Bartholomeus Breenbergh
Bapt Deventer, 13 Nov 1598; died Amsterdam, buried 5 Oct 1657.
Dutch painter, draughtsman and etcher. He was one of at least eight children of a wealthy Protestant family in Deventer, where his father was the town pharmacist. After his father’s death in 1607, the family left Deventer, probably moving to Hoorn. No artist then living in Hoorn could plausibly have been Breenbergh’s teacher, and given the fact that his earliest works reveal the stylistic influence of the Pre-Rembrandtists, it is more probable that he was apprenticed in Amsterdam. In 1619 he was called upon to give testimony in Amsterdam: on this occasion his profession was listed as ‘painter’. His oeuvre can be divided stylistically and iconographically into two distinct groups. He belonged to the first generation of Dutch italianates, northern artists who travelled to Italy in the 1620s and were inspired by the light and poetry of the southern landscape. The work of this period consists of numerous Italianate landscape drawings and paintings. On his return to the northern Netherlands he settled in Amsterdam, where he painted more severe and monumental landscapes, often with historical subjects, which were strongly influenced by the Pre-rembrandtists.
1. Life and work.
(i) Italian period, c. 1619–c. 1629.
Late in 1619 Breenbergh arrived in Rome, where he remained for longer than was usual for northern artists. He made contact with Paul Bril, the 65-year-old painter from Antwerp, who had been working in Rome since c. 1580. According to Breenbergh’s own testimony in 1653, he ‘spent seven years with Bril’ and copied a number of his paintings. Breenbergh was one of the founder-members of the Schildersbent, the association of northern artists active in Rome. He is portrayed in drawings of 1623 ascribed to Jan van Bijlert (Rotterdam, Boymans–van Beuningen), which represent the society’s merry-making members, known as Bentvueghels (‘birds of a feather’). His nickname within the fellowship was ‘het fret’ (Dut.: ‘the weasel’). During his stay in Italy Breenbergh made many drawings in Rome and its environs, motifs that he later assimilated repeatedly into his paintings. His drawing style was influenced by Bril and cornelis van Poelenburch, while his painting style owes much to the Pre-Rembrandtists, but also to van Poelenburch. Like them, Breenbergh painted landscapes in the new style introduced by Adam Elsheimer during the first decade of the 17th century and elaborated upon by Filippo Napoletano and Goffredo Wals. Their landscapes were directly inspired by nature, and they concentrated on the representation of light and space.
Breenbergh’s earliest paintings, dating from 1622, are busy, overcrowded landscapes containing awkward, wooden figures (e.g. Landscape with the Finding of Moses, 1622; Stockholm, Hallwylska Mus.), clearly the work of an inexperienced artist. The early work of Breenbergh has long been confused with the early work of van Poelenburch. This confusion originated in France in the 18th century, when a number of van Poelenburch’s paintings were attributed to Breenbergh. In Napoleon’s inventory of 1813, several paintings, which since the 17th century had been considered to be by van Poelenburch, appeared under Breenbergh’s name. Many related pieces have also been ascribed to him since then. It is only since 1969 that scholars have attempted to differentiate the two hands. Although it is now clear that the differences are usually greater than the similarities, the problem has yet to be definitively solved.
Between 1625 and 1630 Breenbergh painted landscapes with gently sloping hills and Roman ruins (e.g. roundel of Landscape with Ruins; Cambridge, Fitzwilliam), which greatly resemble van Poelenburch’s production during the early 1620s. The scale of the architecture in Breenbergh’s works, however, is usually larger and the figures smaller and less numerous than in Poelenburch’s. Breenbergh frequently placed a tall architectural element (often seen from the narrowest side) in or near the centre of the composition or, alternatively, completely to one side, while van Poelenburch’s compositions, with accents on both sides, are calmer and more balanced. The subtle green and grey tints in the soft slopes of the landscape, the meticulous detail and the manner of execution in which the individual brushstrokes are barely perceptible are strikingly similar for both painters. After 1630 Breenbergh developed his style in other directions, ending the possibility of confusion between the two artists.
While only a small portion of Breenbergh’s painted oeuvre was made in Italy, the majority of his drawings date from this period. Of the c. 200 drawings known, only about 35 were made after his return to the Netherlands; the rest date to the period 1624–9. The earliest, from 1624, are much more accomplished than the paintings from the same period. Breenbergh’s drawings are not sketches or preliminary studies for paintings, but autonomous works of art, most of which are signed and/or dated. The drawings are almost exclusively executed in a delicate technique of pen and brown ink with a brown, or in a few cases grey, wash. The execution of line is lively; the artist rarely employed continuous contour lines, but rather series of dots, curlicues and small dashes. The wash adds a note of calmness or stability, although never to such an extent that the drawings might be termed ‘classical’. The combination of spontaneity and detail bespeaks technical prowess.
Many drawings were made on the spot, others (the most complete compositions) were carried out in the studio. He often depicted the ruins of Rome and the Campagna, usually set in a landscape, as in the large and impressive Temple of the Sibyl at Tivoli (New York, Pierpont Morgan Lib.) and Ruins near Porta Metronia, Rome (Oxford, Christ Church). He also made pure landscape drawings (e.g. Budapest, Mus. F.A., see Roethlisberger, 1969, fig.). In contrast to his paintings, his drawings rarely include figures. The way in which Breenbergh represented ruins and rock formations is often reminiscent of Bril’s draughtsmanship. Breenbergh’s compositions, however, are more naturalistic. Whereas Bril continued to make clear distinctions between foreground, middle ground and background, Breenbergh adopted more subtle perspectival conventions, often using an oblique viewpoint or a pronounced diagonal. It is probable that Conte Orsini of Bracciano commissioned some of Breenbergh’s drawings, including the series of views near Bomarzo and Bracciano (ex-Bracciano priv. col., now scattered, e.g. Amsterdam, Rijksmus.; Paris, Louvre; London, BM), which are among the best examples within his drawn oeuvre.
(ii) Dutch period, c. 1629–57.
Breenbergh probably left Italy in 1629. He settled in Amsterdam by 1633, the year he married Rebecca Schellingwou, and remained there until his death. The early 1630s were the most productive period of Breenbergh’s career and the period during which drastic changes took place in his style and choice of subject-matter. Undoubtedly under the influence of his renewed acquaintance with the work of the Pre-Rembrandtists, Breenbergh began to introduce biblical and mythological figures into his landscapes. The paintings are larger, the compositions more ambitious and the figures more emotive. His expressive figural types reveal affinities with those of the important Pre-Rembrandtist Pieter Lastman.
Breenbergh’s choice of subject-matter, especially the interest in Old Testament themes, also seems to have been influenced by the Pre-Rembrandtists. In Breenbergh’s representations (e.g. Landscape with Tobias and the Angel, 1630; St Petersburg, Hermitage), however, the biblical scenes are often placed further in the background, literally and figuratively assuming a smaller place within the composition. For this reason Breenbergh’s paintings are difficult to categorize: most are not, strictly speaking, history pieces, but to term them ‘landscapes with historical scenes’ is to underrate the importance of the historical scenes within the compositions. The question is important in determining Breenbergh’s position within 17th-century Dutch art in general and with respect to the Dutch Italianates in particular. Through the prominence of the historical scenes in the landscapes, Breenbergh and, to a lesser extent, van Poelenburch distinguish themselves from such later Dutch Italianates as Jan Both and Nicolaas Berchem, whose staffage consisted of non-narrative figures. Although such incidental figures are also found in works by Breenbergh and van Poelenburch, they occur almost exclusively in earlier landscapes, painted during their stay in Italy.
A good example of Breenbergh’s mature style is the Landscape with Christ and the Woman of Samaria (1636; Rome, Pal. Corsini). He represented the themes several times, with a different approach each time. Landscape, architecture and figures form a far more harmonious whole in this picture than was usual in his early work, and the composition is lucid and balanced. Characteristic is the dark foreground with on one side a low coulisse and a view into the distance, and on the other side monumental Classical architecture. The palette reveals a tendency towards the monochrome that was typical of the latter half of the 1630s and for Breenbergh was perhaps related to his contact with Nicolaus Knüpfer (?1603–55), who was then working in Amsterdam. The lighting in the painting is somewhat agitated, with several scattered illuminated areas; Breenbergh never employed the warm, all-encompassing southern light that characterized some of the work of van Poelenburch and the following generation of Dutch Italianates. With only a few exceptions, Breenbergh always remained closer to the Pre-Rembrandtists in his treatment of light and landscape, and he was more manneristic in his approach than van Poelenburch, whom he nevertheless surpassed in monumentality.
During the late 1630s and the 1640s Breenbergh also made some 50 prints after his own drawings, mostly of ruins in or near Rome (Hollstein, nos 1–52). His productivity diminished significantly during his last 15 years, probably partly due to his having taken on other obligations. In 1652 and 1655 he was named as a merchant. However, the quality of the approximately 25 paintings from this period reached even greater heights. The pictures varied in type and format, ranging from landscapes with only a few large figures to architectural pieces containing crowded scenes (e.g. Martyrdom of St Lawrence, 1647; Frankfurt am Main, Städel. Kstinst.). The compositions became more monumental and the figures more emotive, even to the point of caricature. He also painted several pastoral landscapes with bathing figures (e.g. Rome, priv. col., see Roethlisberger, 1981, fig.) or with the famous scene from Cimon and Iphigenia, a theme from Boccaccio’s Decameron that enjoyed remarkable popularity in the northern Netherlands between 1630 and 1650. Seven paintings by Breenbergh representing this subject are known.
During these years Breenbergh also painted a number of portraits (e.g. Portrait of a Man, 1641; GB, priv. col., see Roethlisberger, 1981, fig.) of high artistic value. After 1647 there are no more dated or datable paintings or drawings until 1654, the date of his Jacob Selling Corn to the People (Dumfries House, Strathclyde). This is the only painting in his entire oeuvre of which he (a year later) made a replica (U. Birmingham, Barber Inst.); he was probably commissioned to do so. These two large canvases form the apex of his late monumental style, so different from the charming landscapes of his Italian period.
2. Critical reception and posthumous reputation.
It is curious that Breenbergh, whose production was considerable—there are more than 100 extant paintings—was so quickly forgotten in his own day. None of the contemporary artists’ biographies mention him, and even Houbraken knew nothing more about this painter than his name and requested information from his readers. Few of his works appear in 17th-century Dutch inventories and auction catalogues; during the 18th century his name is encountered slightly more often. One of the reasons for this apparent neglect is the fact that, unlike van Poelenburch, he does not seem to have had any workshop or pupils, so that his style and subject-matter were not widely disseminated.
It is also quite possible that many of Breenbergh’s paintings were sold abroad. Unfortunately nothing is known of his buyers and patrons, but in France he became famous. Not only are many of his works found in important 18th-century collections there, but he was also highly celebrated by French artists’ biographers. His technique and choice of subject-matter influenced the drawing style of his near contemporary Claude Lorrain.
Like many Dutch Italianate painters, during the second half of the 19th century Breenbergh’s paintings went out of fashion. However, by the end of the 1950s, when art historians ceased to concentrate all their attention on the so-called realist landscape painters of the Dutch golden age, his reputation began to recover.
Nicolette C. Sluijter-Seijffert. "Breenbergh, Bartholomeus." In Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http://www.oxfordartonline.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/subscriber/article/grove/art/T011082 (accessed May 3, 2012).
