Adriaen and Pieter van der WERFF
Adriaen van der Werff
Kralingen-Ambacht (Rotterdam), 21 January 1659–Rotterdam, 12 November 1722, buried 17 November 1722
Dutch painter, architect, draughtsman, designer of prints and behangselschilder (painter of decorative ensembles for interiors)
Pieter van der Werff
Kralingen-Ambacht (Rotterdam), 1665–Rotterdam, buried 26 September 1722
Dutch painter
Adriaen van der Werff was trained in the Rotterdam studios of the portrait painter Cornelis Picolet (1626–79) and the portrait and genre painter Eglon van der Neer (1635/6–1703). His early works are in the tradition of the Leidse fijnschilders, the Leiden ‘fine painters’ – Gabriel Metsu (1629–67), Gerard Dou (1613–75), Gerard ter Borch II (1617–81) and Frans van Mieris I (1635–81). They are characterized by their elegant figures and decorative richness. In the 1670s these qualities were married to Classical themes and a more elevated subject matter.
By his early thirties he had achieved considerable success, and in 1687 he married Margaretha Rees, whose guardian Nicolaes Anthoni Flinck (1646–1723) was a notable collector of Classical and Renaissance art. Through Flinck, Adriaen van der Werff was introduced to the Amsterdam circles of the collectors Jan Six (1618–1700) and Philip de Flines (1640–1700). De Flines was head of the Classicist literary society Nil volentibus Arduum and possessed several Classicist pictures by Gerard de Lairesse (1641–1711), who was also an important theorist with his Groot Schilderboek (1716).
In the 1690s Adriaen van der Werff was twice head (dean) of the Rotterdam painters’ guild. In 1696 he accepted a contract offered by Johan Wilhelm von der Pfalz (1658–1716), Elector Palatine, to paint for him alone for six months a year, later extended to nine months a year. For this he received the astonishing annual fee of 6,000 guilders, in addition to which he was paid for each picture. After 1696 he chiefly painted religious subjects in scenes filled with elongated nudes and Classical drapery, but he also still painted portraits, for instance of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough (1650–1722), in December 1704, and of Gian Gastone de’ Medici (1671–1737), the last Grand Duke of Tuscany, in 1705. In 1703 he received a hereditary title of nobility. The death of the Elector in 1716 led him back to the open market, and his work continued to command high prices until his death in 1722. Adriaen van der Werff was internationally admired, his works combining the style of the ‘fine painters’ with the Classically inspired figures preferred by the courts of his day.
Later he fell out of fashion. The art dealer William Buchanan (1777–1864), for instance, said in 1824 that viewing his pictures in Munich ‘gave rise to the remark, that if Rembrandt’s pictures possess too much salt, those of Vanderwerf have too much water in their composition’.1 For the 19th-century theorist Théophile Thoré-Bürger (1807–69) Adriaen van der Werff was not a ‘real’ Dutchman: like earlier German authors including Goethe, Schlegel and Kugler, Thoré thought that Dutch landscape painters should depict Dutch landscapes, not Italian or Nordic ones, and they should stick to Dutch subjects – simple farmers and burghers – rather than depicting Biblical or mythological scenes.2 Similarly, in the arrangement that Gustav Friedrich Waagen (1797–1868) made in 1830 of the Berlin Gallery, Van der Werff’s paintings were hung in the first, Italian, section, and not in the second, Netherlandish/German section, where they belonged, considering his place of birth and activity.3 Critical interest has only recently returned to Adriaen van der Werff, with the revaluation of Italianate Dutch landscapes and Classicist painting.
Pieter van der Werff was Adriaen's younger brother and pupil. He was a painter of portraits, historical and genre scenes. Like his brother he became dean of the Rotterdam guild (1703–16). From 1712 onwards Pieter was heavily involved in almost all his brother’s paintings, as shown in a notebook where Adriaen recorded exactly how many days and weeks he himself had worked on a picture, and how many days and weeks were the work of Pieter, who received an hourly wage.4 Later Pieter concentrated on painting portraits.
LITERATURE
Eikemeier 1972; Snoep, Meyerman & Thiels 1973; Gaehtgens 1987; Hecht 1989, pp. 248–79; Thiels 1994; Leistra 1996; Aono 2011, pp. 195–6 (Adriaen), 197–8 (Pieter), and passim; Ecartico, no. 8752: http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/8752 (Adriaen; April 27, 2017); Ecartico, no. 8755: http://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/8755 (Pieter, April 27, 2017); RKDartists&, no. 83661: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/83661 (Adriaen; April 27, 2017); RKDartists&, no. 83665: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/83665 (Pieter; April 27, 2017).
1
Adriaen van der Werff
Self-portrait of the artist with a double portrait of his wife Margaretha van Rees (1669-1732) and their daughter Maria (1692-1731), dated 1699
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-A-465
2
Pieter van der Werff
Self-portrait of Pieter van der Werff (1665-1722), c. 1694
Rotterdam, Museum Rotterdam, inv./cat.nr. HMR 10561
DPG147 – The Judgement of Paris
1716; canvas on oak panel, 63.3 x 45.7 cm
Signed and dated, lower left: Chevr vandr/ Werff Fec/ ano 1716
Seals on back
PROVENANCE
Purchased from Adriaen van der Werff by Philippe II, Duc d’Orléans, in 1719 for ƒ5,000;5 Orléans inventory, 1724: 4,800 livres; Duc d’Orléans sale, Paris (anon. auction house), 9 June 1727 (not in Lugt), lot [79] (Vandreverf – Le Jugement de Paris; sur bois; Hauteur 2 Pi., Largeur 1 Pi. 5 Po.);6 Orléans inventory, 1752, 1,200 livres; Orléans inventory, 1785, 4,000 livres; Orléans collection; bt Thomas Moore Slade (in conjunction with Lord Kinnaird, Mr Morland and Mr Hammersley), 1792; B. van der Gucht sale, Christie’s, 12 March 1796 (Lugt 5420), lot 80;7 bt ‘Sr F B’ (Bourgeois) for £267 15s.; Desenfans sale, Skinner and Dyke, London, 18 March 1802 (Lugt 6380), lot 188 (‘Vanderwerff – The Judgment of Paris’); handwritten note in copy of catalogue in RKD: ‘2¼ h. 1¾ P[anel] & Case. Bl [? sic] Women & fine Trees &c.’);8 bt Chippendale for £404 5s. (bt in); Insurance 1804, no. 100 (‘Vanderwerff – The three Graces’), £800; Bourgeois Bequest, 1811; Britton 1813, p. 24, no. 239 (‘Drawing Room / no. 27, Judgment of Paris – 4 figures all naked (glass) [no support mentioned] Vanderwerf’; 3' x 2'6").
REFERENCES
Houbraken 1753, iii, p. 403;9 Dubois de Saint-Gelais 1727, [pp. 7–8], no. 6; Van Gool 1751, ii, p. 387; Descamps 1753–63, iii (1760), p. 391;10 Cat. 1817, p. 13, no. 351 (‘FIFTH ROOM – East Side; The Judgement of Paris; A.Vanderwerf’); Haydon 1817, p. 400, no. 351;11 Cat. 1820, p. 13, no. 351; Patmore 1824b, pp. 98–9, no. 352;12 Hazlitt 1824, p. 46, no. 332;13 Buchanan 1824, i, p. 208, no. 3;14 Cat. 1830, no. 191; Smith 1829–42, iv (1833), pp. 204–5, no. 83;15 Duchesne & Réveil 1828–34, xiv (1833), no. 953;16 Jameson 1842, ii, p. 473, no. 191;17 Hazlitt 1843, p. 38, no. 191;18 Denning 1858 and 1859, no. 191;19 Lejeune 1864–65, ii (1864), p. 571; Sparkes 1876, p. 185, no. 191; Richter & Sparkes 1880, p. 185, no. 191;20 Richter & Sparkes 1892 and 1905, p. 38, no. 147; HdG, x, 1928, p. 266, no. 117; Cook 1914, pp. 87–8, no. 147; Cook 1926, pp. 82–3; Cat. 1953, p. 43; Snoep, Meyerman & Thiels 1973, p. 58 (fig. 49);21 Van Gelder 1974, p. 183; Morawińska 1974, p. 42, no. 37, fig. 50; Murray 1980a, pp. 137–8; Murray 1980b, p. 30; Gaehtgens 1987, pp. 192, 247–8 (no. 33), 442, 464 (no. 52), 465;22 Ingamells 1992, p. 430, note 7, under no. P151 (Van der Werff, Venus and Cupid); Beresford 1998, p. 258; Dejardin 2009b, pp. 34–5; Jonckheere 2008, p. 96, fig. 55; Korthals Altes 2009–10, pp. 204–5, fig. 13, and notes 49 and 50; Jonker & Bergvelt 2016, pp. 287–9; Schmid 2018, p. 154, no. 26, p. 206, no. 6, ill. (colour) on p. 154, p. 266, no. 26; RKD, no. 1546: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/1546 (April 27, 2017).
EXHIBITION
Houston/Louisville 1999–2000, pp. 166–7, no. 54 (D. Shawe-Taylor); New Orleans 2018–19, p. 154, no. 26.
TECHICAL NOTES
Very fine, plain-weave linen canvas glued to a good quality single-member oak panel. There are two seals of Adriaen van der Werff on the verso. The ground is warm buff-coloured and shows through in parts. The painting technique is fine and clearly intended to have a smooth surface. Technical analysis revealed that the sky contains natural ultramarine; it also showed a surprisingly complex layer structure, with brown, orange and yellow layers below the blue. This structure may indicate that elements of the design were altered as the work was painted, or possibly that an older painting was reused. Pentimenti include a change to the pale red/orangish drapery over Minerva.23 The painting was framed before it was dry: the paint has been pressed and abraded at the edges. The surface has a square craquelure all over, which is related to the slight shrinkage of the canvas; it is raised but secure. The canvas texture is noticeable over much of the image and the tops of the weave are abraded. There is some light wear and some minor scrapes and scuffs in the surface. There are scattered retouchings, particularly on the pale areas of flesh where the craquelure would be most distracting. Previous recorded treatment: 1953, cleaned and restored, Dr Hell; 1990, surface cleaned, P. Lindsay; 2004, technical analysis, L. Sheldon; 2005, cleaned and restored, old label removed and conserved, S. Plender.
RELATED WORKS
1) Adriaen van der Werff, The Judgement of Paris, signed and dated chevr vr Werff fec./ Ano 1712, panel, 56 x 49.5 cm. Formerly Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden, 1818 (destroyed in 1945) [3].24
2a) Guido Reni, Adam and Eve, 1618–19, canvas, 277 x 196 cm. Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon, CA 42 [4].25
2b) Copy by Jan Frans Douven after Guido Reni, Adam and Eve, ‘h. 1 v. 4 d. br. 11 d.’ Present whereabouts unknown (Jaques Meijers sale, Rotterdam (anon. auction house), 9 Sept. 1722 (Lugt 302), lot 224).26
3) Studio of Adriaen van der Werff, Adam and Eve, signed and dated 1716, medium and dimensions unknown. Present whereabouts unknown (E. Wertheimer a.o. sale, Sotheby’s, 20 May 1953, lot 29).27
4a) Adriaen van der Werff, Nymphs dancing to a Pipe-playing Shepherd, signed and dated Chevr Vr / Werff. fec. 1718, panel, 58.5 x 44 cm. Louvre, Paris, 1945 [5].28
4b) Copy of 4a: Adriaen or Pieter van der Werff, Two dancing Nymphs and a Flute-playing Shepherd in an Arcadian Landscape, signed and dated P: V. Werff / AN.o 1717, panel, 41.7 x 31.8 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Sotheby’s, Amsterdam, 11 Nov. 2008, lot 56; Sotheby’s, 10 July 2008, lot 227) [6].29
5) Adriaen van der Werff, Nymph dancing to a Pipe-playing Shepherd, signed and dated Chevr vr / Werff fe 1718, panel, 45 x 33 cm. RM, Amsterdam, SK-A-467 [7].30
6) Adriaen and Pieter van der Werff, God calls Adam and Eve to Account, dated 1717, panel, 55.7 × 41.1 cm. RM, Amsterdam, SK-A-4918 [8].31
7a) (in reverse) Mathieu Blot after Adriaen van der Werff, The Judgement of Paris, c. 1800, inscriptions (in the Galerie du Palais d’Orléans), etching, 272 (trimmed) x 212 mm. BM, London, 1855,0609.587 [9].32
7b) (in reverse, based on no. 7a?) Sébastien Lefèvre after Adriaen van der Werff, The Judgement of Paris, c. 1820, etching and stipple, 230 x 155 mm. BM, London, 1926,0331.820 [10].33
7c) (same direction as DPG147; after no. 7a?) Etienne Achille Réveil after Adriaen van der Werff, The Judgement of Paris, in Duchesne & Réveil 1828–34, xiv (1833), no. 953.34
7d) (same direction; after DPG147) William Say after Adriaen van der Werff, The Judgement of Paris, 1816, mezzotint, 612 x 447 mm. BM, London, 1852,1009.1292 [11].35
7e) (same direction; after DPG147) George Salisbury Shury after William Etty after Adriaen van der Werff, Judgement of Paris, c. 1830–83, mezzotint and etching, 615 x 444 mm. BM, London, 2010,7081.6647 [12].36
According to Adriaen van der Werff’s notebook, he began the picture in September 1716 and worked on it for sixteen weeks, while his brother and assistant Pieter worked on it for nine weeks; how they divided the work is not documented. In 1719 it was purchased by the Philippe II, Duc d’Orléans (1674–1723) for ƒ5,000, and it came to London with the rest of his collection in the 1790s.37 Desenfans acquired it in 1796, which would seem to exclude it from the works intended for Stanislaus II August Poniatowski (1732–98), who was King of Poland until 1795, although Desenfans included the picture in his so-called ‘Polish’ sale in 1802. Interestingly, in 1802 the picture still had its case, which was usual for small paintings, especially with female nudes.
DPG147 depicts the famous episode in Ovid (Heroides, XVI) where the shepherd Paris judges which of Juno, Venus and Minerva was the most beautiful. Venus, attended by Cupid and two doves, stretches out her hand to receive the prize, the golden apple of Discord. Behind her stand Juno and Minerva, the latter wearing her characteristic helmet, while off to the left, in the shadowy background, Mercury rests his head pensively on his hand.
According to Barbara Gaehtgens the figure of Paris derives (in reverse) from a Judgement of Paris that Adriaen van der Werff had painted four years earlier, which was formerly in Dresden (Related works, no. 1) [3]. That depicted a slightly later moment in the narrative, with Venus already holding the apple. DPG147 has similar gloomy surroundings, but is otherwise a quite different and much tighter composition. For his Venus in DPG147 Van der Werff borrowed the pose of Eve from the Adam and Eve by Guido Reni (1575–1642), in Rotterdam at the time, or a copy after it (Related works, nos 2a, 2b) [4]. Then for another picture Adriaen or his studio changed Paris and Venus back into Adam and Eve (Related works, no. 3). In 1717 Adriaen himself painted a further Adam and Eve, in which the two figures are closer to each other and parts of their bodies even overlap. There the two figures look not at each other but in the same direction, as they are called to account by God (Related works, no. 6) [8]. How Van der Werff played variations on the group of goddesses combined with another male figure (in addition to the Paris and Adam figures) to the left can be seen in pictures in the Louvre, at auction at Sotheby’s, and in the Rijksmuseum (Related works, nos 4, 5) [5-7].
At the end of the 18th century Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723–92) had seen the picture in France: ‘In that work Vanderwerf has shewn himself a great Italian master, in the three goddesses, which in every sense of the word, are goddesses indeed.’ And he particularly admired the uncommon decency with which the subject was treated, adding, ‘that when an inferior artist treats the naked, modesty is sure to be alarmed at the performance.’38 William Hazlitt in 1824 wrote that the figures were ‘of coloured ivory. They are like hard-ware toys’ – missing the point that Van der Werff’s pale, elegant goddesses were intended to emulate statuary.
In the 19th century five prints were made after the picture, three in France (two of them in reverse) and two in England, which all follow it quite closely, indicating that the picture was held in high esteem – at least by the printmakers (Related works, nos 7a–7e) [9-12]. At Dulwich the critical acclaim was mixed: Ralph Cockburn (1779–1820) did not include it in his series of aquatints after pictures in the Gallery; Denning gave it the longest entry in his 1858 catalogue, longer than those on Poussin’s Education of Jupiter and Triumph of David, though many of his words are critical.
DPG147
and Pieter van der Werff Adriaen van der Werff
The Judgement of Paris, dated 1716
Dulwich (Southwark), Dulwich Picture Gallery, inv./cat.nr. DPG147
3
Adriaen van der Werff
The Judgement of Paris
panel (nut), oil paint 56 x 49,5 cm
Signed and dated: Chevr vr Werff fec. / An° 1712
Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv./cat.nr. 1818 (missing since 1945)
4
Guido Reni
Adam and Eve with the apple, c. 1618-1619
Dijon, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon, inv./cat.nr. CA 42
5
Adriaen van der Werff
Nymphs dancing to a pipe-playing shepherd, dated 1718
Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv./cat.nr. 1945
6
Adriaen van der Werff
Two dancing nymphs and a flute-playing shepherd in an arcadian landscape, dated 1717
7
Adriaen van der Werff
Nymph dancing to a pipe-playing shepherd, 1718 (dated)
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-A-467
8
and Pieter van der Werff Adriaen van der Werff
Adam and Eve reproved by God (Genesis 3:8-9), dated 1717
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-A-4918
9
Mathieu Blot after Adriaen van der Werff
The Judgement of Paris, c. 1790-1800
London (England), British Museum, inv./cat.nr. 1855,0609.587
10
Sébastien Lefèvre after Adriaen van der Werff
The Judgement of Paris, c. 1815-25
London (England), British Museum, inv./cat.nr. 1926,0331.820
11
William Say after Adriaen van der Werff
The Judgement of Paris, dated 1816
London (England), British Museum, inv./cat.nr. 1852,1009.1292
12
George Salisbury Shury after William Etty after Adriaen van der Werff
The Judgement of Paris, c. 1830
London (England), British Museum, inv./cat.nr. 2010,7081.6647
Notes
1 Buchanan 1824, i, p. 208: ‘His best works are in the gallery of Munich; but too many of these being there brought together, without possessing much variety of colouring, creates an unpleasant monotony, and gave rise to the remark, that if Rembrandt’s pictures possess too much salt, those of Vanderwerf have too much water in their composition.’
2 Carasso 1999; see also Bergvelt 1998, pp. 188, 338–9 (notes 176–9).
3 See Waagen’s ground plan of 1830, e.g. in Van Wezel 2005, p. 298 (fig. 11.8).
4 Snoep, Meyerman & Thiels 1973, pp. 27 (no. 50), 29, 58 (fig. 49); Gaehtgens 1987, pp. 442–4, Dokument 6. See also Sluijter 2009, pp. 10–11: Adriaen charged 25 guilders a day, even if Pieter had done the work; however Pieter only received 5 guilders a day.
5 Mentioned in the painter’s archival material: see Gaehtgens 1987, p. 442, Dokument 6, fol. 5v: aen het Paris Oordeel voor mijn selve. Het laeste f 4000/f 5000; verkogt na Vrankrijk (on the Judgement of Paris for myself. The last sold to France ƒ4000/ƒ5000); days are marked with small dashes; a larger dash indicates the end of the week: Adriaen 16 weeks; Pieter 9 weeks, and not 10 weeks as Gaehtgens says on p. 247. See Snoep, Meyerman & Thiels 1973, p. 58 (fig. 49) for a reproduction of the page. The French envoy in The Hague, the Comte de Morville (who also once owned Rembrandt’s Girl, DPG163), seems to have helped to make the contact for Philippe II, Duc d’Orléans; the picture is discussed in a letter from the Parisian art dealer Tramblin to the Rotterdam collector/dealer Jaques Meyers of 26 Nov. 1719 (see Gaehtgens 1987, p. 247 and Dokument 27, pp. 458–60). Tramblin describes the picture as hanging in the cabinet of Philippe II in Paris on that date. It also appears that the Duke of Orléans was the one who had asked for the picture by Van der Werff. (NB: it was not in the sale of Jaques Meijers in 1722 as is sometimes said.) In another document DPG147 is again referred to and numbered no. 52 Gaehtgens 1987, p. 464, Dokument 26, fol. 3: tot 1722 incluys/ 52 Een Paris Oordeel (ander manier als no. 48), door den hartog van Orleans, regent van Vrankrijk f5000 (up to and including 1722/ 52 a Judgement of Paris ([painted] in a different manner from no. 48 [that is the picture Van der Werff sold to Count Czernin de Chudeniz in 1717: see below and also notes 9 and 19; Related works, no. 1; Fig.]), [purchased] by the Duke of Orléans, regent of France f5,000). Gaehtgens 1987, p. 465, Dokument 27, fol. 2: Aan den heere hartog van Orleans, regent van Vrankrijk ao 1719/ 1 stuk, Paris Oordeel op een ander manier als boven f500/f5000 ([Sold] To Milord the Duke of Orléans, regent of France, in the year 1719/ 1 piece, Judgement of Paris in a different manner from the one above ƒ500/ƒ5,000). (NB: on the same page the picture that was sold to Count Czernin in Prague is referred to as sold in February 1717.)
6 GPID (5 June 2013); according to Stryienski 1913, pp. 129–30, this sale was never held, but some days before the planned date ten pictures were sold to Charles Henry d’Hoym, a well-known collector of Dutch and Flemish paintings: see Korthals Altes 2009–10, pp. 208–9 (notes 69, 70). It is certain that the picture stayed in the Orléans collection.
7 ‘The Judgement of Paris. Van der Werf hardly ever produced a more capital picture; if we take it for elegance of composition, it has all the graces of a Parmegiano, with that high-finishing and rich colouring in which his works so much excel.’
8 Desenfans 1802, pp. 191–5, no. 169: ‘Descamps in his lives of painters, informs us, that it was painted for the Duke of Orléans, while that Prince was regent of France, and even mentions the price he paid for it, about eighty-five years ago. […] The composition presents six figures – Paris, who is partly covered with a blue drapery, is seated to the right [left] of the picture, on the fore-ground, his crook and stick lying by him. Mercury, who comes to bring him the golden apple, with the three Graces, is standing behind him, whilst Juno, whose head is bound with a circle of gold, and her shoulders covered with a lilac [?] drapery, takes the lead [?she is in the background, behind Venus] as the first goddess, and is standing near Paris. Minerva is on the left [right], with a helmet on her head, her arms [?only one arm shown] bound with gold bracelets, and is partly covered with a drapery also of lilac colour. Venus is between them, having no other ornaments than her long fair hair; a little Cupid, at whose side hangs a quiver, is near his mother, wearing her blue drapery, and at her feet, are her two doves caressing. Already Venus impatient, as assured of victory, holds out her hand to Paris, to receive the apple.’ [In this catalogue left and right are reversed; the draperies he describes as blue and lilac are now orange/red, except for Cupid, who still has the blue drapery. For the colours, see note 23 below.] ‘He [Reynolds] was not so partial as most collectors, to the works of Vanderwerf, tho’ he did not wonder at the high prices paid for them, on account of their sweetness and scarcity; but Sir Joshua could not be reconciled to the carnations of that master’s figures, pretending that they had more the appearance of ivory than flesh; and he used to say that the only one of his pictures he knew free from that defect, was the Judgment of Paris, which he had seen in France, in company with his friend Mr. Burke. – In that work, said Sir Joshua, Vanderwerf has shewn himself a great Italian master, in the three goddesses, which in every sense of the word, added he, are goddesses indeed. And he particularly admired the uncommon decency with which the subject was treated, adding, that when an inferior artist treats the naked, modesty is sure to be alarmed at the performance.’
9 Tot dat in den jare 1718, de Heer Hertog van Orleans, Regent van Vrankryk, van hem een stuk dede koopen, (het was ook een Paris oordeel maar anders als het voorige uitgebeeld) voor ƒ5000 gulden Hollands geld. (Until in the year 1718 [sic] Milord the Duke of Orléans, regent of France, bought a picture from him (it was a Judgement of Paris, but depicted differently from the previous one) for ƒ5,000 guilders in Dutch currency). The earlier Judgement of Paris to which Houbraken refers is the one Van der Werff sold to Count Czernin de Chudeniz in 1717 for 5,500 guilders: see notes 5 and 19. As DPG147 was sold in 1719 (according to the artist himself), Houbraken was probably wrong about the year in which Van der Werff sold the picture to Paris.
10 En 1718 il [= A. van der Werff] vendit un Jugement de Paris autrement composé que le premier, au Duc d’Orléans, Régent, 5000 florins, tout argent d’Hollande. (In 1718 he sold a Judgement of Paris, composed differently from the first, to the Duc d'Orléans, Regent, ƒ5,000, in Dutch currency). This information comes from Houbraken (see the preceding note).
11 ‘ADRIAN VANDERWERF. Judgment of Paris.’
12 ‘A.Vanderwerf. This may be taken as a very favourable specimen of Vanderwerf’s manner, which occasionally reaches to the agreeable, but never attains to the poetical, notwithstanding the nature of the subjects which he frequently chose. This picture represents the three Goddesses displaying their charms to Paris on Mount Ida; and the female forms are certainly drawn with extreme elegance, and coloured with considerable truth – at least they will seem so when compared with this artist’s usual hard and ivory performances: but place them beside a piece of rich vitality by Rubens, or one of Titian’s breathing forms, and they would seem but lifeless abstractions – the coldness of a statue without its ideal and imaginative purity.’
13 ‘The Judgement of Paris, by Vanderwerf, is a picture, and by a master that we hate. He always chooses for his subjects naked figures of women, and tantalises us by making them of coloured ivory. They are like hard-ware toys.’
14 ‘His best works are in the gallery of Munich […] Those in the Orleans Gallery […] [include] 3. The Judgement of Paris – valued at 150 guineas.’ See also note 1 above.
15 ‘The Judgement of Paris. The youthful shepherd is represented sitting naked, holding the apple of discord in his hand, and apparently pausing before he awards the prize. . . . Imported to England in 1798; Valued at 150 gs. The above is perhaps the one which was sold in the collection of Noel Desenfans, in 1802, for 385 gs. Descamps […] mentions two pictures […] The latter is, perhaps, the one now in the Dresden Gallery. See p. 195. A picture representing the same subject was sold in the collection of Vander Gucht, in 1796, for 255 gs.’
16 Il faisait partie autrefois de la galerie du Palais-Royal, il passa ensuite dans la collection de M. de Talleyrand, puis dans celle de M. Gray de Haringay-House. Il a été grave par Maurice Blot. Haut., 2 pieds. (It was formerly in the Palais Royal gallery; it then passed into the collection of M. de Talleyrand, and then into that of Mr. Gray of Haringay-House. It was engraved by Maurice Blot. Height, 2 feet.) The print was made not by Blot but by Etienne Achille Réveil (probably after Blot): see Related works, no. 7c; Fig. Although DPG147 seems to have been the original model, the provenance given here seems to refer to a different picture. See also note 22 below.
17 ‘The Judgement of Paris. A composition of four figures. An excellent and valuable picture of a master, who, in general, displeases by the hard insipid coldness of his colouring as much as he charms by his elegant drawing and delicate finish. This picture has all his peculiar merits, with a warmer and richer tone of colour than I remember in any of his other works. It was painted for the Regent Duke of Orleans, in 1718, and brought to England with the Flemish part of the Orleans Gallery, in 1793. It was then valued at 150 guineas […] Engraved by Blot.’
18 See note 13 above.
19 1858: ‘In the Royal Gallery at Dresden there is a picture of the same subject by Van der Werff, which came from the collection of Count Czernin [inserted: Count Czernin de Chudeniz, for which he paid 5,500 florins (CF: Descamps. Vol: iii. p: 391)] at Prague – celebrated, not only on account of its Excellence, but from it having been stolen [inserted: by Wogaz, the picture-robber,] [stricken: and] happily recovered, in 1788)’; ‘Sir Joshua Reynolds was not fond of Vanderwerf’s pictures, but he said of this picture “In the Judgment of Paris, Vanderwerf has shewn himself a great Italian master, in the three goddesses, which in every sense of the word, are goddesses indeed; for, when an inferior artist treats the naked, modesty is sure to be alarmed at the performance.”’ This is based on Desenfans 1802, ii, pp. 191–2, no. 169 (see note 8 above). 1859: ‘there is no doubt that the study of casts from the antique, and of drawings and engravings of the Italian Masters had much, perhaps too much, to do with the formation of his style. There is not enough flesh and blood in his figures. Smoothness, polish & consummate finish they certainly possess, but they are nevertheless hard and cold, and Sir Joshua Reynolds attributed this to a want of transparency in his colouring. But perhaps the plaster casts caused it.’
20 ‘A picture of great finish, but the heads are wanting in expression the flesh is bloodless and ivory-like; the painting is, however, of exquisite finish.’
21 This is a reproduction of the page on which DPG147 is mentioned.
22 Between the Bourgeois Bequest and Dulwich College she mentions: vielleicht Slg. De Talleyrand; Hornsey, Harrington House, Slg Gray (possibly coll. De Talleyrand; […] coll. Gray). This provenance is mentioned in Duchesne & Réveil 1828–34, xiv (1833), no. 953. This seems to be a confusion with another work by Van der Werff, as DPG147 was purchased by Bourgeois in 1796 in London. See also note 16.
23 Of the lilac draperies mentioned by Desenfans (see note 8 above) Sophie Plender could not find a trace: email to Ellinoor Bergvelt, 21 May 2017 (DPG147 file).
24 RKD, no. 1548: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/1548 (April 27, 2017); Gaehtgens 1987, pp. 244–5, no. 31; this is the picture that Van der Werff sold to Count Czernin in 1717.
25 RKD, no. 235547: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/235547 (May 26, 2017); see also https://mba-collections.dijon.fr/ow4/mba/images/0028PE_P-7668.JPG (July 13, 2020); Pepper 1984, pp. 63–4, no. 63 (fig. 89).
26 Hoet 1752, i, p. 286: Eva, dewelke Adam een Appel aenbiedt, een Leeuw met een Tyger, door den Ouden Douven, naer Guido Reni, h. 1 v. 4 d. br. 11 d. (Eve, offering Adam an apple, a lion with a tiger, by the Old Douven after Guido Reni, [Dutch dimensions])’; bt ƒ25:00 [?] William George Pennington. In the RKD is a manuscript catalogue of Lugt 302 (p. 19), in which the painting by the Old Douven is no. 225.
27 Gaehtgens 1987, p. 248, no. 33a (fig.). In 1717 Van der Werff painted another Adam and Eve (Related works, no. 7).
28 RKD, no. 1574: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/1574 (April 27, 2017); Joconde (7 June 2013); Gaehtgens 1987, pp. 248–9, no. 34; Brejon de Lavergnée, Foucart & Reynaud 1979, p. 150, no. 1945.
29 RKD, no. 225373: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/225373 (as Adriaen; April 28, 2017); Gaehtgens 1987, p. 249, under no. 34 (as copy by Pieter, incorrectly as in National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh).
30 RKD, no. 1576: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/1576 (April 28, 2017); see also http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.6816 (May 11, 2015); Gaehtgens 1987, pp. 250–51, no. 35.
31 RKD, no. 259483: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/259483 (April 28, 2017); see also http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.247360 (May 11, 2015); Jansen 1996b; Gaehtgens 1987, pp. 288–90, no. 56 (as disappeared).
32 RKD, no. 284093: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/284093 (April 29, 2017); see also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1855-0609-587 (May 15, 2020). From the Galerie du Palais Royal, see BM, London, 1837,0408.317 for comment. The series of which Blot’s print formed part was published between 1786 and 1808, interrupted by the Revolution. Blot must have done his preparatory work before DPG147 left for London. Atwater (1989, pp. 1465–6, nos 1846–7) only mentions the prints by Blot after the Louvre picture, Nymphs dancing to a Pipe-playing Shepherd (Related works, no. 4), mysteriously called Judgement of Paris. Or does she assume that the print was made after a picture that was at the time in Paris? Anyhow, both prints mentioned by Atwater with the title Judgement of Paris have dimensions different from those of Related works, no. 7a; Fig.
33 RKD, no. 284095: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/284095 (April 29, 2017); see also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1926-0331-820 (May 15, 2020).
34 For Duchesne & Réveil 1828–34 see Leistra 2004.
35 RKD, no. 284089: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/284089 (April 29, 2017); see also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1852-1009-1292 (May 15, 2020).
36 RKD, no. 284077: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/284077 (April 29, 2017); see also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_2010-7081-6647 (May 15, 2020).
37 See note 5 above.
38 See note 8 above.