Weenix becomes D'Hondecoeter
One of the paintings in the Bredius Museum is a still life with a hare. This picture bears the signature Weenix and the Bredius Museum catalogue lists it as a work by Jan Weenix. However this attribution was called into question at an early stage.
In March 1915 the Kunstzaal Kleykamp in The Hague mounted an exhibition entitled Old Paintings compiled from the collections of Dr A.Bredius and J.O.Kroning. In the catalogue, which had an introduction written by the former director of the Rotterdam Museum Boijmans, F. Schmidt Degener, the game still life is listed as: ‘J.B. Weenix, attributed by some to M. d’Hondecoeter.’
The attribution to Weenix came undoubtedly from Bredius. But who were the people who questioned the opinion of the great art connoisseur? Were they so important that their views had to be mentioned in the catalogue?
The Still Life with a Dead Hare is signed Weenix on the powder horn. And indeed Bredius himself also regarded this painting as a work by Jan Baptist Weenix (Amsterdam 1621-1660/’61 Huis ter Mey near Utrecht). Yet despite his authoritative opinion there were doubts about this attribution. The art historian C. Hofstede de Groot, with whom Bredius was regularly at loggerheads, came to the conclusion on stylistic grounds that this picture was by Melchior d’Hondecoeter. His opinion was so authoritative that Bredius felt constrained to mention it in the 1915 exhibition catalogue. Later listings of the Bredius collection reinstated Bredius’s opinion. The authenticity of the signature, however, was never questioned. In the 1990 catalogue the art historian A. Blankert observed that the signature was not in the florid handwriting of Jan Baptist Weenix, but rather in the straight script of his son Jan (Amsterdam 1640-1719 Amsterdam). In the end it was Fred G. Meijer, still-life expert at the Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD) in The Hague, who ruled out both father and son Weenix. In 1998 he pronounced the signature to be apocryphal and concluded: ‘the attribution to Melchior d’Hondecoeter is [....] the only correct one’.
Stylistic judgment
How could an expert of the stature of Bredius have made such an error of judgment? Firstly it is easier for the present generation of art historians to form an opinion, as there is far more photographic documentation available and art-historical research is more advanced. In Bredius’s generation it was necessary to rely largely on memory, and with different painters working in the same style, it is understandable that mistakes were made. The work of Melchior d’Hondecoeter shows strong parallels with that of both Jan Baptist and Jan Weenix. The former was d’Hondecoeter’s uncle and taught both him and Jan Weenix, and d’Hondecoeter continued to work in Jan Baptist’s style, adapting it to the fashion of the late seventeenth century.
Limited palette
The Still Life with a Dead Hare from the Bredius Collection is in the same style as the game pieces that Melchior d’Hondecoeter painted during his time in The Hague. This relatively brief period, 1659-1663, produced a number of pictures all conceived along the same lines. They are modest in format and use a limited palette to depict dead game or fowl in natural surroundings. A dark rock motif closes the picture in the background, forming the perfect foil for the rich display of feathers which, in all their colouristic and textural splendour, constitute the true subject of the painting. A distant view gives the composition a sense of depth. These pictures are generally composed along a diagonal line and regularly show the same attributes: a basket, a game bag, a powder horn and a hunting net with sticks. d’Hondecoeter’s later game pieces are larger in format; these are big, exuberantly coloured pieces that were eye-catching features in country houses and canal mansions. The artist’s visiting card can be seen in nearly all the paintings: an exquisitely rendered white feather that has drifted down to the ground.
Still life with a story
Hoogsteder & Hoogsteder’s Still Life with Dead Fowl and a Kestrel bears many resemblances to the Bredius piece. Our game still life carries the monogram MDH and displays all the hallmarks of d’Hondecoeter’s Hague work. However, in contrast to most game pieces of that period, this picture contains a narrative element. We see a kestrel that has just alighted on a sculpted capital looking at the catch laid out below: he is at the point of swooping down to take a goldfinch. And yet the kestrel is not what dominates the picture; like all birds of prey his subdued plumage allows him to blend into the background. Instead it is the dove displayed in the centre of the picture that really catches the eye; the bright white wing feathers have been rendered by the artist with meticulous attention to detail. The dead birds and the hunting attributes are arranged to form a rhythmic colour scheme. This still life also contains a message: it reminds the viewer of the ephemeral nature of earthly existence. The sumptuous plumage that the birds flaunted during life, is now worthless. The ears of corn and the dead leaf in the foreground emphasise the vanitas theme. If we compare this picture with the Still Life with a Dead Hare in the Bredius Museum, we are struck by the similarities in style, colour and visual elements. Now that so much more documentation is available, the Bredius Museum picture can reliably be attributed to Melchior d’Hondecoeter.
Melchior d’Hondecoeter
Melchior d’Hondecoeter was born in Utrecht in 1636 into a family of artists from Antwerp. After his father’s death Melchior studied under his uncle Jan Baptist Weenix (Amsterdam 1621 - 1660 Utrecht). Although the latter enjoyed a considerable reputation as a painter of Italianate landscapes, he passed on to his nephew the art of game still-life painting. In 1659 Melchior d’Hondecoeter went to live in The Hague, where he concentrated on painting small still lifes of dead birds. He moved to Amsterdam in 1663 where he died in 1695.