Support The plain-weave canvas has been wax-resin lined. All tacking edges have been preserved. Cusping is present at the top and on the right.
Preparatory layers The double ground extends up to the edges of the canvas. The first, dark brown layer, comprising black and some white pigment particles, is followed by a thin, brown-greyish layer. The ground is covered by a thin, oily, transparent light brown layer, possibly an imprimatura, which contains some large white and small black pigment particles.
Underdrawing No underdrawing could be detected with the naked eye or infrared photography.
Paint layers The paint extends up to the tacking edges at the top and on the left and over the bottom and right ones. Some of the large trees in the foreground were reserved in the sky but most of the elements, such as the figures and smaller trees, were placed on top of the background. A cross-section from the blue of the sky shows that it was applied in one opaque layer with blue and white pigments. The dark foreground on the right, also made up of a single layer, contains brown and some red pigment particles. Impasto was used to impart texture to the foliage and trunks of the trees.
Eva van Zuien [publication date 2026]

Fair. The adhesion of the paint of the figures to the background is poor. There are small losses throughout and many discoloured retouchings. Remnants of an old, discoloured varnish are apparent in the sky and in the lower half of the painting.

…; ? sale, Hendrik Muilman (1743-1812, Amsterdam), Amsterdam (P. van der Schley et al.), 12 April 1813 sqq., no. 166, as A. Verboom and J. Lingelbach (‘[…] hoog 38, breed 32 duimen. [97.7 x 82.2 cm.] Doek. Dit uitmuntend landschap, met verschillende soorten van geboomte, vertoont een zeer natuurlijk voorwerp; op den voorgrond wandelen een heer en een dame, ter zijde zit eene arme vrouw met twee kinderen en een staand jongeling een aalmoes vragende; verders een hond en eenig plantgewas.’), fl. 300, to Jozi;¹¹Copy RMA.…; ? sale, Jonkheer Johan Goll van Franckenstein (1756-1821, Amsterdam), Amsterdam (J. de Vries et al.), 1 July 1833 sqq., no. 81, as A. Verboom and J. Lingelbach (‘hoog 9 p. 7 d. breed 8 p. 1d. [97 x 81 cm] Doek. Een bosch door hetwelk een landweg loopt, op derwelken een heer en dame wandelen, welke door een bedelaar aangesproken […]’), fl. 435, to E.M. Engelberts;…; purchased for fl. 700 by Leendert Dupper Willemsz (1799-1870), Dordrecht, 1860;²²[P.L. Dubourcq], Beschrijving der schilderijen op ’s Rijks Museum te Amsterdam met fac simile der naamteekens, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1870, p. 219, no. VII. by whom bequeathed to the museum, with 63 other paintings, 12 April 1870³³NHA, ARM, IS, inv. 30, nos. 123 (8 March 1870), 132 (25 April 1870, no. 245); NHA, ARM, Kop., inv. 39, pp. 62-63 (11 May 1870).

Object number: SK-A-48

Credit line: Dupper Wzn. Bequest, Dordrecht

Many works by the Amsterdam-born Jan Looten, who is almost unknown outside England, were in the past sold under the names of other artists, such as Meindert Hobbema, Jacob van Ruisdael and Roelant Roghman. The present Path in the Woods from the Dupper Bequest entered the museum in 1870 as an Adriaen Verboom, with the figure staffage thought to be by Johannes Lingelbach on the basis of the monogram ‘I.L.’ with which the painting was supposedly signed. Hofstede de Groot disputed Verboom’s authorship in 1899, suggesting that it was by Cornelis Decker.⁶⁶C. Hofstede de Groot, ‘Kritische opmerkingen omtrent eenige schilderijen in ’s Rijksmuseum, I’, Oud Holland 17 (1899), pp. 163-70, esp. p. 169. Unable to find the monogram, he felt that the entire picture could very well be by the same hand.⁷⁷C. Hofstede de Groot, ‘Kritische opmerkingen omtrent Oud-Hollandsche schilderijen in onze musea, III’, Oud Holland 22 (1904), pp. 27-38, esp. p. 30. His attribution to Decker was not adopted by the museum because Looten’s signature was revealed when the canvas was cleaned.⁸⁸The signature is now difficult to read. The landscape was first assigned to him in the collection catalogue of 1903.⁹⁹B.W.F. van Riemsdijk, Catalogus der schilderijen, miniaturen, pastels, omlijste teekeningen, enz. in het Rijks-Museum te Amsterdam, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1903, p. 164, no. 1483.

Given that Looten’s oeuvre consists largely of mountainous and rocky wooded landscapes with contorted oak trees, one would indeed not immediately associate this painting with him. Apart from the bent trunk in the right foreground, which is beginning to lose its bark through old age, the relatively thin, upright trees are reasonably well arrayed by the artist’s standards. However, it turns out that they are not entirely exceptional in his work, as evidenced by a signed landscape that surfaced in the S. Nystad Gallery in The Hague in 1956.¹⁰¹⁰Present whereabouts unknown; photo RKD. In addition, the rendering of the foliage with short, thick dabs of green and brown paint is very similar to Looten’s manner.

A path winds its way through the fairly flat landscape towards the enclosure around a country house that can just be glimpsed through the trees. The illuminated horizon on the left adds some transparency to the composition and is typical of Looten. The massive tree at the picture’s edge, which is truncated at both the side and the top, emphasizes the figures’ insignificance, which is underscored by the menacing clouds massing in the sky above.

The staffage is anecdotal. An elegant couple, maybe coming from the distant manor, are out for a stroll, the man carrying a sporting gun. They are asked for alms by a boy who appears to be with a beggar-woman sitting beside the path with a child in her arms. Behind them on the left, a hunter stoops slightly as he stalks his prey. The attribution of the figures to Lingelbach, which was retained even after the discovery of Looten’s signature, is most likely correct. The saturated colouring, especially the alternating of brown with bright colours such as the blue and yellow of the lady’s dress, is a hallmark of his style. The painting can be dated to around 1660 on the evidence of the couple’s clothing. This applies particularly to the woman’s blue, raised overskirt, and the contrast it makes with her narrow, yellow underskirt, which was very fashionable attire for young women around the mid-1650s.¹¹¹¹J.H. der Kinderen-Besier, Spelevaart der mode: De kledij onzer voorouders in de zeventiende eeuw, Amsterdam 1950, p. 146. An execution by 1660 is safer in view of the man’s petticoat breeches, which almost resemble a skirt, and the bell-shaped boothose around the garter.¹²¹²For the dating of the petticoat breeches see I. Groeneweg, ‘Veranderingen in de herenmode omstreeks 1660: Enkele historische gegevens over de introductie van de rhingrave, innocent en justeaucorps’, Kostuum 27 (2009), pp. 5-18, esp. pp. 6-8. At any rate, given the likely collaboration with Lingelbach, Path in the Woods was probably made prior to Looten’s departure for England around 1662.

Richard Harmanni [publication date 2026]

See Key to abbreviations, Rijksmuseum painting catalogues and Acknowledgements

C. Hofstede de Groot, ‘Kritische opmerkingen omtrent eenige schilderijen in ’s Rijksmuseum, I’, Oud Holland 17 (1899), pp. 163-70, esp. p. 169; C. Hofstede de Groot, ‘Kritische opmerkingen omtrent Oud-Hollandsche schilderijen in onze musea, III’, Oud Holland 22 (1904), pp. 27-38, esp. p. 30; L.J. Bol, Holländische Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts nahe den grossen Meistern: Landschaften und Stilleben, Braunschweig 1969, p. 223

1870, p. 219, no. VII (as A.H. Verboom and J. Lingelbach); 1880, p. 85, no. 46 (as A.H. Verboom and J. Lingelbach); 1887, p. 178, no. 1531 (as A.H. Verboom with staffage by J. Lingelbach); 1903, p. 164, no. 1483; 1976, p. 353, A 48

Richard Harmanni, 2026, 'Jan Looten and attributed to Johannes Lingelbach, Path in the Woods, c. 1660 - c. 1662', in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/20028211