Support The fine, plain-weave canvas has been wax-resin lined. All tacking edges have been preserved and there are selvedges at the top and bottom. Judging by the crack pattern parallel to the top, left and right edges and in the centre, the bars of the original strainer were approx. 4 cm wide at the top and on the left and approx. 6 cm on the right, and the vertical crossbar approx. 7 cm. When the canvas was transferred onto a sligthly larger stretcher, the tacking edges were integrated into the picture plane and overpainted, extending the sight size of the painting by approx. 1 cm on all sides.
Preparatory layers The double ground extends slightly over the tacking edges in a few places. The first, light cream-coloured layer is followed by a reddish-brown layer.
Underdrawing Infrared photography revealed an extensive underdrawing consisting of lines throughout the landscape, along the shoreline and in the buildings and ships. A dashed line approx. 1 cm above the farthest wall may indicate that its initially planned height or position was lowered in the painted version.
Paint layers The blues, greys and broad white areas of the sky were applied first with the hills, all wet in wet, followed by the further modelling of the clouds. The buildings and city walls were carefully rendered, before the trees and bushes inside the walls and in the background were added. The riverbank was laid in with earth colours, leaving the ground exposed here and there. The water was brushed up to and sometimes slightly over the shore and finished with squiggly lines to indicate the small waves. The ships were placed last. The painting technique is direct and fine brushstrokes, some with slight impasto, are visible throughout, especially in the cityscape. The tower on the horizon, left of centre, was at first wider on both sides.
Laurent Sozzani [publication date 2026]

Good. The paint is slightly abraded, especially in the sky and water. The varnish has yellowed.

For the present painting (SK-A-4474) and six other Asian views (SK-A-4471 to 4473 and SK-A-4475 to 4477)
Commissioned from the workshop of Johannes Vingboons, with three other paintings, for fl. 1,040, by the Amsterdam chamber of the Dutch East India Company (VOC), before 30 April 1663;¹¹NATH, VOC Archives, acc. no. 1.04.02, inv. no. 4583, Generale staten 1642-1678, 30 April 1663; see K. Zandvliet, Mapping for Money: Maps, Plans and Topographic Paintings and their Role in Dutch Overseas Expansion during the 16th and 17th Centuries, Amsterdam 1998, p. 270. According to the bookkeeper of the Amsterdam VOC chamber, the other chambers (of Middelburg, Hoorn, Enkhuizen, Delft and Rotterdam) owed it a total of 520 guilders for a series of ten paintings. The money had already been paid to David Vingboons. It is assumed that the Amsterdam chamber itself was responsible for half of the invoice, which would mean that the entire sum for the series was 1,040 guilders; see ibid., p. 270. ? recorded in East India House, Hoogstraat, Amsterdam, 1663,²²O. Dapper, Historische beschryving der stadt Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1663, p. 448: ‘In de zael daer de Bewinthebbers vergaderen […] hangen rontom d’Eylanden van de Molukken, slooten, bosschaedjens, dicht van specery-boomen, steden, havens, kapen, die wy aen het anderen eint des werelts bezitten. Daer hangen uitgeschildert de plaetzen, dicht by China gelegen, waer aen men speurt wat een gunst de Nederlanders by verre gelege volken dagelijx meer en meer vinden’. 1664³³F. von Zesen, Beschreibung der Stadt Amsterdam: Darinnen von Derselben ersten Ursprunge bis auf gegenwärtigen Zustand, ihr unterschiedlicher Anwachs, herliche Vorrechte und in mehr als 70 Kupfer-stükken entworfene fürnehmste Gebeue [...] vor augen gestellet werden, Amsterdam 1664, p. 315: ‘Ja noch mehr dergleichen gemahlte tafeln und abrisse, wie auch allerhand seltzame Ost-Indische gewächse siehet man in den andern sählen und kammern’. and 1765;⁴⁴J. Wagenaar, Amsterdam in zyne opkomst, aanwas, geschiedenissen, voorregten, koophandel, gebouwen, kerkenstaat, schoolen, schutterye, gilden en regeeringe, II, Amsterdam 1761, p. 83: ‘In sommigen [kamers], daar de Bewindhebbers vergaderen, zyn eenige Chineesche en andere Schilderyen geplaatst’. transferred to the Ministry of the Colonies, The Hague, between 1831 and 1847;⁵⁵In 1831 paintings from the Koloniaal Magazijn (Colonial Storehouse) in East India House were given to the Ministry of the Colonies, which was transferred from Amsterdam to The Hague in the same year; see J.C. Overvoorde, ‘Gebouwen der O.I. Compagnie: Amsterdam’, Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 29 (1928), pp. 17-55, esp. p. 32. It is assumed that the present series of seven paintings was among those mentioned. A document of 1847 about shipments from the Ministry of the Colonies mentions all ten pictures; see K. Zandvliet, Mapping for Money: Maps, Plans and Topographic Paintings and their Role in Dutch Overseas Expansion during the 16th and 17th Centuries, Amsterdam 1998, p. 270. recorded in the attic of the Ministry of the Colonies, 1873;⁶⁶V. de Stuers, Holland op zijn smalst, Amsterdam 1873, p. 34. transferred to the Nederlandsch Museum voor Geschiedenis en Kunst, The Hague (inv. nos. 2853-59), 1876;⁷⁷Notes RMA. The paintings with inv. nos. 2858 (SK-A-4476) and 2859 (SK-A-4477) were badly damaged. transferred to the museum, 1885

Object number: SK-A-4474

The entire series of Asian views

In Holland op zijn smalst (Holland at its Meanest), his famous pamphlet of 1873 about the abominable condition of the nation’s cultural heritage and the lack of interest in it, Victor de Stuers noted that a discovery had been made at the Ministry of the Colonies in The Hague of ‘a series, not for art but for history, of most remarkable paintings from the seventeenth century depicting our former trading posts in India and the East Indies, namely Judea [Bangkok], Neijra [Banda Neira], Eawec [Khum Peam Lvek], Raaiebaagh [Raybag], Canton, Couchijn [Kochi], Cananor [Kannur]. These works, which have been partly torn to shreds, were recently discovered in the peat loft.’⁸⁸V. de Stuers, Holland op zijn smalst, Amsterdam 1873, p. 34. The seven paintings belonged to a series of ten that was removed from East India House, the headquarters of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) in Amsterdam, between 1831 and 1847.⁹⁹See Provenance to the painting under discussion here. Three of them were thrown away between 1848 and 1873, probably because they were damaged beyond repair.¹⁰¹⁰These works were mentioned in a 1847 document from the Ministry of the Colonies in The Hague regarding shipments (see K. Zandvliet, Mapping for Money: Maps, Plans and Topographic Paintings and their Role in Dutch Overseas Expansion during the 16th and 17th Centuries, Amsterdam 1998, p. 270): De Chom van Suhalij (The Bay of Suvali near Surat, India), De Stadt en het Casteel Souratte (The town and castle of Surat, India) and Visiapour (Bijapur, India). An anonymous official inserted an addendum to the document at an unknown date stating that the three paintings had been destroyed. In 1663 the Amsterdam chamber of the VOC paid 520 guilders for the complete series to David Vingboons, one of Johannes’s younger brothers who was probably acting as the representative of the family workshop.¹¹¹¹See Provenance to the painting under discussion here. The purchase may have been connected with the partial rebuilding of East India House between 1658 and 1661.¹²¹²K. Zandvliet, Mapping for Money: Maps, Plans and Topographic Paintings and their Role in Dutch Overseas Expansion during the 16th and 17th Centuries, Amsterdam 1998, p. 270; K. Zandvliet (ed.), The Dutch Encounter with Asia 1600-1950, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 2002-03, p. 169. It is not certain where the paintings hung, but the general consensus is that they were in the directors’ conference room, although the well-known drawing of that room by Simon Fokke fails to resolve the issue.¹³¹³RP-P-OB-84.691. The only painting in the drawing that can be identified with some certainty is Andries Beeckman’s View of Batavia over the mantelpiece (see SK-A-19). According to R. van Gelder and L. Wagenaar, Sporen van de Compagnie: De VOC in Nederland, Amsterdam 1988, p. 67, the paintings to the left of the fireplace are the view of possibly Raybag in the Vingboons series (SK-A-4473) and an anonymous bird’s-eye view of Ambon (SK-A-4482). There is no agreement on the original location of the conference room in the building or on its size and decoration; see J.J. Jehee, ‘De plaats van de grote zaal in het Oost-Indisch Huis te Amsterdam: Wat zegt het gebouw nu zelf?’, Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 101 (2002), pp. 41-48; E.H. Mattie and C. van Soestbergen, ‘Het Oost Indisch Huis te Amsterdam: Problemen bij de reconstructie van een historisch interieur’, Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 100 (2001), pp. 93-99, esp. pp. 96-97. See W. Jeeninga, Het Oostindisch Huis en het Sint Jorishof te Amsterdam/The East Indies House and St Jorishof, Zwolle 1995, pp. 16-39, for the construction, rebuilding, layout and decoration of East India House.

The Amsterdam chamber paid David Vingboons for the series but it is not clear who was responsible for the individual works, whether more than one person was involved and, if so, who had which share. No other paintings from the Vingboons studio have survived, so it is impossible to distinguish between the hands of the various family members. In any event, the scenes are based on models that Johannes also used for his atlases, and oddly enough the pictures were made a few years before the only atlases that can be dated with certainty – those of Cosimo III de’ Medici and Laurens van der Hem of 1667-68.¹⁴¹⁴E. de Groot, The World of a 17th-Century Collector: The Atlas Blaeu-Van der Hem, ’t Goy-Houten 2006, pp. 188-90. Since David left no autonomous works at all, and Johannes was the only one who is known for certain to have been in touch with Joan Blaeu, it is assumed that the series was made under his supervision. In fact, Johannes probably managed the workshop and was responsible for its output, for the eldest son, Pieter, had died long before, and Philips, the next in line, had left home.

The accounts of travellers and the city’s chroniclers show that East India House was one of Amsterdam’s main sights in the seventeenth century.¹⁵¹⁵J.I. Pontanus, Historische Beschrijvinghe der seer wijt beroemde Coop-Stadt Amsterdam: Eerst int Latijn ghestelt ende beschreven door Ioh. Isacium Pontanum ende by den selven oock naderhandt neerstich oversien ende op veel plaetsen vermeerdert ende verbetert: Ende nu wt des Autheurs laetste Copije in Nederduyts overgheset door Petrum Montanum, Amsterdam 1614, p. 145; O. Dapper, Historische beschryving der stadt Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1663, p. 448; F. von Zesen, Beschreibung der Stadt Amsterdam: Darinnen von Derselben ersten Ursprunge bis auf gegenwärtigen Zustand, ihr unterschiedlicher Anwachs, herliche Vorrechte und in mehr als 70 Kupfer-stükken entworfene fürnehmste Gebeue (...) vor augen gestellet werden, Amsterdam 1664, pp. 312-14. Cosimo III de’ Medici visited it on several occasions; see G.J. Hoogewerf, De twee reizen van Cosimo de’ Medici, prins van Toscane, door de Nederlanden (1667-1669): Journalen en documenten, Amsterdam 1919, pp. 43, 163, 274, 279. It contained many exotic curios, and the walls were covered with paintings and maps that gave an idea of the places in the Far East where the VOC had a presence.¹⁶¹⁶W. Jeeninga, Het Oostindisch Huis en het Sint Jorishof te Amsterdam/The East Indies House and St Jorishof, Zwolle 1995, pp. 32-39. The series of Asian views from the Vingboons workshop fitted in with them perfectly. It is generally assumed that they are depictions of the main Dutch factories in the Far East and locations where the Dutch had trading posts.¹⁷¹⁷K. Zandvliet (ed.), The Dutch Encounter with Asia 1600-1950, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 2002-03, pp. 169-70. Some of them, though, played no significant role in Dutch-Asian relations and in others there was no VOC representative around 1663. Only a few of the most important places with which the VOC traded featured in the decorative programme of East India House. First and foremost there is Andries Beeckman’s View of Batavia.¹⁸¹⁸SK-A-19. Neither the sources nor surviving paintings inform us that there were depictions in East India House of trading stations such as Deshima, Makassar, Malacca, Hooghly-Chinsurah, Colombo, Galle, Nagapattinam and Vengurla, where the Dutch had offices or factories or both. Their importance was immeasurably greater than that of Raybag, Khum Peam Lvek and Ayutthaya, or even Bijapur in the Vingboons series.¹⁹¹⁹For the first three places see SK-A-4473, SK-A-4475 and SK-A-4477. The view of Bijapur is one of the three paintings thrown away. This of course raises the question as to why he painted the sites that he did. Did the Amsterdam chamber already have other scenes that have since been lost?²⁰²⁰One work that is mentioned in all the sources but is no longer known is described as ‘the court of the King of China’ in J.I. Pontanus, Historische Beschrijvinghe der seer wijt beroemde Coop-Stadt Amsterdam: Eerst int Latijn ghestelt ende beschreven door Ioh. Isacium Pontanum ende by den selven oock naderhandt neerstich oversien ende op veel plaetsen vermeerdert ende verbetert: Ende nu wt des Autheurs laetste Copije in Nederduyts overgheset door Petrum Montanum, Amsterdam 1614, p. 145. O. Dapper, Historische beschryving der stadt Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1663, p. 448, was probably referring to the same picture when he spoke of ‘Chinese and Japanese paintings’. J. Wagenaar, Amsterdam in zyne opkomst, aanwas, geschiedenissen, voorregten, koophandel, gebouwen, kerkenstaat, schoolen, schutterye, gilden en regeeringe, II, Amsterdam 1761, p. 83, also writes about ‘some Chinese (…) paintings’. M. Gosselink, ‘Johannes Vingboons’, in M. Gosselink, Land in zicht: Vingboons tekent de wereld van de 17de eeuw, exh. cat. Rotterdam (Kunsthal) 2007, p. 155, note 6, believes that Pontanus did not mean the court in Beijing but the castle of Osaka, which is known from a watercolour copy by Vingboons. Whatever the truth of the matter, the painting has not survived. Was Vingboons’s selection arbitrary, or does it reflect the ambitions cherished by the VOC in the early 1660s? The fact that four of the ten views are of places on or near the Malabar Coast in the south-west of India that were captured from the Portuguese in 1661 and 1663 might suggest this.²¹²¹They are the views of Kochi (SK-A-4471), Kannur (SK-A-4472) and possibly Raybag (SK-A-4473), and the one of Bijapur (lost). There had also been recent developments at the Cambodian and Thai lodges.²²²²See SK-A-4475 and SK-A-4477 respectively. Damaged relations with both countries were mended in 1664. In addition, the VOC sent fresh diplomatic missions to China in 1663 and 1665, which may have been a reason to depict Guangzhou.²³²³SK-A-4474. L. Blussé, Tribuut aan China: Vier eeuwen Nederlands-Chinese betrekkingen, Amsterdam 1989, p. 82. One thing that militates against that theory, though, is that the VOC had been in some of these locations, such as Banda Neira and Surat, uninterruptedly since the beginning of the seventeenth century.²⁴²⁴For Banda Neira see SK-A-4476. Two paintings of or near Surat in the Vingboons series are among the three paintings lost.

Erlend de Groot [publication date 2026]

Although Guangzhou (previously romanized as Canton), situated at the mouth of the Pearl River (Zhu Jiang) about 120 kilometres north-west of Hong Kong, was China’s main gateway to the outside world for centuries, it took a long time before trade with the Dutch really got going. It is true that several diplomatic missions passed through the city on their way to Beijing, and the Dutch East India Company (VOC) did occasionally do business with local merchants, but it did not open an office there. It was not until 1762 that the Dutch were given permission to open a permanent trading post, and even then it had to be on the quayside, outside the city walls.²⁷²⁷L. Blussé, Tribuut aan China: Vier eeuwen Nederlands-Chinese betrekkingen, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 90-110.

The Rijksmuseum painting shows Guangzhou from the south. Dutch ships are anchored in front of it, and there are a few junks on the Pearl River. The houses in the foreground outside the city walls are on the small island called Shamian, which is where the foreign merchants and emissaries lived during their stay. A second wall cutting Guangzhou in two can be seen running across the background, behind the houses, and beyond it are various temple complexes and palaces. A second version of this scene in the Beudeker Atlas is almost identical.²⁸²⁸The Hague, National Archives of the Netherlands; illustrated in M. Gosselink, Land in zicht: Vingboons tekent de wereld van de 17de eeuw, exh. cat. Rotterdam (Kunsthal) 2007, p. 15.

It is not entirely clear which source or sources the Vingboons studio used. According to Gosselink, it modelled the painting on a sketch by Joan Nieuhof,²⁹²⁹M. Gosselink, Land in zicht: Vingboons tekent de wereld van de 17de eeuw, exh. cat. Rotterdam (Kunsthal) 2007, p. 15; illustrated in ibid., p. 38. who drew Guangzhou during the Dutch embassy to Beijing in 1655-57. He wrote an illustrated report for the directors of the VOC on the basis of the drawings and notes he had made in situ. The manuscript, now in Paris,³⁰³⁰Bibliothèque nationale de France; see L. Blussé and R. Falkenburg, Johan Nieuhofs beelden van een Chinareis, 1655-1657, Middelburg 1987, pp. 16-20. came into the possession of Nieuhof’s brother Hendrik, who edited it and had it published by Jacob van Meurs in 1665.³¹³¹J. Nieuhof, Het gezantschap der Neêrlandtsche Oost-Indische Compagnie, aan den grooten Tartarischen Cham, den tegenwoordigen Keizer van China: Waar in de gedenkwaerdighste geschiedenissen (…) sedert den jare 1655. tot 1657. zijn voorgevallen, op het bondigste verhandelt worden, Amsterdam 1665. Lavishly illustrated, it became a runaway bestseller that largely shaped the West’s view of China for the next century.³²³²L. Blussé, Tribuut aan China: Vier eeuwen Nederlands-Chinese betrekkingen, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 78-83. Gosselink suggested that Johannes Vingboons got hold of Nieuhof’s original material with the aid of Joan Blaeu, but that is far from certain, for his scenes differ from Nieuhof’s in many respects (fig. a).³³³³The print in J. Nieuhof, Het gezantschap der Neêrlandtsche Oost-Indische Compagnie, aan den grooten Tartarischen Cham, den tegenwoordigen Keizer van China: Waar in de gedenkwaerdighste geschiedenissen (…) sedert den jare 1655. tot 1657. zijn voorgevallen, op het bondigste verhandelt worden, Amsterdam 1665, after p. 40, is very similar to the drawing in the Paris manuscript, but is a little more detailed. This can be seen in the rendering of the largest buildings in the city: the pagoda and the palace of the viceroy, Geng Jimao.³⁴³⁴On the map of Guangzhou in J. Nieuhof, Het gezantschap der Neêrlandtsche Oost-Indische Compagnie, aan den grooten Tartarischen Cham, den tegenwoordigen Keizer van China: Waar in de gedenkwaerdighste geschiedenissen (…) sedert den jare 1655. tot 1657. zijn voorgevallen, op het bondigste verhandelt worden, Amsterdam 1665, these buildings are labelled ‘g. An ingenious Chinese tower’ and ‘i. The young Viceroy’s palace’. The map is also reproduced in L. Blussé and R. Falkenburg, Johan Nieuhofs beelden van een Chinareis, 1655-1657, Middelburg 1987, p. 68. See ibid., p. 24, for the contacts between the Dutch and the viceroys. They are clearly defined and recognizable in the engraving after Nieuhof’s sketch, but in the Rijksmuseum view the pagoda is barely visible as such to the left of centre behind the second city wall and the palace is overgrown with trees. The painting is also less detailed than the drawing and print in the background, where according to Nieuhof there were five strong forts ‘on the tops of steep mountains, both within and without the wall, which almost dominate the entire city and look invincible’.³⁵³⁵L. Blussé and R. Falkenburg, Johan Nieuhofs beelden van een Chinareis, 1655-1657, Middelburg 1987, p. 35. The hills in the background of the present painting have been drastically flattened compared to the watercolour in the Beudeker Atlas. Moreover, there are elements in the painting that are not in Nieuhof’s scenes, such as the building with the two bell-shaped domes on the far left behind the foremost city wall. This indicates that the views were probably made independently of each other and that Vingboons’s studio worked from a model other than Nieuhof’s.

Erlend de Groot [publication date 2026]

See Key to abbreviations, Rijksmuseum painting catalogues and Acknowledgements

For the present painting (SK-A-4474) and six other Asian views (SK-A-4471 to 4473 and SK-A-4475 to 4477)
K. Zandvliet (ed.), The Dutch Encounter with Asia 1600-1950, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 2002-03, pp. 167-70

For the present painting (SK-A-4474) and six other Asian views (SK-A-4471 to 4473 and SK-A-4475 to 4477)
1903, p. 10, nos. 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 (as The Dutch Settlement on Gunung Lawak near Martapura, Borneo), 89, 90; 1934, p. 9, nos. 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 (as The Dutch Settlement on Gunung Lawak near Martapura, Borneo), 89, 90; 1976, p. 664, nos. A 4471, A 4472, A 4473, A 4474, A 4475 (as View of the Dutch Settlement on Gunung Lawak near Martapura, Borneo), A 4476, A 4477; 1992, p. 102, no. A 4475

Erlend de Groot, 2026, 'workshop of Johannes Vingboons, View of Guangzhou, China, c. 1662 - c. 1663', in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/200107798