Support The panel consists of three vertically grained oak planks (approx. 14, 30.5 and 15 cm), approx. 0.9 cm thick. A thin wooden strip (approx. 0.8 cm) was added on the left at a later date. The reverse is bevelled on all sides and has distinct, curved, vertical plane marks throughout. It is coated with a thick layer of wax, as are the sides of the panel. Dendrochronology has shown that the youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1636. The panel could have been ready for use by 1647, but a date in or after 1653 is more likely.
Preparatory layers The single, beige ground extends over the edges of the support at the top and bottom and on the right, but not over the left edge. It consists of earth pigments and an addition of white pigment particles of varying sizes.
Underdrawing No underdrawing could be detected with the naked eye or infrared photography.
Paint layers The paint extends over the edges of the support at the top and bottom and on the right, but not over the left edge. The composition was generally built up from dark to light. The painted oval frame was applied wet in wet with different shades of brown. The sitter was reserved in the greyish background and laid in with a translucent brown undermodelling which is visible, for example, along the left side of the nose. A thin stripe of red glaze defines the lips, and a thin grey line was applied on the woman’s left temple and scumbled over with a lighter flesh tone to create a blood vessel. The dress was first laid in with black paint, reserving the collar, followed by grey scumbles to define the drapery. Finally, a black pattern was added with a fine brush. The collar was painted wet in wet, creating a smooth transition between the white of the lit parts and the grey of the shadows. The lower band of lace was finely executed on top of a light grey layer. A strip of darker grey underpaint was left uncovered between the two bands. The paint layer is mostly smooth with slight impasto in the cap, pearls, ribbon and lace. Infrared photography revealed that the pupil of the sitter’s left eye was initially placed closer to the nose.
Anna Krekeler, 2011

Fair. Small discoloured retouchings are apparent throughout. The varnish is extremely thick, has severely yellowed and saturates poorly, especially in the areas of dark paint.

For both the present painting (SK-A-810) and its pendant (SK-A-808)
…; by descent to Jonkvrouw E.J.C.G.M. van Lynden (1796-1860), Huis Essensteyn, Voorburg;¹¹F.G.L.O. van Kretschmar, ‘To be or not to be: De Van Riebeeck portretten in het Rijksmuseum’, Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 38 (1984), pp. 97-139, esp. p. 100, with the family tree on pp. 104-05. by whom bequeathed to her second cousin, Jonkheer J.H.F.K. van Swinderen (1837-1902), Balk (Friesland), with 24 other family portraits, 1860; by whom donated to the museum, as Anonymous, Portrait of Johan Anthonisz van Riebeeck and Portrait of Maria de la Quevellerie, with 24 other family portraits, June 1884²²NHA, ARM, IS, inv. 164, nos. 264 (19 June 1884, no. 1621), 268 (2 July 1884, no. 128), 269 (11 July 1884, no. 138); NHA, ARM, Kop., inv. 39, p. 353, no. 37 (12 July 1884), p. 354, no. 40 (16 July 1884).

Object number: SK-A-810

Credit line: Gift of Jonkheer J.H.F.K. van Swinderen, Groningen

Reams have been written about the identity of the woman in this portrait and the man in its pendant (SK-A-808; also fig. a).⁵⁵For a summary see F.G.L.O. van Kretschmar, ‘To be or not to be: De Van Riebeeck portretten in het Rijksmuseum’, Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 38 (1984), pp. 97-139, esp. pp. 97-100. They are traditionally thought to be Johan (Jan) Anthonisz van Riebeeck (1619-1677), the famous merchant of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and founder of the settlement near the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, and Maria de la Queillerie (1629-1664), whom he married in 1649. This identification is based on eighteenth-century inscriptions on the backs of these companion pieces,⁶⁶The inscriptions are no longer legible, but there is a transcription in the Rijksmuseum files. F.W.F. Purcell, ‘Jan van Riebeeck’s Portrait’, S.A. Tydskrif vir geneeskunde 26 (1952), pp. 297-99, esp. p. 299, published a transcription made by his father in 1911 which contains a few minor discrepancies. and appears to be confirmed by the provenance, for the paintings come from the collection of family portraits belonging to Jan van Riebeeck’s descendants.

Several authors have expressed doubts about this old identification, because the man bears no resemblance to a portrait made in the East Indies around 1660 that is supposedly of Jan van Riebeeck.⁷⁷SK-A-805. E.C. Godée Molsbergen, De stichter van Hollands Zuid-Afrika Jan van Riebeeck, 1618-1677, Amsterdam 1912, p. 281; F.G.L.O. van Kretschmar, ‘To be or not to be: De Van Riebeeck portretten in het Rijksmuseum’, Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 38 (1984), pp. 97-139, esp. pp. 98, 136-37. Van Kretschmar added, among other arguments, that it was unlikely that Van Riebeeck, who lived in Amsterdam, and De la Queillerie, who came from Schiedam, would have hired a minor, unknown Hague artist to depict them. Instead he proposed Bartholomeus Vermuyden (1616/17-1650) and Catharina Kettingh (1626/27-1673), who married in 1646, as alternative candidates for the sitters, on the basis of the provenance and genealogical research.⁸⁸F.G.L.O. van Kretschmar, ‘To be or not to be: De Van Riebeeck portretten in het Rijksmuseum’, Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 38 (1984), pp. 97-139, esp. p. 138. More biographical information about Vermuyden will be found in F.G.L.O. van Kretschmar, ‘Nogmaals de Van Riebeeck portretten in het Rijksmuseum’, Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 39 (1985), pp. 169-80, esp. pp. 178-80.

Both paintings were subjected to dendrochronological examination in 2011, with a surprising result. The present portrait could have been made in 1650, as inscribed on the lower left, but that of the sitter’s husband could not have been executed until the mid-1650s at the earliest. The idea that they are not from the same time is reinforced by the fact that the two panels do not have identical ground layers. The portrait of the man was probably conceived as a pendant to that of the woman. Its late date means that these paintings do not depict Vermuyden and Kettingh, for he died in 1650.⁹⁹F.G.L.O. van Kretschmar, ‘Nogmaals de Van Riebeeck portretten in het Rijksmuseum’, Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 39 (1985), pp. 169-80, esp. p. 178. The dating also put paid to the identification as Van Riebeeck and his wife, for they had left the Netherlands in 1651. At present there is not enough evidence to propose other candidates. They may be a couple from the Van Riebeeck family or from the families of the former owners of Essensteyn House, which is where these companion pieces came from. The most logical course is to seek a couple who married in the second half of the 1650s.

The Rijksmuseum pair are attributed to Dirck Craey. It is true that his signature is only on the current painting, but given the stylistic similarities he was probably indeed responsible for the pendant of the man as well. Very few works of his are known. Another signed picture by Craey has come down to us, a portrait of a woman of presumably 1651 that is now in Stockholm,¹⁰¹⁰Nationalmuseum; illustrated in G. Cavalli-Björkman, C. Fryklund and K. Side´n, Dutch and Flemish Paintings, II: Dutch Paintings c. 1600-c. 1800, coll. cat. Stockholm (Nationalmuseum) 2005, p. 149. which also has a painted oval frame.¹¹¹¹In sale, Amsterdam (F. Muller), 6 May 1913, no. 21, two pendant portraits dated 1651 were sold as works by Aelbert Cuyp. This pair were formerly tentatively attributed to Dirck Craey on the RKD website. While that one is in the elegant courtly style of Gerard van Honthorst, the present companion pieces are typical of the kind of portraits of the middle classes that were being produced in The Hague in the second half of the 1640s by artists such as Pieter Nason.¹²¹²See, for example, Nason’s 1646 pendant portraits in the collection of the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE); illustrated in E. Buijsen et al., Haagse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw: Het Hoogsteder Lexicon van alle schilders werkzaam in Den Haag 1600-1700, exh. cat. The Hague (Haags Historisch Museum) 1998-99, p. 213.

Because the Rijksmuseum paintings were considered to be of Jan van Riebeeck and his wife, that of the man, in particular, was reproduced endlessly. Several late copies of it are documented, among them two by Jan Veth in 1898.¹³¹³F.W.F. Purcell, ‘Jan van Riebeeck’s Portrait’, S.A. Tydskrif vir geneeskunde 26 (1952), pp. 297-99, esp. p. 297. Veth copied the woman’s portrait as well. In ibid., p. 299, a copy of the man’s painting by Hendrik Johannes Slijper is mentioned for the Town Hall in Culemborg, Van Riebeeck’s birthplace. According to the documentation in the Rijksmuseum there is also an early twentieth-century copy of his portrait by Adolf Levolger, which was donated to the Pretoria Art Museum in Tschwane. In addition, his portrait served as a model for postage stamps, banknotes, coins and even a statue in Cape Town.

Gerdien Wuestman, 2025

See Key to abbreviations, Rijksmuseum painting catalogues and Acknowledgements

For both the present painting (SK-A-810) and its pendant (SK-A-808)
F.G.L.O. van Kretschmar, ‘To be or not to be: De Van Riebeeck portretten in het Rijksmuseum’, Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 38 (1984), pp. 97-139 (as probably Portrait of Bartholomeus Vermuyden and Portrait of Catharina Kettingh); F.G.L.O. van Kretschmar, ‘Nogmaals de Van Riebeeck portretten in het Rijksmuseum’, Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 39 (1985), pp. 169-80, esp. pp. 178-80 (as probably Portrait of Bartholomeus Vermuyden and Portrait of Catharina Kettingh)

For both the present painting (SK-A-810) and its pendant (SK-A-808)
1903, p. 77, nos. 734, 735 (as Portrait of Johan van Riebeeck and Portrait of Maria de la Quevellerie); 1934, p. 76, no. 734 (as Portrait of Johan Anthonisz van Riebeeck); 1960, p. 77, no. 734 (as Portrait of Johan Anthonisz van Riebeeck); 1976, p. 180, nos. A 808, A 810 (as Portrait of Johan van Riebeeck and_ Portrait of Maria de la Quevellerie_); 1992, pp. 48-49, nos. A 808, A 810 (as Portrait of a Man, thought to be Bartholomeus Vermuyden and Portrait of a Woman, thought to be Catharina Kettingh)