Satire on the Trial of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt

Support The plain-weave canvas has been wax-resin lined. All tacking edges have been preserved, though damaged. Shallow cusping is visible on the left and right. A former, probably original, round hole in the man’s left eye (approx. 0.3 cm) once served to attach a small portrait plate.
Preparatory layers The double ground extends up to the edges of the support. The first, beige-brown layer consists of fine white pigment particles with an addition of red earth and black pigments. The second, light grey ground contains mostly fine and some coarse white pigment particles with an addition of black pigment.
Underdrawing No underdrawing could be detected with the naked eye or infrared reflectography.
Paint layers The paint layer extends up to the tacking edges. A first lay-in of the composition was made with translucent brown paint. The painting was built up from the back to the front, leaving reserves for the seated old man and the animals, which were subsequently carefully closed. The winged devils of the Hell scene in the right background were sketchily applied on top of the background in brown with shades of grey, red and yellow. The eyes of several animals were accentuated with red. Overall the paint layer is smooth. Infrared reflectography showed a number of small compositional changes. The cuff around the old man’s left wrist was made narrower. The muzzle of the standing white goat was initially planned higher up, pointing more towards the man’s ear and the recumbent goat was enlarged somewhat along its back. In addition, several of the numbers near the animals were altered: that of the calf behind the figure (now 9) was originally 24, the white goat to the right of it (now 4) was 23, the goat in the centre (now 7) was 22, and the peacock (now 12) was either 4 or 14.
Anna Krekeler, 2023

Fair. A tear of approx. 26 cm runs along the right edge. The hole in the man’s left eye (see Technical notes) has been filled and retouched. Two old repaired and retouched areas of damage are visible in the centre: one in the left-hand side of the man’s face and another to the left of his right shoulder. The paint layer is somewhat abraded, especially in the cloak. The varnish has yellowed severely and saturates poorly.

? from the painter to the Teding van Berkhout family;¹¹According to a document preserved in the Rijksmuseum, RP-P-OB-77.314, dated 15 March 1851. This is a copy of a document probably written by a former owner of the painting, C.P.L. Hanninschat, 18th century (?), which was published in J. den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, IV, Haarlem 1970, pp. 655-58. It is part of the ‘dossier’ mentioned in the catalogue for the sale, Baroness Taets van Amerongen van Natewisch, née Hodshon, et al., Amsterdam (F. Muller), 1 November 1892, p. 9. from whom to Jacob van Foreest (1640-1708), Hoorn, 1704;²²See the previous note. his descendants;³³See the first note in this section.…; sale, Amsterdam (P. van der Schley et al.), 20 May 1799 sqq., no. 173 (‘Een ryke Ordonantie vol gewoel zinspeelende op de vier en twintig Rechters van J. van Oldenbarneveld, tegens de muur hangt een papier waarop Frucidata [sic] Innocentia […] op doek […] hoog 24 breed 33 duim [61.7 x 84.8 cm]. NB Den Koper zal eene nadere sleutel van deeze Ordonantie ter hand gesteld worden, benevens een op zilver geschilderd pourtrait van J. van Oldenbarneveld, ’t geen op de zittende man in ’t stuk past.’), fl. 231, to J. Spaan;⁴⁴Copy RKD.…; ? sale, Willem Frederick Taelman Kip et al.,⁵⁵According to GPI, N-3, the seller was Roelof Meurs Pruyssenaar. Amsterdam (P. van der Schley et al.), 16 March 1801, no. 4 (‘een uitmuntend Stuk, zynde volgens de daar by zynde sleutel, een der twee Origineele stukken van de Historie van Johan van Oldenbarneveld, zittende voor zyn 24 gediligeerde Rechters, meesterlyk geschilderd, door C. Saftleven, benevens het Prentje van zyn Pourtret’), fl. 68-10, to Jan Yver;⁶⁶Copy RKD.…; Jonkheer Willem Pieter Adriaan Teding van Berkhout (1791-1874), Arnhem, 1851;⁷⁷See the first note in this section. his son, Jonkheer Rudolph Isaac Teding van Berkhout (1830-1892), Arnhem, 1891;⁸⁸NHA, ARS, IS, inv. 171, no. 178 (10 December 1891). sale, Baroness Taets van Amerongen van Natewisch, née Hodshon, et al., Amsterdam (F. Muller), 1 November 1892, no. 41, fl. 660, to Gijsbert de Clercq;⁹⁹NHA, ARS, IS, inv. 172, no. 136 (29 October 1892); NHA, ARS, Kop., inv. 289, pp. 338-39, no. 771 (9 December 1891), inv. 290, p. 35, no. 899 (26 October 1892). by whom donated to the museum, with SK-A-1589, November 1892¹⁰¹⁰NHA, ARS, IS, inv. 172, no. 155 (17 November 1892); NHA, ARS, Kop., inv. 290, p. 39, no. 909 (19 November 1892), pp. 39-40, no. 910 (19 November 1892).

ObjectNumber: SK-A-1588

Credit line: Gift of G. de Clercq, Amsterdam

Cornelis Saftleven is known for his allegories in which animals play the part of people. The earliest examples, now in Rotterdam and Prague, are dated 1629.¹²¹²Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen and National Gallery respectively; illustrated in W. Schulz, Cornelis Saftleven, 1607-1681: Leben und Werke: Mit einem kritischen Katalog der Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Berlin 1978, pls. 3, 6. See also his 1628 pictures with grotesque figures; illustrated in J.W. Salomonson, De Arme Drommel, de Kladder en de Boterheks: Een trio van satirische ‘diablerieën’ van de hand van een 17de eeuwse debutant, Delft 2006, pp. 122-23. The present painting, which is from 1663, is devoted to a crucial event in Dutch history: the trial of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. The Grand Pensionary of the province of Holland was a prominent statesman during the Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648).¹³¹³The standard work on Van Oldenbarnevelt is J. den Tex, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, 5 vols., Haarlem 1960-72. In the course of the Twelve Years’ Truce of 1609-21 he clashed with Stadholder Prince Maurits on religious and political issues. When Van Oldenbarnevelt decided to give the towns the freedom to appoint their own civic guards, the prince staged a coup and had the nearly 71-year-old arrested on 29 August 1618 on a charge of high treason. On 12 May 1619 he was sentenced to death by a 24-member court headed by Reijnier Pauw, and was executed the following day. Saftleven depicted Van Oldenbarnevelt as an old man seated in a chair, surrounded by animals playing his judges. On the far right is a view of Hell. Hanging on the wall is a map of the Dutch Republic and next to it a large sheet of paper with the words ‘TRUCIDATA INNOCENTIA’ (Murdered innocence), as well as the artist’s signature ‘SCL’ and ‘1663’.

Each of the 24 animals is accompanied by a number added in light-coloured paint.¹⁴¹⁴Some of the numbers are no longer visible, if they ever were. The Rijksmuseum has a copy of what is probably an eighteenth-century manuscript clarifying who these opponents of Van Oldenbarnevelt are.¹⁵¹⁵RP-P-OB-77.314, dated 15 March 1851. It is a copy of a document probably written by a former owner of the painting, C.P.L. Hanninschat, which was published in J. den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, IV, Haarlem 1970, pp. 655-58. It is part of the ‘dossier’ mentioned in the catalogue for the sale, Baroness Taets van Amerongen van Natewisch, née Hodshon, et al., Amsterdam (F. Muller), 1 November 1892, p. 9. The peacock (pauw in Dutch), is very fittingly playing the part of Reijnier Pauw, the elephant is Nicolaes Cromhout, counsellor of the provincial Court of Holland, while the ass playing the violin is Pieter Jansz Schagen, town councillor of Alkmaar.¹⁶¹⁶A.K. Ševcík, ‘Der Richter in Elefantenrobe: Zu einem neuerworbenen Porträt des Jan Anthonisz van Ravesteyn (ca. 1572-1657)’, Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague 14-15 (2004-05), pp. 100-07, esp. pp. 105-06, believes that Saftleven chose predators to represent Van Oldenbarnevelt’s fiercest opponents and less aggressive animals for the ones who followed their lead. That agrees with the probably eighteenth-century document written by a former owner of the painting, C.P.L. Hanninschat, published in J. den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, IV, Haarlem 1970, pp. 655-58, which says that the 24 judges are ‘each depicted in accordance with his nature & zeal’. It is not certain that this is the original identification, because the numbers on the picture were altered at an unknown date. For instance, there are different, older versions beneath the ones for the calf and the sheep behind Van Oldenbarnevelt, and for the monster in the bottom right corner.

There is a long iconographic tradition of using animals to ape people.¹⁷¹⁷Raupp mentions King Noble’s court of justice in the medieval epic Reynard the Fox, which was widely known in the seventeenth century through illustrated editions; see H.-J. Raupp, ‘“Trucidata Innocentia”: Die Verurteilung des Oldenbarnevelt bei Joost van den Vondel und Cornelis Saftleven’, in H. Vekeman and J. Müller Hofstede (eds.), Wort und Bild in der niederländischen Kunst und Literatur des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Erftstadt 1984, pp. 209-19, esp. pp. 212-13. Raupp argued persuasively in 1984 that Saftleven’s scene was inspired by Joost van den Vondel’s stage play Palamedes oft Vermoorde onnooselheyd of 1625, in which the poet gave the controversy involving Van Oldenbarnevelt and Prince Maurits a mythological slant.¹⁸¹⁸H.-J. Raupp, ‘“Trucidata Innocentia”: Die Verurteilung des Oldenbarnevelt bei Joost van den Vondel und Cornelis Saftleven’, in H. Vekeman and J. Müller Hofstede (eds.), Wort und Bild in der niederländischen Kunst und Literatur des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Erftstadt 1984, pp. 209-19. Actually, Vondel’s play was previously being associated with Saftleven’s painting, as Raupp himself (p. 215, note 7) points out, but the connection had never before been demonstrated so convincingly. Not only is the hero in the title page engraving by Salomon Savery being menaced by a horde of wild animals,¹⁹¹⁹F.W.H. Hollstein et al., Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts ca. 1450-1700, XXIV, Amsterdam 1980, p. 99, no. 184; illustrated in H.-J. Raupp, ‘“Trucidata Innocentia”: Die Verurteilung des Oldenbarnevelt bei Joost van den Vondel und Cornelis Saftleven’, in H. Vekeman and J. Müller Hofstede (eds.), Wort und Bild in der niederländischen Kunst und Literatur des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Erftstadt 1984, pp. 209-19, esp. p. 210. as in Saftleven’s allegory, but moreover, the Trucidata innocentia legend given to the painting is the Latin translation of the Dutch subtitle (‘Vermoorde onnooselheyd’). Vondel’s Palamedes was originally banned due to its controversial subject and was not performed in Amsterdam until 1665. Raupp noted that it could be seen in Rotterdam in 1663, which makes a relationship between Vondel’s play and Saftleven’s picture very probable indeed.²⁰²⁰On the topicality of the subject around 1663, see H.-J. Raupp, ‘“Trucidata Innocentia”: Die Verurteilung des Oldenbarnevelt bei Joost van den Vondel und Cornelis Saftleven’, in H. Vekeman and J. Müller Hofstede (eds.), Wort und Bild in der niederländischen Kunst und Literatur des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Erftstadt 1984, pp. 209-19, esp. p. 215.

The allegory in the Rijksmuseum has a very unusual adjunct: a small rounded, convex silver plate with the painted likeness of Van Oldenbarnevelt, known from contemporary prints, that can be mounted on his head in the canvas (fig. a).²¹²¹See G. Wuestman, ‘Een portretminiatuur thuisgebracht’, in E. Buijsen, C. Dumas and V. Manuth (eds.), Face Book: Studies on Dutch and Flemish Portraiture of the 16th-18th Centuries: Liber Amicorum Presented to Rudolf E.O. Ekkart on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Leiden 2012, pp. 359-64. The miniature was physically and administratively separated from the picture in the twentieth century, and is described in P.J.J. van Thiel et al., All the Paintings of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam: A Completely Illustrated Catalogue, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1976, p. 776, no. 4204, as Northern Netherlandish School, Portrait of a Man, c. 1630. The miniature must have been made especially for this purpose, and was probably ordered by the picture’s first owner. It is mentioned in the earliest record of the painting in a 1799 Amsterdam sale catalogue,²²²²See Provenance. so the roundel must date from the seventeenth or eighteenth century. In fact, it is very possible that it was produced by Saftleven himself, for the little portrait is in his manner.

There are two documented drawings which may be preliminary studies for the present work;²³²³W. Schulz, Cornelis Saftleven, 1607-1681: Leben und Werke: Mit einem kritischen Katalog der Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Berlin 1978, p. 79, nos. 28, 29. the winged devils on the right were inspired by Jacques Callot’s 1635 print The Temptation of St Anthony.²⁴²⁴The Rijksmuseum has several copies of the devils from this print that are attributed to Saftleven; see M. Begheyn-Huisman, Cornelis Saftleven als tekenaar, MA thesis, Utrecht University 1974, pp. 18, 64-70; W. Schulz, Cornelis Saftleven, 1607-1681: Leben und Werke: Mit einem kritischen Katalog der Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Berlin 1978, pp. 49-50. It is not clear on whose initiative the scene was made, but in view of the highly unusual subject it was presumably a commission.²⁵²⁵Cf. H.-J. Raupp, ‘“Trucidata Innocentia”: Die Verurteilung des Oldenbarnevelt bei Joost van den Vondel und Cornelis Saftleven’, in H. Vekeman and J. Müller Hofstede (eds.), Wort und Bild in der niederländischen Kunst und Literatur des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Erftstadt 1984, pp. 209-19, esp. p. 210. The commissioner was not Petrus Scriverius, who once ordered a similar work from Saftleven (on which see C. Hofstede de Groot, ‘Een spotteekening van Cornelis Saftleven op de Dordtsche Synode’, Oud Holland 15 (1897), pp. 121-23). He went blind in 1650 and died at a great age in 1660, three years before the painting was completed. According to the Rijksmuseum’s aforementioned copy identifying the animals,²⁶²⁶RP-P-OB-77.314. Saftleven produced the picture for the Teding van Berkhout family because they were descendants of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. As far as is known, the latter was not in fact a relative but a friend of Adriaen Tedingh Berckhout (1571-1620), justice at the Court of Holland, who warned the Grand Pensionary of his impending arrest. It is conceivable that Saftleven, having built up a reputation as a satirist, added the Trucidata innocentia text at the request of Adriaen’s next of kin.²⁷²⁷A possible candidate is Adriaen’s son Paulus (1609-1674), a lawyer who is known from a memorandum written in 1665 to have been a fierce critic of the stadholderate. On him see C. Schmidt, Om de eer van de familie: Het geslacht Teding van Berkhout 1500-1950: Een sociologische benadering, Amsterdam 1986, pp. 54-64. It is odd, though, that the picture was put up for auction several times around 1800 before eventually ending up mid-nineteenth century with a member of the family again,²⁸²⁸See Provenance. Jacob van Foreest, who is said to have acquired it in 1704, had a son who was married to a granddaughter of a brother of Adriaen Tedingh Berckhout. Jonkheer Willem Pieter Adriaan Teding van Berkhout, who was a direct descendant of Adriaen Tedingh Berckhout.²⁹²⁹For the Teding van Berkhout family, see C. Schmidt, Om de eer van de familie: Het geslacht Teding van Berkhout 1500-1950: Een sociologische benadering, Amsterdam 1986. In 1892 the Rijksmuseum was unable to buy this work, which was so important for the nation’s history, but it then received it as a gift from Gijsbert de Clercq.³⁰³⁰E. Bergvelt, Pantheon der Gouden Eeuw: Van Nationale Konst-Gallerij tot Rijksmuseum van Schilderijen (1798-1896), Zwolle 1998, p. 357, note 339. In 1891 the museum had already been invited to make a bid for it, but Jonkheer Rudolph Isaac Teding van Berkhout, who owned it at the time, died before negotiations over the price could even begin. It is clear that Saftleven’s Satire on the Trial of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt appealed to the popular imagination from the existence of several variants. One is in a private collection, another is in Haarlem.³¹³¹For the former version see W. Schulz, Cornelis Saftleven, 1607-1681: Leben und Werke: Mit einem kritischen Katalog der Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Berlin 1978, p. 193. The Haarlem picture is in the Frans Hals Museum, and unlike the Rijksmuseum painting is on panel, measuring 49 x 74.5 cm; see P. Biesboer et al., Painting in Haarlem 1500-1850: The Collection of the Frans Hals Museum, coll. cat. Haarlem 2006, p. 596 (ill.), with a partly incorrect provenance due to confusion with the Rijksmuseum picture. In view of the dimensions, support and description recorded in the 1799 sale catalogue, it can be ruled out that the painting auctioned under no. 173 was the work now in Haarlem, and must have been the one discussed here.

Gerdien Wuestman, 2023

See Key to abbreviations, Rijksmuseum painting catalogues and Acknowledgements

W. Schulz, Cornelis Saftleven, 1607-1681: Leben und Werke: Mit einem kritischen Katalog der Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Berlin 1978, pp. 36, 192-93, no. 530; H.-J. Raupp, ‘“Trucidata Innocentia”: Die Verurteilung des Oldenbarnevelt bei Joost van den Vondel und Cornelis Saftleven’, in H. Vekeman and J. Müller Hofstede (eds.), Wort und Bild in der niederländischen Kunst und Literatur des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Erftstadt 1984, pp. 209-19; G. Wuestman, ‘Een portretminiatuur thuisgebracht’, in E. Buijsen, C. Dumas and V. Manuth (eds.), Face Book: Studies on Dutch and Flemish Portraiture of the 16th-18th Centuries: Liber Amicorum Presented to Rudolf E.O. Ekkart on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Leiden 2012, pp. 359-64

1903, p. 236, no. 2104; 1934, p. 254, no. 2104; 1960, p. 275, no. 2104; 1976, p. 493, no. A 1588

Gerdien Wuestman, 2023, 'Cornelis Saftleven, Satire on the Trial of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, 1663', in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.5356