In 1589, the two Van Nieulandt brothers, Guilliam II and Adriaen II, both of whom would become respected painters, emigrated as toddlers with their parents from Antwerp to Amsterdam. Adriaen would make his career in Amsterdam, but Guilliam returned as an adult to Antwerp and worked there during the main part of his active life. It is my aim to explore questions posed by the project Artistic Exchange and Cultural Transmission in the Low Countries, 1572–1672 on the level of the careers of those two brothers working on both sides of the border, the one in Antwerp, the other in Amsterdam – questions such as, did transmission and exchange between the Southern Netherlands and the Republic stimulate new developments and innovations? In what respect were similarities and differences in the visual arts in the Southern Netherlands and the Republic determined by different contexts?2 Thus, I will examine whether the career choices of the two brothers, and the results of those choices (as far as these can be gauged from their work and professional positions), were determined by cultural differences between Amsterdam and Antwerp, and/or defined by the shared cultural heritage of the two artistic hubs of the time.
The career of the painter and playwright Guilliam van Nieulandt II in particular proved to be an interesting case in the light of these questions. Among art historians he has always been known as Willem van Nieulandt II.3 By historians of Dutch literature, however, he is consistently – and rightly – called Guilliam van Nieuwelandt, which has had the effect that both historians of literature and art historians do not always seem to be aware that the painter and the playwright are one and the same person.4 Related to this is another remarkable phenomenon: as a painter, Willem van Nieulandt II has always been claimed as a Dutch artist – at the RKD all his work is filed under artists from the Northern Netherlands – though almost all his paintings and prints were made in Antwerp, where he lived and worked during 23 years out of his approximately 30-year career.5 Bob Haak, in his renowned survey of Dutch seventeenth-century art, did not even mention that Willem van Nieulandt worked in Antwerp, while Hans Vlieghe, in his book on Flemish art and architecture wrote that after having been a pupil of Paul Bril in Rome, ‘he lived for a short time in Antwerp, before he settled back in Amsterdam.’6 In contrast, as a poet and playwright – the most successful author of tragedies in Antwerp – Guilliam van Nieuwelandt is always claimed for the Southern Netherlands and discussed in the context of Flemish literature.7
The bare biographical facts8
Father Adriaen van Nieulandt I left Antwerp with his family in 1589.9 He moved to Amsterdam where he took his oath for citizenship, his poorterseed, in 1594, which indicates that he was not poor. This is corroborated by the fact that in 1602 Adriaen invested 300 guilders in the VOC.10 He was recorded as cramer (salesman) specializing in selling quills.11 His eldest son, Guilliam II, was five years old at the time of their move to Amsterdam, while Adriaen II, the second son, was only two years old. The third, Jacob, was born in Amsterdam in 1593 or 1594, and all three of them would become painters. Adriaen I and his family settled in the Pijlsteeg, together with his younger brother Joris, who had moved at the same time; the latter was a cobbler but was also recorded later as merchant of quills (pennevercoper).12 Father Adriaen I had an elder brother Guilliam I, who had gone to Rome, where he worked as a painter and draughtsman; he remained there for the rest of his life and died in Rome in 1626.13
It was to uncle Guilliam I in Rome that our Guilliam II went when he was only 16 or 17 years old, after one or two years of apprenticeship in Amsterdam with Jacques Savery, which had started in 1599.14 For about three years, 1601–1604, Guilliam II lived in Rome with his uncle, in the same house where Abraham Janssens, who was ten years older than Guilliam II, was also living.15 Guilliam II learned his art with his uncle, but he was also for at least one year a disciple of Paul Bril, which was crucial for the rest of his career as a painter, draughtsman and etcher.16 In other words, while in Rome, he was surrounded by artists from Antwerp; we also know, for example, that his uncle collaborated in 1601 with Wenzel Cobergher, Jacob Franckaert and Paul Bril.17 Guilliam II left Rome in 1604 and was back in Amsterdam in the same year.18 He remained in Amsterdam for only two years, moving to Antwerp in 1606, when he was 22 years old and had just married Anna Hustaert (in February 1606), who, like Guilliam himself, had been born in Antwerp but grew up in Amsterdam.19 It was at Anna Hustaert’s request that on 11 April 1606 a merchant, who had known Guilliam van Nieulandt II while in Rome, attested that her husband Guilliam had lived for about three years in Rome and behaved there as a devout Roman Catholic according to the rules of the Holy Church. This man also stated that Guilliam had resided with his uncle and had learned and practiced his art there, and that now, after two years in Amsterdam, he wants to settle with his wife in Antwerp as a Catholic.20 Two days later Guilliam van Nieulandt II received the desired attestation from the Antwerp government.21 In that same year, 1606, he became a member of the Antwerp St. Luke’s guild and immediately took on a pupil.22
Guilliam II not only made a career as a painter in Antwerp, he also became a celebrated author of tragedies in that city, producing a steady stream of very successful dramas.23 In the same year, however, that his last play was (probably) performed in Antwerp, 1629, Guilliam and his wife moved back to Amsterdam.24 In that city he remained active as a painter for another six years.25 Guilliam II died in Amsterdam in 1635.26 Thus, we see him migrating from Antwerp to Amsterdam, Amsterdam to Rome, from Rome back to Amsterdam, from Amsterdam to Antwerp, and finally to Amsterdam again; but he made his career in Antwerp. Remarkably, up till now, no art historian nor any historian of literature ever thought about the question of why Guilliam II left in 1606 to settle in Antwerp, and why he returned to Amsterdam in 1629. In the following paragraphs these questions will be of prime importance.
In contrast, his younger brother by three years, Adriaen II, remained in Amsterdam throughout his long career.27 He was a pupil of the two most internationally-oriented painters in Amsterdam, first Pieter Isaacsz (probably in the period between c. 1602 and 1607) and subsequently with Frans Badens in 1607.28 Adriaen II married in 1609 a woman born in Amsterdam also of Antwerp parents.29 He became a spider in the web of the Amsterdam painters’ community.30 He also was active as an art dealer, appraiser and real estate agent.31 He must have become quite prosperous, which might have been due to his dealings as real estate agent (in 1628 he became officially registered as such), especially in the late 1620s and 1630s, the time of the great building boom in Amsterdam.32 From that period we know many fewer dated paintings than before and after; his work in the housing business might have been time-consuming and probably more profitable for him. However, he remained active as a painter throughout a career that spanned more than half a century. When he was already over 50 years old, in the 1640s and the first half of the 1650s, he considerably increased his production, up to his death in 1658, at the age of 71.33
The youngest brother, Jacob, was also a painter, but we know hardly any works by him.34 He probably was mainly active as an art dealer, and we know from a few documents that he bought and sold paintings from and to Antwerp.35 As of 1627 he was also as an innkeeper, taking over the ’t Hof van Hollant, the well-known inn belonging to Barend van Someren, who was also an artist and art dealer and an Antwerp native of an older generation.36 Jacob was the first to die, in 1633.
Both Guilliam II and Adriaen II had the honour of being portrayed in the print series of the Antwerp engraver and publisher Johannes Meyssens, which appeared in 1649 (figs. 1 and 2).37 Guilliam’s portrait is one of the few that was drawn and engraved by Meyssens himself, which must have happened before Guilliam left Antwerp in 1629.38 Under the portrait of Adriaen by the Antwerp engraver Coenraet Waumans (after a lost painting by Cornelis Jonson van Ceulen), Adriaen’s age is given as 59, which means that this print was made around 1646. It seems likely that Meyssens received the amazingly precise information for the texts beneath both prints from Adriaen himself; they must have been in touch.39 Because they had their portraits in Meyssens’ series, they both received in Cornelis de Bie’s Gulden Cabinet of 1661 a full page with their portrait and a full page with a laudatory poem.40 Houbraken would take over the facts described beneath the prints, which contain, for example, information about their teachers, but he managed to muddle these considerably.41 None of the seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century biographers – Meyssens, De Bie, Houbraken – seem to consider moving from Antwerp to Amsterdam or Amsterdam to Antwerp as something upon which to comment. Both are called by De Bie ‘schilder van Antwerpen’; Adriaen too, because he was born there. But De Bie did not feel the need to claim them for the South, nor Houbraken much later, for the North, nor did they emphasize that one of the brothers made his career in the Southern Netherlands and the other in the Republic. They were just Netherlandish painters.
Johannes Meyssens, Portrait of Guilliam van Nieulandt II, (from the series Images de divers hommes, published by Johannes Meyssens in1649), engraving15.3×11.9cm, Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet.
Coenraet Waumans after Cornelis Jonson van Ceulen, Portrait of Adriaen van Nieulandt II, (from the series Images de divers hommes, published by Johannes Meyssens in1649), engraving15.3×11.9cm, London, British Museum.
A close knit family in Antwerp, Amsterdam and Rome
Religious reasons would have played a decisive role for Adriaen the Elder’s decision to move to Amsterdam in 1589. In that year, he had asked the Antwerp government for an attestation that he was a burgher of good report.42 The year that he left was the ultimate time limit for those of Protestant conviction to convert to Catholicism or to leave Antwerp. (Adriaen I had married before 1584 in the Reformed congregation,43 and Adriaen II certainly was a Protestant too.)44 Of Guilliam II, however, it was, as we have seen, officially testified that he had returned to Roman Catholicism during his Roman sojourn, though there might be some doubts about the sincerity of his conversion because the bans of his intended marriage in Amsterdam, only two months before this attestation in Antwerp, had been published in the Reformed Church. Uncle Guilliam I had remained a Roman Catholic, as had the latter’s (and Adriaen the Elder’s) mother and three sisters who had stayed behind in Antwerp. When grandmother died in 1608, she lived in a house on the Suikerrui that uncle Guilliam I had bought for his mother in 1606 (‘comprata col frutto della sua arte’).45 Grandmother’s inheritance was neatly divided between her children and grandchildren who were living in Antwerp, Amsterdam and Rome.46 From other testaments of family members, for example that of uncle Guilliam I when he died in Rome in 1626, it appears that they all remained in contact and on good terms, and that differences in religious convictions or place of residence were not an issue.47 We can also be certain that the brothers Guilliam II and Adriaen II kept in touch and travelled now and then to Antwerp or Amsterdam. There is one painting by Adriaen signed and dated ‘1612 Antwerp’, and there exists a portrait, dated 1613, that probably represents Adriaen and may have been painted by Guilliam.48 Nine years later, in 1622 Guilliam’s wife, Anna Hustaert, stood witness at the (reformed) baptism of a daughter of Adriaen in Amsterdam.49
Why did Guilliam van Nieulandt II move to Antwerp?
What might have been Guilliam’s motives to move to Antwerp in 1606? In the course of the first decade the economic situation in Antwerp improved considerably and the climate was relatively tolerant because the government feared that even more people, Catholics among them, would leave the city if the rules were too severe.50 When a cease-fire was declared in 1607 quite a few immigrants from the Southern Netherlands moved back to Antwerp; but in 1606 the war was still fierce, though precisely in that year hopes that Antwerp would be recaptured seem to have revived among many immigrants.51 However, not many Antwerp merchant-immigrants in Amsterdam appear to have returned in the period before the Twelve Year’s Truce: Gelderblom traced only eight merchants returning from Amsterdam to Antwerp and receiving poorterschap there between 1590 and 1609.52 But for merchants the economic advantage in Amsterdam must have weighed much heavier than for a painter who, at least ostensibly, had become a Roman Catholic again and had family there,53 and for whom the prospects in Antwerp might have looked more attractive than in Amsterdam, also from an economic perspective. In the first decade of the century there was still remarkably little going on in the field of painting in Amsterdam. The considerable increase in the production by artists working in that city started only in the course of the 1610s. Though quite a number of men calling themselves ‘painter’ were living in town, many of them from the Southern Netherlands, the latter especially were, as far as we know, mostly active as art dealers – probably out of necessity, because the demand for new paintings still seems to have been rather low.54 From 1607 onwards, the year after Guilliam II had left, cheap paintings imported from Antwerp must have flooded the Amsterdam art market. Judging from the reactions of members of the St. Luke’s guild, this obviously frightened the local painters, but it did not have the detrimental effects they had feared. On the contrary, it appears to have been a boost for the local art market, which grew rapidly during the following period of the Twelve Years’ Truce.55 It was the somewhat younger ones of the immigrant children, among them Guilliam’s younger brother Adriaen II, who profited from this.
Moreover, Guilliam II might also have figured that for the speciality that he had developed in Rome, which he would produce during his whole career – landscapes with recognizable Roman ruins, often with a historia (figs. 3 and 4), but just as frequently only with shepherds and travellers (fig. 8) – there would be more customers in Antwerp. Many Antwerp merchants had strong ties with, and memories of Rome, not to speak of the large number of prelates in that city who had visited Rome. Moreover, landscapes with Roman ruins would have already been familiar in Antwerp through the works of Guilliam’s master Paul Bril, whose paintings are found in many Antwerp inventories.56 Thus, there might have been a number of good reasons for Guilliam to decide to move to Antwerp.
Guilliam van NieulandtII, The departure of the Israelites from Egypt in a landscape with Roman ruins (including the Arch of Septimus Severus, the Temple of Castor and Pollux and the ‘Opus Praxiteles’), panel69×110cm, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.
Guilliam van NieulandtII, Laban looking for the terafim in a landscape with Roman Ruins (including the Igel Monument, the Colosseum, and the Roman She-Wolf with Romulus and Remus), 1628, panel49.3×76cm, Budapest, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum.
However, it is probable that he did not lose sight of the Amsterdam market. In his Antwerp years Guilliam II proved to be a prolific printmaker and produced several series of etchings of Roman ruins and Italian landscapes that were published in Antwerp under his own supervision. Some of them were after drawings of Matthijs Bril or Paul Bril, a few after Sebastiaen Vrancx, others after his own drawings. Many of them varied upon compositions of Paul Bril (fig. 5), often showing motifs that Guilliam used in his paintings, as well (fig. 4).57 Of the largest series, consisting of 20 small etchings of Roman ruins, copies were made in 1618 by Claes Jansz Visscher in Amsterdam (not in reverse and almost three centimetres wider) (fig. 6).58 We do not know whether Guilliam himself had a hand in Visscher’s marketing of his inventions, but it might have been his brother Adriaen – whose inventions of eight landscapes etched by Pieter Nolpe were also published by Claes Jansz Visscher – who instigated this.59 In any case, it shows that Visscher, a keen businessman, was confident that there was interest for these prints in Amsterdam. It certainly contributed to the spreading of Guilliam’s name, which figured prominently on the title page. Jan van de Velde also copied two of Guilliam’s etchings, while two series, each of four prints, were published by Cornelis Danckert (but probably after Guilliam had returned to Amsterdam).60 We also find a few of his paintings recorded in Amsterdam inventories.61
Guilliam van NieulandtII, Landscape with the Flight into Egypt with Roman ruins (partly after Paul Bril, from a series of four plates), etching23.2×32.3cm, Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet.
Copy after Guilliam van NieulandtII, published by Claes Janszn Visscher,1618, Landscape with the Temple of Minerva Medica (from a series of26plates), etching9.9×15.7cm.
A playwright in Antwerp
As a playwright, Guilliam van Nieulandt was an active force behind the revival of the Antwerp chambers of rhetoric.62 The Olyftack started its performances again in 1615 with Van Nieulandt’s tragedies Saul and Livia, and it deteriorated as soon as he left the chamber in 1621. In 1623/24 we find him with the Violieren and from that time onwards that chamber became much more active; Van Nieulandt’s Aegyptica was performed there with great success in 1624.63 Guilliam introduced in Antwerp the classical Senecan type of tragedies – dramas that followed the example of Seneca in particular and were imbued with neo-stoic moralism. Such tragedies were full of horror, gruesome murders and bloodcurdling mutilations, the protagonists undergoing violent, continually alternating emotions, performed with a lot of spectacle.64 There was a lively interest in Seneca’s philosophy and tragedies in the Southern Netherlands, and his Latin dramas were printed by Plantin in Antwerp in 1576 and again in 1593–94 with critical comments, while Lipsius’ edition of all his works was published in 1605 by Johannes Moretus.65 It was in Amsterdam, however, that the Dutch language ‘Senecan’ tragedies had already gained popularity with such dramas as Pieter Cornelisz Hooft’s Achilles and Polyxena and Theseus and Ariadne, both from the first years of the century; somewhat later, from 1611, Gerbrand Adriaenszn Bredero’s Rodd’rick en Alphonsus; and the most famous Hooft’s Geraerdt van Velsen of 1613.66 As Keersmaekers pointed out, Guilliam certainly knew the text of the latter, but the examples of the French poet and playwright Robert Garnier (Garnier had been of great importance for Hooft too) and Seneca himself were in particular decisive for him.67 Guilliam himself would write in 1624 that already at a young age he was drawn to poetry, and that he came to it ‘not through the path of any study, but through his innate talent.’68
One wonders about the two years in Amsterdam between 1604 and 1606, when Hooft’s first plays had already been performed and which must have been precisely the time that his brother Adriaen was together with Gerbrand Adriaenszn Bredero a pupil in the studio of Pieter Isaacsz. Would these young men, apart from talking about painting, also have discussed poetry and the tragedies of Seneca and Hooft? In 1611, a few years earlier than Guillliam, Bredero’s first innovative play, the tragedy Rodd’rick and Alphonsus, was performed. Guilliam’s first tragedies Livia and Saul (Livia received ecclesiastical approval in March 1614, and we know that they were both staged at the Olyftack in 1615) were immediately a hit in Antwerp and also the next ones were a great success;69 Porteman even called Guilliam the ‘star author’ of the Antwerp stage.70 The ones that followed were Nero in 1618, Aegyptica in 1624, in 1625 Sophonisba, 1628 Salomon, and finally Ierusalems Verwoestingh in 1629.71
All Guilliam’s tragedies were printed, which remained exceptional in Antwerp, but had become usual in Amsterdam.72 Most of the booklets containing Guilliam’s tragedies were even published with beautiful title prints, a practice that had become fashionable in Amsterdam but was very unusual in Antwerp.73 The last two appeared in Amsterdam as late as 1635 and 1639 (the 1635 edition of Ierusalems verwoestingh even with two other large prints in the book) (fig. 7). This indicates that also in Amsterdam there must have been interest in his plays, though we do not know whether they were ever performed there.74
Title page of Ierusalems verwoestingh (the title print probably by Guilliam van NieulandtII), Amsterdam1635, The Hague, Royal Library.
Guilliam van Nieulandt II had quite a few admirers among both the merchant elite and poets, which is underscored by several dedications and laudatory poems.75 His last tragedy, written in 1628–1629 (but published in 1635), was dedicated to the well-known Antwerp merchant, Gaspar Duarte, collector and great lover of art, music and poetry, and correspondent of Constantijn Huygens and Anna Roemers. In 1626 Duarte had presented the Violieren with the costume of Sophonisba for Guilliam’s play of the same name, which shows that he was an enthusiastic supporter.76 The circle of Rubens and his learned friends, however, must have been another world.77 I did not come across any contacts between Rubens and Van Nieulandt, even though both were staunch admirers of Seneca.
The novelty of Guilliam’s tragedies was immediately recognized. Justus de Harduwijn hailed Saul, published in 1615, as a return to classical antiquity. In an ode dedicated to Guilliam he exclaimed that also on the Antwerp stage ‘new green laurels’ had now triumphed over the foolish practices of the rhetoricians.78 The strong relation between Amsterdam’s world of poetics and that of Antwerp, and Amsterdam’s superiority in that field, was also felt. In a laudatory poem on Saul Guilliam’s friend Jan David Heemssen versified that the Amstel proudly spread its poetic fame and maintained the honour and renown where it concerned bloody tragedies (‘Behiel d’eer en den roem in treur-ghesanghen bloedigh’), but now, because of Van Nieulandt, the river Scheldt also diffuses its new treasures and lets its sweet voice resound on its banks.79 It must have been clear to everyone concerned that this was something new that was stimulated by the example of Amsterdam. Much later, in 1631, two years after Van Nieulandt had returned to Amsterdam, François Bruyninck, a great admirer, would write:
You [he is addressing the Northern Netherlands] have Cats, the sweetest of poets, /also Heinsius, Huygens and Hooft, of which you can boast, /and also the fertile Newland [‘’t vruchtbaer’ Nieuwelandt’], who bring you fame, /and many other brave minds …, /whose works are exalted and praised with us [‘Hun wercken zijn bij ons, soo loffelyck verheven’].80
In this poem we notice an explicit feeling of ‘them-there’ and ‘us-here’ (which, as a matter of fact, I never came across where painting is concerned) and there seems to be a clear sense of superiority of the Dutch in matters of poetry. Remarkably, Van Nieulandt is in this case counted among the poets of the Northern Netherlands, because he was, at the moment of writing, 1631, ‘owned’ by these lands.
But why move back to Amsterdam?
Why would Guilliam van Nieulandt II have moved back to Amsterdam in 1629? There are circumstances that might explain this move. In the course of the 1620s the political, religious and literary climate in Antwerp had been changing. For the Spanish rule in the Southern Netherlands 1629 was a year of disaster because of the victories of Frederik Hendrik, who had seized Wesel and ’s Hertogenbosch. This caused great political unrest and even riots of groups of Protestants against the Spanish in Ghent and Antwerp.81 In response, the Hispanicised government strengthened its grip on the Antwerp magistrate with growing intolerance. Lists of suspect persons were compiled by spies and in 1629 a ban against people who spoke ill of the Holy Church and His Majesty was issued. By that time imputations were the order of the day.82 Moreover, the government had been permanently suspicious of the chambers of rhetoric, which had been hotbeds of the Reformation in the past. The government did not encourage membership and in the course of the 1620s the Jesuits, gaining increasingly control of the cultural life of the city, took over the role of the chambers of rhetoric.83 In the same period Guilliam van Nieulandt’s poet friends Justus de Harduwijn and Jan David Heemssen turned to strictly spiritual poetry. De Harduwijn, initially the most important follower of the greatly admired secular Pléiade poetry, vehemently renounced his earlier work, and Heemssen, ordained a priest in 1629, only wrote devout poetry in the service of the Counter-Reformation.84
Guilliam’s last two tragedies had biblical subjects (Salomon and Ierusalems Verwoestingh). He might have chosen these to accommodate this tendency. In the dedication of Salomon of 1628, he informs the reader that he ‘had endeavoured to present something devotional and therefore had wanted to change his pen (with which, in the past, he had written several pagan tragedies), to bring Salomon […] alive on the stage.’ He also writes that he fears that this work will not be understood by some envious and malicious people, but that others encouraged him to publish it, adding that ‘ignorance attracts slander.’85 Complaining about envy, ignorance and slander was, since antiquity, a well-known topos, but the insistence at this moment and in this play – we do not find something similar in his other introductions – seems significant. Does this mean that he was mistrusted or accused of not being enough of a counter-reformist?
It is entirely probable that such a thing occurred and that many people were suspicious of a poet who had many contacts with Amsterdam Protestants – in the first place his own family (and he might even have been a covert Protestant himself) – and who was the key figure of the most successful chambers of rhetoric. At the great 1620 May contest of the revived chambers of rhetoric in Mechelen (which was also attended by a few chambers from Dutch cities), Guilliam van Nieulandt, leading for the Olyftack, had painted its blazon and won most of the prizes.86 As Porteman writes, the texts at this contest still demonstrated a striking ‘solidarity [between North and South] nourished by the Truce’ and generally pleaded for concord and peace.87 A few years later, however, ideals of solidarity and concord were something of the past, and such successes would have placed Guilliam in a questionable position. Also the fact that Guilliam van Nieulandt, like the Amsterdam poets, had always been an advocate of the use of a pure Dutch language might have cost him sympathy within the rapidly changing Antwerp culture. The poet Richard Verstegen, for example, Spanish agent, and staunch supporter of the Counter Reformation, who, in the 1620s, became a ‘leading Antwerp intellectual’, as Porteman called him, not only satirized everything that was Calvinist or Dutch, but also ridiculed the purism of the language of Dutch poets, and stimulated the use of more melodious and international sounding language.88
Probably more important was that precisely around this time, the cultural climate in Amsterdam had been changing in the opposite direction – towards more tolerance and less religious restrictions. The strict Calvinists had lost their grip on the city government; in 1627 the libertine regents obtained a majority once again in the city government and had broken the power of the Counter-Remonstrant preachers, always hostile towards the theatre. This heralded in the late 1620s a period of new élan among everyone involved, which would finally lead to establishment of the Schouwburg in 1637.89
Thus, we can think of several pressing reasons for Guilliam to move. It is possible that he and his wife also felt that they had become more mobile now that their only living child, their daughter Constantia, herself a poetess, had married the successful Antwerp still-life painter Adriaen van Utrecht in 1628.90 Finally, he might have heard about the success in Amsterdam, Utrecht and The Hague of the Italian landscapes with ruins and small-figured histories by Cornelis van Poelenburch and Bartholomeus Breenbergh and surmised that this might also generate interest in his more conventional, and topographically more precise (and undoubtedly lower-priced) works.91
We do not know if Guilliam wrote anything after his return to Amsterdam, nor is it known whether any of his tragedies were ever performed there (the only certainty is that the last two written and performed in Antwerp were beautifully published in Amsterdam). However, there is no doubt that he went on painting. We have dated paintings from his whole career, the earliest dated 1604, and also few dated ones from the 1630s.92 Remarkably, when in Amsterdam he tried his hand at Dutch landscapes with cattle and necking shepherds, obviously trying out something new; one of the two paintings we know with such a subject dates from the year of his death.93
Conservative styles, suitable for both Antwerp and Amsterdam
Apart from those remarkable Dutch pastorals, Guilliam’s oeuvre did not change much during his career. He kept to his specialism of landscapes with (almost always recognizable) Roman ruins, sometimes also contemporary Roman buildings, and often with a small-figured history. His type of paintings was firmly rooted in his training in the studio of Paul Bril and, perhaps even more, in his familiarity with the drawings of the latter’s untimely deceased brother Matthijs Bril, which would have been study material in Paul’s workshop.94 In contrast to Paul Bril, who made much freer use of architectural motifs, most of Guilliam’s paintings are dominated by neatly drawn ruins and other buildings. Some of his paintings with post-classical Roman architecture, all of them dating from the second decade of the century, are even true precursors of the vedute (fig. 8).95 However, in most of his paintings with ruins and later edifices the combinations he devised were grounded in fantasy. During his whole career his landscapes are divided in very pronounced grounds, which would become decidedly old- fashioned in the 1620s and 1630s. They are populated with somewhat wooden versions of Bril-like shepherds with their cattle (and other people wandering through the landscape), but as many landscapes contain biblical, and some even allegorical, subjects.
Guilliam van NieulandtII, View of the Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, 1610, panel50×68cm, Groningen, Groninger Museum.
There is no relation whatsoever between the subject matter and character of Guilliam van Nieulandt’s paintings and the themes and nature of tragedies. He did not depict spectacular events – no violent and suddenly changing emotions – nor neo-stoic morals, elements which do, for example, occur in paintings by such artists as Peter Paul Rubens, Pieter Lastman, or the young Rembrandt (and which, in fact, we also see in Guilliam’s designs for the title prints of his plays, see fig. 7 above). Nor are there any traces to be found of the spectacularly new styles developed in Antwerp by Rubens, Van Dyck and Jordaens, which had such great impact upon the art of painting in and outside that city.96 It would not have made much of a difference whether Guilliam had made his type of paintings in Rome, Antwerp or Amsterdam.
Something similar can be said about the oeuvre of his brother, Adriaen van Nieulandt II. The latter’s paintings shows nothing of the radically new developments in Amsterdam of the 1620s, 30s and 40s, though no other artist appears to have been so deeply embedded in the Amsterdam artistic community. He seems to have had relations with everyone in that world. As Montias wrote: ‘artists such as Van Nieulandt forged links between very wealthy citizens and the middle- and lower-middle classes to which they themselves belonged.’97 We find Adriaen as a young man in Jan Tengnagel’s militia piece of 1613, the company of Geurt Dircksz van Beuningen for the Handboogdoelen (fig. 9). Jan Tengnagel and Adriaen – they are the two officers in the middle, Adriaen bending forward, pointing to the empty chair and Jan sitting to the right of him – grew up close to each other and, at that moment, were almost neighbours on the Breestraat (opposite the house that Rembrandt bought some 20 years later).98 In this civic guard painting Adriaen is shown to be part of a relatively well-to-do social network of the neighbourhood around the Breestraat. In this network both indigenous Amsterdammers, some of them truly powerful men, mixed with men of Southern Netherlandish descent, wealthy merchants as well as prospering craftsmen.99 However, if we look at Adriaen’s extensive network of artist-friends, dealer-friends and acquaintances, for example those who were witnesses at the baptisms of his many children, it is striking that they all had Southern-Netherlandish roots, among them the painters Paul Vredeman de Vries, Abraham Vinck and Paulus van Hillegaert, the art dealer-painters Isaac van Coninxloo, Barend van Someren and Frans de Keersgieter, the engraver Robbert Baudous, and the fencing master Gerard Thibault. Other artists with whom Adriaen the Younger had dealings were the painters Willem van den Bundel, Cornelis van der Voort, Adriaen Brouwer and Francois Venant, the engraver and art dealer Michel le Blon, and the engraver Egbert van Paenderen. In short, the whole immigrant community (mostly second generation).100 About the only indigent artists and dealers he must have had close contacts with were Jan Tengnagel, Pieter Lastman and the Pynas brothers.
Jan Tengnagel, The company of captain Geurt Dircksz van Beuningen, 1613, canvas155×264cm, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Museum.
Adriaen had been a pupil of Pieter Isaacsz, born in Denmark from Dutch parents but married to a woman born in Antwerp, and subsequently of Frans Badens, also originally from Antwerp.101 Both his masters had been in Italy for a long time and could teach him about international trends of the late sixteenth century. In his early career Adriaen must have built up a considerable reputation. He received important commissions, among them, in 1618/1619 through Pieter Isaacsz, eleven large copper plates with New Testament subjects for Christian IV (part of the lost series of 23 paintings for the Oratory at Frederiksborg, which must have been a fabulous demonstration of Amsterdam history painting at that moment in time),102 and a large painting for the staircase of Ham House, still in its original location, commissioned by the Earl of Holdernesse in 1615 (fig. 10).103 Balthasar Gerbier mentioned him in his 1618 lament upon the death of Goltzius directly after Frans Badens and Pieter Lastman among the Amsterdam painters who honour the deceased. Gerbier devoted to him several lines as a painter whose name is rising through his art, which makes clear that he was much respected at that time.104
Adriaen van NieulandtII, Diana and her nymphs, 1615, canvas158×214.5cm, London (Richmond-upon-Thames), Ham House (owned by the Victoria & Albert Museum).
In his earliest work of 1609, a small-figured Adoration of the Shepherds, Adriaen adapted a style with carefully drawn bodies and smoothly crafted surfaces that recall the manner of his first master, Pieter Isaacsz, while other early paintings, such as the large work in Ham House, demonstrate how he picked up motifs from Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem. Adriaen’s large-figured paintings might have been close to the manner of his second master Frans Badens, but we do not know any paintings by the latter.105 In this period Adriaen van Nieulandt shows considerable ambition as a history painter; and with his spectacular Kitchen Piece of 1616, extensively discussed by Zoran Kwak in this volume, he clearly aspired to position himself among the best artists of the Northern and Southern Netherlands. In the next 35 years, however, he did not contribute to the many new developments that changed the face of Dutch history painting. From the 1620s to the 1650s, be it with small or large figures, he mainly kept to the same figure types (fig. 11). Characteristic are, for example, his slim female nudes with rather hipless bodies, tiny heads, elegantly posed as sixteenth-century goddesses. He often repeated certain attitudes and even recycled throughout his life similar facial types. Another connection with late mannerist painting is that Adriaen was practically the only one in Amsterdam who, throughout the 1620s and 1630s, went on painting mythological subjects with nudes that had been popular in the late sixteenth century and the first two decades of the seventeenth century, among them several works depicting Diana and her nymphs (figs. 11 and 12). Starting in the late 1630s, he sometimes changed the scale of the figures in relation to the landscape in such a way that he could hitch a ride on the popularity of Cornelis van Poelenburch’s novel Italianate idylls populated with many small frolicking nymphs. Adriaen’s figures, however, basically remained the same and have nothing of the latter’s sturdy classically inspired nudes, nor did he adapt Poelenburch’s tight grouping or his atmospheric tonality. Sometimes he integrated figures and other elements that show his familiarity with works by Lastman and Jan Pynas, but even then he made them graceful, slim and stylized. In Adriaen’s later work we often come across paintings with large numbers of small figures that are in many respects related to the Antwerp style of Frans Francken (fig. 13).106
Adriaen van NieulandtII, Diana and her nymphs discovering Callisto’s pregnancy, 1654, canvas116×84cm, Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum.
Adriaen van NieulandtII, Venus and Adonis, 1627, panel107×160cm, sale London, Sotheby’s,2May2012, lot16.
Adriaen van NieulandtII, Triumph of Galatea, 1651, canvas156×200cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.
Adriaen was obviously considered a knowledgeable connoisseur who was often called in to estimate or judge paintings, including two times works by Caravaggio: in 1619 he assessed, together with Pieter Lastman, the authenticity of the Crucifixion of St. Andrew, and in 1630, again with Pieter Lastman he testifies that a copy after Caravaggio’s Madonna of the Rosary was by Louis Finson’s hand.107 Nobody would have been better informed about all the new developments in Amsterdam and Antwerp than Adriaen, which makes clear how deliberate it must have been that he kept working in a style that we assess as old-fashioned, but which would also have been considered out of fashion by many an Amsterdam connoisseur. Adriaen lived opposite Rembrandt, owned 102 etchings by the latter as well as many other prints.108 His son-in-law, also from an Antwerp family, was the successful painter Salomon Koninck, who picked up many elements of Rembrandt’s early manner.109 Moreover, Adriaen would surely have known the current trends in Antwerp, where the styles of Rubens, Van Dyck and Jordaens reigned. Therefore, he was everything but a provincial painter who was unacquainted with the newest artistic trends.
Though we know too few inventories containing his works to draw any conclusion, it might be that his paintings were owned in particular by people who were reasonably well-to-do merchants with Southern Netherlandish roots, and who often also owned paintings by such artists as Roelant Savery, Alexander Keirincx, David Colijns, Paulus Hillegaert, David Vinckboons and Hendrik van Balen, artists with, what we would call, old-fashioned Flemish styles.110 It is not difficult to imagine that among such an audience his rather elegant and carefully finished nudes still found approval, even in the 1640s and 1650s, the more so because the prices must have been far below those of, for example, Cornelis van Poelenburch, (whose work was abundantly present in Amsterdam).111 By then, Adriaen’s manner had very little in common with that of the artists who had become dominant in Amsterdam, with Rembrandt in the lead. Early in his career his style obviously had brought him acclaim as a graceful and stylized alternative to the innovative realism of Pieter Lastman, the Pynas brothers and Claes Cornelisz Moyaert, and he received important commissions. However, also after the lapse in his production of paintings in the late 1620s and 1630s (a period in which he probably was too busy with his dealings in real estate), when he resumed his production of paintings at a steady pace, he did not feel the need to innovate or follow new trends. But he still managed to receive an interesting commission now and then, such as the Allegory on the Peace under WilliamII of 1650 (fig. 14).112
Adriaen van NieulandtII, Allegory of the peace under Prince Willem II, 1650, canvas136×105cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.
This remarkable allegory made Jonathan Bikker suggest that Adriaen was an Orangist, because of the striking inclusion of his self-portrait.113 The painting, dated 1650, was undoubtedly executed before William II’s death in November 1650. The patron of this work most certainly was an ardent Orangist; many Amsterdammers felt no sympathy towards this stadholder, who devised a coup against Amsterdam and even threatened it with the States General’s troops before its walls on 30 July 1650.114 That Adriaen proudly added his own face addressing the viewer seems significant. Adriaen’s earlier – large – paintings of Prince Maurits and His War Horse of 1624 and of Maurits and Frederik Hendrik with a War Horse on the Beach of Scheveningen, as well as the elaborate design for a print with an Allegory on the Rule of Prince Maurits, may also demonstrate that he was a staunch supporter of the Oranges.115 Traditionally most Calvinist immigrants were Orangists, which might also imply the wish to recapture Antwerp. Especially among those who were of the generation that held memories of being exiled from their homeland, there would have been those, who, even after so many decades, could not reconcile themselves to the fact that next generations accepted the division of the North and South, and who kept their hopes in the stadholders in vain.116
From the hand of his brother Guilliam we know a few interesting allegories on war and peace: the Allegory of the Consequences of War (1610), and as pendants the Triumph of War and the Triumph of Peace (1627) (fig. 15).117 Both brothers would have experienced continually what the war had meant for Antwerp and Brabant, and what it still meant for the many families that lived separated from their kin but tried to keep in touch. It seems almost a matter of course that they were interested in politics that concerned the division of their country and the fate of their hometown. Both would have cherished the notion of a united, common homeland, a notion strongly alive in the first decades of the century. More than half a century after the fall of Antwerp, however, that land existed only as an imaginary place.118
Guilliam van NieulandtII, Allegory of the consequences of war, 1610, panel61×86.5cm, Zürich, Collection Bruno Meissner (by1977).
What light do the careers of these two brothers shed on the question posed in the beginning of this essay, whether transmission and exchange between the Southern Netherlands and the Republic stimulated new developments and innovation? Of Guilliam’s tragedies we can indeed say that he renewed the theatre in Antwerp by bringing something new that had relations to earlier developments in Amsterdam. However, this did not result in something excitingly innovating and influential. In contrast to Amsterdam the success of the Senecan tragedy in Antwerp remained a rather isolated and short lived phenomenon.
With regard to the main part of Guilliam’s painted oeuvre we might say that he elaborated on Bril’s new type of Italian landscape with Roman ruins. In contrast to the latter, he focused on precisely drawn, recognizable Roman architecture that has more ties to the drawings of Matthijs Bril. In the spatial construction and colouring of his landscapes he kept to late sixteenth century methods. We may conclude that, unlike the atmospheric Italian landscapes with ruins of the younger stars Cornelis van Poelenburch and Bartholomeus Breenbergh, Guilliam’s work does not represent a truly innovative development originating in the Roman oeuvre of the brothers Bril; only in his focus on accurately drawn architecture was he exceptional. Guilliam’s work might be considered an updating (and his prints were a certainly a direct follow-up) of a sixteenth century tradition that was originally popularized by prints of Roman ruins after Maarten van Heemskerck and Hieronymus Cock.119 In other words, he engaged in an updating of a shared Netherlandish heritage. The same can be said of his type of figures, which are always remarkably similar to those of his brother Adriaen, especially when the scale is a bit larger in biblical or allegorical subjects: we see the same elongated, slim bodies with small heads and stereotypical faces, as well as many of the same postures, all firmly rooted in late mannerist models. In this his brother must have been an important example – the main difference being that Adriaen’s figures are livelier in movement, more supple in construction and somewhat more loosely painted.
Adriaen van Nieulandt’s work too was rooted in a common Netherlandish, but simultaneously internationally-oriented, heritage. He would have found his customers among a rather conservative audience that for the major part might have consisted of merchants with roots in the Southern Netherlands. Thus, in the case of these two brothers the interactions between Antwerp and Amsterdam did not lead to innovations, but, on the contrary, to conservatism based on Netherlandish traditions with a strong international flavour. True innovations by artists of the same generation with a Southern Netherlandish background took place in other cities, Haarlem in particular, and came mostly from slightly younger artists who began their careers during the Twelve Years’ Truce.120 For that matter, Adriaen’s Amsterdam colleagues of Southern Netherlandish descent all seem to have been rather conservative in style and types of paintings.121 Why and how that happened cannot be examined here.
What did the war and the division of the Netherlands mean to these two brothers? Starting a new life elsewhere, leaving behind social and economic networks, as their father and others of the first generation of immigrants had done, was not a decision one took lightly.122 For Guilliam II and Adriaen II, who had networks of family and acquaintances in both Antwerp and Amsterdam, the situation was entirely different. As we have seen, Guilliam II would have had several good reasons to return to the city where he was born and make a career in Antwerp, as well as for moving back to Amsterdam 23 years later. Adriaen II too had as decisive grounds to remain in Amsterdam and to make his career there. Different religious convictions were not an obstacle for the relations between the brothers and their family, but the changes in religious culture and politics in Antwerp and Amsterdam left their marks on the career decisions they took. Through their training still heavily indebted to the shared cultural heritage of the late sixteenth century, they held on to the types and styles with which they began their careers, producing works of art that could have been made in both cities and must have catered to rather conservative tastes. Both brothers were fairly successful, even though they ignored the radical innovations of the dominant artists in Antwerp and Amsterdam, which, between c. 1610 and 1640, made the most vital part of the art production in those cities move into significantly different directions.
1*I am grateful to Karolien de Clippel, Jacquelyn Coutré, Jasper Hillegers, Judith Pollmann, Karel Porteman, Mieke Smits-Veldt and Filip Vermeylen for their comments.
2See the description of the project on the website artistic-exchange.com. See also the questions in the concluding remarks of F. Vermeylen, ‘Greener pastures? Capturing artists’ migrations during the Dutch Revolt’, in: F. Scholten et al. (eds.), Art and migration. Netherlandish artists on the move, 1400–1750,Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 63 (2013), Leiden, Boston 2014, p. 41–57, esp. 53: ‘Therefore we need to take a closer look at the ways the new arrivals integrated into their adopted hometowns … Also, can it be argued that Flemish artists and their work maintained a conscious connection with their religious roots and ethnic background?’
3There is, however, no document and no signature in which he is ever called ‘Willem’. His name is Guilliam, like that of his grandfather, his uncle and his nephew. His name is spelled in many different ways: Guilliam (most frequent), Gilliam, Guiliam, Guilam, Guilliaem, Guilame, Guillaume, Guillelmum, Guilelmo, Guilielmus. He himself signed documents with the Italianized version of his name: Guilmo van Nieulandt. His last name is spelled as Nieulandt (most frequent), Nieulant, Nijeulant, Nieuwelant, Nieuwelandt.
4See the preceding note. All his tragedies have been published with the name Guil. van Nieuwelandt on the title page.
5Shortly after I presented this paper at the conference Art on the Move (April 10–11, 2014), the name has been changed from Willem to Guilliam on the RKD’s website and in its photoarchive.
6B. Haak, The Golden Age. Dutch painters of the seventeenth century, New York, Amsterdam, p. 174 and 273; H. Vlieghe, Flemish art and architecture 1585–1700, New Haven, London 1998, p. 201.
7See, for example, the most recent survey of seventeenth-century literature in the Northern and Southern Netherlands: K. Porteman and M.B. Smits-Veldt, Een nieuw vaderland voor de muzen. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse literatuur 1560–1700, Amsterdam 2008, p. 278–283. Also see A.A. Keersmaekers, De dichter Guilliam van Nieuwelandt en de Senecaans-classieke tragedie in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden, Ghent 1957.
8For the biographical facts of the Van Nieulandt family I could make use of F.J. van den Branden, ‘Willem van Nieulandt. Kunstschilder en dichter 1584–1635’, in: Nederlandsch Museum 2 (1875), p. 1–49 and 133–198; A. Bredius, Künstlerinventare. Urkunden zur Geschichte der holländischen Kunst desXVIten.XVIIten undXVIIIten Jahrhunderts, 6 vols., Den Haag 1915–1922, esp. vol. 1, p. 171–185 and vol. 6, p. 2171–2177; Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 27–50; J.C.G.A. Briels, De Zuidnederlandse immigratie in Amsterdam en Haarlem omstreeks 1572–1630; met een keuze van archivalische gegevens betreffende de kunstgeschiedenis, PhD diss. Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht 1976, p. 263–273; A.M. Abelmann, Adriaen van Nieulandt fecit in Amsterledam. Een catalogus van schilderijen van Adriaen van Nieulandt. Antwerpen1587-Amsterdam1658, MA thesis, Universiteit Utrecht 1986, p. 26–49; J. Briels, Vlaamse schilders en de dageraad van de Hollandse Gouden Eeuw,1585–1630. Met biografieën als bijlage, Antwerpen 1997, p. 364–365.
9Adriaen i was the son of Guilliam van Nieulandt and Adriana Nouts, and in 1584 he married Geertruyd Loyson. He is still mentioned in the Antwerp archives in 1589, when he received an attestation that he was a man of honour and of good report, who in the recent times of trouble had behaved modestly and as a good burgher; for document, see Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p. 266. Adriaen I died in Amsterdam in 1603.
10J.G. van Dillen, Het oudste aandeelhoudersregister van de Kamer Amsterdam der Oost-Indische Compagnie, The Hague 1958, p. 180–181.
11There are documents that he sold quills in large quantities to the city of Amsterdam; Bredius, Künstlerinventare, vol. 1, p. 171. In 1608, his brother Joris, initially recorded as a cobbler, was also mentioned as a quill merchant. Their father, also named Guilliam, entered into the guild of St. Luke in 1573 as a ‘cnopmakere’ and is recorded in 1585–1586 and in 1589 as penvercoper; Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 29.
12They all lived in a house named Inde gulde Cnop, which seems to refer to the profession of their father who was a cnopmakere (a buttonmaker). See n. 10 above.
13For a family tree, see Bredius, Künstlerinventare, vol. 1, p. 177 and Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p. 163. About Guilliam van Nieulandt I, see G.I. Hoogewerff, ‘De beide Willem’s van Nieulandt. Oom en neef’, in: Oud Holland 29 (1911), p. 57–61; a revised version was published in 1961 in: Mededelingen van hetNederlands Historisch Instituut te Rome 31 (1961), p. 57–69. Regrettably, Keersmaeker’s book was ignored in this revised article, so that some errors of the earlier article are still included.
14This apprenticeship with Jacques Savery was recorded by Meyssens under Guilliam’s portrait: ‘ayant apris son art ches Iacq Savery a Amsterdam, l’an 1599 …’
15After mentioning the apprenticeship with Savery, Meyssens records: ‘[…] et il est allé a Rome, ou il demeurois 3 an auprès Paul Bril, et retournant de Rome l’an 1605 il entre dedans la confrerie de paintres en Anvers, […].’ Van Mander, who might have had firsthand information, records in his biography of Bril: ‘Noch was een Jaer zijn Discipel Guilliaem van Nieuwlandt, van Antwerpen, oudt 22 Jaer, woonende teghenwoordigh t’Amsterdam […]’, which must have been in 1604 at the latest; K. van Mander, Het Leven der Doorluchtighe Nederlandtsche en Hooghduytsche Schilders, in: Idem, Het Schilder-Boeck, Haarlem, 1603–1604, fol. 292r. A Roman document of 1602 records in the Via Paulina (presently Via del Babuino): ‘In una casa del Signor Tiberio Cevoli […]: Il signor Guilelmo del quondam Guilelmo Terranova con il restante […] et più Guilelmo suo nepote, d’anni 18’. ‘con il restante’ refers to four ‘giovani’ recorded the year before as living with Guilliam I in the same house (two were ‘fiamengo’, one ‘francese’ and another ‘di Lorena’), among whom was Abraham Janssens; G.J. Hoogewerff, Nederlandsche kunstenaars te Rome (1600–1725), The Hague 1942, p. 12 and 10. In a document of 1606, an acquaintance testifies that Guilliam lived for three years in Rome with his uncle the painter (see n. 19 below). Since it is quite certain that Guilliam was 22 in 1606 (as recorded in the aforementioned document) which corresponds to the Roman and other documents, Van Mander or his informant must have made a mistake with Guilliam’s age. It might have been Guilliam himself who added two years to make himself more respectable for Van Mander (see also n. 17 and 18 below).
16Van Mander, after mentioning that he was with Bril for one year (see n. 14), added: ‘[…] en heeft zijn Meesters manier heel natuerlijck aenghenomen’; Van Mander, Leven, fol. 292r. Meyssens’ information that Guilliam stayed with Bril for three years comes probably from Adriaen; it seems likely that the latter exaggerated this a bit because working with the renowned Paul Bril for such a long time would have enhanced his brother’s status. That he learned his profession from his uncle is explicitly stated in the document of 1606, quoted below (n. 19). About the importance of Bril for Van Nieulandt’s work, especially his drawings and prints, see L. Wood Ruby, Paul Bril. The Drawings, Antwerp 1999, esp. p. 45–47. Also see n. 56 below.
17From a recently discovered document it appears that Guilliam van Nieulandt, who must be the uncle, worked in 1601 on a commission of 90 scenes of hermits in landscapes on canvas together with Wenzel Cobergher, Paul Bril and Jacob Franckaert, for which a total of 1350 scudi was paid (= about 4000 guilders). Cobergher was the coordinator and supervisor; S. De Mieri, ‘Wenzel Cobergher fra Napoli e Roma’, in: Prospettiva 146 (2012/2013), p. 68–87, esp. 77–78. Some thirty canvases still exist in the cloister Dell’Annunziata in Villafranca del Bierzo (Spain); the compositions are based on prints by Johannes I and Raphael de Sadeler after Maarten de Vos, Cobergher’s master. I am grateful to Marije Osnabrugge for bringing this article to my attention.
18Van Mander recorded in 1604 that Guilliam II was back in Amsterdam. Since there is a drawing inscribed ‘Roma 1604’ (photo RKD, coll. P. de Boer), he must have returned that same year. Thus, Van Mander was extremely up to date and considered the young Guilliam important enough to include at the last minute, which indicates that he must have known him personally. He might have received more information from someone freshly arrived from Rome (about Bril in the first place, but one might suppose, for example, that it was from Guilliam that he received the piece of very recent and exciting news about Caravaggio). Guilliam might have travelled back with Wenzel Cobergher, who left Rome at the end of April 1604; see T. Meganck, De kerkelijke architectuur van Wensel Cobergher (1557–1634) in het licht van zijn verblijf in Rome, Brussel 1998, p. 26.
19The document of 11 April 1606, quoted below (n. 19), records that he had lived for about two years in Amsterdam after having returned from Rome, which corresponds with Van Mander’s information of 1604. The document of his marriage on 11 February 1606 with Anna Hustaert may be found in Bredius, Künstlerinventare (n. 7), p. 184 and Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie (n. 7), p. 267. There he is also recorded as being 22 years old, living ‘a puero’ [since he was a child] at the Pijlsteeg. His wife is recorded as Anna Hustaert Pietersdr ‘van Antwerpen’, also 22 years old and living ‘a puero Singel tegen ’t Boshuys’.
20The merchant in question was a certain Gasper vande Wouwere. The full document is reproduced in Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 273 (appendix I). It is a mystery to me why his wife was the one to file this request – was she, or her family, better acquainted with the witnesses?
21Document of 13 April 1606, in Keersmaekers, De dichter (n. 6), p. 271–274 (appendix II, in Spanish). Witnesses were the same Gasper van de Wouwere, Pedro Arnao, Lorenco Le Roy and Jacques La Hoes, all ‘todos mercaderes’ who must have known Guilliam II in Rome. Keersmaekers could only trace Jacques La Hoes as a painter who enrolled in the St. Luke’s guild.
22Ph. Rombout and J.Th. van Lerius, De Liggeren en andere historische archieven der Antwerpsche St. Lucasgilde, Antwerp 1872, 1605–1606, as a master’s son. There is no document about his father being a member of the St. Luke’s guild, but we do know that his grandfather, also named Guilliam and a cnopmakere, was member (see n. 10 above). Bredius’ suggestion that Guilliam II was for some time back in Amsterdam in 1618, living on the Bethanienstraat, where a child of ‘Guilliam, painter’, was buried in the Old Church is erroneous, because this Guilliam was married to Maijke Pieters; Bredius, Künstlerinventare, vol. 1, p. 185 and vol. 6, p. 2177. He must have been a cousin or nephew, probably a son of Joris (in that case he must have died before the inheritance of Guilliam I was divided up in 1626).
23See Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 77–184, and Porteman and Smits-Veldt, Een nieuw vaderland (n. 6), p. 278–281.
24On 5 September 1628 he was present at the marriage of his daughter Constantia to the painter Adriaan van Utrecht. He must have been well-to-do; he gave his daughter the considerable dowry of 2000 guilders; Van den Branden, Willem van Nieulandt (n. 7), p. 111–112. Her first child was baptised on 22 May 1629, with Anna Hustart present, which indicates that Guilliam and Anna left after that date.
25I know twelve paintings with a date of 1629 or later (four of 1629, two of 1630, one of 1631, two of 1632, and three of 1635). In a testament of 24 October 1635, he is recorded as sick and living on the Nieuwezijds Achterburgwal (the present Spuistraat), ‘daer uythangende den vergulden engel’; Bredius, Künstlerinventare, vol. 1, p. 185; Briels. Zuidnederlandse immigratie (n. 7), p. 271.
26That he died in1635, the same year as the testament mentioned above, is recorded by Meysssens. No documents survive that relate to his death.
27For his biography, see Abelmann, Adriaen van Nieulandt (n. 7), p. 29–37, with references to the documents in footnotes. Also Briels, Vlaamse schilder (n. 7), p. 364–365, and many documents in Bredius, Künstlerinventare (n. 7), vol. 1, p. 171–182 and Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p. 265–273.
28This is recorded in the text under Meyssens’ print: ‘[…] son commencement á esté a Amstelredam.chez Pierre Isacx et aupres Francois Badens, 1607.’
29Briels, Vlaamse schilders, p. 365. The father of his wife Catalijnken Raes was from Antwerp, her mother from Zandhoven (near Antwerp).
30See J.M. Montias, Art at auction in17th century Amsterdam, Amsterdam 2002, p. 60–62. Montias assessed Adriaen van Nieulandt’s connections with other buyers at the sales of the Orphan Chamber. See also Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p. 265.
31It has been said that Adriaen II also invested in the VOC (Abelmann, Adriaen van Nieulandt, p. 33 and n. 72), but that is, as Jasper Hillegers pointed out to me, the result of confusion with his father Adriaen i, which we find already in Van Dillen, Aandeelhoudersregister (n. 9). He did, however, administer his father’s VOC shares that the family had inherited. See Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p.269; recorded in the testament of their mother 29 June 1623.
32In 1631, when the tax of the 200th penny was levied, he paid by far the most of all the painters mentioned, which means that his property was assessed at 5000 guilders; see J.G. Frederiks and P.J. Frederiks, Kohier van den tweehondersten penning voor Amsterdam en onderhoorige plaatsen over1631, Amsterdam 1890, p. 62. Document of his registration as real estate agent in Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p. 270.
33I know of seven works dated between 1609 and 1620 (to which must be added the eleven paintings he made for Christian IV that have been lost); from the 1620s only two dated works, four from the 1630s, but no less than seventeen dated paintings from the 1640s and as many as twenty from the 1650s, of which the last two are dated 1658, the year of his death.
34There are two market scenes in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, both signed and dated 1617.
35See about Jacob: Bredius, Künstlerinventare (n. 7), vol. 6, p. 2171–2176; Briels, Vlaamse schilders (n. 7), p. 365 and Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p. 266 and documents on p. 268 (29 May 1614), 269 (7 April 1623), 270–271 (26 January 1633) and 270–271 (18 December 1629, 26 January 1633, 27 December 1634). He was, for example, instrumental in selling Caravaggio’s Crucifixion of St. Andrew to an Antwerp merchant; see the documents in: Ibidem, p. 258–259 (25 and 26 November 1619).
36For the document about the inn of Barent van Someren, see Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p. 270 and Abelmann, Adriaen van Nieulandt, n. 28.
37A series of 75 artist’s portraits: Images de divers hommes d’esprit sublimes qui par leur art et science debvroyent vivre éternellement. The portrait of Guilliam is signed ‘Ioan Meijssen fecit et excudit.’ That of Adriaen: ‘Cor. Ianssens pinxit, C.Woumans sculpsit. I Meijssens excudit.’
38F.W.H. Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish etchings, engravings and woodcuts, ca. 1450–1700, 72 vols., Amsterdam 1949–2010, vol. 14, p. 276, no. 280.
39The text under Guilliam’s portrait is particularly more elaborate than usual. Meyssens himself portrayed Guilliam and might have known him well, but some of the facts, such as his death in 1635 and his first master being Jacques Savery in Amsterdam in 1599, seem to be information provided by Adriaen.
40C. de Bie, Het gulden cabinet van de edel vrij schilderconst, Antwerp 1661, p. 63–64 and 146–148. Most of the painters from the Northern Netherlands who received this honour had relations with the Southern Netherlands, which is certainly the reason for the inclusion of both Guilliam and Adriaen. The poems by De Bie do not give any information about either artist (neither of the subsequent Betrachtinge in prose makes any reference to the Van Nieulandt brothers). Probably De Bie knew works only by Guilliam, and had his knowledge about Adriaen only from the text under Meyssens’ print.
41A. Houbraken, De Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche Konstschilder en Schilderessen, 3 vols., The Hague 1718–1721, vol. 1, p. 42–43 (Adriaen) and 121–122 (Guilliam). Houbraken wrote that Guilliam was a pupil of Roelant (instead of Jacques) Savery and came to the latter in 1594 (and records that he went in 1607 to Antwerp); and about Adriaen Houbraken mentions that he was a pupil of Pieter Fransz. ‘born in Helzevor in the Sound in the year 1569’(which makes clear that he means Pieter Isaacsz) He also names Frans Badens as his other master, but ends by saying that he was a good painter of small figures and landscapes and died ‘5 van Bloeimaand [May] 1601.’
43Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie (n. 7), p. 264 (the source of this information is not clear).
44All Adriaen’s children were baptized in the Reformed church.
45From his testament of 1626 (see n. 46 below) it is clear that uncle Guilliam I in Rome, who remained unmarried, had bought for his mother, Adriana Nouts, a house in 1606 called De Greffie on the Suikerrui in Antwerp (also recorded in the Wijkboeken, see Keersmaekers, De dichter (n. 6), p. 30). In her testament of 1608 it is indeed recorded that she died in the house. There were four daughters – Cornelia, Barbara, Johanna and Maria – sisters of Guilliam I, Adriaen I and Joris; see document in Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p. 267–268.
46Document in Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p. 267–268. Her inheritance had to be divided among her six living children (Adriaen I had already died), the children of Adriaen I (our Guilliam II, Adriaen II and Jacob), and the children of her husband’s brother Abraham van Nieulandt.
47The reports about the Roman testaments of Guilliam I are not entirely clear about the distribution of his estate, among which the house ‘De Greffie’ in Antwerp where his mother and sisters lived (see n. 44 above); Bertolotti (quoted by Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 30, n. 17) recorded in 1880 a testament of 1626 in which it was stated that Guilliam II should inherit the house after the deaths of Guilliam the Elder’s sisters (these aunts of Guilliam the Younger, however, would survive the latter) and that his brother Joris should receive a legate. However, Ceyssens, who cites a testament of 1624 because the testament of 1626 appeared to be untraceable when he tried to find it for Keersmaekers in 1956 (see Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 47, n. 17), records that after the deaths of Guilliam the Elder’s sisters the house should go to the children of his brothers Adriaen and Joris in Amsterdam (obviously to Guilliam the Younger’s child as well, because the latter’s daughter received her share after the deaths of her father’s aunts). According to this testament Guilliam I leaves to each of his sisters also a legate of 400 scudi and to Guilliam II 200 scudi; to the children of Joris goes a legate of 200 scudi. A document of the Amsterdam Orphan chamber records that Adriaen has received through the exchange bank 500 guilders from the inheritance of uncle Guilliam in Rome to divide among the children of his brother Joris, which squares with the information of both Bertolotti and Ceyssens that they received a special legate; Bredius, Künstlerinventare (n. 7), vol. 1. p. 179 and Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p. 270. In a testament of Geertruijt Loyson, the mother of Guilliam II and Adriaen II, then living with her son Adriaen at the Breestraat, it is said that Adriaen administers her VOC stocks and that Guilliam I, the brother of her late husband, had sent her from Rome ‘cast sculptures’ (bronzes, plaster?) which she had sold; document Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie, p. 269, 29 June 1623.
48The Israelites Leaving Egypt, panel 82.5×114 cm. Signed and dated: ‘A VaN Nieulandt/1612/Antwerp’. Whereabouts unknown (sale London [Bonhams], 10–12-2003, no. 23; the signature and date appeared after a cleaning for this sale; see the comment by Jan Kosten at the website RKDimages). The portrait in: B.J.A. Renckens, ‘Een jeugdportret van Adriaen van Nieulandt door Willem van Nieulandt’, in: Kunsthistorische Mededeelingen van het Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie 1 (1946), p. 22–23, fig. 1. The portrait bears no signature, but is inscribed ‘AETATIS 25 ANNO 1613’, which fits Adriaen’s age. In the background is a landscape with Roman ruins that Renckens identified as by Guilliam van Nieulandt’s hand. Regrettably, the only reproduction we have is of a bad quality. It is hard to say anything about the likeness by comparison with other portraits (the profile in Tengnagel’s civic guard painting see n. 97 and 98 below) and the print in the Meyssens series of 30 years later (see n. 36 above). This identification is possible, but not entirely convincing.
4929 March 1622, the baptism of Berber; A.D. de Vries, ‘Biografische aanteekeningen’, in: Oud Holland 3 (1885), p. 223–240, esp. 235.
50A.K.L. Thijs, Van geuzenstad tot katholiek bolwerk, Antwerpen en de contrareformatie, Turnhout 1990, p. 51.
51J.M. Müller, Exile memories and the Dutch Revolt. The narrated diaspora 1550–1750, PhD diss. Leiden 2014, p. 69–74; see especially the letter by the Antwerp merchant Johan Thijs of January 1606; Ibidem, p. 69–70. I am grateful to the author for allowing me to consult his excellent dissertation.
52O. Gelderblom, Zuid-Nederlandse kooplieden en de opkomst van de Amsterdamse stapelmarkt (1578–1630), Hilversum 2001, p. 183.
53An additional reason might also have been to safeguard the inheritance for the family members in Antwerp, Amsterdam and Rome. His grandmother might already have been in bad health in 1606 (she died in 1608). Though heirs officially kept their legal rights, it was not easy for migrants to receive their statutory portions before the Twelve Years’ Truce, as Judith Pollmann has pointed out to me.
54For a graph of the increase of the number of all men known as painters in Amsterdam and those who are confirmed artist-painters, based on the biographical information in the Ecartico Database, see http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/analysis/index.php?task=numberssvg&place%5B%5D=Amsterdam&place%5B%5D=&place%5B%5D=&place%5B%5D=&place%5B%5D=&place%5B%5D=&yearstart=1600&yearend=1700&occupation=paintersa&subjectmat=&index=&inde. However, of those painters about whom we can be certain from sources that they were artist-painters, the number by whom we know paintings or drawings is much lower. In 1606, 79 men call themselves painters, 51 of them are confirmed artist-painters, but only of 23 do we still know paintings or drawings. Ten years later, in 1616 the total number of men calling themselves painters is 113; of those, 71 are confirmed artist-painters, and we know paintings or drawings by 41. Thus, the number of artists by whom we know works has almost doubled in ten years. Especially of the immigrants of the Southern Netherlands who called themselves painters, there are many by whom we do not know any works; see E.J. Sluijter, ‘Over Brabantse vodden, economische concurrentie, artistieke wedijver en de groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw’, in: R. Falkenburg, J. de Jong and B. Ramakers (eds.), Kunst voor de markt, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999), p. 112–143 (English translation: ‘On Brabant rubbish, economic competition, artistic rivalry and the growth of the market for paintings in the first decades of the seventeenth century’, in: Journal of the Historians of Netherlandish Art 1.2 (2009), (http://jhna.org/index.php/), especially n. 46; and the biographies in Briels, Vlaamse schilders (n. 7), p. 292–411. We find many of their names as buyers at the sales on which I based much of my argument in the 1999/2009 article, and which Montias analyzed extensively in his book of 2002; Montias, Art at auction (n. 29), chapters 5 and 6.
55Sluijter, ‘Brabantse vodden’/‘Brabant rubbish’, chapters 3 and 4. The immigrant merchants and skilled craftsmen – many of whom had prospered and, by that time, had realized that returning was no longer an option – must have started buying the kind of inexpensive paintings that they had already been used to in Antwerp, which seems to have stimulated this fashion in the Dutch cities and induced competition among a younger generation of painters (especially Haarlem, Amsterdam, Delft, The Hague and Leiden), many of them with Southern Netherlandish roots.
56In the inventories in E. Duverger, Antwerpse kunstinventarissen uit de zeventiende eeuw, 13 vols, Brussels 1984–2004, we find many records of works by Bril (the earliest in 1621). See also J. Denucé, De Antwerpsche konstkamers. Inventarissen van kunstverzamelingen te Antwerpen in de16e en17e eeuw, Amsterdam 1932. It is strange that so few works by Guilliam van Nieulandt are recorded in the inventories published by Denucé and Duverger. Only seven are listed, two of which are, remarkably, ‘Little landscapes after Bruegel by Nyeulant’, obviously pendants; Denucé, Antwerpsche konstkamers, vol. 2, p. 98, and Duverger, Antwerpse inventarissen, vol. 5, p. 16.
57Very recently an article on his prints was published: W.A. te Slaa, ‘Willem van Nieulandt II as printmaker’, in: Print Quarterly 36 (2014), p. 397–394. The series are: Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish etchings (n. 37). vol. 14, p. 162, nos. H. 1–4 (Italian landscapes with religious scenes, probably after drawings by Paul Bril), p. 163, nos. H. 6–9 (Views of Rome, after drawings by Matthijs Bril), and H. 10–29 (Roman ruins, at least three after Sebastiaen Vrancx, and one after Matthijs Bril, the others varying on compositions by Bril or his own inventions). It seems that Gilliam took those 20 plates with him to Amsterdam in 1629, because in the Amsterdam inventory of Juliaen Teniers and Madelalma Jouderville of 1643 ‘20 platkens van Nieulant’ are recorded, which must have been copper plates, with a total value of 100 guilders (Montias Database, no. 557–0026). This large series was dedicated in friendship to Wenzel Cobergher, court architect of Albert and Isabella and renowned expert in antiquities, whom he already met as a young man in Rome (see above, n. 16 and 17); in 1618–1619 Cobergher became member of the Violieren, the chamber of rhetoric for which Guilliam became active from that time onwards; Keersmaekers, De dichter (n. 6), p. 53, n. 7. Finally there was a series of 52 landscapes, made between 1618 and 1625 (Hollstein mentions only 36, nos. H. 76–111), inscribed ‘P.Bril inventor’, of which a few are after Bril, but most of them after his own inventions or freely based on Bril. The reference to Bril seems to be a marketing device; Ruby, Paul Bril (n. 15), p. 47; Te Slaa, ‘Willem van Nieulandt II’, p. 388–394.
58Like the original series (nos. H. 10–29),the series consisted of a title page and 19 landscapes with mostly identifiable Roman ruins, but Visscher added 8 plates copied after other prints or even paintings by Van Nieulandt; Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish etchings, vol. 14, p.165, nos. H 50–75; see also Te Slaa, ‘Willem van Nieulandt II’, p. 384. The compositions were adapted to the wider format; a few elements are added at the left or right. In height they were almost half a centimeter less high, which mostly means slightly less sky.
59Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish etchings, vol. 14, p. 178, nos. H. 263–270,only gives a series with the inscription ‘P. Nolpe excudit’, but the British Museum owns the same series of eight landscapes with the inscription ‘CIV Excudit’; http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection
60Jan van de Velde made copies after nos. H. 7 and 9. The eight etchings of the two series nos. H. 1–4 and H. 6–9 were published by Cornelis Danckerts from the same plates. This therefore must have been done after Guilliam’s return to Amsterdam, though they might also have been brought by Adriaen after one of his visits.
61Of the 31 paintings in the Montias Database with the name Van Nieulandt, ten are by Guilliam (in only four cases his first name is mentioned, in the other the subjects point to him), and of four I cannot be sure whether they are by Guilliam or Adriaen because they record neither a surname nor a subject. I am quite sure that thirteen of them are by Adriaen (though his first name is only mentioned twice). Since Adriaen’s work would have been more familiar in Amsterdam, it seems likely that he is meant when only the last name is recorded. Three records refer probably to works by Jacob. Most conspicuous are four landscapes with flat ebony frames, and ‘a piece with a gilded frame by Nieulandt which is named Antiqua’, all of them in the collection of Hans van Soldt (1629; Montias Database 486–0006a-c and 0013). About Hans van Soldt see Montias, Art at auction (n. 29), p. 195–198.
62Fascinating insight into the role of Van Nieulandt’s tragedies and the value of theatrical costumes in the establishment of tragedy as the essential expression of the union between poetry and painting in Antwerp in the early decades of the seventeenth century are given in B. Ramakers, ‘Sophonisba’s Dress. Costume, Tragedy and Value on the Antwerp Stage’, in: C. Göttler, B. Ramakers and J. Woodall (eds.), Trading values in early modern Antwerp, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 64 (2014), Leiden 2015, p. 299–345. Ramaker’s essay came to my attention too late to be included here.
63Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 16–25 and 36–44. From 1615 to 1617 Guilliam was, together with Johan David Heemssen, elderman of the Olyftack; Ibidem, p. 36–38. There is no proof that Guilliam was a member of the Violieren, but it is highly likely; Ibidem, p. 41. An important role was also played by Sebastiaen Vrancx, another poet who is better know as a painter; regrettably we only know the titles of his many plays, all comedies, except for one tragedy (probably from the 1630s); see A. Keersmaekers, ‘De schilder Sebastiaen Vrancx (1573–1647), als rederijker’, in: Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen 1982, p. 165–185.
64About the Dutch Senecan-Scaligerian renaissance drama, see M.B. Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, ethicus-didacticus. Een onderzoek naar de dramatische opzet en morele instructie van Ithys, Polyxena en Iphigenia, Groningen 1986, chapter 2 (about the Senecan model, p. 58–74 in particular), and M. Smits-Veldt, Het Nederlandse renaissancetoneel, Utrecht 1991, chapter 3. About the passions in this type of tragedies see J. Konst, Woedende wraakghierigheidt en vruchtelooze weeklachten. De hartstochten in de Nederlandse tragedie van de zeventiende eeuw, Assen, Maastricht 1993, p. 31–46. For possible relations between the Senecan drama and Rembrandt’s depiction of the passions in the 1620s and 1630s, see E.J. Sluijter, ‘How Rembrandt surpassed the ancients, Italians and Rubens as master of “the passions of the soul”’, in: BMGN-Low Countries Historical Review, 129.2 (2014), p. 63–89, esp. 78–81.
65See E. Rombauts, ‘Sénèque et le théatre Flamand’, in: J. Jacquot, Les tragedies de Sénèque et la theatre de la Renaissance, Paris 1973, p. 211–219, esp. 215–219. For Lipsius and Seneca see M. Morford, Stoics and neostoics. Rubens and the circle of Lipsius, Princeton 1991, esp. chapter 5.
66For a concise survey of the new classical drama in Amsterdam see Smits-Veldt, Nederlandse Renaissancetoneel, chapter 4, and Porteman and Smits-Veldt, Nieuw vaderland (n. 6), p. 172–177, 215–220, 222–225, 235–240.
67For an exhaustive analysis of Van Nieulandt’s tragedies, see Keermaekers, De dichter, chapter 4, esp. p. 158–184 about the relation of his works to Seneca, Garnier and Hooft. Also Porteman and Smits-Veldt, Nieuw vaderland, p. 278.
68In the dedication of the Aegyptica ofte Aegyptische Tragoedie, Antwerpen 1624: ‘[…] hebb’ ick mijnen aert ende natuere niet verder willen uyt-strecken dan tot de paele van haer bequaemheydt, dat is, tot de loffelijcke conste der Poësie, daer ick van joncks aen toe gheneghen ben gheweest, niet door den wegh van eenige studie, maer door mijn aengheboren natuere.’
69Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 36.
70Porteman and Smits-Veldt 2008, Nieuw vaderland, p. 278.
72Ibidem, p. 218, 279. Hooft published Geraert van Velzen in 1613; many others would follow.
73Title prints, undoubtedly made by Guilliam himself, were produced for Livia (Antwerp 1617), Saul (Antwerp 1617) and Nero (Antwerp 1618). Two were published without title prints: Aegyptica (Antwerp 1624) and Salomon (Antwerp 1628), and two were published in Amsterdam with title prints: Sophonisba and Ierusalems verwoestingh (see below).
74Sophonisba was first performed in Antwerp in 1625, and Ierusalems verwoestingh probably in 1629, but nothing is known about any Amsterdam staging. For a possible relation between Guilliam van Nieulandt’s Ierusalems verwoestingh and Rembrandt’s Jeremiah mourning the Destruction of Jerusalem, see E.J. Sluijter, ‘Rembrandts Jeremia treurend om de verwoesting van Jeruzalem en een tragedie van Guilliam van Nieuwlandt’, in: J.E. Abrahamse, M. Carasso-Kok and E. Schmitz (eds.), De verbeelde wereld. Liber amicorum voor Boudewijn Bakker, Bussum 2008, p. 127–140, esp. 133–136.
75Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 39–45 and chapter 3.
76Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 44, 56. Duarte became as a liefhebber (devotee) member of the Violieren in 1623–1624; in 1626 he donated ‘het cleet van Sofanisbe’.
77For Rubens and his circle of humanist friends, see Morford, Stoics and neostoics (n. 64). The only person who might have been a connection between networks of Rubens and Guilliam van Nieulandt was the painter, architect and antiquarian Wenzel Cobergher. He was a friend of Guilliam (see above n. 16, 17 and 56), and he must have been acquainted with Rubens. Both were experts in antiquities and friends of Claude Fabri de Peiresc, while the one was court architect (appointed in 1605 as ‘architecte et ingenieure’) and the other court painter of Albert and Isabella; see Meganck, De architectuur van Wensel Cobergher (n. 17), p. 26, 79, esp. n. 113, and 162.
78Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 36–37. Porteman and Smits-Veldt, Nieuw vaderland, p. 278–279.
79The poem is quoted in Porteman and Smits-Veldt, Nieuw vaderland, p. 280.
80Quoted by Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 47.
81R. Vermeer, In staat van oorlog. FilipsIVen de Zuidelijke Nederlanden, 1629–1648, Maastricht 2001, p. 3–17.
82In the same year was also issued a ban that only ‘good Roman Catholics’ could be members of the civic guard. See Thijs, Geuzenstad (n. 49), p. 52–53; P. Janssens, België in de17de eeuw. De Spaanse Nederlanden en het prinsbisdom Luik, vol. 2. Cultuur en leefwereld, Gent 2006, p. 49–52.
83H. Meeus, ‘Antwerpse rederijkers op zoek naar een nieuwe rol’, in: B. Ramakers (ed.), Conformisten en rebellen. Rederijkerscultuur in de Nederlanden (1400–1650), p. 127–138, esp. 127–133.
84About De Harduwijn and Heemssen see Porteman and Smits-Veldt, Nieuw vaderland, p. 287–292.
85Guiliam van Nieuwelandt, Salomon. Tragoedie, Antwerp 1628, Dedication to Gillis Fabri (no page numbers).
86Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 39.
87Porteman and Smits-Veldt, Nieuw vaderland, p. 283. During the Truce the notion of all Netherlanders belonging to one undivided country had been strong, but the many contacts that were possible during that period had also ‘sharpened, rather than softened the sense of confessional and cultural difference’; J. Pollmann, Catholic identity and the Revolt in the Netherlands, 1520–1635, Oxford 2011, p. 189.
88Porteman and Smit-Veldt, Nieuw vaderland, p. 284–287. Sebastiaen Vrancx, for example, had praised Van Nieulandt’s ‘[…] suyver tael/Van het wt-lantsche schuym verlost’; Keersmaekers, ‘De schilder Sebastiaen Vrancx’ (n. 62), p. 184.
89Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie (n. 7), p. 37–38, 73–74, Porteman and Smits-Veldt, Nieuw vaderland, p. 237–240, 374–375; M. Heil, ‘De Oude Geuzen en de Opstand. Politiek en lokaal bestuur in tijd van oorlog en expansie 1578–1650’, in W. Frijhoff and M. Prak (eds.), Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, vol. 2-i, Centrum van de wereld 1578–1650, Amsterdam 2004, p. 241–297, esp. 265–269; M. Spies, ‘Kunsten en wetenschappen op de troon. Culturele hoofdstad 1578–1713’, in: Ibidem, p. 299–383, esp. 319–324.
90Constantia married on 5 September 1628. Her father and her brother-in-law, the well-known painter Simon de Vos (who had married the sister of Adriaen van Utrecht), stood witness. Guilliam’s wife, Anna Hustaert, was godmother at the baptism of the first child at 22 May 1639, which means that at that moment they were still in Antwerp and must have left after that date. See Keersmaekers, De dichter, p. 45.
91This was suggested to me by Jasper Hillegers.
92Hoogewerff remarked that there were no dated paintings during the period that he was active as a playwright (between 1614 and 1629), but I know at least fourteen dated paintings from that period. There seems to be a gap between 1620 and 1625, but there is no reason to suppose that he did not paint at that time.
93One is dated 1630 (panel 54×73.3 cm, Sale New York, Christie’s, 29 January 1998, no. 66), the other 1635 (panel 49.5×64 cm. Sale Amsterdam, Christie’s, 8 December 1983, no. 13). It was a subject that had been introduced by Lastman and which Adriaen van Nieulandt followed once in a very Lastmanian vein with figures of a sturdiness that are unusual in the rest of his oeuvre (dated 1647, panel 52×67 cm. Sale Amsterdam, Sotheby’s, 5 November 2002, no. 57); E.J. Sluijter, Seductress of sight. Studies in Dutch art of the Golden Age, Zwolle 2000, chapter 5, ‘The Introduction of the Amorous Shepherd’s idyll in Dutch prints and paintings’, p. 161–197, esp. 185–197. Earlier it had been picked up as a new specialism by Guilliam van Nieulandt who added lots of cattle, probably having noticed that Moyaert had success with squeezing in cattle into all his paintings.
94In 2005 Jasper Hillegers wrote an admirable seminar paper on the relation between Guilliam van Nieulandt’s landscapes and those of Paul and Matthijs Bril (Universiteit van Amsterdam). For Guilliam’s drawings, see P. Schatborn, Tekenen van warmte.17de eeuwse tekenaars in Italië, exh. Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Zwolle 2002, p. 38–43. For his drawings and prints after Matthijs and Paul Bril, see above, n. 56. For a survey and catalogue of Paul Bril’s drawings see Ruby, Paul Bril (n. 15); for his paintings see F. Cappelletti, Paul Bril e la pittura di paesaggio a Roma 1580–1630, Rome 2005–2006.
95Blankert rightly called some of his works the first ‘vedutes’ and characterized him as an isolated figure due to these precise city views; A. Blankert, Nederlandse17e eeuwse Italianiserende landschapsschilders, Soest 19782, p. 58.
96Except for the figures in a Moses striking water out of the rock, which must have been painted by Simon de Vos (1626, panel 86×80.5 cm. Sale London, Sotheby’s, 13–12-2001, no. 114). Simon de Vos had married the sister of Guilliam’s son-in-law, Adriaen van Utrecht.
97Montias, Art at auction (n. 29), p. 60–62.
98As children Jan Tengnagel and Adriaen van Nieulandt lived close to each other. When Tengnagel married Meynsgen Symonsdr Pynas, the sister of Jan and Jacob Pynas this was from the ‘Gulden Cnop’ in de Pijlsteeg, the house of the Van Nieulandt family; S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, De jonge Rembrandt onder tijdgenoten. Godsdienst en schilderkunts in Leiden en Amsterdam, PhD diss. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen 2008, Rotterdam 2008, p. 60–61. In his excellent paper on this painting, written for a MA seminar, Jasper Hillegers made the convincing suggestion that the striking gesture of Adriaen refers to Jacob Poppen, the successor of Van Beuningen as the company’s captain. Poppen was visible in the militia piece by Pieter Isaacsz hanging at the other side of the chimney (the direction into which Adriaen is looking), and to which Tengnagel’s piece functioned as a pendant. See J. Hillegers, ‘dit stuck is geschildert bij … Tengnagel’. De diverse contexten van Jan Tengnagels schutterstuk uit1613, Universiteit van Amsterdam 2008.
99For information about this painting I made use of Hillegers, ‘dit stuck is geschildert’. For a painter and art dealer, this institution, in which well-to-do Amsterdammers and immigrants mixed and interacted, would have been an important network for clients and commissions. We see here, among others, the powerful Geurt Dircksz van Beuningen, founder and director of the VOC and later burgomaster; Pieter Martensz Hoeffijser, Collector-General from the Admiralty and neighbour of Adriaen; the surgeon Hendrick Sybtrantsz Voet from Deventer; and Cosmo de Moucheron from and Antwerp merchant family and the latter’s brother-in-law Pierre de Nimay; another with an Antwerp background was the tailor Hans van der Voort. For a full list see Dudok van Heel, Jonge Rembrandt, p. 118.
100To these can be added such art dealer-painters as Lucas Luce, Hans Rem, Jacques van der Wyhen and David Colijns, whose names we find in documents with his brother Jacob and who attended the same sales as Adriaen. For the baptisms of the many children of Adriaen and Catalynken Raes, see De Vries, ‘Aantekeningen’ (n. 48), p. 235–236. Briels, Zuidnederlandse immigratie (n. 7), p. 265.
101For Pieter Isaacsz, see B. Noldus and J. Roding (eds.), Pieter Isaacsz (1568–1625). Court painter, art dealer and spy, Turnhout 2007, and especially J. Roding, ‘The Isaacsz family. Constant travellers between Holland and Denmark’, in: Noldus and Roding, Pieter Isaacsz, p. 131–149. For Badens, see Van Mander, Leven (n. 14), fol. 298v-299r; K. van Mander, The lives of the illustrious Netherlandish and German painters, ed. H. Miedema, 6 vols., Doornspijk 1994, vol. 6, p. 107–110; G.T. Faggin, ‘Frans Badens (Il Carracci di Amsterdam)’, in: Arte Veneta 23 (1969), p. 131–145; Briels, Vlaamse schilders (n. 7), p. 296–297; M.J. Bok, ‘Een Ganymedes van Francois Badens en de werkplaats voor schilderijen in Italiaanse stijl aan de Oude Turfmarkt’, in: Maandblad Amstelodamum 92.4 (2005), p. 3–14.
102About this commission, see H. Johannsen, ‘Christian IV’s private oratory in Frederiksborg Castle chapel. Reconstruction and interpretation’, in Noldus and Roding, Pieter Isaacsz, p. 165–179. For this ensemble the huge sum of 2266 rixthaler was paid (c. 250 guilders per painting) to Pieter Isaacsz, who had arranged the entire commission. Apart from the eleven painted by Adriaen van Nieulandt, the other artists completed only one (Pieter Isaacsz), or two (Pieter Lastman, Jan Pynas, Werner van den Valckert), while three were painted by a certain ‘P.H.’ (Pieter Feddes van Harlingen?). The paintings were, unfortunately, all destroyed in a fire of 1859.
103The other painting in the staircase was commissioned to Jacques de Gheyn II and represents Caesar on horseback before his army tent while dictating to a number of clerks; I.Q. van Regteren Altena, Jacques de Gheyn. Three generations, 3 vols, The Hague 1983, vol. 2, p. 16–17.
104About this lament see O. Hirschmann, ‘Balthasar Gerbiers “Eer ende claght-digt ter eeren van Henricus Goltzius”’, in: Oud Holland 38 (1920), p. 104–125, esp. 111; C.T. Seifert, Pieter Lastman. Studien zu Leben und Werk. Mit einem kritischen Verzeichnis der Werke mit Themen aus der antiken Mythologie und Historie, Petersberg 2011, p. 270, n. 1313, and Anhang C, p. 325: ‘Nieulandt yv’righ verschijnt, sijn gonst hier wil bewijsen, /G’lijck Const sijn Gheest verrijckt en sijnen Naem doe rijsen, /Heb ghy uyt ’sHollandts Thuyn vrucht-baerders uyt ghewijt/’t Nieulandt schoon vruchten uyt, Atropos u ten spijt.’ After him follow the artists Venant, Tengnagel, Vinckboons and Govert Jansz, together in a single sentence. In the same year Rodenburgh mentioned Van Nieulandt in his tribute to Amsterdam artists in 1618, together with such masters as Jan Pynas, Pieter Lastman, Pieter Isaacsz., Jan Tengnagel, Frans Badens, Adam Vinck, Francois Venant, Govert Jansz, Roeland Savery, David Vinckboons and Cornelis van der Voort; Seifert, Lastman, p. 63–65 with further references.
105A few paintings have been attributed; only two coloured drawings are signed from his Roman period. See the literature in note 100 and also E.J. Sluijter, ‘Goltzius, painting and flesh, or Why Goltzius began to paint in 1600’, in: M. van den Doel et al. (eds.), The learned eye. Regarding art, theory, and the artist’s reputation, Amsterdam 2005, p. 158–177, with further references. It is likely that Badens taught Goltzius how to paint; Ibidem, p. 162, 168.
106See about this more extensively E.J. Sluijter, Rembrandt’s rivals. History painting in Amsterdam,1630–1650, Amsterdam/Philadelphia 2015, p. 183–185.
107A. Bredius and N. de Roever, ‘Pieter Lastman and Francois Venant’, in: Oud Holland 4 (1886), p. 1–23, esp. 7–9, Dudok van Heel, Jonge Rembrandt (n. 97), p. 84–85; Seifert, Lastman, p. 46–47.
108‘Een boeck met 102 stucx prenten van Rembrandt van Rijn f. 20,–.’ His inventory contains many books with prints (specifically named are only Rembrandt, Dürer, Guilliam van Nieulandt and the drawing book with prints after Abraham Bloemaert, ‘’t leerboeck van Blommert’) and drawings, as well as a respectable library with, among them the Lives of Van Mander, Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, and books of architecture by Serlio, Vredeman de Vries and Coecke van Aelst; the inventory in Bredius, Künstlerinventare (n. 7), p. 173–176. See also L. Kattenburg and R. Baars, ‘“Het leezen van goeden boeken … is al te noodigen zaak.” Boekenbezit van Amsterdamse kunstenaars, 1650–1700’, in: Maandblad Amstelodamum 103.3 (2014), p. 134–150.
109Salomon Koninck married Abigael van Nieulandt in 1638; Briels, Vlaamse schilders (n. 7), p. 348. Koninck, a pupil of David Colijns, Francois Venant and Claes Moyaert, was probably in Uylenburch’s studio in the early 1630s; Sluijter, Rembrandt’s rivals, p. 200.
110An example is the sugar refiner and merchant Johannes Verspreet, originally from Antwerp (inventory Montias Database, no. 197, 1658), who owned two works by Adriaen, respectively valued at f. 30,– (an Adoration of the Shepherds), and ‘a large piece by Nieuland’ (no subject) at f. 60,–. In his rather modest collection of 45 paintings (26 of which were anonymous) Verspreet had works by Alexander Keirincx, Pauwels Hillegaert (four) and David Colijns (five), but he also owned a tronie by Rembrandt and a Jan Miense Moleaer. About this man and his collection see J. Hillegers, ‘Grondig afgericht in all de zwaerste deelen der vrye Schilderkunst’. David Colijns (1581/62–1665), MA thesis Universiteit van Amsterdam 2010, p. 56–57. Johan van Maerlen, originally from Breda (Montias Database, no, 270, 1637), who owned a Susanna by Van Nieulandt, also had works by Roelant Savery, David Vinckboons and Hendrick van Balen (but Avercamp, Codde and Andries Both as well).
111In the known valuations of their paintings in Amsterdam inventories, the average of a work by Poelenburch is 100 guilders, while the average of the paintings by Van Nieulandt is 32 guilders; J.M. Montias, ‘Artists named in Amsterdam inventories, 1607–1680’, in: Simiolus 31 (2004–2005), p. 322–347, esp. 329. The number of evaluations is eleven in the case of Van Nieulandt, and seven in that of Van Poelenburch.
112Probably due to his early connection with the Danish court through his master Pieter Isaacsz, he was one of the four Amsterdam artists (together with Isaac Isaacsz, Claes Moyaert and Salomon Koninck) who received part of a large commission from the Danish King in the early 1640s for Kronborg Castle. He probably painted two canvasses for which he received no less than 290 rixthaler; Briels, Vlaamse schilders, p. 271. One of these large paintings, dated 1643, is at Skokloster Castle, Sweden; Sluijter, Rembrandt’s rivals, p. 174.
113J. Bikker et al., Dutch paintings of the seventeenth century in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, vol. 1, Artists born between1570and1600, Amsterdam 2007, p. 296–297. See about the unique frame, of which Van Thiel suggested that it was designed by Van Nieulandt himself: P.J.J. van Thiel and C.J. de Bruyn Kops, Prijs de Lijst. De Hollandse schilderijlijst in de zeventiemde eeuw, Amsterdam, The Hague 1984, p. 147–148. Regrettably, the painting has a very discoloured varnish, so its considerable quality is hard to see.
114For a concise survey of the events see J. Israel, The Dutch republic. Its rise, greatness, and fall, 1477–1806, Oxford 1995, p. 602–609.
115The large paintings of the long-maned war horse of Prince Maurits, dated 1624 (canvas 207×305 cm) is in Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery. The painting of Maurits and Frederick Hendrik on the beach, of c. 1623–1625 (canvas 137×200 cm’) in The Hague, Mauritshuis. The horse must have been the offspring of the famous Spanish war horse of Archduke Albrecht, captured at the Battle of Nieuwpoort – it was an unknown breed in the Netherlands (I am grateful to Paul Rijkens for this information). For the print by Simon de Passe after Adriaen van Nieulandt, Liberum Belgicum, see Geert Janssen in K. Zandvliet (ed.), Maurits prins van Oranje, Amsterdam, Zwolle 2001, p. 429–433. In 1628 Adriaen received 120 guilders from the Amsterdam city government, because he had ‘honoured the gentlemen burgomasters with 18 representations of the Prince of Orange with the ornaments named Liberum Begium.’
116This was especially strong in the first two decades. However, Baudartius’ Morghen-Wecker der vrije Nederlantsche Provincien (‘Wake-up call for the free Netherlandish Provinces’) (1610) adapted into the children’s book De Spieghel der jeugd (1614), was, for example, frequently reprinted until far into the 18th century; see Müller, Exile memories (n. 50), p. 81–82. About the wish for reunification that remained especially strong among the Reformed exiles, see also J. Pollmann, ‘No man’s land. Reinventing Netherlandish identities, 1585–162)’, in: R. Stein and J. Pollmann (eds.), Networks, regions and nations. Shaping identities in the Low Countries, 1300–1650, Leiden, Boston 2010, p. 241–261, esp. 259.
117The Allegory of the consequences of war: 1610, panel 61×84 cm. Sale London, Sotheby’s, 24–03-1976, no. 22. The two allegories of war and peace: 1627, canvas 54×74.3 cm. Sale New York, Christie’s, 26–01-2001, no. 98.
118Müller, Exile memories, p. 72–99 and Pollmann, ‘No man’s land’, p. 245–251.
119About Hieronymus Cock’s series and Van Heemskerck’s sketches see P. Führing in: J. van Grieken, G. Luijten and J. van der Stock (eds.), Hieronymus Cock. Renaissance in print, Brussels 2013, p. 90–95.
120For example Frans Hals (b. 1582/1583), Porcellis (b. 1583/85) – the only two who were a bit older – and the slightly younger Esaias van de Velde (b. 1587), Adriaen van de Venne (b. 1587) and Hercules Seghers (b. c. 1589); considerably younger were Dirck Hals (b. 1591), Jan van de Velde (b. 1593) and Pieter de Molijn (b. 1595). From none of these artists work is known before 1610. At a time that many new developments took place, it seems to be of great importance at which moment they began their career.
121For example Gillis d’Hondecoeter (b. c. 1577), Willem van den Bundel (b. 1577), David Colijns (b. 1582), Jacques van der Wyhen (b. 1586), Paulus Hillegaert (b. 1596), Alexander Keirincx (b. 1600).
122See the essay by David van der Linden in this volume. A survey of reasons to migrate to Holland during the Dutch Revolt in Vermeylen, ‘Greener pastures’ (n. 1), p. 43–49.