas of light and colour. The dark palette of his early years,
paralleled by that of the young Cezanne, lingered in flowerpieces like the
'Cineraria' of 1886 in the Boymans-van Beuningen Museum, Rotterdam.
The pot in this picture is tipped like the Fyt at Cambridge.
Van Gogh loved to paint bouquets of a single flower, especially irises and
roses, and branches of cherry blossom. Of all his flowerpieces, these flowering
branches show most strongly his love of Japanese art. Among the bouquets
of roses is the famous one of white roses, a canvas of the same size as the
present sunflowers, from the Lasker Collection - a collection enriched by

some of
a pale

the greatest flowerpieces of the period.

green background are as vibrant with

life

These white roses against

and the sense of the artist's

inner turmoil as the sunflowers. In 1890, two months after painting the

Van Gogh committed suicide.

One would only dare to choose

roses,

so well-known an example because

contempt for the wonder of Van Gogh's sunflowers. In his eyes, they have 'a rather singular effect' and were not 'commonplace'. In our eyes their magic holds us entranced, like the ancient
Incas of the sunflowers' native Peru, who worshipped them as symbols
of their god the sun.
familiarity cannot breed

GRASDORP,

163.

25^x21!

signed

(64x55 cm.)

in.

GRASDORP,
Little

is

Willem (1678-1723)
known of Willem Grasdorp, born

architectural

and genre painter.

He was

dutch
at

Amsterdam

a pupil

the son of an

of Stuven but

ill.

signed example, shows also the influence of Rachel Ruysch. Such

163, a
is

the

depth of talent in the Dutch School that even its smaller masters, of whom
by no means all can be represented here, maintained an excellent standard
of quality. Grasdorp died at Zwolle in 1723.

IS*
GRESLY,

164.
i\~.

/ 25I

in.

signed

(555 x64 cm.)

165. (right)

GL

57 / Ho

145 X 204 cm.)

124

in.

\KI)I

'

tf

HALL

GRESLY,
Such

Gabriel (1712-1756)

French

the beguiling simplicity of Gresly's fruit and flowers,

is

ill.

164, that

the viewer immediately thinks of

it as a seventeenth-centurv canvas. In
Gresly was born near Besancon in 17 12, and came to Paris where he
worked until his death in 1756, enjoying the patronage of the Comte de
Caylus. His reputation in the capital was for pictures of everyday objects

fact

hung on pine boards, painted

GUARDI,
Most

in

trompe

Foeil.

Francesco (1712-1793)

Italian

flower paintings of the eighteenth century tend to

fall

into groups,

influenced to a greater or lesser extent by the work of the great specialists,

Van Huysum, Monnoyer, and Van Os. Like Chardin, Francesco Guardi
stands apart. In his own time, he was looked upon as a 'poor man's'
Canaletto, his fresh, light-filled Venetian views commanding only half the
price of the more meticulous Canalettos. It was the Impressionists who
drew attention

Guardi's luminosity, his transparent colours, and his

to

astonishing spontaneity. Very recently signed flower paintings have

With

brother Gianantonio,

older

his

paint with his father

who during

into contact with the paintings

Francesco Guardi learned to

own apprenticeship probably came

of Franz Werner von Tamm and Margherita
his

However, possible formative influences count

Caflfi.

come

confirming another facet of his brilliance.

to light

and must have been destined

are on a large scale

for little in the

Most of his

of such an individual genius as Francesco Guardi.

for use as

work

flowerpieces

overdoor decora-

tions or firescreens.

example typical of the Guardi flowerpiece in many

respects The various groups of flowers and objects are arranged in the
composition in a seemingly carefree manner, placed on the top of rocks
165

111.

a fine

is

against a cool greyish sky.

The

colouring

is

a light

in

166.

HALL,

signed and dated

7I x 12 in. (19 x

if

305 cm.)

key with pinks,

yellows and an almost infinite variety of greens, ranging from the olive

shades of rocks to the touches of pure viridian predominant.

to the left

of

all

is

sketched

with

The

parakeet

few sure strokes of the brush so characteristic

Guardi's work.

Guardi's place

who

Sterling
to

in

in

the history of flower painting

says that his 'flowers, for the

first

well expressed by

is

time

appear

in painting,

now from the dim light of northern

from decorati\e rigour and ponderous Baroque rhetoric
the

merge with sun and

studios,

air

released

time was almost ripe for Delacroix's bold, untrammelled handling of the
painter's

medium.'

HALL, George Henry

Cieorge
in

Henry

Boston

(1825-1913)

Hall, born at Manchester,

the age of eighteen,

at

American
\ew Hampshire, began painting

apparently without

a teacher.

In 1849,

company with his friend, the well-known Kastman Johnson, for

the DusseldoH Academy, the mecca of American artists before being
superseded by Munich and then Paris. Hall in fact went to Paris, returning
he

to

left

in

New York

made by
Hall

in

1852.

It

was the

first of

many

journeys

in

Kuropc and Lgypt

the artist

began painting

still-lites

of different kinds on his return from

Europe in 852
single fruit studies of life si/e, bouquets, elaborate fruit
and flowerpieces. He was most notable for his depiction of exotic fruits,
often seen on his foreign tours: one work, for example, is entitled 'A Pome1

granate, Siena'.
Later, Hall gave

canvas

of

engage

in his

iHH

more

The

attention to flowers.

III.

166

is

rather striking

water-lilies offered a perfect opportunity for Hall to

penchant

for reflections

and the idea

of the living plant in a

167.

HALSZEL,

37^x29

in.

signed and dated 1771

(95-3x73-7 cm.)

[25

HALL

natural setting

was

a prolific

than

may reflect the lingering influence of John Ruskin. Hall

and very successful painter, better known in his own day

at present,

These

according to Gerdts.

probably quite by chance, have

lilies,

although painted in

a naturalistic vein.

Here

mediately American with no obvious parallel

surprisingly

is

a painting

in

European

modern
which

art

is

feel,

im-

of the same

date.

HALSZEL, Johann

German

Baptist (1712-1777)

Halszel was probably born at Berlin although nothing

until a

document records

his

presence

admitted to the Academy there and

of his

last ten years

life.

Vienna

at

all

the

Thieme Becker

is

known of him

in 1748. In 1767

known works

he was

date from the

records two flower paintings at

Vienna, unusually painted on copper and both signed and dated 1775
The revival of flower painting as a popular subject did not occur in \ ienna

end of the eighteenth century with Drechsler and Wegmeyr.

111. 167 dates from 1771 and has
some unusual flowers, including the dodecatheon, introduced into Europe
from Virginia in about 1740 and at first called 'Meadia' after Dr Mead, one
of Ehref s patrons in England.
until the very

yet Halszel's flowerpieces are exceptional.

H AMEN, Juan van der (1596-1631)

Juan van der

Hamen

Spanish

occupies an important position in the development

He was born at Madrid to Jan van der Hamen

Spanish capital from Brussels a few years earlier. In
documents the father is described as an archer of the Spanish royal guard
and old sources suggest that Van der Hamen was the pupil of his father,

of Spanish

painting.

still-Life

who had come

to the

no proof. In 1620 he married and had two sons before his early
Hamen was mainly a still-life
painter with a particular penchant for the Netherlandish breakfast-piece.
However, his manner of painting is highly individual and the arrangement
of objects is varied and experimental. 111. 168 is a large canvas over six feet
high and is entitled 'Offering to Flora'. Signed and dated 1627. this is an
example of Van der Hamen's mature period and unique in his oeuvre.
It is known from contemporary sources that he was also a portrait painter.
so that here he was not collaborating with a portrait painter in the familiar
way, but did the entire painting. Bergstrom compares this with a painting
of 16 13 by Rubens of Pausias and Glycera, ill. 3. where the flowers are
the work of Been. Here the flowers are painted with extreme attention
to detail and are in brilliant colours. In contrast to the great variety in the
cascade of flowers at the feet of Flora, the roses on the dish are rounder and
fuller. At Dartmouth. New Hampshire, there is a garland of flowers signed
and dated 1628. The garland motif, so popular in Flanders, is unusual in
but there

is

death at the age of thirty-five. Juan van der

Spain.

HARDIME,
Pieter
to

Pieter

Hardime was

have settled

in

(1

677-1758)

a pupil

of his brother

The Hague when

Simon

at

flemish
Antwerp and appears

he was about twenty, where he

\\a^

destined to live past the age of eighty.

111.

169

is

a large

canvas the architectural setting of which

is

common

device of the decorative flowerpiece. As usual the odd size arises from the
'painted to order' nature of the decorathe flowerpiccc

plasterwork

in the patron's

to

is

Hardime was also fond of painting baskets of flowers

format. Both the Hardime brothers used blue very well and
Pieter

were
120

artists

panelling or

fit

home. This impressive example

deserving of their success and patronage, and

dated 1727

in horizontal
at their beNt

far

remo\ed

HARNETT

168. (opposite above)

>5

SSk

169. (opposite below)

57 x 45l in (145 x
-

170. (right)

52

HAMEN,

HARD

"6

ME,

Pieter, signed

and dated

cm.)

HARNETT,

in.

signed and dated 1627

2I0 x 140 cm.)

signed and dated 1887

(122X 133 cm.)

from the scores of hack journeymen whose crude flowers

many an eighteenth-century home.

still

mar

the

decoration of

171

HARD I ME,

30 x 27

in. (7') 2

Simon, ngncd
68

'

cm

HARDIME, Simon

flemish
(1672-1737)
Like that other Simon, Simon Verelst, Hardime established himself in

London while still

in his twenties.

Born

at

Antwerp, he followed the familiar

path of early apprenticeship, aged fourteen, guild membership, before

travelling to

England

in 1700.

Among

his patrons

was Lord Scarborough,

The Hague and
171 is a superb example

while in Holland he supplied canvases to town houses in

decorated the castle of Breda for William III.

111.

painted on a 30 X 25-inch canvas, a standard English

many

detail with the

accomplished

tions of

was

a noticeable

artists

from the

Low

Countries. His brother, Pieter,

his pupil.

HARNETT,
The

size,

flowerpieces painted in England by successive genera-

American

William Michael (1848-1892)

necessity,

involving obviously

artificial

distinctions,

of separating

from flowers has been remarked upon in the Introduction. Having

to the rule, many wonderful still-life painters who did not, by
chance, include flowers in their work, have been excluded. The rule falls
most harshly on the American school where flower subjects are far outweighed by non-flower subjects. Thus John Peto and J. F. Francis are not
still-lite

adhered

represented.
1

lis

trompe

still-lifes

I'

A
oeil

partial exception has

paintings are

among

been made

in the case

the most widely

of Harnett.

known of American

today, and his exclusion here, on the grounds that ninety-nine

per cent of his work does not include flowers, would be unjust.
However inconclusive monetary values may be, it has taken the recent
sale in

London of

the simple

a small

fact that

Harnett

Harnett was

still-life to

focus general attention on

master of the task he

set himself.

The
!-7

HARNETT

painting, without flowers, which

would have commanded

few hundred

dollars twenty-five years ago in his native country, sold at Christie's for

32,550: an inevitable return to the popularity that Harnett had enjoyed

in his

own

day.

was taken to Philadelphia - almost

inevitably for a future still-life painter - at the age of one. Harnett first
trained as an engraver, an ideally exacting preparation for a master of
trompe FoeiL and moved to New York in 187 1, continuing to practice as
Harnett,

who was born

in Ireland,

an engraver until 1875 when he decided to devote himself to painting.

Harnett returned to Philadelphia, and eventually spent six productive years
in Europe, at London. Frankfurt, and Munich. He exhibited a painting,
sale, at the Paris Salon of 1885.
proper examination of Harnett's work is outside the present brief but
the wonder of his craftsmanship needs no elaboration. How he painted so
many pictures in a short life is remarkable. To all trompe Foeil painters,

without

the

depthless banknote offers the greatest chance of total success in

flat,

deceiving the eye and his arrest in 1886 on a counterfeiting charge was a
rare compliment.
111.

On

170

is

one of the very few examples containing flowers, entitled 'Ease'.

'Painted to order by William

the reverse of the canvas Harnett wrote

M. Harnett 1887

studio 28, East 14th Street.

Xew

York'.

The

exhibition

and fascinating canvas was of especial interest because

destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake and
long
been
thought
it had
was
commissioned
by a Massachusetts collector to
fire of 1906. 'Ease'
just
as the early patrons had wanted
show his accumulation of 'treasures'
a record of the contents of their 'cabinets of wonders' in the seventeenth
century. It passed to the Californian colossus Collis P. Huntington, whose
nephew bought Gainsborough's 'Blue Boy'.
in 1971 of this large

172.

HARTINGER,
;-

signed and date.

x47

cm.)

HARTINGER.
Born

at

alstrian

Anton 1806-1890)
(

Vienna, Hartinger was the pupil of

Academv

there.

An

artist

Wegmeyr and

studied at the

of the Old Vienna School, he derived his in-

from much earlier Netherlandish painters. A vase ol flowers

previously at Messrs Frost & Reed, signed and dated 1839, is small, set
against a plain background, and has the jewel-like quality of early Flemish
flowerpieces. 111. 172, which is signed and dated 1832, is on a larger panel
and has an open-air setting with the bouquet set against the sky and the
landscape low, in the manner and viewpoint of early painters. Fuchsias

spiration

and large sweet peas are included

in the

bouquet.

HASSAM,

American
Childe (1859-1935)
of the American painters who went to Europe in the later nineteenth
centurv were confronted with Impressionism and often decided to stop

Manv

short of embracing

its

teaching

fully.

They

were, like Carlsen and Chase,

and La Farge, undoubtedly influenced but never real converts. Childe

Hassam found himself in Europe, in his twenties, faced with the same
decision - the same conflict between the traditional and the then startling
innovations of Monet and the others. Hassam first dithered and then
joined the Impressionists to become America's best-known representative,
after Marv Cassatt, in a long and productive life. Although he used flowers
in his compositions, like many of the Frenchmen, he painted few pure
flowerpieces. 111. 172, which is signed and dated 1832, is on a larger panel

Thaxter a friend and patroness with whom he stayed at Appledore.

Nen Hampshire. Mrs Thaxter's book. An Island Garden. 1894, uas
illustrated by Hassam. In 1969 the Hammer Galleries of New York exhibited
'Blossoms of the Tulip Tree', a work of 1930.
elia

lhi

HAVERMAN

III. 173 shows two small panels with white roses and chrysanthemums
painted with great verve on a gold ground. Although very small they seem

intended, because of the ground, shape and style, for a specific decorative

purpose.

On

one might have said a hinged screen or paravent,

one which Hassam painted into the background of a
'Tanagra', of 19 18, in the Smithsonian Institute, Washington.
a larger scale,

similar in style to the

portrait,

HAVERMAN,

Margareta (active

c.

dutch

1716-1750)

Haverman, born at Breda, as 1720inadvertently repeated by White in his excellent book on

Paviere gives the dates of Margareta

1795, an error
the drawings of Jan van
rare artist,

Only

is

Huysum.

111.

174, the

best-known example of this

signed and dated 17 16.

at the entreaty

of his uncle did the jealous

Van Huysum

accept

unique exception. Van Huysum soon became jealous of

his talented pupil, we are told, and fortunately Margareta left for Paris
following a romance. One is left to guess if her teacher was involved. The
date of her sudden departure is unknown, but she was certainly in Paris
her as

a pupil, a

by 1722 when she presented her reception piece

Academicians subsequently discovered that it was

to the

Academy. The
work of her

in fact the

HA1 IX

175. (above)

(I24 x 95 cm.)

4*h x 37s

in-

174. (left)

HAVERMAN, signed

and dated 1716

*\\ in (79'4X38-7cm.)
-

t2g

HAVERMAN

name was struck off! The faux pas did not prevent her
pursuing a successful career in Paris, where her flowerpieces were much
sought after. If we knew whether Van Huysum gave Margareta one
of his valuable paintings without signature and was a party to the deception

master, and her

of the Academy,

it

would be

easier to decide if

Van Huysum was

the

subject of her affair of the heart

HAYEZ,

Italian

Francesco (1791-1882)

Representative of Italian flower painters of the nineteenth century, Francesco

Venice in 1791. By 1820 he was already considered to

be the principal exponent of Italian Romanticism, although it was the work
of Canova and Ingres that formed his style. In the Romantic tradition, he
painted many historical and literary subjects such as the 'Last Kiss of
Romeo and Juliet' exhibited in the Romantic Exhibition at the Tate Gallery,
London, in 1959. A fine portrait painter as well, Hayez counted Rossini
and Verdi among his sitters. 111. 175 is an unusual composition showing a

Hayez was born

at

young girl setting the vase of flowers on

shadows of the niche.

HEADE,

a shelf, her face half hidden in the

Martin Johnson (1819-1904)

American

would be to write that, of American

flower painters, the most engaging is Martin Johnson Heade. Until recently. Heade was a woefully neglected artist: a statement which would
be commonplace if applied to a still-life or flower painter, because the study
of the subject in the American School is, as with the Italians and Spanish,
If a subjective lapse

130

is

permissible,

it

HECKE

176. (opposite above)

HEADE

a comparatively recent innovation.

If Heade had not painted a single

flower or fruit, the merits of his atmospheric landscapes should have preserved him from disregard.

12 x 19! in. (30-5x50-2 cm.)

177. (opposite below)

i6f x 12I

in.

(41-6 x

HEADE,

signed and dated 1863

Heade, born in the cradle of American still-life, Pennsylvania, was to

spend much of his career in New Jersey, but it was the lure of the exotic
which gives his flowers their distinction. Heade went to Brazil in 1863 to

313 cm.)

humming birds which he hoped, as Audubon had

before him, to have published in London. Heade's project never matured.

paint studies of the

Subsequently he turned his attention to the orchids, passion flowers, and

other rare blooms of the jungle, making a series of studies which were to
serve

LA

plants to

EPjG
'v J&4hij0
i

^^*^
178.

HECKE

2i|x 26

179.

in.

(55 x 66 cm.)

HEEM,

28^ x 20^

in.

(ornclis de, signed

(65 x 52 cm.)

m+
&*

him

as

models

for

many

theme in his long life. The

Europeans who brought back unknown
long period and secondly, with the early masters
variations of the

parallels are twofold. Firstly, with

whose

'

Europe over

detailed studies served

them repeatedly

as the means of composing

bouquets that were impossible or impractical to gather in reality. 111. 176 is
immediately striking because of Heade's close-up viewpoint, used in. most
of the humming-bird and orchid pictures, allied to distant mountains.
The spectator is placed exactly like a hunter in some wonderfully contrived
hide. The exoticism of the subject itself is most enhanced by the colour.
The pink orchids are tinged with crimsons and purples, which find an
echo in the distant jungle mountains, with the greens and ochres of the
lush vegetation a foil to the brilliance of bloom and plumage.
Later, in 1883, Heade moved to St Augustine, Florida, and began painting
indigenous flowers like the Cherokee rose and the Florida magnolia. In
contrast to ill. 176, Heade liked to arrange a few flowers on a drapery, or a
single flower, with a plain background. The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,
had both orchids and passion flowers with humming birds (two canvases
in the Karolik Collection) and a single magnolia on a drapery. He also
painted branches or twigs of apple blossom against plain grounds, a theme

inevitably bringing to

mind

the identical subjects treated by

Van Gogh,

although Heade, of course, preceded him.

Like his younger American contemporary, Lambdin, Heade's work

with flowers varied from the growing, the orchids, to cut and arranged
flowers in a vase, with the branches a kind of half-way stage. Yet even in

bouquet, like ill. 177, an early work of 1863 with corn lilies
and heliotrope, Heade's vision has a mysterious quality which sets him
apart from his contemporaries; both from the English Victorian mood of
some among them, and the Germanic hard finish of others.
a conventional

HECKE, Jan
Born

at

van den (1620-1684)

in 1620, Van den Hecke became

Oudenarde

Antwerp Guild

flemish
a

member

of the

same year. Van den Hecke

is known to have been in Rome for the next two years before returning to
Antwerp. However, he did not stay there and there is no firm evidence of
his whereabouts for fifteen years until he is again noted at Antwerp in
1659, where he worked until his death. 111. 178, although unsigned, has
been established by Hairs as a documented work mentioned /in the inventory of Archduke Leopold William drawn up in 1659. Although not a
in 1642, leaving for Italy in the

Seghers type of composition, the evidence of the individual flowers and

shows that Van den Hecke was influenced by the great Jesuit
master. This influence is emphasized in Hecke's garlands which he painted
the palette

work of others. An example, also at the Kunsthistorisches Museum,

in the same inventory, is a bust portrait of 'Rembrandt
as a Boy' by Jan Lievens with Van den Hecke's surrounding garland. An
engraving of a self-portrait describes Van den Hecke as painter to 'Duke
Bracciaen' at Antwerp, presumably in the latter years. Van den Hecke is
into the

Vienna, and included

131

HECKE

an equally accomplished

still-life

painter showing the influence of

De

Heem.

HEEM,

Cornelis de (1631-1695)
dutch
Heem, son and pupil of Jan Davidsz. de Heem, was born at
Leyden and, except for the years at The Hague from 1676 to 1681, he
spent his career, like his father, at Antwerp, where he was a guild member
from 1660. Cornelis was particularly fond of festoons and swags, in his
father's manner, combining flowers and fruit, as is seen in the hanging
bouquet with nail and ribbon, ill. 179. The majority of his work is still-life
without flowers, as at the Ashmolean, Oxford, and his pure bouquets in
vases are rare; an example is in the Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum.
Inevitably there is confusion between paintings from the workshop of his
father and under his name and those of Cornelis at his best. On the other
hand, it would be surprising if the harder touch, and particularly the
coarser application of highlights with Cornelis, could be mistaken for the
masterly hand of Jan Davidsz. himself. David Cornelisz. (1663-1718), the
son of Cornelis de Heem, was noted as a guild member but little is known
of him. Cornelis de Heem rates as the one very competent follower of Jan
Davidsz. de Heem amid the vagueness surrounding other members of this
Cornells de

large family.

HEEM, David

180.

HEEM,

25! X2c4

in.

181. (right)

22IX29I

132

David de

II,

HEEM, Jan

in.

signed

(65x52 cm.)

Davidsz. de, signed

(575 x 75 cm

de II (active 1668)
would be tempting to omit all reference

dutch

David de Heem because of

the absence of clear information. Paintings by David de Heem have been
attributed to the father of Jan Davidsz., who lived from c. 1570 to 1632.
Latterly it has been seen that these works could not date from his period
and are too reliant on his son's work to antedate it. Another David de
Heem existed who is called the second or David Davidsz. de Heem. (The
Dutch zoon is nearly always abbreviated and, of course, means 'son [of]'.)
The only reference to David II is his activity at Utrecht in 1668, but despite
the obvious age difference he could have been, as is most probable, the
It

to

HEEM

son of David de

Hecm

I,

as his

name

implies, and a

young brother

182. (left)

HEEM, Jan

4r x 33t

i-

Davidsz. de, signed

(1028 x 85 cm.)

183. (below)

HENDRIKS,

39I x 29^

(100 x 76 cm.)

in.

signed

to the

great Jan Davids/..

Thus

ill.

Ho,

most

clearly signed,

standing example of his work.

beneath appears on a fruitpiece

The
at

same hand. It was catalogued

same rather flat flowers are seen

the

is

by David de

signature with

Heem
its

II

the Ashmolean, Oxford, and

in

in

and the out-

archery

bow curve

is

clearly

by

1950 as the work of the father. The

a quite different composition at the

Wallraf-Richart/.-Museum, Cologne, with snake and mushrooms, in the

st\le of Withoos; this canvas is also signed. There can be no doubt that
these three examples, of which the bouquet illustrated
are the

work of David de

Heem

II

and form

a point

is

unusually good,

of reference

in the

identification of other works.

HEEM, Jan
One

Davids/., de (1606-1683/4)

DUTCH

names in both still-life and flower painting, Jan

was born in 1606
the year of Rembrandt's birth - at

of the fundamental

Davids/., de

Heem

Utrecht where he spent his early years, moving to Leyden where he married
1626. Ten years later in 1636 he was admitted to the Antwerp Guild,
where a major part of his life was spent, although he travelled frequently
away from the city. In 1669 he was at Utrecht and remained a member of
that guild until 1672 when Louis XIV's invasion of Holland forced him to
return to Antwerp for the remainder of his days.
in

133

HE EM

The division of his life between Holland and Flanders is appropriate.

Both schools formed De Heem and he in turn influenced them. In this
respect De Heem was a phenomenon. He was an artist acutely receptive
to different influences, yet able to absorb and transform them and set a
new example of the widest possible consequence.
De Heem began in Utrecht with small fruit and flowerpieces painted
on panel in the Bosschaert tradition, as represented by his first teacher,
Van der Ast (see p. 39). When he moved to Leyden he painted the little
monochrome panel of books which could pass for a Rembrandt, so strong
Then, well within a decade, De Heem became
Baroque bouquet canvases two metres wide,
such as the Louvre example of 1640, of which Matisse was one day to paint
an interpretation. A halt must be called in discussing De Heem's still-life
is

the latter's influence.

the creator of the flamboyant,

in

deference to flowers, but his role in each

is

equally significant, unlike

Bosschaert, Brueghel and Seghers.

When in
to

1636

Antwerp,

De Heem moved from the city of early Rembrandt, Leyden,

city

of Rubens, what greater contrast could have confronted

thirty-year-old painter?

Such

De Heem

vitality as

possessed

is

usually

When

therefore he encountered at Antwerp the

must have been an eye-opener not only as to
what could be done with flower painting, but what flower painting could
do for the successful artist. De Heem took up cartouches, garlands, hanging
bouquets in the Seghers style, but wove into them the rich fruits of which
he was already a master.
111. 181 is a festoon or swag of flowers held by nails at each end, which
again shows De Heem's personal style and preference because Seghers
seldom painted these. They are part of the ornamental role which flower

coupled with ambition.

great Seghers (see p. 232)

it

painting and still-life were expected to play in the rich life of Antwerp.
Festoons of real flowers were made and hung for special banquets in the
castles and banqueting rooms of the wealthy patrons, and De Heem here
was providing a festoon as brilliant as the real one, and probably better

arranged, which would

last for ever. It is

stress that all his flower

work has

not detrimental to

a decorative

De Heem

to

sense that held the seeds of

future developments.

De Heem,

despite the success of his large

homes of Antwerp, never abandoned

his

still-lifes

and festoons

in the

Dutch background. 111. 182 is a

Pinakothek, Munich, of a most

famous vanitas flowerpiece at the Alte

One feels it must have been a special commission. All the
familiar vanitas symbols of the brevity of life are included, like the skull
and the watch, but combined with a crucifix. Referring to the crucifix,
on the paper is written: 'But the most beautiful of all one does not heed',
unusual kind.

184.

HENSTENBURG, signed

14! x 12^

in.

(37-5x31-8 cm.)

and the signature of the

De Heem's

artist.

The

canvas

is

also signed in the centre with

calligraphic script. Yet a puzzle remains

work. In the top right-hand corner

is

unanswered about

this

the signature of Verendael (see p. 250).

Apparently this is a period signature. It is impossible to tell what part

Verendael played. The flowers must surely be by De Heem, and equally
the peaches and apricots, which he often included with the vases of flowers,
seem unmistakably De Heem. The Munich catalogue does not suggest
otherwise but draws attention to a related flowerpiece by Verendael in
the Metropolitan

Museum

the composition with

style

is

iris,

of Art,

New

York.

The

relationship, either in

hibiscus and carnation prominent, or in the

not discernible to the author. However, the suggested dating in the

De Heem

used the same gleaming nautilus shell in a

bouquet with vanitas additives in the Staatliche Kunstammlungen, Dresden.
1

185. (opposite) III.

i\\ / ro

'.14

in.

I.

VI,

Jan Davidsz. de, signed

(546 x 407 cm.)

660s seems correct.

As with the Munich painting

favourite

De Heem

(ill.

182), flowers

seem the

real subject.

The

colours, red, white and blue, are present in the poppy

HENSTENBURGH

and peonies, the candidum

the

lilies,

iris

and several morning

glories.

Across the foreground the white paper and quill, the brilliant blue ribbon
of the pocketwatch, the red cherries, echo the same scheme.

among De Heem's output

Rarest

example than
as in

ill.

letters

182, notably the

and

it is

is

185 seems impossible.

ill.

candidum

variation to the script of the

in.

GOGH,

signed

(915 x 712 cm.)

A more perfect
Many of the same blooms are present

the pure flowerpiece.

lilies.

This canvas

De Heem

worth noting that

186. (opposite)

36 x 28

is

signed with block

uses this form of signature in

Munich example.

If the dark background

example of Seghers, De Heem has created,
as in his work in the Musees Royaux des Beaux- Arts, Brussels, a more
elaborate flowerpiece full of his own stamp. The symbolic ear of wheat is
here broken back on itself and this detail emphasized by a butterfly. The
bumblebee too fascinates almost as much as the flowers. It must surely
be one of the tour de force insects of all flower painting. Marie Louise Hairs'
work on Flemish flower painters has been frequently referred to, especially
for her study of Seghers, and mention must be made here of an inexplicable remark of hers. She concludes a short discussion of De Heem by stating
that in general his work does not represent 'de la tres bonne peinture\ May
ill. 185 be taken as emphatic evidence to the contrary.
De Heem's oeuvre poses a problem because of other members of his
family (see Cornelis and David de Heem) and his many pupils and imitators.

and

clarity of colour recall the

Certain paintings signed with an

after his

name

are thought to be those

retouched or finished by him. However, the quality of his autograph work

should usually be a sure guide.

De Heem
Brueghel

painting the

Van der Ast and from

middle of the century, gave to flower

inherited richly from Bosschaert via

via

Seghers and,

in the

same decisive impetus

HENDRIKS, Wybrand

that carried

it

to the eighteenth century.

dutch

(1744-1831)

Amsterdam, Hendriks studied in a drawing school and designed

wallpaper
makers. After visiting England he moved to Haarlem where
for
he became a guild member in 1776. Hendriks apparently spent some years
living in the province of Gelderland before settling again at Haarlem in
the
780s. From 1786 to 1819 he was Keeper of Teylers Museum at
Born

at

Haarlem.
Hendriks, painter, draughtsman and engraver, treated most subjects
and made copies after the old Dutch masters, especially Haarlem's hero,
Frans Hals. Thus flowerpieccs are comparatively rare in his work and he

manner of Van Os, who

liked to include fruit in the

inspiration.

The

is

clearly his chief

National Gallery, London, has a canvas with

few flowers

which passed under a false Van

Os signature until cleaning in 1954. 111. 183, appropriately from Teylers
Museum, shows Hendriks in a decorative vein in a work probably forming
part of the decor of a room an interesting and unusual example, where
the individual flowers shows what an excellent painter Hendriks could be.
\mong other examples of his work in the same museum at Haarlem is a

dominated by an over-abundance of

fruit,

fine large

panel of a

more conventional composition, with

foreground, and the Fairhaven Bequest

to the

Fitzwilliam

bridge, includes an equally good flowerpiece and

The Cambridge

in

the

companion

fruitpiece.

flower panel has a notable large blue and white tulip.

HENSTENBURGH, Herman
Henstenburgh was born
(x.illis

fruit

Museum, Cam-

at

dutch

(1667-1726)

Hoorn, the home

of

Rootius and Gallis. Like

he was an amateur painter but a pastrycook by training.

numerous watercolour drawings

of

landscapes, birds,

well as superb flower studies. Blunt considers that

ill.

He made

game and
184

is

fruit as

one of the

187.

HERMANN, signed

27 x io|

in.

(68-6 x

and dated 1844

502 cm.)

137

HENSTENBURGH

finest flower studies ever

made

in

Holland

it

shows pink and white striped

parrot tulips with the unusual detail of snails.

HERMANN, Hans (1813-1890)

A Hamburg

painter of landscapes,

represents the

century

who

many

German
still-life,

little-known

and flowers, Hermann,

German

painters of the

ill.

187,

nineteenth

carried on the tradition of highly finished flowerpieces in the

Netherlandish manner.

HEWLETT, James (1768-1836)

British
James Hewlett worked mainly in Bath. He
died at Isleworth, Middlesex, in 1836. Although little of his work is known
today, he was obviously a prolific and successful artist exhibiting regularly
in London from 1799; Reitlinger, quoting Joseph Farington, says that in
1808 nearly 800 guineas was paid for a Hewlett flower painting. His finished
flowerpieces are in the manner of Van Huysum, but ill. 189 is a page of

Born the son of

a gardener,

flower studies in watercolour. Hewlett also painted genre scenes, specializing

in gypsies.

HIEPES, Tomas
Tomas Hiepes

(active 1643-1674)

Spanish

Yepes) worked in Valencia from 1643 until

his death in 1674. Usually he painted bodegones, the term for Spanish
still-life, but ill. 188 is one of a rare pair of flowerpieces, signed and dated
1664. The complete symmetry of the bouquet and the whole composition
against a dark background is unusual in the 1660s. With so many flowers
and a floral pattern on the cloth, the effect is highly decorative in so large a
(also spelled

^r>>

138

HOECKE

Most remarkable

canvas.

is

the vase which, with

its

distant landscape, like

might represent the world held

near contemporary of Arellano, yet his

a Weltlandschaft of the sixteenth century,

up by Atlas

figures.

Hiepes was

painting seems to return to the formal pattern of the early seventeenth

century and to ignore the innovations Seghers and Nuzzi introduced.

Bergstrom suggests that

whim

this

'primitive' quality

may have been

at the

of Hiepes' patrons. Perhaps coincidentally the work has a strong

Germanic feel which may be the result of contact with paintings imported
from that part of the Hapsburg domains.

HINZ, Johann Georg

(active 1666-1700)
German
one of those instances where a comparatively minor artist achieves
an unexpected masterpiece. It is also exceptional as a pure flowerpiece among
the still-lifes which make up the greater part of the oeuvre of Georg Hinz.
His still-lifes, as in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, appear much influenced
by the great Haarlem masters Willem Kalf and Willem Claesz. Heda,
and in no way prepare us for this work with its 'tour de force' marble niche.
Hinz, whose surname is also spelled Hainz, Hintz, or Heintz, was principally active at Hamburg, but also worked in nearby Altona and at Leipzig.
Ties were close between the port of Hamburg and Holland from the end
of the sixteenth century, and refugees from the southern Netherlands

200

111.

is

found their way to northern Germany. Thus the Dutch influence in his
readily understood but this illustration has only to be compared
to the work of Dutch contemporaries to be aware of the individuality of
Johann Hinz. Perhaps he was interested in the flowerpieces of Elliger who
was probably at Hamburg in the 1660s. Hinz was fond of vessels, whether
still-life is

signed and dated 1614

figures, but too little is known of

more detailed comment. The discovery or
publication of other examples would provide new information about this
fascinating artist whose highly decorative flowerpiece possesses both the

cm.)

sophistication of the later seventeenth century and an echo of the naive

glass, stone, or metal,

ornamented with

his flowerpieces to allow for

n>i

(above)

33^x20$

HOICK
(82

in.

I.,

5x52

charm of the beginning of that century. In

praised by Joachim von Sandrart.

his

own

lifetime

Hinz was

HIRSCHELY, Jan Kaspar (1698-1743)

czech

Jan Kaspar (or Caspar) Hirschely was the pupil of Angermeyer. Like his
teacher he appears to have spent his life at Prague and may therefore be

termed Czech. He also painted fruit and animal pieces. Like Angermeyer,
Hirschely's brushwork is broad but his finish is harder, and both artists
recall a

In
is

ill.

much

earlier style in their work.

190, of

724, the steely finish of the shell with stipple dots of impasto
and occurs in the example in the Fitzwilliam Museum,

typical of Hirschely

Cambridge, probably of 1737,

panel

much more 'modern'

is

with bas

relief,

in the bird's feathers

in its setting

and the

iris.

The

with the vase set on

architecture and landscape in the background.

latter

a plinth

There are

three examples in the castle at Prague.

HOECKE, Jasper van

188

(opposite above)

S7 X

t,HI

in

189. (opposite

12 / 11 in.

50 X

II

below

(30-5x28

[EPES,

left) III
<

>>

in

^4

X 24 2

I.I

'I

"I

em

191

is

the Fitzwilliam,

HIRSCHELY,

dated 1724

.W

(opposite below right)

190

signed and dated 1004

em.)

<>8

lignecl

and

flemish

den (active 1603-1641)

one of those tantalizing 'only known flowerpieces', whose masterliness palpably demonstrates that the artist must have painted a number
in order to achieve such excellence. Where are the others? Among the
thirty-seven flowerpieces which form the recent magnificent bequest to
111.

Cambridge,

for the present writer

ill.

191

is

the prize.

by the tubs of Van den Hoecke's Antwerp

contemporary, 'Velvet' Brueghel (see ill. 99), it is in superb condition.

A panel of 1614, clearly influenced

Individually the flowers are painted

more robustly than those of Brueghel,

139

HOECKE

and it is difficult to imagine that Van den Hoecke

work of Beert. At the time of Grant's catalogue, Flower
Through Four Centuries, it was thought to be the work of one of

vith less use of glazes,

lid

not

know

fainting

the

although exhibited at Slatter's Gallery in 1937 as the signed

It was subsequently exhibited by Mr David Koetser in
in
York
lew
1941 when the date was published to add to the signature.
Hoecke, whose birthdate is unknown, was in the guild at
van
den
Jasper
Antwerp by 1603, and still active in 1641, but apart from this isolated
kisper's sons,

fork of Jasper.

example, once in a Russian museum,

is

known only

as a history painter.

British
1709-1712)
manner
the
in
painted
pictures
few
very
for
a
only
Trajan Hughes is
butterflies
numerous
foxglove,
the
with
111.
192
of Marseus van Schriek.
and a snake, is probably a direct copy after the Dutch master who almost

HUGHES, Trajan (active

known

certainly visited

England

in the

mid-seventeenth century.

HUILLIOT, Pierre Nicolas (1674-1751)

A member of a famous family of painters, Pierre Nicolas
at Paris the

son of Claude Huilliot, a well-known

seventeenth century.

He

learned painting from

accepted by the Academy. During

French
Huilliot was born

still-life

his father

painter of the

and

in 1721

was

his successful career, Huilliot enjoyed

royal patronage, working at Versailles, Fontainebleau and Compiegne. 111.

large, highly decorative canvas
194, which comes from Fontainebleau, is a
showing the change from the intimate seventeenth-century style of his
father to a more elaborate composition suited to the fashion of the day.
Huilliot also painted

still-lifes,

attributes of the 'Arts'

and

the 'Elements' subjects then popular, and

'Science'.

flemish

HULSDONCK, Jacob van (1582-1647)

Antwerp, Jacob van Hulsdonck probably spent his youth in the

Bosschaert city, Middelburg. By 1608, he was re-established at Antwerp,
where he died in 1647. Gillis van Hulsdonck was his son and pupil.
Van Hulsdonck is an important still-life master who only very rarely

Born

at

painted flowers, yet their qualities merit his inclusion. A characteristic

Hulsdonck, as at Bowes Museum, Barnard Castle, is a wicker basket - the

same basket appears again and again - of plums, grapes or strawberries on

especially, scattered
a wooden table top, often with other fruit, cherries

192.

HUGHES

37 x 20

in.

(94 x 50-8 cm.)

fruit
along the grained wood. Occasionally flowers are placed among the
as if
letters
capital
in
is
signature
The
foreground.
or lie singly along the
of
glass
small
a
examples
of
handful
a
In
cut into the edge of the table.

flowers stands before the basket or bowl of fruit, as in ill. 193.

One look at a drop of water or the bloom on a steely blue plum convinces

us that absolute clarity

detail

is

drawn

is

the keynote of

Van Hulsdonck's work. Every

with the sharpest silhouette, every texture

worked

to a

in its
perfect finish. The glass of carnations could not be more convincing
overall
the
yet
water,
the
in
arrangement, in the way that each stem is seen
perspective, the
effect of the brilliant, untoned colour, the 'tilted shelf
or German
Flemish
early
crowded foreground, is very reminiscent of an

banquet piece or parchment miniature.

Yet in 1968 there was with Mr Richard Green in London an extremely
without
rare upright copper panel by Van Hulsdonck of a glass of flowers
paragraph
previous
fruit. Compared to the painting mentioned in the
the one illustrated
this picture seems more advanced and may be later than
the spaces on
here. The vase is centralh placed on the wooden shelf and
carnations,
two
the shelf 'filled' with to the right a butterfly, to the left
as sharply perfect as the

14O

ones

in front

of the basket illustrated.

193.

HULSDONCK, signed

21 x 28 in.

(534 X -12 cm.)

HUYSUM

was made by Benjamin West. West was one suspects just that kind of lofty
Academician who has always disdained flower painting. Nonetheless, on
the evidence of saleroom results at that time he placed a fair valuation of
1,200 on the pair of Van Huysums: twice as much as two famous Rembrandts in the collection. In the nineteenth century the Rothschilds and
others were as avid collectors as their eighteenth-century predecessors.

Today

the very finest

Van Huysums

are never available, so discussion of

became
would not be placed in the same absurd relationship to those
Rembrandts. Nonetheless, it would probably bring one hundred thousand
pounds sterling.
This digression is only intended to stress both the continuity and intensity of desire for the flowerpieces of Van Huysum. Reitlinger, from
whose entertaining book these Walpole details are quoted, gives us a subjective judgment, typical of those aroused by Van Huysum's work. He
writes: 'The worship of Huysum, the most mechanical and least inspired
of the masters of the tight brush, showed eighteenth-century taste at its
most deplorable'. Leaving aside the validity of this opinion of Van Huysum,
their value
available,

is

hypothetical. If by chance a single such painting

it

the statement

is

factuallv inaccurate in failing to

condemn

also the taste of

197.

HUYSUM, Jan van, signed and

31^x23^

in.

(80x597

dated 1731, 1732

cm.)

143

HL'YSUM

Of course Van Huysum's sumptuous

Rococco masterpieces are as unpalatable to some as a fabulous Louis XV
commode would be to a collector of early English oak furniture. Whatever
one's personal tastes, the only fair way to judge an artist is by assessing
his success in what he set out to achieve. By such a yardstick Van Huysum
is supremely successful.
As is so often the case, information is in inverse proportion to fame.
Jan, born at Amsterdam in 1682, was the eldest son and pupil of Justus
van Huysum. Justus was the head of a family enterprise, of a kind familiar
in flower painting, with three younger sons assisting: Justus the younger
(1684-1707), Jacob, and Michiel (1704-^.1760). Their large-scale production met the demand for decorative flowerpieces, fulfilling for Amsterdam the same role as the Monnoyer studio was doing for Paris. Jan did not
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

From his marriage in 1704 until his

death in 1749 Jan appears to have stayed in Amsterdam, but independent
of the family firm. He jealously guarded his success to the point of being

choose to follow his father's example.

over-secretive, working in strict privacy that

of his pigments nor

198.

HUYSUM, Jan

3i|x 24I

to accept one pupil,

Margareta Haverman, but inevitably she soon left and achieved a considerable success in Paris. He is said to have worked from the real flower
and gone to Haarlem each summer to study specimens. These random
snippets of information from Josi (1765- 1828) do. little to penetrate the
mystery of how Van Huysum painted his pictures. His obsessive desire
for secrecy has been satisfied.
His earliest dated work of 1706 in the Kunsthalle, Hamburg, is little
removed from the Van Aelst style of twenty or so years earlier centrally
placed glass vase on a marble ledge, fairly symmetrical bouquet against a
dark background. With Van Aelst's pupil Rachel Ruysch then active at
Amsterdam he could hardly have begun other than by a study of this
tradition. Nonetheless, the change from the Hamburg painting of 1706 to
the 1726 panel in the Wallace Collection, London, ill. 199, is staggering.
In twenty years a seventeenth-century style is succeeded by the full impact
of the eighteenth. The change of key, the return to an open background,
the banishment of darkness, are even more striking than the rhythms and
curves of the arrangement, for these last had been suggested in the work
:

van, signed

(8o-6x 62-2 cm.)

in.

none might see the preparation

how he worked. He was induced

of his predecessors.

By comparison, ill. 198, an undated canvas of almost the same dimensions,

may represent an intermediary stage. Although the colours are nearly in
as light a key, the bouquet is much more compact, simpler in every way,
and the background, despite the grey silk curtain, is plainer. The dominance
of the radiant white
the

Sermon on

the

lilies is

explained by the inscription on the vase from

Mount, an unusual

earliest flowerpieces:

'Consider the

unto you, that even Solomon

symbolism of the

link with the

lilies

of the

in all his glory

field

And

was not arrayed

yet
as

say

one of

these.'

The

refinement of his palette excels in

its

sophistication in the

same

manner. Details, textures, defy description. Only an examination of the

originals will suffice, as no process of reproduction can convey the subtleties
of observation.
199. (opposite)

\\\

X23I

in.

111

left)

44

in.

HINZ
KESSEL,

(40 / 20/8 cm.)

One example,

in

ill.

signed

197,

The

is

the

shadowed

side of the blue-green leaf in

shadow shows
how the intense red of the peony is reflected in the leafs smooth surface.
This panel, like one example in the National Gallery, London, is dated
in two consecutive years, 1731, 1732. Van Huysum wrote to the Duke of
Mecklenburg on one occasion explaining that the completion of a comthe centre foreground.

(87/ 67-5 cm.)

201. (overleaf right)

1

van, signed and dated 1726

(79-4x59-4 an.)

200. (overleaf
.'..

HUYSUM, Jan

merest touch of a red glaze

in the

mission had been delayed because he was unable to find a yellow rose that

INMAN

seem to agree that the double dating of pictures stems

on working from live models only.
Among the treasures which Napoleon gathered to Paris, in this instance
from Kassel, was allegedly ill. 197 and its companion picture, one of the
most famous pairs of Van Huysums. Having found a universally successful
style, like the Wallace Collection panel of 1726, Van Huysum would have
been foolish to change it. Indeed how could he have improved upon it
even if he had felt the desire ? In the customary practice of flower painters
he varied the same motifs, often with the same props marble shelf, vase
with putti, bird's nest with eggs. Thus the striped tulip with its thick curved
stem changes place, the purple fritillaries remain at the bottom left, the
crown imperial and blossom are different at the top and so on. However
complex the S curves of the bouquet, the opulence, the weight of individual
year. All authorities

202. (opposite)

from

30 x 27

his insistence

in.

JOHN,

signed

(762 x 68-6 cm.)

flowers, Van Huysum possessed an unerring elegance of composition which

enabled him to avoid the inbalance, the over-abundance that others risked.

Thus

drawings are compositional sketches

preparatory drawing
Obviously the reasonable
quantity of paintings produced and the fluid way even minutiae are treated
contradict any idea that he habitually worked for a whole year on one painting.
The artist left no word, no indication of how he really painted, no hint of
his own philosophy. So the wondrous skills of Jan van Huysum, the last
his

like the

for this painting, illustrated in the Introduction.

of the great
a

Dutch masters,

century and a half

leave us as

bemused

as those of his predecessors

earlier.

HUYSUM, Justus van

the Elder (1659-1716)

dutch
Twice-married Justus van Huysum the Elder is chiefly noted as the father
of a family of flower painters, among whom Jan van Huysum is the principal
figure. Little is known of Justus or his work. Born at Amsterdam the son

became the pupil of Nicolaes Berghem at the age

Like Berghem he also painted landscapes and other subjects,

of a schoolteacher, he
of sixteen.

it is as a flower painter that his work is known and surprisingly few

examples seem to be clearly identified. A pair in the Broughton catalogue,
once in the Duke of Kent's collection, are outstanding together with ill.
203 from the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp. It can
be seen immediately that such canvases may have formed a starting point
for Jan, but must inevitably seem laboured and lacking in clarity by comparison. The greatest difference Jan effected was a lightening of the background and a general softening of lights and dark contrasts, the lack of
which give Justus's canvas a certain harshness, whatever its other qualities.
The study of the Van I luysum family, apart from Jan, has yet to be undertaken. Identification of more work In the father, by his son, Justus van

but

Huysum

the

Younger (c. 1684- 1706),

a battle

painter

who

203.

HUYSUM, Justus

35^x28$

in.

(90

x72

van the Elder

cm.)

died prematurely,

and Michiel van Huysum (c 1704-after 1700), a flower specialist, would

be ver> welcome. For Jacobus \an Huysum (c. 1687- 1740), another son,
.

see p. 141.

INMAN, John

O'Brien (1828-1896)

American

John Inman, the son of the portrait painter Henry Inman, specialized in
portraits and genre pieces in period costume, the term used to describe
artists portraying figures not in contemporary clothes but in the dress of
a previous century. A few still-lifes by Inman are known.
Inman's small flowerpiccc of 1863, ill. 204, shows him in a thoroughly
natural vein. The yellow and red roses and purple lilac are painted with
delicacy but not too tight a brush. This example is more pleasing in its
simplicity than his larger and more elaborate compositions, where the
\

11

rorian

mood

is

perhaps too oppressive.

204.

INMAN, signed

and dated [863

X] x 13 in. (21 x 33-1 cm.)

'4<>

JANSSENS

WmM

mm

w^wm

'^nWfx iJmw)
*

\tmm

T.Wk/
^BTr
*& #*rNlfcUJL jrv

Ibr^^F

^^i
:J IrNF
vHr>
>9
A,

7
IF

TdF^H

MHHr
*^mmr

ggfc/"

^^ffi
^

1^4^^^
ft.***^
W^**^

V
4

205.

JANSSENS,

39I x 2&f

JANSSENS, Anna
In 1928

(active 1645-1668)

Warner reproduced

ill.

205 as the only

flemish
known work of Anna Janssens,

superb panel a metre in height signed in Roman lettering. A decade

ago the same painting re-appeared with Messrs De Boer of Amsterdam,
a firm whose activities have involved countless flowerpieces since their
pioneer exhibitions forty years ago. It is indicative of the research yet needed

in the field

of flower painting that nearly half

century has passed without

further evidence of this clearly gifted lady's work. Information

is

therefore

open to correction.
\nna was the daughter of Abraham Janssens, an Antwerp painter who
collaborated with Jan Brueghel II. Anna married Jan and their union
produced eleven children of whom the earliest recorded was born in 1635.
tentative and

1^0

in.

signed

100 x 67 cm.)

KELDERMAN

Anna was a member of the Antwerp Guild in

1660s. The style of the Brueghel family is clear

the 1640s and again in the

in her tall

bouquet with

its

pink roses.

JOHN, AugUStUS

(1878-1961)
BRITISH
'The secret of the Midi cannot be learnt in a moment. Students from overseas, even if provided with diplomas, have to re-adjust themselves and
start afresh if they want to capture it', wrote Augustus John in his autobiography Chiaroscuro, published in 1952. The reader will remark how

constantly different artists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have

been inspired by the light and colour of the south of France. Comparison

with two

among them, Matisse and Derain,

here represented by bouquets

of the mid-i920s, also emphasizes the strongly traditional nature of John's

work, a concept he adhered to throughout his long and illustrious life as
unfalteringly as others sought innovation or originality for

202 was almost certainly painted

its

own

sake.

Martiques, the place of his choice in

his contemporaries mentioned, have found in

111.

at

Provence and he may, like

flowers a means of studying light whose radiance is captured by these
cineraria of c. 1928. Tooth's Gallery, London, exhibited this example in

206.

KELDERMAN

36! x 28

in.

(93x71 cm.)

1929 with several other flowerpieces - a relatively new subject for John,
the figure painter - showing how he was studying them because they were
entitled 'Cineraria I', 'IP, 'III'. He liked to paint cyclamen, sunflowers,
magnolia and mimosa, too, and these appear among the many flowerpieces

enormous output. The

act of painting was always a delight to John

compulsive enthusiasm composition and balance sometimes
suffered. It could hardly be denied that Augustus John was a greater
draughtsman than a painter in oils.
in his

and

in

his

By the age of twenty this solicitor's son from Tenby was acknowledged
draughtsman in Britain. In that year he graduated from
the Slade School in London and the next year, 1899, went to Paris where

as the greatest

he was struck by the Post-Impressionists, especially Gauguin, not

well

known

in

Kngland

at that time,

at all

then to Holland where Rembrandt

captured and held his admiration thenceforth. Later in Spain he was

impressed by El Greco. John became Professor of Painting at Liverpool
in

1901 and his interest

shared, inspired
well

known

in

in

gypsies, in their \\a\ of life which he occasionally

him during these years. John was a traveller and became

America and continental Furope, so that his career, his

flamboyant, dignified character, need no introduction here. Certainly he

became a national institution, not a little awe-inspiring, in his lifetime.

Sir John Rothenstein in his most recent writings on John seems to feel
that ever since his death the traditional, 'square' character of his work has
been regarded as outmoded and that consequently he is already something

among the
number of
collectors whose distaste for, or weariness with, much of modern art makes
the traditional skills of Augustus John seem ever more attractive. One can
Only judge this by their demand for his work, as reflected in market values.
And by this assessment Augustus John, like Sir Alfred Munnings and

of a 'forgotten'

name

in

Lnglish painting. This

may

be so

adherents of the avant-garde, but there remains a growing

Russell Flint,

is

anything but forgotten.

KELDERM

dutch
\\, Jan (1741-1820)
Dordrecht, Kcldcrman was trained as an architect, but through a
friendship with the Dordrecht-born painter Joris Ponse (1723-1783) he
became an amateur painter as well. As in the paintings of Ponse, ill. 206 is
Born

at

rather over-abundant
fruit

and flowers

in

in

composition with the large pheasant added

to

an architectural setting.

151

KESSEL

207.

7X

KESSEL
in. (17-8

x 229 cm.)

KESSEL, Jan van

Born

flemish

(1626-1679)

Antwerp, Jan van Kessel was the son of the painter Hieronymus
van Kessel and Paschaise Brueghel, the daughter of Jan 'Velvet' Brueghel.
By the age of ten he was an apprentice with Simon de Vos and in 1645
became a master of the Antwerp Guild. The caption of an engraved portrait
at

of 1649 already describes the twenty-three-year-old Van Kessel as peintre

tres renomme en fleurs
His uncle, Jan Brueghel the Younger, with whom
'.

Van Kessel probably

also

worked, had him paint copies after the work of

Van Kessel's work commanded good prices in

when exported to Vienna and Madrid. He clearly led a

his illustrious grandfather.

Flanders and

comfortable prosperous

life in his

native

Antwerp

until his death in 1679.

Jan van Kessel is especially interesting because of the variety of his work
and the way in which it perfectly reflects the influence of two major artists,
'Velvet' Brueghel and Seghers. Under the sway of the first, who had
died a year before he was born,
traditions.
in

Van
111.

Under

Van Kessel looked

firmly back to the early

the sway of the second, the great master of flower painting

Kessel's day, he could be quite 'modern'.

207, an exquisite

little

copper panel only

7x9

inches,

is

clearly very

The abundance of
flowers, the mixture of large cultivated blooms with many tiny wild flowers,
the untoned brilliance of colour, are all familiar. The technique is different.
Brueghel's transparency is replaced by much more opaque colour applied
reminiscent of the larger baskets of 'Velvet' Brueghel.

with clearly discernible brushstrokes:

Van Kessel

likes to

edge

his rose

where they catch the light, and the whole

manner is not unlike a gouache miniature. Mention of miniatures again
brings to mind his grandfather, whose landscapes on copper panels only
three or four inches in width were collectors' jewels to be passed round
and admired, glass in hand. Even with Van Kessel's less finely detailed
petals with a firm white line

basket of flowers
full

it is

only through a glass that every flower can be seen to

advantage. Criticism can be levelled at

Van Kessel where,

in

the

abundance of his output to eager patrons, the quality of his work varies
and the brushwork becomes too mechanical and the finish too hard, producing
a doll's bouquet effect.
In the same early vein Van Kessel painted small panels of studies of
insects and flowers on white backgrounds, directly descended from Hoef52

KISLING

nagel in the previous century. Both the Ashmolean and Fitzwilliam Museums

have beautiful examples of these studies which, in the period, were often
used to ornament furniture. It would be an injustice to Van Kessel not to
reiterate the scope of his oeuvre. In the Brueghel tradition he painted
allegories of the 'Five Senses', the 'Garden of Eden', swags of flowers,
shells, fruits, with creatures of all kinds, fish, bird choirs like miniature
Hondecoeters, monkeys or singeries as they are called, and combinations
of or variations of all of these. He also painted still-life fantasies. In a well-

known example Van

formed by caterpillars! All of

by his eldest son Ferdinand
(1648-1696). Ferdinand worked for John Sobieski, King of Poland, and
so the Van Kessel achievements came to Warsaw. Another son, Jan van
Kessel the Younger (1654- 1708), added portraiture to the repertoire and
went to Madrid where he became court painter to Charles II in 1683.
Van Kessel's large banquet pieces, as in the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen,
Dresden, are quite unrelated to Brueghel in style or content and reveal
Kessel's signature

is

these subjects were successfully exploited

rather the influence of

In

common

with

De Heem.

many

all-rounders, and

plain flowerpieces are relatively rare.

amid

this

Van Kessel

wealth of activity,

painted garlands and

cartouches after the example of Seghers and, not surprisingly,

it

is

pre-

dominantly the latter's influence which is immediately discernible in the

bouquets like ill. 201. The painting of the tulips and the columbines, with

rounded brim of a hat, are mannerisms of the artist. Yet the

shelf, where the graining of the oak shows, would
have no place in Seghers' work. It brings us back, as do the fallen leaf and
petals, to the work of 'Velvet' Brueghel and emphasizes the merging of
two great influences in the work of Jan van Kessel.
edges

like the

transparent

brown

KEYSE, Thomas

208.

KEYSE,

13I x

signed and dated 1759

298 cm.)

if in. (34-9 x

British

(1721-1800)

Thomas Keyse was a Cockney who

pleasure garden known as the Spa at

Despite his Dutch-sounding name,

owned and managed a successful

Bermondsey in London. Painting was apparently

hobby of Keyse,

although his pictures were highly praised by none other than Sir Joshua
Reynolds.

He

exhibited his paintings at the Royal

Academy and

the

Society of Artists from 1761 to 1773 and again in 1799. 111. 208 is one of a
charming pair of small canvases. The composition is simple, each vase

containing only three stems of flowers, but painted with great care in
restrained colours.

The

very simplicity brings to

who

Chichester, a notable landscape painter,

Keyse

in

mind George Smith of

also painted still-lifes like

an unmistakable English eighteenth-century manner: a refreshing

note of independence from the

many sub-Van Huysums.

KICK,

dutch
Cornells (1635-1681)
Amsterdam, Kick is known by only three or four certain works.
The example in the Ashmolean, Oxford, ill. 209, is more conventionally
symmetric than another painting illustrated in Bol, 1969, p. 289, where
his arrangement is more akin to Van Aelst (see p. 33). Kick was the teacher
of Van den Broeck and Walscappelle and in the latter's entry their relationship can be seen by comparison of ill. 209 and 380.
The Ashmolean panel, in excellent order, has a pleasing use of complementary colours in the purple poppy and orange marigold. The spiky
prunts set low on the glass vase are unusual.
Active

at

KISLING, Moise (1891-1953)

Kisling was born in Cracow.

polish
His

first

teacher

Pankiewicz, a friend and pupil of Renoir,

who

at

Warsaw was Joseph

instilled in Kisling a love

209.

KICK,

18x14

in.

signed

(458 x 356 cm.)

153

KISLING

of the Impressionists and the persuasion that only at Paris could he

man

K -0^.

fulfil

Thus

Kisling arrived in Paris in 1910, yet another young

drawn to the cosmopolitan centre of the world's art. Very soon the

his ambitions.

nineteen-year-old

by Soutine.

knew

all

He became

his fellow artists

and had

his portrait painted

especially close to Modigliani

who

painted

him

Holland and Belgium

to enlist in the service of France. The following year he was seriously
wounded on the Somme and invalided out of the army. After the war he
went to Provence and in the early 1920s worked at St Tropez, then 'unknown' except to Signac. In 1923 Paul Guillaume held a very successful
exhibition of his work and Kisling remained a known and respected figure,
travelling widely in the 1920s and subsequently living in New York during
the World War II years. He rallied support for France in the United States
and returned to Paris in 1946, with many supplies and gifts. Kisling, the
artist and the man, was much honoured by his adopted country - another
chapter in the long history of Franco-Polish rapport.
Kisling's contact with Cubism and every other movement of modern
art never affected his personal, representational style. Although his portraits
and landscapes are of interest, Kisling was at his best with flowers. He
painted every kind from orchids to holly, often bouquets of a single type
of flower. 111. 210, from the 1930s, is typical of his traditional simple setting
for a flowerpiece, which, combined with its towering effect and brilliant
colour, bring the most recent painting represented here close in spirit to
the earliest, like Brueghel. His bouquets have a certain naivety and dreamlike quality reminiscent of Chagall. Kisling was especially fond of mimosa,
several times. In 19 14 Kisling returned

which may have prompted a critic

Kisling's works seem 'sparkling like
210.

KISLING,

39fx 28|

in.

signed

from

a visit to

to write so perceptively in 1937 that

fireworks'.

KNAPP, Josef (c. 1800-1867)

(100 x 73 cm.)

Josef

Knapp was

Austrian

followers of Drechsler at Vienna. Josef

and
ill.

who had been among the

studied at the Vienna Academy

the pupil of his father Johann,

clearly follows in the city

and family tradition of flower painting

in

211, of 1836, a delightful example with a most delicately painted squirrel.

KOKOSCHKA, Oskar (1886-

Austrian

due for the inclusion here of Oskar Kokoschka.

A
very
few in his work and, arguably, untypical of a
paintings
are
Flower
The choice stems not only from the inpainter.
portrait and landscape
from
the revelations of his plain ability as
dividual appeal of the artist but
watercolours of flowers. These were
of
a flower painter as seen in a group

word of explanation

is

mark the artist's eightieth birthday, held

by Marlborough Fine Art Limited, London, who have done so much to
promote Kokoschka's work. Mainly painted the previous year, they showed
part of an exhibition in 1966 to

understanding of the subject and appeared like naturalistic studies

with only a hint of the intensity of former years. Nonetheless, they remained
in the mind's eye and have led to the choice of ill. 216, a powerful canvas
of nearly forty years earlier, 1928. Despite the unusual subject (although in
fact he painted several flowerpieces at this time) 'it seems to represent the
a fine

very personal palette and brushwork of the painter. In doing so the illustramay serve as a comparison between Expressionist art and that of his

tion

contemporaries Matisse, Bonnard, Chagall, all those who he encountered

in Paris, the first stop in the years of travel which began in 1924 when he
gave up his teaching at the Dresden Academy. Equally interesting is the

211

KNAPP, signed and dated

22 j

'54

in.

(77-5x57-8 cm.)

1N30

comparison with Van Gogh and Gauguin whose work he had seen in his
at Vienna. Nor can one fail to be aware of his contact in
Germany with Impressionists like Corinth, and more significant!) with
student days

LADELL

Expressionists, especially

Xolde and the Norwegian-born Edvard Munch.

His experience of Paris lightened and purified his palette, but it is the
brushwork that is the characteristic feature of Kokoschka's work, as if it
were the handwriting of the artist. Of course the brush is restlessly energetic

man who was at the period travelling through Europe, Asia

Minor, and the Mediterranean, whose whole career was marked by changes
of country, even of nationality. The 'attack' in painterly terms has that
fervour which disturbs by its violence but arrests by the completeness of
the artist's emotional identification with his subject. Emotion runs through
Kokoschka's work like a taut lifeline holding the rebel, the passionate
as befitted a

lover, the pacifist, the

different currents of his

Should one

By

humanitarian, the refugee, together against these

life.

also see in these highly

charged flowers

1928 over a decade had passed since the severe

a certain

joyousness?

wound which he

suffered

on the Eastern front in 1917, and the prolonged emotional crisis that followed
when the lifeline seemed about to break. Perhaps Kokoschka put into his
bouquet something of the exhilaration that his complete recovery and the
much happier phase of his life, when his wanderlust was being satisfied,
must have brought to him. Interpretation rests with the beholder but the
personal intensity of these flowers brooks no dispute. As Kokoschka said,
'Painting, you know, isn't based on just three dimensions, but on four.
The fourth dimension is a projection of myself.

KONING, Elizabeth Joanna

dutch

(1816-1888)

Born at Haarlem, Elizabeth Koning was the pupil of A. A. Steenbergen.

Although she did paint in oils, it is her watercolours and botanical studies
which deserve attention. Her page of roses, ill. 212, contains pink and red
and yellow blooms with soft green buds and foliage. Its delicacy suggests
the knowledge of the many engraved flower studies by French artists like
Chazal and Bessa, and perhaps this drawing itself was for a book illustration.

LACHTROPIL S,
Very

little is

KONING,

17! x 14

in.

signed and dated 1847

(45-5x35-5 cm.)

dutch

Nicolas (active 1656-1700)

known of

212.

the interesting Lachtropius

whose

evidence of his unusual surname, are probably not Dutch.

origins,

He was

by the
active

have been a brewer.

Amsterdam and at Alfen on the Rhine, and is
signed
and
in
Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam,
dated 1667, is the
111. 213,
the
said to

at

best

known of

by Warner
the i960

in

the few canvases by Lachtropius, having been illustrated

1928 and repeatedly since, although

it

does not appear

Rijksmuseum catalogue. Rather systematically drawn,

theless has a surprising elegance

canvas of almost identical size

it

in

none-

and sophistication. De Boer exhibited a

1935, signed and dated 1677, whose

in

present whereabouts are uncertain. A signed example, with the same reds
and blue foliage as the Amsterdam canvas, was included in the Fairhaven
Bequest to the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, in 1966.
These three paintings are homogeneous but a quite different example
was published in the Revue du Louvre, 1970, from the Musees d'Art et

Chamber), an outdoor scene with flowers and a serpent in the

Marseus van Schriek style
a work which may support a suggestion
that Lachtropius went to Rome

d'Histoire,

LADELL, Edward
Surprisingly

little is

BRITISH

(active 1856-1886)

known about Edward

Ladell

who

painted

many

still

and flowerpieees during the Victorian era. He is first heard of as a

resident of Colchester in 1856. During the 1870s he moved to the West
Country and worked at Torquay and Exeter. His obituary in 1886 says
that Ladell was still hard at work on commissions up to his death. From
lifes

213.

LACHTROPIUS,

24! x 2o\

in.

(629 x

52-

signed and dated 1667

cm.)

LS5

LADELL

214.

LADELL,

signed and dated 1862

17 x 12! in. (43-2

215. (right)

24 x 20

x 32-4 cm.)

LA FARGE,

in. (61

signed

x 508 cm.)

1856 Ladell was a regular exhibitor at the Royal Academy. Ellen Ladell,
his wife, also painted still-lifes in a

214, which

is

manner very

signed with a distinctive

like

monogram

signed and dated 1862 on the back of the canvas,

her husband's.

to the

is

bottom

111.

and

left,

entirely typical. Ladell

preferred flowers and fruit on a ledge to formal bouquets and in the excellence of his technique perfectly realized his aims without the garishness

of composition of lesser Victorian painters.

LA FARGE, John (1835-1910)

111.

American

215, from about 1862, immediately stands out from

flower paintings illustrated in the present work.

What

all

the American

could be further

removed from the popular Currier and Ives print of the same year (ill. 273) ?
John La Farge, a consciously intellectual artist, tried to approach the
subject of flowers in a

new way, evoking

their

mood and

spirit rather

than

merely their botanical likeness.

Having trained as a lawyer in his native
Paris

and joined

his

New York, La Farge went to

numerous compatriots at the studio of Thomas Couture
which the studio's most distinguished member, Manet,

in 1856: the year in

departed for something

less staid.

Americans, the extent of

216. (opposite)

y> X 31

[56

KOKOSCHKA, signed

in. (<)()

/ 80 cm.)

Although Couture was host

his influence

many

On

his

La Farge painted with another

William Morris Hunt. Light intrigued La Farge and

return to America after several years,

Couture 'graduate',

to so

obviously varies greatly.

LARGILLIERE

he liked to place flowers by an open window where the light of interior and
exterior could mingle.
gives the

bouquet

its

Above

all, it is

the hazy

mysterious quality.

He

shimmer of the

light that

217. (opposite)

12! x 9!

in.

MANET, signed

(31-8x24-8 cm.)

also appreciated the value of

flowers as an instructive subject for the artist interested in values as well

as vivid local colour. Looking at ill. 215 it is difficult to imagine that La
Farge was not affected by the sophisticated art of Whistler, who began
his studies in Paris a year before him.
La Farge painted wreaths of flowers, echoes of the Guirlande de Julie
(see p. 213), watercolours of peonies and water-lilies, under the influence
of Japanese art, so popular with Whistler, and painted flowers as decorative

them

panels and worked

in stained glass.

1886, in stained glass, was

Tadema and

is

now

in the

made

His 'Red and White Peonies' of

for the

Museum

home of

Sir

Lawrence AlmaThrough his

of Fine Arts, Boston.

Hunt brothers, architect and painter, so prominent

La Farge was a member of an artistic elite and, by the

friendship with the

in

Boston

society.

individuality

and range of

was

his exhibited flowerpieces,

influential

on

ill.

215, appear of much greater

significance and value than his figure murals

and other work. There can

Today La Farge's

others.

flowerpieces, like

be no doubt that the Oriental influence, not apparent in the present example,
increasingly important to La Farge - a dreamer among the realists
and 'eye deceivers'. One might almost jump ahead to the remark of Matisse,
'that there are two ways to paint a tree, firstly by the drawing of imitation
as one learns in European schools, secondly by the feeling which its
proximity and contemplation suggest to us, as with the Orientals.'

became

LAMBDIN,

George Cochran (1830-1896)

American

George Cochran Lambdin was one of the principal American flower

when flowers really

make themselves apparent in a school dominated by other forms
of still-life. Lambdin came from the centre of still-life activity, Philadelphia,
painters of the second half of the nineteenth century,

began

to

and was firstly a genre painter, whose attention turned to still-life. In 1870
he settled at Germantown, Pennsylvania, and made a rose garden of considerable renown. Like Fantin-Latour in his Normandy garden, Lambdin
grew his own models, and both artists are best known for their roses.
Lambdin painted conventional bouquets of roses, alone or mixed with
other flowers, as in the 1873 example in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
Lambdin also painted, in a more individual vein, roses growing in his
garden against a wall, in the same spirit of 'live nature' as opposed to
'nature morte' that made the water-lily in its pond a popular subject (see
Hall). 111. 218 has beautifully painted red and yellow roses with a lighter
background outdoors, compared to the neutral ones of the bouquets in
glass \ases. Lambdin's work was diffused through publication in chromolithograph by Prangs, a firm competing with Currier and Ives (see Frances

Bond Palmer).
I

\RGILLIERE,

French

Nicolas de (1656-1746)

Although Largilliere was born

in

France, his parents

moved

to

Flanders

and Nicolas received his artistic training at Antwerp,

where he entered the guild in 1672. In 1674 he went to London to work
in the studio of Sir Peter Lely, painting the fruit and flowers in his portraits.
On the death of Lely in 1682, Largilliere returned to Paris where he enjoyed
a highly successful career as a portrait painter, and in 1728 became director
of the Academy. His painting was much praised by his contemporaries:
Mariettc described him as a 'universal' artist, Diderot praised his knowlshort]) after his birth

edge of

artistic theory,

famous lecture

at

the

and

his pupil,

Academy

Oudry, recorded

years later in 1749.

his teachings in a

218.

LAMBDIN,

30 x 20J

in.

(76-2 x

signed

514 cm.)

159

LARGILLIERE

Although Largilliere was principally

included flowers in his portraits.
at the

Musee

a portrait painter,

characteristic

example

he frequently
is

the portrait

des Beaux-Arts, Grenoble, of Elizabeth de Beauharnais,

who introduced the begonia from America.

By contrast ill. 219 is one of his rarer still-lifes with flowers, a vanitas painting

wife of a Monsieur de Begon,

signed and dated 1677, thus an early work painted during his stay in
England. His debt to the Flemish school is evident and it must not be
forgotten that at this stage Largilliere was by training purely a Flemish
artist.

He

gives great care to the light delicate key of the colours, which

developed so splendidly in his work in France.

Oudry how

to paint white: 'if you

put beside

it

want

It

was Largilliere who

told

to paint a silver vase coloured white,

other white objects like satin, paper and china, which will

help you find the exact tone wanted for your silver vase.'

LAURENT,
A

Francois Nicolas

(c.

1775-1828)

French

little-known master, Laurent exhibited at the Paris Salon between 1801

and 1819, and died at Orleans in 1828. 111. 220 is unusual in being painted
on this scale on vellum which has been mounted on canvas. The jade green
leaves and alabaster vase are typical of the cool tone of the whole painting.
In the foreground is an orange nasturtium next to a pink rose, behind a
magenta hollyhock.

LEDESMA,
LARGILLIERE,

219. (above)

29! x 24

LAURENT,

220. (below)

277 x 21

in.

signed and dated 1677

(74 x 61 cm.)

in.

signed

(698 x 534 cm.)

Bias de (early 17th century)

been known only from documents. In 1602 Ledesma was cited in Granada,
the name inscribed on the illustrated work, and he painted a pair of pictures
in the Alhambra in 16 14. The seventeenth-century Spanish historian
Pacheco also mentioned his work. Before the recent research of Professor
Bergstrom, Ledesma had been thought to be one and the same as Bias
de Prado, master of Sanchez Cotan, and deceased by 1603. 111. 221 is one of
a pair of canvases at the High Museum of Art, Atlanta, Georgia, and is
one of Spain's earliest known fruit and flowerpieces. It is a very striking
composition with the flowers arranged in two balanced groups, behind the
table bearing a basket of cherries.

221. (right)

LEDESM V

in.

160

signed

(56-2x78-4 cm.)

Spanish

In 1943 the discover}' by Julio Cavestano of a signed work by Bias de

Ledesma, ill. 221, established the existence of an artist who previously had

The warm
blue of the

red and ivory white of the cherries harmonize with the pale

irises

ranged with lupins in a

prompted Bergstrom

stiff

row.

The

primitive effect

to recall the still-life details used in a medieval

Hortus

Conclusus.

LEEN, Willem van

One

many

of the

dutch
Dutchmen whose style was enriched through
at Paris, Van Leen, born at Dordrecht, went to

(1753-1825)

excellent

working for long periods

first time at the age of twenty and became friendly with
Gerard van Spaendonck who had been settled there a few years. He worked

Paris for the

in

Holland and

Paris, but left the

French

capital at the outbreak of the

Revolution in 1789. However, by 1808 he was again visiting Paris. Van

Leen was also active as a dealer and is said to have decorated French snuffboxes with flowers. He died at Delftshaven. Van Leeuwen was a pupil.

Van Leen's work is distinguished by a softness of touch, quite different

from the precision of his friend Spaendonck, and seems at its best on panels,
like that of 1799 exhibited at the Willet Holthuysen Museum, Amsterdam,
in 1970. By comparison ill. 222 has a much lighter airy background which
sets the key for the delicate, pastel colours of the flowers. Having cited
two privately owned examples, it is as well to note that Van Leen is represented in the museum at his native Dordrecht, and now also at the
Cambridge (Fairhaven Bequest). The Metropolitan Museum

Fitzwilliam,

New

of Art,

York, has a decorative canvas in quite

the kind of fancy urn, in this case blue, which

type of work might be compared to Hendriks

a different

Van Leen
(ill.

183).

LEEUWEN,
Born

at

format with

often used. This

Gerrit Jan van (1756-1825)

Arnhem, Van Leeuwen was a pupil of Hendriks

dutch
at

Haarlem, and

is much more freely painted than the large

Museum, Cambridge (Fairhaven Bequest). The
latter with its enormous coxcombs and towering hollyhocks is very much a
la Van Os and nearer in composition to Van Huysum; it compares to
the style of Leeuwen's contemporary, Van Leen. There is a fine water-

also of Van

panel

Leen.

now in

111.

223 of 1795,

the Fitzwilliam

colour of 1794 by this artist

LERICHE,
Nothing
artists

is

I.

in

the Albertina, Vienna.

French
many

(active 1780-1813)

S. J.

known of

recorded

in

Leriche's background, but he was one of the

the service of

Queen Marie

Antoinette. In 1780 he

painted decorative garlands

in

the Belvedere of the Petit Trianon, Versailles.

224 was probably made

to

be

111.

set into

the decorative panelling of a room.

LINARD, Jacques
It

is

French
(c. 1600- 1645)
only comparatively recently that Jacques Linard has been restored

he enjoyed in his lifetime as one of the major artists of stilland flower painting in the seventeenth century in France. Although
it is not clear if he was born at Paris, it was there that Linard came into
early contact with the very active colony of Flemish painters and merchants
of the Corporation of Saint Germain des Pres. He married the daughter
of Romain Treoyre, supplier of materials to many of these painters, and
from the subsequent records of distinguished godparents at the baptism
of their children it is evident that Linard was a well-established and respected figure. In 163 he was able to acquire the post of Valet de Chambre
to the Kinti, a sinecure whose purchase gained him certain privileges.
Linard's latest dated work of 1644 is a vanitas of a skull with vase of flowers
which has, significantly, much in common with a famous lost vanitas by
Philippe de Champaigne. The vanitas theme, so popular in Holland,
to the status
life

223.

LEF.UWEN,

2(4 x 14I

in.

signed and dated 1795

cm.)

(54x365

LINARD

K^^H

4/jfe

**m

jft
1 7;>

,"jj^
1

##r...
!

"

V v

jHH

^
224. (above)

Hi x

LERICHE,

Hi'. (3V5 x

signed and dated

if

%S^^

45'5 cm.)
~

225. (right)

19^ x 25I

LINARD,

in.

^ *^.
,,

(48-6 x 64-4 cm.)

appealed to Calvinist and Catholic

alike.

The

^-^EW*^w

,r

signed

artist

^ ^*^>

died in Paris in 1645.

Linard painted still-lifes of fruit and other foods, flowerpieces, allegorical

and vanitas subjects with flowers often included. 111. 38 is perhaps his

best-known work; it hangs, at the time of writing, in the Grande Galerie

of the Louvre, Paris. To judge from the unusual 'flat' surface texture, this
canvas may have been laid down on panel or stoutly relined. Old discoloured
varnish has settled in the interstices of the canvas making the finish seem
coarser and more grainy than it really is. If the painting were cleaned - or
rather when it is cleaned, the flowers will have a finer quality because of
the resultant smoother texture and the superb harmony of colour will be
greatly enhanced. Not surprisingly Linard's basket of flowers, to be dated
in the 1620s, derives much from Flemish painting - 'Velvet' Brueghel in
particular. The slight loss of impasto and the screen of dirt tend to emphasize the flat one-plane manner in which the mass of flowers are presented.
This is common to early bouquets whatever their nationality, as is the
absence of much overlapping. Delineation is very fine and sensitive and
the mood is restrained compared to the exuberance of a Brueghel. Quite
apart from Linard's distinctive choice of flowers, with so many different
anemones prominent, there is no confusing this basket with an ordinary
Brueghel follower's work, still less a Bosschaert. Indeed it is as a flower
painter that Linard appears at his most independent and original, with a
varying approach. Contrast the Louvre basket with the square vase of
roses, peonies and lilies at the Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe, and with
the seven tulips of 1639 at the

The symmetry
226.

LINARD,
1

l| in.

signed and dated 1639

(4HX 366 cm.)

first
is

Musee de

la Ville,

Strasbourg

(ill.

226).

of the splayed tulips in their Venetian glass vase has at

glance a decorative note. In reality simplicity bordering on austerity

the keynote.

How

this

contemplative work of an

artist

much concerned

with symbolism contrasts with the comparative opulence of even

painting

Bollongier's tulips of the

Amsterdam (ill. 27).

The same Venetian vase appears

same year

in the

in

Dutch

the Rijksmuseum,

'Five Senses' panel

(ill.

225) but

this allegory, familiar in

was one of the first artists in France to treat

northern art. Hearing is usually represented by t

musical instrument, as

in

there are no tulips. Linard

162

Linard's large canvas of 1^27

in

the

Musee

LUST

National des Beaux-Arts, Algiers, but here

it is the call of birds. Sight is

represented by the open view, taste by the fruits and oysters, touch by the

knife and

many

textures, smell, as always,

by the bouquet. Here, the 'Five

Senses' could be linked to the 'Four Elements' so that the birds and
;

also represent air, the oysters, water, the fruits

fire is

depicted by the

little

brazier to the right.

and flowers,

The

window
and

earth,

mysterious A. Baugin

and Stosskopf (see p. 245), among other Frenchmen, painted these themes.
Without detracting from the merits of Linard, one is aware throughout
his work of northern influence - Brueghel has already been mentioned. Is
it possible that Linard with his bowls of fruit, his well-filled baskets, his
oysters, and the peculiar pearly tint of his colours, received the influence
of Brueghel through Beert ? After his apprenticeship Beert's nephew and
pupil, Ykens, went to Provence in the 1620s. It seems unlikely that he
would have made such a journey without first staying in Paris. If so,
was Linard impressed or was his own distinctive artistic personality
already formed ?

LINTHORST, Jacobus

dutch

(1745-1815)

known of the life of Linthorst, active at Amsterdam, but among

many comparable Dutch flower painters of the period his work is

Little

the

is

distinctive. Linthorst uses strong whites with thin strokes of colour, as if

'etched' over the white beneath, rather than glazing to a tinted colour.

The

beautiful pair at the Fitzwilliam, Cambridge, fruit and flowers in

Van Os manner dated

the

which
in

is

1795, have this characteristic as does ill. 227,

likes to bunch the flowers closely together

dated 1808. Linthorst

overlapping profusion to form a solid centre to a bouquet.

l

an inscription, Pret a bonheur\

flowerpiece
it

entirely without fruit,

is

originally

had

which

pendant fruitpiece,

is

unusual, and

as in the

227 carries
This excellent

111.

literally 'ready for happiness'.

may mean

Fairhaven Bequest.

227.

LINTHORST,

32^x25

in.

signed and dated

it

(82-5x63-5 cm.)

that
It is

in the Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam, on the same type of mahogany panel of the same size, and also
dated in the same year, 1808, was this pendant.

tempting to think that the Linthorst fruitpiece

LOPEZ, Gasparo
A

(r-1732)

native of Naples and the pupil of Belvedere,

Italian
Gasparo Lopez carried

the Neapolitan traditions of flower painting into the eighteenth century.

To some extent

the Italian

Baroque was tempered by Jcan-Baptiste Dubuis-

who brought Monnoyer's manner of painting to Italy in about 1700.

Lopez worked in many of the major cities of Italy and at one time was in
the service of the Medici family at their workshop near Florence. A com-

son

parison between the work of master (Belvedere),

228, underlines the changing taste.

Lopez

is

a less

ill.

55,

and pupil,

dramatic,

less

ill.

monu-

artist. His is a more decorative, light-hearted manner of painting

must derive from France.

mental
that

LUST, Abraham
Apart from

dutch
de (second half of the 17th century)
at Leeuwarden in 1659, nothing is

note of his being active

of I)e Lust
Hoi, 1969, gives the Christian name of Abraham in
place of Anthonie by which he had previously been called, and there is

known

apparently no relationship between this painter and Anthonie Hendricksz.

Amsterdam

de Lust, an
details,

an

need

it

be said,

is

still-life

neither

painter. The absence of

uncommon nor necessarily

biographical
indicative of

artist's stature.

Van den Broeck (see p. 61), De Lust's best-known painting is

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (ill. 229). To those who find a
quaintness in Dutch names, the presence of Kick and Lust in the

\s with

the one in the

22H.

certain

33x38

I.

OPLZ,
in.

signed

(83-9x96-6 cm.)

163

LUST

same room
but

De

will not

Lust

is

go unnoticed. Clearly, Van Aelst

not without individual character.

The

is

his starting point,

red and white

poppy

and the red one to the bottom right set up the familiar diagonal.
Restraint and taste are shown in the simplicity of the few flowers and the
choice of palette white rose with deep blue gentians immediately above
and crimson hollyhocks to the top. The deep blue-green vase with gold
mounting was probably a prize prop of De Lust's. It features for example
in the work in the Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum, Brunswick, and in an
excellent one with Messrs Dou wes of Amsterdam in 1 96 1 The gold mounting
could be the work of the well-known Dutch silversmith, Jan Lutma (15841669), a friend of Rembrandt.
At some time a fake Rachel Ruysch (see p. 222) signature has been added
to the Oxford De Lust with a date 166?. In bygone times this would not
have been an unreasonable pretence in terms of quality, but the forger
should have avoided a date in the 1660s: Rachel was not born until 1664.
In fairness to the deceiver, his was a better effort than one in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. This painting is by Elliger (see p. 104) and has
a false Ruysch signature and a date of 1659! It was Ralph Warner in his
book of 1928 who first correctly attributed the De Lust. The wish he
expressed then, that De Lust deserved to be better known as a flower and
fruit painter, remains to be fulfilled.

to the top left

LUYCKX,
229.
2 5t

LUST
m

x 2 2

(64*8 x

546 cm.)

Christiaan (1623-1653)
flemish
Luyckx was one of the many minor artists who painted garlands in the
manner of the great Seghers. Born at Antwerp, and first instructed by
Marlier, Luyckx obtained an appointment as painter to the King of
Spain

in

1646, hence the presence of a garland with centrepiece in the

known by Luyckx;
one of these three and the first one to be published. To judge from
the quality of this panel, one can only repeat for Luyckx the wish expressed for Seghers, that he had painted more bouquets and fewer garlands.
Prado, Madrid. Only three signed vases of flowers are
ill.

230

is

MANET, Edouard (1832-1883)

Locomotor
the

ataxia

first slight

ments, was

is

a disease of the central nervous system.

symptoms

in

1879.

By 1882

the paralysis, despite treat-

taking a slow but relentless hold. In

young painter

visited

Manet

French
Manet felt

January of that year a

how he could only

at his studio and noted

on a stick. However, once seated at

his easel, as the visitor found him, Manet's ability to handle his brushes
cannot have been seriously impeded because he was, after all, putting the
walk with

difficulty, leaning heavily

finishing touches to his last masterpiece, the 'Bar at the Folies-Bergere'

in the Courtauld Institute Galleries, London). Actually, as it was
mainly painted in the previous year, it is dated 1881. Jeannot, the visitor,
recalled watching Manet work. 'Everything was simplified the tones were

(now

made

lighter, the colours brighter, the contrasts of values

As

two

in

earlier masterpieces, 'Le Dejeuner sur

made

LHerbe" (1862

3,

closer.'

Musee

de l'lmpressionisme, Paris) and ''Dejeuner dans /' Atelier' (1868, Neue

Pinakothek, Munich), still-life plays an important part.
Still-life, on its own as a subject or within a composition, is prominent

230.

1.

164

JfCKX
in

(31*8 x

24H cm.)

throughout Manet's work but the approach of the still-life painter is fundamental to his whole attitude and innovation. As Malraux has written,
'It is not by chance that Manet is above all a great still-life painter'. (Among
the first pictures which Manet sold to Durand-Ruel was one of his marvellous
salmons.) Manet looked at life, animate or inanimate, whether a head or
a lemon, with a very objective eye. However much he admired the crattsmanship of Goya and Chardin, neither the pathos of the former nor the

MANET

lyricism of the latter are reflected in his

lesser extent Velasquez, are his

have

felt

On

own work. Frans Hals, and to a

pure painter ancestors with whom he may

the greatest affinity.

the marble-top bar of the 'Folies', the

most arresting item is a tall

what connoisseurs rightly drink champagne from
rather than the modern bird bath on a stem. In this
glass Manet put a pale
pink and a pale yellow rose, placed in front of the
barmaid in such a way
that the light colours of the two roses are
against the black velvet of her
jacket. If this glass of roses were lifted from
the bar and placed against a
thin flute,

which

is

light

grey background,

This

little

it might, at a quick glance,

be the twin of ill. 217.
canvas in the Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum
was painted
later in 1882 when small-scale flowerpieces,
done in a few

hours, were

the practical thing for the failing artist to paint, and

with so
there was no shortage of fresh specimens. Flowers had

many

friends

always had a strong

appeal for Manet,

'I

would like to paint them all', he told his friend Antonin

it had been the Chinese peony which
took his fancy.

Proust. In the 1860s

Introduced

one of the

at the

beginning of the century, this peony was, like the camellia,

of the Second Empire and, of course, appropriate

floral rages

to the craze for Oriental art

which affected Manet, Degas, and Whistler

Three very varied peony bouquets from the fifteen he painted
are now in the Louvre. By comparison with the late
flowerpieces they seem
quite ornate, as if the lush leaves and petals prompted a
decorative impulse
in the painter. In the last years there was not
only a change of flowers,
with roses and lilacs the favourites, but a change to a more direct,
instanespecially.

taneous approach. Jeannot's remarks above apply equally to

these last
bouquets which, with their brilliant light and suddenness, seem like flashbulb photographs in terms of painting. The visitor to the

Musee de

l'lmpressionisme, Paris, can make comparisons because there is a bouquet

of the same time as the Glasgow example, with pinks and a
marvellous
purple clematis, as well as the peonies.
The lightening of backgrounds and the key of the whole colour scheme

was undoubtedly due to the Impressionists, but Manet always stood apart
from their ranks. His flowers are not fused with the light around them as
Monet's were to do. To what extent Manet was the last of the Old Masters
and the first of the modern, and just how much he is responsible for the
innovations of the Impressionists, remain questions long to be discussed.

Where would his evolution have taken him if he had not died at fifty?
What is certain is that what Manet loved was not the subject nor the problems
of composition, but the act of painting - directly, urgently, joyously.

Whatever

his physical disabilities, his

undaunted spirit seems to be soaring

crescendo of breadth and unfaltering perfection of touch. A tiny
canvas, 7x9 inches, of this same period before he finally left the studio
free in a

March

1883, is in the Paley Collection, New York, with two roses, pink
and yellow again, lying on a table with their stems. The oil paint has the
same free 'jottings' effect as the watercolour flowers with which he liked to
in

embellish his letters. Manet cuts away much of the artificiality, the presentation-package aspects, which intervene in flower painting between his
vision and that of the earliest masters of the seventeenth century. Needless
to say Chardin, ill. 138, is an exception and a stepping-stone from them to
Manet. Can he have failed to see the Edinburgh Chardin, then in the
Marcille Collection

background of the 'Folies Bar' we see customers reflected in the

huge mirror. Unmistakable is the blonde girl in a hat with her elbows on
the bar. Her pose derives from one of the many sketches Manet painted of
In the

his close friend,

come

to

Mery Laurent,

fame when appearing

a great
in

La

beauty of the period. She had

first

Belle Helene in 1867 at the age of

165

MANET

She had smitten the wealthy American dentist, Thomas Evans,

Men Laurent was one of Manet's

sixteen.

whose mistress she immediately became.

loyal friends

and

who

a last Easter egg,

when he took

Men

him to the end. Eliza, her maid, brought flowers

and Manet left Eliza's pastel portrait unfinished

cared for

to his

bed

Mallarme, another

in that April of 1883.

1

lover,

George Moore wrote,

'.
I remember his studio and the tall fair woman like a tearose coming
into it'. How appropriate that Mery Laurent should have been the first
owner of these roses, ill. 217.
called

'une charmante rose

and years

later

MARLIER,

Philip de (active 1640-1677)

flemish
one of the very few works of Philip de Marlier, who was clearly
far better known to his contemporaries than to ourselves. This Antwerp
painter's fine bouquet is of unusual interest because of the collaboration of
Frans Francken II, who painted the superbly worked gold and silver vase
and put his signature and date, 1637, beneath it. Marlier's signature is on
the front edge of the ledge, a little to the right. Considering the date, the
bouquet is still strongly attached to the style of earlier masters such as
Beert. The latter was specially fond of the downward-facing rose to the
left of a bouquet, hanging heavily on a thin stem, and possibly Marlier has
made a direct borrowing of this detail. The fact that this work is on
copper augments the feeling of an earlier date. Marlier's Antwerp garland
with Madonna, illustrated in Bernt, shows a quite different side of his
231

111.

is

work. Luyckx was Marlier's pupil.

MARREL, Jacob (1613

German
14-1681)
closely
Rhine,
Marrel
is
Frankenthal
on
the
Jacob
Although born at
where
his
grandfather,
Claude
Frankfurt-on-Main,
associated with nearby

Marrel, a French goldsmith, had settled in the sixteenth century. In 1627

Jacob Marrel became a pupil of Flegel at Frankfurt but by the 1630s he

was active in Utrecht and a pupil of Jan Davidsz. de Heem. Marrel's movements are known by his unusual habit of putting a location with his signature and date. Two well-known examples (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, and
Ashmolean, Oxford) inscribed Utrecht are both dated 1634. In 1641 he
married at Utrecht. As would be natural Marrel travelled between Utrecht
and Frankfurt throughout his life. A large vanitas canvas at the Staatliche
231.

Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe, dated 1637 is inscribed Frankfurt. His first wife

having died, Marrel married the widow of the German engraver Matthaus

Merian

in 1651 (see p. 169).

Thus Marrel became the teacher of his stepcompany with his young pupil, Mignon

daughter, Maria Sybilla Merian. In

(see p. 171),

he again journeyed to Utrecht in 1659.

He

is

mentioned there

again in the 1660s and died in Frankfurt in 1681.

Jacob Marrel forms a link between two early centres of flower interest,
Frankfurt and Utrecht, and between the Bosschaert tradition and the great
Flemish masters, De Heem and Seghers. What is surprising is the early
date of 1637 on the newly published Karlsruhe painting already mentioned.
This is a most distinctive and elaborate vanitas composition of a vase of
flowers surrounded by a violin, music sheets, a skull, books, a pipe with a

burning taper, and many other symbolic items, set in a stone niche with
winged putti in the spandrels. But for the date one would be tempted to
put this vanitas, into the later part of Marrel's career when he apparently
turned to vanitas subjects and
flowers. Bol,
at

1969, illustrates

the Staatliche
Yet

if

the

[66

is

including

neither necessarily

a still-life,

with lobster and peacock,

Kunstsammlungen, Kassel.

-ilass

isolation, there

still-lifes,

such

\ase of flowers from the Karlsruhe vanitas

no mistaking

its

similarities to the typical

is

taken in

Marrels already

MARLIER,

245 x 18+

in.

signed

(62 x 47 cm.

MATISSE

Amsterdam, Oxford and, in addition, in the Fitzwilliam,

Cambridge. 111. 258, a sizeable panel of 1635, is the most impressive example
and must be ranked superior to those cited above. Ambrosius Bosschaert
the Younger (see p. 58) and his brother Abraham (see p. 54) were conreferred to at

came under
Rijksmuseum painting of 1634 Marrel put a dead,
upturned frog beside the vase, directly taken from Ambrosius the Younger.
Like the Bosschaerts, Marrel was fond of flamboyant striped tulips which
tinuing the Bosschaert tradition in Utrecht and Marrel clearly

their influence. In the

the examples mentioned. The auratum-type white lilies to

258 appear in the Karlsruhe canvas. Marrel was fond of lizards,
and no one who sees the panel in ill. 258 forgets the tiny red forked tongue
which the lizard extends towards the bottom left striped carnation. The

feature in
the top in

all

ill.

use of a stone niche, the depth of which

is so well suggested by shadow,

and the way he has dotted creatures around it, show that Marrel was not
unreceptive to the influence of another important Utrecht resident, Savery

see p. 229).

Writing in the
praised the

MAST,

artist's lifetime,

Sandrart in his Teutsche Academie, 1675,

work of Jacob Marrel.

1600-1658 or later)
dutch
mentioned in the guild in 1627, Van der Mast
(or du Mast) is known by one work only, ill. 232, of 1656. Records of his
two marriages and his will exist.
Although clearly a follower of Van der Ast on the evidence of this one
panel, Van der Mast has sufficient quality to warrant inclusion. To the
best of the writer's knowledge the watch is outside the repertoire of the
Bosschaert family. Perhaps investigation among the works of Van der Ast
and Assteyn would reveal other examples.

Dirck van der

(c.

Active at Delft, where he

is

MATISSE,

Henri Emile Benoit (1867-1954)

French
Appendicitis was responsible for turning a lawyer's clerk into a painter

who was

to

become, with Picasso, the most

illustrious artist of the twentieth

century. Obliged in 1890 to remain convalescent over a prolonged period,

Although the distraction

quickly became a necessity, and the young man copying Chardin and De
Heem still-lifes in the Louvre turned into the outrageous Fauve of the
1905 exhibition, it is easy to forget how slowly and carefully Matisse prepared himself for his long life as a painter. Only his debut was a matter of
chance. He weighed up Impressionism most thoughtfully, he bought the
work of Cezanne, Gauguin and Van Gogh, he flirted with Pointillism through
Signac, he learned to draw with steady application. Freedom was achieved
through discipline. Matisse himself helps to deceive us into forgetting
these years of stud) and struggle by the apparently effortless ease with
which he paints, 'I have always tried to hide my efforts, I have always
wished that m\ work would have the lightness and gaiety of spring without
Henri Matisse took

to painting just as a distraction.

giving a hint of the effort

it

232.

MAST,

2 7 x 36$

in.

signed and dated 1656

(687 x 925 cm.)

has cost', Matisse said.

His wish that colour should be freed from the bondage of imitation to
express the emotions of the painter in front of his subject was a goal achieved
slowly by faithful pursuit. By expressing the feelings aroused by the subject,
M.itisse felt a greater reality could be

but he also

felt

shown than by simple representation,

depth and volume as well. In the

that colour could express

many-sidedness of Matisse, the decorator is not the least important. The

term takes on a new significance in his hands because Matisse saw in
/.mne the importance of form and structure which escaped others for
whom Fauvism was a less profound experience.
Perhaps ill. 155 of 1924 will show these qualities. From 1918, when
(

167

MATISSE

Matisse settled at Nice with twenty years of endeavour behind him, he

found like his friend Bonnard a joyous justification of his love of colour.
it was a love that was stimulated by visits to North Africa. The
anemones belong to a group of important still-lifes which best express the
traditional and naturalistic phase of his work at this time. Flowers abound
throughout his whole work and anemones which offered the juxtaposition

Of course

of primary colours, blue and red,

were his favourite flower.

He

like the

red and green of earlier years,

delighted to place these bouquets against

the exotic patternings of scenes like the

Moroccan

table cloth, wallpaper,

and rugs. This bouquet he had painted, or the Persian miniatures he

admired, can be compared to a larger interior with gramophone, Nice
1924, exhibited at the Grand Palais in 1970 (No. 171), from the group of
superb Matisse flowerpieces in the Lasker Collection; the 'L'Histoire
Juive' of the same year at Philadelphia Museum of Art; and especially the
'Interior with Flowers and Parrots', 1924, of the Cone Collection, Baltimore
Museum of Art. At Baltimore there is the largest representation of Matisse's
work after Moscow. In the following year, 1925, there are two paintings
in the same vein both entitled the 'Pink Tablecloth', one in the Lewisohn
Collection, New York, and the other in Glasgow Art Gallery. In 1924
Matisse was financially secure with most of his thirty-four exhibits selling
before the opening of Bernheim-Jeune's exhibition, although his main
enthusiasts lay outside France in the United States, Russia, and Scandinavia.

The

serenity of his

the other

life at this

time

and the strong patterning

is

time

made

reflected in

less agitated,

mentality of the pot of flowers.

at this

is

with flowers cited there

still-lifes

It is

is

ill.

155.

More

so than with

powerful sense of volume

helping to emphasize the

monu-

not without significance that Matisse

his first sculptures for several years.

Naturally the colour of flowers captured Matisse and he

felt

he achieved

them that he urged was essential between painter

and subject. They are much more to Matisse than an excuse to explore
colours and rhythms. He said that in his studio he surrounded himself
with 'my flowers and fruits with which I make contact very softly without
being aware of it'.
The well-known statement which Matisse made in 1908 could be taken
away from its context to describe the pleasure of living with his anemones
or indeed with any fine flowerpiece. 'What I dream of is an art of balance,

that close rapport with

233.

MAYRHOFER,

20 x 14^

in.

signed and dated 1821

(508 x 36-8 cm.)

purity and serenity, devoid of troubling or depressing subject-matter, an

art

which might be

like

for every

mental worker be he business

man

or writer,

an appeasing influence, like a mental soother, something like a good

armchair

in

which

to rest

from physical

fatigue.'

MAYRHOFER, Johann Nepomuk (1764-1832)

Austrian

Mayrhofer studied with Haslinger at Linz and

then moved to the Academy at Munich where he made botanical drawings
for engraving. Among his books are Flowers of Munich in four volumes,
1816-20, and F.uropae Flora Medica, 1820-22.
111. 233 is one of a pair, signed and dated 1821. The arrangement of
flowers about the lyre is dominated by three bright pink roses. The strong
colour scheme is continued in the bright red anemones, the white poppy
flushed with crimson and the deep blue cornflowers. Mayrhofer's interest
in the work of the great flower painters of the seventeenth century is
reflected in a direct copy after Mignon dated 1795.

Born

in eastern Austria,

Spanish
MELENDEZ, Luis (1716-1780)
Although Melende/'s mother was Italian and gave birth to her son at
Naples, his father was Spanish and the family returned home soon after
[68

234.

MERIAN

13A x ii

in.

(333

x267

cm.)

MERIAN

the child was born.

Melendez was

for a series of still-lifes painted

pupil of his father and

between 1760 and 1762

is

best

known
room

to decorate a

235.

MELENDEZ

20^x30!

in.

(535 x78 cm.)

Aranjuez palace, and intended to show the many fruits from lands
under Spanish rule. Their robust simplicity is reminiscent of the finest

in the

Spanish painting of the seventeenth century.

manner along

in a frieze-like

composition

There

except for

is

2i,()

1685.

is

in

strong light that throws the objects into

relief.

Spanish

Luis de (17th century)

Nothing

is

known of

this artist but he was obviously a painter of

Bergstrom points out that fully opened flowers
contemporary Italian vanitas paintings as symbols of

Professor

were popular

in

human life. Here

of human learning.

fleeting

MERIAN,

the allusion

is

extended,

Maria Sybilla (1647-1717)

known about

In contrast to the few bald facts

contemporaries, the fascinating

mented. Apart from those

Sybilla's

arranged

an isolated example, clearly signed Luis de Melgar and dated

sensitivity.

vanity

fruit

and the whole

work rare in the mid-eighteenth century,

Chardin, and with Melendez may be an echo of Zurbaran.

MELGAR,
111.

bathed

235 has the

simplicity in this

is

111.

the shelf, the vase to the side,

own

life

artists

in the

GERMAN
so

many

of her brilliant

of Maria Sybilla Merian

is

well

docu-

whom she worked, an account

from a museum catalogue.

with

family reads like a page

books, to the

of

\()i)

MERIAN

Born at Frankfurt in 1647, she was the daughter of the engraver Matthaus
Merian who had once worked in partnership with Johann de Bry and
engraved his Florilegium Novum in 1641. Matthaus Merian was an old man
when his daughter was born and after his death his widow soon married
Jacob Marrel. Sybilla studied painting with her stepfather, in company
with Mignon and Johann Graf, a flower painter she married in 1668.
Then in 1685 she separated from her husband and with her two daughters
joined a religious sect in Friesland. Thirteen years later in the company
of one daughter, Dorothea, she embarked on a long voyage to Surinam in
South America where she collected specimens and made drawings of insect

and plant life. She returned to Hamburg

of specimens to the museum there.

Throughout her

life

Sybilla's

in 1701,

presenting her collection

principal interest lay in the study of

entomology and from childhood she had made drawings of insects. The
volume of flower studies at the Natural History Museum, London, includes
a gouache stud) of irises, ill. 234, which represents her best work, handled
with meticulous craftsmanship and an obvious understanding of the
botanical species.

METZ, Johann

Austrian
Martin (1717-1790)
During
Bonn.
of
of
the
Met/
the
service
Elector
Born at Bonn,
entered
ceilings
panels
and
overdoor
on
floral
the 740s he was mainly employed
1

170

236.

MELGAR,

I5|x22|in.

(39

signed and dated 1685

x58

cm.)

MIGNON

at Briihl, a

architect.

an

Bonn built in 1728 for the Elector by a French

Metz worked at Cologne where he founded
His two children Gertrud and Conrad were among his pupils.

small castle near

From

art school.

The

1761 to 1781

naturalism of his ceiling paintings

echoed

is

flowerpieces like

in his

237 characterized by the sinuous tendrils of ivy and sweet peas as well
as delicate grasses, trails of nasturtiums and wild flowers. Johann Martin
Metz and his family worked also in England, although nothing is known of
ill.

his activity here.

MICHEL X,
Born

at Paris,

designed

floral

Michel Nicolas (c. 1688-1733)

Micheux was employed at the Gobelins
borders for tapestries.

He was

French
factory

where he

received at the Paris

Academy

in 1725.

of flowers at the Musee Salie, Bagneres-en-Bigorre in the

an example of his formal flowerpieces, obviously influenced

fine vase

Pyrenees,

is

by Monnoyer.

238

111.

bunch of yellow

is

much

smaller and less elaborate, showing

jonquils, a white rose

and

simple

blue hyacinth tied with

mauve

ribbon. Possibly, to judge from the format, this small panel

set in the

door of

a piece

of furniture or the panelling of

may have been

room.

MIGNON, Abraham

German
(1 640-1679)
Frankfurt-on-Main, son of a merchant, Abraham Mignon was a
prolific flower, fruit, and still-life painter. Although German by birth, and
catalogued under that school, Mignon is included in the literature of

237.

Dutch painting

34^x29

Born

at

in the

seventeenth century. His

first

teacher in Frankfurt,

METZ,
in.

signed and dated 1760

(876 x 737 cm.)

to whom he probably went very young, was Jacob Marrel (see p. 166).
Marrel took him to Utrecht in 1659 to become a pupil of Jan Davidsz. de
Heem, as Marrel himself had been. Mignon is recorded as a master in the

Utrecht Guild from [669 until his death in Wetzlar in 1679. Clearly he
moved between Utrecht and Frankfurt during his career. In Utrecht he
was a deacon of the Walloon church in 1675, and he married the grand-

Adam

daughter of the marine painter

Schook

(see p. 231

In the work of

Willaerts.

Stuven

(see p. 245)

and

were Mignon's pupils.

Dc Heem

model and remained

in

all

faithful to

it

different facets

its

through

Mignon found

his short but very

his

productive

career.

Within

in the minority. His

would grace any present-day collection but it would seem Mignon was at his best on a smaller scale, working
on panel. 111. 243 is a perfect example. lere Mignon most closely approaches
De Heem, whose influence is well illustrated. This panel, although 20
inches high, is like a miniature that must be examined closely to see what

his all-round oeu\re,

pure flowerpieces are

larger flowerpieces, usually on canvas,

The

is

really there.

is

treated in the

white rose with man) ants chasing

same wax

as

De Heem's

in

ill.

185.

among

the petals

.Mignon retains, unlike

the majority of flow cr painters in the third quarter of the seventeenth century,
a fairly

balanced and compact bouquet

Incidentally, the painting in the

in

the tradition of the early masters.

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford,

is

on the lower right on the edge of the shelf- a detail not mentioned
excellent catalogue of the
III.

z]<)

similar

shows

type.

It

be that

clarity

ol

in the

Bequest.

panel, of approximate!) the

may

convey the precise

Ward

signed

same dimensions, of

a very

black-and-white illustration can better

Mignon

gives the pure strength of colour that

at

his best, just as the colour plate

De Heem and

his

major followers

possess.

Mignon also followed in his own manner another genre used by De

Heem. III. 240 is one of the outdoor flower, plant, and animal scenes whose

238.

MICHEUX

7i x 5i'n- (ig x 14

cm

171

MIGNON

239.

MIGNON,

19 x 15 in.

popularity has been referred to in the Introduction. Marseus van Schriek

(see p. 232) specialized in

them.

Beaux-Arts, Brussels, with

appears

in

Ruysch's

other

sister,

its

Mignons of
Anna, made

Mignon's work found

squirrel

in the

well

is

Musees Royaux des

known; the squirrel

this kind. It is interesting to note that

copy of

Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe,

in

The example

little

ill.

this painting

which

is

Rachel

now

in the

317.

special favour with the Electors of

Saxony who

the eighteenth century collected thirteen examples, giving the present-

day Dresden Gemaldegalerie a unique representation of the artist's work.

Louis XIV gave a prominent place to his Mignon flowerpiece in the
Cabinet du Roi at Versailles.

MONET, Oscar Claude (1840-1926)

'I

am no

longer a beginner, and

it

is

FRENCH

sad to be in such a situation at

age, always obliged to beg, to solicit buyers.

doubly crushed by

my

misfortune and

year ends, quite desolately, especially for

give the slightest present.'
1878.

172

The chance

1870.

my

So Monet wrote

survival of a

At

this

is

time of the year

going to

my
feel

start just as this

loved ones to

whom

cannot

de Bellio on 30 )ecember
large number of Monet's letters has allowed
to

)r

signed

(483 x 38-1 cm.)

MONET

us a detailed insight into the prolonged sufferings of the artist.

Monet

necessarily struggled

more and endured more than

Not

that

the other 'poor

of the group, Pissarro and Renoir, but what one knows more
about seems worse. At least Renoir and Pissarro had temperaments better
equipped to 'put up with misery than Monet. He felt anger, resentment

boys

and extreme frustration and would lash out even

at those

who were

his

staunchest and most generous friends, like Frederic Bazille, the gentle
giant

from Montpellier.

Bazille's death in the

Franco-Prussian war in

1870 was another gloomy factor in the depression of the 1870s. The last
thing to be in the years after the horror of the Commune was an innovator,
a

euphemism for 'revolutionary' in art or virtually anything else.

The crux of this extract from Monet's letter is in the opening words.

No

doubt the birth to Camille of Monet's first son in 1867 had been in the
most humiliating circumstances: 'I suffer from knowing that his mother
has not enough to eat. Neither she nor I have a penny', he wrote to Bazille
soon after the baby arrived that year. Did Monet perhaps lay on the agony
in his letters to Bazille and others so that they might send more money?
No. There is no evidence to that effect and every reason to accept the
truth of these private letters. They are hardly expressed in the terms of
someone enlisting sympathy. For example, Monet's casual postscript in
a letter to Bazille of 1868, 'I was so upset yesterday that I did a very stupid
thing and threw myself in the water, happily with no ill effects'. In any
case, there is often corroboration. Thus Monet's lack of enough to eat

240.

MIGNON, signed

23! x 2o|

in.

(60 x 51 cm.)

173

MONET

241.

MONNOYER,

265 x 19^

in.

mentioned above to Bazille is confirmed by Renoir writing to Bazille in

1869: 'I am at Monet's nearly even" day, rather an ageing experience
between you and me, as on some days they don't eat'. Renoir delivered
the letter as his budget at that moment did not allow for buving a stamp
Nothing had changed years later when Camille expected their second
child, Michel, but, and it is a very important but, such suffering is harder
to bear for a man of thirty-eight than for one still in his twenties.
The year 1878 was arguably the worst of Monet's life. Camille's health
failed to improve and she died in 1879. Before she was buried Monet was
obliged to apply to Dr de Bellio for money to get a medallion from the
pawnshop. 'It was the only souvenir my wife was able to keep and I should
like to put it around her neck before we part.' In 1878 Monet, through the
help of Manet, had probably been able to extricate himself from his heavy
debts and to leave Argenteuil. He moved further out to Yetheuil where
Madame Hoschede came to live with the Monets, bringing her six children
with her. In June, Madame Hoschede's ruined husband sold the paintings
he had been able to collect since a sale four years earlier, which included
twelve Monets, but prices in the postwar stagnation were at rock bottom.
The publication of Theodore Duret's pamphlet supporting the Impressionists in that year must have brought slight comfort. Yet Monet's faith
in his work would allow him to sell at any price, however small, only in dire
emergencies. He had to give paintings to settle debts or against services
rendered, such as meals at Murer's restaurant.
These trials of Monet have been recounted at length only to give a glimpse
of what the Father of Impressionism might have looked back upon as he
worked peacefully and securely in his famous garden at Giverny until his
Antoine

death in 1926.

(665 x 49 cm.)

These

are one's thoughts

when looking

at the

'Xympheas', the water-

the Orangerie, Paris, or the photographs of the bearded artist in

lilies in

the celebrity of his old age. Perhaps also such notes will banish again false
ideas about the

glamour of the Bohemian

life

led

by penniless

artists in

'Gay Paree\

One

242. (opposite)

:;;

in.

MONET, signed

(54-5x65 cm.)

and dated 1878

of the friends to

whom Monet

wrote so desperately for money in

1878 was Dr Paul Gachet: 'I thought that in the circumstances (the baby
was due in a day or two) I might ask you again, even though I still owe you
a hundred francs'. Monet urged the doctor to recompense himself with a
painting. Dr Gachet, like de Bellio, Murer and Chocquet (see Cezanne)
was one of the early enthusiasts of Impressionism. He is best known to us
from the portraits of Van Gogh who spent his last months with the doctor
at Auvers-sur-Oise. Perhaps Dr Gachet acquired the 'Chrysanthemums'
of 1878, ill. 242, against one of these debts - an appealing idea but lacking
in evidence. It is one of many paintings given by his son to the French
nation. Although Monet is for ever linked with water-lilies, flower bouquets
did not engage his attention nearly as often as they did Renoir.

were

for

Monet

a subject for

days

when

really

bad weather kept him

They
in his

away from landscapes and Paris views. Nonetheless, in the Imshows of 1874, 1876, 1877, and 1879, Monet showed flowers
among his exhibits and in 1882 there were five flowerpieces. One of his
earliest exhibits at Rouen in 1864 was a flowerpiece. The 'Chrysanthemums'
of 1878 are strikingly different from the rest of his flower paintings: the
studio

pressionist

vase

is

so off centre and the frieze-like effect

wallpaper. This curiously

seeing a bouquet on a shelf in

the studio.

heightened by the flowered

painting

mind the unusual

kimono two \ears earlier where the background is
Between 1878 and 1882. flowers seem to be at the height

certain 'a la japonaisS note brings to

portrait of Camille in a

covered b) fans.

'74

is

may be the result of Monet

someone's room rather than preparing it in

artificial

MONNOYER

of their interest for Monet, due in part to the example of Renoir. In the
latter year Monet painted a pot of flowers standing on a yellow striped

243. (opposite)

MIGNON

20 x

244.

MONNOYER, Jean-Baptiste

4|

in.

(50-8x37-5 cm.)

which sold in Xew York in 1917 for $4,000, and a more conventional
bouquet of gladioli and marguerites exhibited at Washington in 1955
(Collection of Mr and Mrs Paul H. Xitzie). 'Chrysanthemums' of 1882,
Havemeyer Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Xew York, appears
to be much closer to the style of Renoir (see ill. 304) than the 1878 bouquet
which serves to emphasize their differences. There are also 'Chrysanthemums' of 1880 in the Xational Gallery of Art, Washington, and 'Sunflowers' of 1 88 1 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Xew York. The
development of Monet is well illustrated by a comparison of this group of
cloth,

Museum of Art bouquet of 1864. In

242, Monet's joy at the visual world transmits itself to the spectator

flower paintings with the Cleveland

ill.

immediately with the strength of the hand behind the eye. Against the
events of 1878 these flowers by Claude
durability of the

MOXXOYER,

human

Monet

reassure us yet again of the

spirit.

Antoine (1672-1747)

French

and pupil of Jean-Baptiste Monnoyer, Antoine

assisted his father in many projects. He accompanied him to England and
was to divide his career between London and Paris, but with three apparently
rather unsuccessful visits to Rome where he did not establish himself.
He was accepted into the Academy in 1704, and died in France in 1747,
prolonging not unworthily the style of his father well into the eighteenth

Born

Paris, the son

at

century.
111.

241

a typical

is

Monnoyer

example with the ornamented vase so often noted

in

flowerpieces.

MOXXOYER, Jean-Baptiste (1636-1699)

The wonder

of Louis

\I\\

French

Europe like the

Jean-Baptiste Monnoyer, some sixty

Versailles echoed through

fame of his principal flower painter,

whose paintings adorned the palace.

of

Born

at Lille in 1636,

he often signed himself,

his early arrival in

Monnoyer,

or Baptiste as he

is

may have had some formation

Paris.

often called, and as

Antwerp before

in

His reputation there was soon established. At

the age of twentv-sc\en he presented himself for reception at the

and

his

acceptance was confirmed two years later

in

1665

Academy

his reception

piece is now in the Montpcllier Museum. Baptiste's wife, by whom he had

two children, died and in 1667 he remarried. Among the eight children
of this second marriage was his son and pupil, who often assisted him,
Antoine Monnoyer (1672- 1747). At the Salon of 1673, Baptiste exhibited
four works. The support and friendship of the omnipotent Lebrun, whose

one of the Monnoyer children, enabled the artist

deploy his talents and enormous work capacity to the utmost. With his
assistants, including his distinguished son-in-law Belin de Fontenay,
wife acted as

godmother

to

to

Baptiste set

homes,
In

a style of

decorative flower painting for the adornment of great

of great significance in the history of flower painting.

collaboration

artists he contributed to the decoration

Yinccnncs, Trianon, Meudon, and Marly, in

with other

of the royal residences

at

addition to the quantity of work described

at Versailles.

For the Gobelin

and Beauvais tapestry works he painted flowers in many scenes and designed
floral borders and motifs. The owners of the finest private homes, such as
the Hotel

Lambert, were

as enthusiastic as the royal patrons. Baptiste

needs no introduction to English readers because, through the patronage

of the Duke of Montagu, English ambassador to Louis XIV, he became
almost equally famous

in

contemporary England. For the decoration of

73i x 43l

in

l8 7 x Iri cm.)

177

MONNOYER

245.

MOXTICELLI,

24! x 17!
his great

the

duke

and, for
ville,

London home in Bloomsbury,

later to

become the British Museum,

French team of Charles de Lafosse, Jacques Rousseau

the flowers, Baptiste. In this task his early biographer, D'Argencalled in a

considered that the painter surpassed himself.

From

1690 until his

from occasional visits to France, Monnoyer

appears to have lived and worked in London. Queen Mary took up the
Duke's protege, and Baptiste's flowerpieces soon appeared at Windsor,
Kensington and Hampton Court. Other notable patrons were the Duke
of St Albans and the Earl of Carlisle; the latter had earlier commissioned
work from Van Kessel. Baptiste's portrait was painted by Sir Godfrey
Kneller, to whose portraits of other sitters he added flowers. English engravers, particularly John Smith, followed their French counterparts in
producing series of prints after his work, like the Livre de Toutes Sortes
de Fleurs d'apres Nature, popularizing Baptiste's work far beyond the
circle of his wealthy, aristocratic patrons. Baskets of flowers were especially
death

in

London

in 1699, apart

popular for engravings.

78

in.

(63

x44

signed

cm.)

MORANDI

In

common

with several famous flower painters, Baptiste's drawings,

often black pencil on blue paper with white heightening, were sought-after

items in themselves and not compositional sketches to be discarded.

also suffers

from the

difficulties

of attribution posed by so large

He

personal

much of it unsigned, and a very large studio production. Baptiste

undoubtedly was aware of the decorative Baroque flowerpieces of Flanders
and Italy, but he brought to the genre a French sense of lightness and good
taste. Inventiveness in the composition of his overdoors, overmantels,
easel pieces, floral designs never deserted him.
111. 244 was painted for the Queen's Green Closet at St James's House
and is now in Buckingham Palace. To a painting of already imposing dimensions a strip about four and a half inches wide was added around the canvas,
probably by the artist, to re-adapt the painting to some new setting no
doubt. Many such fine gold vases are found in Baptiste's work; the artist
was privileged to use ones in the royal possession at Versailles for his
models. The irises and honeysuckle are more uncommon but his fondness
for hyacinth and crown imperial is very characteristic.
A typical overmantel is ill. 29, from among the many examples remaining
in the possession of the present Duke of Buccleuch for whose ancestor,
Ralph, Duke of Montagu, it was painted by the artist. The fresh delicacy
of colour and execution of these flowers whether against a dark background
or in a landscape, as in ill. 261, distinguishes, above all, Baptiste from his
pupils and imitators. The amaryllis are a particularly beautiful colour in
this exemplary work.
As D'Argenville wrote of Jean-Baptiste Monnoyer, 'one is convinced
that these flowers lack only the scent which they seem to give forth'.
output,

MONTICELLI,
Born

at

MOREL, Jan

sfx^in.

(13-5 x

Baptiste, signed

108 cm.)

French

Adolphe-Joseph (1824-1886)

Marseilles to Venetian parents, Monticelli's paintings are

with the bright sunlight of Mediterranean skies.

246.

He

imbued

received his formal

training from Augustin Aubert and took great pleasure in painting 'Ladies
in a

Park' in the

manner of Watteau. He was a romantic dreamer, proEmpress Eugenie whom he saw walking on

fessing an intense love for the

promenades of the Cote d'Azur, and dwelling on the re-creation of the

medieval Provencal 'Courts of Love'. Isolated from the artistic milieu of
Paris, Monticelli developed his own style and by the 1870s reached his
most successful period. He painted portraits and landscapes as well as
flowers, often set in a vase on a multicoloured rug. With touches of vibrant
the

colour

in

the heaviest impasto, Monticelli achieves a strong sense of volume,

bathed in bright sunlight. In ill. 245 the flowers stand on a sundrenched ledge with half the bouquet powerfully silhouetted by the cool
his objects

darkness of the room behind. Not surprisingly, Delacroix's palette influenced

own.
During

his

was ignored by the critics in Paris and

admired by both Van Gogh and Cezanne. Indeed,
Van Gogh actually copied his works and in a letter to his brother Theo
wrote that he felt he was only carrying on where Monticelli left off.
vet

his lifetime Monticelli

he was deepl)

MORANDI,

Giorgio (1890-1964)
Giorgio Morandi remained unaffected by fashionable

Italian
artistic

trends of his

unmoved by

the metaphysical polemics of his contemporaries, working

Bologna where he was born. He rarely left that city, travelling
once to Switzerland and occasionally visiting other parts of Italy to study
the paintings of the old masters and to admire the works of Chardin,
Corot and (Cezanne. His isolation is emphasized by choice of subject matter:
except for a few figure paintings and portraits done in his youth, Morandi

day,

in isolation in

247.
31

MOREL, Jan Evert, signed

m (46 x 58 cm.)

x 22^

179

MOUNT, signed and dated

249. (above)
7 x of in. (17-8 x

1859

161 cm.)

lrtmuk/9/t

248.

(left)

325 x 26

MORANDI,

in.

signed and dated 1918

(82 x 66 cm.)

concentrated on the study of still-life and flowers. In his still-lifes he has

been called the 'twentieth-century heir of Chardin'. Within his selfimposed limits Morandi varied his compositions by different lighting
effects and viewpoints yet his style changed little over the years. Thus,

work dating from 1918, has many of the qualities seen in a

flowerpiece of 1950, exhibited at Naples in 1964. The unchanging features
include a light-coloured table and lighter-coloured plain background, the
proportions of vase to flowers, of objects to space, and a strictly symmetrical
composition. Cezanne is the name that comes most readily to mind when
looking at these strongly tactile flowers by Morandi.
ill.

248, an early

flemish
Baptiste (1662-1729)
He was
Brussels.
and
Antwerp
both
at
worked
Morel
Antwerp,
Born at
Maximilian
Elector
the
for
worked
and
Verendael,
of
pupil
the
apparently
of Bavaria as well as many wealthy Brussels families who employed him
known
as decorator of their new houses. Surprisingly, very few works are

MOREL, Jan

by Morel, but ill. 246 is a small signed example. It is not dated, but as
must be at least late seventeenth century, the bouquet is rather archaic.

MOREL, Jan Evert (1771-1808)

it

dutch

his
Born at Amsterdam, Jan Evert Morel was a pupil of Linthorst, and
to
related
not
is
illustrated.
He
example
master's influence is seen in the
outstanding
an
is
Morel.
111.
B.
name,
247
the flemish artist of the same
J.
example on panel signed and inscribed 'Amsterdam'. Morel was the

teacher of Brandt and also painted landscapes.

180

250.

MUTRIE,

30 x 25

in.

(76-2

signed and dated 1865

63-5 cm.)

25i

MORI SOT,

iHi x 2i{ in.

dated 1876

(46x55 cm.)

MORISOT,

French

Berthe(i84i-i895)

In the spring of 1874 Berthe Morisot, daughter of a most respectable

bourgeois family, joined in the

first

exhibition of a group of outrageously

avant-garde painters. In the autumn of the same year, she married Eugene

Manet, brother of Edouard,

whom many

held responsible for having

started the decline of art in the previous decade with his 'Dejeuner sur
/'

Herbe\ Thus, Berthe Morisot identified herself artistically and personally

with the ideals of these exhibitors

Though Manet

who came

to

be called the Impressionists.

did not participate in this or the subsequent Impressionist

shows and should not strictly be called an Impressionist, even in the

1870s he was still a very controversial figure. Through her close relationship
with her brother-in-law, Berthe was able to encourage Manet to get away
from the studio to paint outdoors, the gospel lesson of the painters of
atmospheric daylight.

One must remember

immediately
the Paris

after the

Commune,

that in those very conservative, reactionary years

Franco-Prussian disaster and the worse horrors of

people

in the circle

of Berthe Morisot and her parents

could only look upon these Impressionists as extreme radicals, akin to

181

MORISOT

the unmentionable - revolutionaries.

actually raised in one paper.

They

The

cry of 'La Patrie en danger'' was

did get

the radical papers but, as Berthe pointed out

some favourable comment

in

1876 to an aunt,

in a letter in

'you don't read them'. Beneath the delicate feminine gracefulness of Berthe

Morisot's work there was a character of great strength which alone allowed
her to follow unwaveringly her chosen path. If her

life

lacks the

drama,

among
The wide circle

pathos, and vicissitudes of her contemporaries, her very presence

them

is

a constant tribute to the individuality of her spirit.

of her friends were united in the unaffected and affectionate friendship they
felt for her.

The second half of the 1870s was a period when her adherence to the
importance of daylight as the determining factor in the appearance of an
object and its colour appears complete. 111. 251, 'Dahlias' of 1876, shows
that her brushwork, however, retained its very personal characteristics.
She never tried the systematic dabs of the brush that Monet and Pissarro
favoured, but painted with

more

fluid paint in very free

sweeping strokes.

mantelpiece setting suggests the intimate, domestic note of so much

of her work, and she used it again, with the same bowl, in a canvas of 1885.

The

She was also very fond of fans - her friend Degas had given her one and these too re-appear in her rare flowerpieces. These dahlias are closely
comparable to the work of the artists she decided to join, but Impressionism
with Berthe Morisot is endowed with a very personal note not only by the
distinctive touch of her brush, but by a certain sensitivity in all that she does,
reminding us of the influence of her teacher, Jean Baptiste Camille Corot.

252.

MYN,

29! x 255

MOSER, Mary

Cornelia van der, signed and dated 1762

in.

(76 x 64 cm.)

British

(1744-1819)

George Moser (1704-1788), a gold-chaser and enameller of Swiss birth,

was one of the countless foreign craftsmen who established themselves in
England in the eighteenth century. He did so at an early age and became
a prominent drawing instructor, with George III among his pupils. Having
taken an active part in the formation of the Royal Academy, he was justly
elected the first Keeper at its foundation in 1768, a post he held until his
death twenty years later. His daughter Mary was destined to singular
distinction at this august institution.

hardly surprising that Mary, an only child, was keen to be an

It is

Redgrave, writing

in the 1870s, stated that

she

artist.

won premiums from

the

Society of Arts for her drawings at the age of fourteen in 1758 and again

However, Margaret Hallett wrote in 1963 that Horace

annotated catalogue of 1755, noted a flowerpiece 'of very
bright colouring'. If this is correct, then she was exhibiting at the age of
eleven Such a precocious talent would explain, apart from any help from
the following year.

Walpole,

in his

her father,

why

at the

election as a founder

age of twenty-four she was considered worthy of

member

to the

Academy - the more remarkable as

From the first year, 1768, until

her reputation rested on flower painting.

1790 she was

occasional

regular exhibitor of flowerpieces, and contributed the

'history

painting',

for

example 'Atalanta and Hippomenes'

and portraits. Queen Charlotte employed her to paint a room at

Frogmore, in Windsor Park, for which she is said to have received 900
and the charming tribute from the Queen that the room be called Miss
Moser's room. Much is made of her links with the painter Henry Fuseli,
mainly on the evidence of letters she wrote to him in Italy, which were
quoted by Joseph Nollekens. It appears she did have a penchant for Fuseli
but he was much more interested in her friend Angelica Kauffman, the
only other lady founder member of the Academy. In 1797 she married
Captain Hugh Lloyd, the widower of one of her close friends, and used her
married name professionally. She apparently painted only as an amateur
in 1790,

182

253.

MYN,

29 x 24^

in.

Herman van

der, signed

(737 x 622 cm.)

and dated 1730

MYN

which was sadly brief because Captain Lloyd died in

80 1. Another reason for her 'retirement' may have been failing eyesight
as a contemporary, in a heated exchange, referred to her 'as blind as a

after her marriage,

1

mule'. She was clearly a charming woman who could comment wittily
and eloquently on the society and the arts of the day.
Although her biography is far from complete, it is encyclopedic compared
to those of other artists; but the reverse is true of her work. The sum total
of the present enquiries, apart from ill. 257, in the Royal Collection, are a
pair of ovals at the Royal Academy of Arts, London, seemingly uncleaned
since her lifetime; an example included in the Fairhaven Bequest to the
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; a signed and dated watercolour of
1768 in the Spooner Bequest to the Courtauld Institute Galleries, London;
and studies at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Throughout
the country there must be neglected examples of her work.

some deterioration in
would suggest it was designed for a specific space in
panelling or plaster ornament on the wall. The lilies, honeysuckle, and
fuchsia are especially pleasing, and the artist was clearly a student of the
111.

257, an unusually square canvas, has suffered

the yellows. Its shape

older

Dutch masters

rather than her contemporaries, because the dark

background and overall tonality are more akin to the later seventeenth
than the later eighteenth century. While no more than a minor role could
be claimed for the English

in the history

self-deprecation to absurdity that

of flower painting,

Mary Moser

is

it is

carrying

so obscure a figure to

most people today.

MOUNT, William

American
Long Island

S. (1807-1868)

254.
i

NELLIUS,

if x 8| in. (29 x

signed

225 cm.)

on paper by the best-known of this

family of painters, William Sidney Mount. His short-lived eldest brother,
Henry Smith Mount (1 802-1 841), trained as a sign writer and also painted
still-lifes, as did his elder brother Shepard Alonzo Mount (1804- 1868),
who was principally a portrait painter. William also lived by portraiture,
illiam
but is best known today for his rural genre scenes. When later in life
turned to wild flowers and fruit on the branch, the results were surprisingly
fresh and 'advanced if one compares ill. 249 to the formal canvas painted
by Peale only three years earlier, ill. 276. This type of lively oil sketch on
paper with spontaneity and naturalism inevitably brings to mind the
work of Constable. William Sidney Mount's lite seems to have passed
quietly in the little town of Stony Brook, Long Island, where the present
111.

249

is

a small oil sketch

example

is

preserved with works by other

members

of the family.

MUTRIE,

British
Annie Feray (1826-1893)
Annie Feray Mutric was the younger of two sisters who studied at the
Manchester School of Design. She first exhibited at the Royal Academy
in 185
and following her success she moved to London and exhibited
regularly until 1882. Her work found favour with John Ruskin who praised
her 'very lovely pure yet unobtrusive colour'. 111. 250, showing poppies in
an ornate ecclesiastical setting, is signed and dated 1865 and reveals the
artist's delight in surface texture. Stone, cloth, tapestry, glass, silver, and
1

wood accompany

the flowers.
255.

MYN,
One

dutch

Cornelia van der (1610-1772)

of the eight

children

M\n settled
No doubt her

who all
London

1727 and remained until her death

in

1772.

flower painting, like that

in

market with the avid collectors

although

it

must be

said to

fall

in.

signed and dated 1912

(58-5x53-4 cm.)

followed their father's profession, Cornelia

van der
ready

NICHOLSON,

23x21

in

shown

in

252, found a
eighteenth-century England,
in

ill.

short of the best in compositional elegance.

183

MYN

MYN, Herman

van der (1684-1741)

ditch
Born at Amsterdam, Herman van der Myn was a successful portrait painter
and travelled widely. In 1712 he was at Diisseldorf, in 17 18 at Paris, and
in 1720 visited England where he painted members of the Royal Family
and the English aristocracy. He also painted flowerpieces in the fashionable
style of the day, but ill. 253, signed and dated 1730, is highly individual.
The beautifully painted glass is inscribed 'un verre d'amitif and the rather
romantic simplicity suggests that the picture was commissioned by one
of Van der Myn's aristocratic patrons. Perhaps the glass was a treasured
possession of the patron, with special sentimental attachments. Like their

Van der Myn's

home there.

father, several of

and made

their

NELLIUS, Marten

eight children were attracted to

London

dutch

(active 1670-1706)

Warner illustrated four

examples of this genre. Xellius was active in Leyden and The Hague.
111. 254 from the Muzeum Xarodowe, Warsaw, is interesting as a rare
Xellius

almost exclusively

is

a still-life

painter and

example of flowers being included in a typical

fond of the Delft bowl tipped to one side.

256.

NIEULANDT,

signed and dated 1636

14^ in. (40 x 36 cm.)

still-life.

He

is

particularly

XTCHOLSOX, Sir William (1872-1949)

British
Born at Xewark, Nottinghamshire, to a wealthy industrialist family,
William Xicholson was sent to study painting in London at the age of
A

sixteen.

year later he achieved the ambition of so

many

English

artists

where he studied at the Academic Julian. During the 1890s

Xicholson was principally involved with the graphic arts for he joined
forces with his brother-in-law, James Pryde, under the name 'the Beggarstaff Brothers'. They produced series of woodcuts of Victorian characters
and also developed the art of the poster. Later Xicholson returned to painting
and earned a good reputation as a portraitist and painter of still-life. When
the National Portrait Society was formed in 191 1, Xicholson was a founder
member. The Tug of Tulips' dated 1912, seen in ill. 255, is a fine example
to visit Paris,

of Nicholson's restrained realism.

In contrast to the vase of

lilies of
Xicholson seems to be
unaffected by the polemics of Post-Impressionism, content to show his
white tulips and the light-coloured bowl and cloth in conventional terms
of light and shade. The sure touch of the brush reveals a confidence that
characterizes so many of his portraits. It is interesting that the apparently
traditional William Xicholson was one of the main supporters of his son
Ben, who was to become one of the best-known British abstract painters.

Smith,

ill.

338, painted only a year or

two

later,

Sir William received his knighthood in 1936.

257. (opposite)

26J x 25^

in.

MOSF.R,

(no 4 X

054

signed

cm.)

NIEULANDT,
Born

\erlcat left)
18

(6a

MARREL,

259. (o% erleat right)

35 x 27$

in.

signed and dated 1635

9x45-8 cm.)

OS, Jan

(88 u X 7c

cm.)

at

Adriaen van (1587-1658)

Antwerp, Xieulandt moved to Amsterdam

died there in 1658.

He

van, signed

is

by contrast

is

not therefore an independent

vamtas

about 1607 and

principally a painter of Italianate landscapes,

is

One notable kitchen still-life

Museum, Brunswick, still retains a

genre, and portraits.

\nton Ulrich
background, and

flemish
in

still-lite

of 1616

at

the Herzog

religious scene in the

still-life. 111.

2$b of 1636,
y

with flowers, probably the only instance

ot

might well serve as the archetypal vamtas

said, were automatically transient and already
petals fall from the rose. A skull dominates with a large bone to the right.
\s it these were not powerful enough reminders of our fate, a large Latin
inscription beneath the skull reads, 'What is all this if not fleeting joy'
However, the onlooker is given some respite by the second inscription
which reads, \lounr pour /;;', offering the hope of resurrection.
Xieulandt painting flowers.
picture. Flowers, need it be

'

[84

It

Bi
*

*')

ar

***.

iE

fi

'^tsd **^i

*J
'

^ *#

'

*c
"

,#..

f r.^

<

B&%
^p-^j

m^m

^^

VJP**^

^^
*-^P

^^rT

.
i

"

'

NUZZI

NIGG, Joseph

(1782-1863)
Austrian
Joseph Nigg is with Petter the best-known member of the Old Vienna
School which flourished so strongly in the first half of the nineteenth
century. Nigg was a pupil of Drechsler at the Academy and later worked
in the Vienna porcelain factory, As ill. 262, datable c. 1840, suggests, Nigg's
compositions were like Petter's more elaborate than those of his teacher.

The

colours are in a very light key, especially the foliage, and the then

relatively 'new' dahlia

is used extensively. Every flower is shown in fullest

bloom densely packing together in a contrived way and spilling out of the
bottom of the painting. The artist has carefully balanced the weight of
the red and purple poppies at the top by a huge red peony to the bottom
right, whose edges are beyond the bottom of the painting.
There exist two examples of 18 16 of Nigg's work on porcelain. No doubt
the experience of working in this field, which was common to all the Viennese

artists

of the period, stimulated their concern for decorative

effects.

NOLDE, Emil (1867-1956)

Born

in

after a

262.

by the turn of the century, Nolde is essentially a twentieth-century painter

and important exponent of German art. His Biblical scenes and figure
subjects have a sometimes ecstatic, sometimes savage quality, with flat
distorted drawing and violent colouring, characteristic of the German

MGG, signed

22$ x i6j

in.

Expressionists, the result of a deeply religious yet tormented mind, searching

(56 7 M 42 cm.)

261

in.

(55QXQ2I

(opposite below)

34 x 5ot

in.

through the simplicity of primitive artists.

into contact with still-life in the Ostend studio of Ensor,
whom he visited in 191 1. As a result, he painted still-lifes with masks
himself, delighting in the fantastic atmosphere suggested by them. When
turning to flowers, Nolde chose watercolour and in that softer, more fluid
medium he manages to capture the very essence of the flower. For greater
colour he chose the flowers of summer such as marigolds, zinnias and
for truth

Nolde came

SORF.AU

260. (opposite above)

22x354

German

northern Germany, Emil Hansen took the name of Nolde in 1901

village near his birthplace. Although he was already thirty-three

cm.)

MONNOYER, Jean-Baptiste,

(864 x 128 cm.)

signed

asters, as well as the vivid red

of amaryllis.

111.

263, of foxgloves, larkspur

and bleeding heart, is an example of the Expressionist painter applying his

skill to the most serene of subjects, flowers. Nolde, a man of great simplicity
in many ways, loved flowers and made gardens wherever he settled.

NUZZI, Mario

(1603-1673)

Mario Nuzzi, or Mario

brated flower painter in Italy.

after

many

him even during

Italian
known, was the most celeSo famous was he that a street was named

de' Fiori as he

his

lifetime.

is

better

Perhaps because of

his

importance

paintings have been attributed to him, although works that are

above question are rare. He came from Penna Fermana to Rome where
he studied with his uncle Tommaso Salini, an important still-life painter.
In 1634 Mario Nuzzi is recorded in the Academy of St Luke and in 1659
he was involved in a major commission of the Four Seasons for Cardinal
Flavio Chigi. These Four Seasons remain in the Chigi Collection, Rome,
and the best known, 'Spring', shows Mario Nuzzi at his easel. Nuzzi
painted the flowers and the portrait is by Giovanni Maria Morandi.
Seghers' visit to Rome in the 1620s had created a demand there for

surrounded by a garland of flowers. Nuzzi adopted the

same idea and was extremely popular, with his garlands fetching high
prices. 111. 264 is one such picture.
If the idea for a garland surrounding a religious image derived from
Flanders, Nuzzi treated it in a quite different and characteristic manner.
The flamboyant tulips swirl round as if carried in eddying waters.
Mario Nuzzi had a large number of pupils and followers who spread his
religious images

163

NOLDE, cigncd
ii in

(47

9M

nocm

189

NUZZI

manner of painting
influence of Nuzzi

is

to other parts of Italy,

marked

and

also to

Spain where the

son of a painter,

Nymegen

**

//v/j

NYMEGEN, Elias van (1667-1755)

The

in artists like Arellano.

''"V

.O

%?
.

, _*

dutch

entered the guild at Leyden in 1689. His

principal achievement was the decoration of the residence of the Frisian

Leeuwarden. The decorations no doubt reflected the

Monnoyer in France and Nymegen appears to have
been influenced by him. 111. 266 is a large ornamental canvas and may come
from the Leeuwarden scheme. Another canvas of putti with garlands in
the Louvre, Paris, is similar in style and dated 17 16.
Stadtholders

at

fashionable work of

OBERMAN, Anthony (1781-1845)

The

'

U * ri
)ffyM
^>

>

IBjtjI

Bis

mm

dutch

Born at Amsterdam, Anthony Oberman studied painting at the Amsterdam

Academy. He painted animals and landscapes as well as fruit and flowerpieces. 111. 265, signed and dated 1830, has characteristic exotic shells on
the table.

JfOt

> <k

fessfc

unusually strong diagonal lighting throws the composition

in contrasting reliefs.

OBIDOS, Josefa
The
born

in

Spain

at Seville.

The

Portuguese

de (1630-1684)

only Portuguese painter in the present volume, Josefa de Obidos was

family soon

moved

to the

enchanting walled

town of Obidos, north of Lisbon, where Josefa spent her

life.

As

*Cf

^:

J/-

well as

religious subjects she painted occasional still-lifes, with a 'Basket of Flowers'

now in the

111. 267, from the Museu

and dated 1676 and seen at
Burlington House, London, in the Winter exhibition 1955-6. The charming
naivety of composition, which has flowers included in an arrangement of
pastries and sweetmeats, is reminiscent of Spanish artists of fifty years
earlier. The abundance of objects arranged in a row along the shelf and the
lupins recall de Ledesma, while sweetmeats were the speciality of Van

Espirito Santo Silva Collection, Cascais.

Municipal, Santarem,

der

is

one of

a pair signed

264.

Si

llpp

NUZZI

284 x 22^

in. (72-

4x

565 cm.)

266. (opposite above)

40 x 50

in.

267. (opposite centre)

33^x63

NYMEGEN

(1016 x 127 cm.)

in.

OBIDOS,

signed and dated 1676

(84 x 160 cm.)

Hamen.

O'KEEFFE, Georgia

American
(b. 1887)
Georgia O'Keeffe came from being a small town art teacher to the centre
of American art in the 1920s and 1930s, Greenwich Village, New York
City. She was recognized by an art dealer, Alfred Stieglitz, who not only
exhibited her work, but eventually married her. Although she nominally
belonged to the Precisionist group, an American Cubist offshoot, her work
was not abstract but concentrated on real objects of a wide variety from
skyscrapers to flowers. Her most remarkable works are where she has taken
a still-life object and magnified it. 111. 268, 'Calla Lilies', of about 1927, is
the most perfect representation of the flower in the hands of an artist
interested in abstract values yet highly sensitive to the character of the
flower.

The

lilies

do not become merely

a pretext for line

and pattern but

have clearly been studied closely as specimens. Enlargement intensifies

their lush vitality and they seem to billow and ripple like the spinnakers
of a sailing boat. Chronologically, in this selective study, Georgia O'Keeffe
is the last of the remarkable number of women who have made so significant
a

contribution to the history of flower painting.

OOSTERWYCK,

dutch
Maria van (1630-1693)
many famous lady flower painters, Maria van Oosterwyck

The first of the

was the daughter

of a Protestant minister, and was probably born at Delft.

By the age of twenty-eight she had become a pupil of Jan Davids/., de
leem at Antwerp, developing into a highly accomplished flower painter,
1

U)0

165.

OBERMAN, signed and dated

4AX3I

in.

(10-5x9-

can.)

1830

OS

Amsterdam, and The Hague. Like her more famous successor Rachel Ruysch, she found favour with royal patrons beyond the
borders of Holland, including Louis XIV, Jan Sobieski, Emperor Leopold,

active at Delft,

William III of England (hence the example in the present Royal Collection),
and the Elector of Saxony. The Dresden Albertinum was largely the creation
of the Electors of Saxony and it is appropriate that ill. 269 should come
from that museum. It is one of a pair of pendants of fruit and flowers. The
sunflower

top was a favourite choice of the artist - like the striped

at the

grass.

at the

Mauritshuis,

in this

similar hibiscus as well as these other details appears in an

The Hague. By

example

contrast the shells are an unusual feature

example. She was reputedly a slow worker and her work is certainly
She also painted vamtas subjects of which the most elaborate

rare today.

was exhibited

Leyden

in

at

the Lakenhal in 1970.

OS, Georgius Jacobus Johannes van (1782-1861)

dutch
The son and pupil of Jan van Os, Georgius must be credited with establishing
an independent reputation rivalling even his father's. Having first visited
Paris in 18 12 he soon settled there, dividing his career between France
and Holland by regular visits to Haarlem. In common with many of his
countrymen, he was employed at the Sevres porcelain factory as well as
painting easel pictures.

111.

Museum, Haarlem, with

this entry.

Van Os

He

270

is

a perfect

example on panel from Teylers

opening remarks of

qualities substantiating the

has retained the bird's nest so familiar in his father's work.

junior also painted fruitpieces, fruit and flowers, and

or combinations of

all

game

pieces,

three as in the example in the National Gallery,

London. The Victoria and Albert Museum, London, possesses one of

highly finished watercolours which were not studies so

items in themselves. Brandt and Reekers were his

French amateurs were influenced by him. His

1862), was also a flower painter.

much

Dutch

sister

pupils and several

Maria van Os (1780-

OS, Jan van (1744-1808)

Second only

to

Jan van

his

as finished

dutch

Huysum

in the

production of opulent flower-

pieces for the elegant interiors of the eighteenth century was Jan van Os.

Although born
the eyes of

at

Middelharnis

he remained.

He became

known through
The Hague at an early age and there
of Schouman from whom he received

in 1744, a location best

Hobbema, Van Os went

the pupil

to

thorough training in draughtsmanship. In 1773 he joined the guild in

The Hague and sent his first painting to England for exhibition at the
a

Society of Artists in London.

By continuing to exhibit regularly until the

Van Os established himself with English

closure of the Society in 1791,

and his finest work is to be found in this country. In 17 15 he

married the daughter of the French portrait painter Pierre de la Croix

collectors

who was then living in The Hague. Towards the end of his career Van Os
became director of The Hague Academy. Having found his best manner,
Van Os saw no reason to change it - which coupled with the small number
of dated works, makes any attempt to trace a chronology inappropriate.

He

also painted a

few marines and

is

said to have been a poet.

Long

before

the Revolutionary upheaval, his reputation was well established not only
in

England but

collection of the

'The reputation

in

France

too.

At the Paris

sale in

1784 of the celebrated

Comte de Vaudreuil, he was described with the notation,

of this modern artist is well-known to Amateurs who justly

accord his work the highest consideration'.

Jan's two sons pursued their career in each of these countries.
zf>H

(above)

it H 12 in.

O'KEl

The

elder,

Gerardus (1776- 1839), principally an animal and landscape painter,

went to London and became a regular exhibitor at the British Institution.
I'ictcr

(407 X 30'i

Oil.)

191

OS

269. (above)

28| x 22

in.

OOSTERWYCK, signed
(72 x 56 cm.)

The younger and more

notable son, Georgius Jacobus Johannes (1782-

1861), rival to his father in fruit

and flowers,

settled in Paris

porcelain factory.
1 8 12 he worked for the Sevres

The

where from

only daughter, Maria

Magrita (1780- 1862), though less well-known than her brothers, was also
tradition.
a competent painter. Grandchildren continued the
but his favoured comfruitpieces
and
flowerpieces
Jan van Os painted
of riches. Of this
display
dazzling
into
a
two
position was a blending of the
like the plume
top,
the
at
coxcomb
The
type, ill. 259 is the finest example.
elsewhere.
used
Os
Van
which
detail
distinctive
of aknight's helmet, is a
Further down the little mouse eating from the walnut, like all the inhabitants
ol the
of this cornucopia reverts to the traditions of the early flowerpieces
left
the
on
rose
the
pink
of
transparent
previous century. In the superbly
original.
the
in
seen
be
can
a few of the artist's pencil strokes beneath
Van Os drew lightly over the well-primed panel with rapid strokes to lay
et Van Os
out the composition, without in any way putting in details. 1
as records
served
ma\
have
made finished watercolour drawings which
themselves.
in
of oil paintings and were certainly collector's items

one of a celebrated pair which fortunately may

for
now be seen at Manchester City Art Gallery. A niche is most unusual
great
with
in
put
is
Van Os. The fall of shadow on its concave surface
111.

270.

102

OS, Georgius Jacobus Johannes

;K'. in. (02 /47 cm.)

van, signed

271, a smaller panel,

is

PALMER

271.

(left)

28^x22

OS, Jan

in.

van, signed

(73x55-9 cm.)

delicacy.

The

quality of the tulips and

of individual flowers

Van Os cedes

little

iris

to

prove again that

in the detail

Van Huysum.

The derivation of his style from Van Huysum is immediately apparent.

The same marble shelf, the sculptured terracotta vase, the pale misty
trees of the

background, even the fancy calligraphy of the signature 'carved'

common to both painters. Van Os often uses a lighter
key than Van Huysum, more in keeping with the tastes of the later eighteenth
century. No one would pretend that Van Os is the equal of Van Huysum,
above all in compositional ability, but it is equally misleading to dismiss
him as an imitator pure and simple. Surely we must consider the artist in
into the marble, are

the context of his period.

How

Van Huysum, whose works were

could a painter following in the wake of

rightly regarded as the ultimate in flower

painting in the period, have hoped to achieve success without following

lead, as did flower painters all over Europe? Again, to

Van Huysum's

sound another practical note, when a Van Huysum is well-nigh unobtainwhat lover of painting would disdain the work of a worthy follower ?

able,

OUDRY, Jean
The

Baptiste (1686-1755)
Oudry and his teacher Largilliere

relationship between

French
is

unusually

well recorded. In 1749 Oudry presented a lecture to the Academy in which

he recalled his master's teachings. Curiously, although flowers appear to
have been used again and again by Largilliere when teaching his young

pupil, neither master nor pupil are

known

as flower painters

are very few. Largilliere excelled in portraiture and

game

still-lifes

and animal subjects, especially

occupation with the

lecture.

He

tells

difficulties

how he was

Oudry

is

and examples
famed for his

his cats. Largilliere's pre-

of painting white

sent out to gather a

is

recorded

in

Oudry's

bunch of white flowers

which were then set before a pale background, and then the varying tonalities
were explained. The teachings of his master set Oudry on the path to great
success for when his 'White Duck' (Marquess of Cholmondley Collection)
was exhibited at the Paris Salon of 1753 it was widely acclaimed. The
painting shows a pure white duck, a white cloth, a silver candlestick, and
a white bowl filled with cream set against a white ground.

The

firescreen as part of the decor of a

tunity for

still-life

painters,

purpose. Often such flowerpieces or

272

OUDR1
\S{ in

(130/

room

offered an excellent oppor-

and even Chardin painted

still-lifes

trompe Poeil vein, deriving from the practice of placing

i)0

cm.)

or

growing plant during summer

one of

picture for this

unused

a real vase

of flowers

fire place. 111.

pair of firescreens of perfectly rendered orange plants,

Oudr) has convinced

lines as

to hide the

are painted in a markedly

by the

PALMER,

fall

us of the depth of the niche not so

272

is

where

much by perspective

of shadow on the white surface.

Frances Flora Bond

Makers to

Currier and Ives, Print

(c.

the

American

1812-1876)

American People

is

the apt

title

of

book on this firm. From 1835, when Nathaniel Currier and

Merrit Ives first began publishing lithographic prints suitable for framing,
their catalogue grew steadily to encompass every facet of nineteenth-century
American life from religion to shipwrecks. Their catalogue must have been
to prints what Sears Roebuck's is to the modern household.
It was an Knglish-born artist, Mrs Frances Flora Palmer (nee Bond)
who, as her second name suggests, was the mainstay of the firm's production
of fruit and flower prints. She came to America in the 1840s accompanied
by her brother Robert Bond who also drew still-lifes. Frances, or Fanny,
worked with Currier and Ives in the 1860s. Signed prints, with the artist's
name as usual on the left, date from 1862, the year of ill. 273, to 1867. Although
flowers predominate in this example the composition has been carefully
the standard

PALMER, signed and dated, 1M2

173
20 K 27^

in.

(50 8 X 69*8 cm.)

i<)3

PALMER

devised into a complete picture, with the

emphasizing the distance

must be the Hudson River Valley.
repoussoirs

Even more

so than in

and balustrade acting as

At a guess the scene

trellis

in the landscape.

Europe the print was of major importance

in

popularizing art in America, and the prints of Currier and Ives were the

which most of the population could bring it into their homes. More
the flowerpiece was brought to the attention of painters,
amateur and professional when, even in the 1860s, the subject was still a

way

in

specifically,

comparative novelty in

oils.

PARET,

Spanish
Luis y Alcazar (1744-1799)
Fernando.
of
San
Academy
painting
at
the
learned
Paret
Born at Madrid,
He was a cultured man, speaking many languages and widely travelled in

He

enjoyed a successful career as an engraver and watercolourist,

painting small landscapes and figure subjects as well as flowers. In 1780

Europe.

he became a

member

of the Academy.

A pair of ovals in the Prado, Madrid

274 is one of them), have bouquets

the French manner, for which Paret

(ill.

and white ribbon in

must be indebted to artists like Monnoyer.
tied with a blue

'PAULINE' (1806-1840)
A study of the many ladies who

have

at all

periods

AUSTRIAN
become worthy pupils

of the famous flower painters would be a rewarding and lengthy volume.

As has already been noted, an occasional name must be their representative.

Pauline von Koudelka-Schmerling

many Frenchwomen,

is

274.

PARET,

15! x

4|

in.

signed

(39

x37

cm.)

the Viennese equivalent of the

here personified by Elise Bruyere,

who

took up

flower painting in early nineteenth-century Paris under the guidance of

the Spaendoncks, Redoute, and Van Dael. Pauline, as she signed herself

and was always known, was born in 1806 to a wealthy Viennese military
family. She married in 1835 a future Minister of Justice but died tragically
young. Her teachers were Petter and Waldmuller and she exhibited only
seventeen paintings over a decade from 1830 until her death. Most of her
work, which was known only to friends and contemporaries in the city,
remained in her family for over a hundred years, long forgotten and neglected
by all but her descendants. 111. 275, of 1833, is a superb panel which shows
her very considerable abilities and has that brilliant sparkle characteristic
of Waldmuller, allied to Petter's expert knowledge of rich floral display.

The

painting of the stone arch

meticulous as the bouquet, recalling

as

is

the seventeenth-century fondness for this setting. Pauline's

presented in the Kunsthistorisches

Museum,

work

is

re-

Vienna.

American
(1784-1865)
used by Bol of the Bosschaert family, are too familiar
in flower painting to surprise the reader. In common with much of American
still-life painting the founding dynasty, the Peale family, were rarely painters

PEALE, Rubens
Dynasties, a term

first

of flowers. Indeed there

of any note until

is

at least

a striking

1840.

absence of American flower paintings

Peales' rare flowerpieces have the

The

and the family are therefore well

276 of 1856, the work of Rubens
Peale. Rubens was the third son of the 'founder', the famous portrait

qualities of the earlier familiar fruits

represented in the present volume by

painter, ( Charles Willson Peale
')f

icorge Washington, under

( 1

ill.

74 1-1 827), best known for his many portraits

he served in the War of Independence.

whom

Although Charles Willson made use of many 'still-life' attributes in his

portraits, no pure still-lifes unquestionably from his hand have as yet come
to light.

He

cannot be reproached for failing to give his sons an aspiring

from the baptismal font he named them Raphaelle

start to their careers right

'04

275.

25 x

'PAULINE',
1

Si

in.

(63*5

signed and dal

X 46 cm.)

PEALE

276.

PEALE,

20 x 24

in.

signed and dated 1856

(508 x 61 cm.)

(1774-1825),
James Peale
a portraitist

Rembrandt

( 1

(1 749-1 831),

778-1 860), Rubens, and Titian,

who

died young.

the younger brother of Charles, was primarily

but painted fine

still-lifes

of fruit and vegetables.

Rubens Peale, who was not the equal of his uncle nor his brother Raphaelle
as a still-life painter, turned to painting only after a long career trying to

promote the Peale museums,

a pet project of his father's, in different parts

of the country. In fairness

should be remembered that Charles Willson

it

Peale did succeed in founding the

Columbianum

or

American Academy

of Fine Art whose opening exhibition at Philadelphia in 1795 was the first
of its kind by such an institution in America. Rubens was fortunate that
his wife's family had the means to re-establish him in rural Pennsylvania

when the last museum venture failed in New York in 1837. His
Mary Jane Peale (1827-1902), had been studying portraiture

daughter,

with her
uncle Rembrandt, but returned to the farm to care for her parents. It was
she who inspired her father to begin painting at the age of seventy-one.
The career of Rubens, the painter, lasted for only one decade until his

death

of 1865, when Lee surrendered and Lincoln was

Rubens made copies of his family's still-lifes, but even his
compositions fall short of the charm of his flowerpieces. The

in the fateful year

assassinated.
original

porcelain bowl which appears in other Peale family

initials

with a dedication to the

date beneath
at

work of

memory

still-lifes

of his father C.

W.

delightful, naive presentation with

the atmospheric effects of

James

painting 'from nature in the garden'.

or Raphaelle.

The

Rubens

has the

artist's

Peale and the

little

attempt

inscribed the

yellow and orange daisies with

brown centres and the scarlet cactus flower are most striking. Rubens
was hampered by failing eyesight; even as a young man he wore spectacles,
as seen in a well-known portrait of 1801 which shows him holding the
first geranium plant in the country and was the work of brother Rembrandt.
their

No doubt this botanical

novelty was intended for display in one of the Peale

museums.

The Peale tradition of still-life, which was carried to our own century by
Rubens' daughter, was even more strongly sustained by three of the
daughters of James Peale. Philadelphia was also established as a centre of
the art in America.

195

PEETERS

277. Detail of

278.

PEETERS,

23|xig

PEETERS,

Clara (is89?-after 1657)

Chronologically Clara Peeters, who was born

ill.

in.

278

Clara, signed

and dated 1612

(595 x49 cm.)

flemish
among the

at Antwerp,
the history of stillenriched
have
first of
active in Italy, and the younger
life and flower painting. Fede Galizia,
painters
Louise Moillon at Paris were also like Clara superbly accomplished
undisputed work has preof still-life, but the absence of flowers in their
cluded their appearance in the present volume.

many

distinguished

is

women who

The

problem has arisen as to just how precocious her talent was.

Clara Peeters in
recent discovery by Greindl of a baptismal record of a
accordingly.
of
birthdate
the
1589
revising
Hairs,
1594 has been accepted by
necessarily
not
might
of
document
1639
marriage
Yet Hairs accepts that a
to agree
inclined
is
One
known.
is
little
so
relate to Clara, of whose life
same
the
of
another
to
apply
also
could
the baptism record

with Bol that

later birth
name, because the earliest dated example is of 1608 and, if the
this
While
fifteen.
under
girl
a
of
work
date were accepted, would be the
in
was
She
nineteen.
was
she
that
plausible
is not impossible, it is more
Some
in
living
still
1657.
and
Amsterdam in 1612, The Hague in 1617,
knowledge of her training and circumstances would be most interesting.
which
belongs to the early tradition of still-life painting

Clara Peeters

paralleling
began in northern Europe at the end of the sixteenth century,
of which
work,
her
of
part
the development of the flowerpiece. The larger
flowers,
without
still-life
only some thirty examples are now known, is
as
objects
precious
sometimes of foodstuffs alone, sometimes containing

[96

279. (opposite) PICART, signed

19$ x 15 in. (50-2 x 38 1 cm.)

PETTER

Every object

well.

is

and presented with equal care in the display

van Schooten. She painted a few

set out

format of the early masters

like Floris

280. (opposite)

15^x9

in.

REDOUTE,

signed and dated 1787

(39-4x22-9 cm.)

bouquets on their own and occasionally enlivened a still-life with a vase of

ill. 278. This panel of 1612 is confined to flowers and precious

flowers, as in

objects. In 1604 a large shipment of Chinese porcelain arrived in Europe

and no doubt the celadon green Chinese bowl with the gold chain spilling
over the edge must have been a rare novelty. The two fine silver-gilt ornamental pieces must, like the shells, have been the treasures of a rich collector;
he may have commissioned the painting or allowed the painter to use items
from his collection, as the French flower painters were to use the gold
vases from Louis XIV's collection. The few flowers are very naturally

placed in their biscuit-coloured pottery vase, with a beautiful red

and purple

sparkle to their

anemone

prominent. All painters of inanimate objects love to give

tulip

work by catching

of the right-hand

gilt

on the convex plain

reflections of light.

vessel Clara put her

areas.

own

Amid

the highlights

hand,
almost exactly similar vessel appears in

An

reflection, palette in

the centre of a panel at the Prado, Madrid, dated in the previous year,

where the flower bouquet is more elaborate. Speaking of Spain, the

ill. 278 are Spanish and date between 1603 and 1606. The pewter
wine jug with its long stem appears again in the copper panel in the Ashmolean, Oxford, where Clara has placed her reflection in the same way.
161

1,

coins in

The

coins here

vase on the

left

show

the painting dates after 1620; again a pale pottery

holds the flowers. Clara's

are larger and, with foodstuffs,

more

still-lifes at

but neither of these two appeal

superb skill,
example illustrated.

Madrid and Oxford

They

elaborate.

are painted with

as strongly as the

unusual
281.

PEETERS,

Geertje (17th century)

dutch
known work of Geertje Peeters, reproduced in Warner,
and of interest only in terms of possible confusion with Maria van Oosterwyck. Peeters, with the variegated grass in the foreground and sunflower to
the top, is clearly an imitator of Oosterwyck. The artist is unrelated to
111.

281

is

PEETERS,

30^ x 25J

in.

Geertje, signed

(77-5 x 64-8 cm.)

the only

Clara Peeters.

PEREZ, Bartolome

Spanish

(1634-1693)

Madrid, Perez was the pupil of Arellano and later became his sonin-law. In 1680, he was recorded as a decorator to the king in whose service
he was painting a ceiling four years later when he fell to his death from
Born

at

the scaffolding.

His flowerpieces resemble those of

his father-in-law

and thus

to

some

extent reflect the taste for Italian painting, but they are less agitated. Perez
is

represented by nine flowerpieces

containing foxgloves, roses and

Newark,

New Jersey

was exhibited

at

dated 1666,

outstanding.

PETTER,
Horn

is

in

The

the Prado, Madrid, and a bouquet

irises

lilies

and

Lyman

from the

in 1964.

111.

Allyn

282, which

is

Museum

signed and

narcissi are particularly well done.

Franz Xaver (1791-1866)

Austrian

at
porcelain painter, Petter succeeded his teacher
Drechsler as a professor at the Vienna Academy in 1814. In 1835 he became
director of the porcelain factory. Petter was an honorary member of the

Vienna the son

ol a

Milan Academy. His much younger brother Theodor, born

in

1822,

painted flowers and portraits.

Putter's work is more elaborate than that of his
Wc^meyr, and remains firmly in the anachronistic

teachers Drechsler and

style

of the Old Vienna

School well into the nineteenth century.

III.

283, an excellent panel of 1833, has the

282.

same penchant

for blues

and

32?;

PEREZ,
x 24$

in.

signed and dated 1666

(83 x 62 cm.)

199

PETTER

283. (left)

PETTER,

37|x 2 8iin.

purples noted with Drechsler, but the

the nineteenth-century feel of them,

is

artificiality

more pronounced. The group of

passion flowers below the giant white hibiscus

parrot

is

typical of Petter's fondness for birds.

Petter's best

pieces were

of the colour scheme,

is

an unusual note, but the

The

standard of quality in

work

is

high and these highly colourful and decorative flower-

much

in

demand

in his lifetime.

PHILIPPINE, Jean Francois

(1771-1840)

French

Philippine was one of a group of artists employed at the porcelain factor}'

Like his contemporary Ber, Jean Philippine painted in oils

on porcelain and exhibited at the Salon of 1819. 111. 284 is in the
Musee National du Ceramique at Sevres in company with two canvases
of arrangements of exotic shells and coral. The use of a large shell for a
\ase is an attractive idea, popular even today. The artist's debt to the
at

Sevres.

as well as

style of

Van Os

is

obvious, implicit

in

the familiar bird's n

PIC \RT, Jc an- Michel 600-1682)

FLEMISH
Ot the many French flower painters to whom Michel Fare has recently
restored the reputation which they had enjoyed in their lifetime, none is
probably more dear to him than Jean-Michel Picart.
I

200

284. (above)
15

x i8^

in.

(95

x73

signed and dated 1833

cm.)

PHILIPPINE
(38x48 cm.)

PICART

Antwerp, Picart, or Picard, was Flemish by birth and early

French by adoption. He settled in the Flemish community at
Paris as a young man. In 1640 he entered the Academy of St Luke and in
a wedding document of the same year is described as widower. Unhappily

Born

at

training but

his

second wife also died prematurely four years

but his third marriage

later

of 1645 was to last for thirty-five years. These personal misfortunes did
not impede his steady progress. Picart worked with energy as an artist and
with success as an art dealer.

Young

artists

As with

studio copying and assisting.

his

were employed in the Picart

contemporary, Linard, the

records of godparents to Picart's children witness his steadily increasing

although he never lost contact with the artists and artisans of the
Flemish community of which he was, in the second half of the century,
status,

the leading light. Inventories of the royal collections include a variety of

work and

his

in

widow
among

the experts.

167 1 a valuation of the collection of

of Charles

Bonnet,

commerce of art is well established.

Queen Henrietta Maria,
of England, was made at the Palais Royal, Picart was

his continuing role in the

When

The following year one of his daughters married Silvain

who painted flowers on vellum. One of the witnesses

a miniaturist

marriage was the great exponent of this

to this

art,

Robert. Picart died

at Paris in 1682.

The work

of Picart, although far from fully explored, reveals a wide

divergence of style, indicative of the changes which took place in flower

and
to

still-life

mind

painting during his long lifetime.

279 immediately

111.

the simplicity and dignity of a Seghers flowerpiece.

crystal vase, almost identical as

happens

it

to the

The

calls

plain

one used by Seghers,

320, centrally placed in a dark neutral setting, contains a few flowers

ill.

painted with great delicacy and strength of colour. This signed oval panel,

one of an unparalleled

pair,

is

not dated but

it

must belong

period of Picart's work. Yet one suspects that the

to the earlier

demand among

the

more

austere middle-class merchants remained throughout the period of Picart's

activity, so that

it

is

so often a fugitive

difficult to establish a reliable

same

'early' qualities.

plementary purple of what looks

petals, like the

chronology. Picart's

Here the yellow of the marigolds,

pigment, has remained pristine, set off by the com-

fruitpieces reflect the

jasmine here, are

with the same flower in

in

the original like an hibiscus. Fallen

a favourite motif.

For example

it

occurs

panel in the Landry Collection, Paris (Fare plate

where the vase is set on a flat box made of thin plain wood, almost
identical to the one which Linard used in the same way in his superb
bouquet at Karlsruhe. In the context of above remarks about the dating
of the oval, it is worth recalling that Linard died in 1 645. A dated work of
1653, a canvas which was sold at auction in Paris in March 1070, seems a
progression on a larger more elaborate scale from the early manner.
Presumably at a later date Picart painted ill. 285, a remarkable contrast
77),

to the colour illustration.

works

in

It

PICART,
'

signed and dated 1663

I01 x 78 cm.)

corresponds to the descriptions of several

the royal inventories with

architectural setting.

285.

39$ x 3i

its

rich

Turkish rug, balustrade, and

Such highly decorative works

are clearly in the

mood

Monnoyer and his studio and no doubt this large canvas was part of the
decor of some sumptuous apartment. Close attention is rewarded by
of

noting not only the exceptionally wide range of flowers present, but also
the parrot and the elaborate urn.

Jean-Michel Picart's work was not confined to fruit and flowers for an
is mentioned in one instance, and in another he is
noted for landscapes. However, these may well be, like the marines of Van

architectural subject

Os and

the landscapes of

Van Huysum, of

little real

interest

compared

to

the further exploration of his outstanding contribution to flower painting

in

the seventeenth century.

201

PICASSO

PICASSO, Pablo Ruiz

y (1881-

Spanish

286 was painted in the autumn of 1901 before Picasso returned to

Barcelona. In the previous year he had only stayed two months in Paris,
but the visit of this year had lasted from April to December and allowed
him time to see the colour of the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists,
whose works had been mainly known in black and white reproductions in
111.

Barcelona. In contrast to the style and subjects of what he had done at

home Picasso followed the themes of the French masters, street scenes,

Van Gogh

people on the boulevard, and flowerpieces. Like

before

him

his

from this contact with the Impressionists and he

may, like the Dutchman, have used flowers to experiment with new,
brighter colours. The larger canvas of chrysanthemums (exhibited at
Philadelphia, 1963) has a lighter background, but dates from the same
year. Another flowerpiece of 1901 was sold at Sotheby's in 1966. They
seem to the present writer not unaffected by the late flowerpieces of Pissarro
and by the work of Gauguin. A bouquet of 1898, illustrated as frontispiece
by Marcus, would make a relevant comparison with Pissarro. What seizes
our attention in these bouquets by the twenty-year-old Picasso is the
appearance of that blue, herald of the artist's first individual manner, the
Blue Period.
palette lightened greatly

PISSARRO, Camille

(1830-1903)
In the story of Impressionism the oldest

French
member, Camille

Pissarro, holds

independent of his own merits as an artist. He was a

and loyal man who has often been called the Saint
of Impressionists: a description his noble, bearded countenance would
not belie. Pissarro's good sense and inner stability helped to solve problems,
sustain hopes, and avoid friction on countless occasions, and it is difficult
to find a word of bitterness towards another from his lips. Poverty he
sustained more philosophically than Monet, despite the needs of his
seven children. The tenacity of his loyalty was unshakeable when he saw
talent in others. In 1873 he was the first to take up his friend Monet's
suggestion of forming an independent exhibition for the group, the Impressionists as they came to be called when the show opened the next
year. If Pissarro was one of the founders and greatest exponents of Impressionism, he also unhesitatingly supported artists of other persuasions.
When he met Cezanne in 1861 he encouraged him when the young Provencal
painter seemed beyond hope in most people's eyes and never ceased to
help him. In 1872 Pissarro introduced him to Pere Tanguy, the first dealer
to show Cezanne's work. In the last Impressionist group show of 1886,
he insisted that the young Seurat and Signac be allowed to exhibit; he
admired the first appearance of Douanier Rousseau's work; and so the
story of the goodness of this modest man of natural dignity continued until
a special place,

most

PICASSO,

286.
2 5l

x !9i

in-

(5

signed and dated 1901

'

x 489 cm.)

gentle, kindly,

his death.

Madame
their

Pissarro loved flowers and

income

in the early days. In the

worked
garden

as a florist to
at

supplement

Pontoise she grew

many

flowers but her favourites were the peonies of which she was very proud,

No doubt she would have gathered those for ill.

painted
in that optimistic year 1873. A sale of work
which
Pissarro
287,
encouraged him and things were going well. The hardship and neglect
of the 1 880s lay unseen ahead. Pissarro, who painted fewer flowerpieces
than Monet or Renoir, seems nonetheless to delight in the subject. These
pink peonies in their blue and white vase are set against a very light background and appear wonderfully fresh and vibrant, with the gentle charm

especially the pink ones.

2X7.

PISSARRO,
l

202

signed and dated 1873

cm.)

so characteristic of their author.

Anyone who

visits

the Ashmolean, Oxford, to see the

Ward

Collection,

PREVOST

ias
ft.

288.

POL,

i?4 x 14I

signed

'" (45'

x 375 cm.)

so often mentioned, has besides these peonies the additional delight of a

bequeathed to the museum by his family.

examples of his family's work. Lucien Pissarro, the eldest
son who settled in Kngland, is the best-known of them and contributed
greatly to the study of his father's work. Four years after his father died his
widowed mother found that even friends considered Camille's art oldfashioned in the face of Picasso and the Fauves. Lucien's letter of comfort
to his mother was a document of faith typical of the family tradition:
'Don't worry about father, he will never be forgotten. Like Corot and Millet,
when he does come up, it will be for good. Father is, among all the Impressionists, the man who represents the nineteenth century most significantly. His philosophy, which you know so well, can be perceived in
his art
so don't worry, dear mother, his day will come. It will be a
fine grc

There

up of

Pissarro's work,

are also

da) of glory,

assure you.'

POL,

Christiaen van (1752-1813)

dutch
Haarlem, Christiaen van Pol went to Paris in 1782, having finished
his studies at Antwerp. In Paris he became the pupil of Van Dael at the
Sorbonne and enjoyed considerable success, exhibiting in the Salons
from 80 1 until 18 10. Apart from working in the chateaux of Chantilly
and Si Cloud, he also made designs for the Gobelin tapestry works. 111.
Born

at

203

POL

288 shows that Van Pol was indeed a worthy pupil of Van Dael. The roses,
even compared with his master's, ill. 117, are particularly well painted.

PONCE, Antonio (active

A shadowy figure working

Spanish
Madrid in the mid-seventeenth century,
Antonio Ponce was clearly influenced by the work of Flemish artists. The
most successful artists in Spain seemed to absorb foreign influences and
create something highly personal. On the other hand Ponce in ill. 289
after 1640)
at

signed and dated 1650, has retained the central vase and the symmetrical
arrangement of the flowers. It is perhaps interesting to note that, like the
irises and lupins. The
Spanish violet because of its sweet
scent, is very different from the garden lupins of today which were not
introduced into Europe until 1826.

earlier

de Ledesma, Ponce has an affection for

old-fashioned lupin, also

known

as

PORPORA, Paolo (1617-1673)

is

of Neapolitan

still-life

at the

Italian

one of the most important painters of the

Paolo Porpora

age of fifteen.

painters.

He

entered the studio of

Through Recco he must have come

generation

first

Giacomo Recco

into contact with

the work of Anielle Falcone and other followers of Caravaggio. Later

Porpora moved
in 1656.

He

His early

to

Rome where

he was enrolled in the

Academy

of St

Luke

also studied with Forte.

still-life

paintings reveal the true impact of the Caravaggesque

move to Rome,
become more flamboyant. In Rome he must have come into

ideal with a certain restraint but later, possibly after his

his paintings
289.

POXCE,

30! x 22!

in.

signed and dated 1650

(78 x 58 cm.)

contact with Netherlandish painters

111.

290, in the Gallerie Nazionali di

who

specialized in flower painting.

Capodimonte

at

Naples,

is

the finest

example of Porpora's mature style. A decorated stone vase holds an abundance of flowers, particularly mustard-coloured marigolds and pink and
white roses. The introduction of highly decorative variegated foliage on
the right is unusual. Before the vase trails a strand of morning glories,
painted in an intense blue. The cut surface of a melon on the table at the
left is contrasted with a cut-glass bowl filled with reflected light.

PORTAIL, Jacques Andre

FRENCH
(1695-1759)
superb drawing in watercolour and crayon, is of particular interest.
Despite enquiries, no other example can now be cited of the exquisite
flower work of Jacques Portail, an artist of deserved celebrity in his day.
Portail was curator of the royal paintings at Versailles and exhibited at
the Salon from 1747 to 1753. Although he drew landscapes and portraits,
it was as a flower painter that he was admitted to the Academy in 1746. A
visitor to the Salon of 1747 noted how Portail used no white pigments in
his drawings but left the whiteness of the vellum or paper beneath to
III.

291, a

make

highlights or the transparency of a

close examination of

removed by

ill.

291.

The

wash

foxing

is

testimony borne out by

unimportant and could be

restoration.

many aristocratic collectors of the period who owned the

work of Portail was Madame de Pompadour. Her brother, the Marquis
de Menars (de Marigm ), was the owner of ill. 291, which was included in

Among

a sale

the

of 1782, after his death. One of the experts for the sale was Joullain
the sagacity to buy the group of Portail drawings.

who had

PRENDERGAST, Maurice (1859-1924)

zt)0.

57

PORPOR

X45J

204

in.

(150X

[6

cm

American

Apart from the younger Glackens, Prendergast was the only other member
of the twentieth-century Ash Can School who turned significantly to the
)

PREVOST

traditional subject of still-life.

Gerdts informs us that Prendergast was

probably stimulated by the famous New York Armory show of 1913, the

American public of contemporary events in Paris.

powerful example, painted on panel, which may date from this
period. Clearly Prendergast was impressed by the 'scientific' approach of
Signac and Seurat in using dots of colour, but the influence of the Fauves
first
111.

revelation to the

292

is

seems predominant

in the greater

PREVOST, Jean

Louis the Younger

(active

c.

freedom and dash of the brush.

1760-f. 1810)

French

293 is, to the present writer, the finest example of the work of Jean
Louis Prevost. Pupil of Bachelier, Jean Louis was the younger brother of
111.

Eugene Joseph who

the

Academy of

Salon of 1774,

also painted portrait miniatures

and joined him at

wrote of their fruit and flowers in the
more application and they would be the Van Huysums

St Luke.

'a little

critic

of France'. Prevost exhibited in the Salon again between 1791 and 1810.
The Victoria and Albert Museum, London, possesses a copy of Collection
de Fleurs et de Fruits with fine engraved coloured plates after Prevost's

drawings which was published in 1805. In ill. 293 the open jewel box reveals
two rows of rings held in a compartment. The same vase with putti appears
in an oval canvas in an English collection, illustrated in Paviere.

291.

PORTAIL
o" in.

(346X 276 cm.)

202 (above) I'KI.NDI K(. \S

14 ^ 16 in

aoj (right)

?y'> x

ngned

40- cm.)

PREVOS1

ligned

205

RAFFAELLI

RAFFAELLI, Jean

Francois (1850-1924)

French

was the pupil of Gerome and thus grew up in a Paris where artistic
theories were in deep conflict. Through a close friendship with Degas,
Raffaelli exhibited no less than thirty-five paintings in 1880 in company
with such artists as Gustave Caillebotte, Morisot, and Vidal. However,
he was never accepted by the majority of the Impressionists, and Gauguin
and Pissarro struggled to exclude him from their exhibitions. In 1884
Raffaelli

Raffaelli

wrote of Impressionism,

Most of

Raffaelli's paintings are

'.

it

is

too purely scientific for us'.

genre subjects with small figures set in

landscapes, but his flower paintings are considered the best aspect of his
work. The brushwork in ill. 294 characterizes all his bouquets.

^7

RAVENZWAAY,

dutch

Adriana van (1816-1872)

Born at Hilversum, Adriana van Ravenzwaay here represents the numerous

Dutch ladies who took up flower painting in the nineteenth century. 111.
295, which is signed and dated 1854, shows a bouquet of summer flowers
with the fruit and dead game. Different varieties of dahlias dominate,
although campanulas, mallows and fuchsia lighten the composition.
Dahlias, first introduced to Europe in 1789, were one of the most fashionable
and popular flowers of the nineteenth century.

294.

RAFFAELLI,

28^ x 24

in.

signed

(72-4 x 61 cm.)

RECCO, Giuseppe (1634-1695)

Italian
Born at Naples, Giuseppe Recco was the younger son of Giacomo Recco,
one of the founders of the Neapolitan School. At about the age of twenty
Giuseppe went north to Lombardy where he studied with Evaristo Baschenis
(161 7-1677). However, the major part of his working life was spent at
Naples. In 1673 Recco was called to the court of Charles II in Spain, but
died soon after disembarking on Spanish soil. Through his contact with the
more restrained painters of the north, Giuseppe Recco made a significant
contribution to the Neapolitan School, introducing ideas of the Caravag-

gesque painters and also Spanish artists into the flamboyant milieu of
Naples. By comparison with the work of his contemporaries, ill. 296 is a

model of

vase.

number of blooms arranged

restraint with a limited

large pair of flower paintings, signed

in a shallow

and dated 1663, belong

to

Burghley House, Northamptonshire, and show sculptured vases with

bouquets set before a landscape background. Another more elaborate
arrangement of flowers and glass vessels on a table hangs at Warsaw.

REDON,

Odilon (1840-1916)

Conceived

in the

to live in a

New

world of his

mainly to the

later part

Even

French

World, born

own

of his

in the

Old, Odilon Redon was destined

His flower paintings, belonging

most remarkable of our century.
they must be divorced from works inspired
creation.

life,

at their most naturalistic,

by the force of his imagination,

are the

for only in this context can the

germ of

their extraordinary originality be found.

had gone to Louisiana to make good the family fortunes

Napoleonic years. There he married a fourteen-year-old French
girl in 1834 who was expecting their second child when they made their
return voyage to Bordeaux, where Odilon Redon was born in 1840. Although
born in the same year as Monet, father of Impressionism, Redon was to
remain apart from that movement as from every other. His father's stories

The

artist's father

lost in

295

\ \

1^

ENZW A \Y,
in.

signed and dated 1854

(74 x 60 cm.)

of adventures in the wild forests stirred the child's highly receptive imagina-

in

The

his

He
For

206

sea monsters which appear in his drawings may have their origins
mother's account of having seen such a creature on their voyage.
also inherited a love of nature and of music, but there the legacy ends

tion.

reason that

is

not clear, perhaps the indifference of his parents,

REDON

296.

RECCO,

30 x 213

in.

signed

(762 x 546 cm.)

HI

^Sj

til

CWt*M

-'';

1,

DH

v
i'

^^i

^-

J|VQ

^^^%
4

>

^L

Btfl

V^

.>%/'
1

^f^^
fi^ ^^

j,^p*T

^^

^B
^L

^H

\^^

B^l^^^^fc

Wa^^^

BfKL

Rcdon was

<jH

h1r::^~~2

sent to live with an old uncle on an isolated estate called Peyre-

lebade, near Listrac in the Gironde, which had been purchased with
its overgrown grounds
Les Landes was a magnetic force in the life of Redon,
drawing him again and again to refresh his need of solitude and contemplation. Shortly before his death he wrote most perceptively of Peyrelebade: 'After all, it may well be that in places most completely deprived
of features pleasant to the eye, the spirit and imagination must take their

the newly acquired wealth. This lonely house with

in

the bleak region of

revenge.'

At the age of
and

liberal care

his principal

was

in a

fifteen

Redon began drawing

lessons under the helpful

of Stanislas Gorin. Drawing and lithography were to be

concern for the next thirty and more years. Gorin's studio

garden, abundant with flowers, in a suburb of Bordeaux. Redon's

happiest hours were to be spent in his

years later.

Two men whom

the

young

own garden
artist

met

studio at Bievres

in

fifty

Bordeaux were, per-

haps, the most influential forces in the formation of an artist indifferent to

207

REDON

can speak of influences without obscuring the

recognition
essential independence of Redon, which was to find appropriate
Salon des
the
of
foundation
he became the moving force in the
supervision.

official

One

when

Independants. Rodolphe Bresdin, a little-known engraver then, introduced

him not simply to the possibilities of that medium, but to the idea of working

and
from the imagination. In the 1860s, when he was studying at Bordeaux
Of
Gironde.
La
Paris, Redon acted as art critic for the Bordeaux paper
and
subtle
the
of
resources
his friend Bresdin he wrote in 1869, 'To all the
consumate technician [words which might apply equally to himself] he
of imagina[Bresdin] adds the greater qualities of the thinker and the charm
in his
varied
and more
tion. Indeed, is there anyone more unexpected
in
lithographs
1879
fantasies?' When Redon published his first volume of

Dans le Reve (In the Dream).

was a distinguished botanist who studied the relationClavaud
Armand
with Redon echoed
ship between animal and plant life. His friendship
seventeenth century.
the links between botanist and flower painter in the
flowers not only in a
of
study
profound
a
towards
Redon
Clavaud helped
life force. Clavaud
mysterious
of
a
manifestations
as
but
botanical sense,
readily absorbed
enthusiasm
an
literature,
in
interested
was also passionately
drawings and
his
of
many
of
themes
The
Redon.
by the highly intelligent
called them,
he
as
noirs'
'mes
or
'noirs'
the
lithographs that followed,
Alan Poe.
Edgar
and
Mai),
du
Fleurs
(Les
Baudelaire
derive from Flaubert,

it

was

entitled

in the
nature of the child, the circumstances of his childhood
have
Clavaud,
and
Bresdin
of
friendship
ambience of Peyrelebade, the
admiraRedon's
than
significant
more
been emphasized because they seem

The

Corot and Gustave Moreau. Although Redon was

especially
obviously impressed by the romantic favourites of Delacroix,
painted
and
graphic
his
in
the Chariot of Apollo^ a recurrent subject
imdeepest
the
made
have
oeuvre, it was Delacroix's colour which may
was
it
artist,
young
as
a
pression on Redon. If colour impressed Redon
for many decades.
an impression well submerged with mistrustful doubts
flights of fantasy,
his
that
On the contrary, Redon was firmly convinced
tion

for Delacroix,

creatures, the anemones

the cyclopean beings which looked like space-fiction
have
whose centres are human faces, the soaring balloons whose baskets
in
created
be
must
the Madonnas, Ophelias, Eves,

become human

eyes,

'The logic of the visible

the most convincing terms that he could command.
brilliant description. His
at the service of the invisible', was Redon's
giving life
modestv allowed him to write, 'I cannot be denied the credit of
nature of many of these
to my most unreal creations'. The disturbing
and mental suffering
'unreal creations' must be seen against the anxiety
true artist's
endured by the artist, which he felt was a necessary part of the
life.

artists
Recognition was confined to a very small circle of avant-garde
des
Salon
the
at
exhibited
he
after
Belgium
in
and writers, especially

XX

in 1886.

Towards

began not
the end of the century a gradual transformation
in
exhibition
An
attitude.
his
in
but
acceptance,
and its

work
Durand-Ruel was followed by a larger one at Vollard in 1898.
symbolic of a severing with
In 1897 the haunting Peyrelebade was sold,
free Redon. There were no
to
seemed
first,
the past which, if painful at
about colour, light banished
apprehension
more 'noirs', enthusiasm replaced
where monsters had
blossomed
flowers,
shadow, flowers, portraits with

only

1894

in his
at

stood before.

The

re-orientation was completed in the

first

years of the

Fames
new eentury. Perhaps the admiration of the young Nabis and
for
reached
he
as
in
pastels
1900
Matisse bought two
eneouraged him
between
bridge
perfect
a
was
new radiances of colour. Pastel as a medium
208

I
297.

REDON,

19! x 12!

in.

signed

(502 x 324 cm.)

REDOUTE

the black chalk of the 'noirs' and the need to produce

being confined to

oils.

more colour without

Redon refused to

Just as in every aspect of his art

separate the world of vision and emotion, so he wanted to give to the colour

seen the supreme and so pure beauty of the colour felt. In the Salon d' Automne

of 1905 five out of ten of his subjects were flowers, pastels and oils, and
only one exhibit recalled the themes of previous years. The years that
followed until the onset of

tentment

World War

dreams had been replaced by

Ari

left for

a love

were* years of comparative con-

As Giry has

in the difficult life of the artist.

written, disquieting

of the beauty of nature. Once his son

the front, flying in machines

more

father's imagination, anxiety for his safety never left

Redon.

him and he never knew of

19 16 before his son could reach

\r?

terrible than those of his

He

hi/ ^

died in

his survival.

Redon's imagery included many flowers not to be found in nature.

of his bouquets, but especially his portraits of the beautiful profiles
of girls against flowers, abound with the flowers of his mind's eye. Some of
these in their decorative fantasy recall, by chance, those of Pillement in
the eighteenth century. In the present context his real - if that is not a

Some

misleading term - flowerpieces seemed more appropriate.

canvas, and

298, a very large one,

ill.

both date from

c.

1905.

111.

297, a small

Whether Redon

bouquet with an apple

touch and the extreme sensitivity

paints a few red touches of geraniums or a great

branch

in

blossom, the perfection of his

each flower convince us of their perfect physical repre-

to the character of

how

sentation. Yet

strongly the dreamlike mystery lingers, hovering in

the flickering, floating backgrounds, at once in our reach

111.

1,

dating from after 19 12, has those

were his favourites, drawn on

anemones and

and beyond

it.

field

flowers that

No

words have

reddish-brown paper.

better described the colour intensity of such flowers than those of Alain-

Fournier: 'They are

all

there like a hundred suns'.

No

one besides Redon

himself, one of the supremely literate artists, can better guide the beholder

of such pastels

flowers that have

come

to the

confluence of two streams,

and that of memory. It is the ground of art

the good ground of reality, harrowed and ploughed by the spirit.'

that of representation

itself,

REDOUTE,
Redoute

is

FRENCH
Pierre Joseph (1759-1841)
unquestionably the most widely known flower painter, his

celebrity spread by the countless prints after engraved works. His popularity

began

his

in

own

da>

when he became

the darling of French society,

patronized by sutcessi\e French courts from Marie Antoinette to Louis

Philippe,

whose daughter he instructed

298.

in

flower painting.
51

REDOX,

x 263

in.

signed

(130 x

679

cm.)

FVance at the end of the eighteenth

century, Pierre Joseph Redoute came from the Low Countries, born in
1759 at St Hubert in the Ardennes. He was the second of three brothers
Like the majority of flower painters

who were
had

in

contemporary Francis Bauer, Redoute

the age of thirteen he began work as a free-

attracted to Paris. Like his

precocious talent and

at

lance artist, taking the opportunity to study the great masters, particularly

Van Huysum, on
botanist

U\

his journeys.

Icritier

When Redoute

and immediate!) entered

met the
work
for
Redoute's

arrived in Paris he

his service.

L'Hcriticr included a volume of succulent plants. In the 1780s he visited

at Kew. As
Spaendonck had in fact
painted superbly in pure watercolour rather than gouache, but it was
Redoute who became renowned for the pure watercolour medium. 111. 280,
of 1787, showing Canterbury bells, is an example of Redoute's watercolour
work on vellum, preserved in perfect condition. It was painted in England

England with the botanist

to carry out a

study of rare plants

early as 1784, before Redoute's \isit to England,

while Redoute was staying with James Lee, a botanist,

Hammersmith and presented by

at

his

home

at

the artist to his host in return for his

20()

REDOUTE

hospitality. Rarely can he

have paid

more

exquisite

compliment

to a

Through

the bequest of Lee's descendants in 1947 this work mav

be seen in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, the only example
host.

accessible in this way.

the mystery of

how

Only by seeing the

human hand

original can trte reader

examine

has painted the wings of the dragonfly

over the leaves, the flower and the stem - truly miraculous and beyond
description.

The

colour plate does

and grace
the most exotic bloom.

extra delicacy

The

show how Redoute could bring

to the depiction of a

common

that

garden flower, as

to

success of Redoute's engravings depends to a large extent on the

technique involved for instead of line engraving, the plate

is

stippled with

the point of a needle, thus allowing for far greater variety of tone and

modulation. Before each impression the colouring of the plate was com-

Although stipple engraving originated in France, it was developed

England and it seems that Redoute perfected his own technique in that
medium during his visit to London.

plete.

in

On

299.

REEKERS,

i7^x 14!

in.

signed and dated 1847

(455 x37 cm.)

their return to Paris, L'Heritier secured his protege the post of

draughtsman to Queen Marie Antoinette. After the Revolution, he joined

Spaendonck at the Museum National d'Histoire Xaturelle, eventually
becoming his successor as official painter of the velins begun in the time of
Louis XIII.
The patronage and support of the Empress Josephine marks the most
successful phase in Redoute's dazzling career. Josephine was herself an
enthusiastic collector of rare plants and she engaged Redoute to make
drawings of specimens in the gardens at Malmaison. From the Empress
alone he received a high salary of 18,000 francs, and was also working on
other commissions at the same time including Les Liliacees, an eightvolume collection of lilies in 500 plates, generally considered to be the
artist's finest achievement. Les Roses, which followed during the years
from 1 8 17 to 1824, was prepared at the instigation of a connoisseur, Claude
Antoine Thory, but it was Josephine who made the first collection of over
200 different roses from various continents. Roses are forever linked to
Redoute's name: can there be a home that does not have a print hanging
on the wall, decorating a special waste-paper basket, piece of china or
table mat? Familiarity has not bred contempt, but it was thought more
interesting to illustrate other aspects of Redoute's work here.
111. 30, signed and dated 1812, is a magnificent watercolour of the Moutan
peony, brought to Europe at the turn of the century at the instigation of
Sir Joseph Banks. Until then it had been closely guarded for the Mandarins
in

China.

Although best-known
painted in
Directoire,

is

Redoute

also occasionally

example, signed and dated

An IV

of the

illustrated in colour in Fare.

When Spaendonck
career, teaching

many

for his watercolours,

oil; a particularly fine

died in 1822 Redoute embarked on

drawing

at

new phase of his

There he instructed
who were successful enough to have

the Jardin des Plantes.

aspiring artists, often ladies

exhibits accepted by the Paris Salons.

In

1828 the American John Audubon, who is to American birds as

is to roses, called on the seventy-year-old artist. Audubon, no

Redoute

stranger to French culture, admired Redoute's work.

The

respect was

mutual and the two artists exchanged works.

Despite his enduring success as an artist, Redoute's last years were
years of extreme financial difficulty with his possessions being sold to pay
his debts. When he published an anthology entitled Choix des plus belles
//curs el des plus beaux fruits, Redoute wrote a preface in which he explained
his lifelong aims.

210

le

hoped

that by devoting himself to the study of Nature,

RENOIR

he had 'succeeded in the threefold combinations of Accuracy, Composition,

and the Art of Colouring, the union of which alone can bring perfection to
botanical painting'.

REEKERS,
Born

Hendrik (1815-1854)

dutch

Haarlem, Reekers was the pupil of his father and G. J. J. van Os.
From 1 84 1 to 1846 he was active at Brussels where he also worked in watercolour and made lithographs. He often included dead game in his flowerat

ill. 299 is simply a bouquet in a terracotta vase. Not surprisingly,

compares with the paintings of his fellow student in the Van Os studio,
Brandt. The panel is signed and dated 1847.

pieces, but
it

REINAGLE,

Philip (1749-1833)

British

The well-known Temple of Flora forms

part of an ambitious publication

undertaken by Robert Thornton. Thornton qualified as a doctor in 1797

and became interested in the botanical writings of Linnaeus. Dedicated to
Charlotte, the folios entitled New Illustrations of the Sexual System
ofLinnaeus were published between 1799 and 1807. Thornton commissioned

Queen

various artists to

make

paintings for his engravings,

Pether and Philip Reinagle.

Reinagle's lost painting.

To

of the flowers. Here the tulip to the top

is

the much-prized white tulip with

black edges called 'Louis Seize' to the bottom

;

'Gloria Mundi', with purple stripes.

of the scientific and the fanciful

popular flowers,

like the

among them Abraham

300 is an engraving by Richard Earlom after

each plate Thornton added his own description

111.

left is

an elegant yellow

tulip,

The Temple of Flora is a curious mixture

the choice of specimens includes

some

hyacinth and auriculas, some curiosities such as

the sensitive plant and the maggot-bearing stapelia, and the tactful inclusion

of the Strelitzia, here entitled the

Queen

of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Each species

thus behind the tulips the

flat

bulb

is

fields

after the patron

painted in

its

Queen Charlotte

appropriate setting;

of Holland are suggested. Another

flower after Reinagle, the night-blowing Cereus,

is

in

an unlikely English

Abraham 'Moonlight' Pether. Philip Reinagle,

the son of a Hungarian musician who went to Scotland with the Young
Pretender, is generally known as a portraitist, having worked with Allan

moonlit setting painted by

Ramsay, and

300.
\-,\

RK nag I. K,
I

signet

' 14 in. (43*8x 15*6011.)

as a painter of landscapes

and sporting pictures.

RENOIR,

Pierre Auguste (1841-1919)

French
&54 Levy Freres, painters on porcelain of 70, rue des Fossees du
Temple, took on a thirteen-year-old apprentice named Pierre Auguste
I

l<

The family had earlier come from his birthplace, Limoges,

good provenance for an aspiring porcelain painter. At first he did roses
on the borders of plates and saucers and, making enthusiastic progress,
soon graduated to little bouquets on the curved sides of jugs, cups and pots.
Renoir's pleasure in painting flowers was never to desert him in the ensuing
Renoir.

sixty-five years.

Of all the Impressionists Renoir was the most prolific flower painter
and throughout his figure compositions, flowers and fruit are enlivening
details. To Renoir flower painting came easily and he found in it not only
a relaxation but an opportunity to experiment more boldly than he would
have allowed himself with a figure subject (ill. 304). Naturally, flowers were
an ideal subject for the Impressionists, offering the brilliance and juxtaposition of so many colours and reflections. Inexpensive models that kept
still,

flowers were also practical

doors.

when

the weather prevented painting out-

sunny and above all uncomand Monet. The artist's son, Jean Renoir, later
father saying, 'What seems to me most significant about our

They appealed

instinctively in their

plicated joy to Renoir

recalled his

211

RENOIR

movement [Impressionism]

is

that

we have

freed

from the

painting

importance of the subject. I am at liberty to paint flowers and call them

flowers, without their needing to tell a story.'
In his twenties Renoir's bouquets were influenced by Courbet and

Manet to a lesser extent. In the 1860s the latter was causing

that won him acclaim and admiration from the youngsters
Gleyre's studio, Renoir, Monet, Sisley and Bazille.

Two

a sensation

Charles

in

flowerpieces, one

of 1864 in the Kunsthalle, Hamburg, and one of 1866 in the Fogg Art
Museum, Harvard University, are painted in the solidly strong Courbet
vein with strong impasto and use of palette knife, with blacks and greys

much

Although the wild flowers are bathed in sunlight, the

ground in the 1866 bouquet is dark, like a Courbet, in complete contrast
to the white ground which Renoir later habitually used. Everything seems
clear and sharp, close to his friend Monet's flowers of 1864 at the Cleveland
Museum of Art, emphasizing a common inspiration. As they painted
together at Fontainebleau and Argenteuil - Gleyre's studio had closed in
1864 - could Renoir and Monet have envisaged what years of struggle
faced them? Probably not, but what could have deterred a Renoir for whom,
as Daulte has written, the need to paint was as compelling as hunger and
thirst. In his old age Renoir said that he could not remember a day during
his life in which, except for a major upheaval, he had not done some painting.
At this same formative period Renoir went often to the Louvre with
Fantin-Latour. He nourished himself mainly on Watteau, Boucher, and
Fragonard. Their idyllic, happy world Renoir recreated in everyday settings
and never, whatever the adversity, did he depart from that spirit of shining
happiness which we feel in everything he painted.
The rose began in the 1870s to be the flower Renoir most frequently
painted. It is especially associated with one patron. Despite the outcry at
their now famous first exhibition in 1874 when the very word Impressionist
was coined, despite the lack of sales, try as Durand-Ruel valiantly did,
Renoir began towards the end of this decade to establish himself. Through
the Charpentiers he met Paris society who gave him commissions to paint
their families. Renoir began to see that success at the Salon was the only
way to win recognition with potential customers, even if it meant he must
forgo exhibiting with his friends in the independent Impressionist shows.
In 1879 he did have some success at the Salon. Pissarro, in typically generous
fashion, wrote to a friend, 'I think Renoir is launched. So much the better!
It's so hard, this misery'. One of the people Renoir met at the Charpentiers'
in this year was Paul Berard, a diplomat. Berard invited Renoir to spend
part of the summer at his country home at Wagremont near Dieppe, where
he pursued his hobby of rose growing. From then on Renoir often painted
at Wagremont and must have revelled in the garden of roses which is
in evidence.

depicted in one of his paintings.

among

The

beautiful 'Roses' of 1879

is

now

the thirty-three Renoirs which await the visitor to the Clark Institute,

Williamstown, Massachusetts.
If the rose, the

Renoir

most

traditional of flowers, held a special appeal for

at this time, naturally

he did not neglect other bouquets.

'new' Oriental flower, the chrysanthemum, which was often

with the Impressionists. Appropriate to the craze for the East

and

collectors, the

chrysanthemum's

strokes of an Impressionist brush.

thin,

The

curved petals seem

style of Renoir's

It

was

favourite

among

artists

like the rapid

chrysanthemums

painted in 1881 represents the culmination of his Impressionist period.

Subject and light are fused together with an incandescent glow of colour
had been trapped within the painting and flows

as if the force of light itself

back

at

palette:

212

the spectator.
white,

record of that year gives the contents of Renoir's

Naples yellow, chrome yellow, yellow orchre, natural

301.

RING,

25x32^

in.

signed and dated 1643

(63-5x85- 1 cm.)

ROBERT

Sienna, vermilion, madder lake, Veronese green, emerald green, cobalt

and ultramarine blue. Each pigment is deployed to conjure up this shimmering bouquet and the colours of the flowers are echoed in the background.
Another example of chrysanthemums, comparable in size and date, is in
the Chicago Art Institute (Ryerson Collection).
Comparison with the bouquets of the 1860s shows how Renoir had
developed. Comparison with later ones, like the 'Chrysanthemums' of
1895 in the Musee des Beaux- Arts, Rouen, show the direction he was to
take. For 188 1, the artist's fortieth year, was a turning point. There was
much to be thankful for with commissions, another Salon exhibition,
romance with his future wife Aline Charigat, the satisfaction of completing
a famous masterpiece, the 'Dejeuner de Canotiers
(Phillips Collection,
Washington) but Renoir was restless. Wanderlust seized him - Algiers,

Guernsey, the Seine, Wagremont, Dieppe and then, in October, Italy.

Raphael and the Pompeian frescoes seemed to confirm his fear that he could
not draw. So came about a change to a more 'classical' linear phase.
The story was to end as it began. On 3 December 19 19 Renoir, for so
long crippled by arthritis, died. The day he died, his son remembered that
he eased away the pain by painting a bunch of anemones that the maid
had gathered for him. When he finished he handed her the brush and said,
'Today, I learned something'.

RING,
A

dutch

Pieter de (1615-1660)

pupil of Jan Davidsz. de

Lcyden. Most of

his life at

teacher, but often the

Heem,

Pieter de

Ring spent the major part of

his paintings are still-lifes in the

De Heem

brilliance gives

way

manner of

to a certain

his

mechanical

111. 301 is a vamtMS that includes a vase of flowers. The painting

dated on the scroll 1643 and signed in Pieter de Ring's manner by the
device of a ring. The vase suggests a knowledge of Seghers' work.

hardness.
is

ROBBE,
\

Henri (1807- 1899)

Belgian painter whose

Robbe

life

lived at Courtrai.

the flowers arranged

111.

Belgian
almost spans the nineteenth century, Henri

302

is a

highly decorative composition with

an attractive chinoiserie vase.

in

302.

ROBBE
m I00 "3 x 788

39i x 3 1

cm.)

FRENCH
ROBERT, Nicolas (1614-1685)
Although less well-known than Redoute or Spaendonck, Nicolas Robert
plays an equally important role in the history of botanical illustration.

Working in the mid-seventeenth century, he forms a link between medieval

manuscript illumination and precise scientific records of modern times.
Born at Langres, the son of an innkeeper, Robert is first heard of as an
artist in

made

1640 when he

a series

an Italian connoisseur. Nothing

is

of drawings entitled Diversi fiorf for

known

emerges as a highly skilled artist who

commission for the Cuirlatule de Julie.

of his earlier training but Robert

in the

following year received the

The GwrUmde de Julie is a unique manuscript, in

tOthefifteenth-centur) age of chivalry and courtly love.
by the Baron de Saint Maurc

as a gift tor his

man] ways a return

It was commissioned

betrothed, Lucie d'Angennes,

Madame

de Rambouillet. Madrigals by famous poets of the

Rambouillet circle like Corneille and de Scudery accompany a painting
of a flower, each OIK expressing its longing to adorn Julie's brow. A page

daughter

of

showing 'Zephyr
the sk>, gives

el let

some

/leurs\

charmingly painted with flowers

falling

idea of the romantic effect of the whole book,

from

now

in a

private collection in Paris.

It

the idea behind the

commission

age, Robert's Other major

of the Guirlande looks back to an earlier

undertaking looks forward to the time of Redoute.

213

ROBERT

303.

ROBERT,

17! x 13

in.

signed

(44-8x33 cm.)

Gaston d'Orleans, brother of Louis XIII, who lived at Blois, made a

menagerie and collection of rare plants. He engaged Nicolas Robert to
record his specimens on vellum, drawings that were to form the nucleus
of the famous Velins du R01. On Gaston's death, the drawings were inherited by Louis XIV, Robert was appointed Peintre Ordinaire de sa Majeste
and he continued to work on the Velins. Twenty drawings were added each
year and by his death Robert had contributed over 700.
111. 303 is one of the Velins, a drawing of the Christmas rose, Helleborus
niger. In style the drawing owes something to the tradition of manuscript
illumination, the forms being built up by a series of finely hatched strokes.
However, the artist clearly understands a good deal more of the structure
of plants; Mariette praises his 'connaissance assez parfait de hi botanique*.
I lere
the black fleshy roots, from which the plant derives its name niger

and which

seem such a contrast to the elegant white blooms,

Although this page from the velins is primarily
often manages to add a certain element
Robert
Nicolas
study,

in

real life

are particularly well painted.

a botanical
ol

surprise to his drawings; thus a tulip called Le Monstrc Jaime, from a

collection

214

made

lor Colbert,

now

in the

Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek,

304. (opposite)

2yl x 2\\

RENOIR,

in. (6o- 3

signed

x 54 cm.)

ImAfC

'

';:

:^mmmm''-^.^M

mmmm&*

ROESEN

is painted fully open v looking straight into the throat of the flower
and another drawing of a thistle has the same startling viewpoint.
Towards the end of his life, when Robert had a following of pupils like
Jean Joubert and Jacques Bailly, he published a series of drawings intended
for use as models by other artists. Among these were designs for frames

Vienna,

305. (opposite)

3o|x25|in.

RUYSCH,

(78-

ix

Rachel, signed and dated 1709

63-8 cm.)

decorated with garlands of flowers, butterflies and insects and a collection

of different birds. Although there are no known examples of other artists

copying Robert's designs, some

may one day come

to light.

Belgian
ROBIE, Jean Baptiste (1821-1910)
Born at Brussels, Robie spent the years from 1848 to 1875 m London,
where he exhibited at the Royal Academy. 111. 306 dates from his last year
in England and is an unusual composition of highly cultivated flowers,
hibiscus and roses predominant, in a woodland setting beside a lake. The
format may have been influenced by his stay in England. A painting signed
by Robie and dated 1869, sold at Parke-Bernet Inc., New York, in 1953,
was once the property of Diaz de la Peha. It is interesting that Diaz was
also a painter of woodland and forest.

ROEPEL,
Born

at

dutch

Coenraet (1678-1748)

The Hague, Roepel was

the pupil of portrait painter Constantyn

Netscher. In 1716 he visited Dusseldorf but returned to The Hague,

where he spent the rest of his life.
His flower paintings are in the manner of Rachel Ruysch and often set
before a dark grey background with a stone niche; the light falls strongly
on the centre of the bouquet with the outer foliage fading into the darkness
of the niche. 111. 307 is a fine example of RoepcTs flower painting, signed
and dated 1721.

306.

ROBIE,

signed and dated 1875

21 J x 27 in. (55-2 x 68-6 cm.)

ROESEN, Severin (active

111.

321

E\en

is

a large

effect of so
a

American
1848-1871)
surch one of the most striking of American flower paintings.
and accurate colour reproduction cannot entire!) convey the
a technique successfully maintained over so large

meticulous

canvas, with naive radiance of colour.

Severin Roesen probabl)

fled

from

his native

of revolution throughout Europe. This

\e\\ York

Gty and

he was

at

the American

Williamsport,
centre of
in

\rt

in

Union,

still-life

in

until

Pennsylvania.

in

Germany in 1847, when

New York, In the evidence

still

Cologne. Roesen remained

Germany

the date of his

is

1852 and settled

Pennsylvania's

in

capital

1848, the year

first

exhibit in

he exhibited

at

of his exhibits

the country

Philadelphia

town of
was

painting, but the reasons lor Roesen's decision to settle

the state are not

known.

in

Roesen's work,

in

the nineteenth century.

must
outnumber flowerpicces
\mencan preference for fruits

\s a porcelain painter b\ training flowers

have been his most familiar subject,

reflection

\ct fruitpicccs

perhaps

ot

the

Naturally the two are often combined as

in

the colour plate to give that

A comparison between his

Corcoran
work
of
earliest
Gallerj of Art, Washington and a
1848 in the
of 1852 in the collection of Mr
base
similar bouquet without fruit at the
show a significant change in
not
and Mrs Marceau, Philadelphia, does
style after a few \cars in the United States, tgain, an oval bouquet of 1857,
sold in New York in 1964, shows Roesen content to continue in the estabbounty -of-nature

mood which was

lished format. Later fruitpicccs are

and possibK

more

'Victorian'

in

so popular.

more
feeling

elaborate, like the colour plate,

and colour. The magnificent

example in the Metropolitan Museum of \rt. New York, is further away

from the Van lu\sum-dcrived style of the smaller, conventional flowerI

307.

ROEPEL,

26^ x 20H

in.

signed and dated 172

(665 x 52-5 cm.)

217

ROESEN

from

W.

German

Preyer

J.
have learned
pieces referred to. Roesen must
in 1835, and
Holland
to
visit
a
on
masters
who studied the work of Dutch
thoroughly nineteenth-century interreturned to Germany to paint in a

pretation of

Roesen
Van Huysum, Ruysch and Van Os. Obviously,

in his

this
these influences. A measure of
turn developed a personal style from
treatment of the
be gauged in a detail such as the

independence might

How

different 1
Huysum and Van Os device.
bird's nest, a favourite Van
Below and s lightly to the right
Roesen's on the right in the colour plate.
see the artist s special signature
will
beneath the edge of the shelf the reader
like a linked
curled into the
is
made in loops of curling tendril. The S

Kessel's signing with curling insects^

the whim of Van

Roesen in his
at present of the status of
known
Too
undoubtedly
artists
how widely known his work was. Other

monogram.

It recalls

little is

lifetime

and

took up his

fruit display of almost the same

Paul Lacroix's 'Nature's Bounty', a
Hirschl and
illustrated here, was seen at
size as Roesen's flowerpiece
painting
this
of
evidence
York. On the
Adler's recent exhibition in New
made
Ives
and
Currier
Roesen.
Lacroix must have been influenced by
must
one
Yet
manner.
the Roesen
two large lithographs of compositions in
developgeneral
relative
involved and the
constantly adjust to the distances
rather than thinking in terms of the
States,
United
the
ment of the arts in
may have had separate contact with
ready interaction in Europe. Others
or possibly seen the work of the
different 'German-style' contemporaries
century for themselves in exhibitions.
great Dutch masters of the eighteenth
and botanical accuracy lift his
Roesen's meticulous standards of finish
counterparts in Victorian England,
canvas far above many of its tramelled
obvious desirability as a representative
and Europe. Yet, apart from its
work reminds us of the vital role
example in the present context, Roesen's
as an
as in the case of Roesen, or
which Germany - either by importation
Europe,
for Americans journeying to
alternative centre of study to Paris
a
in American paintings over
played
Harnett
as with the remarkable

style

308.

ROESTRATEN, signed

28^x24^

in. (72-1

x 62-2 cm.)

lengthy period.

ROESTRAETEN, Pieter

Gerritsz.

dutch

van (1630-1698)

Roestraeten painted stillpupil of Frans Hals, Pieter van

of
Jan Steen. He specialized
manner
scenes in the

Son-in-law and
Ufe and vitas amid'genre

finely
expertise, Chinese porcelain and
painting, with considerable
archaic
certain
has
a
work
Roestraeten's
worked gil? vases, as in ill. 308. Van

in

cam
of lively genre scene, Roestraeten
solemnity surprising in a painter
Lely
that
him
for
regard
the
an indication of
to England in 1665 and it is
of
known
is
Little
court.
the English
was hi sponsor in presenting him at
death in 1698.
activity in England before his
his

ROMERO, Juan Bautista (active

At the same time
Valencia.
is

No

as Paret

details

was working

about him

Spanish

1765-1810)
in

Madrid, Romero was

active a

same name
are known but an artist of the
century
nineteenth
Retiro in the early

recorded in the factory of Buen

painted flower.

^
and breakfast-pieces but also
at Madrid
Fernando
San
de
Artes
Bellas
de
An example in the Academia
rock.
and shows a glass vase standing on a
is signed and dated 1796
New Jersey, has a glass vase resting on a
Ill
310, exhibited at Newark,
arrangement of the flowers shows how
rock in an open-air setting and the
French masters.
widespread was the influence of the

He

specialized in

still-life

ROOTIUS, Jacob (1664-1681/2)

DUTC "
.

painter, was
Albertsz. Rootius, a portrait
Jacob Rootius, the son of Jan
Heem. 111. 309, an excellent example,
one of the pupils of Jan Davidsz. de

21 8

309.

ROOTIUS,

37gx29i

in.

signed and dated 1674

(95*75 cm.)

ROUAULT

310

ROMERO
1

in

(52-1

signed and dated 1674, was seen in

X

f>2

2 cm.)

De Heem's

style

London in 1964; Rootius closely follows

without attempting his master's degree of finish. Rootius

also painted still-lifes. He is said to have ended his life by his own hand.
His father Jan Albertsz. also painted a few still-lifes and confusion arises
between their work in this genre.

ROUAULT,
The remark

Georges (1871-1958)
when invited

to Chagall,

French
to join in the decoration of a

church,

'you could do a bouquet that will also be religious', lends itself most profoundly to the rare flowerpieces of Rouault. Trained in the medieval
craft of

making stained-glass windows, Rouault seems

to revive

sciously the medieval ties of flowers and religion in a unique way.

uncon-

Not of
219

ROUALLT

course by the familiar symbolic meaning of individual flowers, but simply

by the flame of his own burning Christianity that fires everything he
painted - Christ, figures, or flowers. 'All I seek is a plastic transcription

my

of

emotions', he said

era but the results are

of

The

art.

a familiar

among

enough remark

in the context of his

the totally individual paintings of the history

intense, mystical depths of Rouault's emotions shine out in

whose mountings
Gustave
Moreau. exhibited with the Fauves, but stands strictly apart from any classification, a rebel through sympathy and satire, rather than revolt and violence.

his

enamel blocks of colour,

like gigantic, translucent jewels

are the black lead of his outlines

(ill.

311). Rouault, the pupil of

His clowns represent his own sadness at the tragedy of the prostitutes and
beggars that he so often painted. His anger at a society whose decadent
injustices made these unfortunates produced his satires of lawyers and the
bloated figures of authority, satires whose savagery is unmatched even in

own

our

age of satirical commentary. Rouault's themes are very familiar

because he repeated them abundantly. If Rouault's life had chanced to

if all his works were consequently as scarce

be short rather than long, and

as his flowerpieces, this solitary figure, a sort of Catholic

the twentieth century,

ROUERS,
111.

312

is

Rembrandt of

would be even more highly esteemed.

Helena (active 1663)

dated 166',, apparently the only available example of the

The

dutch
artist's

and Helena Rouers was clearly influenced by such artists as Marrel and the younger Bosschaerts. Such
commentary does not detract from the merits of this little-known flower
painter who is not even entered in several of the standard reference books.
work.

early style belies the date

311.

ROUAULT, signed

28 x 23

in. (71-2

x 585 cm.)

ROUSSEAU,

French
Henri-Julien Le Douanier' (1844-1910)
said that the Douanier Rousseau's work is tremendously
fashionable today. Understanding not fashion has brought about the present
regard for the work of this intriguing painter, partly through what has
It is

commonly

happened since

his time in the realms of naive or primitive painting. It

is

not a transitory vogue as this misused word 'fashion' implies. Rousseau

was a pioneer and pioneers are sooner or later given full recognition. Such
is

his universal popularity that

genres, are

now

examples of

his

work, which covered most

highly prized.

Rousseau was a minor customs official and is usually referred to as Le

Douanier Rousseau, a convenient way of distinguishing him from the
older Barbizon landscape painter Theodore Rousseau. In about 1870 he
began painting in an amateur fashion without instruction, but later received
advice from an insignificant academic artist which can have been of little
interest to him. His first dated works are from 1880. He first showed his
work in 1885, and then in the Independants' exhibitions from 1886 until
his death, with two absences in 1899 and 1900. He also exhibited at the
Salon d'Automne, famous for the young Fauves, from 1905 to 1907.
Amid the usual derision, Pissarro and Signac were struck by his work
from the first. Later Picasso, Apollinaire and Delaunay were his friends
and admirers, kandinsky, then with the Blue Rider (Blaue Reiter) group,
professed to see a new greater reality in Rousseau's work. All these impressive names and the banquet in his honour in 1908 emphasize that others
respected Rousseau just as he took his painting entirely seriously. The idea
of the Sunday painter bumbling his way modestly along is not applicable.
In 18^3 he asked for retirement from the customs service to devote himself
full-time to painting, hoping to exhibit at the official Salon. This he would
not have achieved and it is fortunate that the independent exhibitions coincided with his appearance as a serious painter. His work would have been

220

312

ROUERS,

2l}xi8

signed and dated ih^3

55-5

|6 cm.)

ROUSSEAU

313.
2 3t

314.

(left)

any

its

own appearance,

Henri-Julien 'Le Douanier', signed

(59'7 x 47 6 cm.)
-

ROUSSEAU,

22^ x 15I

rejected on

ROUSSEAU,

Hm

in. (58-1

Philippe, signed

x 40 cm.)

not because Rousseau put himself forward

His character matched the naive innocence

and fortunately neither he nor his approach to painting
were changed by contact with these sophisticated contemporaries. In his
own words, Rousseau perfected himself more and more in the original
manner which he adopted. Beneath the apparent simplicity lay a remarkable
sensitivity to colour and contour, and seldom did Rousseau lose himself
in making an overall composition hang together, despite the preoccupation
with detail and precise outline drawing. Even when the arrangement was
solved by working from a photograph (for example, 'La Noce' in the Musee
de rimpressionisme, Paris) the spectator is not aware of it because he
altered what he saw in his own style, without conscious attempt at naivety.
Rousseau, of course, often worked from his imagination, and his famous
jungle scenes with green tongues of foliage, hiding monkeys and other
creatures, have exotic flowers which bloom in his mind alone.
Rousseau may have been in Mexico with the French forces in the 1860s
a disastrous venture by Napoleon III
but this is far from certain. But
in any case, the force of his imagination stimulated by overseas exhibits
as

sort of rebel or radical.

of his canvases,

at

the different international exhibitions

is

clear.

313 shows real flowers, apparently dahlias, pansies, mimosa, and

foru ct-me-nots, but they are simplified and touched with Rousseau's
111.
r

221

ROUSSEAU

magic, drawing near to those of his primeval fairylands. Rousseau exhibited

flowerpieces in 1897, 1902 and 1903.

London, with

its

The example

Tate Gallery,

in the

very light salmon-pink background dates from about

life and may be compared with two others dated 1910.

Another superb smaller canvas, with the same flat folds in the backdrop,

the last year of his

dated 1909,

is

in the Albright

Art Gallery, Buffalo,

New

York.

ROUSSEAU, Philippe (1816-1887)

A

French

Parisian artist, Philippe Rousseau studied with Gros.

known

for his still-life paintings in

He

is

principally

which he consciously revives the

spirit

of Chardin; indeed a Salon exhibit of 1867 by Rousseau was entitled 'Chardm

The same feeling for the medium and the intimate nature
shown in ill. 314, a composition of spring-flowering bulbs.
are shown against a brownish-gold coloured background, which

Modeles\

et ses

of his work

The

plants

is

sets off the ice blue of the

good

hyacinth and the yellow and purple crocuses to

effect.

ROYEX, Willem

Frederik van (c. 1645-1723)

dutch
Haarlem, Van Royen made his career in Germany. From 1669 to
1679 he was court painter at Potsdam (Elliger was also active there at
that time) and later became a founder member of the Berlin Academy in
1698, of which he was director from 1706 to 1718.
His fruitpiece at the Ashmolean, Oxford, of 1705, is not particularly
interesting, but ill. 315 has considerable merit. The red and white tulip and
the purple poppy are strong notes of colour against a dark background
the velvet drapery, unusual in a flowerpiece, is well done. Although this
canvas is undated, it may well be of the same period as a smaller copper
panel of a similar format, dated 1714, sold at Paris in 1971. A photograph
was kindly supplied for comparison by M. Claude Ananoff. Despite Royen's
Ions vears awav from Holland, his work remained unmistakablv Dutch.

Born

315.

ROYEX.

I7|x 14

in.

signed

(44-8x35-6 cm.)

at

RUOPPOLO,

Giovanni Battista (1629-1693)

Italian
For Ruoppolo flowers are but one element in a composite still-life. Vegetables, fruit, fish, vases, shells and game all play equal roles. 111. 316 from
the Ashmolean, Oxford, is characteristic for it shows hydrangeas in company with peas, celery, and asparagus. A stone balustrade in the background
is barely visible. This is an early work, signed and dateable to c. 1650, and
it

retains an acute sense of naturalism with clear-cut lines allied to a strong

lighting that

is

an eerie green and white. Later Ruoppolo abandoned

this

and in his full maturity he painted much larger

canvases filled with an over-abundance of fruit and flowers set before a
landscape background. Typical of this late Baroque phase is a painting of
naturalistic precision

fruit

and flowers over seven

Capodimonte

at

RUYSCH, Anna
Little
is

is

feet

high

in the

Museo

e Gallerie Nazionali di

Naples.

known of

Elizabeth

(c.

dutch

1680-1741)

the younger sister of the famous Rachel Ruysch, but

interesting that one of the few signed works,

ill.

317,

is

a direct

copy

it

after

famous Mignon in the Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels (see

240). Anna's Christian name is clearly seen in the signature of the Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe example, and confusion should not arise on this
score with the work of her sister.
a

ill.

RUYSCH,
316

RUOPPOLO, signed
in

222

One

(106x84 cm

Rachel (1664- 1750)

of Hitler's errors of judgment in the 1930s - the choice

considerable

was the decision

to rid the nation's

museums

dutch
is

not in-

of some works

RUYSCH

317. (above)

RUYSCH,

254 x 17}

(65x44-5 cm.)

in.

318. (right)
2 9$

2 3s

'

RUYSCH,

Anna

Elizabeth, signed

Rachel, signed

n (75"6 * 6o-6 cm.)

by foreigners and replace them with those of approved German artists.

it was that ill. 305, of 1709, found its way from the walls of a great public
gallery to the home of an English private collector. Its qualities of technical

So

excellence, refinement, and elegance are as apparent to us today as they

were

to the connoisseurs of her

own

time.

distinguished of lady flower painters, but

Not only is Rachel the most

among the greatest of either

sex.

Rachel Ruysch was born

Amsterdam in 1664 to an eminent and

Ruysch was a professor of anatomy
and botany, her mother the daughter of the celebrated Dutch architect
Pieter Post. The royal country residence, the Huis ten Bosch (the House
in the Wood) near The Hague is Post's best-known work, built for Amalia
von Solms, widow of Prince Frederick Henry of Orange. At the age of
fifteen Rachel was apprenticed to Van Aelst and she presumably stayed
with him for the three years until his death in 1683. According to her
biographer, Van Gool, to whom she recounted her life, Rachel was married
to the portrait painter Juriaen Pool in 1693. Thieme Becker states that on
this point Van Gool was inaccurate and the date was 1695: an insignificant
talented family.

Her

at

father Frederik

detail in the fifty years of their

1745.

The superb

work of

happy

life

together until Juriaen's death in

canvases of Rachel Ruysch would be remarkable as the

single-minded spinster whose exclusive task they were;

how
223

RUYSCH

much more astonishing as the work

The household was not ruffled,
between

of the mother often children.

apparently, by the disparity of talent

and flower painter. In

a portrait by Pool of himself,

and one of their daughters, all is outshone by the little vase of
flowers on the table added by Rachel.
Recognition in private and court circles came readily and in 1701 the
couple moved to The Hague where they both became guild members.
Between 1708 and 17 13 Rachel was court painter at Dusseldorf and continued working for the Elector Palatine, Johann Wilhelm, until his death
in 17 16. In that year Rachel returned to live at Amsterdam where she settled
and went on working even in her eightieth year. In 1723 she and her husband
won a handsome lottery but being the daughter of a wealthy family, and
with her work commanding high prices, her fortune was assured without

portraitist

his wife

this windfall.

Just as Van Huysum's very early picture of 1706 at the Kunsthalle,

Hamburg, contrasts in its strongly seventeenth-century vein with his
more familiar, mature style, so does Rachel's early copper panel in the
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, with her typical canvases like ill. 305 and ill. 318.
111.

305 has the play of curving stems that she used so skilfully - particularly
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. The

in a larger canvas at the

flowers and blossom are varied and choice, and the perfection of her soft

makes the flowers of lesser masters appear as if they are

and awaiting a final 'working up'. Rachel Ruysch never
faltered in the control and taste of her bouquets, so that the sense of reality
to the onlooker is never marred by the feeling that the flowers and their
container have lost contact and the whole is about to fall down. 111. 318,
once a Rothschild treasure, is a later and more elaborate bouquet on the
same size canvas which illustrates this point. She remained more firmly
attached to the seventeenth-century tradition in that she did usually open
up her background to a landscape and architecture in the manner of Van
Huysum, whom she outlived by a year. But the artificialities of colour
in his work do not appear in hers. Backgrounds are usually plain, whether
warm or cool, with a gentle, never harsh, light from the left.
Like her teacher, Van Aelst, Ruysch could turn from the large sumptuous
bouquet in a vase to paint a few simple flowers or fruits on a stone or
marble ledge. 111. 319 is one of a pair of such small canvases whose outdated
confinement beneath plate glass makes it difficult to enjoy.
Occasionally she painted exotic woodland glades abounding with snakes
and lizards, the speciality of Marseus van Schriek. Rachel may have
been influenced by Van Schriek or the Mignon example which her sister
Anna Ruysch copied. These contrived and bizarre subjects may equally
be related to the fanciful engravings which Professor Ruysch commissioned
to illustrate his Thesaurus Ammalium and Thesaurus Anatomicum, using
objects from his own extensive 'cabinet of curios', a feature of so many
contemporary collections.
Rachel Ruysch, with Van Huysum, carried the wonderful tradition of
yet perfect finish

merely

319.

RUYSCH,

i2| x 105

in. (32-

Rachel
1 x 26 cm.)

laid in

Dutch flower painting

influences.

They

into the eighteenth century with the widest possible

stand together

at the

end of the Golden Age of Dutch

painting.

SAINT-JEAN, Simon
A
320. (opposite)
i2;> in.

(44

321. (overleaf)

40 x 50$

224

in.

SEGHERS,
1

/ji

signed

and studied

at

French

(1808-1860)

generation younger than Berjon,

Simon Saint-Jean was born

ROESEN,

signed

(101O X 12H cm.)

Lyons

the Ecole des Beaux-Arts with Augustin Thierriat, making

cm.)

designs for the

at

silk factory.

Todaj he

is

an almost

unknown

artist,

accused

concentration on minute detail

of sacrificing the overall composition tor
and yet it must not be forgotten that he was principally a silk designer.
.1

v^J

*>

Hi

<**

vJr

WMB

^r

SAVERY

Although

ill.

323

is

a straightforward vase of flowers, Saint-Jean often tried

to suggest allegories

and pompous symbolism

garland of flowers about a

Madonna,

in his paintings;

Musee

in the

hence a

des Beaux- Arts, Lyons,

manner of Seghers, which he exhibited

in the

own day Saint-Jean enjoyed

at the Salon of 1843. In his

success and had a flourishing school of followers

and pupils.

SAVERY,
Born

Roelandt (1576-1639)
Courtrai in Flanders, Savery

at

dutch
Holland under the care of

left for

and teacher Jacques or Jacob, who moved to Amsterdam in

1594 and died there of plague in 1602. Savery belongs to the very important
group of Flemish refugee artists whose early and influential arrival in the
his brother

323.

SAINT-JEAN,

35|x

2 8l in.

322. (opposite)

SPAENDONCK,

signed and dated

13I in
324. (below)
9lj

x 7

in.

signed

(89*5x72-4011.)

Gerard or Gerardus van,

7H5

(117x91 cm.)
S

W \R\

(24 X 18 cm.)

signed and dated 1613

United Provinces, as Holland was then called, often qualifies them for
listing under both the Flemish and Dutch schools. In 1604 Roelandt
Savery was summoned to Prague to the court of that collector extraordinary,
Emperor Rudolf II, grandson of Charles V. So began for Savery fifteen
years of travel and work in the Tyrol, Prague, Vienna, Munich, and Salzburg
in the service of Rudolf and later his brother Matthias, and doubtless others.
During these years he made occasional return visits to Holland and finally
entered the Utrecht Guild in 16 19, the year Ambrosius Bosschaert the
Elder (see p. 54) left that city for Breda. Savery appears to have settled
in Utrecht for the remaining twenty years of his life, forming a close friendship with Ambrosius Bosschaert the Younger at whose wedding in 1634
he was best man. Unlike his contemporaries, Bosschaert and Brueghel,
far from being the founder of a family of artists and followers Savery died
a poor bachelor without pupils.
The majority of Roelandt Savery's work consists of Tyrolean mountain
landscapes with soldiers, forest scenes with Orpheus calling countless
creatures,

and pure animal studies. The rarer flowerpieces are instantly

recognizable by their strikingly individual character. Butterflies and beetles

tend to

fill

every empty space and no bouquet

grasshopper, or frog by the glass.

Flemish and sixteenth-century

Savery's flowerpieces are

be gauged, nor has the

The

in its

the Centraal

ment really only in

manner with fairly
with

at least

a flowerpiece
vitality.

one

lizard,

thoroughly

None of Jacques

so their influence on Roelandt cannot

latter's earliest

dated painting of 1600 been traced.

in a

New

Museum, Utrecht -

their 'lighting'.

is

profusion and

now known

Dated works are known from 1603 a replica in

without

is

result

111.

2,

York

private collection with

and show a developshows perfectly the early

until 1637

161

1,

cool colours and absolute clarity of draughtsmanship,

transparently darker background - a painting to rival the elder

Bosschaert.

After

settling

in

Utrecht,

and

closer contact with the Bosschaert family, he

presumably coming into

changed to much stronger

contrast of light and shade with very dark, impenetrable backgrounds.

Perhaps he was responding to some Caravaggesque influence in Utrecht

time? The glass, the flowers, the attendant creatures, all are bathed
in a warm golden tone. 111. 324, a work of 1613, is a good example of this
type of Savery. The ornamental glass must have been a favourite possession

at that

which occurs in several panels, for example the 1620 panel in the Victoria
and Albert Museum, London. If as seems likely the artist used verdigris
for his brilliant greens in foliage, this pigment has deteriorated into a darker,
browner colour making the light colours of the blooms stand out even
more starkly than the artist could have intended.
Illustrations of paintings are deceptive unless an effort is made to imagine

enough remark but relevant when confronted

with the giant scale upon which these early masters were sometimes called
upon to work. 'Velvet' Brueghel (see p. 63) was the master of these large

the different sizes: an obvious

229

SAVERY

325, a famous Savery in the Centraal Museum, Utrecht, might

from adjacent illustrations look like a more elaborate variation of the 1613

pieces.

111.

(ill. 324) unless it is realized that whereas the

of inches high, the Utrecht panel measures 51^ x 31^ inches. Like
Bosschaert's 1620 painting of almost exactly the same dimensions at the
Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, this great work was doubtless intended

chosen to present a

gift

of his

own

Ik
fc-

L'
v #*m

latter is

for a special patron or presentation. In 1626, for example,

.*.

if

example already mentioned

Jm

Savery was

paintings to Amalia von Solms, wife of

Prince Frederick Henry, on behalf of the city of Utrecht.

summarized from
unique large-scale panel. A tall, slender bouquet in a niche given
volume by dark, warm, fuzzy, purply shadows against which the soft, pale
colours of the blooms stand out strongly with a plethora of spiky foliage
surrounding. Although the bouquet is topped by a crown imperial the
characteristic roses, irises and tulips predominate. The typical wealth of
insects and lizards - this symbolism of the vanitas is mentioned in the
Introduction - is this time augmented by birds.
Rudolf kept one of the finest zoological gardens of the age and Savery
benefited in all his paintings from his studies there. Savery drew for Rudolf
the now extinct dodo. And although the author has not seen a parrot eating
a frog, the attack in progress looks so convincing that Savery must have
observed such things at first hand. One cannot resist the opportunity to
quote Professor Bergstrom on the other spectator frog who 'watches with
a melancholy expression as though it were considering the prospect of a
All the characteristics of Savery's flowerpieces can be

his

similar fate'.
Scientific exactitude

but here the overall

is

not lacking in any aspect of Savery's bouquets,

effect,

with a towering bunch of flowers held upright

by an impossibly small vase, is somehow archaic even in 1624. The question

of influence to and from his contemporaries, De Gheyn, Bosschaert, and
Brueghel, appears invalid because of the seemingly independent and
above all highly personal vision brought to the early flowerpiece by Roelandt
Savery.

Italian
SCACCIATI, Andrea (1642-1710)
Contemporary sources say that Scacciati was the pupil of Mario Balassi
and Lorenzo Lippi at Florence. He was highly thought of by the Medici
family and also had many commissions from English collectors. The
Medici Grand Duke Cosimo III took a special delight in the scientific study
of natural things and Scacciati certainly worked for him. In 1702 he also
made tapestry designs for the same family. 111. 327 is one of a pair of flower
paintings by Andrea Scacciati, the other canvas being signed and dated
1678. It is worth comparing Scacciati's paintings with the work of the
Netherlandish painters Withoos and Marseus van Schriek. The latter was
engaged by Grand Duke Cosimo in 1656 and the Italian artist must have
encountered his works.

SCHOLDERER, Otto (1834-1902)

German

Born at Frankfurt, Scholderer studied there at the Stadelsches Kunstinstitut.

Through Victor Miiller, who was to become his son-in-law, Scholderer
met Courbet and was invited to Paris in 1857. On this first visit he formed
Fantin-Latour. In 1861 Fantin dedicated a
Otto Scholderer, and later honoured his German
friend by including him with the august company of Manet, Renoir, and
others in his 'Atelier aux Batignolles (Paris, Musee de l'Impressionisme).
At the outbreak of war in 1870, Scholderer left Paris and after a short stay
at Munich moved to London, where he spent twenty-eight years. Like

lasting

friendship

flowerpiece to

with

Madame

230

1
j

'

1
,

/,-.

Wpil
**.i

Er

L
it

^yy^^v

,>/:
1

s''.-

y
'-C^!

SCHOUMAN

325. (opposite above)

5 i x 3 1!
J

326. (opposite below)

22 x 16^

(56 x

in.

10 in.

329. (right)

39j x 3 1 J

signed and dated 1894

signed and dated 1670

177-7 x 139- 7 cm.)

328. (bottom)

i6jx

SCHOLDERER.

408 cm.

SCACCIATI,

327. (below)

3ofx 55 m.

S A VERY, signed and dated 1624

(!3 x 80 cm.)

SCHOUMAN

(413 x 256 cm.)

SCHOOK.

in.

(99-7 x

signed

806 cm.)

most of

The
The

contemporaries Scholderer painted a wide variety of subjects.

his

irises, ill. 326, dates from 1894 and was painted in England.
blurred effect of the blooms is very reminiscent of his friend Fantin-

vase of

Latour, yet the dark background gives a starker,

than the French master's work and

SCHOOK,

is

generally

less

atmospheric

more 'modern'

effect

in feeling.

Hendrik (1630-1707)

dutch

Schook was an Utrecht painter who closely followed the style of Mignon's
larger canvases. 111. 329 is a good example with the large poppy at the top,
a favourite note of the artist, seen again in a similar example formerly
with the Leger Galleries, London, reproduced in colour in Floral Art by
S. H. Paviere. Schook also imitated Mignon's still-lifes in picturesque
landscapes, as seen in the Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen, and his fruit and
flower swags.

SCHOUMAN, Aart (1710-1792)

Born
is

at

principally

W\

known

for his paintings of birds, well illustrated

by

his

Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum. Schouman also earned

a reputation as a flower painter at The Hague, teaching both Ponse and
Vonck as well as the more famous Van Os, who so often includes birds
and nests in his paintings. Formal bouquets painted in oils are extremely
example

%*

dutch

Dordrecht and the pupil of Adriaan van den Burg, Aart Schouman
at

the

231

SCHOUMAN

rare. By contrast, a number of superb watercolours have survived. 111. 328

was recently exhibited at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, and
reveals an assured freedom in the use of his medium, quite different from

the precise outlined botanical studies of his contemporaries.

SCHRIEK,

Otto Marseus van (1619/20-1678)

dutch
With Otto Marseus van Schriek one departs from the comforting world
of the Dutch flowerpiece to the imaginary depths of dark forests. There,
in an unreal white light, plants and flowers grow out of a mossy foreground,
the whole scene alive with snakes, reptiles, insects, butterflies and moths.

However

unreal these rather spooky visions, Schriek painted each detail

The botanical and anatomical accuracy of these

impressed learned collectors, and the Surrealism appealed
throughout Europe. Schriek gathered his own specimens and kept

with the greatest attention.

'raree pieces'
to

many

them

for scrutiny; his

nickname Snuffelaer, the

his pursuit of these creatures.

to seize a butterfly,

is

in

Sniffer,

was earned from

330, with a beautiful speckled snake about

entirely typical.

Schriek's biography

worked

111.

is

France where

incomplete. Born at Nijmegen in 1619/20, he

work is today extensively represented in French

his

museums, as well as the Louvre. In the 1650s he was in Italy

company, at Rome, with Matthias Withoos and Van Aelst. The Duke
of Tuscany was one of his patrons. Schriek almost certainly visited England, where his work is also well known and clearly influenced Hughes.
He went back to Amsterdam in 1657 and married there in 1664. The
appeal of Schriek's work throughout Europe must be seen in the context of
the experiments and curiosity of Dr Frederik Ruysch, whose daughter
Rachel was clearly impressed by Schriek, as were many lesser artists.
provincial
in

330.

SCHRIEK,

23^x

19 in. (59-

signed

ix 483 cm.)

111.

28 of

66 1

standing quality.

is

quite exceptional as a conventional flowerpiece of out-

The

lizard,

bearing

down on

the butterfly, one of six in

the canvas, and a certain eccentricity in the arrangement of the bouquet,

would make

this

unusual example immediately recognizable as the work

of this highly individual and influential artist even

if

unaware of the artist's signature and date on the marble

pieces must have influenced Van Aelst.

the spectator were

Such flower-

shelf.

SCHUCH,

Karl (1846-1903)
Karl Schuch was born at Vienna, but
studied at

Munich under

Leibl.

the Netherlands, and France.

still-lifes.

He

then

moved

Austrian
in his early twenties

During the 1870s Schuch

From

to Paris

he

left

and

visited Italy,

Venice, painting

1876 to 1882 he lived

at

where he married

Frenchwoman and

remained there until 1894 when, faced with

native Vienna and did little more painting.

ill

health, he returned to his

Schuch's painting represents a transformation from the style of the

Old Vienna School, which was in fact still flourishing in his lifetime,
towards Realism and Impressionism. Certainly he must have seen Courbet's
work and indeed may have met the French master on one of his visits to
Munich. The flowerpots filled with pansies in ill. 331 have nothing to do
with older Viennese painting and their broad painterly handling must be
seen as a tribute to Courbet (see ill. 16). It is worth noting that while his
less adventurous contemporaries were enjoying popular success in Vienna,
Karl Schuch sold only a few paintings in his lifetime.
1

SEGHERS,
331.

SCHUCH,

232

Daniel Seghers might be said to complete, with Bosschaert and Savery,

who fled their native Flanders to seek

the trio of great flower painters

signed

(K6x 70

FLEMISH

Daniel (1590-1661)

cm.)

refuge

in the

north. Unlike

them Seghers was not

to stay.

Born

at

Antwerp

SEGHERS

in 1590 the son of a respected silk merchant, Seghers was brought up in

Holland in the Protestant faith. By his own account he began painting
at the age of fifteen but who his teacher was in Holland is unknown. Neither
Holland nor the Protestant faith were destined to Seghers for long. In 1610,

the year after the signing of the

Twelve Years Truce between Spain and

He became the pupil

the United Provinces, Seghers was back in Antwerp.

of Jan 'Velvet' Brueghel (see p. 63) who was also responsible for his conversion back to Catholicism. Unknowingly Brueghel rendered an inestimable
service to the forces of the

Counter Reformation because

his protege

was

destined to join the elite of these forces, the Jesuits, and to devote to their

cause a lifetime of flower painting. In 1614 Seghers became a lay brother

vows

Between these dates he stayed in Jesuit

Antwerp and Brussels. Seghers was a lay brother
only so the frequent contemporary and later references to Le Pere Seghers
are incorrect. In the same way, the spelling of the surname with a Z or
without an H was never used by the artist himself. Having taken his final
vows, Seghers was sent to the Order in Rome, who would gladly have
retained him longer. By 1628 Seghers was back in Antwerp where he
and took

his final

in 1625.

establishments in Malines,

settled for the

remainder of his

life.

Seghers devoted himself to his studies and to his work with the single-

mindedness characteristic of his chosen Order. Rising at four a.m., he

worked from first daylight for hours on end and was not to be disturbed.
The paintings could not be sold but were used by the Jesuits to decorate
churches and to offer to dignitaries at home and abroad. Soon his flowerpieces and fame spread throughout Europe. The skill of the artist, the gentleness and modesty of the man, deeply impressed all who knew him. Among
the many callers were Ferdinand of Austria, the Governor of the Netherlands
(1635), Archduke Leopold William (1648), and Charles II of England in
exile (1649). As payment could not be made, the great rulers and nobles
gold palettes and brushes, ornamental maul-sticks,
sent magnificent gifts
reliquaries.

Of

the

many contemporary

was that b\ Constant ijn

verses eulogizing the painter,

332.

SEGHERS

37 x 2 7t i n (94 * 7
-

cm

it

luygens, the famous secretary to the Stadtholder,

Prince Frederick Henry, which found the happiest phrase, calling Seghers

Me peintre des fleurs

The

el la fleur

des peintrcs\

principal task of Daniel Seghers was to provide the flower garlands

for grisai/le centrepieces, or cartouches,

often a

Madonna and

which had

a religious

Child, usually painted by another

exceptions the efforts of his collaborators

fall

image, most

artist.

With few

so far short of the quality of

the flowers that the effect

is rather discordant. 111. 332 illustrates this point

showing an example entirely characteristic of the greater part of
Seghers' work. Whereas Brueghel painted continuous wreaths of flowers
around centrepieces, Seghers broke the surround up into groups of flowers,
freely composed; and Brueghel usually wove into his wreaths fruits and
vegetables which Seghers never painted. The combination of the sculptured
cartouche and the spaced bunches of flowers seems a perfect solution to
this type of composition, which was followed by so many artists.
Although Van Thiclen (see p. 247) was the only official pupil, a host of
artists followed Seghers' lead (see Introduction). The most important

as well as

artist

inspired by Seghers was I)e

Famous

Heem

(see p. 133).

honoured with the same formula of a portrait

surrounded b\ a garland
Archduke Leopold William in the Uffizi,
Florence, for example One of the frequent visitors to Seghers' studio was
his friend Rubens; ill. }\] is a panel with a bust of Rubens derived from the
Windsor self-portrait. A canvas of the same dimensions at Warsaw has
secular figures were

At the time of writing, the author does not know

whether Rubens and I'oussin were intended as part of a series of great

Poussin as the subject

333 S KG HERS

38^x28^

in.

(98-7x73-4 cm.)

233

SEGHERS

contemporary masters, or simply isolated tributes or memorials. The panel

in the Art Museum, Princeton University, has particularly rich and intricate
groups of flowers, with beautifully painted honeysuckle.
111. 320, a painting on copper, is one of the plain bouquets of which there
are probably less than twenty-five in existence. The signature to the bottom
right is followed by 'Society of Jesus', which so often accompanies his
signature or initials. Seghers has reduced the bouquet to a few flowers,
eliminating the profusion of wild flowers and foliage with which Brueghel
fills in his pieces. Against a blue-black impenetrable background, the
bouquet and simple glass vase casts little or no shadow, and the individual
flowers stand out in brilliant intensity in a cool daylight.
istics

apply to

all

These character-

of Seghers' bouquets.

Neue Residenz, Bamberg, example,

the flowers are more floppy

Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, and
Museum of Art, Toledo, the bouquet is much taller with no stiffness in
the arrangement. Foliage is given the same attention as the flowers and
the leaves are more carefully lighted and shadowed than the flowers.
Nothing imprecise is admitted.
Clearly, the example of Brueghel in style, composition, detail was not

In the

and

less

elegant;

at

the

Staatliche

his legacy to his pupil. Seghers

infinitely rarer

is

independent

in his

garlands as in his

bouquets. Yet the same purity of colour and the same

perfection of technique are seen in both.

Seghers paints with

a fluid stroke

It is

surprising to what extent

of the utmost assurance, building

smooth impasto and seldom retouching or working up the large flowers.

Without his sureness of touch, neither Seghers nor Brueghel nor De
Heem could have produced the number of paintings they did. Utterly
natural, uncluttered, elegant, the bouquets of Daniel Seghers are

among

the most serenely beautiful things in the history of flower painting.

334.

SEIGNEMARTIN,

18^ x 14!

in.

(46 x

336. (opposite above

i6jX \2\

in. (41

9 x

left)

ill. 245. Both artists owe something to Delacroix

and yet the work of Seignemartin appears more
affected by the Impressionistic freedom of the brush and the example in
the Louvre, Paris, has the qualities of a fluid and spontaneous sketch.
Clearly Seignemartin was destined for wider recognition had he lived.

with Monticelli's flowerpiece,

for their sense of colour

SEITZ, Georg

German

(1810-1870)

Nuremberg, Seitz seems to have been drawn to the artistic centre

of Vienna, where he died in 1870. 111. 335 is a small flowerpiece which
appears to be influenced by French painters like Chazal in both its soft
at

outlines and simple composition.

SILLETT, James

British
(1764-1840)
Norwich, James Sillett chose to abandon his apprenticeship as a
sign painter and left to study at the Royal Academy in London. He returned
to Last Anglia on his marriage in 1801 and after a few years in King's Lynn,
where he made topographical studies, he returned to Norwich, becoming

Born

at

the President of the

Norwich Society

His painting differed for

picture because in 181 2 in the

for 'the delineation

in 1815.

period from the archetypal Norwich School

Norwich Mercury he expressed

of flowers from the garden and the

human

his preference
figure, rather

than pigstyes and cart sheds'. Between the years 1796 and 1827 Sillett
exhibited a number of still-life and flowerpieces at the Royal Academy.

2.U

335.

SEITZ,

15! x

signed

1 in. (40

SILLETT,

311 cm.)

SEIGNEMARTIN, Jean (1845-1875)

French
Jean Seignemartin studied at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Lyons at a time
when the spirit of Delacroix was maintained by an old pupil, Joseph
Benoit Guichard. 111. 334, painted in 1874, is more or less contemporary

Born

signed and dated 1874

378 cm.)

x 30 cm.)

signed and dated 1802

SNABILLE

337. (right)

44^x45!

SNYDERS

in.

(112 x 116 cm.)

i*t

<

The

finished flowerpieces in oils are often

early

Dutch masters, but

on panel and look back to the

ill. 336, signed and dated
1802, has great freshness and originality. The spray of mallow with the
soft fragile petals of the flowers is delicately done and the painted shadows
behind give an unusual sense of depth, making it a painting rather than
merely

the watercolour seen in

a botanical study.

SMITH, Matthew
The

vase of

lilies,

(1879-1959)
seen in ill. 338, took

British

Matthew Smith

the best part of a

year to create and represents a synthesis of his studies in France. Born at

Halifax,

study

suaded

Yorkshire, -Smith struggled against parental opposition to

in

art.

After working in a wool factory at Bradford he eventually per-

his father to allow

him

to study painting at

Manchester. At the age

of twenty-six he went to the Slade in London, but after two unsatisfactory

years there he went to France. In 1908 he was at Pont

made famous by Gauguin;

Aven

in Brittany,

1909 he visited Dieppe and in 1910 he

eventually got to Paris where he joined Matisse's school for a few weeks.
in

Matisse impressed the British

artist

profoundly and the vase of

lilies,

The canvas
London group of

painted several years later in England, acknowledges his debt.

was the
1 9 16.

first

His

rounded

that

later

Smith exhibited
flowerpieces and

in

England, with the

have a more characteristic

still-lifes

fullness not present in this early

work

at

Leeds.

SNABILLE, Maria

dutch
Geertruida (1776-1838)
Wurzburg, Maria Snabille moved to Holland where she married
Dutch painter, Picter Barbiers. Only one flowerpiece is known to the

Born
a
338.

30 X 22

v'>

339, signed with a monogram and dated 1830. The clarity

of this panel compares to the work of Dutch contemporaries like Bloemers.

present writer,

SMITH, signed
in. {-jfyi

at

cm.)

ill.

235

SNYDERS

SNYDERS,

Frans (1579-1657)

flemish

Snyders is a celebrated painter of animals and still-lifes, in the entourage

of Rubens, and not a painter of pure flowerpieces. Yet such is the interest
of the flower bouquets which he introduced into still-lifes of fruit or kitchen
scenes with figures that his inclusion seems justified.

111.

337

is

typical of

sumptuous, all-embracing still-lifes wealthy Antwerp burghers

sought from Snyders to decorate their homes. Probably the low viewpoint
is indicative of how the canvas would have been placed in the rooms. The
few blue irises and madder roses are arranged with flamboyance and painted
with verve. A smaller bouquet on panel, exhibited at Ghent in i960 and
sold at Christie's in 197 1, had tulips rather than irises shooting upwards
in the same way as in the other example with the same low viewpoint.
the

SNYERS,

Pieter (1681-1752)
flemish
Antwerp, Pieter Snyers was a guild member by the mid- 1690s,
rose to be master of the guild in 1708, and director of the Royal Academy
at Antwerp in 1641. Snyers possessed an important collection of paintings
and worked in other genres.
The catalogue of the Ward Collection mentions that he worked at Brussels
and London, details which are not referred to in the National Gallery,
London, catalogue. The London example is a crowded accumulation of
fruit and vegetables, with dead chickens, and a lobster as a fish course. 111.
342 is a very casual but pleasing medley of fruit and flowers surrounding a

Born

at

carved ivory tankard, with well-painted insects prominent. Colours are

strong with a purple, red and white

anemone most prominent

in the centre

foreground. Snyers also painted thistle-laden landscape pieces, as seen in

39.

SXABILLE,

.5! x 183; in. (60 x

the

signed and dated 1830

Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts,

Brussels,

ill.

21, but the

of his simple flower bouquet, illustrated in Warner,

465 cm.)

is

whereabouts

unfortunately un-

known. Clearly an artist of variety and merit, Snyers seems to be distinguished

from the Antwerp decorative flower painters.

SON, Joris van

flemish

(1623-1667)

Antwerp, Joris van Son joined the Academy there in 1643. He was
principally a still-life painter working in the manner of De Heem, but he
occasionally introduced a bouquet into his still-lifes. 111. 343 is one such
example. The restraint and simplicity of choice of flowers inevitably recalls
Seghers, and indeed several garlands now ascribed to Van Son were once

Born

at

attributed to him.

SOREAU,
It is

German

Isaak (1604-after 1638)

thanks to the recent study (1962) of Gerhard Bott that the work of
Born at Hanau, Isaak was the son of Daniel

Isaak Soreau has been clarified.

Soreau and twin brother of Peter Soreau. The father of Daniel Soreau
had originally come from Antwerp. Nothing now survives of the work
of Daniel, but his role as a teacher at Hanau was important. Numbered
among his pupils, apart from his sons, were Binoit and Stosskopf and
his style must have influenced Van Hulsdonck. Isaak's death date is

unknown.
Isaak's only signed and dated work is of 1638 in the Staatliches Museum
Schwerin, which is without a flower bouquet. Capital I was interchangeable
with J at the period, and the signature of the Schwerin painting was mistaken for Jan Soreau, an elder brother who died in 1626. According to Bott
the whole oeuvre, which has always been based on this one signed example,
should be given to Isaak and there are therefore no certain works by Jan,

at

340. (opposite)

V ALLAYER-COSTER,

and dated 178(2"')

12s in.

236

(40x32 cm.)

signed

and those of Peter are quite different.

Most of Isaak Soreaifs work follows the format of

ill.

260.

The same

1
t

^mhf "-ifl

^iv

-'
j

fc

-.

-.

^^^^ ^^^r "4p%

-^^^

.i

SOUTINE

341. (opposite)

20^ x i6|

in.

VERELST,

Simon

(51-4x42*5 cm.)

Pietersz., signed

basket, faience bowls and plates contain grapes, nectarines and plums,
standing on a pale pine shelf the graining of which is minutely detailed.
The majority of his works also have to one side a similar small glass of
flowers.

The Ashmolean, Oxford,

and the

join in the panel,

picture is in an exemplary condition

which runs through the columbines, is barely
perceptible. Absolute perfection of finish and the most intense clarity
rather defy verbal description. It is worth a considerable journey to see
these few columbines in their clear glass with its eccentric prunts and the
perfect carnation lying before them. As with many still-lifes of this early
manner, the perspective of the bowls of fruit does not follow the remainder,
and there is a tilted 'for display' effect. A closely related example with the
same basket of grapes and blue faience bowl of fruit may be seen in the
Petit Palais, Paris. A spray of orange blossom replaces the columbines in
the prunted vase.

SOUTINE, Chaim

Russian
(1894-1943)
In 1934 Maurice Sachs wrote, 'the two times I saw Soutine, I was moved
by his soft, wild gaze ... he was noble and at the same time had the
hunted air of some proud, solitary animal horrified by the footsteps of
man, but never sacrificing the secret laws or pride of its race ... I found
in his canvases a terrible, involuntary distortion, undergone in fear and
trembling, that all his efforts aimed at taming.'
These observation's were made of the later period of Soutine's work,
but they seem a perfect analysis of his art and lend themselves equally
forcefully to his gladioli, ill. 344, of about 1919. Flower paintings are so
often objective, reposeful and comforting that isome attempt "has been
made to include here the most expressionistic, passionate artists, whose
intensity is totally subjective, electrifying and disturbing. The flowers of
Nolde, Kokoschka, Vlaminck and the Fauves seem almost dull compared
to Soutine's. Those of his fellow Russian, Chagall - who was already
established at Paris when Soutine arrived - are in their enchantment quite
different again from Soutine's.
Looking at the work of this son of a lowly clothes mender from a Lithuanian
ghetto, one can believe the story that Soutine once, in the creative frenzy
of painting passion, dislocated his
34a

SNYERS,

22\ x 19

in.

thumb snatching

at his fistful

(57*2 X 48*3 cm.)

necessarily paint directly onto the canvas, torrentially and without any

preparation whatsoever. This

at Vilna,

nor

at

Soutine derive

is

not surprising. Neither in his earliest years

the Ecole des Beaux- Arts on arrival in Paris in 19 13 did

much

help from formal teaching; his constant study of

the old masters, of Courbet, Cezanne, and especially

instruction,

SON

143
}0 X ]H in

(~(y z

X 96-6

of brushes.

Recently some evidence has come to light to suggest that Soutine did not

signed

'

made him

more

reflective artist

Van Gogh,

his self-

than might be imagined

from his canvases or his wildly, unstable life. Soutine was, with his friend
and champion Modigliani, the most socially isolated of the artists of the
School of Paris. When he wanted to paint his versions of Rembrandt's
'Carcass of Meat' in the Louvre - a painting which fascinated artists as
divergent as Delacroix and the American Chase - he had the model
delivered straight from the slaughterhouse. Its deterioration over the
ensuing days eventually led the neighbours to send for the police, but
Soutine finished the picture. His isolation and self-doubts were, of course,
innate and incidents like this bothered others but not the' painter. Sperber
wrote, 'Soutine was the lone night traveller who meets only the dead
Rembrandt, Goya, and Van Gogh.'
Soutine's career emphasizes the international nature of the so-called
School of Paris. Soutine, a Russian Jew, befriended by Modigliani, an
aristocratic Italian, was helped by a Frenchman, Paul Guillaume and a

239

SOUTINE

344.

(left)

25i x 17I

SOUTINE,
in-

345. (below)

(64

x44

signed

cm.)

SPAENDONCK,

signed and dated 1793

31^x25

Polish poet and dealer, Zborowski, and was

Dr

Barnes.

It

is

first

acclaimed by an American,

outside the brief to dwell on the series of pastrycook

and series of still-lifes of poultry, fish and meat

Rembrandt, among others.
Suffice to say that between 19 17 and 19 19 Soutine painted several
flowerpieces which are now in private collections, but may be seen in
illustration, not in Castaing, but in the Los Angeles catalogue of 1968.
One of these, catalogue No. 6, is of similar gladioli in the same jug. 111. 344
has been chosen, not simply because it is an example the reader may see
in a public gallery, but because it belongs to a group of paintings showing
many sides of Soutine's work in the traditional genres. This group was
part of a huge collection of French painting of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century given to the Louvre by Paul Guillaume and Jean Walter
in 1966, one of the greatest bequests in the history of the French nation.
It was Paul Guillaume who in 1923 brought Dr Barnes, a wealthy collector and creator of the Barnes Foundation, Merion, Pennsylvania, to
see Soutine's work at Zborowski's. Barnes was interested and bought a
hundred examples! So for the first time in his life Soutine had some relief
from the poverty which had afflicted him since birth. Yet this success
meant little and changed little in the life of this tortured, independent,
and lonely genius.
portraits, landscapes,

inspired by Chardin and

240

in.

(80x63-5 cm.)

Corneille or Cornelis van,

SPAENDONCK

SPAENDONCK, Corneille or Cornells van (1756-1840)

dutch
Both the career and work of Cornells van Spaendonck followed the lead of
his elder brother Gerard, his senior by ten years. Cornells, first taught by
his brother, went to Paris and worked at the Sevres porcelain factory. In
1779 Cornells was already exhibiting successfully and ten years later was
received into the Academy as a flower painter, Gerard having preceded him
in 1 78 1. The following year Cornells was further favoured by accommodation in the Louvre. Like Van Dael, who died in the same year as
Cornells, his status and prosperity were undisturbed by the political
upheavals which took place during the eighty-four years of his life. Cornells
produced fine flowerpieces in gouache and watercolour though not, of
course, of the importance of his brother's work.
The same remarks as to fluctuations in the quality of his oil paintings
apply to Cornells as to Gerard. At his best he was almost the rival of his
brother. 111. 345, of 1793, has that freshness and eclat which contemporary
critics associated with the name Spaendonck. Like Gerard, he included a
marble plinth with bas relief, a silver dish, both to enrich the composition
and demonstrate his mastery of different textures. His signature, Corneille,
reminds us that the brothers belong as much to France as to the country
of their birth. Cornells liked to paint baskets of flowers of which there
are examples in the Louvre, and in the Musee des Beaux-Arts, at Lyons.
In England, the Broughton Collection has a fine pair of baskets on oval
canvases (1789) and two other panels.
SPAENDONCK,
The

dutch

Gerard or Gerardus van (1746-1822)

true heir to Jan van

Huysum was Gerard

van Spaendonck. Born

at

Holland in 1746, Spaendonck went to Paris at the age of twenty.

So began Gerard's long, successful, and highly influential career. By 1774
Spaendonck's influence was decisive in designing for the Sevres porcelain
factor), where his brother Cornells was also to be employed. In this same
year Gerard was appointed painter in miniature to the king. His skills in
painting boxes and his instruction of the great ladies of the court made
him a favourite at Versailles. The following year, 1775, Gerard exhibited
for the first time, and from his debut was highly praised. A critic of 1779

Tilburg

in

considered him not only as the equal of Van

perhaps

his superior. Diderot, in his

Huysum, but

in

some

SPAENDONCK, Gerard or Gerardus van, signed

and dated 1785
17! x 13I in. (45 x35 cm.)

346.

respects

Salon account of 1781, the year

when

Gerard was received into the Academy, deemed his exhibit 'of the greatest
beauty'. Fame never deserted Spaendonck who was perhaps the most
accomplished painter of flowers in all mediums, oil, gouache, and watercolour; and clearl) possessed the gifts to be a good teacher whose pupils
perpetuated his style

far into the

nineteenth century.

Spaendonck had been appointed professor of flower painting

at the Jardin du Roi (it became the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle
in 17^4) and later, in 1793, was made Professor of Iconography. Spaendonck
contributed to the continuation of the famous Vehns du Roi, being a worthy
In 1780

successor to Nicolas Robert, and

in

about 1800 prepared

a series

of twenty-

four superb flower drawings, Fleurs desstnees d'apres Nature, to be engraved

and published. His pupil PrtVOSt published

his Collection des Fleurs et des

346, of 1785, a hibiscus from Virginia, was painted in

gouache for the Veltns (vellums); gouache, the opaque form of watercolour,
Fruits in 1805.

111.

was the traditional medium for the scries. Yet at the same time Spaendonck
was experimenting very successfully with conventional watercolour. Blunt
considers Spaendonck's work in watercolour to be the equal of Redoute,
who became the first artist to use pure watercolour in the Veltns. Redoute,
to whom Spaendonck gave instruction and every encouragement, 'reaped
the harvest of fame sown b\ Spaendonck' in the words of Blunt.

347.

SPAENDONCK,

305x23!

in.

Gerard or Gerardus van, signed

(78-5x59-5 cm.)

241

SPAENDONCK

The

quality ot Spaendonck's oil paintings varied over a long lifetime

and the

finest are rarely if ever available to the collector today.

outside ot France,
nitude.

The

it is

situation

difficult to cite a
is

museum example

of the

Indeed.

first

_
-

SPELT,
:>t

in.

signed and dated 1658

(47x64-4 cm.)

mag-

aggravated by confusion with his brother's work

and the difficulties of attribution of canvases, like that in the Musee des
Beaux- Arts at Tours, which emphasize the variety of qualin under discussion. At his best Spaendonck merits the praise of contemporary critics.
and he equals in oil his achievements in other mediums. 111. 347. from the
-

collection of the artist's descendant,

is a conventionally composed bouquet

with the terracotta vase, marble plinth, bird's nest, and pale woodland

background derived from Van Huysum. and indeed

The

pale bluey-green

poppy

rivalling his work.

leaves at the top are next to the strongest of

the poppy. From the brilliance of this red, the artist leads us through
the subtleties of the colour to the very palest pink rose; where the rose
.

leaves have been eaten

'f

the

one sees

a tracery

remnant silhouetted by the pale-

>m Fontainebleau is composed quite independently of

32a
785
Huysum's ideas, and shows how perfectly Spaendonck adapted the
Bowcrpiece to oontcmporan tastes. The cool delicacy of the overall tone.
111

\ an

242

pposite)

12 x 10 in.

STANNARD.

(305 x 25 4 cm.)

Emily. signed and dated 1840

SPAENDONCK

243

SPAENDONCK

of every detail
with blues in the foliage, and the breathtaking refinement
Spaendonck.
van
Gerard
for
entry
this
must justify the opening sentence of

SPELT, Adriaen van der (1630-1673)

A contemporary reference mentions Spelt

dutch
as a celebrated flower painter

is no reason
from Gouda, vet today few paintings by him are known. There
of court
position
the
won
Spelt
to doubt the validity of this reference as
Brandenburg,
of
Prince
painter at Berlin andpainted a portrait of the Crown
is illustrated
surrounded bv a garland of flowers. A finely painted bouquet
ill.
is
Spelt
Van der
348, an imin Bol, but the most interesting work by
in still-life
device
old
an
pressive panel of 1658. The unusual curtain was
De Heem.
of
example
backgrounds, and the garland may derive from the

STANNARD, Eloise (1829-1915)

British

daughter of
A generation vounger than Emily, her aunt, Eloise was the
a frail girl,
been
to have
\lfred Stannard, Joseph's brother. She appears
Victorian
with
happened
for at home by her mother, but as so often
cared

running of her large family of brothers

lived on into her eighties.
and sisters when their mother died in 1873, and
the Dutch flower painters,
Like her aunt, Eloise was deeply impressed by
first she painted formal
though her works have a striking blue tonality. At
from nature. 111. 350,
bouquets but later did more outdoor work, painting
are very well painted
flowers
The
work.
early
an
signed and dated 1855, is
is less successful.
depth,
achieve
to
order
in
angle
although the vase, set at an
invalid daughters she took over the

STANNARD, Emily (1803-1888)

350.

STANNARD, Eloise, signed and

23t x i7i

in

dated 1855

(597 x 444 cm.)

British

Coppin, a painter
Born at Norwich, Emilv was the daughter of Daniel
Norwich Society.
the
of
President
became
and friend of John Crome, who
an award
winning
after
then
and
painting with her father

Emilv studied

the painting of Van

1820 she journeyed to Holland to study and copy
Stannard, thus
Joseph
married
Huysum. At the age of twenty-three she
School. But
Norwich
the
of
linking two well-known families of painters
in 1830.
thirty-six
aged
died
her happiness was short-lived for her husband
Mrs
works
her
signing
death Emilv continued to paint, often
in

After his

her own Christian name

Joseph Stannard. 111. 349 is, however, signed with
choice of vase
and dated 1840. Her debt to Van Huysum is obvious in the
have often
works
and the highly finished flowers, and indeed her unsigned
the same
of
daughter
been mistaken for Dutch paintings. Emily had a

name who

also painted flowers.

STERN, Ludovico

Italian

(1709-1777)
from Bavaria who settled at Rome about 1700,
painter
a
The son of
known
Ludovico Stern learned painting from his father and was principally
may
which
paintings, an example of
for his religious paintings. His flower
of the work ol
be seen in ill 352, are quite rare. Dated 1757 it is reminiscent
exhibited at Naples
Nu/zi, a hundred years earlier. A pair of simpler vases
in 1964 were once in fact attributed to Nuzzi.

STOLL, Leopold

(active 1828-1869)

German

went to Poland and then to

In 1828, the year of ill. 351, Leopold Stoll
painter at the Botanical Gardens
St Petersburg," where he became an official
Stoll's life, though he seems to
known
of
is
else
from .830 to 1834. -it tie
with ill. 172 by Anton
comparison
A
until
1869.
have been active at Vienna
the Vienna Acadenu
in
studied
have
also
might
lartinger suggests that Stoll
bouquet is against
the
and
low
landscape
Hartinger, Stoll has set the
I

Like

both.
the sky, and sweet peas figure prominently in

244

351.

STOLL,

28x22

in.

signed and dated 1828

(71-2 x 55-9 cm.)

352. (opposite above)

23x31

in.

(585 x80

STERN,

signed and dated 1757

cm.)

STOSSKOPF

353. (opposite below)

cm.)
lift xoj in. (29-5 X 23- 5

STOSSKOPF,

Sebastian (1597-1657)
French
Strasbourg, Stosskopf was at first the pupil of a miniaturist and
engraver, Friedrich Brentel. In 1615 he joined the flourishing workshop
Born

at

of Daniel Soreau

at

Hanau near

Frankfurt, in

company with

the older

contemporary Binoit, Soreau's son Isaak, and the Italian

painter Francesco Codino. In 1621, on Daniel Soreau's death, he took
over his position as head of the workshop. He left Hanau soon afterwards,
for Paris, where he stayed until 1641, a sojourn only briefly interrupted by
a visit to Venice in 1629. Stosskopf is best known for his superb still-lifes
painted in Paris with an elegance and mastery that rivals Baugin. One of
his favourite motifs is a group of glasses in a basket deserving the praise
of Sterling: 'that Faustian wizard of evanescent gleams of light on glass'.
III.353 s a rare flowerpiece, according to Haug dating from the Soreau period,
c. 1618, with a blue and white faience vase. The primitive quality of this
formalized bouquet recalls the sixteenth century, known to us principally
through Ludger Tom Ring.
Flegel,

his

'

STUVEN,
Born

at

German

Ernst (1657-1712)

Hamburg, Ernst Stuven was

the pupil of

Hinz who was working

However, in 1675 Stuven is recorded at

Voorhout. 111. 354, which is a signed example
of Stuven's work, shows that he was also influenced by the painting of
Mignon, delighting in the surface patterns of stems and highly finished,
there during the early

Amsterdam

rather

1670s.

as the pupil of Jan

flat foliage.

245

SWEERTS

SWEERTS, Jeronimus
354. (above)

STUVEN,

403X 325

(102-9 x

in.

355. (above right)

15

x i6

in.

(38

signed

832 cm.)

SWEERTS,

x43

cm.)

signed and dated 1626

dutch

(1603-1636)

At Amsterdam in 1627 Jeronimus Sweerts married Maria Bosschaert,

daughter of Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (see p. 54). Jeronimus was
the son of Emanuel Sweerts, a well-known botanist and plant grower who
published a florilegium in 1612: an excellent pedigree for a young man
marrying into the Bosschaert family.
One year before his marriage Jeronimus signed and dated what is now
his only known work, although others were noted in a seventeenth-century
inventory. With these clear signatures, how inexplicable that only one
painting by an artist intimately linked with the Bosschaerts should be
recognized

How

strange, too, that he should have followed the Bosschaert

Comparison with ill. 88, Johannes Bosschaert,

and ill. 36, Assteyn, shows how easily a panel by Sweerts could be attributed
to them. Nonetheless, the Sweerts would be preferable to an Assteyn.
Jeronimus father also dealt in exotic birds and ill. 355 does have a red

practice of dying prematurely.

parrot on the right, in the

however, visible

at present.

manner of Van der Ast

(see

ill.

40). It

is

not,

In response to the repeated pleas of an elderly

and somewhat eccentric lady owner of the panel who took strong exception
to this parrot, it was carefully painted out and could as easily be reinstated
by cleaning away this retouching. Without necessarily taking sides, the
parrot added little to the composition and its strident red does clash with
the tulips. However trite this detail may seem to the layman, it is hoped
that the publication of this startling information will prevent further expert

speculations about the fate of what Bol has called 'this fugitive bird'.

Like Baers (see p. 41), Sweerts

of the Bosschaert tradition.

is still

an intriguing 'one- work' follower

TAMM, Franz Werner von (1658-1724)

Hamburg,

Tamm

Rome

germw

1685 where he remained tor

ten years, forming his style after the work of X11//1 who had died in

Born

at

went

to

in

Rome, Tamm married the daughter of an Augsburg goldsmith

known to have come into contact with Carlo Maratti and Yanvitclli.

1^73. At

and
1

VMM,

dated 172

i<)2 '

24(1

74 cm.)

is

In about 1700

He

also

Tamm

worked

was called

to

Vienna to enter the service of Leopold

A record of 1702 mentions

for the Prince of Liechtenstein.

LPPINK

him

in Passau,

and he died

at

Vienna

in 1724.

Tamm

was an all-rounder,

game still-lifes. Pure flowerpieces, like ill. 356 in

Kunsthalle, Hamburg, are comparatively rare. On the evidence of this

painting birds, fruit, and

the

Tamm

example

was indeed influenced by Italian flower painting and from

is visible it seems possible that this undated work

the canvas texture that

could belong to

Tamm's

long stay in Italy.

THIELEN, Jan

Philips van (1618-1667)

flemish
Born at Malines of a noble family, Jan Philips van Thielen had the title
of seigneur of Couwenbergh. This name or that of his mother's family,
Rigouldts, occasionally appears in the artist's signature. At the age of

was a pupil of Theodoor Rombouts who registered him in

Antwerp Guild. He then became the only direct pupil of the great
Seghers. Van Thielen became a master in 1641 and is noted inscribed in
the Malines Guild in 1660. He died on his family property in 1667. He
was the brother-in-law of Erasmus Quellinus, who painted many of the
centrepieces in his and Seghers' garlands; there were three Van Thielen
daughters who painted. Van Thielen signed with capital letters or initials.
thirteen, he

the

The

only pupil, and worthy of the status,

among

so

many

followers of

and actually made a

copy of one of his garlands. Like Seghers, the greater part of his output
was of garlands. These are sometimes easily distinguished from his teacher's
by Van Thielen's inclusion of animals and other items where Seghers
painted flowers only. Apart from this obvious difference, and if unguided
by signature, their garlands are only to be distinguished in terms of superior
invention within the formula, and quality of execution on the part of
the great Jesuit,

Seghers

Van Thielen

is

closest to Seghers

not necessarily an easy distinction.

interesting

because

approach to

different

and the

treer
stalks

at

finish

painted

clearly

in.

signed

(32-5x24-2 cm.)

at his most
most individual. Apart from the obviously
the background, Van Thielen's handling is much

correspondingly broader.

vase of tulips with tiny

x 9!

12!

his

Thielen's bouquets are seldom without

still

The way

he has flicked

in the

the most impressionistic note in this vigorous brushwork.

is

THIELEN",

357.

357 shows one of the rarer bouquets where, although

indebted to Seghers (compare with ill. 2), Van Thielen is
111.

Van

striped tulip; in one instance he

numbers on the stems corresponding

to

kc\ written on a piece ot paper in front of the vase. In the smaller bouquets,

as illustrated

and

Musec

as at the

des Beaux-Arts, Dijon,

fond ot putting a pink rose immediately against

Van Thielen

is

white one or a white

camellia.

TOL'RMKR, Jean
Bom

in

exhibiting

home

in

Usace and.
Mulhousc.

to

lactones

at

vase

is

in a

FRENCH
L'lrich (1802-1865)
Tournier studied in Paris with the Spaendonck brothers,
the Pans Salons between 1821 and 1833. In 1828 he went

\lsace,

preserved

like
\

in

Benner-Fries, he

tine watercolour

the

Musec de

I'

made

ot roses,

designs for the chintz

hibiscus and hollyhocks

Impression sur Etofles, Mulhouse.

358 is a rarer flowerpiece in oils, signed and dated 1821, the piled-up
bouquet recalling the st\le ot his teachers Perhaps this canvas was one of
Tournicr's earl} Salon exhibits.
111.

LPPINK, Hermanns
Hermanns

(1753-1798)
ppink was the elder brother

DUTCH
ot the portrait painter,

Willem

Lppink, and both worked at \mstcrdam. III. 359, signed and dated 1789,
the Rijksmuscum, Amsterdam, has the profuse bouquet and classical
architecture in the parkland background familiar in the work of more

358.

important

26

in

artists ot the period.

TOURNIER,
-

22

in.

signed and dated 1821

(67 x 56 cm.)

247

VALLAYER-COSTER

VALLAYER-COSTER, Anne (1744-1818)

The

French

overcome prejudice against women

need it be said, still

very much with us today. In flower painting women have often found
their happiest subject. In no other genre of painting have they made a
consistently important contribution. The eighteenth century begins and
ends with the success of two great names, Rachel Ruysch and Anne Yallayerstruggle to

is,

Coster. It is not modern judgment alone which assesses their work as the
equal of any man's, but the opinion of their contemporaries - a much more
significant tribute.

Anne Yallayer-Coster was the daughter of a royal goldsmith working

Gobelins. To an Academy still distinguished by Chardin and Desportes
she submitted her first work in 1770. Her immediate acceptance, by no
at the

means

matter of course, was early proof of her

ability.

In the same year

her father died and her two sisters soon married; after this break-up of
the family

By 1775

Anne

stayed by her mother until 1780 a most productive decade.

:

she was exhibiting her

in a still-life.

Three years

first

plain bouquets as opposed to flowers

her success brought her to the attention

later

of Marie Antoinette; in 1780-81 she was lodged in the Louvre with the

appointment of painter

Queen. In 1781 she married an avocat de

Louvre
until the Revolution. Her genre subjects and portraits of the 1780s found
less favour with the critics, a judgment we would not necessarily share
today. Inevitably during the Revolution and Empire the reaction against
the tastes of Louis XYFs reign affected her popularity, although she continued to exhibit at the Salon. She died in 18 18 at the venerable age of

parlement,

359.

UPPINK,

284 x 23I

signed and dated 1789

x 59- 5 cm.)

in. (72- 5

to the

J. P. Silvestre

Coster, and they continued to live in the

seventy-three.

Ever since the contemporary

victims

Anne

critic

Diderot called her one of Chardin's

Yallayer-Coster's true stature has been obscured by the

shadow of the

great

man. This

is

understandable because her

still-life

paintings are sufficiently close to Chardin to have been mistaken for his

work. She should, in fairness, be judged by her most original work - her
flowerpieces.

On three occasions between 1779 and 1783 critics wrote that her flowers
could not be surpassed by Gerard van Spaendonck. This was an empty
comparison. Their work is completely different and there could have been

360.

VALLAYER-COSTER

165 x 2o|

in.

(43 x 52 cm.)

no conscious rivalry. Indeed it says much for the strength of her personality
that Anne was unaffected by the masters who came to Paris from the
north, such as Spaendonck, his pupil Redoute, Yan Dael, and Yan Os.
111. 340 is a perfect example from the 1780s. The refinement of the palette
and delicacy of touch are typical of French painting in the eighteenth
century. Pale, soft tints are used, not in the

centurv Dutch

handling

is

artificial

vein of much eighteenth-

harmony with strong colour. The

breadth in a way that looks forward

painting, but in perfect

painterly, leaving detail for

next century. In over a hundred such bouquets she maintained an enviably consistent quality of execution and inventiveness of

to

Manet

in the

presentation.

360 shows one of her rare oil sketches on paper, mounted on canvas,
painted no doubt for her own instruction and satisfaction. Nothing could
more clearly indicate her devotion to the favourite flower of the age and
111.

when flowers, and the rose especially,

were everywhere used in a purely decorative role, here is a subtle study ol
values and the form of the rose at every stage from bud to full flowering.
the art of real flower painting. At a time

EWE, Pieter van de

111.

361

born

248

at

is

a rare signed

(</.

DUTCH

1657)

example of a minor master, Pieter van de Venne,

Muldellnirg. His birthdate

is

unknown

but he died

in

1657. In

VERELST

1639 he was in The Hague Guild, and later in the Pictura Society. This
is undated but stylistically could be placed in the 1630s. The
artist may well be related to Adriaen van de Venne (1589- 1662), a landscape
and genre painter who lived at Middelburg from 1614 to 1625.
small panel

VERBRUGGEX,

Gaspar Pieter the Younger (1664-1730) flemish

sons of the painter Gaspar Pieter Verbruggen the Elder, Gaspar
Pieter the Younger was the best known. Born at Antwerp, he entered the

Of the

six

guild at the age of thirteen and before he was thirty

Verbruggen had an
of six pupils including Frans Casteels and Galle. This early success,
however, was short-lived and during the second half of his life Verbruggen

atelier

was financially supported by his friends and colleagues. The paintings of

Verbruggen are extremely decorative, if somewhat over-abundant on
occasion.

He

painted decorative garlands as well as bouquets.

several unmistakable characteristics.

a pedestal,

The

vase of flowers

is

set

362 has
high upon

111.

seen from a low viewpoint, and the flowers seem to cascade

about the plinth. There

is

no evidence that Verbruggen ever went

but his admiration of Italianate flowerpieces

to Italv,

apparent in the composition

and explicit in his Italianate signature 'gaspare pedro Verbruggen'.
is

VERELST,

Cornells (c. 1667-1734)

dutch
The Hague, was the nephew of Simon Verelst. He settled
in London as did his father, Herman, the elder brother of Simon. A very
colourful flowerpiece by Cornelis, ill. 363, was included in the Fairhaven
Bequest to the Fitzwilliam, Cambridge, where comparison can be made
with a magnificent example of his uncle's work from the same source.
Little is known of Cornelis, but on the evidence of this comparison his touch
Cornelis, born at

is

361.

VENNE,

9^x 8^

in.

(25

signed

x 21 cm.)

broader than with his celebrated uncle.

VERELST, Simon

dutch

Pietersz. (1644-r. 1721)

Seven members of the Verelst family of painters are listed and span just
over a century. Some are obscure, one is important - Simon. Born at The
Hague, Simon Verelst probably qualified in his local guild before moving
to England in 1669. His brother Herman and Herman's son, Cornelis,
accompanied him to this country.
The patronage of the second Duke of Buckingham, allied to Verelst's
own skills, won a tremendous acclaim in Restoration London. His elegance
and delicacy perfectly appealed to the 'Frenchified' taste of the day. Louise
de Kcrouallc, Duchess ot Portsmouth, was Charles II's mistress at the
time and what was French, whether political interest or painting, received
her immediate and continuing support. Verelst probably visited Paris in
1680. I ler patronage ensured the sustained success of Verelst, even when he
turned to portrait painting at the Duke's suggestion. His best-known
portrait is ot Charles II, exhibited at the Charles II Exhibition, at the Royal
Academy in i960. Not surprisingly his female portraits were often embellish-

The Karl of Jersey's 'Miss Child with a Lamb' is the

most charming example. In fact Sir Peter Lely would have preferred

ed with flowers.

Verelst to have stuck to flowers.

Success proved rather heady for Verelst.

of

He began

styling himself

Flowers' and 'the King of Painters', and was temporarily

These troubles overcome, he apparently continued

was certainly

still

in

'God

an asylum.

successful career and

active in 1700. In later \ears he lived with the picture

dealer Lovcjoy and died in his adopted

London.

Verelst's style stems from Van Aelst (see p. 33), but that generalization
having been made, it would be misleading to think of Verelst as other than
a very individual and accomplished painter. Although in present-day

362.

VERBRUGGEN,

44^ x 31

in. (1

13 x

signed

788 cm.)

240

ERELST

-^.
t

4.

^^ii
/

ft Mm

vlff

*#TGI
a

ysi..^H- Hi^K^
ft

>-*fc

]t
'
!

*
w

&

>0
fSkSfl

VERELST,

363. (above)

21^ x i8

in.

in.

VERENDAEL,

T"

signed

(44-4x63-5 cm.)

X>^
tV<r

judgment he must be counted second to the great masters, no such comparisons were available to Londoners at the period. His impact was therefore sensational. Samuel Pepys wrote in 1669, the latest year of his famous
Diary, of his coming across Verelst: '.
one Everest [sic] who took us to
his lodging nearby and did show us a little flowerpot of his drawing, the
finest thing, I ever, I think, saw in my life, the drops of dew hanging on
the leaves so I was forced again and again to put my finger to it to feel
whether my eyes were deceived or no. He do ask 70., for it; I had the vanity
to bid him 20. But a better picture I never saw in my whole life and it is
worth going twenty miles to see it'.
111. 341 shows the rose, the poppy and the tulip, Verelst's favourite flowers.
Each bloom is well treated and the bouquet convincingly contained in the
glass bottle which he used for so many flowerpieces. His compositions are
often diagonal or asymmetric, with sophisticated rhythms set up in foliage
and stems. Strong chiaroscuro lighting is used against a warm, dark background. All this is commonplace in the period. What most appeals is
Verelst's painterly brushwork with quite a buttery impasto in parts: for
example, the two reflections on the bottle, or the way the greeny-grey
leaves are treated near the pink rose. Yet Verelst can work up details, glaze,
and combine breadth with delicacy of touch and palette. He was inconsistent
in signing his paintings. Some excellent examples are unsigned, others,
.

(546 x 463 cm.)

364. (above right)

171x25

Cornells

HE

as in
111.

365, are signed with initials or fully signed as in ill. 341.

365 is Verelst in one of his audacious flights of compositional fantasy.

ill.

No

vase, no string binding the bunch together, not a hanging bouquet,

nor attached swag, yet it is a remarkable and disturbingly eccentric composition. His palette here, in contrast to the colour plate, is cool with palest

grey foliage tinged with blue and grey.

VERENDAEL,
In a

way

flemish

Nicolaes van (1640-1690)

that will be very familiar to the reader, especially one

who

has

V, chance has again

deemed that few facts survive about the life of one of the major Flemish
flower painters of the second half of the seventeenth century, Nicolaes van
followed the alphabetical

arrangement

as

far

as

Verendael.
365.

13JX

2^0

VERELST,
11

in.

Simon

Horn

Fitters/., signed

(34*9 X 28 cm.)

to

such

at

Antwerp, Verendael was instructed vcr\ young by his father

by the age of seventeen he was a member of the Antwerp

effect that

VERENDAEL

367.

VIDAL,

20 x 16

Guild. With this formation,

two,

he was

and died

master of his
in his

native

art.

is

it

when Yerendael painted

signed

(506 x 407 cm.)

366. (left)

VERENDAEL,

2o|x 15^

in. (52-

signed and dated 1677

ix 394 cm.)

not surprising that by the age of twenty-

the Metropolitan

Verendael married

Antwerp

in.

in 1690.

One

Museum

of Art example,
daughter in 1669
surprising fact is recorded in
a sculptor's

otherwise routine biography: Verendael led a needy existence. How

can this have been possible in a field of painting which generally assured
this

a steady
skill

and occasionally spectacular income? Verendael lacked neither

nor industry, so the answer

may

lie in

some personal

folly or speculation

which impoverished him.

Verendael at his finest must be ranked the most distinguished Flemish
master in the generation after Seghers, whose influence he absorbs without
subservience. III. 374, painted on copper, has the characteristic juxtaposition
white and blue. All the colours have that brilliant purity
which distinguishes Seghers, De Heem and Van Kessel. The same jewellike effect, found in the work of the last-named, can be felt in this little
bouquet and both artists excel at the painting of insects. If one wanted to
single out the most readily identifiable feature of Verendacl's work, it is
of red (or pink),

the texture of his roses and hibiscus leaves, particularly the white ones.

The

petals are like the thinnest tissue paper, finely crinkled, yet to

employ
251

VERENDAEL

the word paper is inadequate a fine chiffon silk would perhaps be a fairer
guide to the extraordinary, fragile beauty of these whites. Yerendael
usually favoured a fine glass vase set centrally on a stone ledge, often with
:

niche in the background, as in

dark and retained

The orange
111.

ill. 374. Like Seghers, he kept backgrounds

symmetrical arrangement even in his later work.

nasturtiums are distinctive

absence of a tulip
dael,

a fairly

366 is a canvas of roughly 20^ x 15^ inches, a size much used by Yerenand has his favourite white hibiscus, tinged with deepest crimson in the

centre with the strong yellow stamen.

appears in the Metropolitan

and

in this flawless display, just as the

unusual.

is

Museum

in a canvas sold at Christie's in

Both these are the same size

may date from the 1660s compared to

collection.

the collectors of the

collectors of

Low

The same

flower similarly placed

of Art example mentioned above,

1965 from the Spencer Churchill

ill. 366. It is thought that ill.
374

as

ill.

366 which

is

Countries, there have been no

Dutch and Flemish flowerpieces than

dated 1677. After

more

enthusiastic

the noble families of

England and France, particularly in the eighteenth century. 111. 366 comes
from Xostell Priory, one of Yorkshire's eighteenth-century stately homes,
completed by Robert Adam. Much of the furniture was the work of Thomas
Chippendale, who also made the frame for ill. 366.
Yerendael also painted swags and garlands in the fashion created by
Seghers, with various centrepieces. 111. 364 is from the collection of the
Yictoria and Albert Museum, London, but is currently hanging at another
famous house, Osterley House, Isleworth. Clearly the canvas has at some
time been cut down, as can be seen from the bottom of a stone frame in
the background and the ear of wheat trailing into the picture from above.
The removal of a portrait is not so drastic as it may sound, for it is the
flowers alone which interest most onlookers and owners. Their quality is
368.

VL AMI NCK,

signed

2ix i 4 |in. (535 x37 cm.)

excellent,

with the recurring hibiscus prominent. Verendael painted a

pictures - singeries - and an unusual vamtas subject

number of monkey
with

a large skull

(Accademia, Yenice). As mentioned under Jan de Heem,

Munich, canvas,
problem of what Yerendael contributed to this work.
De Heem's name must be coupled with Seghers in Yerendael's formation.
the presence of his signature on the Alte Pinakothek,
ill.

182, poses the

YIDAL, Louis
The

(Y.

French

1754-after 1805)

birthplace of Louis Yidal

is

unknown.

It

has been suggested that he

was born at Marseilles, but his activity at Lille and the presence of his
works in the Musee des Beaux-Arts there seems to indicate a northern
artist. Between 1790 and 1792 Yidal was working in England, with four
exhibits at the Royal Academy. 111. 367, which is signed, is painted on
copper, unusual at the period, with the blues of the love-in-a-mist echoed
in the violets at the

top of the picture.

YLAMINCK, Maurice de (1876-1958)

frem

11

of Maurice

Something of the spirit of Courbet seems rekindled in the

de Ylaminck. Courbet had been disdainful of art schools and Salons, but
did make a careful study of the old masters of the Italian and Spanish
schools. Ylaminck went one better as a genuinely self-taught artist who
life

boasted that he had never set foot

anarchist views of the arrogant

369.

IX;

I.

R, signed and dated 1651

21 in. ((>2 2 X 53-4

2^2

cm.)

in the

Louvre, and rivalled the

man from Ornans who

died

politically

when Ylaminck

was hardly born. Ylaminck shared Henry Ford's opinion that 'Historj is
bunk'. Discussion and book learning he despised, which was convenient
because his career as a professional Cycle racer and cafe violinist leit little
enough time for painting. His friendship with Derain a notable instance
of the attraction of opposites

began

at

the close of the century

when

the)

37. (above) \

25^ x 2cA

in.

right) \

17J in

OET.

(648 x

signed and dated 1695

$2-

OLLON,
154

cm.
signed

45 cm.)

worked together at Chatou. In 1901 the retrospective exhibition of Van

Gogh had a terrific impact on Ylaminck who soon joined with Derain and
Van Dongen in the new Fauve movement. Passionate colour seemed an
ideal outlet for his temperament, and he squeezed the tubes often directly
onto the canvas to work them with brush and palette knife. His combinations of colour, like his execution, are unmistakably his own. There are
few

museums without an example, but over-familiarity,

dim the

in a

long

cannot

life,

and forcefulness of \ laminck's work, like ill. 368 so

often built up in red, white, blue and green. The green vase on the white
cloth at the Ashmolean, Oxford, is typical. Just as the bouquets of Arellano
seem agitated by the wind, those of Ylaminck give the impression that he
had flashed past at speed and painted the model in his mind's eye in a
originality

fervour of impatient virtuosity, right

YLIEGER,

Eltie

down

to the signature.

dutch

de (active 1634-1651)

369, elaborately signed and dated 165 1, is one of the three or four known
examples of Eltie de Ylieger, sister of the well-known marine painter,
111.

Ylieger. There are examples in the Kunsthalle, Hamburg, the

Kunstsammlungen, Dessau, and the Mauritshuis, The Hague.
The pocket watch is a favourite motif of Yan Aelst, but the style of the flowers

Simon de
Staatliche

seems related

VOET,
Born
3**

/ 2<in

tm

at

to Elliger

and Lachtropius.

Karel Borchaert (1670-1743)

Zwolle, Yoet was registered in the guild

dutch
at

The Hague

His principal patron was William Bentinck, Earl of Portland,

in

1692.

whom

he

253

VOET

accompanied on several visits to England. He often painted exotic plants

and fruits in a landscape reminiscent of the work of Tamm, but ill. 370 is
a conventional flowerpiece, signed and dated 1695. The inclusion of a
cactus and a spray of holly leaves is unusual.

VOGELAER,
Born

at

Karel van (1653-1695)

Maastricht, Vogelaer is one of the

having been

in

dutch
many roaming Dutchmen who,

France, appears to have settled in Italy, dying at

1695. In Italy he

was known

as 'Carlo dei Fiori'.

111.

372

is

Rome

in

a large canvas

style and texture suggest that it was painted in Italy. A similar vase
appeared in an example with landscape background at Christie's in 1964.
The example illustrated is one of a signed pair which must rank among the
artist's best work. Vogelaer added fruit and vegetables to his flowers as
in an example at the Galleria Borghese, Rome.

whose

VOLLON,
The

Antoine (1833-1900)

French

revival of Chardin's reputation in the 1860s, noted in Fantin-Latour's

Manet and Cezanne, is reflected in the work of

Antoine Vollon, who settled in Paris in 1863 from his native Lyons. That
Vollon was called the Chardin of his time was not a comparative assessment
but an acknowledgment of his approach. Affected by the end of Romanticism
in his poetic mood, Vollon saw the beginning of Realism, and made a
sound contribution in bringing still-life back to earth - both in terms of
a return to simple domestic objects' and a natural presentation. He turned
away from the Lyons style of flowerpieces, predominantly decorative in
purpose, and yet avoided the heroic overtones of Courbet and Delacroix.
Like Theodule Ribot, who influenced him, Vollon's work is mainly still-life
and ill. 371 is an excellent example of his flowers, where his approach and
painterly touch are well in evidence. Chase, among other Americans, was
influenced by Vollon and owned several examples of his work.
entry and pertinent to

VONCK, Jacob (active

dutch
1717-1765)
Middelburg, Jacob Vonck is said to have been a pupil of the
slightly younger Schouman, the bird painter, Indeed birds are a favourite
motif with Vonck and occur in most of his paintings. 111. 373 is one of a
pair, signed and dated 1760. The large ewer around which roses, convolvulus, mallows and poppies are entwined, is another typical feature.
There is another pair of paintings of the same size and date in a well-known
private English collection, and the four may have originally formed a set.
The bubbles blown by a pipe from the depths of the nautilus shell are a
Born

373.

VONCK,

33 X 26

in.

signed and dated 1760

(83-9 x 66-

at

delightful detail.

century,

cm.)

Among

Vonck appears

the

many Dutch

flower painters in the eighteenth

rather superior.

VOSMAER, Jacob
Born

at Delft,

Woutersz. (1584-1641)
Vosmaer became a guild official

dutch
there in 1633.

He made

returning to Delft in 1608, where he died in 1641.

Vosmaer, an intriguing figure, enjoys the distinction that all of his four
known paintings have been illustrated by one author or another, two of

journey to

them

Italy,

in colour.

The

earliest is

ill.

colour by Salinger; the second, of

(Bergstrom); another was sold

latest,

1618,

is

in

Dr

376, dated 1615, which is reproduced in

616, is in a private Rotterdam collection

at

Sotheby's in 1970 (Warner); and the

Wetzlar's collection (Bol, 1969, colourplate).

The

with insects below,

four are very similar: tall bouquets
ill. 376 shows every
as
painting.
Yet
conforming to the early style of flower
agitated. This
seems
petal
flower twists and turns on its stem and every
in stone niches

374 (opposite) \ IK
in. (.W4 x
15$ x 11
I

^A

ENDA1
2<>

in

L
)

Mannerist mouvemente

effect

is

accentuated by Vosmaer's colour accents.

VOSMAER

375. (opposite)

23+ x 18J

376. (right)

WALSCAPPELLE,

signed

(597 x 47-6 cm.)

in.

VOSMAER,

33z x 2 4l in (85-

signed and dated 1615

x 625 cm.)

absence of a top flower in an otherwise symmetrical and conventional

bouquet strikes a further discordant note. In Dr Wetzlar's even larger
panel of 161 8, with a little mouse beneath the towering bouquet, many of

The

376 are repeated, notably the large peony on the

right. The later painting has a crown imperial lily as top flower, and both
bouquets are in the same earthenware jug. Bol, 1969, also illustrates a
beautiful little study of insects on a white ground of 1639. There is supposedly a fruitpiece by Vosmaer at Orleans but the author has no knowledge
the

same flowers from

ill.

of this painting.

shows that Vosmaer was his

follower. The looseness of individual flowers, compared with Bosschaert,
in Vosmaer than with
is the same, but restlessness is far more pronounced
The Hague on his
in
De Gheyn. Vosmaer probably visited De Gheyn

comparison with

return
377
4<>

WAINWR IGHT, signed

\<,

in

124 X

t)()

ni

and dated 1859

So

De Gheyn

II

(ill.

home from Italy in 1608.

known of this early master

little is

157)

that there

may be many

factors to

explain the strange stylistic personality of Jacob Vosmaer.

257

WAIN WRIGHT

WAINWRIGHT, John (active 1859-1869)

British
John Wainright here represents the continuing influence of the great
Dutch masters in England during the nineteenth century. 111. 377, which
is signed and dated 1859, is a lavish bouquet in the Van Huysum manner.
Although little is known of the artist, he exhibited both at the Suffolk
Street galleries and at the British Institution, London.

WALDMULLER, Ferdinand Georg (1793-1865)

The

flowerpiece represents only one aspect of Waldmiiller's

Austrian
Born at

art.

is best known for his landscapes, and for his portraits

which include Beethoven's. In 1825 he journeyed to Italy making copies
of old masters such as Corregio, Ribera and Van Ruisdael. He antagonized
the Establishment at Vienna with his revolutionary theories on painting,
but his success was unaffected and led to an invitation to Philadelphia in
1856. On the journey he stayed in London where he met the Royal Family
and sold paintings to Queen Victoria. Eventually he abandoned his plans
to cross the Atlantic and returned to Vienna via Paris.

Vienna, Waldmtiller

378, of 1848, displays Waldmiiller's principal artistic intentions. In

111.

an almost fanatical pursuit of reality he was preoccupied with the beauty

of surfaces, thus the filigree of the vessels, the terracotta vase, the bracelet

and the satin ribbon are painted in extreme detail. In the same way, each
flower is painted individually, each lit by a hard, glittering light and set
against a very dark background.

378.

WALDMULLER, signed and dated

22J x i8

in.

1848

(58 x 46 cm.)

WALSCAPPELLE, Jacob

dutch

(1644-1727)

Born at Dordrecht under the name Jacob Cruydenier, the artist adopted
the surname Walscappelle after a great-grandfather. He has led historians
rather a dance by being uncertain how to spell this lilting surname, signing
himself with several variations and occasionally adding 'van'. In 1660 his
married the cosmopolitan Elliger (see

sister

p.

104), a successful flower

Amsterdam, but when early on Walscappelle settled in this city

he became a pupil of Kick (see p. 153). Kick was also the teacher of Van
painter in

den Broeck

dated painting

duced

is known to have held municipal

have given up painting quite early. His latest

(see p. 61). Walscappelle

Amsterdam and

posts in

is

to

an unusual vanitas

still-life

to explain his comparatively small output,

long

with flowers of 1685, repro-

for the first time in Bol, 1969, plate 290.

life

but

These

how

go some way

facts

he really occupied his

remains a mystery.

Of the few

flower paintings in the National Gallery, London, ill. 375 is

perhaps the best known and deservedly so. It has been illustrated both in
colour and black and white in several books, and once on the cover of
Country Life magazine in 1961. A comparison with the work of the great

Jan Davidsz. de Heem,

pelle's
artist

ill.

(Thus

inspiration.

influenced by

185, immediately
this

that he

was Walscap-

De Heem - Mignon:

similarity in the choice of flowers

striped tulip, flowing

De Heem

shows

painting bears resemblance to another

away

see p. 171.) Apart from a general

and their arrangement, Walscappelle's

to the right,

is

surely a

De Heem

favourite. In

away to the right side of the

bouquet, but in his painting in the Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts,
Brussels, it is similarly at the top. Again, in ill. 185 and ill. 375 the way the
reflection of the window is shown in the glass vases is another detail of
ill.

379. \\

VLSCAPPELL1

."

ni

25

(66-7 x

Bigncd and dated 1667

527 cm.)

185

has admittedly placed

it

comparison, like the ear of wheat and the snail. Much to Walscappelle's
credit he approaches something of De Heem's brilliance of finish with the
same powerful reds, whites and blues. The National Gallery canvas has
been laid down on panel which produces a slightly puzzling surface texture,
but the condition of the painting

is

very good.

111.

more

380

is

an example of about the same height, slightly narrower, with a

where foliage plays an important part. The

simplified bouquet,

strong green leaves, set off by the brilliant red poppy, are not background
staffage

but are treated with the same degree of attention as the flowers.

The brushwork is broader with a richer impasto on the surface of the panel.
The composition, much less compact and more sinuous, is enlivened by
the display of butterflies.

This privately owned painting is similar to the larger canvas dated 1667
and Albert Museum, London (ill. 379). Indeed, with the
same open poppy and poppy seed at the top, the same basic top left to
bottom right arrangement, with every vein of the leaves observed, they are
in the Victoria

almost variants one of another.

One flower was a favourite with Walscappelle

and, as the reader will no doubt have observed, appears to the

of the three illustrations

left in

the white hydrangea. Paintings in the

each

Theyer

and Broughton collections have the same bloom. Walscappelle may have
derived this use of two heads of hydrangea from his teacher Kick, as comparison with ill. 209 would suggest. This seems the only point of contact
between the obscure Kick and his pupil who so soon became independent
of him and far superior.
Bol, in the book already referred to above, also illustrates a signed flower-

piece of a quite different kind which

must be of a

different period

from the

WALSCAPPELLE

380. (above)

23 x

381.

7 iin. (58-5x43-8 cm.)

(left)

207 x 16^

WEYERMAN, signed
in.

(52 x 41 cm.)

yt
*&*

wg

Mr
UV

'

<

_;

/^E ^

jjjk.

*JP*'.^
'

'

5^S

^!
Mr^B^Ll*^H*QS

382.

WEEN IX

24^ x 19^

in.

(622 x 502 cm.)

259

three illustrated here; he suggests

it predates the National Gallery painting.

Walscappelle also painted excellent fruitpieces and still-lifes.
Perhaps more flower paintings, especially dated ones, and more docu-

ments will come to light to help with the chronology of the career of
rare and accomplished master.

WEEXIX, Jan

383.

WEGMAYR.

52^x37!

in.

(134

signed

x96

cm.)

this

dutch

(1640-1719)

Jan Weenix, born at Amsterdam, followed in the footsteps of his celebrated

father, Jan Baptist, as a painter of animals and game still-lifes, or what
the French aptly call 'trophies of the hunt'. He decorated castles in Germany
on a grand scale with such scenes, and continued his success on returning
to Holland. There are typical examples of his and his father's work in the
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, and both were versatile painters.
A small number of flowerpieces have been attributed to Jan Weenix.
A pair, one of which is signed, in a well-known private collection seem
indisputable. The flowers are set in a landscape background with statues
like one of Weenix's decorative game pieces; another example in the same
vein is in the Mozes en Aaron church in Amsterdam, and the Witt Library,
London, shows an engraving after a similar type, signed and dated 17 12.
111. 382, with plain background, is a more conventional flowerpiece which
was attributed to Weenix by Warner in 1928, and again by the 1950 catalogue
of the Ward Bequest to the Ashmolean, Oxford. Although different in
format to his other known flowerpieces, the quality is consistent with his
work and there seems no reason to doubt the attribution of this unsigned
canvas. The colouring is rich with purple and white striped tulip, purple
poppy, orange carnation, and love-lies-bleeding to the right on the drapery.
Most distinctive are the motley leaves in the centre foreground, silver,
brown and green blotches all glazed with a golden finish, probably by the
use of Italian pink. In this detail Weenix recalls the effects of light on trees
in his father's Italianate landscapes.

The composition and style have the ease of the gifted decorative artist
and perhaps the study of this canvas would lead to the attribution of other
flowerpieces to Jan Weenix.

WEGMAYR,

Sebastian (1776-1857)

383, a large,

111.

was

a generation

painters.

impressive panel,

is

the

Austrian
work of Sebastian Wegmayr who

younger than Drechsler

He became

a professor

in the

Viennese school of flower

of the Vienna

Academy

in

18 12 and,

with Drechsler, he was the teacher of Franz Petter. The same characteristics mentioned with Xigg and Petter, namely a kind of flamboyance of
each flower and a tightly

filled

bouquet, make

a lively flowerpiece

of great

decorative impact.

WEYERMAN, Jacob Campo (1677-1747)

A

colourful figure in the history of flower painting,

dutch
Weyerman

is

known for his three-volume work on the lives of Dutch

in London in 1729. In his account of Van Huysum he dubbed him
artists,

384.

WITHOOS,
7

260

Matthias, signed
69-2 cm.)

best

published
'the

phoenix of flower painters', a much-quoted phrase.

\\ e\ erman, born at Breda, studied with one of the Van Kessel children
at Delft and with Simon Hardime at Antwerp. Apart from the Lives,
largely indebted to Houbraken, W eyerman's literary skills included satire
and political pamphlets. He travelled throughout Europe and was known
in Italy as 'Campovtvo\ a name by which he signed examples in the Broughton
Collection and in the Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe. In about 1718
Wcverman eloped to London with a widow and squandered her money,
an incident apparently very typical of the

Weyerman way

of

life.

In 1738

The Hague where one of his pamphlets fell foul of the Dutch
Company and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He died

he returned to
East India

1747 at the age of seventy.

signed
'Weyermans', is a well-painted panel. The tall slender
381
bouquet compares to the Karlsruhe canvas mentioned above. Weyerman's
in prison in
111.

work is rare and one would gladly exchange a knowledge of other examples
for some of the rather irrelevant though entertaining biographical details.

WITHOOS, Matthias (1627-1703)

The

dutch

principal disciple of Van Schriek was Matthias Withoos,

who

travelled

mentor in 1648. During his five years in that country

one time for Cardinal Leopold Medici. Withoos returned
to his native Amersfoort in 1653 and in 1672 settled at Hoorn. He painted
views of Italy but is known for works like ill. 384 at the Castle Museum
to Italy with his

he worked

at

and Art Gallery, Nottingham. The frog eyeing the butterfly, like the finely
meticulous foliage, directly recall the work of Van Schriek yet the mood
is less sinister. The open background removes much of the mysterious
unease of his master's work. At Buscot Park there is an example with
more flowers and birds and a house in the distance, as in the example
illustrated. Withoos was praised by Descamps writing in the mid-eighteenth
century. Of his four children, Pieter Withoos was the most accomplished.
;

385.

WRIGHT,

i5i x 12!

WITHOOS, Pieter(i654-i693)
Born

in.

signed

(39-4x31-8 cm.)

dutch

Amersfoort the son and pupil of Matthias Withoos, Pieter is here

represented by works of a quite different kind from those of his father.
111. 386 is a fine gouache study of the tulip of 1683, recalling the work of
Marrel, illustrated on p. 186. Pieter also made a series of studies of fritillaries in the garden of Louis de Marie at Haarlem, and a set of insect
studies. He also worked in his father's manner and there are examples at
the Teylers Museum, Haarlem, and the Kunsthistorisches Museum,
at

Vienna. Pieter Withoos died before the age of forty

WRIGHT, James
111.

385

is

American

was

by James Henry Wright who although primarily

still-lifes.

1836 in New
York, where he regularly

a versatile artist. First recorded in

Orleans, Wright spent most of his career in

exhibited

Amsterdam.

Henry (1813-1883)

a rare flowerpiece

a portrait painter

at

This simple bouquet

is

New

an early work with

contrast between the sharp colours of the tightly closed and

strange

bunched

flowers and the sketchy fussiness of the vase, and the stems in the water.

Wright's oval canvas

His

is

pleasant but clearly reliant on European models.

later flowerpieces are

YKENS,
The work

more elaborate and contrived.

flemish

Frans (1601-1693)

of Frans Ykens, one of the longest lived of flower painters,

encompasses most variations from

simple bouquet on a small copper

panel to a very large elaborate display of

fruit, flowers,

and

still-life.

Born

Antwerp, he was apprenticed to his uncle, Beert, at the age of fourteen. He then went to Provence, for reasons that are unknown, and must
presumably have stayed in Paris on the journeys. He was back at Antwerp
by 1630 when he enrolled in the guild, and he remained there for more
than sixty years, a well-established figure with pupils. Yet his fortunes,

at

like his

work, fluctuated.

Ykens was susceptible to the influence of others, hence the bewildering

his output: bouquets and garlands a la Seghers, breakfastpieces in the manner of the Dutch masters, bowls of fruit reflecting the
variety of

386.

WITHOOS,

i2 x 8

in.

Pieter, signed

387. (overleaf above)

34] X48^

in.

in.

YKENS,

signed

(87 x 123 cm.)

388. (overleaf below)

17^ x '3s

and dated 1683

(321 x 204 cm.)

ZURBARAN

(44x34 cm.)

261

influence of his uncle, collaborations with his friend Rubens.

owned

The

latter

by Ykens.
111. 387, a panel of imposing size, superbly combines the different subjects
which Ykens favoured, with a richness of colour typical of the finest Flemish
six flowerpieces

traditions.

The

but

Antwerp influence,
work varies,
example, Ykens was an excellent

birds are perhaps a hint of another

that of Snyders. Obviously, in so long a

at his best, as in the

bouquet of

this

life

the quality of his

flower painter. His niece Catharina Ykens, born in 1659, was also a flower
painter.

ZURBARAN,
One

Spanish
Francisco de (1598-1664)
of the major Spanish painters of the seventeenth century, ZurbaraVs

superb mastery of the still-life is assured by his only signed and dated
example, the lemons, oranges and a rose recently bought for a record sum
by Mr Norton Simon from the Contini Bonacossi collection. Other still
lifes have been attributed to Zurbaran by comparison with his masterpiece of 1633, but none can equal its quality. In the opinion of Bergstrom,
he points to a similar
388 was probably painted in Zurbaran's studio
lilies and roses in a signed and dated painting of the infant Mary
of 1626. The colour scheme is simple with white lilies and pink roses and
carnations in a painted earthenware jar. How exciting it would be if a
ill.

vase of

flowerpiece indisputably by Zurbaran himself were to

come

to light!

Even

in this school painting, something of the monumentality of the great master

can be
i()i

felt.

Bibliography

*.

complete bibliography of all works consulted would be unwieldy.

selection has therefore been made of the most useful sources. In
the case of major artists who were not specialist flower painters e.g.
Manet, it may be assumed that the most recent bibliography has
been consulted. All relevant museum catalogues and standard
reference works such as Thieme-Becker, Hofstede de Groot, Van

29 Daulte, F. Renoir. Catalogue Raisonne. 197

30 Day, H. East Anglian Painters. 1968
31 Delacroix, E. The Journal of Eugene Delacroix. Ed.

Mander, etc. have, of course, been used. Studies of major importance

mentioned in the Foreword are marked with an asterisk.

34

W. Pach. 1937
32 Delogu, G. Natura morta italiana. 1962
33 Earp, T. W. 'Flower and Still Life Painting', Studio, Winter
1928/29

35

'The Recent Work of Augustus John', Studio,

XCVII, 1929
Fantin-Latour, Madame. L'Oeuvre complet de Henri FantmLatour. 191

Bacou, R. Odilon Redon. 1956

2 Barr, A. Matisse: his Art and his Public. 195
3 Bazin, G. A Gallery of Flowers, i960
4 Berger, K. Odilon Redon. Trans. M. Bullock. 1965
* Dutch Still Life Painting in the ijth Century.
5 Bergstrom, I.
1956
i

Symbolism

'Disguised

and

Life

Still

in

"Madonna"

Pictures

and IT, Burlington Magazine, Oct-Nov,

955
v

()sias

Been

the Elder as Collaborator of Rubens',

Burlington Magazine, April 1957

\iaestros Espanoles de Bodegones

Floreros del

W. Die
\\

Niederldndische Maler des xj.Jahrhunderts. 1948

Tke

*
.

\rt

OJ

Botanical Illustration. 1050

Tulipomania. [950

Georg Dionysius Ehret i~oH ijjo. 1953

Bode, W. Great Masters 0/ Dutch and Flemish painting. Trans.
Margaret I.. Clarke. \<)0()
14 Bol, L. J. * The Bosschaert Dynasty. io/>o
Hollandische Water des 1;. Jahrluindcrts nahe den
15

12
13

Grosser!

Moslem. [969

Introduction by Claude Terrasse. 1967

16

Bonnard,

17

Born,

18

Bostrom,K 'On Ludgcr

P.

Still Life Painting in

.

19 Bott, (1

Tom

Stillcben des 17 Jahrhunderts

Binoit', Schriften der Hessischen

und am
20 Brockway, \\
21 (.assou, J

Wittrlrlicin.

The

llbert

I.W

II,

Isaak Soreau

Museen, Kunst

[952
Peter

in /lessen

[962

D, Lasker Collection. 1957

Chagall. 1965

22 Castaing, M. Soutine, 1965

2] Cezanne, P Letters. Ed. J. Rewald, trans. M. Kay. 1951
24 (.harageat, \1 'I. a I'lcur dans la miniature du Moyen-Age au

Jardm des Arts, \o 54, 1959

Flowers and their Histories. 1956-

I7icmc

siccle',

2s (.oats, A.
20 Coats, P, FloWeri

in

History

107

'Jean-Michel Picart, Peintre de fleurs

27 Constable, J. Correspondence. Ed. R. B. Beckett, 1962-68

28 Dauberville, J. & II. Bonnard, Catalogue Raisonne. 1965

et

marchand de

1957
* La Nature morte en France. 1962
37
38 Friedlander, M. J. Landscape, Portrait and Still Life, their Origin
and Development. 1949
39 Gachet, P. Deux Amis des Impressionistes
Murer. 1956

Le docteur Gachet

et

Lett res Impressionistes. 1957

40

Gammelbo,

Dutch Still Life Painting from the 16th to the 18th

Danish Collections, i960
'Some Flower Still Lives by Jan Baptiste van
42
Fornenburgh', Artes, October 1965 (Copenhagen)
Flemish Still Life Pictures -Catalogue of
Gelder,
43
J. van. Dutch and
the Ward Collection at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
P.

centuries in

1950
44 Gerdts, W. H. and Burke, R. * American Still Life Painting, 197
45 Giry, M. 'L'Oeuvre de Redon et sa signification vers 1905',
Information Hist aire d''Art, XV, 1970
46 (iogh, V. van. The Complete Letters. 1958
47 Grant M. H. 'A Forgotten English Flower Painter,
Keyse', Burlington Magazine, LIX, 193

48-

tmerica. 1^47

Ring', rW-///A/w</,

M.

tableaux', Bulletin dela Societe de I'Histoirede I 'Art Francais.

41

SigloXVII, 1070
9 Bernt,
10 Blunt,

36 Fare,

The

Thomas

Twelve Months of Flowers, Jacobus van

Huysum. 1950
Flower Paintings through Four Centuries. 1952
Jan van Huysum. 1954
"
Rachel Ruysch. 1956
5'
52 Greidl, E. Les peintres Jlamands de nature morte au ijieme stick.

49"
50-

1 95 6
Painting. 1950
53 Guldener, H. Flowers : the Flowerpiece in
to Still Life. [954
Introduction
A.
Gwynne-Jones,
54

Masters. 1913
55 Haig. E. The Floral Symbolism of the Great
* Les peintres Jlamands de fleurs an 1 jieme siccle. 1955,
56 Hairs,
revised ed. 1965
'Les specialistes de la fleur au siccle de Rubens',
57

ML.

Bulletin

Musees Royaux des Beaux- Arts de Bc/gu/ue,

16,

1967

263

BIBLIOGRAPHY

58 Hamilton, G. H. Painting and Sculpture

1967
59 Hardie, M. Flower Paintings. 1947

in

Europe, 1880-1Q40.

60 Haug, H. 'Sebastian Stosskopff, VOeil, April 1961

61 Hawes, L. John Constable's Writings on Art. 1964
62 Huisman, P. 'La Collection Marcille, 5000 tableaux meconnus',
Connaissance des Arts, 88, 1959
63 Huyghe, R. Eugene Delacroix. 1963
64 Jamot, B. Wildenstein - Manet. 1932
65 John A. Chiaroscuro, Fragments of Autobiography. 1952

91 Rewald,

J.

* Bonnard. 1948
*

92
93

The History of Impressionism. 1961

The History of Post-Impressionism. 1962

* Pissarro. 1963
94
The Ordeal of Paul Cezanne. 1950
95
96 Reynolds, G. Constable, the Natural Painter. 1965
97 Riewerts, T. Die Maler Tom Ring. 1955
98 Roberts, K. Renoir. 1966
99 Rothenstein, Sir J. Augustus John. 1967

M. Van Gogh.
W. Claude Monet,

100 Schapiro,

195

66 Kennedy, R. The Renaissance Painter's Garden. 1948

67 Kessel, J. Moise Kisling, English ed. 197

101 Seitz,

i960

68 Koller, E. 'Wiener Renaissance der Blumenmalerei', Weltkunst,

103 Sip,

XXXIV,
69 Lauts,

J. Stilleben alter

Meister, I : Niederlander und Deutsche.

Stilleben alter Meister, II

J.

Odilon Redon. 1971

'Notities bij het stilleven van Rachel Ruysch', Nederlands

104 Sitwell, S. and Blunt W. Great Flower Books. 1956

105 Stechow, W. 'Ambrosius Bosschaert and the appearance of

Franzosen. 1970

71 Leiris A. de. The Drawings of Manet. 1969

72 Manet, E. Portrait of Manet by himself and his Contemporaries.

Ed. Courthion and Cailler. i960

73 Marcus, M. F. Flower Paintings by the Great Masters. 1961
74 Masson, G. 'Italian Flower Connoisseurs', Apollo, 99, 1969
75 Michel, M. R. Anne Vallayer-Coster 1970
.

76 Millar, O. Tudor, Stuart, and Early Georgian Pictures in the Royal

Collection. 1963
Later Georgian Paintings in the Royal Collection. 1963
77
78 Miiller, W. J. Georg Flegel und die Anfange des Stillebens. 1956
79 Nissen, C. Herbals of Five Centuries. 1958
80 Novotny, F. Painting and Sculpture in Europe 1/80-1880. i960
81 Paviere, S. H. Dictionary of Flower Painters. 1964
82
Floral Art. 1965
83 Pissarro, C. Letters to his son Lucien. Ed. J. Rewald. 1943
84 Pissarro, C. and Venturi, L. Camille Pissarro son art, son oeuvre.

1939
85 Redon, O. A soi-meme : Journal 1867-igis. 1922
86 Redon, A. Lettres de Gauguin etc., a Odilon Redon. i960

Album de Redoute. Ed. S. Sitwell. 1954

87 Redoute, P. J.
88 Regteren Altena, J. Q. van. The Drawings of Jacques de Gheyn.
1936
89 Reitlinger, G. The Economics of Taste. 1961
90 Renoir, J. Renoir, my Father. 1962

264

J.

Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, 19, 1968

1964

1969

70

102 Selz,

Independent

Flower

Paintings',

Bulletin

Cleveland

Museum of Art,

Vol. 53, 1966

106 Sterling, C. * Still Life Painting. 1959

107 Sunderland,

J. Constable. 1971
108 Sutton, D. Derain. 1959
109 Tabarant, A. Manet, Histoire Catalographique. 193
1 10 Tuin, H. van der. 'Reproductions and Imitations of old Flemish

or Dutch Pictures on Sevres Porcelain', 1 756-1 847,

Oud-Holland, LXV, 1950
in Vasechi, M. 'La Natura riscoperta', Le Arti, Vol 19, 1968
1 12 Vanuxem,
J. 'Fleurs sur velin Nicolas Robert et Jean Joubert',
VOeil, 171, 1969
:

113 Venturi, L. Cezanne. 1936

Les Archives de Plmpressionisme. 1939
1
14
Four Steps towards Modern Art : Giorgione, Cara115
vaggio,

Manet, Cezanne, Columbia University, Bampton

Lectures. 1956
116 Warner, R. Dutch and Flemish Fruit and Flower Painters of the
ijth and 18th Centuries. 1928

117 White, C. The Flower Drawings ofJan van Huysum. 1964

118 Wildenstein, D. Monet, Impressions. 1967

1
19 Wildenstein, G. Gauguin sa vie, son oeuvre. 1958
Chardin, revised ed. 1969
120
121

Winkelmann-Rhein, G. The Paintings and Drawings of Jan

'Flower' Bruegel.. 1968

Exhibition Catalogues

Illustrations

Acknowledgments
and Photographic
of major

catalogues

Exhibition

Foreword

marked with an

are

stillevens

\Yillet-Holthu\ sen

achtiende

de

in

in

the

Credits

(Reverse of frontispiece)

Museum

Amsterdam

importance mentioned

asterisk.

en

Nederlandse

bloem-

de eerste helft van de negen-

Steele

de

Rubens, 1965
CHICAGO, ill. Art Institute: Cezanne, 1952
Ghent Museum voor Schone Kunsten: Roelandt Savery, 1954;
Fleurs et jardtns dans Fart flamand, i960

hartford, conn.

Wadsworth Atheneum: The

Painters of Still

London

&

Tooth

A.

Sons: Recent Paintings by Augustus John,

1929; Bonnard, 1969

Royal Academy: France

LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Madrid

Palacio de

la

Age of

18th Century, 1958; The

(Photo Scala)
(below) 5. rinio, Benedetto, 'A Rose', early 15th
century, ms Lat VI. 59 (2548) f. 139 Liber de Simplutbus
Biblioteca Marciana, Venice (Photo Courtauld Institute of Art,

Page

12

Page

1964
Centuries,

Modern Art Odtlon Redon, Gustave Moreau, Rudolphe

:

& Adler Galleries Inc.: American

\meteenlh Century, 197

*Hirschl

Knoedler & Company: American Still Life

NORTHAMPTON, MASS. Smith College of Art

14

Still Lives

of the

Grand

Paintings, 1971
:

'

XVII

Pinacotheque Thyssen, Lugano

15 (left) 9. durer, Albrecht, 'An Iris', signed and dated
1508, watercolour, 30J x 12$ in. (775 X313 cm.)

Page

Bremen
Page 15 (above right) 10. durer, Albrecht, attributed to, 'The
Madonna with the Iris', signed and dated 1508, oil on panel,
58$ X484 in. (1492 x 117-2 cm.)
National Gallery, London (Reproduced by courtesy of the

Page

16 (above) 12.

Marc

Page

of Art:

World of Flowers, 1963;

\m;oi

in.

print

London

Page 17 (above) 14. and 15. ring, Ludger Tom, A pair of

flowerpieces, signed and dated 1562, oil on panel, 24I X9I in.

Museum Moymans-Van Beuningen:

(784 x 64-

cm.)

Paris
17.

hoefnagel, Georg, signed and dated

X4J in. (161 x 12 cm.)

1594, watercolour on vellum, 6|

Page

Vier eeuwen

stil-

H(,

lrnm ihr Rouart Collet

in.

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

turn,

1952

18.

19

Altarpiece,

(252

The Development of Flower

Musee des Beaux-Arts: La llollaiule en fleurs, 1949;

Natures mortes du Musee de Strasbourg, 19S4
rORONTO Art Gallery: licrthe Morisot and her Circle, Paintings
1

x 5!

R. Freeman Limited)
COLLAERT, Adriaen, Florilegium

B. von der Becke,

J.

Musee du Louvre,
Page 18 (above)

Painting! from the ijth Century to the Present,

1

Jacques, 'Dog

Museum, London (Photo J.

16 (below) 13.

canvas, 29^ x 2si

Chagall, 1969-70

Museum

Frankrtjk, 1954
Cit\ Art Museum:
LOUIS, MO.
leven

lemoyne de morgues,

Landesmuseum fur Kiinste und Kulturgeschichte, Munster

Page 17 (below) 16. arcimboldo, Giuseppe, 'Spring', oil on

Ldouard Manet, [966

si

in.

(63x24- 5 cm.)
I

i'iii\, PA.

hoi rCRDAM

on panel, 11^x8^

oil

(287 X215 cm.)

British

Henri Fanttn-Latour,

tie

Palais:

'Vase of Flowers', verso of a

1490,

(21-3x14-3 cm.)

I'Orangeric: Odtlon Redon, [956-57

Galerie Knoedler: IS Heritage de Delacroix, 1964

Clin IDCI

c.

page from the

Roses', signed and dated 1585, watercolour on vellum, 8$

Galerie Charpenticr: Natures mortes francatses du

Musee

young man,

Trustees of the National Gallery, London)

Page 15 (below right) 1 1. Detail of ill. 10

[966
195

memling, Hans,

8.

Collection

448 (A68/1127)

fol

Kunsthalle,

Morgan Library: Flowers of Ten

Bresdtn, 1961-62

not l<>ur\

George and the Dragon', from the Bedford

1425, ie

c.

portrait of a

1947

PARIS

'St

6.

ms Lat 17294
Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris
Breviary,

Bodleian Library, Oxford

Still Life Painting,

of

Museum

Vatican

Biblioteca Nacional: Exposicton de florerosy

*Palazzo Reale: La natura morta italiana, 1964

\ktt ark, N. j.
The Newark Museum: American Nineteenth Century Still Life Painting, 1958; The Golden Age of Spanish

Museum

cm.)

Page 13 7. master of mary of burgundy,

Douce manuscript, 1485-90, 219. 2of 171

NAPLES

Pierpont

2.

County Museum: Chaim Soutine, 1968

bodegones, 1965

\ku vork

du champs

(57 x 33 cm.)

London)
in the

XIV, 1958; Bonnard, 1966

Louis

in.

(209 x 194 cm.)

John and Mabel Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota, Fla.
Page 11 (above) 4. Roman Mosaic, 23^x41 in. (64-5x104-2

Page

1938

Life,

'Fleurs

on panel, 9ix6f

Musees des Beaux-Arts de Belgique: Le

brlssels

redon, Odilon,

savery, Roelandt, signed and dated 161 1, oil

in. (23-5 x 167 cm.) Private Collection (By
courtesy of Thomas Agnew and Sons Limited, London)
Page 10 3. rubens, Sir Peter Paul and beert, Osias the Elder,
'Pausias and Glycera', c. 1615/18, oil on canvas, 80^x76^ in.
(Frontispiece)

tiende eeuw, 1970

i.

dans un vase a long col\ signed, pastel, 22^ x 13

Cabinet des Dessins, Musee du Louvre, Paris

c.

goes,
1475,

Hugo
oil

van der, detail from the Portinari

on panel, size of whole, 99J x 1 19^ in.

X273 cm.)

Uffizi Gallery, Florence

Page 20

19.

brueghel, Jan the Elder, detail from

49 x 37I in. (1245 X962 cm.)

a flowerpiece

size of whole,

Private Collection, England (Photo Derrick Witty)

Page

21

20.

Fritillary',
iojj

x 8^

in.

gheyn, Jacques de

signed and

dated

1600,

II,

'Three Tulips and

watercolour on

vellum,

(275 x 225 cm.)

Fondation Custodia (Coll. F. Lugt), Institut Neerlandais, Paris

Page 22 (above) 21. SNYERS, Pietcr, '/. Fleuriste\ signed, oil
on canvas, 32? x 22? in. (835 x 58 cm.)
Musccs Royaux des Hcaux-Arts, Brussels

2()5

'

illustrations: acknowledgments and photographic credits

Page 22 (below)

22. marrel, Jacob, page from a tulip book,

watercolour on vellum, 17^ x 13$ in. (445 x 34 cm.)
Prentenkabinet, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Page 23 (above)

23. casteels, after, 'May', from The Twelve

Months of Flowers, published in 1730 by Robert Furber, London,
x
x
in.
(349 248 cm.)
13I o|
(By courtesy of Frank T. Sabin Limited, London)
Page 23 (below) 24. pillement, Jean, 'Fleurs de fantaisie\

X40 cm.)
(By courtesy of Sanders of Oxford)
Page 25 25. huysum, Jan van, chalk, i8| x 14 in. (475 x 356
cm.)
Cabinet des Dessins, Musee du Louvre, Paris
Page 26 26. binoit, Peter, signed and dated 1627, oil on copper, 35 x 22^ in. (89 x 562 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Messrs De Boer, Amsterdam)
Page 28 (above left) 27. bollongier, Hans, signed and dated
1639, oil on panel, 27! x 2i| in. (68 x 545 cm.)
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Page 28 (above right) 28. schriek, Otto Marseus van, signed
and dated 1661, oil on canvas, 23^ x 19 in. (591 X48-3 cm.)
Collection Mr and Mrs Jack Linsky, New York
Page 29 29. monnoyer, Jean-Baptiste, Overmantel, oil on
chalk, 9$ x 15J in. (24

Page 42 (below)

cm

(121-5 x I0D

47. batist, Karel, oil

on canvas, 47J x 41 J

in.

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Page 43

48.

on canvas,

14-1

in.

The Hague

Page 56

baler, Francis, 'Stanhopea insigms

73.

1939, oil

(368 X451 cm.)

Page 43 (below) 49. baudesson,

22x3ii in. (56 x79 cm.)

Nicolas,

Kew
the

Natural History)

Page 57 74. bosschaert, Abraham,

14! xii in. (375 x28 cm.)

on canvas,

oil

signed,

on panel,

oil

Private Collection, England

Private Collection, Paris

Page 58 (above)

Page 44 (above) 50. baudesson, Nicolas, oil on canvas,

16^ x 12! in. (42 x 325 cm.)
Galerie St Lucas, Vienna
Page 44 (below) 51. baler, Ferdinand, Lechenaultia formosa\
drawings of Australian plants No. 84, signed, watercolour,
2o x 14^ in. (527 x 362 cm.)

and dated 1607,

Museum, London (By

Museum

Trustees of the British

Private Collection

Natural History

Frost',

x 12$ in. (48-3 X313 cm.)

Natural History Museum, London (By kind permission of
Plants 104, watercolour, 19

bauchant, Andre, signed and dated

x 17J

Mauritshuis,

bosschaert, Ambrosius the Elder, signed

on copper, 95X7^ in. (25- 1 x 195 cm.)

75.

oil

Private Collection, England (By courtesy of

John Mitchell and

Sons, London)

Page 58 (below)

76. bosschaert, Ambrosius the Younger,

signed and dated 1634, oil on copper, 16x11 in. (407 x 28 cm.)
Private Collection, England (Photo Derrick Witty)

Page 59

kind permission of the

(right) 77. bosschaert, Ambrosius the Elder, signed

on copper, 12$ x S\

Trustees of the British Museum/Natural History)

and dated 1621,

Page 45 (above) 52. belin de fontenay, Jean-Baptiste,

'Portrait ifune femme entoure de fleurs\ signed, oil on canvas,
631x54 'n. (162 x130 cm.)
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Caen
Page 45 (below) 53. belin de fontenay, Jean-Baptiste, oil on

Private Collection, England

oil

Page 59 (below

(316 x 216 cm.)

in.

bosschaert, Jan
(1016 X813 cm.)

left) 78.

on canvas, 40 x 32

in.

Baptiste, signed, oil

Private Collection

Page 60

Collection the

of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam

79. bouillon, Michel de, signed, c. 1640, oil on can34! X464 in. (88 x 117 cm.)
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Tournai (Photo Jules Messiaen)
Page 61 (above) 80. brandt, Albertus Jonas, oil on panel,

Page 30

Page 46 (above

26| x 2i|

canvas, 32

X4C4 in. (813 x 102-9 cm -)

Duke of Buccleuch

redoute, Pierre Joseph, 'Paeoma moutan varh\

signed and dated 1812, watercolour on vellum, 18^x13^ in.
(463x33-3 cm.)
Private Collection, England (Photo Derrick Witty)
Page 32 31. haecht, Willem van, 'The Studio of Apelles', oil
on panel, 41$ x 57 in. (105 x 150 cm.)
30.

Mauritshuis,

Page 33

The Hague

canvas, 13J x 1 1 in. (343 x 28 cm.)

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Reproduced by permission

dated 1772,

oil

vas,

Museum, Cambridge)
bellenge, Michel-Bruno, signed and
on panel, 8^x11 in. (21 x 28 cm.)
left) 54.

(67 x 55 cm.)

in.

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Page 61 (below) 81. bray, Dirk de, signed and dated 1671,
on panel, 16x13$ in. (40-7 x 343 cm.)

Private Collection, Paris

Page 46 (above right) 55. belvedere, Andrea, oil on canvas,

32J x 45^ in. (82 x 1 1 5 cm.)
Leo Spik KG, Berlin
Page 46 (bottom) 56. benner-fries, Jean, signed and dated
1848, oil on canvas, 29 x 23+ in. (737 x 597 cm.)
Private Collection (Bv courtesv of Newhouse Galleries, New

Private Collection (By courtesy of

Page 62

82. brleghel, Abraham, signed, oil on panel, 50 x

(127 x 1755 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Leger Galleries, London)

Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lyons (Photo J. Camponogara)

Page 48 (above) 59. berghe, Christoffel van den, signed and
dated 1617, oil on copper, 14J X29I in. (375 X29 cm.)

Sons, London)

Courtesy of the John G. Johnson Collection, Philadelphia, Pa.)

Page 48 (below) 60. berjon, Antoine, signed, oil on canvas,

Mauritshuis,

Page 49 (below)

Private Collection, Paris

33I X41I in. (84 x 105 cm.)

Prado, Madrid (Photo Manso)

1798,

Page 68 (above)

Page 37 (below) 38. linard, Jacques, signed, oil on canvas,

i8J x 24 in. (46 x6i cm.)
Musee du Louvre, Paris (Photo Jacqueline Hyde)
Page 38 39. AST, Balthasar van der, signed, oil on panel,
2oi x 15

(53 x 38 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of
in.

Edward Speelman Limited,

London)

Page 39 (above)

22x351
Museum

in.

40. AST, Balthasar van der, signed, oil

(55-9x90-3 cm.)
Ohio

of Art, Toledo,

on panel,

York)

Page 47 (above)

benner, Jean, signed and dated 1866, oil

on canvas, 78! x 57I in. (198-5 x 1455 cm.)
Musee de l'lmpression sur Etoffes, Mulhouse
Page 47 (below) 58. ber, Jacob, signed, oil on panel, 2ijx
7l

Edward Drummond

(555X45

4 2 l x 34i

Private Collection (By courtesy of Christies,

Page 50

(right) 64. beyeren,

254 x 18^

in.

Private

Collection

(By

courtesy

of

Hallsborough

Gallery,

Eondon)
Page 41 (above) 44. bailly, Jacques II, gouache on vellum,
Vj\ X i<)i in (69 x50 cm.)
( .abinct des Dessins, Musee du Louvre, Paris
Page 41 (below) 45. baker, John, oil on canvas, 24x29$ in.

749 cm.)
Royal Academy
(6l

London

Kngland (By courtesv

Paintings, London)
Private Collection,

266

of

Richard Green Fine

water-

London)

van,

oil

on canvas,

(64 x 46 cm.)

on canvas, 28 x

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

Page 63 (below) 84. brueghel, Ambrosius,

oil on panel,
(35-6x25-4 cm.)
Private Collection, Jersey (By courtesy of John Mitchell and

14x10

in.

O. Leegenhoek, Paris)
Page 53 (above) 69. bogdani, Jacob, oil on canvas, 68 x 33
(172-5x83-9 cm.)
Royal Collection (Reproduced by Gracious Permission ol
Majesty the Queen)
Private Collection (By courtesy of

J.

53 (below) 70. bi.oemers, Arnoldus, signed,

oil

in.

Page 65

Page 66

let

on canvas,

and dated 1N07,

cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Nystad Antiquaries.

beert, Osias the Elder,

25-

oil

Page 67

87.

bonnard,

John Mitchell and

Pierre, signed,

oil

on panel, 18 x 14]

in

88. bosschaert, Johannes, signed and dated

on panel, 14^ x i\\ in. (368 x 54-6 cm.)
Private Collection, England (By courtesv of John Mitchell and
Sons, London)
Page 68 (below) 89. Follower of caravaggio, oil on canvas,
28 x 38 in. (712 X966 cm.)
Wadsworth Athenaeum, Hartford, Conn.
Page 70 90. brueghel, Jan the Elder, signed and dated 1618,

1624,

oil

on panel, i8| x 20$ in. (476 X521 cm.)

Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels
Page 71 91. brueghel, Jan the Elder, signed,
in.

(73x543

on panel,

oil

cm.)

National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa

Page 72 (above)
13

x 9i

in

bruyere,

92.

X241

(33>

Elise, signed, oil

on canvas.

cm.)

Service des Ventes Publiques de

la

Societe des Expositions du

Palais des Beaux-Arts, Brussels

Page 72 (below) 93. bruyn, Johannes Cornells de, signed and

dated 180 1, oil on canvas, 30 x 25 in. (762 X635 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesv

London)
Page 73

94. BYSS,

of Frost and Reed

Limited,

Johann Rudolf, signed and dated 1701,

oil

(50 x 34 cm.)
Staatliche Kunstsammlungcn. Kassel
Page 74 (above) 95 caffi, Margherita, signed and dated [66a,
oil

in.

on canvas, 23] x t8j

in. (59-

X48 cm.)

London)
Page 74 (below) 96. cagnacci, Guido.

The

X40

era

oil

on

Pinocoteca Comunale, Forli (Photo J

(
)

oil

on panel, 27 x 20J

in

51 2 cm.)

39J x 52} in (100-3 x

(62-5

in.

(45-8x37-5 cm.)

(68

AELST, Willem van, signed and dated 1663,

in.

on panel, 18 x 14

Sons, London)

Page

canvas, 243 x 19}

oil

Private Collection, England (By courtesy of

Page
72.

on

The Hague

86.

Hague)
55

oil

(635 X46 cm.)

Private Collection, England (Bj courtesj of the Leger Galleries,

71. borei.y, Jean-Baptiste, signed

1

bosschaert, Ambrosius the Elder, signed,

85.

panel, 25 x i8 in.

on panel, 19^ x 13J

24I x 29J in. (62 x 75 cm.)

Teylers Museum, Haarlem
in. (33-

in.

28Jx2i|

(below) 66. bigee, Charles, signed, oil on canvas,

(153 x 1635 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Christies, London)
Page 52 (above) 67. bigi, Felice Fortunato, signed and dated
17
oil on canvas, 24J x 15 in. (63 x 38 cm.)
Dorotheum, Vienna
Page 52 (below) 68. bimbi, Bartolommeo, signed, oil on canvas,
284 x i6 in. (715 X425 cm.)

Page

on

oil
oil

51

on canvas, 13 X9J

Page 42 (above) 46. harks, Jan Anthonic van der, signed and
dated 1663, oil on canvas, 22I x 29J in. (565 X416 cm.)

(71 X53CIT1.)

Page 54
of Art,

Amsterdam)

Collection Professor Edoardo Storti, Pavia

42. babcock, William P., signed and dated

on canvas, i6| x 13 in. (41-9 X33-1 cm.)
Collection William H. Gerdts, New York
Page 40 (below) 43. baers, Jan or Johannes, signed and dated
1629, oil on panel, 38J x 24} in. (978 x 622 cm.)

Abraham

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Page 51 (above) 65. bettini, Domenico,

Page

oil

Boer,

Page 50 (left) 63. bessa, Pancrace, 'Primula sinensis

colour on vellum, 7 1 X4I in. (19 x 117 cm.)

60 x64^

1865,

De

62. berre, Jean-Baptiste, signed and dated

on panel, 25^ x 19 in. (648 X483 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Richard Green Fine Paintings,
London)

Page 39 (below) 41. aubriet, Claude, 'Red-hot Poker', c. 1690,

watercolour on vellum, 8 x 1 1 in. (21 x 286 cm.)
Victoria and Albert Museum, Eondon (Photo S. Eost and P.

oil

(45-8x35-6 cm.)

oil

in.

in.

Page 63 (above) 83. broeck, Elias van den, signed,

canvas, 36 X27I in. (915 X69-9 cm.)

(1075x87 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Messrs

Libbey)

Macdonald)
Page 40 (above)

in.

69

cm.)

Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lyons (Photo J. Camponogara)

Page 49 (above) 61. Bernard, Jacques Samuel, signed and
dated 1663, oil on panel, 13! x iof in. (35 X27 cm.)

20J
(Gift of

57.

Edward Speelman Limited,

London)

Willem van, signed and dated 1670, oil

on canvas, 12IX9J in. (318 X248 cm.)
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Reproduced by permission of
the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge)
Page 34 33. adriaenssen, Alexander, signed and dated 1646,
oil on panel, i6j X23^ in. (425 X60-3 cm.)
Private Collection, England (By courtesy of John Mitchell and
Sons, London)
Page 35 34. angermeyer, Johann Adalbert, oil on canvas,
I0i x 72 m ( 2 6 x '9 cm )
Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Munich
Page 36 (above) 35. Arellano, Juan de, oil on canvas, 27 x
22 in. (68-6 x 599 cm.)
Private Collection, England (By courtesy of John Mitchell and
Sons, London)
Page 36 (below) 36. assteyn, Bartholomeus Abrahamsz.,
signed and dated 1643, oil on panel, 24 X31J in. (61 X793 cm.)
Private Collection, England
Page 37 (above) 37. arellano, Juan de, signed, oil on canvas,
32. aelst,

oil

7s

97

lollection the

impidooi
irl ol

10,

M cm

.eicestei

'

-l

R Freeman limited)

Michelangelo

di,

oil

on canvas,

illustrations: acknowledgments and photographic credits

calraat, Abraham van, signed, oil on panel,

(483 x 38-1 cm.)
Private Collection, England (Photo Derrick Witty)
Page 77 99. brl eghel, Jan the Elder, oil on panel, 49 x 375 in.
(1245 X962 cm.)

Page 76

98.

19 x 15 in.

Page 78

brlssel, Paul Theodorus van, signed and dated

on panel, 30^ x 24I in. (78-4 x 612 cm.)
National Gallery, London (Reproduced by courtesy of the
Trustees of the National Gallery, London)
Page 79 101. CAMPROBIN, Pedro de, signed and dated 1665, oil
1789,

100.

oil

on canvas, 30^ X21J

Page 98 (below) 124. derain, Andre,

i6j x 20 in. (444 x 508 cm.)
(left)

125.

of

on canvas,

oil

Page 99

Page 113 (below right) 149. flegel, Georg, signed, gouache

on vellum, 9 x 6| in. (22-9 x 171 cm.)
Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin

Page 114 (above) 150 fornenblrgh, Johannes Baptista van,

oil on panel, 9^ X7J in. (24x 184 cm.)

London)

signed and dated 1625,

desportes, Alexandre Francois,

(95 x 75 cm.)

oil

on

canvas, 37$ x 29+ in.

.Manufacture Nationale, Sevres

Private Collection (By courtesy of H. Terry-Engell Galleries,-

London)

Page

(right) 126. desportes, Alexandre Francois,

oil

on

canvas, 41 x 37 in. (105 X94 cm.)

Private Collection, Paris

Page 100 (above

(78 x 54 cm.)

signed,

Private Collection (By courtesy of Christies,

Page 99

Munich

Alte Pinakothek,

Museum, Cambridge (Reproduced by permission

Museum, Cambridge)

Fitzwilliam

the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam

1 14 (below) 151. forte, Luca,

(77 x 101 cm.)

on canvas, 30J x 39!

oil

Palazzo Corsini, Gallena Nazionale d'Arte Antica,

Page

right) 127. diaz, Narcisse Yirgile de

Pena,

fromantiol, Hendrick

115 (above) 152.

in.

Rome

de, signed, oil

Private Collection, Barcelona (Photo by courtesy of Ingvar

signed, oil on canvas, io|

Bergs from)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Hazlitt Gallery Limited,

Page 80

London)

on canvas, 33^ x 263 in. (84 x 68 cm.)

Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum, Brunswick
Page 115 (below) 153. fyt, Jan, signed, oil on canvas, 31^ x
27 in. (80 x68-6 cm.)

Page 100 (below

Private Collection (By courtesy of Leonard Koetser,

in.

carlsen, Emil, signed and dated 1897, oil

on canvas, 15^ x 145 in. (403 x 378 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Hirschl and Adler, New York)
Page 80 (right) 103. cassatt, Mary, signed, oil on canvas,
23^ x i8i in. (59-7 x 46 3 cm.)
Collection Mrs Marshall Field Snr, New York
Page 81 104. casteels, Pieter, signed and dated 1720, oil on
(left) 102.

Page 86

105.

15$ x 12^

in.

chase, William Merritt, signed,

cm.)

(39 x 31

oil

on canvas,

Museum

oArt, Indianapolis, Ind. (Gift of Carl B. Schafer)

Page 87

106

rmzu.,

Antoine, signed and dated 1845,

canvas, 12$ x 9^ in. (324 x 24- 1 cm.)
Private Collection, England
II,

on

oil

on panel, 18$ x 134 in. (47 x 34 3 cm.)

Collection William Russell. Amsterdam
Page 89 (left) 108. claei w, Jacques de, signed and dated 1651,
oil on panel, 274 x 10^ in (69 x 505 cm.)

Page 89 (above

right) 109

De

Boer,

LAKE, George, signed,

<

Amsterdam)
oil

on canvas,

(above

101

dolci. Carlo,

left) 130.

oil

(above right)
oil

705 cm.)
Green Fine Paintings,

Private Collection (By courtesy of Richard

no

CLAt dot, Jean-Baptiste-Charles,

on

oil

134. ELI,

London)
Johann Heinrich Christian,

f h a. Mclanic de, signed and dated

on canvas, 21 x 25 in (53*4x63 s cm
Collection Mr and Mrs Marvin l.undv, Philadelphia, Pa
)

CONSTABLE, John, dated July 26

/11m

cm
(49 5 x 3
Museum, London

Victoria and Albert

Page 92 (above)

18(14),

on

oil

oil

on canvj

in

Page 92 (centre)
54 J

7** J

in

mi,

I. nv is.

oil

of 1)

.argill)

x 8 in

26

Jan Frans van. signed and dated 1816.

(84

in

66

(28 9 x 20 4

on

oil

105 138

Limited, London)

42

cm

III

Kennedy Galleries Inc., New York)

CHABOIN, Jean-Baptiste-Simeon, oil on canvas,

17I x '4* ,n (43 & * 3 2 cm )

National Gallcrv ol Scotland, Edinburgh
-

107 140 PLEOEL, Georg, 'Slilleben mil Blumenstrauss\

on panel, 2oJ x 163

oil

in.

60

cm

mtCftoJoinr,

(525 X41 cm.)

London (Reproduced

bv

courtesy of the

Page
in

on

Boer,

(Mr ami Mn Lewis Coborn Memorial

10 (right) 144

signed,

oil

on canvas, |H[

II

\\

everbroeck, Frans

668,

on panel,

Amsterdam)

van, signed and dated

oil

in

(54 x 40 7 cm.)

Private Collection,

112 146

England (Photo Derrick Witty)

courtesv

ol

Arthur Tooth and Sons,

signed and dated

DELACROIX, Eugene, signed and dated 1833,

(57

in

x 48 9 cm.)

Private Collection 'Hv cornice] ol Parke-Bernet (lallcrics Inc

fit

in

(65

PORTE, Henri

loracc Roland, oil

in.

162.

(61

New York

Private Collection,

Page 124 (below left) 164. GRESLY, Gabriel, signed, oil on

canvas, 21 J X25i in. (555 x 64 cm.)
Musee de 1'Ain, Bourg-en-Bresse
Page 124 (below right) 165 Gi ardi, Francesco, oil on canvas,
57 x 80
Private

in.

145 x 204 cm.)

(By courtesy

Collection

121

DENTS,

(an, oil

Gallery of Art,

on (anvas, 11x29

in

Washington,

D.C

Old Print Shop, New York)

HALSZEL, Johann Baptist, signed and
dated 1771, oil on canvas, 37* x 29 in. (953 x 737 cm.)
Private Collection (Photo A. C. Cooper Limited, London)
Page 126 (above) 16X HAMEN, Juan van der, signed and dated
Private Collection (By courtesy of

Page

1627,

125 (below) 167

oil

on canvas, 85 x 55J

oil

(Chester

Dale

X648 cm)

Page

Mr

in

13

(above right)

148.

in.

(Burrell Collection)

FERGUSON, William Gowc,

(52

x 40 7 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Christies,

145 x

McBean,

Peter

127 (above

right)

signed and dated 18X7,

(216 x 140 cm.)

oil

Pieter, signed
1

and dated 1727,

16 cm.)

California

170.

HARNETT, William Michael,

on canvas, 47^ x 52!

in

(122 x 133 cm.)

Private Collection (H\ courtesj of Kennedy Galleries Inc.,

New

York)

Page 127 (below left) 171 HARDIME, Simon, signed,

canvas, 30 x 27 in. (76 2 x 68 6 cm.)

Page 128 (above)

oil

on

172.

oil

Page 128 (below)

Art

Association Ine

oil

HASSAM, Childe, oil on

173.

panel, b{ x

5^

in.

cm.)

(left) 174

Chattanooga, Tenn.
HAVERMAN, Margarcta, signed and dated

on canvas, 31

J]

23:} in.

(794 x 38

cm .)

An, New York (Purchase 1871)

Page 129 (right) 175 iiavf/, Francesco, oil on canvas, 485 x
Metropolitan

signed,

HARTINGER, Anton, signed and dated

in. (575 x 47 cm.)

on panel, ill * l8j

Dorotheum, Vienna
1832,

1716,

on canvas, 20$ x 16

in.

HARDIME,

169.

on canvas, 57 x 45J

Page 129

oil

Gallery,

125 (above) 166. hall, George Henry, signed and dated

on canvas, 7} x 12 in. (19 x 305 cm.)

Page i2(below left) 147 PANTIN-LATOUR, Ignace Henri Jean

Theodore, signed and dated 1874, oil on canvas, 22x25} in
Museum, Glasgow

Hallsborough

oil

(159 x 38

(559

of

London)

Collection)

Page

Caillcu* Collection, Pans

in.

cm.)

National

Art Gallery and

x54 cm)

oil

(62 9 x

fork)

Page 97 (right) 122

on canvas. 25J x 2li

1866,

in.

Private Collection, England

PANTIN-LATOUR, Ignace Henri Jean Theodore,

on canvas, 24J x 29J

Boer, Amsterdam)

glackens, William J., signed, oil on canvas,

x 458 cm.)
Collection of Ira and Nancy Glackens, New York
Page 124 (above left) 163. grasdorp, Willem, signed, oil on
canvas, 25^ x 21 J in. (64 x 55 cm.)
122

Collection

De

De

on vellum, 26$ x 31J

Prado, Madrid (Photo Manso)

on canvas, 47 x 38 in. (1 19 x 96 6 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Leger Galleries, London)
Page 1 1 1 145, f aes, Pieter, signed and dated 1790, oil on panel,
1

Page

on canvas, 22$ x 19J

(83-9 x 73-7 cm.)

oil

oil

cm.)

Page 126 (below)

Foppcns van, signed,

22 x 16J in (56x41*5 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Messrs

749

Page 98 (above)

oil

Minneapolis, Minn.

10 (left) 143 es, Jacob

garzoni, Giovanna,

Private Collection 'Hv

121

Arts,

Page

1881,

PANTIN-LATOUR, Ignace Henri Jean Theodore,

1890, oil on canvas, 19J x 23J in. (489 x

141

x8o

Page

Page 96 120 CHAGALL, Mjrc

London)
Page 97 (left)

21J x 16

cm

c.

Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart

Page

Collection)

(46-3x33-6

on

Art Institute. Chicago,

oil

'

Institute of

cm

Akademie dcr Hildendcn Kunste, V icnna

Page 95 119 CEZANNE, Paul, oil on canvas, 2**xi6J

New

Newman

VV

(J n

Oil

121 161

24 x 18

signed and dated

Musee National du Chateau de Fontaincbleau

Page94 118 iioMM.mAlnni/ Michael. 1 84a 49

in

(254 x 191 cm.)

in.

Page

15 in.

Uffizi Gallery, Florence

Trustees of the National Gallcrv, London)

Page 109 142 ensor, James, signed and dated 1883,
canvas, 44} x 38J in. (113x975 cm.)

canvas, 3

>i

Page

Page 108

Antwerp

National Gallcrv,

117 DAI

on

Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lyons (Photo J. Camponogara)

Page 120 160. gallis, Pieter, signed, oil on canvas, 20+ x
(52 x38 cm.)

(67

oil

Page 93

on canvas.

01 Rhi i. dustave, signed and dated

16
on canvas, J7J x (95 in (75 9 x 101 3 cm.)
dallerv and Museum, (ilasgow (Presented bv the Truslccs

1S63,

(Hv courtesv of

1638,

signed,

London

Page 92 (bottom)
rt

cm

139 x 200

Private Collection.

(oris

115

oil

103 (below) 136. elliger, Ottmar, signed and dated 1653,

Priv ate Collection (Bv courtesv of

Page

(100 x 131 cm.)

Musee Clasve des Beaux-Arts, Valenciennes

51

on

Page 106 139 EHRET, Georg Dionysius, signed and dated 1744,
water and body colour on vellum, 203" x 14! in. (52-7 x 363 cm.)
Victoria and Albert Museum. London (Photo Derrick Witty)

(Isabel (./instable Gift)

(iinm, Mciffrcn,

114

oil

19 (below) 159. gallet, Jean-Baptiste, signed and dated

on canvas, 32! x 25I in. (83 x 65 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Messrs

103 (above) 135. eliaerts, Jean Francois, signed,

on panel, 10 x 7J

on canvas,

117 (above) 155. matisse, Henri, Les Ammones, signed

and dated 1924, oil on canvas, 28! x 364 in. (73 X92 cm.)
Kunsthalle, Bern
Page 117 (below) 156. GAUGUIN, Paul, signed and dated 1889,
oil on canvas, 73 x 92 in.
186 x 234 cm.)
(By courtesy of W ildenstein and Co. Inc., New York)
Page 118 157. gheyn, Jacques de II, signed and dated 1612, oil
on copper, 22g x 17$ in. (58 x 44 cm.)
Haags Gemeentemuseum, The Hague
Page 119 (above) 158. galle, Hieronymus, signed and dated
1643, oil on panel, 27 x 20 in. (686 x 508 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Thomas Agnew and Sons

oil

Page

London)

oil

Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels

1846,

15a in. (38-7x38-7 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Christies,

Page 102 (below)

me Tangere\ signed,

18 x 197 cm.)

( 1

Limited, London)

137 f.wiKiNfi, John J., signed and dated 1879,

canvas, 12J xq\ in. (318 x 242 cm.)

oil

in.

Page

102 (above) 133. DUFY, Raoul, signed, gouache, 15! x

Page 104

Page 90 (below) 1121 OMOI

4i x 77l

Page

oil

canvas, 57I x 99} in (146x125cm)

Musee des Beaux- Arts, Nancv

154. fyt, Jan, 'Noli

London)

London)
Page 90 (above)

millboard, 19)

on

London)
drechsler, Johann Baptist,
on canvas, 34+X27I in. (876 x

canvas, 35$ x 28 in. (90 x 71 cm.)

Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,

IIJ

oil

132.

CLARE, Oliver, signed, oil on

canvas, 6 xy in (152 x239 cm.)
Private Collection, England (Hv courtesj of Williams and Son.

91

van, signed,

canvas, 51+ x 35 in.

Private Collection (By courtesy of Sotheby and Co.,
101

Page 116

dongen, Kees
(130 x 889 cm.)

101 (below left) 131.

Page 89 (below right)

Page

on canvas, 27! x

Lffizi Gallery, Florence

Page

1839,

Wurzburg)

(70x55 cm.)

in.

London)

111

on

Page

Private Collection, r.ngland (Bj CUUftet) ot Williams and Son,

cm

(61 x 50 8

in.

oil

x 28 cm.)

canvas, 393 x 305 in. (101 X785 cm.)

Stadtisches Museum, Brunswick

24 x 20

la

X2I-6 cm.)

dogarth, Oscar Robert,

right) 129.

in. (41

1 1

signed and dated 1808,

oil

(27-3

Private Collection (By courtesy of Roland Mars,

Page

signed and dated 1642,

Private Collection (By courtesv of Messrs

panel, i6 x

Page

Page 88 107 CLAESZ,, Anthony

Page 100 (below

2i|

London)

in.

left) 128. dietzsch, Barbara Regina, gouache

on vellum, 20^ x 18^ in. (54 x 46 cm.)
Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Munich

Page

canvas. 28 x 39 in. (71-2 x 99-1 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of M. Bernard,

x8^

Museum

ol

37J in. (124 <95 em

Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan
)

London)

267

illustrations: acknowledgments and photographic credits

176. heade, Martin Johnson, oil on canvas,

(305 x 502 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Hirschl and Adler Galleries,

Page 130 (above)

12 x 19!

New

in.

York)

Page 130 (below)

heade, Martin Johnson, signed and

dated 1 863, oil on canvas, 1 6$ x 1 2$ in. (4 1 -6 x 3 1 3 cm.
City Art Museum, St Louis, Mo. (Eliza McMillan Fund)
Page 131 (above) 178. hecke, Jan van den, oil on panel,
2i| x 26 in. (55 x 66 cm.)
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna
Page 131 (below) 179. heem, Cornells de, signed, oil on canvas,
28| x 2o| in. (65 x 52 cm.)
Abels Gemaldegalerie, Cologne
Page 132 180. heem, David de II, signed, oil on canvas, 25I x
2oJ in. (65 x 52 cm.)
Abels Gemaldegalerie, Cologne
Page 132 (below) 181. heem, Jan Davidsz.de, signed, oil on
canvas, 22! x 29I in. (575 x 75 cm.)
Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, Cologne
Page 133 (left) 182. heem, Jan Davidsz. de, 'Flower with a
Crucifix', signed, 40J x 33^ in. (1028 x 85 cm.)
177.

Munich
Page 133 (right) 183. hendriks, Wybrand, signed, oil on panel,
39$ X29J in. (100x76 cm.)
Teylers Museum, Haarlem
Page 134 184. henstenburgh, Herman, signed, gouache on
vellum, 14J x 12^ in. (37-5 x 318 cm.)
Teylers Museum, Haarlem
Page 135 185. heem, Jan Davidsz. de, signed, oil on panel,
2ijx 16 in. (54-6x40-7 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Edward Speelman Limited,
London)
Page 136 186. GOGH, Vincent van, signed, oil on canvas,
Alte Pinakothek,

36 x 28

in.

(762 x68-6 cm.)

Tate Gallery, London (Photo Derrick Witty)
Page 149 (above) 203. huysum, Justus van the Elder, oil on
canvas, 35$ x 28$ in. (90 x 72 cm.)
Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp
Page 149 (below) 204. inman, John O'Brien, signed and dated
1863, oil on board, 8 x 13 in. (21 X33-I cm.)

Tate Gallery, London (Photo Derrick Witty)

Page 137 187. HERMANN, Hans, signed and dated 1844, oil on
canvas, 27 x 10^ in. (68-6 x 502 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Messrs Katz, Basle)
Page 138 (above right) 188. hiepes, Tomas, signed and dated
1664, oil on canvas, 57x38! in. (150x98 cm.)
Collection Manuel Gonzales, Madrid
Page 138 (below left) 189. Hewlett, James, watercolour,
12x11 in. (305 x 28 cm.)
Victoria and Albert Museum, London (Photo S. Eost and P.

Macdonald)
Page 138 (below right) 190. hirschely, Jan Kaspar, signed
and dated 1724, oil on copper, 13^x9^ in. (343 X242 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Parke-Bernet Inc.,

New York)

Private Collection, England (By courtesy of

141 (below) 195.

huygens, Francois Joseph, signed and

on canvas, 29$ x 22 in. (756 x 559 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Newhouse Galleries,

208. keyse, Thomas, signed and dated 1759,

on canvas, 13J x 1 1| in. (349 x 298 cm.)
Private Collection (Formerly Paul Larsen, London)
Page 153 (below) 209. kick, Cornells, signed, oil on panel,
18 x 14 in. (458 x 356 cm.)
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
Page 154 (above) 210. kisling, Moise, signed, oil on canvas,

Page 153 (above)

oil

39I x 28!
Collection

(100

Page 154 (below)

211.

knapp,

New

30 x 25

196.

huysum. Jacobus

van, signed,

oil

on panel,

(762 x 635 cm.)

Private Collection, England
in.

Page 143

197.

huysum, Jan

van, signed and dated 173

on panel, 31 J x 23J in. (80 x

Collection Sir Brian Mountain

oil

Page 144
24J

in.

198.

(8o-6 x

huysum, Jan
622 cm.)

1 ,

1732,

Museum, Haarlem

Page 155 (below) 213. lachtropius, Nicolas, signed and dated

1667, oil on canvas, 24^x20^ in. (629 x 52-1 cm.)
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Page 156 (left) 214. ladell, Edward, signed and dated 1862,
on canvas, 17 x 12J

in.

(432 x 324 cm.)

Collection, A. J. Harris, Miami Beach, Fla.

Page 156 (right) 215. la farge, John, signed,

24 x 20 in. (61 x 508 cm.)

Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Page 157 216. kokoschka, Oskar, signed,

39x31^

in. (99-

van, signed,

oil

on canvas, 31J x

oil

on

of the

rustecs of the Wallace Collection)

lliNZ,

Johann Georg,

oil

on canvas, 34! x

26JJ in.

(87 /U-) 5 cm.)

Staatlkhe Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe

Page 147

20i.KES.SEl.,Jan van, signed, oil on panel, 15^ x i\\

in.

Page

268

on canvas,

London)
217. manet, Edouard, signed, oil on canvas, i2^x
(318 x 248 cm.)
Art Gallery and Museum, Glasgow (Burrell Collection)
Page 159 218. lambdin, George Cochran, signed, oil on canvas, 30 x 20^ in. (762 x 514 cm.)

Page 158
in.

(By courtesy of Kennedy Galleries Inc., New York)

Page 160 (above left) 219. largilliere, Nicolas de, signed
and dated 1667, oil on canvas, 29! x 24 in. (74 x 61 cm.)

Hannema-de Stuers Foundation, Heino

Page 160 (below left) 220. laurent, Francois
signed, oil on vellum, 27! x 21 in. (698 x 534 cm.)

Nicolas,

Private Collection, England (Photo Derrick Witty)

221.

ledesma. Bias

de, signed, oil

on

(Great Painting Fund

(above) 222. leen, Willem van, signed, oil on panel,

14J x 1 1 in. (362 x 28 cm.)
Private Collection, England (By courtesy of John Mitchell and

Page

161

Son, London)
Page 161 223.LEEUWF.N,Gerrit Jan van, signed and dated 1795,
oil on canvas, 2oi x 14^ in. (54 x 365 cm.)

148 202 JOHN, Augustus, signed,

oil

on canvas, 30 x 27

in.

marlier, Philip

231.
in.

(62

signed,

London)
on copper,

oil

X47 cm.)
(By courtesy of Robert

Collection

Private

de,

Finck

Gallery,

Brussels)

167 232. mast, Dirck van der, signed and dated 1656, oil
on panel, 27 x 36$ in. (687 x 925 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Nystad Antiquaries, The
Hague)
Page 168 (above) 233. mayrhofer, Johann Nepomuk, signed
and dated 1821, oil on canvas, 20 x 14J in. (50-8x368 cm.)
Private Collection, England (Photo Derrick Witty)
Page 168 (below) 234. merian, Maria Sybilla, gouache on
vellum, 13^ x ioi in. (33-3 x 267 cm.)
Natural History Museum, London (By kind permission of the
Trustees of the British Museum/Natural History)
Page 169 235. melendez, Luis, oil on canvas, 20J x 30J in.

Page

(53-5x78 cm.)
of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass. (Margaret C.

Wyman

Newhouse

Page 170

melgar, Luis

236.

and dated 1685,

de, signed

canvas, 15! x 22^ in. (39 x 58 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of

Newhouse

oil

Galleries,

on

New

York)

Page

171 (above) 237. metz, Johann Martin, signed and dated

1760,

oil

on canvas, 34^ x 29

in.

(876 x 737 cm.)

London)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Leger Galleries,

Page

171 (below) 238.

7^x5*

in.

(19

x14

micheux, Michel

Nicolas, oil on canvas,

cm.)

Private Collection, Paris

Page 172 239. mignon, Abraham,

15 in. (48-3x381 cm.)

signed,

Private Collection (By courtesy of

John Mitchell and Sons,

oil

on panel, 19 x

Galleries,

New

2c4

240.

mignon, Abraham,

signed,

oil

on canvas, 23! x

(60 x 51 cm.)

in.

Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels

Page 174 241. monnoyer, Antoine,oil on canvas, 264 x
(665 X49 cm.)

19^

in.

Private Collection, Paris

Page 175
oil

242.

monet, Oscar Claude, signed and dated

on canvas, 21 \ x 25I

in.

1878,

(545 x 65 cm.)

Musee de l'lmpressionisme, Paris (Photo Jacqueline Hyde)

Page 176 243. mignon, Abraham, oil on panel, 20 x 14J

in.

(50-8x37-5 cm.)

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

177 244. monnoyer, Jean-Baptiste, oil on canvas, 73I x
43J in. (187 x it 1 cm.)
Royal Collection (Reproduced by Gracious Permission of Her
Majesty the Queen)
Page 178 245. monticelli, Adolphe-Joseph, signed, oil on
canvas, 24! x 17I in. (63 X44 cm.)
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lyons (Photo J. Camponogara)
Page 179 (above) 246. morel, Jan Baptiste, signed, oil on

Page

canvas, si x 4i in. 03'5 x 0'8 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of

Kunsthaus Lempcrtz,

Cologne)

Page 179 (below)

247.

morel, Jan

31 J x 22JS in. (46 x 58 cm.)

Dienst voor 's Rijks Verspreide

Page 180 (above

1918,

oil

oil

on panel,

Kunstvoorwerpen, The Hague

signed and dated

morandi, Giorgio,
32^ x 26 in. (82 x66 cm.)

left) 248.

on canvas,

Evert, signed,

Private Collection, Milan

Page

162 (above left) 224. LERICHE,

1808,

oil

on canvas, 14$ x 17^

in.

i.

S. J.,

signed and dated

(375 X455 cm.)

225.

right) 249. mount, William S., signed and

on paper, 7 x6j in. (178 x 161 cm.)
Museum and Carriage House, Stony Brook. Long

Page 180 (above

dated 1859,
Suffolk

LINARD, Jacques, 'The Five

Senses', signed, oil on panel, 19A x 25 in. (486 x 644 cm.)
Museum of Art, Indianapolis, Ind. (James E. Robert Fund and

Page 162 (above right)

Island,

NY.

oil

(Melville Collection)

Page 180 (below right)

dated 1805,

oil

250.

Ml trie, Annie Persy, signed and

in. (762 X63 5 cm.)

on canvas, 30x25

Gift of

Private Collection (By courtesy ol "Sothcbv and Co.,

Page

Page

Dr and Mrs G. H. A. Clowes)

162 (below left) 226. linard, Jacques, signed and dated
1639, oil on panel, i8jj x 14J in. (48 x 366 cm.)
Music- cle la Villi-, Strasbourg
Page 163 (above) 227. linthorst, Jacobus, signed and dated
oil

London)

in. (82 5 x 635 cm.)

courtesy of Frost and Reed Limited,

on panel, 32 j x 25

Private Collection (By

olid hnn, l.ngland

24$ x 18^

Page 173
oil

(By courtesy of Marlborough Fine Arts,

Page 160 (below right)

Page 166

on panel, 12^ x

oil

London)

x8ocm.)

Private Collection

1808,

(40 / 29 8 cm.)
'

on canvas,

Private Collection, Paris

huysum, Jan van, signed and dated 1726,

panel, 3 4 X23ij in. (79-4 x 594 cm.)
Wallace Collection, London (Reproduced by permission
199.

Page 146 200

oil

York)

Rijksmuscum, Amsterdam

Page 145

and dated 1836,

Josef, signed

on canvas, 30^ x 22! in. (775 x 578 cm.)

Collection Mr and Mrs Brian Warren, London
Page 155 (above) 212. koning, Elizabeth Joanna, signed and
dated 1847, watercolour, 17! x 14 in. (455 X355 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of

597 cm.)

on canvas, 25^ x

in.

Fund)

oil

oil

2oJ

Museum

X73 cm.)
Oscar Ghez, Geneva

in.

Purchase, 1957)

oil

York)

Page 142

John Mitchell and

Sons, London)

canvas, 22^ x 30J in. (562 x 784 cm.)

High Museum of Art, Atlanta, Ga.

Page

de, oil

Private Collection (By courtesy of Brian Koetser,

York)

Page 150 205. J anssens, Anna, signed, oil on panel, 39$ X26$in.
(100 X67 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Messrs De Boer, Amsterdam)
Page 151 206. kelderman, Jan, oil on canvas, 364x28 in.
(93x71 cm.)
(By courtesy of Mak van Waay N.V. Art Auctions, Amsterdam)
Page 152 207. kessel, Jan van, oil on copper, 7 X9 in. (178 x
229 cm.)

Palais de Fontainebleau

dated 1848,

Abraham

229. lust,

New

9!

191.

Page 164 (above)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Hirschl and Adler Galleries,

hoecke, Jaspar van den, signed and dated 1614,

oil on panel, 33$ x 20^ in. (825 x 52- 1 cm.)
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Reproduced by permission of
the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge)
Page 140 (above) 192. HUGHES, Trajan, oil on canvas, 37 x 20 in.
94 x 508 cm.)
Private Collection (Formerly Matthiesen Limited, London)
Page 140 (below) 193. hulsdonck, Jacob van, signed, oil on
panel, 21 x 28 in. (534 x 712 cm.)
Private Collection (Formerly Matthiesen Limited, London)
Page 141 (above) 194. huilliot, Pierre Nicolas, signed, oil on
canvas, 70J x 53$ in. (179 x 136 cm.)

Page 139

163 (below) 228. lopez, Gasparo, signed, oil on canvas,

33 x 38 in. (839 x 966 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Christies, London)

(648 x 54-6 cm.)

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
Page 164 (below) 230. luyckx, Christiaan,
9^ in. (318 X24-8 cm.)

Teylers

(915 x 71-2 cm.)

Page

181

251.

morisot, Bcrthe, dated

187(1, oil

18A X2iji in. (46x55 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Wildcnstrin and

ondon)

on canvas,

Co

Limited,

Pans)

Page
1

7(12,

182 (above) 252. myn, Cornelia van der, signed and dated
ml on canvas, 29J x 25J in (76 x 64 cm.)

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

182 (below) 253

1730,

oil

Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe

mvn. Herman van der, signed and dated

in. (737 x 622 cm.)

on canvas, 29 x 24+

Collection the Marquess of Exeter

Page 183 (above) 254. nellius. Marten,

11^x87 in. (29 x22-j cm.)

Muzeum Narodowe,
oil

19J x 15

(50-2

in.

38-

on panel.

oil

280.

redolte,

of Devonshire

Pierre Joseph, 'Canterbury Bells',

Page 199 (below)

282. perez, Bartolome, signed and dated

on canvas, 324 x 24! in. (83 x 62 cm.)
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Reproduced by permission of
the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge)
Page 200 (left) 283. petter, Franz Xaver, signed and dated
1833, oil on panel, 37! x 28^ in. (95 x 73 cm.)
Osterreichisclie Galerie, Vienna
Page 200 (right) 284. PHILIPPINE, Jean Francois, oil on canvas,

1666,

(629 x 458 cm.)

on panel, 35 x 27!

os, Jan van, signed, oil

in.

Page 215 304. renoir, Pierre Auguste,

23! x 2ii in. (603 x 54 cm.)

oil

Page 216 305. RUYSCH, Rachel, signed and dated 1709, oil on
canvas, 30J x 25 J in. (78- 1 x 638 cm.)
Private Collection, England (By courtesy of John Mitchell and
Sons, London)

Page 217 (above)

306. robie, Jean Baptiste, signed and dated

on canvas, 21^x27 in. (55-2x68-6 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Blaise Preston Limited,

1875,

'l

London)

Page 217 (below) 307. roepel, Coenraet, signed and dated 172 1,
oil on canvas, 26^ x 2of in. (665 x 525 cm.)
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Page 218 (above) 308. roestraeten, Pieter Gerritsz. van,
signed, oil on canvas, 28^ X24J in. (72-1 X622 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Christies,

Page 218 (below)

on canvas, 37! x 29J in. (95 x 75 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Sotheby and Co.,

Page 219

(38 x 48 cm.)

310.

romero, Juan

15 x i8^

Private Collection (By courtesy of Frank Partridge and Sons

Manufacture National, Sevres

Page 201 285. picart, Jean-Michel, signed and dated 1663, oil
on canvas, 39$ x 30! in. (101 x 78 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of the Pardo Gallery, Paris)
Page 202 (above) 286. PICASSO, Pablo Ruiz y, signed and dated
1901, oil on canvas, 25! x 19^ in. (651 X489 cm.)

24+

Tate Gallery, London

Page 202 (below) 287. PlSSARRO, Camille, signed and dated
1873, '' on canvas, 28^ x 23! in. (73 x 60 cm.)
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
Page 203 288. POL, Christiaen van, signed, oil on canvas,

Page 220 (below)

Limited. London)

Page 188 (above) 260. SOREAL, Isaak, oil on panel, 22 x 35^ in.
559 X921 cm.)
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
Page 188 (below) 26 monnover. Jean-Baptiste, signed, oil on
1

canvas, 34 x 50J in. (86 4 x 128 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Richard

Green Fine Paintings,

London)

Page 189 (above) 262 niog. Joseph,

signed,

oil

on vellum.

22$ x i6i in (56 7 x 42 cm

Osten-eichische Museum fur Angewandte Kunst. Vienna
Page 189 (below) 263 nolde, Emil, signed, watercolour,
)

H9<-m

Marlborough Fine

of

oil

ni//i.

Page 190 264

Mario,

on canvas, 281x22$

oil

in.

172 4 x 56 5 cm.)

Mcthuen
Page 190 (below) 265 obervmn. \nthon>, signed and dated
1810. oil on canvas, 4J x 3* in
105 x 9 cm
Collection Lord

(Bv

Collection

Private

courtesv

Kunsthaus

ot

l.empertz,

Cologne)

(above) 266

in

101 o x 127

nymfgfn.
cm

lias

I-

van.

on canvas,

Bernard, London)

OBIDOS, Josefa

191 (centre) 267

dc, signed

and dated

oil

I40 7

16 x 12 in

Ne*

York)

Page

192

'

(above

cm

oil

on canvas.

Staatliche

OOtTUWTCS,
(72 K ,6 cm

in

Maria van. signed.

oil

Teylcrs

Museum

H t in (62 N 47 cm.)

on panel, 24J M

Museum, Haarlem

on canvas. 28 \ x 23 j in. (73 X603 cm.)

Collection (By courtesy of Hallsborough

on canvas.

h|0'i|O cm.)

Private Collection (Formerlv Matthiescn Gallery.

London)

Page 191 fbrlowl i-\ PA] vifr. Frances Mora Bond, signed
and dated 1862, engraving by Currier and Ives, 20x27! in

69 8

cm

Old Print Shop. New York)

Page 194 (above) 274 par ft. Luis v Alcazar, signed,
.(

canvas, I5J x 4 J in (39 x 17 cm

Prado, Madrid (Photo Manso)

panel, 25 x iHJ in

(63

46

oil

on

27'.

pmii, Rubens,

canvas. 20 x 24 in
( .oiler

on

Ldward Speelman Limited,

signed and dated 1856,

oil

on

(508x61cm)

Page 196
Page 196

\r

York)

277 Detail of ill 278

(right) 278 pf f Tins. Clara, signed and dated 1612.

(left)

on panel,

2 \i * 19J in

(,'=;'

i\\

\<i

Museum,

in

296.

(76

<

recco, Giuseppe, signed,

54

''

oil

on canvas, 30

cm.)

Sotheby and Co., London)

don, Odilon, signed, oil on canvas, 19J x

Private Collection (By courtesy of

RF

12J in (50 2 x 32 4 cm.)

Private Collection (Bv courtcsv ol Sotheby and

Co

London)

Page 209 298 rfdon, Odilon, signed, oil on canvas, 51 x

26J in (130x67 9 cm.)
Collection Mr and Mrs Paul Mellon
Page 210 299 rffkfrs, Hcndnk, signed and dated 1847, oil
on panel, 7q M 14J in (45 5 x37 cm.)
Museum, Haarlem
Page 21 ioo rf inv, f. Philip, signed, engraving, 17} x 14 in.
1

(43-8x35-6 cm.)
(Bj lourtcsv ol Frank T Sabin, London)
Page 212 301 ring, Pictcr dc, signed and dated 1643,
canvas, 25 x 32J in (63 5 X85 1 cm.)
Print! ( .ollcction (By courtesy ol I lal

Page 213 302 robbf. Henri,

78

Hon Mr Lawrence Flenchmann (By courtesy of Kennedy

dallrrv Inr

oil

3. oil

Private Collection (Bv coorteaj ot

London)
Page 19s-

and dated 183

2ft

olognc)

inf', signed

cm

on canvas,

Page 224
1

(right) 318.

in.

319.

ruysch, Rachel,

Victoria and Albert

Page 225
I2|

oil

on canvas, i2fxioi

in.

x 26 cm.)

in.

320.

Museum, London (Photo Derrick

seghers, Daniel, signed,

oil

Witty)

on copper, 17! x

(441 X3i-5cm.)

USA

Private Collection,

(By courtesy of John Mitchell and

Sons, London)

Pages 226 and 227 321. roesen, Severin, signed, oil on canvas,
40 x 50^ in. (1016 x 128 cm.)
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Charles Allen Munn
Bequest; Fosburgh Fund Inc. Gift; Mr and Mrs J. William
Middcndorf II Gift; and Henry G. Keasby Bequest, 1967)
Page 228 322. spaendonck, Gerard or Gerardus van, signed
and dated 1785, oil on canvas, 30^ X23I in. (117 X91 cm.)

Musee National du Chateau de Fontainebleau

Page 229 (above) 323. saint-jean, Simon, signed, oil on
canvas, 35J x 28} in. (895 x 724 cm.)
Wallace Collection, London (Reproduced by permission of the
Trustees of the Wallace Collection)

Page 229 (below) 324.

oil

on panel, 0^ x 7

in.

sa ver y, Roelandt, signed and dated 1613,

(24 x 18 cm.)

Private Collection, England

Page 194 (below) 27; Ci

Gallery,

van, signed and

x 23J in. (74 x 60 cm.)

Private Collection (Bv courtcsv of Kunsthaus am
oil

ruysch, Rachel, signed, oil on canvas,

(756 x 60-6 cm.)
Museum of Art, Toledo, Ohio (Gift of Edward Drummond

29J x 23J

(32

London)
Page 206 (above) 294 raffaelli, Jean Francois, signed, oil on
board. 28} x 24 in. (72 4 x6l cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Hazlitt Gallery, London)

Page 208 297

oil

the Younger,

oil

Asshetnn-Bennett Collection)
01 dry, Jean Baptiste.

312. rouers, Helena, signed and dated 1663,

on canvas, 21J x i8J in. (555 x 46 cm.)
Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Copenhagen
Page 221 (above left) 313. rousseau, Henri-Julien 'Le
Douanier', signed, oil on canvas, 23^ x i8| in. (597 X476 cm.)
Tate Gallery, London
Page 221 (below right) 314. rousseau, Philippe, signed, oil on
canvas, 22J x 15^ in. (58- 1 X40 cm.)
Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam
Page 222 (above) 315. royen, Willem Frederik van, signed,
oil on canvas, 17! x 14 in. (448 x 356 cm.)
Private Collection, England (Photo Derrick Witty)
Page 222 (below) 316. ruoppolo, Giovanni Battista, signed,
oil on canvas, 41 J X334 in. (106 x 84 cm.)
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
Page 223 (left) 317. ruysch, Anna Elizabeth, signed, oil on
canvas, 25! x 17^ in. (65 x 445 cm.)
oil

Libbey)

left)

York)

dated 1854,

cm.)

York)

New

signed,

X622

London)

on canvas, 20$ x

Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe

Page 207

sij x ,,j in

(Bequest of George

New

Page 223

192 (above right) 271 os, Jan van, signed, oil on panel.
28J x ix in l])/i;i|imi
\rt Galltrv, Manchester (Bv courtcsv of the Trustees ol the
( ifv
193 (above) 272

New York

in. (52-

Bautista, oil

North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh, N.C.

Page 220 (above) 311. rouault, Georges, signed, oil on canvas,
28 x 23 in. (712 x 585 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Parke-Bernet Galleries Inc.,

292 prendergast, Maurice, signed, oil

on panel, 14x16 in. (356 x 407 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Hirschl and Adler Galleries,

Page

Page

of Art,

Blumenlhal)

Page 206 (below) 29, Rsvfn/v. aay, Adriana

Kunstsammlungen, Dresden

192 (below left) 270 os. Georgius Jacobus Johannes van,

signed,

Private

269

left)

on canvas. 28J x 22

Page

(150 x 116 cm.)

Page 205 (below right) 293 prevost, Jean Louis

Private Collection (Bv courtcsv ot Parke-Bernet Galleries Inc

oil

in.

Musco c Gallerie Nazionali di Capodimonte, Naples

Page 205 (above left) 291. portail, Jacques Andre, watercolour, 135 x 01J in. (346 x 276 cm.)

Page 205 (below

on canvas. 331 x 63 in (84 x 160 cm )

Museu Municipal, Santarem
Page 191 (bottom) 208 ci'mffff, Georgia,
1676,

oil

Private Collection (Bv courtcsv ot

Page

45J

Metropolitan

191

40 x 50

Paintings,

289. ponce, Antonio, signed and dated 1650,

on canvas, 30J x 22$ in. (78 x 58 cm.)
Musee de la Ville, Strasbourg
Page 204 (below) 290. porpora, Paolo, oil on canvas, 57 x

Arts,

London)

Page

Green Fine

London)
Page 204 (above)

(By courtcsv

Collection

Private

17JX 14J in. (45 1 X375 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Ric lard

London)

309. rootius, Jacob, signed and dated 1674,

oil

(889 X70-5 cm.)

in.

signed, oil on canvas,

Collection Walter P. Annenberg, Philadelphia, Pa.

cm.)

1787, watercolour on vellum, 15^x9 in.

(39-4x22-9 cm.)
Victoria and Albert Museum, London (Photo Derrick Witty)
Page 199 (above) 281. peeters, Geertje, signed, oil on canvas,
30^ x 25+ in. (775 x 648 cm.)
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Reproduced by permission of
the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge)

256. nieulandt. Adriaen van, signed and dated 1636,

on panel, iji x 14! in. (40 x 36 cm.)
Frans Halsmuscum, Haarlem
Page 185 257 moser, Mary, signed, oil on canvas, 26i x 25J in.
(06-4x65-4 cm.)
Royal Collection (Reproduced by Gracious Permission of Her
Majesty the Queen)
Page 186 258. marreu Jacob, signed and dated 1635, oil on

187 259

picart, Jean-Michel, signed,

signed and dated

Warsaw-

Page 184

Page

279.

Page 198

oil

panel, 24J x 18 in.

Private Collection

Page 197

Private Collection, England (Photo Derrick Witty)

on canvas,

255.

Duke

Collection the

oil

Nicholson, Sir William, signed and

on canvas, 23 x 21 in. (585 x 534 cm.)

Page 183 (below)

dated 1912,

signed,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS

Ben

oil

Centraal

oil

on

)'N'ians Gallery,

on canvas, 39} X31

in.

London)
(1003 x

624,

der Gemeente, Utrecht

1894,

oil

326.

on canvas, 22 x

scholderer, Otto, signed and dated

i6jj in.

(56

X408

cm.)

Hamburg

left) 327. SCACCIATI, Andrea, signed and

on canvas, 30$ x 55 in. (777 x 1397 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Nystad Antiquaries, The

Page 231 (above

dated 1670,

oil

Hague)
niger',

signed,

gnuat he on vellum, 17J x 13 in. (44 8 x 33 cm.)

Museum National d'Histoirc Naturcllc, Paris (Collection des
1

Museum

Page 230 (below)

Kunsthalle,

Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Btusscls

Page 214 303 Robert, Nicolas, 'Helleborus

Page 230 (above) 325. saver y, Roelandt, signed and dated

on panel, 51J X31J in. (130x80 cm.)

oil

Ims du

Museum,

torn

XL, No

58)

Page 231 (below

i6i x 10

left) 328.

schouman,

Aart, watercolour,

(413 x 25 6 cm.)
Teylers Museum, Haarlem
Page 231 (above right) 329. schook, Hendrik, signed,
in.

oil

on

2(H)

illustrations: acknowledgments and photographic credits

canvas, 39$; X31J in. (997 x 806 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of McClelland Gallery, Belfast)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Spink and

Page 232 (above)

London)

330. schriek. Otto

Marseus van, signed,

on canvas, 23^ x 19 in. (59- 1 X483 cm.)

Collection Mr and Mrs Jack Linsky, New York
Page 232 (below) 331. schlch, Karl, signed,
in (86x705 cm.)
Neue Pinakothek, Munich
Page 233 (above) 332. seghers,
27^ in. (94 X70 cm.)

oil

oil

on canvas,

Daniel,

on canvas, 37 x

oil

Page 233 (below) ^i- seghers, Daniel, oil on panel, 385 x

28 in. (98-7x73-4 cm.)
Art Museum, Princeton University, N.J.
Page 234 (above) 334. seignemartin, Jean, signed and dated
1874, oil on canvas, i8 x 145 in. (46 x 378 cm.)
seitz, Georg, signed,

oil

on canvas,

15I x 1 1| in. (40 x 30 cm.)

Dorotheum, Vienna
Page 235 (above left) 336. sillett, James, signed and dated
1802, watercolour, 16+ x 12^ in. (41-9x31-1 cm.)

Museum, London (By kind permission of the Trustees of

the British Museum)
Page 235 (above right) 337. snyders, Frans, oil on canvas,
44^x45! in. (112 x 16 cm.)
British

Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe

Page 235 (below

left) 338. smith, Matthew, signed,

(762 x 559 cm.)
Art Gallery and Temple Newsam House, Leeds

oil

on

in.

Page 236

339. snabille, Maria Geertruida, signed and dated

on panel, 25! x i8j in. (60x465 cm.)
Collection (By courtesy of Abels Gemaldegalerie,

oil

Private

Cologne)

Page 237

vallayer-coster, Anne, signed and dated

on canvas, 15! x i2| in. (40 x 32 cm.)
Private Collection, Paris (By courtesy of Cailleux, Paris)
Page 238 341. \erelst, Simon Pietersz., signed, oil on canvas,
20^ x 163 in. (51-4 X425 cm.)
Private Collection, England (By courtesy of John Mitchell and
178(2?),

340.

oil

Sons, London)

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

Page 239 (below) 343. son, Joris
(762 x 996 cm.)

van,

oil

oil

on canvas,

on canvas, 30 x 38

in.

(B\ courtesy of Leger Galleries, London)

Page 240 (above

canvas, 25J x 17$

left) 344.

in.

oil

on

Page 241 (above)

346.

spaendonck, Gerard

London)

or Gerardus van,

signed and dated 1785, gouache on vellum, 17! x 13J

in

(45 x

National d'Histoirc Naturellc, Paris

241 [below) 347 spaendonck, Gerard or Gerardus van,

signed, oil on canvas, 30^ x 23^ in. (78 5 x 595 cm.)

Page

J.

A.

M. van Spaendonck, Tilburg

348. spelt, Adriaen van der, signed

on panel, 18} x 25J

Art Institute, Chicago.

in.

and dated 1658,

(47 x 64 4 cm.)

oil

on panel, 15 x 165

in.

(38 x 43 cm.)

Private Collection, England (By courtesy of

John Mitchell and

Page 246 (below

oil

left) 356.

tamm, Franz Werner

on canvas, 36^ x 29^

Kunsthalle,

in.

von, dated

(92 x 74 cm.)

Hamburg

Page 247 (above)

thielen, Jan Philips van, signed, oil on

(325 x 242 cm.)
Mrs Paul Mellon
Page 247 (below) 358. tournier, Jean Ulrich, signed and
dated 1821, oil on canvas, 26$ x 22 in. (67 x 56 cm.)
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lyons (Photo J. Camponogara)
Page 248 (above) 359. uppink, Hermanus, signed and dated
1789, oil on canvas, 28+ x 23$ in. (725 x 595 cm.)
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Page 248 (below) 360. vallayer-COSTER, Anne, oil on paper,
16J x 2o| in. (43 x 52 cm.)
357.

panel, 12I x o4 in.

Collection Mr and

Private Collection, Paris (By courtesy of Cailleux, Paris)

Page 249 (above)

panel, 9^

1840,

oil

on

x 8|

in.

361.

VENNE, Pieter van

de, signed, oil

on

(25 x 21 cm.)

De Boer, Amsterdam)
\erbrlggen, Caspar Pieter the
Younger, signed, oil on canvas, 44+ X31 in. (113 X788 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of H. Terry-Engell, London)
Page 250 (above left) 363. verelst, Cornelis, oil on canvas,
Private Collection (By courtesy of Messrs
362.

21 J x i8 in. (546 X463 cm.)

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Reproduced by permission

Page 250 (above

Museum, Cambridge)

right) 364. verendael, Nicolaes van, signed,

Page 250 (below

left) 365. verelst, Simon Pietersz., signed,

on canvas, 13J x 1 1 in. (349 x 28 cm.)
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
Page 251 (left) 366. verendael, Nicolaes van, signed and dated
1677, oil on canvas, 2c4 x 15^ in. (52-1 x 394 cm.)
Collection of Lord St Oswald
Page 251 (right) 367. vidal, Louis, signed, oil on copper,
20 x 16 in. (506 x 407 cm.)
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Reproduced by permission of
the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge)
Page 252 (above) 368. vlaminck, Maurice de, signed, oil on

oil

canvas, 2i x 14J in. (535 x 37 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Sotheby and Co.,

oil

left) 370. voet, Karel Borchaert, signed and

on canvas, 25^ x 20+ in. (648 x 52- 1 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Leger Galleries, London)
oil

Page 253 (above right) 371. vollon, Antoine, signed, oil on

canvas, 2i x 17! in. (54 X45 cm.)
Art Gallery, Johannesburg (By courtesy of Roland, Browse and
Delbanco, London)

Page 253 (below

\ ogelaer, Karel van, signed, oil on

(966 x 737 cm.)
National Trust, Felbrigg Hall, Roughton, Norwich
Page 254 373. vonck, Jacob, signed and dated 1760, oil on
canvas, 33 x 26 in. (839 x 66- 1 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of W. Sabin, London)
Page 255 374. verendael, Nicolaes van, oil on copper, 15^ x

canvas, 38 x 29

in.

left) 372.

in.

(394 x 298 cm.)

Private Collection, England (By courtesy of Leggatt Brothers.

London)
Page 256 375. walscappelle, Jacob, signed, oil on canvas,
2 3i x 18J in. (597 x 476 cm.)
National Gallery, London (Reproduced by courtesy of the
Trustees of the National Gallery, London) (Photo Derrick
Witty)

Sons, London)

Page 252 (below)

Ill

Page 243 349 siannard, Emily, signed and dated

270

dated 1626,

on canvas, 17^ x 25 in. (444 x 635 cm.)

Osterley Park House, Isleworth, Middlesex

Private Collection (By courtesy of Leggatt Brothers,

oil

Page 245 (below) 353. stosskopf, Sebastiar oil on panel,

"I xo in. (29-5x23-5 cm.)
Musee de la Ville, Strasbourg
Page 246 (above left) 354. stuven, Ernst, signed, oil on
canvas, 40^ X32I in. (1029 X832 cm.)
Private Collection, London
Page 246 (above right) 355. sweerts, Jeronimus, signed and

oil

Paris

345. spaendonck, Corneille or

Cornelis van, signed and dated 1793, oil on canvas, 31 \ x 25 in.
(80 x 63-5 cm.)

Page 242

Marquess of Lothian

Collection the

of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam

soltine, Chaim, signed,

(64 x 44 cm.)

Musee de ITmpressionisme,
Page 240 (above right)

Collection E. A.

351. stoll, Leopold, signed and dated 1828,

on canvas, 28 x 22 in. (712 x 559 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of M. Bernard, London)
Page 245 (above) 352. stern, Ludovico, signed and dated 1757,
oil on canvas, 23 X314 in. (585 x 80 cm.)

Page 249 (below)

Page 239 (above) 342. snyers, Pieter, signed,

22 x 19 in. (57-2 X483 cm.)

Museum

oil

oil

172-,

Page 253 (above

dated 1695,

London)
Page 244 (below)

Dulwich College Picture Gallery, London (By kind permission

1830,

Private Collection, England

Son Limited,

350. stannard, Eloise, signed and dated

on panel, 23^ x 17I in. (597 X444 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of John Mitchell and Sons,

1855,

of the Trustees of Alleyn's College of God's Gift)

canvas, 30 x 22

(305 x 254 cm.)

Page 244 (above)

iii *27i

Musee du Louvre, Paris

Page 234 (below) 335.

panel, 12 x 10 in.

in.

(622 x 534 cm.)

right) 376. vosmaer, Jacob Woutersz., signed

and dated 161 5, oil on panel, 33^x24! in. (85-1 X62-5 cm.)
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Purchase 1871)
Page 257 (below) 377. wainwright, John, signed and dated
1859, oil on canvas, 49 X39 in. (124 X991 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Leger Galleries, London)

Page 258 (above) 378. waldmuller, Ferdinand Georg, signed

and dated 1848, oil on panel, 22J x 18^ in. (58 X46 cm.)
Nationalgalerie, Berlin

Page 258 (below)

379. walscappelle, Jacob, signed and dated

on canvas, 26^ x 20^ in. (667 x 527 cm.)
Victoria and Albert Museum, London (Photo Derrick Wittv)
Page 259 (above right) 380. walscappelle, Jacob, oil on panel,
23x17* in. (58-5x43-8 cm.)
Private Collection, England
Page 259 (below left) 381. weyerman, Jacob Campo, signed,
oil on panel, 2c4 x i6 in. (52 x 41 cm.)

1667,

oil

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Page 259 (below right) 382. w eenix, Jan, oil on canvas, 24+ x
19J in. (622 x 502 cm.)
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
Page 260 (above) 383. wegmayr, Sebastian, signed, oil on
panel, 52J x 37^ in. (134 X96 cm.)
Osterreichische Galerie, Vienna
Page 260 (below) 384. withoos, Matthias, signed, oil on
canvas, 34^ x 27J in. (876 x 692 cm.)
City Museum and Art Gallery, Nottingham
Page 261 (above) 385. wright, James Henry, signed, oil on
canvas, 15J x 12^ in. (394 x 318 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of Hirschl and Adler Galleries,
New York)
Page 261 (below) 386. withoos, Pieter, signed and dated 1683,
gouache, i2{ x8 in. (321 x 204 cm.)
Private Collection (By courtesy of John Mitchell and Sons,
London)
Page 262 (above) 387. ykens, Frans, signed, oil on panel,

34ix48|

in.

(87

x123 cm.)

Private Collection (By courtesy of Messrs Couturier and Nicolay,

Paris)

Page 262 (below)

London)

369. vlieger, Eltiede, signed and dated 1651,

on canvas, 24$ x 21

Page 257 (above

388.

zurbaran, Francisco

'7l x ! 3l in (44 x 34 cm )
Prado, Madrid (Photo Manso)
-

de, oil

on canvas,

Index of Artists

Figures

bold type

in

refer to artists' biographies; those in italics to illustrations.

Figures in parentheses indicate relevant

Adriaenssen, Alexander 33, 34

Aelst, Evert

van 33

Willem van

Aelst,

23, 24, 29, 30, 33-5,

1,

17. 1;

Abrahams/

,6, 40. 74, 167.

6j, 84, 98, 154,

14.

'

18

87, IO4, 115, 134, 162, 166, 167. I94.

167

17,

Aubnct, Claude

18. 21. 24, 2;, 26, 27, 31, 39. 40. 41,

179

40-1

jg,

(Kb. 105)
Bosschaert. Ambrosius the Younger

\ugustim, Jan 70
Aved, Jacques- Andre-Joseph 85, Ho
41. 41

,7, 59,

21

Hra

Madeleine 41

Brav

Basiien Lepage, Jules 91

Dirt df 61 './. 75, 89

Salomon de bl
.

245

Brcsdin. Rndolphc 208

Broeck, Ellas van den 61-2, 6j,

I'M. 2,8

Francois 43

in,

Brueghel, Abraham 47, 62-3

Baudcsson. Joseph 41

Bauer, Francis

17,

16,

43

|t>,

44

13, 24, 2t, 2b, 27, 29.

<;

17

us

121, 122, 134, I37,

U.

7)

Brueghel, Pielcr

Brunei, Paul

184

Bellenge.

'77

Michcl-Bm-

uj

Benner, Jean

j'..

47, In, ib)

4I1,

44. II,

Itvss,

111),

1,2

2 14,

(Bib

1,4. 162,

'14,

hcodorus van

Elisc

an-Bapiistr

.n/ I'.scl 72
ihann Rudolf

Bellini,

Dnmenico

Marie 04

|'i

,"

Abraham van

lulu IU

fill

Hmoii

PctCT

(Bih

,9,

.'

Falcone, Anielle 204

24s.

Hecke, Jan van den 131-2, iji

Heda, Willem Claesz. 28, 139

109, 11 1-14,

112, 159, 212, 230, 231, 257, (Bib. 35)

Gowe uj,

114

Fieravino, Francesco 91
ion,

Mario dc'

sec

Georg 104,

Flegcl,

Nuzzi, Mario
113, 114, ibb, 245,

(Bib. 78)

Thomas

roiv, Pierre

ionic

de

John

incr.

Matthew 43

Flinders,

41, 15b

la

114-15,

Francis,

74

John

Fromantiou, Hendrick de 115, 1/5

Fyt, Jan

20b

80, Bl, 81, 120. 165, 182,

27, 28,

Gallc,

'

Delacroix, Ferdinand Victor Eugene

De

la

109, 11b, 123, 125,

(I,

63)

Pone, Henri Horace- Roland 97,

I2

Dclaunay, Robert 220

Denis, Maurice 84

Dines. |an 9Detain, Andre 31,98,9V, 102, 151,252,

2,1, Hib 108)

2oh
bi, 74di

28,

'
1

mil 79

iportea,

Diaz dc

12;

"4

18,
I

'/'/,

7'i

(arisen, Dines 80
(arisen.

119, lit), 249

119,

79

p-

la

123,

100, 217

Barbara Rcgina 41, 100-1, 100

i/sch, Johann (.hnsioph 100

Theodore 50
Geromc, Jean Leon 20b
Ghcyn, Jacques dc II 16,

18, 2/, 25, 26,

27, 44, 114,; iu, 121-2, 230, 257,

(Bib 88)

h. Johann Israel 100

Ml tZM h, Margareta 100
Dioscondcs 11.12

Glackcns, William

122, 122, 204

Gleyrc, Charles 212

Gogh, Vincent van

31, 91, 93, 98, 120,

123-4. '3>. '</. 154. 'b7. 174. 179,

202, 239, 253, (Hib
(

Mili/nis,

Hondecoeter, Melchior de 153

Houbraken, Arnold 2bi
Hughes, Trajan 140, 140, 232
Huilliot, Claude 140

lendrick

140, 141

Hulsdonck, Gillis 140

Hulsdonck, Jacob van 29, 140-1, 140,
23b

Hunt, William 89, 90

Hunt, William Morris

[56,

S'l

Huygcns, Francois Joseph 31, 141, 141

lliivsum. Jacobus van 141-2, 142, 149,
(Bib. 48)

Goes, Hugo van der 12, 13, 18

Goctkindi, Pieter he- Elder '14

80. Jo, 128

139,139
llobbema, Meindert 191
Hoccke, Jasper van den 26, 139-40, 131)
Hocfnagel, Georg ;;, 18, 27, 51, 14,

Huilliot, Pierre Nicolas

119)

Gcricault,

Girardet, Jean 90
( ijude
99
Pcna, Narcissc Virgilc 99-

Hirschely, Jan Kaspar

52

(Bib

137, 138

uq

119, 120, 137

iarzoni, Giovanni
19, 121
Gauguin, Paul 53,98, nh, 119-20,

Alexandre Prancoil 28,98-9,

'12,

ll,

IS,

Hicronymus

Michelangelo Mrnsi)
1

Fcdc 19b

Pietcr

72, 133, 137, 161

Hinz, Johann Georg 139, 144, 245

115-16, us, lib, 124

Gallct, Jean Baptiste

Ciallis,

Wybrand

Hermann, Hans

Henry 182

Gali/ia,

13, 22, 27, 34,

Hewlett, James 138, /JO

lliepcs, Tomas 29, 1389, ijy

166

II

93-4, oj, 104, 194. 203, 204, 241, 248

Darhngcr, Morn/ Michael 94. ui
k'ar

Jan Davidsz. de

Hcrrera, Franciso the Younger 76

127

F.

Dacl, Jan Frans van 30, 47, 72, 91,

132

Henstenburgh, Herman 134, 137-8

114, 115

Iranckcn, Frans
luscli,

.;/,

234, 236, 244, 251, 252, 258

Fragonard, Jean Honorc 212

at Walscappelle, Jacob

David Cornelisz. de 132

David de
133
David de II 132-3, IJ2

Hendriks,

14, (Bib. 42)

Porte, i.uca

244

Cornells de

153, 166, 167, 171, 190, 213, 219, 233,

Forncnburgh, Johannes Baptista van

191

Heem,
Hcem,
Heem,
Hcem,
Heem,

40, 50, 132, 132, 133-4, '33. '34. '37.

151, 154, 167, 202, 206, 235,

Caravaggio. follower of

131

Theodore 31,92,94,

244

Hassam, Childe 128-9, ' 2o>

Haverman, Margareta 129-30, 12Q, 144

Fantin-Latour, Ignacc Henri Jean

Ferguson, William

102, 128, 128,

Hayez, Francesco 120, 130

Heade, .Martin Johnson 31, 87, 130-1,

III, ;/;

Faes, Pieter

(rcpu.Jcan Baptisic de bo

anova, Antonio
25. 74. 7b. 79.

127, 219

58

12,

Copptn, Daniel 244

Corinth, Lovis 91-2,92. 154
Corot, Jean Baptiste CamiUe 41, 179,
182, 203, 208
Corrcggio (Antonio Allcgm 2,8
( one, Juan de la
35

99, ***

CorsVlffio

Eyck, Jan van

Fabritius, Carel 8b

82,92,94,97,9;,

72

(analclto (Canalc), \ntonio

50,

30. 70-2,

alb

(.amprohin, Pedro d<

\

127, 190

Harnett, William Michael 31, 127-8,

104,704

J.

Contc, Mciffrcn 91,92

Conic, Sauvcur 91

75. 7S

4*1

him
\hraham van
I'. j'

Bimbi,

Haslinger 168

179, 208, 234, 210. 2,7, (Hib

',

Campidoglio. Michelangelo

155

\ crhnlst,

Everbroeck, Frans van iio-ii, 110

Maria Helena 73

(.alraai,

,,

\'i

-,

Hartinger, Anton

04

17, 17

103, 12$, 126

Hardime, Pieter 1267, /2 7

Hardime, Simon 126, 127, 127, 260

Ensor, James 104, 109, tog, 189

Es, Jacob Foppcns van 109-10, 110

72. ;2. 87. 9), 194

Clillcbottc, (nislaw

-,

104, 139, 104, 222,

253. 258
Enneking, John

Aelst, Pietcr

\i-lhcrt

'14

Marghrrila 29.74.;/.
Cagnacci. (undo 74, 74, II]

<

Berion. \ntennc 48. f8, 224

Jacques Samuel 48

Ottmar ioj,

Johann Baptist

Hamen, Jan van der 126

Hamen, Juan van der 126,

Claudot, Jean-Baptiste-Charles 90, 90

Codino, Francesco 51, 245

121)

hi,

52

Berghem, Nicolaes 149

|i

W,

47, 247

Berghe, Chnstoffel van den 2:

Jean Francois ioj, 104

Cocckc van

Couture,
18, 11

Bruvn, Johannes Cornells de 72, 7

llr\
lohann de 17, 170

47. 47, 100

lb

Halszel,

Johann Heinrich Christian ;02, 104

Eliaerts,

Elliger,

Horn, Vdriaan van den 2)1

4-

Benner-Pnes, Jean

104, 12b, (Bib. 12)

Eli,

89, 8g

Daubigny, (harks Prancoil 09

Urmerr.

Belvedere. Andrea 28,

George

*s7

Belin de Fontenay, Jcan-Bapiiste 43,

'

1 1

48

Haecht, Willem van 32

Hall, George Henry 125-6, 725
Hals, Frans 53, 91, 137, 165, 219

Earlom, Richard 21
Ehret, Georg Dionysius 30, 43, 103,

87-8
87-8, 88

53,

Clare, Oliver 89-90, So

152

10, 11

Beggarstaff Brothers'

1,

Brueghel, Jan the Younger

174,212

173,

the Klder

140. 103, 166, z6l, (Bib

ti'i.

139, 230, 23

'</.

Pieter 28

Bauer, Lucas 44
Ba/illr, Frederic

Claes/

109. 111, 11b. 212, 230, 232, 239, 252,

'\ civet'

Brueghel, Jan ihc Elder

Claesz.,

Anthony
Anthony

Claes/

Courbel, Gustave 31, 91, 92-3, ga, 98.

, 1,

Brueghel, Ambrosius 6j, bi, 64

Baudcsson. Nicolas (grandson) 43

Bauer, Ferdinand

Guichard, Joseph Benoit 234

Guys, Constantin 102

Brcntel, Priedrich

Bauchanl. \ndr-

Guernier, Louis du

Dufv, Raoul 31, 102-3, I02

Diirer, Albrecht 14, ij, 16, 51
Dyck, Anthony van 33

27, bi, 9b, 107)

Brandt. Albcrtus Jonas 61,0/, 180, 191,

Ha,, hrnis. Kvansto 206

Duchemin, Catherine 43

Comolcra, Melanic de 90, 90

Constable. John 90
91 97, 183, (Bib

Bouillon, Michel de 60-1, ho

2 |j

ib4, ib5, 107, 109, 179, 180, 193, 222,

240, 248, 257, (Bib. b2, 120)

Collacrt, Adriaen

15,

Bouillon, Jean de bo

Baren. Jan Anthome van der 41

porte,

'"7. 229

Boudin, Eugene 92, 102

Bouguercau, A \\ 91

Mario 230

Barbicrs, Pietcr

28,

246
Boucher, Francois 4b, 212
60, 69,

Baers, Jan or Johannes 41, 41. 24ft

Jacques 41
Jacques II 41
.hn 41. 41

-V M,

S4. S7, 5 H -9.

Bosschaert, Jan Baptiste 59, JO

Bosschaert, Johannes 11, ',i>. ,4.

Bachclicr, Jean-Jacques 205

Gros, Antoine Jean 222

Guardi, Francesco 74, 124, 125
Guardi, Gianantonio 125

Clare,

2,7,

124, /2j

Greco, El 151

Dubuisson, Jean Baptiste 163

Duccio di Buoninsegna 13

35, bi, ibi

Clacuvv, Jacques de 88-9, 88

70. 121. 134, 141. 229. 230. 232, 246,

Audubon, John James 131,210

Babcock, William P

57-8. 59. bo. 62, 6j, 69,

s4-

102,

12b, 154, 189, 199, 200, 2bo

239

Goyen, Jan van 88

Graf, Johann 170
Grasdorp, Willem

Gresly, Gabriel 124, 125

128, 239, 257

Chazal, Antoine 72, 87, S/, 155, 234

54. y)

Dongen, Kees van 101, 102, 253

Drechsler, Johann Baptist 31. 101,

Gorin, Stanislas 207

y I.ucientes, Francisco de 164,

Goya

Dubourg, Victoria (Mine Fantin-Latour)

Chase, William Merritt 79. 80-7, 86,

14)

Abraham

Bosschaert,

Dogarth, Franz 101

Dogarth, Oscar Robert 100, 101, 102
Dolci, Carlo 101, 101

31, 84-5, 97, 154, 219,

Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Simeon 31, 46,

47 79. 84, 85-6, 87, 97, 104, 112, 125,

nanncs or Hans van der 39

Hubert, Augustin

'5)

239, (Bib. 21)

Bosschaert, Ambrosius the Elder 14, 17,

24b

14'. 1*7,

Champaigne, Philippe de

220, 229, 246, (Bib

"3,

Borely, Jean-Baptiste 54, 54

Bosch, Lodewijck Jansz van den

36.

23. 27. 36. 39-40.

Marc

Bonnet, Silvain 201

246

Ast, Balthasar van der

Mini,

92, 120, 124, ib7, 179, 180, 202, 239,

257, (Bib. 23,95,

Chagall.

Bosschaert family 27, 36, 39, 52, 53. 70,

99. J53
Asstcvn, Bartholomcus

Baillv,

Cezanne, Paul 31, 82-4, 85, 8b, 92, 94,

28, 2H. 52-3, hi, 75,

162

Arellano. Jose de 35
\rellano, Juan de 35-6, jb, 43, 139, 190,

Baillv.

Hans

Dogarth, Erich Josef 101

80, 128

Casteels, Frans 249

168, (Bib. 16, 28,91)

32
Arcimboldo, Giuseppe
1

Cassatt,

Casteels, Pieter 21, 23, 81, 82

Bond, Robert 193

Bonnard, Pierre 53-4,

73. '39

Apelles

Mary 80-2,

Blanche, Jacques-Emile 112,113

Bloemers, Arnoldus 52, 52, 61, 235

Bogdani, Jacob 52, 52, 82

Bollongier,

33.54. 98. MI, "'4. "5. '44. 53164. 223, 224, 232, 253
Angermeyer, Johann Adalbert 35. ,>,

the Bibliography, page 263.

titles in

12

46, 100)
I

lluysum, Jan van

22, 24, 25, 2S, 29, 30,

31, 46, 47, 61, 62, 72, 102,

in,

125,

129, 130, 138, 141, 142-4, 143, 144,

149, 153, ibi, 191, 193, 201, 205, 209,

217, 218, 224, 241, 242, 244. 258,

(Bib

50,

2(10,

17)

271

INDEX OF ARTISTS

Huysum, Justus van

49, '49
Huysum, Justus van

the Elder 141, 144,

the

Younger

144,

M9
Huysum, Michiel van

Jean-Auguste-Dominique 92, 130

Inman, Henry 149
Inman, John O'Brien 149, 749

Isabey, Jean-Baptiste 90

Janssens,

Abraham 150
Anna 150-1, 130

John, Augustus 53, 149, 151, (Bib. 34,

65. 99)

Willem 35, 139

Kandinsky, Wassily 220
Kauffman, Angelica 182
Kelderman, Jan 151,751
Kessel, Ferdinand van 153

Hieronymus van

Peale, Titian

Peelers, Clara

14, 14

Metz, Gertrud 171

Metz, Johann Martin 170-1, ///
Micheux, Michel Nicolas 171, 77/
Michelangelo Buonarroti 92,

Peto,

259

Moise 31, 153-4,

Knapp, Johann 154
Knapp, Josef 154, 154
Kneller, Sir Godfrey 178

'54< (Bib. 67)

Lachtropius, Nicolas 35, 155, 133, 253

Lacroix, Paul 219

Edward

7,

53, 79, 81, 83, 92,

100, 128, 165, 172-4, 174, 177, 182,

Monnoyer, Antoine 174, 177

Monnoyer, Jean-Baptiste 17,

29, eg, 36,

La Farge, John

31, 41, 87, 128, 156,

Lafosse, Charles de 178

Lambdin, George Cochran

131, 159,

59

159-

Largilliere, Nicolas de 25, 85, 99,

60, /60, 193

Laurent, Francois Nicolas 160, 160

Lawrence,

Sir

Thomas 94

Le Brun, Charles 43, 48, 177

Lecoq de Boisbaudran, Horace
Ledesma, Bias de 160 1. /60, 190, 204
Leen, Willem van 72, 160, 161
Leeuwen, Gerrit Jan van 160, 161, lbi
Leibl, Wilhelm 91, 232
1

Lely, Sir Peter 159, 249

Lcmoyne de Morgues, Jacques

'

16-17,

1-

Leonardo da Vinci
Leriche,

I.

S. J.

Lievcns, Jan

2-j,

Lippi, Lorenzo 51, 230

Ramsay, Allan 21
Ravenzwaay, Adriana van 206, 206

Myn, Herman van der

Recco, Giacomo 204, 206

Recco, Giuseppe 47, 206, 207
Redon, Odilon 16, 22, 31, 84, 94, 113,
120, 206-9, 20S, 20 9< (Bib. 1, 4, 45,

Marten 183, 184

Netscher, Constantyn 217

Redoute, Pierre Joseph

184

Nicholson, Sir William 183, 184

Nieulandt, Adriaen van 184, 184
Nigg, Joseph 31, 102, 189, 189, 260

Lopez, Gasparo 163, i6j

Lust, Abraham de 35, 163-4, 164
27, 164, 164, 166

/,'</,

Reinagle, Philip 211,27/

Nolde, Emil 109, 155, 189, 189, 239

Nollekens, Joseph 182
Nuzzi, Mario 35, 36, 43, 49, 74, 139,

Rembrandt van Ryn

hi,

112,

'1)2,

240

21

218, 231, 248

Os, Maria Magrita van

Oudry, Jean Baptiste

79, 80, 81, 84,
23,

24,

Pace, Michclc see Campidoglio

Mariette, Pierre-Jean 43, 159, 214

Paret, Luis

Marlier, Philip de

'Pauline' (P. von Koudclka-Schmcrling)

164, 166, 166

Marrel, Jacob 21, 22, 28, 29, 103, 114,

166-7, '7. 7 ' 184, 220, 263

272

'9.1

Alcazar 194, 794, 219

194. '94
Pautiut 1 1, 44, 126

no,

119, 121, 131,

137. '39. 152. '53. "64, 166, 189,

Georg 234, 234

Seurat, Georges 202, 205
Sillett,

Sisley, Alfred

Slevogt,

Max

15,

16, 23s, 236,

254, -'57

Edouard

Snyers, Pieter 22, 236, 239

Solis, Juan de 35

Vuillard,

Son, Joris van 110,236,239

Soreau, Daniel 51, 114, 236, 245

Wainwright, John 237, 258

Waldmuller, Ferdinand Georg 31, 194,
258, 258
Walscappelle, Jacob 29, 104, 153,25/,
258-60, 238, 259, 260
Watteau, Jean Antoine 179, 212
Weenix, Jan 259, 260
Weenix, Jan Baptist 261

245, (Bib. 19)

Chaim

154, 239-40, 240, (Bib.

84

53,

Spaendonck, Cornells van 30, 46, 72, 90,

Wegmayr, Sebastian

93, 194, 240,241, 247

Spaendonck, Gerard or Gerardus van

260, 260
West, Benjamin 142-3

160, 194, 209, 210, 213, 229, 241-2,

247, 244, 247, 248

Rocscn, Scvcrin 217-18, 224

Roestractcn, Pieter Gerritsz van 218,

Simon de 253

Youet, Simon 48

184,235,235

30, 31, 40, 46, 47, 49, 72, 87, 93, 94,

14, 214,

Ylieger,

Snyders, Frans 27,

262

Smith, Matthew

22)

12)

102, 239,

Snabille, Maria Geertruida 235, 236

Rinio, Benedetto 10

Yignali, Jacopo 49, 101

Ylaminck, Maurice de 31, 98,
252-3, 252

Vollon, Antoine 86, 87, 98, 233, 254

Ring, Pieter de 272, 213

217, 241, (Bib.

Bessemers Verhulst, Marie

Vermeer, Jan van 39, 58, 86

Vernet, Joseph 90
Vidal, Louis 206,257,252

Vonck, Jacob 231, 234, 254

Yoorhout, Jan 245
Vos, Simon de 33, 152
Vosmaer, Jacob Woutersz. 26,41, 121,

Soutine,

8.97)

250-2, 230, 25'. *54

Verhulst, Marie Bessemers see

212

Smith, George 153

Smith, John 178

202, 211-13, 274, 230, (Bib. 29, 90, 98)

Ribot, Theodule 257

Ring, Ludger Tom 17, 77, 18, 245, (Bib.

17, 29, 35, 127,

*39, 249-50, 250

Verendael, Nicolaes van 29, 134, 180,

91

2 34< (Bib. 30)

Soreau, Peter 51, 236

Ribera, Jose de 258

230

Pietersz.

Voet, Karel Borchaert 253-4, -53- 257

Vogelaer, Karel van 233, 254

James 234-5,

Soreau, Jan 236

Reynolds, Sir Joshua 153

249

Ylieger, Eltie de 232, 253

Signac, Paul 154, 167, 202, 205, 220

94, 100, 103, 122, 153, 173, 174, 177,

Robic, Jean Baptiste 217,277

Roepel, Coenraet 217, 217

Maratta, Carlo 62, 246

257, (Bib. 64, 71, 72, 109)

261

Soreau, Isaak 51, 141, 7*9, 236, 239,

Robert, Nicolas 40, 201, 213

191

25, 28, 97, 99, 159,

160, 193, 793

Palmer. Frances Flora Bond 19.I-4,

Pankiewicz, Joseph 153

Guido 74

Robbc, Henri 213, 213

191, 192

56,

164-6, 174, l8l, 212, 230, 248,

'

25, 62, 76, 85, 86,

91, 133, 134, 143, 151, 164, 220, 239,

Reni,

Obidos, Josefa de 190, 790

O'Kcefle, Georgia 31, 190, (97
Oosterwyck, Maria van 190-1, 792, 199
Os, Georgius Jacobus Johannes van 61,

Os, Pietcr Gerardus van

Mander, Karel van 18

Manet, Edouard 25, 31,

209-

Reekers, Hendrik 191,270,211

Os, Jan van 30, 52, 72, 1 1 1, 125, 137,

161, 163, 184, 191-3, 192, 200, 201,

Lust, Anthonie Hendricksz. de 163

Luyckx, Chnstiaan

16, 17, 30, 30,

40, 43, 49, 93, 94, 194, '99, 213,

11, 241, 248, (Bib. 87)

60, 249,

Herman 249

Seitz,

85, 86, 102)

249
Verbruggen, Gaspar Pieter the Younger

Simon

Seignemartin, Jean 234, 234

Mutrie, Annie Feray 180, 183

Myn, Cornelia van der 182, 183

46, 97, 236, 248,

Vanvitelli, Luigi 246

Velasquez, Diego 165
Venne, Adriaen van de 249
Venne, Pieter van de 248-9, 249
Verbruggen, Gaspar Pieter the Elder

Verelst,

34,

Jean Francois 206, 206

Anne

Verelst,

247, 251, 252, 263

155

Valdes Leal, Juan 76

Schouman, Aart 191,2312,237,257

Schriek, Otto Marseus van 28, 29, 34,

201, 213, 224, 229, 232-4, 233, 236,

Nellius,

Uppink, Hermanus 247, 248

Uppink, Willem 247

Verelst, Cornells 249,

43, 58, 62, 76, 104,

Quellinus, Erasmus 247

182, 184

Tournier, Jean Ulrich 247, 247

Tristan, Luis 76

Schook, Hendrik 171, 231, 237

Schooten, Floris van 199

Seghers, Daniel 23, 25, 27, 36, 41, 42,

Raffaelli.

191, I92,

51, 230, 231

Schuch, Karl 86" 92, 232, 232

Renoir, Pierre Auguste 53, 82, 83, 87,

j6, 161-3, /62, 201

Andrea

Scholderer, Otto 230-1, 231

101, 140, 155, 172, 224, 230, 232, 232,

22, 30,

Putter, Pieter de 50

Oberman^ Anthony 190,790

Linthorst, Jacobus 31, 72, 163, /6j, 180

86, 87, 98,

Prevost, Jean Louis the

161, 162

131

Linard, Jacques

Eugene Joseph 205

Younger
205, 203
Preyer, Johann Wilhelm 218
Pryde, James 184
Prevost,

189-90, 190, 244, 246

Elias van 190, 190

Levo, Domenico 51
Licbermann, Max 91

18, 26, 27,

119, 121, 167, 229-30, 229, 231, 232

Scacciati,

Jacques Andre 41, 204, 203

Murillo, Bartolome Esteban 76

Nicasius 98
Nicholson, Ben

79, 189

32, 39, 40, 48, 54, 57, 58, 64, 70, 73,

Prendergast, Maurice 204-5, 205

Nymegen,

14, 16

Ponce, Antonio 204, 204

Ponse, Joris 151, 231

Poussin, Nicolas 233

Prado, Bias de 160

230

Munch, Edvard

20 3

Post, Pieter 223

Morel, Jan Baptiste 779, 180

Morel, Jan Evert 61, 779, 180
Morisot, Berthe 80, 181-2, 181, 206
Moser, George 182

Miiller, Victor

159. 156

Lucien 203

Porpora, Paolo 115,204,204

Morandi, Giorgio 17980, 180

Morandi, Giovanni Maria 189
Moreau, Gustave 208, 220

Thornton, Robert 211

Toulouse Lautrec, Henri de 102

24,(Bib 75)

Sanchez Cotan, Juan 160

Sandrart, Joachim von 139
Savery, Jacques or Jacob 229
Savery, Roelandt frontts., 17,

Portail,

Thierriat, Augustin 48, 224

Vaffayer-Coster,

Tommaso

84, 94)

Pool, Juriaen 223, 224

1779, r 77i '^9-, 1 9> ! 94, 201

Monticelli, Adolphe-Joseph 98, 124,

48, 119, 224, 229,

Salini,

Pol, Christiaen van 93, 203-4,

43. 45. 52.94, '25. "44, 163, 17'.

Franz Werner von 125, 246-7,

246. 254

Teniers, David 64
Thielen, Jan Philips van 233, 247, 247

Valckenborch brothers 114

Simon

229

202-3, 202, 206, 212, 220, (Bib. 83,

Pissarro,

Tamm,

22J, 224, 232, 248, (Bib. 51, 103)

Saint-Jean,

Pissarro, Camille 83, 120, 173, 182,

Ladey, Jean Marc 45

Laeck, Arthur van der 33

156

Jean-Michel 27, 47, 796, 200-1,

207, (Bib. 36)

224
Ruysch, Frederik 223, 224, 232
Ruysch, Rachel 24, 30, 35, 124, 144,
164, 172, 191, 217, 277, 218, 222-4,

203, 220

196

Mount, Henry Smith 183

Mount, Shepard Alonzo 183
Mount, William Sidney 180, 183

Ladell, Ellen

Picart,

Pillement, Jean 22, 23

Moser, Mary 41, 182-3, '^4- (Bib. 76)

31, 155-6, ryfi

Theodor 199

Philippine, Jean Francois 200, 200

25, 29, 45, 166,

178, 179, 234

Kokoschka, Oskar 154-5, 15b, 239

Koning, Elizabeth Joanna 155, 755

J. van 258
Ruoppolo, Giovanni Battista 47, 222,
222
Ruysch, Anna Elizabeth 172, 222, 223,

102, 189, 194,

199-200, 200, 260

Petter,

202, 206, 211, 212, (Bib. 101,1 18)

Kisling,

262, (Bib. 7)

Ruisdael,

Picasso, Pablo Ruiz y 98, 167, 202, 202,

Monet, Oscar Claude

Kc\se, Thomas 153, 153 (Bib. 47)

Kick, Cornells 61, 153, 753, 163, 258,

John 127
Franz Xaver

11, 23, 24, 27,

33. 44. 45. 64, 69, 126, 134, 233, 236,

Perez, Bartolome 29, 35, 199, 799

Pether, Abraham 211

Petter,

Amedeo 154,239

Moillon, Louise

Younger 153

Rubens, Peter Paul 70,

199, 799

245, (Bib. 60)

Stuven, Ernst 124, 171, 245, 246

Sustermans, Justus 101
Sweerts, Jeronimus 246, 246

Rousseau, Theodore 99, 220

Royen, Willem Frederik van 222, 222

196, 796, 199

Stosskopf, Sebastian 51, 163, 236, 244,

Sweerts, Emanuel 246

Rousseau, Jacques 178

Rousseau, Philippe 227, 222

195

Peeters, Geertje

245. 258

178, 218, 251

Kessel, Jan van the

Peale,

202, 220-2, 221

195
194, 195

Rembrandt 195
Rubens 183, 194-5, '95

Merian, Maria Sybilla 166, 168, 16970

Merian, Matthaus 166, 170
Metz, Conrad 171

Modigliani,

Kessel, Jan van 64, 144, 152-3, 752,

Ladell,

Melgar, Luis de 169, ijo

Millet, Jean Francois 41, 99, 203

64, 152

Mary Jane

Peale,

170, 171-2, 172, 173, 177, 224, 231,

Kail,

Peale,

Rouers, Helena 29, 220, 220

Rousseau, Henri-Julien 'Le Douanier'

194, 195

James 195

Peale, Raphaelle

Mignard, Pierre I 43
Mignon, Abraham 13,

Joubert, Jean 40, 217, (Bib. 112)

Peale,

Mayrhofer, Johann Nepomuk 168, 168

Melendez, Luis 1689, /0 9

Johnson, Eastman 125

Kessel,

Peale, Charles Willson

Matisse, Henri Emile Benoit 31, 94, 98,

102, //6, 134, 151, 154, 159, 167-8,

Memling, Hans

Roualt, Georges 84, 219-20, 220

Peale family 122, 194-5

12, /J

208, 235, (Bib. 2)

144, 149

Ingres,

Janssens,

Mast, Dirck van der 167, 167

Master of Mary of Burgundy

102, 126. 128, 199,

Wcyerman, Jacob Campo 259, 260-1

Whistler, James Abbott McNeill
1,
1

12, 159, 165

Spelt, Adriaen van der 242, 244

Willacrts,

Stannard, Alfred 244

Stannard, Eloisc 244, 244, (Bib. 30)
Stannard, Emily 242, 244, (Bib. 30)
Stannard, Joseph 244

W ithoos,

Adam

171

Matthias 230, 232, 260, 261

Withoos, Pieter 261, 267

W ouwerman.

Philips

115

Wright, James Henry 261, 267

Stccn, Jan 219

Stccnbcrgen, A. A. 155

218
Rombouts, Theodooi 247
Romero, Juan Bautista 218,2/9
Rootius, Jacob 119,137,218 19,2/9

Stern, Lodovico 244, 244

Stevens, Alfred 87

Rootius, Jan Albcrtsz 218

Stall,

Steer, Philip

Wilson 81

Leopold 244, 244

Ykens. Catharina 262

Ykens, Frans 28, 44, 163, 262, 263-4

Zurbaran, Francisco de 76. 169, 261,

262

**/,_ 3

3S9&, 001

~'**^**>*^M
>*

L t'b>

Boston Public Library

COPLEY SQUARE
GENERAL LIBRARY

he Date

Card in the pocket inthe date on or before

which this
book should be returned
to the Library.

]
dicates

'

'

Please do not remove

cards from this

pocket.

ft

Jacket illustration:
Detail from a painting by
Jan Davidsz. de ^eem (see page 135)

ISBN: 90.6397.032.3

/
Y

K
:

VX-