Dutch Graphic Tradition in the Hudson Valley

raphic Tr
ecovering the
Independent
Researcher and Consulltant
Columbia County, NY
I magesare very powerful. A good example is the com-
depicts an imaginary landscapepeopled with curiously
European-like Indians, and was probably based on a
description of Coronado’s exploits in what is now the
southwesternUnited States.It shows Indians acting in
defense of themselves against Spanish conquest. Its
theme-innocent, pastoral life corrupted by depraved
civilization-proved to be as prophetic of American
experience as it was readily recognized in the Low
Countries where the Spanish then ruled.* Though a
European product far removed from the arts of the
colonial Dutch, the painting focusesour attention on the
purposeful and effective graphic representationsfamiliar
to the Dutch in both Europe and America.
mon delight most people experienced in the film
“Raiders of the Lost Ark.” The delight was remarkably
heightened for sharp-eyed Hudson Valley Dutch historians. Their unanticipated thrill came when Harrison
Ford pulled from a shelf of ancient tomes the familiar
icon-a large, brass-comer-tipped and clasped, embossedleather volume, the Dutch Bible.
Though fleeting, the thrill didn’t stop there. Ford, in
the role of Indiana Jones,usedthis book to discover what
the Lost Ark looked like-an act of research eerily
reminiscent of one Van Bummell, described by
Alexander Hamilton in 1744, who had used the same
means to discover what the Tower of Babel looked
like-by consulting its illustrations. Among pagesof the
Book of Genesis,he found an exact depiction of the Ark.
And the film’s producer and art director found the source
for an elaborate film set, recreating for modern
Americans an image that was a Hudson Valley commonplacetwo hundredand fifty yearsago.In thecontext
of the film, the Bible image had one meaning and purpose-find the Ark. But that becameskewed for those
acquainted with the Hudson Valley commonplace.The
image evoked amazementand perhapsshock at seeinga
Bible in such a context; it evoked feelings of superior
knowledge, in the moment of recognition, over other
moviegoers;it evoked wonder andcontemplation at how
a Dutch Bible wended its way to a Hollywood set. In
retrospect, the whole evokes bemusement:who would
have expected “Raiders of the Lost Ark” to conjure
solemn reflections. Images, lie the Lost Ark itself,
becomeicons, symbols, and emblemsfilled with many
ideas and networks of meaning.
During the seventeenthcentury, graphic arts touched
all parts of Dutch society and economy. Painted and
printed pictures were usually familiar scenesand objects
or depictions of historical, heroic, mythological, or biblical subjects.All of theseimages had a prominent place
in daily life where the Dutch drew instruction and meaning from such illustrations. In addition, engravings,
maps, and tiles were ornamented with graphic representations, and illustrated books enjoyed an enormous
popularity.
In particular, books of topical versesought to explain
religious, biblical, and social issues. The verses were
elaborated in accompanying illustrations that depicted
the dramaticaction and moral of the verse.Suchpictorial
and verbal instructions also enjoyed prevalence
throughout Europe and in England where they were
known as “emblems.” Emblematic verse had to be read
for the accompanyingillustration to be comprehensible;
but once the verse was read and the illustration understood, the illustration alone becamean emblem (or symbol) for the written idea. Our understanding of the
association of graphic and verbal depiction is further
enriched by the multiple meanings of the Dutch word
verklaaren: “to illustrate”, and “to declare, explain, interpret.” Thus despite the Dutch abundance of book
publishers and sellers and the prevalence of literacy,
imagesremainedpotent symbols for conveying informa-
Dutch graphic representationswere groundedin such
associations.What is now regardedasthe earliest known
Europeanpainting of the New World is Dutch and, like
“Raiders of the Lost Ark,” contains surprising, unexpectedsymbolism. JanMostaert (1475-1555/6) of Haarlem painted West Indies landscape about 1542and Care1
van Mander first described it in 1604. The painting
23
24
SELECTED
RENSSELAERSWIJCK
SEMINAR
tion and ideas in the Netherlands. Not limited to
illustrated books, emblematic images were adaptedby
painters to give layered meaningsto their paintings.
The English diarist John Evelyn was amazedby these
pictures-“especially landscapesand drolleries”-that
he found for sale at the Rotterdamkermis. He also noted
ornamental representationsadorning houses,churches,
and furniture. Evelyn explained that
‘.. . . the reason for this store of pictures, and their cheapness,
proceeds for their want of land to employ their stock, so that it is
an ordinary thing to find a common farmer lay out two or three
thousand pounds in this commodity. Their houses are $ll of them,
and they vend them at their fairs to very great gains.”
In the seventeenthcentury, more than three thousand
documentedartists? found this demandirresistible, and
only a handful of them travelled to far-flung Dutch
outposts established by the Dutch East and West India
Companies.Among the latter were six who came to the
western hemisphere under the patronage of Count
Johann Maurits, first governor of Brazil. During his
administration (1637-44), he established scientists,
craftsmen, scholars, and these six professional painters
to study and record the exotic country. Paintings and
PAPERS
drawings by Albert E&out (ca. 161~after 1664) and
Frans Jansz. Post (ca. 1612-1680), ishowing the
landscape, vegetation, fruits, animal life, and native
peoples,constitute the major Oeuvreof Dutch artists in
the New World. The paintings were brought to the
Netherlands when Count Maurits returned.4 Official
Dutch interest in the arts in the Americas thus ceased.
No graphic recording of North American flora, fauna,
or landscapehad ever beencommissioned by the Dutch
West India Company or its local officials. However,
several early Dutch mapmakers illustrated their maps
with representationsof Indians, animals, vegetation, imagesof New Amsterdam,and beaverswere incorporated
into civic coats-of-arms. Two early drawings by unknown delineators show New Amsterdam’sappearance,
and were adaptedby engravers to ornament their maps
of New Netherland. The ca. 1650 view, first published
by N. J. Vissche2 in 1651-55, was used to illustrate
Adriaen van der Donck’s Description 4 The New
Netherlands which also included a depiction of North
American fauna that more resembled creatures from
medieval bestiaries.6Jan Mostaert’s auspicious beginning in the sixteenth century seemedto dwindle asDutch
contact with New World expandedin the 1’7thcentury.
Fig. 3. Depiction of North American Fauna, from Adrian van der Donck’s Description of the New Netherlands.
Courtesy of Manuscripts and Special Collections, New York StateLrbrary, Albany.
THE
DUTCH
GRAPflIC
Nonetheless,traditionally important attitudes and expectations pertaining to graphic art were transplantedto
America, and, taking root in a provincial situation,
became greatly modified and eventually reshaped by
some unexpected influences. Today only a handful of
surviving examplesprovide concrete information about
seventeenthcentury graphic production in New Netherland. The surviving artifacts are significandy dominated
by iconographic images, leading to the impression that
graphic arts in New Netherland quietly emerged in
relationship to some predisposition or need for
emblematiccontent andin proportion to craftsmenavailable. Manuscript evidence enlargesthis picture. Several
examplesare worth considering.
A portrait of Cornelis Steenwyck (ca. 1668) is
ornamented with iconography pertinent to this man’s
life. Arriving in New Amsterdam in 1651, Steenwyck
rose to prominencein tradeandcivic offices. His portrait
is dominated by the Steenwyckcoat of armsat the center
top and under the bust-length figure a representationof
New Amsterdam, taken from the ca. 1650 view of the
town shortly thereafterpublished by Visscher.7
Heraldic devices held significance for New Netherlanders. As early as the 1630~~coats-of-armsfor New
Netherland and New Amsterdam were planned.” Their
most notable device, the beaver,aptly reflected the West
India Company’s North American trading purposes.
Some individuals brought with them from Europe their
family’s coats-of-arms.Apparently some devices were
adoptedhere after a family gained colonial prominence.
After the English takeover in 1664, interest in such
devices seems to have increased during the colonial
period, and was renewed by descendants in the
nineteenth century. Arms were employed in notably
public fashion: at Albany (1656 and after) and Kingston
(1679), the Dutch churches were furnished with glass
decoratedby Evert Duyckinck (ca. %620/l-by 1702/3),
a glazier who immigrated to Netherland by 1640.’ The
church windows were commissioned and paid for by
prominent individuals whose family coats-of-arms
adorned the glass, while canvas hatchments bearing
painted armsof even more families hung in the churches
and were carried at funerals, following customs of the
Netherlands. Their prominent display conferred status
and compelled recognition of the more prosperous
membersof the community. In the eighteenth century,
coats-of-arms came to be a frequent decoration (and
declaration of ownership) on silver pieces.
TRADITION
IN THE
HUDSON
VALLEY
25
An example of seventeenth century silver work-a
presentationbeakerthat descendedin the Sandersfamily
of Scotia, New York-shows bsw the emblematic
verklaaring elucidated values and information. The
was ornamented with adaptations of emblems
ti in Spiegel watt den.Olden ende Nieuwen Tgdt,
(1632).” The §@ege1(Mirror) was a witty, moralistic,
and sometimessatiric book by JacobCats.His useof folk
wisdom combined with classical and IBiblical authorities
made him widely popular and the most beloved poet of
the seventeenthcentury. Editions of his poemswere well
illustrated with humorousandsometimescryptic engravings that becamesymbols for the subject of the verses.
Thus the imagesof stork, geese,and eagle with tortoise
incised on the beaker communicate ideas. The tortoise,
momentarily riding high over craggy mountains in the
claws of an eagle, will fall in the end. Cats provided the
English gloss, “The highest tree hath the greatestfall.”
Cats’ geeserepresentindustry, for by labor are fortunes
made. The image of the stork tells the story of a more
complex illustration: armed soldiers pursuing farmers,
who chasea dragon-like crocodile, which is about to eat
a snake which is attacking a stork which eats a lizard
which is eating a spider whoseweb hasensnaredinsects.
To complete a cycle, it is likely the insectsare plaguing
the soldiers. Cats provided a gloss from the Bible,
Ecclesiastes5:8,
If you witness in some province the oppression of the poor, do not
be surprised at what goes on, for every official has a hi her one set
over him and the highest keeps watch over them all. lf
One can hardly ignore the verse that follows in the
Bible. “The best thing for a country is a king whoseown
lands are well tilled,” which fortifies the wry sacial and
political observation certainly applicable to New York
colonial administration in 1685, the year the beakerwas
madeby Comelis van den Butch [Burgh].
These diverse examples, however, do not answer for
paintings or other delineated art. Evidence of seventeenth century painters in New Netherland is minimal.
Portraits of importance are Ehoseof Petrus Stuyvesant
(1611-1672) and his son, William Nicholas Stuyvesant
(B64CB698). Based om a
itbw iimwhich a woman
stated that her husband p
amdhis two sonsin order
8663, that mam,HemriCouturier, is most likely to have
beemtie painter who made these portraits. Despite the
1666 inscription on the surviving portrait of William
Nicholas Stuyvesant rAetatis Sua I7 Ano I666”)-an
inscription now attributed to Nehemiah Partridge-the
Fig. 4. Silver presentationbeaker, 1685, by Cornelius van der Burch. From the Mable Brady Garvan Collection
of the Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven.
THE
DUTCH
GRAPHIC
attractive theory that Hem-i Couturier painted these
portraits is plausible because Couturier is the only
schilder known to have lived in New Netherland/New
York (ca. 1661-74) at that time and because of the
realistic possibility that more than one portrait of these
subjectsmight havebeenmade.Couturier mustbe noted
as the colony’s first “artist” of record, even though
knowledge of his work is very sparse.12
During this period, we know that a variety of art came
to the colony from Europe.“Paperpictures” (engravings)
are mentioned in a few inventories of the 1650s.Several
slightly later inventories reveal that rich colonists had an
array of paintings. One of these was Margarita van
Varick (wife of Domine Rudolphus van Varick) whose
stunning collection of paintings (including portraits) and
works of art on paper must have been assembledduring
her first marriage to a prosperousDutch EastIndia Company administrator.’ 3 But colonial circumstancesdid
not always leave room for theseamenities.Jeremiasvan
Rensselaer,who came to America in 1654, never mentioned works of art until about two months before his
deathin 1674, when he wrote to his brother, Jan Baptist,
about the settlementof his mother’s estatein the Netherlands:
I wish that opposite each article had been indicated the price at
which it was appraised, as I could then order some paintings to be
sent over. The household linen you will please slyd to us, as we
need that to replenish the linen closet somewhat.
Other painters, however, are encountered in colony
records as ship passengersand then in the listing of the
Small Burgher Right. The register for the Small Burgher
Right wasbegunApril 10,1657, andonly threedayslater
JanDirckzsen, painter, andEvert Duyckinck (a “glazier”
of specialinterest,aswe will scebelow) took therequired
oath andpaid 18stivers to retain certain privileges of city
residency. In May 1659, another painter, Jacob
Hendricksen Haen, was listed.15 Since they are not
denotedas “limners,” it is likely that thesemen were not
of a primarily artistic bent but rather skilled in preparing
and applying pigments in oil for practical and perhaps
decorative purposes.
By the late seventeenthcentury we seem to reach a
hiatus in the developmentof painting in the former Dutch
colony. Several kinds of artisans created graphic
emblematic images,while painters were known only for
craft skills until about 1700and lone Hemi Couturier for
only three documentedportraits. Nonetheless,the early
eighteenth century portraiture was established in New
TRADITION
IN THE
HUDSON
VALLEY
27
York, although too few portraits are identified with
certainty as to subject and date to speculateabout how
extensive portraiture may have been in this period. A
handful known from surviving examplesand mention of
additional ones in inventories enable us to consider
graphic arts in this period.
One of the inventories seemsespecially significant. It
is that of John Abeel (ca. 1669-171 l/2) who had in his
Albany housein 17ll“ll
painted pictures, 22 little do.,
and a painted picture of Mr. Abeel and of Mrs. Abeel and
of the daughter.“16 Which of his young daughters,
Catalina (b. 1698), Neeltje (b. 1701), or Jannetje (b.
1703),is not stated.But clearly here is indicated a group
of family portraits like those associated with more
numerous surviving examples of the 1718-50 period.
None of these paintings are known today. However,
within the family network revealedby Abeel’s inventory
are found limners, portrait subjects,and evidence of the
easewith which family alliancesbetwween
New York and
Albany were established.
Abeel’s executors-his wife Catalina (Schuyler)
Abeel, his brother-in-law limner Gerrit Duyckinck
(166O-ca. 1712), and another brother-in-law Myndert
Schuyler-appointed kinsmen and trusted friends to appraise household property at Albany and some silverware and a supply of linen kept in the New York house
of Gerrit or Evert Duyckinck. These appraisers were
Hendrick Hansen,Pieter van Brugh, and Evert Duyckinck (1677-ca 1726), the latter a limner and the third of
that name, a grandson of Evert the glazier and nephew
of the above mentioned Gerrit, who was the spouseof
JohannesAbeel’s sister, Maria (ca. 1666-1738). Johannes Abeel served as baptismal sponsor for two of his
sister’s children, including GerardusDuyckinck (16951746), a limner in the next generation. Adding to this
density in the subsequentgeneration was the 1726marriage of Gerrit and Maria (Abeel) Duyckinck’s daughter,
Maria (1702- ? ). to her first cousin David (1705- ?),
youngestsonJohannesand Catalina (Schuyler) Abeel.17
Three generations of the Duyckinck family emerge
from records and from a group of paintings long traditionally attributed to them as New York’s leading limners. There is even elusive documentation that the first
Eve& the glazier, was a limner in later life. And in the
fourth generation,GerardusDuyckinck (1723-1797),the
eldest son of Gerardusand his wife Johannavan Brugh,
continued the family involvement in graphic arts. Although he was enteredas a limner in the New York City
28
SELECTED
RENSSELAERSWIJCKSEMINAR
freeman register in 1748 and advertised that he taught
drawing, would take portraits, and carried on his father’s
well-stocked art and glasssupply shopat the “sign of the
Cupid,” no works are attributed to him. Art historians
now believe that he probably did not produce many
paintings.”
While the Oeuvreof this important family was long
loosely defined, the 1976discovery by Richard H. Love
of a scripture history painting signed “Gerardus Duyckinck/1713”t9 hasresultedin somefirmer attributions and
new conclusions. Art historian Mary Black has pointed
out that certain brown, blue, andvermillion pigmentsand
a distinctive tulipwood panel are characteristicscommon
over at leasttwo generationsof manypaintings attributed
to the Duyckinck family. In fact, the recurrenceof these
pigments andpanels suggesta family atelier in the Dock
Ward of New York, where Evert and Gerrit lived next
door to each other for a number of years. An unusually
high quantity of glassfragmentswasfound in the Duyckinck cellar by archeologists in their excavation of the
property at Hanover Squarein 1981.20The discovery of
the signed scripture painting now enablesart historians
to distinguish stylistic elements in the works of Ever-t
Duyckinck (1677-1727) and his cousin Gemrdus(16951746)and to attribute the important portrait of Mrs. Elsje
Rutgers Schuyler Vas, by long tradition ascribed to the
hand of Hudson Valley portraitist, Pieter Vanderlyn, to
GerardusDuyckinck. This woman was the step motherin-law of Pieter Vanderlyn and this family association
supportedthe statementof Pieter’s grandson,artist John
Vanderlyn that he portrait had been made by his
grandfather. However, Mrs. Vas had been married first
to David Schuyler (1669-17 15)and wasthereforeaclose
kinswoman to the Abe&Duyckinck family. All three of
her sons, David Jr, Hermanus, and Myndert Schuyler,
appear to have engaged in the painter’s business and
were enteredin the freeman’sregister aspainters (which
probably meansonly that they madepaints) and retained
associationswith the Duyckinck family.
Gerardus Duyckinck’s scripture history painting,
madewhen he waseighteen yearsold, hasimportance in
its own right. It is the only signed colonial New York
painting. The import of its subjectmatter is not perfectly
clear, but offers an opportunity to demonstrateuse of
iconographic detail. Based upon the personnae
depicted-notably an elderly father and a new, young
mother in childbed and the company of female friends
caring for an infant-and the subsequentdiscovery of a
colonial Latin American painting with the same
PAPERS
composition entitled The Birth of the Virgin, Richard
Love identified this painting as the same subject.
However, specific details-mission
of bathing the
newborn infant and the inclusion of the”father” who had
no role in Mary’s Immaculate Conception-that run
counter to fixed European depictions of this subject, the
strong anti-Catholic position of the Dutch, along with
their occasionalpredilection for the nameJan-Baptistled
Piwonka and Blackbum to identify the subject depicted
as The Naming of John the Baptist.2’ They could not
account, however, for the omission of the writing tablet
on which aging Zachariah wrote “His name is John,” an
important detail common to Europeanrepresentationsof
that subject. These argumentsare somewhat trivialized
by the omission of critical iconographic detail in some
other early New York scripture history paintings (such
as the failure to depict the furry skins put on Jacob’s
hands,soblind father would believe he was touching the
hairy Esau).22Lutherans and perhaps former Catholics
at Albany did have an interest in Marianism, but it took
the form of quarrelsomeopposition, basedon the content
of the Bible, to Lutheran minister Domine Bemardus
Arenzius’ teaching that Mary had died a virgin.23
The religious narrative of this painting directs us back
to emblematic depiction and to the observation that the
work of the Duyckinck family constituted the continuity
of verklaaring in the province. Although requisite
iconographic detail is mishandled in some of the paintings, all of thepaintings, savethe curious exampleabove,
canbe readily identified (sometimesbecausethe Biblical
reference is inscribed) with subjects in the Bible, and
most are close adaptationsof engraved illustrations that
occur in the illustrated Dutch Bibles and other illustrated
books prevalent in America between 1698 and about
1755.One of thesepaintings, now attributed to Gerardus
Duyckinck, is virtually an iconographic study. The
depiction of The Four Evangelists includes not only
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John but their respective
emblems-a winged man, a winged lion, a winged ox,
and an eagle.Although details of the figures and animals
derive from printed sources,no specific source for this
composition has been found in the Bible or in other
printed illustrations.
More than thirty-five scripture history paintings from
the first half of the eighteenth century smvive. Most of
them originated in the upper Hudson and Mohawk
Valleys, a region where contemporary sojournersnoted
their greatpopuhuity.24 The Dutch were well acquainted
with Bible stories and perpetuatedthis knowledge with
THE
DUTCH
GRAPHIC
Bible instruction for their children. Dutch Bible illustrations and numerousreligious subjectsdepictedon hearth
tiles reinforced the instruction. The Old World habit of
equating their own personal provincial histories and
destinies with events narrated in the Bible remained in
tact well past the middle of the eighteenth century.25
Besides serving as emblematic teachers of Bible
history, the scripture paintings also reinforced
experienceand aspirations. While one extant New York
scripture painting, The Crowning of Jeroboam, is a
highly political comment,26 the remainder illustrate
occasionally religious experience and most often
episodesand experience of family life. Birth, nurturing,
generational and sibling conflict, hospitality, comradeship, feasting, and domestic peace were concerns
commonly shared in frontier and provincial
communities.
Portraits dating from the long and peaceful period
between the French and Indian wars (1713-1744)
dominated eighteenth century New York colonial art.
The greatest proportion of surviving examples come
from the upper Hudson and Mohawk Valleys, although
we cannot conclude that theseexamplesare an accurate
reflection of the proportions of portraits originally made
for patronsin New York, Albany, andthe greatrural river
valleys. Most of the subjects can be identified as
membersof local patriciates. These individuals, of the
second and third generation in Albany county, had
achieved a degree of economic stability and become
contributors to local civic life. Only a handful of portrait
subjects are of the proportionately smaller upper class
that lived in the region. Somesurviving examplesshow
that entire families were portrayed as individuals on
separate canvases. Because of some documentary
evidenceandthe many child portraits, it is concludedthat
this custom of recording likenessesof the whole family
was probably more prevalent than surviving paintings
show.27
Certainly peace in the colonies contributed to the
impressivequantity of art producedin the HudsonValley
between 1718 and about 1744.But this was not the only
factor. Wartime andNew York political turbulenceof the
preceding decadesmay have paved the way for new
painters in the colony. The few Albany portraits
attributable to the Duyckincks are surprising, especially
when their strong family and long businessassociations
in the Albany areaare considered.Although it is conjectural, the Duyckinck’s close Leislerian ties in the 1690s
TRADITION
Ii’d THE
HUDSON
VALLEY
29
may have roused Albanians to boycott their work. It is
otherwise difficult to accountfor the short-fall of Albany
subjectsby theDuyckinck family painters.With growing
population, an established society, and a stabilized
economy for the first time since settlement, colonists
were in a position to expand their cultural horizons. A
combination of available painters and eagerpatronswas
equally important. While retaining some iconographic
elementsrelated to emblems,New York patrons turned
to artisansof British background. The first of thesewas
John Watson, a Scats immigrant and accomplished
painter who settledin New Jerseyin 1714.28Most of his
subjects appear to have been from the lower Hudson
region, andhis Albany subjectswere from the city’s most
prominent families.
It was Nehemiah Partridge (1683-by 1737), a New
England-born limner and artificer who migrated from
Boston to New York city by January 1717F9who found
the most receptive patronagein old Albany county. His
identity has only recently been ascertained by Mary
Black, who has found that he is likely to have had
contacts with Albanians long before 1718, when he
apparently first went to the town, for members of his
prominent New Portsmouth family were among New
Englanders who had worked with Albanians during the
French and Indian wars. During 1718-1721 and about
1724-1725, Partridge limned images of more than fifty
Albany subjects.Their direct, honestly depicted heads
are often set in a somewhat pretentious, English-influenced atmospherecopied from current, fashionable
mezzotints.Frequently aLatin inscription, giving the age
of the subjectand the year the portrait was made,appears
on the paintings, causingtwentieth century art historians
to have called Partridge the Aetatis SueLimner.30
This former “title” of the previously anonymous
limner focuses on an important iconographic detail.
Aetatis sueinscriptions on portraits, a northern European
and English custom that began in the fifteenth century,
are closely related to the historic emergence of both
individuals and the modem family, for recognition of an
individual’s age was an important factor in placing that
individual in society. By the middle of the seventeenth
century this custom of inscribing portraits was unfashionable,unsophisticated,andconsideredin town and
court as “naive and provincialyy3’ Its late appearance
among the colonial Dutch-first with William Nicholas
Stuyvesant’s 1666 portrait, and then on numerous
Albany portraits in the first and secondquarters of the
eighteenth century-is historically consistent with
30
SELECTED
RENSSELAERSWIJCKSEMINARPAPERS
patternsof family formation and the emergenceof town
society, and is symptomatic of a provincial self-conception. Related to this development is the fact that the
Albany community, which had maintained no recordsof
marriagesand births, respondedenergetically when the
English (who by this time had established their own
national procedures)required this in 1683.This ritual of
family life found expressionnot only in church ceremony
and records but also in individual family histories kept
in Bibles or ledgers. After Partridge’s sojourns at Albany, the Aetatis Sue formula diminished in use, although a number of examples by Pieter Vanderlyn and
by John Heaten are found on portraits of the 1730sand
early 1740s.Thesetwo limners addedsubstantially to the
quantity of upper Hudson Valley portraits and in a
number of their works, emblematic or other symbolic
iconography was used.
Pieter Vanderlyn (ca. 1687-1778) was a Dutch-born
painter who settled in New York about 1718 after a
period in Dutch-occupied CuraGao. Because of the
prominence of his grandson, John Vanderlyn, he is a
colonial limner whose name was never lost and cameto
beassociatedwith too manyportraits in stylestoo diverse
to be credited to one hand.32 In his work, several
examples of emblem-like details are found. The best
example are the paired portraits of Leendert Gansevoort
(1683-1763)andhiswifeCatarinadeWandelaer(16891767). The couple’s surname, Gansevoort, means
“goose-fort,” a fact handsomely illustrated by a goose
pond embellishing Leendert’s portrait and a castle
fortification in Catarina’s portrait.
Another kind of symbolism frequently employed by
Vanderlyn was inclusion of floral and bird images in
portraits of children and young people. Roses and
gillyflowers, most commonly held by young females,
were traditionally symbolic of pure love, love about to
happen,romantic love, and soon, according to their color
and the position in which they are held. Similar devices
are seen in portraits by Partridge, where they seem to
follow the influence of English mezzotints rather than
contain symbolic content. Even in Vanderlyn’s paintings, their ornamentaleffect is indisputable. However, a
particular feature of one portrait causesus to reconsider
their possible significance. The portrait is of Magdalena
Veeder, whose left hand holds low on the canvas a
full-blown rose and whose raised right hand holds buds
in the air; falling behind the painted spandrel, at the
bottom of the portrait, in almost trompe d’oeille manner,
are an open rose, a peach, and a cherry. Our lack of
specific knowledge of floral and fruit symbolism
obscuresany story that this interesting and remarkable
configuration of elementsmay have told.
Despite Vanderlyn’s Dutch origin’s, there is little in
his painting that derives from the rich, sophisticated
seventeenth century portraiture of the Netherlands.
Besidestherebusand floral devices,he also usedin some
portraits archaic elements of sixteenth century English
and other northern European portraiture.33 In this
Mannerist-influenced tradition, stiff ritualized figures
are garbed in highly ornamental costumes, and their
personor backgrounddetail (whether landscapeor merely undefined) are further characterized with personally
identifying, specific iconographic detail, suchasa building, an object, jewelry, a pet, written inscription, etc.
Suchportraits-especially thoseof female subjects-are
extremely decorative but also are illustrated statements
(like verklaaring) giving definition to individuals. Two
examples of this tradition in Vanderlyn’s work are
portraits of Debora Glen (1721-1786) and Susanna
Truax (17261805). This kind of portraiture was not the
currently fashionable type disseminated by imported
mezzotints. What example or circumstance existed that
influenced Vanderlyn or called this tradition to the attention of Albany/ Schenectady area patrons is now
unknown. However, the appeal of these highly
iconographic depictions conforms with the graphic
orientation of the provincial Dutch community.
The Wendell limner, named for his depiction of more
Wendell family subjectsin the 173Os,is another painter
who worked in Albany and whose portraits sometimes
incorporate this archaic tradition. He is likely John
Heaten,also namedin the informative Wendell account
book. Evert Wendells’s son, Abraham, wrote in 1737 in
the same ledger that contained the information about
Nehemiah Partridge, that he had sent Heaten seven
framesand speckledlinen for the sevenportraits he had
ordered.34More information is neededabout the identity
of John Heaten,assuredlyof British andpossibly of New
England origin, who appearsfirst in Albany records in
1730when he married Maria Hoogekerk (b. 1698). Over
the following decade,he bought property and raised his
family of four children in Albany, but in the early 1740s
mention of him in public records ceases.His portrait of
AbrahamWendell with the family mill in the.background
also employs a specific local icon.
The quantity of surviving portraits from the first half
of the eighteenth century greatly exceeds the scripture
THE
DUTCH
GRAPHIC
paintings. It is supposed that this is so because later
generationsidentified with their ancestorsand cared to
preservetheir images,while the onceimportant scripture
paintings appearedcrude, unfashionable, and no longer
communicatedmeaningful ideas.
If an emblematic response operated at all in later
generations,it must have reactedto the portraits’ strong
individualism andtheir ability to communicatea familial
continuity, inspiring pride and probably veneration.
Janet Montgomery, reminiscing about her ancestry in
1820, recalled the great portrait by Nehemiah Partridge
of Pieter Schuyler, who maintained such good relations
with northern Indians and took four of them to the
English court in 1710. In turn the Indians remembered
Schuyler:
TRADITION
IN THE
HUDSON
VALLEY
31
His memory is still cherished. and even in my youth [ca. 1764 I
have seen numbers crowd to see a full-length portrait of him. The
moment they approached it they fell on their knees, calling out
“Quidor! Quidor!” never being able to pronounce his name.35
Numerous paintings from Albany County during the
first half of the eighteenth century were dominated by
English influences and elements, but also retained an
important Dutch characteristic. Along with fulfilling
impulsesand needsfor self-perpetuationand decoration,
paintings made for the Hudson Valley Dutch were
consistent with the tradition of graphic literacy and the
direct and emblematic illustration that the Dutch had
brought to America in the seventeenth century.
Verklaaren-illustration and statement-instructs us
even today. Just ask Indiana Jones!
32
SELECTED
RENSSELAERSWIJCK
SEMINAR
PAPERS
Notes
‘Hugh Honour, The European Vision of America
Cleveland: The Cleveland Art Museum, 1976), 30-32.
1John Evelyn, The Diary of John Evelyn (London: Dent,
1966) 21-22.
3Walther Bemdt, The Netherlandish Painters of the
Seventeenth Century (New York: Phaidon, 1969),vol. 1,
iv.
4Honour, 99-107.
51.N. Phelps Stokes and Daniel C. Haskell, American
Historical Prints. Earl Views of American Cities. Etc.
From the Phelps Stokes ana’ other Collections (New
York: The New York Public Library, 1932),Plates4,5,
6 and 7; p. 9-l 1.
6Adriaen van der Donck, A Description of New Netherlands. Jeremiah Johnson, tr., and Thomas F. O’Donell,
ed. (Syracuse: SyracuseUniversity Press, 1968), frontispiece and opp. iv of the translator’s introduction.
7The New-York Historical Society, Catalogue of
American Portraits in The New-York Historical Society.
2 ~01s.(New York: The New-York Historical Society,
1974), 2: 757. Family tradition has ascribed the portrait
to Steenwyck’s brother-in-law Jan van Gootten and it is
said to havebeenpainted in the Netherlandswhen Steenwyck visited there in 1667-68; however, no information
on the artist van Gooten hascometo light, andattribution
to Henri Couturier can be considered.
*Richard Koke, American Landscape and Painting in
The New-York Historical Society. A Catalogue of the
Collection. Including Historical. Narrative. and Marine
Art. 3 ~01s. (New York: The New-York Historical
Society, 1982), 3: 354-55.
‘Waldron Phoenix Belknap, American Colonial Painting. Materials for a History (Cambridge: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University, 1959), 63-75, provides
detailed information on the first Evert Duyckinck drawn
from contemporary records.Seealso Robert W. G. Vail,
“Storied Window Richly Dight” (New-York Historical
Society Quarterly. 1952) 36: 148-59.
“Anna W. McNeil, “A Pedigreed American Beaker”
(The Magazine Antiques. May 1929) 15: 388-90 and
Mrs. Russell Hastings, “The Sanders-Garvanbeakerby
Cornelis VanderBurch” (The Magazine Antiques,
February 1935) 27: 52-55.
“Jacob Cats, Spiegel van den Ouden ende Nieuwen
Tijdt, (1632. Reprint. Amsterdam: Facsimile Uitgaven
Nederland N. V., 1968) Part 2: 19-20, Part 3: 21-22 and
27-28.
’ %‘herehasbeensomeconfusion over Stuy vesa t’s birth
year due to the fact that his tombstone in St. IJ ark’s in
the Bowery stateshe died in 1672at age 80. This implies
1592asthe year of his birth, and this dateis usedby some
19th and early 20th century historians (seeAlma R. van
Hoevenberg, “The Stuyvesants in the Netherlands and
New Netherland,” New-York Historical
Society
Quarterly Bulletin, x/l (April 1926): 3-;!7). However,
more recent research in Netherlands archives have
turned up proof that he was born in 1611 in Peperganear
Scherpenzeelin the province of Friesland. See J.H.P.
Kemperink, “Pieter Stuyvesant: Waar en wanneer werd
Archief
hij geboren?” De Navorscher-Nederlands
XCVIII (1959): 49-59. The New Netherland Project has
recently discovered confirmation of the 1611date in the
Amsterdam Notarial Records No. 1293/8 of Jan. 18,
1646,which gives PetrusStuyvesant’sageasof that date
as about 35 years.
Information on Couturier comesfrom The New-York
Historical Society, Catalogue of American Portraits,
780 and 782-83. See also John Hill Morgan, Early
American Painters. Illustrated in the Collections of The
New-York Historical Society (New York, 1926), p. 21;
and Charles X. Harris, “Henri Couturier: An Artist of
New Netherland,” The New-York Historical Society
Quarterly 11 (July, 1927): 45-52; and James Thomas
Flexner, First Flowers of Our Wilderness (New York:
Dover Publications, 1968),57 and289-90. Couturier has
also been suggested as the painter of the portrait of
Comelis Steenwyck, mentioned earlier in this paper.
131nventoryof Margritavan Varick, 13Jan 1696/7,New
York State Archives, Albany. Another example in the
same collection is that of Christina Cappoens, 5 Jan
1693/4. “Pictures” and their frames are mentioned in
numerous other inventories, but very few others name
subject matter.
14A.J.F. van Laer, tr. and ed., Correspondence of
Jeremias van Rensselaer 1651-167’4 (Albany: The
University of the StateofNew York, 1932), 472.
“The New-York Historical Society, [Burghers and
Freemen] Collections of the New-York Historical
Societyfor the Year I885 (New York, 1886), 17,21, and
25.
*&‘A True Inventory of Goodsof thepersonEstateof Mr.
John Abeel late of the City of Albany. . .7th April 1712”
ew York StateArchives, Albany).
P7Belknap,American Colonial Painting, U-85,107-9,
126, and 134-36; and Jonathan Pearson,Contributions
for the Genealogies of the First Settlers of the Ancient
CountyofAlbanyfrom 1630 to 1800 (Reprint. Baltimore:
GenealogicalPublishing Co., Inc., 1976), 13.This some-
THE
DUTCH
GRAPHIC
what labored genealogicalknot is typical of relationships
encounteredwhen studying groups of portraits, the kind
of graphic image mostprevalent betweenabout 1718and
1750. Although not all subjectsare so closely related to
a painter, evenbaptismal sponsorshipmay prove the key
in establishing that the artist and the subject actually
knew each other. Beyond this, substantial genealogical
investigation is often required to confirm a portrait
subject’s identity and the descentof an inherited portrait.
“Belknap, American Colonial Painting, 120-23; and
Wayne Craven, “Painting in New York City,” American
Painting to 1776. Reappraisal (Winterthur Conference
Report 1971), ed. Ian M. G. Quimby (Charlottesville:
University of Virginia Press,1971),252; 254-56.
‘?Richard H. Love, “ An Important Rediscovery: The
Birth of the Virgin by Garardus Duyckinck I (16951746)” (Art News, November 1976) 75: 110-l 1.
2uNanRothschild, personalcommunication to author.
21RuthPiwonka and Roderic H. Blackburn. A remnant
in the Wilderness: New York Dutch Scripture Hisrory
Paintings of the Early Eighteenth Century (Albany and
Annandale, New York: Albany Institute of History and
Art for the Bard College Center, 1980), 22.
22Piwonkaand Blackburn, ibid., 4547.
23A.J.F. van Laer, Court Minutes of Albany,
Rensselaerswyck, and Schenectady (Albany, The University of the Stateof New York, 1932) 3: 195-98.
2%wonka and Blackburn, A remnant in the Wilderness,
12,
25Albert Blankert et al, Gods, Saints, and Heroes. Dutch
Painting in the Age of Rembrandt (Washington, Detroit,
and Amsterdam: National Gallery of Art, The Detroit
Institute of Arts, and Rijksmusem, 1980) is a scholarly
exhibition catalogue with several essaysdevoted to the
importance of religious, mythological and heroic painting in the Netherlands. While treating nothing like the
colonial New York paintings, the didactic, moralistic
function of seventeenthcentury Dutch examplesis well
established.The customof copying from printed sources
is clearly demonstratedby Adriaen van Gaesbeeck’sA
Painter in his Studio, formerly at Chatsworth, Devonshire, now unlocated, but illustrated in Walther Berndt,
1: 402.
26Christine SkeelesSchloss, “The Dutch Prototype for
The Crowning of Jeroboam: Politics and the Scriptures,”
in Piwonka and Blackbum, A remnant in the Wilderness,
69-70, discusses possible relationships between the
theme of “a successfultraitor crowned” and the usurpation of the Dutch territory by the English. The Leisler
rebellion, church debates over pietism and over
American ordination (Jeroboamhad establishedplaces
of worship in the wilderness for the ten unfaithful tribes
of Israel), or some other now unidentified issue. The
painting is closely adaptedfrom an illustrated book by
Nicholas Visscher (1659, 1700, and 1734 editions) of
TRADITION
IN THE
HUDSON
VALLEY
33
glosses and emblematic interpretation of Biblical history.
“The Thomas van Alstyne family portraits are a good
example of this. His will (NYHS Will Abstracts) mentions only that his three sons would have their own
respective portraits. The will indicates that his two
daughters would divide household property. The
portraits of the three sonsare today unknown, and three
portraits not mentionedin the will are in museumcollection+Thomas and his wife at New-York Historical
Society, and daughter Catharine at Albany Institute of
History and Art.
28Mary Black, “Tracking Down John Watson”
American Arts & Antiques, October, 1979), 78-85.
19New-York Historical Society Collections 1909: Indenture of Apprentices 1718-1727,122.
3%Iary Black, “Co ntributions toward a History of Early
Eighteenth-Century New York Portraiture: Identification of the Aetatis Suae and Wendell Limners.”
American Art Yournal 12, (Autumn, 1980): 4-31.
Documentary information about Partridge had been
known for some time. Mrs. Black has added to that
information significant biographical dataaboutPartridge
and in particular haspositively associatedthe man with
his work through her discovery of a 1718 entry in a
Wendell family accountledger that describedPartridge’s
“debt” of four portraits and somecash to Evert Wendell
in exchange for a horse. Three of those dated portraits
are today in the Albany Institute of History and Art
collections.
3‘Philippe Aries, Centuries of Childhood. A Social History of Family Life, Robert Baldick, tr. (New York
VintageBooks,Random House, 1962), 15-18;andKeith
Wrightson, English Society 1580-1680
(New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press,
1982), Chs. 3 and 4.
32Charles%. Harris, “Pieter Vanderlyn, Portrait Painter”
(Mew-York Historical Society Quarterly, 5 (October,
1921): 59-73. This seminal work brought forth important biographical dataaboutVanderlyn, but createdlonglasting confusion with his listing of all upper Hudson
colonial portraits known to him and the indiscriminate
attribution of all to Pieter Vanderlyn. Mary Black identified specific stylistic characteristic of the painter and
made a checklist of works attributable to him in “The
Gansevoort Limner,” The Magazine Antiques, 96
(1969): 738-744. A manuscript in SenateHouse colleetions, Kingston, in Vanderlyn’s handis relatedto inscriptions on portraits now attributed to him. The finding is
discussedby Black in “Limners of the Upper Hudson
Valley,” American Painting to 1776. A Reappraisal.
Winterthur Conference Report 1971. (Charlottesville:
The University Pressof Virginia, 1971), 23444. Harris
and others should have been guided by traditional attributions to Vanderlyn claimed by Kingston portrait
34
SELECTED
RENSSELAERSWIJCK
SEMINAR
owners, who had inherited the right information along
with their portraits.
33Eric Mercer, English Art 1553-1625 (Oxford: The
Clarendon Press, 1962), 145-216; and Roy Strong, The
English Icon: Elizabethan&Jacobean Portraiture (London: The Paul Mellon Foundation for British Art, 1969).
PAPERS
34MaryBlack, “Contributions toward a History of Early
Eighteenth-Century New York Portraiture: Identification of the Aetatis Suae and Wendell Limners.”
American Art Journal 12, (Autumn, 1980): 3 1.
35Janet Montgomery, “Reminiscens~es,” Dutchess
County Historical Society Yearbook 1930,15: 56-57.