Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Museum Carnegielaan (Hague, Netherlands)"

In addition to Dutch academic and museum libraries, a number of art libraries and relevant document and information centres are attached to government and other institutions. These include the Netherlands Institute for Art History at The Hague (the parent institution of DIAL, an iconographical classification of Dutch art); the Stichting MARDOC at Rotterdam, which is evolving thesauri to facilitate automated access to museum collections; and the Netherlands Office for Fine Art, responsible for coordinating and promoting Dutch art collections. Other institutions are concerned with contemporary Dutch art, photography, architecture, the role of art in society, art education, and museology. Some of these, with some other institutions, are linked by the network Culturele Pool (CUPO) which coordinates and indexes current literature on the art in the broadest sense.

Art history in the Netherlands is supported by a number of art libraries in addition to museum libraries, among them the Royal Library at The Hague, the libraries of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts and the Central Research Laboratory for Objects of Art and Science, both at Amsterdam, university libraries, and libraries of Dutch establishments abroad. The combined art collections of these libraries are considerable; access, however, may be facilitated by the Project for Integrated Catalogue Automation (PICA) which aims to improve on the diversity of existing catalogues.

In 2008 two Dutch museums and two Greenland museums started a cooperative venture to share the photo collections of museums in the Netherlands. The photographs were taken from 1965 to 1986 by husband and wife Gerti and Noortje Nooter in Diilerilaaq, a village in the Sermilik Fjord (East Greenland). Gerti Nooter, then curator at the Museon in The Hague and at the National Museum of Ethnology in Leiden, was doing fieldwork in that changing hunting community and, as part of that research, took photographs and collected museum objects for both Dutch museums. The National Museum of Ethnology in particular has long had a working relationship with Greenland museums and the local Tunumiit community. Through the visual repatriation project Roots2Share, these photographs have been scanned and returned to the communities where they originated and where they can now be accessed locally. As a product of cross-cultural interactions, they depict ancestors of present-day Tunumiit and carry multiple meanings: ethnological or exotic ones for a Dutch public and historical or ancestral ones for the people of Diilerilaaq. Many stories have been told about them. This article explores the relationship between the photographs and Tunumiit knowledge, as well as issues of cultural heritage, ownership, and sharing of these images.

The following article deals with a small episode in the manifold relations between the historical avant-garde in the Netherlands and Czechia and Slovakia in the first half of the twentieth century. Early December 1935, the Dutch avant-garde designer, photographer and filmmaker Paul Schuitema decided that the time was ripe for a holiday trip to Czechoslovakia during his Christmas break as teacher at the art academy in The Hague. His destination was Brno, where the designer and just starting architect František Kalivoda lived. Kalivoda had visited Holland in early 1934 touring Dutch cinemas and film clubs with avant-garde films from Czechoslovakia. Kalivoda and Schuitema had become acquainted during Kalivoda’s stay in the Netherlands and most likely invited Schuitema to come over to Brno to show Dutch experimental films in the Moldavian capital in return. Since Schuitema had little money, he proposed to give lectures for honoraria. Whereas two lectures were organized by Kalivoda in Brno in advance, only last-minute a third lecture was arranged in Prague to finance Schuitema's stay over there. As a tourist visiting Czechia for the first time, Schuitema also wanted to see Prague. However, as he found out, the hotel arranged for him was far beyond his budget. Solace offered his final Czech lecture in the Prague Museum for applied art, arranged by his Prague avant-garde contacts and the Scandinavian-Dutch Institute, an organization related to the Czechoslovakian Foreign Office to promote cultural relations between Czechoslovakia and the Netherlands.

AbstractThe nucleus of the collection of paintings in the Mauritshuis around 130 pictures - came from the hereditary stadholder Prince William v. It is widely believed to have become, the property of the State at the beginning of the 19th century, but how this happened is still. unclear. A hand-written notebook on this subject, compiled in 1876 by - the director Jonkheer J. K. L. de Jonge is in the archives of the Mauritshuis Note 4). On this basis a clnsor systematic and chronological investigation has been carried out into the stadholder's. property rights in respect of his collectcons and the changes these underwent between 1795 and 1816. Royal decrees and other documents of the period 1814- 16 in particular giae a clearer picture of whal look place. 0n 18 January 1795 William V (Fig. 2) left the Netherlands and fled to England. On 22 January the Dutch Republic was occupied by French armies. Since France had declared war on the stadholder, the ownership of all his propergy in the Netherlands, passed to France, in accordance with the laws of war of the time. His famous art collections on the Builerth of in. The Hague were taken to Paris, but the remaining art objects, distributed over his various houses, remained in the Netherlands. On 16 May 1795 the French concluded a treaty with the Batavian Republic, recognizing it as an independent power. All the properties of William v in the Netehrlands but not those taken to France, were made over to the Republic (Note 14), which proceeded to sell objects from the collections, at least seven sales taking place until 1798 (Note 15). A plan was then evolved to bring the remaining treasures together in a museum in emulation of the French. On the initiative of J. A. Gogel, the Nationale Konst-Galerij', the first national museum in the .Netherlands, was estahlished in The Hague and opened to the public on ,31 May 1800. Nothing was ever sold from lhe former stadholder's library and in 1798 a Nationale Bibliotheek was founded as well. In 1796, quite soon after the French had carried off the Stadholder, possessions to Paris or made them over to the Batavian Republic, indemnification was already mentioned (Note 19). However, only in the Trealy of Amiens of 180 and a subaequent agreement, between France ararl Prussia of 1 802, in which the Prince of Orarage renounced his and his heirs' rights in the Netherlands, did Prussia provide a certain compensation in the form of l.artds in Weslphalia and Swabia (Note 24) - William v left the management of these areas to the hereditary prince , who had already been involved in the problems oncerning his father's former possessions. In 1804 the Balavian Republic offered a sum of five million guilders 10 plenipotentiaries of the prince as compensation for the sequestrated titles and goods, including furniture, paintings, books and rarities'. This was accepted (Notes 27, 28), but the agreement was never carried out as the Batavian Republic failed to ratify the payment. In the meantime the Nationale Bibliolkeek and the Nationale Konst-Galerij had begun to develop, albeit at first on a small scale. The advent of Louis Napoleon as King of Hollarad in 1806 brought great changes. He made a start on a structured art policy. In 1806 the library, now called `Royal', was moved to the Mauritshuis and in 1808 the collectiorts in The Hague were transferred to Amsterdam, where a Koninklijk Museum was founded, which was housed in the former town hall. This collection was subsequertly to remain in Amsterdam, forming the nucleus of the later Rijksmuseum. The library too was intended to be transferred to Amsterdam, but this never happened and it remained in the Mauritshuis until 1819. Both institutions underwent a great expansion in the period 1806-10, the library's holdings increasing from around 10,000 to over 45,000 books and objects, while the museum acquired a number of paintings, the most important being Rembrandt's Night Watch and Syndics, which were placed in the new museum by the City of Amsterdam in 1808 (Note 44). In 1810 the Netherlands was incorporated into France. In the art field there was now a complete standstill and in 1812 books and in particular prints (around 11,000 of them) were again taken from The Hague to Paris. In November 1813 the French dominion was ended and on 2 December the hereditary prince, William Frederick, was declared sovereign ruler. He was inaugurated as constitutional monarch on 30 March 1814. On January 3rd the provisional council of The Hague had already declared that the city was in (unlawful' possession of a library, a collection of paintings, prints and other objects of art and science and requested the king tot take them back. The war was over and what had been confiscated from William under the laws of war could now be given back, but this never happened. By Royal Decree of 14 January 1814 Mr. ( later Baron) A. J. C. Lampsins (Fig. I ) was commissioned to come to an understanding with the burgomaster of The Hague over this transfer, to bring out a report on the condition of the objects and to formulate a proposal on the measures to be taken (Note 48). On 17 January Lampsins submitted a memorandum on the taking over of the Library as the private property of His Royal Highness the Sovereign of the United Netherlartds'. Although Lampsins was granted the right to bear the title 'Interim Director of the Royal Library' by a Royal Decree of 9 February 1814, William I did not propose to pay The costs himself ; they were to be carried by the Home Office (Note 52). Thus he left the question of ownership undecided. On 18 April Lampsins brought out a detailed report on all the measures to be taken (Appendix IIa ) . His suggestion was that the objects, formerly belonging to the stadholder should be removed from the former royal museum, now the Rijksmuseum, in Amsterdam and to return the 'Library', as the collectiort of books, paintings and prints in The Hague was called, to the place where they had been in 1795. Once again the king's reaction was not very clear. Among other things, he said that he wanted to wait until it was known how extensive the restitution of objects from Paris would be and to consider in zvhich scholarly context the collections would best, fit (Note 54) . While the ownership of the former collections of Prince William I was thus left undecided, a ruling had already been enacted in respect of the immovable property. By the Constitution of 1814, which came into effect on 30 March, the king was granted a high income, partly to make up for the losses he had sulfered. A Royal Decree of 22 January 1815 does, however, imply that William had renounced the right to his, father's collections, for he let it be known that he had not only accepted the situation that had developed in the Netherlands since 1795, but also wished it to be continued (Note 62). The restitution of the collections carried off to France could only be considered in its entirety after the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June 1815- This was no simple matter, but in the end most, though not all, of the former possessions of William V were returned to the Netherlands. What was not or could not be recovered then (inc.uding 66 paintings, for example) is still in France today (Note 71)- On 20 November 1815 127 paintings, including Paulus Potter's Young Bull (Fig. 15), made a ceremonial entry into The Hague. But on 6 October, before anything had actually been returned, it had already been stipulated by Royal Decree that the control of the objects would hence forlh be in the hands of the State (Note 72). Thus William I no longer regarded his father's collections as the private property of the House of Orange, but he did retain the right to decide on the fulure destiny of the... painting.s and objects of art and science'. For the time being the paintings were replaced in the Gallery on the Buitenhof, from which they had been removed in 1795 (Note 73). In November 1815 the natural history collection was made the property of Leiden University (Note 74), becoming the basis for the Rijksmuseum voor Natuurlijke Historie, The print collection, part of the Royal Library in The Hague, was exchanged in May 1816 for the national collectiort of coins and medals, part of the Rijksmuseum. As of 1 Jufy 1816 directors were appointed for four different institutions in The Hague, the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (with the Koninklijk Penningkabinet ) , the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen and the Yoninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden (Note 80) . From that time these institutions led independenl lives. The king continued to lake a keen interest in them and not merely in respect of collecting Their accommodation in The Hague was already too cramped in 1816. By a Royal Decree of 18 May 1819 the Hotel Huguetan, the former palace of the. crown prince on Lange Voorhout, was earmarked for the Koninklijke Bibliotheek and the Koninklijk Penningkabinet (Note 87) . while at the king's behest the Mauritshuis, which had been rented up to then, was bought by the State on 27 March 1820 and on IO July allotted to the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen and the Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden (Note 88). Only the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen is still in the place assigned to it by William and the collection has meanwhile become so identified with its home that it is generally known as the Mauritshui.s'. William i's most important gift was made in July 1816,just after the foundation of the four royal institutions, when he had deposited most of the objects that his father had taken first to England and later to Oranienstein in the Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden. The rarities (Fig. 17), curios (Fig. 18) and paintings (Fig. 19), remained there (Note 84), while the other art objects were sorted and divided between the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (the manuscripts and books) and the koninklijk Penningkabinet (the cameos and gems) (Note 85). In 1819 and 182 the king also gave the Koninklijke Bibliotheek an important part of the Nassau Library from the castle at Dillenburg. Clearly he is one of the European monarchs who in the second half of the 18th and the 19th century made their collectiorts accessible to the public, and thus laid the foundatinns of many of today's museums. But William 1 also made purchases on behalf of the institutions he had created. For the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, for example, he had the 'Tweede Historiebijbel', made in Utrecht around 1430, bought in Louvain in 1829 for 1, 134 guilders (Pigs.30,3 I, Note 92). For the Koninkijk Penningkabinet he bought a collection of 62 gems and four cameos , for ,50,000 guilders in 1819. This had belonged to the philosopher Frans Hemsterhuis, the keeper of his father's cabinet of antiquities (Note 95) . The most spectacular acquisition. for the Penninukabinet., however, was a cameo carved in onyx, a late Roman work with the Triumph of Claudius, which the king bought in 1823 for 50,000 guilders, an enormous sum in those days. The Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamhedert also received princely gifts. In 1821- the so-called doll's house of Tzar Peter was bought out of the king's special funds for 2.800 guilders (Figs.33, 34, ,Note 97) , while even in 1838, when no more money was available for art, unnecessary expenditure on luxury' the Von Siebold ethnographical collection was bought at the king's behest for over 55,000 guilders (Note 98). The Koninklijk Kabinel van Schilderyen must have been close to the hearl of the king, who regarded it as an extension of the palace (Notes 99, 100) . The old master paintings he acquzred for it are among the most important in the collection (the modern pictures, not dealt with here, were transferred to the Paviljoen Welgelegen in Haarlem in 1838, Note 104). For instance, in 1820 he bought a portrait of Johan Maurice of Nassau (Fig.35)., while in 1822, against the advice of the then director, he bought Vermeer' s View of Delft for 2,900 guilders (Fig.36, Note 105) and in 1827 it was made known, from Brussels that His Majesty had recommended the purchase of Rogier van der Weyden's Lamentation (Fig.37) . The most spectacular example of the king's love for 'his' museum, however, is the purchase in 1828 of Rembrandt's Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp for 32,000 guilders. The director of the Rijksmuseum, C. Apostool, cortsidered this Rembrandt'sfinest painting and had already drawn attention to it in 1817, At the king'.s behest the picture, the purchase of which had been financed in part by the sale of a number of painlings from. the Rijksmuseum, was placed in the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen in The Hague. On his accession King William I had left the art objects which had become state propery after being ceded by the French to the Batavian Republic in 1795 as they were. He reclaimed the collections carried off to France as his own property, but it can be deduced from the Royal Decrees of 1815 and 1816 that it Was his wish that they should be made over to the State, including those paintings that form the nucleus of the collection in the Mauritshuis. In addition, in 1816 he handed over many art objects which his father had taken with him into exile. His son, William II, later accepted this, after having the matter investigated (Note 107 and Appendix IV). Thus William I'S munificence proves to have been much more extensive than has ever been realized.

One of the objects of the Municipal Museum Zierikzee (Province of Zealand, The Netherlands) is a historical herbarium referred to by the name the 'Zierikzee Herbarium'. The characteristics of the specimens in the Zierikzee Herbarium are so similar to those in a herbarium at Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden(L), that both must originate from the same place and time. About the latter herbarium little is known, except that it was once owned by the army-surgeon Simon(e) d'Oignies (1740–1782). The Zierikzee Herbarium was recently described and analysed in detail by Offerhaus et al. (2021). It is hypothesised that the Zierikzee Herbarium is part of a herbarium made by Professor Martinus Wilhelmus Schwencke (1707–1785) and was used during his lectures for future pharmacists in his botanical garden in The Hague in the 1750s, and auctioned in Leiden in 1785. The presence in the Zierikzee Herbarium of a virtually complete set of medicinal plants mentioned in the 'Pharmacopoea Hagana' (Anonymous 1738) eventually led to the conclusion that these could not have been assembled before 1730. Based on the printed ornaments that are used to mount the plants in these, and the major Dutch herbaria of the 18th century, I argue that the plants in the Zierikzee Herbarium and the herbarium of D'Oignies were remounted at a later date. The hypothesis by Offerhaus et al. (2021: 12) that the Zierikzee Herbarium was started between 1710 and 1720 is rejected. Arguments are given why it is unlikely that the Zierikzee Herbarium, as is suggested by Offerhaus et al. (2021: 12), is the herbarium of the head gardener of the Leiden botanic garden, Jacob Ligtvoet (1684–1752) and was auctioned in 1752.

AbstractFor more than a century the only eyewitness account of Rembrandt's Portrait of an old woman (fig. 1) was a description made by Wilhelm Bode in 1883. At the time, he was unable to decipher the date, 1632; nor did he know anything about Aeltje Uylenburgh or the history of the panel. However, the painting's provenance has since been revealed, and it can be traced back in an almost unbroken line to its commission, a rare occurrence in Rembrandt's oeuvre. A pendant portrait, now lost, featured the preacher Johannes Sylvius, who is also the subject of an etching by Rembrandt dating from 1633 (fig. 2). Rembrandt had a close relationship with the Sylvius couple and he married their cousin Saskia Uylenburgh in 1634. After Aeltje's death in 1644, the couple's son Cornelis Sylvius inherited the portraits. We know that Cornelis moved to Haarlem in 1647, and that in 1681 he made a will bequeathing the pendants to his son Johannes Sylvius Junior. For the most part of a century they remained in the family. We lose track of the portrait of Johannes Sylvius when, in 1721, Cornelis II Sylvius refurbishes a house on the Kruisstraat in Haarlem. However, thanks to a handful of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century copies, it has been possible to reconstruct the trail followed by Aeltje. In 1778, a copy from Dessau turned up at auction in Frankfurt. It was bought under the name of Johann Heinrich Roos by Henriette Amalie von Anhalt-Dessau. There is a copy of this copy in the museum of Marseilles, attributed Ferdinand Bol (fig. 3). In 2000 an article in the Tribune de Genève revealed that the original had belonged to the Burlamacchi Collection in the eighteenth century, and was then thought to be a portrait of Rembrandt's mother. Jean-Jacques Burlamacchi (1694-1748), a prominent Geneva collector, acquired major works of art, including probably the Rembrandt portrait, while travelling in Holland and Britain around 1720. It was the heirs of Burlamacchi, the Misses de Chapeaurouge, who opened the famous collection to the public. In 1790 or thereabouts, the Swiss portrait painter Marc-Louis Arlaud produced a copy, now in the museum at Lausanne (fig. 4), which for many years was thought to be an autograph work by Rembrandt. The painter Georges Chaix also made a copy, which he exhibited in Geneva in 1823. This work still belongs to the artist's family; unfortunately it has not been possible to obtain an image. After the Burlamacchi Collection was sold in about 1825, the painting was referred to somewhat nostalgically as 'Un Rembrandt "genevois"'. It was bought for 18,000 francs by the Paris art dealer Dubois, who sold it to the London banker William Coesvelt. In 1828, Coesvelt in turn sold the portrait through the London dealer John Smith, who described it as 'the painter's mother, at the age of 62'. We know that the picture was subsequently acquired from Albertus Brondgeest by the banker James de Rothschild (1792-1868) for his country house at Boulogne, as this is mentioned in the 1864 description of Rothschild's collection by Charles Blanc. Baron James's widow, Betty de Rothschild, inherited the portrait in 1868 and it was in Paris that the Berlin museum director Wilhelm Bode (fig. 5) first saw the painting. In his description of 1883 he states that the woman was not, in his opinion, Rembrandt's mother. In 1886 the portrait fell to Betty's son, Baron Alphonse (1827-1905). Bode published a heliogravure of the work in 1897, which remained for many years the only available reproduction (fig. 6). Rembrandt's portrait of a woman was a showpiece in Baron Alphonse's Paris smoking room (fig. 7). Few art historians came to the Rothschild residence and neither Valentiner nor Bredius, who published catalogues of Rembrandt in 1909 and 1935, respectively, had seen the painting. Alphonse's heir was Baron Edouard de Rothschild, who in 1940 fled to America with his daughter Bethsabée. The Germans looted the painting, but immediately after the war it was exhibited, undamaged, in a frame carrying the (deliberately?) misleading name 'Romney' (fig. 8). In 1949, Bethsabée de Rothschild became the rightful owner of the portrait. She took it with her when she moved to Israel in 1962, where under the name of Bathsheva de Rothschild she became a well-known patron of modern dance. In 1978, J. Bruyn en S. Levie of the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP) travelled to Tel Aviv to examine the painting. Although the surface was covered with a thick nicotine film, they were impressed by its condition. Bruyn and Levie were doubtful, however, that the panel's oval format was original, as emerges from the 'Rembrandt-Corpus' report of 1986. Not having seen the copies mentioned earlier, they were unaware that one nineteenth-century replica was also oval (fig. 9). Their important discovery that the woman's age was 62 was not further investigated at the time. Baroness Bathsheva de Rothschild died childless in 1999. On 13 December 2000 the painting was sold by Christie's, London, after a surprising new identity for the elderly sitter had been put forward. It had long been known that Rembrandt painted portraits of Aeltje Uylenburgh and her husband, the minister Cornelis Sylvius. Aeltje, who was a first cousin of Rembrandt's wife, Saskia Uylenburgh, would have been about 60 years old at the time. Given that the age of the woman in the portrait was now known to be 62, it was suggested that she could be Aeltje. The portrait was acquired for more than 28 million US dollars by the art dealer Robert Noortman, who put it on the market as 'Aeltje' with a question mark. In 2005, Noortman sold the portrait for 36.5 million to the American-Dutch collectors Mr and Mrs De Mol van Otterloo. At the time, the Mauritshuis in The Hague felt that trying to buy the portrait would be too extravagant, while the Rijksmuseum was more interested in acquiring a female portrait from Rembrandt's later period. Aeltje was thus destined to leave the Netherlands for good. A chronicle of the Sylvius family published in 2006 shows that Aeltje Uylenburgh would have been born in 1570 (fig. 10), demonstrating that she could indeed be the 62-year-old woman depicted by Rembrandt in 1632. We know that Aeltje was godmother to Rembrandt's children and that Saskia was godmother to Aeltje's granddaughter. Further evidence of the close ties between the two families is provided by Rembrandt's etching of Aeltje's son Petrus, produced in 1637. It is now generally accepted that the woman in the portrait is Aeltje. She was last shown in the Netherlands at the 'Dutch Portraits' exhibition in The Hague. In February 2008 the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston announced that it had received on long-term loan one the finest Rembrandts still in private ownership.

Abstract King William II of the Netherlands (1792–1849) created important art collections with the benefit of advice from leading dealers at home and abroad, for which special premises were built in one of the royal palaces in The Hague. Whenever the monarch was not in residence, these were made accessible to visitors. Following William’s sudden death in 1849 almost everything was sold and the paintings are now distributed around the world. An attempt is made here to reconstruct the contemporary presentation of these collections, both in The Hague and before that in the palace in Brussels; online appendices present, respectively, an account of the images of the collection in the Kneuterdijk Palace, The Hague (1842–1850); a chronological list of the acquisitions of William as prince and king in 1817–28 and 1837–48; and details of eleven paintings now in the Wallace Collection.

Abstract Various types of digital and physical three-dimensional facsimile technologies (e.g., high-definition digital modelling and 3D printing) have entered the art world and have become increasingly important for research and presentation purposes. Yet, studies that go beyond the technical aspects of (3D) facsimile techniques, such as their significance for the conservation/restoration field and museum display, are scarce, especially in the case of easel paintings. Furthermore, studies that analyse the perception of these methods and, consequently, their impact on the authenticity of the original painting, do not exist to our knowledge. The aim of this research is twofold: firstly, it evaluates a viewer’s perception of various facsimiles; secondly, on the basis of this analysis, it aims to gain a better understanding and provide an overview of the applicability of (3D) facsimiles of artworks for presentation purposes and potential users (technical art historians, conservators, curators, material scientists and museum visitors). This research was executed by combining a literature review with quantitative and qualitative analyses of the data acquired through a) a questionnaire of 17 closed and open-ended questions and (b) an on-site session at the Mauritshuis museum (The Hague, The Netherlands). Based on analysis of the data collected through these activities, this paper attempts to provide an indication of the current attitude towards (3D) facsimile methods as well as to present some criteria of using these methods in a museum environment.

AbstractHerman Jansz Breckerveld was born in Duisburg, Germany, in 1595/1596. He left his birth country for religious and economic reasons, deciding to settle in the Netherlands. There is evidence he was living in The Hague in the year 1622, though there is a strong possibility that he had been in the country for some time before then. It is probable that he learned the trade of glass making from a Master in Arnhem. Whilst living in The Hague Breckerveld befriended David Beck, Master of the French School there. Beck kept a diary of the year 1624 from which much information on the daily lives of himself and his friend Breckerveld can be drawn. Breckerveld was registered as an official glass maker of The Hague St. Luke Guild in 1623. The levels of his success varied, resulting in financial ups and downs. In March of 1624 he took on the role of teaching, taking on a student, most probably his first. In August of the same year he acquired new accommodation, where the first evidence of a workshop can be found. This workshop contained a glass furnace, the first he could claim to be his own. Prior to this he would take his glasses to Delft for them to be baked there. Little is known of commissions which Breckerveld may have received in his period in The Hague. Beck does mention a number of commissions for producing glasses, but these were for family members of Beck, who were among Breckerveld's circle of friends and acquaintances. At the end of 1625 Breckerveld, by this time married, left The Hague for Arnhem with his wife Jenneke Arents. He registered himself in the same year as glass maker and painter at the guild. From this time until his death in 1673 he ran a successful glass workshop with a total of 20 students, including his own son, Josua, who would later take over the running of the workshop just before his father's death. Breckerveld received many commissions from the city of Arnhem, a few from local organisations, and even some from the city of Nijmegen. A total amount of 3,000 guilders in commissions can be traced back from city account records. The majority of these earnings were made from the installation or renovation of clear or painted glass. Many commissions were for so-called 'tribute glasse', which were presented by the city of Arnhem to certain citizens or organisations. Alongside his work as a glass painter, Breckerveld was also active as a calligrapher and painter. Furthermore, he was periodically involved in many other work activities. This kind of versatility was hard to come by in the mid seventeenth century in the province of Zeeland in Holland, and in Utrecht. The artists in these regions, which at the time formed the economic heart of the Republic, had already specialised in their form of choice. The generalist Breckerveld would most probably have found it very difficult to compete with the large number of specialists in the more economically developed regions, who all had developed a very high standard of craftsmanship. Perhaps he was conscious of this and made the decision to move to Arnhem to avoid this competition. No painted glasses by Herman Breckerveld are known. It may be suggested that a glass with a depiction of Christ and the Samaritan Woman can be attributed to him. The only collection of his artistry known to date consists of 20 signed and attributed drawings, six prints, one painting and some calligraphic work. All but four of the drawings were produced in the period 1624-1626. Eight landscapes form, together with a set of signed landscapes dated from 1625, a stylistically unambiguous group. During this period he worked with thick, precisely placed lines, despite using almost no washing. His compositions from this time seem to be rather old fashioned for the period. He seems to have drawn inspiration mainly from artists such as Paulus Bril, Hendrick Goltzius and Jacob de Gheyn II. Furthermore, a group of four figure drawings can be attributed to him. Three drawings from the National Museum of Stockholm and one from the Detroit Institute of Arts were previously attributed to Hendrick Bloemaert and Herman Blockhauwcr, respectively. The drawings were made in the same style as Breckerveld's landscapes and seem to have been inspired by the series of prints 'Handling Weapons' by Jacob de Gheyn. Breckerveld often used prints by other artists as an example from which he worked. He was also inspired in this way by the work of Claes Jansz. Visscher, Hendrick Goltzius and Abraham Blocmart. There are only three signed drawings and one attributed drawing known by Breckerveld from the period post-1626. The style and technique of these differ greatly from the drawings from the period 1624-1626, the most obvious being the change in medium from pcn to brush. It is possible that there are more unsigned drawings from the period post-1626 that have remained intact, however, without material to compare these to one cannot without a doubt attribute these to Breckerveld. A number of attributed drawings made to him in the past arc for this reason not entirely convincing. Little research has been carried out into the work of Herman Breckerveld, as is the case for many seventeenth century artists. This lack of interest is partly due to the limited artistic value of their work. Any research does, however, contain cultural historical value. It provides us with new information on the social background of the non-specialised masters of a smaller level than their great counterparts. Even more so, research into these masters can assist in identifying the artists of the many as yet anonymous drawings from this period.