Ten Essays for a Friend: E. de Jongh 65 || Praise of Painting

Praise of PaintingAuthor(s): Philips Angel, Michael Hoyle and Hessel MiedemaSource: Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Vol. 24, No. 2/3, Ten Essaysfor a Friend: E. de Jongh 65 (1996), pp. 227-258Published by: Stichting voor Nederlandse Kunsthistorische PublicatiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3780840 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 04:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Stichting voor Nederlandse Kunsthistorische Publicaties is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:39:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=svnk

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3780840?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


227

Philips Angel, Praise ofpainting*

Translated by Michael Hoyle, with an introduction and commentary by Hessel Miedema

Philips Angel's encomium has long exercised the minds of scholars. The earliest publications concentrated on the author's biography,' but Emmens later placed the address in a construction where it represented a "pre-Clas- sicist" period along with Karel van Mander's Schilder- boeck, with the emphasis on a realism that had not yet been modified by the Classicist theories of the later seventeenth century.2 Although that view had to be quali- fied as being too schematic, the main focus in later publications remained on the less traditional aspects of An- gel's Lof3 Eric J. Sluijter, in particular, stressed the strikingly realistic features of the address and Angel's unabashed praise of painters who were able to delight the eyes of potential clients and thereby earned a great deal of money.4 It was only after years of discussion that Angel's place in the history of art theory could be defined.5 Unembarrassed by his lack of a thorough theoretical training, he managed to deliver an address at a gath-

ering to promote the profession of art painter which seemed interesting precisely because of its theoretical shortcomings. For what he had not been able to take from books he cleverly derived in part from the practice of his fellow artists in Leiden, of whom Gerard Dou was the indisputable primus inter pares. The upshot, simply put, was that Angel's Lofder schilder-konst came to be regarded as a document enshrining the artistic ideas of the Leidenfijnschilders.

There is no need to follow the rather labored discussion in which this view evolved, so I will restrict myself to making a few marginal comments on Angel's text.6

TITLE PAGE The printer Willem Christiaensz. van der Boxe, who came from Middelburg, was granted Lei- den citizenship in I624.7 His first works appeared in i631,8 his last one in i658. The business was continued by his widow and his son Daniel,9 and remained in exis-

* The translation of Hessel Miedema's commentary was made possible by a generous financial contribution from Jack Kilgore & Co., New York. The Dutch Post-Graduate School for Art History supported the translation of the Lofderschilder-konst itself.

The bold numbers in the margins of Praise ofpainting refer to the relevant pages in the original Dutch edition of I642. Marginal numbers separated by a virgule refer the reader to the same number in the commentary on pp. 250-58, which is itself keyed to the Dutch edition; see also note 6 below.

The translator would like to thank Hessel Miedema and Hans Luij- ten for their unstinting help in unraveling some of the knottier skeins in Angel's prose and Cats's poetry.

i P. J. Frederiks, "Philips Angel's Lof der schilderkonst," Oud Hol- land 6 (I888), pp. II3-22; A. Bredius, "Een stilleven van Philips An- gel," Oud Holland 45 (1928), pp. I6-2I;J. de Loos-Haaxman, De land- verzameling schilderijen in Batavia: landvoogdsportetten en compag- nieschilders, Leiden 195I; L.J. Bol, "Philips Angel van Middelburg en Philips Angel van Leiden," Oud Holland 64 (I949), pp. 2- I9.

2 J. A. Emmens and S. H. Levie, "The history of Dutch art history," in the stencilled miscellany Criticism and theory in the arts, ed. R. Gins- berg, Paris (Parnassus Publications) i963, pp. 1-14, esp. pp. 8-9 (also in J. A. Emmens, Kunsthistorische opstellen 2 [ Verzameld werk, vol. 4], Amsterdam I98I, pp. 35-50);J. A. Emmens, Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst, Utrecht i968. S. Slive, Rembrandt and his critics i630-I730, The Hague I953 had already examined the "Classicist" criticism of Rembrandt.

3 T. Takahashi, "Reflections on the depiction of wheels in motion:

Philips Angel's 'Lof der schilder-konst' and contemporary Dutch painting," Byuesushi, Journal of the Japan Art History Society I12 (vOl. 3i, nr. 2) (I982), pp. 76-94.

4 E.J. Sluijter, "Belering en verhulling: enkele I7de-eeuwse teksten over de schilderkunst en de iconologische benadering van Noordneder- landse schilderijen uit deze periode," De Zeventiende Eeuw 4, nr. 2 (1988), pp. 2-28. This article appeared unaltered in an English version, "Didactic and disguised meanings? Several seventeenth-century texts on painting and the iconological approach to Northern Dutch paintings of this period," in D. Freedberg and J. de Vries (eds.), Art in history, history in art: studies in seventeenth-century Dutch culture, Santa Monica 199I, pp. 175-207.

5 The literature is listed and discussed in the most recent publications: H. Miedema, "Philips Angels Lof der schilder-konst," Oud Hol- land 103 (i989), pp. i8i -222; E.J. Sluijter, Delofderschilderkunst: over schilderijen van Gerrit Dou (I6I3-I675) en een traktaat van PhilipsAn- gel uit 1642, Hilversum 1993, and my review of this book in Oud Hol- land io8 (1994), pp. 25 1-55.

6 The references are to the Dutch original, Philips Angel, Lof der schilder-konst, Leiden I642, with the page number followed by the line number.

7 J. G. C. A. Briels, Zuidnederlandse boekdrukkers en boekverkopers in de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden omstreeks I570-I630, Nieuw- koop 1974, pp. i84-85, 321, 428, 429; T. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C. Willemijn Fock and A.J. van Dissel, Het Rapenburg: geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, 7 vols., Leiden I986-92, vol. 3 (i988), pp. 44, 504, note 36, and 460-6I: Rapenburg 35.



228 PHILIPS ANGEL

--CARMIEN

Delineans querlae orum, qui ti m E QK a, 0 \ - *~~~~~omnebhmahc~if'usrs umqafl~i&

- zx ' 5;O * -HA9NE- HI-DRETHE rMIO t ;0 l, . :

LVG~x -

4F*F, a

LtrGD VN BATAVO'PJM.

E OmCsnTypogyaphica GYILSILMI WVSL\NBL M VS Cii 5XXS TIANI,

CMUX$ TJI . ANE fO D a > . ; pgDUNIBATAFOR VM.tX T Y IsS .. CI - s?Ia 1 BtSI ZX 2 ' C..'s"' I..................... G Wtg~z~s=Yt : .ISCOBAuuS IANS..... .

t, P .F 4 . * <2 n B SX~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....... .....

. . . S . z . :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . . . . . . .

I Impressum at the back of Philippus z Title page with the address of 3 Imnpressurn at the back of Thomas Lansbergius, Uranometriac Itbri tres, Johannes Nidertheimrius, Carmen Erpenius, Grammatica Arabica, I1636 I 631I strictim delinens querelas, I 646

tence until the eighteenth century. Z

Willem sometimes used a printer's vignette, the first of which appeared in his earliest works of I 63 I (fig. I )" He generally printed for other people but occasionally published small works himself, and in such cases always displayed his own vignette (fig. 2),I2 for which a different woodcut was made each time.'3 There are also instances of him delegating work to another printer and issuing a publication himself (fig. 3). 14

It is not entirely clear who published Angel's encomium. Van der Boxe's vignette is missing, and he refers to himself expressly and repeatedly as the printer. In his dedication to the reader, however, he nevertheless fea-

aures as the person who brought the booklet to the pub- lic. The vignette used (fig. 4) was specially designed for the occasion. Its implications, specifically as regards the question of whether it refers to the concept of an academy or to the Leiden Academy itself, have been discussed at some length.'5 The traditional Maid of the Netherlands in the garden of the provinces'6 whom the printer to the Leiden Academy had already replaced with Minerva, has here made way for a Minervan Pictura complete with palette, brushes and maulstick, and a panel with a perspectival construction. The entire figure was taken from the title page of Samuel Marolois's Per- spectiva (Amsterdam i637).

8 "Lugduni Batavorum, in nov& officin& typographicU Wilhelmi Christiani," in: Janus Secundus, Opera, Leiden (Franciscus Heger) I 63 I, Amsterdam, University Library, shelfmnarks 456 G 34 and 497 0 27; Petrus Cunaeus, De republica Hebraeorum libri III, Leiden (Nico- laas Eickhout) I 63 I (ibid., shelfmark 265 G i i); and Nicolaus Vedelius, De arcanis Arminianismi libri duo, Leiden (Franciscus Heger) i63I (ibid., shelfmark 406 F 32).

9 Joannis van Home, Waerschouwinge, aen alle lieff-hebbers der ana- tomse, Leiden (Daniel and Abraham van Gaasbeeck) I66o, with the statement at the back: "Ghedruckt tot Leyden, by Daniel Willemsz. vander Boxe, In compagny met de Weduwe van Willem Christiaens vander Boxe. i66o" ("Printed at Leiden by Daniel Willemsz. van der Boxe, in association with the widow of Willem Christiaens vander Boxe. I66o"), Amsterdam, University Library, shelfmark 1390 H 3 (I5)-

io Amsterdam, University Library, Ensched6 card file. The titles give here are selections from the file on printers in this library. I am grateful for the assistance of Mr R. Richard.

ii Philippus Lansbergius, Uranometriae libri tres, Middelburg (Za- charias Roman) I63I, Amsterdam, University Library, shelfmark I o67 B 35 (i). The editors of Simsolus drew my attention to the fact that the

emblem with the ostrich and horseshoe (Tenacity in adversity) is only found in combination with the motto Nilpenna sed usus in the emblem book by Gabriel Rollenhagen, Nucleus emblematum, Cologne & Utrecht i6i I-I3, and thus that that emblem was probably the source for the vignette.

Ii Johannes Nidertheimius, Carmen strictim delineans querelas, Lei- den (Willem Christiaensz. van der Boxe) I 646, Amsterdam, University Library, shelfmark Pamflet E i 23.

13 See figs. 1-3. A fourth version is reproduced in Briels, op. cit. (note 7), p. i 85.

14 Thomas Erpenius, Grammatica Arabica, Amsterdam (printed by JohannesJansonius) I636, Amsterdam, University Library, shelfmark 2799 D 35.

i5 H. Perry Chapman, "A Hollandse Pictura: observations on the title page of Philips Angel's Lofder schilder-konst," Simiolus I6 (I986), pp. 233-48; Miedema, op. cit. (note 5), pp. I91-92; Sluijter, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 15-17,

i6 P.J. van Winter, "De Hollandse tuin," Nederlands Kunsthisto- rischjaarboek 8 (957), pp. 29-121, erp. p. 107, fig. 45, with a personi- fication of "Retorica" in a similar enclosure.



Praise of painting: introduction 22

isp )- h 2 ?e x ~,8~Fbo!Sb

S',&t

< +0 0^ lp t ~ 'tE 4 w -

tiff~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .d ..00 .e .... j . ..... ..~ ~ ... ...i.;S; * ; t0 ;

-40; ;0 v a t~~~~~~ E m s:. --A NUN 00 0X-44t2 @ t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l :; 0 0:d . ;^; Ad <z;:X~~~~~~~~~~~~~ib .U 4 Title page of Philips Angel, Lof her schilder-konst, I 64s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......



230 PHILIPS ANGEL

DEDICATION

TO MR JOHAN OVERBEECK

Sir,

Attachment impels me to take the liberty of seeking a suitable occasion to dedicate this, my address in praise of painting delivered last St Luke's Day, to you in gratitude for your kindness in opening your art cabinet that I might satisfy the desire of my inquisitive eyes. While there, my fickle sight was so led astray by the multitude of delights that came before it that it eventually began to swim, as our eyes are wont to do when we suddenly raise them towards the starry host. But just as the stargazer, if he wishes to gain some knowledge of one of the most prominent stars, directs his gaze with the aid of his quad- rant, so I was forced to allow my thoughts to guide my eyes to some of the most outstanding works, for I did not wish to leave unrewarded, and the fruits of this I feel more than I am prepared to confess here. I consider myself entirely attached to you for the benefits I gained there, and wish to discharge this obligation with all my ability. But behold, the struggle between ability and will is great, yet ability, being the weaker, was overmastered by the will. I therefore earnestly request you to accept the devoted will rather than the ability, looking not so much upon the smallness of the gift as upon the good heart. I also request that, when you wish to cast off weighty matters and take this up to discover what I said in praise of painting, you pay less heed to the purity of the language than to the words that painters customarily use among themselves. I will be most content if you will kindly deign to accept this, my work, and freely assure you that I will ever remain, as I am,

Sir, Your indebted

P. Angel

ON THE

ART OF PAINTING

BY

PHILIPS ANGEL

O happy painter, sprinkling your sentences With all that has ever been required,

And is still necessary to gain a name That fears no death.

Whether you follow life And excel it with brushes

Or ably steal our hearts By raising them up.

Continue praising your art, She is in no danger of death

While you hold her head up high With the brush, and with song.

TO THE PAINTERS

Ingenious people, as full of spirit now As ever you have been,

If you wish to learn your art thoroughly Read this sample of Angel's benevolence,

He who, when he honors your art, Honors himself through art.

F.L.B.

ON THE PRAISE OF PAINTING

BY

PHILIPS ANGEL

DELIVERED ON ST LUKE' S DAY

Lovers of the brew, you who love to drain And trumpet the praise of brimming glasses.

Liquor-loving tosspots, who would rather sit and ca- rouse

Than busy yourselves before the easel, Whose favorite haunt is where the tankards clink, Repairing there swiftly to refill them to the brim,

Who pour beer by the tankard-full down your dry throats

And are never sated, however much you drink.



Praise ofpainting 23I

Who celebrate each feast-day with brutish carousing Until the brainpan knows neither law nor rule,

Swamped by the rising vapors. And out in the street You walk with splayed legs (like a ship at sea),

Who drink so much in the leftover time of the other weekdays

That your limbs refuse to carry you home, Who believe that St Luke's Day can only be celebrated By getting as drunk as lords on guzzled wine,

Come to these pages and worthy paper, Learn from this spirit how to honor St Luke aright,

And do as he does, devote your useful time To the service of painting, not squander it uselessly.

It will be better for you if you are open to counsel, It will not lighten a full purse, even less your wits.

This would give you great honor, now you have great shame.

Well take then, please take, this remedy to you, If all would but do that, what a glory to art, What would not be revealed that dense darkness now

Keeps deep closed. A little furrowing of the brows Will bring you a great name, immortalize your art.

What pens will praise the spirit, as is his due, In what honor shall young apprentices hold him.

He who, with the little writing he has done, Ensures that painting will live after a hundred centu-

ries. Go forth, great spirit, swell your high passions, Perfect the praise of painting with your scholarly writ-

ings. Truly, if you always celebrate your St Luke's Day

thus, Then I wish that St Luke may soon come around

again. P.P.

THE PRINTER

TO THE PAINTERS

Spiritful spirits,

Adornments of our fatherland, and you, burgeoning blooms who will in time also serve to embellish Fame's temple, behold here the address delivered in praise of your art, which I now place at your disposal through the prints. This is a sketch and a design (if I may speak in a painterly fashion) for the forthcoming work that is now with our author. This is the first link in the chain of his benevolent graciousness. If you now commence to devote yourself to the same with desire and diligence the other will certainly follow speedily. So take this with the same affection with which I managed to wrest it from the author's hands, albeit with difficulty and labor. If it please you, also overlook our few printing errors with a generous spirit, which I promise to correct in the second printing, and enlarge through the author's generosity (as he has promised), which he has now deliberately omitted to do in order to forestall the most evil intentions of some money-grubbing booksellers who, in order to sate their ravening avarice, have dared, without my knowledge or awareness, to copy that which I, with my diligent and hard labor, have endeavored to make known to my beloved fatherland and to the devotees. Farewell, noble and ingenious spirits, and consider me

Your indebted friend and servant

In Leiden, the 26th of February, i642 Willem Christiaens



232 PHILIPS ANGEL

PRAISE OF PAINTING

Seneca, a man of excellent judgment and great learning, spoke most aptly in one of his aphorisms when he

I/04 observed that "one desire begins where its predecessor ends." This saying is as true as it is credible, and to this I can testify not only from hearsay or observation but from my own experience, because having started at times

I/14 to write something that might be of benefit to apprentices of painting I was unable to stop, constantly seeing a new and different wish springing from the end of one desire, so that I now find myself in an endless (yet pleasant) maze, a park in which he who exerts himself to proceed further finds no end, although his rewards will be sweet.

I1/2i Kind spirits, I cannot, in truth, refuse your earnest re- 2 quest, for it accords with my own desire (if not fully then

in part). I shall therefore expound the praise of the noble, free art of painting in so far as this hour and my slender

2/05 wit permit, offering it to you as a St Luke's gift, taking 2/o6 more pleasure in doing so than in indulging in an orgy

of eating and scandalous carousing, as nowadays the tip- plers do far too much when marking this day. Choosing the best, let us see what we can bring to light for the praise of our art, which had become increasingly insipid, so that it may yet retain in its being something of its lus- trous radiance and glorious charm.

2/1I3 To begin with its antiquity and first arising: where and when it emerged into the light of day. But why do I un- dertake this task, when such excellent men (it must re- spectfully be said) contradict themselves? So as not to take too circuitous a route let us here introduce just one, the most contradictory of them, and yet take the most in- controvertible points, where he agrees with other credible men, and use him to our profit and advantage. First, then, in Pliny, bk. 36, ch. 5 [XXXV1, I5], one reads that the art of sculpting in marble was in use long before painting or casting in bronze: "The art of sculpting," he says, "began in the days of Phidias, which was around the 83rd Olympiad." He confirms this at the beginning of the same chapter, namely that it will be discovered that the art of carving began with the Olympiads. This is completely at variance with his earlier statement, in bk. 35, ch. 8 [xxxv, 55], where he says: "Is it not generally known that Candaules, formerly the King of Lydia and the last king of the Heraclid line, who was also commonly known by the name of Myrsilus, gave its weight in gold

3 for a picture by the painter Bularchus representing a bat-

tle with the Magnetes?", from which the stature that painting had even at that early date can clearly be per- ceived. Moreover, Bularchus was not the first painter. There is no doubt that Hygiaenon, Dinias and Charma- das, who were the first to paint images in monochrome, were long dead. It can also be believed either that Bu- larchus died long before the work was obtained by King Candaules, or that Candaules had it many years before his death. However, even if he bought it for its weight in gold in the year of his death, then painting was even more ancient than the 83rd Olympiad, for Candaules died in the i8th Olympiad, or as others believe, in the same year that Romulus died. It is therefore a grave error on Pliny's part to say that the art of sculpture is older than painting if the former only began in the 83rd Olympiad, for painting was already being weighed against gold in the i8th Olympiad. Furthermore, according to Pliny's testimony in bk. 35, at the end of the 3rd chapter [xxxv, I7-i8], where he writes that in his own day in the Roman Cam- pagna, or land of the Latins, "there were very beautiful paintings in the temple at Ardea that were made long before Rome was built." He continues: "It is remarkable that those paintings were still so fresh, for the temple had long been a ruin." "Similarly," he says, "in a ruined temple at Lanuvium there was, in those times, a painting by the same artist of Atalanta and Helena together. They were surpassingly well done, for one could see from Ata- lanta's face that she was a chaste virgin, and it was equally 4 remarkable that they were still so undamaged, even though the temple had lain derelict for so long." He further confirms this when he says that "There are pictures surviving at Caere, now Cervetere in Tuscany, that are even older," and comments: "And whoever under- stands this well will find that none of the arts attained full perfection so swiftly after its beginnings as painting, because in the days of Troy people did not know what it was." This last mistake, however, is even greater than the first, for if we are to regard the paintings at Ardea as being older than the building of Rome it is evident not just that our art is older than the 83rd Olympiad but that it existed even before the i 8th Olympiad, especially if we take pains to ascertain in which Olympiad Rome was built. Secondly, it is also improbable that people did not know of painting in the days of the Trojans. However, before we treat these two mistakes, inventions rather, with the rest as not serving the aim we have in mind, because of the great uncertainty, we shall first briefly exam-



Praise offpainting 233

ine what Olympiads were held. Each Olympiad lasts five years and is an ancient Greek method of counting, named after the festival they held in the city of Olympia that was introduced by Hercules (who had four broth- ers). Being five in number, they held five games there every five years. Two involved the legs: running the fast- est and jumping the farthest; the other two the arms: playing at ball and throwing; the fifth was for the whole body: wrestling to discover the strongest. These Olym- piads were introduced 780 years before the birth of

5 Christ, Anno Mundi 3400, 3I years before Rome was built. Now, leaving the Olympiads, I shall return to the path from which I have strayed, and discover in which Olympiad Rome was built. Many scholars differ on this point. Plutarch, in his life of Romulus, states that Romu- lus and Remus laid out the site of Rome in the third year of the 6th Olympiad. Dionysius and Eusebius say that it was in the first year of the 7th Olympiad, 432 years after the fall of Troy. A certain Cincius says that it was in the I2th Olympiad, Fabius Pictor in the 8th. Cornelius Ne- pos and Lactantius follow Eratosthenes and Apollo- dorus, who say that it took place in the second year of the 7th Olympiad. Now if Cincius calculated aright (which is not to be believed), he differs the most, namely by some 20 years in our reckoning, which comes to 452 years after the destruction of Troy, but this would not even be relevant. For by Cincius's reckoning Rome was built in the I2th Olympiad, while the paintings at Ardea were made before Rome was built, which again contradicts the claim that it was only long after the 83rd Olym- piad that people began sculpting, and even later began painting. From this one can see that Pliny was greatly in error in bk. 36, ch. 5 [XXXVI, 151, and we shall also demonstrate that he is gravely mistaken when he says that people did not know of painting in the days of the Tro- jans, for the following reason. One reads in bk. 3 of Homer's Iliad that the Trojan woman Helen, and others as well, depicted and made many pleasing things in their weavings. This was especially true of Helen who, when Iris appeared to her in the guise of Laodice, was occupied making a piece out of fine threads in her room, in which

6 the battle between the Greeks and Trojans was invented with pleasing pictures the combat and attacks, the bit- ter fighting and the advances of the two armies, all most pleasingly depicted, which cannot be done without the arts of painting or drawing. I shall pass over what he relates in his fifth book, of how Minerva donned Jupiter's

armor, on which certain things were painted. I shall likewise not linger over his account of Agamemnon's shield in book i i of his Iliad; nor shall I dwell on what he says in book I4, about all the pleasing things in the girdle of the goddess Venus. But, to take a persuasive example above all these, let us examine what he says in book i8 of his Iliad, from which it will become apparent that painting was quite widely famed in the days of the Trojans, and was far from unknown to them. For he says that Vulcan made thousands of decorations of Thetis in Achilles' shield, as well as pleasant inventions: the heavens and earth, the course of the sun and the moon, distinguishing the stars and the heavenly signs, the Bear, the Pleiades, Hyades and the like. He also made two cities, in the first a wedding, with the bride preceded by burning torches, and dancing in the streets, where the women sat on the steps and watched, and appeared to be astonished, from the looks in their eyes. In the second some people were gathered together to listen to others pleading before the judges about a murder, in which history (too long to re- late here) there were wonderfully fine actions, such that nowadays the finest painter in the world would find it difficult to depict such real action in a natural manner. Van Mander has testified that Daedalus, who lived before Homer's time, was an excellent painter. 7

Virgil also attests to the antiquity of our art. Among other things he says that Aeneas, upon entering the temple at Carthage that had been built in honor ofJuno, saw a painting of the siege of Troy in which Priam and Achilles and others were done from life, or in such a way that he recognized them. Among other battles and routs he saw how Troilus fatefully fought Achilles, and elsewhere how Achilles dragged Hector's dead body up the walls and, pulling it, sold it to the Trojans for a sum of money, and more episodes besides, which was so well and artfully done that Aeneas, upon seeing it, was utterly confounded and left the temple, grieving bitterly. Some- one could object by saying that all these things were no more than poetic invention, not a true history for estab- lishing the antiquity of our art. Now I admit that Virgil's poems are poems, and accept them for what they are. Even if he did invent all of it (which I do not believe), one must remember that poets of his standing pay close attention to all matters, first considering whether people did know of painting in the days of the Trojans, otherwise they would deserve severe censure for their carelessness. I maintain that it is impossible to write about some-



234 PHILIPS ANGEL

thing as if it had really taken place without knowing if it might have done, and moreover with such great luster as the most beautiful painting could embrace within itself. He expresses the amazement to be seen and measured in

8 their eyes, he presents their raging fury and the compassion of others; in short, he describes it in such a way that one can only conclude that it is impossible to write so ex- cellently about art that can be depicted so pleasingly on copper, canvas or panel without having seen or heard of it, for it would be a great and foolish carelessness if such poets did not reflect. But, in order to be more certain about this, let us examine a sample displayed by our Dutch Homer (who, as the whole world knows, does not take up a matter without lofty and profound reflection) in his great work called Marriage, in the fourth and last part of the same. There he introduces Helen, now aged and old, seeing herself in a mirror, speaking thus:

"I see my own likeness, it hangs here in this room, With fine curling locks and cheeks touched with red.

It is an image that once closely matched my youth Before Paris crossed the seas to reach our coast.

But now, if I come to look upon my face And compare all its aspects to that likeness, Then I rage...."

Behold here a sweet concord between these two great men in their presentation of the art of painting, which rebuffs Pliny's incorrect belief, already mentioned, that people did not know of painting in the days of the Tro- jans.

But in order to establish further that painting is an ancient and most celebrated art let us also take note of the

9 times in which Homer lived. As close as I can discover, which is what the most like-minded authors say about him, it was 124 years before Rome was built. That would be 92 years before the first Olympiad, although Corne- lius Nepos says ioo. However, it proves to be older than the Olympiads, even if there is a difference of only 24 years, for it was known in the time of Lycurgus, who (some say) saw Homer. The former would have no paintings in the council-house. And because (he said) they made the spirits of the members too weak and malleable, the pieces in those days were thus so fine that they could sway men's moods. It is my belief that painting did not start then, for it could not attain such great perfection in so short a space, as all sensible painters will appreciate.

And just as it is certain that Lycurgus saw Homer, so according to Plutarch (who ranks him according to the cal- culation of Eratosthenes and Apollodorus) it must have been some years before the Olympiads. By Euphorbus's reckoning it was 92 years before the Olympiads, which agrees with Apollodorus, but Cornelius Nepos differs by 24 years, believing it to have been 68 years before. But were I, in order to bring this discussion of the antiquity to a close, to stretch the limits of the same a little wider and say that it existed before the Flood, I do not know if anyone could justly accuse me of being in error, because Belus, the son of Nimrod, whose reign began 194 years after the Flood, ordered a statue to be made, whereupon idolatry began. And if P. Messias is to be believed this is a matter beyond all doubt, for he says in the 24th chapter of his first book that Cain was the first to discover engraving, and Semiramis, who with great deception i0 took both the crown and life of Ninus and ruled the realm, according to the testimony of Sethus Calvisius, in Anno Mundi 1957, 301 years after the Flood. Now when Noah was 903 years old and the patriarch Abraham nine, Semiramis (as Diodorus Siculus says of her in bk. 2, ch. 8) did not merely have all sorts of creatures depicted in diverse colors, as they appeared in life, but also had a very fine animal hunt painted in which she, mounted on a horse, was shown striking a leopard with her arrow. She also had the portrait of her husband Ni- nus included in it, felling a lion with his lance. Thus the great perfection of our art had already condemned Di- nias's monochrome manner of painting to the book of oblivion due to its greater perfection. This is sufficient to show that our art must have been in existence before the Flood, because it gradually gained greater and greater luster with slow footsteps and even by the days of Semiramis had a fine splendor, for it has not achieved such excellent luster so swiftly, as will be clear from the following. Or at the very least with the beginning of the Second World, when mankind had divided itself into different regions and began making all manner of ingenious inventions, from Chaldaea, through Egypt, in Greece, thence to Rome and thus to here, and has spread throughout the entire world. Yet even today it is not rightly known who the first discoverer was. Nonetheless, I0/28 we shall say as much on that subject as can be garnered from ancient authors in order to get as close to the truth as possible. Pliny, in bk. 7, ch. 56 [I II, 205], believes that it was a certain Gyges, which accords with the writer II



Praise ofpainting 235

Polydore Vergil of Urbino in the 24th chapter of his second book. This Gyges was born in the land of Lydia, but when and in what age I have been unable to discover. However, one can certainly calculate from this that our art, being customary there at such an early time, brought forth several eminent spirits and soon removed some of them to Italy, as one will find described by earlier authors. They include Leon Baptista Alberti, who men- tions this, saying that the Lydians brought it thence when King Tyrrhenus of Lydia vanquished and seized the seventh kingdom of Italy. However, it is not known to whom this Gyges taught and passed on his art. The first of his followers who is presented to us is a Greek, Pyrrhus, whom some call Euchir. He, Aristotle says, was the first painter in Greece, which conflicts with the opinion of Theophrastus (according to Pliny), who believes that it was one Polygnotus of Athens.

But note here the great deceitful ambition of the Athe- nians, who would like to usurp this Egyptian crown of honor for themselves and arrogate the praise so that they might be regarded as the first to discover this art. This is all the more probable in that they usually favored their own nation, especially when someone added something pleasant or graceful to a crude and as yet uncouth art, whom they then presented as the first discoverer. That is what happened with Polygnotus, because he discovered the art of graving on ivory and larchwood with a glowing iron rod, and was accordingly hailed by them as the first painter. Nevertheless, most of the learned schol-

I2 ars of our art regard Gyges as the first painter, awarding him the unwithered laurel wreath as its discoverer. So, for the sake of brevity we shall also introduce Gyges here as the first painter and examine how our art gradually ad- vanced. The first paintings were no more than simple outlines, called linearis pictura by the Latins. Then it was discovered how to fill those outlines with a single col- or, which the Greeks called monochrome, that is painting with one color. Cleophantes discovered the art of painting on stone. Hygiaenon, Dinias and Charmadas were the first to make portraits with single colors, and Eu- marus the first to distinguish the male from the female sex; so says Pliny in bk. 35, ch. 8 [xxxv, 56]. Cimon of Cleonae (a town in Achaea) first observed foreshorten- ing, as one reads in Karel van Mander's description of the lives of the antique painters, folio 3. Another Poly- gnotus, different to the above, began adorning women with drapery and transparent antique clothing. Apollo-

dorus was the first to discover beauty, and gave his portraits a pleasing charm, doing away with the harsh un- pleasantness that was customary with the ancients, still tender in art as they were. The excellent Zeuxis appeared soon after this ingenious Apollodorus and contrived to impart great glory to our art, such that he lured the birds out of the sky with his painted fruit, his imitation of it being so natural that it aroused a desire to taste them, and the birds flying down to them were deceived. But 13 Parrhasius, who excelled him as the sun outdoes the moon in radiance and brightness, deceived him with a painted bedsheet, which he tried to remove in order to see Parrhasius's art, not knowing that he was already seeing it, and he a painter himself. It was thus that our art ascended, step by step, and was held in greater esteem than other arts by many of the great and wise men of the world. And truth to tell, what art deserves to be placed i3/08 beside it? It was not just princes and kings who valued it. Even the King of all Kings, the everlasting and immutable God, considered it so worthy when he called upon his people, through Ezekiel, to repent. Wishing to warn them of what lay in store, he charged Ezekiel in his chapter 4 to do so with the aid of our art, the Lord saying to him: "Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusa- lem. And lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about," &c. The purpose was to alarm the children of Israel with such fearsome drawings that they would turn to their God, and seeing such somber paintings might be moved by them to avoid the calamity depicted. Behold how worthy and valuable God considered art, because he wished it to be used to instruct his people, at the same time demonstrating other uses to which it could be put apart from decorating bare walls. That art can be put to greater use than simply adorning walls was well-known by the philosopher Socrates. When he noted that Alcibiades, a very 14 beautiful and rich young man, was boasting about the many fine estates he owned, he led him to a certain place in the city where there was a painting of the whole world. When they arrived there he charged Alcibiades to seek the landscape of Athens, their fatherland. When Alci- biades said that he had found it Socrates replied: "Now see where your properties and estates are." Alcibiades looked everywhere very closely, and finally said: "I do not see them painted anywhere." Whereupon Socrates



236 PHILIPS ANGEL

said: "Well, poor man. Why do you boast about estates that cannot be found anywhere in the whole world?" By which remark Socrates humbled Alcibiades' pride. In centuries past people used paintings to warn others of the sorrows that oppressed someone. This is what was done by those who had been shipwrecked, who carried a dreadful depiction of it through the cities, thereby displaying to the spectators the fate of their misdirected for- tune, because they had discovered that such a faithful depiction far outweighed eloquence in arousing compassion in men's hearts. Moreover, it is not just suitable for improving someone's innermost feelings, but also serves to arouse a gentle compassion in the murderous hearts of the cruel barbarians (whose nature is harder than rocks and heavier to move than mountains). With its innate, hidden strength it can free its votaries from chains and prisons and release them from their onerous slavery. But, wonder of wonders, its excellence has delivered en-

I5 tire cities from fire and sword. Tell me, which art can be ranked beside it? It is, moreover, a bridle to shame loose tongues (which, without thinking, cast doubt on another's honor solely from their own opinion). But so as not to dwell on this too long, an example will be given of each.

It happened in I 527 that not only was the art of painting brought to a halt, impeded by the bloody war, but also that several artists were killed as they fled. However, in all the plundering that went on in Rome in those days, Franciscus Mazzoli was better served by his art than Ar- chimedes was in Syracuse, who was left dead on the ground beside his circles and characters. For Franciscus, his thoughts on loftier matters, carried on painting, even though marauders were seen rampaging through all the streets of Rome, murdering as they went. There were also several soldiers pillaging his belongings. Others, in search of more booty, went upstairs, ferreting in every corner, and finally arrived where Franciscus was at work in his studio. They were so amazed (by his art) that they let him continue in his design, without harming him in any way. Behold there the power that lies hidden in this art, which can reverse the rampant emotions of tigers and lions, changing them into a sheeplike gentleness and dovelike innocence. It caused those barbarians, who were devoid of any charity, to gain compassion for the sake of art. Listen now to the story of Fra Filippo Lippi, after he had left the life in the Carmelite monastery at the age of

I6 17. He and some friends took ship to leave the March of

Ancona, but at sea they were overpowered by a pirate vessel, and due to their impotence became the booty of some Barbary Moors, who immediately put heavy chains around their legs and carried them off as prizes. At length, Filippo, after spending i8 most wretched months in great discomfort, used his keen observation to draw from memory the portrait of the jailer guarding him and the other slaves on the wall with a piece of charcoal, from head to foot and as large as life. When the Moorish slaves saw this they went, full of amazement, to inform their master. So here one sees the truth of the saying that ignorance is the mother of astonishment. The guardian of the prison, having heard of this and being curious, the more so in that they knew nothing of painting or drawing in those parts, stood as if dumbstruck when he saw the sketch. Invoking the powers invested in him, he ordered him to be unchained, concluding that such a great talent did not deserve to be confined in such narrow chains, thus giving Filippo freedom from chains. And after having done some things in color as best as could be obtained, in order to demonstrate his gratitude, he was finally released, and was assigned some soldiers for his protection, who conducted him to Naples. So he vanquished the victor with his art, taming the cruelty of the black Barbary Moors with a charcoal sketch.

That our art, through its dignity, has preserved whole i6/32 countries and cities is demonstrated by the miserable, de- 17 cayed state of Sicyon (which has been restored to its former condition by that dignity), and by Syracuse and Rhodes as well. However, that none might think that I am trying to present everything that I have been able to gather to the advantage of our art in order that the reader erupt with admiration, I shall abandon Sicyon and Syra- cuse, telling you only how matters proceeded with the deliverance of Rhodes. Not as Pliny has left it to us, which is nevertheless worth noting, but I will pass over that in order not to dwell too long on the power of our art. I shall therefore present it to you as Plutarch has described it in his life of Demetrius. However, to remove the suspicion of those who might believe that Demetrius spared the city of Rhodes because he had besieged it for petty reasons and therefore easily left it again, we shall first see for what weighty considerations that siege was undertaken, which was done for these three different causes (which are confirmed). First, because the Rho- dians had entered into an alliance with his enemy Ptol- emy. Secondly, because they had defeated Alcinus the




Epirote, a great hero and seasoned warrior. The third and main reason why he was so angered by the Rhodians was that they had seized a ship which had been sent to him by his wife Phyla with a cargo of beds and clothing, as well as a letter written in Phyla's own hand. Having taken the ship and its cargo they sent it to Ptolemy, which outraged

i8 Demetrius, the more so in that they had not followed the well-mannered example of the Athenians when they captured the messenger of King Philip, who was at war with them, with all his letters. They opened all of them apart from one that was to be handed to his wife Olympia, which they sent on to Philip without opening or reading it.

So it was with just causes that Demetrius, lion-heart- edly seized by a great rage, arrived off Rhodes with his whole armada, which he had already besieged and sur- rounded so closely that the people of Rhodes saw no escape and accordingly sent out some of their most honored men. These did not request that King Demetrius receive them mercifully, knowing that their faithless crime deserved sword and fire, but simply begged him to spare a painting of Ialysus in the outer stronghold of the city (for they saw that they would have to pay dearly for their bravery). The said painting was almost finished, and was being completed by Protogenes of Caunus. The king, being a lover of art who had taken up arms not against it but against the faithless Rhodians, went to see the unfinished picture, which inflamed his love and per- suaded him to such mercy that he not only gathered together his entire army and left Rhodes but told the emis- saries that he would much rather burn and destroy the portrait of his father than harm such a beautiful and charming work. In short, Demetrius was so pleased with it that he spared Rhodes and preserved the art, and often

I9 came to visit Protogenes as a friend, whom he had formerly planned to kill as an enemy. See how much power our art has over the hearts of kings!

That art can also stop the mouths of slanderers, who held an honorable woman to be of suspect honor, can be seen from the following example, which the honorable J. Cats presents most agreeably in the third book of his widely celebrated work, Marriage.

"A woman wide-renowned for her unsightly features, Whose husband was her match with his ungainly frame,

Yet did bear a child, the fairest one could find, A pearl of the city, a wonder in the land.

A child just like a picture, praised by one and all, Who took it in their arms, or pointed in the street.

A child that answered every wish, a quick and pleasing imp,

Not too gauntly thin, and not too sadly fat. All were most amazed, seeing the fresh young limbs, And the fine complexion, but were puzzled for the rea-

son. So it came about that a rumor seized the town That the woman had lost her honor in this affair.

One man, whose gaze was deeper, proceeded to the house,

To ascertain the facts about the honor of this spouse. He finds a splendid chamber there, and upon a small

sideboard, A sweet statue of a child had there been lightly set.

He found a bedstead hung with curtains, The master's as it proved.

Upon enquiring who had slept there, and hearing the reply

He guessed without delay how matters really stood. He then addressed the crowd, 'Hear ye now my verdict, Have the youngest child brought here into this room.'

The housemaid goes to fetch it, as swiftly as she can, 20 And brings it to the room, and gives it to the man.

He immediately positions it right beside the sculpture, And summons all the folk to look upon the scene.

Gazing first at the statue and then upon the child, They noted that two eggs had never looked so alike.

Then the wise man related, with judicious reason, That something seen by the eyes can arise into the mind,

And that deep meditation, by a power yet unknown, Can imprint the object seen upon the fruit within the

womb. Great and swift was the joy, the vicious tongues fell si-

lent, And the woman's honor was indeed restored,

From that moment on, when a couple wished to mate, Something beautiful was placed beside the marriage

bed."

If we now agree to appreciate its costly worth and how that has been rewarded by almost all the mighty princes of the world, I do not know which art apart from this one can match its standing. Candaules (as we said at the beginning) weighed pictures against gold. Julius Caesar paid 8o talents for an Ajax and Medea painted by Timo-



238 PHILIPS ANGEL

machus of *Byzantium, which would be 48,ooo gold crowns in our reckoning when one converts from the usual talents. King Attalus went even further, giving io0 talents, or by our reckoning 6oooo gold crowns, for a painting by the artful Aristides, painter of Thebes. This can be read in the Sciilder-boeck of the far-famed Karel van Mander, in the life of Aristides of Thebes. This, our art, was held in such high regard that the

2i wealth of whole cities was given for four works (one by Nicomachus, one by Aetion, one by Melanthius and the fourth by Apelles).

To place one example above all others, listen to what Alexander did, that great conqueror of the world, which outshines all the previous examples. It happened that Apelles painted a Venus Anadyomene, which is a Venus emerging from the sea, taking the beautiful Campaspe as his model. While working on it in order to capture her beauty as faithfully as possible he conceived a great love of her which, being noticed by Alexander (however much Apelles tried to conceal it), did not diminish his affections. Behold there two loves against one, yet Alex- ander, who had been able to subdue the world, gave evidence of an even greater deed than bending the world to his will. 0 great and miraculous deed. The prince con- quers his own heart, he bridles his affections and makes a gift of his beloved Campaspe to Apelles as a reward for the painted Venus. What greater reward has there ever been for any art? Thus not only was there a love of the pictures that were made by such artful hands, but the artists, too, were honored and esteemed by the great mon- archs. A Greek prince (knowing no better, and thinking that it would redound to the honor of art) expressly for- bade any who were not nobly born to learn the art, and also placed it among the seven liberal arts, as Pliny re- cords in bk. 35, ch. 10 [XXXV, 77]. But this was better understood by Emperor Maximilian (grandfather of Charles v), who realized that such a law would force many spirits to lie buried in night's dark, as it were, forced to occupy themselves by plowing, digging and delving because they were not of noble birth, and that

22 many unsuitable people, devoid of understanding and with a poor manner, wielded the brush because they were noble. He therefore found a better way, "for," as he once

* This city: Byzantium took the name Constantinople after being re- built by Constantine. It was later named Romana, and the Greeks called it Stymboli and now the Turks call it Stampolda.

said: "I can make a hundred nobles from one hundred peasants but not one great painter from a hundred noble- men." He accordingly honored them once and for all time with a nobleman's coat of arms, which they bear to this day. You can read more of this in K. van Mander, who has been mentioned several times already, in the life of Albrecht Durer, where he relates how one person ac- quired this honorable shield for all laudable spirits.

The King of France held Leonardo da Vinci in such high regard out of his love of art that he came to visit him on several occasions (when he lay felled in his sickbed) and even offered him assistance, and he finally passed away in the king's arms. This can be read in the life of the Italian painter in the great, praiseworthy work of K. van Mander, folio 47.

Pope Julius II was so dismayed by the death of Ra- phael of Urbino that it caused the tears to spring from his eyes.

The murder of Polydore [da Caravaggio] was ad- judged to be so serious by the Roman council that they imposed as severe a punishment on the murderer as if he had taken the life of a king.

Francis, King of France, esteemed Rosso so highly for the pleasure his art gave that he awarded him an annual stipend of 400 gold crowns in addition to the wages for his work.

The Marquis of Mantua gave Francisco Monsignori a farm with 200 acres of land. Baccio Bandinelli was made 23 a Knight of St Peter by Pope Clement v i i, who did so out of his love of art, and he was later knighted by Charles v.

The Venetians consider themselves so honored by painters that they award 300 crowns a year to the good ones among them, that such a gift might keep them within their walls.

And not to roam far afield, but to remain in our own fatherland, aye even within our own walls, we find the perfect and excellent Gerrit Dou, who receives 500 Ca- rolus guilders annually because he allows Mr Spiering the first selection of his paintings. This shows that it was not only in the past that painters were esteemed and honored for their art but that the same is done in this, our century. I could list many and diverse other examples of this, which I now pass over in the interests of brevity, because this will be presented at greater length in good time.

But the sculptors, who are jealous of this, would like to 23/22

claim for themselves the honor that is due to us, purloin-




ing it under the pretense that they imitate life more closely than we do, which must perforce be demonstrated by a contrary argument, for our art is more excellent than theirs. The weightiest reason that they can put forward to their advantage is this, namely that both of these arts endeavor to imitate nature, and therefore he who can present the most noble aspects of it in his art will win the greater esteem. I readily agree, but now we must

24 examine who approaches nature most closely. The sculptors say, for their part, that a painting is sophistic, mere semblance without being, because one cannot find in a painting that which it seems to be. That is not so with the sculptors' art, which is tangible, even though painters imitate the same things as sculptors do, and with more means, namely forms and colors, whereas the sculptors use forms alone. Nevertheless, painters imitate her more truly and faithfully. That this is certain can be deduced from the following. Everyone knows that even though the eye is the noblest of the five senses and that sight has color among its objects it is not the most trustworthy (however true), for we can observe that it is often deceived. The most trustworthy of our senses is therefore touch. Now everyone knows that when one sees a wood- en statue one feels a mass, which sight has seen, which is not the case with painting. This is why sculptors believe that their art should take precedence over ours, and that the difference between the two is as great as that between being and seeming. To this I reply that sculptors do not capture nature better by making space-encompassing, three-dimensional objects, and what is more they abuse and plunder the matter which was already as it was in nature. For this reason, all that one finds in it that is round, wide and otherwise is not due to their art, for it already had thickness and height and all those members needed for an integrated body. So in this respect their art does no more than give the contour, which is the surface membrane. For this reason, as has been said, the em- braceable and three-dimensional does not come from art

25 but from nature. This answer also applies to what they say about touch, for the reason one finds it tangible is also proved hereby to be not from art but from nature. Yet even though this has all been demonstrated they do not wish to capitulate to us, but wriggle and squirm against it like a snake with a broken head fighting death, and cleave to the lasting durability of their masses. Whereas (they say) our things are not in so much danger from rain, fire and other afflictions as paintings are. To this we say, first

of all, this is due not to art but to the object of art, which is real. Secondly, there is nothing upon which the sun shines here on earth that is assured of eternal duration but it is subject to change; nothing has a permanent and unchangeable constant state but the immutable God alone, who is ever one. Even so, paintings can last for hundreds of years, which is sufficient. Thirdly, one can also paint on marble, and in that way paintings are to some extent immortalized. But to bring our case to a close we shall deal the sculptors the final death-blow. We say that the art of painting is far more general because it is capable of imitating nature much more copiously, for in addition to depicting every kind of creature like birds, fishes, worms, flies, spiders and caterpillars it can render every kind of metal and can distinguish between them, such as gold, silver, bronze, copper, pewter, lead and all the rest. It can be used to depict a rainbow, rain, thunder, lightning, clouds, vapor, light, reflections and more of such things, like the rising of the sun, early morning, 26 the decline of the sun, evening, the moon illuminating the night, with her attendant companions, the stars, reflections in the water, human hair, horses foaming at the mouth and so forth, none of which the sculptors can imitate. Moreover, the sculptor's art involves a very labor- ious, slavish toil, with the result that an old and experienced artist, when he could show himself at his best, is forced to abandon it because of the heavy labor that is required to sculpt, for his greatest powers have usually been eroded by time, which is not the case with painting, even if it is likewise done with the hands. As is clear from all the evidence presented, the aforementioned honor re- mains with the painters.

But the poets would also like to gain the upper hand 26/1I7

and have their heads stand out above ours, which appears to be prompted by the great community and correspon- dence they have with us. For (many scholars say), a painting is silent poetry and poetry a speaking painting. I readily admit that this is so, but not that they therefore deserve the greatest praise and honor because it is brought speaking onto the stage, which is worth nothing if a work is not read attentively, distinguishing between what must be read as moving, powerful, charming or manly, which grace depends upon what the reader makes of it. This is not so with painting, for our sight distin- guishes the impulses immediately our eye falls upon a painting in the form that the painter wished it to be displayed, for it is not bound to the user's will. So in this 27



240 PHILIPS ANGEL

respect painting excels poetry. 27/04 Moreover, painting is of far greater profit and use than

poetry for sustaining the body. We are even shown the truth of this by that sweet-voiced poet J. Cats, for whom no praise is sufficient. It occurs in his most recent book, the Wedding ring, concerning the marriage of the beautiful Rhodope, in which the painter makes the distinction between himself and the poet, and he brings him onto the stage speaking thus.

"The spirits who are acquainted with the nature of all the arts

Put the painters and the poets upon the selfsame footing, For what a painter draws is poetry that's silent, And when a poet works the painting takes on speech.

Each of their arts serves to entertain the world, And even casts down princes in misery and anguish.

But between them, nonetheless, there is, I find, a difference,

Which I, modest maiden, will now disclose to you. What is a poet's work? He teaches words to dance.

27/2I-22 His rewards, sad to say, are but garlands of roses, Or of a laurel tree, or of a myrtle leaf, And this, it is said, is a marvellous great treasure.

Should he write a verse that really is ingenious, Praise may come his way from time to time.

But that is nothing more than a dry and empty wind, And will never swell a purse nor give it added weight.

Look at Homer, even, a prince among the poets, He and all his ilk were as poor as poor can be.

And whatever did it bring him, what gain came from his art

Save that he died in penury, abandoned by all men? 28 True it is, I grant you, his poems are still read today,

And have ascended in his honor to the sky, But although his name lives on, and great may be his

honor, For him it is nothing more than drinking after death.

His fame may have spread to every country overseas, But there is no wife nor child who could take from it their

sustenance. And were a young bachelor to court a nubile maid, Then that vapor would not count, it's a rich wife that

is wanted. So give praise, if you wish, that fine pens do write,

28/1O It should be said at once, it will not stock the larder. What is there of the spirit and of its lofty flight?

One cannot live off wind, nor either off thin air. One cannot keep a courtly maid, nor yet a comely wom-

an, From honor or from praise, nor yet from poetry.

The spirit has a need of unceasing nourishment For all the time it is joined with the body.

Even if called on by Apollo, with his inspiring crew, A poet who had nothing would still feel hunger bite.

He who provides naught, apart from art alone, Will find little favor, no matter that he's witty.

So depart from here, away, all you who play the poet; Make way, now, ink and pen, for this illustrious brush.

The honored art of painting deserves far greater praise,

For more than just delight, it brings profit in its train. I earn money in abundance, I paint majestic pictures, And also limn great princes upon the copper plate.

It is with this I trade, and make a handsome profit, And that is useful work, for a hearth and for children.

It was not that long ago that I sent the king my work, Receiving many thanks, and more than a thousand

pounds, Together with a chain that hung around my body And went thrice around my neck, and around my

shoulders too. A poet, in the meantime, had written down a verse, 29

Which a friend of his presented to the monarch. It was really most ingenious, and lofty in its tone, But what did he receive, what payment was his due?

I saw a wreath of green, fresh-woven from the laurel, That they brought to him for his own self's adornment.

Also a coat of arms, granted by the king, But all this courtly flutter is mere pomp and circum-

stance. But why linger on this tale, I can sum it up this way, That it gives you satisfaction, and all folk and princes

too, And that, what is more, it brings me my advantage, And he who sees it thus, a clever man is he.

He shows a great intellect, worthy to be praised, As can be read at length, among the poets even.

Thus, 0 worthy maid, 0 jewel of the land, Offer me today your steadfast right hand.

Your sweet and youthful image I promise to convey To the ages that come after us, so artfully

That your beauteous luster will be blazoned through the land



Praise ofpainting 24I

And in a thousand years will still be close at hand, And your unsullied youth will be observed and wor-

shipped In each and every town here roundabout.

Art and its power will bring you everlasting life Even though your life itself will long have run its

course. And if your taste is warfare I can show you, through my

art, Combat fierce and bloody, and mighty armies clashing,

And soldiery so fearless, as if it's truly war, But without a care to you, nor danger to your self.

Or should you, worthy maiden, wish to have a senator, Because almost every day he spends his time at court,

Let me tell you now, the prince has graced me with his favor,

And often does confide in me state matters of great weight.

30 Nor is it just lately that princes honor painters, Although today, even now, one can learn that that is so.

Thus it has been, these thousand years or more, As one can read all over in many ancient books.

And if you love a merchant, I too am skilled in trade, And can improve my business much better through my

art. For should a merchant's vessel perish on the main, So that his business drowns and drifts upon the waves.

Even if he himself has not died at sea, He is nonetheless quite ruined by his loss.

For if such a fate should overcome a merchant His glory is extinguished, his bond an empty shell.

But were this dire event to be visited on me, It is little I would lose, a paltry robbery.

For if I only bring my body safe to harbor Then my greatest treasure is rescued from the sea.

Art, that noble thing, it never shall abandon me, Even if I wander penniless, seeking out back alleys,

Flee, I can, from war, or come forth from the fire, I would still, even then, retain my greatest good.

Art is a glorious jewel, worth more than any treasure, And wind nor fire nor sea can plunder it from me.

Art is the finest asset, dismay that who it may."

Behold, a poet himself places painting above poetry. And why not? Lo, what was more effective in awakening clemency, a crude charcoal sketch drawn on a wall by

0/29 Apelles or all the sweet-flowing writings of Ovid? No,

for certain: Apelles very swiftly turned the stern gaze of King Ptolemy into a friendly countenance when he made 31 him a drawing of the likeness of Planus. Whereas Ovid, alas, was unable to move the heart of Emperor Augustus to compassion with all his fine writing but was to end his life most wretchedly in misery and affliction on the cold and desolate island of Pontus, so our art incontestably surpasses these two arts in its dignity.

But might there, somewhere, be an art that could be famed in worthier privilege than the noble art of painting were we to examine what was permitted it? It has been allowed such freedom that when anyone paints another man's panel he may take it for his own. Upon this see Justinian, Institutiones, bk. 2, tit. I, section 34. It is not 31/i5

thus with those who write something on other people's paper or parchment. Assuredly not, and here again painters have the prior right to fame over poets. In short, we have such a golden, unconstrained freedom that * "St 31/2I

George has to slay the dragon as the painter wishes." * NOTE This It could be that someone might be found to boast that is a common

their art was deemed more worthy by many because they adage. have sought to confirm it with so many books and writings, and that this is not the case with painting.

In answer, this. If we wish to ascertain precisely who has written about it, we discover that there are some several arts for which we do not need to give way, because we far outdo them in numbers. As evidence see here a mere sketch and list of various authors who have written in the 32 service of the art of painting, namely: 32/0I

Adaeus Mitylenaeus lamblichus Albrecht Durer Johannes Philoponus Alcetas Juba, King of Mauretania Alexis Leonardo da Vinci Anaximenes Melanthius Antigonus Menachmus Antigonus the Younger Menetor Apelles Menedotus Sanius Aristodemus, Carius Pamphilus Artemnon Polemon Callixenus Porphyrios Christodorus Praxiteles Karel van Mander Protogenes Democritus. Ephesus Sebald Beham Duris Theophanes Euphranor of the Isthmus Ter Brugghen Hegesander of Delphi Xenocrates



242 PHILIPS ANGEL

Hippias Eleus Xenocrates the Younger Hypsicrates Jan Orlers

I willingly confess that if all of these had written but one book apiece that would not amount to a great number, but then we see that King Juba, who according to Pliny was more celebrated for his learning than for waving his scepter, wrote at least eight books, Praxiteles five, Proto- genes two, Xenocrates several, and how we lost our whole library through fire at Constantinople, according

33 to Malchus Byzantius, who wrote an entire book about it. So one will discover that the same can not only be ranked alongside other arts, but will surpass many of them in number, above all if we add those who deserve to be added to the list, who have written books about per-

33/06 spective, such as Euclid, Vitruvius, Giacomo da Vignola, Sebastiano Serlio, Marolois, Hondius and a hundred others, who have all written about this art that is likewise a link in the chain of the art of painting, so there are weighty reasons for adding it, and this is most necessary, since perspective must be observed in all paintings.

Patient spirits, I would not (believe me) have taken up your time by reciting this list of names of the authors who love our art were it not that this has actually been hurled in my face as a mocking insult on several occasions (to the detriment of our art), which each of you can now contest and prove with this evidence.

Now aiming towards the end, for a close let us examine the qualities that could justly be required of a painter for him to be added to the ranks of these laudable spirits without being mocked. For it is certain that not all who bear the name of painter can be ranked thus. Many would be tickled to laughter to think: "If our art is so excellent, then I too must consider myself great, for I am

33/32 one of its citizens." But many of them would be like pea- 34 cocks, which proudly puff out their breasts and take de-

light in the fine plumage of their tails, but once seeing the poor luster of their feet they let their tails droop and depart, bowed down with shame. That is how it would be with many of those artists who, upon hearing such great things about excellent painters of the past, might think that they were one of them because they too bore the name of painter. But if they placed their works alongside those of these celebrated spirits, they, like the peacock, would be filled with shame and sorrow and would have to depart, heads downcast. However, in order to discover

what qualities one must have in order to be admitted to the ranks of the celebrated, take note how I portray one here with my pen who will deserve to join those ranks without fear of mockery.

He has sound judgment, a sure and reliable hand for drawing, a rich talent in the natural arrangement of objects, an ingenious invention of pleasing abundance, the proper arrangement of the lights and shades, with a good observation of distinctive natural things, a well-versed understanding of perspective, and equal experience in the knowledge of histories accompanied by profound and essential reflections based upon wide reading and study. He would also have some grasp of mathematical principles. This painter would possess a thorough understanding of anatomy, seek to imitate nature rather than another master's manner, know how to mix paint in fleshy colors, distinguish between all woollen fabrics, linen and silk, and have a nimble but smoothly flowing 35 brush. And if he can combine all these qualities with the sweet-tongued eloquence of Apelles and the chastity of Michelangelo, and also has the desire and diligence of Domenico Ghirlandaio, it may justly be said that this person deserves the tribute of an eternal, memorable crown of honor. But someone could object by asking whether such a painter ever existed, exists now, or is to be hoped for in the future. And if such a hope be vain, who then shall be awarded that everlasting crown of hon- or? I shall answer this with a verse taken from the knightly poetJ. Cats, mentioned earlier:

"You must not let this model dishearten you, He who comes nearest has done the best."

Let us now examine whether all the virtues listed here are necessarily required in one and the same painter. To that end we shall examine each in turn, the better to appreciate its worth. In the first place, it has been said that a painter must above all have sound judgment. I am speak- 35/2I

ing of its usefulness (in the service of our art and the propagation of its honor), for he who has good judgment but, having judged well, lacks the power to put it into practice, would rather proclaim his impotence by doing nothing than dishonor himself in the attempt. I will give an example to make this clearer. Upon seeing a painting which he judges to be pleasing, and one that he himself cannot improve upon, knowing that he will not equal it 36 by imitation, one who has sound knowledge will take care




not to commit the improper error which is far too common these days. That is to say, he will do no more than his work in imitating such a picture, not wishing to sail under false colors (as so many now do), by adding some composition of their own in an attempt to deceive people into believing that they are their own inventions. That is absurd and is no more valued by those versed in art than a monkey which conceals its bare buttocks by crouching beneath the chimney-piece, but which reveals its bald- ness the moment it starts to climb. So it is with these people: as long as they lurk beneath the composition of great masters their lack of judgment is not revealed, as their nakedness would be if they started to clamber up using their own invention. Yet one with a sound understanding can avoid this by exercising his good judgment, knowing that this theft of honor serves nothing but the detriment of art. Someone, however, might ask whether it is not justified to borrow from other masters? I grant that this is permissible, yes, for otherwise it would be in direct contravention of the teaching of K. van Mander in his Grondt der edel vri/ schilder-konst, ch. i, verse 46, where it is permitted, with arguments.

But it is a very different matter to borrow something in order to make one's imperfection more perfect than it is to add something improper to a work that was already good, for the first redounds to the praise of the master from whom it was taken, while the second is a slipshod addition that merely detracts from that to which it is

37 added. Here, then, a distinction must be made between borrowing and adding. "Well-boiled turnips make good soup," the aforementioned spirit said. By this he meant that someone who wishes to borrow something should do so in such a subtle way that he incorporates it in his own work so sweetly and fluently that it escapes notice. In that way the gleaner will escape the fate that befell Aesop's jackdaw, which had taken feathers from all the beautiful birds and proudly strutted around in them in the belief that none of the birds would notice what had happened. But the poor jackdaw was mistaken, for all the birds knew their own plumage and took their feathers back, so that the thieving jackdaw, stripped of his finery, quietly slunk away, full of shame at being mocked by the other birds. As Michelangelo most fittingly said when a painter showed him a composition put together from this source and that: "If I were to return each part to the painter it belonged to, only an empty panel would remain." This unexpected reply forced the painter to leave hastily with-

out saying much himself, overcome as he was by shame. This abuse, worthy spirits, can be prevented by good judgment, as I have said.

Secondly, a reliable drawing hand is most necessary 37/23 for a painter, for it enables one to avoid the gross errors that one sees all too often now among a number of un- bridled brethren, who commit them daily. When wishing to do a face, one finds that either one eye will be high- er than the other or that the ears will be far too small, the nose too short or too long, the mouth crooked, and so on, or they place too large or too small a head upon a body, or make the arms or legs too short. In brief, many broken- 38 backed paintings see the light of day. Such an inept error could be prevented by a sure drawing hand, and most especially this (which one also sees done occasionally by those who are numbered among the ranks of the celebrated): namely when they wish to render a face laughing in a friendly fashion it comes out in a surly, weeping way due to the weak slackness to which they are still prone. The opposite is also found, namely when wishing to depict an inner sadness the features are so loosely drawn that they often approach an effect of gaity. In order to be sure in these and other matters one must have a sound judgment coupled with a sure and reliable hand.

Thirdly, the painter must have a talent for combining 38/1i6 things in a fluent and natural way. The truth of this can be seen from the following, namely that one who is fluent in composition will never experience difficulty with a complicated arrangement of objects, since his fertile spirit spills forth thousands of alternative inventions when he puts forth all of his thoughts and allows them to play around together. And if this fluency is accompanied by naturalness, and they go together as sisters, one will find that this imparts such a pleasantly attractive luster to art that this will be more readily grasped by wise masters than from a long explanation on my part. So this is also required of a painter, because it enables him to make the histories he represents more comprehensible to the lovers of art and to those who see them. 39

Then, in addition to this sweet-flowing naturalness, there is the fourth, a pleasingly decorative richness, 39/03 which imparts no less a gloss to art. How necessary it is for a painter to pay good heed to this can be detected from the stimulating affections it awakens in the breasts of art-lovers. One sees this daily in those who enrich their paintings and works with it, drawing the delighted eye of art-lovers eagerly to their works, with the result that the



244 PHILIPS ANGEL

paintings sell more readily. We should set great store by the depiction of decorative richness, because of its great advantage to us.

39/1I7 Fifthly, the proper combination of lights and shadows is one of the principal garlands that should adorn the brow of a good painter, on account of the spaciousness that it gives our art. For if the shadows are arranged next to each other in their proper place they have such a magi- cal effect and marvellous spaciousness that they make many things which are almost impossible to imitate with the brush and colors look almost real, for the force that objects have in reality makes them look three-dimensional, even if the shadows are dispersed and in a disorderly confusion. Because of the imperfection we retain within us, we are thus unable to achieve a good appearance in our works, nor such force as they manifest to us,

40 unless we can indeed bring that about by properly arranging both the shade and light together. It is the same as with a scattered band of soldiers and widely separated war heroes. They can have no hope of victory unless they come together and apply their concerted strength to achieve victory by force. So it is with our divided shadows, which cannot capture the eye of art-lovers while they are scattered. For it is with seemingly real force (as I call it) that we must overwhelm and seize the eye of the lovers of art, employing a united and good arrangement of the conjunction of the lights and shades. So it is not enough simply to say that it is necessary to arrange the shadows properly. It must be put into practice to the highest degree by all painters, whoever they may be.

Sixthly, many may find it strange that I insert the link 40/1i8 of the observation of real, natural things in the chain of

the art of painting, but I do not doubt that the explana- tions I will lay before you to clarify my reasons will satisfy you and will make you agree with me that they are serviceable. I have, art-loving spirits, often noted a very grave error committed both by (I say it with respect) the greatest and most revered masters and by the least. The simple reason for it is that they do not observe real, natural objects closely. When painting a carriage, especially, they will make it appear that the horses are galloping at

41 full speed while the wheels or spokes of the carriage are standing still. I have seen this done not only by painters of battles but of histories as well, when they depicted the unfortunate driver of the sun, Phaethon, the thieving rape of Prosperine, or the swift ride of the goddess Oreas in search of the thin hunger-god. I see the fault com-

mitted in all of these. Whereas if they had correctly and closely observed all the real, natural things, they could have avoided this error if they had paid more heed to natural movement, presenting us with the form as it truly appears. For whenever a cartwheel or a spinning-wheel is turned with great force one sees that, because of the rapid rotation, no spokes are really visible but only an uncertain shimmer. Although I have seen many pictures in which carriage wheels are depicted, I have never seen this imitated properly, but with each spoke drawn or painted in such a way that the carriage did not appear to move, so that there was no distinction between a stationary carriage and one that was supposedly in motion. Now many may judge this real aspect much more difficult to imitate than otherwise, but since we are imitators of life we must not avoid taking greater pains (if this brings us closer to the successful imitation of natural objects). Moreover, the pains are no greater, even if in practice it is a little more burdensome through unfamiliarity, but much lighter. As every spirit knows, something that is indistinct is easier to imitate than a thing that shows itself per- fectly. This is demonstrated by the fact that in the mo- tionless spokes of a carriage-wheel one must take care to 42 render the rounding, highlights and shadows, the kind of wood and many other things, which is not necessary with the uncertain shimmer. This is clearly seen with the painters of battles, when they make a great tumult behind the smoke of some pistols that have just been dis- charged. So, too, with the marine painters when they show, through the art, a squadron of ships attacking another one. They paint a great cloud of smoke which appears to have been caused by the firing of the heavy can- non, behind which smoke they seemingly want to portray a disorderly confusion, whereas meanwhile a ship is harder to paint in front of the confusion than all the seemingly great tumult beyond it. So it is, also, with reflections in the water that the landscape painters imitate. It is far easier, then, to avoid such unnatural errors by placing a turning wheel before one and imitating it properly.

See, then, the benefit of paying heed to the innate properties of natural objects. Not only will this mistake be eliminated, but many sweet-natured things will actually come to light in this way, such as those who apply themselves to painting guardrooms might observe: to include in their composition here a figure smoking tobacco, there another donning his equipment, and elsewhere people seated and throwing dice and playing cards.




Among them also a soldier lighting his fuze who, upon seeing it catch fire tries to make it take hold by swinging it round rapidly through the powerful friction of the air,

43 the better to ignite the fuze. Those who observe the rotation closely in order to depict it properly will discover that they must paint a fiery circle with the line of the fuze indistinct, except for the part close to the hand, where there is the least motion. I have never observed such naturalness, yet I believe that it would be as pleasing as it is natural to the minds of art-lovers, and would arouse a keener desire for art. Behold, there are more of such natural things that could be imitated which I now leave to the close observation of the rightly art-loving spirits and pass on to

43/I4 The seventh. To demonstrate that a well-versed understanding of perspective is necessary to the art of painting. For brevity's sake I will suggest the truth of this in seven or eight sentences. This art, then, to open our eyes through her rules, serves chiefly in this, that that which is below our line of sight must be observed as if it were seen from above, and that which is above it as being seen from below. Many believe this to be unimportant, saying that the same can be observed without any knowledge of perspective, which is untrue. For they show this themselves in their paintings, by constantly displaying the opposite. Nor does it serve only for this, but also for choosing the correct horizon in our pictures, such as landscapes, temples, houses, tables and so on, making our objects look as if they are standing there firmly. In the work of those unversed in this art one commonly finds that their objects appear to be falling over. In order

44 to avoid these mistakes, a painter most certainly needs a practiced understanding of this art.

44/03 Eighthly, there must also be a no less practiced knowledge of the histories in order to avoid the mistakes in depiction often made by the inexperienced through their careless neglect of reading. For example, I once saw a picture by quite an industrious painter, whose name I will not mention on account of this error. He wished to make a natural depiction of the widow of Zarephath who went with her son beyond the city gate to gather wood, where the prophet Elijah met her, of which you can read in the First Book of Kings, chapter 17. Because of the drought at the time, the story required a fiery, dry sky, parched and ashen fields, blackened trees that had shaken out all of their youthful green sap due to the great drought, which had lasted six months. But instead of taking ac-

count of these things he had painted the sky full of mists and clouds, and had even depicted a great storm. This he did by placing a corn-mill on the walls of the city with the sails rolled up at the ends of the four arms. In addition, he had furnished the meadows with numerous cattle, and the trees and the herbs on the dikes were green and pleasant, with the result that the land did not resemble an arid Egypt but a bounteous and blessed Canaan. He could easily have avoided this if he had but opened the Bible again and read the aforementioned chapter, taking heed of what the prophet said there. Then, if he had wished to depict the true nature of the history, he would 45 not have made this mistake. For the prophet says in the first verse: "As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years." And so it came about. Elijah was forced to flee by God's command to the brook Cherith, which stretches from Mount Ephraim into Jordan, there to be fed by the thieving ravens, slaking his thirst from the brook. Now, some believe that the brook Cherith dried up after six months, for it had not rained for so many days, so the painter cannot be excused by someone saying in his favor that perhaps the prophet came to the widow at the beginning of this impending misery, and that it was this that the painter wished to depict. The opposite is evident from the story already related, because Elijah had lived so long by the brook until it dried up. If the painter had sought to capture the essence of this story and had gained knowledge of it through reading he would undoubtedly have avoided that foolish impropri- ety and shown the tempestuous skies and the half-rolled sails otherwise. In the first place because it cannot be doubted that there were no clouds, and secondly it is also to be presumed that there was no wind, for one then reads in chapter i8, verse 45, that as they watched the heaven became black with clouds and wind, and even if it can be shown that there was wind let us see if it can benefit the painter. The mills had already undoubtedly done their work, for the widow said that she had just a 46 little meal and no corn at all, so this too cannot excuse the painter, because one must always apply one's thoughts to the principal question. The chief point about the subject of this history is to portray the lean and arid time in all parts of the picture, and had there indeed been some corn left and wind to grind it, that should have been omitted rather than shown, because the latter does not indicate want but rather abundance, and instead of ex-



246 PHILIPS ANGEL

pressing that he should have removed the sails from the mills and the cattle from the fields, all the better to depict the sorry famine. Some might say that the painter was merely availing himself of the customary freedom that is to some extent granted to painters in these matters, but the reply to that is that one may use the freedom permitted painters in this matter for the decoration of his work, but not misuse it to harm and distort the sense of the story. For example, in this history the painter was free in the action he made the prophet perform in order to express his pleading and yet rather peremptory wish. The more skilfully he depicts the action he must perform the more honor he garners. But if, because of the freedom he enjoys, he had depicted the prophet as fat, and as healthy as a Bacchus instead of thin and scrawny, as one can believe he truly was in those lean times, he would deserve more ridicule than honor, and that would be an abuse of the freedom. However, in order to avoid this, it is to be prized above all (noble spirits) that we learn to do

47 what past spirits have endeavored, which is followed by many masters of our own day, namely to occupy our- selves by diligently scouring the musty old books to acquire a knowledge of histories. If we want to depict the same in drawings, prints or paintings we must add to that knowledge our deep reflection, the better to combine it with the freedom granted us, without doing injury to the sense of the histories and to the greater adornment of our work, just as the ancients did and as many of today's celebrated spirits still do. Among them is the far- famed Rembrandt, the celebrated Jan Lievens, the much-admired Backer, the pleasing Bleecker, and many others whom I will pass over for the sake of brevity, more of whose deserved praise will be brought to light in due course. Of these I have seen a depiction of Samson's wedding feast by Rembrandt, which we read of in the Book of Judges, chapter I4, verse io. There one could see how that keen mind had reflected deeply on the reality of the seating (or rather, lying) of the guests at table. For the ancients used small beds, which they lay upon, and did not sit at table as we do, but reclined on one elbow, as is still customary in those countries under the Turks, which Rembrandt showed most distinctively. Now in order to distinguish between this wedding and other wedding feasts he placed Samson in the foreground with long hair, to show that no razor had ever touched his head. Secondly, Samson was putting his riddle to some of the guests, who were listening intently. This could be seen

from his hands, for he had clasped his left middle finger 48 between the middle finger and thumb of his right hand: an ordinary but very natural action when someone wishes to impart something by way of reasoning. And since not all the guests are concerned with one and the same matter, he showed others making merry, not listening to the riddle, but holding up a glass of wine and laughing. Others were kissing in short, it was a merry wedding feast. And although the actions were of the kind found in our modern feasts, he had still made sufficient distinction for it to be distinguished from our wedding celebrations. Behold, this fruit of true, natural depiction came from reading the story properly and examining it with lofty and profound reflection. I found something similarly special but natural in a small grisaille by Jan Lie- vens, in which he painted the sacrifice of the patriarch Abraham, which was very unusual yet natural. It ac- corded with the description given by Josephus, the Jewish historian, at the end of the i3th chapter of the first book, where he says that after God had stayed Abraham's hand they embraced one another (as if they had newly found each other) and kissed. That great mind depicted this very distinctively (albeit roughly), showing the burnt offering smoking while they embraced. You see, this license is justified, that one may read more than one book in order to arrive at a more varied knowledge of the histories. It might be one with a more lengthy description or explanation, the essence or most certain part of which the painter must imitate using his good judgment. For it is believable that Abraham embraced Isaac, even if 49 the Bible does not say so, for Isaac had been torn from him (by God's command) and, as he obediently honored God's request, was as good as lost. But after displaying sufficient obedience by freely offering up his son, the latter's restoration undoubtedly brought as much joy to his old father's heart as it had previously been troubled and mournful, that there can be no doubt that he took his son in his arms and pressed him to his breast when he saw him return as if from the dead. For Christ testifies, in the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke I5:20, that when his father saw him coming from afar he ran towards him and fell on his neck, seeing his son return who had been lost. Behold, Christ, wishing to express the love a father has for the son he has found again, shows us him embrac- ing the son. How truer this would have been of Abraham, who had his son restored to him, in whom the covenant came true that "all generations would be blessed in him,"




now that he found him out of danger. Such uncommon naturalness is therefore justified and most praiseworthy if done by a painter. This same spirit also demonstrated his marvelous power of reflection when he depicted the story of Bathsheba, about which we read in 2 Samuel i i, the text of which states in the fourth verse that David, having spied Bathsheba bathing from his roof, sent mes- sengers to bring her to him but gives no further detail, proceeding immediately to the main matter. So this far- famed spirit reflected well on the adornment of his work.

50 First he no doubt considered, after arranging the composition, that such a messenger would be an old woman well versed in the art of love, namely a procuress, as she is called, for which purpose such people are commonly used, who communicated the message not just in words but doubtless also brought a letter (as a token of greater authority), which she handed to Bathsheba. In it he again showed the sweet thoughts he had had about this, by having the reading of the letter arouse a sweet blush of honorable shame in her (even if only slightly). But above all in order to show that in addition to repeated reading he had reflected deeply on the depiction of his story, he made it known thus. First, he reflected that no matter how powerful a prince might be, no one need be prepared to be at his service in sin. Accordingly there must have been a hot fire of passion in Bathsheba when she was en- treated by the king. That is why he deprived the world- stirring child (whom he placed high up in the sky) of his usual arrows, letting the creature dispatch a fiery arrow at the woman instead of an iron arrowhead, which trailed a thin plume of smoke through which one saw his tender limbs sweetly flutter. In short, all these niceties flow from the fountain of the desire to read, from which charms I shall depart, so as not to reduce the pleasing and natural thoughts by my slight speech. However, I shall mention by the way that it is not only in the divine histories that true naturalness is omitted, but that this essential prac-

5I tice is also neglected in poetic and pagan histories. I have found such careless negligence in many works, among others in various paintings and prints that set out to depict the humble household of Philemon and Baucis, of which we read in Book 8 of Ovid's Metamorphoses. How poor they were and how diligently they tried to arrange everything properly in honor of Jupiter and Mercury, and discovering that their tripod (which they had rubbed clean as best they could with mint and other herbs in their trembling hands) had one leg shorter than the

others, placed a piece of broken crockery beneath it to prevent it rocking. Nowhere have I found this conscien- tious expedient depicted. I once saw nearly all the pov- erty imitated in one painting, with the exception of this support, which greatly surprised me, the more so in that the person who made it was well-versed in the Latin language in addition to his mother tongue. However, lest I end up by appearing to the unknowledgable to be search- ing like Momus only for the squeaking of shoes, I will leave this requirement, considering that I have now said enough on the matter.

Let us also examine why it is necessary for a painter to have some knowledge of mathematical principles, the 5I/23

utility of which I will indicate with a few words. The reason is that he would know properly how to judge the rays of sight and their properties, which is most necessary for a painter, but I will address this at greater length on another occasion. I avoid turning off onto this path since it would, of necessity, lead us into too large a field.

I intend to examine further the end to which a thor- 52 ough knowledge of anatomy serves us. A good know- 52/0I

ledge of this subject gives us the advantage of getting to know the muscles properly where they begin and where end, how they move and in moving change their appearance, where they are depressed and where they again protrude, how a body should be divided in order to have fine proportions. It teaches us the distinction between the figures of men and women, the difference and proportions between children and adults. Secondly, it teaches us how a straight perpendicular or plumb-line can be discovered in the figure of a person, and likewise an isosceles and an equilateral triangle, a regular quadri- lateral and a perfect circle, and many more useful matters besides. In order to acquire this knowledge, Michelange- lo and many excellent men dissected a number of bodies and split the muscles apart in order to gain full knowledge of the same. I often regret that the spirits are not given such freedom in this city as to have a free dissection place at their disposal for the propagation of this know- ledgeable science, which could benefit all good arts and the fencing school as well. But our art, which brings even greater fame to Leiden (a foster-city of all great spirits), is given no freedom for further expansion. Nevertheless, honorable spirits (in the hope that it will be provided one day, together with other amenities that serve us), for lack of it I refer you to the anatomies of Master Hen- drick and Master Cornelis van Haarlem, who have left



248 PHILIPS ANGEL

you flayed plaster casts, for want of anything else, from which you will gain some knowledge of the nude, which

53 is most serviceable to us. Likewise P.F. de Grebber, who is greatly experienced and excels many others, by way of the numerous examinations and marvelously close observations he has made in this matter, noting all the particulars, which he observes very keenly in all figures, how they alter through movement, which he achieved through much labor and after spending several of his best years on it, which knowledge he might easily have gained by anatomizing, employing that time instead on other matters in the service of art. Be that as it may, let this spirit serve as an example to us that we may follow him in this virtue, because those matters are most serviceable to us for the rare fruits we obtain from them to the benefit of our art.

Leaving the subject of anatomy, we shall demonstrate 53/1i6 that it is much more praiseworthy to follow nature rather

than the manner of other masters, for mimicking another master's manner is odious, while following nature is laudable. Let us then choose the laudable over the odious and follow life as closely as possible. But how shall we follow it? Shall we do so in such a way that all can see, because it is done in such and such a manner, that it is by this master or that? No, most assuredly not, for if that can be seen and recognized then that master is putting too much of himself into it. But if he manages to imitate life in such a way that people judge that it approaches real life without being able to detect in it the manner of the master who made it, such a spirit deserves praise and honor and shall be ranked above others. Away, then, with following the manner of other masters (about which Mi- chelangelo said most fittingly: "He who always follows

54 another will never surpass him"), who constantly add something of their own. Let us abandon this, great spirits, and choose that which brings the most praise, seeking nature, which is so abundant in its diversity that if one imitates it naturally it will be impossible to say who made the work. Unless, that is to say, someone imitates nature in such a way that, it being so natural and no less varied, it has to be deduced that it must have been done by such and such a master, because never before had they heard of anyone so closely approximating life as he does, then it is deduced not from his manner but from the uncommon resemblance it has to life. Let us then seek the greatest perfection, since it is open to us all, and as such a spirit is not yet found (art-loving spirits), be nonetheless in-

dustrious in endeavoring to approach this as closely as you can. And if you do manage to achieve it, people will rightly adorn you with a new crown of honor to encircle your laudable brow, since this is one of the most outstanding matters deserving praise, to be offered up on the altar of eternal memory. Having also inserted this link of natural imitation in the chain of the art of painting, let us through further explanation speedily forge the adjoining link and see what glory the flesh-toned mixture of colors can give our art. First, it banishes dull drabness, 54/25 secondly green unnaturalness, thirdly cruel stoniness, and instead of these despised, uncharacteristic features gives a naturalness that is highly regarded, namely a fleshy and skinlike color, which imparts a seemliness to our art in the eyes of the art-loving devotees. This virtue 55 being sufficiently weighty there is no need to expound on its necessity, nor to discuss it at any greater length. Remaining, then, within our confines, we will pass to the next necessity required of a painter, namely that he 55/o6 make a proper distinction between silk, velvet, wool and linen stuffs, for very rarely does one see velvet attire that appears to have the sheen of velvet, nor do they observe the creases and folds, nor take note of the difference between woollen and linen stuffs, nor the gloss that is found more in satin than in silk from Tours, and they also miss the thinness that should be imitated in fine linen and thin crepe. A painter worthy of praise should be able to render this variety in the most pleasing way for all eyes with his brushwork, distinguishing between harsh, rough cloth- iness and smooth, satiny evenness, in which the great, enlightening Duyster, more than anyone else, is most excellent and celebrated. How necessary this is for a painter I leave to the judgment of all right-minded spirits, and pass on to demonstrate the last that must be found in a painter, in addition to all the aforementioned essential virtues, namely a nimble, bold yet sweet-flowing brush, 55/25 because without it none of the preceding virtues can be practiced. For alas, what is a painting if one labors on it for months with a finical brush if there is no sweet receding to be found in it. In truth, nothing at all. And so, neatness without looseness does not amount to much, for the error of stiffness stifles the virtue (if virtue it can 56 be called) of neatness. If, then, someone chooses neatness for his study, let him practice that which is perseveringly observed by Gerrit Dou, for whom no praise is sufficient, namely a meticulous looseness that he guides with a sure and certain drawing hand. Anyone who adopts another




course will be more mocked than praised. Well then, he who cannot achieve such neatness would do well to try and master a loose, nimble, sweet-flowing brush, rather than smother in that stiff, tidy unnaturalness. Behold, worthy spirits, you have now heard the qualities a painter needs if he is to be numbered among the ranks of the most celebrated masters without being mocked. If, now,

56/I5 in addition to these painter's virtues, you seek to place yourselves in a good light, endeavor to do so in such a way that you are found to have the sweet-mouthed eloquence of Apelles, which was so sweet that Alexander took great delight in it, often coming to visit him in search of conversation. On one occasion King Alexander did not fittingly judge painting as he should have done, whereupon Apelles commanded the king to be silent, saying: "His Majesty would do much better to remain silent than to venture such an opinion, for the apprentices seated in the back shop are making fun of it." He was able to say this with such respectful and polite sweet-naturedness that the mighty Alexander did not take it amiss. See, a sweet tongue had so much effect on the heart of that great prince whereas, contrarily, a gruff curtness leads only to disadvantage and the ridicule of the one who displays such ill-humor and gains himself a

57 bad name with the whole world. Woe, then, the wolf who gets a bad name. The English have a saying: He who has a bad name is half hanged. In order to avoid this let us rather use the respectful, sweet language of Apelles in order to obtain a good name, for as the wise man says in Ecclesiastes, ch. 7: "A good name is better than precious ointment." To this end one must learn to bridle that flighty member, the tongue, and to tame it so that in our thoughts we thrice repeat that which the tongue wishes to utter before it does so, and consider whether the thing that occurs to it should be said at all at that time. For as King Solomon says in the Book of Proverbs, ch. 23, verse I I, "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver."

Strive, then, noble spirits, for this virtue, and in addition to this respectful sweetness of language seek to imitate the chastity of Michelangelo, and thus possess thy vessel in discipline and honor, which will make you re- spected among people and loved by your God, for both serve to confirm and establish your name for all time. If then, finally, you do your utmost, and take that pleasure and diligence in your work that Domenico Ghirlandaio had in his day, then I know nothing else to say to you

than that you may justly fit your head with that crown of honor, having earned it. To conclude, let us above all learn how to put time to good use and spend it well,

"That never a day may pass Without a line being drawn."

This was the common saying of the great and celebrated Apelles. Let it be not just our adage but our daily endeav- 58 or, for through work one gets fire from stone, and the gods sell all things for sweat. Endeavoring thus, we shall be offered on the altar of immortality, in the company of all the great spirits, and our names will be emblazoned to those who follow us for all eternity. Should someone then ask how it came about that we achieved more excellence than others, they will be directed to the saying of the philosopher Demosthenes, which will be written before us in gold letters, thus: "By having used more oil than wine," meaning that we have tied more nights to our days in order to advance our study than wasted them in drinking wine and indulging in scandalous carousing. If we observe this carefully, we will wrest free of the de- vouring maw of mortality through our art, and vanquish it, despite that breaker of all necks (death), and will flow- er unfadingly from age to age. I, and all, seek to do the best, and consider that enough has been said in these hours in praise of our art of painting. Take it, good-natured spirits, with hearts as grateful as my well-disposed and affectionate heart addressed it to you, and I will count myself most content.

I have spoken.



250 PHILIPS ANGEL

Commentary

AUTHOR' S DEDICATION Little is known aboutJohan Overbeeck, or van Overbeke (i617-80). His father, the rich merchant Matthiis van Overbeke, was the son of Antwerp emigres. Matthijs was born in Cologne and lived successively in Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Leiden, where he had a large house on Rapenburg, now nr. 65 (see J. G. Frederiks, "Mr. Aernout van Overbeke," De Navorscher 28 (N.S. II) (1878), pp. 238-46; E. Pelinck, "Huizen met torens en hun bewoners (Van Overbeke, Van der Nath, Focker)," Jaarboekje voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde van Leiden en Omstreken 47 (0955), pp. 97-io6, esp. pp. 99-I04; and Lunsingh Scheurleer et al., op. cit. (note 7), vol. 6 (I992), pp. 282-83, 301-II,

470-7I, 520). He collected paintings and Roman coins, and was on friendly terms with Barlaeus and P. C. Hooft (see H. W. van Tricht (ed.), De briefwisseling van Pieter Corneliszoon Hooft, 3 vols., Culemborg 1976-79, vol. 2 (I977), pp. 834, 837, and vol. 3, pp. i96-97; and Pelinck, op. cit.). In I628, Aernout van Buchell visited his collection, where he saw works by Rubens, Bailly, Coninxloo, Porcellis, van de Velde, Saverij and Sebastiaen Vrancx and, it seems, prints by Sebald Beham (Arnoldus Buche- lius, Res pictoriae, ed. G.J. Hoogewerff and J. Q van Regteren Altena, The Hague I928, pp. 63, 66).

Matthijs died in I638. The "art cabinet" that Angel could still have seen at 65 Rapenburg was auctioned in May I642 (Pelinck, op. cit., p. I03, note 5). Johan, who continued living in the house until I652, would have played little part in forming the collection.

The dedication contains an odd passage in which An- gel asks the reader to "pay less heed to the purity of the language than to the words that painters customarily use among themselves." The purification of Dutch was evidently still a topical issue. Unfortunately, though, An- gel's use of language yields little in the way of interesting technical terms; most of them were already known from Karel van Mander. I am thinking here of terms like "be- werpen" (13/19) "vercieren" (o6/oi, 39/03), "opmaken" (i8/2I) and "uitfiemelen" (55/29). On "welstand" and "houding" (39/22-29, 55/30) see my comments on 39/ 17. Nor are there any surprising uses of words of non- Dutch origin. Foreign words like "schets" (i6/20, 30, 30/27, 31/31), "ordineren" (34/20, 38/I9, 42/25), "or- donnantie" (36/07, 36/14, 37/I7, 50/02), "afkonterfeit-

ing" (14/22) and "uitkonterfeiten" (i6/20) are rare. The excusatio accordingly cuts little ice and seems more like a dutiful genuflection. Willem Christiaensz van der Boxe uses the words "schets" and "voorwerpsel" as technical terms in his dedication to the painters.

ODES The authors of the odes have not been identified. The anonymous first one is addressed to the author, who is said to sing as pleasingly as he paints. Perhaps this is intended literally, or does the singing refer to the encomium whose praises are being sung? Oddly enough, half of the third poem consists of a diatribe against the "brutish carousing" that was evidently common not only among painters but also among the kindred rhetoricians (see the report of our working group, B. Aikema et al., "Schilderen is een ambacht als een ander," Proef, June 1975, pp. 124-44, esp. pp. 138-39). Angel also raises this point, both in his proem and in his peroration.

Does the second ode, by F. L. B., contain an acid comment on this in its observation that the painters who are addressed are always "full of spirit"? It could also be taken, of course, as a straightforward reference to the apti- tude they have for their art.

PRINTER'S DEDICATION It really would be going too far to read the opening "Spiritful spirits" in a pejorative sense. Angel himself often speaks of his colleagues as "spirits" (see H. Miedema, De terminologie van Philips Angels Lof der schilder-konst (I642), Amsterdam I975, s.v. "geest" S3I(13), which is used 35 times). It is clear from van der Boxe's pleonastic form of address that the term was already so well-worn that it was no longer auto- matically interpreted in the sense of "spirit" as talent.

Willem Christiaensz is impressed by the display of Angel's intellectual baggage. The latter, in turn, had been very reluctant to hand over his address, hinting that he had great plans for a large work for which this was merely the design. Angel was always a man of great un- dertakings. One interesting remark is that the provisional work was nevertheless published in haste in order to forestall pirated editions. Perhaps Angel had suggested that speed was of the essence because the coast was anything but clear.

There are no known pirated editions of work printed by Willem. Nor was any more heard of Angel's great plan.



Praise ofpainting: commentary 25I

EXORDIUM

I/04: Seneca: Ad Lucilium epistulae morales, ii, xix, 6. I do not know the intermediate source from which this observation was undoubtedly taken.

I/I4: to write: Here Angel, too, states that he had been making notes about painting. It is to his credit, for Apelles, no less, had done the same.

It is hardly surprising that Angel never found the peace and quiet to turn those notes into a magnum opus during his artistic career in Leiden. He is documented there from i638 to his departure for the East Indies in i645. The fact that he found the time to write even this encomium is remarkable under the circumstances.

I1/2I: earnest request: There is no longer any need to go into the circumstances surrounding the feast of St Luke on 3I October i64I (see H. Miedema, "Kunstschilders, gilde en academie: over het probleem van de emancipatie van de kunstschilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden van de i6de en I7de eeuw," Oud Holland ioi (i987), pp. I-34, esp. pp. 12-13; and H. Postma and M. Blok, "Duidelijkheid over de Amsterdamse St. Lukasfeesten in i653 en I654," Oud Holland Io0 (I99I), pp. 32-38). The purpose was certainly to promote the appreciation of painting in order to convince the civic authorities that its practitioners should be protected by granting them guild rights.

Philip's Angel's erudition must have been so impres- sive that the painters of Leiden had invited him to deliver a promotional address.

2/05: a St Luke's gift: One occasionally hears of frater- nity feasts, even here, where there was no official frater- nity. Leiden used to have a Guild of St Luke (see G.J. Hoogewerif, De geschiedenis van de St. Lucasgilden in Ne- derland, Amsterdam I947; J. D. Bangs, Cornelis Enge- brechtsz. 's Leiden: studies in cultural history, Assen I979, p. 5), but it probably withered away in the wake of the Reformation. Nevertheless, I do get the impression that artists continued to celebrate the name-day of their traditional patron saint among themselves. It would otherwise be difficult to explain why events of this kind took place on St Luke's day (31 October).

2/o6: orgy ofeating: And that also helps explain why one constantly hears of drunken excess. All the official func-

tions of the old guild had disappeared, but I imagine that artists had refused to abandon the celebration of their saint's feast-day. The event, though, had become rather pointless and had consequently got out of hand. The desire for official protection of the profession must have been the occasion for its formal revival.

THE PRAISE OF PAINTING

2/I3: its antiquity: One important point of praise in the ars rhetorica is evidence of the subject's age. Angel's principal source is Karel van Mander's Schilder-boeck, and specifically the prologue to the lives of the classical painters. He does not copy van Mander literally; he follows the text closely but not slavishly. He emends van Man- der's "Caudales" to "Candaules" (2/3i), corrupts his "Coning van Lydien" to "Koninck der Lindinen" (2/

32), but corrects "van Bularchus" to "van Bularcho" (3/01.) And he has also done his homework. He looked up Bularchus in van Mander's biographies (Levens ant., fol. 64r), where Hygiaenon, Dinias and Charmas are listed as even earlier artists. The ears of Angel's en- forcedly sober colleagues must have been set flapping by the names he was reeling off, and they may not even have noticed that he misquotes van Mander. Pliny says that painting did not originate before the 83rd Olympiad, whereas Angel says that it was sculpture that only began then (2/25). He then goes on to "confirm" that sculpting originated at the beginning of the Olympiads, followed by a line of reasoning that is as long-winded as it is in- comprehensible. For van Mander's sources see Karel van Mander, Leven der oude antijcke doorluchtighe schilders, met de bronnen uitgegeven door H. Miedema, Am- sterdam 1977.

Not satisfied with van Mander's lengthy argument, Angel amplifies that text with his own opinions (7/27-8/ o8) and with a quotation from "our Dutch Homer," Ja- cob Cats (8/08-29); see J. Cats, Houwelick, dat is het gantsch beleyt des echten staets; afgedeylt in ses hooft-stu- cken, Middelburg (in de druckerye van Jan Pietersz van de Venne) I625, pt. 6: "Wedvwe, wesende vierde deel van het christelick hvys-wyf," pp. 6-7. But then the argument goes unwearyingly onward with the aid of van Mander, whom Angel acknowledges on several occasions (7/01, 12/1I8-19, 20128-30, 22/o8-I0, I8-I9), and whom he continues correcting here and there. One in- stance concerns Belus, the son of Nimrod, whom van Mander dated around 200 years after the Flood, which



252 PHILIPS ANGEL

Angel refines to 194 years (9/28). We are also surprised with a digression on Semiramis based on an unexpected source unknown to me (9/29-10/28). I think it very likely that Pero Mexia (Messias), the composer Sethus Calvi- sius (1556-i615) and Diodorus Siculus (9/29, Io/02, 05) were taken from an intermediate compilation.

I0/28-29: the first discoverer: A second argument for praise is the one "ab inventoribus." The identity of "the first discoverer" is again taken from van Mander (Levens ant., fol. 62r-v), but from now on the matter is dealt with briskly. Angel is guided by van Mander's marginal comments.

I3/08: And truth to tell: There now follows a third argument for praise, namely the usefulness of art (ex utili- tate). Here there are more surprises. Angel quotes the very recently published "States translation" of the Bible (i637) for Ezechiel 4:I (I3/I I-3i), and he relates an an- ecdote about Socrates and Alcibiades (03/31-14/15) from an intermediate source unknown to me. One example is taken from Jan de Brune's foreword to his translation of Franciscus Junius's De pictura veterum, an even more recent work (14/17-24), and two are again from van Mander. See F. Junius, De schilder-kunst der oude, Middelburg (for Zacharias Roman) i64I, ***4r, for the survivors of a shipwreck. Willem Christiaensz printed other works for Zacharias Roman. Did he print the Ju- nius translation as well? Also van Mander (Levens Ital., fol. 134v (I5/o8-25: Parmigianino), and ibid., fol. I03r-v (I 5/3 I- 6/3 I: Filippo Lippi).

i6/32: its dignity: A fourth argument, ex honore, the esteem of the great and the good. The subject of the protection of cities (i6/32-19/04) is taken, spelling and all, from van Mander (Grondt, prologue, fol. *3r45-*3voI; Levens ant. fol. 83ro3-33), and there is another quotation from Cats, with an argument that does not work in this topos (I9/05-20/14), Cats (see the commentary on 2/13), pt. 5: "Moeder, wesende derde deel van het christelick hvys-wyf," pp. 24-25. Angel returns from his digression with a series of astronomical sums paid by princes for ex- ceptional paintings (20/15-2I/03); Grondt, preface, fol. *4r3I-45; Levens ant., fols. 87r33-87voI (Timoma- chus); 7IV29-3I (Aristides), supplemented with a number of instructive examples (21/04-23/2I) again taken from van Mander, chiefly from his marginal annotations:

Levens ant., fols. 7grI4-39 (Campaspe); 72r22-32 (but with the additional information that it comes from Pliny, Natural history, XXXv, IO []77); Grondt i, 6 (plowing and plying the brush); Levens Nederl., fol. 208V21 -26 (Maxi- milian); Levens Ital., fols. I 14v47- I I 5rI2 (Leonardo); I2Ir44-46 (Raphael); I29v47- I3oroI (Polidoro da Ca- ravaggio); I3ir32-34 (Rosso); I35v37-40 (Francesco Monsignori); I53ro7, I54roi (Bandinelli); and I75ri8- 2I (Venice).

Angel adds one important case of patronage, that of Gerrit Dou by Pieter Spiering Silvercroon (23/09-2I),

the envoy of Queen Christina of Sweden, who paid Dou 500 guilders a year for first choice of his output; see W. Martin, Het leven en de werken van Gerrit Dou beschouwd in verband met het schildersleven van zijn tijd (diss.), Lei- den I90I, pp. 4I-46.

PARAGONE

23/22: the sculptors: Van Mander devoted little space to the discussion about the relative merits of the arts that was so popular in Italy (Levens Nederl., fol. 267v35 -46). As far as the comparison with sculpture is concerned, Angel based himself on de Brune's translation of Junius (see above, the commentary to I3/08), fols. ***4v3I- ***5V22.

26/I7: But the poets: It seems to me that this brief argument for the supremacy of painting over poetry is An- gel's own work. The reasoning, which is based on utpic- tura poesis, is rather confused.

27/04: greater profit: Here there is another long quotation from Jacob Cats, this time from his 's Werelds begin, midden, eynde, besloten in den Trov-ringh, Dordrecht (voor Matthias Havius gedrukt bij Hendrick van Esch) i637, pp. 662-703, esp. 689-693. It is a passage from the story about the beautiful Rhodope and her seven sui- tors. They all praise their own professions to the skies in an attempt to impress her. The arguments put forward by the painter are remarkable for the trite preferences he displays. Cats evidently wanted to sketch a picture of a puffed-up painter who reveals himself to be a typical pictor vulgarism I believe that Angel shows that he too is a vulgaris by not spotting the irony. The post-modern pos- sibility that he in turn treated Cats's text ironically in order to mislead his brethren in art is unacceptable, because irony would be out of place in an encomium on the pro-



Praise ofpainting: commentary 253

fession embraced by himself and his colleagues. Irony is nowhere to be found elsewhere in the address.

27/2I-22: garlands of roses [etc.]: Pers's translation of Ripa had not yet been published. Van Mander was to hand, and there roses are very unpropitious: the brevity of human life and of the passion of physical love. The laurel stands for victory, but the myrtle? It is not mentioned in van Mander, and in Ripa it mainly denotes Ve- nus, as does the rose, by the way.

The argument appears to hit the mark. Poetry produces nothing but transient sensuality. The painter, though, has nothing of lasting value to set against it. The rest of the painter's speech consists of a hymn to the earthly gain that his profession brings, and Cats does not rate that very highly. Did Angel notice that, and did he obstinately strip earthly profits of their irony and present them in a favorable light? On balance I think that the embarrassment of riches simply did not affect him.

Or was it Cats who was likewise immune?

28/1O: stock a larder: This is probably an argument that was heard quite frequently. Van Mander used it in his Grondt, again with the requisite irony. See K. van Man- der, Den grondt der edel vry schilder-const, ed. H. Miede- ma, 2 vols., Utrecht 1973, vol. I, ch. I, verse 47, and the commentary in vol. 2, pp. 390-91.

30/29: Apelles: From Pliny (Natural history, xxxv, 89) by way of van Mander (Levens ant., fols. 79v35-80ro7). The facts about Ovid have been rather muddled up, probably because of the title Epistulae ex Ponto. Tomis, Ovid's place of exile, lay on the shore of the Pontus Eu- xinus.

3I/I5: Institutiones, bk. 2, tit. i, section 34: The idea comes from van Mander (prologue to the Grondt, fol. 4r, commentary in vol. 2, pp. 332-33), but Angel took

the trouble to look up the precise place in the Institu- tiones.

3I1/2I: St George: The saying is cited in the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal, vol. 3, pt. 2, The Hague & Leiden i9i6, cols. 3212-13, from Cornelis van Yk, De Neder- landsche scheepsbouw-konst, Amsterdam i697, p. 26i, in the sense of being arbitrary. "I do not know what the French custom is for flying the flag, and believe that

there is no fixed rule but that, as the saying goes, the painter tells St George how to slay the dragon" ("Wat modus heden de Franschen in't Vlagge voeren houden, is my onbekent, en meen ook dat hier omtrent geen vas- ten Regel werd gehouden; maar dat, volgens 't spreek- woord, zoodanig de Schilder wil, St. Joris den Draak mag steeken").

In the print Color olivi by Philips Galle after Johannes Stradanus in the series Nova reperta, the master is painting the story of St George and the dragon. It is not clear whether there is a hidden allusion here. See J. A. Em- mens, "De uitvinding van de olieverf: een kunsthistorisch probleem in de zestiende eeuw," Mededelingen van het Nederlands Historisch Instituut te Rome 3 ' (I96I), pp. 233-45, esp. p. 236; E. de Jongh, "Inleiding," in E. de Jongh, et al., exhib. cat. Tot lering en vermaak, Amster- dam (Rijksmuseum) 1976, pp. I4-28, esp. pp. 25-26, reprinted in E. de Jongh, Kwesties van betekenis: thema en motief in de Nederlandse schilderkunst van de zeventiende eeuw, Leiden 1995, pp. 83-I03, esp. p. 98; and E. K. J. Reznicek, "De overlevering van een verloren ge- gaan schilderij van Jan van Eyck," in De arte et libris: Festschrift Erasmus, I934-I984, Amsterdam I984, pp. 387-93.

32/01: various authors: Angel consulted de Brune's translation of Junius and copied down the list of authors he found there (Junius, under commentary on I3/08, pp. 87-go). He added the names of Albrecht Durer, Apelles, Karel van Mander, Jan Orlers, Leonardo and Sebald Be- ham, and omitted Malchus Byzantius. It is striking that most of the names have been copied reasonably precisely from de Brune, but there are several slips of the pen that make one chuckle. It is not entirely surprising that Apelles' name is not once spelt correctly (Angel uses Ap- pelus, Apellus, Appelles), since it is consistently spelt with a double p in van Mander's lives of the classical painters up to and including fol. 8ov, at which point the typesetter was evidently alerted to his mistake. The error is noted in the errata but was not corrected in the second impression. Odder mistakes in the Lof are "Leonardi da Venci," and "Jan Blichus" for lamblichus. It is unlikely that the names were dictated to the typesetter; that would certainly have led to more disasters. Let us assume that these are a couple of the misprints for which the printer apologized in advance.

Angel's list made such an impression that it was used



254 PHILIPS ANGEL

in an emended form in the next issue of Junius's Schil- derkunst der oude, Middelburg i659, p. 382, which consists of sheets from the earlier impression with new pre- liminary matter and additions.

33/o6: perspective: The following list of names is unsur- prising, especially since the title vignette of the Lof was borrowed from Marolois's Perspectiva of i637 (see above, note I5).

THE QUALITIES OF A GOOD PAINTER The discussion about the importance of Angel's treatise has so far resulted in a model of two contrasting possibilities. Either Angel made a contribution, adequate or otherwise, to the development of art theory, or he had little interest in doing so and, deliberately or inadvertently, gives the reader a glimpse behind the scenes in the world of the Leidenfijnschilders. The discussion has now crys- tallized to the point where stock can be taken, which I shall attempt to do on each of the following points.

33/32: peacocks: This passage is an elaboration of van Mander's paragraph on the peacock as the symbol of "the dishonor of wealth" (Schilder-boeck, Wtbeeldinge, fol. 13iv). Here it is used as the image of unwarranted pretensions. The argument now takes an odd turn. The praise of painting could, following Vitruvius I, i, 3- i8, be argued by demonstrating just how much knowledge, scholarship and skill is needed to practice this noble art. Angel did not entirely succeed in this aim. The second half of his encomium repeatedly degenerates into ad- monitions that a good painter should display the qualities listed, the implication being that this was by no means always the case.

35/2I: soundjudgment: Junius discusses judgment in his very last chapter, but there it is the judgment of the art- lover, the connoisseur. With van Mander, the judgment of the professional painter concerns the distinction between beautiful and ugly.

Angel, too, deals with the painter's judgment. He il- lustrates it with one specific aspect: judging what you may and may not do when borrowing from another person's work. Van Mander himself had said that artists could borrow to their heart's content-"Well-boiled turnips make good soup," as he put it (Grondt, I, 46h). Angel, like many art historians since, missed the point

that van Mander was speaking solely of exercises for the very youngest apprentices.

The example he takes, which is really very homespun, contrasts with the elevated ideas on judgmentljudicium in the art theory of the day. This may be a glimpse behind the scenes, but it is difficult to read into it a well- considered point on the agenda of the Leiden fijnschilders.

37/23: a reliable drawing hand: Manual dexterity is a skill that underlies every facet of the art of painting. The apprentice training in a painter's studio would always manage to pick up a certain dexterity. Practicing by copying prints and drawings was not part of the daily routine in the studio but had to be done in the apprentice's spare time, unless the master was paid extra to fit it into the curriculum; see H. Miedema, "Over vakonder- wijs aan kunstschilders in de Nederlanden tot de zeventiende eeuw," Academies of art between Renaissance and Romanticism, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 5-6 (i986- 87), pp. 268-82.

Van Mander discusses the subject of practice in the introduction to his chapter on drawing ("teyckenen," the Italian disegno), where he deals with far more profound subjects (Grondt, II, 5-I3).

In addition to placing eyes and ears in the correct proportions, manual skill mainly involved the proper way of using chalk and brush. The aspects discussed by Angel are among the most basic principles, which nonetheless seem not to have been mastered by all of his colleagues. The argument is no contribution at all on the level of a painter like Gerrit Dou. Does it perhaps reflect something of the average standard of Leiden painters?

38/1i6: a talentfor combining things in afluent and natural way: The spirit must flow in order to produce many and varied ideas. The subject, in other words, is invention, which, in van Mander's Grondt, is also discussed in the same chapter as composition. The spirit, which is one element of inborn talent, must supply both a richly em- bellished scene and a natural composition. The result is a "pleasantly attractive luster" that cannot be expressed with words, a certain "je ne sais quoi." Although the explanation of the causal connection between invention and composition is not entirely logical, the point is relevant theoretically.




39/o3: a pleasingly decorative richness: This is an aspect of the previous point. It was not just variety and naturalness but also a richly filled composition that would catch the eye of the art-lover and make a work easier to sell. The emphasis on marketability was undoubtedly derived from daily experience. It is contrasted (unintentionally, in my view) with the contemporary theoretical idealiza- tion of the free practice of art.

39/17: the proper combination of lights and shadows: The key concept in this passage is that of spatial effect (welstandt). Paul Taylor's article on houding (P. Taylor, "The concept of houding in Dutch art theory," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 55 (I992), pp. 210-32) alerted me to the fact that welstandt and welstan- dicheyt, like the later houding, concern the three-dimensional articulation of space in a painting (see H. Miede- ma, "Karel van Mander: did he write art literature?", Si- miolus 22 (1993-94), pp. 58-64, esp. pp. 6o-6i). This is an important passage for the history of art theory, because it is the first time that the term welstandt is used in this sense. Its content is much vaguer in van Mander. Sluijter, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 47-50, gives examples link- ing it to Dou's work.

I cannot imagine where the comparison of shadows with soldiers came from, apart from Angel's own imagi- nation. Interestingly, the soldiers' ultimate task is to capture the prospective purchaser's interest.

40/1i8: the observation of real, natural things: This is the most frequently cited of all the points put forward by Angel. It is not impossible that it is his own idea.

He deals with the case of depicting a rotating wheel, the individual spokes of which must not be visible, as they would be if the wheel was still. He cites the examples of Phaethon's chariot, Pluto's chariot at the rape of Pro- serpine, and the chariot with which Ceres took an oread to Hunger. As Albert Blankert has pointed out, the only known depiction in Dutch painting of the Rape ofProser- pine that predates Angel's address is the one by Rem- brandt (fig. 5; Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. nr. 823; J. Bruyn et al., A corpus ofRembrandtpaintings, vol. I, The Hague 1982, pp. 365-72, nr. A39); see A. Blankert, "What is Dutch seventeenth-century genre painting? A definition and its limitations,"JahrbuchpreussischerKul- turbesitz, Sonderband 4 (Holldndische Genremalerei im I7. Jahrhundert: Symposium Berlin I984), pp. 9-32,

r

5 Rembrandt, The rape ofProserpine. Berlin, Staatliche Museen

esp. p. 20 and fig. 9). The story of the oread, a mountain nymph, is related

in Ovid, Metamorphoses V I I I, 780 - 822, esp. 794-98. She is called Oreas in the Dutch translation, which is the form used by Angel (see A. Geerebaert, Lijst van de ge- drukte Nederlandsche vertalingen der oude Grieksche en Latijnscheschrijvers, Ghent 1929, pp. 138-39). In 51/05 the book by Ovid is referred to as Transfi, upon which see my edition of the Grondt, cited under 28/io, p. 643.

It is not yet clear to me how important Angel's remarks were, theoretically or practically. J. B. Bedaux, "Velazquez's Fable ofArachne (Las Hilanderas): a con- tinuing story," Simiolus 21 (1992), pp. 296-305, attaches great importance to them, and points to vague similari- ties between Angel's text and van Mander and Junius. One of Angel's disarming remarks is that it is easier to paint the blurred effect of moving spokes than each one individually, just as the gunsmoke in paintings of battles on land and sea conveniently conceals many details, re- lieving the artist of the need to paint them. Angel also draws attention to the advantages of taking a good look around when visiting a guardroom in order to record all sorts of interesting details that can make a scene look



256 PHILIPS ANGEL

more natural-once again, of course, to entice the potential customer.

Unlike van Mander, who implicitly but clearly distin- guishes the small-figured genre pieces by painters like David Vinckboons from the "beautiful, lofty" figure paintings by Goltzius and Cornelis Cornelisz, Angel is not bothered by a hierarchy of exalted and less exalted scenes. Blankert, in the article cited above, seizes on this passage as one of the first known written remarks on contemporary subjects in Dutch seventeenth-century painting.

Emmens, Rembrandt, cit. (note 2), regarded the lack of a hierarchical taxonomy of subjects as pre-Classicist. There is a suggestion, here and there, that it was a pro- grammatic expression of a northern Netherlandish preference for small subjects. Writers continued to regard the exalted mode as the highest goal until well into the eighteenth century. It is unlikely that Angel was contest- ing that view in this passage, once again because it would have defeated the object of his address. The subdivision into modes simply escaped his notice. What we are being given here is a glimpse behind the scenes in an everyday kitchen of the kind not reflected in gourmet cook-books.

43/I4: a well-versed understanding of perspective: The subject is undoubtedly worth mentioning, but it is dealt with on the same inane level as the "reliable drawing hand," namely by criticizing the most primitive shortcomings. It certainly does not serve as a plea for painting.

44/03: knowledge of the histories: The guardrooms mentioned above served to illustrate an aspect that had nothing to do with the content of the subject depicted. Now that he is dealing with subject matter, Angel discusses several exalted "histories" at great length with pertinent observations which, perhaps not accidentally, display his familiarity with the Bible as well as demonstrating how valuable it was for a painter to be well-read.

All the examples are of weighty history paintings, of which only the Rembrandt has survived. It is Samson posing the riddle to the wedding guests (Judges I4:10-I2) of i638 (fig. 6) in Dresden, inv. nr. 1722-I728, A I144

(see J. Bruyn et al., A corpus of Rembrandt paintings, vol. 3, Dordrecht I 989, nr. A I 23). The anonymous Widow of Zarephath and the Jan Lievens grisaille with the Sacrifice of Abraham are no longer known, although there is a polychrome canvas by Lievens that closely matches An-

gel's description (fig. 7); see H. Schneider and R. E. 0. Ekkart, Jan Lievens: sein Leben und seine Werke, Amster- dam I973, P. 319.

In addition to the famous former residents of Leiden, Angel mentionsJacob Backer and Gerrit Bleecker. Angel never, of course, propagates a preference for subjects in a low mode, but small-figured genre scenes were quite ob- viously more common than lofty histories in daily practice.

5I/23: some knowledge of mathematical principles: The difference with perspective is not made clear. I assume that this point is mentioned solely in order to amplify the subject, and not because Angel had any understanding of the "rays of sight." The argument adds nothing, either theoretically or practically.

52/1OI: a thorough knowledge of anatomy: Angel knows his van Mander, but cites from passages that have more to do with posture than anatomy (Grondt, III, 14-15).

The study of classical sculpture and the live model is completely overlooked. Anatomy is interpreted literally as the dissection of corpses for which Leiden painters had little need, and if they did they could always go to the Theatrum Anatomicum of the Leiden Academy. The argument strikes me as bombast, but it is true that some painters believed that they could learn something from watching a dissection. This emerges from a letter from the Leiden anatomist Pieter Pauw to Jan Orlers of I7 February I 595: "Tomorrow (Saturday) I will commence the second anatomy. Would you kindly inform Goltzius or someone else" ("Morghen [wesende Zaterdagh] be- ghinne ik de tweede anatomie. Ghelieft u.e. tzelfde Golt- zium ofte iemant anders te verwittigen"; see J. Prinsen JLzn., "Eenige brieven van professor Pieter Pauw aan Orlers," OudHolland23 (1905), pp. i67-74, esp. p. I73).

Angel, incidentally, speaks of "the anatomies of Mas- ter Hendrick and Master Cornelis van Haarlem." Partly in the light of the above, the former may well be a reference to Hendrick Goltzius. Cornelis Cornelisz did indeed leave a large number of anatomical models on his death, as shown by the inventory drawn up by his son- in-law Pieter Jansz. Baggijn (see A. Bredius, Kuinstler- Inventare, 7 vols., The Hague I9I5-21, vol. 7 (Nach- trage), pp. 77-86; Haarlem City Archives, Enschede ii 2339 blg). Goltzius, like Abraham Bloemaert, had plaster casts of Italian sculptures; see Buchelius, cit. under




6 Rembrandt, Samson posing the riddle to the wedding guests, i638. Dresden, Gemaldegalerie

"Author's dedication," pp. 93-94; and E. K.J. Reznicek, Die Zeichnungen von Hendrick GoltZius, 2 vols., Utrecht 196i, vol. i, pp. 327, 449.

Nothing is known about any special involvement in anatomical matters by Pieter Fransz. de Grebber.

53i/6: it is much more praiseworthy to follow nature rather than the manner of other masters: The basis for this passage was common currency at the time. The craft certainly had to be learned by imitating the master's method in order to gain the requisite skills, but at the same time artists were warned not to rely solely on imitating the maniera, and that the intrinsic, natural qualities of the subject could only be captured by constantly observing "'life."

Angel embroiders on this by saying not only that it should be impossible to identify the artist's master from a painting, but that it should look so natural that even the artist could not be named. This statement has set many art-historical pens in motion, but the fact is that no one apart from Angel ever made this assertion, and it actually contradicts what he says on 55125. I suspect that the idea that one should not, so to speak, be able to identify the artist from the manner of painting was a topic of conver- 7 Jan Lievens, The sacrifice ofAbraham. Braunschweig,

Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum



258

sation in Leiden that had trickled down from theoretical notions, and that Angel has here exaggerated it and turned it into an absolute.

54/25: the flesh-toned mixture of colors: The true subject of Angel's address, the encomium, has been forgotten. With van Mander in hand (Grondt, VII, 5i and XII, 29-

41; Levens Nederl. fol. 298v17-22), he now broaches a subject that was evidently still of current interest in studio practice. The shortcomings listed by van Mander were "stony greyness" ("steenachtige graeuwicheyt") and "pale, fishlike, cold color" ("bleecke, vischachtighe, coudtachtighe verwe"). Angel paraphrases and adds, doubtless from practical experience, "green unnaturalness." Green, which was rooted in Byzantine traditions, must have been widely used as a base color, its purpose being to shine through the flesh tones in shaded passages.

551o6: a proper distinction between... stuffs: In addition to its relevance in chapter io of the Grondt, this must also have been of practical importance to painters. The Lei- den fijnschilders, certainly, paid a great deal of attention to it.

55/25: a nimble, bold yet sweet-flowing brush: Of all the points covered by Angel, this is the one that most convin- cingly ties in with the style of the Leidenfijnschilders; see Sluijter, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 56-71.

There are three complex questions involved here. There is the recommendation of a "sweet-flowing brush," which produces a "sweet receding." Both ex- pressions refer to the gradual sense of recession into

depth (see the comment on 39/17 above). There are two contrasting ways of achieving this: the "neat," which has the disadvantage of rapidly degenerating into "stiffness" and "unnaturalness" because the artist is just plodding away and being over-pernickety, and there is the "nimble" and "bold" that leads to "looseness." This contrast, of course, had already been clearly defined by van Man- der, but Angel finds in Dou the ideal combination of a "meticulous looseness," a tidy yet unforced way of painting, where the reliable drawing hand of 37/23 reap- pears yet again.

56/I5: painter's virtues: Angel has finally lost sight of the encomium altogether and has replaced it with an adhor- tatio directed at his audience. The sweet eloquence of Apelles, the chaste lifestyle of Michelangelo and Ghir- landaio's zest for work are invoked in order to exhort the painters to live virtuously.

Here Angel demonstrates that he has done a lot of leaf- ing through van Mander. Ghirlandaio's zeal is used to refer to Apelles' "Nulla dies sine linea" and the "plus olei quam vini" that was such a popular saying at this time (see P. Hecht, exhib. cat. De Hollandsefijnschilders van Gerard Dou tot Adriaen van der Werff; Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum), Maarssen & The Hague i989, p. 63, note 5). Those principles, finally, are contrasted yet again with "drinking wine and indulging in scandalous carousing," with no one needing to feel that they were being singled out. Nevertheless, the art theory of the Leiden artists did evolve rather more in inns than in studios.

AMSTERDAM



Documents

Ten Essays for a Friend: E. de Jongh 65 || Praise of Painting