Art and Heterodoxy in the Dutch Enlightenment


 This paper considers the artist Arnold Houbraken (1660–1719) as an unconventional Christian and sheds new light on his representation of artists from religious minority groups in his Great Theatre of Netherlandish Painters and Painteresses (1718–1721). By exploring Houbraken’s years within the Flemish Mennonite milieu in Dordrecht (1660–ca. 1685) and investigating his representation of religious difference in his biographies within The Great Theatre, this study extends scholarship on Houbraken beyond the current focus on his later years as a writer in Amsterdam, and it offers findings on the experience and reception history of nonconformists and religious minority group members, like the spiritualist David Joris and the Mennonite martyr Jan Woutersz van Cuyck (among others), within the Dutch art world. The paper also addresses the historiographical disconnect between literature in the disciplines of art history, intellectual history, and history of religion that persisted until very recently regarding Houbraken’s status as a heterodox Enlightenment thinker.

The magnum opus of Dutch artist and art theorist Arnold Houbraken (1660-1719) is his three-volume biography of Dutch artists, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen [The Great Theatre of Netherlandish Painters and Painteresses-hereafter, The Great Theatre] (1718-1721).1 This set of publications remains a key resource for current research on Dutch painters, their oeuvres, and their networks. Until relatively recently, Houbraken and his writing have primarily been a focus of attention among art historians; however, Houbraken has increasingly become a person of interest in intellectual history research on Enlightenment thought in the Dutch Republic.
The Great Theatre includes excerpts from Houbraken's own anonymously published, theologically heterodox treatises of 1712-1713.2 Furthermore, Houbraken presents biographies of an array of artists who were religious dissenters, nonconformists, or minorities in their day. In doing so he preserves anecdotes regarding early modern artists' experiences of marginalization and tolerance. Furthermore, his commentary sheds light on some of his own perspectives regarding religion and art; both the historical details and how they are recounted also underscore broader changes to Dutch socio-religious mores over the decades.
Since Houbraken published all his written work-two emblem books, two treatises and his Great Theatre-between 1700 and his death in 1719,3 scholarship in both disciplines of art history and intellectual history regarding Houbraken's theology and writing has so far focused primarily on the last years of his life, and the scandal that his treatises raised among the Dutch Reformed in the early eighteenth century, rather than the first decades of his life during which he was a Mennonite. However, these early Mennonite years should not be overlooked: they represent Houbraken's first experiences of religious difference. By focusing attention here, this paper also addresses the need for more extensive assessment of Mennonite engagement with fine art from both sociocultural and theological vantage points. 4 Houbraken's choice to include several religiously unconventional artists' biographical details, and his tendency to cite sources, unlike some other artist biographers of the era,5 makes The Great Theatre a useful resource for research on both Houbraken's own heterodoxy and the topic of religious difference in the Low Countries and the Dutch Republic. The Great Theatre offers yet another avenue for considering how religious otherness took form, or was shaped further, within factions of society beyond the ranks of most famous ministers, professional scholar-theologians, and religious reformers. Artists constitute an important group for consideration because of the spectrum in lifestyle and experience they represent, ranging from practical bread-earning craftspeople to those who fashioned themselves as scholarly artist-gentlemen and women.
The discussion that follows here will examine Houbraken's own status and biography as an unconventional Christian and make use of The Great Theatre to investigate artists who found themselves outside of the contours of the Dutch Reformed mainstream. Houbraken shows himself to be well versed in the writing of many dissident and heterodox early Enlightenment thinkers, and he himself can also be counted among their number: he weaves their voices as well as his own theoretical asides on art, theology, and history into his Great Theatre-a work that was intended for a wide (educated) Dutch audience and that continues to function as a foundational source in Dutch art history.

1
Art History and Intellectual History on Houbraken as a Heterodox Writer

1.1
Houbraken's Written Oeuvre Following a trajectory from Mennonite minority group member to heterodox Calvinist, Houbraken's theological views fell outside of Reformed theological norms. Houbraken was a part of the Dordrecht Flemish Mennonite congregation into early adulthood-probably at least until his marriage in 1685. He immersed himself in ideas of writers who were considered theologically controversial, and he was also inspired by the Collegiants. Late in life, Houbraken drew the attention of his contemporaries-and provoked the ire of the orthodox Dutch Reformed-with his anonymously published Brieven van Philalethes [Letters of Philalethes] (1712) and the follow-up, De gemeene leidingen [General Guidelines], which he then had published again together in one volume in 1713.6 These works covered a host of topics including art, theology, and antiquity, and they argued for rationalism in faith, displaying his affinity for the views of many controversial writers of the Dutch Enlightenment who argued against superstition, angels, and devils.7 Though Houbraken's writing was not banned, Letters of Philalethes quickly came to the attention of the Dutch Reformed Church authorities.8 As Jonathan Israel points out, the church council of South Holland discussed the Letters of Philalethes at its synod in July 1712.9 It was also condemned at the Synod of Gelderland in August 1713, at which time the author's defence of Dutch minister and philosopher, Frederik van Leenhof (1647-1715), who was considered controversial at that time for his Spinozistic sympathies as expressed in Hemel op Aarde [Heaven on Earth] (1703), was highlighted as one of its most "offensive features."10 Houbraken himself was also called before the Amsterdam consistory in 1713 on account of his writing: it was only after several further discussions within this group, once Houbraken had departed for a short 6 Anonymous [Houbraken],

Renewed Scholarly Attention to Houbraken as a Heterodox Thinker
Study of Houbraken within Enlightenment intellectual history has begun to flourish in the last several years, delayed in part by a disconnect between research questions passed down within the disciplines of art history and intellectual history respectively.15 Houbraken's status as a dissident thinker and author of anonymous theoretical treatises has been well known in modern art historical literature since the foundational study on Houbraken by Cornelis Hofstede de Groot in 1893; however, De Groot deemed the content largely inconsequential for art historical research, and this dismissiveness toward Houbraken's theological asides within The Great Theatre persisted among most subsequent art historians. 16  There is much ongoing debate among intellectual historians regarding this concept of Radical Enlightenment: Israel initially championed rationalism in early Enlightenment heterodox thought as a step toward secularism and atheism, while views since then (including some of his own writings) have challenged or softened this stance to recognize often deeply religious but heterodox impulses within early radical Enlightenment writings from members 15 On reception history see Horn, Golden Age Revisited (see above, n. To date, Hendrik Horn's useful nine-page assessment of the representation of religion in his two-volume tome on The Great Theatre stands as the only study on the theme of religion in Houbraken's artist biographies.22 Some key assessments on religion by Horn bear repeating, while others will be extended and adjusted in this paper. In the pages that follow, attention will be focused more specifically upon Houbraken's representation of heterodox artists and the experiences of artists from religious minority groups. Following a review of Houbraken's own background-in particular, his little-studied Dordrecht Mennonite years, we will turn to Houbraken's treatment of Mennonitism in The Great Theatre, including his representation of various Mennonites that he knew personally; after that, this study will broaden out to explore his incorporation and representation of other unconventional Christians who were artists. Houbraken's own opinions and nonconformist theological leanings are articulated here and there within this array of artist biographies, sometimes evidenced in his theoretical asides, sometimes highlighted via the other heterodox thinkers he cites, and sometimes embedded in the anecdotes about art and religion that he chooses to feature within The Great Theatre. 20 In response to Israel, see for example, Douglas Shantz's argument for the reinvigorating role of Pietism and of "vital, Radical Christianity" in the

Houbraken's Early Years in Dordrecht: The Flemish Mennonite Milieu
The city of Dordrecht was a stronghold of Dutch Reformed theology following the establishment of the Reformation in the sixteenth century and then the Synod of Dordrecht (1618-1619), which settled the power struggle between the orthodox Dutch Reformed and the Remonstrants. However, the Flemish Mennonites, among whom Houbraken's childhood and youth were spent, also had a presence in the city as of the mid-sixteenth century.23 The Flemish Mennonite church in Dordrecht was at once a bastion of Mennonite theological conservatism and a meeting place that was home to several of Dordrecht's innovative artists, writers, and thinkers. Among the writers were martyrologist and minister Thieleman Jansz van Braght (1625-1664) and city historian Matthijs Balen (1611-1691), whose grandson Houbraken would later teach as an art pupil.24 The congregation also included artists and writers among the Van Hoogstraten family; among these, Houbraken's teacher, the Rembrandt pupil Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678), who was excommunicated in 1686 for marrying outside the Mennonite congregation (buitentrouw) after several other warnings for misdemeanors, like getting caught wearing a sword.25 Houbraken also collaborated with many of the writers in the Van Hoogstraten family throughout his career.26 Furthermore, Houbraken must have known the fellow Mennonite and artist Willem Beurs (1656-1700), who was almost the same age: Beurs was baptized in 1676,27 and also overlapped with Houbraken in his time as an art pupil of Willem van Drielenburg (1632- 1687).28 All of these individuals are discussed, quoted, or cited in The Great Theatre, offering a window into Houbraken's Mennonite milieu. The son of a cloth darner, Houbraken did not have the opportunity for an extensive conventional education. However, reading and theological study were a component of his upbringing within the Mennonite community in Dordrecht: Mennonites placed great emphasis on scriptural study among congregants. Furthermore, the congregation offered useful career networks despite being a minority faith group. These socio-religious realities were recognized at the time. For example, in the long satirical poem about Houbraken's life, Lyris, the anonymous author-probably the aggravated Jan van Hoogstraten, following a very public row over a publication collaboration on the life of Paulwrites this: "His education wanted for nothing in the way of power or assistance, / For Menno Symon's Church consulted on this …"29 The theology of the Dordrecht Mennonite group was conservative, falling in with the confession-supporting viewpoints of the Zonists during a time when major lines were being redrawn across the Dutch Republic among the different denominational branches of Mennonitism.30 From early on, Dordrecht was important to Mennonite development as the site where the Dordrecht Confession was finalized in 1632. This confession unified a variety of Mennonite factions, including the Old and Young Flemish groups in Dordrecht, who subsequently called themselves the United Flemish Congregation.31 Later, Thieleman van Braght was a significant figure in the maintenance of Mennonite confessionalism and staunch theological conservatism within this community, serving as minister there from 1648 until his death when Houbraken was a young child. Van Braght chaired the Mennonite Synod of 28 Houbraken says he was with Van Drielenburg in 1669. See De groote schouburgh (see above, n. The concern later among Reformed authorities regarding Houbraken's writing, and especially the investigation and chastisement of Houbraken by the Reformed consistory in Amsterdam in 1713, points to his switch of membership to the Reformed church sometime before then. 43 Houbraken remained in Dordrecht among the Reformed for over twenty years after his marriage and (likely) his formal departure from the Mennonite congregation in or around 1685. In The Great Theatre biography of Abraham Staphorst, Houbraken discusses the artist's father as "a diligently virtuous and godly teacher, who guided the Reformed Church in Dordrecht by teaching and example for years."44 Houbraken gets the minister's name wrong, calling him "Johannes," but it was Casparus Staphorstius (1594 or 1595-1679) who was the father of Abraham Staphorst and a Reformed minister first in Edam and then in Dordrecht between 1643-1679.45 If Houbraken was among the Mennonites until 1685, Staphorst would not have been his own minister so he may not have met him personally or known him very well, though he would likely have heard of the recently deceased minister from Reformed congregants of Dordrecht.
Houbraken maintained contact later on with Mennonites and Collegiants in circles less conservative than his original Dordrecht congregational context. 41 Horn, Golden Age Revisited (see above, n. 2), 1: 31. 42 On Houbraken's children, see P.J. Frederiks, "Arnold Houbraken en zijne kinderen," Obreen 6 (1884-1887), 332-337. 43 Horn, Golden Age Revisited (see above, n. Houbraken also writes about Dordrecht congregation member Dirk van Hoogstraten (1596-1640)-the silversmith and painter who was the father of his teacher, Samuel-fleeing from a German-Catholic region because he could not in good conscience swallow the host in a Catholic mass.49 Also relevant is the biography of Dirk Raphaelsz Camphuysen (1586-1627), to be discussed below.
Furthermore, Houbraken provides the only early biography of his contemporary Willem Beurs. He outlines Beurs's humble origins as son of a shoe shiner, and identifies his skill as a landscape painter, and later portraitist, as well as his move to Amsterdam.50 He describes the artist's subsequent work teaching youths and writing a painter's manual, from which Houbraken deigns to transcribe an entire page on painting tubers for still lifes. However, Houbraken incorrectly discusses and makes puns about the artist's move to "Grol," while Beurs actually moved to the Hanseatic city of Zwolle in Overijssel.51 This confusion would suggest the two lost touch after Beurs moved away.

3.2
Lamists and Collegiants Houbraken moved to Amsterdam after 1709, explaining in the General Guidelines (1712) that he was "encouraged in his intellectual pursuits 'by Brother Collegiants … in Amsterdam and Rotterdam … where [he] attended many heated disputes.'"52 It may be via these Collegiant networks that Houbraken came to know of Galenus Abrahamsz (though he had died a few years before Houbraken's arrival in the city) and where he potentially met many other Lamist Mennonites who were involved with the Collegiants.53 Several Lamists and Collegiants are cited or biographized in The Great Theatre. 49 Houbraken, De groote schouburgh (see above, n. Among his acquaintances and writing collaborators was Lamist Mennonite and author Gezine Brit, who also wrote the poetry for his posthumously published emblem book. Houbraken had asked his friend Jacob Zeeus to provide poetry, but the latter died in 1718 without completing the task; therefore, he appealed to Brit, and she produced the poems to accompany his 57 emblems and descriptive texts.54 These emblems were moralizing in nature and even included some neo-Stoic themes.55 Brit wrote many songs for Mennonite song books, translated out of Latin and English, and wrote moralizing poetry regarding the importance of a Christian upbringing for children. She also wrote a long pastoral laudatory poem in 1686 about the artworks by the celebrated paper-cutter, Lamist Mennonite Joanna Koerten (1650-1715).56 Houbraken quotes the entirety of Brit's poem in The Great Theatre within the particularly long biography he offers on Koertena compliment to both Mennonite women. Brit's poem showcases Koerten's papercut portrait of Galenus Abrahamsz, offering praise for him using a thick web of allegory.57 Houbraken, who provides footnotes on the whole poem, clearly understood the allegory: he identifies "Waarmond" in a footnote as "Galenus Abrahamsz, the Mennonite teacher and M. [medical] doctor."58 This is a play on words regarding Brit's positive view of Galenus as "True-mouth," or truth speaker and likely also a pun on Warmond, the place where the Collegiants originated.
Houbraken never explicitly refers to writers or artists as Lamists or as Collegiants in The Great Theatre, but he does mention Collegiant gatherings in the biography of the Mennonite Jan van Nikkelen (1655/56-1721). Nickelen was a baptized member of Amsterdam's united Flemish and Waterlander congregation; he first studied art with his father Isaak van Nickelen (1632/33-1703), a Waterlander Mennonite from Haarlem.59 Isaak is not treated separately by 54 Klaas (also from a Mennonite home,65 though Houbraken does not mention this), and that once both were advanced in their skills they departed together for Amsterdam; he notes that there Flinck quickly found patronage among his well-off extended family, and he decided to study for a year with Rembrandt (he does not mention that Flinck's family were Waterlander Mennonites in Amsterdam, and that Rembrandt's art dealer was the Waterlander Hendrik Uylenburgh who was also in contact with Lambert Jacobsz).66 As Horn astutely notes, most artists' faiths-Reformed, Catholic, Remonstrant, or otherwise-are not specifically identified by Houbraken unless directly linked to the story at hand.67 This point can be pushed even further: in many stories, even when religion is a key factor of an anecdote, the specific religious affiliations of the artists are not always given or are only circumstantially implied. For instance, Dirk van Hoogstraten was clearly not a Catholic, given the anecdote above; however, Houbraken does not specify that he was a Mennonite. The martyr Van Cuyck's affiliation is only implied due to the footnote citing Van Braght's Mennonite martyrology as a source. Likewise, Jan van Nikkelen's Mennonite affiliation is not explicitly given, and Houbraken does not specify Flinck's own changing faith affiliations.68 These are a few of many examples like this, suggesting Houbraken often focuses on art and, as Horn argues, on the trouble of religious tension and toleration in general, rather than taking sides in inter-denomination apologetics and polemics.69 Though Houbraken knew the Mennonite tradition well, he did not bother himself with intra-denominational nomenclature politics by distinguishing in his word selection between members of more liberal-minded groups who preferred to be called "Doopsgezinden" [baptism-minded people] and members of more conservative and confession-bound groups who preferred to be called "Mennoniten" after Menno Simons.70 In his writing, he applies several relevant terms-"Mennonisten," "Mennoniten," and "Doopsgezinden"-without strict dif- 65 Ibid., and Lambour, "Het doopsgezind milieu van  Not only the religiously different or controversial sources themselves, but also how he cites and uses them so seamlessly are of relevance for understanding Houbraken as a dissident thinker and a champion of heterodox Enlightenment thought. Houbraken regularly uses both acknowledged art theorists, biographers, and historians, as well as writers who were very controversial in their own time, intermixing these thinkers without differentiation. In doing so he tacitly endorses and normalizes these writers. By citing and quoting authors like Bekker, Gracian, and Goeree, he undoubtedly made some orthodox readers of the early eighteenth century uncomfortable. At the same time, his inclusion of these writings, and the excerpts of his own anonymous treatises, also suggests that he expected (or hoped) that much Dutch readership would be unfazed or even interested in these unorthodox writers and writings by the early eighteenth century, as Enlightenment thinking became increasingly normalized.
Ultimately, the controversial sources in The Great Theatre do not seem to have sparked much backlash in the short or long term, since the work remained of interest and in use over subsequent centuries-albeit with some ups and downs in public interest and in scholarly opinions on historical reliability.77 In the immediate years after Houbraken's death, The Great Theatre sold well, prompting other authors like Jacob Campo Weyerman (1677-1747) to mimic his work (there, without lengthy theoretical asides), and also resulting in a second edition of The Great Theatre in 1753. 78 Houbraken's whole body of publications appears to have enjoyed some sustained interest and increasing acceptability over the eighteenth century. On this trajectory, see Horn, Golden Age Revisited (see above, n. 2), 1: 616-694. 78 Ibid., 1: 171.
Guidelines became available once again-this time under Houbraken's name.79 That same year, the Mennonite and Collegiant Isaak Tirion published a reissue of the 1723 emblem book: while a reissue indicates poor sales of the first edition, the fact that Tirion did buy up the leftover stock and reissue it would point to his anticipation of interested readers and potential profit; furthermore, a second edition of the emblem book was later published in 1767 by the heirs of the Mennonite Frans Houttuyn.80 Alongside mainstream interest in The Great Theatre, there was clearly ongoing esteem and interest for Houbraken and Brit in Doopsgezind and Collegiant circles-and potentially others-into the late eighteenth century.

Joris and Other Artist Nonconformists in the Sixteenth-Century Low Countries
Like Karel van Mander before him, Houbraken offers an account of changing socio-historical context within his volumes of artist biographies through scattered observations. Houbraken's sixteenth-century accounts include details about early anticlerical reform in the Low Countries and the Eighty Years War between the Catholic Hapsburg Empire and the increasingly Protestant Dutch Provinces. A thematic leitmotif of toleration in the biographies dealing with religion is hard to miss from the outset, since Houbraken begins the volume with the biography of the great humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam, who-he is pleased to learn-occasionally made art.81 Houbraken then turns to the spiritualist David Joris, who is arguably the most (in)famous dissenter biographized in The Great Theatre.82 Joris, who first worked as a glass painter, adopted anticlerical and antisacramentalist views in the early sixteenth century, later joining the Anabaptists and then taking on an increasingly spiritualist stance. There was a split between the followers of Menno Simons and David Joris in the late 1530s.83 By Houbraken's day there were several biographies of Joris in circulation, but Houbraken only cites Dirk van Bleyswick's history of Delft. Houbraken writes in detail on Joris within the early Anabaptist-Mennonite context, stating the following: [Joris] was born in Delft: but in which year I do not know: it is clear that he was a Delftenaar from the preaching of the twenty-six apostles that the King of the Anabaptists [Jan van Leyden] sent out, who among other things, proclaimed to the people that since Christ, four Prophets were raised: two false, namely the Pope of Rome, and Martin Luther, and two true, namely Jan van Leyden, and David of Delft. He was (before the time that Obbe Philips appointed him as the Bishop of the Doopsgezinden of Delft) a skilled glass painter by trade; of which some vestiges in Delft in the year 1667 could be seen.84 He explains that Joris was well-spoken despite the fact that he was an actor's son, untrained in language arts (this detail about a fellow dissenter-writer-artist may have appealed to Houbraken who likewise was not privy to a classical education).85 Houbraken describes Joris's distinctive curly beard, based on which Joris's corpse was recognized when his body was exhumed to be posthumously burned for heresy. Houbraken also identifies two placards levied against Joris and mentions Joris's mother's arrest and beheading for being rebaptized.86 He describes Joris's departure for Basel in 1544, where he lived in disguise as "Jan van Broek" until his death, and concludes by noting that Joris's drawings are still collected "by admirers in his memory," describing four in the collection religious convictions. Coornhert was an advocate for religious tolerance and positioned himself against execution of those deemed heretics. 83 Gerhard Hein and Gary K. Waite, "David Joris (ca. 1501-1556)," in gameo (see above, n. 23), https://gameo.org/index.php?title=David_Joris_(ca._1501-1556). Unlike most articles in gameo, this one includes a substantial portion that is not available in the printed Mennonite Encyclopedia. 84 Houbraken, De groote schouburgh (see above, n. 1), 1: 21. The reference to the King of the Anabaptists is Houbraken's only use of the term "Anabaptists" (here "Wederdooperen" [sic.]). 85 Ibid., 1: 21-22. 86 Ibid The imagery of the snake and mask easily brings to mind negative connotations; however, the emblem also offers some positive iconographical interpretations. Houbraken knew the Iconologia by the Italian Cesare Ripa (1560-1625).90 In this illustrated guide to the symbolism in emblem books, which was republished in a Dutch translation by 1644, Imitatione [Imitation] is personified as a woman holding a "bundle of paintbrushes" in her right hand and a "mask" in her left, with an ape by her feet: this all stands for imitation and also for art making (Figure 2).91 In the context of the Joris portrait, "imitation" conveniently describes Joris's work as artist and as a fugitive with a double life. This still leaves the snake. In biblical imagery, the snake is often negative, but not exclusively so: for example, in Matthew 10:16, Jesus urges his disciples to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves."92 Again, the Iconologia offers what may be the best possible interpretation: the emblem of Intelligenza [intelligence] is described 87 Ibid. Another positive option is less likely: the snake as ouroboros represents eternity-renewal or rebirth; however, Joris's snake emblem is not the right shape for this.
as a woman holding a globe in the right hand and a serpent in the other.93 The snake in this instance stands for humble learning, and wisdom: … In order to understand lofty and weighty matters, it is necessary for one first, as a snake, to crawl on the ground, [and begin to learn] to understand lowly matters that are not so perfect as the Heavenly ones.94 The Great Theatre's positive description of Joris' manners, Houbraken's use of "Doopsgezind" rather than "Wederdoper" language to identify Joris, and Houbraken's focus on details of persecution due to religious difference suggest his sympathetic view of Joris. Indeed, Joris's spiritualist agenda would seem to be in keeping with Houbraken's own stance in favour of toleration.95 Gary Waite has shown that by the eighteenth century, Joris's reception had undergone substantial transformation among circles of Mennonites, Collegiants, and other nonconformist Enlightenment thinkers. While orthodox followers of Menno Simons in the sixteenth century did not approve of the Davidjorists, and the groups of actual Davidjorists dissipated in subsequent decades, many more branches of seventeenth-century Mennonites (particularly the more progressive Doopsgezinden) eventually appreciated the spiritualist approach that Joris had modelled. Waterlander Mennonites like Hans de Ries (1553-1638) embraced spiritualism in their theology and scriptural interpretation, and even conservative factions among the Mennonites took up his work: the Old Frisian Pieter Jansz Twisck (1565-1636), for instance, used Joris's writing in his own works, albeit without indicating the source.96 Houbraken does not make his views on Joris completely transparent; but perhaps this was his intention in dealing with a dissenter who was long considered infamous and still retained negative associations in many orthodox circles.
Houbraken explores changes to the practice of art making itself during the Catholic-Reformed tensions in the North and South Low Countries of the mid- contemporaries of Geeraards "saw the dark clouds of dispute, which oppressed Art," and "fled to [fresh air] elsewhere."99 Van Mander's own eye-witness accounts of this era published in 1604 offered the artist's lived perspective on this major social change. Over a century later, Houbraken's anecdotes like this one, citing third-hand from a fellow contemporaneous art theorist, demonstrate the ongoing discussion of the impact of sixteenth-century religious change on the Dutch art world; Houbraken highlights artists' migrations from the Hapsburg-Catholic south to the Reformed north (prompting the zenith of Dutch art) and also the changes that Reformed faith wrought on patronage patterns (from church to home).
Alongside the broader strokes of Protestant-Catholic tension, Houbraken also offers the account of the court portraitist Michiel van Mierevelt, who was active in this era of religious change and was guaranteed his safety, despite his religious difference, due to the demand for his artistic work. He refers to Van Mander's account of this well-known story and then quotes from Sandrart's version in the Teutsche Academie [German Academy], where the author more specifically notes that this artist was granted special permission "to practice his Mennonite religion" which "was then still intensely persecuted" at the Catholic court of Archduke Albert vii of Austria.100 Meanwhile, his story of Van Cuyck, who was executed for heresy, occurs only two biographies later, demonstrating that usefulness and artistic skill were not always enough to save a nonconformist from death.

5.2
The Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic and Beyond Most of Houbraken's seventeenth-century accounts highlight-by discussion or omission of religious themes-the pragmatic religious toleration enjoyed by most artists within the Dutch art marketplace. However, as Houbraken shows in several biographies, in artists' travels beyond the Dutch borders there were an assortment of adventures and misadventures resulting from religious difference, or simply from unfortunate instances of miscommunication-like the story of Hakkart discussed above.
Some Dutch artists who travelled outside the Dutch Republic to study and enjoy patronage opportunities in sunnier climes of France, Spain, and Italy 99 Houbraken, De groote schouburgh (see above, n. Houbraken's biography of Horatius Paulyn (ca. 1644-after 1682) highlights the artist's intentional choice to travel due to his unconventional religious ties-a contrast to most of Houbraken's Bentvogel anecdotes, since those artists travelled primarily for the sake of their art and occasionally ran into difficult situations. As Houbraken writes, Paulyn "departed in the company of Jan Rote (who raved about a procession to the Holy Land), first to England, and from there to Hamburg, to recruit supporters"; the prophet, however, realized he had "made a mistake of a hundred years in his Prophetic calculations" so the group scattered "to their old cages with drooping wings."104 Rieke van Leeuwen has recently underscored the fact that this "Jan Rote" was none other than the prophetic preacher and chiliast Johannes Rothé, or Jan Rothe (1628-1702), Lord of Oud-Wulven and Wayen, and descendant of a notable Dutch patrician family. 105 Within the Dutch Republic the rising religious tension between the orthodox Reformed and Remonstrants culminated in the expulsion of Remonstrant ministers by the orthodox Calvinists in 1619. This conflict is featured several times in The Great Theatre. Sometimes details are merely offered in passing as a foil to an artist's character description. Houbraken notes, for instance, that the Leiden-based Jan Lievens (1607-1674) apparently worked in such a dedicated manner in his studio that he did not notice a major scuffle outside on the streets between Remonstrants and other citizens, which became so severe that the mayor called in militia to put down their rioting.106 By contrast, the decision of the Synod of Dordrecht is a focal point in the biography Dirk Rafaelsz Camphuysen (1586-1627), a Mennonite-raised artist turned-Remonstrant minister who later became a celebrated devotional poet with especially keen readership among Remonstrants, Mennonites, and Collegiants. 107 Houbraken copied many details for this biography in The Great Theatre from the 1699 Amsterdam edition of the Camphuysen biography published by Jan Rieuwertsz (1617-ca. 1685).108 Houbraken describes the mother of Camphuysen, who "lived a godly life among the Mennonites [Doopsgezinden]," and he notes that her own father, Hans Mazeik who was a merchant from Gorkum, was beheaded for his faith-here copying almost verbatim from the 1699 volume but omitting the specification that he was killed by Catholics.109 He shares that one day while Camphuysen (by then a Remonstrant preacher) was in his study, a large owl flew into the room and landed on his desk. Shocked, Camphuysen seized the owl and killed it, showing it to his wife downstairs. As Houbraken recounts, [the incident was perceived as] an omen (says the Writer) that the Church-Owls110 would torment him, as happened after some days that the interdiction was pronounced, in which Kamphuizen and all those sharing his convictions were forbidden not only the Pulpit, but also the Teaching in houses, barns as well as in the open Field, at pains of seizure of body and goods.111 The situation was apparently so tense for Remonstrants that Lambert Jacobsz advised Camphuysen to take up a different trade for a time (though Camphuysen did not heed this advice right away).112 Even Camphuysen's own mother was hesitant to take him in for a night, since at that time "it was as dangerous to take a Remonstrant as a monster under one's roof." 113 Within Camphuysen's biography, Houbraken also deigns to discuss and condemn the iconoclastic extremes taken by sixteenth-century Dutch Calvinists and carried forward in some stricter Reformed sentiments later on. Houbraken segues into the topic by clarifying that though Camphuysen translated a version of Johannes Geesteranus's late sixteenth-century Idololenchus, the former did not write this incendiary anti-art "Straf-Rym."114 Houbraken is affronted by the hard-line Calvinist iconoclastic argument against art and imagery on grounds of idolatry, which is the basis for Geesteranus's poem. To make his point, Houbraken first tactfully moves away from Dutch history and instead explores the example of Roman Emperor Julius and the folk of antiquity. He asks who is at fault for the idolatrous worship of statues of Jupiter, Mars, Mercury and others. Then, he jumps to the situation of "a certain statue carver" who makes a statue of Christ from palm wood, and upon getting sick is presented with this same statue by a priest, who is shocked and wonders why the sick man shows no reverence for the statue. To this the artist replies, "would I not recognize what I myself made from palm wood?"115 Houbraken emphasizes it is not the artist, but society's leaders, "motivated by shameful ambition," who are at fault for "[forcing] the subjects to bow before [the statues]."116 Houbraken asserts that it is not art itself that is problematic, though there is potential for misuse of art. Then he concludes tongue-in-check, noting that Geesteranus might have done as well to warn more about wine, which too is very often abused though not at fault in itself. He proposes the following couplet as a poem that exhibits much better understanding of the state of things: These Statues made from paint, from wood, or stone, Do these also make Gods? No: rather those who pour out prayers [to them].117 held to the views of J. Bhoem [sic]."128 However, in this short biography he does not make reference to fanaticism. As with the sixteenth-century cast of characters, including martyrs, dissenters, and religious reformers, Houbraken's biographies of seventeenth-century artists-taken together-offer a picture of the religious milieu of the era as seen through one observer's eyes. Houbraken occasionally explicitly identifies artists' church leadership roles, highlighting religious diversity. For example, he names Aart Jansz Druyvesteyn (1577-1627) and Albert Cuyp (1620-1691) respectively as elders of the Dutch Reformed church.129 He also offers a glowing review of the flower paintings of Jesuit Daniel Seghers (1590-1661), and describes his experience visiting a chapel decorated with Seghers's work in a Catholic church in Brabant.130 Other stories shed light on religious experience via description of incidents (whether big or small) to do with religion in artists' daily lives. Even the biographies that are silent on religious matters-which constitute the majority-are informative. Silence on the subject suggests an artists' career or legacy that was not marked by significant local stories or written documentation of religious difference and difficulty-since, clearly, when records and sources did indicate religious turmoil in an artist's life, Houbraken was not shy about presenting these incidents in anecdotes. This possibility for success and collaboration among adherents of different denominations has indeed been recognized as an aspect of the Dutch seventeenth-century art marketplace that contributed to its success, and this characteristic too is reflected back to the readers within the pages of The Great Theatre.131

Conclusion
In his Great Theatre, Houbraken paints a picture of the diverse religious landscape experienced by early modern Dutch artists, as filtered through his interpretive lens. While Houbraken's biographies like those of Joris or Cuyck highlight and lament religious conflict, and biographies of Otto van Veen and Camphuysen astutely comment on the place of art in relation to religion and reli- gious change, the many stories that are silent on religion point to instances when religious difference did not adversely affect artists' patronage opportunities or careers. The biographies in The Great Theatre enrich our understanding of Houbraken's own views regarding religious difference and religious change from the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, and several of his biographies of contemporaries also offer insight on Houbraken's own biography as an unconventional Christian since he has included details about people from his direct context and network. From his Martyrs Mirror citation to his quotation of Van Mander via a publication of Goeree, Houbraken's writing in The Great Theatre offers a glimpse of the man as artist, reader, biographer, theorist, and heterodox Enlightenment thinker.