The Dissius Collection

Although the Dissius auction catalogue documents unequivocally that Jacob Dissius was the owner of twenty-one Vermeer'supon his death, there is much debate as to how he had actually assembled hisextraordinary collection. The scholar, John Montias  built a verysuggestive case using existing archival evidence coupled with a profound knowledge ofVermeer's social and artistic milieu. 

According to Montias, the bulk of the Dissius collection came from theart collection of Pieter van Ruijven, a wealthy Delft burger, who had likelybought the paintings directly from Vermeer. The paintings in Van Ruijven'scollection were then bequeathed to his daughter, Magdalena, who married JacobDissius in 1680, after the death of Van Ruijven’s wife, Maria de Knuijt. Dissiusand his wife Magdalena may have acquired other paintings on their own behalf.Montias also sees evidence that the relationship between Van Ruijven and Vermeerwent far beyond that of client and artist.

Van Ruijven witnessed the will of Vermeer's sister Gertruij in her own house shortly before her death. But most importantly, in 1665 Vermeer was bequeathed the sum of 500 guilders by Van Ruijven's wife in her will. This kind of third-person bequest was extremely unusual if not unique.

Furthermore, Montias argues that "artists such as Vermeer would have only invested the time necessary to paint refined, meticulous rendered genre scenes for specific patrons rather than for the open market."¹ Van Ruijven may have wished to fashion himself as a patron of the arts similar his relative Pieter Spiering Silvercroon. Silvercroon was a patron of Gerrit Dou ,"one of the best remunerated painters of the century, had an arrangement to pay Dou the sum of 500 guilders a year for the right of first refusal on this sought-after master's work (whose subjects were mostly modern). Phillp Angel, in his Praise of Painting of 1642 writes of Spiering's arrangement with Dou. In his account, within the ranks of such fabled patrons of antiquity and the Renaissance as King Attalus, Alexander, Caesra, the Emporor Maximilia, Julius II and Francis I, the only Dutchman named is Spiering. By emulating him, Van Ruijven hoped to improve his social luster by linking his name to that of an outstanding local talent - Vermeer - and more generally, by assembling a choice art collection."² Since we are relatively sure that Vermeer himself held the art of painting in high regard, this kind of arrangement would have seemed equally profitable for both Van Ruijven and Vermeer.

However, both Ben Broos³ and Arthur Wheelock⁴ believe that even though Van Ruijven may have indeed been one of Vermeer's clients, it remains uncertain if he was Vermeer's principle patron. Wheelock argues that "the hypotheses that Van Ruijven was Vermeer's patron, although appealing, should be cautiously approached, for no document specifies that Vermeer ever painted for Van Ruijven. Moreover, no source confirms that van Ruijven himself had any Vermeer paintings in his possessions."⁵ The Dissius collection was comprised of works that follow Vermeer's first attempts at religious and historical types.