Good.

…; sale collection Dr A. van der Willigen Pz (1810-1876),¹¹Adriaan van der Willigen was a Haarlem general practitioner and amateur historian whose publications included works about Haarlem artists; he acquired part of his art collection from his uncle (who had the same name) – the patriot and writer Adriaan van der Willigen (1766-1841) and co-author of the Geschiedenis der vaderlandsche schilderkunst, sedert de helft der XVIII eeuw, 4 vols., Haarlem 1816-40. 152 Gedempte Oude Gracht, Haarlem, sold at the premises (De Visser), 20-21 April 1874, no. 181, to the dealer Frederik Muller, Amsterdam; from whom, fl. 11.55, to the Nederlandsch Museum voor Geschiedenis en Kunst, The Hague, through the mediation of Jonkheer Victor de Stuers, before 1881;²²Note RMA. transferred to the museum, 1885

Object number: BK-NM-5166

Professor Petrus Camper (1722-1789) was not only an internationally celebrated physician, he was also extremely interested in matters relating to the theory of art. His approach to the arts was based on his medical background, stemming from anatomy, physiognomy and proportional theory. For instance, he wrote a treatise with the title Voorstel van eene nieuwe manier om hoofden van allerleye menschen met zekerheid te tekenen (Proposal for a new method of sketching heads of all manner of individuals, with accuracy).³³English translation after Thomas Cogan. His comparative studies of the development of the human face were very influential. Goethe characterized him as ‘a meteor of spirit, science, talent and activity’.⁴⁴ein Meteor von Geist, Wissenschaft, Talent und Thätigkeit.

Together with philosopher Frans Hemsterhuis (1721-1790) and the act collector-publisher Cornelis Ploos van Amstel (1726-1798) Camper belonged to a small circle of Dutch intellectuals who manifested a renewed interest in Classical art, thus stimulating artistic (neo-classicist) innovation in the second half of the eighteenth century. Early demonstrations of this new artistic orientation were in particular Hemsterhuis’s 1769 philosophical-aesthetical treatise Lettre sur la sculpture and his designs for funerary monuments and medals.⁵⁵F. Hemsterhuis, Lettre sur la sculpture à Monsieur Theod. De Smeth, ancien Président des Echevins de la Ville d’Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1769; F. Scholten, ‘Frans Hemsterhuis’s Memorial for Herman Boerhaave: A Monument of Wisdom and Simplicity’, Simiolus 35 (2011), pp. 199-217. The medallist Johann Heinrich Schepp (1736-1806)⁶⁶A. Staring, ‘De medailleur J.H. Schepp en Frans Hemsterhuis’, Oud Holland 64 (1949), pp. 83-103; F. Scholten, ‘Op zoek naar het schone. Neo-classicistische beeldhouwkunst in Nederland’, in F. Grijzenhout, C. van Tuyll van Serooskerken (eds.), Edele eenvoud: Neo-classicisme in Nederland 1765-1800, exh. cat. Haarlem (Frans Hals Museum; Teylers Museum), Zwolle 1989, pp. 89-98, esp. pp. 89-93 and M. Scharloo, ‘Drie creatieve geesten’, in ibid., pp. 99-101. and the Amsterdam collectors Pieter van Damme and Theodorus de Smeth also belonged to the same intellectual circle. Moreover, Camper shared with Hemsterhuis an interest in sculpture, both theory and practice. In 1770 he learned marble carving from the Amsterdam city sculptor, Anthony Ziesenis (1741-1801), and around 1780 Camper and Hemsterhuis took modelling lessons from the well-known French sculptor Étienne Maurice Falconet (1716-1791). Falconet spent two years at the home of the Russian ambassador Dmitrij Golicyn in The Hague, after he had precipitately left the court at Saint Petersburg.⁷⁷A. Staring, Fransche kunstenaars en hun Hollandsche modellen in de 18de en in den aanvang der 19de eeuw, The Hague 1947, pp. 86-88; G. Levitine, The Sculpture of Falconet, Greenwich (Conn.) 1972, pp. 51-59; Falconet à Sèvres 1757-1766, ou l’art de plaire, exh. cat. Sèvres (Musée national de Céramique) 2001; F. Scholten, L’Amour Menaçant, or Menacing Love: A Statue by Falconet, Amsterdam/Zwolle 2005, esp. pp. 17-28. During his stay in the Netherlands Falconet made no sculptures, as far as we know; he was primarily occupied with preparing his collected writings for publication which were to appear in six volumes in 178. Falconet’s sojourn with the Russian ambassador did bring him into contact with Hemsterhuis and Camper, since the former had a warm friendship with the ambassador’s German wife.

The lessons from Ziesenis and Falconet clearly bore fruit, as is demonstrated by a number of facial studies in clay, as well as by this self-portrait of Camper (showing him to have been a creditable modeller). The self-portrait – a medallion with his likeness in profile – is also prime evidence of Camper’s attention to physiognomy, and of his friend Hemsterhuis’ lessons on the importance of the simple contour, as described in his Lettre sur la sculpture.⁸⁸F. Hemsterhuis, Lettre sur la sculpture à Monsieur Theod. de Smeth, ancien Président des Echevins de la Ville d’Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1769; P.C. Sonderen, Het sculpturale denken: De esthetica van Frans Hemsterhuis, Leende 2000. In that treatise, simplicity and suppleness of the contour lines of a work of art were seen as prerequisites for an optimum experience of beauty. Camper would seem to have put the theory of his kindred spirit and friend meticulously into practice: the portrait in profile is virtually devoid of detail. The curls of the wig and the folds of the clothing are almost sketchily indicated, in broad lines only, so that all attention is drawn to the face and the contours. Accordingly, the Self-Portrait is a textbook example of the emergent Neoclassical style which was so ardently propagated in Camper’s circle.

Camper’s interest in profile portraits was also reflected in the design he made for medallions, whether or not with Hemsterhuis.⁹⁹A. Staring, Fransche kunstenaars en hun Hollandsche modellen in the 18de en in den aanvang der 19de eeuw, The Hague 1947, pp. 86-88; M. Scharloo, ‘Drie creatieve geesten’, in F. Grijzenhout and C. Tuyll van Serooskerken, Edele eenvoud, neo-classicisme in Nederland 1765-1800, exh. cat. Haarlem (Frans Halsmuseum and Teylers Museum) 1989, pp. 99-101. Moreover, the physician got the English pottery firm of Wedgwood to make portrait medallions (‘fired physiognomies’) of his own face, based on Schepp’s portrait of him.¹⁰¹⁰Mededelingenblad Nederlandse Vereniging van Vrienden van de ceramiek, nos. 106-07 (1982), pp. 14-25 and nos. 138 and 139; F. Grijzenhout and C. Tuyll van Serooskerken, Edele eenvoud, neo-classicisme in Nederland 1765-1800, exh. cat. Haarlem (Frans Halsmuseum and Teylers Museum) 1989, no. 98.

Four years after the Self-Portrait was made, in about 1782, Marie-Anne Collot (1748-1821), Falconet’s daughter-in-law (who had followed her father-in-law from Russia to The Hague) also created a portrait of Camper. She did so by way of thanks for Camper’s successful vaccination of her young daughter against smallpox. The work was cast in bronze, at Camper’s own request, in 1787; it is basic and austere in form, once more emanating the spirit of the emerging Neo-Classicism. The bust depicts the doctor all’antica, without garment and wig, in the same fashion of the portrait medallions made of him by Hemsterhuis and Schepp. A similar kind of classical nude portrait became popular in France round 1770, particularly thanks to portrait sculptor par excellence, Jean-Antoine Houdon (1741-1828). However, an undeniably classical portrait of this type had never before been created in the Netherlands, so Collot’s work can be seen as the first neo-classical portrait bust in this country. The bronze bust was copied in marble in 1792, three years after Camper’s death, and placed on his tomb in the Pieterskerk in Leiden. It was made by Ziesenis, from whom, as previously mentioned, Camper had received his first sculpture lessons.

Frits Scholten, 2026

J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, no. 426, with earlier literature; F. Scholten, ‘Op zoek naar het schone. Neo-classicistische beeldhouwkunst in Nederland’, in F. Grijzenhout, C. van Tuyll van Serooskerken (eds.), Edele eenvoud: Neo-classicisme in Nederland 1765-1800, exh. cat. Haarlem (Frans Hals Museum; Teylers Museum), Zwolle 1989, pp. 89-98, esp. pp. 92-93, 94 and cat. no. 84; E. Meyer et al., De gebeeldhouwde kop: De ontwikkeling van de gebeeldhouwde kop en het portretbeeld in Nederland van Middeleeuwen tot heden, exh. cat. Nijmegen (Nijmeegs Museum Commanderie van Sint-Jan) 1994, no. 35; F. Scholten, Gebeeldhouwde portretten/Portrait Sculptures, coll. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1995, no. 41; F. Scholten, L’Amour Menaçant, or Menacing Love: A Statue by Falconet, Amsterdam/Zwolle 2005, esp. pp. 17-28, figs. 27, 28; F. Scholten, ‘Frans Hemsterhuis’s Memorial for Herman Boerhaave: A Monument of Wisdom and Simplicity’, Simiolus 35 (2011), nos. 3-4, pp. 199-217, esp. p. 211; F. Scholten, ‘Geleerdheid in klassieke eenvoud: De monumenten van Boerhaave en Camper’, in E. den Hartog et al. (eds.), De Pieterskerk in Leiden: Bouwgeschiedenis, inrichting en gedenktekens, Zwolle 2011, pp. 403-10, esp. p. 408 and fig. 104; Scholten in R. Baarsen et al., Netherlandish Art in the Rijksmuseum 1700-1800, coll. cat. Amsterdam 2006, no. 84

F. Scholten, 2026, 'Petrus Camper, Self-Portrait, Leiden, 1777', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/20017603