.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
In 1926 Hind (op. cit.) published the present drawing as by Claes van Beresteyn (1629-1684) and Gerson included it in his catalogue raisonné of that artist's works in 1940 (op. cit.). Nine prints by van Beresteyn are known, most of which are signed in full 'c.v. beresteyn' (F.W.H. Hollstein, Hollstein, I, 'Abry-Berchem', Amsterdam, 1949, nos. 1-9). Two of these prints are also dated 1650 (Hollstein 6 and 8). A small group of drawings is also known by the artist, some of which bear the monogram 'CVB' (interlaced). The van Regteren Altena collection also includes a drawing by van Beresteyn, which will be offered in a future auction (Gerson, op. cit., no. B5; Fig, 1).
In 1929, however, Lugt noted that the drawings discussed by Hind were not stylistically homogenous. He identified differences between the drawings which were securely attributable to Beresteyn and the group of landscape studies to which the present sheet belongs. He argued that the drawings in the latter group were in fact executed by Verboom (F. Lugt, Inventaire géneral des dessins des écoles du Nord, École hollandaise, Paris, 1929, I, p. 11 and II, p. 55). When Gerson came to discuss this group in his catalogue raisonné, he maintained Hind's attribution to van Beresteyn, although he did acknowledge the differences, noting that the drawings given by Lugt to Verboom were 'better, by a securer, firm hand with a well organized, convincing space'. Nevertheless he himself did not quite feel able to draw the line between two distinct hands. Stefaan Hautekeete has recently made a list of Lugt's Verboom group, which totals 32 sheets including the present drawing (op. cit., p. 122, note 9).
There are no reliably signed drawings known by Verboom in pen and ink, and his later drawings, some of which are signed and dated in the 1650s, are executed in black chalk and grey wash, in a manner close to that of Jacob van Ruisdael (1628-1682). However, these chalk studies share some stylistic characteristics with the present sheet and its associated group of pen drawings. By contrast, they show marked differences from the drawings and prints securely given to van Beresteyn. The latter tend to have a squarer format, while Verboom's prints and drawings usually show compositions which are larger in width than in height (see Hollstein 1-5). Van Beresteyn’s compositions are more densely worked and have a more uniform character, consisting of fine, short lines with enclosed, dense clusters of leaves around the branches. Verboom’s penwork, in comparison, is broader and displays more contrast between light and dark, with the elements of the composition arranged in a more open way. For example, in his drawings of trees, the leaves tend to be less tightly grouped, with the sky visible between them. As Gerson noted (op. cit.), Verboom’s compositions give the impression of having been carefully composed to present a lively impression of variety and movement. While it is likely that van Beresteyn wasn influenced by Verboom's style, the differences between the two hands can be clearly seen by comparing the present drawing and Fig. 1.
Dr Jeroen Giltaij has recently studied the drawings of Beresteyn and Verboom again and we are grateful to him for sharing his views about the differences between the groups, as earlier published in the exhibition catalogue of the Altena collection in 1976-77.
In 1929, however, Lugt noted that the drawings discussed by Hind were not stylistically homogenous. He identified differences between the drawings which were securely attributable to Beresteyn and the group of landscape studies to which the present sheet belongs. He argued that the drawings in the latter group were in fact executed by Verboom (F. Lugt, Inventaire géneral des dessins des écoles du Nord, École hollandaise, Paris, 1929, I, p. 11 and II, p. 55). When Gerson came to discuss this group in his catalogue raisonné, he maintained Hind's attribution to van Beresteyn, although he did acknowledge the differences, noting that the drawings given by Lugt to Verboom were 'better, by a securer, firm hand with a well organized, convincing space'. Nevertheless he himself did not quite feel able to draw the line between two distinct hands. Stefaan Hautekeete has recently made a list of Lugt's Verboom group, which totals 32 sheets including the present drawing (op. cit., p. 122, note 9).
There are no reliably signed drawings known by Verboom in pen and ink, and his later drawings, some of which are signed and dated in the 1650s, are executed in black chalk and grey wash, in a manner close to that of Jacob van Ruisdael (1628-1682). However, these chalk studies share some stylistic characteristics with the present sheet and its associated group of pen drawings. By contrast, they show marked differences from the drawings and prints securely given to van Beresteyn. The latter tend to have a squarer format, while Verboom's prints and drawings usually show compositions which are larger in width than in height (see Hollstein 1-5). Van Beresteyn’s compositions are more densely worked and have a more uniform character, consisting of fine, short lines with enclosed, dense clusters of leaves around the branches. Verboom’s penwork, in comparison, is broader and displays more contrast between light and dark, with the elements of the composition arranged in a more open way. For example, in his drawings of trees, the leaves tend to be less tightly grouped, with the sky visible between them. As Gerson noted (op. cit.), Verboom’s compositions give the impression of having been carefully composed to present a lively impression of variety and movement. While it is likely that van Beresteyn wasn influenced by Verboom's style, the differences between the two hands can be clearly seen by comparing the present drawing and Fig. 1.
Dr Jeroen Giltaij has recently studied the drawings of Beresteyn and Verboom again and we are grateful to him for sharing his views about the differences between the groups, as earlier published in the exhibition catalogue of the Altena collection in 1976-77.