355 Embassy of the Free Mind

What could be a greater honor than to be appointed Ambassador of the Free Mind? That title was bestowed on Schwartz by unrivalled champions of the free mind, the Ritman family of Amsterdam.


On the 3rd of July 2017 an introductory evening was held for a remarkable Amsterdam initiative. The legendary Huis met de Hoofden (House with the Heads, Keizersgracht 123) was rededicated to a new function, as the home of the Ritman Library, the Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica. The library is the foremost privately founded research center for study of the hermetic and other esoteric traditions in Europe. It was built by Joost and Rachel Ritman over long decades, and has now been donated by them to a cultural non-profit foundation housed in the new quarters. They and their daughter Esther, chairman of the foundation and director of the library, call the House with the Heads an Embassy of the Free Mind (Ambassade van de Vrije Geest). When the Ritmans asked me whether I was willing to serve as an Ambassador of the Free Mind, I said yes without hesitation. The following is a slightly amplified English translation of the talk that I gave on 3 July.


Rembrandt opts for freedom

When I want to ease my mind, it isn’t honor that I seek but freedom.
Als ik myn geest uitspanninge wil geven, dan is het niet eer die ik zoek, maar vryheit.

This policy statement by Rembrandt was committed to writing by his biographer Arnold Houbraken. What could be a more appropriate text for an address by a Rembrandt lover at the Embassy of the Free Mind than a line in which Rembrandt speaks in one breath of the mind and freedom? It is also a thankful text because it calls for commentary. Rembrandt’s words are not all that self-explanatory. They create an opposition and lay down a challenge. They reflect the attitude of someone who rows against the stream. That too makes the statement appropriate as a motto for this House.

Hendrick Goltzius (1558-1617), Eer boven golt (Honor above gold), 1609
Pen and dark brown ink on cream laid paper, 15.1 cm x 8.9 cm
Sacramento, California, Crocker Art Museum

Freedom is never delivered free of charge at your doorstep. Rembrandt’s choice came at a price. It cost him the understanding of many of his patrons, buyers and colleagues. To start with – what’s wrong with honor? Honor is a good thing for an artist, isn’t it? The motto of the phenomenal Haarlem engraver and painter Hendrick Goltzius was repeated proudly by every self-respecting Dutch artist: “Eer boven golt” – Honor above gold. Even artists who did not live by this principle – especially them – liked to be praised for such a superior attitude. And here comes Rembrandt implying that honor is not the highest aim to which an artist can aspire. This is not only his loss. Honor is something accorded by others. By choosing for freedom above honor, Rembrandt robs those patrons, buyers and colleagues of a source of their own self-esteem.

What was it, anyway, that freedom of his, that was worth more than honor? In daily life, it meant nothing more than that Rembrandt preferred drinking a beer with his buddies in a tavern to paying courtesy visits to wealthy patrons in their town palaces. That was bad enough. An ambitious artist was dependent for his living on those town palace dwellers, a dependency that entailed the gracious acceptance of social obligations.

Rembrandt’s disdain for networking was thus bad for business. But his claim to freedom was also considered deleterious for his art. Before Houbraken this opinion had been expressed by his German predecessor Joachim von Sandrart. Houbraken was nine years old when Rembrand died, but Sandrart had known the great man personally. To this day their lots are joined. If you look over your right shoulder standing in front of the Nightwatch in the Rijksmuseum, you will see a civic guard group portrait painted by Sandrart for the same hall in the Kloveniers headquarters as the Nightwatch. Rembrandt and Sandrart were colleagues during the German’s five years in Amsterdam about 1640. This is what Sandrart had to say about Rembrandt’s freedom:

He persisted in his own way of doing things and did not shrink from sinning against our rules of art – against the anatomy and proportions of the human body, against perspective and the use of antique statues, against Raphael’s drawings and ingenious compositions, and against the academies that are so highly necessary for our profession, arguing that one should work exclusively from nature and observe no other rules.

This judgment is based on the age-old philosophical distinction between the ideal and the real. An artist who strove to create ideal forms (this was thought of Raphael) will regard individual humans and other creatures as deficient derivatives of a perfect ideal, a Platonic idea. The ancient statues to which Sandrart refers compensated for this inconvenient truth, it is said, by such means as combining the best features of five different women into one perfect specimen. Critics who accused Rembrandt – and invariably Caravaggio as well – of following nature and nature alone placed these artists in the camp of the “realists” who denied the existence of “ideas.” In theoretical writings the champions of the idea almost always carry the day. They had the institutions on their side, the academies that Sandrart considers so indispensable. He himself founded an academy and gave his monumental book the title Teutsche Akademie. (See the exemplary annotated online edition.) By combating academic prescripts, Rembrandt brought down two hundred years of derision on his head. Not until the mid-nineteenth century, when artists began to rebel against the academies and embrace “realism” as a doctrine, was Rembrandt mounted on the pedestal on which he still stands.

Rembrandt, detail of Judas returning the thirty pieces of silver
England, private collection

This brings us to a sensitive question: may Rembrandt’s critics have been right? Did Rembrandt really draw, etch and paint from nature and nature alone? I do not believe it for a minute. Neither did Rembrandt’s admirer Constantijn Huygens. Writing about the figure of Judas in Rembrandt’s painting Judas returning the thirty silver coins to the priests in the Temple, Huygens praises Rembrandt for “combining in a single figure such a variety of specific features, while expressing so many universal principles.” Huygens was more aware than Sandrart or Houbraken that Rembrandt married observation to conception, the real to the ideal.

What Rembrandt was after, as I see it, was not so much nature as truth. Of course that demanded accurate perception and correct representation of the visible world. But that was not all. Truth was not totally contained within the confines of physical reality or natural phenomena. Rembrandt’s inner vision and convictions also found expression in his art. Like nearly all his contemporaries, Rembrandt believed in a supernatural realm, in a God more real than sensory impressions. But you do not have to be a man of the seventeenth century or believe in God to acknowledge that the door between perception and reflection not only separates those realms – it also joins them.

Rembrandt was not the only Amsterdamer of his time to seek truth in the union of apparent opposites, nor was he the only one to pay a high price for pursuing that truth. Three others, men who Rembrandt might have known personally, come to mind: the Frenchman René Descartes (1596-1650), the Sephardi Jew Baruch Spinoza (1632-77) and the Moravian Jan Amos Comenius (1592-1670).

   
Frans Hals, René Descartes, ca. 1649
Oil on panel, 19 x 14 cm
Copenhagen, Statens Museum
Jonas Suyderhoef after Frans Hals, René Descartes, later than 1650
Engraving, 31.5 x 22.6 cm
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum

Descartes is often seen as the personification of strict rationality, but this is misleading. He brought all worldly beings and substances into relation with an ominipotent divinity, rejecting the notion that anything can exist independent of the godhead. Creation and its creator, he maintained, were one and indivisible.

Barent Graat, Baruch Spinoza, 1666
Oil on canvas, 47 x 40 cm
Amsterdam, Constant Vecht gallery
Anonymous, Baruch Spinoza, ca. 1680
Engraving, 18.5 x 14 cm
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum

Spinoza too affirmed that everything in the universe forms a single whole, but his philosophy had no room for a creator. Natural phenomena find their causes in nature itself, he wrote. That all-encompassing nature is coexistent with God, a way of thinking known as pantheism. The recently rediscovered (and by some doubted) portrait illustrated provides Spinoza with a statue of Truth.

Rembrandt, Portrait of an elderly  man, in all likelihood Jan Amos Comenius, 1660s
Oil on canvas, 104.5 x 86 cm
Florence, Uffizi
 Wenceslas Hollar, Jan Amos Comenius, 1652
Engraving, 11 x 7 cm
University of Toronto, Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library

Comenius, acknowledging that mankind may not be able to comprehend God or nature, proposed that we accept wisdom as the guiding principle of our strivings. Not theism or pantheism but pansophism. In contrast to Descartes and Spinoza, who wrote only for an intellectual elite, Comenius brought his reconciliation of opposites admirably into practice by pedagogical means, complete with a schoolbook. That he fled his country and found protection in Amsterdam, for a time in this very house, lends resonance to the new function of the House with the Heads.

Rembrandt’s coalescence of particulars and universals; Descartes’ bridge between faith and reason; Spinoza’s nature as divinity; Comenius’s instruments for attaining wisdom – these are only four of the countless ways in which people of their century, in (relatively) free Amsterdam engaged in the pursuit of truth. On the shelves of the Ritman library you will find the results of their efforts and those of many others, less well known, often forgotten. It is all too easy to dismiss these mystics and occultists, alchemists and sectarians, as misled, irrelevant souls left behind in a cul-de-sac of the history of ideas. This is a grave mistake. They belong to an age-old strand of the history of mankind that is interwoven with the more canonical movements we like to think of as our forebears. Moreover, however different they were from each other, all shared a commitment – in shining contrast to the orthodoxies of their time – to the free spirit and open mind, the principles that bring us here today.

The hunt for truth is not an innocent occupation. Those who undertake it are sure to be mistrusted, misunderstood, misquoted and belittled. They will be censured just as much or more for what they did not say as what they did say. The risk of active persecution is very real. Descartes and Comenius had to leave their homelands to write and publish what they thought. Spinoza was banned from the Jewish community into which he was born on account of the freedoms he permitted himself. Rembrandt was unjustly castigated as “the first heretic in art” and reviled by many for centuries.

That we can celebrate the founding of an Embassy of the Free Mind in this House, without fear of persecution, does not speak for itself. I suspect that there still are more countries where a movement to promote free thinking would be suppressed rather than exalted. Even in our own Netherlands, Joost and Rachel Ritman did not reach the proud day of today unscathed. Their tribulations were due in some measure to their persistent love for the truth.

There is an old and very attractive theory that a painting by Rembrandt in the Uffizi is a portrait of Comenius. If it is, as may very well be the case, then his spirit too wanders the halls of the House with the Heads, where the sitter once lived. But even without that additional fillip, I feel secure as a Rembrandt researcher and an Ambassador of the Free Mind, in claiming to have Rembrandt on my side. He paid his dues for his choice for freedom and truth, for which we too now choose and add our own payments.

© Gary Schwartz 2017. Published on the Schwartzlist 18 August 2017.


It isn’t  impossible that we have been traveling a bit too much the past few months. After Rome/Naples and Warsaw in May, in June we went back to Italy for a Zürich University symposium on (auto)biography at Villa Vigoni in Menaggio, in mid-July to Kassel for documenta 14 and from 27 July to 11 August to New York, Boston and New Hampshire, with stopovers in Stockholm and Oslo on the way out and back. Reports on these trips will I am afraid have to go on your large pile of uncollectable IOUs with my signature.

A query from a reader of the first hour, Ann Sutherland Harris, led me to post a column from 2001 on another conference in Italy I attended, at the Datini Institute for Economic History, and the published text of the paper I gave there.


If you are not subscribed to the Schwartzlist and would like to be, drop me a line at Gary Schwartz@xs4all.nl.

Responses for publication in the Reply box below, or personally to Gary Schwartz@xs4all.nl are always appreciated and will be answered.

So will donations.

Your donations help defray the costs of the Schwartzlist and encourage Gary Schwartz to write more columns.

.Donate Button

The structure of patronage networks in Rome, The Hague and Amsterdam in the 17th century

The Francesco Datini Institute in Prato holds a highly distinguished yearly conference (Settimana di studi) on economics and its history. The range of subjects is impressive and inspiring, from “Wool as a raw material” in 1969 to “Water management in Europe, twelfth to eighteenth centuries” in 2017. In 2001 the theme was “Economics and art,” with more than fifty European and American participants. My contribution was a comparison of the patronage networks in three major seventeenth-century art centers. I suggested that certain structural similarities reveal themselves that may point to deep-lying social forces.

The proceedings were published in 2002 in a form that is not easy to scan well. Now that I have tried, fifteen years later, I see that the results are legible enough. An invaluable feature of Datini proceedings is that they include the discussions following each block of papers. Click here for a column on the congress.

“The structure of patronage networks in Rome, The Hague and Amsterdam in the 17th century,” in: Simonetta Cavaciocchi, ed., Economia e arte secc. XIII-XVIII: Atti della “Trentatreesima Settimana di Studi” 30 april-4 maggio 2001,  Le Monnier for Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica “F. Datini,” Prato 2002, pp. 567-74

Download pdf (7Mb)

131 Art and economy

To exaggerate a bit: Economists equate the value of art with its cash price; to art historians the very thought is anathema. Economists and economic historians study open, anonymous markets; art historians closed, personal studios. The former deal in abstractions and numbers; the latter in objects and judgments. Students of economics are looking for universal laws; those of art for unique properties and fine distinctions.

No wonder then that when practitioners of these disciplines get together they find it hard to get in gear. In fact, few of them even get together at all. Only a handful of economic historians have ever concerned themselves with a field as small as art; not many art historians have studied as crass an aspect of art history as the art market. A true meeting of the economic and art-historical minds has yet to take place, an economic history of art yet to be written. For the moment, cooperation between the disciplines takes place mainly at special congresses, most recently a meeting held in Prato, Italy at the Francesco Datini Institute for Economic History on 30 April-4 May: Economy and Art, 13th-18th centuries.

An example of how shocking the economic study of art can be was delivered by Pierre Gérin-Jean of Paris. Studying the prices of art and other precious objects, he writes perfectly sensibly that price tells us something about the behavior of artists and buyers and that it offers an objective basis for cross-cultural and transhistorical comparisons. This should allow the art historian, he writes, “to take account of past realities that may be very different from our own.” His findings are however so different from the present-day scale of values that it’s hard even to begin to take them into account. Analyzing 3,500 prices over the centuries, Gérin-Jean found that the present-day primacy of paintings on the art market throws all historical comparisons out of balance. The rate of pay for painters lay considerably below that for professions we now consider artisanal, such as jewelers, metalsmiths, embroiderers and weavers. The Last Judgment by Michelangelo, which many would call the greatest work of art ever made, cost Pope Paul III only half the amount that as Cardinal Alessandro Farnese he had paid for a crucifix and two chandeliers in rock crystal and lapis lazuli. No one today, in an age when a painting by (in Gérin-Jean’s example) Willem de Kooning is worth more than any piece of jewelry in existence, is capable of squinting hard enough at the objects involved to begin to make sense of these relationships.

Sense can and must be be made of another of the economic-historical papers at the conference, by the Milanese historian Guido Guerzoni. Guerzoni has entered into a database all the expenditures of the Este court in Ferrara over long stretches of the 15th and 16th centuries. What he discovered undermines the prevailing view of court patronage as a propagandistic means of glorifying the dynasty. Guerzoni’s figures show that disbursements on representational art were dwarfed both in volume and rate of pay by spending on furniture and tapestries, music and dance, clothing and jewels, stucco and clocks. It goes against all the evidence to place the minor and poorly paid expenditures on painting at the center of Este patronage. Instead, he suggests that we view it as a mainly social and economic phenomenon, a driving force in the life of a city of which the courts constituted a major portion of the populace. In political terms, patronage was more of an instrument for preserving consensus than elevating the Este above their dependents.

If economic history challenges the assumptions of art history, the converse can also be maintained. In paper after paper, humanistically inclined historians insisted that the economists’ reliance on the market model is excessive and ahistorical. John Brewer (a Brit in Chicago) pointed out that there is such a thing as a system of the arts, based on quality connoisseurship, that deliberately sets itself off against the market but which is nonetheless indispensible for determining artistic values. Wim Blockmans (A Fleming in Leiden) complained that the market model left no room for symbolic values that can at times be of greater importance for the parties involved than financial worth. Laurence Fontaine (a Frenchwoman in Florence) argued for a breaking down of the economy of art into a world of economies, corresponding to the multiple worlds of art that we encounter in the historical record. Maximiliaan Martens (a Fleming in Groningen) objected to the too-loose application of the concepts mass market and serial production to art of the 15th and 16th centuries.

For the moment, however, the market model seems to be even more unbudgably entrenched in the study of economics than is the hegemony of painting in the study of art. Art historians need heavier ammunition than they have at present before they can convince economists that their faith in market forces as an explanatory tool goes too far. To acknowledge this, economists would have to adjust not only their analyses of value in past ages but also of the present, admitting a larger range of qualitative factors than economists care to deal with.

My sense of the congress was that both sides were edging towards a conception of the market in art in which the roles of more stakeholders were being considered than those of the artist and patron – the art-historical instinct – or the buyer and seller, as economists do. The market in artistic prices and aesthetic values alike is strongly influenced by connoisseurs and other kibitzers. Museumgoers who would never be able to buy an expensive painting nonetheless help determine the relative value of old masters in the market. When their feelings, as well as those of other players in the art system, are factored into the equation, more art-historical and economic gears may start to mesh.

© Gary Schwartz 2001. Published in Loekie Schwartz’s Dutch translation in Het Financieele Dagblad, 12 May 2001.

14 August 2017: Thanks to a query concerning this column by Ann Sutherland Harris, I have scanned the printed text of my talk from the proceedings of the Prato conference and put the present column on the Schwartzlist.


Our visit to Italy started the evening before we left, with a performance by the Netherlands Opera in Amsterdam of Monteverdi’s L’Incoronazione di Poppea, directed by Pierre Audi, conducted by Christophe Rousset. It was one of the most wonderful evenings of my life. Few musicians can ever have been so inspired as Monteverdi in the writing of the opera and few librettos as gripping as that of Giovanni Francesco Busenello. The operations of fate that opera thrives on and that come across so histrionically in most 19th-century operas, are presented here as an amoral and overpowering  triumph of sensual desire over all else. The opera was staged with melancholy dignity, in costumes reminiscent of drawings of Renaissance masque, and sung with heartbreaking beauty. One of the features of the Netherlands Opera that make it so appealing to me is the absence of the prima donna cult. Individual voices do not claim special attention and the audience seldom applauds arias. Perhaps it’s only because the Netherlands Opera cannot afford Cecilia Bartoli or Michael Chance, who have passionate claques, but whatever it is I’m for it. (From the Cecilia Bartoli – I adore her too, but still – HyperNews website I just culled the following):

Please tell me it isn’t so….I can’t believe Cecilia Bartoli my love,my all,my everything is getting married.I am so upset,you cannot understand,my heart will never love again…please tell me……write to me,someone…cyprinnes@hotmail.com

My appeal for help in finding rooms in Rome and Florence was answered generously by quite a few of you. All responses have gone into my Travel tips folder, where I hope to make use of them later. I did call some of the places you recommended, but this proved fruitless. All the lodgings that were anyone’s favorite were already booked in that period, which was full of national holidays and such. In Rome we ended up staying for three nights at a b&b on the Piazza del Monte di Pietà. A wonderful location and a picturesque building, but at a price per night (for minimal accommodations and a breakfast consisting of two slices of bread, measured amounts of butter and jam and a two-cup pot of coffee) of 280,000 lire ($126), about the same that our children pay per month for student rooms in Amsterdam. And to think that the Monte di Pietà, the city pawnbroker, was established to combat usury. Even for that price we couldn’t find a room for the fourth night, which was the eve of a national holiday, so we had to move to an even more expensive hotel. In Florence we gave up after five phone calls, and simply stayed on in Prato at the hotel where the congress was putting me up. The decision was all the easier after our one afternoon and evening in Florence, which was so absurdly overcrowded – waiting in line in the rain to pay 5,000 lire to visit Santa Maria Novella, teenage mob scenes everywhere – that we didn’t go back. Instead, we had a much nicer time visiting Pistoia and the Medici villa at Poggio a Caiano.

That was after the Datini symposium, an exhausting five-day affair that I drained to the dregs. Why is it that I can never seem to find time to sit down and read a scholarly journal, but manage to listen to I don’t know how many lectures at congresses and symposia, which take so much more time? The atmosphere at the congress, despite the built-in tensions sketched above, was notably gentlemanly. At least, in the (pretty awful) meeting hall. The confrontations and backstabbing were reserved for the corridors and cafés, as well as (I am told) the closed meetings of the scientific committee and the giunta. With more words at my disposal, I would have quoted the main organizer of the congress, Hans Pohl, who accosted me at the coffee bar with the provocation “Art is a commodity just like fish, no? Why can’t I find any art historians who are willing to discuss it with us on those terms?” Nonetheless, I was pleased that he liked my paper and singled it out at the wrap-up as the only talk aside from the keynote addresses that created a larger framework for the issues involved. (Any of you who wish to receive the text and tables of “The structure of patronage networks in Rome, The Hague and Amsterdam in the 17th century” may have it for the asking, in the hope that you will comment on it. I can still make use of suggestions for the published version.) [14 August 2017: this offer is now rescinded on account of redundancy.]

Some Italian experiences that stand out:

  • Visiting the Giustiniani exhibition at the Roman palace of the same name together with Irene Baldriga, the discoverer of the Bassano Michelangelo from the Giustiniani collection. The Christ with the Cross was the first display, on the stairway landing leading up to the exhibition galleries. Loekie and I studied it with her, after having looked closely the day before at the later version in the church of S. Maria sopra Minerva. (See FFDys 124: Lost and found.) Neither of us has any doubt whatsoever that Baldriga is right and that her professor missed out on the chance of a lifetime when she failed to identify the original author in her study of the Giustiniani collection. Dr. Squarzina, the main curator of the exhibition, is parading before the Italian media as the one who gave the statue to Michelangelo, but in the record of scholarship the find stands squarely to the credit of Baldriga.
  • Having dinner with Loekie on our 33rd wedding anniversary at the apartment of friends in Rome, who at my request had bought 33 long-stemmed red roses for her, which barely fit into our b&b. He is a Knight of Malta, which nowadays mainly entails providing paramedical services for pilgrims. He told us that during the Holy Year 2000 they helped about 15,000 visitors to Rome who fainted from exhaustion, emotion and heat.
  • Dinner at a roadside village restaurant near Poggio a Caiano with Bert Meijer, director of the Netherlands Institute in Florence.
  • Two lunches in Prato (La cucina di Paola, OK but overrated, and a forgettable tavola calda) with John Brewer, my fellow dedicatee of Simon Schama’s book Rembrandt’s eyes. We toasted Simon and talked about him lovingly, admiringly, jealously and critically.
  • Dinner in Florence (delightful neighborhood restaurant of S. Niccolo) with our old friend from publishing Alessandra Marchi of Centro Di. She also happens to be a Pandolfini princess, so we could enjoy some family gossip of a kind we never get to hear otherwise.
  • A visit by bus to Carmignano to see Pontormo’s Visitation and Bill Viola’s video installation The visit in a chapel of the same church (S. Michele).
  • Our first visit to Pistoia, capped by a personal tour of the empty S. Maria dell’Umilta by Father Massimo, who sang with us under Vasari’s dome to show us how long sound echos there (6-7 seconds) and regaled us with the local explanations of various iconographies, formal features and techniques in that wonderful church by Giuliano da Sangallo. (His S. Maria della Carceri in Prato was another highpoint.)

I was a bit out of it on the trip. I read clean over information on two events that I would have liked to attend. May 1st is one of the four days per year when the Virgin’s Sash, the famous Cintola, is shown at the Duomo of Prato. The organizers of the Datini conference didn’t announce this, because they wanted to keep their audience beyond 6 p.m., when the display took place. I also failed to notice in the guide to events in Prato that on the very day I visited Carmignano, a few hours earlier, Bill Viola was present at S. Michele. We met in Amsterdam three years ago and I would have liked to see him in the quieter Prato.

Finally, I convinced myself in Florence that I did not yet have a copy of the TCI guide to Firenze e Provincia, so I bought one. When I got home I of course found the same edition – the most recent one, of 1993 – on my bookshelves. I paid 90,000 lire; if any of you would like to take it off my hands it’s yours for 60,000 plus postage. [This offer too can no longer be fulfilled, as I now have only one copy on my bookshelves.]

If you are not subscribed to the Schwartzlist and would like to be, drop me a line at Gary Schwartz@xs4all.nl.

Responses for publication in the Reply box below, or personally to Gary Schwartz@xs4all.nl are always appreciated and will be answered.

So will donations.

Your donations help defray the costs of the Schwartzlist and encourage Gary Schwartz to write more columns.

.Donate Button

351 The emotional turn

That strong emotions have irresistible power over us is undeniable. What can be denied, or ignored, is the all-pervasive influence of even low-grade emotion on society and its members. The Australian Research Council (ARC) is funding a project to investigate the effects of emotion on European life in the second millennium. Schwartz brings back a progress report on emotion in art. Continue reading “351 The emotional turn”

Eine Welt ohne Sünde: Hieronymus Bosch als Visionär

Lead essay in the catalogue of an exhibition at the Bucerius Forum, Hamburg, 4 June-11 September 2016: Verkehrte Welt: das Jahrhundert von Hieronymus Bosch, edited by Michael Philipp

The essay argues that the Garden of Delights by Jheronimus Bosch is based on the first account of creation in the Bible. Genesis 1 speaks of the creation of man and woman simultaneously, both in the image of God. No prohibition is expressed against eating forbidden fruit; the first humans are not disobedient; there is no serpent to tempt them; they are not embarrassed by their nakedness; they are not expelled from Eden and cursed with a life of hard work and painful childbearing. This picture corresponds to the left panel of the Garden of Delights. The spectacular center panel shows what the world would have looked like had the Fall of Man not taken place, had mankind been free merely to “be fruitful and multiply.”

The hell panel is compared by the author to the 12th-century Vision of Tundale, a Dutch translation of which was published in Den Bosch in 1484. The point of both works is to frighten the reader or viewer into repenting from sin before it is too late. The message is not one of inevitable damnation, but of how to achieve salvation, as did Tundale.

Download pdf (988 kB)

349 The difference between Frans Post and Hercules Seghers

The print room of the Rijksmuseum mounted magnificent exhibitions on two very different Dutch landscape artists, the portrayer of Brazil Frans Post and the traveler in his own imagination Hercules Segers. The juxtaposition brings Schwartz to compare them; he finds out that they both came to the same sorry end. Continue reading “349 The difference between Frans Post and Hercules Seghers”

348 Today in Delft 340 years ago

On the 30th of September 1676 the Delft courts appointed Anthoni van Leeuwenhoek as curator to the insolvent estate of Catharina Bolnes, the widow of Johannes Vermeer. So great is the power of those two names that generations of art historians have interpreted the document as a sign of profound bonding between art and science. Schwartz, in the footsteps of Michael Montias, reveals the disenchanting truth.

Continue reading “348 Today in Delft 340 years ago”

347 How a patrician made good for slighting a prince, maybe

In the splendid Antwerp specialty of kunstkamer painting, one painting and one alone migrated from one environment to another, from the patrician collection of Cornelis van der Geest to the fabled one of the archdukes of the southern Netherlands. Schwartz has an idea why. Continue reading “347 How a patrician made good for slighting a prince, maybe”

346 Bosch’s dry Haywain and his sopping wet Garden of Delights

The opposition between the parched land in Bosch’s Haywain and the unquenchable thirst of its inhabitants for dry hay is contrasted to the mouthwatering abundance of the aqueous Garden of Delights. Schwartz suggests that this supports his interpretation of the Garden as a fulfillment of God’s command to the first man and woman. Continue reading “346 Bosch’s dry Haywain and his sopping wet Garden of Delights”