- Private collection, Germany 

 The surname Claesz, deriving from the patronymic Claesz. (= son of Claes) was a very common one in the seventeenth century. The first name Anthony was less common, but nevertheless there were several individuals named Anthony Claesz in Amsterdam in the first half of the seventeenth century, at least three of whom were painters.1 It is thus not easy to properly reconstruct the biography of the painter of this still life, and a lot of confusion has arisen in this respect in the past. Eventually, the painter can be identified as Antonij, son of Antonij Claesz and Lysbet Jansz, baptised on 23 December 1607 in Amsterdam.2 The painter signed wedding banns (as ‘Anthony Claessen’), 27 years old, with Jannetie Maijers (she signed ‘Janneken meijers’), age 20, in Amsterdam on 8 November 1635. The couple had eight children, six of whom survived their father.3 ‘Anthoni Claesz, painter’ was buried in the Amsterdam Westerkerk on 16 November 1649. A Jannitge Meijers, most probably his widow, was buried on 8 October 1652. The painter is generally referred to as Anthony Claesz II, as there is an earlier painter Anthony Claesz, also active in Amsterdam, who previously was believed to be the author of work from the 1620s and early 1630s, now also recognized as by Anthony Claesz II.4 Apparently, Anthony Claesz II was preparing for a journey to England ‘ofte andere quartieren’ in May 1632, but it is not recorded whether this actually took place.5 Earlier, in October 1631, Claesz received payment for the tuition of one Gillis Pietersz.6

Anthony Claesz is known for a relatively small number of floral still lifes of good to excellent quality, and for one still life of fruit.7 Additionally, a few drawings of tulips by him are known.8 Dates on his still lifes range from 1627 to 1649.9

Among the earliest examples are a pair of flower cartouches around the portraits of a man and of a woman, dated 1627 (fig. 1, the woman), and a large bouquet of flowers in a ribbed vase (fig. 2). The pair show that the young artist, not yet 20 years old, painting the flowers, was fully trained, but still somewhat uncertain in his modelling and composition.10 For the vase of flowers, probably from the same year, he clearly relied on earlier work by Balthasar van der Ast (1593/94-1657), likely on an example from 1620 (fig. 3). The shells, on the ledge to the left, may have been inspired by work of van der Ast’s teacher, Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (1573-1621). Incidentally, it would appear that the monogram AC (C in A) that Anthony Claesz II used was inspired by Bosschaert’s similar monogram AB. In a flower painting from the following year, 1628, the bunch of grapes on the ledge are reminiscent of that in van der Ast’s still life in figure 3, while the melon was copied from a fruit still life by that artist from about 1625.11 Anthony Claesz’s flower still lifes show a rapid development in style and quality. His rendering of flowers and leaves, and of shells and other accessories became more skilled and accurate and his bouquets got more lively and three-dimensional, as an example from 1632 clearly shows (fig. 5). There is a gap in (dated) works between that work from 1632 and 1639, after which period a further development can be discerned, as two dated examples from 1639 show (cf. fig. 6).12 The bouquets have become even more lively and three-dimensional and the artist allowed for more space around them. His rendering of the petals of the flowers gradually became more ‘waxy’, which suggest that he encountered flower paintings by Hans Bollongier (c.1600-1672/75) from Haarlem (fig. 8), which becomes even more obvious in later work, such as an example from 1647 specific motif Claesz may have picked up from Bollongier is the garden snail on the edge of the table, which also appears in the painting from 1643 featured here. With the other artist it had already appeared in still lifes from the 1620s. Also, Hans Bollongier’s usual finely calligraphed signature may have inspired the signature that Anthony Claesz’s employed once he started to sign his work in full after 1632. Moreover, the vase in the present painting, as well as those in other examples, also resembles several of Bollongier’s vases. Nonetheless, Anthony Claesz clearly had an individually recognizable style and handling. The present painting clearly follows in the lines of development seen in work from 1639 to 1642 illustrated below (figs. 6 and 7) and precedes that from 1647 in figure 9 and other late work, in which the bouquet has become more dense and the flowers larger and heavier. As such, the painting is an excellent example of the work of Anthony Claesz at the height of his painting career that can easily compete with examples by many of his contemporaries.
While still lifes of flowers inherently have a vanitas aspect – flowers wither quickly and likewise human life is temporary – seventeenth-century viewers will most of all have relished in the exciting variety of flowers brought together in this still life by the artist, as well as in the delicacy with which the flying and crawling creatures have been depicted. Notwithstanding, the dung beetle may well have reminded them of imminent decay, and the butterfly of the resurrection of the pious soul.