Eye of the Beholder: Johannes Vermeer, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, and the Reinvention of Seeing

by Laura J. Snyder

  3 The spectator, sitting inside: See Delsaute, “The Camera Obscura and Painting,” p. 111.

  4 “all painting is dead”: Huygens made this comment in a letter to his parents after seeing the Dutch inventor Cornelis Drebbel in England demonstrate a camera he had constructed (a device Huygens purchased, brought back to Holland, and demonstrated to a number of artists). See letter of April 13, 1622, quoted in Wheelock, “Constantijn Huygens and Early Attitudes towards the Camera Obscura,” p. 93.

  5 No longer would the reliance: For a perceptive discussion see Wilson, The Invisible World, p. 24. As Pomata notes in “Observation Rising,” although observational practices were being developed in astronomy, astrology, alchemy, and medicine in the second half of the fifteenth century, no firm term was attached to this practice; it was variously referred to as experientia, experimentum, consideratia, and, only sometimes, observatio. It was not until the mid-seventeenth century that the term observatio was more consistently applied.

  5 natural philosophers: See Snyder, Philosophical Breakfast Club, for the history of the word “scientist.”

  5 “Everything should, as far”: Comenius, Didactica magna (1633–38), quoted in Wilson, The Invisible World, p. 25.

  5 “As Glasses [lenses] have”: Hooke, Micrographia, preface, n.p.

  6 “seeing more with his”: In 1710 the German diarist Zacharias von Uffenbach was told by Leeuwenhoek’s daughter, Maria, that her father no longer wished to publish his observations, primarily because he was tired of being accused of seeing more through his imagination than through his lenses. Quoted in Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 155n40.

  6 Indeed, these new devices: See Malet, “Early Conceptualizations of the Telescope as an Optical Instrument,” p. 260.

  6 “There is a new visible”: Hooke, Micrographia, preface, n.p.

  7 The eccentric Jesuit priest: Kircher, Ars magna lucis et umbrae (1646), pp. 834–35, cited in Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 3. For more on Kircher, see Glassie, A Man of Misconceptions, and the essays in Findlen, ed., The Last Man Who Knew Everything.

  8 “sister of [natural] philosophy”: Quotations from Van Hoogstraten’s Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkonst; anders de zichtbaere werelt [Introduction to the Academy of Painting; or, the Visible World] are from Weststeijn, The Visible World, p. 351, and Brusati, Artifice and Illusion, p. 94. Although the Inleyding was not published until 1678, three years after Vermeer’s death, Van Hoogstraten wrote it largely in the 1660s, basing the book on ideas and experiments current in Rotterdam and Delft, including the latest optical theories. On this point, see Weststeijn, The Visible World, p. 439n76. Van Hoogstraten’s idea was not an entirely new development in art theory; it followed from the Renaissance ideal that the highest challenge of art was mimesis, that is, the most persuasive representation of the visible world. See, e.g., Westermann, “Vermeer and the Interior Imagination,” p. 228, and Kemp, The Science of Art, p. 244. For a perceptive discussion of paintings as mirrors in Netherlandish art of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see Yiu, “The Mirror and Painting in Early Renaissance Texts.”

  8 “They are mirrors”: Quoted in Weststeijn, The Visible World, p. 271.

  8 “Life seems to dwell”: Quoted in Wheelock, Vermeer and the Art of Painting, p. 15.

  8 “the finest thing that ever”: Quoted in Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 73n53.

  9 “his creations can hardly”: Comment made by Simon van Leeuwen, Leiden city historian, in 1672, quoted in Westermann, “Vermeer and the Interior Imagination,” p. 228. On Dou as Rembrandt’s first pupil, see C. Ford, “Introduction,” p. 19.

  9 Because of the perceived: See, esp., Kemp, The Science of Art, pp. 338–41.

  9 Galileo’s conclusion was based: See ibid., pp. 93–94, Panofsky, Galileo as a Critic of the Arts, pp. 4–5, and Reeves, Painting the Heavens, pp. 6–7.

  9 In short, Galileo recognized: In a later work, the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo has the character Salviati mention several conjectures about the perception of light and dark areas that are clearly drawn from Leonardo da Vinci’s Trattata della pittura (Treatise on painting), so we can be confident he was familiar with that work. See Reeves, Painting the Heavens, p. 116. Later Galileo would deploy his knowledge of perspective to argue that sunspots were on the surface of the sun and were not stars interposing themselves between the sun and the viewer, as Christoph Scheiner was claiming. See Kemp, The Science of Art, pp. 95–96. He used the artistic effect known by artists as “secondary light” to recognize and understand the phenomenon now known as earthshine—that is, that the dark and opaque Earth, when struck by the sun’s rays, could send that light back into space and, during certain periods, onto the dim face of the moon. See Reeves, Painting the Heavens, p. 8.

  9 “In the moone I had”: Quoted in Panek, Seeing and Believing, p. 57.

  9 Hoefnagel, like many: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 77n64. Huygens could not have studied with his uncle Joris Hoefnagel (Jacob’s father), as some have said, because Joris died when Huygens was only four or five years old.

  10 This ability helped Christiaan: See Huerta, Giants of Delft, p. 63.

  10 Leeuwenhoek, too, was steeped: See, e.g., his letters to the RSL of Jan. 12, 1680, AB, 3:165, and Jan. 23, 1685, AB, 5:101–3.

  10 Across the North Sea: See Birch, The History of the Royal Society of London, 1:10–12; 2:84, 227–31.

  10 “it was now proper”: Gunther, Early Science in Oxford, quoted in Seymour, “Dark Chamber and Light-Filled Room,” p. 324.

  10 Jacob Hoefnagel’s engravings: Hoefnagel’s engravings of his father Joris Hoefnagel’s designs appeared in 1592 as Archetypa studiaque patris Georgii Hoefnagelii, when Jacob was seventeen or nineteen. See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 52.

  11 Another miniaturist-turned-naturalist: Goedaert’s work was published between 1662 and 1669. See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, pp. 52–54, and Cobb, Generation, p. 138.

  11 Constantijn Huygens bemoaned: Huygens’s autobiography, quoted in Alpers, The Art of Describing, p. 7.

  11 Rachel Ruysch became famous: See Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 907.

  11 Leeuwenhoek himself worked: See AvL to Oldenburg, Aug. 15, 1673, AB, 1:42–43, and AvL to RSL, Aug. 24, 1688, AB, 7:378–79.

  PART 1: COUNTERFEITER OF NATURE

  13 This boy will, much later: See baptismal record, DTB Delft 14, inv. 55, folio 119v. The Dutch transcription of the record in the Delft archives reads: “dito. 1 kint Joannis, vader Reynier Janssoon, moeder Dingum Balthasars., getuijgen Pr. Brammer, Jan Heijndrickxzoon and Maertge Jans.” See Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 64–65.

  14 Its ships roamed: See Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 934.

  14 The VOC would become: Bok, “Society, Culture and Collecting in 17th Century Delft,” p. 203.

  14 From South India: Israel, The Dutch Republic, pp. 939–41.

  14 Some of these collectors: See ibid., p. 903, and AvL to Hooke, Nov. 12, 1680, AB, 3:315–19.

  15 Dealers and artisans offered: Liedtke, “Painting from 1600–1650,” p. 89.

  15 Throughout the Dutch Republic: Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, p. 304.

  15 Refugees from the south: See Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 548.

  15 Painting became a considerable: Ibid., p. 555.

  15 Between five and ten million: Bok, “Society, Culture and Collecting in 17th Century Delft,” p. 205.

  15 The Netherlands was considered: Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 3.

  15 Even apart from the: See, e.g., ibid., p. 274.

  16 Dutch drainage experts: Ibid., p. 272.

  16 The Dutch also improved: See ibid., pp. 2–3.

  16 Amsterdam would soon: See Multhauf, “Light of Lamp-Lanterns.”

  16 “In my opinion a better”: Quoted in Schierbeek, Measuring the Invisible World, p. 15.

  16 “an island of plent
y”: Schama The Embarrassment of Riches, p. 323.

  16 Even in the eighteenth: See ibid., pp. 168–69.

  16 what their counterparts: See Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 630. As Israel also notes, rents and taxation were higher in Holland than elsewhere, but not twice as high.

  17 “not very rare to meet”: Aglionby, The Present State of the United Provinces, p. 267.

  17 “pay the taxes willingly”: Quoted in Multhauf, “The Light of Lamp-Lanterns,” p. 240. For more on Temple’s observations about poor relief, see Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 355

  17 Voluntary contributions were: See Liedtke, “Delft and the Delft School,” p. 3.

  17 “The very Bedlam”: Quoted in Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 358.

  18 “Holland, that scarce”: Quoted in Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 262–63.

  18 “alluvium deposited by”: Quoted ibid., p. 263.

  18 “a most sweet town”: Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, May 18, 1660, 1: 147.

  18 The abundant peat: In 1514, e.g., Delft brewers consumed about 22,000 tons of peat. See Unger, Beer in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, p. 137.

  19 By the end of the: Plomp, “Along the City Walls,” pp. 550–53.

  19 Many buildings along: See Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 45.

  20 It was built between: Plomp, “Along the City Walls,” p. 553.

  20 the vleeshal: Leeuwenhoek would later remark on his frequent trips to “our Vlees-hal, less than one hundred feet from my house.” AvL to RSL, March 19, 1694, AB, 10:55.

  20 In Delft, the renowned: See Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 35.

  21 Visitors were given slippers: The Experienced and Knowledgeable Hollands Householder, cited in Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 376–77.

  21 Since the Middle Ages: Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 8, and Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 42.

  21 Because of this, beer: Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, p. 172.

  21 “The beauty and cleanliness”: Quoted ibid., p. 376. For London, see Porter, London, p. 64.

  21 An influx of immigrants: See Israel, The Dutch Republic, pp. 307–12. As Israel notes (p. 308), by 1600 immigrants amounted to 17 percent of the population in the Northern Netherlands.

  22 Designs for the tapestries: See Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 43, Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 349, Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft, p. 139, and Plomp, “Drawing and Printmaking,” p. 171.

  22 Pottery works had also: Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 349.

  22 “Dutch Porcelain is nowhere”: Quoted in Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 42.

  22 The temporary interruption: Plomp, “Drawing and Printmaking,” p. 193.

  22 Once the manufacturers: Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 317–18, and Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft, p. 312.

  22 By 1670 one-quarter: Plomp, “Drawing and Printmaking,” p. 193.

  22 As brewing in Delft: See Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, pp. 42–43, quoting the names of factories from Bleyswijck.

  23 the counterfeiting of currency: See Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 336–67.

  23 By the end of the: On the counterfeiting conspiracy, see Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, ch. 2.

  24 Reynier had served his: See Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 13 and 13n16.

  24 Reynier was still: See Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 67. Montias says that Reynier stopped working in caffa in 1629, but in that case it would be odd that he is still referred to in the 1635 document as a caffa worker.

  24 On October 13, 1631: Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 18. That Johannes’s father was a skilled specialist in the fabric industry and, later, an art dealer was typical at the time. While some of the noted artists who came to prominence during the Dutch Golden Age were sons of painters, most were sons of highly skilled specialists; very few were sons of manual laborers or fishermen. Johannes Torrentius was the son of a fur cutter, Pieter Saenredam the son of an engraver, Gerrit Dou the son of a glass painter who owned a glass workshop, and Frans van Mieris the son of a goldsmith (Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 350). One of the greatest still-life painters of the day, Willem Kalf, was the son of a wealthy cloth merchant (ibid., p. 453).

  24 In the guild’s entry book: See Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 8–9. This variability does make it difficult to trace people back in the Delft archives, as they are sometimes listed under different names, or the same name is spelled variously. That has led to misunderstandings about the historical record in some cases—misunderstandings I believe I have successfully cleared up.

  24 “Reynier” sounds, in Dutch: Ibid., p. 61.

  25 More prosaically, Vermeer: Liedtke, Vermeer, p. 15.

  25 Pick himself was: Liedtke et al., Vermeer and the Delft School, p. 338.

  25 This was one of: A taxation map from 1830, when Mechelen still stood, shows its frontage as well as that of the other buildings on the square. See Steadman, Vermeer’s Camera, p. 98.

  25 Reynier purchased it for: Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 72–73.

  25 They spent much of their: Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, p. 312.

  25 The Calvinist clergy: This statute was repealed only in 1658. See ibid., p. 330.

  26 “Pictures are very common”: Quoted ibid., p. 318. However, Montias has claimed that paintings were not as common as is usually believed and were not universally present in the homes of the middle class. At least one-third of the inventories taken after death of households in the 50- to 150-guilder range possessed no paintings. That means, of course, that two-thirds did contain paintings. See Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft, p. 269. As he notes, foreign visitors were usually of the nobility or high bourgeoisie classes and did not tend to visit the homes of the middle classes.

  26 “The Dutch in the midst”: Aglionby, Choice Observations upon the Art of Painting, preface, n.p.

  26 Of course, the wealthy: Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, p. 313.

  26 Eight years before: Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 56–57. Extrapolating from the numbers of paintings in family inventories in Delft, it is estimated that there were approximately 2.5 million paintings in Holland alone by 1650. Many were copies, or pictures of poor quality, but some 10 percent were original works of high quality. See Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 555.

  26 A study of probate: See Bok, “Society, Culture and Collecting in 17th Century Delft,” p. 206.

  26 The guilds collected dues: Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 120.

  27 Afterward the guilds: Ibid. See also Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 178–79.

  27 “all those earning their living”: Quoted in Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft, p. 3.

  27 Dealers did get around this: Bok, “Society, Culture and Collecting in 17th Century Delft,” p. 209.

  27 He was learning: Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 73.

  28 With whom could Vermeer: Carel Fabritius, Rembrandt’s finest student, had moved to Delft in 1650; his style, like that of Johannes later, shows a mastery of perspective and brilliant lighting. But Fabritius did not register with the guild until October 1652, only fourteen months before Johannes. Artists were required to be masters in the local guild before they could take on students; this provision was strictly enforced, so it is very unlikely that Johannes could have formally studied with Fabritius before October 1652. See Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 104, and Artists and Artisans in Delft, pp. 86–87.

  28 Johannes may have studied: Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 77–78.

  28 Providing free lessons: Ibid., pp. 103–4.

  28 and how his father: Liedtke, “Vermeer: Style and Observation,” MMA, April 22, 2014.

  28 The cost of a local: Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 73.

  28 Van Aelst’s brilliance: Houbraken said of Evert van Aelst that he was able to capture the “luster and reflection of iron armor, helmets, and other elaborate things.” Quoted in Wheelock, “‘Guillelmo’ in Amste
rdam,” p. 38.

  28 This is seen in the: Liedtke et al., Delft and the Delft School, p. 228.

  29 “he knew how to imitate”: Houbraken after Willem van Aelst’s death, quoted in Wheelock, “‘Guillelmo’ in Amsterdam,” p. 48.

  29 Vermeer probably went: Gowing and Montias do not think Vermeer went to Amsterdam, believing it likely that Vermeer’s master was Abraham Bloemaert of Utrecht (Gowing, Vermeer, p. 9, and Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 106–7). Bloemaert was a relation of Vermeer’s future mother-in-law, Maria Thins, and it is possible that Vermeer met Catharina through Bloemaert. However, in 1648 Bloemaert was already eighty-four years old and may not have been taking on new apprentices. Wheelock thinks Vermeer studied with Leonart Bramer, a prominent Catholic painter in Delft, who later interceded on his behalf with Maria Thins when he wanted to marry her daughter (Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists, p. 267). Bramer was an acquaintance of Vermeer’s parents, having witnessed a document signed by his mother and having dealings with his father, but Bramer’s style, dark and brooding in the Italianate way, does not seem to have much in common with Vermeer’s work. Bramer favored pictures featuring small figures dominated by their surroundings, much more like the paintings of one of his students, the painter of exquisite church interiors, Emanuel de Witte. (See also Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 103–4.) However, as Wheelock notes, Bramer also painted murals, most of which have disappeared, but drawings for them suggest that the figures in these works were “large in scale and classically conceived,” similar to Vermeer’s early canvases (“Vermeer of Delft,” pp. 17–18). Yet, as Liedtke points out, had Vermeer studied with a local master his entry fee to the St. Luke Guild would have been three, not six, guilders (Vermeer, p. 21).