The oak support consists of three planks with a horizontal grain. The panel was thinned for cradling, leaving narrow fragments of the bevels on the left and right. Dendrochronology has shown that the youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1601. The panel could have been ready for use by 1612, but a date in or after 1618 is more likely. The ground layer is probably greyish, and was applied with broad brushstrokes. The paint was smoothly applied, with impasto for the highlights.

Fair. There are discoloured areas of retouching along the join, and a blue pigment, probably smalt, that has discoloured to grey. The varnish is also discoloured and desiccated.

…; sale, Maria Stategaart, Alkmaar (J.P. Horstok), 27 July 1802, as Anonymous (‘Een rijke Ordonnantie met menigte van Beelden in aloude Kleederdragt, op een Markt in een der Brabandsche Steden; op de voorgrond ziet men een Kwakzalver, in ’t rood gekleed op een wit Paard, bezig met zwetsen; agter hem hangt een breed Schilderij, met de Lijders door zijn Ed. gecureert en met Zegels en Brieven bevestigd; als mede zijn Pourtrait, oud 39 jaar 1617. Onder de Oomstanders een Beursenlichter en verder Liedjeszangers. Dit stuk is zeer raar. Op paneel, hoog 26, breed 35 duim [66.8 x 90 cm]’), fl. 6.10, to Dreesen;…; ? collection B.W. Groothals, 1867;¹¹Amsterdam 1867, p. 34, no. 234, as unknown master, ‘Markt met kwakzalver enz., 88 x 67 cm’.…; sale, V.d. Cr. te V. and W. te O., Amsterdam (C.F. Roos), 1 November 1887, no. 47, as Adriaen van de Venne, 1617, fl. 333.75, to the museum

Object number: SK-A-1429

A richly clad horseman sings the praises of his wares to a crowd against the backdrop of a street scene that looks like a stage set. The subject was once thought to be of a seller of paintings, perhaps because of the premises of an art dealer in the corner house in the background.²²Montijn 1975, p. 220. However, the depictions and inscriptions on the painted canvas behind the horseman leave one in no doubt that this is a scene of a travelling quack. Portraits of cured patients, packets of bladder stones that have been removed from them, certificates with wax seals, and the curing of a blind woman illustrate the skill of the quack, who probably had his portrait painted in the centre of the canvas. It served as an advertisement that could be rolled up.³³Similar ones used by quacks can be seen in The Goose Market and the Town Hall Bridge in Utrecht by J.C. Droochsloot, and in a print of a quack after David Vinckboons; see coll. cat. Utrecht 1999, II, pp. 827-28, no. 177, and Amsterdam 1997, p. 223, fig. 4, respectively.

Snyder believed that this was the portrait of a real quack,⁴⁴Snyder 1961, p. 21, and Fresia 1991, pp. 191-92 did not rule out that possibility either. but the satirical touches make this unlikely. A formal portrait of the kind on the advertisement, or a genre scene in which the quack was carrying out some medical treatment, would be more in keeping if that was the case. Nor is there anything to support Fresia’s theory that this might be the portrait of a successful surgeon, an actor, or even the artist himself.⁵⁵Fresia 1991, pp. 192-93. The knife-grinder in the left foreground, who according to Fresia signifies that a sharp knife was essential for the quack’s work,⁶⁶Fresia 1991, p. 196. could also be a reference to the quack’s ‘sharp practice’, possibly contrasting with the man and the woman reciting something for the smaller crowd in the right middleground. Given the other mocking elements in the scene, such as the pickpocket working the crowd, this can be regarded as a satirical genre scene with a quack in the starring role.⁷⁷For a description and possible interpretation of the other actions see Fresia 1991, pp. 196-99. See Briels, 1980, pp. 650-51, for the inscription francois ende ooc dvijtse schole in the right middleground.

The painting was auctioned as a work by Adriaen van de Venne in 1887, was registered by the museum as a possible Pieter de Bloot, and was then catalogued as anonymous.⁸⁸Note RMA; coll. cat. 1903, p. 11, no. 99. Bol placed it in Droochsloot’s circle,⁹⁹Bol in Dordrecht 1959, p. 11, no. 25. but it is usually regarded as anonymous. The figure types and the anecdotal nature of the scene do recall the work of Adriaen van de Venne and Pauwels van Hillegaert, but the treatment is far too wooden and unpainterly for it to be placed in their vicinity. For the time being no attribution is possible.

The advertisement behind the quack lists various dates that are still legible, ranging from 1611 to 1619, so on this evidence the painting can be dated in or after 1619. The costumes and tall hats suggest a date between 1619 and 1625, which is in line with the dendrochronological findings.¹⁰¹⁰See Technical notes.

Yvette Bruijnen, 2007

See Bibliography and Rijksmuseum painting catalogues
See Key to abbreviations and Acknowledgements

This entry was published in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, I: Artists Born between 1570 and 1600, coll. cat. Amsterdam 2007, no. 419.

L.J. Bol in Dordrecht 1959, p. 11, no. 25 (as Utrecht school, Joost Cornelisz Droochsloot ?); Snyder 1961; Briels 1980; Fresia 1991, pp. 191-93

1903, p. 11, no. 99; 1976, p. 657, no. A 1429; 2007, no. 419

Y. Bruijnen, 2007, 'anonymous, The Quack, c. 1619 - c. 1625', in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/20025914