Skip to content
Welcome / Blog Archive / RM24014 – Studying with Rembrandt

RM24014 – Studying with Rembrandt

Listen to this episode here

1            Sources of income

Rembrandt had three main sources of income: commissions for paintings, selling etches and fees from teaching pupils. We are most familiar with his paintings and etchings, commissioned by patrons or produced for the commercial market, or simply for private use. Much less is known about Rembrandt’s pupils and how he taught them.

In this episode of the podcast ‘Rembrandts Money’ (available via www.rembrandtsmoney.com and other standard podcast channels), I will try to shed some more light on his activities as a master for his pupils. How many pupils did he have and at what period in his working life? What did he teach them? Did they remain true to Rembrandt’s artistic style? And, what interests me also, did his pupils appear in his financial and legal matters?

My main focus will be on certain pupils who came from the Dutch city of Dordrecht. Why? Because some of his most successful and well-known pupils came from there, for example Ferdinand Bol, Samuel van Hoogstraten and Nicolaes Maes. More importantly, Dordrecht is still a beautiful, picturesque city, with over 120,000 inhabitants, and it’s where I’ve lived for almost 40 years. See a next podcast, ‘Rembrandt’s pupils from Dordrecht’, RM24015, on www.rembrandtsmoney.com.

 

2            50 pupils in 40 years

During his Leiden period as an entrepreneur – which lasted six to seven years – Rembrandt had already started training pupils. His first pupil in the mid-1620s was Gerrit (or Gerard) Dou. More than 40 years on, Aert de Gelder from Dordrecht would be his last pupil in Amsterdam. In the entire period of his professional life, Rembrandt must always have had pupils. In his first years in Amsterdam, in the early 1630s, these included Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol. Later on, pupils included Carel Fabritius, Samuel van Hoogstraten, Willem Drost, Jacobus Levecq and Nicolaes Maes.

As is often the case with Rembrandt, any written records about his life are weak or simply non-existent. Similarly, no administration exists concerning his pupils.

His influence as a teacher rose in the early 1630s. It is, however, difficult to assess whether pupils worked for him in his studio or just copied his style. There must have been quite a demand from patrons who were eager to acquire a ‘Rembrandt’. De Witt, Van Sloten and Van der Veen (2015), note with certainty that 50 persons were apprentices of Rembrandt; some 14 of those after 1650. This decline in the number of pupils can be explained partly by the fact that Rembrandt painted in a way that was his own and special style, but which – since the late 1640s – was gradually no longer in keeping with the public’s taste.

Although there were several female painters active in the Republic (such as Judith Leyster, Maria van Oosterwijck and Rachel Ruysch), it is unknown whether Rembrandt provided training to women.

Based on the information of one of Rembrandt’s pupils, Sandrart (http://ta.sandrart.net/en/text/de-fr/552), Sluijter (2015) concludes that Rembrandt etched a large number and great variety of things in copper, from which it can be assumed that he was – in Sandrart’s eyes – a very hardworking man. Sandrart, who lived in Amsterdam between 1637 and 1642, noted that Rembrandt had quite a few pupils (himself, Backer, Moyaert, and Colijns), who each paid around 100 guilders a year. In all, Sandrart notes, Rembrandt received between 2,000 to 2,500 guilders in cash each year from these apprentices.

He also received money from their work, in addition to what he earned from work he produced himself. Gerson (Gerson (1968, 62)) notes that is seems to have been ‘the custom … for the master to sell the work of his students and assistants under his own name and even to sign such paintings after touching them up’. Sandrart reports that Rembrandt could have earned more if he had done business in a more rational way, had not been such a spendthrift and if he had been more aware of his standing. He only ever talked to lower-class people, who kept him away from his work, Sandrart noted. Gerson (Gerson (1968), 62) supports Sandrart’s report that well-to-do Amsterdam citizen did send their children to Rembrandt for drawing lessons ‘… for fancy rates’.

See also Schwartz (2006), 124ff., underlining the uncertainties involved in discussing Rembrandt’s tutelage in any detail. Schwartz recalls that written documentation only allows for certainty concerning the names of five pupils: Gerard Dou, Isaac de Jouderville, Constantijn Daniel van Renesse, Samuel van Hoogstraten, and Leenderd van Beieren. Evidence of any other pupils ‘… is second-hand or consists of sheer conjecture’ (Schwartz (2006), 127). I merely note here that Dordrecht-born Jacobus Leveck was also a pupil, see  https://www.dordrechtsmuseum.nl/kunstenaars/leveck-jacobus/.

[Statue ‘Rembrandt in Painter's Coat’, by artist Gabriel Sterk (see www.sleutel.nl, June 22, 2024). The sculpture will be unveiled during the Leiden Rembrandt Days 13 and 14 July 2024. The statue will be placed in Park de Put next to the mill of the same name]

[Statue ‘Rembrandt in Painter’s Coat’, by artist Gabriel Sterk (see www.sleutel.nl, June 22, 2024). The sculpture will be unveiled during the Leiden Rembrandt Days 13 and 14 July 2024. The statue will be placed in Park de Put next to the mill of the same name]

 

3            Apprenticeship

In the 17th century, it was quite common to start professional training as a painter from around the age of 13 or 14. An apprentice’s duties would be rather basic in the early stages: cleaning the studio, grinding pigments and colours, putting up and stretching canvases, preparing paint or the basis (such as wood) to paint on, placing paint on the master’s palette each day, washing it as well as his brushes. As the apprentice’s abilities advanced, he would be permitted to work on areas of his master’s canvases that were considered less important. For example, the foliage in the background or some of the less evident draperies. Training as an independent artist-to-be would start with copying drawings and prints made by the master. The pupil would then progress to drawing from plaster casts, some of which were fragments of human figures, including classical sculpture.

At the next stage in their development, pupils were permitted to draw from a live model. In this way they acquired style, technique, a specialization and the routines and also the secrets of the master. A number of interesting paintings portray groups of apprentices attentively drawing from a live model while the master, patiently assessing the pupil’s progress, continues to observe (and sometimes correct) a pupil’s drawing; see Hinderding and Schatborn (2019), 17 and 102/103.

[Constantijn van Renesse (1626-1680), Daniel in the lion's den. Around 1649-1652; Museum Booijmans van Beuningen. The back states that this is the first drawing he showed to Rembrandt]

[Constantijn van Renesse (1626-1680), Daniel in the lion’s den. Around 1649-1652; Museum Booijmans van Beuningen. The back states that this is the first drawing he showed to Rembrandt]

Noorman (Noorman (2020), p. 112), submits that in mid-17th century Amsterdam, two ‘academies’ were formed where artists drew models from life. One of these was Rembrandt’s studio (an ‘academy’ around a central figure and using pen and ink on white paper, with pupils like Van Hoogstraten and Maes). The other held sessions at different locations and were not organised around a central figure (using chalk on coloured paper, including Flinck, Backer and Van Loo).

Some cities built up a reputation for a certain genre. For example, Haarlem was known for landscape painting, Delft for urban interior and exterior perspectives, and Leiden for the so-called fine painting (‘fijnschilders’) style. Some view these academies as painting ‘schools’ (Prak (2020), 308ff). However, it has also been submitted that there were no such organized coherent local schools of artistic styles and ideas (Rasterhoff (2017), 215).

In the final phase of the apprenticeship, pupils would have acquired drawing skills so that they were permitted to paint copies of other artists’ work. These copies were frequently sold in order to increase the earnings of the apprentice’s master. Pupils might also copy works made by their master and, lastly, they would paint directly from the live model. As for making copies, Demarsin (Demarsin (2008), p. 51) submits that the activity of copying has always been a fundamental part of a pupil’s training. When developing prospective talent, the copy has educational value and was retained even in the 19th century when copying works in a museum was a common activity.

At times when the artistic production was mainly studio-based, copying the master’s work was not only appropriate for building the young artist’s experience, but even necessary from the master’s point of view. Demarsin gives the example that ‘baroque greats’, like Rubens and Rembrandt, could safeguard the quality of their work by ensuring that their employees gained familiarity with their artistic canon. The copying activity was intended to ensure uniformity of style and the visual language within a single studio, but it also immediately benefited a large number of young artists who received strict training in this way.

It was possible that if a pupil’s work was found to be extremely well-painted, the master signed it with his own signature so that the painting would sell for a better price. In many cases, it will not be easy to determine whether a painting was rightly attributed to the master painter.

[Portrait of Elisabeth Bas, ca. 1640-ca. 1645, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam]

[Portrait of Elisabeth Bas, ca. 1640-ca. 1645, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam]

The portrait of Elisabeth Bas, for example, was long assumed to have been painted by Rembrandt. In 1911, however, it was attributed to Ferdinand Bol by Rembrandt-expert Abraham Bredius. Art historian Cornelis Hofstede de Groot was adamantly opposed to this idea. Nowadays, it is generally accepted that the painting was indeed painted by Ferdinand Bol. It is dated 1640-1645.

The woman in the portrait, Elisabeth Bas (Kampen (?) 1571 – Amsterdam 1649), was a Dutch innkeeper. She was married to Admiral Jochem Hendricksz. Swartenhondt (1566-1627). Around 1606, they opened an inn called the ‘Prins van Oranje’ (Prince of Orange). It was located on the corner of Nes and Pieter Jacobszstraat, near Dam Square and it also hosted important guests (stadtholder Frederik Hendrik and envoys from other countries). The couple had five children, four of whom died before their mother passed away in 1649. After the death of her husband in 1627, Elisabeth Bas continued to run the business, including supplying food to her husband’s fleet. In 1631, Elisabeth had an estimated fortune of 18,000 guilders. One year later she sold the Prins van Oranje for 12,000 guilders (Hell (2017), p. 114/115).

 

4            Costs of apprenticeship

With a benchmark of 300-350 guilders a year as the average wage for a worker in Amsterdam, an apprenticeship as a painter was quite costly – on average 50 to 100 guilders per pupil per year. In the 17th century, becoming a painter was more a craft than a trade. A detailed contract would be signed, drawn up between the father of the apprentice, who paid set fees, and the master with whom the boy would study. In comparison to training for another job that required skills, an apprenticeship as a painter was rather costly in terms of fees and missed earnings. On average, the family of a young apprentice who lived with his parents paid between 20 and 50 guilders a year. Some pupils paid up to 100 guilders a year (including or excluding board and lodging) to be trained by famous masters such as Rembrandt (who did not provide board and lodging), Honthorst, or Gerard Dou; see Etro/Stepanova (2015), 5ff.

The amount of these costs reflected the reputation of the master and the pupil’s prior level of education; see Rasterhoff (2017), 232. If a pupil’s copy of a painting by his master was good enough, the master would sell it and deduct part of the purchase price from the pupil’s tuition fees; see Bikker (2019), 19. Three pupils training with one master was fairly common. Rembrandt charged 100 guilders in his Amsterdam days. He did not, however, provide lodging and boarding. The Guild of Saint Luke in Amsterdam allowed three pupils per master, but the number of Rembrandts pupils may have been higher. On the Painters or Guild of Saint Luke (Schilders- of Sint Lucasgilde) see https://archief.amsterdam/inventarissen/overzicht/366.nl.html#idc_iii66.

Note, however, that many of Rembrandt’s pupils were not beginners. They had previously received instruction from another master in Amsterdam or elsewhere, as Rembrandt himself had done with a three-year apprenticeship in Leiden (with Van Swanenburg) and a six-month post-apprentice master course with Pieter Lastman in Amsterdam. Where general school education would cost two to six guilders a year and apprenticeship generally lasted between four and six years, the financial burden for the training of a young artist was considerable. What’s more, during the apprenticeship the parents had to do without their son’s potential labour in assisting his father’s profession (a miller in Rembrandt’s case) and also without earnings since during this period the apprentice could not sign and sell his own paintings. Instead, it is noted in literature that all the works an apprentice produced became the property of his master. To get an idea of the size of such an investment: an artist paid an average rent for a home of 142 guilders a year and bought a house for an average price of 1785 guilders; see Montias (1982), 160ff; Van Nierop (2018), 45.

It is interesting to note what the working environment of pupils was like. Often, a painter’s studio was no quiet setting, but a busy, buzzing workshop; see Van de Wetering (2016), 23ff. A pupil’s typical working day lasted 12 hours.

 

5            After the apprenticeship

Evidently, the investment to cover several years of apprenticeship was no guarantee for becoming a successful independent master; see Li (2019), 10. One first step was to pass the final exam. An apprenticeship as an artist was concluded by conducting a master’s thesis at the Guild of Sint Luke, a kind of professional association for artists, including painters. In Amsterdam, painters were not required to produce a ‘master proof’. Usually, after completing their training, the young master could try and apply for membership of the Guild – in many cases by submitting a painting, called the masterpiece. If approved, he began to pay his dues and was allowed to paint, sign and sell his own work and take on his own apprentices; see North (1997), 74. Indeed, the head of the local Guild of Saint Luke could recognize the status of ‘journeyman’ (skilled worker) with the right to sign and sell paintings in town.

The main objectives of this guild were to protect the earnings of its members, to regulate the terms of apprenticeship, and to try to restrict the activities of foreign, non-member artists on the local market and the frequency of public sales (at auctions and lotteries). In a large town with a growing population of wealthy merchants, such as Amsterdam, competition was fierce, and it was very hard for the Guild to control the membership of the painters active in the city. Through the Guild’s formalized training and institutionally embedded circulation of knowledge, the guilds contributed for centuries to major improvements in the quality of the European industry, Prak concludes (2019), 107.

[Facade stone of the Guild of Saint Luke on the Waag in Amsterdam]

[Facade stone of the Guild of Saint Luke on the Waag in Amsterdam]

These guilds were set up by the city. As assessed by Van de Wetering, a guild can perhaps best be considered as ‘… a blend of present-day trade union, chamber of commerce, health insurance, and a pension scheme for widows and orphans’. See Van de Wetering (2016), 28ff, noting that some guilds also formed a kind of inspectorate for apprenticeships, for quality control of raw base materials painters used, or played a role in settling disputes about the artistic quality of a painting.

Although Italy had been considered throughout Europe to be the cradle of art and it was thought that the knowledge of the Italian art of painting was indispensable to create true art, it is interesting to note that Rembrandt (and also Hals, Van Ruisdael, and Vermeer) had never travelled to Italy. Rembrandt was content to develop his own particular style of painting in the comfort of his regional homeland studio. However, a period in Italy, would certainly have influenced an artist’s style, composition, use of colours etc.

In this way, preferably over the course of four to six years’ training, a student would develop from being a pupil to becoming a young master painter and would be ready to set up his own shop, in the master’s town or elsewhere (which roughly half of them did; see Rasterhoff (2017), 226).

 

6            One specific method for teaching pupils?

I know from experience that teaching students – in my case, in civil law and insolvency law – does not have one uniform application method. The nature and method of teaching and, therefore, interaction and collaboration, depends on the commitment of the teacher, including persuasiveness and the gift to demonstrate the subject to be learned using examples. Success, of course, also depends on the expectations and eagerness of the student, the knowledge and experience already acquired (elsewhere), and their skills in applying what has been taught, etc.

To understand the painting industry in the 17th century, it must be clear who can be considered a ‘pupil’ of Rembrandt. Erna Kok (Kok (2012), 311), for instance disagrees that Ferdinand Bol can be qualified as one of his pupils. She argues that this was not the case, as Bol had already completed his training as a painter with another master. Gerson (Gerson (1968), 64) gives the example of Govert Flick who was already a full-fledged painter, but who found it expedient to take instruction under Rembrandt for another year ‘… for at this time Rembrandt’s style was so universally admired that everything had to fit its mold in order to please the world’. Flick, indeed, learned Rembrandt’s style so closely that many of his paintings were considered genuine Rembrandts and sold as such, Gerson concludes.

During a basic training period lasting three or four years they are called pupils or disciples, the latter being more advanced. In order to become an independent master, after the basic training, Kok notes that one was considered to be working for one or two years as a paying assistant (‘betalend assistant’, probably indicating that the assistant paid for his further education) to a master, where one was trained in the master’s method of working (‘handeling’) and produced work for the market; such an assistant became a craftsman (‘werckgesel’) or free guest (‘vrije gast’, referring to other sources).

Did Rembrandt collaborate with his pupils? In 17th century paintings, the work of pupils does bear traces of the master’s influence. With references to his Dordrecht ‘students’, I’ll give some examples later.

A first question concerns how to rate this concept of collaboration? In her PhD study of 2016 (in Dutch, on the topic ‘Painted by two hands: division of labour among painters in the Low Countries in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’), Dorien Tamis (Tamis (2016), 18ff.) distinguishes five functions that can be envisaged in the collaboration between a master painter and his pupil.

Collaboration is aimed at: (i) division of labour as a time factor (many hands make light work, pooling labour); (ii) division of labour as a quality factor (the separation between idea or invention and its implementation/application); (iii) training (transfer of knowledge and skills); (iv) the collaboration with the esteemed master, which gives added value to a painting; and (v) as an emergency measure for painters who are not familiar with a certain part of the painting, and therefore have to hire another, qualified painter.

Tamis indicates that when it comes to Rembrandt, the educational aspect of collaboration was a side-effect to gaining benefits from the collaboration. Indeed, Rembrandt’s pupils seem to have been more concerned with making copies and variants of the master’s work in order to provide him with extra income, rather than providing a share in his own production, according to Van de Wetering Corpus Rembrandt V (2010), 311ff.

Here, I would like to highlight two conclusions made by Tamis.

First, the only period that there could have been a systematic division of labour (in the sense of function (i) above) in Rembrandt’s production, were the years in which he worked at Uylenburgh’s studio in Amsterdam, from 1631 until 1635. Rembrandt sometimes left hands, costumes and collars – probably on Uylenburgh’s instructions and in response to the high workload – to assistants as elements of secondary importance. It now seems to be generally accepted, for instance, that the hands and other subordinate parts in Rembrandt’s Portrait of Johannes Wtenbogaert (1557-1644, an influential theologist) from 1633, were painted by a studio employee.

 

[Johannes Wtenbogaert, 1633; Rijksmuseum Amsterdam]

[Johannes Wtenbogaert, 1633; Rijksmuseum Amsterdam]

Second, Rembrandt mainly worked as a soloist. His style and way of working (according to Van de Weetering), his presentation of a coherent representation in a painting (the tonal unity of the work, the whole of the effect of light and shadow, the attitude) (Van de Weetering, but also Von Sandrard and Van Hoogstraten) and his rough way of painting (De Lairesse) were also less suitable for the division of labour (in the sense of function (ii) above).

 

7            Tronies

In the 17th century painting industry, the production of so-called ‘tronies’ was the most profitable means of expression. Tronies are regarded as reflecting fictious persons, involving the painting of mere ‘resemblances of men and women’. In 1628, art dealer Hendrick Uylenburgh was in Leiden. Rembrandt had met him three years before during his internship with Lastman in Amsterdam. Through this intermediary, Rembrandt sold his first tronies to clients in Amsterdam. Rembrandt’s future pupil (Dordrecht-born) Samuel van Hoogstraten (Van Hoogstraten (1678), 79) is clear about the commercial side of tronies: ‘Some of them are also empowered and driven to the highest and most important level in painting, which covers everything, which is the depiction of the most momentous histories … Others please themselves with pleasure only painting resemblances of gentlemen and women, and find this the most profitable of all.’

[Rembrandt, Tronie van een man met gevederde baret/ Tronie of a man with feathered beret, ca. 1635-1640, Mauritshuis Museum, The Hague]

[Rembrandt, Tronie van een man met gevederde baret/ Tronie of a man with feathered beret, ca. 1635-1640, Mauritshuis Museum, The Hague]

In this so-called chest piece, a moustache-sporting man is wearing a plumed beret, an earring and a cloak with gold embroidery. He looks over his shoulder to the right. Light shines brightly on the right side of his face, highlighting all the pieces of metal (the earring, ring collar, and what seems to be a chain). According to the Mauritshuis Museum website, the painting is not a portrait but a ‘tronie’, a character head. In this case of a soldier, who is dressed in his “antyks” style. Volker Manuth, Professor of Art History at Radboud Universiteit in Nijmegen (Manuth et al. (2017), p. 690/691), also attributes the work to Rembrandt, but indicates that various experts have their doubts.

In 2019, Manuth characterized tronies as ‘portraits of a person whose identity is of secondary importance, but who, through picturesque clothing that did not correspond to the fashion of the time, had to give the impression of a foreigner depicted in a casual, virtuoso painting style’; see Manuth et al. (2019), 24ff. They could have been made for the market, as well as for educational purposes.

Especially in Rembrandt’s Leiden period until around 1631, when he was in his mid-twenties, his favourite subjects were the ‘tronies’ or face paintings. They depict historical figures or persons with imaginary costumes that connote old age, piety, soldierly bravery, the Orient, and so on. These tronies were not intended as portraits, although individuals must have posed for them. Instead, they were to be studied as facial expressions and character heads, sometimes also self-portraits in exotic disguises. Many are prominent heads with striking features and spry faces (‘krasse koppen’).

[Zelfportret met baret en verbaasde blik; Self-portrait with beret and surprised look, 1630, Albetina, Vienna]

[Zelfportret met baret en verbaasde blik; Self-portrait with beret and surprised look, 1630, Albetina, Vienna]

Among these tronies, Rembrandt also drew himself using a mirror. What do we see? A ‘crazy mop of curls’, ‘tousled and unruly hair’ and a ‘potato-like nose’, Bikker wrote a few years ago. Jonathan Bikker is research curator at Amsterdam’s Rijksmuseum (Bikker (2019), 26ff.). He explains Rembrandt’s innovative drawing and highly experimental etching. By the way, in present-day Dutch ‘tronie’ has a much less flattering meaning as being a ‘mug’ or ‘angry face’.

Stephanie Dickey, a Canadian professor of Art History, recently wrote (p. 21) that technical analysis suggests that many of the portraits and the ‘tronies’ produced in the Uylenburgh workshop (from 1631 in Amsterdam) were collaborative efforts or copies. She continues, I quote: ‘Who the assistants might have been demands further research’.

Therefore, I’d say – to be continued!

 

References

 

References mentioned or cited are available through the sources provided on www.rembrandtsmoney.com.

Bijker, D, Arent de Gelder (1645-1722), Rembrandts laatste leerling, Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht, Wallraf-Richardz-Museum, Keulen, Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon, Gent 1998-1999 (Exhibition catalogue)

Blanc, Jan, Samuel van Hoogstraten, in: Frijhoff, Willem, Catherine Secretan en Andreas Nijenhuis-Bescher, De Gouden Eeuw in 500 portretten, taferelen & analyses, Band 1: A-L, Amersfoort: Uitgeverij Van Wijmen 2022, p. 617ff.

Blanc, Jan, Nicolaes Maes, in: Frijhoff, Willem, Catherine Secretan en Andreas Nijenhuis-Bescher, De Gouden Eeuw in 500 portretten, taferelen & analyses, Band 2: M-Z, Amersfoort: Uitgeverij Van Wijmen 2022, p. 847ff.

Dickey, Stephanie, Becoming Rembrandt, in: Stephanie S. Dickey and Jochen Sander, Rembrandt in Amsterdam. Creativity and Competition, National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa/Städel Museum, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, distributed by Yale University Press, 2021-2022, 84ff.

Gerson, Horst, Rembrandt paintings, Amsterdam, Meulenhoff International, 1968.

Führi Snetlage, Henriette e.a. (red.), Dordrechts Museum. De collectie; het gebouw, Dordrechts Museum / Bussum Uitgeverij THOTH, 2010.

Hoogstraten, Samuel van, Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkonst: anders de zichtbaere werelt (1678). Davaco Publishers, z.p. 1969 (fotografische herdruk),  http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/hoog006inle01_01/colofon.htm

Kok, Erna, Netwerkende kunstenaars in de Gouden Eeuw. De succesvolle loopbanen van Govert Flinck en Ferdinand Bol, Hilversum: Verloren 2016.

Marquaille, Léonie, Ferdinand Bol, in: Frijhoff, Willem, Catherine Secretan en Andreas Nijenhuis-Bescher, De Gouden Eeuw in 500 portretten, taferelen & analyses, Band 1: A-L, Amersfoort: Uitgeverij Van Wijmen 2022, p. 192ff.

Paarlberg, Sander, Rembrandt en Dordrecht. De meester en zijn leerlingen, Serie Verhalen van Dordrecht 33, Dordrecht: Stichting Historisch Platform Dordrecht 2016.

De Paus, W. e.a. (red.), Dordrechts Museum 150 jaar 1842-1992, Dordrechts Museum 1992.

Roscam Abbing, Michiel, De schilder en schrijver Samuel van Hoogstraten 1627-1678, Eigentijdse bronnen en oeuvre van gesigneerde schilderijen, Leiden: Primavera Pers 1993.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *