Pieter de Molijn (1597–1661): A Dutch Painter and the Art Market in the Seventeenth Century

Pieter de Molijn, Peasants Returning Home, Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

Pieter de Molijn is considered by present-day art historians to be one of the founders of what is referred to as the tonal phase of naturalistic Dutch landscape painting, a position largely attributable to his Landscape with Dunes painted in 1626. Nevertheless, art historians such as Wolfgang Stechow have suggested that his paintings after 1630 were old-fashioned, lacked originality, and exhibited no further artistic development, and therefore they typify him as merely an epigone of Jan van Goyen and Salomon van Ruisdael. For most of these art historians, innovation seems to be the most important criterion on which to grant painters a place in the art-historical canon. Contemporary sources, however, indicate that de Molijn deserves as much attention as the more recognized artist Jan van Goyen. These sources prove that de Molijn enjoyed a solid reputation right up until his death in 1661. He was active in broadening the art market by producing monochrome landscapes and finding new ways to sell them to a wider public. In addition, Arnold Houbraken and other connoisseurs valued his later, more delicate and colorful landscapes. These were bought by collectors who appreciated de Molijn’s craftsmanship and the works’ subtle references to famous landscape painters of the past. Pieter de Molijn developed a successful business model by simultaneously working in different styles for different clients, thus securing his niche in a competitive art market.

DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2017.9.2.5

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Nicolette Sluijter and Alison McNeil Kettering for their comments on the first versions of this article. Furthermore, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful suggestions. Finally, my thanks go to Marilyn Hedges for her corrections of my English.

Pieter de Molijn, Landscape with Dunes and Travelers, Poznan, Museum Marodowe Poznaniu
Fig. 3 Pieter de Molijn, Landscape with Dunes and Travelers, oil on panel, 29 x 50 cm, signed PM. Poznan, Museum Marodowe Poznaniu, inv. Mo 818 (artwork in the public domain)
Pieter de Molijn,  Landscape with Dunes and Travelers,  Auction, Amsterdam, Christie’s, May 14, 2007, no. 37
Fig. 4 Pieter de Molijn, Landscape with Dunes and Travelers, oil on panel, 28.6 x 36.8 cm, unsigned. Auction, Amsterdam, Christie’s, May 14, 2002, no. 37 (artwork in the public domain)
Pieter de Molijn, Travelers in Landscape with Dunes, 1647, Whereabouts unknown
Fig. 5 Pieter de Molijn, Travelers in Landscape with Dunes, oil on canvas, 39.5 x 61 cm, signed and dated PMolyn 1647. Whereabouts unknown (artwork in the public domain)
Pieter de Molijn,  Landscape with Dunes and a Sandy Road, 1626,  Braunschweig, Herzog Ulrich-Museum
Fig. 1 Pieter de Molijn, Landscape with Dunes and a Sandy Road, oil on panel, 26 x 36 cm, signed and dated PMolyn 1626. Braunschweig, Herzog Ulrich-Museum, inv. 338 (artwork in the public domain)
Pieter de Molijn, Peasants Returning Home, Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum
Fig. 2 Pieter de Molijn, Peasants Returning Home, oil on canvas, 76 x 93.5 cm, signed and dated PMolyn 1647. Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv. o.s. 60-52 (artwork in the public domain; photo: Margareta Svensson)
  1. 1. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (Amsterdam: Houbraken, 1718–21), 1:215: “Pieter de Molyn was een fraai landschapschilder, helder in zyn verschieten, als ook natuurlijk gloeiend op de voorgronden.”

  2. 2. The first monograph on the artist was published in Sweden in 1883: Olof Granberg, Pieter de Molijn (de Oude) och spåren af hans konst: En konsthistorisk studie (Stockholm: Gernandts, 1883). See also Olav [Olof] Granberg,“Pieter Molyn und seine Kunst,” Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 19 (1884): 369–77. Granberg was the first art historian to compare de Molijn’s style with Jan van Goyen’s, followed by Georg Kaspar Nagler, Johannes Immerzeel, and Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Granberg emphasized the independent position of Pieter de Molijn as a landscape painter. Wurzbach mentioned de Molijn at the beginning of the twentieth century together with Jan van Goyen and Esaias van de Velde as leading representatives of Dutch landscape painting: Alfred Wolfgang von Wurzbach, Niederländisches Künstler-Lexicon (Vienna and Leipzig: Halm und Goldmann, 1906–11), 2:179.

  3. 3. Eva Jeney Allen in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner et al. (London and New York: Grove, 1996), 2:826.

  4. 4. Wolfgang Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting of the Seventeenth Century (London: Phaidon, 1966), 26.

  5. 5. Laurens Johannes Bol, Holländische Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts nahe der grossen Meister: Landschaften und Stilleben (Braunschweig: Klinkhardt & Biemann, 1969), 139–41.

  6. 6. Bol, Holländische Maler, 140. Biesboer also emphasizes the importance of this panoramic landscape and suggests that it was a source of inspiration for the young Jacob van Ruisdael: Pieter Biesboer, ed., Jacob van Ruisdael: De revolutie van het Hollandse landschap, exh. cat. (Haarlem: Frans Hals Museum and Hamburg: Kunsthalle 2002/Zwolle: Waanders, 2002), 96–97. In 1984 Bob Haak wrote that de Molijn “perhaps was the first to introduce a new phase in landscape painting, in any case before Jan van Goyen started to paint his monochrome landscapes.” Furthermore, he stated that de Molijn, together with Cornelis Vroom influenced the artistic development of Salomon and Jacob van Ruisdael. Like Stechow, Haak underlined the importance of de Molijn’s early monochrome paintings: Haak, Hollandse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw (Zwolle: Waanders, 1984), 240. In 1986 and 1987 Christopher Brown and Peter Sutton again underlined the importance of de Molijn as a pioneer of this type of landscape, when Pieter de Molijn’s Landscape with Dunes’ from 1626 was included in an exhibition in London and another held in Philadelphia, Boston, and Amsterdam. Both authors clearly subscribed to the viewpoints of Stechow and Haak on the artist; see Christopher Brown, Dutch Landscape: The Early Years, Haarlem and Amsterdam 1590–1650, exh. cat. (London: National Gallery, 1986), 22 and 151; and Peter Sutton, ed., Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, exh. cat. (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum; Boston: Museum of Fine Arts; and Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1987–88), 35–36 and 374–75.

  7. 7. Eva Jeney Allen, “The Life and Art of Pieter Molijn” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1987), 2.

  8. 8. Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 93.

  9. 9. Allen illustrated these assumptions by way of Roelant Savery’s Mountain Landscape dated 1609, which inspired a de Molijn drawing many years later, and de Molijn’s Winter Landscape from 1657, which was inspired by Hendrick Avercamp. Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 72 and 77.

  10. 10. Hans Ulrich Beck, Künstler um Jan van Goyen (Doornspijk: Davaco, 1991), 273.

  11. 11. Stechow, Dutch Landscape, 23, Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 1 and 42. See also Hans Ulrich Beck, Pieter Molijn: Katalog der Handzeichnungen (Doornspijk: Davaco, 1998), 17–18.

  12. 12. Sluijter’s publication was the result of a large project by the University of Amsterdam to study the cultural industries of Amsterdam in the Golden Age. Eric Jan Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam 1630–1650, Oculi: Studies in the Arts of the Low Countries 14 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 2015), 3–5.

  13. 13. Out of the forty-five painters Beck mentions in his Künstler um Jan van Goyen fourteen worked in Haarlem, not counting Salomon van Ruisdael, who was considered an equal to van Goyen and is therefore not one of the painters discussed in the book. This amounts to one-third of all the painters working in the same style as Jan van Goyen. To these can be added Italianate painters such as Nicolaes Berchem and Pieter van Laer and landscape painters such as Cornelis Vroom.

  14. 14. Irene van Thiel-Stroman in Painting in Haarlem 1500–1850: The Collection of the Frans Hals Museum, Neeltje Köhler, Pieter Biesboer et al. (Ghent: Ludion, 2006), 246–47. The author refers to all the primary sources available.

  15. 15. This can be concluded from an analysis of more than two hundred pupils of Haarlem artists between 1600 and 1650: Marion Boers-Goosens, “Schilders en de markt, Haarlem 1600–1635” (PhD diss., Universiteit Leiden, 2001), 100–104.

  16. 16. Melanie Gifford, “Esaias van de Velde’s Technical Innovations: Translating a Graphic Tradition into Paint,” in Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice (Dublin, 1998), 145–49, esp. 148.

  17. 17. For example, a design for a print of a landscape with the ruins of the House of Kleef, engraved by Jan van de Velde II: F. W. H. Holstein, Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, ca. 1450–1700 (Amsterdam: Hertzberger, 1949–), 33:56, no. 167. A second example is a design for a print showing the march of the Saint George militia to Hasselt on September 27, 1622. De Molijn received 24 pounds from the Haarlem magistrate and the design was later engraved by Gillis van Schyndel: Archief Van Kennemerland (AVK), Stads Archief (SA) 19/203 (Thesaurie rekeningen, 1623), fol. 64v.

  18. 18. This is indicated by the fact that Samuel Ampzing did not mention him as a painter in his Het lof der stad Haerlem in Hollandt. Around 1654, at the end of his career, de Molijn showed a renewed interest in drawing and he produced his best works in this medium during that period; Beck, Molijn: Katalog der Handzeichnungen, 18. For the text by Samuel Ampzing, see note 28 below.

  19. 19. We can also conclude this from the fact that the mayors of Haarlem entrusted him (together with Frans Hals and Jan van de Velde II) with visiting the infamous painter Johannes Torrentius in prison to find out whether his cell was equipped well enough to be a workshop. That same year the city magistrates awarded de Molijn the honorary commission to decorate the harpsichord of the city organist Cornelis Helmbreker with landscapes. He was paid the sizeable sum of 180 pounds.

  20. 20. De Molijn’s position in the artistic community is underlined by the fact that new guild rules, drawn up by Salomon de Bray in 1632, stipulated that only the most prominent of artists were qualified to lead the guild and that the board of governors should be chosen from “those whom the guild members consider to be the most competent and distinguished among the members (den geenen die sij tot sulckx de bequaemsten enden den gilden meest vorderlyckst achten).” Hessel Miedema, Archiefbescheiden van het St. Lucasgilde te Haarlem 1497–1798 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Canaletto, 1980), vol. 1, doc. A 42, p. 116, article 35.

  21. 21. Miedema, Archiefbescheiden, vol. 1, doc. A 35, pp. 136–37. See also Marion Boers-Goosens, “Een nieuwe markt voor kunst: De expansie van de Haarlemse schilderijenmarkt in de eerste helft van de zeventiende eeuw,” in Kunst voor de markt/Art for the Market 1500–1700, ed. Reindert Falkenburg, Nederlands Kunsthistorische Jaarboek 50 (1999): 202.

  22. 22. The Guild of Saint Luke was governed by a dean and two vinders. The dean had a leading position in representing the guild on official occasions. The vinders were responsible for the administration of the guild. Miedema, Archiefbescheiden, 2:1057. In 1637 and in 1649 he was appointed “vinder.” On January 17, 1645, he is listed as “vinder” and on December 22 of that year as dean.

  23. 23. For example, he appraised the important collection of notary Georgius van Velde in 1652 and, along with Frans Hals, and the paintings in the collection of the merchant and art collector Coenraet Coymans the year before he died.

  24. 24. Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 42.

  25. 25. We find his pictures on several lottery lists dating from the 1630s among works by other artists who produced low-cost monochrome paintings, such as Jan van Goyen and Salomon van Ruisdael. Moreover, in 1641 de Molijn asked the Haarlem magistrate for permission to sell paintings from his shop during the auction of his brother-in-law’s estate. Local art dealers voiced their indignation, pointing to the fact that this was illegitimate competition: Miedema, Archiefbescheiden, vol. 1, doc. A 110 225; vol. 2, pp. 529–30; and vol. 1, doc. A 120, pp. 246–53, esp. articles 19–23 and 29. See Boers-Goosens, “Een nieuwe markt voor kunst,” 195–219.

  26. 26. Eric Jan Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider, virtuoos en vernieuwer,” in Jan van Goyen, exh. cat., ed. Christiaan Vogelaar (Leiden: Lakenhal, 1996–97/Zwolle: Waanders, 1996), 41–42. See also Constantijn Huygens, Mijn jeugd, ed. Christiaan Lambert Heesakkers (Amsterdam: Querido, 1987), 79.

  27. 27. Jan Orlers, Beschrijvinge der Stadt Leyden (Leiden: Abraham Commelijn, 1641), 373–74.

  28. 28. Ampzing named the following Haarlem artists in 1621: Wat wil ik oock van Dijck (painter of still-lifes Floris van Dijck), Van Wierigen (specialist marine painter Cornelis Claeszn van Wierigen) hier melden, de Grebbers (history and portrait painters Frans Pieterszn and Pieter de Grebber), Matham (engraver Jacob Matham), Pot (history and portrait painter Hendrick Gerritszn Pot), Ian Jacobs (Guldewaghen, a landscape painter who is now completely forgotten), Vroom (marine and landscape painter Cornelis Vroom) and Velde (engraver Jan van de Velde), de Halsen (portrait and genre painters Dirck and Frans Hals), Campen (architect and history painter Jacob van Campen), Smit (marine painter Cornelis Verbeeck, alias de Smit, who is almost completely forgotten), Brey (architect and history painter Salomon de Bray), Bouchorst (glass painter Jan van Bouckhorst) and Pieter Molyn.

  29. 29. Samuel Ampzing, Beschrijvinge ende lof der stadt Haerlem in Hollandt (Haarlem: Rooman, 1628), 372. In the probate inventory of the notary Georgius van Velde, appraised by de Molijn himself in 1652, a painting is described as a landscape of Guldewaghen with images by Pieter de Molijn, for 54 guilders: Abraham Bredius, Künstler Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte der Holländischen Kunst des XVIten XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1915–22), 1613. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1; Jan Jacobszn Guldewaghen was the son of Jacob Janszn Guldewaghen, who was mentioned by Karel van Mander as an art lover. Schrevelius writes that he traveled to Italy. Guldewaghen lived in The Hague from 1630 on and was registered in the local painters’ guild. In 1641 his estate was executed in The Hague by his heirs: Thieme Becker XV, 330.

  30. 30. Theodorus Schrevelius, Harlemias, Ofte om beter te seggen, de eerste stichtinghe der stad Haerlem . . . (Haarlem: Thomas Fonteyn, 1648), 390. “Nae dees volgen Iohan Iacobsz, die Italien ghesien heeft en andere Landtschaps-Schilders meer als ghemeen Reyer Niclaes Zuycker, Gerard Bleycker, Salomon Rustendael, en meer andere. (After these follow Iohan Iacobsz, who saw Italy and other mediocre landscape painters namely Reyer Niclaes Zuycker, Gerard Bleycker, Salomon Rustendael and more others).”

  31. 31. Schrevelius, Harlemias, 389.

  32. 32. In his treatise on painting, Samuel van Hoogstraeten wrote in 1678 about an imaginary competition between Jan van Goyen, François Knibbergen, and Jan Porcellis, who competed with each other to complete a picture in one day: Samuel van Hoogstraten, Inleyding tot de hooghe schoole der schilder-konst (Rotterdam: Fransois van Hoogstraten, 1678), 237–38.

  33. 33. Houbraken, De groote schouburgh, 1:170 and 215.

  34. 34. Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider,” 41–42.

  35. 35. Sluijter names the inventories of Michiel Barrelbos and Bregitta Screvelius, appraised in Haarlem: Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider,” 41. For Pieter de Molijn, see the inventory of Louwijs Houwen, appraised in Amsterdam June 27, 1656; Getty Provenance Index: G.P.I., N-2215, with fifty-seven anonymous paintings besides a print by Jacob Matham and a “victorietje” by Pieter de Molijn.

  36. 36. Getty Provenance Index: fourteen paintings were ascribed to Salomon van Ruisdael in eight different inventories. See also Boers-Goosens, “Schilders en de markt,” 171.

  37. 37. This is all the more interesting because most names that were noted by the appraisers were of Leiden-based artists, such as Gerard Dou and van Goyen himself for that matter, whereas Pieter de Molijn was one of the few artist recognized by the appraisers who lived and worked outside Leiden. Willemijn Fock, “Kunstbezit in Leiden in de 17e eeuw,” in Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, ed. Theo Lunsingh Scheurleer, Willemijn Fock, and Albert Jan van Dissel (Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, 1990), 12–14 (dl. Va); and Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider,” 55n29. Jan van Goyen is mentioned seventy-nine times and Pieter de Molijn less frequently, but with forty-five listings he comes third after van Goyen.

  38. 38. In Amsterdam, twenty-one paintings in fourteen different inventories were ascribed to Jan van Goyen between 1629 and 1650 and twelve paintings by Pieter de Molijn in eleven inventories: Montias Database of probate inventories in Amsterdam (Frick Collection, online version).

  39. 39. Drenth’s wife Maritge Theunis also owned a small landscape in an ebony frame by de Molijn and a landscape by van Goyen acquired before the couple got married. The painter had a collection with works by artists from the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, such as Maarten van Heemskerck, Joos de Momper, Govert Janszn, and Gillis van Coninxloo. The only two contemporary painters in this inventory are Jan van Goyen and Pieter de Molijn: Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 288. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1

  40. 40. These are the figures derived from the Montias Database at the Frick Collection. There are considerable discrepancies compared to Montias’s 1991 article on paintings in Amsterdam inventories: John Michael Montias, “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam,” in Art in History/History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture, ed. David Freedberg and Jan de Vries (Santa Monica, Calif.: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1991), 364–67, tables 10a and 10b. There he found nine paintings in five different inventories that were ascribed to Jan van Goyen between 1620 and 1649 and eight by Pieter de Molijn in five inventories. According to Montias, in the same article, between 1650 and 1679 van Goyen was named twenty-two times in thirteen inventories and de Molijn twelve times in six.

  41. 41. In 1647 the Guild of Saint Luke in The Hague organized a public auction of paintings that lasted almost a week. Around 850 works of art were sold, mostly by contemporary artists: ten were by Pieter de Molijn and twenty-three by Jan van Goyen: Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 457–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1 There was also a copy after de Molijn in this auction. Seven paintings by Salomon van Ruisdael are mentioned in the auction book. De Molijn was not mentioned either in Delft or in Dordrecht, where several paintings were ascribed to Jan van Goyen. See John Loughman, “Een stad en haar kunstconsumptie: Openbare en privé-verzamelingen in Dordrecht 1620–1719,” in De zichtbaere werelt: Schilderkunst uit de Gouden Eeuw in Hollands oudste stad, exh. cat., ed. P. Marijnissen (Dordrechts Museum, 1992 –93/Zwolle: Waanders, 1992), 48. Salomon van Ruisdael is not on Loughman’s list. Before 1669 thirty-eight originals by Jan van Goyen and five copies after his work occur in Delft inventories, with a peak of twenty-two paintings in inventories dating from 1660. Pieter de Molijn and Salomon van Ruisdael were not among the twenty painters that were recognized most by the notary clerks in Delft. See John Michael Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982), 252.

  42. 42. For example, Beck does not mention Jacob van Ruisdael in his monograph Künstler um Jan van Goyen in 1991, because he does not consider him to be a follower but rather an artist of the same quality as van Goyen himself.

  43. 43. Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals, 19.

  44. 44. One of the most important owners of works by Jan van Goyen mentioned by Sluijter was the wealthy painter and factory owner Jan van de Capelle. He possessed ten landscapes by van Goyen and also 417 drawings by the artist; Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider,” 41.

  45. 45. Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 232, no. 178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1 De Renialme was an art dealer for the higher segment of the market. We can conclude this from the fact that he sent a list of all his paintings to Elector Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia. See Friso Lammertse and Jaap van der Veen, Uylenburgh & Zoon: Kunst en commercie van Rembrandt tot De Lairesse 1625–1675 (Zwolle: Waanders, 2006), 81, 256 and 275.

  46. 46. For example Cornelis van Teylingen and Lodewijck van Alteren van Jaarsvelt. De Molijn’s landscapes were bought by rich brewers, such as Gerrit Kinckhuysen and Bartholomeus van Brienen, and wealthy Haarlem merchants, such as Franchoys Maertens, Lucas de Clerq, and Adriaen Crommelingh. His work was represented in the collections of local notaries and lawyers, among others those of Pieter d’Assonville, Dirck Boortens, and Harmanus Capoen. Most of these individuals owned more than one painting by de Molijn, sometimes a pair, but sometimes four paintings or more. Getty Provenance Index: Lodewijk van Ateren van Jaarsvelt, G.P.I., N-2467, dated 1657; Pieter d’Assonville, G.P.I., N-1851, dated 1661; Dirck Boortens, G.P.I., N-5177, dated 1647; Bartel van Brienen, G.P.I., N-3911, dated 1653; Harmanus Capoen, G.P.I., N-2031, dated 1669; Lucas de Clerq, G.P.I., N-5364, dated 1640; Adriaen Crommelingh, G.P.I., N-3676, dated 1662; Gerrit Kinckhuysen, G.P.I., N-5305, dated 1668; Franchoys Maertens, G.P.I., N-5182, dated 1648; Cornelis van Teylingen, G.P.I., N-5363, dated 1640.

  47. 47. Abraham Bredius, “De schilder Johannes van de Capelle,” Oud Holland 10 (1892): 37. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501792X00361

  48. 48. Haak, Hollandse schilders, 365–66.

  49. 49. De Molijn was not only an official appraiser in Haarlem but probably also an art dealer. He deposited paintings with the Amsterdam art dealer Johannes de Renialme; Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 1854. For the inventories of 1640 and 1657, see Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 232 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1 (a landscape by de Molijn for fl. 30:0) and 233 (another landscape by de Molijn for fl. 24:0; and a landscape by van Goyen for fl. 48:0), but these prices are low compared to the landscape by Porcellis for fl. 150:0 (p. 231).

  50. 50. See Marion Boers–Goosens, “De schilderijenverzameling van Baron Willem Vincent van Wyttenhorst,” Oud Holland 117 (2004): 205–6. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501704X00386

  51. 51. He found a total of forty-six paintings by van Goyen that were appraised in probate inventories or sold during the 1647 auction of the Guild of Saint Luke in The Hague. The most expensive painting was in the estate of the Haarlem merchant and art collector Dirck Smuyser; Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider,” 42.

  52. 52. In 1636 Cornelis Kittensteyn organized a lottery in Haarlem, which he advertised with three paintings by Jan van Goyen appraised by Salomon van Ruisdael (sic!) for 52, 50, and 48 guilders. In around 1640 a lottery list was published in Leiden by Jan van den Bosch with eight paintings by van Goyen with an average price of 34.25 guilders.

  53. 53. Marion Boers-Goosens, “Prices of Northern Netherlandish Paintings in the Seventeenth Century,” in In His Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michael Montias, ed. Amy Golany (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 66–67.

  54. 54. Sources: Bredius, Künstler Inventare; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1 Montias Database at the Frick Collection (Amsterdam inventories); and the Getty Provenance Index.

  55. 55. Gemeente Archief Amsterdam (GAA) 570. 4921, ff. 140–64v, notary Laurens Lamberti (G.P.I., N-2278, dated October 3, 1647). In 1652, de Molijn appraised the paintings of the Haarlem notary Georgius van Velde. On the list was a landscape by Guldewaghen with figures by de Molijn for fl. 54:0.

  56. 56. Gemeente Archief Amsterdam (GAA) 1713, fol. 44, fl. 13:6 (G.P.I., N-2132, dated January 3, 1660).

  57. 57. In 1650 Van Vliet in Delft owned a small painting by de Molijn for fl. 3:5 (Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 1440) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1; in 1656 Abraham de Pape in Leiden one for fl. 8:0 (Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 1860); in 1656 Louwies Houwen one in Amsterdam for fl. 8:0 (G.P.I., N-2215); and in 1660 Willem Bus one in Amsterdam for fl. 3:0 (G.P.I., N-2132).

  58. 58. The average price of landscapes by de Molijn in the 1647 sale in The Hague was also marginally lower than the price of those of Jan van Goyen: 16.34 guilders. The auction book mentions six paintings by Pieter de Molijn, three without a price. The lowest price is fl. 6:15, the highest price is fl. 26:10. Compare the price of a “principael van Terburch” (Ter Borch) for fl. 50:0 in this auction: Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 468, no. 156. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1

  59. 59. The lowest amount for a painting by Pieter de Molijn was for a small landscape worth fl. 21:00, the highest fl. 96:00 for a “large round painting.” For example, the van Goyens in the lottery of Jan van den Bosch around 1640 in Leiden varied between 15 and 78 guilders and the works by de Molijn were a bit more expensive, being estimated between 21 and 85 guilders. See Fock in Rapenburg, ed. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock and van Dissel, 32.

  60. 60. Eleven landscapes by Pieter de Molijn occur in the lottery list of Ian Pieterszn van den Bosch, dated ca. 1640. The small paintings are estimated at prices around fl. 20:0 and the large ones around fl. 80:0. Unfortunately there are no landscapes by Salomon van Ruisdael on this list. However, work by van Ruisdael was in Haarlem lotteries dated 1634 and 1636. The prices mentioned on these lists are higher and comparable to those for paintings by Pieter de Molijn. Two large landscapes were priced at fl. 90:0 and a small landscape at fl. 16:0. The average price of the six paintings by Salomon van Ruisdael was much higher than for Molijn’s landscapes: fl. 60.33, but this average is based on less data and is moreover the result of the fact that two of the paintings are large landscapes with the relatively high price of fl. 90:0. For the lottery of J. P. van den Bosch in Valkenburg in ca 1640, see Fock in Rapenburg, ed. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock, and van Dissel, 32. For the two lotteries in Haarlem, dating from1634 and 1636, see Miedema, Archiefbescheiden, 1:157–58 and 194–95.

  61. 61. G.P.I., N-2278, dated October 3, 1647.

  62. 62. This is the case in the estate of Leendert Gysbertszn Bardenis, dated 1647. He owned three originals by Pieter de Molijn, valued at fl.10:0, fl. 12:0, and fl. 32:0, compared to four landscapes by van Goyen for fl. 16:0, fl. 20:0 (twice), and fl. 22:0. See G.P.I., N-5177. Compare the inventories of Franchoijs Maertens, dated June 23, 1648 (G.P.I., N-5182): “principalen” by de Molijn, fl. 8:0 and fl. 12:0; “principael” by Jan van Goyen, fl. 15:0; of Dirck Smuyser, dated January 23, 1653(G.P.I., N-3713): two paintings by de Molijn, fl. 42:0 and fl. 20:0, one by Jan van Goyen, fl. 54:0; of Lodewijck van Alteren van Jaersvelt, dated 1657 (G.P.I., N-2467): two landscapes by de Molijn at fl. 10:0 and fl. 30:0 fl., landscapes by Jan van Goyen, fl. 10:0, fl.14:0, and fl. 30:0; of Johan Schade in Utrecht, dated August 31, 1658 (G.P.I., N-1749): two landscapes by de Molijn, fl. 12:0 and fl. 23:0, and one by van Goyen for fl. 20:0 . Also compare the landscape by de Molijn valued at fl. 24:0 in the inventory of Johannes de Renialme, dated December 20, 1657 (G.P.I., N-2213) to the landscape of Jan van Goyen listed in the same inventory for fl. 48:0.

  63. 63. Until 1665 the average price of a landscape by Pieter de Molijn was 18.85 guilders, but for Salomon van Ruisdael it came to 10 guilders. This changed after 1665, when prices for paintings by Pieter de Molijn started to drop, whereas the highest appraisals for landscapes by Salomon van Ruisdael were noted during the final decades of the seventeenth century (although the average remained lower than for de Molijn’s landscapes at a sum of 13 guilders); Boers-Goosens, “Schilders en de markt,” 311. See also Alain Chong, “The Market for Landscape Painting in Seventeenth-Century Holland,” in Masters of Dutch Landscape, ed. Sutton, 118. Based on six prices, he calculated an average of fl. 8.7 for the period 1651–75 and based on five prices, an average of fl. 12.4 for the period from 1676 to 1700. Dirck Smuyser owned five works by Salomon van Ruisdael at an average value of 13 guilders in 1668. In the same year, a landscape by van Ruisdael was appraised at 20 guilders, the highest valuation for a landscape by Salomon van Ruisdael in the seventeenth century; the inventory of Gerrit Kinckhuysen dated September 5, 1668 (G.P.I., N-5305).

  64. 64. Eric Jan Sluijter,“Over Brabantse vodden, economische concurrentie, artistieke wedijver en de groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw,” in Kunst voor de markt/Art for the Market 1500–1700, ed. Reindert Falkenburg, Nederlands Kunsthistorische Jaarboek 50 (1999): 123 and 125–26. https://doi.org/10.1163/22145966-90000651 Also published in translation: JHNA 1, no. 2 (2009). Melanie Gifford. “Esaias van de Velde’s Technical Innovations: Translating a Graphic Tradition into Paint.” In Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice, 145–49 (Dublin, 1998).

  65. 65. For Joris van Oorschot inventory, see Montias Database at the Frick Collection (online): dated June 30, 1671, Gemeente Archief Amsterdam (GAA), Notarieel Archief (NA) 1495, fol 189v.

  66. 66. Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 82.

  67. 67. Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 2.

  68. 68. Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals, 70 and n. 252 (for Junius).

  69. 69. Reindert Falkenburg, “Onweer bij Jan van Goyen: Artistieke wedijver en de markt voor het Hollandse landschap in de 17de eeuw,” in Natuur en landschap in de Nederlandse kunst 1500–1850, ed. Falkenburg, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 48 (1997): 143.

  70. 70. “Onder de Landtschaps-Schilders is noch in ’t leven Cornelis Vroom, die in ’t sijn sijn vader niet en wijckt. Men houdt het daer voor dat hy alsoo uyt-steeckt in syn kunst dat hy qualijck niemandt sijns gelijck heeft van die noch leven hoewel Pieter de Moulijn, nae ’t oordeel van veele hem seer nae komt, jae in gelijcke graed (Among the landscape painters still lives Cornelis Vroom, who equals his father. People maintain that he stands out so much in his art that there is hardly anyone like him among living artists, although Pieter de Molijn, according to many, comes very close in equaling him).” Schrevelius, Harlemias, 389.

  71. 71. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh, 1:215. “Pieter de Molyn was een fraai landschapschilder, helder in zyn verschieten, als ook natuurlijk gloeiend op de voorgronden (Pieter de Molyn is a fine landscape painter, clear in his distances and naturally glowing in the foreground).”

  72. 72. For the term glowing in seventeenth-century Dutch painting, see Paul Taylor, “The Glow in Late Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Dutch Landscape,” in Looking through Paintings: The Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of Art Historical Research, ed. Erna Hermens, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 11(1998): 174–75.

  73. 73. Beck, Pieter Molijn: Katalog der Handzeichnungen, 14.

  74. 74. Franciscus Junius, De schilderkonst der ouden, begrepen in drie boecken (Middelburg, 1641), 29 (translation: Eric Jan Sluijter).

Allen, Eva Jeney. “The Life and Art of Pieter Molijn.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1987.

Ampzing, Samuel [?]. Het lof der stad Haerlem in Hollandt. Haarlem 1621

Ampzing, Samuel. Beschrijvinge ende lof der stadt Haerlem in Hollandt. Haarlem: Rooman, 1628.

Beck, Hans Ulrich. Künstler um Jan van Goyen, Doornspijk: Davaco, 1991.

Beck, Hans Ulrich. Pieter Molijn: Katalog der Handzeichnungen. Doornspijk: Davaco, 1998.

Biesboer, Pieter, ed. Jacob van Ruisdael: De revolutie van het Hollandse landschap. Exh. cat. Haarlem: Frans Hals Museum and Hamburg: Kunsthalle, 2002/Zwolle: Waanders, 2002.

Boers-Goosens, Marion. “De schilderijenverzameling van Baron Willem Vincent van Wyttenhorst.” Oud Holland 117 (2004): 181–243. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501704X00386

Boers-Goosens, Marion. “Een nieuwe markt voor kunst: De expansie van de Haarlemse schilderijenmarkt in de eerste helft van de zeventiende eeuw.” In Kunst voor de markt/Art for the Market 1500–1700. Edited by Reindert Falkenburg, 194–219. Nederlands Kunsthistorische Jaarboek 50 (1999).

Boers-Goosens, Marion. “Prices of Northern Netherlandish Paintings in the Seventeenth Century.” In In His Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michael Montias. Edited by Amy Golany, 59–71. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006.

Boers-Goosens, Marion. “Schilders en de markt, Haarlem 1600–1635.” PhD diss., Universiteit Leiden, 2001.

Bol, Laurens Johannes. Holländische Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts nahe der grossen Meister: Landschaften und Stilleben. Braunschweig: Klinkhardt & Biemann, 1969.

Bredius, Abraham. “De schilder Johannes van de Capelle.” Oud Holland 10 (1892): 133–36. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501792X00361

Bredius, Abraham. Künstler Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte der Holländischen Kunst des XVIten XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1915–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1

Brown, Christopher. Dutch Landscape: The Early Years, Haarlem and Amsterdam 1590–1650. Exh cat. London: National Gallery, 1986.

Falkenburg, Reindert. “Onweer bij Jan van Goyen: Artistieke wedijver en de markt voor het Hollandse landschap in de 17de eeuw.” In Natuur en landschap in de Nederlandse kunst, 1500–1850, 117–61. Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 48 (1997).

Gifford, Melanie. “Esaias van de Velde’s Technical Innovations: Translating a Graphic Tradition into Paint.” In Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice, 145–49. Dublin, 1998.

Granberg, Olof. Pieter de Molijn (de Oude) och spåren af hans konst: En konsthistorisk studie. Stockholm: Gernandts, 1883.

Granberg, Olof. “Pieter Molyn und seine Kunst.” Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 19 (1884): 369–77.

Haak, Bob. Hollandse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw. Zwolle: Waanders 1984.

Hollstein, Friedrich Wilhelm Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, ca. 1450–1700, Amsterdam: Hertzberger, 1949–.

Hoogstraten, Samuel van. Inleyding tot de hooghe schoole der schilder-konst. Rotterdam: Fransois van Hoogstraten, 1678.

Houbraken, Arnold. De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen. 3 vols. Amsterdam: Houbraken, 1718–21.

Huygens, Constantijn. Mijn jeugd. Edited by Christiaan Lambert Heesakkers. Amsterdam: Querido, 1987.

Junius, Franciscus. De schilderkonst der ouden, begrepen in drie boecken. Middelburg: Zacharias Roman 1641.

Köhler, Neeltje, Biesboer, Pieter, et al. Painting in Haarlem 1500–1850: The Collection of the Frans Hals Museum. Ghent: Ludion, 2006.

Lammertse, Friso, and Jaap van der Veen, Uylenburgh & Zoon: Kunst en commercie van Rembrandt tot De Lairesse 1625–1675. Zwolle: Waanders, 2006.

Lunsingh Scheurleer, Theo, Willemijn Fock, and Albert Jan van Dissel, eds. Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, 1990.

Marijnissen, Peter, et. al. De zichtbaere werelt: Schilderkunst uit de Gouden Eeuw in Hollands oudste stad. Exh. cat. Dordrechts Museum, 1992–93/Zwolle: Waanders, 1992.

Miedema, Hessel. Archiefbescheiden van het St. Lucasgilde te Haarlem 1497–1798. 2 vols. Alphen aan den Rijn: Canaletto, 1980.

Montias, John Michael. Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Montias, John Michael. “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam.” In Art in History/History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture. Edited by David Freedberg and Jan de Vries, 331–72. Santa Monica, Calif.: Getty Center for Art History and the Humanities, 1991.

Orlers, Jan. Beschrijvinge der Stadt Leyden. Leiden: Abraham Commelijn, 1641.

Schrevelius, Theodorus. Harlemias, Ofte om beter te seggen, de eerste stichtinghe der stad Haerlem . . . Haarlem: Thomas Fonteyn, 1648.

Sluijter, Eric Jan. “Jan van Goyen als marktleider, virtuoos en vernieuwer.” In Jan van Goyen. Exh. cat. Edited by Christiaan Vogelaar, 38–59. Leiden: Lakenhal 1996–97/Zwolle: Waanders, 1996.

Sluijter, Eric Jan. “Over Brabantse vodden, economische concurrentie, artistieke wedijver en de groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw.” In Kunst voor de markt/Art for the Market 1500–1700. Edited by Reindert Falkenburg, 112–43. Nederlands Kunsthistorische Jaarboek 50 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1163/22145966-90000651

Sluijter, Eric Jan. Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam 1630–1650. Oculi: Studies in the Arts of the Low Countries 14. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 2015.

Stechow, Wolfgang. Dutch Landscape Painting of the Seventeenth Century. London: Phaidon, 1966.

Sutton, Peter, ed. Masters of 17th-century Dutch Landscape Painting. Exh. cat. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum; Boston: Museum of Fine Arts; and Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1987–88.

Taylor, Paul. “The Glow in Late Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Dutch Landscape.” In Looking through Paintings: The Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of Art Historical Research. Edited by Erna Hermens, 159–78. Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 11 (1998).

Turner, Jane, et al. The Dictionary of Art. London and New York: Grove, 1996.

Wurzbach, Alfred Wolfgang von. Niederländisches Künstler-Lexicon. Vienna and Leipzig: Halm und Goldmann, 1906–11.

List of Illustrations

Pieter de Molijn, Landscape with Dunes and Travelers, Poznan, Museum Marodowe Poznaniu
Fig. 3 Pieter de Molijn, Landscape with Dunes and Travelers, oil on panel, 29 x 50 cm, signed PM. Poznan, Museum Marodowe Poznaniu, inv. Mo 818 (artwork in the public domain)
Pieter de Molijn,  Landscape with Dunes and Travelers,  Auction, Amsterdam, Christie’s, May 14, 2007, no. 37
Fig. 4 Pieter de Molijn, Landscape with Dunes and Travelers, oil on panel, 28.6 x 36.8 cm, unsigned. Auction, Amsterdam, Christie’s, May 14, 2002, no. 37 (artwork in the public domain)
Pieter de Molijn, Travelers in Landscape with Dunes, 1647, Whereabouts unknown
Fig. 5 Pieter de Molijn, Travelers in Landscape with Dunes, oil on canvas, 39.5 x 61 cm, signed and dated PMolyn 1647. Whereabouts unknown (artwork in the public domain)
Pieter de Molijn,  Landscape with Dunes and a Sandy Road, 1626,  Braunschweig, Herzog Ulrich-Museum
Fig. 1 Pieter de Molijn, Landscape with Dunes and a Sandy Road, oil on panel, 26 x 36 cm, signed and dated PMolyn 1626. Braunschweig, Herzog Ulrich-Museum, inv. 338 (artwork in the public domain)
Pieter de Molijn, Peasants Returning Home, Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum
Fig. 2 Pieter de Molijn, Peasants Returning Home, oil on canvas, 76 x 93.5 cm, signed and dated PMolyn 1647. Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv. o.s. 60-52 (artwork in the public domain; photo: Margareta Svensson)

Footnotes

  1. 1. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (Amsterdam: Houbraken, 1718–21), 1:215: “Pieter de Molyn was een fraai landschapschilder, helder in zyn verschieten, als ook natuurlijk gloeiend op de voorgronden.”

  2. 2. The first monograph on the artist was published in Sweden in 1883: Olof Granberg, Pieter de Molijn (de Oude) och spåren af hans konst: En konsthistorisk studie (Stockholm: Gernandts, 1883). See also Olav [Olof] Granberg,“Pieter Molyn und seine Kunst,” Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 19 (1884): 369–77. Granberg was the first art historian to compare de Molijn’s style with Jan van Goyen’s, followed by Georg Kaspar Nagler, Johannes Immerzeel, and Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Granberg emphasized the independent position of Pieter de Molijn as a landscape painter. Wurzbach mentioned de Molijn at the beginning of the twentieth century together with Jan van Goyen and Esaias van de Velde as leading representatives of Dutch landscape painting: Alfred Wolfgang von Wurzbach, Niederländisches Künstler-Lexicon (Vienna and Leipzig: Halm und Goldmann, 1906–11), 2:179.

  3. 3. Eva Jeney Allen in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner et al. (London and New York: Grove, 1996), 2:826.

  4. 4. Wolfgang Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting of the Seventeenth Century (London: Phaidon, 1966), 26.

  5. 5. Laurens Johannes Bol, Holländische Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts nahe der grossen Meister: Landschaften und Stilleben (Braunschweig: Klinkhardt & Biemann, 1969), 139–41.

  6. 6. Bol, Holländische Maler, 140. Biesboer also emphasizes the importance of this panoramic landscape and suggests that it was a source of inspiration for the young Jacob van Ruisdael: Pieter Biesboer, ed., Jacob van Ruisdael: De revolutie van het Hollandse landschap, exh. cat. (Haarlem: Frans Hals Museum and Hamburg: Kunsthalle 2002/Zwolle: Waanders, 2002), 96–97. In 1984 Bob Haak wrote that de Molijn “perhaps was the first to introduce a new phase in landscape painting, in any case before Jan van Goyen started to paint his monochrome landscapes.” Furthermore, he stated that de Molijn, together with Cornelis Vroom influenced the artistic development of Salomon and Jacob van Ruisdael. Like Stechow, Haak underlined the importance of de Molijn’s early monochrome paintings: Haak, Hollandse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw (Zwolle: Waanders, 1984), 240. In 1986 and 1987 Christopher Brown and Peter Sutton again underlined the importance of de Molijn as a pioneer of this type of landscape, when Pieter de Molijn’s Landscape with Dunes’ from 1626 was included in an exhibition in London and another held in Philadelphia, Boston, and Amsterdam. Both authors clearly subscribed to the viewpoints of Stechow and Haak on the artist; see Christopher Brown, Dutch Landscape: The Early Years, Haarlem and Amsterdam 1590–1650, exh. cat. (London: National Gallery, 1986), 22 and 151; and Peter Sutton, ed., Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, exh. cat. (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum; Boston: Museum of Fine Arts; and Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1987–88), 35–36 and 374–75.

  7. 7. Eva Jeney Allen, “The Life and Art of Pieter Molijn” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1987), 2.

  8. 8. Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 93.

  9. 9. Allen illustrated these assumptions by way of Roelant Savery’s Mountain Landscape dated 1609, which inspired a de Molijn drawing many years later, and de Molijn’s Winter Landscape from 1657, which was inspired by Hendrick Avercamp. Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 72 and 77.

  10. 10. Hans Ulrich Beck, Künstler um Jan van Goyen (Doornspijk: Davaco, 1991), 273.

  11. 11. Stechow, Dutch Landscape, 23, Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 1 and 42. See also Hans Ulrich Beck, Pieter Molijn: Katalog der Handzeichnungen (Doornspijk: Davaco, 1998), 17–18.

  12. 12. Sluijter’s publication was the result of a large project by the University of Amsterdam to study the cultural industries of Amsterdam in the Golden Age. Eric Jan Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam 1630–1650, Oculi: Studies in the Arts of the Low Countries 14 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 2015), 3–5.

  13. 13. Out of the forty-five painters Beck mentions in his Künstler um Jan van Goyen fourteen worked in Haarlem, not counting Salomon van Ruisdael, who was considered an equal to van Goyen and is therefore not one of the painters discussed in the book. This amounts to one-third of all the painters working in the same style as Jan van Goyen. To these can be added Italianate painters such as Nicolaes Berchem and Pieter van Laer and landscape painters such as Cornelis Vroom.

  14. 14. Irene van Thiel-Stroman in Painting in Haarlem 1500–1850: The Collection of the Frans Hals Museum, Neeltje Köhler, Pieter Biesboer et al. (Ghent: Ludion, 2006), 246–47. The author refers to all the primary sources available.

  15. 15. This can be concluded from an analysis of more than two hundred pupils of Haarlem artists between 1600 and 1650: Marion Boers-Goosens, “Schilders en de markt, Haarlem 1600–1635” (PhD diss., Universiteit Leiden, 2001), 100–104.

  16. 16. Melanie Gifford, “Esaias van de Velde’s Technical Innovations: Translating a Graphic Tradition into Paint,” in Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice (Dublin, 1998), 145–49, esp. 148.

  17. 17. For example, a design for a print of a landscape with the ruins of the House of Kleef, engraved by Jan van de Velde II: F. W. H. Holstein, Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, ca. 1450–1700 (Amsterdam: Hertzberger, 1949–), 33:56, no. 167. A second example is a design for a print showing the march of the Saint George militia to Hasselt on September 27, 1622. De Molijn received 24 pounds from the Haarlem magistrate and the design was later engraved by Gillis van Schyndel: Archief Van Kennemerland (AVK), Stads Archief (SA) 19/203 (Thesaurie rekeningen, 1623), fol. 64v.

  18. 18. This is indicated by the fact that Samuel Ampzing did not mention him as a painter in his Het lof der stad Haerlem in Hollandt. Around 1654, at the end of his career, de Molijn showed a renewed interest in drawing and he produced his best works in this medium during that period; Beck, Molijn: Katalog der Handzeichnungen, 18. For the text by Samuel Ampzing, see note 28 below.

  19. 19. We can also conclude this from the fact that the mayors of Haarlem entrusted him (together with Frans Hals and Jan van de Velde II) with visiting the infamous painter Johannes Torrentius in prison to find out whether his cell was equipped well enough to be a workshop. That same year the city magistrates awarded de Molijn the honorary commission to decorate the harpsichord of the city organist Cornelis Helmbreker with landscapes. He was paid the sizeable sum of 180 pounds.

  20. 20. De Molijn’s position in the artistic community is underlined by the fact that new guild rules, drawn up by Salomon de Bray in 1632, stipulated that only the most prominent of artists were qualified to lead the guild and that the board of governors should be chosen from “those whom the guild members consider to be the most competent and distinguished among the members (den geenen die sij tot sulckx de bequaemsten enden den gilden meest vorderlyckst achten).” Hessel Miedema, Archiefbescheiden van het St. Lucasgilde te Haarlem 1497–1798 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Canaletto, 1980), vol. 1, doc. A 42, p. 116, article 35.

  21. 21. Miedema, Archiefbescheiden, vol. 1, doc. A 35, pp. 136–37. See also Marion Boers-Goosens, “Een nieuwe markt voor kunst: De expansie van de Haarlemse schilderijenmarkt in de eerste helft van de zeventiende eeuw,” in Kunst voor de markt/Art for the Market 1500–1700, ed. Reindert Falkenburg, Nederlands Kunsthistorische Jaarboek 50 (1999): 202.

  22. 22. The Guild of Saint Luke was governed by a dean and two vinders. The dean had a leading position in representing the guild on official occasions. The vinders were responsible for the administration of the guild. Miedema, Archiefbescheiden, 2:1057. In 1637 and in 1649 he was appointed “vinder.” On January 17, 1645, he is listed as “vinder” and on December 22 of that year as dean.

  23. 23. For example, he appraised the important collection of notary Georgius van Velde in 1652 and, along with Frans Hals, and the paintings in the collection of the merchant and art collector Coenraet Coymans the year before he died.

  24. 24. Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 42.

  25. 25. We find his pictures on several lottery lists dating from the 1630s among works by other artists who produced low-cost monochrome paintings, such as Jan van Goyen and Salomon van Ruisdael. Moreover, in 1641 de Molijn asked the Haarlem magistrate for permission to sell paintings from his shop during the auction of his brother-in-law’s estate. Local art dealers voiced their indignation, pointing to the fact that this was illegitimate competition: Miedema, Archiefbescheiden, vol. 1, doc. A 110 225; vol. 2, pp. 529–30; and vol. 1, doc. A 120, pp. 246–53, esp. articles 19–23 and 29. See Boers-Goosens, “Een nieuwe markt voor kunst,” 195–219.

  26. 26. Eric Jan Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider, virtuoos en vernieuwer,” in Jan van Goyen, exh. cat., ed. Christiaan Vogelaar (Leiden: Lakenhal, 1996–97/Zwolle: Waanders, 1996), 41–42. See also Constantijn Huygens, Mijn jeugd, ed. Christiaan Lambert Heesakkers (Amsterdam: Querido, 1987), 79.

  27. 27. Jan Orlers, Beschrijvinge der Stadt Leyden (Leiden: Abraham Commelijn, 1641), 373–74.

  28. 28. Ampzing named the following Haarlem artists in 1621: Wat wil ik oock van Dijck (painter of still-lifes Floris van Dijck), Van Wierigen (specialist marine painter Cornelis Claeszn van Wierigen) hier melden, de Grebbers (history and portrait painters Frans Pieterszn and Pieter de Grebber), Matham (engraver Jacob Matham), Pot (history and portrait painter Hendrick Gerritszn Pot), Ian Jacobs (Guldewaghen, a landscape painter who is now completely forgotten), Vroom (marine and landscape painter Cornelis Vroom) and Velde (engraver Jan van de Velde), de Halsen (portrait and genre painters Dirck and Frans Hals), Campen (architect and history painter Jacob van Campen), Smit (marine painter Cornelis Verbeeck, alias de Smit, who is almost completely forgotten), Brey (architect and history painter Salomon de Bray), Bouchorst (glass painter Jan van Bouckhorst) and Pieter Molyn.

  29. 29. Samuel Ampzing, Beschrijvinge ende lof der stadt Haerlem in Hollandt (Haarlem: Rooman, 1628), 372. In the probate inventory of the notary Georgius van Velde, appraised by de Molijn himself in 1652, a painting is described as a landscape of Guldewaghen with images by Pieter de Molijn, for 54 guilders: Abraham Bredius, Künstler Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte der Holländischen Kunst des XVIten XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1915–22), 1613. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1; Jan Jacobszn Guldewaghen was the son of Jacob Janszn Guldewaghen, who was mentioned by Karel van Mander as an art lover. Schrevelius writes that he traveled to Italy. Guldewaghen lived in The Hague from 1630 on and was registered in the local painters’ guild. In 1641 his estate was executed in The Hague by his heirs: Thieme Becker XV, 330.

  30. 30. Theodorus Schrevelius, Harlemias, Ofte om beter te seggen, de eerste stichtinghe der stad Haerlem . . . (Haarlem: Thomas Fonteyn, 1648), 390. “Nae dees volgen Iohan Iacobsz, die Italien ghesien heeft en andere Landtschaps-Schilders meer als ghemeen Reyer Niclaes Zuycker, Gerard Bleycker, Salomon Rustendael, en meer andere. (After these follow Iohan Iacobsz, who saw Italy and other mediocre landscape painters namely Reyer Niclaes Zuycker, Gerard Bleycker, Salomon Rustendael and more others).”

  31. 31. Schrevelius, Harlemias, 389.

  32. 32. In his treatise on painting, Samuel van Hoogstraeten wrote in 1678 about an imaginary competition between Jan van Goyen, François Knibbergen, and Jan Porcellis, who competed with each other to complete a picture in one day: Samuel van Hoogstraten, Inleyding tot de hooghe schoole der schilder-konst (Rotterdam: Fransois van Hoogstraten, 1678), 237–38.

  33. 33. Houbraken, De groote schouburgh, 1:170 and 215.

  34. 34. Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider,” 41–42.

  35. 35. Sluijter names the inventories of Michiel Barrelbos and Bregitta Screvelius, appraised in Haarlem: Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider,” 41. For Pieter de Molijn, see the inventory of Louwijs Houwen, appraised in Amsterdam June 27, 1656; Getty Provenance Index: G.P.I., N-2215, with fifty-seven anonymous paintings besides a print by Jacob Matham and a “victorietje” by Pieter de Molijn.

  36. 36. Getty Provenance Index: fourteen paintings were ascribed to Salomon van Ruisdael in eight different inventories. See also Boers-Goosens, “Schilders en de markt,” 171.

  37. 37. This is all the more interesting because most names that were noted by the appraisers were of Leiden-based artists, such as Gerard Dou and van Goyen himself for that matter, whereas Pieter de Molijn was one of the few artist recognized by the appraisers who lived and worked outside Leiden. Willemijn Fock, “Kunstbezit in Leiden in de 17e eeuw,” in Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, ed. Theo Lunsingh Scheurleer, Willemijn Fock, and Albert Jan van Dissel (Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, 1990), 12–14 (dl. Va); and Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider,” 55n29. Jan van Goyen is mentioned seventy-nine times and Pieter de Molijn less frequently, but with forty-five listings he comes third after van Goyen.

  38. 38. In Amsterdam, twenty-one paintings in fourteen different inventories were ascribed to Jan van Goyen between 1629 and 1650 and twelve paintings by Pieter de Molijn in eleven inventories: Montias Database of probate inventories in Amsterdam (Frick Collection, online version).

  39. 39. Drenth’s wife Maritge Theunis also owned a small landscape in an ebony frame by de Molijn and a landscape by van Goyen acquired before the couple got married. The painter had a collection with works by artists from the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, such as Maarten van Heemskerck, Joos de Momper, Govert Janszn, and Gillis van Coninxloo. The only two contemporary painters in this inventory are Jan van Goyen and Pieter de Molijn: Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 288. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1

  40. 40. These are the figures derived from the Montias Database at the Frick Collection. There are considerable discrepancies compared to Montias’s 1991 article on paintings in Amsterdam inventories: John Michael Montias, “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam,” in Art in History/History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture, ed. David Freedberg and Jan de Vries (Santa Monica, Calif.: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1991), 364–67, tables 10a and 10b. There he found nine paintings in five different inventories that were ascribed to Jan van Goyen between 1620 and 1649 and eight by Pieter de Molijn in five inventories. According to Montias, in the same article, between 1650 and 1679 van Goyen was named twenty-two times in thirteen inventories and de Molijn twelve times in six.

  41. 41. In 1647 the Guild of Saint Luke in The Hague organized a public auction of paintings that lasted almost a week. Around 850 works of art were sold, mostly by contemporary artists: ten were by Pieter de Molijn and twenty-three by Jan van Goyen: Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 457–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1 There was also a copy after de Molijn in this auction. Seven paintings by Salomon van Ruisdael are mentioned in the auction book. De Molijn was not mentioned either in Delft or in Dordrecht, where several paintings were ascribed to Jan van Goyen. See John Loughman, “Een stad en haar kunstconsumptie: Openbare en privé-verzamelingen in Dordrecht 1620–1719,” in De zichtbaere werelt: Schilderkunst uit de Gouden Eeuw in Hollands oudste stad, exh. cat., ed. P. Marijnissen (Dordrechts Museum, 1992 –93/Zwolle: Waanders, 1992), 48. Salomon van Ruisdael is not on Loughman’s list. Before 1669 thirty-eight originals by Jan van Goyen and five copies after his work occur in Delft inventories, with a peak of twenty-two paintings in inventories dating from 1660. Pieter de Molijn and Salomon van Ruisdael were not among the twenty painters that were recognized most by the notary clerks in Delft. See John Michael Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982), 252.

  42. 42. For example, Beck does not mention Jacob van Ruisdael in his monograph Künstler um Jan van Goyen in 1991, because he does not consider him to be a follower but rather an artist of the same quality as van Goyen himself.

  43. 43. Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals, 19.

  44. 44. One of the most important owners of works by Jan van Goyen mentioned by Sluijter was the wealthy painter and factory owner Jan van de Capelle. He possessed ten landscapes by van Goyen and also 417 drawings by the artist; Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider,” 41.

  45. 45. Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 232, no. 178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1 De Renialme was an art dealer for the higher segment of the market. We can conclude this from the fact that he sent a list of all his paintings to Elector Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia. See Friso Lammertse and Jaap van der Veen, Uylenburgh & Zoon: Kunst en commercie van Rembrandt tot De Lairesse 1625–1675 (Zwolle: Waanders, 2006), 81, 256 and 275.

  46. 46. For example Cornelis van Teylingen and Lodewijck van Alteren van Jaarsvelt. De Molijn’s landscapes were bought by rich brewers, such as Gerrit Kinckhuysen and Bartholomeus van Brienen, and wealthy Haarlem merchants, such as Franchoys Maertens, Lucas de Clerq, and Adriaen Crommelingh. His work was represented in the collections of local notaries and lawyers, among others those of Pieter d’Assonville, Dirck Boortens, and Harmanus Capoen. Most of these individuals owned more than one painting by de Molijn, sometimes a pair, but sometimes four paintings or more. Getty Provenance Index: Lodewijk van Ateren van Jaarsvelt, G.P.I., N-2467, dated 1657; Pieter d’Assonville, G.P.I., N-1851, dated 1661; Dirck Boortens, G.P.I., N-5177, dated 1647; Bartel van Brienen, G.P.I., N-3911, dated 1653; Harmanus Capoen, G.P.I., N-2031, dated 1669; Lucas de Clerq, G.P.I., N-5364, dated 1640; Adriaen Crommelingh, G.P.I., N-3676, dated 1662; Gerrit Kinckhuysen, G.P.I., N-5305, dated 1668; Franchoys Maertens, G.P.I., N-5182, dated 1648; Cornelis van Teylingen, G.P.I., N-5363, dated 1640.

  47. 47. Abraham Bredius, “De schilder Johannes van de Capelle,” Oud Holland 10 (1892): 37. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501792X00361

  48. 48. Haak, Hollandse schilders, 365–66.

  49. 49. De Molijn was not only an official appraiser in Haarlem but probably also an art dealer. He deposited paintings with the Amsterdam art dealer Johannes de Renialme; Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 1854. For the inventories of 1640 and 1657, see Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 232 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1 (a landscape by de Molijn for fl. 30:0) and 233 (another landscape by de Molijn for fl. 24:0; and a landscape by van Goyen for fl. 48:0), but these prices are low compared to the landscape by Porcellis for fl. 150:0 (p. 231).

  50. 50. See Marion Boers–Goosens, “De schilderijenverzameling van Baron Willem Vincent van Wyttenhorst,” Oud Holland 117 (2004): 205–6. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501704X00386

  51. 51. He found a total of forty-six paintings by van Goyen that were appraised in probate inventories or sold during the 1647 auction of the Guild of Saint Luke in The Hague. The most expensive painting was in the estate of the Haarlem merchant and art collector Dirck Smuyser; Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider,” 42.

  52. 52. In 1636 Cornelis Kittensteyn organized a lottery in Haarlem, which he advertised with three paintings by Jan van Goyen appraised by Salomon van Ruisdael (sic!) for 52, 50, and 48 guilders. In around 1640 a lottery list was published in Leiden by Jan van den Bosch with eight paintings by van Goyen with an average price of 34.25 guilders.

  53. 53. Marion Boers-Goosens, “Prices of Northern Netherlandish Paintings in the Seventeenth Century,” in In His Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michael Montias, ed. Amy Golany (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 66–67.

  54. 54. Sources: Bredius, Künstler Inventare; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1 Montias Database at the Frick Collection (Amsterdam inventories); and the Getty Provenance Index.

  55. 55. Gemeente Archief Amsterdam (GAA) 570. 4921, ff. 140–64v, notary Laurens Lamberti (G.P.I., N-2278, dated October 3, 1647). In 1652, de Molijn appraised the paintings of the Haarlem notary Georgius van Velde. On the list was a landscape by Guldewaghen with figures by de Molijn for fl. 54:0.

  56. 56. Gemeente Archief Amsterdam (GAA) 1713, fol. 44, fl. 13:6 (G.P.I., N-2132, dated January 3, 1660).

  57. 57. In 1650 Van Vliet in Delft owned a small painting by de Molijn for fl. 3:5 (Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 1440) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1; in 1656 Abraham de Pape in Leiden one for fl. 8:0 (Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 1860); in 1656 Louwies Houwen one in Amsterdam for fl. 8:0 (G.P.I., N-2215); and in 1660 Willem Bus one in Amsterdam for fl. 3:0 (G.P.I., N-2132).

  58. 58. The average price of landscapes by de Molijn in the 1647 sale in The Hague was also marginally lower than the price of those of Jan van Goyen: 16.34 guilders. The auction book mentions six paintings by Pieter de Molijn, three without a price. The lowest price is fl. 6:15, the highest price is fl. 26:10. Compare the price of a “principael van Terburch” (Ter Borch) for fl. 50:0 in this auction: Bredius, Künstler Inventare, 468, no. 156. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1

  59. 59. The lowest amount for a painting by Pieter de Molijn was for a small landscape worth fl. 21:00, the highest fl. 96:00 for a “large round painting.” For example, the van Goyens in the lottery of Jan van den Bosch around 1640 in Leiden varied between 15 and 78 guilders and the works by de Molijn were a bit more expensive, being estimated between 21 and 85 guilders. See Fock in Rapenburg, ed. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock and van Dissel, 32.

  60. 60. Eleven landscapes by Pieter de Molijn occur in the lottery list of Ian Pieterszn van den Bosch, dated ca. 1640. The small paintings are estimated at prices around fl. 20:0 and the large ones around fl. 80:0. Unfortunately there are no landscapes by Salomon van Ruisdael on this list. However, work by van Ruisdael was in Haarlem lotteries dated 1634 and 1636. The prices mentioned on these lists are higher and comparable to those for paintings by Pieter de Molijn. Two large landscapes were priced at fl. 90:0 and a small landscape at fl. 16:0. The average price of the six paintings by Salomon van Ruisdael was much higher than for Molijn’s landscapes: fl. 60.33, but this average is based on less data and is moreover the result of the fact that two of the paintings are large landscapes with the relatively high price of fl. 90:0. For the lottery of J. P. van den Bosch in Valkenburg in ca 1640, see Fock in Rapenburg, ed. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock, and van Dissel, 32. For the two lotteries in Haarlem, dating from1634 and 1636, see Miedema, Archiefbescheiden, 1:157–58 and 194–95.

  61. 61. G.P.I., N-2278, dated October 3, 1647.

  62. 62. This is the case in the estate of Leendert Gysbertszn Bardenis, dated 1647. He owned three originals by Pieter de Molijn, valued at fl.10:0, fl. 12:0, and fl. 32:0, compared to four landscapes by van Goyen for fl. 16:0, fl. 20:0 (twice), and fl. 22:0. See G.P.I., N-5177. Compare the inventories of Franchoijs Maertens, dated June 23, 1648 (G.P.I., N-5182): “principalen” by de Molijn, fl. 8:0 and fl. 12:0; “principael” by Jan van Goyen, fl. 15:0; of Dirck Smuyser, dated January 23, 1653(G.P.I., N-3713): two paintings by de Molijn, fl. 42:0 and fl. 20:0, one by Jan van Goyen, fl. 54:0; of Lodewijck van Alteren van Jaersvelt, dated 1657 (G.P.I., N-2467): two landscapes by de Molijn at fl. 10:0 and fl. 30:0 fl., landscapes by Jan van Goyen, fl. 10:0, fl.14:0, and fl. 30:0; of Johan Schade in Utrecht, dated August 31, 1658 (G.P.I., N-1749): two landscapes by de Molijn, fl. 12:0 and fl. 23:0, and one by van Goyen for fl. 20:0 . Also compare the landscape by de Molijn valued at fl. 24:0 in the inventory of Johannes de Renialme, dated December 20, 1657 (G.P.I., N-2213) to the landscape of Jan van Goyen listed in the same inventory for fl. 48:0.

  63. 63. Until 1665 the average price of a landscape by Pieter de Molijn was 18.85 guilders, but for Salomon van Ruisdael it came to 10 guilders. This changed after 1665, when prices for paintings by Pieter de Molijn started to drop, whereas the highest appraisals for landscapes by Salomon van Ruisdael were noted during the final decades of the seventeenth century (although the average remained lower than for de Molijn’s landscapes at a sum of 13 guilders); Boers-Goosens, “Schilders en de markt,” 311. See also Alain Chong, “The Market for Landscape Painting in Seventeenth-Century Holland,” in Masters of Dutch Landscape, ed. Sutton, 118. Based on six prices, he calculated an average of fl. 8.7 for the period 1651–75 and based on five prices, an average of fl. 12.4 for the period from 1676 to 1700. Dirck Smuyser owned five works by Salomon van Ruisdael at an average value of 13 guilders in 1668. In the same year, a landscape by van Ruisdael was appraised at 20 guilders, the highest valuation for a landscape by Salomon van Ruisdael in the seventeenth century; the inventory of Gerrit Kinckhuysen dated September 5, 1668 (G.P.I., N-5305).

  64. 64. Eric Jan Sluijter,“Over Brabantse vodden, economische concurrentie, artistieke wedijver en de groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw,” in Kunst voor de markt/Art for the Market 1500–1700, ed. Reindert Falkenburg, Nederlands Kunsthistorische Jaarboek 50 (1999): 123 and 125–26. https://doi.org/10.1163/22145966-90000651 Also published in translation: JHNA 1, no. 2 (2009). Melanie Gifford. “Esaias van de Velde’s Technical Innovations: Translating a Graphic Tradition into Paint.” In Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice, 145–49 (Dublin, 1998).

  65. 65. For Joris van Oorschot inventory, see Montias Database at the Frick Collection (online): dated June 30, 1671, Gemeente Archief Amsterdam (GAA), Notarieel Archief (NA) 1495, fol 189v.

  66. 66. Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 82.

  67. 67. Allen, “Pieter Molijn,” 2.

  68. 68. Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals, 70 and n. 252 (for Junius).

  69. 69. Reindert Falkenburg, “Onweer bij Jan van Goyen: Artistieke wedijver en de markt voor het Hollandse landschap in de 17de eeuw,” in Natuur en landschap in de Nederlandse kunst 1500–1850, ed. Falkenburg, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 48 (1997): 143.

  70. 70. “Onder de Landtschaps-Schilders is noch in ’t leven Cornelis Vroom, die in ’t sijn sijn vader niet en wijckt. Men houdt het daer voor dat hy alsoo uyt-steeckt in syn kunst dat hy qualijck niemandt sijns gelijck heeft van die noch leven hoewel Pieter de Moulijn, nae ’t oordeel van veele hem seer nae komt, jae in gelijcke graed (Among the landscape painters still lives Cornelis Vroom, who equals his father. People maintain that he stands out so much in his art that there is hardly anyone like him among living artists, although Pieter de Molijn, according to many, comes very close in equaling him).” Schrevelius, Harlemias, 389.

  71. 71. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh, 1:215. “Pieter de Molyn was een fraai landschapschilder, helder in zyn verschieten, als ook natuurlijk gloeiend op de voorgronden (Pieter de Molyn is a fine landscape painter, clear in his distances and naturally glowing in the foreground).”

  72. 72. For the term glowing in seventeenth-century Dutch painting, see Paul Taylor, “The Glow in Late Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Dutch Landscape,” in Looking through Paintings: The Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of Art Historical Research, ed. Erna Hermens, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 11(1998): 174–75.

  73. 73. Beck, Pieter Molijn: Katalog der Handzeichnungen, 14.

  74. 74. Franciscus Junius, De schilderkonst der ouden, begrepen in drie boecken (Middelburg, 1641), 29 (translation: Eric Jan Sluijter).

Bibliography

Allen, Eva Jeney. “The Life and Art of Pieter Molijn.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1987.

Ampzing, Samuel [?]. Het lof der stad Haerlem in Hollandt. Haarlem 1621

Ampzing, Samuel. Beschrijvinge ende lof der stadt Haerlem in Hollandt. Haarlem: Rooman, 1628.

Beck, Hans Ulrich. Künstler um Jan van Goyen, Doornspijk: Davaco, 1991.

Beck, Hans Ulrich. Pieter Molijn: Katalog der Handzeichnungen. Doornspijk: Davaco, 1998.

Biesboer, Pieter, ed. Jacob van Ruisdael: De revolutie van het Hollandse landschap. Exh. cat. Haarlem: Frans Hals Museum and Hamburg: Kunsthalle, 2002/Zwolle: Waanders, 2002.

Boers-Goosens, Marion. “De schilderijenverzameling van Baron Willem Vincent van Wyttenhorst.” Oud Holland 117 (2004): 181–243. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501704X00386

Boers-Goosens, Marion. “Een nieuwe markt voor kunst: De expansie van de Haarlemse schilderijenmarkt in de eerste helft van de zeventiende eeuw.” In Kunst voor de markt/Art for the Market 1500–1700. Edited by Reindert Falkenburg, 194–219. Nederlands Kunsthistorische Jaarboek 50 (1999).

Boers-Goosens, Marion. “Prices of Northern Netherlandish Paintings in the Seventeenth Century.” In In His Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michael Montias. Edited by Amy Golany, 59–71. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006.

Boers-Goosens, Marion. “Schilders en de markt, Haarlem 1600–1635.” PhD diss., Universiteit Leiden, 2001.

Bol, Laurens Johannes. Holländische Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts nahe der grossen Meister: Landschaften und Stilleben. Braunschweig: Klinkhardt & Biemann, 1969.

Bredius, Abraham. “De schilder Johannes van de Capelle.” Oud Holland 10 (1892): 133–36. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501792X00361

Bredius, Abraham. Künstler Inventare: Urkunden zur Geschichte der Holländischen Kunst des XVIten XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1915–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9252-1

Brown, Christopher. Dutch Landscape: The Early Years, Haarlem and Amsterdam 1590–1650. Exh cat. London: National Gallery, 1986.

Falkenburg, Reindert. “Onweer bij Jan van Goyen: Artistieke wedijver en de markt voor het Hollandse landschap in de 17de eeuw.” In Natuur en landschap in de Nederlandse kunst, 1500–1850, 117–61. Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 48 (1997).

Gifford, Melanie. “Esaias van de Velde’s Technical Innovations: Translating a Graphic Tradition into Paint.” In Painting Techniques: History, Materials and Studio Practice, 145–49. Dublin, 1998.

Granberg, Olof. Pieter de Molijn (de Oude) och spåren af hans konst: En konsthistorisk studie. Stockholm: Gernandts, 1883.

Granberg, Olof. “Pieter Molyn und seine Kunst.” Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 19 (1884): 369–77.

Haak, Bob. Hollandse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw. Zwolle: Waanders 1984.

Hollstein, Friedrich Wilhelm Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, ca. 1450–1700, Amsterdam: Hertzberger, 1949–.

Hoogstraten, Samuel van. Inleyding tot de hooghe schoole der schilder-konst. Rotterdam: Fransois van Hoogstraten, 1678.

Houbraken, Arnold. De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen. 3 vols. Amsterdam: Houbraken, 1718–21.

Huygens, Constantijn. Mijn jeugd. Edited by Christiaan Lambert Heesakkers. Amsterdam: Querido, 1987.

Junius, Franciscus. De schilderkonst der ouden, begrepen in drie boecken. Middelburg: Zacharias Roman 1641.

Köhler, Neeltje, Biesboer, Pieter, et al. Painting in Haarlem 1500–1850: The Collection of the Frans Hals Museum. Ghent: Ludion, 2006.

Lammertse, Friso, and Jaap van der Veen, Uylenburgh & Zoon: Kunst en commercie van Rembrandt tot De Lairesse 1625–1675. Zwolle: Waanders, 2006.

Lunsingh Scheurleer, Theo, Willemijn Fock, and Albert Jan van Dissel, eds. Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, 1990.

Marijnissen, Peter, et. al. De zichtbaere werelt: Schilderkunst uit de Gouden Eeuw in Hollands oudste stad. Exh. cat. Dordrechts Museum, 1992–93/Zwolle: Waanders, 1992.

Miedema, Hessel. Archiefbescheiden van het St. Lucasgilde te Haarlem 1497–1798. 2 vols. Alphen aan den Rijn: Canaletto, 1980.

Montias, John Michael. Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Montias, John Michael. “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam.” In Art in History/History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture. Edited by David Freedberg and Jan de Vries, 331–72. Santa Monica, Calif.: Getty Center for Art History and the Humanities, 1991.

Orlers, Jan. Beschrijvinge der Stadt Leyden. Leiden: Abraham Commelijn, 1641.

Schrevelius, Theodorus. Harlemias, Ofte om beter te seggen, de eerste stichtinghe der stad Haerlem . . . Haarlem: Thomas Fonteyn, 1648.

Sluijter, Eric Jan. “Jan van Goyen als marktleider, virtuoos en vernieuwer.” In Jan van Goyen. Exh. cat. Edited by Christiaan Vogelaar, 38–59. Leiden: Lakenhal 1996–97/Zwolle: Waanders, 1996.

Sluijter, Eric Jan. “Over Brabantse vodden, economische concurrentie, artistieke wedijver en de groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw.” In Kunst voor de markt/Art for the Market 1500–1700. Edited by Reindert Falkenburg, 112–43. Nederlands Kunsthistorische Jaarboek 50 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1163/22145966-90000651

Sluijter, Eric Jan. Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam 1630–1650. Oculi: Studies in the Arts of the Low Countries 14. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 2015.

Stechow, Wolfgang. Dutch Landscape Painting of the Seventeenth Century. London: Phaidon, 1966.

Sutton, Peter, ed. Masters of 17th-century Dutch Landscape Painting. Exh. cat. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum; Boston: Museum of Fine Arts; and Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1987–88.

Taylor, Paul. “The Glow in Late Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Dutch Landscape.” In Looking through Paintings: The Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of Art Historical Research. Edited by Erna Hermens, 159–78. Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 11 (1998).

Turner, Jane, et al. The Dictionary of Art. London and New York: Grove, 1996.

Wurzbach, Alfred Wolfgang von. Niederländisches Künstler-Lexicon. Vienna and Leipzig: Halm und Goldmann, 1906–11.

Imprint

Review: Peer Review (Double Blind)
DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2017.9.2.5
License:
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Recommended Citation:
Marion Boers, "Pieter de Molijn (1597–1661): A Dutch Painter and the Art Market in the Seventeenth Century," Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 9:2 (Summer 2017) DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2017.9.2.5