Oil on canvas
72 x 58.5 cm
Signed and dated
Dirck van Baburen was born around 1592/93 in Wijk bij Duurstede, a small town lying on the Kromme Rijn River where it branches off from the Lek River, in close proximity to Utrecht.1 His parents, Jaspar van Baburen and Margareta van Doyenburch, were relatively affluent. In 1592, his father secured an official position to collect tolls from commercial traffic on the river in Wijk bij Duurstede. This lucrative and honorable post was followed in 1594 by Jasper van Baburen’s appointment as financial administrator for ecclesiastical property seized by the town, a common occurrence throughout the Dutch Republic as Protestants solidified their hold on political power during this tumultuous era. Naturally, a position requiring the titleholder to oversee confiscated Catholic property would not have been awarded to a Catholic. It therefore seems reasonable to surmise that the Baburen family were Protestants.
A record in the form of a receipt from the Guild of St. Luke dating 1611 documents the payment of Dirck van Baburen’s tuition for that year. The artist’s activities prior to this date are unknown, owing to a total lack of archival evidence. Judging from the erudite literary content of some of Baburen’s later history paintings, such as our Laughing Democritus and Apollo and Marsyas, 2 there is a good chance that he attended grammar school, followed by Latin school, the latter institution generally reserved for the sons of the well-to-do. If the young man had, in fact, attended Latin school his studies would have ended by the time he had reached roughly fourteen years-of-age. In an era when well-educated and well- connected young men went on to university, Baburen’s parents, perchance recognizing some nascent artistic talent on his part, probably decided to send him to a recognized master (or masters) for training. The precise year of his entry into an artist’s studio is, of course, not known, but this probably occurred around 1607 or 1608. Unfortunately, this cannot be verified because the pre 1611 records of Utrecht’s saddler’s guild (to which the city’s painters belonged until they founded their own guild in 1611) have been lost.
The aforementioned document from 1611 does not state that Baburen began his training that year, as some scholars have inferred, but only that he had paid his tuition fee. Prior to this date, he had been studying in Utrecht with Paulus Moreelse (l571-1638), a talented and prolific portraitist and occasional composer of history paintings.3 However, Baburen’s name does not appear among those of Moreelse’s documented pupils from 1612 to 1615, so 1611 was likely the last year he spent under this master’s tutelage. Soon thereafter, most likely in1612, he must have departed for Italy at the age of about nineteen. In deciding to supplement his education by traveling to Italy Baburen was certainly not alone, for many Northern-European artists made their way south throughout the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The opportunities in Italy, especially Rome, were simply irresistible, what with its sizeable collections of antiquities, Renaissance art, and during the early seventeenth century, the powerful lure of paintings by the internationally renowned Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610) and his immediate followers, not to mention the potential prospects of patronage from members of the enormous Roman Curia.4 Artists from Utrecht in particular were captivated by Italy, and they journeyed there in large numbers both for artistic and spiritual reasons: in the early seventeenth century, the city continued to maintain its reputation as the principal Catholic center in the Dutch Republic and a major site for the production of conventional Catholic art.
Baburen probably reached in Italy in the summer or fall of 1612, if not in early 1613. He would spend most of his extended Italian period in Rome and relatively soon established a solid reputation there.5 He could not have arrived at a more fortuitous time. By 1612-13, Rome’s population exceeded 100,000 inhabitants. It was a truly bustling cosmopolitan metropolis, whose surging commerce and wealth owed much to the rejuvenated Catholic church in general, and to ambitious papal campaigns to renovate existing churches and initiate new construction projects. The decade of Baburen’s arrival in the Eternal City was also a decisive one artistically. Caravaggio’s death in 1610 had paradoxically facilitated the formation of a ‘school’ of followers of many different nationalities. In some respects, this school (for lack of a better term) centered on the achievements of the Spanish émigré, Jusepe de Ribera (1591-1652), who was living in Rome by 1612 (though he departed for Naples in 1616) and the Ostianese painter, Bartolomeo Manfredi (1582-1622), who resettled there around 1600. The period 1610 to 1620 therefore witnessed the apogee of Caravaggism in Rome, owing to the sheer popularity of the style, both among collectors and the vast influx of foreign artists who practiced it, including Ribera, Manfredi, and Baburen.
Baburen’s tenure in Rome provided ample opportunities for professional growth and development. The city had much to offer artistically but he was especially drawn to the art of Caravaggio and his followers, none more so than Ribera and Manfredi, whose influential interpretations of the older Italian’s art mesmerized a younger generation of painters and collectors. Fortunately for Baburen, he was also successful in securing crucial patronage. At least two of his benefactors are known (and there certainly could have been more): Pietro Cussida (d. 1622), a Spanish diplomat, art agent, and collector for whom the artist and his colleague, David de Haen (ca. 1600-1622), decorated the Pietà Chapel in San Pietro in Montorio and Marchese Vicenzo Giustiniani (1564-1637), one of thegreat maecenases and connoisseurs of the entire era who commissioned Christ Washing the Feet of the Disciples.6 Baburen’s Italian period lasted between eight and nine years. He would not return to Utrecht until the fall of 1620 or, more likely, in the winter of 1621.
Once Baburen reestablished himself in his native city, his thematic repertoire expanded to include some truly innovative genre paintings as well as new historical subjects. Artistic rivalries probably impelled these changes, which is something of a paradox in that Utrecht was much smaller than Rome and hence of lesser significance as a cultural center. However, for these very reasons, competition was keen among the city’s best painters–Baburen, Hendrick ter Brugghen (1588-1629) and Gerrit van Honthorst (1592-1656)--in their quest to secure the most distinguished patrons.7 Most of Baburen’s paintings of subjects drawn from mythology and ancient history, such as Laughing Democritus, date from these last years of his life, that is, between 1622 and 1624. At least two of his Utrecht-period pictures were commissioned by august clients,8 and all manifest the artist’s preoccupation with stories of weighty literary content, reflective, no doubt, of his own education, cultivation, and concomitant social standing.
Our artist’s career in Utrecht was as successful even if it was all-too-brief, for he died in February 1624, a scant three years after he had resettled there. Interestingly, he was still a bachelor at the time of his death, so his mother and sister with whom he had been living, were named the heirs to his estate.9 Owing toa complete lack of documentary evidence, it is impossible to determine how he died. Since Baburen was in his very early thirties by 1624, one can assume that he continued to enjoy a reasonable state of health because of his relative youth, despite living in an age with completely inadequate medical care. Perhaps the still young painter was taken by the dreaded plague that bedeviled Utrecht on and off throughout the early seventeenth century.10 Regardless of the cause of Baburen’s death, it tragically cut short an already well-established career.
The Painting: Oil on canvas, 72 x 58.5 cm
Provenance: Minister Fredrik Due Collection, Stockholm. Axel Wenner-Gren Collection, Stockholm. With Schaffer Galleries, New York, 1961. Sale, Sotheby's, London, 24 March 1965, lot 31, as by Terbrugghen. With Arcade Gallery, London. Private Collection, Switzerland. Sale, Koller, Zürich, 19 June 2020 (auction postponed from 27 March 2020), lot 3057, as by the workshop of Baburen.
Condition: The canvas is generally well preserved though with some paint losses, mostly confined to the top and bottom edges. It has recently been cleaned, which revealed pentimenti along the thumb and index figure of the philosopher’s right hand as well as the left edge of his hat.
Literature: Benedict Nicolson, ‘A Postscript to Baburen,’ The Burlington Magazine 104 (1962), pp. 540, 543, 543 n.14, as not by Baburen’s hand; as unlikely to be the pendant of Heraclitus (fig. 2 in this essay). Leonard J. Slatkes, Dirck van Baburen (c. 1595-1624); A Dutch Painter in Utrecht and Rome. Proefschrift , University of Utrecht, 1962, pp. 89 note 132, 103 handlist no. D3 Leonard J. Slatkes, Dirck van Baburen (c. 1595 - 1624); A Dutch Painter in Utrecht and Rome, Utrecht 1965, pp. 89 note 132, 147 cat. no. D3, 148, fig. 45, as by the workshop of Baburen. Albert Blankert, ‘Heraclitus en Democritus; in het bijzonder in de Nederlands kunst van de zeventiende eeuw,’ Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 18 (1967), pp. 46, 52, 95 cat. no. 25, fig. 14, as by the workshop of Baburen. Benedict Nicolson, The International Caravaggesque Movement: Lists of Pictures by Caravaggio and His Followers throughout Europe from 1590 to 1650, Oxford 1979, p. 19, as by an assistant of Baburen; as a pendant to Heraclitus (fig. 2 in this essay). Cornelia Moiso-Diekamp, Das Pendant in der holländischen Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt a. M., New York, etc., 1987, p. 296 cat. no. C1, as a pendant to Heraclitus (fig. 2 in this essay); as measuring 72 x 59 cm. Benedict Nicolson, Caravaggism in Europe, revised ed., 3 vols., ed. by Luisa Vertova, Turin 1989, vol. 1, p. 56; vol. 3, fig. 1085, as by an assistant of Baburen; maybe a pendant to Heraclitus (fig. 2 in this essay). Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnée, "Le caravagisme en Europe: À propos de la réédition du Nicolson," Gazette des Beaux-Arts 122 (1993), p. 210. Elizabeth McGrath, Rubens Subjects from History (Corpus Rubenianum pt. 13), 2 vols., London 1997, vol. 2, p. 58. San Francisco, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco- Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery - London, The National Gallery, Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age (cat. by Joneath Spicer et al.), 1997-1998, p. 203. Leonard J. Slatkes and Wayne Franits, The Paintings of Hendrick ter Brugghe 1588-1629, Amsterdam - Philadelphia 2007, pp. 21-22, 45 note 67, 67, 83, 138, 229 cat. no. WTBVB7, plate 104, as by the joint workshop of Terbrugghen and Baburen; as a pendant to Heraclitus (fig. 2 in this essay). Wayne Franits, The Paintings of Dirck van Baburen ca. 1592/93-1624: Catalogue Raisonné, Amsterdam- Philadelphia 2013, pp. 187, 188, 189 cat. no. WBTB3, plate 48, as by the joint workshop of Baburen and Terbrugghen; as a pendant to Heraclitus (fig. 2 in this essay).
Copy: Oil on canvas, 72.4 x 58.5 cm. Gisborne, New Zealand, George W. Carruthers Collection (1965)11
PROVENANCE: Unknown. LITERATURE: Leonard J. Slatkes, Dirck van Baburen (c. 1595 - 1624); A Dutch Painter in Utrecht and Rome, Utrecht 1965, p. 147. Benedict Nicolson, The International Caravaggesque Movement: Lists of Pictures by Caravaggio and His Followers throughout Europe from 1590 to 1650, Oxford 1979, p. 19. Benedict Nicolson, Caravaggism in Europe, revised ed., 3 vols., ed. by Luisa Vertova, Turin 1989, vol. 1, p. 56. Leonard J. Slatkes and Wayne Franits, The Paintings of Hendrick ter Brugghen 1588-1629, Amsterdam - Philadelphia 2007, pp. 67, 230 cat. no. WTBVB8. Wayne Franits, The Paintings of Dirck van Baburen ca. 1592/93-1624: Catalogue Raisonné, Amsterdam- Philadelphia 2013, p. 189 cat. no. WBTB3R1
COMMENTS: Leonard J. Slatkes considered this picture a workshop repetition, although not by the same hand as our picture. However, since the canvas lacks both a monogram and date, I am more inclined to see it as a later copy, for the simple reason that it lacks a monogram and date.
Further Comments: Laughing Democritus (fig. 1) surfaced on the Swiss art market in the spring of 2020 after having not been seen in public in decades. The present writer had only been familiar with it from old black-and-white photographs that he had studied while completing Leonard J. Slatkes’s unfinished monograph on Hendrick ter Brugghen (1588-1629), Slatkes/Franits 2007 (see the Literature section above), later followed by Franits 2013 (see the Literature section above). In both monographs, Laughing Democritus and its pendant Weeping Heraclitus (fig. 2; see below) were attributed to the supposed joint studio of Terbruggen and Baburen. I was not wholly comfortable with this hypothesis of the masters’ possible common studio but left it in place in 2007 to accede to what would have been Slatkes’s wishes. Nevertheless, in my Baburen monograph of 2013, Laughing Democritus and Weeping Heroclitus were once again included a catalogue section dedicated to Terbrugghen’s and Baburen’s supposed shared atelier--only in this instance the number of paintings placed into that category was greatly diminished. Presently, I no longer believe that the two masters shared a studio. Particularly helpful for my reevaluation of this tenuous hypothesis was Julia van den Burg’s Bachelor of Art History thesis completed in 2009 at the University of Amsterdam under the auspices of Marten Jan Bok.12 Van der Burg challenged the very existence of a joint workshop between Terbrugghen and Baburen. Her probing analyses of, among other things, the physiognomic features of figures in select paintings by these two artists led her to conclude that the potential number of common models between them was nominal and, surprisingly, if anything, Terbrugghen and Honthorst seemed to have shared more motifs and hence enjoyed a closer working relationship.
In November 2019, Koller Auctions solicited my opinion about the authorship of Laughing Democritus. The high density jpeg accompanying their query allowed me to see the picture in color for the first time. However, the canvas was dirty and obscured by discolored varnish. For that reason, I opined that it must have originated in Baburen’s workshop. My recent inspection of a jpeg of the picture in a cleaned state (but before it had been retouched and revarnished) has now led me to confirm its authenticity. Monogrammed and dated 1622, Laughing Democritus bears all the hallmarks of Baburen’s influential style as it evolved after his return to Utrecht in late 1620 or early 1621. The bold, palpable naturalism of the painting, the half- length rendition of the philosopher, whose form is abruptly truncated at the edges of the canvas, and the raking light that enhances his plasticity were all devices that Baburen had already begun to incorporate into the history paintings he made during his years in Italy. Only in Utrecht, these devices were further adjusted to place them at the service of paintings characterized by vigorous, schematic brushwork, stylized garments composed of broad, flat planes of color, and expansive figures whose emphatic earthiness easily transcends those of his Italian antecedents.13
As for specific Utrecht-period paintings to which Laughing Democritus can be compared, the use of delicate peach-colored tones to articulate the effects of streaming light on the white cloth under the figure’s hat and on his shoulders finds a parallel in the undergarments of the three protagonists in Baburen’s Amsterdam Chaining of Prometheus of 1623.14 More significantly, the figure’s striking off-the- shoulder garment with a blue striped sleeve recalls that of the Utrecht Youth Playing a Mouth Harp of 1621 and the Cleveland Merry Violinist of 1623 (fig. 3).15 This fanciful garb, which ultimately owes something to the early work of Caravaggio, can be properly categorized as all'antica.
The aforementioned pendant to Laughing Democritus is Weeping Heraclitus (fig. 2), which is likewise inscribed T. B. fecit Ano 1622. The pictures are nearly identical in size and share complementary compositions.16 Their subject matter is linked as well and flourished in early seventeenth-century Netherlandish art. Although the real Democritus (ca. 465-ca. 360 B.C.) and Heraclitus (ca. 540-ca. 480 B.C.) were counted among the more important of the pre-Socratic philosophers, it is only their later legend, as told by Cicero (106-43 B.C.) and other Roman sources, which provided the impetus for this important theme in the visual arts, especially in The Netherlands after 1600.17 According to these sources, when the two philosophers viewed the follies of the world, Heraclitus wept while Democritus laughed.18
The theme of the weeping and laughing philosophers began its post-classical history with Marsillo Ficino (1433-1499), the famous Florentine humanist, who appears to have actually owned a painting of Heraclitus and Democritus together, flanking a globe representing the world.19 A fresco by Donato Bramante (1444- 1514)20 of circa1485-1490--perhaps the earliest surviving painting of our two philosophers in this manner--once part of the decorations of the Casa Panigorala in Milan, may reflect the arrangement of Ficino's lost work. This fresco, and thus the theme, was well known during the sixteenth century and was described by the Milanese painter and theorist Gian Paolo Lomazzo (1538-1592) in 1584.21
In the Northern Netherlands, Karel van Mander (1548-1606) reports that Cornelis Ketel (1548-1616) painted the two philosophers no less than three times between 1599 and 1602.22 Ketel, however, used both compositional types, one with both figures on a single panel, as well as a pendant pair of paintings, each with one of the philosophers.23 Terbrugghen himself followed suit, painting Laughing Democritus and Weeping Heraclitus on two separate occasions, once together and once in pendant pairs.24 Those latter pendants, now in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam are signed and dated 1628 (figs. 4 and 5). By contrast, our picture and its pendant are monogrammed and dated 1622. They are therefore highly significant because they are earliest known pendant depictions of Laughing Democritus and Weeping Heraclitus in Utrecht.25 They thus serve to corroborate further Baburen’s reputation as a thematic innovator.
1. The following remarks concerning Baburen’s biography, are largely drawn from Marten Jan Bok, “Dirck Jaspersz. van Baburen,” in: Utrecht, Centraal Museum, Nieuw Licht op de Gouden Eeuw; Hendrick ter Brugghen en tijdgenoten (cat. by Albert Blankert et al.), 1986-87, pp. 173-75; Idem, “De verwanten van de kunstschilder Dirck van Baburen (Wijk bij Duurstede ca. 1595 - 1624 Utrecht),” De Nederlandsche Leeuw 115 nos. 1-3 (1998), cols. 52-65. A reassessment of the extant archival documents concerning Baburen and his family has led me to conclude that the artist was not born around 1595, as is customarily claimed, but two or three years earlier, that is, circa 1592/93; see Wayne Franits, The Paintings of Dirck van Baburen ca. 1592/93-1624: Catalogue Raisonné, Amsterdam - Philadelphia 2013.
2. See also Baburen’s Granida and Daifilo (Private Collection); Franits, op cit. (note 1), pp. 154-56 cat. no. A31, plate 31; and Achilles before the Dead Body of Patroclus (Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister); Franits, op cit. (note 1), pp. 166- 68 cat. no. A36, plate 36.
3. For Moreelse, see Eric Domela Nieuwenhuis, Paulus Moreelse (1571-1638), Proefschrift, University of Leiden, 2001. Moreelse was also an accomplished architect and a member of Utrecht’s town council.
4. For Rome in the seventeenth century, see Peter van Kessel and Elisja Schulte, eds., Rome * Amsterdam: Two Growing Cities in Seventeenth-Century Europe, Amsterdam 1997. For the Roman art market, see Patrizia Cavazzini, Painting as Business in Early Seventeenth-Century Rome, University Park 2008; and Richard E. Spear, “Rome: Setting the Stage,” in: Painting for Profit. The Economic Lives of Seventeenth-Century Italian Painters, ed. by Richard E. Spear and Philip Sohm, New Haven - London 2010, pp. 33-113.
5. In the mid-1980's, Carel van Tuyll discovered a reference in a late eighteenth- century manuscript to an altarpiece of the Martyrdom of St. Sebastian that Baburen painted for the Church of Santa Maria dei Servi in Parma in 1615; see Bok, “Dirck Jaspersz. van Baburen,” op cit. (note 1), p. 175 n. 25.
6. For this painting, in the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin, see Franits, op cit. (note 1), pp. 92-94 cat. no. A4, plate 4.
7. Wayne Franits, “‘Laboratorium Utrecht.’ Baburen, Honthorst und Terbrugghen im künstlerischen Austausch,” in: Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum, Caravaggio in Holland: Musik und Genre bei Caravaggio und den Utrechter Caravaggisten (cat. by Jochen Sander et al.), 2009, pp. 37-53, explores issues of appropriation and emulation among Utrecht Caravaggist painters.
8. See Franits, op cit. (note 1), pp. 137-40 cat. no. A26, plate 26; pp. 154-56, A31, plate 31.
9. See Bok, “De verwanten van de kunstschilder Dirck van Baburen,” op cit. (note 1), col 65; Bok, “Dirck Jaspersz. van Baburen,” op cit. (note 1), pp. 174, 175 n. 38, for the relevant documents.
10. For the plague in Utrecht, see Ronald Rommes, “De pest in en rond Utrecht,” Jaarboek Oud Utrecht (1991), pp. 93-120; and for the Netherlands in general, Leo Noordegraaf and Gerrit Valk, De Gave Gods, De pest in Holland vanaf de late Middeleeuwen, Bergen 1988. Recently, Marten Jan Bok, “Utrecht, a Libertine City,” in: Utrecht, Centraal Museum, Utrecht Caravaggio and Europe (cat. by Liesbeth M. Helmus et al.), 2018-19, p. 32, has suggested that Baburen may not have died of the plague after all. Rather he might have fallen ill as a result of having to defend Utrecht (along with members of his civic guard company) from a potential Spanish siege during the bitter winter of 1624.
11. The date in parentheses indicates that the picture was in this collection in 1965, when Leonard J. Slatkes’s monograph on Baburen was first published.
12. J. van den Burg, “Atelier Practices in the Seventeenth Century: The Question of a Common Workshop by Ter Brugghen and Van Baburen”, Bachelor of art history thesis, University of Amsterdam 2009. For the generally thorny problem of assessing the work of artists vis-à-vis that of their workshop assistants, see Jaap van der Veen, “By His Own Hand. The Valuation of Autograph Paintings in the 17th Century,” in: A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 4, ed. by Ernst van de Wetering, Dordrecht 2005, pp. 14-17, passim; Anna Tummers, The Eye of the Connoisseur: Authenticating Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries, Amsterdam 2011.
13. Albert Blankert, “Caravaggio en Noord-Nederland,” in: Utrecht, Centraal Museum - Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Nieuw Licht op de Gouden Eeuw; Hendrick ter Brugghen en tijdgenoten (cat. by Albert Blankert et al.), 1986-1987, p. 33, astutely likens the stylized effects of clothing in Baburen's pictures to crinkled aluminum foil. One intriguing Italian parallel to Baburen’s Procuress in terms of its vivacity and vulgarity is Andrea Caroselli’s Allegory of Love (formerly with Otto Naumann Ltd.), painted before he departed for Naples in 1617. This picture, a tondo on slate, portrays a buxom prostitute in animated negotiation with a violinist over her fee. The Dutch master was certainly familiar with Caroselli’s work; for example, the pose of Christ in Baburen’s San Pietro in Montorio Entombment echoes that of Christ in the Italian master’s Pietà in the Vittrice Chapel in what was then known as the Chiesa Nuova; see further Wayne Franits, "Dirck van Baburen and the ‘Self-Taught’ Master, Angelo Caroselli," Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 5 no. 2 (2013), posted electronically. For Caroselli, see Daniela Semprebene, Angelo Caroselli 1585-1652. Un pittore irriverente, Rome, 2011.
14. Franits, op cit. (note 1), pp. 151-54 cat. no. A30, plate 30.
15. Franits, op cit. (note 1), pp. 169-70 cat. no. BW1, plate 37, assigns the Utrecht Youth Playing a Mouth Harp to Baburen and his workshop. For the Merry Violinist, a hitherto unknown work recently acquired by the Cleveland Museum of Art, see Jasper Hillegers, “Cat. no. 2, Dirck van Baburen,” in: Salomon Lillian Old Masters, ed. by N. Broad, Amsterdam 2018, pp. 10-21.
16. Admittedly, the head of Heraclitus is larger in proportion to the dimensions of the canvas versus that of Democritus; this potentially militates against the argument that the two pictures are pendants.
17. The following discussion is adopted from Slatkes and Franits, The Paintings of Hendrick ter Brugghen 1588-1629, Amsterdam - Philadelphia 2007, pp. 136-137.
18. The term used in antique sources is “vita humana.” During the Renaissance, however, this concept is replaced with mundus, the world; see Albert Blankert, “Heraclitus en Democritus; in het bijzonder in de Nederlands kunst van de zeventiende eeuw,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 18 (1967), p. 78. This comprehensive article is essential for the history and development of the theme as well as its early sources.
19. Ibid., pp. 36-40, 85 no. 4.
20. Ibid., pp. 84-85 no. 5, fig. 2.
21. For the theme in the sixteenth century, see ibid., pp. 40-43.
22. Karel van Mander, The Lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters (1603-04), trans. by Derry Cook-Radmore et al., intro. and ed. by Hessel Miedema. 6 vols., Doornspijk 1994-1999, vol. 1, pp. 370, 373.
23. Wouter Th. Kloek, “The Caravaggisti and the Netherlandish Tradition,” in: Hendrick ter Brugghen und die Nachfolger Caravaggios in Holland, ed. by
Rüdiger Klessmann, Braunschweig 1988., pp. 53-54, figs. 54, 55.
24. See, respectively, Slatkes and Franits, op cit. (note 17), pp. 136-37 cat. no. A39, plate 38; pp. 137-40 cat. nos. 40, 41, plates 39, 40.
25. Slatkes and Franits, op cit. (note 17), p. 138.