RKD STUDIES

Whenever Houbraken abbreviated or omitted the first name of an author or artist, Cornelis de Bie (1627-1711/6) [1] being the most common example, we have completed the name. We were tempted to attach a [sic] when an error defies what has become common knowledge, as when our biographer has Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) born in Cologne instead of Siegen or identifies his first wife as one Catarina Brintes instead of Isabella Brant (1591-1626).¹ However, identifying one fact as erroneous implies that other facts are trustworthy. We have included comments on such issues in the relevant records in RKDartists. Hence we have generally translated Houbraken errors and all. Even so, one’s fingers sometimes itch to intervene, as when Arnold botches his information about Raphael’s Three Graces in the Farnesina.² Similarly, some ten anachronistic references to the Bishopric of Utrecht (Het Sticht), which was disbanded in 1528, were troubling but could simply reflect common practice. Some indisputable slips, such as identifying 1597 as being ‘at the beginning of the 16th century’, should be evident to one and all.

Houbraken’s spelling of the names of cities, artists and authors pre-dated any standardization. Especially his versions of foreign cities can be almost unrecognizable, witness Bolonie for Bologna,³ or altogether incorrect, as with Lübeck instead of Lebus.⁴ We initially corrected such items between square brackets, but Houbraken Translated gives the corrected versions because the original text is juxtaposed, allowing for immediate comparison. We also encounter the exchange of London, ‘with the Monument‘,⁵ but research was needed to establish that it commemorated the great fire of 1666 [2]. As for artists, we encounter Rembrant instead of Rembrandt, Knufter and Knifftert for Knüpfer,⁶ and both Lelie and Lely on the same page.⁷

Houbraken further tells us that the King of Spain ordered pictures ‘by Guido, Guerchin, Josepin, Massimi, Gentileschi, Pietre de Cortone, Valentin, Andrea Sacchi, Lanfranc, Dominicin, and one by Sandrart’.⁸ We could easily identify key artists such as Guido Reni (1575-1642), Guercino (1591-1666), Orazio Gentileschi (1563-1639), Pietro da Cortona (1596-1669), Valentin de Boulogne (1591-1632), Andrea Sacchi (1599-1661), Giovanni Lanfranco (1582-1647), Domenichino (1581-1641) and Joachim von Sandrart (1606-1688), but few are likely to think of of Massimi as Massimo Stanzione (1585-1656), leave alone of Josepin as Giuseppe Cesari (also known as il Cavalier d’Arpino, 1568-1640). In addition Houbraken refers to Raphael as Urbino (for Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino, 1483-1530).⁹ Houbraken Translated simply substitutes the corrected names when possible.

No doubt Houbraken would have loved to read Latin, like his well-educated contemporaries. As it is, his compulsive name-dropping attests to a kind of over-compensation, so that he needed the likes of Horace (65 BC-8 BC) to support commonplace wisdom, such as that it is more risky to criticize a living colleague than a dead one.¹⁰ At one point, in a digression on the appearance of ancient statues, Houbraken breaks into a veritable orgy of now obscure authorities -- Papinius Statius (c. 45-AD 96), Trebellius Pollio (died 260-268), Vopiscus (?), Julius Firmikus Maternus (late antique) and Arnobius of Sicca (died c. 330) ¹¹ -- without specifying his precise sources, not even for his brief quotation from Papinius. In the case of Isodorus of Seville (560-636), a Catholic scholar and saint, Houbraken is most unlikely to have read even one of his many books. Houbraken also regularly quotes famous ancient authors such as Augustine (354-430), Cicero (106-43 BC) , Herodotus (c. 485-c. 425 BC), Juvenal (late 1st and early 2nd C.) Plautus (dates), Pliny (born c. 251-255 BC), Solon of Athens(c. 630-560 BC) and Tacitus (c. 56-c. 117), without specifying his precise source. To be told that ‘Cato was wont to say’ something is not helpful without knowing where he said it. Nor is it all that useful to learn that Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1467/9-1536) said something ‘somewhere in his writings’¹² or that Hugo de Groot (1583-1645) is ‘also of the opinion’ about something in some unidentified place.¹³ Houbraken also quotes ‘the philosopher Bion’, being Bion of Borysthenes (325-250 BC), without telling us anything about him other than that he was a ‘contemporary of the Macedonian king Antigonus’.¹⁴ Such quotations might require a long time to verify. As for the sayings of an unidentified ‘old philosopher’ or ‘wise man’,¹⁵ no amount of time might suffice.

Houbraken drops the names of numerous arguably lesser sources which he does not identify. In alphabetical order and as Houbraken renders their names they are Amphilogus, Arnobius, Artemidorus, Athanesius, Bochart, Chissletius, Cleobulus, Dio, Donatus, Irenaeus, Johannis Lichtorus, Macrobius, Statius Papinius, Trebellius Pollio, Claudius Salmasius, Servius, Achilles Tatius, Tertullian and, as odd man out, Gerardus Vossius (1549-1649) [3]. Things may be trickier than may seem. Amphilogus, for instance, is not an ancient scholar but a character from a play by Jan Amos Comenius (1592-1670) as translated by François van Hoogstraten (1632-1696), ‘Verrezen hondschen Diogenes …’.¹⁶ Note also that this list of fairly obscure or outright obscure authorities covers Houbraken’s Part I only. Part II repeats one famous authority, being Tacitus, and introduces one new one, namely Livy (c. 56 BC-AD 17), while adding only one fairly obscure figure, Flavius Arrianus, and a virtually untraceable one named Vulturius, who also appears not to be an ancient scholar but an historian and Protestant reformer from Nijmegen, Gerard Geldenhouwer (1482-1542).¹⁷ Part III again offers Ovid, Pliny, Tacitus and Virgil, but adds Apuleius, Euripides, Josephus, Pausanius and Plutarch, while Antisthenes, Aratus, Valerius Flaccus, Klaudianus, Lycurgus, Augustyn Niphus, Nonnus, Trebellius Pollo, Salmatius, Servius, Vegetius and Varro join the lesser figures. Obviously our dividing line between famous and obscure scholars is an authorial convenience since it is not based on any known consensus of the past or present. Certain is that ever since Jacob Campo Weyerman chose to ignore Houbraken’s theory,¹⁸ no one has taken a close interest in its scholarly underpinnings.

One gains the distinct impression that Houbraken relied heavily on his several learned authorities but did not bother to take precise notes or follow up on incomplete or faulty references. In fact, he sometimes had nothing to follow up. In the middle of the first digression of his second volume, which concerns the sundry army ensigns of the remote past, he writes: ‘For all this I have no other proof than that Franciscus Junius (1591-1677), Samuel van Hoogstraten (1622-1678), Wilhelmus Goeree (1635-1711) and others have told me so, without further evidence. However, I assume that they derived it from ancient writers and not that they would have invented it’.¹⁹ The ‘others’ hinted at by Arnold Houbraken certainly included Antonius Bynaeus (1654-1698) [4]. It was Bynaeus who introduced him to Fulvio Orsini (1529-1600), who is still consulted in select circles to this day. Several more obscure authorities such as Dio, for Lucius Cassius Dio (AD 155-235) are taken over from Bynaeus without further identification. Both he and the equally obscure Artemidorus, being Artemidorus Daldinanus (AD 2nd C.) crop up eight times in Gekruiste Christus. A diligent search of Bynaeus takes us to most of the other unspecified authorities just mentioned.²⁰ On the other hand, Bynaeus only rarely takes us to an original source²¹ and he generally quotes in Latin.

1
after Erasmus Quellinus (II) published by Joannes Meyssens
Portrait of Cornelis de Bie (1627-?), c. 1662
Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, inv./cat.nr. RP-P-OB-23.607

2
Jan van der Heyden
A demonstration of fire engines at the foot of the monument to the Great Fire of London, ca. 1695-1700
Amsterdam, Koninklijk Oudheidkundig Genootschap, inv./cat.nr. Port. 22

3
David Bailly
Portrait of Gerardus Vossius (1577-1640), dated 1624
Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, inv./cat.nr. RP-T-1963-259

4
Pieter Schenk (I)
Portrait of vicar Anton Bynaeus (1654-1698), 4th quarter 17th century
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. RP-P-OB-9214