The Engagement of Carel Fabritius’ Goldfinch of 1654 with the Dutch Window, a Significant Site of Neighborhood Social Exchange

 The Goldfinch,  Carel Fabritius, 1654, Mauritshuis, The Hague

This article posits that Carel Fabritius’s illusionistic painting The Goldfinch, 1654, cleverly traded on the experience of a passerby standing on an actual neighborhood street before a household window. In daily discourse, the window functioned as a significant site of neighborhood social exchange and social control, which official neighborhood regulations mandated. I suggest that Fabritius’s panel engaged the window’s prominent role in two possible ways. First, the trompe l’oeil painting may have been affixed to the inner jamb of an actual street-side window, where goldfinches frequently perched in both paintings and in contemporary households. Second, at another point in time, The Goldfinch appears to have functioned as a hinged protective shutter attached to an interior painting of possibly a domestic scene. Together with the encased picture, Fabritius’s panel would have hung on a household wall. In such a capacity, The Goldfinch would have evoked the viewer’s inquisitiveness, as if he or she were a passerby on a neighborhood street before an actual domestic window with an alternatively open and closed shutter.

DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2016.8.1.5

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Alison McNeil Kettering, H. Perry Chapman, Michelle Moseley-Christian, and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Unless otherwise indicated, translations are mine.

 The Goldfinch,   Carel Fabritius, 1654,  Mauritshuis, The Hague
Fig. 1 Carel Fabritius, The Goldfinch, 1654, oil on panel, 33.5 x 22.8 cm. Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 605 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: Mauritshuis, The Hague) [side-by-side viewer]
 A Peepshow with Views of the Interior of a Dutch House (detail: interior right),   Samuel van Hoogstraten,  1655–60,  National Gallery of Art, London
Fig. 2 Samuel van Hoogstraten, A Peepshow with Views of the Interior of a Dutch House (detail: interior right), 1655–60, oil and egg on wood, 58 x 88 x 60.5 cm. National Gallery of Art, London, inv. no. NG 3832.D7 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: © National Gallery of Art, London/Art Resource, NY) [side-by-side viewer]
 A View of Delft with a Musical Instrument Seller’s Stall,   Carel Fabritius,  1652,  National Gallery of Art, London, presented by the National Art Collections Fund,1922
Fig. 3 Carel Fabritius, A View of Delft with a Musical Instrument Seller’s Stall, 1652, oil on canvas, 15.4 x 31.6 cm. National Gallery of Art, London, presented by the National Art Collections Fund, 1922, inv. no. NG3714 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 The Maidservant,   Nicolaes Maes,  ca. 1659,  Dordrechts Museum (on loan from the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Amsterdam)
Fig. 4 Nicolaes Maes, The Maidservant, ca. 1659, oil on panel, 57.3 x 41.6 cm. Dordrechts Museum (on loan from the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Amsterdam), inv. no. NK3045 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Young Girl at the Window,  Gerrit Dou, 1662,  Galleria Sabauda, Turin
Fig. 5 Gerrit Dou, Young Girl at the Window, 1662, oil on panel, 38 x 29 cm. Galleria Sabauda, Turin, inv. no. 377 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 A Girl with a Basket of Fruit at a Window,   Gerrit Dou, 1657,  The James A. De Rothschild Collection at Waddesdon Manor, Aylesbury, Great Britain
Fig. 6 Gerrit Dou, A Girl with a Basket of Fruit at a Window, 1657, oil on panel, 37.5 x 29.1 cm. The James A. De Rothschild Collection at Waddesdon Manor, Aylesbury, Great Britain, inv. no. 2573 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Woman at a Window with a Copper Bowl of Apples and a Cock Pheasant,   Gerrit Dou, 1663,  Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
Fig. 7 Gerrit Dou, Woman at a Window with a Copper Bowl of Apples and a Cock Pheasant, 1663, oil on panel, 38.5 x 27.7 cm. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, inv. no. 34 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Boy and Girl Blowing Soap Bubbles,  Matthijs Naiveu,  ca. 1700,  Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Museum purchase with funds donated by contribution
Fig. 8 Matthijs Naiveu, Boy and Girl Blowing Soap Bubbles, ca. 1700, oil on canvas, 49.6 x 41.6 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Museum purchase with funds donated by contribution, inv. no. 89.506 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: © Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) [side-by-side viewer]
 Still Life with Fruit and a Goldfinch,  Abraham Mignon,  1660-79,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 9 Abraham Mignon, Still Life with Fruit and a Goldfinch, 1660-79, oil on canvas, 78 x 67 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-266 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) [side-by-side viewer]
 Mock-up that clarifies the larger spatial/architectural context for the implied site of Fabritius’s goldfinch and perch. Left side: detail in reverse from Jan Havicksz. Steen, Adolf and Catharina Croeser, known as The Burgher of Delft and His Daughter.  Right side: detail from Pieter de Hooch, A Mother Delousing Her Child’s Hair, known as A Mother’s Duty, Jan Havicksz. Steen, Pieter de Hooch, Carel Fabrit,  1655,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 10 Mock-up that clarifies the larger spatial/architectural context for the implied site of Fabritius’s goldfinch and perch. Left side: detail in reverse from Jan Havicksz. Steen, Adolf and Catharina Croeser, known as The Burgher of Delft and His Daughter, 1655, oil on canvas, 82.5 x 68.5 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-4981 (artwork in the public domain). Right side: detail from Pieter de Hooch, A Mother Delousing Her Child’s Hair, known as A Mother’s Duty, ca. 1658–60, oil on canvas, 52.5 x 61 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-C-149 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Mock-up that clarifies  the larger spatial/architectural context for the implied site of Fabritius’s goldfinch and perch. Detail from Jan Havicksz. Steen, The Merry Family, Jan Havicksz. Steen, Carel Fabritius, 1668,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 11 Mock-up that clarifies  the larger spatial/architectural context for the implied site of Fabritius’s goldfinch and perch. Detail from Jan Havicksz. Steen, The Merry Family, 1668, oil on canvas, 110.5 x 141 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no.  SK-C-229 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Portrait of Abraham de Potter (1592–1650), Amsterdam Silk Merchant,  Carel Fabritius, 1649,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 12 Carel Fabritius, Portrait of Abraham de Potter (1592–1650), Amsterdam Silk Merchant, 1649, oil on canvas, 68.5 x 57 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-1591 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) [side-by-side viewer]
 Girl at a Window,  Rembrandt van Rijn, 1645,  Dulwich Picture Gallery
Fig. 13 Rembrandt van Rijn, Girl at a Window, 1645, oil on canvas, 81.8 x 66.2 cm. Dulwich Picture Gallery, inv. no. DPG163 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Girl at a Window,  Nicolaes Maes,  1650–60,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 14 Nicolaes Maes, Girl at a Window, 1650–60, oil on canvas, 123 x 96 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-245 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) [side-by-side viewer]
 Lady at Her Toilet,  Gerrit Dou, 1667,  Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam
Fig. 15 Gerrit Dou, Lady at Her Toilet, 1667, oil on panel, 75.5 x 58 cm. Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam, inv. no. 1186 (OK) (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Young Woman at Her Dressing Table (with opened frame),  Frans van Mieris, the Elder, 1667,  Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden
Fig. 16 Frans van Mieris, the Elder, Young Woman at Her Dressing Table (with opened frame), 1667, oil on panel, 27 x 22 cm. Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, inv. no. 1741 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: bpk, Berlin/Hans-Peter Klut/ Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden /Art Resource, NY) [side-by-side viewer]
 Petronella Oortman’s Dollhouse,  Anonymous,  ca. 1686–1710,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 17 Anonymous, Petronella Oortman’s Dollhouse, ca. 1686–1710, chest of oak, paint and tin, 255 x 190 x 78 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. BK-NM-1010 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) [side-by-side viewer]
  1. 1. Christopher Brown, Carel Fabritius: Complete Edition with a Catalogue Raisonné (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1981), 64, 88n14, 146–58 (Appendix A). In his 1667 publication Beschryvinge der Stad Delft (Description of the Town of Delft), Dirck van Bleyswijck recounted Fabritius’s biography and praised his art: “Carel Fabritius, an outstanding and excellent painter, who was so quick and sure in the use of perspective as well as natural colors and in putting them on canvas that (in the judgment of many connoisseurs) he has never had his equal” (Carel Fabricius, een seer voortreflijk en uytnemend konstschilder die in matery van perspectiven als mede natuyrlijk colorenen ofte leggen van sijn verwe soo prompt en vast was dat [na ‘t oordeel van veele konst-kenders] noch noyt sijns gelijck heeft gehad). Dirck van Bleyswijck, Beschrijvinge der stadt Delft (Delft: Arnold Bon, 1667), 2:852. Translation from Brown, Carel Fabritius, 62–63, 159 (Appendix B).

  2. 2. Ariane van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” in Carel Fabritius 1622-1654: Young Master Painter, exh. cat., Frederik J. Duparc (The Hague: Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2004), 135, cat. 11.

  3. 3. The Dutch words for a goldfinch are distelvink (thistle finch) and putter (water-drawer). The latter term refers to the fact that a goldfinch can be taught to open its own feeding box and draw its drinking water by lowering a small bucket on a chain into a container of water below and then retrieve the bucket. M. M. Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” in Miscellanea I.Q. van Regteren Altena 16/V/1969 (Amsterdam: Scheltema & Holkema, 1969), 155, 157.

  4. 4. Walter Liedtke, Michiel C. Plomp, and Axel Rüger, Vermeer and the Delft School, exh. cat. (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art//New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), 262.

  5. 5. Jørgen Wadum, “‘Het Puttertje’ gerestaureerd en doorgelicht,” Mauritshuis in Focus 17, no. 2 (2004), 28. Ariane van Suchtelen added: “The depiction’s low viewpoint seems to indicate that the subject was viewed from below and that the panel was thus intended to be placed high up on the wall.” Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 137.

  6. 6. For the information discussed in this and the following paragraph, see Wadum, “‘Het Puttertje,’” 26–28; and Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 136, 139nn14, 17.

  7. 7. Fabritius’s Goldfinch could not have functioned as a traditionally framed painting because of the panel’s atypical thickness and the lack of a beveled back edge to mount in a frame. Liedtke, Plomp, and Rüger, Vermeer and Delft School, 260. In 1950, Kjell Boström proposed that the painting may have been a door for a furniture cabinet or an interior wall niche. Kjell Boström, “De oorspronkelijke bestemming van C. Fabritius’s Putterje,” Oud Holland 65 (1950): 82–83. Brown, Carel Fabritius, 47, 127. However, Ariane van Suchtelen disputed such ideas because the scene’s “plastered wall would be a very strange choice for the background.” Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 137. In 1966, A. B. de Vries suggested that the picture probably functioned as a little door of a “painting case” (schilderijen kast or kasgen). A. B. de Vries and Magdi Tóth-Ubbens, In het licht van Vermeer: Vijf eeuwen schilderkunst, exh. cat. (The Hague: Mauritshuis, 1966), n. p., cat. 22. In 1970, M. L. Wurbain proposed the painting might have functioned as a shop sign for Cornelis de Putter, a shoemaker, wine- and bookseller in The Hague. The goldfinch (putter) on a sign for the wine shop may have alluded to the proprietor’s name and also referenced his wares since putten in Dutch means “pitching water or wine.” M. L. Wurfbain, “Hoe was het Putterje gebeeckt?,” in Opstellen voor H. van de Waal: Aangeboden door leerlingen en medewerkers, 3 maart 1970, ed. J. Bolten, C. H. A. Broos, and L. D. Couprie, Leidse kunsthistorische reeks (Amsterdam: Scheltema & Holkema/Leiden: Universitaire Pers, 1970), 155–61. Alternatively in 1981, Christopher Brown posited that Fabritius’s patron, Abraham de Potter (also spelled de Putter), might have commissioned the painting. See fig. 12 of this study; Brown, Carel Fabritius, 127. Some scholars have dismissed the possibility that the painting functioned as a shop sign, which typically exhibited the shop owner’s name rather than the artist’s signature. Also Fabritius would not have signed the panel so conspicuously. Liedtke, Plomp, and Rüger, Vermeer and Delft School, 260. Further, the painting would not have manifested such fine artistic technique. Brown, Carel Fabritius, 127. In 1987, Ben Broos proposed that The Goldfinch might have been affixed at the bottom to a physical element, perhaps a panel protruding at a ninety-degree angle, which may have depicted illusionistically the bird’s little pail attached to a line. Ben Broos, Meesterwerken in het Mauritshuis (The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij, 1987), 136. See note 3 above. In 1996, Mariët Westermann suggested without further elaboration that “Fabritius may well have embedded the small panel in a fake window, cabinet opening or wall to create a trompe-l’oeil effect.” Mariët Westermann, A Worldly Art: The Dutch Republic 1585–1718 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 88. Without providing detail, Walter Liedtke speculated in 2001 that the painting may have been part of “a construction physically (if not conceptually) similar to a design of a perspective box” or some other “ensemble.” Liedtke, Plomp, and Rüger, Vermeer and Delft School, 262. In 2004, based on Jørgen Wadum’s 2003 restoration of the painting, Ariane van Suchtelen agreed with A. B. de Vries’s 1966 conclusion that The Goldfinch probably functioned as a little door of a “painting case.” Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 136, 139nn13–15, 17–18.

  8. 8. I am writing a book-length study on the seventeenth-century Dutch neighborhood in art and culture.

  9. 9. The type of painting of an open window or window-niche has been referenced as a “window-niche piece” (vensternisstuk), “window-niche” (vensternis), or “niche piece” (nisstuk). Otto Naumann, Frans van Mieris, Aetas Aurea: Monographs on Dutch and Flemish Painting (Doornspijk: Davaco Publishers, 1981), 1:38n16, 58n46. Ronni Baer concluded that although the stone window frame with ledge seen in many of Gerrit Dou’s pictures is “neither a true window (which is often to be observed in the left-hand wall of the room depicted) nor a true niche (except in rare instances), it nevertheless alludes to these two forms.” Ronni Baer, with contributions by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. and Annetje Boersma, Gerrit Dou 1613-1675: Master Painter in the Age of Rembrandt, exh. cat., ed. Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 40–41. Martha Hollander invoked the seventeenth-century Dutch term doorsien (view through) for Dou’s window-niche paintings. Martha Hollander, An Entrance for the Eyes: Space and Meaning in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 8, 13, 18, 43, 50, 203n3.

  10. 10. See also the unattributed Perspective Box of a Dutch Interior, 1663, oil paint, glass mirror and walnut, 42.0 x 30.3 x 28.2 cm, Detroit Institute of Arts, Founders Society Purchase, General Membership Fund, inv. no. 35.101.A; see museum website.

  11. 11. Walter Liedtke, “The View in Delft by Carel Fabritius,” Burlington Magazine 118 (1976): 61–73.

  12. 12. Angela Ho called the window-niche in Dou’s paintings, which was one of his signature motifs, “a positive marketing ploy” of self-reflexive craftsmanship that appealed to collectors, who valued such illusionistic deceptions. Angela Ho, “Gerrit Dou’s Niche Pictures: Pictorial Repetition as Marketing Strategy,” Athanor 25 (2007): 59, 64. Celeste Brusati, Artifice and Illusion: The Art and Writings of Samuel van Hoogstraten (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).

  13. 13. Herman Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft,’ ‘Bruderlichkeit’ und ‘Einigkeit’: Städtische Nachbarschaften im Westen der Republik,” Ausbreitung bürgerlicher Kultur in den Niederlanden und Nordwestdeutschland, ed. P. H. T. Dekker, P. Post, and H. Siuts, Beiträge zur Volkskultur in Nordwestdeutschland 74 (Münster: T. Coppenrath Verlag, 1991), 13. Herman Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie van de vroegmoderne stad: de ‘gebuyrten’ in Leiden en Den Haag,” in Cultuur en maatschappij in Nederland 1500–1850: Een historisch-antropologisch perspectief, ed. Peter te Boekhorst, Peter Burke, and Willem Frijhoff (Meppel: Boom/Heerlen: Open Universiteit, 1992), 224, 232. Gabrielle Dorren, “Communities within the Community: Aspects of Neighbourhood in Seventeenth-Century Haarlem,” Urban History 25, part 2 (August 1998): 180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963926800000791

  14. 14. Roodenburg, “‘Freundshaft,’” 14, 16. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 221, 228, 229, 234–35, 239. Llewellyn Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur: Doorkijkjes in het Utrechtse buurtleven van de vroege middeleeuwen tot in de zeventiende eeuw,” Bijdragen en mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden 112 (1997): 336. Dorren, “Communities,” 180, 183. http://dx.doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.4507

  15. 15. Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft,’” 15. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 224. Catherina Lis and Hugo Soly, “Neighborhood Social Change in Western European Cities,” International Review of Social History 38 (1993): 5, 7. Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur,” 349, 357, 359. Dorren, “Communities,” 177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000111757

  16. 16. Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft,’” 11–13, 16, 18. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 233, 239.

  17. 17. Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft,’” 18. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 221, 239–40, 243.  Dorren, “Communities,” 183. Carl A. Hoffman, “Social Control and the Neighborhood in European Cities,” in Social Control in Europe 1500–1800, ed. Herman Roodenburg and Pieter Spierenburg (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2004), 318.

  18. 18. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 232. Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur,” 346–49. Hoffman, “Social Control,” 309–27. Pieter Spierenburg, “Social Control and History: An Introduction,” in Social Control in Europe (see note 17 above), 1–22.

  19. 19. Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur,” 340. Historians, sociologists, and social psychologists employ the terms “social control” and “social networks” referenced in this paragraph. Scholars speak of early modern neighborhoods in terms of the “theory of social control,” “social consciousness and collective identity,” and “social exchange.” Lis and Soly, “Neighborhood Social Change,” 3, 8–9, 11–12, 15, 30. Spierenburg, “Social Control,” 2–3, 5ff. 

  20. 20. Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft,’” 13–14. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 224, 233–34. Bogaers,  “Geleund over de onderdeur,” 340–42, 348.

  21. 21. Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur,” 346.

  22. 22. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 222–24.

  23. 23. Lis and Soly, “Neighborhood Social Change,” 15–16.

  24. 24. Dutch city archives hold extensive documentation of such neighborhood social exchange. See, for example, Dorren, “Communities”; Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur”; Lis and Soly, “Neighborhood Social Change”; Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft’”; and Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie.”

  25. 25. “[lichtplaetsen ghemaeckt voor de huysen na de straet toe] goet voor mans die niet en begeeren dat hun Vrouwe, of Dochters voor den veinsters ten thoon sitten, en besocht worden vande ghene die langhs de strate voorbygaen”; Simon Stevin, “Vande oirdeningh der Steden & Byvough der Stedenoirdening, vande oirdening der deelen eens hvis met ‘t gheene daer ancleeft,” in Materiae politicae: Burgherlicke stoffen, ed. H. Stevin (Leiden: Adryaen Rosenboom, 1649), 56. Translation from Heidi de Mare, “The Domestic Boundary as Ritual Area in Seventeenth-Century Holland,” in Urban Rituals in Italy and The Netherlands: Historical Contrasts in the Use of Public Space, Architecture and Urban Environment, ed. Heidi de Mare and Anna Vos (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp B.V., 1993), 109, 129n2.

  26. 26. See, for example, “Yes, door and window, above all, / They do quite a bit of harm as well, / (…) Thou, if you want to be of good praise, / Stay at home, that is the (virgin) maiden’s court.” (Ja deur en venster, boven dat, / Die schaden vry al mede wat, / (…), Gy, wilje zijn van goeden lof, / Blijf t’huys, dat is het maegden-hof); Jacob Cats, Alle de Wercken van den Heere Jacob Cats (Amsterdam: J. Ratelband . . ., 1712), 1:251. I am grateful to Dr. Allard Jongman, University of Kansas, for his assistance with the translation of the Cats excerpt. See also Heidi de Mare, “Het huis en de regels van het denken: Een cultuurhistorisch onderzoek naar het werk van Simon Stevin, Jacob Cats en Pieter de Hoogh,” PhD diss. (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2003), 347, 838n23. Elsewhere Heidi de Mare paraphrased Cats’s admonitions: “[The married woman] guards the house . . . by watching over people’s comings and goings. The housewife must therefore keep a watchful eye, and can never leave her post . . . Furthermore, she may not loiter at the window or in the doorway.” De Mare, “The Domestic Boundary,” 110, 129n3.

  27. 27. “altos aan haer deuren en vensters tegenwoordigh”; National Archives, The Hague, Court of Holland, 3.03.01.04, I A 17/1 (G). Donald Haks, Huwelijk en gezin in Holland in de 17de en 18de eeuw: Processtukken en moralisten over aspecten van het laat 17de- en 18de-eeuwse gezinsleven, 2nd ed., Hes historische herdrukken (Utrecht: HES, 1985), 66.

  28. 28. See, for example, Cornelis Lelienbergh’s Still Life of Finches, 1654, oil on canvas, 49.5 x 41.3 cm, Philadelphia Museum of Art, inv. no. W1902-1-19; see museum website. Brown, Carel Fabritius, 47.

  29. 29. Wayne Franits, Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting: Its Stylistic and Thematic Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 183.

  30. 30. Jacob Cats, Spiegel vanden ouden ende nieuwen tijdt (The Hague: Isaac Burchoorn, 1632), 1:69. Franits, Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting, 290n45. See, for example, Gabriel Metsu’s A Woman Seated in a Window, ca. 1661, oil on panel, 27.6 x 22.5 cm, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; see museum website.

  31. 31. Franits, Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting, 233–34, 298n66.

  32. 32. Eddy de Jongh, “Erotica in vogelperspectief: De dubbelzinnigheid van een reeks 17de eeuwse genrevoorstellingen,” Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 3, no. 1 (1968-1969): 29n14, 35n33, 40. See, for example, Frans van Mieris the Elder, A Woman with a Bird in a Small Coffer, 1676, oil on panel, 16.5 x 13.5 cm, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-C-182; see museum website.

  33. 33. See, for example, Gabriel Metsu, An Old Man Selling Poultry and Game, 1662, oil on panel, 61.5 x 45.5 cm, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden, inv. no. 1733; see Adriaan E. Waiboer, et al., Gabriel Metsu: Rediscovered Master of the Dutch Golden Age, exh. cat. (Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland/Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum/Washington, D.C.: National Gallery/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 74, 83, figs. 54 and 64.

  34. 34. Eddy de Jongh’s discussions of An Old Man Selling Poultry and Game focused on the elderly man, his female customer, and the bird that he offers her. De Jongh concluded that Metsu’s painting alludes to the erotic titillation and moral warnings inherent in the double meaning of “birding.” De Jongh, “Erotica in vogelperspectief,” 22–35. Eddy de Jongh, Tot lering en vermaak: Betekenissen van Hollandse genrevoorstellingen uit de zeventiende eeuw, exh. cat. (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 1976), 167–68.

  35. 35. J. A. Bierens de Haan, “Der Stieglitz als Schöpfer,” Journal für Ornithologie 81, no. 1 (January 1933). Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01932163

  36. 36. Herbert Friedmann, The Symbolic Goldfinch: Its History and Significance in European Devotional Art, The Bollingen Series (Washington, D.C.: Pantheon Books, 1946), 56.

  37. 37. In Joannes Sambucus’s Emblemata (Antwerp: Christ. Plantyn, 1566), a father provides his son a lesson in initiative and skill as they watch a goldfinch pull up a cord attached to a small vessel to access water from a glass below. Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 156–57.

  38. 38. Liedtke, Vermeer and the Delft School, 262.

  39. 39. Previous scholars have compared Fabritius’s goldfinch to the isolated detail of its counterpart in window/window-niche genre paintings, but they have not addressed the consistent placement of the little bird’s house/cage beside—or most often within—the jamb of the window/window-niche. Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken, naar een vogeltje” 157–58.

  40. 40. Some of the characteristics of the goldfinch’s gable house/cage can also be seen in earlier depictions of it, such as the miniature of Pope Cornelius and Bishop Cyprian by the Master of Catharine van Cleves, ca. 1445, in a manuscript now in the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York; see Eberhard König, “Ms. M. 917, p. 247, Pope Cornelius and Bishop Cyprian, head miniature for their common suffrage,” in The Hours of Catharine of Cleves: Devotion, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century, exh. cat., ed. Rob Dückers and Ruud Priem (New York: Abrams, 2009), 378–79, cat. 118.

  41. 41. As M. M. Tóth-Ubbens has observed, a goldfinch lived in the same type of house as its owner. Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 158. Two later extant goldfinch cages, one undated and one from the nineteenth century, also take the form of miniature houses although in somewhat different styles. They manifest their enduring conception as Dutch domestic architecture (goldfinch cages, 80 x 36 x 19 cm and 64 x 47 x 20.5 cm, Rijksmuseum voor Volkskunde “Het Nederlands Openluchtmuseum,” Arnhem). Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 159, 349, figs. 15 and 16.

  42. 42. Gerrit Dou’s Kitchen Scene, ca. 1645, offers the earliest example of such paintings and one which predates Fabritius’s panel by about nine years. The view through the foreground open window-niche into the interior space reveals the distinctive cage attached to the middle-ground wall immediately beside the second window (oil on panel, 41.5 x 30.5 cm, Royal Danish Kunstkammer 1793, National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, inv. no. KMS 1966; see museum website). Fabritius’s suggestive conception of the goldfinch’s placement within a window jamb did not depend on having seen Dou’s earlier painting from ca. 1645. Rather, the setting for Fabritius’s goldfinch appears to have been embedded in already familiar pictorial conventions.

  43. 43. See also, After Dou, Woman in a Window-niche with a Birdcage, oil on panel, dimensions unknown, Gemeentearchief, Tilburg, The Netherlands, inv. no. 5-02; see RKD (Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie) #118144; After Dou, Woman at the Window, oil on canvas, dimensions unknown, Musée Magnin, Dijon, France, Réunion des Musées Nationaux; see Art Resource, New York (ART343454); and Domenicus van Tol, Pipe Smoking Man, medium and dimensions unknown, formerly Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, Cologne, coll. Carstanjen; see Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 346–47, fig. 8.

  44. 44. In at least four other paintings, Abraham Mignon also depicted a goldfinch and its house/cage attached to the jamb of a niche (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, inv. no. A 580; Douai, Musée de la Chartreuse, inv. no. SK-A-266; Gemäldegalerie, Alte Meister, Kassel, Germany, inv.no. GK 445; and one in a private collection); see Magdalena Kraemer-Noble, Abraham Mignon 1640–1679: Catalogue Raisonné (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2007), 120–21, 122–23, 140–41, 260–61, cats. 37, 38, 47, and 105.

  45. 45. Peter Mundy, Travels in Europe, 1639-1647, vol. 4 of The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608–1667, ed. Richard Carnac Temple (London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1925), 70–71.

  46. 46. “Ses vogelkoyties, daer een pitterskoytie onder”; Fr. D. O. Obreen, Archief voor Nederlandsche kunstgeschiedenis. verzameling van meerendeels onuitgeven berichten en mededeelingen, vol. 5 (Rotterdam: W. J. van Hengel & Eeltjes, 1882-83), 295. Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 157n20.

  47. 47. See, for example, Quiringh Gerritsz. van Brekelenkam, The Tailor’s Workshop, 1661, oil on canvas, 66 x 53 cm, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-C-112; see museum website.

  48. 48. See, for example, Gerrit Dou, Man Interrupted at His Reading, ca. 1635, oil on panel, 24 x 22.5 cm, Sudley Castle Trustees, Winchcombe, Gloucestershire, Walter Morrison Collection; see Baer, Gerrit Dou, 71.

  49. 49. See note 6 above.

  50. 50. I thank Lisa Cloar for her digital realization of my two mock-ups.

  51. 51. Both Wadum and van Suchtelen noted that Fabritius painted his signature in gray. Wadum, “’Het Putterje,’” 28. Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 135.

  52. 52. Oil on panel, 65 x 49 cm, Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam; see Duparc, Carel Fabritius (see note 2 above), 112.

  53. 53. The Portrait of Abraham de Potter includes the sitter’s inscribed name and age in addition to Fabritius’s name and the painting’s date: Abraham de potter / Æ .56 / C. fabritius 1649. fe. An illusionistic nail protrudes from the wall between the inscribed lines.

  54. 54. The friend of literary luminaries and painters, Sweerts lived in Amsterdam and wrote, published, and sold numerous books, including The Ten Pleasures of Marriage (De tien vermakelijkheden van het huwelijk) in 1683. Ton Broos, “Street-Smarts in the Age of Rembrandt: Examining a Collection of Seventeenth Century Witty Inscriptions,” Canadian Journal of Netherlandic Studies 28 (2007): 187–90.

  55. 55. “Op een Leerkopers Venster”; Jeroen Jeroense (Hieronymus Sweerts), Koddige en ernstige opschriften, op luyffens, wagens, glazen, uithangborden, en andere taferelen. van langerhand by een gezamelt en uytgeschreven door een liefhebber derzelve (Amsterdam: Jeroen Jeroense, 1682), 1:98. I am grateful to Dr. Allard Jongman for his assistance with the translation of some of the excerpts from Sweerts’s publication.

  56. 56. “In den Haag, op een Venster, op de Geest”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:32.

  57. 57. “Te Deventer in’t huys van een Kuyper”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:90.

  58. 58. “In ‘t huis van een Rechts-geleerde”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:47.

  59. 59. “Tegen de Muur van ‘t huis”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:97.

  60. 60. “Opschrift voor een Huis”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1, 121.

  61. 61. “Een Buurman schreef naast zyn Deur”; Sweerts, Koddige, 3:68.

  62. 62. “Op een Muur met Potloot geschreven”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:61.

  63. 63. “Op de Muur van de Rol met een Potloot geschreven”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:69.

  64. 64. “Voor een Voge(?)-verkopers Huis”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:24.

  65. 65. “Tegen een Bakkers deur aangeschreven”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:85.

  66. 66. “Voor ‘t Huis van een Korenkoper”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:70.

  67. 67. “Voor een Toebakverkopers deur”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:96.

  68. 68. “Op de Muur by een Vuurwerk-maker”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:91.

  69. 69. “Boven de deur daar een Kopster woonde”; Sweerts, Koddige, 4:42.

  70. 70. “Te Delft in de Roode Meulen, by de Haagse Poort”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:73.

  71. 71. “Voor een Schilders Huis te Delft”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:30.

  72. 72. “Voor een huis te Delft, aan de Markt”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:19.

  73. 73. “Voor een Toebacks-winkel, te Delft”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:36.

  74. 74. “Voor een Kruideniers Deur geplakt, te Delft”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:71.

  75. 75. In his Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst, Samuel van Hoogstraten referred to “Fabritius, my fellow pupil” (Fabritius, mijn meedeleerling) in Rembrandt’s studio, which could not have been the case before 1642. Samuel van Hoogstraten, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst (Rotterdam: François van Hoogstraeten, 1678), book 1, p. 11. Duparc, Carel Fabritius, 17, 74n26.

  76. 76. Fabritius may also have known firsthand Rembrandt’s Girl at a Window and the picture’s trompe l’oeil display in the actual front window of the master’s home. The picture shares similarities of subject matter, composition, and viewer engagement with the painting A Girl with a Broom, 1651, oil on canvas, 107.3 x 91.4 cm, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; see museum website. The latter painting has been tentatively attributed to Fabritius or Rembrandt’s workshop. If the attribution to Fabritius were secure, one may argue that Rembrandt’s painting influenced Fabritius’s choice of subject and its pictorial conception. Like Girl at a Window, A Girl with a Broom depicts a half-length figure who peers directly out at the viewer. The relaxed upper body and arms of each girl are supported by a window ledge in the former painting and by a low gate in the latter. Scholars have concluded that the artist of A Girl with a Broom began the painting in 1646/48, soon after the 1645 date of Rembrandt’s picture.

  77. 77. De Piles based his publication on his Académie lectures. Roger de Piles, Coeurs de Peinture par Principes (Paris: Jacques Estienne, 1708). Michiel Roscam Abbing, “On the Provenance of Rembrandt’s Girl at a Window, Its First Owner, and an Intriguing Anecdote,” in Rembrandt van Rijn: “Girl at a Window,” exh. cat., ed. Kate Bomford, Ann Sumner, and Giles Waterfield, Paintings and Their Context 4 (Dulwich, England: Dulwich Picture Gallery, 1993), 22.

  78. 78. Roscam Abbing argued that the Dulwich painting was the Rembrandt picture owned by de Piles. Roscam Abbing, “On the Provenance,” 19–21. Michiel Roscam Abbing, Rembrandt Toont Sijn Konst: Bijdragen over Rembrandt-Dokumenten uit de Periode 1648–1756 (Leiden: Primavera Pers, 1999), 101–9. Several previous identifications of de Piles’s painting include, for example, A Girl with a Broom (see note 76 above), attributed to Fabritius or to Rembrandt’s workshop, and Rembrandt’s The Kitchen Maid, 1651, oil on canvas, 78 x 63 cm, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm; see museum website. Svetlana Alpers, The Making of Rubens (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 165–66n15.

  79. 79. “Rembrandt  . . .  se divertit un jour à faire le portrait de sa servante, pour l’exposer à une fenêtre & tromper les yeux des passans. Cela luy réussit; car on ne s’apperçut tot quelques jours aprés de la tromperie. Ce n’étoit, comme on peut bien se l’imaginer de Rembrandt, ny la beauté du dessein, ny la noblesse des expressions qui avoient produit cet effet. Etant in Hollande j’eus le curiosité de voir cette portrait que je trouvai d’un bonne pinceau & d’une grande force; je l’achetai, & il teint aujourd’hui une place considérable dans mons cabinet”; De Piles, Coeurs de Peinture, 10–11. Translation from Roscam Abbing, “On the Provenance,” 22.

  80. 80. Roscam Abbing, “On the Provenance,” 23. See Henk Snaterse’s photograph of a copy of Girl at a Window placed in the front window of Rembrandt’s house, in Roscam Abbing, Rembrandt Toont Sijn Konst, 110–11, figs. 31a-b, 32, 123–24.

  81. 81. “La veritable Peinture est donc celle que nous appelle (pour ainsi dire) en nous suprenant: & ce n’est que par la force de l’effect qu’elle produit, que nous ne pouvons nous empêcher d’en approcher comme si elle avoit quelque chose à nous dire . . . Je conclus que la veritable Peinture, doit appeler son spectateur par la force & par la grand verité de son imitation, & que le spectateur surpris doit aller à elle comme pour entrer en conversation avec les figures qu’elle represente”; De Piles, Coeurs de Peinture, 4, 6. “True painting, therefore, is such that not only surprises, but, as it were, calls to us; and has so powerful an effect, that we cannot help coming near it, as if it had something to tell us . . . On the whole, true painting, by the force and great truth of its imitation, ought, as I have observed, to call the spectator, to surprise him, and oblige him to approach it, as if he intended to converse with the figures”; Roger de Piles, The Principles of Painting (London: J. Osborn, at the Golden Ball, in Pater-Noster Row, 1743), 2–3. Svetlana Alpers, “Describe or Narrate? A Problem in Realistic Representation,” New Literary History 8, no. 1 (Autumn 1976): 27. Alpers, The Making of Rubens, 79, 165n14.

  82. 82. To offer a foil for Rembrandt’s Girl at a Window, de Piles relayed the experience of a friend, who walked through the Vatican without noticing the Raphael frescoes because they did not “call the viewer into conversation.” De Piles, Coeurs de Peinture, 14–17. Alpers, “Describe or Narrate?,” 27.

  83. 83. Alpers explained: “In his analysis it is the great colorists who call the viewer into conversation . . . De Piles is the first critic to link up in a positive and powerful way the two traditional aspects of color: 1.) its link with imitation and 2.) its powerful appeal to the eyes. In arguing imitation leads to a desired end of fooling the eyes and calling on the viewer, De Piles validated imitation in a new way by tying it to a desirable and newly defined end of art.” Alpers, “Describe or Narrate?,” 27–28.

  84. 84. De Piles would have been familiar with the essential role of domestic windows in both Dutch and French neighborhood social exchange. See David Garrioch, Neighbourhood and Community in Paris, 1740–1790 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 29.

  85. 85. Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 137.

  86. 86. Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 137.

  87. 87. See note 93 below.

  88. 88. See note 94 below.

  89. 89. Brown, Carel Fabritius, 124.

  90. 90. Annegret Laabs in De Leidse fijnschilders uit Dresden, exh. cat., Annegret Laabs and Christoph Schölzel (Dresden: Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen/Leiden: Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2001), 14.

  91. 91. The 1683 inventory taken after the death of Jacob Dissius’s wife, Magdalena van Ruijven, recorded that three paintings by Johannes Vermeer were in kasies, or what John Michael Montias translated as “cases or boxes.” John Michael Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web of Social History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 253, 256, 359, doc. 417.

  92. 92. Ingvar Bergström, Dutch Still-Life in the Seventeenth Century, trans. Christina Hedström and Gerald Taylor (London: Faber and Faber, 1956), 182, 310n83.

  93. 93. “Het stuckge van fabritius sijn [de] een kasge”; Notarial Archives (Notarieel Archief), notary C. van Vliet (no. 2029, act 27), Delft Municipal Archives (Gemeentearchief Delft). Brown, Carel Fabritius, 154 (Appendix A, doc. no. 30). Transcription and translation from Duparc, Carel Fabritius, 55, 76n144.

  94. 94. “Een casje van Fabritius”; Archives of the Orphans’ Chamber (Weeskamerarchief) (inv. no. 1086 m), document now lost in the Leiden Municipal Archives (Gemeentearchief Leiden). Abraham Bredius, “Nieuwe gegevens omtrent de schilders Fabritius,” Oud Holland 38 (1920): 129–37. Brown, Carel Fabritius, 157–58 (Appendix A, doc. no. 47). Duparc refers to the possibility that either Carel or Barent Fabritius may have been the attributed artist in the inventory. Duparc, Carel Fabritius, 55, 75n113, 76n145. Kjell Boström concluded that a kas described in the diminutive, that is, a kasje (or kasge and casje), had to have been a “little case” and not a perspective box. Kjell Boström, “Peep-show or Case?,” Kunsthistorische mededelingen van het Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie 4 (1949): 21. See also Boström (note 99 below).

  95. 95. Anonymous Utrecht student, “Notes of several passages and observations in Holland, etc., part of France, Savoy, Piemont, Italy and Part of Germany, from June 1699 to July 1702,” Huntingdon, England: County Record Office, 1699-1700, 1 in: Kees van Strien, Touring the Low Countries: Accounts of British Travellers, 1660–1720 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1998), 322.

  96. 96. In 1665, the collector Johan de Bye exhibited for sale twenty-seven paintings by Dou. Twenty-two of the pictures had protective covers. Boström, “Peep-show or Case?,” 21. Quentin Buvelot described the protective panels over the paintings by Dou owned by de Bye as “special cases.” Quentin Buvelot, et al., Frans van Mieris 1635-1681, exh. cat., (The Hague: Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis/Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2005), 21–22. Van Suchtelen referred to the “doors” by Dou. Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 137, fig. 11c. Eric Jan Sluijter stated that the protective panel(s) of twenty-two of the twenty-seven pictures by Dou owned by de Bye were described as a “case” and two “of those” had doors. Six of the eleven paintings by Dou owned by another seventeenth-century collector, Franciscus de le Boe Sylvius, a medical professor in Leiden, had protective cases and five had protective doors with pictures on them. Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘All striving to adorne their houses with costly peeces’: Two Case Studies of Paintings in Wealthy Interiors,” in Art and Home: Dutch Interiors in the Age of Rembrandt, exh. cat., ed. Marlene Chambers and Mariët Westermann (Denver Art Museum/The Newark Museum/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2001), 107–8, 229nn35, 36.

  97. 97. Oil on panel, 30.5 x 25.4 cm, private collection, Switzerland; see Baer, Gerrit Dou, 49n111, 110–11. Still Life with Candlestick and Clock, ca. 1660, oil on panel, 43.5 x 35.7 cm, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden; see Art Resource, New York (ART419476)—the shutter hinged to The Wine Cellar—depicted a frontal view of still-life objects in an illusionistic stone-wall niche.

  98. 98. Franciscus de le Boe Sylvius owned Dou’s Lady at Her Toilet, which was described in the 1678 inventory of his nephew, Jean Rouyer, as “a woman whose hair is being done, with casement doors on which a nursing woman with candlelight” (een vrouwtie dat gekapt wordt, met openslaende deur en daerop een suygende vrouwtie bij de lamp). Translation from Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘Een stuck waerin een jufr. voor de spiegel van Gerrit Dou,’” Antiek 23 (1988): 152. Baer, Gerrit Dou, 143n1. Sluijter, “‘All striving to adorne their houses,’” 229n37.

  99. 99. Oil on canvas, 40.3 x 35.6 cm, Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art, Widener Collection; see museum website. Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., Johannes Vermeer, exh. cat., (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art /The Hague: Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis/New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 141. Scholars assume that Vermeer’s Woman Holding a Balance was one of three paintings by the artist in cases or boxes (kasies) listed in a 1678 inventory of possessions inherited by Jacob Dissius. Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, 253, 256, 359, doc. 417. Wheelock, Johannes Vermeer, 145n16. The subsequent sale catalogue from 1696 of Dissius’s paintings included a picture by Vermeer, which was listed first and described in the following way: “A young lady weighing gold, in [a case or] a box by J. van der Meer of Delft, extraordinarily artful and vigorously painted” (Een Juffrouw die goud weegt, in een kasje van J. vander Meer van Delft, extraordinaer konstig en krachtig geschildert). Translation from Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, 256, 363, doc. 439. Kjell Boström argued that the protective panel described in the first entry in the Amsterdam sale from 1696 of Vermeer’s paintings had to have been a “little case” and not a perspective box, which the diminutive would not have appropriately referenced. Typically unwieldy in scale, a perspective box was described most often as a perspectyfkas. Further, if the kasje signified a perspective box, the term would have been mentioned first in the auction entry because contemporaries regarded the perspectyfkas so highly and as “wonderful” (wonderlijk). Boström, “Peep-show or Case?,” 21.

  100. 100. According to Ronni Baer, the wine as “love’s nectar,” the mousetrap as “the symbol of love’s sweet slavery,” and “the milk jug, the cabbage and the candle, with their uterine and phallic shapes, reinforce the erotic undertone of the scene.” Baer, Gerrit Dou, 110.

  101. 101. See note 32 above.

  102. 102. Baer, Gerrit Dou, 128.

  103. 103. Michelle Moseley-Christian, “Seventeenth Century Pronk Poppenhuisen: Domestic Space and the Ritual Function of Dutch Dollhouses for Women,” Home Cultures 7, no. 3 (November 2010): 344. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175174210X12785760502298

  104. 104. Originally, the other two extant seventeenth-century Dutch dollhouses also had hinged protective panels, although they are now missing from the one in Utrecht (ca. 1670–90, multimedia, 206.5 x 189 x 79 cm, Centraal Museum, Utrecht, inv. no. 5000; see museum website). When the two opaque panels close over the open side of the second of the two Amsterdam dollhouses (ca. 1676), a window in each provides a view into a room (multimedia, 200 x 150.5 x 56 cm, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, BK-14656; see museum website). Moseley-Christian, “Seventeenth Century Pronk Poppenhuisen,” 353, 356–57, fig. 7.

  105. 105. See note 6 above. 

Alpers, Svetlana. “Describe or Narrate? A Problem in Realistic Representation.” New Literary History 8, no. 1 (Autumn, 1976): 15–41.

_______. The Making of Rubens. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Baer, Ronni, with contributions by Arthur K. Wheelock and Annetje Boersma. Gerrit Dou, 1613–1675: Master Painter in the Age of Rembrandt. Exh. cat., edited by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Bergström, Ingvar. Dutch Still-Life Painting in the Seventeenth Century. Translated by Christina Hedström and Gerald Taylor. London: Faber and Faber, 1956.

Bierens de Haan, J. A. “Der Stieglitz als Schöpfer.” Journal für Ornithologie 81, no. 1 (January 1933): 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01932163

Bleyswijck, Dirck van. Beschrijvinge der stadt Delft. Delft: Arnold Bon, 1667.

Bogaers, Llewellyn. “Geleund over de onderdeur: Doorkijkjes in het Utrechtse buurtleven van de vroege middeleeuwen tot in de zeventiende eeuw.” Bijdragen en mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden 112 (1997): 336–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.4507

Boström, Kjell. “De oorspronkelijke bestemming van C. Fabritius’s Putterje.” Oud Holland 65 (1950): 81–83.

_______. “Peep-show or Case?” Kunsthistorische mededelingen van het Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie 4 (1949): 21–24.

Bredius, Abraham. “Nieuwe gegevens omtrent de schilders Fabritius.” Oud Holland 38 (1920): 129–37.

Broos, Ben. Meesterwerken in het Mauritshuis. The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij, 1987.

Broos, Ton. “Street-Smarts in the Age of Rembrandt: Examining a Collection of Seventeenth Century Witty Inscriptions.” Canadian Journal of Netherlandic Studies 28 (2007): 187–202.

Brown, Christopher. Carel Fabritius: Complete Edition with a Catalogue Raisonné.  Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1981.

Brusati, Celeste. Artifice and Illusion: The Art and Writing of Samuel van Hoogstraten. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Buvelot, Quentin, et al. Frans van Mieris 1635–1681. Exh. cat. The Hague: Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis/Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art /Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2005.

Cats, Jacob. Alle de Wercken van den Heere Jacob Cats. 2 vols. Amsterdam: J. Ratelband . . . , 1712.

_______. Spiegel vanden ouden ende nieuwen tijdt. 3 vols. The Hague: Isaac Burchoorn, 1632.

Dorren, Gabrielle. “Communities within the Community: Aspects of Neighborhood in Seventeenth-Century Haarlem.” Urban History 25, no. 2 (August 1998): 173–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963926800000791

Duparc, Frederik J., with contributions by Gero Seelig and Ariane van Suchtelen. Carel Fabritius 1622–1654: Young Master Painter. Exh. cat. The Hague: Royal Cabinet of Paintings, Mauritshuis/Schwerin: Staatliches Museum/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2004.

Franits, Wayne. Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting: Its Stylistic and Thematic Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.

Friedmann, Herbert. The Symbolic Goldfinch: Its History and Significance in European Devotional Art. The Bollingen Series. Washington, D.C.: Pantheon Books, 1946.

Garrioch, David. Neighbourhood and Community in Paris, 1740–1790. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Haks, Donald. Huwelijk en gezin in Holland in de 17de en 18de eeuw: Processtukken en moralisten over aspecten van het laat 17de- en 18de-eeuwse gezinsleven. 2nd ed. Hes historische herdrukken. Utrecht: HES, 1985.

Ho, Angela. “Gerrit Dou’s Niche Pictures: Pictorial Repetition as Marketing Strategy.” Athanor 25 (2007): 59–67.

Hoffman, Carl A. “Social Control and the Neighborhood in European Cities.” In Social Control in Europe 1500–1800, edited by Herman Roodenburg and Pieter Spierenburg, 309–27. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2004.

Hollander, Martha. An Entrance for the Eyes: Space and Meaning in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Hoogstraten, Samuel van. Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst. Rotterdam: François van Hoogstraeten, 1678

Jeroensze, Jeroen (Hieronymus Sweerts). Koddige en ernstige opschriften, op luyffens, wagens, glazen, uithangborden, en andere taferelen. van langerhand by een gezamelt en uytgeschreven door een liefhebber derzelve. 4 vols. Amsterdam: Jeroen Jeroense, 1682.

Jongh, Eddy de. “Erotica in vogelperspectief: De dubbelzinnigheid van een reeks 17de eeuwse genrevoorstellingen.” Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 3, no. 1 (1968–69): 22–74.

_______. Tot lering en vermaak: Betekenissen van Hollandse genrevoorstellingen uit de zeventiende eeuw. Exh. cat. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 1976.

König, Eberhard. “Ms. M. 917, p. 247, Pope Cornelius and Bishop Cyprian, head miniature for their common suffrage.” In The Hours of Catharine of Cleves: Devotion, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century. Exh. cat., edited by Rob Dückers and Ruud Priem, 378–79 (cat. 118). New York: Abrams, 2009.

Kraemer-Noble, Magdalena. Abraham Mignon 1640–1679: Catalogue Raisonné. Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2007.

Laabs, Annegret, and Christoph Schölzel. De Leidse fijnschilders uit Dresden. Exh. cat. Dresden: Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen/Leiden: Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2001.

Liedtke, Walter. “The View in Delft by Carel Fabritius.” Burlington Magazine 118 (1976): 61–73.

Liedtke, Walter, Michiel C. Plomp, and Axel Rüger, with contributions by Reinier Baarsen, Marten Jan Bok, Jan Daniël van Dam, James David Draper, Ebeltje Hartkamp-Jonxis, and Kees Kaldenbach. Vermeer and the Delft School. Exh. cat. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art//New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.

Lis, Catherina, and Hugo Soly. “Neighborhood Social Change in Western European Cities.” International Review of Social History 38 (1993): 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000111757

Mare, Heidi de. “Het huis en de regels van het denken: Een cultuurhistorisch onderzoek naar het werk van Simon Stevin, Jacob Cats en Pieter de Hoogh.” PhD diss. Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, 2003.

_______. “The Domestic Boundary as Ritual Area in Seventeenth-Century Holland.” In Urban Rituals in Italy and The Netherlands: Historical Contrasts in the Use of Public Space, Architecture and Urban Environment, edited by Heidi de Mare and Anna Vos, 108–31. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp, 1993.

Montias, John Michael. Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web of Social History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Moseley-Christian, Michelle. “Seventeenth-Century Pronk Poppenhuisen: Domestic Space and the Ritual Function of Dutch Dollhouses for Women.” Home Cultures 7, no. 3 (November 2010): 341–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175174210X12785760502298

Mundy, Peter. Travels in Europe, 1639–1647. Edited by Richard Carnac Temple. Vol. 4 of The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608–1667. London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1925.

Naumann, Otto. Frans van Mieris. 2 vols, Aetas Aurea: Monographs on Dutch and Flemish Painting. Doornspijk: Davaco Publishers, 1981.

Obreen, Fr. D. O.  Archief voor Nederlandsche kunstgeschiedenis: Verzameling van meerendeels onuitgeven berichten en mededeelingen. Vol. 5. Rotterdam: W. J. van Hengel & Eeltjes, 1882–83.

Piles, Roger de. Abregé de la Vie des Peintres, Avec Réflexions sur Leur Ouvrages. 2nd ed. Paris: Jacques Estienne, 1715.

_______. Coeurs de Peinture par Principes. Paris: Jacques Estienne, 1708.

_______. The Principles of Painting. London: J. Osborn, at the Golden Ball, in Pater-Noster Row, 1743.

Roodenburg, Herman. “‘Freundschaft,’ ‘Bruderlichkeit’ und ‘Einigkeit’: Städtische Nachbarschaften im Westen der Republik.” In Ausbreitung bürgerlicher Kultur in den Niederlanden und Nordwestdeutschland, edited by P. H. T. Dekker, P. Post, and H. Siuts, 10–24. Beiträge zur Volkskultur in Nordwestdeutschland 74. Münster: T. Coppenrath Verlag, 1991.

_______. “Naar een etnografie van de vroegmoderne stad: de ‘gebuyrten’ in Leiden en Den Haag.” In Cultuur en maatschappij in Nederland 1500–1850: Een historisch-antropologisch perspectief, edited by Peter te Boekhorst, Peter Burke, and Willem Frijhoff, 219–43. Meppel: Boom and Heerlen: Open Universiteit, 1992.

Roscam Abbing, Michiel. “On the Provenance of Rembrandt’s Girl at a Window, Its First Owner, and an Intriguing Anecdote.” In Rembrandt van Rijn: “Girl at a Window.” Exh. cat., edited by Kate Bomford, Ann Sumner, and Giles Waterfield, 19–24. Paintings and Their Context 4. Dulwich, Great Britain: Dulwich Picture Gallery, 1993.

_______. Rembrandt Toont Sijn Konst: Bijdragen over Rembrandt-Dokumenten uit de Periode 1648–1756. Leiden: Primavera Pers, 1999.

Sambucus, Joannes. Emblemata. Antwerp: Christ. Plantyn, 1566.

Sluijter, Eric Jan. “‘All striving to adorne their houses with costly peeces’: Two Case Studies of Paintings in Wealthy Interiors.” In Art and Home: Dutch Interiors in the Age of Rembrandt. Exh. cat., edited by Marlene Chambers and Mariët Westermann, 103–27. Denver Art Museum/The Newark Museum/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2001.

_______. “‘Een stuck waerin een jufr. voor de spiegel van Gerrit Dou.’” Antiek 23 (1988): 150–61.

Spierenburg, Pieter. “Social Control and History: An Introduction.” In Social Control in Europe 1500–1800, edited by Herman Roodenburg and Pieter Spierenburg, 1–22. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2004.

Stevin, Simon. “Vande oirdeningh der Steden & Byvough der Stedenoirdening, vande oirdening der deelen eens hvis met ‘t gheene daer ancleeft.” In Materiae politicae: Burgherlicke stoffen, edited by H. Stevin, 3–128. Leiden: Adryaen Rosenboom, 1649.

Strien, Kees van. Touring the Low Countries: Accounts of British Travellers, 1660–1720. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1998.

Suchtelen, Ariane van. “The Goldfinch.” In Carel Fabritius 1622–1654: Young Master Painter. Exh. cat., edited by Frederik J. Duparc, 133–40 (cat. 11). The Hague: Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis/Schwerin: Staatliches Museum/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2004.

Tóth-Ubbens, M. M. “Kijken naar een vogeltje.” In Miscellanea I.Q. van Regteren Altena 16/V/1969, 155–59, 346–49. Amsterdam: Scheltema and Holkema, 1969.

Vries, A. B. de, and Magdi Tóth-Ubbens. In het licht van Vermeer: Vijf eeuwen schilderkunst. Exh. cat. The Hague: Mauritshuis, 1966.

Wadum, Jørgen. “‘Het Puttertje’ gerestaureerd en doorgelicht.” Mauritshuis in Focus 17, no. 2 (2004): 24–30.

Waiboer, Adriaan E., et al., Gabriel Metsu: Rediscovered Master of the Dutch Golden Age. Exh. cat. Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland/Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum/Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

Westerman, Mariët Westermann. A Worldly Art: The Dutch Republic 1585–1718. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

Wheelock, Arthur K., Jr. Johannes Vermeer. Exh. cat. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art/The Hague: Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis/New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Wurfbain, M. L. “Hoe was het Putterje gebeeckt?” In Opstellen voor H. van de Waal. Aangeboden door leerlingen en medewerkers, 3 maart 1970, edited by J. Bolten, C. H. A. Broos, and L. D. Couprie, 155–61. Leidse kunsthistorische reeks. Amsterdam: Scheltema and Holkema/Leiden: Universitaire Pers, 1970.

List of Illustrations

 The Goldfinch,   Carel Fabritius, 1654,  Mauritshuis, The Hague
Fig. 1 Carel Fabritius, The Goldfinch, 1654, oil on panel, 33.5 x 22.8 cm. Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 605 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: Mauritshuis, The Hague) [side-by-side viewer]
 A Peepshow with Views of the Interior of a Dutch House (detail: interior right),   Samuel van Hoogstraten,  1655–60,  National Gallery of Art, London
Fig. 2 Samuel van Hoogstraten, A Peepshow with Views of the Interior of a Dutch House (detail: interior right), 1655–60, oil and egg on wood, 58 x 88 x 60.5 cm. National Gallery of Art, London, inv. no. NG 3832.D7 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: © National Gallery of Art, London/Art Resource, NY) [side-by-side viewer]
 A View of Delft with a Musical Instrument Seller’s Stall,   Carel Fabritius,  1652,  National Gallery of Art, London, presented by the National Art Collections Fund,1922
Fig. 3 Carel Fabritius, A View of Delft with a Musical Instrument Seller’s Stall, 1652, oil on canvas, 15.4 x 31.6 cm. National Gallery of Art, London, presented by the National Art Collections Fund, 1922, inv. no. NG3714 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 The Maidservant,   Nicolaes Maes,  ca. 1659,  Dordrechts Museum (on loan from the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Amsterdam)
Fig. 4 Nicolaes Maes, The Maidservant, ca. 1659, oil on panel, 57.3 x 41.6 cm. Dordrechts Museum (on loan from the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Amsterdam), inv. no. NK3045 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Young Girl at the Window,  Gerrit Dou, 1662,  Galleria Sabauda, Turin
Fig. 5 Gerrit Dou, Young Girl at the Window, 1662, oil on panel, 38 x 29 cm. Galleria Sabauda, Turin, inv. no. 377 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 A Girl with a Basket of Fruit at a Window,   Gerrit Dou, 1657,  The James A. De Rothschild Collection at Waddesdon Manor, Aylesbury, Great Britain
Fig. 6 Gerrit Dou, A Girl with a Basket of Fruit at a Window, 1657, oil on panel, 37.5 x 29.1 cm. The James A. De Rothschild Collection at Waddesdon Manor, Aylesbury, Great Britain, inv. no. 2573 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Woman at a Window with a Copper Bowl of Apples and a Cock Pheasant,   Gerrit Dou, 1663,  Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
Fig. 7 Gerrit Dou, Woman at a Window with a Copper Bowl of Apples and a Cock Pheasant, 1663, oil on panel, 38.5 x 27.7 cm. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, inv. no. 34 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Boy and Girl Blowing Soap Bubbles,  Matthijs Naiveu,  ca. 1700,  Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Museum purchase with funds donated by contribution
Fig. 8 Matthijs Naiveu, Boy and Girl Blowing Soap Bubbles, ca. 1700, oil on canvas, 49.6 x 41.6 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Museum purchase with funds donated by contribution, inv. no. 89.506 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: © Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) [side-by-side viewer]
 Still Life with Fruit and a Goldfinch,  Abraham Mignon,  1660-79,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 9 Abraham Mignon, Still Life with Fruit and a Goldfinch, 1660-79, oil on canvas, 78 x 67 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-266 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) [side-by-side viewer]
 Mock-up that clarifies the larger spatial/architectural context for the implied site of Fabritius’s goldfinch and perch. Left side: detail in reverse from Jan Havicksz. Steen, Adolf and Catharina Croeser, known as The Burgher of Delft and His Daughter.  Right side: detail from Pieter de Hooch, A Mother Delousing Her Child’s Hair, known as A Mother’s Duty, Jan Havicksz. Steen, Pieter de Hooch, Carel Fabrit,  1655,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 10 Mock-up that clarifies the larger spatial/architectural context for the implied site of Fabritius’s goldfinch and perch. Left side: detail in reverse from Jan Havicksz. Steen, Adolf and Catharina Croeser, known as The Burgher of Delft and His Daughter, 1655, oil on canvas, 82.5 x 68.5 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-4981 (artwork in the public domain). Right side: detail from Pieter de Hooch, A Mother Delousing Her Child’s Hair, known as A Mother’s Duty, ca. 1658–60, oil on canvas, 52.5 x 61 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-C-149 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Mock-up that clarifies  the larger spatial/architectural context for the implied site of Fabritius’s goldfinch and perch. Detail from Jan Havicksz. Steen, The Merry Family, Jan Havicksz. Steen, Carel Fabritius, 1668,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 11 Mock-up that clarifies  the larger spatial/architectural context for the implied site of Fabritius’s goldfinch and perch. Detail from Jan Havicksz. Steen, The Merry Family, 1668, oil on canvas, 110.5 x 141 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no.  SK-C-229 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Portrait of Abraham de Potter (1592–1650), Amsterdam Silk Merchant,  Carel Fabritius, 1649,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 12 Carel Fabritius, Portrait of Abraham de Potter (1592–1650), Amsterdam Silk Merchant, 1649, oil on canvas, 68.5 x 57 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-1591 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) [side-by-side viewer]
 Girl at a Window,  Rembrandt van Rijn, 1645,  Dulwich Picture Gallery
Fig. 13 Rembrandt van Rijn, Girl at a Window, 1645, oil on canvas, 81.8 x 66.2 cm. Dulwich Picture Gallery, inv. no. DPG163 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Girl at a Window,  Nicolaes Maes,  1650–60,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 14 Nicolaes Maes, Girl at a Window, 1650–60, oil on canvas, 123 x 96 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-245 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) [side-by-side viewer]
 Lady at Her Toilet,  Gerrit Dou, 1667,  Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam
Fig. 15 Gerrit Dou, Lady at Her Toilet, 1667, oil on panel, 75.5 x 58 cm. Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam, inv. no. 1186 (OK) (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
 Young Woman at Her Dressing Table (with opened frame),  Frans van Mieris, the Elder, 1667,  Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden
Fig. 16 Frans van Mieris, the Elder, Young Woman at Her Dressing Table (with opened frame), 1667, oil on panel, 27 x 22 cm. Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, inv. no. 1741 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: bpk, Berlin/Hans-Peter Klut/ Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden /Art Resource, NY) [side-by-side viewer]
 Petronella Oortman’s Dollhouse,  Anonymous,  ca. 1686–1710,  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 17 Anonymous, Petronella Oortman’s Dollhouse, ca. 1686–1710, chest of oak, paint and tin, 255 x 190 x 78 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. BK-NM-1010 (artwork in the public domain; photo credit: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) [side-by-side viewer]

Footnotes

  1. 1. Christopher Brown, Carel Fabritius: Complete Edition with a Catalogue Raisonné (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1981), 64, 88n14, 146–58 (Appendix A). In his 1667 publication Beschryvinge der Stad Delft (Description of the Town of Delft), Dirck van Bleyswijck recounted Fabritius’s biography and praised his art: “Carel Fabritius, an outstanding and excellent painter, who was so quick and sure in the use of perspective as well as natural colors and in putting them on canvas that (in the judgment of many connoisseurs) he has never had his equal” (Carel Fabricius, een seer voortreflijk en uytnemend konstschilder die in matery van perspectiven als mede natuyrlijk colorenen ofte leggen van sijn verwe soo prompt en vast was dat [na ‘t oordeel van veele konst-kenders] noch noyt sijns gelijck heeft gehad). Dirck van Bleyswijck, Beschrijvinge der stadt Delft (Delft: Arnold Bon, 1667), 2:852. Translation from Brown, Carel Fabritius, 62–63, 159 (Appendix B).

  2. 2. Ariane van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” in Carel Fabritius 1622-1654: Young Master Painter, exh. cat., Frederik J. Duparc (The Hague: Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2004), 135, cat. 11.

  3. 3. The Dutch words for a goldfinch are distelvink (thistle finch) and putter (water-drawer). The latter term refers to the fact that a goldfinch can be taught to open its own feeding box and draw its drinking water by lowering a small bucket on a chain into a container of water below and then retrieve the bucket. M. M. Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” in Miscellanea I.Q. van Regteren Altena 16/V/1969 (Amsterdam: Scheltema & Holkema, 1969), 155, 157.

  4. 4. Walter Liedtke, Michiel C. Plomp, and Axel Rüger, Vermeer and the Delft School, exh. cat. (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art//New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), 262.

  5. 5. Jørgen Wadum, “‘Het Puttertje’ gerestaureerd en doorgelicht,” Mauritshuis in Focus 17, no. 2 (2004), 28. Ariane van Suchtelen added: “The depiction’s low viewpoint seems to indicate that the subject was viewed from below and that the panel was thus intended to be placed high up on the wall.” Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 137.

  6. 6. For the information discussed in this and the following paragraph, see Wadum, “‘Het Puttertje,’” 26–28; and Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 136, 139nn14, 17.

  7. 7. Fabritius’s Goldfinch could not have functioned as a traditionally framed painting because of the panel’s atypical thickness and the lack of a beveled back edge to mount in a frame. Liedtke, Plomp, and Rüger, Vermeer and Delft School, 260. In 1950, Kjell Boström proposed that the painting may have been a door for a furniture cabinet or an interior wall niche. Kjell Boström, “De oorspronkelijke bestemming van C. Fabritius’s Putterje,” Oud Holland 65 (1950): 82–83. Brown, Carel Fabritius, 47, 127. However, Ariane van Suchtelen disputed such ideas because the scene’s “plastered wall would be a very strange choice for the background.” Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 137. In 1966, A. B. de Vries suggested that the picture probably functioned as a little door of a “painting case” (schilderijen kast or kasgen). A. B. de Vries and Magdi Tóth-Ubbens, In het licht van Vermeer: Vijf eeuwen schilderkunst, exh. cat. (The Hague: Mauritshuis, 1966), n. p., cat. 22. In 1970, M. L. Wurbain proposed the painting might have functioned as a shop sign for Cornelis de Putter, a shoemaker, wine- and bookseller in The Hague. The goldfinch (putter) on a sign for the wine shop may have alluded to the proprietor’s name and also referenced his wares since putten in Dutch means “pitching water or wine.” M. L. Wurfbain, “Hoe was het Putterje gebeeckt?,” in Opstellen voor H. van de Waal: Aangeboden door leerlingen en medewerkers, 3 maart 1970, ed. J. Bolten, C. H. A. Broos, and L. D. Couprie, Leidse kunsthistorische reeks (Amsterdam: Scheltema & Holkema/Leiden: Universitaire Pers, 1970), 155–61. Alternatively in 1981, Christopher Brown posited that Fabritius’s patron, Abraham de Potter (also spelled de Putter), might have commissioned the painting. See fig. 12 of this study; Brown, Carel Fabritius, 127. Some scholars have dismissed the possibility that the painting functioned as a shop sign, which typically exhibited the shop owner’s name rather than the artist’s signature. Also Fabritius would not have signed the panel so conspicuously. Liedtke, Plomp, and Rüger, Vermeer and Delft School, 260. Further, the painting would not have manifested such fine artistic technique. Brown, Carel Fabritius, 127. In 1987, Ben Broos proposed that The Goldfinch might have been affixed at the bottom to a physical element, perhaps a panel protruding at a ninety-degree angle, which may have depicted illusionistically the bird’s little pail attached to a line. Ben Broos, Meesterwerken in het Mauritshuis (The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij, 1987), 136. See note 3 above. In 1996, Mariët Westermann suggested without further elaboration that “Fabritius may well have embedded the small panel in a fake window, cabinet opening or wall to create a trompe-l’oeil effect.” Mariët Westermann, A Worldly Art: The Dutch Republic 1585–1718 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 88. Without providing detail, Walter Liedtke speculated in 2001 that the painting may have been part of “a construction physically (if not conceptually) similar to a design of a perspective box” or some other “ensemble.” Liedtke, Plomp, and Rüger, Vermeer and Delft School, 262. In 2004, based on Jørgen Wadum’s 2003 restoration of the painting, Ariane van Suchtelen agreed with A. B. de Vries’s 1966 conclusion that The Goldfinch probably functioned as a little door of a “painting case.” Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 136, 139nn13–15, 17–18.

  8. 8. I am writing a book-length study on the seventeenth-century Dutch neighborhood in art and culture.

  9. 9. The type of painting of an open window or window-niche has been referenced as a “window-niche piece” (vensternisstuk), “window-niche” (vensternis), or “niche piece” (nisstuk). Otto Naumann, Frans van Mieris, Aetas Aurea: Monographs on Dutch and Flemish Painting (Doornspijk: Davaco Publishers, 1981), 1:38n16, 58n46. Ronni Baer concluded that although the stone window frame with ledge seen in many of Gerrit Dou’s pictures is “neither a true window (which is often to be observed in the left-hand wall of the room depicted) nor a true niche (except in rare instances), it nevertheless alludes to these two forms.” Ronni Baer, with contributions by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. and Annetje Boersma, Gerrit Dou 1613-1675: Master Painter in the Age of Rembrandt, exh. cat., ed. Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 40–41. Martha Hollander invoked the seventeenth-century Dutch term doorsien (view through) for Dou’s window-niche paintings. Martha Hollander, An Entrance for the Eyes: Space and Meaning in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 8, 13, 18, 43, 50, 203n3.

  10. 10. See also the unattributed Perspective Box of a Dutch Interior, 1663, oil paint, glass mirror and walnut, 42.0 x 30.3 x 28.2 cm, Detroit Institute of Arts, Founders Society Purchase, General Membership Fund, inv. no. 35.101.A; see museum website.

  11. 11. Walter Liedtke, “The View in Delft by Carel Fabritius,” Burlington Magazine 118 (1976): 61–73.

  12. 12. Angela Ho called the window-niche in Dou’s paintings, which was one of his signature motifs, “a positive marketing ploy” of self-reflexive craftsmanship that appealed to collectors, who valued such illusionistic deceptions. Angela Ho, “Gerrit Dou’s Niche Pictures: Pictorial Repetition as Marketing Strategy,” Athanor 25 (2007): 59, 64. Celeste Brusati, Artifice and Illusion: The Art and Writings of Samuel van Hoogstraten (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).

  13. 13. Herman Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft,’ ‘Bruderlichkeit’ und ‘Einigkeit’: Städtische Nachbarschaften im Westen der Republik,” Ausbreitung bürgerlicher Kultur in den Niederlanden und Nordwestdeutschland, ed. P. H. T. Dekker, P. Post, and H. Siuts, Beiträge zur Volkskultur in Nordwestdeutschland 74 (Münster: T. Coppenrath Verlag, 1991), 13. Herman Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie van de vroegmoderne stad: de ‘gebuyrten’ in Leiden en Den Haag,” in Cultuur en maatschappij in Nederland 1500–1850: Een historisch-antropologisch perspectief, ed. Peter te Boekhorst, Peter Burke, and Willem Frijhoff (Meppel: Boom/Heerlen: Open Universiteit, 1992), 224, 232. Gabrielle Dorren, “Communities within the Community: Aspects of Neighbourhood in Seventeenth-Century Haarlem,” Urban History 25, part 2 (August 1998): 180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963926800000791

  14. 14. Roodenburg, “‘Freundshaft,’” 14, 16. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 221, 228, 229, 234–35, 239. Llewellyn Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur: Doorkijkjes in het Utrechtse buurtleven van de vroege middeleeuwen tot in de zeventiende eeuw,” Bijdragen en mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden 112 (1997): 336. Dorren, “Communities,” 180, 183. http://dx.doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.4507

  15. 15. Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft,’” 15. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 224. Catherina Lis and Hugo Soly, “Neighborhood Social Change in Western European Cities,” International Review of Social History 38 (1993): 5, 7. Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur,” 349, 357, 359. Dorren, “Communities,” 177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000111757

  16. 16. Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft,’” 11–13, 16, 18. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 233, 239.

  17. 17. Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft,’” 18. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 221, 239–40, 243.  Dorren, “Communities,” 183. Carl A. Hoffman, “Social Control and the Neighborhood in European Cities,” in Social Control in Europe 1500–1800, ed. Herman Roodenburg and Pieter Spierenburg (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2004), 318.

  18. 18. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 232. Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur,” 346–49. Hoffman, “Social Control,” 309–27. Pieter Spierenburg, “Social Control and History: An Introduction,” in Social Control in Europe (see note 17 above), 1–22.

  19. 19. Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur,” 340. Historians, sociologists, and social psychologists employ the terms “social control” and “social networks” referenced in this paragraph. Scholars speak of early modern neighborhoods in terms of the “theory of social control,” “social consciousness and collective identity,” and “social exchange.” Lis and Soly, “Neighborhood Social Change,” 3, 8–9, 11–12, 15, 30. Spierenburg, “Social Control,” 2–3, 5ff. 

  20. 20. Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft,’” 13–14. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 224, 233–34. Bogaers,  “Geleund over de onderdeur,” 340–42, 348.

  21. 21. Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur,” 346.

  22. 22. Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie,” 222–24.

  23. 23. Lis and Soly, “Neighborhood Social Change,” 15–16.

  24. 24. Dutch city archives hold extensive documentation of such neighborhood social exchange. See, for example, Dorren, “Communities”; Bogaers, “Geleund over de onderdeur”; Lis and Soly, “Neighborhood Social Change”; Roodenburg, “‘Freundschaft’”; and Roodenburg, “Naar een etnografie.”

  25. 25. “[lichtplaetsen ghemaeckt voor de huysen na de straet toe] goet voor mans die niet en begeeren dat hun Vrouwe, of Dochters voor den veinsters ten thoon sitten, en besocht worden vande ghene die langhs de strate voorbygaen”; Simon Stevin, “Vande oirdeningh der Steden & Byvough der Stedenoirdening, vande oirdening der deelen eens hvis met ‘t gheene daer ancleeft,” in Materiae politicae: Burgherlicke stoffen, ed. H. Stevin (Leiden: Adryaen Rosenboom, 1649), 56. Translation from Heidi de Mare, “The Domestic Boundary as Ritual Area in Seventeenth-Century Holland,” in Urban Rituals in Italy and The Netherlands: Historical Contrasts in the Use of Public Space, Architecture and Urban Environment, ed. Heidi de Mare and Anna Vos (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp B.V., 1993), 109, 129n2.

  26. 26. See, for example, “Yes, door and window, above all, / They do quite a bit of harm as well, / (…) Thou, if you want to be of good praise, / Stay at home, that is the (virgin) maiden’s court.” (Ja deur en venster, boven dat, / Die schaden vry al mede wat, / (…), Gy, wilje zijn van goeden lof, / Blijf t’huys, dat is het maegden-hof); Jacob Cats, Alle de Wercken van den Heere Jacob Cats (Amsterdam: J. Ratelband . . ., 1712), 1:251. I am grateful to Dr. Allard Jongman, University of Kansas, for his assistance with the translation of the Cats excerpt. See also Heidi de Mare, “Het huis en de regels van het denken: Een cultuurhistorisch onderzoek naar het werk van Simon Stevin, Jacob Cats en Pieter de Hoogh,” PhD diss. (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2003), 347, 838n23. Elsewhere Heidi de Mare paraphrased Cats’s admonitions: “[The married woman] guards the house . . . by watching over people’s comings and goings. The housewife must therefore keep a watchful eye, and can never leave her post . . . Furthermore, she may not loiter at the window or in the doorway.” De Mare, “The Domestic Boundary,” 110, 129n3.

  27. 27. “altos aan haer deuren en vensters tegenwoordigh”; National Archives, The Hague, Court of Holland, 3.03.01.04, I A 17/1 (G). Donald Haks, Huwelijk en gezin in Holland in de 17de en 18de eeuw: Processtukken en moralisten over aspecten van het laat 17de- en 18de-eeuwse gezinsleven, 2nd ed., Hes historische herdrukken (Utrecht: HES, 1985), 66.

  28. 28. See, for example, Cornelis Lelienbergh’s Still Life of Finches, 1654, oil on canvas, 49.5 x 41.3 cm, Philadelphia Museum of Art, inv. no. W1902-1-19; see museum website. Brown, Carel Fabritius, 47.

  29. 29. Wayne Franits, Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting: Its Stylistic and Thematic Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 183.

  30. 30. Jacob Cats, Spiegel vanden ouden ende nieuwen tijdt (The Hague: Isaac Burchoorn, 1632), 1:69. Franits, Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting, 290n45. See, for example, Gabriel Metsu’s A Woman Seated in a Window, ca. 1661, oil on panel, 27.6 x 22.5 cm, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; see museum website.

  31. 31. Franits, Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting, 233–34, 298n66.

  32. 32. Eddy de Jongh, “Erotica in vogelperspectief: De dubbelzinnigheid van een reeks 17de eeuwse genrevoorstellingen,” Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 3, no. 1 (1968-1969): 29n14, 35n33, 40. See, for example, Frans van Mieris the Elder, A Woman with a Bird in a Small Coffer, 1676, oil on panel, 16.5 x 13.5 cm, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-C-182; see museum website.

  33. 33. See, for example, Gabriel Metsu, An Old Man Selling Poultry and Game, 1662, oil on panel, 61.5 x 45.5 cm, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden, inv. no. 1733; see Adriaan E. Waiboer, et al., Gabriel Metsu: Rediscovered Master of the Dutch Golden Age, exh. cat. (Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland/Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum/Washington, D.C.: National Gallery/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 74, 83, figs. 54 and 64.

  34. 34. Eddy de Jongh’s discussions of An Old Man Selling Poultry and Game focused on the elderly man, his female customer, and the bird that he offers her. De Jongh concluded that Metsu’s painting alludes to the erotic titillation and moral warnings inherent in the double meaning of “birding.” De Jongh, “Erotica in vogelperspectief,” 22–35. Eddy de Jongh, Tot lering en vermaak: Betekenissen van Hollandse genrevoorstellingen uit de zeventiende eeuw, exh. cat. (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 1976), 167–68.

  35. 35. J. A. Bierens de Haan, “Der Stieglitz als Schöpfer,” Journal für Ornithologie 81, no. 1 (January 1933). Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01932163

  36. 36. Herbert Friedmann, The Symbolic Goldfinch: Its History and Significance in European Devotional Art, The Bollingen Series (Washington, D.C.: Pantheon Books, 1946), 56.

  37. 37. In Joannes Sambucus’s Emblemata (Antwerp: Christ. Plantyn, 1566), a father provides his son a lesson in initiative and skill as they watch a goldfinch pull up a cord attached to a small vessel to access water from a glass below. Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 156–57.

  38. 38. Liedtke, Vermeer and the Delft School, 262.

  39. 39. Previous scholars have compared Fabritius’s goldfinch to the isolated detail of its counterpart in window/window-niche genre paintings, but they have not addressed the consistent placement of the little bird’s house/cage beside—or most often within—the jamb of the window/window-niche. Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken, naar een vogeltje” 157–58.

  40. 40. Some of the characteristics of the goldfinch’s gable house/cage can also be seen in earlier depictions of it, such as the miniature of Pope Cornelius and Bishop Cyprian by the Master of Catharine van Cleves, ca. 1445, in a manuscript now in the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York; see Eberhard König, “Ms. M. 917, p. 247, Pope Cornelius and Bishop Cyprian, head miniature for their common suffrage,” in The Hours of Catharine of Cleves: Devotion, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century, exh. cat., ed. Rob Dückers and Ruud Priem (New York: Abrams, 2009), 378–79, cat. 118.

  41. 41. As M. M. Tóth-Ubbens has observed, a goldfinch lived in the same type of house as its owner. Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 158. Two later extant goldfinch cages, one undated and one from the nineteenth century, also take the form of miniature houses although in somewhat different styles. They manifest their enduring conception as Dutch domestic architecture (goldfinch cages, 80 x 36 x 19 cm and 64 x 47 x 20.5 cm, Rijksmuseum voor Volkskunde “Het Nederlands Openluchtmuseum,” Arnhem). Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 159, 349, figs. 15 and 16.

  42. 42. Gerrit Dou’s Kitchen Scene, ca. 1645, offers the earliest example of such paintings and one which predates Fabritius’s panel by about nine years. The view through the foreground open window-niche into the interior space reveals the distinctive cage attached to the middle-ground wall immediately beside the second window (oil on panel, 41.5 x 30.5 cm, Royal Danish Kunstkammer 1793, National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, inv. no. KMS 1966; see museum website). Fabritius’s suggestive conception of the goldfinch’s placement within a window jamb did not depend on having seen Dou’s earlier painting from ca. 1645. Rather, the setting for Fabritius’s goldfinch appears to have been embedded in already familiar pictorial conventions.

  43. 43. See also, After Dou, Woman in a Window-niche with a Birdcage, oil on panel, dimensions unknown, Gemeentearchief, Tilburg, The Netherlands, inv. no. 5-02; see RKD (Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie) #118144; After Dou, Woman at the Window, oil on canvas, dimensions unknown, Musée Magnin, Dijon, France, Réunion des Musées Nationaux; see Art Resource, New York (ART343454); and Domenicus van Tol, Pipe Smoking Man, medium and dimensions unknown, formerly Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, Cologne, coll. Carstanjen; see Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 346–47, fig. 8.

  44. 44. In at least four other paintings, Abraham Mignon also depicted a goldfinch and its house/cage attached to the jamb of a niche (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, inv. no. A 580; Douai, Musée de la Chartreuse, inv. no. SK-A-266; Gemäldegalerie, Alte Meister, Kassel, Germany, inv.no. GK 445; and one in a private collection); see Magdalena Kraemer-Noble, Abraham Mignon 1640–1679: Catalogue Raisonné (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2007), 120–21, 122–23, 140–41, 260–61, cats. 37, 38, 47, and 105.

  45. 45. Peter Mundy, Travels in Europe, 1639-1647, vol. 4 of The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608–1667, ed. Richard Carnac Temple (London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1925), 70–71.

  46. 46. “Ses vogelkoyties, daer een pitterskoytie onder”; Fr. D. O. Obreen, Archief voor Nederlandsche kunstgeschiedenis. verzameling van meerendeels onuitgeven berichten en mededeelingen, vol. 5 (Rotterdam: W. J. van Hengel & Eeltjes, 1882-83), 295. Tóth-Ubbens, “Kijken naar een vogeltje,” 157n20.

  47. 47. See, for example, Quiringh Gerritsz. van Brekelenkam, The Tailor’s Workshop, 1661, oil on canvas, 66 x 53 cm, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-C-112; see museum website.

  48. 48. See, for example, Gerrit Dou, Man Interrupted at His Reading, ca. 1635, oil on panel, 24 x 22.5 cm, Sudley Castle Trustees, Winchcombe, Gloucestershire, Walter Morrison Collection; see Baer, Gerrit Dou, 71.

  49. 49. See note 6 above.

  50. 50. I thank Lisa Cloar for her digital realization of my two mock-ups.

  51. 51. Both Wadum and van Suchtelen noted that Fabritius painted his signature in gray. Wadum, “’Het Putterje,’” 28. Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 135.

  52. 52. Oil on panel, 65 x 49 cm, Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam; see Duparc, Carel Fabritius (see note 2 above), 112.

  53. 53. The Portrait of Abraham de Potter includes the sitter’s inscribed name and age in addition to Fabritius’s name and the painting’s date: Abraham de potter / Æ .56 / C. fabritius 1649. fe. An illusionistic nail protrudes from the wall between the inscribed lines.

  54. 54. The friend of literary luminaries and painters, Sweerts lived in Amsterdam and wrote, published, and sold numerous books, including The Ten Pleasures of Marriage (De tien vermakelijkheden van het huwelijk) in 1683. Ton Broos, “Street-Smarts in the Age of Rembrandt: Examining a Collection of Seventeenth Century Witty Inscriptions,” Canadian Journal of Netherlandic Studies 28 (2007): 187–90.

  55. 55. “Op een Leerkopers Venster”; Jeroen Jeroense (Hieronymus Sweerts), Koddige en ernstige opschriften, op luyffens, wagens, glazen, uithangborden, en andere taferelen. van langerhand by een gezamelt en uytgeschreven door een liefhebber derzelve (Amsterdam: Jeroen Jeroense, 1682), 1:98. I am grateful to Dr. Allard Jongman for his assistance with the translation of some of the excerpts from Sweerts’s publication.

  56. 56. “In den Haag, op een Venster, op de Geest”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:32.

  57. 57. “Te Deventer in’t huys van een Kuyper”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:90.

  58. 58. “In ‘t huis van een Rechts-geleerde”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:47.

  59. 59. “Tegen de Muur van ‘t huis”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:97.

  60. 60. “Opschrift voor een Huis”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1, 121.

  61. 61. “Een Buurman schreef naast zyn Deur”; Sweerts, Koddige, 3:68.

  62. 62. “Op een Muur met Potloot geschreven”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:61.

  63. 63. “Op de Muur van de Rol met een Potloot geschreven”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:69.

  64. 64. “Voor een Voge(?)-verkopers Huis”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:24.

  65. 65. “Tegen een Bakkers deur aangeschreven”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:85.

  66. 66. “Voor ‘t Huis van een Korenkoper”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:70.

  67. 67. “Voor een Toebakverkopers deur”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:96.

  68. 68. “Op de Muur by een Vuurwerk-maker”; Sweerts, Koddige, 1:91.

  69. 69. “Boven de deur daar een Kopster woonde”; Sweerts, Koddige, 4:42.

  70. 70. “Te Delft in de Roode Meulen, by de Haagse Poort”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:73.

  71. 71. “Voor een Schilders Huis te Delft”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:30.

  72. 72. “Voor een huis te Delft, aan de Markt”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:19.

  73. 73. “Voor een Toebacks-winkel, te Delft”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:36.

  74. 74. “Voor een Kruideniers Deur geplakt, te Delft”; Sweerts, Koddige, 2:71.

  75. 75. In his Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst, Samuel van Hoogstraten referred to “Fabritius, my fellow pupil” (Fabritius, mijn meedeleerling) in Rembrandt’s studio, which could not have been the case before 1642. Samuel van Hoogstraten, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst (Rotterdam: François van Hoogstraeten, 1678), book 1, p. 11. Duparc, Carel Fabritius, 17, 74n26.

  76. 76. Fabritius may also have known firsthand Rembrandt’s Girl at a Window and the picture’s trompe l’oeil display in the actual front window of the master’s home. The picture shares similarities of subject matter, composition, and viewer engagement with the painting A Girl with a Broom, 1651, oil on canvas, 107.3 x 91.4 cm, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; see museum website. The latter painting has been tentatively attributed to Fabritius or Rembrandt’s workshop. If the attribution to Fabritius were secure, one may argue that Rembrandt’s painting influenced Fabritius’s choice of subject and its pictorial conception. Like Girl at a Window, A Girl with a Broom depicts a half-length figure who peers directly out at the viewer. The relaxed upper body and arms of each girl are supported by a window ledge in the former painting and by a low gate in the latter. Scholars have concluded that the artist of A Girl with a Broom began the painting in 1646/48, soon after the 1645 date of Rembrandt’s picture.

  77. 77. De Piles based his publication on his Académie lectures. Roger de Piles, Coeurs de Peinture par Principes (Paris: Jacques Estienne, 1708). Michiel Roscam Abbing, “On the Provenance of Rembrandt’s Girl at a Window, Its First Owner, and an Intriguing Anecdote,” in Rembrandt van Rijn: “Girl at a Window,” exh. cat., ed. Kate Bomford, Ann Sumner, and Giles Waterfield, Paintings and Their Context 4 (Dulwich, England: Dulwich Picture Gallery, 1993), 22.

  78. 78. Roscam Abbing argued that the Dulwich painting was the Rembrandt picture owned by de Piles. Roscam Abbing, “On the Provenance,” 19–21. Michiel Roscam Abbing, Rembrandt Toont Sijn Konst: Bijdragen over Rembrandt-Dokumenten uit de Periode 1648–1756 (Leiden: Primavera Pers, 1999), 101–9. Several previous identifications of de Piles’s painting include, for example, A Girl with a Broom (see note 76 above), attributed to Fabritius or to Rembrandt’s workshop, and Rembrandt’s The Kitchen Maid, 1651, oil on canvas, 78 x 63 cm, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm; see museum website. Svetlana Alpers, The Making of Rubens (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 165–66n15.

  79. 79. “Rembrandt  . . .  se divertit un jour à faire le portrait de sa servante, pour l’exposer à une fenêtre & tromper les yeux des passans. Cela luy réussit; car on ne s’apperçut tot quelques jours aprés de la tromperie. Ce n’étoit, comme on peut bien se l’imaginer de Rembrandt, ny la beauté du dessein, ny la noblesse des expressions qui avoient produit cet effet. Etant in Hollande j’eus le curiosité de voir cette portrait que je trouvai d’un bonne pinceau & d’une grande force; je l’achetai, & il teint aujourd’hui une place considérable dans mons cabinet”; De Piles, Coeurs de Peinture, 10–11. Translation from Roscam Abbing, “On the Provenance,” 22.

  80. 80. Roscam Abbing, “On the Provenance,” 23. See Henk Snaterse’s photograph of a copy of Girl at a Window placed in the front window of Rembrandt’s house, in Roscam Abbing, Rembrandt Toont Sijn Konst, 110–11, figs. 31a-b, 32, 123–24.

  81. 81. “La veritable Peinture est donc celle que nous appelle (pour ainsi dire) en nous suprenant: & ce n’est que par la force de l’effect qu’elle produit, que nous ne pouvons nous empêcher d’en approcher comme si elle avoit quelque chose à nous dire . . . Je conclus que la veritable Peinture, doit appeler son spectateur par la force & par la grand verité de son imitation, & que le spectateur surpris doit aller à elle comme pour entrer en conversation avec les figures qu’elle represente”; De Piles, Coeurs de Peinture, 4, 6. “True painting, therefore, is such that not only surprises, but, as it were, calls to us; and has so powerful an effect, that we cannot help coming near it, as if it had something to tell us . . . On the whole, true painting, by the force and great truth of its imitation, ought, as I have observed, to call the spectator, to surprise him, and oblige him to approach it, as if he intended to converse with the figures”; Roger de Piles, The Principles of Painting (London: J. Osborn, at the Golden Ball, in Pater-Noster Row, 1743), 2–3. Svetlana Alpers, “Describe or Narrate? A Problem in Realistic Representation,” New Literary History 8, no. 1 (Autumn 1976): 27. Alpers, The Making of Rubens, 79, 165n14.

  82. 82. To offer a foil for Rembrandt’s Girl at a Window, de Piles relayed the experience of a friend, who walked through the Vatican without noticing the Raphael frescoes because they did not “call the viewer into conversation.” De Piles, Coeurs de Peinture, 14–17. Alpers, “Describe or Narrate?,” 27.

  83. 83. Alpers explained: “In his analysis it is the great colorists who call the viewer into conversation . . . De Piles is the first critic to link up in a positive and powerful way the two traditional aspects of color: 1.) its link with imitation and 2.) its powerful appeal to the eyes. In arguing imitation leads to a desired end of fooling the eyes and calling on the viewer, De Piles validated imitation in a new way by tying it to a desirable and newly defined end of art.” Alpers, “Describe or Narrate?,” 27–28.

  84. 84. De Piles would have been familiar with the essential role of domestic windows in both Dutch and French neighborhood social exchange. See David Garrioch, Neighbourhood and Community in Paris, 1740–1790 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 29.

  85. 85. Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 137.

  86. 86. Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 137.

  87. 87. See note 93 below.

  88. 88. See note 94 below.

  89. 89. Brown, Carel Fabritius, 124.

  90. 90. Annegret Laabs in De Leidse fijnschilders uit Dresden, exh. cat., Annegret Laabs and Christoph Schölzel (Dresden: Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen/Leiden: Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2001), 14.

  91. 91. The 1683 inventory taken after the death of Jacob Dissius’s wife, Magdalena van Ruijven, recorded that three paintings by Johannes Vermeer were in kasies, or what John Michael Montias translated as “cases or boxes.” John Michael Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web of Social History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 253, 256, 359, doc. 417.

  92. 92. Ingvar Bergström, Dutch Still-Life in the Seventeenth Century, trans. Christina Hedström and Gerald Taylor (London: Faber and Faber, 1956), 182, 310n83.

  93. 93. “Het stuckge van fabritius sijn [de] een kasge”; Notarial Archives (Notarieel Archief), notary C. van Vliet (no. 2029, act 27), Delft Municipal Archives (Gemeentearchief Delft). Brown, Carel Fabritius, 154 (Appendix A, doc. no. 30). Transcription and translation from Duparc, Carel Fabritius, 55, 76n144.

  94. 94. “Een casje van Fabritius”; Archives of the Orphans’ Chamber (Weeskamerarchief) (inv. no. 1086 m), document now lost in the Leiden Municipal Archives (Gemeentearchief Leiden). Abraham Bredius, “Nieuwe gegevens omtrent de schilders Fabritius,” Oud Holland 38 (1920): 129–37. Brown, Carel Fabritius, 157–58 (Appendix A, doc. no. 47). Duparc refers to the possibility that either Carel or Barent Fabritius may have been the attributed artist in the inventory. Duparc, Carel Fabritius, 55, 75n113, 76n145. Kjell Boström concluded that a kas described in the diminutive, that is, a kasje (or kasge and casje), had to have been a “little case” and not a perspective box. Kjell Boström, “Peep-show or Case?,” Kunsthistorische mededelingen van het Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie 4 (1949): 21. See also Boström (note 99 below).

  95. 95. Anonymous Utrecht student, “Notes of several passages and observations in Holland, etc., part of France, Savoy, Piemont, Italy and Part of Germany, from June 1699 to July 1702,” Huntingdon, England: County Record Office, 1699-1700, 1 in: Kees van Strien, Touring the Low Countries: Accounts of British Travellers, 1660–1720 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1998), 322.

  96. 96. In 1665, the collector Johan de Bye exhibited for sale twenty-seven paintings by Dou. Twenty-two of the pictures had protective covers. Boström, “Peep-show or Case?,” 21. Quentin Buvelot described the protective panels over the paintings by Dou owned by de Bye as “special cases.” Quentin Buvelot, et al., Frans van Mieris 1635-1681, exh. cat., (The Hague: Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis/Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2005), 21–22. Van Suchtelen referred to the “doors” by Dou. Van Suchtelen, “The Goldfinch,” 137, fig. 11c. Eric Jan Sluijter stated that the protective panel(s) of twenty-two of the twenty-seven pictures by Dou owned by de Bye were described as a “case” and two “of those” had doors. Six of the eleven paintings by Dou owned by another seventeenth-century collector, Franciscus de le Boe Sylvius, a medical professor in Leiden, had protective cases and five had protective doors with pictures on them. Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘All striving to adorne their houses with costly peeces’: Two Case Studies of Paintings in Wealthy Interiors,” in Art and Home: Dutch Interiors in the Age of Rembrandt, exh. cat., ed. Marlene Chambers and Mariët Westermann (Denver Art Museum/The Newark Museum/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2001), 107–8, 229nn35, 36.

  97. 97. Oil on panel, 30.5 x 25.4 cm, private collection, Switzerland; see Baer, Gerrit Dou, 49n111, 110–11. Still Life with Candlestick and Clock, ca. 1660, oil on panel, 43.5 x 35.7 cm, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden; see Art Resource, New York (ART419476)—the shutter hinged to The Wine Cellar—depicted a frontal view of still-life objects in an illusionistic stone-wall niche.

  98. 98. Franciscus de le Boe Sylvius owned Dou’s Lady at Her Toilet, which was described in the 1678 inventory of his nephew, Jean Rouyer, as “a woman whose hair is being done, with casement doors on which a nursing woman with candlelight” (een vrouwtie dat gekapt wordt, met openslaende deur en daerop een suygende vrouwtie bij de lamp). Translation from Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘Een stuck waerin een jufr. voor de spiegel van Gerrit Dou,’” Antiek 23 (1988): 152. Baer, Gerrit Dou, 143n1. Sluijter, “‘All striving to adorne their houses,’” 229n37.

  99. 99. Oil on canvas, 40.3 x 35.6 cm, Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art, Widener Collection; see museum website. Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., Johannes Vermeer, exh. cat., (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art /The Hague: Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis/New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 141. Scholars assume that Vermeer’s Woman Holding a Balance was one of three paintings by the artist in cases or boxes (kasies) listed in a 1678 inventory of possessions inherited by Jacob Dissius. Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, 253, 256, 359, doc. 417. Wheelock, Johannes Vermeer, 145n16. The subsequent sale catalogue from 1696 of Dissius’s paintings included a picture by Vermeer, which was listed first and described in the following way: “A young lady weighing gold, in [a case or] a box by J. van der Meer of Delft, extraordinarily artful and vigorously painted” (Een Juffrouw die goud weegt, in een kasje van J. vander Meer van Delft, extraordinaer konstig en krachtig geschildert). Translation from Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, 256, 363, doc. 439. Kjell Boström argued that the protective panel described in the first entry in the Amsterdam sale from 1696 of Vermeer’s paintings had to have been a “little case” and not a perspective box, which the diminutive would not have appropriately referenced. Typically unwieldy in scale, a perspective box was described most often as a perspectyfkas. Further, if the kasje signified a perspective box, the term would have been mentioned first in the auction entry because contemporaries regarded the perspectyfkas so highly and as “wonderful” (wonderlijk). Boström, “Peep-show or Case?,” 21.

  100. 100. According to Ronni Baer, the wine as “love’s nectar,” the mousetrap as “the symbol of love’s sweet slavery,” and “the milk jug, the cabbage and the candle, with their uterine and phallic shapes, reinforce the erotic undertone of the scene.” Baer, Gerrit Dou, 110.

  101. 101. See note 32 above.

  102. 102. Baer, Gerrit Dou, 128.

  103. 103. Michelle Moseley-Christian, “Seventeenth Century Pronk Poppenhuisen: Domestic Space and the Ritual Function of Dutch Dollhouses for Women,” Home Cultures 7, no. 3 (November 2010): 344. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175174210X12785760502298

  104. 104. Originally, the other two extant seventeenth-century Dutch dollhouses also had hinged protective panels, although they are now missing from the one in Utrecht (ca. 1670–90, multimedia, 206.5 x 189 x 79 cm, Centraal Museum, Utrecht, inv. no. 5000; see museum website). When the two opaque panels close over the open side of the second of the two Amsterdam dollhouses (ca. 1676), a window in each provides a view into a room (multimedia, 200 x 150.5 x 56 cm, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, BK-14656; see museum website). Moseley-Christian, “Seventeenth Century Pronk Poppenhuisen,” 353, 356–57, fig. 7.

  105. 105. See note 6 above. 

Bibliography

Alpers, Svetlana. “Describe or Narrate? A Problem in Realistic Representation.” New Literary History 8, no. 1 (Autumn, 1976): 15–41.

_______. The Making of Rubens. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Baer, Ronni, with contributions by Arthur K. Wheelock and Annetje Boersma. Gerrit Dou, 1613–1675: Master Painter in the Age of Rembrandt. Exh. cat., edited by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Bergström, Ingvar. Dutch Still-Life Painting in the Seventeenth Century. Translated by Christina Hedström and Gerald Taylor. London: Faber and Faber, 1956.

Bierens de Haan, J. A. “Der Stieglitz als Schöpfer.” Journal für Ornithologie 81, no. 1 (January 1933): 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01932163

Bleyswijck, Dirck van. Beschrijvinge der stadt Delft. Delft: Arnold Bon, 1667.

Bogaers, Llewellyn. “Geleund over de onderdeur: Doorkijkjes in het Utrechtse buurtleven van de vroege middeleeuwen tot in de zeventiende eeuw.” Bijdragen en mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden 112 (1997): 336–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.4507

Boström, Kjell. “De oorspronkelijke bestemming van C. Fabritius’s Putterje.” Oud Holland 65 (1950): 81–83.

_______. “Peep-show or Case?” Kunsthistorische mededelingen van het Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie 4 (1949): 21–24.

Bredius, Abraham. “Nieuwe gegevens omtrent de schilders Fabritius.” Oud Holland 38 (1920): 129–37.

Broos, Ben. Meesterwerken in het Mauritshuis. The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij, 1987.

Broos, Ton. “Street-Smarts in the Age of Rembrandt: Examining a Collection of Seventeenth Century Witty Inscriptions.” Canadian Journal of Netherlandic Studies 28 (2007): 187–202.

Brown, Christopher. Carel Fabritius: Complete Edition with a Catalogue Raisonné.  Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1981.

Brusati, Celeste. Artifice and Illusion: The Art and Writing of Samuel van Hoogstraten. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Buvelot, Quentin, et al. Frans van Mieris 1635–1681. Exh. cat. The Hague: Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis/Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art /Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2005.

Cats, Jacob. Alle de Wercken van den Heere Jacob Cats. 2 vols. Amsterdam: J. Ratelband . . . , 1712.

_______. Spiegel vanden ouden ende nieuwen tijdt. 3 vols. The Hague: Isaac Burchoorn, 1632.

Dorren, Gabrielle. “Communities within the Community: Aspects of Neighborhood in Seventeenth-Century Haarlem.” Urban History 25, no. 2 (August 1998): 173–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963926800000791

Duparc, Frederik J., with contributions by Gero Seelig and Ariane van Suchtelen. Carel Fabritius 1622–1654: Young Master Painter. Exh. cat. The Hague: Royal Cabinet of Paintings, Mauritshuis/Schwerin: Staatliches Museum/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2004.

Franits, Wayne. Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting: Its Stylistic and Thematic Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.

Friedmann, Herbert. The Symbolic Goldfinch: Its History and Significance in European Devotional Art. The Bollingen Series. Washington, D.C.: Pantheon Books, 1946.

Garrioch, David. Neighbourhood and Community in Paris, 1740–1790. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Haks, Donald. Huwelijk en gezin in Holland in de 17de en 18de eeuw: Processtukken en moralisten over aspecten van het laat 17de- en 18de-eeuwse gezinsleven. 2nd ed. Hes historische herdrukken. Utrecht: HES, 1985.

Ho, Angela. “Gerrit Dou’s Niche Pictures: Pictorial Repetition as Marketing Strategy.” Athanor 25 (2007): 59–67.

Hoffman, Carl A. “Social Control and the Neighborhood in European Cities.” In Social Control in Europe 1500–1800, edited by Herman Roodenburg and Pieter Spierenburg, 309–27. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2004.

Hollander, Martha. An Entrance for the Eyes: Space and Meaning in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Hoogstraten, Samuel van. Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst. Rotterdam: François van Hoogstraeten, 1678

Jeroensze, Jeroen (Hieronymus Sweerts). Koddige en ernstige opschriften, op luyffens, wagens, glazen, uithangborden, en andere taferelen. van langerhand by een gezamelt en uytgeschreven door een liefhebber derzelve. 4 vols. Amsterdam: Jeroen Jeroense, 1682.

Jongh, Eddy de. “Erotica in vogelperspectief: De dubbelzinnigheid van een reeks 17de eeuwse genrevoorstellingen.” Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 3, no. 1 (1968–69): 22–74.

_______. Tot lering en vermaak: Betekenissen van Hollandse genrevoorstellingen uit de zeventiende eeuw. Exh. cat. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 1976.

König, Eberhard. “Ms. M. 917, p. 247, Pope Cornelius and Bishop Cyprian, head miniature for their common suffrage.” In The Hours of Catharine of Cleves: Devotion, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century. Exh. cat., edited by Rob Dückers and Ruud Priem, 378–79 (cat. 118). New York: Abrams, 2009.

Kraemer-Noble, Magdalena. Abraham Mignon 1640–1679: Catalogue Raisonné. Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2007.

Laabs, Annegret, and Christoph Schölzel. De Leidse fijnschilders uit Dresden. Exh. cat. Dresden: Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen/Leiden: Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2001.

Liedtke, Walter. “The View in Delft by Carel Fabritius.” Burlington Magazine 118 (1976): 61–73.

Liedtke, Walter, Michiel C. Plomp, and Axel Rüger, with contributions by Reinier Baarsen, Marten Jan Bok, Jan Daniël van Dam, James David Draper, Ebeltje Hartkamp-Jonxis, and Kees Kaldenbach. Vermeer and the Delft School. Exh. cat. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art//New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.

Lis, Catherina, and Hugo Soly. “Neighborhood Social Change in Western European Cities.” International Review of Social History 38 (1993): 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000111757

Mare, Heidi de. “Het huis en de regels van het denken: Een cultuurhistorisch onderzoek naar het werk van Simon Stevin, Jacob Cats en Pieter de Hoogh.” PhD diss. Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, 2003.

_______. “The Domestic Boundary as Ritual Area in Seventeenth-Century Holland.” In Urban Rituals in Italy and The Netherlands: Historical Contrasts in the Use of Public Space, Architecture and Urban Environment, edited by Heidi de Mare and Anna Vos, 108–31. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp, 1993.

Montias, John Michael. Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web of Social History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Moseley-Christian, Michelle. “Seventeenth-Century Pronk Poppenhuisen: Domestic Space and the Ritual Function of Dutch Dollhouses for Women.” Home Cultures 7, no. 3 (November 2010): 341–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175174210X12785760502298

Mundy, Peter. Travels in Europe, 1639–1647. Edited by Richard Carnac Temple. Vol. 4 of The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608–1667. London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1925.

Naumann, Otto. Frans van Mieris. 2 vols, Aetas Aurea: Monographs on Dutch and Flemish Painting. Doornspijk: Davaco Publishers, 1981.

Obreen, Fr. D. O.  Archief voor Nederlandsche kunstgeschiedenis: Verzameling van meerendeels onuitgeven berichten en mededeelingen. Vol. 5. Rotterdam: W. J. van Hengel & Eeltjes, 1882–83.

Piles, Roger de. Abregé de la Vie des Peintres, Avec Réflexions sur Leur Ouvrages. 2nd ed. Paris: Jacques Estienne, 1715.

_______. Coeurs de Peinture par Principes. Paris: Jacques Estienne, 1708.

_______. The Principles of Painting. London: J. Osborn, at the Golden Ball, in Pater-Noster Row, 1743.

Roodenburg, Herman. “‘Freundschaft,’ ‘Bruderlichkeit’ und ‘Einigkeit’: Städtische Nachbarschaften im Westen der Republik.” In Ausbreitung bürgerlicher Kultur in den Niederlanden und Nordwestdeutschland, edited by P. H. T. Dekker, P. Post, and H. Siuts, 10–24. Beiträge zur Volkskultur in Nordwestdeutschland 74. Münster: T. Coppenrath Verlag, 1991.

_______. “Naar een etnografie van de vroegmoderne stad: de ‘gebuyrten’ in Leiden en Den Haag.” In Cultuur en maatschappij in Nederland 1500–1850: Een historisch-antropologisch perspectief, edited by Peter te Boekhorst, Peter Burke, and Willem Frijhoff, 219–43. Meppel: Boom and Heerlen: Open Universiteit, 1992.

Roscam Abbing, Michiel. “On the Provenance of Rembrandt’s Girl at a Window, Its First Owner, and an Intriguing Anecdote.” In Rembrandt van Rijn: “Girl at a Window.” Exh. cat., edited by Kate Bomford, Ann Sumner, and Giles Waterfield, 19–24. Paintings and Their Context 4. Dulwich, Great Britain: Dulwich Picture Gallery, 1993.

_______. Rembrandt Toont Sijn Konst: Bijdragen over Rembrandt-Dokumenten uit de Periode 1648–1756. Leiden: Primavera Pers, 1999.

Sambucus, Joannes. Emblemata. Antwerp: Christ. Plantyn, 1566.

Sluijter, Eric Jan. “‘All striving to adorne their houses with costly peeces’: Two Case Studies of Paintings in Wealthy Interiors.” In Art and Home: Dutch Interiors in the Age of Rembrandt. Exh. cat., edited by Marlene Chambers and Mariët Westermann, 103–27. Denver Art Museum/The Newark Museum/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2001.

_______. “‘Een stuck waerin een jufr. voor de spiegel van Gerrit Dou.’” Antiek 23 (1988): 150–61.

Spierenburg, Pieter. “Social Control and History: An Introduction.” In Social Control in Europe 1500–1800, edited by Herman Roodenburg and Pieter Spierenburg, 1–22. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2004.

Stevin, Simon. “Vande oirdeningh der Steden & Byvough der Stedenoirdening, vande oirdening der deelen eens hvis met ‘t gheene daer ancleeft.” In Materiae politicae: Burgherlicke stoffen, edited by H. Stevin, 3–128. Leiden: Adryaen Rosenboom, 1649.

Strien, Kees van. Touring the Low Countries: Accounts of British Travellers, 1660–1720. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1998.

Suchtelen, Ariane van. “The Goldfinch.” In Carel Fabritius 1622–1654: Young Master Painter. Exh. cat., edited by Frederik J. Duparc, 133–40 (cat. 11). The Hague: Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis/Schwerin: Staatliches Museum/Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2004.

Tóth-Ubbens, M. M. “Kijken naar een vogeltje.” In Miscellanea I.Q. van Regteren Altena 16/V/1969, 155–59, 346–49. Amsterdam: Scheltema and Holkema, 1969.

Vries, A. B. de, and Magdi Tóth-Ubbens. In het licht van Vermeer: Vijf eeuwen schilderkunst. Exh. cat. The Hague: Mauritshuis, 1966.

Wadum, Jørgen. “‘Het Puttertje’ gerestaureerd en doorgelicht.” Mauritshuis in Focus 17, no. 2 (2004): 24–30.

Waiboer, Adriaan E., et al., Gabriel Metsu: Rediscovered Master of the Dutch Golden Age. Exh. cat. Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland/Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum/Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

Westerman, Mariët Westermann. A Worldly Art: The Dutch Republic 1585–1718. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

Wheelock, Arthur K., Jr. Johannes Vermeer. Exh. cat. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art/The Hague: Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis/New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Wurfbain, M. L. “Hoe was het Putterje gebeeckt?” In Opstellen voor H. van de Waal. Aangeboden door leerlingen en medewerkers, 3 maart 1970, edited by J. Bolten, C. H. A. Broos, and L. D. Couprie, 155–61. Leidse kunsthistorische reeks. Amsterdam: Scheltema and Holkema/Leiden: Universitaire Pers, 1970.

Imprint

Review: Peer Review (Double Blind)
DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2016.8.1.5
License:
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Recommended Citation:
Linda Stone-Ferrier, "The Engagement of Carel Fabritius’ Goldfinch of 1654 with the Dutch Window, a Significant Site of Neighborhood Social Exchange," Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 8:1 (Winter 2016) DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2016.8.1.5