9. Dutch Landscape Painters in Rome

We left the Dutch landscape painters just as Claude Lorrain appeared in their midst.²²⁷ That was in 1625 (if we disregard the ‘dark’ period in Tassi’s studio). Cornelis van Poelenburch had already left Rome but Bartholomeus Breenbergh stayed on for a few more years. Two years later, in 1627, we come across a little house in the Strada Margutta which is home to Claudio Lorense, pittore, con un suo compagno fiamengo [painter, and his Flemish companion]. It is not hard to guess who this compagno is. A clue is provided the following year by the mention of his first name: Enrico fiamengo pittore. This companion is Herman van Swanevelt (c. 1603-1655), who had probably moved to Rome from Paris a few years earlier.²²⁸ He was called ‘Heremyt’ because of the very sheltered life he led.²²⁹ Though not by nature a revolutionary of any sorts, he nonetheless marks the beginning of a new stage in the ‘yearning for Italy’ felt by Dutch landscape painters. He saw Italy through Claude’s eyes and endeavoured to render his experience of the landscape in the form of a classically balanced composition under the same sunny light of the south and in painstaking adherence to his revered model [i][i].²³⁰ Swanevelt’s art was certainly little more than mediocre at best.²³¹ But his etchings – even more than his paintings – have enchanted Romantics of all ages [i].²³² They were the measure of all things for the Germans Koch and Reinhart, and Goethe thought more of his series of Roman vedute than he did of Piranesi’s etchings!²³³ In 1637 Swanevelt returned to Paris, where he was given the honorary title of ‘Herman d’Italie’. He adhered consistently to the example set by the great Claude, whose art undoubtedly gained in significance in his native country thanks to the efforts of this intermediary. At all events there was no dearth of honours for Swanevelt in Paris.²³⁴

Almost a decade later Jan Both (1615/22-1652) arrived in Rome. He, too, was enthralled by Claude’s sublime landscape art.²³⁵ Both had a more pronounced sense of light and colour than Swanevelt, for whom composition was of overriding importance. A group of trees with dense foliage penetrated by rays of sunlight on one side of the picture and a view of the Campagna countryside set against a backdrop of mountains shimmering in a bluish-grey haze on the other side constituted the main elements of his mood landscapes [i]. A lone wanderer or a shepherd couple driving their animals through a ford convey a sense of a happy, carefree life. Dutch collectors adored such Arcadian images, just as the generation before them had appreciated the mythological idylls of Poelenburch and of all the fijnschilders who imitated him. Jan Both returned to Utrecht in 1642 and the impact his Claude-inspired style had on Dutch artists and contemporary tastes can hardly be overestimated.²³⁶

Houbraken includes Jan Asselijn (c. 1610-1652) among those who brought Claude’s luminous style to Holland. We take a different view nowadays and feel that it was Asselijn, in particular, who gave artistic expression to the personal experience of the Italian landscape [i].²³⁷ He worked from 1641 to 1645 in Rome and his paintings must have been very popular in Italy, given that Sandrart mentions their inclusion in collections in Rome and Venice.²³⁸ In 1642, Jan Baptist Weenix (1621-1659) and Nicolaes Berchem (1621/2-1683) entered the Eternal City together.²³⁹ Karel du Jardin (1626-1678) arrived not much later,²⁴⁰ so in the first half of the 1640s Holland’s top four landscape painters were in Rome together. Berchem may have gone to Rome a second time between 1653 and 1655,²⁴¹ while Karel du Jardin was back in the city in the 1670s in the company of the art dealer and collector, Gerard Reynst.²⁴² Apart from the bucolic landscapes [i], we are familiar with du Jardin’s portraits and biblical scenes [i], some of which date to this late period. In the case of Karel du Jardin there is also clear evidence of the continuing influence of Pieter van Laer’s art, which may have been passed on by Michiel Sweerts. Weenix lived a good life in Rome. He found a patron in Cardinal Giovanni Battista Pamfilj, the later Pope Innocent X, whose commissions kept him busy for four years. None of his works from this period have survived, however [i].²⁴³ Nicolaes Berchem was certainly the most prominent of the four artists (fig. 46)[i]. His was astonishingly prolific and highly creative in inventing ever new Italian motifs. The example he set was a constant source of enthusiasm, especially in the 18th century. The French led the way here but Northern Italian landscape painters, too, had an open eye for the beauty of Berchem’s idylls – a subject to which we will return later.

Although this quartet was followed by other artists and they in turn by yet others, few fundamental changes occurred over time in this tradition of landscape painting, which was largely shaped by Both and Berchem. The artists returned home with full sketchbooks, which stood them in good artistic stead for the rest of their lives. Others who found the long journey to Italy too daunting used the studies made by those who did go so skilfully that it is often impossible to distinguish between the ‘genuine’ and the ‘pseudo’. Of the many artists on whom the Italian sun shone we can mention only the better known. Among the artists present in Rome in the 1640s were Hendrick Mommers (1619/20-1693), Hendrick Verschuring (1627-1690), Johannes Lingelbach (1622-1672)[i] , who travelled together with Jan Worst (died in or after 1686) [i], Willem de Heusch (c. 1625-1692)[i],²⁴⁴ Adam Pijnacker (1621/2-1673) [i], Matthias Withoos (c. 1627-1703), Jacob van der Does I (1623-1673) [i], Willem van Bemmel (1630-1708) [i], Hendrik Sonnius (c. 1615-c. 1688),²⁴⁵ Thomas Wijck (c. 1616/21-1677) and Jan Wils (1602-1666) [i].²⁴⁶

We met a number of them of them earlier on their outward journey in Lyon, where they formed a merry little group.²⁴⁷ Anthonie Waterloo was probably among those who made their way to Italy via Lyon, although we have no firm evidence that he actually arrived in Rome. Weyerman called Jacob van der Does the Dutch Benedetto Castiglione. Houbraken thought the paintings he made in Rome were mostly inspired by Pieter van Laer, but there is little tangible evidence to support that assumption. The Fleming Anton Goubau (1616-1698), by contrast, was completely at home among the Dutch genre painters in Rome.²⁴⁸ He was one of one mind with Berchem and Dujardin, as if he hailed from Haarlem rather than Antwerp (fig. 1/3) [i]. Sonnius was a pupil of Pieter Monincx and is probably identical with the artist who occupied the position of landscape artist to the Pope in Rome [i][i].²⁴⁹ Hendrick Verschuring (1627-1690) stayed for roughly ten years (1647-1657) in the Eternal City and when he was in Paris on his way home he met the son of the burgomaster ‘Maarzeveen’ who persuaded him to embark on a second trip to Italy and so he spent three more years there [i][i].²⁵⁰ When in Rome he encountered the members of a younger generation, among them Adriaen van de Velde (although doubts have been raised as to whether he was actually ever in Italy),²⁵¹ Willem Romeyn (c. 1625, in or after 1695) [i], a pupil of Berchem and du Jardin,²⁵² and Frederik de Moucheron,²⁵³ who had just finished his apprenticeship under Asselijn.

A group of travellers comprising Bartholomeus Appelman (1628/9-1686/7) [i][i], Petrus Vignois and Carel Codde (1625/30-1683) [i] had departed from The Hague around 1650.²⁵⁴ Appelman later appeared in Rome in the company of Philips le Petit (c. 1631/2- in or after 1670) and Willem Doudijns (1630-1698), but there is no trace of the other two. Vincent Laurentsz van der Vinne (1628-1702), who set out on a long journey in 1652, must have arrived in Northern Italy at that time or on some other occasion, although there is nothing in his diary to confirm this. Houbraken recounts that he was in Genoa, which is confirmed by Northern Italian views found on the back of entries in his diary.²⁵⁵

The style the Dutch used to convey their image of Italy, which gradually spread throughout Europe, was particularly popular among German artists. Johann Heinrich Roos (1631-1685), who in 1647 was sent to be apprenticed to Guilliam, the father of Karel du Jardin, in Amsterdam, travelled to Rome three years later, where he will have felt completely at ease among the circle of Dutchmen.²⁵⁶ At all events, his paintings can barely be distinguished from those of his Dutch contemporaries. His son, Philipp Peter Roos (1655/7-1706), was even a member of the ‘Bent’, which christened him ‘Mercurius’, because of the speed with which he painted.²⁵⁷ He lived in a ruin near Tivoli, rarely ventured into the city and never returned to Germany [i]. The numerous pictures made by this Rosa di Tivoli, as the Italians called him, were to be found everywhere.²⁵⁸ He demonstrated little ingenuity in his adaptations of Berchem’s Romantic ruins which he sold to the general public. The much-travelled Christian Reder (1656/61-1729), who settled in Rome in 1686, also paid homage to Berchem in his idyllic pastoral images [i].²⁵⁹

The picture gradually changed in the 1660s and 1670s. Berchem’s lively pastoral images came to be replaced by classically composed landscape paintings inspired by Nicolas Poussin and Gaspard Dughet. The classical-style staffage of the pale-coloured images was directed more at the mind than at the eye of the beholder. The three Glaubers – Johannes (1646-c. 1726), Johann Gottlieb (1656-1703) and Diana (1650-after 1721) – Albert Meyering (1645-1714) [i] , Jacob de Heusch (1656-1701) [i] and the brothers Adriaen (1630/31-1705) [i] and Engel van der Kabel (1640/1- after 1695), all of them highly regarded masters in their time, serve as good examples of this new style and many more could be added to the list, including Adriaen Honinch (1643-after 1683) [i],²⁶⁰ Jan (1654-1727) and Jacob van Bunnik (died 1724), Nicolaes Piemont (c. 1644-1709) [i] and Jan Blom (c. 1621/2-1685) [i].²⁶¹ While their number could certainly be augmented, this is not the place to do so. The disadvantage of such a brief periodical overview is that it obscures the different directions in which landscape painting was moving at any given time. Many artists (such as Hendrick Verschuring and Johannes Lingelbach) loved to portray daily life in port towns and cities; Adam Pynacker was intrigued by the motif of a river valley at twilight; a third group of landscapists betrayed the lingering influence of the Bambocciate, while others embodied the very long-lasting influence of Claude Lorrain.

Finally, we can pinpoint a separate group of painters and draughtsmen who renounced animal landscapes in favour of a return to Italian vedute. The draughtsmen included Vincent Laurentsz van der Vinne and Jan Haeckert (1628-1685)²⁶² and, in particular, Willem Schellinks (1623-1678) who, in the course of a lengthy journey he undertook in 1665 with Jacques Thierry, the son of an Amsterdam merchant, travelled the length and breadth of Italy, including Sicily [i][i][i],²⁶³ and even went to Malta.²⁶⁴ He made his way from Naples to Rome in the company of Frédéric Kerseboom (1623-1693), G. Sabé, Alexander Le Petit (c. 1612-1658/9) and N. Donkers.²⁶⁵ A number of topographical drawings made by his brother, Daniel Schellinks (1627-1701), have survived [i].

The gentle brush drawings of Jacob van der Ulft (1621-1689) and Jan de Bisschop should not be overlooked. Houbraken claims that van der Ulft never set foot in Italy, but the many lively drawings with topographical inscriptions could not possibly have been made after engravings following his return home.²⁶⁶ Landscape sketches alone were not enough to satisfy Jan de Bisschop (1628-1671). In 1668/9 he published a volume entitled Signorum veterum icones [i].²⁶⁷ In compiling this book he availed himself of ‘de gunst von goede vrienden, die de zelve (schetsen) te Rome geteekent hadden’ [the favour of good friends who made sketches in Rome]. These colleagues and friends were Pieter Donker (c. 1635-1668), Willem Doudijns (1630-1698), Jacob Matham (1571-1631), Dirck Ferreris (1639-1693), Jacob Neeffs (1610-after 1660) [i], Adriaen Backer (c. 1636-1684)[i] and Nicolaes Wilingh (c. 1640-1678).²⁶⁸ However, we know for certain that Jan de Bisschop was in Italy too.²⁶⁹

The dryly executed pen-and-ink-drawings of Roman views by Jan van Call (1656-1706) [i][i] and the Fleming, Lieven Cruyl (1634-1720) [i][i], appear to have been made to satisfy lovers of classical antiquity rather than lovers of art.²⁷⁰ The end of the century witnessed a surge of archaeological interest in the world of Roman ruins. Bonaventura van Overbeek (1660-1705) was an enthusiastic draughtsman after antiquity [i]. His major work on the Roman ruins, the fruit of long years of study, was published in 1708, a year after his death, by Michiel van Overbeek (1670-1729), a series of whose topographical drawings has come down to us [i].²⁷¹ Isaac de Moucheron (1667-1744), who visited Rome between 1694 and 1697, also produced some very fine drawings of the city [i][i].²⁷² His paintings, by contrast, are more in the classical style of Nicolas Poussin [i].²⁷³ The vedute lived on in paintings, initially in a fanciful and Romantic form, such as in the harbour paintings of the brothers Jacobus and Abraham Storck and in compositions that reflect Beerstraaten’s impressions of Italy [i].²⁷⁴ Johannes (c. 1615/6-1686) and Hendrick Danckerts (c. 1625-1679/80) may have familiarised themselves with vedute in Italy, later taking such views to great perfection in England [i].

More important for our purposes, however, is Caspar van Wittel (c. 1653-1736), known as Vanvitelli, from Utrecht, since he re-established the connection with Italian art.²⁷⁵ Among his first works in Rome were his illustrations for a hydraulic engineering plant devised by Cornelis Meijer (1629-1701), who planned to make the Tiber navigable. The manuscript for this work was completed around 1677 and the title page bore van Wittel’s name, to which were added the words: ‘olandese in Roma, ne’ primi anni che da giovane vi venne da Olanda’ (a Dutchman in Rome who came here from Holland as a young man).²⁷⁶ He was already a member of the ‘Bent’ by the time of Abraham Genoels’ (1640-1723) baptism ceremony in 1675.²⁷⁷ A few years later van Wittel began painting Roman views in the light, lucid manner which the Berckheydes and Jan van der Heyden had perfected in his native country [i][i][i].²⁷⁸ In Palazzo Venezia there is a large watercolour on parchment from 1683 showing Castel Sant’Angelo as well as large undated canvases with views of Rome [i]. The faithful topographical rendering of a city distinguishes van Wittel from the Roman painters of ruins who were fond of portraying such remains in painterly fashion at the onset of dusk. There can be no doubt whatsoever that in the 18th century Giovanni Paolo Pannini and Giovanni Battista Piranesi looked to van Wittel for inspiration the moment they began painting vedute.

The Venetian vedute painters also drew on him, especially Luca Carlevaris (1663-1730) [i] who spent some time in Rome.²⁷⁹ Van Wittel must have visited Venice at the end of the century, confirmation being provided by a view of the Fondamento inscribed and dated 1697 (fig. 16/48)[i]. It is only a short step from here to Canaletto [i], as Mariette noted as early as 1714: ‘il (Canaletto) a travaillé dans la manière de v. Vittel, mais je le crois supérieur’ [he (…) worked in the manner of van Vittel, but I think he surpasses him]. Today van Wittel’s fame has all but faded away, which makes such an historically correct observation seem a little strange. During his stay in Venice he produced a delightful picturesque view of the Canale Grande, now kept in the Palazzo Doria Pamphilj in Rome [i]. Shortly after the turn of the century van Wittel spent a number of years at the court of the Duke of Medina Coeli in Naples.²⁸⁰ While there are plenty of drawings and paintings which date from this period [i], there is no indication that he exerted any influence on painting in Naples. In 1713 the artist was back in Rome and thereafter was regularly appointed to the position of director or curator of the foreign members of the Academy. As a draughtsman he was by no means just an accurate topographer. There are some brilliantly dashed off drawings with a with sheer brilliance which in the past were occasionally attributed to Claude Lorrain. The Berliner Kabinett has a large number of such drawings [i].²⁸¹ Van Wittel was also one of the first to employ the gouache technique which became popular at that time.²⁸² Theodor Wilkens, who was in Rome in the first half of the 18th century, drew similarly lively Italian views [i].²⁸³