DR. FRED G. MEIJER Art historian Dutch and Flemish seventeenth-century painting

A still life on a wooden table: up front are, from left to right, a plate of Chinese Wanli porcelain carrying a at, sugared tart, adorned with sprigs of rosemary, two carnations, and a branch with goldand silver-painted leaves in the centre; a Wanli porcelain bowl of sweetmeats, and a pewter dish carrying a knife, a rummer of white wine, sugared confectionery, and half a lemon. Behind, from left to right, are a bread roll, an elaborate glass tazza of white wine, a pewter dish with nuts, currants and a slice of bread, an Venetianstyle glass of red wine, a pewter dish of capers and a pewter dish of candied fruit. e branches and sprigs on the tart are adorned with glass and metal ornaments, one of which, attached to half a leaf, lies to the left. Spread across the table, particularly at front centre, are various sweets. e right edge of the table, which is in part placed against a wall, is partly visible.

The Author

Osias Beert was probably born in Antwerp, in or around 1580. In 1596, he was registered by the Antwerp painters’ guild as a pupil of Andries van Baesrode (1574–1641), and enrolled as a master in 1602. He married Margarita Ykens (died 1646/47) on 8 January 1606. eir son Osias Beert the Younger (1622–c.1678) also became a painter, but no work can be attributed to him with any certainty.1 While registered as a painter, Osias Beert was also recorded as a cork tradesman. He trained several pupils, but it appears that only one of them, his cousin Frans Ykens (1601–1692/93), became a still-life painter, like his teacher. Osias Beert was one of the pioneers of still-life painting in Antwerp and a highly esteemed artist, of which recognition numerous (more or less) contemporary copies and imitations of his work bear witness. Today, barely a dozen signed or monogrammed still lifes by Beert are known. Not one of those is dated, but as many as four of his still lifes were painted on copper plates dated by their maker, Peeter Stas (c. 1565–1617 or later) to 1607, 1608, and 1609, providing at least an indication of the year in which they were been painted. e presently known surviving total of works considered to be by Beert with certainty does not appear to outnumber ­fty. About half of the known oeuvre of this contemporary of Jan Brueghel the Elder (1568–1625) and Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (1573–1621) consists of ower pieces and still lifes including bouquets; the other half are still lifes displaying fruit, oysters and other victuals, often in rather costly containers. Osias Beert died in Antwerp in late 1623. In Beert’s palette, earth colours are often predominant, balanced by cool blues and greys and strengthened by red, yellow, and bright green accents. His ower pieces, by the nature of their subject, show more variegation. In many areas, Beert accomplished the brightness and subtle detail in his works by the use of glazes on a light ground, while details were often rendered with ­ne linear accents. In larger works, there are usually also elements that have been handled somewhat more painterly, particularly items in the background. Beert’s early works, from the years before c.1610, are his most re­ned pieces. While quite a few of Beert’s works have lost their original appearance due to loss of topmost layers of glaze, in the still life discussed here, the original paint layers are generally well preserved, which allows the viewer to study Beert’s handling closely.2 is unpublished still life is a most important addition to the oeuvre of Osias Beert. It ­ts seamlessly in the group of early works from before c.1610, for some of which a date can be established with the help of the date stamped into the reverse of the copper plate on which they were painted, as mentioned above. Moreover, the brand of Henry Prince of Wales on the back of the panel provides a date ante quem. Henry died in 1612, aged 18, so the painting must have entered into his collection in or—presumably—not long before that year (­g. 1). Subsequently it came to his brother, Charles I and received his brand as well. e pewter plate with a knife and rummer at lower right, handled quite similarly, appears in a still life on a copper panel dated 1607 by Pieter Stas, which thus must have been painted in that year of shortly after. e same glass tazza appears in two early, be it undated, examples.3 In the ­rst, it is shown together with very similar porcelain bowls ­lled with sweetmeats, in the second, a bread roll very similar to the one in the present painting is placed next to it. Such re­ned Venetian-style wine glasses—the tazza and the glass of red wine—represent a distinct degree of luxury. ey were most likely the products of one of the glass studios led by Venetian immigrants in Liège and Antwerp, rather than an actual import from Venice. Such glasses often recur in Beert’s still lifes. In a vertical still life on a marked and dated copper plate from 1609, Osias Beert painted a dish of nuts, currants and a slice of bread, much like the one depicted in the painting under discussion here. A dish of candied fruit like the one presented here to the right can be found in a small still life that likely originated around the same time. As in most of his still lifes of this type, Beert arranged his objects and victuals on a plain wooden table. Mostly, the sides of the table are not visible, but in the present painting part of the right-hand side can be seen. It would also appear that the artist has extended the left side of the table, so he could position the bread roll there. Dishes of Chinese Wanli porcelain are a recurring feature in Beert’s still lifes of this type. Such porcelain was imported by the East-India trade companies and got its popular name of Kraak porcelain—a term still internationally used today—from early examples that were taken from a captured Portuguese merchant vessel, of a type that was called ‘carracas’. At the time when this still life was painted, such dishes were still very costly rarities. For this painting, it would seem that Beert had no example of the type of bowl at hand and was probably working at random: the artist has clearly portrayed a bowl of the so-called klapmuts type (Dutch for brimmed hat), and quite accurately so, but the decoration he depicted on the side was more likely on the inside of the bowl, normally the side shows a repeating geometrical pattern. e locally made pewter dishes were common household objects, and they feature in many of Beert’s still lifes, as well as in the work of many other artists throughout the seventeenth century. e sugared tart to the left is unique in Beert’s oeuvre. A similar piece of pastry, however, appears in a still life by Clara Peeters (?c.1589–1636 or later?), probably from the 1610s, in a private collectionIt has been suggested that the tart was part of a wedding banquet.4 Peeters’ earliest known still life, from 1607 features a similarly adorned sprig of rosemary. at painting may have originated around the time of her own wedding.5 Negotiations for a wedding between Henry, Prince of Wales, and Catarina de’ Medici or Christine, daughter of Henri IV of France were in progress, but Henry died before an actual marriage could be arranged. Whether this panel was a proper acquisition, or a gift, perhaps from one of the suiting parties, must remain the subject of speculation.

DR NIKO MUNZ Art historian Christ Church, University of Oxford

Provenance findings is painting is a signi­cant rediscovery, not only due to its artistic quality but also its historical interest. More research remains to be conducted, but it may be the earliest still life painting to have reached Britain surviving today. Demonstrated by two monogrammed brands surmounted by crowns on its reverse—‘HP’ (Henricus Princeps) and ‘CR’ (Carolus Rex)—it was in the collection of Henry, Prince of Wales (1594–1612), and subsequently his younger brother, Charles I (1600–1649, r.1625–1649).6 I inspected the brands in person and found them to be authentic. Still Life is therefore securely datable to 1612 or before as Prince Henry died in that year. It remained in the royal collection until at least 1625, the year Charles became king. e eldest son of King James I, Prince Henry had a pioneering interest in collecting art and a substantial gallery already by his death in 1612, aged eighteen. Around a dozen paintings are known to survive from his picture collection, identi­able by their ‘HP’ brands. Henry must have been among the earliest British collectors of still life painting. Precisely how or when the painting attributed to Beert entered Henry’s possession is unclear, but records show the prince acquired pictures in considerable numbers c.1609–12, the years immediately before his death. Some were diplomatic gifts from the Dutch Estates-General or the Dutch ambassador to England Sir Noel Caron (ambassador 1609–24); others were purchased through Netherlandish agents active at court.7 The best of Prince Henry’s collection hung at St James’s Palace. And remarkably, Beert’s Still Life—or a work of very similar appearance—was recorded in St James’s Palace’s gallery in summer 1613 during a visit of Johann Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Weimar, and his entourage. It is described among other still lifes owned by Henry, such as a book in trompe l’oeil, (to my knowledge) all no longer extant or known to the public. For at least six years after his death, Prince Henry’s gallery was preserved at St James’s Palace as a memorial.8 e gallery was viewed in 1618 by a young Constantijn Huygens who unfortunately did not leave a description of its contents. Charles I inherited pictures from his brother’s collection, some of which he integrated with his own acquisitions. Beert’s Still Life bears a ‘CR’, the king’s brand (Charles also had a prince’s brand, ‘CP’). It was therefore still in the royal collection in 1625, the year Charles I became king. Most pictures surviving today from Prince Henry’s collection seem not to have been rebranded by Charles; they only bear an ‘HP’ brand. e rebranding of Still Life is interesting: it suggests Charles I valued the work and consciously intended to re-hang it as part of his collection, perhaps in a new location. (Another rare example of Prince Henry’s surviving works rebranded by Charles is Michiel Jansz van Miereveld, A Bearded Old Man with a Shell, c. 1606, Royal Collection no. 403956, which was hung by the king at Greenwich Palace).9 After 1625 Still Life becomes more dicult to trace. It is apparently not included in the famous inventory of Charles I’s art collection at Whitehall Palace c. 1639, which also contained fragmentary notes on a few, but by no means all, other palaces. As this inventory was an incomplete record of the collection, Still Life’s absence does not necessarily mean it had already left by c. 1639; it may have been hanging elsewhere. Some pictures owned by Prince Henry and seen by SaxeWeimar in St James’s Palace in 1613, such as a Sacri­ce of Isaac, are recorded in this c. 1639 inventory at Whitehall Palace, showing that Prince Henry’s gallery had by that time been broken up.10 e trompe l’oeil book recorded with Still Life in 1613 seems to have remained in St James’s Palace, where it is inventoried (among deferent paintings) in c. 1640.11 By c. 1639 Still Life had evidently been moved out of St James’s Palace’s gallery to a diferent location, or had left the collection. (Incidentally, a diferent still life owned by Prince Henry is recorded in March 1639 in the Palace of Nonsuch ‘in a black guilded frame’, suggesting how Still Life would have originally been framed in England.)12 Still Life is also apparently not recorded in the overview of the King’s picture collection in the Commonwealth Sale inventory c.1649–51 following the execution of Charles I.13 As this inventory included all paintings owned by Charles I throughout all his residences, we can be more con­dent in arguing that Still Life had already left the king’s collection before 1649. It is not known how or when Still Life reached Portugal. It may be mentioned that the ­rst Portuguese embassy to London began in 1641; a treaty was signed between the two countries in 1642. e Portuguese also attempted to marry the heir to the throne Charles, Prince of Wales (later Charles II), to a Portuguese princess, but the match was then unsuccessful. Charles II eventually married Catherine of Braganza, daughter of John IV of Portugal, in 1662. The 1613 record and another more problematic record of indefinite date John Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Weimar, and his entourage saw the recently deceased Prince Henry’s art collection in summer 1613. ey visited St James’s, ‘a palace where the King’s ­rst-born son the Prince of Wales lived out his life’ and were ‘led to a gallery wherein were among others the following pieces’.14 Hanging with other works, including still life paintings, is recorded: Ein gedackter Tisch/vorauh allerley Confect und Fruchte/Item gebackene Torten/wie auch ein Glaß mit rohten/und ein Glaß mit weissen Wein sehr künstlich gemahlet (a covered table on which is all manner of confectionary and fruits and a baked tart, as also a glass of red and a glass of white wine, very artfully painted). ere is another record of the same work apparently made by Johan Albrecht de Mandelslo on a visit to St James’s Palace supposedly at the beginning of 1640.15 It appears in the same group of works with which it is hanging in 1613 with a few small diherences or omissions. Mandelslo’s descriptions are also similar (but not identical) to those given by Saxe-Weimar. Here is the reference to Still Life in an early French translation of the travel account: une table couverte & chargée de toutes sortes de fruits, de con‐tures, de tourtes, & d’autres patisseries, parmi lesquelles sont deux verres de vin blanc & clairet (a table covered and laid with all sorts of fruits, confectionaries, tarts and other patisseries, among which are two glasses of white and claret wine). e printed date may be an error. e group of works cannot have still been hanging together in 1640, as proven by their appearance in diferent locations in c.1639–40—cited above. Perhaps this visit took place at a date much earlier than is stated in the printed reference. Mandelslo’s birth date appears to be 1616: should this description even be attributed to Mandelslo or included with his travel account? Until further research is carried out, this source and its dating should be handled with caution.

1 The assumption that he worked in the style of his father is probably unfounded. The elder Beert died when his son was only about one year old, so he cannot have trained him. By the time Osias Beert II became a master in 1644, his father’s style was already considered archaic. A still life with oysters and a herring, reportedly signed and dated ‘Osias... 1650’, was auctioned at Christie’s London on 12 October 1956, but no photograph of it appears to exist.

2 However, the blue decorations of the porcelain plate and bowl appear to have been painted with smalt, which tends to fade from a strong blue to grey, so the blue will have been brighter.

3 The first looks somewhat grey in tone, but the table cloth was probably panted with red lake (on top of a grey ground) which has almost entirely faded, so it must have had a more colourful appearance, certainly when we take into account that the decorations on the porcelain, here too, were probably painted with smalt.

4 See exhibition catalogue The Art of Clara Peeters, Antwerp/Madrid, 2016, cat. no. 3, pp. 76–78, colour ill.

5 For that painting, see online database RKDimages lite, record no. 85056. Clara Peeters’ proper identity is still uncertain, but recent research has suggested that she was Clara Lamberts who married the painter Henrick Peeters in 1607.

6 https://www.rct.uk/collection/stories/charles-lost-collection/how-to-identify-a-charles-i-painting

7 See van Gelder, J. G., “Notes on the Royal. Collection—IV: The ‘Dutch Gift’ of 1610 to Henry, Prince of Whalis, and some other. Presents.” The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 105, no. 729 (1963); Wilks, T., The Court Culture of Prince Henry and his Circle, 1603–1613 (unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, 1987–88), pp. 172–73.

8 Wilks, T., ‘“Paying attention to the adorning of a most beautiful gallery”: the Picture Gallery at St. James’s Palace, 1609–1649’, The Court Historian 10:2 (December, 2005), p. 156.

09 https://www.rct.uk/collection/403956/a-bearded-old-man-with-a-shell 10 See Millar, O., ‘Abraham van der Doort's Catalogue of the Collections of Charles I’, Walpole Society 37 (1958–60), p. 8, no. 3. 11 Idem, p. 226, no. 22. 12 Idem, ibidem., p. 185, no. 2: did belong to prijnz hijnri... a piece of fruits and Grapes and glasses wth wine and a partridg in a dish wch was Prince Hen: peece in a black guilded frame upon a board. 1’ 9” × 2’ 11”. 13 Millar, O., ‘The Inventories and Valuations of the King’s Goods 1649–1651’, Walpole Society 43 (1970–72). 14 Des Durchlauchtigen Hochgebornen Fürsten und Herrn/Herrn Johann Ernsten des Jüngern/Hertzogen zu Sachsen/Jülich/Cleve und Berg/Landgrafen in Düringen/Marggrafen zu Meissen/Grafen zu der Margk und Ravenspurg/herrn zu Ravenstein: Reise In Franckreich/Engelland und Niederland. Beschrieben durch Herrn Johan Wilhelm Neumayr von Ramßla/daselbsten Erbgesessen (Leipzig, 1620), pp.180–182. 15 Sr. A. De Wicquefort (trans.), Voyages Celebres & remarquables, Faits de Perse aux Indes Orientales, Par le Sr. Jean-Albert de Mandelslo, Gentilhomme de Ambassadeurs du Duc de Holstein en Moscovie & Perse... (Amsterdam, 1727), p. 750.