Jan van Goyen: Virtuoso, Innovator, and Market Leader

Gezicht op de Oude Maas bij Dordrecht *oil on panel *67.2 x 98.1 cm *signed b.c.: VG 1651*1651

This article is a translation from the original Dutch, which first appeared in the catalogue for the exhibition Jan van Goyen (Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal, Leiden, 1996). The essay examines the “strategies” regarding style, subject matter, technique, and price level that Jan van Goyen appears to have used to position himself in the art market. In particular, it discusses the radical change in style and the continuous innovations that Van Goyen introduced into his landscapes as he became a market leader. The Postscript offers insight into the origin and aim of the essay and refers to relevant information that emerged after the initial publication date.

DOI: 10.5092/jhna.13.2.4
Cornelis van Poelenburch, Landscape with Ruins and Figures, Collection HM Queen Elizabeth II, London
Fig. 1 Cornelis van Poelenburch, Landscape with Ruins and Figures, oil on copper mounted on panel, 31.7 x 40 cm. Collection HM Queen Elizabeth II,  Buckingham Palace / Windsor Castle, London (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Dune Landscape, 1629, Gemäldegalerie, Berlin
Fig. 2 Jan van Goyen, Dune Landscape, 1629, oil on panel, 29 x 51 cm. Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, inv. no. 865 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Esaias van de Velde, Two Horsemen in a Dune Landscape, 1614, Rijksmuseum Twenthe, Enschede
Fig. 3 Esaias van de Velde, Two Horsemen in a Dune Landscape, 1614, oil on panel, 25 x 32.5 cm. Rijksmuseum Twenthe, Enschede, inv. no. 0079 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan Porcellis, Estuary with Ships in Stormy Weather, ca. 1630, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam
Fig. 4 Jan Porcellis, Estuary with Ships in Stormy Weather, ca. 1630, oil on panel, 58 x 80.5 cm. Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam, inv. no. 1675 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Alexander Keirincx and Cornelis van Poelenburch, Wooded Landscape with Figures, 1629, Mauritshuis, The Hague
Fig. 5 Alexander Keirincx and Cornelis van Poelenburch, Wooded Landscape with Figures, 1629, oil on panel, 64 x 92 cm. Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 79 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of The Hague from the South-East, 1651, Historisch Museum, The Hague
Fig. 6 Jan van Goyen, View of The Hague from the South-East, 1651, oil on canvas, 170 x 438 cm. Haags Historisch Museum, The Hague, inv. no. 1862-0006-SCH (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of the River Vliet at Voorschoten with House Oostbos, 1642, Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden
Fig. 7 Jan van Goyen, View of the River Vliet at Voorschoten with House Oostbos, 1642, oil on canvas, 131.5 x 252.5 cm. Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden, inv. no. B 1431, on loan from Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of the Valkhof Castle, 1641, Museum het Valkhof, Nijmegen
Fig. 8 Jan van Goyen, View of the Valkhof Castle, 1641, oil on canvas, 154 x 258 cm. Museum het Valkhof, Nijmegen, inv. no. XVI 6 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Castle by a River, 1647, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Fig. 9 Jan van Goyen, Castle by a River, 1647, oil on panel, 66 x 97.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 64.65.1 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, River View, 1636, Alte Pinakothek, Munich
Fig. 10 Jan van Goyen, River View, 1636, oil on panel, 39 x 60 cm. Alte Pinakothek, Munich, inv. no. 4893 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Cornelis van Poelenburch, Landscape with the Flight into Egypt, 1625, Centraal Museum, Utrecht
Fig. 11 Cornelis van Poelenburch, Landscape with the Flight into Egypt, 1625, oil on canvas, 48.2 x 71.1 cm. Centraal Museum, Utrecht, inv. no. 8391 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Fortified Town at a River, 1651, P. de Boer, Amsterdam
Fig. 12 Jan van Goyen, Fortified Town at a River, 1651, oil on paper mounted on panel, 25.5 x 41 cm., P. de Boer, Amsterdam, 2015 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Winter, 1625, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 13 Jan van Goyen, Winter, 1625, oil on panel, 33.4 cm diam. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-3946 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Esaias van de Velde, Two Horsemen in a Dune Landscape, 1614, Rijksmuseum Twenthe, Enschede
Fig. 3a Esaias van de Velde, Two Horsemen in a Dune Landscape (fig. 3) [side-by-side viewer]
Esaias van de Velde, The Cattle Ferry, 1622, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 14 Esaias van de Velde, The Cattle Ferry, 1622, oil on panel, 75.5 x 113 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-1293 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Village View, 1625, Kunsthalle, Bremen
Fig. 15 Jan van Goyen, Village View, 1625, oil on panel, 78 x 124 cm. Kunsthalle, Bremen, inv. no. 48-1826/99 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan Brueghel the Elder, Parish Fair in Schelle, 1614, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna
Fig. 16 Jan Brueghel the Elder, Parish Fair in Schelle, 1614, oil on panel, 52 x 90.5 cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. no. GG 9102 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Hendrick Avercamp, Winter Landscape with Skaters near a Castle, 1608, Bergen Art Museum
Fig. 17 Hendrick Avercamp, Winter Landscape with Skaters near a Castle, 1608, oil on panel, 33 x 55.5 cm. Bergen Art Museum, Bergen (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van de Velde II, Ver (Spring) from the Four Seasons series, 1671, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 18 Jan van de Velde II, Ver (Spring) from the Four Seasons series, 1671, etching on paper, 26.8 x 35.8 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van de Velde II, Hyems (Winter) from the Four Seasons series, 1671, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 19 Jan van de Velde II, Hyems (Winter) from the Four Seasons series, 1671, etching on paper, 26.8 x 35.8 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 13a Jan van Goyen, Winter, 1625 (fig. 13) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Winter Landscape, 1626, Christie’s, New York, sale June 4, 2014, lot 6
Fig. 20 Jan van Goyen, Winter Landscape, 1626, oil on panel, 32.5 x 50 cm. Christie’s, New York, sale of June 4, 2014, lot 6 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Esaias van de Velde, Winter Landscape, 1615, Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig
Fig. 21 Esaias van de Velde, Winter Landscape, 1615, oil on panel, 28 x 46 cm. Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Sandy Road with a Farmhouse, 1627, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Fig. 22 Jan van Goyen, Sandy Road with a Farmhouse, 1627, oil on panel, 30.8 x 41.3 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 1972.25 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 3b Esaias van de Velde, Two Horsemen in a Dune Landscape (fig. 3) [side-by-side viewer]
Esaias van de Velde, Road through the Dunes, ca. 1614, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 23 Esaias van de Velde, Road through the Dunes, ca. 1614, etching on paper, 6.9 x 10.2 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Pieter de Molijn, Dune Landscape with Trees and Wagon, 1626, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig
Fig. 24 Pieter de Molijn, Dune Landscape with Trees and Wagon, 1626, oil on panel, 26 x 36 cm. Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig, inv. no. 338 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Cottage on a Heath, ca. 1629, National Gallery, London
Fig. 25 Jan van Goyen, Cottage on a Heath, ca. 1629, oil on panel, 39.7 x 60.5 cm. National Gallery, London, inv. no. NG 137 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Dune Landscape with Cottage and Figures, 1629, Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection
Fig. 26 Jan van Goyen, Dune Landscape with Cottage and Figures, 1629, oil on panel. Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection on loan at the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid, inv. no. CTB.1994.22 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Village Street with Peasants, 1628, Städel Museum, Frankfurt
Fig. 27 Jan van Goyen, Village Street with Peasants, 1628, oil on panel, 35.7 x 63 cm. Städel Museum, Frankfurt, inv. no. SG 1236 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Landscape with a Village View, 1626, Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden
Fig. 28 Jan van Goyen, Landscape with a Village View, 1626, oil on panel, 32 x 59 cm. Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden, inv. no. S 860 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Landscape with View of a Castle, 1624, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 29 Jan van Goyen, Landscape with View of a Castle, 1624, pen and brown ink on paper, 5.3 x 8.8 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-T-1899-A-4317 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Village with Figures in Winter, 1626, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 30 Jan van Goyen, Village with Figures in Winter, 1626, brush and gray, brown, blue, and gray-green ink with black chalk on paper, 19.4 x 32 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-T-1902-A-4701 C (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 9a Jan van Goyen, Castle by a River (fig. 9) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, The Pelkus Gate near Utrecht, 1646, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Fig. 31 Jan van Goyen, The Pelkus Gate near Utrecht, 1646, oil on panel, 36.8 x 57.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 45.146.3 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Selling Fish at the Beach of Scheveningen, 1632, Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig
Fig. 32 Jan van Goyen, Selling Fish at the Beach of Scheveningen, 1632, oil on panel, 29.5 x 43 cm. Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig, inv. no. 235 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, The Shore at Egmond-at-See, 1645, State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg
Fig. 33 Jan van Goyen, The Shore at Egmond-at-See, 1645, oil on panel, 54 x 72 cm. State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg, inv. no. GZ-993 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Sailing Vessels on a Lake, 1639, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam
Fig. 34 Jan van Goyen, Sailing Vessels on a Lake, 1639, oil on panel, 47 x 70 cm. Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam, inv. no. VdV 32 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, A River Scene with Fishermen Hauling a Net, 1640–45, National Gallery, London
Fig. 35 Jan van Goyen, A River Scene with Fishermen Hauling a Net, 1640–45, oil on panel, 37 x 33 cm. National Gallery, London, inv. no. NG6155 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Ships on the Haarlemmermeer, 1656, Städel Museum, Frankfurt
Fig. 36 Jan van Goyen, Ships on the Haarlemmermeer, 1656, oil on panel, 40.5 x 55.5 cm. Städel Museum, Frankfurt, inv. no. SG 1071 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Extensive Landscape with View of Rhenen, 1636, Private collection
Fig. 37 Jan van Goyen, Extensive Landscape with View of Rhenen, 1636, oil on panel, 101 x 136.5 cm. Private collection (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of Haarlem and the Haarlemmermeer, 1646, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Fig. 38 Jan van Goyen, View of Haarlem and the Haarlemmermeer, 1646, oil on panel, 34.6 x 50.5 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 71.62 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of the River Rhine near Rhenen, 1646, Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed
Fig. 39 Jan van Goyen, View of the River Rhine near Rhenen, 1646, oil on panel, 66 x 98 cm. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, inv. no. NK2710 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of Leiden from the Northeast, 1650, Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden
Fig. 40 Jan van Goyen, View of Leiden from the Northeast, 1650, oil on panel, 66.5 x 97.5 cm. Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden, inv. no. S115 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of Dordrecht, 1651, Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht
Fig. 41 Jan van Goyen, View of Dordrecht, 1651, oil on panel, 67.2 x 98.1 cm. Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht, inv. no. DM/008/886 (artwork in the public domain) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1679775 [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 13b Jan van Goyen, Winter, 1625 (fig. 13) [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 20a Jan van Goyen, Winter Landscape (fig. 20) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Frozen River with Skaters, ca. 1641, Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed
Fig. 42 Jan van Goyen, Frozen River with Skaters, ca. 1641, oil on panel, 35 x 46 cm. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, inv. no. NK2512 [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, A Thunderstorm, 1641, Legion of Honor Museum, San Francisco
Fig. 43 Jan van Goyen, A Thunderstorm, 1641, oil on canvas, 137.8 x 183.2 cm. Legion of Honor Museum, San Francisco (artwork in the public domain) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Goyen_1641_The_Thunderstorm.jpg [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 36a Jan van Goyen, Ships on the Haarlemmermeer (fig. 36a) [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 41a Jan van Goyen, View of Dordrecht (fig. 41) [side-by-side viewer]
  1. 1. Constantijn Huygens, De jeugd van Constantijn Huygens door hemzelf beschreven, trans. A. H. Kan (Rotterdam: Ad. Donker, 1971), 73. The autobiography was written between 1629 and 1631 {[Huygens wrote the paragraphs on the art of painting in the first months of 1631; see Inge Broekman, Constantijn Huygens: De kunst en het hof” (PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 2010), 179.}

  2. 2. Huygens, De jeugd, 73.

  3. 3. In this respect, Huygens’s connoisseurship apparently had little influence at the Stadholder’s court. Cornelis van Poelenburch was highly appreciated at the court (as, somewhat less so, was Moyses van Uyttenbroeck), while Van Goyen is not included in the collections of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia van Solms. See Sophia W. A. Drossaers and Th. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmede gelijk te stellen stukken 1567–1795 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974–1976), vol. 1. On the other hand, Van Goyen must have received a commission from the court to paint a country house of the stadholder (see n. 81).

  4. 4. Huygens, De jeugd, 72.

  5. 5. On the chimney depicted in Thomas de Keyser’s portrait of Huygens from 1627 (National Gallery, London), we glimpse the corner of a painting that seems to be a seascape by Porcellis; Huygens appears to present himself in this portrait as a man of advanced taste. {On the high regard in which Porcellis was held by connoisseurs, see Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘Dien grooten Raphel in het zeeschilderen!’ Over de waardering van Jan Porcellis’ sobere kunst door eigentijdse kenners,” in Liber Amicorum Marijke de Kinkelder: Collegiale bijdragen over landschappen, marines en architectuur, ed. Charles Dumas et al. (The Hague: Waanders, 2013), 343–58.}

  6. 6. See, for example, H. van de Waal, Jan van Goyen (Amsterdam: H. J. W. Becht, 1941), 49; and Hans-Ulrich Beck, Jan van Goyen 1596–1656: Ein Oeuvreverzeichnis (Amsterdam: A. L. van Gendt 1972), 1:16 and 19. Beck repeated this claim several times, as, for example, in Hans-Ulrich Beck et al., Jan Van Goyen, 1596–1656: Conquest of Space; Paintings from Museums and Private Collections, exh. cat. (Amsterdam and Bremen: K.&V. Waterman and Car. Ed. Schünemann KG, 1981), 11; and Hans-Ulrich Beck, Jan van Goyen 1596–1656, exh. cat. (London: Richard Green, 1996), n.p.

  7. 7. Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 52. 

  8. 8. About Orlers and the shaping of the canon by city descriptions, see Eric Jan Sluijter, De lof der schilderkunst: Over schilderijen van Gerrit Dou (1613–1675) en een traktaat van Philips Angel uit 1642 (Hilversum: Verloren, 1993), 11–14. {English translation: Eric Jan Sluijter, “In Praise of the Art of Painting: On Paintings by Gerrit Dou and a Treatise by Philips Angel of 1642,” in Eric Jan Sluijter, Seductress of Sight: Studies in Dutch Art of the Golden Age (Zwolle: Waanders, 2000), 201–5.}

  9. 9. Jan Orlers, Beschrijvinge der Stadt Leyden (Leiden, 1641), 352.

  10. 10. Orlers, Beschrijvinge, 373.

  11. 11. For a description of these technical changes, see E. Melanie Gifford, “Style and Technique in Dutch Landscape Painting in the 1620s,” in Preprints: Historical Painting Techniques, Materials and Studio Practice, ed. Arie Wallert, Erma Hermsen, and Marja Peek (Leiden and Malibu: Getty Conservation Institute, 1995). {See also E. Melanie Gifford, “Jan van Goyen en de techniek van het naturalistisch landschap,” in Jan van Goyen, ed. Christiaan Vogelaar, 70–79, exh. cat. (Zwolle and Leiden: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1996).}

  12. 12. Samuel van Hoogstraten, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst: Anders de zichtbaere werelt (Rotterdam, 1678), 237.

  13. 13. Hans Floerke, Studien zur Niederländischen Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte: Die Formen des Kunsthandels, das Atelier und die Sammler in den Niederlanden vom 15.-18. Jahnhundert (Munich and Leipzig: Georg Müller, 1905), 19–20. With an advance payment of thirty-two guilders and thereafter fifteen guilders per week, he had to make—with help of a pupil—two paintings every week for twenty weeks. The profit, after deducting forty guilders for pigments and four guilders for every panel, would be shared equally. {This has often been cited as a sign of the miserable financial situation of a painter who had to work “on the galley,” but in fact it was not at all a poor arrangement; see Sluijter, “Dien grooten Raphel in het zeeschilderen,” 346–47.}

  14. 14. John Michael Montias, “Cost and Value in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art,” Art History 10 (1987): 455–86, expanded on—especially with regard to rapid, “‘monochrome’ painting”—in John Michael Montias, “The Influence of Economic Factors on Style,” De Zeventiende Eeuw 6, no. 1 (1990): 49–57. On the explosive growth of the number of painters in this period, see Jan de Vries, “Art History,” in Art in History/History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture; Issues & Debates, ed. David Freedberg and Jan de Vries (Santa Monica: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1991), 256–65. {For an art-historical explanation of this development, see Eric Jan Sluijter, “On Brabant Rubbish: Economic Competition, Artistic Rivalry and the Growth of the Market for Paintings in the First Decades of the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of the Historians of Netherlandish Art 1, no. 2 (Summer 2009), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2009.1.2.4.}

  15. 15. On the concept net (neat) or netticheyt (neatness) that Karel van Mander used in connection with earlier painters such as Jan van Eyck and Lucas van Leyden, see Sluijter, Lof der schilderkunst, 56–65 {English version: Sluijter, Seductress of Sight, 244–55}. In my view, Van Goyen’s technique falls within the category of what Philips Angel calls a los, wacker en soet-vloeyend penceel (a loose, adroit, and smoothly fluent brush): Philips Angel, Lof der schilder-konst (Leiden, 1642), 56. This should not be mistaken for the rouwe (rough) manner that van Mander mentions in connection with Titian, which was pursued by Rembrandt in his later work.

  16. 16. See Eric Jan Sluijter, “Schilders van ‘cleyne, subtile ende curieuse dingen’: Leidse ‘fijnschilders’ in contemporaine bronnen,” in Leidse fijnschilders: Van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge, 1630–1760, ed. Eric Jan Sluijter, Marlies Enklaar, and Paul Nieuwenhuizen (Zwolle and Leiden: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1988), 36–37. In addition to the ten paintings he had bought for Christina of Sweden (which were returned to him), Spiering Silvercroon owned several more works by Dou. Moreover, the Leiden burgomaster Johan de Bye owned twenty-seven paintings by Dou, and François de le Boe Sylvius owned ten or eleven.

  17. 17. With regard to Poelenburch, Willem Vincent Baron van Wyttenhorst owned no fewer than fifty-seven paintings by his hand, and Frederik Hendrik and Amalia van Solms owned at least nineteen (some of them made in collaboration with Alexander Keirincx or Roelant Savery). See Nicolette C. Sluijter-Seijffert, “Cornelis van Poelenburch (ca. 1593–1667)” (PhD diss., Leiden University, 1984), appendices 2 and 3 {Enlarged English edition: Nicolette C. Sluijter-Seijffert, Cornelis van Poelenburch, 1594/5–1667: The Paintings (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2016), appendices 2 and 3.}.

  18. 18. The economic market principles of “product differentiation” and “process and product innovation” were first brought forward in this context by John Michael Montias, particularly in “Influence of Economic Factors,” 50–52. See also Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet, “Art, Value and Market Practices in the Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century,” Art Bulletin 76 (1994): 452–54; and Marten Jan Bok, “Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt, 1580-1700” (PhD diss., Utrecht University, 1994), 116–18.

  19. 19. In the RKD’s photo documentation classification system, all painters that were considered as belonging to the “school” of a certain artist (not necessarily pupils, but artists working in a related style) were arranged together: Van Goyen-school, Poelenburch-school, Rembrandt-school, Dou-school, Ruisdael-school, Wouwerman-school. This reflects well that those painters can be seen as “market leaders.” After the “Rembrandt-school,” the “Van Goyen-school” is by far the largest of these groups (twenty-one painters).

  20. 20. For instance, see Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:16 and 19.

  21. 21. See the documents in Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:29–36.

  22. 22. During the 1640s his debts began to run higher; possibly this financial downturn began with large losses from speculation in tulip bulbs. See Abraham Bredius, “Jan Josephszoon van Goyen: Nieuwe bijdragen tot zijne biographie,” Oud Holland 14 (1896): 113—25. His standard of living and the art with which he surrounded himself becomes clear from some sales: in 1652 his paintings yielded 3,749.9 guilders; in 1654 another 2,812 guilders for paintings and drawings.

  23. 23. After his death, some household effects and paintings were sold for 2,415.4 guilders. He still owned no fewer than six houses, which were sold for 15,670 guilders; altogether these sales totaled a bit more than his debts, which amounted to about 18,000 guilders. Unfortunately, we have no details about the paintings that were sold and whether they comprised a personal collection or his stock as an art dealer.

  24. 24. The number of dated paintings in the catalogue of Hans-Ulrich Beck jumps from sixteen in 1639, to twenty-five in 1640, to thirty-eight in 1641, and to fifty-seven in 1642, with a peak of sixty-seven in 1646. In 1648 it diminishes again to twenty-seven and after that year it remains in the twenties and lower thirtiess, with a sudden peak of sixty-four in 1651 (among which were twenty works of oil on paper) and a sudden low of twelve in 1654; there are again thirty-seven paintings in 1655, and from the year of his death (April 27, 1656) only one painting.

  25. 25. On the painter’s plea in this poem from Cats’s Trouringh (1632), which was cited in full by Philips Angel (Angel, Lof der schilder-konst, 27–30), see Sluijter, Lof der schilderkunst, 24–26 {English version: Sluijter, Seductress of Sight, 213–15}.

  26. 26. Hessel Miedema, De archiefbescheiden van het St. Lucasgilde te Haarlem (Alphen aan de Rijn: Canaletto, 1980), 232 and 246–53, doc. nos. A120, and 280–81, doc. no. A130a. These documents, interesting in many respects, were cited and analyzed by De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Art, Value and Market Practices,” 485–86. The people who signed were Frans Pietersz. de Grebber, Pieter de Molijn, Frans Hals, Cornelis van Kittensteyn, and Salomon van Ruysdael; the petition comprises a protest against the ban on sales that, according to them, were more to the disadvantage of the ordinary painters (“gemeene schilders”) who made insignificant (slechte) paintings than of the “excellent masters” (extraordinare meesters), also called “masters who have reached perfection” (meester tot Perfectie gekomen synde). {See also Marion E. 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 et al., special issue, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999): 195–200.

  27. 27. On art dealers who mainly sold nameless dozijnwerk (works by the dozen) and copies by painters who worked for them, see John Michael Montias, “Art Dealers in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands,” Simiolus 18 (1988): 246–53. {See, on this subject, Angela Jager “‘Everywhere illustrious history paintings that are a dime a dozen’: The Mass Market for History Painting in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam,” Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 7, no. 1 (Winter 2015), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2015.7.1.2https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2015.7.1.2; and Angela Jager, The Mass Market for History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: Production, Distribution and Consumption (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020)}.

  28. 28. See Montias, “Art Dealers,” 250. For example, average valuation prices of the paintings stock of the art dealers Balkeneynde was 4.1 guilders (3.3 guilders for the nameless paintings) and Blaeuw 5.5 guilders (3.9 guilders for nameless paintings). 

  29. 29. The research by Montias and Fock show that during the course of the century the number of pictures associated with the name of a painter—that is, pictures for which one knew or recognized the maker—rose enormously, culminating in the 1660s (15.4 percent in Delft, 42.4 percent in Leiden). John Michael Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982), 227; C. Willemijn Fock, “Kunstbezit in Leiden in de 17de eeuw,” in Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, ed. Theo H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C. Willemijn Fock, and Albert J. van Dissel (Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, 1990), 5a:3–33. The considerable difference between the two cities is due to the fact that the Leiden inventories include a selection of inventories of well-to-do people; the number of attributed paintings in such inventories is almost always larger than in more modest ones. After 1670 the number of attributions diminishes. {For an English translation of Fock’s essay: C. Willemijn Fock, “Art Ownership in Leiden in the Seventeenth Century,” trans. Anne Baudouin, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 13, no. 1 (Winter 2021), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2021.13.1.4.}

  30. 30. I have consulted inventories of between about 1630 and 1670 (including paintings that had been brought together between approximately 1620 and 1660) that were published in Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 7 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1915–1922); and the inventories collected in the Getty Provenance Index CD Series, housed at the RKD, in which inventories from Haarlem, Amsterdam, and Utrecht assembled by, respectively, Pieter Biesboer, John Michael Montias, and Marten Jan Bok can be found. Of Pieter Biesboer’s Haarlem inventories, about five hundred are in the Getty Provenance Index; the next 2,600 will be included on the second CD. Pieter Biesboer kindly informed me about the paintings found by Van Goyen. {All of Biesboer’s Haarlem inventories are now online in the Getty Research Institute’s Provenance Index Databases, https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/provenance/search.html. Moreover, Biesboer published the most interesting ones in Pieter Biesboer, Collection of Paintings in Haarlem 1572–1745, vol. 1 of Netherlandish Inventories, Documents for the History of Collecting (Malibu: Getty Research Institute, 2001).} The Leiden inventories collected by C. Willemijn Fock were also examined (these are the 120 inventories on which Fock, “Kunstbezit Leiden,” was based). As far as they relate to people living on the Rapenburg, they have been published in Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock, and van Dissel, eds., Het Rapenburg; I also consulted some inventories published elsewhere. I wish to thank Pieter Biesboer and Willemijn Fock for making their findings available to me.

  31. 31. For example, the Leiden inventories collected and analyzed by Willemijn Fock for her article are a selective sample of twelve inventories every decade that are of special interest because of paintings they contain. The Delft and Haarlem inventories brought together by Montias and Biesboer, respectively, are all the inventories from the Delft and Haarlem notary archives (and orphanage archives) they could find. The Amsterdam inventories collected by Montias are a random sample of inventories in which artists’ names are recorded.

  32. 32. Fock’s selection of inventories for her article contained seventy-nine Van Goyen paintings altogether between 1630 and 1700; Dou is second with forty-eight works (and thirteen copies). However, the fact that twenty-seven of those were in one collection (Joan de Bije), makes this number somewhat distorting. Pieter de Molijn is third, with forty-five paintings (Fock, “Kunstbezit Leiden,” 12–14). {Piet Bakker informed me that the total number of seventeenth-century Leiden inventories assembled by Willemijn Fock is 501, of which 257 include attributions. Sixty-seven of these record works by van Goyen, including a total of 171 paintings attributed to him, including four copies and one drawing.}

  33. 33. Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft, 256–57.

  34. 34. John Michael Montias, “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions,” in Freedberg and de Vries, Art in History/History in Art, 364–67. During the period 1650–1679, Van Goyen is ex aequo with Lievens in fifth place (twenty-two works in thirteen inventories); in the period before that (1620–1649) he is in twentieth place (ex aequo with another three). In both periods combined, Van Goyen is in sixth place, after Jan Miense Molenaer, Rembrandt, de Momper (works by both Joos and Frans de Momper), Jan Porcellis, and Philips Wouwerman (I did not count D’Hondecoeter, since that number includes three painters of that name). The numbers of the latter four artists differ only slightly, ranging from thirty-seven (De Momper), thirty-six (Porcellis), and thirty-two (Wouwermans) to thirty-one (Van Goyen). A few inventories less or more might shift the numbers considerably; this group of painters, however, seems to be at the top. {In a much later article by Montias on Amsterdam inventories, Van Goyen is in eleventh place: John Michael Montias, “Artists Named in Amsterdam Inventories, 1607–1680,” Simiolus 31, no. 4 (2004–2005): 322–47.}

  35. 35. This third place is a provisional estimate by Pieter Biesboer. {Van Goyen is indeed in third place, with no fewer than seventy-nine paintings; his numbers are the highest of the landscape painters, followed by Pieter de Molijn with seventy paintings and Cornelis Decker with sixty-two. See Pieter Biesboer, Collection of Paintings in Haarlem, 34.}

  36. 36. Alan Chong, “The Market for Landscape Painting in Seventeenth-Century Holland,” in Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, ed. Peter Sutton, exh. cat (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1987), 117–18.

  37. 37. In Leiden his work is by far the most widely distributed of all the masters; in Fock’s selection we find ninety-seven paintings in thirty-four inventories (Fock, “Kunstbezit in Leiden,” 12). This is in great contrast to Dou: sixty-one works in twelve inventories. In Amsterdam, too, we find—for example, in Montias’s research—thirty-one works by Van Goyen in eighteen inventories, against forty-one by Rembrandt in fourteen inventories and twenty-two by Lievens in five (Montias, “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam,” 364–67).

  38. 38. {Gerard Ypelaer: Erfgoed Leiden & Omgeving (hereafter “ELO”), Notarial Archives (hereafter “NA”) notary (hereafter “not.”) D. de Fries, inv. 1230, deed 57, March 22, 1679; it is not entirely clear if he had twelve or even fifteen (!) paintings by Van Goyen; the inventory also includes, among others, three works by Willem van de Velde and two by Pieter Claesz.} Jan Janszn van Rhijn: ELO, NA not. Outerman, inv. 472, deed 268, April 19, 1668. This inventory also includes, among others, ten works by Van der Claeuw, eight by De Molijn, five by Berchem, and four by Lelyenberch.

  39. 39. Henrick Bugge van Ring: ELO, NA not. L. van Swieten, inv. 1005, deed 10, March 30, 1667; Bugge had no fewer than sixty-four paintings in the front room only! This inventory also includes, among others, eighteen works by Brekelenkam; six by van Uyttenbroeck; five each by Steen, Isaac van Swanenburch, and Lelyenbergh; and four by Teniers. {On this huge collection, see Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘All striving to adorne their houses with costly peeces’: Two Case Studies of Paintings in Wealthy Interiors,” in Art & Home: Dutch Interiors in the Golden Age, ed. Mariët Westermann, exh. cat. (Denver and Zwolle: Denver Art Museum and Waanders, 2001),116–27}.

  40. 40. Gerard van Hoogeveen: ELO, NA not. C. van Berendrecht, inv. 852, deed 34, March 11, 1665); this inventory also includes, among others, nine works by “Fabritius,” four by Porcellis, and three each by Molijn and Rembrandt.

  41. 41. Jean Francois Tortarolis: ELO, NA not. S. van Swanenburch, inv. 611, deed 124, December 7, 1656; see also Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock, and van Dissel, eds., Het Rapenburg, 4b:488; this inventory also includes, among others, nine works by Dirck Hals, seven by Porcellis, five by Schilperoort, four by Molijn, and three each by Lievens, Isaac van Ostade, and “Swanenburch,” respectively.

  42. 42. Jan van Griecken: ELO, NA not. A. Raven, inv. 762, deed 351, August 1657; this inventory also includes, among others, three works by “Palamedes” and two each by Uyttenbroeck, de Vlieger, and van Spreeuwen. {Sara de Witte: ELO, NA not. J. Stam, inv. 1269, deed 8, June 20, 1673 ; this inventory also includes two works by De Poorter and two by Ostade}; Le Maire: ELO, NA not. C. Berendrecht, inv. 853, deed 141, October 8, 1666; this inventory also includes, among others, three works by “Hals” and two each by Molijn, de Putter, Van de Venne, and “Veen.”

  43. 43. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 287–91. This landscape painter is only known from documents. There seems to be a Leiden connection here. In addition to Van Goyen and Rembrandt, he also owned work by Pieter de Neyn.

  44. 44. Getty Provenance Index: Johan Bardoel, inventory of 1663, 122 paintings. This inventory also includes, among others, six works by De Grebber, four each by Molijn and Porcellis, and two each by De Hulst, Frans de Momper, and Terborch.

  45. 45. Getty Provenance Index: Nicolaes Meyer, inventory of 1663, 154 numbers. This inventory also includes, among others, five works by Bartsius and two each by Aertsen, Moreelse, Lastman, and van Mander.

  46. 46. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 2141–44 (1658). This is an inventory of both Cornelis Borsman and Joh. van Campen. This inventory also includes three works by de Vlieger and two by Wouwerman.

  47. 47. Abraham Bredius, “De schilder Johannes van de Capelle,” Oud Holland 10 (1892): 26–40; inventory of 1679, 197 paintings. See also n. 49.

  48. 48. This inventory also includes, among others, six works by Frans Hals, five by Segers, and four each by Rembrandt and Brouwer. It should be noted that he owned no fewer than 1,400 drawings by de Vlieger!

  49. 49. Both in the Getty Provenance Index: Michiel Barrelebos, 1664, and Bregitta Screvelius, 1657. The latter owned ten paintings.

  50. 50. Pieter Bruijningh, 1664, Getty Provenance Index. The other identified paintings in Bruijningh’s inventory are two works by Dirck Hals and Pieter de Molijn.

  51. 51. Floris Soop, 1657, Getty Provenance Index. The other three are by Segers, Vonck, and “Vroom.”

  52. 52. Montias rightly noted that because of these new developments it had become possible for less well-to-do people to own an original of high quality (Montias, “Influence of Economic Factors,” 54).

  53. 53. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 229, inv. 1640, and 238, inv. 1657. On de Renialme as an art dealer for the top end of the collectors’ market, see Montias, “Art Dealers.” {A good master’s thesis on de Renialme’s stock was written by Bram de Blécourt, University of Amsterdam, 2012.}

  54. 54. Montias (Montias, “Art Dealers,” 250) calculated the average price of works in de Renialme’s inventory from 1658 at 105.8 guilders for the attributed paintings and 28.5 guilders for the paintings without attributions. Van Goyen’s painting was evaluated at forty-eight guilders. Works by Steen, Bramer, Molijn, Palamedes, and others were cheaper, as were “tronies” by Rembrandt (twelve guilders), Dou (thirty guilders), Lievens (twenty guilders) and a landscape by Lievens (twenty-four guilders). Among this latter group of artists, however, there were also works between one hundred and fifteen hundred guilders (the latter the value of a Rembrandt work). The Van Goyen in the inventory of 1640, which had much lower prices overall, was estimated at only twelve guilders; in this inventory the works by Frans Hals, Miense Molenaer, and Quast had about the same value or even less.

  55. 55. See footnote 61 below.

  56. 56. Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft, 236 (inventory of Nicolaes Gael); it is noteworthy that in this inventory there are also several copies after other masters, including Salomon van Ruysdael, Esaias van de Velde, and Pieter de Molijn, among others.

  57. 57. See n. 41 and 45 above.

  58. 58. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 1439 (inventory of Judith Willemsdr. van Vliet, 1650).

  59. 59. Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet, “Pricing Invention: ‘Originals,’ ‘Copies’ and their Relative Value in Seventeenth-Century Netherlandish Art Markets,” in Recent Contributions to the Economics of the Arts, eds. Victor Ginsburgh and Pierre-Michel Menger (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1996), 54–58.

  60. 60. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 457–520.

  61. 61. Calculated by John Michael Montias, “Estimates of the number of Dutch Masters, Their Earnings and the Output in 1650,” Leidschrift 6, no. 3 (1990), 69, cited by De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Pricing Invention,” 57. 

  62. 62. I made a mistake here. There were twenty-nine works by Van Goyen in this sale, of which the average estimate is 16.6 guilders. Reindert Falkenburg pointed this out, but he made a mistake too: he missed one painting estimated at twenty-five guilders. 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 1500–1800/Nature and Landscape in Netherlandish Art 1500–1800,” ed. Reindert Falkenburg et al., special issue, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek/Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 48 (1997): 153n14.}

  63. 63. Inventory of Henric Bugge van Ring, 1667 (see also n. 40: “A large Landscape by Jan van Goyen being a tavern with a coach and Hunter, done in the year 1627” {See Sluijter, “All striving,” 119}. Unfortunately, the painting cannot be identified.

  64. 64. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Rotterdam doctor Bernard Mandeville, active in England (see also n. 88), noted among the factors determining the value of a work of art not only the name of the artist, the scarcity of his work, and the status of the former owner but also “Time of his Age.” By this he probably meant the period of the artist’s development (see De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Art, Value,” 454–55). Presumably such criteria were already valid in the seventeenth century. It is possible that by the time the inventory of Bugge van Ring’s vast collection was drawn up in 1667 (clearly in the presence of the owner), the early work by Van Goyen had appreciated to a higher value than the generally more monochrome and loosely painted work from his later years.

  65. 65. Information received from Piet Bakker, based on the total number of inventories assembled by Willemijn Fock. {The inventory with the one-hundred-guilder painting is of Jean le Pla (merchant), ELO, NA not. K. Outerman, inv. 444, deed 173, March 4, 1647. The painting is described as “a large landscape with inns”; it was by far the most expensive of the fifteen paintings valued by the expert Hendrick Uylenburg. A second painting was recorded as “a small piece with small boats,” was valued at twenty-four guilders. Le Pla also owned, among others, two works by “Ruysdael” (36 and 20 guilders) and two by Isaac van Ostade (48 and 36 guilders).}

  66. 66. {Piet Bakker informed me of another four pre-1660 paintings with estimations in the total number of inventories assembled by Willemijn Fock (see n. 31), among which one is estimated at one hundred guilders (see n. 66) and the others at twenty-four, seventeen, and fifteen. The average estimation of these fourteen paintings is 24.12 guilders, but when the unusual peak of one hundred guilders is left out, the average is 18.3 guilders, instead of the 17.9-guilder average of the ten estimated paintings in the selection of 120 inventories.}

  67. 67. On the basis of estimated paintings in a reasonably large number of inventories and other sources for the period before 1650, Alan Chong calculated an average 16.8 guilders (for thirty-seven works), and an average of 17 guilders (eleven works) for the period between 1650 and 1675 (Chong, “Market for Landscape,” 117). {Falkenburg criticized the fact that I used averages, which is indeed not ideal, but Falkenburg’s arguments about what he perceived as Van Goyen’s much lower price level, based on applying the median values from the 1647 auction in The Hague (see above, n. 60–63) are flawed. The fact that eleven of the thirty-nine paintings yielded between twenty-two and thirty-two guilders, sums that were quite rare at this huge auction, is more telling than the median (only 12.5 guilders). In the Leiden inventories (ten inventories with estimates) the median is, before 1660, fifteen guilders (average eighteen guilders); in the Montias Database (seven inventories with estimates) the median is eighteen guilders (average 29.8), and in the Getty Provenance Index (seven inventories with estimates) the median is twenty-two guilders (average 27.4). These great differences show that medians are, with such small numbers, even more problematic than averages. With regard to The Hague sale of 1647, median values only indicate that there were a large number of paintings of lesser quality in this auction—probably often of a smaller size; prices were connected with both size and technical and artistic quality. These lower-priced works were probably made during the 1640s when Van Goyen raised his production considerably and made many rather uninteresting works. Falkenburg, “Onweer bij Jan van Goyen,” 153n14. I should also emphasize here that I calculated the estimates before 1660, which accounts the differences between my numbers and those of Chong and Montias.}

  68. 68. Pieter Gerritsz. van Hogemade owned sixty-nine paintings (inv. Fock no. 64; ELO, NA not. K. Outermans, inv. 443, deed 121, April 23, 1652); his three works by Van Goyen were estimated at respectively thirty-three, fifteen, and another fifteen guilders. Only a shepherd and shepherdess by van den Tempel was valued higher (eighty guilders). Two pieces by Moyaert, however, were estimated together at eighteen guilders, and two by Van de Venne at fifteen guilders.

  69. 69. Montias, “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam,” 366. {I wonder if Montias made a mistake here. See the Montias Database, in which we find two Van Goyens estimated for a high price: forty-four guilders in 1643 (Susanna van de Venne, who might have been related to Adriaen van de Venne, by whom she owned two paintings) and thirty guilders in 1657 (Aaltje Gerrits; appraised by Gerrit Uylenburg). The other paintings were valued at eighteen, fourteen, twelve, and five guilders respectively. If we do not count the forty-eight guilders of the painting in the inventory of De Renialme (see n. 55) the average is 20.5 guilders.}

  70. 70. The average value of the thirty-six estimated pictures I found in inventories between 1660 and 1700 is 13.7 guilders. This figure, however, is inflated because there are a few highly estimated pieces in inventories from the 1660s, such as a work valued at forty-eight guilders with Nicolaes Meyer in Utrecht (1663), one at thirty-six guilders with Francois Gysels in Amsterdam (1666), and three with Gerrit Kinckhuijsen in Haarlem (1668) at twenty-five, twenty-four, and twenty guilders. Estimates of three to six guilders, however, became more and more frequent as the decades go on.

  71. 71. Published in Fock, “Kunstbezit Leiden,” 32–33. {For an image of the poster, see C. Willemijn Fock, “Art Ownership in Leiden,” fig. 2.}

  72. 72. A work of one “Geelgefruyt”(?) is valued at 150 guilders (as much as the de Grebber), and the Hillegaert at three hundred guilders. No subject is mentioned for the latter; it was probably a large painting with many cavalrymen.

  73. 73. Miedema, Archiefbescheiden, 158.

  74. 74. Adriaan van der Willigen, Geschiedkundige aanteekeningen over Haarlemsche schilders en andere beoefenaren van de beeldende kunsten (Haarlem: Erven F. Bohn, 1866), 12, nos. 29, 32, and 36.

  75. 75. For the Delft history painter Leonaert Bramer, who also used a rapid technique, Montias calculated an average value of only fourteen guilders. Van Goyen’s reputation must have been much higher. This also shows that history paintings were not necessarily valued higher than landscapes, as has often been maintained; see John Michael Montias, “Bramer’s Patrons and Clients in Delft,” in Leonaert Bramer 1596–1674: Ingenious Painter and Draughtsman in Rome and Delft, ed. Jane ten Brink-Goldsmith et al., exh. cat (Zwolle and Delft: Waanders and Museum Prinsenhof, 1994), 43. Montias recorded nineteen paintings in Delft inventories.

  76. 76. On this subject, see Sluijter, “Leidse fijnschilders,” 26. Joachim von Sandrart recorded that Dou charged six guilders (ein Pfund Flemsch) an hour. This seems to be an exaggeration, but it makes clear that he worked at an hourly rate and that he demanded exorbitant prices. Adriaen van der Werff, the most expensive painter of his time and a fine painter working for the elite of Europe, charged twenty-five guilders a day in the beginning of the eighteenth century {See Marten Jan Bok, “Pricing the Unpriced: How Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painters Determined the Selling Price of Their Work,” in Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe: Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London, ed. Patrick O’Brian et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 186–209; and Eric Jan Sluijter, “Determining Value on the Art Market in the Golden Age: An Introduction,” in Art Market and Connoisseurship: A Closer Look at Paintings by Rembrandt, Rubens and their Contemporaries, ed. Anna Tummers and K. Jonckheere (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008), 7–27}.

  77. 77. See footnote 54 above. De Renialme’s inventory also contained “een vroutgen” (a woman) by Dou valued at only forty guilders, the same as the landscape by van Goyen he had in stock. In Leiden inventories, some tronies are estimated at about thirty guilders.

  78. 78. Chong, in “Market for Landscape,” 117–18, calculated the average price of Poelenburch’s work at thirty guilders between 1625 and 1650 (thirteen paintings), and 92.4 guilders between 1651 and 1675 (10 paintings). {Calculations by Nicolette Sluijter-Seijffert in 2019, based on the valued paintings in Sluijter-Seijffert, “Poelenburch,” app. 2 and 3, amount to 30.5 (thirteen paintings) and 119.50 guilders (sixty-eight paintings) for those two periods, respectively. It is misleading to include the period after 1660, when the value of works by Van Goyen dropped severely and those of Poelenburch rose. If we take Poelenburch’s valuations before 1660, an average of sixty-seven guilders appears, against 19.2 for Van Goyen (see n. 68), which seems a more reasonable ratio: an average of three and a half times as much.} Montias, in “Cost and value,” 461, calculated that works by Avercamp, Savery, and Brueghel, on average, were four times as expensive as works by Van Goyen, Molijn, and De Momper. These painters, too, needed at least four times as much time to make a painting. In his calculations the numbers are, however, not large enough for reasonably trustworthy conclusions (for example, there are only two estimated works by Van Goyen from the 1650s and four from the 1660s).

  79. 79. {See Sluijter, “Determining value,” 9–13.}

  80. 80. Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 50–51. The payment was made by Willem II’s paymaster; other payments suggest that Dirck van der Lisse, Pieter Post, and Johannes Borsman received similar commissions. The paintings are not found in inventories of the collections of the stadholders. Someone else’s drawings were probably the model.

  81. 81. About this painting, see Charles Dumas, Haagse stadsgezichten 1550–1800: Topografische schilderijen van het Haags Historisch Museum (Zwolle: Waanders, 1991), 509–17.

  82. 82. For example, see Bob Haak, The Golden Age: Dutch Painting of the Seventeenth Century (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1984), 35. Haak assumes that such a remuneration by the government had no relation to the real market value.

  83. 83. Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, vol. 2, cat. no. 488. (131.5 x 252.5 cm; Heemskerck, House Marquette, private collection). {Since 2002, the painting is owned by the Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden. The country seat was identified in 2015 as Oostbos, owned by Johan Sixti, who became burgomaster of The Hague in 1644 and remained a member of The Hague council until his death in 1661; his father-in-law was a friend of Constantijn Huygens. Sixti must have given Van Goyen this commission; he also might have had a hand in the commission for the large View of The Hague. The topography, with the towing path along the Vliet; the Oostbosmill on the other bank; and the Leiden Pieterskerk, the Hooglandse Kerk and the spire of the church of Voorschoten in the distance, is very precise. It seems likely that the group in the foreground depicts Sixti himself with his wife and son. The boat with a company of wealthy people, being towed by a horseman, is not a towing barge but a speelschuit, a pleasure boat, probably owned by Sixti, who had the right to use the towing path. See Piet van der Plas and Martine van der Wielen-de Goede, “Roucoop of Oostbos? Gezicht op de Vliet door Jan van Goyen,” Leids Jaarboekje 107 (2015), 119–134.}

  84. 84. Beck, Jan Van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, vol. 2, cat. nos. 292 and 973, both in Petworth House, National Trust.

  85. 85. Beck, Jan Van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, vol. 2, cat. no. 349 (Town Hall of Nijmegen; presently in Museum het Valkhof, Nijmegen) and no. 378 (Art Gallery of Toronto). The view of Nijmegen (151 x 255 cm), has been owned by the city of Nijmegen since 1818; whether it was already there before that year and had been painted on commission for the city cannot be ascertained. About this work, see, among others, Edwin Buijsen, The Sketchbook of Jan van Goyen from the Bredius-Kronig Collection (The Hague: Foundation Bredius Genootschap, 1993), 167–68.

  86. 86. Although the horizons in all these works now appear to be at the same level, when one imagines the last two with a height of about 161 cm (assuming that they have been cropped), their compositions are not compatible with each other, nor with the views of Haarlem and Dordrecht, which correspond perfectly with each other.

  87. 87. Scarcity is also one of the elements determining value that Bernard Mandeville mentioned; see De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Art, Value,” 454–55, and also n. 65.

  88. 88. For example, Chong, “Market for Landscape,” 155. Chong includes him in a list of landscape painters “highest paid in their own lifetimes.” {See also Sluijter, “‘Raphel’ in zeeschilderen,” 351}.

  89. 89. Karel van Mander, “Levens,” Het schilder-boeck (Haarlem, 1603–1604), fol. 238r: “. . . after his death . . . sometimes even twelve times as much as when they were bought.”

  90. 90. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (The Hague: 1753; first published 1718–1721), 2:131.

  91. 91. Gerard de Lairesse, Groot Schilderboek (Amsterdam, 1740; written in 1707), 1:359.

  92. 92. Crucial here are the reduction of the colors and the increasing number of gradations of one color; I prefer the word above “tonal” because the latter has so many other implications. See Wolfgang Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting of the Seventeenth Century (London: Phaidon, 1966), 191–92n9; Stechow prefers “tonal.” See Beck, Jan van Goyen: Verzeichnis, 1:46–47 for the changes in Van Goyen’s coloring over his whole career.

  93. 93. See Gifford, “Style and Technique.” {And Gifford, “Jan van Goyen.”}.

  94. 94. About the elaborate method of working color-by-color, using several palettes, see Ernst van de Wetering, “De paletten van Rembrandt en Jozef Israels, een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen stijl en schildertechniek,” Oud Holland 107 (1993): 140–47.

  95. 95. Jonathan Israel, in a lecture delivered in Leiden on March 28, 1996, argued that an economic recession at the end of the 1620s and the 1630s and the increasing price of pigments in this period—vermilion, for example—must have been important reasons to produce inexpensive paintings with fewer, cheaper pigments. Naturally this may have played a role, but we should realize that many painters did not adopt this manner; it is also misleading to say that during the 1640s everyone suddenly started to paint colorfully and with detail again, as Israel suggested (see n. 16). {Israel’s lecture was published as Jonathan I. Israel, “Adjusting to Hard Times: Dutch Art During its Period of Crisis and Restructuring (c. 16211645),” Art History 20 (1997), 449–76; his notion of economic recession during this period is, however, highly disputable. Moreover, in light of the enormous growth of the number of painters and the production of paintings in this same period, his thesis seems untenable.}

  96. 96. Hoogstraten, Inleyding, 237. According to Emmens, van Hoogstraten uses this (probably imaginary) contest as a “parable” to show three hierarchically distinguished ways of painting within art theory. They can be related to the concepts of “idea” (Porcellis), fortuna (chance; Van Goyen), and usus (practice; Knibbergen); see Jan A. Emmens, Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst (Amsterdam: C.A. van Oorschot, 1979), 166–68; and Ernst van de Wetering, “Leidse schilders achter de ezel,” in Geschildert tot Leyden anno 1626, ed. Maarten Wurfbain et al., exh. cat. (Leiden: Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1976), 21–24. Nevertheless, this text gives a good impression of Van Goyen’s manner of working. Hoogstraten exaggerated the emphasis on “chaos”—chance—to make his argument stronger. See also n. 98.

  97. 97. Jacques de Ville’s scornful remark (in a pamphlet of 1628) about people who “only gape at the manner” (handeling) makes clear that, to his chagrin, many connoisseurs value precisely the peinture. See Emmens, Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst, 121. {On de Ville’s text, see Eric Jan Sluijter, Rembrandt and the Female Nude (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 209-211.}

  98. 98. Cited in Ernst van de Wetering, “Rembrandt’s Method: Technique in the Service of Illusion,” in Rembrandt: The Master and His Workshop; Paintings, ed. Christopher Brown, Jan Kelch, and Pieter van Thiel, exh. cat. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press and National Gallery, 1991), 16 and n. 9, citing Pierre Le Brun, “Recueil des essaies des merveilles de la peinture” (1635), in Original Treatises on the Art of Painting, ed. Mary P. (Merrifield: Dover Publications, 1967), 2:766–848. This appreciation, which can also be connected with the notion of “sprezzatura,” started in relation to sixteenth-century Italian painting (especially Titian’s “rough” style), and has been related to Rembrandt’s endeavours (see van de Wetering, “Rembrandt’s Method,” 16–17). Van Goyen, however, appears to be striving to acquire this kind of appreciation with another type of art and through his seemingly “casual,” loose, and rapid manner of painting. “Sprezzatura,” a concept that Baldassare Castiglione explained by comparing the posture of the courtier with the seemingly casual brushstroke of the painter, was translated as lossigheydt (looseness), the same word Philips Angel used for a rapid, fluid way of painting (see n. 15).

  99. 99. An example: “. . . ein blühende Produktion von Fluss- und Flachlandansichten in einem grüngelben, blaugrauen oder wohl auch braunen Ton, einfache Motive, in denen die typisch holländische, mit Dunst durchtränkte Atmosphäre zur Geltung komt.” Laurens J. Bol, Holländische Maler des 17. Jarhunderts nahe der groβen Meistern (München: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1982), 165. Also characteristic is Beck’s description of Van Goyen’s style in 1640–1645, which he calls “the period of absolute tonality”: “Die feuchte, dustgetränkte Meeresluft verdrängt die Lokalfarben aus der Landschaftsszenerie zugunsten einer malerischen, tonigen Färbung; einzelheiten verlieren sich, verschimmen in zarten nebeligen Dunst der Ferne, die sich mit der Atmosphäre verbindet.” (Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:46).

  100. 100. It is interesting that Van de Waal, usually an acute observer, was drawn so much to this idea that he wrote: “The inexpressible delicate light over our Dutch waters, the refined silvery tones and grays of our humid atmosphere, have been his subject during his whole life” (Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 20). In the first place, there are not so many grays and silver tones in Van Goyen’s landscapes—brown and yellow tones dominate—and second, these are in reality not at all characteristic for the Dutch water landscape unless the weather is distinctly foggy, with limited sight and an overcast sky. Only then might one say that “from some distance the separate colors, to a great extent, lose their own character to sink into an indefinite silver-gray monochromy” (Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 31). Nonetheless, Van de Waal is, of course, absolutely right that Van Goyen was able to suggest an inexpressibly delicate light in a breathtaking way.

  101. 101. Many authors see a misty atmosphere in Van Goyen’s paintings, but there is never any discernable fogginess in his works. The sentence with which Van de Waal finishes his book—“His art knows no doubt other than that of the mist above the water and no delight other than the triumphing light”—is splendid, but only the second part of the sentence characterizes Van Goyen’s work (Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 60).

  102. 102. See Sluijter-Seijffert, “Poelenburch,” 85. {Sluijter-Seijffert, Poelenburch: Paintings, 103}.

  103. 103. Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 59.

  104. 104. Bredius, “Capelle,” nos. 154 and 155: “Twee grauwe lantschapjes (two grisaille landscapes) van Jan van Goyen.” See also, among others, the inventory of Jan Miense Molenaer from 1668: “een graeuwtje van (a grisaille by) Jan van Goyen” (Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 3), and “een graeuwtje” in the inventory Cornelis Roelandz de Vries 1682 (Getty Provenance Index).

  105. 105. See Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:47 and vol. 2, nos. 245–71; three are dated 1650 and twenty 1651; they all have more or less the same size (c. 25 x 40 cm). Why this sudden outpouring of works in oil on paper? Since they show a great variety of types popular in different periods of his career (for example, dunes he made in the late 1620s and early 1630s), they might belong together as a series made on commission. Three pairs are or were still together; see Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, nos. 248 and 249, 254, and 255.

  106. 106. Peter Sutton, “Introduction,” in Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, 6, with reference to a conference paper presented by Melanie Gifford in 1983 (see also n. 108).

  107. 107. David Bomford, “Techniques of the early Dutch Landscape Painters,” in Dutch Landscape: The Early Years; Haarlem and Amsterdam 1590–1650, ed. Christopher Brown, exh. cat. (London: National Gallery Publications, 1986), 55. Melanie Gifford had earlier indicated that this Haarlem blue must relate to smalt, but she supposed that Van Goyen used an almost colorless smalt on purpose (Gifford, “Style and Technique,” 145, with reference to her paper from 1983; see n. 107).

  108. 108. {Gifford, “Jan van Goyen,” 78.}

  109. 109. A long training, especially when this was undertaken with many masters for short periods, was expensive; see Ronald de Jager, “Meester, leerjongen, leertijd: Een analyse van zeventiende-eeuwse Noord-Nederlandse leerlingcontracten van kunstschilder, goud- en zilversmeden,” Oud Holland 104 (1990): 75.

  110. 110. De Jager, “Meester, leerjongen,” 70. From van Mander’s biographies Miedema concluded that the average age was twelve to fourteen years old; in the contracts that de Jager examined, the age at which training began varies from twelve to sixteen.

  111. 111. Orlers, Beschrijvinge, 373.

  112. 112. Orlers explicitly emphasized “de aerdicheyt van Beelden” (the amusingness of figures). In the inventory of Jan Orlers’s own painting collection we find three paintings—two by Van Goyen’s first master Coenraet van Schilperoort and one by the Delft painter Pieter Stael—with the mention of “met Beelden van (with figures by) Mr Jan van Goyen”; see Maarten Wurfbain et al., Geschildert tot Leyden anno 1626, exh. cat. (Leiden: Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1976), 17. In Cornelis Borsman’s inventory from The Hague, “a large landscape by van Knipbergen with figures by Jan van Goyen” is recorded; Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 2141–44 (1658) (see also n. 47). The fact that this was mentioned in inventories indicates that it was not only much appreciated and probably raised the value but also that Van Goyen must often have painted figures in the works of colleagues.

  113. 113. Van Mander, Schilder-boeck, “Grondt,” fol. 36r.

  114. 114. In 1641, Angel still emphasizes the “aerdich-vercierende Rijckelijckheydt” (pleasant embellishment of a rich variety). Angel, Lof der schilder-konst, 39.

  115. 115. Van de Waal, in Jan van Goyen, 13–14, refers to these lines in Van Mander’s text in connection with Van Goyen’s early work.

  116. 116. Van Mander, Schilder-boeck, “Grondt,” fol. 38r. Peter Sutton, in his excellent survey of landscape painting, noticed that this passage calls to mind the works that Van Goyen, Salomon van Ruysdael, and Molijn would paint in the 1620s (Sutton, “Introduction,” 10).

  117. 117. These words from Spiegel relate to his rejection of the use of classical mythology in poetry, as part of his struggle for an indigenous culture and language; Hendrick Laurenszn Spiegel, Hart-spieghel (Amsterdam, 1614), 6; see also Marijke Spies, “‘Poëetsche fabrijcken’ en andere allegorieën eind 16de begin 17de eeuw,” Oud Holland 105 (1991): 238–39. However, this passage contains elements that also seem to reflect new directions in visual art. The splendid lines that directly follow seem also to be echoed in painting: “Parnassus is too far, there is no Helikon here, / But dunes, woods and brooks and sky, under the same sun. / Therefore we open-heartedly hold dear with helpless love / The goddesses of this country’s salubrious brooks, fields and streams.” See also Eric Jan Sluijter, “De ‘heydensche fabulen’ in de Noord-nederlandse schilderkunst, circa 1590–1670” (PhD diss. Leiden University, 1986), 335–36). On the relationship between literature and visual art in this period of the rise of the native landscape, see Huigen Leeflang’s important article “Het aardse paradijs: Het Haarlemse landschap in 16de en 17de-eeuwse literatuur en beeldende kunst,” in De trots van Haarlem: Promotie van een stad in kunst en historie, ed. Koos Levy-Van Halm et al., exh. cat. (Gent: Snouck-Ducaju, 1995), 116–34, esp. 119–24). {See also his magisterial article “Dutch Landscape: The Urban View: Haarlem and Its Environs in Literature and Art, 15th–17th century,” in Falkenburg et al., ed., “Natuur en landschap”: 52–115.}

  118. 118. Van Mander, Schilder-boeck, “Grondt,” fol. 38r. See also the version in prose in his biography of Ludius, “Leven,” fol. 87v/88r, derived from Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia 15:115–17; see Hessel Miedema, ed., Karel van Mander: Het leven der oude antijcke doorluchtighe schilders (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 1981), at fol. 87v. 

  119. 119. Similar to the numerous comparisons of history painters with Apelles or Zeuxis, or Dou as “the Dutch Parrhasius” (Sluijter, Lof der schilderkunst, 19–20). See also Reznicek’s suggestion, about Paulus Potter as an “alter Pausias”: E. K. J. Reznicek, “Het leerdicht van Karel van Mander en de acribie van Hessel Miedema,” Oud Holland 89 (1975): 121.

  120. 120. Van Goyen’s first teacher, Coenraet van Schilperoort, with whom he probably collaborated later (see n. 113), had in his large library (see Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 557–60) a copy of Van Mander’s Schilder-boeck and perhaps also Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis Historia (“de bijbel der natuyr” might refer to Pliny’s book). These kinds of anecdotes were probably well known to these painters.

  121. 121. On important print series with such motifs, such as the well-known series Plaisante Plaetsen (Pleasant Places) by Claes Janszn. Visscher from about 1611–14, see Huigen Leeflang, “Het landschap in boek en prent: Perceptie en interpretatie van vroeg zeventiende-eeuwse Nederlandse landschapsprenten,” in Nederland naar ’t leven: Landschapsprenten uit de Gouden Eeuw, ed. Boudewijn Bakker and Huigen Leeflang, exh. cat. (Zwolle and Amsterdam: Waanders and Museum het Rembrandthuis 1993), 18–32; and Boudewijn Bakker, “Levenspelgrimage of vrome wandeling? Claes Janszoon Visscher en zijn serie Plaisante Plaetsen,” Oud Holland 107 (1993): 97–116. See also Jan G. C. A. Briels, Vlaamse schilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw (Haarlem: Becht, 1987), 182–83 and 367–70, about the recreational appreciation of the countryside as a projection of the town dweller.

  122. 122. Traditionally negative elements, such as a defecating or urinating man, are only known from two early works (Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, vol. 2, cat. nos. 6 and 35).

  123. 123. See De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Art, Value,” 458: “Established painters of some reputation will feel more at ease in treating the market as an experimental forum to try out new ideas and products than will those just beginning or lacking a very distinct ability.” This statement seems to apply here.

  124. 124. See Stechow, Dutch Landscape, 23–26; and Sutton, “Introduction,” 35. Given the numerous paintings that have been lost during the centuries, one should be cautious of considering a few specific paintings as crucial “cornerstones” in the “evolution” of the landscape, as Stechow did.

  125. 125. The fact that Pieter de Neyn concentrated on battle scenes—one of Esaias van de Velde’s most successful specialties—seems to indicate a kind of dividing of the field; Van Goyen kept well away from such subjects.

  126. 126. This should not be considered a general tendency: in this same period painters like Poelenburch and Dou moved in an opposite direction (see also n. 16 and 96).

  127. 127. I suppose they give a reasonably truthful image of the farmhouses that were situated on this barren land.

  128. 128. The popular image of country life in the literature of that time consisted of elements of the Horatian beatus ille fused with ethical notions based on neostoicism. The poet Hendrik Laurensz. Spiegel was a preeminent spokesperson of such thoughts, but they played an important role in the work of many other authors as well; see Mieke Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, ethicus-didacticus: Een onderzoek naar dramatische opzet en morele instructie van Ithys, Polyxena, en Iphigenia (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff/Forsten, 1986), 193–201. See also Sutton, “Introduction,” 36.

  129. 129. See the splendid essay on this subject by Boudewijn Bakker in Oud Holland: Bakker, “Levenspelgrimage of vrome wandeling?”

  130. 130. See Leeflang, “Aardse paradijs,” 120 and 123 {and Leeflang, “The Urban View”}; see also Bakker and Leeflang, eds., Nederland naar ’t leven, 76–77, no. 24, in which the view of a dune (and the tower of Zandvoort) is connected in the accompanying verse to an emphatically amorous-pastoral atmosphere.

  131. 131. This low viewpoint had been introduced more than a decade earlier in drawings and prints by Claes Janszn. Visscher, Esaias van de Velde, Jan van de Velde II, and Willem Buytewech, while Porcellis started to use it in the middle of the 1620s in seascapes. After the mid-1620s, however, we see how some young painters, among them Pieter de Molijn and Salomon van Ruysdael, begin almost at the same time to experiment with it in landscape paintings. The extreme low vantage point of Arent Arentsz. Cabel’s earlier works is remarkable in this aspect.

  132. 132. For a convincing argument about the importance attached to the depiction of landscapes “after life” in this period:, see Boudewijn Bakker, “Nederland naar ’t leven: Een inleiding,” in Bakker and Leeflang, Nederland naar ’t leven, 6–17.

  133. 133. Especially by van de Waal, Jan van Goyen; Stechow, Dutch Landscape; and Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis. The overview of the different types, as concisely sketched out below, would be impossible without the excellent catalogue by Hans-Ulrich Beck and his introductory survey (Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:42–50).

  134. 134. Montias, “Influence of Economic Factors,” and De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Art, Value” in particular point out that in a market with much competition, strategies of differentiation and innovative behavior were necessary to become a successful artist (see also n. 124). On followers, see n. 144.

  135. 135. Valuable papers on the development of river views with and without distinctive architectural motifs have been written by Sabine Giepmans and John Veerman for the seminar I taught at Leiden University in the fall of 1995 (see Postscript).

  136. 136. The origin and development of the beach view, especially the view of Scheveningen, were examined in a paper by Marthe de Vet, Leiden University seminar, 1995.

  137. 137. See Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:29 (document about the sale in 1625 of a house at Pieterskerkstraat in Leiden to Jan Porcellis, which his widow sells again to the seascape painter Hendrick Anthonisz).

  138. 138. Houbraken praises especially his “calm water views with market ships, and fishing boats, and a small church, or some familiar village at the horizon.” Houbraken, Groote schouburg, 1:171.

  139. 139. See n. 85 and 86.

  140. 140. This was well analyzed in the papers by Adriaan Waiboer, Sander Paarlberg, and Albert Smit about the views of, respectively, Rhenen, Dordrecht, and Nijmegen, Leiden University seminar, 1995.

  141. 141. A good analysis of van Goyen’s “winters” was written by Ed Romein, Leiden University Seminar, 1995.

  142. 142. {See Reindert Falkenburg, “Onweer bij Jan van Goyen,” 116–61 (Zwolle: Waanders, 1998). In this article Falkenburg takes issue with my theses regarding Van Goyen’s innovations in types of landscape as an artistic and economic strategy; see my “postscript” and n. 15; see also n. 68.}

  143. 143. “Zag iemand stiller weder? / De vlaggens hangen neder, / Het zeil en doet geen boet, / En al den voortgang komt ons van den tragen vloed.” See Karel Porteman, “Zeventiende-eeuwse dichters in last,” in Brekende spiegels: Beeldveranderingen in de Nederlandse literatuur, ed. Dirk de Geest and Marc van Vaeck (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 53–54. This experience of a calm leads the poet toward a reflection on unfulfilled yearnings for God. Porteman stated that it is an attractive idea to connect this approach to nature to the landscape painting of that time. I am grateful to Huigen Leeflang, who drew my attention to this article.

  144. 144. See Hans-Ulrich Beck, Künstler um Jan van Goyen: Maler und Zeichner (Doornspijk: Davaco, 1991). For example: Cornelis Beelt (beach views), Cornelis de Bie (beach views), Jan Coelenbier (river views, with architecture), Anth. van der Croos (prospects with cities), Jheronimus van Diest (calm water), Frans de Hulst (dunes and river views with architecture), Wouter Knijff (river views with architecture), Willem Kool (beach views and winters), monogr. PHB (river views), Jacob van Moscher (dunes), Joh. Schoeff (river views, dunes), and Joos de Volder (dunes).

  145. 145. Van Hoogstraten, Inleyding, 11–12.

  146. 146. Wilhelm Martin, De Hollandse schilderkunst in de zeventiende eeuw (Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1936–1936), 1:277.

  147. 147. Edwin Buijsen, “De schetsboeken van Jan van Goyen,” 22–37; Reindert L. Falkenburg, “‘Schilderachtig weer’ bij Jan van Goyen,” 60–69; E. Melanie Gifford, “Jan van Goyen en de techniek van het naturalistische landschap,” 70–79; Eric Jan Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider, virtuoos en vernieuwer,” 38–59. The catalogue also contains a biographical survey by Sabine Craft-Giepmans (8–9), and an introduction by Christiaan Vogelaar (10–21).

  148. 148. Especially those by Sabine Craft-Giepmans, Sander Paarlberg, Ed Romein, Marthe de Vet, and Adriaan Waiboer; see n. 136, 137, 141, and 142.

  149. 149. About seventeenth-century ways of beholding things represented in a painting as a “virtual reality,” see Thijs Weststeijn, The Visible World: Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Art Theory and the Legitimation of Painting in the Dutch Golden Age (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008), chapter 3; and Sluijter, Rembrandt and the Female Nude, 151–53, 312–16.

  150. 150. Falkenburg, “Onweer bij Jan van Goyen” (see n. 68 and 143). Falkenburg is skeptical about the idea that Van Goyen was consciously innovating in style and types of landscapes as a market strategy; he considers this a projection of modern theoretical models. Indeed, Van Goyen would not have thought in terms of “market strategy” and “product innovation.” But there are enough sources (and the paintings themselves) that demonstrate that, for example, notions of process and product innovation and differentiation are relevant for this period of explosive growth in the number of painters and the production of paintings. Radical changes in supply and demand and the manner of marketing are evident. Artists showed strong awareness of the necessity of artistic and economic competition as motives for innovation in order to keep alive the interest of their audiences (see, for example, Sluijter, “Brabant Rubbish”; and Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals, 16–22). This is true even if the artists’ innovations were not always the result of a conscious “strategy” but were instead actions by an aspiring painter to accommodate to circumstances. Falkenburg doubts that landscape types (dunescapes, riverscapes, beaches, panorama’s) were distinguished; he considers this a modern categorization. However, the fact that huge numbers of a certain type were produced over a few years and then stopped—and that certain followers specialized in dunes, or river scenes, or beach scenes, and so on—is the best proof that these were seen as different categories. That we do not find such categories clearly defined in inventories does not say much; these were drawn up for specific purposes. An inventive painter like Van Goyen realized when the interest in dunes or beaches or riverscapes waned among his clients, because they owned already one or two, or when a certain type was imitated by many others, which would have pushed down prices. Falkenburg’s argument also seems to imply that such landscapes were just compositions, for which the specific subjects did not matter much. But it would have been entirely different to imagine oneself as if walking on a beach, sailing on a river, strolling in the dunes, or looking out over a panorama. Falkenburg’s discussion of the depiction of thunderstorms and the importance of artistic competition is highly stimulating.

Angel, Philips. Lof der schilder-konst. Leiden, 1642.

Bakker, Boudewijn. “Levenspelgrimage of vrome wandeling? Claes Janszoon Visscher en zijn serie Plaisante Plaetsen.” Oud Holland 107 (1993): 97–116.

—. “Nederland naar ’t leven: Een inleiding.” In Bakker and Leeflang, Nederland naar ’t leven, 6–17.

Bakker, Boudewijn, and Huigen Leeflang. Nederland naar ’t leven: Landschapsprenten uit de Gouden Eeuw. Exh. cat. Zwolle and Amsterdam: Waanders and Museum het Rembrandthuis, 1993.

Beck, Hans-Ulrich. Einführung: Katalog der Handzeichnungen. Vol. 1 of Jan van Goyen 1596–1656: Ein Oeuvreverzeichnis. Amsterdam: A. L. van Gendt, 1972.

—. Jan van Goyen 1596–1656. Exh. cat. London: Richard Green, 1996.

—. Katalog der Gemälde. Vol. 2 of Jan van Goyen 1596–1656: Ein Oeuvreverzeichnis. Amsterdam: A. L. van Gendt, 1973.

—. Künstler um Jan van Goyen: Maler und Zeichner. Doornspijk: Davaco, 1991.

Beck, Hans-Ulrich, et al. Jan van Goyen, 1596–1656: Conquest of Space; Paintings from Museums and Private Collections (Exh. cat. Amsterdam and Bremen: K. & V. Waterman and Car. Ed. Schünemann KG, 1981.

Beck, Hans-Ulrich, et al. Jan van Goyen 1596–1656: Poet of the Dutch Landscape; Paintings from Museums and Private Collections in Great Britain. Exh. cat. London: Alan Jacobs Gallery, 1977.

Biesboer, Pieter. Collections of Paintings in Haarlem 1572–1745. Vol. 1 of Netherlandish Inventories. Documents for the History of Collecting. Malibu: The Getty Research Institutes, 2001.

{Boers-Goosens, Marion E. “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-–700,” ed. Reindert Falkenburg et al. Special issue, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999): 194–219.}

{Bok, Marten Jan. “Pricing the Unpriced: How Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painters Determined the Selling Price of Their Work.” In Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe: Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London, edited by Patrick O’Brian et al., 186–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.}

—. “Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt, 1580–1700.” PhD diss., Utrecht University, 1994.

Bol, Laurens J. Holländische Maler des 17: Jahrhunderts nahe der groβen Meistern. München: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1982.

Bomford, David. “Techniques of the Early Dutch Landscape Painters.” In Dutch Landscape: The Early Years, Haarlem and Amsterdam 1590–1650, edited by Christopher Brown, 45–56. Exh. cat. London: National Gallery Publications, 1986.

Bredius, Abraham. “Jan Josephszoon van Goyen: Nieuwe bijdragen tot zijne biographie.” Oud Holland 14 (1896): 113–25.

—. Künstler-Inventare. 7 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1915–1922.

—. “De schilder Johannes van de Capelle.” Oud Holland 10 (1892): 26–40.

Briels, Jan G. C. A. Vlaamse schilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw. Haarlem: Becht, 1987.

{Broekman, Inge. “Constantijn Huygens, de kunst en het hof.” PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 2010.}

Buijsen, Edwin. The Sketchbook of Jan van Goyen from the Bredius-Kronig Collection. The Hague: Foundation Bredius Genootschap, 1993.

Chong, Alan. “The Market for Landscape Painting in Seventeenth-Century Holland.” In Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, edited by Peter Sutton, 104–20. Exh. cat. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1987.

De Marchi, Neil, and Hans J. Van Miegroet. “Art, Value and Market Practices in the Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century.” Art Bulletin 76 (1994): 451–64.

—. “Pricing Invention: ‘Originals’, ‘Copies’ and their Relative Value in Seventeenth-Century Netherlandish Art Markets.” In Recent Contributions to the Economics of the Arts, edited by Victor Ginsburgh and Pierre-Michel Menger, 27–70. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1996.

Drossaers, S. W. A. and T. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer. Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmede gelijk te stellen stukken 1567–1795. 3 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974–1976.

Dumas, Charles. Haagse stadsgezichten 1550–1800: Topografische schilderijen van het Haags Historisch Museum. Zwolle: Waanders, 1991.

Emmens, Jan A. Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst. Amsterdam: C. A. van Oorschot, 1979.

{Falkenburg, Reindert L. “‘Schilderachtig weer’ bij Jan van Goyen.” In Jan van Goyen, edited by Christiaan Vogelaar, 60–69. Exh. cat. Zwolle and Leiden: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1996.}

{—. “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 1500–1800/Nature and Landscape in Netherlandish Art 1500–1800,” edited by Reindert Falkenburg et al. Special issue, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek/Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 48 (1997): 116–61.}

Floerke, Hans. Studien zur Niederländischen Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte: Die Formen des Kunsthandels, das Atelier und die Sammler in den Niederlanden vom 15.-18. Jahrhundert. Munich and Leipzig: Georg Müller, 1905.

Fock, C. Willemijn. “Kunstbezit in Leiden in de 17de eeuw.” In Lunsing Scheurleer, Fock, and van Dissel, eds., Het Rapenburg, 5:3–33. {English version: C. Willemijn Fock,. “Art Ownership in Leiden in the Seventeenth Century,” translated by Anne Baudouin. Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 13, no. 1 (Winter 2021), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2021.13.1.4.}

Getty Research Institute. The Getty Provenance Index Databases, https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/provenance/search.html.

Gifford, E. Melanie. “Jan van Goyen en de techniek van het naturalistisch landschap.” In Jan van Goyen, edited by Christiaan Vogelaar, 70–81. Exh. cat. Zwolle and Leiden: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1996.}

—. “Style and Technique in Dutch Landscape Painting in the 1620s.” In Preprints: Historical Painting Techniques, Materials and Studio Practice, edited by Arie Wallert, Erma Hermsen, and Marja Peek, 140–47. Leiden and Malibu: Getty Conservation Institute, 1995.

Haak, Bob. The Golden Age: Dutch Panting of the Seventeenth Century. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1984.

Hoogstraten, Samuel van. Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst: Anders de zichtbaere werelt. Rotterdam, 1678.

Houbraken, Arnold. De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen. 3 vols. The Hague, 1753. First published 1718–1721.

Huygens, Constantijn. De jeugd van Constantijn Huygens door hemzelf beschreven. Translated from the Latin by A. H. Kan. Rotterdam: Ad. Donker, 1971.

{Israel, Jonathan I. “Adjusting to Hard Times: Dutch Art During its Period of Crisis and Restructuring (c. 1621–1645).” Art History 20 (1997): 449–76.}

{Jager, Angela. “’Everywhere illustrious history paintings that are a dime a dozen’: The Mass Market for History Painting in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam.” Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 7, no. 1 (Winter 2015), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2015.7.1.2.}

{—. The Mass Market for History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: Production, Distribution and Consumption. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020.}

Jager, Ronald de. “Meester, leerjongen, leertijd: Een analyse van zeventiende-eeuwse Noord-Nederlandse leerlingcontracten van kunstschilder, goud- en zilversmeden.” Oud Holland 104 (1990): 69–111.

Lairesse, Gerard de. Groot Schilderboek. Haarlem: Johannes Marshoorn, 1740. Written in 1707.

Leeflang, Huigen. “Het landschap in boek en prent: Perceptie en interpretatie van vroeg zeventiende-eeuwse Nederlandse landschapsprenten.” In Bakker and Leeflang, Nederland naar ’t leven, 18–32.

—. “Het aardse paradijs: Het Haarlemse landschap in 16de en 17de-eeuwse literatuur en beeldende kunst.” In De trots van Haarlem: Promotie van een stad in kunst en historie, edited by Koos Levy-Van Halm et al., 116–34. Exh. cat. Gent: Snouck-Ducaju Snouck-Ducaju in collaboration with the Frans Hals Museum and Teylers Museum, Haarlem, 1995

{—. “Dutch Landscape: The Urban View; Haarlem and its Environs in Literature and Art, 15th –17th century.” In Falkenburg et al., ed., “Natuur en landschap in de Nederlandse kunst 1500–1800:” 52–115. }

Lunsingh Scheurleer, Theo H., C. Willemijn Fock, and Albert J. van Dissel, eds. Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht. 6 vols. Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, 1986–1992.

Mander, Karel van. Het schilder-boeck. Haarlem, 1603–1604.

Martin, Wilhelm. De Hollandse schilderkunst in de zeventiende eeuw. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1935–1936.

Miedema, Hessel. De archiefbescheiden van het St. Lucasgilde te Haarlem. 2 vols. Alphen aan de Rijn: Canaletto, 1980.

Miedema, Hessel, ed. Karel van Mander: Het leven de oude antijcke doorluchtighe schilders. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 1981.

{The Montias Database of 17th Century Dutch Art Inventories, The Frick Collection, https://research.frick.org/montias.}

Montias, John Michael. “Art Dealers in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands.” Simiolus 18 (1988): 244–56.

—. Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982.

{—. “Artists Named in Amsterdam Inventories, 1607–1680,” Simiolus 31, no. 4 (2004–2005): 322–47.}

—. “Bramer’s Patrons and Clients in Delft.” In Jane ten Brink-Goldsmith et al, Leonaert Bramer 1596–1674: Ingenious Painter and Draughtsman in Rome and Delft, 35–46. Exh. cat. Zwolle and Delft: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum Prinsenhof, 1994.

—. “Cost and Value in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art.” Art History 10 (1987): 455–86.

—. “Estimates of the Number of Dutch Masters, their Earnings and the Output in 1650.” Leidschrift 6, no. 3 (1990): 59–74.

—. “The Influence of Economic Factors on Style.” De Zeventiende Eeuw 6, no. 1 (1990): 49–57.

—. “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions.” 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: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1991.

Orlers, Jan. Beschrijvinge der Stadt Leyden. Leiden, 1641.

{Plas, Piet van der, and Martine van der Wielen-de Goede. “Roucoop of Oostbos? Gezicht op de Vliet door Jan van Goyen.” Leids Jaarboekje 107 (2015): 119–34.}

Karel Porteman. “Zeventiende-eeuwse dichters in last.” In Brekende spiegels: Beeldveranderingen in de Nederlandse literatuur, edited by Dirk de Geest and Marc van Vaeck, 43–57. Leuven: Peeters, 1992.

Reznicek, Emile K. J. “Het leerdicht van Karel van Mander en de acribie van Hessel Miedema.” Oud Holland 89 (1975): 102–28.

{Sluijter, Eric Jan. “‘All striving to adorne their houses with costly peeces’: Two Case Studies of Paintings in Wealthy Interiors.” In Art & Home: Dutch Interiors in the Golden Age, edited by Mariët Westermann, 102–27. Exh. cat. Denver and Zwolle: Denver Art Museum and Waanders, 2001.}

{—. “Determining Value on the Art Market in the Golden Age: An Introduction. In Art Market and Connoisseurship: A Closer Look at Paintings by Rembrandt, Rubens and their Contemporaries, edited by Anna Tummers and Koenraad Jonckheere, 7–27. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008.}

{—. “‘Dien grooten Raphel in het zeeschilderen!’ Over de waardering van Jan Porcellis’ sobere kunst door eigentijdse kenners.” In Liber Amicorum Marijke de Kinkelde: Collegiale bijdragen over landschappen, marines en architectuur, edited by Charles Dumas et al., 343–58. The Hague: Waanders, 2013.}

—. “De ‘heydensche fabulen’ in de Noord-nederlandse schilderkunst, circa 1590–1670.” PhD diss., Leiden University, 1986.

{—. De “heydensche fabulen” in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw: Schilderijen met verhalende onderwerpen uit de klassieke mythologie ca 1590–1670. Leiden: Primavera Pers, 2000.}

{—. “In Praise of the Art of Painting: On Paintings by Gerrit Dou and a Treatise by Philips Angel of 1642.” In Eric Jan Sluijter, Seductress of Sight: Studies in Dutch Art of the Golden Age, 198–263. Zwolle: Waanders, 2000.}

—. De lof der schilderkunst: Over schilderijen van Gerrit Dou (1613–1675) en een traktaat van Philips Angel uit 1642. Hilversum: Verloren, 1993.

{—. “On Brabant Rubbish: Economic Competition, Artistic Rivalry and the Growth of the Market for Paintings in the First Decades of the Seventeenth Century.” Journal of the Historians of Netherlandish Art 1, no. 2 (Summer 2009), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2009.1.2.4. Dutch version: “Over Brabantse vodden, economische concurrentie, artistieke wedijver en de groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw,” in Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999): 113–43.}

{—. “Ownership of Paintings in the Dutch Golden Age.” In Class Distinctions: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer, edited by Ronni Baer, 89–111 and 286–91. Exh. cat. Boston: MFA Publications, 2015.}

{—. Rembrandt and the Female Nude. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006.}

{—. Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam, 1630–1650. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2015.}

—. “Schilders van ‘cleyne, subtile ende curieuse dingen’: Leidse ‘fijnschilders’in contemporaine bronnen.” In Leidse fijnschilders: Van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge, 1630-1760, edited by Eric Jan Sluijter, Marlies Enklaar, and Paul Nieuwenhuizen, 15–55. Exh. cat. Zwolle and Leiden: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1988.

Sluijter-Seijffert, Nicolette C. “Cornelis van Poelenburch (ca. 1593–1667).” PhD diss., Leiden University, 1984.
{—. Cornelis van Poelenburch, 1594/5–1667: The Paintings. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2016.}

Smits-Veldt, Mieke. Samuel Coster, ethicus-didacticus: Een onderzoek naar dramatische opzet en morele instructie van Ithys, Polyxena, en Iphigenia. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff/Forsten, 1986.

Spiegel, Hendrick Laurenszn. Hart-spieghel. Amsterdam, 1614.

Spies, Marijke. “‘Poëetsche fabrijcken’ en andere allegorieën eind 16de begin 17de eeuw.” Oud Holland 105 (1991): 228–43.

Sutton, Peter. “Introduction.” In Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, edited by Peter Sutton, 1–63. Exh. cat. Boston: Museum of Fine Art, 1987.

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

Vogelaar, Christiaan, ed. Jan van Goyen. Exh. cat. Leiden: Zwolle in collaboration with Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal, 1996.

Vries, Jan de. “Art History.” In Art in History/History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture; Issues & Debates, edited by David Freedberg and Jan de Vries, 249–82. Santa Monica: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1991.

Waal, Henri van de. Jan van Goyen. Amsterdam: H. J. W. Becht, 1941.

Weststeijn, Thijs. The Visible World. Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Art Theory and the Legitimation of Painting in the Dutch Golden Age. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008.

Wetering, Ernst van de. “Leidse schilders achter de ezel.” In Geschildert tot Leyden anno 1626, edited by Maarten Wurfbain et al., 21–31. Exh. cat. Leiden: Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1976. {English version: “The Creation of a Pictorial Idea,” in Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt: The Painter at Work, 74–89. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1997.}

—. “Rembrandt’s Method: Technique in the Service of Illusion.” In Rembrandt: The Master and His Workshop; Paintings, edited by Christopher Brown, Jan Kelch, and Pieter van Thiel, 12–39. New Haven and London: Yale University Press and the National Gallery, London, in collaboration with Gemäldegalerie SMPK, Berlin,and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 1991.

—. “De paletten van Rembrandt en Jozef Israels, een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen stijl en schildertechniek.” Oud Holland 107 (1993): 137–51. {English version: “The Palette: On the Relationship between Style and Painting Technique,” in Van de Wetering, Rembrandt: The Painter at Work, 132–53.}

Willigen, Adriaan van der. Geschiedkundige aantekeeningen over Haarlemsche schilders en andere beoefenaren van de beeldende kunsten. Haarlem: Erven F. Bohn, 1866.

Wurfbain, Maarten, et al. Geschildert tot Leyden anno 1626. Exh. cat. Leiden: Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1976.

List of Illustrations

Cornelis van Poelenburch, Landscape with Ruins and Figures, Collection HM Queen Elizabeth II, London
Fig. 1 Cornelis van Poelenburch, Landscape with Ruins and Figures, oil on copper mounted on panel, 31.7 x 40 cm. Collection HM Queen Elizabeth II,  Buckingham Palace / Windsor Castle, London (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Dune Landscape, 1629, Gemäldegalerie, Berlin
Fig. 2 Jan van Goyen, Dune Landscape, 1629, oil on panel, 29 x 51 cm. Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, inv. no. 865 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Esaias van de Velde, Two Horsemen in a Dune Landscape, 1614, Rijksmuseum Twenthe, Enschede
Fig. 3 Esaias van de Velde, Two Horsemen in a Dune Landscape, 1614, oil on panel, 25 x 32.5 cm. Rijksmuseum Twenthe, Enschede, inv. no. 0079 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan Porcellis, Estuary with Ships in Stormy Weather, ca. 1630, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam
Fig. 4 Jan Porcellis, Estuary with Ships in Stormy Weather, ca. 1630, oil on panel, 58 x 80.5 cm. Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam, inv. no. 1675 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Alexander Keirincx and Cornelis van Poelenburch, Wooded Landscape with Figures, 1629, Mauritshuis, The Hague
Fig. 5 Alexander Keirincx and Cornelis van Poelenburch, Wooded Landscape with Figures, 1629, oil on panel, 64 x 92 cm. Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 79 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of The Hague from the South-East, 1651, Historisch Museum, The Hague
Fig. 6 Jan van Goyen, View of The Hague from the South-East, 1651, oil on canvas, 170 x 438 cm. Haags Historisch Museum, The Hague, inv. no. 1862-0006-SCH (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of the River Vliet at Voorschoten with House Oostbos, 1642, Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden
Fig. 7 Jan van Goyen, View of the River Vliet at Voorschoten with House Oostbos, 1642, oil on canvas, 131.5 x 252.5 cm. Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden, inv. no. B 1431, on loan from Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of the Valkhof Castle, 1641, Museum het Valkhof, Nijmegen
Fig. 8 Jan van Goyen, View of the Valkhof Castle, 1641, oil on canvas, 154 x 258 cm. Museum het Valkhof, Nijmegen, inv. no. XVI 6 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Castle by a River, 1647, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Fig. 9 Jan van Goyen, Castle by a River, 1647, oil on panel, 66 x 97.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 64.65.1 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, River View, 1636, Alte Pinakothek, Munich
Fig. 10 Jan van Goyen, River View, 1636, oil on panel, 39 x 60 cm. Alte Pinakothek, Munich, inv. no. 4893 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Cornelis van Poelenburch, Landscape with the Flight into Egypt, 1625, Centraal Museum, Utrecht
Fig. 11 Cornelis van Poelenburch, Landscape with the Flight into Egypt, 1625, oil on canvas, 48.2 x 71.1 cm. Centraal Museum, Utrecht, inv. no. 8391 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Fortified Town at a River, 1651, P. de Boer, Amsterdam
Fig. 12 Jan van Goyen, Fortified Town at a River, 1651, oil on paper mounted on panel, 25.5 x 41 cm., P. de Boer, Amsterdam, 2015 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Winter, 1625, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 13 Jan van Goyen, Winter, 1625, oil on panel, 33.4 cm diam. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-3946 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Esaias van de Velde, Two Horsemen in a Dune Landscape, 1614, Rijksmuseum Twenthe, Enschede
Fig. 3a Esaias van de Velde, Two Horsemen in a Dune Landscape (fig. 3) [side-by-side viewer]
Esaias van de Velde, The Cattle Ferry, 1622, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 14 Esaias van de Velde, The Cattle Ferry, 1622, oil on panel, 75.5 x 113 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-1293 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Village View, 1625, Kunsthalle, Bremen
Fig. 15 Jan van Goyen, Village View, 1625, oil on panel, 78 x 124 cm. Kunsthalle, Bremen, inv. no. 48-1826/99 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan Brueghel the Elder, Parish Fair in Schelle, 1614, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna
Fig. 16 Jan Brueghel the Elder, Parish Fair in Schelle, 1614, oil on panel, 52 x 90.5 cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. no. GG 9102 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Hendrick Avercamp, Winter Landscape with Skaters near a Castle, 1608, Bergen Art Museum
Fig. 17 Hendrick Avercamp, Winter Landscape with Skaters near a Castle, 1608, oil on panel, 33 x 55.5 cm. Bergen Art Museum, Bergen (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van de Velde II, Ver (Spring) from the Four Seasons series, 1671, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 18 Jan van de Velde II, Ver (Spring) from the Four Seasons series, 1671, etching on paper, 26.8 x 35.8 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van de Velde II, Hyems (Winter) from the Four Seasons series, 1671, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 19 Jan van de Velde II, Hyems (Winter) from the Four Seasons series, 1671, etching on paper, 26.8 x 35.8 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 13a Jan van Goyen, Winter, 1625 (fig. 13) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Winter Landscape, 1626, Christie’s, New York, sale June 4, 2014, lot 6
Fig. 20 Jan van Goyen, Winter Landscape, 1626, oil on panel, 32.5 x 50 cm. Christie’s, New York, sale of June 4, 2014, lot 6 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Esaias van de Velde, Winter Landscape, 1615, Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig
Fig. 21 Esaias van de Velde, Winter Landscape, 1615, oil on panel, 28 x 46 cm. Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Sandy Road with a Farmhouse, 1627, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Fig. 22 Jan van Goyen, Sandy Road with a Farmhouse, 1627, oil on panel, 30.8 x 41.3 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 1972.25 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 3b Esaias van de Velde, Two Horsemen in a Dune Landscape (fig. 3) [side-by-side viewer]
Esaias van de Velde, Road through the Dunes, ca. 1614, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 23 Esaias van de Velde, Road through the Dunes, ca. 1614, etching on paper, 6.9 x 10.2 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Pieter de Molijn, Dune Landscape with Trees and Wagon, 1626, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig
Fig. 24 Pieter de Molijn, Dune Landscape with Trees and Wagon, 1626, oil on panel, 26 x 36 cm. Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig, inv. no. 338 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Cottage on a Heath, ca. 1629, National Gallery, London
Fig. 25 Jan van Goyen, Cottage on a Heath, ca. 1629, oil on panel, 39.7 x 60.5 cm. National Gallery, London, inv. no. NG 137 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Dune Landscape with Cottage and Figures, 1629, Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection
Fig. 26 Jan van Goyen, Dune Landscape with Cottage and Figures, 1629, oil on panel. Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection on loan at the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid, inv. no. CTB.1994.22 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Village Street with Peasants, 1628, Städel Museum, Frankfurt
Fig. 27 Jan van Goyen, Village Street with Peasants, 1628, oil on panel, 35.7 x 63 cm. Städel Museum, Frankfurt, inv. no. SG 1236 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Landscape with a Village View, 1626, Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden
Fig. 28 Jan van Goyen, Landscape with a Village View, 1626, oil on panel, 32 x 59 cm. Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden, inv. no. S 860 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Landscape with View of a Castle, 1624, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 29 Jan van Goyen, Landscape with View of a Castle, 1624, pen and brown ink on paper, 5.3 x 8.8 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-T-1899-A-4317 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Village with Figures in Winter, 1626, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Fig. 30 Jan van Goyen, Village with Figures in Winter, 1626, brush and gray, brown, blue, and gray-green ink with black chalk on paper, 19.4 x 32 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-T-1902-A-4701 C (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 9a Jan van Goyen, Castle by a River (fig. 9) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, The Pelkus Gate near Utrecht, 1646, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Fig. 31 Jan van Goyen, The Pelkus Gate near Utrecht, 1646, oil on panel, 36.8 x 57.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 45.146.3 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Selling Fish at the Beach of Scheveningen, 1632, Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig
Fig. 32 Jan van Goyen, Selling Fish at the Beach of Scheveningen, 1632, oil on panel, 29.5 x 43 cm. Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig, inv. no. 235 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, The Shore at Egmond-at-See, 1645, State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg
Fig. 33 Jan van Goyen, The Shore at Egmond-at-See, 1645, oil on panel, 54 x 72 cm. State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg, inv. no. GZ-993 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Sailing Vessels on a Lake, 1639, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam
Fig. 34 Jan van Goyen, Sailing Vessels on a Lake, 1639, oil on panel, 47 x 70 cm. Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam, inv. no. VdV 32 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, A River Scene with Fishermen Hauling a Net, 1640–45, National Gallery, London
Fig. 35 Jan van Goyen, A River Scene with Fishermen Hauling a Net, 1640–45, oil on panel, 37 x 33 cm. National Gallery, London, inv. no. NG6155 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Ships on the Haarlemmermeer, 1656, Städel Museum, Frankfurt
Fig. 36 Jan van Goyen, Ships on the Haarlemmermeer, 1656, oil on panel, 40.5 x 55.5 cm. Städel Museum, Frankfurt, inv. no. SG 1071 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Extensive Landscape with View of Rhenen, 1636, Private collection
Fig. 37 Jan van Goyen, Extensive Landscape with View of Rhenen, 1636, oil on panel, 101 x 136.5 cm. Private collection (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of Haarlem and the Haarlemmermeer, 1646, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Fig. 38 Jan van Goyen, View of Haarlem and the Haarlemmermeer, 1646, oil on panel, 34.6 x 50.5 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 71.62 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of the River Rhine near Rhenen, 1646, Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed
Fig. 39 Jan van Goyen, View of the River Rhine near Rhenen, 1646, oil on panel, 66 x 98 cm. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, inv. no. NK2710 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of Leiden from the Northeast, 1650, Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden
Fig. 40 Jan van Goyen, View of Leiden from the Northeast, 1650, oil on panel, 66.5 x 97.5 cm. Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden, inv. no. S115 (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, View of Dordrecht, 1651, Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht
Fig. 41 Jan van Goyen, View of Dordrecht, 1651, oil on panel, 67.2 x 98.1 cm. Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht, inv. no. DM/008/886 (artwork in the public domain) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1679775 [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 13b Jan van Goyen, Winter, 1625 (fig. 13) [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 20a Jan van Goyen, Winter Landscape (fig. 20) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, Frozen River with Skaters, ca. 1641, Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed
Fig. 42 Jan van Goyen, Frozen River with Skaters, ca. 1641, oil on panel, 35 x 46 cm. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, inv. no. NK2512 [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Goyen, A Thunderstorm, 1641, Legion of Honor Museum, San Francisco
Fig. 43 Jan van Goyen, A Thunderstorm, 1641, oil on canvas, 137.8 x 183.2 cm. Legion of Honor Museum, San Francisco (artwork in the public domain) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Goyen_1641_The_Thunderstorm.jpg [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 36a Jan van Goyen, Ships on the Haarlemmermeer (fig. 36a) [side-by-side viewer]
Fig. 41a Jan van Goyen, View of Dordrecht (fig. 41) [side-by-side viewer]

Footnotes

  1. 1. Constantijn Huygens, De jeugd van Constantijn Huygens door hemzelf beschreven, trans. A. H. Kan (Rotterdam: Ad. Donker, 1971), 73. The autobiography was written between 1629 and 1631 {[Huygens wrote the paragraphs on the art of painting in the first months of 1631; see Inge Broekman, Constantijn Huygens: De kunst en het hof” (PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 2010), 179.}

  2. 2. Huygens, De jeugd, 73.

  3. 3. In this respect, Huygens’s connoisseurship apparently had little influence at the Stadholder’s court. Cornelis van Poelenburch was highly appreciated at the court (as, somewhat less so, was Moyses van Uyttenbroeck), while Van Goyen is not included in the collections of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia van Solms. See Sophia W. A. Drossaers and Th. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmede gelijk te stellen stukken 1567–1795 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974–1976), vol. 1. On the other hand, Van Goyen must have received a commission from the court to paint a country house of the stadholder (see n. 81).

  4. 4. Huygens, De jeugd, 72.

  5. 5. On the chimney depicted in Thomas de Keyser’s portrait of Huygens from 1627 (National Gallery, London), we glimpse the corner of a painting that seems to be a seascape by Porcellis; Huygens appears to present himself in this portrait as a man of advanced taste. {On the high regard in which Porcellis was held by connoisseurs, see Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘Dien grooten Raphel in het zeeschilderen!’ Over de waardering van Jan Porcellis’ sobere kunst door eigentijdse kenners,” in Liber Amicorum Marijke de Kinkelder: Collegiale bijdragen over landschappen, marines en architectuur, ed. Charles Dumas et al. (The Hague: Waanders, 2013), 343–58.}

  6. 6. See, for example, H. van de Waal, Jan van Goyen (Amsterdam: H. J. W. Becht, 1941), 49; and Hans-Ulrich Beck, Jan van Goyen 1596–1656: Ein Oeuvreverzeichnis (Amsterdam: A. L. van Gendt 1972), 1:16 and 19. Beck repeated this claim several times, as, for example, in Hans-Ulrich Beck et al., Jan Van Goyen, 1596–1656: Conquest of Space; Paintings from Museums and Private Collections, exh. cat. (Amsterdam and Bremen: K.&V. Waterman and Car. Ed. Schünemann KG, 1981), 11; and Hans-Ulrich Beck, Jan van Goyen 1596–1656, exh. cat. (London: Richard Green, 1996), n.p.

  7. 7. Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 52. 

  8. 8. About Orlers and the shaping of the canon by city descriptions, see Eric Jan Sluijter, De lof der schilderkunst: Over schilderijen van Gerrit Dou (1613–1675) en een traktaat van Philips Angel uit 1642 (Hilversum: Verloren, 1993), 11–14. {English translation: Eric Jan Sluijter, “In Praise of the Art of Painting: On Paintings by Gerrit Dou and a Treatise by Philips Angel of 1642,” in Eric Jan Sluijter, Seductress of Sight: Studies in Dutch Art of the Golden Age (Zwolle: Waanders, 2000), 201–5.}

  9. 9. Jan Orlers, Beschrijvinge der Stadt Leyden (Leiden, 1641), 352.

  10. 10. Orlers, Beschrijvinge, 373.

  11. 11. For a description of these technical changes, see E. Melanie Gifford, “Style and Technique in Dutch Landscape Painting in the 1620s,” in Preprints: Historical Painting Techniques, Materials and Studio Practice, ed. Arie Wallert, Erma Hermsen, and Marja Peek (Leiden and Malibu: Getty Conservation Institute, 1995). {See also E. Melanie Gifford, “Jan van Goyen en de techniek van het naturalistisch landschap,” in Jan van Goyen, ed. Christiaan Vogelaar, 70–79, exh. cat. (Zwolle and Leiden: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1996).}

  12. 12. Samuel van Hoogstraten, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst: Anders de zichtbaere werelt (Rotterdam, 1678), 237.

  13. 13. Hans Floerke, Studien zur Niederländischen Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte: Die Formen des Kunsthandels, das Atelier und die Sammler in den Niederlanden vom 15.-18. Jahnhundert (Munich and Leipzig: Georg Müller, 1905), 19–20. With an advance payment of thirty-two guilders and thereafter fifteen guilders per week, he had to make—with help of a pupil—two paintings every week for twenty weeks. The profit, after deducting forty guilders for pigments and four guilders for every panel, would be shared equally. {This has often been cited as a sign of the miserable financial situation of a painter who had to work “on the galley,” but in fact it was not at all a poor arrangement; see Sluijter, “Dien grooten Raphel in het zeeschilderen,” 346–47.}

  14. 14. John Michael Montias, “Cost and Value in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art,” Art History 10 (1987): 455–86, expanded on—especially with regard to rapid, “‘monochrome’ painting”—in John Michael Montias, “The Influence of Economic Factors on Style,” De Zeventiende Eeuw 6, no. 1 (1990): 49–57. On the explosive growth of the number of painters in this period, see Jan de Vries, “Art History,” in Art in History/History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture; Issues & Debates, ed. David Freedberg and Jan de Vries (Santa Monica: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1991), 256–65. {For an art-historical explanation of this development, see Eric Jan Sluijter, “On Brabant Rubbish: Economic Competition, Artistic Rivalry and the Growth of the Market for Paintings in the First Decades of the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of the Historians of Netherlandish Art 1, no. 2 (Summer 2009), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2009.1.2.4.}

  15. 15. On the concept net (neat) or netticheyt (neatness) that Karel van Mander used in connection with earlier painters such as Jan van Eyck and Lucas van Leyden, see Sluijter, Lof der schilderkunst, 56–65 {English version: Sluijter, Seductress of Sight, 244–55}. In my view, Van Goyen’s technique falls within the category of what Philips Angel calls a los, wacker en soet-vloeyend penceel (a loose, adroit, and smoothly fluent brush): Philips Angel, Lof der schilder-konst (Leiden, 1642), 56. This should not be mistaken for the rouwe (rough) manner that van Mander mentions in connection with Titian, which was pursued by Rembrandt in his later work.

  16. 16. See Eric Jan Sluijter, “Schilders van ‘cleyne, subtile ende curieuse dingen’: Leidse ‘fijnschilders’ in contemporaine bronnen,” in Leidse fijnschilders: Van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge, 1630–1760, ed. Eric Jan Sluijter, Marlies Enklaar, and Paul Nieuwenhuizen (Zwolle and Leiden: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1988), 36–37. In addition to the ten paintings he had bought for Christina of Sweden (which were returned to him), Spiering Silvercroon owned several more works by Dou. Moreover, the Leiden burgomaster Johan de Bye owned twenty-seven paintings by Dou, and François de le Boe Sylvius owned ten or eleven.

  17. 17. With regard to Poelenburch, Willem Vincent Baron van Wyttenhorst owned no fewer than fifty-seven paintings by his hand, and Frederik Hendrik and Amalia van Solms owned at least nineteen (some of them made in collaboration with Alexander Keirincx or Roelant Savery). See Nicolette C. Sluijter-Seijffert, “Cornelis van Poelenburch (ca. 1593–1667)” (PhD diss., Leiden University, 1984), appendices 2 and 3 {Enlarged English edition: Nicolette C. Sluijter-Seijffert, Cornelis van Poelenburch, 1594/5–1667: The Paintings (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2016), appendices 2 and 3.}.

  18. 18. The economic market principles of “product differentiation” and “process and product innovation” were first brought forward in this context by John Michael Montias, particularly in “Influence of Economic Factors,” 50–52. See also Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet, “Art, Value and Market Practices in the Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century,” Art Bulletin 76 (1994): 452–54; and Marten Jan Bok, “Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt, 1580-1700” (PhD diss., Utrecht University, 1994), 116–18.

  19. 19. In the RKD’s photo documentation classification system, all painters that were considered as belonging to the “school” of a certain artist (not necessarily pupils, but artists working in a related style) were arranged together: Van Goyen-school, Poelenburch-school, Rembrandt-school, Dou-school, Ruisdael-school, Wouwerman-school. This reflects well that those painters can be seen as “market leaders.” After the “Rembrandt-school,” the “Van Goyen-school” is by far the largest of these groups (twenty-one painters).

  20. 20. For instance, see Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:16 and 19.

  21. 21. See the documents in Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:29–36.

  22. 22. During the 1640s his debts began to run higher; possibly this financial downturn began with large losses from speculation in tulip bulbs. See Abraham Bredius, “Jan Josephszoon van Goyen: Nieuwe bijdragen tot zijne biographie,” Oud Holland 14 (1896): 113—25. His standard of living and the art with which he surrounded himself becomes clear from some sales: in 1652 his paintings yielded 3,749.9 guilders; in 1654 another 2,812 guilders for paintings and drawings.

  23. 23. After his death, some household effects and paintings were sold for 2,415.4 guilders. He still owned no fewer than six houses, which were sold for 15,670 guilders; altogether these sales totaled a bit more than his debts, which amounted to about 18,000 guilders. Unfortunately, we have no details about the paintings that were sold and whether they comprised a personal collection or his stock as an art dealer.

  24. 24. The number of dated paintings in the catalogue of Hans-Ulrich Beck jumps from sixteen in 1639, to twenty-five in 1640, to thirty-eight in 1641, and to fifty-seven in 1642, with a peak of sixty-seven in 1646. In 1648 it diminishes again to twenty-seven and after that year it remains in the twenties and lower thirtiess, with a sudden peak of sixty-four in 1651 (among which were twenty works of oil on paper) and a sudden low of twelve in 1654; there are again thirty-seven paintings in 1655, and from the year of his death (April 27, 1656) only one painting.

  25. 25. On the painter’s plea in this poem from Cats’s Trouringh (1632), which was cited in full by Philips Angel (Angel, Lof der schilder-konst, 27–30), see Sluijter, Lof der schilderkunst, 24–26 {English version: Sluijter, Seductress of Sight, 213–15}.

  26. 26. Hessel Miedema, De archiefbescheiden van het St. Lucasgilde te Haarlem (Alphen aan de Rijn: Canaletto, 1980), 232 and 246–53, doc. nos. A120, and 280–81, doc. no. A130a. These documents, interesting in many respects, were cited and analyzed by De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Art, Value and Market Practices,” 485–86. The people who signed were Frans Pietersz. de Grebber, Pieter de Molijn, Frans Hals, Cornelis van Kittensteyn, and Salomon van Ruysdael; the petition comprises a protest against the ban on sales that, according to them, were more to the disadvantage of the ordinary painters (“gemeene schilders”) who made insignificant (slechte) paintings than of the “excellent masters” (extraordinare meesters), also called “masters who have reached perfection” (meester tot Perfectie gekomen synde). {See also Marion E. 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 et al., special issue, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999): 195–200.

  27. 27. On art dealers who mainly sold nameless dozijnwerk (works by the dozen) and copies by painters who worked for them, see John Michael Montias, “Art Dealers in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands,” Simiolus 18 (1988): 246–53. {See, on this subject, Angela Jager “‘Everywhere illustrious history paintings that are a dime a dozen’: The Mass Market for History Painting in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam,” Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 7, no. 1 (Winter 2015), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2015.7.1.2https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2015.7.1.2; and Angela Jager, The Mass Market for History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: Production, Distribution and Consumption (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020)}.

  28. 28. See Montias, “Art Dealers,” 250. For example, average valuation prices of the paintings stock of the art dealers Balkeneynde was 4.1 guilders (3.3 guilders for the nameless paintings) and Blaeuw 5.5 guilders (3.9 guilders for nameless paintings). 

  29. 29. The research by Montias and Fock show that during the course of the century the number of pictures associated with the name of a painter—that is, pictures for which one knew or recognized the maker—rose enormously, culminating in the 1660s (15.4 percent in Delft, 42.4 percent in Leiden). John Michael Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982), 227; C. Willemijn Fock, “Kunstbezit in Leiden in de 17de eeuw,” in Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, ed. Theo H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C. Willemijn Fock, and Albert J. van Dissel (Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, 1990), 5a:3–33. The considerable difference between the two cities is due to the fact that the Leiden inventories include a selection of inventories of well-to-do people; the number of attributed paintings in such inventories is almost always larger than in more modest ones. After 1670 the number of attributions diminishes. {For an English translation of Fock’s essay: C. Willemijn Fock, “Art Ownership in Leiden in the Seventeenth Century,” trans. Anne Baudouin, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 13, no. 1 (Winter 2021), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2021.13.1.4.}

  30. 30. I have consulted inventories of between about 1630 and 1670 (including paintings that had been brought together between approximately 1620 and 1660) that were published in Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 7 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1915–1922); and the inventories collected in the Getty Provenance Index CD Series, housed at the RKD, in which inventories from Haarlem, Amsterdam, and Utrecht assembled by, respectively, Pieter Biesboer, John Michael Montias, and Marten Jan Bok can be found. Of Pieter Biesboer’s Haarlem inventories, about five hundred are in the Getty Provenance Index; the next 2,600 will be included on the second CD. Pieter Biesboer kindly informed me about the paintings found by Van Goyen. {All of Biesboer’s Haarlem inventories are now online in the Getty Research Institute’s Provenance Index Databases, https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/provenance/search.html. Moreover, Biesboer published the most interesting ones in Pieter Biesboer, Collection of Paintings in Haarlem 1572–1745, vol. 1 of Netherlandish Inventories, Documents for the History of Collecting (Malibu: Getty Research Institute, 2001).} The Leiden inventories collected by C. Willemijn Fock were also examined (these are the 120 inventories on which Fock, “Kunstbezit Leiden,” was based). As far as they relate to people living on the Rapenburg, they have been published in Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock, and van Dissel, eds., Het Rapenburg; I also consulted some inventories published elsewhere. I wish to thank Pieter Biesboer and Willemijn Fock for making their findings available to me.

  31. 31. For example, the Leiden inventories collected and analyzed by Willemijn Fock for her article are a selective sample of twelve inventories every decade that are of special interest because of paintings they contain. The Delft and Haarlem inventories brought together by Montias and Biesboer, respectively, are all the inventories from the Delft and Haarlem notary archives (and orphanage archives) they could find. The Amsterdam inventories collected by Montias are a random sample of inventories in which artists’ names are recorded.

  32. 32. Fock’s selection of inventories for her article contained seventy-nine Van Goyen paintings altogether between 1630 and 1700; Dou is second with forty-eight works (and thirteen copies). However, the fact that twenty-seven of those were in one collection (Joan de Bije), makes this number somewhat distorting. Pieter de Molijn is third, with forty-five paintings (Fock, “Kunstbezit Leiden,” 12–14). {Piet Bakker informed me that the total number of seventeenth-century Leiden inventories assembled by Willemijn Fock is 501, of which 257 include attributions. Sixty-seven of these record works by van Goyen, including a total of 171 paintings attributed to him, including four copies and one drawing.}

  33. 33. Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft, 256–57.

  34. 34. John Michael Montias, “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions,” in Freedberg and de Vries, Art in History/History in Art, 364–67. During the period 1650–1679, Van Goyen is ex aequo with Lievens in fifth place (twenty-two works in thirteen inventories); in the period before that (1620–1649) he is in twentieth place (ex aequo with another three). In both periods combined, Van Goyen is in sixth place, after Jan Miense Molenaer, Rembrandt, de Momper (works by both Joos and Frans de Momper), Jan Porcellis, and Philips Wouwerman (I did not count D’Hondecoeter, since that number includes three painters of that name). The numbers of the latter four artists differ only slightly, ranging from thirty-seven (De Momper), thirty-six (Porcellis), and thirty-two (Wouwermans) to thirty-one (Van Goyen). A few inventories less or more might shift the numbers considerably; this group of painters, however, seems to be at the top. {In a much later article by Montias on Amsterdam inventories, Van Goyen is in eleventh place: John Michael Montias, “Artists Named in Amsterdam Inventories, 1607–1680,” Simiolus 31, no. 4 (2004–2005): 322–47.}

  35. 35. This third place is a provisional estimate by Pieter Biesboer. {Van Goyen is indeed in third place, with no fewer than seventy-nine paintings; his numbers are the highest of the landscape painters, followed by Pieter de Molijn with seventy paintings and Cornelis Decker with sixty-two. See Pieter Biesboer, Collection of Paintings in Haarlem, 34.}

  36. 36. Alan Chong, “The Market for Landscape Painting in Seventeenth-Century Holland,” in Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, ed. Peter Sutton, exh. cat (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1987), 117–18.

  37. 37. In Leiden his work is by far the most widely distributed of all the masters; in Fock’s selection we find ninety-seven paintings in thirty-four inventories (Fock, “Kunstbezit in Leiden,” 12). This is in great contrast to Dou: sixty-one works in twelve inventories. In Amsterdam, too, we find—for example, in Montias’s research—thirty-one works by Van Goyen in eighteen inventories, against forty-one by Rembrandt in fourteen inventories and twenty-two by Lievens in five (Montias, “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam,” 364–67).

  38. 38. {Gerard Ypelaer: Erfgoed Leiden & Omgeving (hereafter “ELO”), Notarial Archives (hereafter “NA”) notary (hereafter “not.”) D. de Fries, inv. 1230, deed 57, March 22, 1679; it is not entirely clear if he had twelve or even fifteen (!) paintings by Van Goyen; the inventory also includes, among others, three works by Willem van de Velde and two by Pieter Claesz.} Jan Janszn van Rhijn: ELO, NA not. Outerman, inv. 472, deed 268, April 19, 1668. This inventory also includes, among others, ten works by Van der Claeuw, eight by De Molijn, five by Berchem, and four by Lelyenberch.

  39. 39. Henrick Bugge van Ring: ELO, NA not. L. van Swieten, inv. 1005, deed 10, March 30, 1667; Bugge had no fewer than sixty-four paintings in the front room only! This inventory also includes, among others, eighteen works by Brekelenkam; six by van Uyttenbroeck; five each by Steen, Isaac van Swanenburch, and Lelyenbergh; and four by Teniers. {On this huge collection, see Eric Jan Sluijter, “‘All striving to adorne their houses with costly peeces’: Two Case Studies of Paintings in Wealthy Interiors,” in Art & Home: Dutch Interiors in the Golden Age, ed. Mariët Westermann, exh. cat. (Denver and Zwolle: Denver Art Museum and Waanders, 2001),116–27}.

  40. 40. Gerard van Hoogeveen: ELO, NA not. C. van Berendrecht, inv. 852, deed 34, March 11, 1665); this inventory also includes, among others, nine works by “Fabritius,” four by Porcellis, and three each by Molijn and Rembrandt.

  41. 41. Jean Francois Tortarolis: ELO, NA not. S. van Swanenburch, inv. 611, deed 124, December 7, 1656; see also Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock, and van Dissel, eds., Het Rapenburg, 4b:488; this inventory also includes, among others, nine works by Dirck Hals, seven by Porcellis, five by Schilperoort, four by Molijn, and three each by Lievens, Isaac van Ostade, and “Swanenburch,” respectively.

  42. 42. Jan van Griecken: ELO, NA not. A. Raven, inv. 762, deed 351, August 1657; this inventory also includes, among others, three works by “Palamedes” and two each by Uyttenbroeck, de Vlieger, and van Spreeuwen. {Sara de Witte: ELO, NA not. J. Stam, inv. 1269, deed 8, June 20, 1673 ; this inventory also includes two works by De Poorter and two by Ostade}; Le Maire: ELO, NA not. C. Berendrecht, inv. 853, deed 141, October 8, 1666; this inventory also includes, among others, three works by “Hals” and two each by Molijn, de Putter, Van de Venne, and “Veen.”

  43. 43. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 287–91. This landscape painter is only known from documents. There seems to be a Leiden connection here. In addition to Van Goyen and Rembrandt, he also owned work by Pieter de Neyn.

  44. 44. Getty Provenance Index: Johan Bardoel, inventory of 1663, 122 paintings. This inventory also includes, among others, six works by De Grebber, four each by Molijn and Porcellis, and two each by De Hulst, Frans de Momper, and Terborch.

  45. 45. Getty Provenance Index: Nicolaes Meyer, inventory of 1663, 154 numbers. This inventory also includes, among others, five works by Bartsius and two each by Aertsen, Moreelse, Lastman, and van Mander.

  46. 46. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 2141–44 (1658). This is an inventory of both Cornelis Borsman and Joh. van Campen. This inventory also includes three works by de Vlieger and two by Wouwerman.

  47. 47. Abraham Bredius, “De schilder Johannes van de Capelle,” Oud Holland 10 (1892): 26–40; inventory of 1679, 197 paintings. See also n. 49.

  48. 48. This inventory also includes, among others, six works by Frans Hals, five by Segers, and four each by Rembrandt and Brouwer. It should be noted that he owned no fewer than 1,400 drawings by de Vlieger!

  49. 49. Both in the Getty Provenance Index: Michiel Barrelebos, 1664, and Bregitta Screvelius, 1657. The latter owned ten paintings.

  50. 50. Pieter Bruijningh, 1664, Getty Provenance Index. The other identified paintings in Bruijningh’s inventory are two works by Dirck Hals and Pieter de Molijn.

  51. 51. Floris Soop, 1657, Getty Provenance Index. The other three are by Segers, Vonck, and “Vroom.”

  52. 52. Montias rightly noted that because of these new developments it had become possible for less well-to-do people to own an original of high quality (Montias, “Influence of Economic Factors,” 54).

  53. 53. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 229, inv. 1640, and 238, inv. 1657. On de Renialme as an art dealer for the top end of the collectors’ market, see Montias, “Art Dealers.” {A good master’s thesis on de Renialme’s stock was written by Bram de Blécourt, University of Amsterdam, 2012.}

  54. 54. Montias (Montias, “Art Dealers,” 250) calculated the average price of works in de Renialme’s inventory from 1658 at 105.8 guilders for the attributed paintings and 28.5 guilders for the paintings without attributions. Van Goyen’s painting was evaluated at forty-eight guilders. Works by Steen, Bramer, Molijn, Palamedes, and others were cheaper, as were “tronies” by Rembrandt (twelve guilders), Dou (thirty guilders), Lievens (twenty guilders) and a landscape by Lievens (twenty-four guilders). Among this latter group of artists, however, there were also works between one hundred and fifteen hundred guilders (the latter the value of a Rembrandt work). The Van Goyen in the inventory of 1640, which had much lower prices overall, was estimated at only twelve guilders; in this inventory the works by Frans Hals, Miense Molenaer, and Quast had about the same value or even less.

  55. 55. See footnote 61 below.

  56. 56. Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft, 236 (inventory of Nicolaes Gael); it is noteworthy that in this inventory there are also several copies after other masters, including Salomon van Ruysdael, Esaias van de Velde, and Pieter de Molijn, among others.

  57. 57. See n. 41 and 45 above.

  58. 58. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 1439 (inventory of Judith Willemsdr. van Vliet, 1650).

  59. 59. Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet, “Pricing Invention: ‘Originals,’ ‘Copies’ and their Relative Value in Seventeenth-Century Netherlandish Art Markets,” in Recent Contributions to the Economics of the Arts, eds. Victor Ginsburgh and Pierre-Michel Menger (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1996), 54–58.

  60. 60. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 457–520.

  61. 61. Calculated by John Michael Montias, “Estimates of the number of Dutch Masters, Their Earnings and the Output in 1650,” Leidschrift 6, no. 3 (1990), 69, cited by De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Pricing Invention,” 57. 

  62. 62. I made a mistake here. There were twenty-nine works by Van Goyen in this sale, of which the average estimate is 16.6 guilders. Reindert Falkenburg pointed this out, but he made a mistake too: he missed one painting estimated at twenty-five guilders. 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 1500–1800/Nature and Landscape in Netherlandish Art 1500–1800,” ed. Reindert Falkenburg et al., special issue, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek/Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 48 (1997): 153n14.}

  63. 63. Inventory of Henric Bugge van Ring, 1667 (see also n. 40: “A large Landscape by Jan van Goyen being a tavern with a coach and Hunter, done in the year 1627” {See Sluijter, “All striving,” 119}. Unfortunately, the painting cannot be identified.

  64. 64. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Rotterdam doctor Bernard Mandeville, active in England (see also n. 88), noted among the factors determining the value of a work of art not only the name of the artist, the scarcity of his work, and the status of the former owner but also “Time of his Age.” By this he probably meant the period of the artist’s development (see De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Art, Value,” 454–55). Presumably such criteria were already valid in the seventeenth century. It is possible that by the time the inventory of Bugge van Ring’s vast collection was drawn up in 1667 (clearly in the presence of the owner), the early work by Van Goyen had appreciated to a higher value than the generally more monochrome and loosely painted work from his later years.

  65. 65. Information received from Piet Bakker, based on the total number of inventories assembled by Willemijn Fock. {The inventory with the one-hundred-guilder painting is of Jean le Pla (merchant), ELO, NA not. K. Outerman, inv. 444, deed 173, March 4, 1647. The painting is described as “a large landscape with inns”; it was by far the most expensive of the fifteen paintings valued by the expert Hendrick Uylenburg. A second painting was recorded as “a small piece with small boats,” was valued at twenty-four guilders. Le Pla also owned, among others, two works by “Ruysdael” (36 and 20 guilders) and two by Isaac van Ostade (48 and 36 guilders).}

  66. 66. {Piet Bakker informed me of another four pre-1660 paintings with estimations in the total number of inventories assembled by Willemijn Fock (see n. 31), among which one is estimated at one hundred guilders (see n. 66) and the others at twenty-four, seventeen, and fifteen. The average estimation of these fourteen paintings is 24.12 guilders, but when the unusual peak of one hundred guilders is left out, the average is 18.3 guilders, instead of the 17.9-guilder average of the ten estimated paintings in the selection of 120 inventories.}

  67. 67. On the basis of estimated paintings in a reasonably large number of inventories and other sources for the period before 1650, Alan Chong calculated an average 16.8 guilders (for thirty-seven works), and an average of 17 guilders (eleven works) for the period between 1650 and 1675 (Chong, “Market for Landscape,” 117). {Falkenburg criticized the fact that I used averages, which is indeed not ideal, but Falkenburg’s arguments about what he perceived as Van Goyen’s much lower price level, based on applying the median values from the 1647 auction in The Hague (see above, n. 60–63) are flawed. The fact that eleven of the thirty-nine paintings yielded between twenty-two and thirty-two guilders, sums that were quite rare at this huge auction, is more telling than the median (only 12.5 guilders). In the Leiden inventories (ten inventories with estimates) the median is, before 1660, fifteen guilders (average eighteen guilders); in the Montias Database (seven inventories with estimates) the median is eighteen guilders (average 29.8), and in the Getty Provenance Index (seven inventories with estimates) the median is twenty-two guilders (average 27.4). These great differences show that medians are, with such small numbers, even more problematic than averages. With regard to The Hague sale of 1647, median values only indicate that there were a large number of paintings of lesser quality in this auction—probably often of a smaller size; prices were connected with both size and technical and artistic quality. These lower-priced works were probably made during the 1640s when Van Goyen raised his production considerably and made many rather uninteresting works. Falkenburg, “Onweer bij Jan van Goyen,” 153n14. I should also emphasize here that I calculated the estimates before 1660, which accounts the differences between my numbers and those of Chong and Montias.}

  68. 68. Pieter Gerritsz. van Hogemade owned sixty-nine paintings (inv. Fock no. 64; ELO, NA not. K. Outermans, inv. 443, deed 121, April 23, 1652); his three works by Van Goyen were estimated at respectively thirty-three, fifteen, and another fifteen guilders. Only a shepherd and shepherdess by van den Tempel was valued higher (eighty guilders). Two pieces by Moyaert, however, were estimated together at eighteen guilders, and two by Van de Venne at fifteen guilders.

  69. 69. Montias, “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam,” 366. {I wonder if Montias made a mistake here. See the Montias Database, in which we find two Van Goyens estimated for a high price: forty-four guilders in 1643 (Susanna van de Venne, who might have been related to Adriaen van de Venne, by whom she owned two paintings) and thirty guilders in 1657 (Aaltje Gerrits; appraised by Gerrit Uylenburg). The other paintings were valued at eighteen, fourteen, twelve, and five guilders respectively. If we do not count the forty-eight guilders of the painting in the inventory of De Renialme (see n. 55) the average is 20.5 guilders.}

  70. 70. The average value of the thirty-six estimated pictures I found in inventories between 1660 and 1700 is 13.7 guilders. This figure, however, is inflated because there are a few highly estimated pieces in inventories from the 1660s, such as a work valued at forty-eight guilders with Nicolaes Meyer in Utrecht (1663), one at thirty-six guilders with Francois Gysels in Amsterdam (1666), and three with Gerrit Kinckhuijsen in Haarlem (1668) at twenty-five, twenty-four, and twenty guilders. Estimates of three to six guilders, however, became more and more frequent as the decades go on.

  71. 71. Published in Fock, “Kunstbezit Leiden,” 32–33. {For an image of the poster, see C. Willemijn Fock, “Art Ownership in Leiden,” fig. 2.}

  72. 72. A work of one “Geelgefruyt”(?) is valued at 150 guilders (as much as the de Grebber), and the Hillegaert at three hundred guilders. No subject is mentioned for the latter; it was probably a large painting with many cavalrymen.

  73. 73. Miedema, Archiefbescheiden, 158.

  74. 74. Adriaan van der Willigen, Geschiedkundige aanteekeningen over Haarlemsche schilders en andere beoefenaren van de beeldende kunsten (Haarlem: Erven F. Bohn, 1866), 12, nos. 29, 32, and 36.

  75. 75. For the Delft history painter Leonaert Bramer, who also used a rapid technique, Montias calculated an average value of only fourteen guilders. Van Goyen’s reputation must have been much higher. This also shows that history paintings were not necessarily valued higher than landscapes, as has often been maintained; see John Michael Montias, “Bramer’s Patrons and Clients in Delft,” in Leonaert Bramer 1596–1674: Ingenious Painter and Draughtsman in Rome and Delft, ed. Jane ten Brink-Goldsmith et al., exh. cat (Zwolle and Delft: Waanders and Museum Prinsenhof, 1994), 43. Montias recorded nineteen paintings in Delft inventories.

  76. 76. On this subject, see Sluijter, “Leidse fijnschilders,” 26. Joachim von Sandrart recorded that Dou charged six guilders (ein Pfund Flemsch) an hour. This seems to be an exaggeration, but it makes clear that he worked at an hourly rate and that he demanded exorbitant prices. Adriaen van der Werff, the most expensive painter of his time and a fine painter working for the elite of Europe, charged twenty-five guilders a day in the beginning of the eighteenth century {See Marten Jan Bok, “Pricing the Unpriced: How Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painters Determined the Selling Price of Their Work,” in Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe: Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London, ed. Patrick O’Brian et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 186–209; and Eric Jan Sluijter, “Determining Value on the Art Market in the Golden Age: An Introduction,” in Art Market and Connoisseurship: A Closer Look at Paintings by Rembrandt, Rubens and their Contemporaries, ed. Anna Tummers and K. Jonckheere (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008), 7–27}.

  77. 77. See footnote 54 above. De Renialme’s inventory also contained “een vroutgen” (a woman) by Dou valued at only forty guilders, the same as the landscape by van Goyen he had in stock. In Leiden inventories, some tronies are estimated at about thirty guilders.

  78. 78. Chong, in “Market for Landscape,” 117–18, calculated the average price of Poelenburch’s work at thirty guilders between 1625 and 1650 (thirteen paintings), and 92.4 guilders between 1651 and 1675 (10 paintings). {Calculations by Nicolette Sluijter-Seijffert in 2019, based on the valued paintings in Sluijter-Seijffert, “Poelenburch,” app. 2 and 3, amount to 30.5 (thirteen paintings) and 119.50 guilders (sixty-eight paintings) for those two periods, respectively. It is misleading to include the period after 1660, when the value of works by Van Goyen dropped severely and those of Poelenburch rose. If we take Poelenburch’s valuations before 1660, an average of sixty-seven guilders appears, against 19.2 for Van Goyen (see n. 68), which seems a more reasonable ratio: an average of three and a half times as much.} Montias, in “Cost and value,” 461, calculated that works by Avercamp, Savery, and Brueghel, on average, were four times as expensive as works by Van Goyen, Molijn, and De Momper. These painters, too, needed at least four times as much time to make a painting. In his calculations the numbers are, however, not large enough for reasonably trustworthy conclusions (for example, there are only two estimated works by Van Goyen from the 1650s and four from the 1660s).

  79. 79. {See Sluijter, “Determining value,” 9–13.}

  80. 80. Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 50–51. The payment was made by Willem II’s paymaster; other payments suggest that Dirck van der Lisse, Pieter Post, and Johannes Borsman received similar commissions. The paintings are not found in inventories of the collections of the stadholders. Someone else’s drawings were probably the model.

  81. 81. About this painting, see Charles Dumas, Haagse stadsgezichten 1550–1800: Topografische schilderijen van het Haags Historisch Museum (Zwolle: Waanders, 1991), 509–17.

  82. 82. For example, see Bob Haak, The Golden Age: Dutch Painting of the Seventeenth Century (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1984), 35. Haak assumes that such a remuneration by the government had no relation to the real market value.

  83. 83. Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, vol. 2, cat. no. 488. (131.5 x 252.5 cm; Heemskerck, House Marquette, private collection). {Since 2002, the painting is owned by the Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden. The country seat was identified in 2015 as Oostbos, owned by Johan Sixti, who became burgomaster of The Hague in 1644 and remained a member of The Hague council until his death in 1661; his father-in-law was a friend of Constantijn Huygens. Sixti must have given Van Goyen this commission; he also might have had a hand in the commission for the large View of The Hague. The topography, with the towing path along the Vliet; the Oostbosmill on the other bank; and the Leiden Pieterskerk, the Hooglandse Kerk and the spire of the church of Voorschoten in the distance, is very precise. It seems likely that the group in the foreground depicts Sixti himself with his wife and son. The boat with a company of wealthy people, being towed by a horseman, is not a towing barge but a speelschuit, a pleasure boat, probably owned by Sixti, who had the right to use the towing path. See Piet van der Plas and Martine van der Wielen-de Goede, “Roucoop of Oostbos? Gezicht op de Vliet door Jan van Goyen,” Leids Jaarboekje 107 (2015), 119–134.}

  84. 84. Beck, Jan Van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, vol. 2, cat. nos. 292 and 973, both in Petworth House, National Trust.

  85. 85. Beck, Jan Van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, vol. 2, cat. no. 349 (Town Hall of Nijmegen; presently in Museum het Valkhof, Nijmegen) and no. 378 (Art Gallery of Toronto). The view of Nijmegen (151 x 255 cm), has been owned by the city of Nijmegen since 1818; whether it was already there before that year and had been painted on commission for the city cannot be ascertained. About this work, see, among others, Edwin Buijsen, The Sketchbook of Jan van Goyen from the Bredius-Kronig Collection (The Hague: Foundation Bredius Genootschap, 1993), 167–68.

  86. 86. Although the horizons in all these works now appear to be at the same level, when one imagines the last two with a height of about 161 cm (assuming that they have been cropped), their compositions are not compatible with each other, nor with the views of Haarlem and Dordrecht, which correspond perfectly with each other.

  87. 87. Scarcity is also one of the elements determining value that Bernard Mandeville mentioned; see De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Art, Value,” 454–55, and also n. 65.

  88. 88. For example, Chong, “Market for Landscape,” 155. Chong includes him in a list of landscape painters “highest paid in their own lifetimes.” {See also Sluijter, “‘Raphel’ in zeeschilderen,” 351}.

  89. 89. Karel van Mander, “Levens,” Het schilder-boeck (Haarlem, 1603–1604), fol. 238r: “. . . after his death . . . sometimes even twelve times as much as when they were bought.”

  90. 90. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (The Hague: 1753; first published 1718–1721), 2:131.

  91. 91. Gerard de Lairesse, Groot Schilderboek (Amsterdam, 1740; written in 1707), 1:359.

  92. 92. Crucial here are the reduction of the colors and the increasing number of gradations of one color; I prefer the word above “tonal” because the latter has so many other implications. See Wolfgang Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting of the Seventeenth Century (London: Phaidon, 1966), 191–92n9; Stechow prefers “tonal.” See Beck, Jan van Goyen: Verzeichnis, 1:46–47 for the changes in Van Goyen’s coloring over his whole career.

  93. 93. See Gifford, “Style and Technique.” {And Gifford, “Jan van Goyen.”}.

  94. 94. About the elaborate method of working color-by-color, using several palettes, see Ernst van de Wetering, “De paletten van Rembrandt en Jozef Israels, een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen stijl en schildertechniek,” Oud Holland 107 (1993): 140–47.

  95. 95. Jonathan Israel, in a lecture delivered in Leiden on March 28, 1996, argued that an economic recession at the end of the 1620s and the 1630s and the increasing price of pigments in this period—vermilion, for example—must have been important reasons to produce inexpensive paintings with fewer, cheaper pigments. Naturally this may have played a role, but we should realize that many painters did not adopt this manner; it is also misleading to say that during the 1640s everyone suddenly started to paint colorfully and with detail again, as Israel suggested (see n. 16). {Israel’s lecture was published as Jonathan I. Israel, “Adjusting to Hard Times: Dutch Art During its Period of Crisis and Restructuring (c. 16211645),” Art History 20 (1997), 449–76; his notion of economic recession during this period is, however, highly disputable. Moreover, in light of the enormous growth of the number of painters and the production of paintings in this same period, his thesis seems untenable.}

  96. 96. Hoogstraten, Inleyding, 237. According to Emmens, van Hoogstraten uses this (probably imaginary) contest as a “parable” to show three hierarchically distinguished ways of painting within art theory. They can be related to the concepts of “idea” (Porcellis), fortuna (chance; Van Goyen), and usus (practice; Knibbergen); see Jan A. Emmens, Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst (Amsterdam: C.A. van Oorschot, 1979), 166–68; and Ernst van de Wetering, “Leidse schilders achter de ezel,” in Geschildert tot Leyden anno 1626, ed. Maarten Wurfbain et al., exh. cat. (Leiden: Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1976), 21–24. Nevertheless, this text gives a good impression of Van Goyen’s manner of working. Hoogstraten exaggerated the emphasis on “chaos”—chance—to make his argument stronger. See also n. 98.

  97. 97. Jacques de Ville’s scornful remark (in a pamphlet of 1628) about people who “only gape at the manner” (handeling) makes clear that, to his chagrin, many connoisseurs value precisely the peinture. See Emmens, Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst, 121. {On de Ville’s text, see Eric Jan Sluijter, Rembrandt and the Female Nude (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 209-211.}

  98. 98. Cited in Ernst van de Wetering, “Rembrandt’s Method: Technique in the Service of Illusion,” in Rembrandt: The Master and His Workshop; Paintings, ed. Christopher Brown, Jan Kelch, and Pieter van Thiel, exh. cat. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press and National Gallery, 1991), 16 and n. 9, citing Pierre Le Brun, “Recueil des essaies des merveilles de la peinture” (1635), in Original Treatises on the Art of Painting, ed. Mary P. (Merrifield: Dover Publications, 1967), 2:766–848. This appreciation, which can also be connected with the notion of “sprezzatura,” started in relation to sixteenth-century Italian painting (especially Titian’s “rough” style), and has been related to Rembrandt’s endeavours (see van de Wetering, “Rembrandt’s Method,” 16–17). Van Goyen, however, appears to be striving to acquire this kind of appreciation with another type of art and through his seemingly “casual,” loose, and rapid manner of painting. “Sprezzatura,” a concept that Baldassare Castiglione explained by comparing the posture of the courtier with the seemingly casual brushstroke of the painter, was translated as lossigheydt (looseness), the same word Philips Angel used for a rapid, fluid way of painting (see n. 15).

  99. 99. An example: “. . . ein blühende Produktion von Fluss- und Flachlandansichten in einem grüngelben, blaugrauen oder wohl auch braunen Ton, einfache Motive, in denen die typisch holländische, mit Dunst durchtränkte Atmosphäre zur Geltung komt.” Laurens J. Bol, Holländische Maler des 17. Jarhunderts nahe der groβen Meistern (München: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1982), 165. Also characteristic is Beck’s description of Van Goyen’s style in 1640–1645, which he calls “the period of absolute tonality”: “Die feuchte, dustgetränkte Meeresluft verdrängt die Lokalfarben aus der Landschaftsszenerie zugunsten einer malerischen, tonigen Färbung; einzelheiten verlieren sich, verschimmen in zarten nebeligen Dunst der Ferne, die sich mit der Atmosphäre verbindet.” (Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:46).

  100. 100. It is interesting that Van de Waal, usually an acute observer, was drawn so much to this idea that he wrote: “The inexpressible delicate light over our Dutch waters, the refined silvery tones and grays of our humid atmosphere, have been his subject during his whole life” (Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 20). In the first place, there are not so many grays and silver tones in Van Goyen’s landscapes—brown and yellow tones dominate—and second, these are in reality not at all characteristic for the Dutch water landscape unless the weather is distinctly foggy, with limited sight and an overcast sky. Only then might one say that “from some distance the separate colors, to a great extent, lose their own character to sink into an indefinite silver-gray monochromy” (Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 31). Nonetheless, Van de Waal is, of course, absolutely right that Van Goyen was able to suggest an inexpressibly delicate light in a breathtaking way.

  101. 101. Many authors see a misty atmosphere in Van Goyen’s paintings, but there is never any discernable fogginess in his works. The sentence with which Van de Waal finishes his book—“His art knows no doubt other than that of the mist above the water and no delight other than the triumphing light”—is splendid, but only the second part of the sentence characterizes Van Goyen’s work (Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 60).

  102. 102. See Sluijter-Seijffert, “Poelenburch,” 85. {Sluijter-Seijffert, Poelenburch: Paintings, 103}.

  103. 103. Van de Waal, Jan van Goyen, 59.

  104. 104. Bredius, “Capelle,” nos. 154 and 155: “Twee grauwe lantschapjes (two grisaille landscapes) van Jan van Goyen.” See also, among others, the inventory of Jan Miense Molenaer from 1668: “een graeuwtje van (a grisaille by) Jan van Goyen” (Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 3), and “een graeuwtje” in the inventory Cornelis Roelandz de Vries 1682 (Getty Provenance Index).

  105. 105. See Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:47 and vol. 2, nos. 245–71; three are dated 1650 and twenty 1651; they all have more or less the same size (c. 25 x 40 cm). Why this sudden outpouring of works in oil on paper? Since they show a great variety of types popular in different periods of his career (for example, dunes he made in the late 1620s and early 1630s), they might belong together as a series made on commission. Three pairs are or were still together; see Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, nos. 248 and 249, 254, and 255.

  106. 106. Peter Sutton, “Introduction,” in Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, 6, with reference to a conference paper presented by Melanie Gifford in 1983 (see also n. 108).

  107. 107. David Bomford, “Techniques of the early Dutch Landscape Painters,” in Dutch Landscape: The Early Years; Haarlem and Amsterdam 1590–1650, ed. Christopher Brown, exh. cat. (London: National Gallery Publications, 1986), 55. Melanie Gifford had earlier indicated that this Haarlem blue must relate to smalt, but she supposed that Van Goyen used an almost colorless smalt on purpose (Gifford, “Style and Technique,” 145, with reference to her paper from 1983; see n. 107).

  108. 108. {Gifford, “Jan van Goyen,” 78.}

  109. 109. A long training, especially when this was undertaken with many masters for short periods, was expensive; see Ronald de Jager, “Meester, leerjongen, leertijd: Een analyse van zeventiende-eeuwse Noord-Nederlandse leerlingcontracten van kunstschilder, goud- en zilversmeden,” Oud Holland 104 (1990): 75.

  110. 110. De Jager, “Meester, leerjongen,” 70. From van Mander’s biographies Miedema concluded that the average age was twelve to fourteen years old; in the contracts that de Jager examined, the age at which training began varies from twelve to sixteen.

  111. 111. Orlers, Beschrijvinge, 373.

  112. 112. Orlers explicitly emphasized “de aerdicheyt van Beelden” (the amusingness of figures). In the inventory of Jan Orlers’s own painting collection we find three paintings—two by Van Goyen’s first master Coenraet van Schilperoort and one by the Delft painter Pieter Stael—with the mention of “met Beelden van (with figures by) Mr Jan van Goyen”; see Maarten Wurfbain et al., Geschildert tot Leyden anno 1626, exh. cat. (Leiden: Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1976), 17. In Cornelis Borsman’s inventory from The Hague, “a large landscape by van Knipbergen with figures by Jan van Goyen” is recorded; Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 2141–44 (1658) (see also n. 47). The fact that this was mentioned in inventories indicates that it was not only much appreciated and probably raised the value but also that Van Goyen must often have painted figures in the works of colleagues.

  113. 113. Van Mander, Schilder-boeck, “Grondt,” fol. 36r.

  114. 114. In 1641, Angel still emphasizes the “aerdich-vercierende Rijckelijckheydt” (pleasant embellishment of a rich variety). Angel, Lof der schilder-konst, 39.

  115. 115. Van de Waal, in Jan van Goyen, 13–14, refers to these lines in Van Mander’s text in connection with Van Goyen’s early work.

  116. 116. Van Mander, Schilder-boeck, “Grondt,” fol. 38r. Peter Sutton, in his excellent survey of landscape painting, noticed that this passage calls to mind the works that Van Goyen, Salomon van Ruysdael, and Molijn would paint in the 1620s (Sutton, “Introduction,” 10).

  117. 117. These words from Spiegel relate to his rejection of the use of classical mythology in poetry, as part of his struggle for an indigenous culture and language; Hendrick Laurenszn Spiegel, Hart-spieghel (Amsterdam, 1614), 6; see also Marijke Spies, “‘Poëetsche fabrijcken’ en andere allegorieën eind 16de begin 17de eeuw,” Oud Holland 105 (1991): 238–39. However, this passage contains elements that also seem to reflect new directions in visual art. The splendid lines that directly follow seem also to be echoed in painting: “Parnassus is too far, there is no Helikon here, / But dunes, woods and brooks and sky, under the same sun. / Therefore we open-heartedly hold dear with helpless love / The goddesses of this country’s salubrious brooks, fields and streams.” See also Eric Jan Sluijter, “De ‘heydensche fabulen’ in de Noord-nederlandse schilderkunst, circa 1590–1670” (PhD diss. Leiden University, 1986), 335–36). On the relationship between literature and visual art in this period of the rise of the native landscape, see Huigen Leeflang’s important article “Het aardse paradijs: Het Haarlemse landschap in 16de en 17de-eeuwse literatuur en beeldende kunst,” in De trots van Haarlem: Promotie van een stad in kunst en historie, ed. Koos Levy-Van Halm et al., exh. cat. (Gent: Snouck-Ducaju, 1995), 116–34, esp. 119–24). {See also his magisterial article “Dutch Landscape: The Urban View: Haarlem and Its Environs in Literature and Art, 15th–17th century,” in Falkenburg et al., ed., “Natuur en landschap”: 52–115.}

  118. 118. Van Mander, Schilder-boeck, “Grondt,” fol. 38r. See also the version in prose in his biography of Ludius, “Leven,” fol. 87v/88r, derived from Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia 15:115–17; see Hessel Miedema, ed., Karel van Mander: Het leven der oude antijcke doorluchtighe schilders (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 1981), at fol. 87v. 

  119. 119. Similar to the numerous comparisons of history painters with Apelles or Zeuxis, or Dou as “the Dutch Parrhasius” (Sluijter, Lof der schilderkunst, 19–20). See also Reznicek’s suggestion, about Paulus Potter as an “alter Pausias”: E. K. J. Reznicek, “Het leerdicht van Karel van Mander en de acribie van Hessel Miedema,” Oud Holland 89 (1975): 121.

  120. 120. Van Goyen’s first teacher, Coenraet van Schilperoort, with whom he probably collaborated later (see n. 113), had in his large library (see Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, 557–60) a copy of Van Mander’s Schilder-boeck and perhaps also Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis Historia (“de bijbel der natuyr” might refer to Pliny’s book). These kinds of anecdotes were probably well known to these painters.

  121. 121. On important print series with such motifs, such as the well-known series Plaisante Plaetsen (Pleasant Places) by Claes Janszn. Visscher from about 1611–14, see Huigen Leeflang, “Het landschap in boek en prent: Perceptie en interpretatie van vroeg zeventiende-eeuwse Nederlandse landschapsprenten,” in Nederland naar ’t leven: Landschapsprenten uit de Gouden Eeuw, ed. Boudewijn Bakker and Huigen Leeflang, exh. cat. (Zwolle and Amsterdam: Waanders and Museum het Rembrandthuis 1993), 18–32; and Boudewijn Bakker, “Levenspelgrimage of vrome wandeling? Claes Janszoon Visscher en zijn serie Plaisante Plaetsen,” Oud Holland 107 (1993): 97–116. See also Jan G. C. A. Briels, Vlaamse schilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw (Haarlem: Becht, 1987), 182–83 and 367–70, about the recreational appreciation of the countryside as a projection of the town dweller.

  122. 122. Traditionally negative elements, such as a defecating or urinating man, are only known from two early works (Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, vol. 2, cat. nos. 6 and 35).

  123. 123. See De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Art, Value,” 458: “Established painters of some reputation will feel more at ease in treating the market as an experimental forum to try out new ideas and products than will those just beginning or lacking a very distinct ability.” This statement seems to apply here.

  124. 124. See Stechow, Dutch Landscape, 23–26; and Sutton, “Introduction,” 35. Given the numerous paintings that have been lost during the centuries, one should be cautious of considering a few specific paintings as crucial “cornerstones” in the “evolution” of the landscape, as Stechow did.

  125. 125. The fact that Pieter de Neyn concentrated on battle scenes—one of Esaias van de Velde’s most successful specialties—seems to indicate a kind of dividing of the field; Van Goyen kept well away from such subjects.

  126. 126. This should not be considered a general tendency: in this same period painters like Poelenburch and Dou moved in an opposite direction (see also n. 16 and 96).

  127. 127. I suppose they give a reasonably truthful image of the farmhouses that were situated on this barren land.

  128. 128. The popular image of country life in the literature of that time consisted of elements of the Horatian beatus ille fused with ethical notions based on neostoicism. The poet Hendrik Laurensz. Spiegel was a preeminent spokesperson of such thoughts, but they played an important role in the work of many other authors as well; see Mieke Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, ethicus-didacticus: Een onderzoek naar dramatische opzet en morele instructie van Ithys, Polyxena, en Iphigenia (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff/Forsten, 1986), 193–201. See also Sutton, “Introduction,” 36.

  129. 129. See the splendid essay on this subject by Boudewijn Bakker in Oud Holland: Bakker, “Levenspelgrimage of vrome wandeling?”

  130. 130. See Leeflang, “Aardse paradijs,” 120 and 123 {and Leeflang, “The Urban View”}; see also Bakker and Leeflang, eds., Nederland naar ’t leven, 76–77, no. 24, in which the view of a dune (and the tower of Zandvoort) is connected in the accompanying verse to an emphatically amorous-pastoral atmosphere.

  131. 131. This low viewpoint had been introduced more than a decade earlier in drawings and prints by Claes Janszn. Visscher, Esaias van de Velde, Jan van de Velde II, and Willem Buytewech, while Porcellis started to use it in the middle of the 1620s in seascapes. After the mid-1620s, however, we see how some young painters, among them Pieter de Molijn and Salomon van Ruysdael, begin almost at the same time to experiment with it in landscape paintings. The extreme low vantage point of Arent Arentsz. Cabel’s earlier works is remarkable in this aspect.

  132. 132. For a convincing argument about the importance attached to the depiction of landscapes “after life” in this period:, see Boudewijn Bakker, “Nederland naar ’t leven: Een inleiding,” in Bakker and Leeflang, Nederland naar ’t leven, 6–17.

  133. 133. Especially by van de Waal, Jan van Goyen; Stechow, Dutch Landscape; and Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis. The overview of the different types, as concisely sketched out below, would be impossible without the excellent catalogue by Hans-Ulrich Beck and his introductory survey (Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:42–50).

  134. 134. Montias, “Influence of Economic Factors,” and De Marchi and Van Miegroet, “Art, Value” in particular point out that in a market with much competition, strategies of differentiation and innovative behavior were necessary to become a successful artist (see also n. 124). On followers, see n. 144.

  135. 135. Valuable papers on the development of river views with and without distinctive architectural motifs have been written by Sabine Giepmans and John Veerman for the seminar I taught at Leiden University in the fall of 1995 (see Postscript).

  136. 136. The origin and development of the beach view, especially the view of Scheveningen, were examined in a paper by Marthe de Vet, Leiden University seminar, 1995.

  137. 137. See Beck, Jan van Goyen: Oeuvreverzeichnis, 1:29 (document about the sale in 1625 of a house at Pieterskerkstraat in Leiden to Jan Porcellis, which his widow sells again to the seascape painter Hendrick Anthonisz).

  138. 138. Houbraken praises especially his “calm water views with market ships, and fishing boats, and a small church, or some familiar village at the horizon.” Houbraken, Groote schouburg, 1:171.

  139. 139. See n. 85 and 86.

  140. 140. This was well analyzed in the papers by Adriaan Waiboer, Sander Paarlberg, and Albert Smit about the views of, respectively, Rhenen, Dordrecht, and Nijmegen, Leiden University seminar, 1995.

  141. 141. A good analysis of van Goyen’s “winters” was written by Ed Romein, Leiden University Seminar, 1995.

  142. 142. {See Reindert Falkenburg, “Onweer bij Jan van Goyen,” 116–61 (Zwolle: Waanders, 1998). In this article Falkenburg takes issue with my theses regarding Van Goyen’s innovations in types of landscape as an artistic and economic strategy; see my “postscript” and n. 15; see also n. 68.}

  143. 143. “Zag iemand stiller weder? / De vlaggens hangen neder, / Het zeil en doet geen boet, / En al den voortgang komt ons van den tragen vloed.” See Karel Porteman, “Zeventiende-eeuwse dichters in last,” in Brekende spiegels: Beeldveranderingen in de Nederlandse literatuur, ed. Dirk de Geest and Marc van Vaeck (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 53–54. This experience of a calm leads the poet toward a reflection on unfulfilled yearnings for God. Porteman stated that it is an attractive idea to connect this approach to nature to the landscape painting of that time. I am grateful to Huigen Leeflang, who drew my attention to this article.

  144. 144. See Hans-Ulrich Beck, Künstler um Jan van Goyen: Maler und Zeichner (Doornspijk: Davaco, 1991). For example: Cornelis Beelt (beach views), Cornelis de Bie (beach views), Jan Coelenbier (river views, with architecture), Anth. van der Croos (prospects with cities), Jheronimus van Diest (calm water), Frans de Hulst (dunes and river views with architecture), Wouter Knijff (river views with architecture), Willem Kool (beach views and winters), monogr. PHB (river views), Jacob van Moscher (dunes), Joh. Schoeff (river views, dunes), and Joos de Volder (dunes).

  145. 145. Van Hoogstraten, Inleyding, 11–12.

  146. 146. Wilhelm Martin, De Hollandse schilderkunst in de zeventiende eeuw (Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1936–1936), 1:277.

  147. 147. Edwin Buijsen, “De schetsboeken van Jan van Goyen,” 22–37; Reindert L. Falkenburg, “‘Schilderachtig weer’ bij Jan van Goyen,” 60–69; E. Melanie Gifford, “Jan van Goyen en de techniek van het naturalistische landschap,” 70–79; Eric Jan Sluijter, “Jan van Goyen als marktleider, virtuoos en vernieuwer,” 38–59. The catalogue also contains a biographical survey by Sabine Craft-Giepmans (8–9), and an introduction by Christiaan Vogelaar (10–21).

  148. 148. Especially those by Sabine Craft-Giepmans, Sander Paarlberg, Ed Romein, Marthe de Vet, and Adriaan Waiboer; see n. 136, 137, 141, and 142.

  149. 149. About seventeenth-century ways of beholding things represented in a painting as a “virtual reality,” see Thijs Weststeijn, The Visible World: Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Art Theory and the Legitimation of Painting in the Dutch Golden Age (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008), chapter 3; and Sluijter, Rembrandt and the Female Nude, 151–53, 312–16.

  150. 150. Falkenburg, “Onweer bij Jan van Goyen” (see n. 68 and 143). Falkenburg is skeptical about the idea that Van Goyen was consciously innovating in style and types of landscapes as a market strategy; he considers this a projection of modern theoretical models. Indeed, Van Goyen would not have thought in terms of “market strategy” and “product innovation.” But there are enough sources (and the paintings themselves) that demonstrate that, for example, notions of process and product innovation and differentiation are relevant for this period of explosive growth in the number of painters and the production of paintings. Radical changes in supply and demand and the manner of marketing are evident. Artists showed strong awareness of the necessity of artistic and economic competition as motives for innovation in order to keep alive the interest of their audiences (see, for example, Sluijter, “Brabant Rubbish”; and Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals, 16–22). This is true even if the artists’ innovations were not always the result of a conscious “strategy” but were instead actions by an aspiring painter to accommodate to circumstances. Falkenburg doubts that landscape types (dunescapes, riverscapes, beaches, panorama’s) were distinguished; he considers this a modern categorization. However, the fact that huge numbers of a certain type were produced over a few years and then stopped—and that certain followers specialized in dunes, or river scenes, or beach scenes, and so on—is the best proof that these were seen as different categories. That we do not find such categories clearly defined in inventories does not say much; these were drawn up for specific purposes. An inventive painter like Van Goyen realized when the interest in dunes or beaches or riverscapes waned among his clients, because they owned already one or two, or when a certain type was imitated by many others, which would have pushed down prices. Falkenburg’s argument also seems to imply that such landscapes were just compositions, for which the specific subjects did not matter much. But it would have been entirely different to imagine oneself as if walking on a beach, sailing on a river, strolling in the dunes, or looking out over a panorama. Falkenburg’s discussion of the depiction of thunderstorms and the importance of artistic competition is highly stimulating.

Bibliography

Angel, Philips. Lof der schilder-konst. Leiden, 1642.

Bakker, Boudewijn. “Levenspelgrimage of vrome wandeling? Claes Janszoon Visscher en zijn serie Plaisante Plaetsen.” Oud Holland 107 (1993): 97–116.

—. “Nederland naar ’t leven: Een inleiding.” In Bakker and Leeflang, Nederland naar ’t leven, 6–17.

Bakker, Boudewijn, and Huigen Leeflang. Nederland naar ’t leven: Landschapsprenten uit de Gouden Eeuw. Exh. cat. Zwolle and Amsterdam: Waanders and Museum het Rembrandthuis, 1993.

Beck, Hans-Ulrich. Einführung: Katalog der Handzeichnungen. Vol. 1 of Jan van Goyen 1596–1656: Ein Oeuvreverzeichnis. Amsterdam: A. L. van Gendt, 1972.

—. Jan van Goyen 1596–1656. Exh. cat. London: Richard Green, 1996.

—. Katalog der Gemälde. Vol. 2 of Jan van Goyen 1596–1656: Ein Oeuvreverzeichnis. Amsterdam: A. L. van Gendt, 1973.

—. Künstler um Jan van Goyen: Maler und Zeichner. Doornspijk: Davaco, 1991.

Beck, Hans-Ulrich, et al. Jan van Goyen, 1596–1656: Conquest of Space; Paintings from Museums and Private Collections (Exh. cat. Amsterdam and Bremen: K. & V. Waterman and Car. Ed. Schünemann KG, 1981.

Beck, Hans-Ulrich, et al. Jan van Goyen 1596–1656: Poet of the Dutch Landscape; Paintings from Museums and Private Collections in Great Britain. Exh. cat. London: Alan Jacobs Gallery, 1977.

Biesboer, Pieter. Collections of Paintings in Haarlem 1572–1745. Vol. 1 of Netherlandish Inventories. Documents for the History of Collecting. Malibu: The Getty Research Institutes, 2001.

{Boers-Goosens, Marion E. “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-–700,” ed. Reindert Falkenburg et al. Special issue, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999): 194–219.}

{Bok, Marten Jan. “Pricing the Unpriced: How Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painters Determined the Selling Price of Their Work.” In Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe: Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London, edited by Patrick O’Brian et al., 186–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.}

—. “Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt, 1580–1700.” PhD diss., Utrecht University, 1994.

Bol, Laurens J. Holländische Maler des 17: Jahrhunderts nahe der groβen Meistern. München: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1982.

Bomford, David. “Techniques of the Early Dutch Landscape Painters.” In Dutch Landscape: The Early Years, Haarlem and Amsterdam 1590–1650, edited by Christopher Brown, 45–56. Exh. cat. London: National Gallery Publications, 1986.

Bredius, Abraham. “Jan Josephszoon van Goyen: Nieuwe bijdragen tot zijne biographie.” Oud Holland 14 (1896): 113–25.

—. Künstler-Inventare. 7 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1915–1922.

—. “De schilder Johannes van de Capelle.” Oud Holland 10 (1892): 26–40.

Briels, Jan G. C. A. Vlaamse schilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw. Haarlem: Becht, 1987.

{Broekman, Inge. “Constantijn Huygens, de kunst en het hof.” PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 2010.}

Buijsen, Edwin. The Sketchbook of Jan van Goyen from the Bredius-Kronig Collection. The Hague: Foundation Bredius Genootschap, 1993.

Chong, Alan. “The Market for Landscape Painting in Seventeenth-Century Holland.” In Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, edited by Peter Sutton, 104–20. Exh. cat. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1987.

De Marchi, Neil, and Hans J. Van Miegroet. “Art, Value and Market Practices in the Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century.” Art Bulletin 76 (1994): 451–64.

—. “Pricing Invention: ‘Originals’, ‘Copies’ and their Relative Value in Seventeenth-Century Netherlandish Art Markets.” In Recent Contributions to the Economics of the Arts, edited by Victor Ginsburgh and Pierre-Michel Menger, 27–70. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1996.

Drossaers, S. W. A. and T. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer. Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmede gelijk te stellen stukken 1567–1795. 3 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974–1976.

Dumas, Charles. Haagse stadsgezichten 1550–1800: Topografische schilderijen van het Haags Historisch Museum. Zwolle: Waanders, 1991.

Emmens, Jan A. Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst. Amsterdam: C. A. van Oorschot, 1979.

{Falkenburg, Reindert L. “‘Schilderachtig weer’ bij Jan van Goyen.” In Jan van Goyen, edited by Christiaan Vogelaar, 60–69. Exh. cat. Zwolle and Leiden: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1996.}

{—. “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 1500–1800/Nature and Landscape in Netherlandish Art 1500–1800,” edited by Reindert Falkenburg et al. Special issue, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek/Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 48 (1997): 116–61.}

Floerke, Hans. Studien zur Niederländischen Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte: Die Formen des Kunsthandels, das Atelier und die Sammler in den Niederlanden vom 15.-18. Jahrhundert. Munich and Leipzig: Georg Müller, 1905.

Fock, C. Willemijn. “Kunstbezit in Leiden in de 17de eeuw.” In Lunsing Scheurleer, Fock, and van Dissel, eds., Het Rapenburg, 5:3–33. {English version: C. Willemijn Fock,. “Art Ownership in Leiden in the Seventeenth Century,” translated by Anne Baudouin. Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 13, no. 1 (Winter 2021), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2021.13.1.4.}

Getty Research Institute. The Getty Provenance Index Databases, https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/provenance/search.html.

Gifford, E. Melanie. “Jan van Goyen en de techniek van het naturalistisch landschap.” In Jan van Goyen, edited by Christiaan Vogelaar, 70–81. Exh. cat. Zwolle and Leiden: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1996.}

—. “Style and Technique in Dutch Landscape Painting in the 1620s.” In Preprints: Historical Painting Techniques, Materials and Studio Practice, edited by Arie Wallert, Erma Hermsen, and Marja Peek, 140–47. Leiden and Malibu: Getty Conservation Institute, 1995.

Haak, Bob. The Golden Age: Dutch Panting of the Seventeenth Century. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1984.

Hoogstraten, Samuel van. Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst: Anders de zichtbaere werelt. Rotterdam, 1678.

Houbraken, Arnold. De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen. 3 vols. The Hague, 1753. First published 1718–1721.

Huygens, Constantijn. De jeugd van Constantijn Huygens door hemzelf beschreven. Translated from the Latin by A. H. Kan. Rotterdam: Ad. Donker, 1971.

{Israel, Jonathan I. “Adjusting to Hard Times: Dutch Art During its Period of Crisis and Restructuring (c. 1621–1645).” Art History 20 (1997): 449–76.}

{Jager, Angela. “’Everywhere illustrious history paintings that are a dime a dozen’: The Mass Market for History Painting in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam.” Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 7, no. 1 (Winter 2015), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2015.7.1.2.}

{—. The Mass Market for History Paintings in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: Production, Distribution and Consumption. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020.}

Jager, Ronald de. “Meester, leerjongen, leertijd: Een analyse van zeventiende-eeuwse Noord-Nederlandse leerlingcontracten van kunstschilder, goud- en zilversmeden.” Oud Holland 104 (1990): 69–111.

Lairesse, Gerard de. Groot Schilderboek. Haarlem: Johannes Marshoorn, 1740. Written in 1707.

Leeflang, Huigen. “Het landschap in boek en prent: Perceptie en interpretatie van vroeg zeventiende-eeuwse Nederlandse landschapsprenten.” In Bakker and Leeflang, Nederland naar ’t leven, 18–32.

—. “Het aardse paradijs: Het Haarlemse landschap in 16de en 17de-eeuwse literatuur en beeldende kunst.” In De trots van Haarlem: Promotie van een stad in kunst en historie, edited by Koos Levy-Van Halm et al., 116–34. Exh. cat. Gent: Snouck-Ducaju Snouck-Ducaju in collaboration with the Frans Hals Museum and Teylers Museum, Haarlem, 1995

{—. “Dutch Landscape: The Urban View; Haarlem and its Environs in Literature and Art, 15th –17th century.” In Falkenburg et al., ed., “Natuur en landschap in de Nederlandse kunst 1500–1800:” 52–115. }

Lunsingh Scheurleer, Theo H., C. Willemijn Fock, and Albert J. van Dissel, eds. Het Rapenburg: Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht. 6 vols. Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, 1986–1992.

Mander, Karel van. Het schilder-boeck. Haarlem, 1603–1604.

Martin, Wilhelm. De Hollandse schilderkunst in de zeventiende eeuw. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1935–1936.

Miedema, Hessel. De archiefbescheiden van het St. Lucasgilde te Haarlem. 2 vols. Alphen aan de Rijn: Canaletto, 1980.

Miedema, Hessel, ed. Karel van Mander: Het leven de oude antijcke doorluchtighe schilders. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 1981.

{The Montias Database of 17th Century Dutch Art Inventories, The Frick Collection, https://research.frick.org/montias.}

Montias, John Michael. “Art Dealers in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands.” Simiolus 18 (1988): 244–56.

—. Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982.

{—. “Artists Named in Amsterdam Inventories, 1607–1680,” Simiolus 31, no. 4 (2004–2005): 322–47.}

—. “Bramer’s Patrons and Clients in Delft.” In Jane ten Brink-Goldsmith et al, Leonaert Bramer 1596–1674: Ingenious Painter and Draughtsman in Rome and Delft, 35–46. Exh. cat. Zwolle and Delft: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum Prinsenhof, 1994.

—. “Cost and Value in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art.” Art History 10 (1987): 455–86.

—. “Estimates of the Number of Dutch Masters, their Earnings and the Output in 1650.” Leidschrift 6, no. 3 (1990): 59–74.

—. “The Influence of Economic Factors on Style.” De Zeventiende Eeuw 6, no. 1 (1990): 49–57.

—. “Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions.” 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: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1991.

Orlers, Jan. Beschrijvinge der Stadt Leyden. Leiden, 1641.

{Plas, Piet van der, and Martine van der Wielen-de Goede. “Roucoop of Oostbos? Gezicht op de Vliet door Jan van Goyen.” Leids Jaarboekje 107 (2015): 119–34.}

Karel Porteman. “Zeventiende-eeuwse dichters in last.” In Brekende spiegels: Beeldveranderingen in de Nederlandse literatuur, edited by Dirk de Geest and Marc van Vaeck, 43–57. Leuven: Peeters, 1992.

Reznicek, Emile K. J. “Het leerdicht van Karel van Mander en de acribie van Hessel Miedema.” Oud Holland 89 (1975): 102–28.

{Sluijter, Eric Jan. “‘All striving to adorne their houses with costly peeces’: Two Case Studies of Paintings in Wealthy Interiors.” In Art & Home: Dutch Interiors in the Golden Age, edited by Mariët Westermann, 102–27. Exh. cat. Denver and Zwolle: Denver Art Museum and Waanders, 2001.}

{—. “Determining Value on the Art Market in the Golden Age: An Introduction. In Art Market and Connoisseurship: A Closer Look at Paintings by Rembrandt, Rubens and their Contemporaries, edited by Anna Tummers and Koenraad Jonckheere, 7–27. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008.}

{—. “‘Dien grooten Raphel in het zeeschilderen!’ Over de waardering van Jan Porcellis’ sobere kunst door eigentijdse kenners.” In Liber Amicorum Marijke de Kinkelde: Collegiale bijdragen over landschappen, marines en architectuur, edited by Charles Dumas et al., 343–58. The Hague: Waanders, 2013.}

—. “De ‘heydensche fabulen’ in de Noord-nederlandse schilderkunst, circa 1590–1670.” PhD diss., Leiden University, 1986.

{—. De “heydensche fabulen” in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw: Schilderijen met verhalende onderwerpen uit de klassieke mythologie ca 1590–1670. Leiden: Primavera Pers, 2000.}

{—. “In Praise of the Art of Painting: On Paintings by Gerrit Dou and a Treatise by Philips Angel of 1642.” In Eric Jan Sluijter, Seductress of Sight: Studies in Dutch Art of the Golden Age, 198–263. Zwolle: Waanders, 2000.}

—. De lof der schilderkunst: Over schilderijen van Gerrit Dou (1613–1675) en een traktaat van Philips Angel uit 1642. Hilversum: Verloren, 1993.

{—. “On Brabant Rubbish: Economic Competition, Artistic Rivalry and the Growth of the Market for Paintings in the First Decades of the Seventeenth Century.” Journal of the Historians of Netherlandish Art 1, no. 2 (Summer 2009), https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2009.1.2.4. Dutch version: “Over Brabantse vodden, economische concurrentie, artistieke wedijver en de groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw,” in Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999): 113–43.}

{—. “Ownership of Paintings in the Dutch Golden Age.” In Class Distinctions: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer, edited by Ronni Baer, 89–111 and 286–91. Exh. cat. Boston: MFA Publications, 2015.}

{—. Rembrandt and the Female Nude. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006.}

{—. Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam, 1630–1650. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2015.}

—. “Schilders van ‘cleyne, subtile ende curieuse dingen’: Leidse ‘fijnschilders’in contemporaine bronnen.” In Leidse fijnschilders: Van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de Jonge, 1630-1760, edited by Eric Jan Sluijter, Marlies Enklaar, and Paul Nieuwenhuizen, 15–55. Exh. cat. Zwolle and Leiden: Waanders and Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1988.

Sluijter-Seijffert, Nicolette C. “Cornelis van Poelenburch (ca. 1593–1667).” PhD diss., Leiden University, 1984.
{—. Cornelis van Poelenburch, 1594/5–1667: The Paintings. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2016.}

Smits-Veldt, Mieke. Samuel Coster, ethicus-didacticus: Een onderzoek naar dramatische opzet en morele instructie van Ithys, Polyxena, en Iphigenia. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff/Forsten, 1986.

Spiegel, Hendrick Laurenszn. Hart-spieghel. Amsterdam, 1614.

Spies, Marijke. “‘Poëetsche fabrijcken’ en andere allegorieën eind 16de begin 17de eeuw.” Oud Holland 105 (1991): 228–43.

Sutton, Peter. “Introduction.” In Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, edited by Peter Sutton, 1–63. Exh. cat. Boston: Museum of Fine Art, 1987.

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

Vogelaar, Christiaan, ed. Jan van Goyen. Exh. cat. Leiden: Zwolle in collaboration with Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal, 1996.

Vries, Jan de. “Art History.” In Art in History/History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture; Issues & Debates, edited by David Freedberg and Jan de Vries, 249–82. Santa Monica: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1991.

Waal, Henri van de. Jan van Goyen. Amsterdam: H. J. W. Becht, 1941.

Weststeijn, Thijs. The Visible World. Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Art Theory and the Legitimation of Painting in the Dutch Golden Age. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008.

Wetering, Ernst van de. “Leidse schilders achter de ezel.” In Geschildert tot Leyden anno 1626, edited by Maarten Wurfbain et al., 21–31. Exh. cat. Leiden: Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1976. {English version: “The Creation of a Pictorial Idea,” in Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt: The Painter at Work, 74–89. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1997.}

—. “Rembrandt’s Method: Technique in the Service of Illusion.” In Rembrandt: The Master and His Workshop; Paintings, edited by Christopher Brown, Jan Kelch, and Pieter van Thiel, 12–39. New Haven and London: Yale University Press and the National Gallery, London, in collaboration with Gemäldegalerie SMPK, Berlin,and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 1991.

—. “De paletten van Rembrandt en Jozef Israels, een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen stijl en schildertechniek.” Oud Holland 107 (1993): 137–51. {English version: “The Palette: On the Relationship between Style and Painting Technique,” in Van de Wetering, Rembrandt: The Painter at Work, 132–53.}

Willigen, Adriaan van der. Geschiedkundige aantekeeningen over Haarlemsche schilders en andere beoefenaren van de beeldende kunsten. Haarlem: Erven F. Bohn, 1866.

Wurfbain, Maarten, et al. Geschildert tot Leyden anno 1626. Exh. cat. Leiden: Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, 1976.

Imprint

Review: Peer Review (Double Blind)
DOI: 10.5092/jhna.13.2.4
License:
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Recommended Citation:
Eric Jan Sluijter, Nicolette Sluijter-Seijffert (translator), "Jan van Goyen: Virtuoso, Innovator, and Market Leader," Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 13:2 (Summer 2021) DOI: 10.5092/jhna.13.2.4