.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Ever since its re-emergence at Christie’s in 1904, this painting has widely been acknowledged as one of Jan Davidsz. de Heem’s finest and most important still-lifes. Preserved in remarkable condition, it offers a dazzling display of the artist’s technical virtuosity on a grand scale. On long term loan at the Centraal Museum in Utrecht since 1948, the picture has subsequently appeared in no fewer than twelve international exhibitions, making it one of the most widely admired and extensively published Dutch still-lifes in the modern era.
It is here offered for sale for the first time in eighty years, further to its restitution in 2019 to the heirs of its last rightful owner - Jacob Lierens, a Jewish businessman and art collector in Amsterdam, who sold the picture at auction in 1941 before his company was ‘Aryanised’ by the Nazis and he and his wife were interned at Westerbork. The picture was acquired at the sale by Hans Posse for the projected ‘Führermuseum’ at Linz before being returned to the Netherlands after the war.
A heavily-laden banquet table is displayed before a terrace, bordered by the ruined column of a portico supported by a low wall, over which the leafy tendrils of vines encroach upon the table. Overhead, a dark blue tasselled curtain is drawn up to reveal a wall and an expansive sky, which de Heem included in several of his larger still-lifes, with similar or more extensive vistas. From the upper left, a radiant light illuminates each individual object and texture, casting shadows on the wall. A profusion of rare and costly treasures spills over the table draped with an opulently fringed green velvet cloth and white napkin. To the left stands an ornate silver gilt goblet and cover, possibly from Nuremberg of the early-seventeenth century (see S. Segal, A Prosperous Past, op. cit., p. 149). De Heem may have relied on earlier studies for this detail, since one very comparable object appears in his monumental canvas of 1643. To its right stands a façon de Venise glass of white wine, beside which is a tall flute of red wine and a jewel casket covered in shimmering blue silk, with keys in the lock. On top of this is placed a towering bekerschroef (goblet holder) holding a berkemeier (goblet) filled with white wine, featuring the motif of a putto seated astride a dolphin. Reminiscent of one portrayed in his Banquet Still Life with a Lobster of 1642, it appears to have been modelled on designs of two similar pairs of salts made by the Amsterdam silversmith Johannes Lutma, dated to 1639 (fig. 1; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum). A small dance master’s violin and bow, called a kit or pochette, is propped against the blue casket, near which is a pepper pot, a knife with a chequered handle and a nautilus shell – the same as that in his flower vanitas in the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden.
The luxuriousness of the composition arises not merely from the costly treasures depicted but also from the grand format and elaborate depiction of surfaces and textures: de Heem adjusts his technique to render the hard sheen of the gilt silver, the lustre of the nautilus shell and the coarseness of the lemon peel, all intended to heighten a connoisseur’s appreciation of the objects. Combining varying gradations of detail, de Heem employs both quick, broad brushstrokes with minutely observed ones, building harmonious yet subtle combinations of contrasting colours and textures. The intricate play of light and shadow is not only used on glass and metal, but also on the different materials like the velvet green fabric, the golden shimmers of its embroidery and fringe, the folds of the crumpled red pillow and the multicolour-striped stool. The foliage shows the profound effect that the flower paintings of Daniel Seghers had on de Heem, enriching his design with tender, thread-like stems of twigs and fruit, such as the graceful leaves of the orange, beside which the loose ends of the lute’s strings curl like calligraphy, mimicking the artist’s signature on the paper below. The seemingly casual arrangement of luxurious objects on this ambitious scale lends the picture a pervading sense of effortless grandeur, reminiscent of the series of four monumental canvases de Heem painted in Antwerp in the early 1640’s, a notable example of which was recently on the market (fig. 2; Christie’s, London, 15 December 2020, lot 10, £5,766,000). I has been suggested, for example by Marjorie Wiseman (op. cit.), that this picture must date from the same Antwerp period, although Meijer has now shown conclusively that it was painted in the mid-1660s when de Heem had settled back in Utrecht (op. cit., 2016). Meijer observes parallels with works like his Still life on a stone ledge in front of a niche (Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet) and Still life of fruit and other objects on a stone ledge of circa 1670 (fig. 3; Christie’s, London, 9 July 2015, lot 44). He also points out that the brilliant handling of light was a particular characteristic of de Heem’s still-lifes of the 1660s (ibid., p. 215). The convincing suggestion of depth and reflection in the glasses, Meijer notes, was also developed early in this decade: ‘with what appears to be a transparent copper green on hues of grey and white’ (ibid., p. 211). This period in Utrecht marked a moment of transition in de Heem’s oeuvre, moving away from the more painterly and baroque Flemish style of Antwerp to a smoother and more polished technique with more exhaustive attention to detail.
With a picture as rich and impactful as this, it is quite possible that it may have incorporated a deeper meaning for the contemporary viewer. Sam Segal has proposed that this painting (like other similar works by the artist) should be interpreted as an allegory of the choice between good and evil (op. cit. 1991, pp. 140-141): with ripe fruit, luxury objects and music representing the temptation of transitory worldly pleasures; while the wine and bread are symbols of the Eucharist, the goldfinch represents the soul, the caterpillar and butterfly represent the resurrection, and the detail of the broken and cracked pillar intimates that not even hard stone can withstand the ravages of time. Wiseman argues that de Heem’s message was less overtly religious and more about moderation, picking up on very specific allusions the artist sometimes made to temperance and vanity with the aid of inscriptions, such as in a work dated 1651 (Meijer, op. cit., 2016, no. A 133), inscribed ‘Niet hoe veel [maer hoe Eel]’ (‘Not how much but how noble’), alluding to the importance of quality over quantity. Meijer postulates that the single orange resting on the pillow in the foreground may also have referred to the young Prince William of Orange, later William III (1650-1702), reflecting the Orangist sympathies of the Protestant circles in which de Heem had moved in Utrecht (op. cit., 2016, p. 212).
It is here offered for sale for the first time in eighty years, further to its restitution in 2019 to the heirs of its last rightful owner - Jacob Lierens, a Jewish businessman and art collector in Amsterdam, who sold the picture at auction in 1941 before his company was ‘Aryanised’ by the Nazis and he and his wife were interned at Westerbork. The picture was acquired at the sale by Hans Posse for the projected ‘Führermuseum’ at Linz before being returned to the Netherlands after the war.
A heavily-laden banquet table is displayed before a terrace, bordered by the ruined column of a portico supported by a low wall, over which the leafy tendrils of vines encroach upon the table. Overhead, a dark blue tasselled curtain is drawn up to reveal a wall and an expansive sky, which de Heem included in several of his larger still-lifes, with similar or more extensive vistas. From the upper left, a radiant light illuminates each individual object and texture, casting shadows on the wall. A profusion of rare and costly treasures spills over the table draped with an opulently fringed green velvet cloth and white napkin. To the left stands an ornate silver gilt goblet and cover, possibly from Nuremberg of the early-seventeenth century (see S. Segal, A Prosperous Past, op. cit., p. 149). De Heem may have relied on earlier studies for this detail, since one very comparable object appears in his monumental canvas of 1643. To its right stands a façon de Venise glass of white wine, beside which is a tall flute of red wine and a jewel casket covered in shimmering blue silk, with keys in the lock. On top of this is placed a towering bekerschroef (goblet holder) holding a berkemeier (goblet) filled with white wine, featuring the motif of a putto seated astride a dolphin. Reminiscent of one portrayed in his Banquet Still Life with a Lobster of 1642, it appears to have been modelled on designs of two similar pairs of salts made by the Amsterdam silversmith Johannes Lutma, dated to 1639 (fig. 1; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum). A small dance master’s violin and bow, called a kit or pochette, is propped against the blue casket, near which is a pepper pot, a knife with a chequered handle and a nautilus shell – the same as that in his flower vanitas in the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden.
The luxuriousness of the composition arises not merely from the costly treasures depicted but also from the grand format and elaborate depiction of surfaces and textures: de Heem adjusts his technique to render the hard sheen of the gilt silver, the lustre of the nautilus shell and the coarseness of the lemon peel, all intended to heighten a connoisseur’s appreciation of the objects. Combining varying gradations of detail, de Heem employs both quick, broad brushstrokes with minutely observed ones, building harmonious yet subtle combinations of contrasting colours and textures. The intricate play of light and shadow is not only used on glass and metal, but also on the different materials like the velvet green fabric, the golden shimmers of its embroidery and fringe, the folds of the crumpled red pillow and the multicolour-striped stool. The foliage shows the profound effect that the flower paintings of Daniel Seghers had on de Heem, enriching his design with tender, thread-like stems of twigs and fruit, such as the graceful leaves of the orange, beside which the loose ends of the lute’s strings curl like calligraphy, mimicking the artist’s signature on the paper below. The seemingly casual arrangement of luxurious objects on this ambitious scale lends the picture a pervading sense of effortless grandeur, reminiscent of the series of four monumental canvases de Heem painted in Antwerp in the early 1640’s, a notable example of which was recently on the market (fig. 2; Christie’s, London, 15 December 2020, lot 10, £5,766,000). I has been suggested, for example by Marjorie Wiseman (op. cit.), that this picture must date from the same Antwerp period, although Meijer has now shown conclusively that it was painted in the mid-1660s when de Heem had settled back in Utrecht (op. cit., 2016). Meijer observes parallels with works like his Still life on a stone ledge in front of a niche (Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet) and Still life of fruit and other objects on a stone ledge of circa 1670 (fig. 3; Christie’s, London, 9 July 2015, lot 44). He also points out that the brilliant handling of light was a particular characteristic of de Heem’s still-lifes of the 1660s (ibid., p. 215). The convincing suggestion of depth and reflection in the glasses, Meijer notes, was also developed early in this decade: ‘with what appears to be a transparent copper green on hues of grey and white’ (ibid., p. 211). This period in Utrecht marked a moment of transition in de Heem’s oeuvre, moving away from the more painterly and baroque Flemish style of Antwerp to a smoother and more polished technique with more exhaustive attention to detail.
With a picture as rich and impactful as this, it is quite possible that it may have incorporated a deeper meaning for the contemporary viewer. Sam Segal has proposed that this painting (like other similar works by the artist) should be interpreted as an allegory of the choice between good and evil (op. cit. 1991, pp. 140-141): with ripe fruit, luxury objects and music representing the temptation of transitory worldly pleasures; while the wine and bread are symbols of the Eucharist, the goldfinch represents the soul, the caterpillar and butterfly represent the resurrection, and the detail of the broken and cracked pillar intimates that not even hard stone can withstand the ravages of time. Wiseman argues that de Heem’s message was less overtly religious and more about moderation, picking up on very specific allusions the artist sometimes made to temperance and vanity with the aid of inscriptions, such as in a work dated 1651 (Meijer, op. cit., 2016, no. A 133), inscribed ‘Niet hoe veel [maer hoe Eel]’ (‘Not how much but how noble’), alluding to the importance of quality over quantity. Meijer postulates that the single orange resting on the pillow in the foreground may also have referred to the young Prince William of Orange, later William III (1650-1702), reflecting the Orangist sympathies of the Protestant circles in which de Heem had moved in Utrecht (op. cit., 2016, p. 212).