Democritus

The support is a plain-weave canvas and has been lined. There is cusping on all four sides. The colour of the ground, visible in the background, is red. The paint was applied wet in wet, and quite fluidly. The first layers, especially of the head, arms and drapery were applied thickly.

Fair. The red lake with which the drapery is painted has discoloured and suffers from blanching. The background is abraded.

...; donated to the museum by the dealers B. Asscher and H. Koetser, London, 1916; on loan to the Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 1924-36

ObjectNumber: SK-A-2783

Credit line: Gift of B. Asscher, Amsterdam and H. Koetser, Amsterdam

Unlike his earlier treatment of the crying Heraclitus and laughing Democritus (fig. a), which is convincingly dated by scholars to 1619-20,¹¹Nicolson 1958, pp. 110-11, no. B 79; Slatkes in San Francisco etc. 1997, pp. 201, 203. Ter Brugghen represented the ancient philosophers in the Rijksmuseum paintings Heraclitus (see SK-A-2784) and Democritus (shown here) as a pendant pair, the preferred manner for showing them in the Netherlands in the 17th century.²²See Blankert 1967, esp. p. 45. Such half-length figures set against an undefined background are typical of one aspect of Ter Brugghen’s production, beginning with the 1621 Flute Players in Kassel.³³Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister; Nicolson 1958, pp. 54-55, nos. A 14, A15, pls. 20, 21. Although damaged, the red velveteen drapery with stunning yellow highlights worn by Democritus is a fine example of the artist’s continuous colouristic innovations. Unlike the heavily cloaked philosophers in Ter Brugghen’s first version of the theme, the all’antica drapery and exposed shoulders in the Rijksmuseum’s Heraclitus and Democritus, as well as the philosophers’ sunburnt heads and hands clearly follow the model set by Caravaggio for the depiction of classical figures. A 1622 Democritus produced by Van Baburen’s workshop – one half of the earliest known Utrecht pendant pair of the philosophers – is shown in similar fashion (fig. b). Whereas the philosophers are barely distinguished from each other in his c. 1619-20 painting, Ter Brugghen seems here also to have followed Van Baburen’s example in representing Democritus as a younger man with a beret. The figures’ gestures are also more clearly differentiated, although not entirely in accordance with Van Baburen’s formula; Democritus’s pointing finger is that of the mocker and Heraclitus’s docile left hand, vaguely grasping at something, conforms to a gesture recommended by Van Mander for illustrating sadness.⁴⁴Blankert 1967, p. 100; Blankert in Utrecht-Braunschweig 1986, p. 158. While Heraclitus leans on a terrestrial globe, Democritus, unusually, has been given a celestial one. According to Blankert, the different globes might refer to Heraclitus’ writings on the earth and Democritus’ on the cosmos.⁵⁵Blankert 1967, p. 100; Blankert in Utrecht-Braunschweig 1986, p. 159. Blankert and Slatkes have also interpreted the globes as references to the two philosophers’ contrasting temperaments; melancholics such as Heraclitus are born under Saturn, the god associated with the earth, while the sky god Jupiter determines the sanguine temperament.⁶⁶Blankert 1967, p. 101; Slatkes in San Francisco etc. 1997, p. 203. There is, however, no iconographic tradition or literary source to substantiate this interpretation, and it must, therefore, remain hypothetical.

There has been some discussion in the literature regarding how the paintings should be seen in relation to each other. Weisbach suggested Heraclitus, in order to show his disdain for his younger colleague, should be placed with his back to Democritus.⁷⁷Weisbach 1928, p. 152. The latter would then appear to be pointing to – and laughing at – Heraclitus’ melancholic attitude to the world. In the paintings showing both philosophers together there is no set manner for their placement. Slatkes has claimed that Weisbach’s proposed hanging would form an exception to how all other pendant paintings of Heraclitus and Democritus are meant to be hung.⁸⁸Slatkes in San Francisco etc. 1997, p. 203. While Slatkes overlooks the pair by Johannes Moreelse in Utrecht,⁹⁹Centraal Museum; coll. cat. Utrecht 1999, II, pp. 1170-73, nos. 448, 449 (ill.). it is true that in most of the pendants Democritus is meant to be hung on the right. In Weisbach’s proposed hanging (which was accepted by Nicolson and has always been followed in the Rijksmuseum),¹⁰¹⁰See how the paintings are illustrated in, for example, Nicolson 1958, pls. 94, 95. the two philosophers’ gestures are directed at each other. However, as Blankert and Slatkes have argued, the philosophers’ gestures are meant to indicate their attitudes towards the world.¹¹¹¹Blankert 1967, p. 100; Blankert in Utrecht-Braunschweig 1986, pp. 158-59; Slatkes in San Francisco etc. 1997, p. 203. Blankert, furthermore, has pointed to the similarities between Ter Brugghen’s pendants and a painting by Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem showing both philosophers together,¹²¹²Present whereabouts unknown, 1617; illustrated in Van Thiel 1999, pl. 234. in which Democritus also looks to his left at something (humanity) outside the picture space.¹³¹³Blankert 1967, p. 100; Blankert in Utrecht-Braunschweig 1986, p. 159.

Replicas of the Heraclitus (fig. c) and Democritus (fig. d), formerly in the Contessa Spiridon collection in Rome, were accepted by Nicolson once he had viewed the actual paintings.¹⁴¹⁴Nicolson 1960, pp. 469-70; Slatkes (1987a, p. 330, note 11) also considered these works to be ‘autograph repetitions’. According to Nicolson, the sky and cloud backgrounds in the replicas formerly in Rome were possibly painted in by a later hand. Judging from old colour transparencies, the red pigment used for Democritus’ drapery has apparently remained intact, giving an indication of how it was meant to look in the Rijksmuseum painting.¹⁵¹⁵See Condition above. Oddly, the medallion appended to Democritus’ beret – a quite insignificant detail – is different. The major difference, however, is that both Heraclitus and Democritus have been given terrestrial globes.

A drawing in Rouen¹⁶¹⁶Musée des Beaux-Arts; illustrated in Utrecht-Braunschweig 1986, p. 163, fig. 97. is considered by Slatkes and Blankert to be a preparatory sketch for the Rijksmuseum Democritus.¹⁷¹⁷Slatkes 1981, p. 182; Blankert in Utrecht-Braunschweig 1986, p. 163; Slatkes 1987a, p. 324. A depiction of a man with a dog¹⁸¹⁸Private collection, canvas, 82.7 x 69.8 cm; illustrated in Nicolson 1958, pl. 98. of similar dimensions to the Rijksmuseum Heraclitus and Democritus and from the same year has been identified by Blankert as the philosopher Diogenes.¹⁹¹⁹Blankert 1967, p. 101; Blankert in Utrecht-Braunschweig 1986, p. 163. However, his suggestion that this painting belonged to a series with the Rijksmuseum pendants is doubtful, as Heraclitus and Democritus were such a well-established pair. Moreover, the resemblance between the figure of Diogenes and his pose to the Democritus makes this an unlikely hypothesis.

Jonathan Bikker, 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. 39.

Nicolson 1958, pp. 45-46, nos. A 3, A 4; Slatkes in San Francisco etc. 1997, pp. 201-03, nos. 23, 24, with selected earlier literature

1920, pp. 103-04, nos. 656 B, 656 A; 1934, p. 66, nos. 656 B, 656 A; 1960, p. 62, nos. 656 A 2, 656 A 1; 1976, pp. 155-56, nos. A 2784, A 2783; 2007, no. 38

J. Bikker, 2007, 'Hendrick ter Brugghen, Democritus, 1628', in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.8087