RKD STUDIES

Another problem of Houbraken’s text is that titles may be truncated, incorrect, or unrecognizable, conveying a picture of an author who was almost as sloppy as he was learned. Problems are exacerbated when Houbraken supplies page references to specific works which he does not cite correctly or for which he omits the title altogether. In Houbraken Translated these references have largely been located and supplied with hyperlinks to online editions and in many instances to the precise pages to which Houbraken refers.

Most of the problem titles concern Houbraken’s learned digressions about ancient customs, dress and trappings as guidance for young history painters, but some concern artists or their works, as when he discusses the excesses of Johannes Torrentius (1588/9-1644). Perhaps we should start with Cornelis Hofstede de Groot (1863-1930), the great pioneering scholar of De groote schouburgh, who observed that ‘No page [...] provides stronger witness to Houbraken’s haste than this one, in which he names Pieter Coeck van Aelst as the author of a book the title of which, as he himself transcribes it, contains the words, per Hubertum Goltzium etc.¹ The problem in this instance, was not Houbraken’s haste but that he could read no Latin, something unimaginable for Hofstede de Groot.

As a second example there is Salomon van Til (1643-1713) [1]. In a footnote concerning implements associated with Bacchus our biographer adds ‘What kind of tools these were, and what form they had, we have indicated in the Voorlooper der Psalmen van den Professor Salomon van Til, being two hollowed out metal half spheres, of which the outer rounding had a handgrip or belt which encircled the hand’.² The words ‘VOORLOPER’, ‘der’ and ‘PSALMEN’ occur in the middle of the long title of Van Til’s Digt, sang- en speel-konst of 1692.³ What is striking is that Houbraken writes ‘we have indicated’, which implies co-authorship, but it is in fact an allusion to an etched emblem that he had contributed to the book.

Houbraken quotes several lines from the first book of De Grieksche Venus of 1652, which is a Dutch translation by Adriaen van Nispen (1633-1694) of a novel by Achilles Tatius (2nd century). Houbraken offers a part of the Latin title, with ‘de Clitophontis et Leucippes Amoribus’ instead of ‘de beroemde vryagien van Klitophon en Leucippe’, which he may have used.⁴ Mention of the ‘fairy tale about Nicocles’, probably Nicocles of Salamis (374-355 BC), in connection with the poisoning of Pieter Holsteyn I (c. 1585-1662)⁵ is baffling but could be related to the assassination of Nicocles’ father and older brother by a eunuch. However, no text comes to mind. Houbraken’s passing reference to one Eustius on the subject of health and diet, again in connection with Holsteyn,⁶ likely refers to Bartolomeo Eustachius or Eustachi (1524-1574),⁷ but Houbraken does not adduce a specific work.

1
Anthony van Zijlvelt after Arnold Houbraken published by Dirk Goris
Portrait of Salomon van Til (1643-1713), 1684-1702
The Hague, RKD – Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis (Collectie Iconografisch Bureau)

2
Pieter Philippe (I)
Portrait of Simon van Leeuwen (1626-1682), dated 1662
Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, inv./cat.nr. RP-P-OB-60.177

Some of Houbraken’s errors are truly frustrating. For instance, he draws on ‘Joan Passerats de schryver van het ware lof des Uils’ (the author of the true praise of the Owl),⁸ as an example of how even farcical subject matter may legitimately attract an artist or amuse a reader. Houbraken intends Johannes Passeratius or Jean Passerat (1534-1602) and his Het waare lof des uyls of 1664,⁹ but one Koertje Juyle (a pseudonym for Conradus Goddaeus: 1612-1658) was the true author of this poem, with Passerat writing its sequel, Het waare lof des ezels (the true praise of the donkey). In the case of the Wegwyzer door Amsterdam, Houbraken failed to mention the author altogether, this being Nicolaas ten Hoorn (1695-1728).¹⁰ That is also the case with Batavia Illustrata by Simon van Leeuwen (1626-1682) [2], which Houbraken brings up in connection with a history painting by Jan Steen.¹¹

Also exceptional are the numerous snippets of the worldly wisdom of Baltasar Gracián (1601-1658) with which Houbraken enhanced his biographies but for which he rarely specializes the precise source. In that case, however, there are only two works to consider and virtually all the passages come from De konst der wijsheit. The more rarely cited ‘den Oordeelder’ can only refer to De Mensch Buyten Bedroch.¹² As De groote schouburgh includes some thirty references to De konst der wijsheid, the reader will simply have to accept that Houbraken took no serious liberties. Particularly important, however, is that Houbraken twice refers to a Spaniard improbably named Jean Rufé, whom Balthasar Gracián is to have called the most intelligent of the great orators of Spain and whose 310th aphorism our biographer mentions.¹³ It turns out that De konst der wijsheit mentions Juan Rufo, this being Juan Rufo Gutiérrez (1547-1620), who published his Las seiscientas apotegmas (The Six Hundred Apopthegmas) in 1596.¹⁴ However, Houbraken had already celebrated ‘the shrewd Spaniard Juan Rufo’ in 1714 in the Stichtelyke zinnebeelden of 1714.¹⁵ Most likely the name was botched by the typesetters of the De groote schouburgh. Houbraken also quotes Antonio de Guevara (1480-1545) without specifying a work. A search leads to Leyts-man der hovelingen (Guide of the Courtiers) of 1652, but not to a page reference.¹⁶ Finally Houbraken quotes four lines of explicit praise of women from ‘de Dichter van ‘t Lof der vrouwen’ (the poet of The Praise of Women).¹⁷ The poem, in fact entitled ‘Het waare vrouwen-lof’ (‘The True Praise of Women’) is appended to a treatise of 1678 by one Petrus de Vernoegde (dates unknown) which celebrates De tien delicatessen des huwelijks (The Ten Delicacies of Marriage) [3], which does little or nothing to advance the intellectual qualities of women.

Turning to the predominant iconographic and antiquarian items, it is possible to identify a whole group of works despite Houbraken’s vagaries. We see that he altered De levens-bedryven der Griekse digteren (The Biographies of the Greek Poets) by Basilius Kenneth (1674-1716) to the Levensbeschryving der Grieksche Dichteren,¹⁸ but such a minor change can hardly slow anyone down. When Houbraken mentions ‘Fontenelle’ and his ‘t’samenspraak der Dooden’, his reference is obviously to Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle (1657-1757) [4] and his Samenspraak der dooden (Dialogue of the Dead) of 1704, a translation of his Nouveaux dialogues des morts of 1683. ¹⁹ As a more vexing example, the biographer adduces Joseph Hall and refers in a note to ‘the preface to his Vliegende bedenkingen’.²⁰ Although Houbraken has ‘Hal’ instead of Hall (as does Swillens), he apparently refers to Hall’s De Schoole der Wereld. Geopent in CXL. Vliegende bedenkingen (The School of the World. Opened in CXL Fleeting Considerations), as translated and published by François van Hoogstraten in 1682.

3
Title print of De tien delicatessen des huwelyks. of, De wederlegging van de Tien ..

4
Hyacinthe Rigaud
Portrait of Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle (1657-1757), c. 1720
Montpellier, Musée Fabre, inv./cat.nr. 830.1.3

Another curious example is Houbraken’s mention of ‘J.B. Mencken, in his Redenvoer, over de zotte kuuren der Geleerden’ (Address about the Bizarre Cures of the Learned) as his source for Molière (1622-1673).²¹ The reference must be to De quakzalvery der geleerden, a very early Dutch translation of De charlataneria Eruditorum of 1715 by Johann Burkhard Mencken (or Mencke: 1674-1732). However, we have yet to locate a Dutch translation dating earlier than 1738.²² When Houbraken adduces the ‘Cabinet of Medals’ by the short-lived Guillaume du Choul,²³ one might think that he forgot to use italics, but Du Choul published his medal collection in French in his treatise on the religion of the ancient Romans, which Houbraken apparently knew via the Dutch translation of 1684, Verhandeling van den Godtsdienst, Legerschikking, Krygstucht, en badstoven der Oude Romeinen.

His reference to Ovid’s ‘Almanak, of Feestdagen’²⁴ only becomes accessible because he also mentions ‘his new translator Arnold Hoogvliet’, which allows one to locate the prolific translator’s P. Ovidius Nasoos Feestdagen of 1719. Houbraken’s use of ‘the Booklet of the Trades by Abraham van St. Clara’²⁵ is only straightforward if one knows that Sancta Clara was the monastic name of Johann Ulrich Megerle (1644-1709). Armed with that knowledge, he and his book Iets voor Allen (with its very long title) are easily located. For ‘the booklet of Mr. Spon’,²⁶ the author is quickly identified as the antiquarian and physician Jacob Spon (1647-1685). The illustration Houbraken refers to is less easy to find, but we located it in Voyagie door Italien, Dalmatien, Grieckenland, en de Levant … of 1689 [5].

Passing mention of ‘R. Maimonides’ no doubt refers to Rabbi Abraham Maimonides (1138-1204), but he derived his reference from secondary sources, being Jan van Hoogstraten’s De Kruisheld, of het Leven van den grooten apostel Paulus (Amsterdam 1712, p. 55) and Antonius Bynaeus’ Gekruiste Christus, ofte Verklaringe over de Geschiedenisse van het Lijden, Sterven ende Begraven onses Heeren …. (Dordrecht 1685, p. 321). ²⁷ Similarly, a reference to the ‘sixth book of Atheneus’²⁸ must go back on one of the fifteen books of the Deipnosophistarum of Athenaeus of Naucratis (AD 120-220), but we could not locate a Dutch edition that Houbraken could have consulted. Through deeper research using Google Books, we found the passage that must have been Houbraken's source on page 45 of Daniël Heinsius' Nederduytsche poëmata, published in Amsterdam in 1618. In the case of Nonnus Panopolitanus (5th century), whom Houbraken repeatedly adduces as just Nonnus,²⁹ nothing connects him to any edition of his Dionysiaca, but all references go back to publications by Daniel Heinrius (1580-1655) as well. When Houbraken referred to ‘Kolumella de Asino, Lib. 2, Cap. 1’he must have intended Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella (1st century AD) and a chapter heading of his Res rustica, but we still do not know the specifics or how our biographer came by his information, although it is quite possible that he took this from De zangberg gezuivert, muizenzang … by Dr. Chrysostomus Matanasius (The Hague 1716, p. 65).³⁰

There remains a small group of references that is still unresolved. The Redenvoering van eenen volmaakte redenaar by Petrus Francius (1645-1704) [6] must be based on an unidentifiable Dutch translation of his Oratio de perfecto et consummato oratore of 1689.³¹ Even more of a dead end is the Lofreden van den Haan (In Praise of the Rooster), also by Francius, and yet Houbraken seems to assume that many of his readers will have read it.³² In fact, we don’t even know if it is a work of prose or of poetry. Not even the assumption that Houbraken translated the title from the Latin helps. One Chevea³³ could be Urbain Chevreau (1613-1701), but it no clear which on which publication Houbraken based his information. A reference to Petronius Arbiter (AD 27-66)³⁴ must refer to his Satyricon but is otherwise completely open-ended, as we couldn’t find an early Dutch translation of this iconic work. As for the twice mentioned learned scholar Spencer, we believe we have at last identified him as Philipp Jacob Spener (1635-1705) [7].³⁵ Obviously more work still needs to be done, but the truly obscure sources number no more than about a dozen in most of a thousand pages.

5
Jan Luyken
A view of ruins in Athens (from: Jacob Spon, Voyagie door Italien, Dalmatien, Grieckenland, en de Levant, Amsterdam 1689), in or before 1689
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. RP-P-1896-A-19368-773

6
Ludolf Bakhuizen
Portrait of Petrus Francius (1645-1704) standing in front of the monument od Michiel de Ruyter, dated 1688
Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam, inv./cat.nr. 000.077

7
Daniel Thielen
Portrait of the minister Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705), 1691 (?)
Frankfurt am Main, Historisches Museum Frankfurt, inv./cat.nr. HFM.B0191

The accessibility and learnedness of Houbraken’s sources is often difficult for us to access. From our point of view the Gulden Annotatien (Golden Annotations) by Franciscus Heerman (c.1610-after 1670) is thoroughly obscure, but have been a best-seller around 1700, with thirty editions from 1635 to 1715. Certain is only that Houbraken read just about everything in Dutch that he could lay his hands on, and that any spare time between his painting, etching and writing must have been filled with voracious reading, of which we have already seen plentiful evidence in Houbraken Translated.