Eyewitness Written Accounts of Vermeer's Painting
Constantijn Huygens and
His Secretary
Thomas Hendricks. de Keyser
Only two written eye witness accounts of people who actually met with Vermeer and saw his paintings during his lifetime have survived, Pieter Teding van Berckhout and Balthasar de Monconys. The portrait to the left represents Constantijn Huygens, one of the most knowledgeable Dutchman of his time who maintained close contacts with many painters and knew both of these gentlemen. Although no documents exist that prove Huygens personally knew Vermeer, art historians strongly believe that Huygens must have known Vermeer's painting and was responsible for the visit of de Monconys and possibly Van Berckhout to artist's Delft studio in the summer of 1663.
Furthermore, Huygens may also be that brokered the sale of one of Vermeer's musical theme painting to his musical friend Diego Duarte from Antwerp. If Huygens' supposed ties with Vermeer were proven to be true, this would place the Delft master squarely within the most uppermost artistic milieu of the time.
Pieter Teding van Berckhout
Other than that of Balthasar de Monconys, the only written eyewitness account of Vermeer's paintings made during his life was penned by Pieter Teding van Berckhout (1643-1713.) In his diary, May 14,1669, Van Berckhout wrote: "Having arrived in Delft, I saw an excellent painter named Vermeer," stating also that he had seen several "curiosities" of the artist. He had arrived in Delft accompanied by Constantijn Huygens and his friends—member of parliament Ewout van der Horst and ambassador Willem Nieupoort. Huygens was an artistic authority in his own day, maintaining contacts with the famous Flemish painters Peter Paul Rubens and Anthony van Dyck and recording in his own diary some remarkably insightful comments about the art of, among others, Rembrandt van Rijn.
Portrait of Pieter Teding van Berckhout
Casper Netscher
oil on copper
Teding van Berckhout Foundation
Van Berckhout must have been deeply impressed by the work he saw in Vermeer's studio since he returned for another visit less than a month later. On June11, Van Berckhout noted:
"I went to see a celebrated painter named Vermeer" who"showed me some examples of his art, the most extraordinary and most curious aspect of which consists in the perspective."
The present location of Van Berckhout's residence in Delft at the Dry Cooningen (Three Magi), Oude Delft number 123. Teding became member of Delft Council of Fourty from 1675 onwards.3
This time Van Berckhout used the term "celebrated" rather than "excellent" in describing Vermeer a fact which may testify that Vermeer had achieved a rather considerable reputation. What is most interesting about this visit is that Vermeer's studio (like that of Gerrit Dou and Frans van Mieris) was evidently a major cultural destination.1
When speaking of "perspectives," Van Berckhout "may have referred to Vermeer's interior scenes, which were very carefully constructed."2
The study of perspective was held in high esteem and was studied throughout Europe. Scholars have suggested that Van Berckhout probably saw Vermeer’s Art of Painting, in which the perspective technique is very powerful and must have seemed startling to contemporary eyes. Vermeer’s skill in creating perspective illusion remains unsurpassed.
Balthasar De Monconys
The Baron Balthasar de Monconys (1611-1665) was a French connoisseur and diplomat who visited Delft during the summer of 1663. He came initially as a tourist, evidently unaware of Vermeer's presence. A few weeks later, "he went to pay his respects in The Hague to Constantijn Huygens, an important art connoisseur and theorist of Dutch culture. De Monconys admired his art collection and described it in detail. However, one can only imagine "how amazed Huygens must have been to hear that the Frenchman had been in Delft,without visiting Vermeer." It seems a reasonable assumption that Huygens urged de Monconys to meet with the Delft painter, given the Frenchman’s predilection for fine art. Not long afterward, Monconys did indeed visit with Vermeer at his house, and wrote the following account in his diary journal, which was published in 1665, the year of his death:
"In Delft I saw the painter Verme(e)r who did not have any of his works: but we did see one at a baker's, for which six hundred livres had been paid, although it contained but a single figure, for which six pistoles would have been too high a price."
Simply put, de Monconys thought the painting he saw was worth less than a tenth of the price mentioned.
Unfortunately de Monconys made no mention of the style and quality of such works — it appears he judged them exclusively on the basis of the number of hours required to do the work. The price of six hundred livres that the baker — presumably Van Buyten— thought reasonable for his painting corresponds to the six hundred livres the prominent artist, Gerrit Dou (1613-1675) had asked from de Monconys two days earlier for Dou’s painting of a Woman at a Window, clearly also a work with only one figure.At that time, a Vermeer evidently had the same market value as an authentic work by Dou, whom Charles II of England had invited to become his court painter in1660. De Monconys was in for more of a shock when, some time later, Frans van Mieris the Elder (1635-1681) wanted no fewer than twelve hundred livres for a more elaborate figure piece of a sick lady by a quack doctor. Although de Monconys only briefly touched upon his perception of Vermeer’s work, and deprecated its worth, it is clear from his account that there were connoisseurs in prominent circles who were aware of Vermeer’s artistic skills.
No one knows precisely why de Monconys saw no paintings at Vermeer’s house.Most scholars believe, since he produced relatively few works, Vermeer simply had none at the time to show him because they were bought by his clients and patrons as soon as they were produced. John MIchael Montias argues that Vermeer made no more than two or three paintings a year. Further, he believes most we reacquired by Pieter van Ruijven,a well-to-do Delft citizen and Vermeer's principle patron. According to Montias,"Vermeer resembled Gerrit Dou, Frans van Mieris and other ‘fine painters’ of his day who also worked mainly on commission." On the other hand, the art historian, Arthur Wheelock asks, if Van Ruijven had been Vermeer's principle collector, why would the Frenchman have visited the baker's home rather than Van Ruijven's? Unfortunately de Monconys' diary sheds no light on these issues.
- Ben Broos, "Un celebre Peijntre nommè Verme(e)r." in Vermeer and the Art of Painting
, 1995, p.49
- John Michael, Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web of Social History
, Princeton, 1989
- Kees Kaldenbach, A multimedia encyclopedic web site on
Johannes Vermeer, < http://www.xs4all.nl/~kalden/>
