1 Introduction

The fish scales are glittering in the morning sun.¹ Women are strolling by the stalls of Antwerp’s fish market, inspecting and buying fish, thinking about lunch or dinner. For sale are herring, cod, ray, plaice, salmon, sturgeon, carp, and eel, but also shrimp, crab, and lobster. Fishmongers chop up salmon filets with their sharp knives, while live carp and pike swim in water-filled barrels and buckets. Behind the Viskoperstoren (Fish merchants’ tower) the water of the Scheldt sloshes against the quay. In the sheltered city, the piles of fish are a sign of prosperity – a horn of cornucopia provided by the rivers and seas. Such market scenes with an abundance of products were famously depicted by Pieter Aertsen (c.1508–1575) and Joachim Beuckelaer (c.1533–c.1574) in a new genre of painting in sixteenth-century Antwerp [Fig. 8.1].

View Full Size

Joachim Beuckelaer, Fish market. 1568. Oil on panel, 128 × 174 cm. New York, Metropolitan Museum

Public domain (CC0 1.0)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Fish was a common type of food in the early modern Low Countries, and in sixteenth-century Antwerp alone there were 75 fishermen selling sea fish and 16 or 17 selling ‘river fish’, according to a contemporary estimation.² Fish was fundamental to the wealth of many cities in the Low Countries. In the words of the chronicler Ludovico Guicciardini (1521–1589), the ‘groote wilde Zee’ (great wild sea) was not only a constant force of danger threatening the provinces of the Low Countries, the author also thought it to be ‘betamelijck hier te verhalen de profyten ende gerieffelijckheden die zy der gantscher Provincien doet’ (proper to narrate here of the benefits and conveniences that she delivers to all the Provinces).³ Guicciardini’s originally Italian book was a best-seller that was translated into multiple languages, including a Dutch edition for the local market.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, people started looking differently at the everyday economic buzz of the city. Aware of the economic success of their cities, merchants and artist-artisans became interested in texts and images in which their own activities and their city took centre stage. Plays about the role of merchants and artist-artisans were written and carried out by Chambers of Rhetoric,⁴ engravings of cities and local landscapes were printed in successful series, and paintings of markets were made on spec (for the open market).⁵ It was as if cities and markets were seen with bright new eyes. The market scenes by Pieter Aertsen and Joachim Beuckelaer immediately come to mind. Close up and in detail, they depicted the goods sold by butchers, vegetable sellers, and fishmongers. Around the turn of the century, the genre of still life painting matured, and fish still life painting became a specialty in the Low Countries. Collectors’ cabinets were filled with such new genres of paintings, as well as all sorts of naturalia, including aquatic ones, such as shells, corals, and dried fish.⁶

Fish markets were also a source of inspiration for sixteenth-century naturalists throughout Europe, such as Conrad Gessner, Pierre Belon, and Ulisse Aldrovandi.⁷ Sometimes fishermen became naturalists themselves. Adriaen Coenen (1514–1587) was a fisherman’s son who became a fish merchant and fish auctioneer at Scheveningen and The Hague. The experience gleaned from his trade formed the starting point for his natural investigations, which he recorded in his Visboeck and Walvisboeck: richly illustrated manuscript albums from the 1570s and 1580s.⁸ The famous microscopist Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723) mentions in his letters how he got the help of local fishermen to acquire fish and shellfish for his observations and dissections, but also that he used them as eye-witnesses to learn more about fish when they were just caught and still alive.⁹

In the last decades, several exhibitions on fish paintings were organized in the Netherlands. In 2004, the Centraal Museum in Utrecht organized an exhibition on fish still lifes from the Northern and Southern Netherlands (Vis. Stillevens van Hollandse en Vlaamse meesters 1550–1700).¹⁰ Before that time, fish still lifes had received relatively little attention from museums, scholars, and collectors (compared to, for instance, floral still lifes). In 2019, then, three exhibitions devoted to fish paintings were organized in the Netherlands (Dordrechts Museum, Stedelijk Museum Alkmaar, and Museum Vlaardingen).¹¹ Notable also were the exhibition on the work of Clara Peeters (c.1580–c.1621), the first known artist to have created a fish still life (see below), in Antwerp and Madrid in 2016, as well as the exhibition Slow Food in The Hague in 2017.¹²

This chapter discusses ‘fish paintings’ in the early modern Low Countries in the context of the local importance of fishery, the culture of collecting, and the (up and coming) natural knowledge about fish. Through the example of fish paintings, it reflects upon early modern ‘genres’ of images (and, by extension, genres of texts). In the early modern period, the category ‘fish’ (or aquatilia) contained virtually all aquatic fauna, including sea mammals, crocodiles, turtles, shrimps, and crustaceans.¹³ I will use this broad early modern definition. Fish motifs were depicted in paintings representative of some important pictorial innovations in the Low Countries. One thinks here of the new genres of market paintings, still lifes, allegories of the elements (with an abundant number of objects, plants, and animals), gallery pictures (painted collectors’ cabinets), and genre painting.

The chapter starts with a section on the local fish trade and fish consumption, and how this was intertwined with natural historical knowledge of fishes and representations of fishes in different media (actual naturalia, drawings, prints, and paintings). The development and popularity of fish paintings may be understood in this context of trade, consumption, and knowledge. The local fish trade in the Low Countries is seen through the eyes of Guicciardini, which is combined with historical research on fish consumption. It is argued that sometimes socio-economic realities were implemented in fish paintings. Also, it is argued that fish motifs in paintings could function at the same time as ‘descriptive’ natural knowledge and as symbols, for instance symbols of fertility and procreation. One particular motif in Beuckelaer’s fish markets (a ray on its back) is explained by information from a letter by the seventeenth-century microscopist Antony van Leeuwenhoek. The next section gives a concise overview of the production of fish paintings in the Low Countries, with some of its most successful and innovative painters. Finally, the last sections analyse the ownership of (genres of) fish paintings listed in inventories from Antwerp, Amsterdam, and Haarlem from the seventeenth century (more precisely: 1560–1729, but the dates differ slightly per city).¹⁴ Inventories provide information about ownership, the popularity of genres, and about genre terminology. They are valuable sources to understand how painterly subjects were described at the time – and thus problematize the use of our contemporary genres for the early modern period.

2 Fishery, Natural History, Collections

The Florence-born Ludovico Guicciardini was one of the many foreign merchants who settled in the city of Antwerp in the sixteenth century. In this thriving international city of commerce on the River Scheldt, merchants from all over Europe established trading houses to look after their interests. Guicciardini was unique, however, in that he wrote a thick book about his adopted city and the other cities and provinces of the Low Countries. His chronicles Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi from 1567 was reprinted dozens of times and translated into German, French, and Dutch. In the general introduction to his work, Guicciardini devotes numerous pages to the importance of the rivers and sea for the Low Countries.¹⁵ He emphasizes that Antwerp has risen to wealth and importance because of its fortunate position on the Scheldt. Moreover, the Low Countries profit from the ‘ontallijcke menichte vande allerleye visschen die daer ghevanghen worden’ (countless amounts of all sorts of fish that are caught there), which feed both the rich and the poor. Fishery provided great wealth because of the export of fish – in particular herring, cod, and salmon – to England, Germany, France, and even as far as Italy.¹⁶

Guicciardini wrote a chronicle about the history, geography, economy, and customs of the Low Countries, but his work also contains elements of natural history. For instance, Guicciardini pays a lot of attention to the ‘nature’ of the herring. He describes the appearance of the herring in large schools and how the animal travels from more northern seas in the autumn to the North Sea near the coast of the Low Countries around Christmas.¹⁷ Guicciardini also mentions the ‘King’ of a school of herrings, which apparently has a red sign on its head, like a crown. The idea of the King of herrings was well known in Guicciardini’s time and is also mentioned by the aforementioned Adriaen Coenen in his manuscript. Perhaps the King of the herrings was a myth among fishermen, but perhaps it concerned a real fish with red scales.¹⁸ Guicciardini continues with the taste of herring and the methods for preservation (salting, pickling, and smoking). Later in his work, he also mentions the 14th-century figure of Willem Beukelszoon from Biervliet, who allegedly invented the ‘gibbing’ (kaken) of herring.¹⁹ Further, he claims to have investigated the number of boats that set sail from Friesland, Holland, Zeeland, and Flanders for the herring catch: he counted at least 700. A calculation of the number of trips with the amount of herring caught per trip per boat comes to a yearly amount of herring worth 490,000 ponden (or 1,470,000 kronen).²⁰ Combined with the income gained from fishery of the second two most important fish – cod and salmon (which was probably mostly caught as river fish) – the total value amounts to more than two million kronen. In the words of Guicciardini: ‘een onspreckelijck ende oneyndelijck wonderwerck’ (an unspeakable and infinite work of wonder). Like Guicciardini, other writers also praised the importance of fishery in the Low Countries, including Joost van den Vondel (1587–1679).²¹

The consumption of fish had traditionally been related to the Catholic calendar. Throughout Lent, the period between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday, people were not allowed to eat products of land animals, but aquatic animals were permitted. During other periods of fasting the same rules applied. The rest of the year, Wednesdays and Fridays (or, in some regions, Fridays and Saturdays) were habitually days that meat was forbidden, and people ate fish. On these days, dairy was allowed, so fish could be prepared with butter. The consumption of fish could also be related to the ancient humoral theory. Fish was seen as moist and cold and considered healthy or unhealthy depending on the humours of the consumer and the manner of preparation.²² A remarkable proponent of fish was the Antwerp physician Ludovicus Nonnius (1553–1645), whose learned and practical dietary book Ichtyophagia sive de piscium esu (Ichtyophagia or of the Eating of Fish) from 1616 was dedicated to the consumption of fish.²³

In the early modern Low Countries, both freshwater fish and sea fish were consumed. Whereas sea fishery is still happening on a large scale today, the fishery of freshwater fish is no longer a big industry. In the 16th and 17th centuries, migratory fish, such as salmon, sturgeon, and allis shad, were still caught in the Low Countries. On the Bergse Veld (nowadays Biesbosch) there were around 150 active fishermen, who caught around 16,000 salmon, 60,000 allis shads, and 200 to 800 sturgeons a year.²⁴ From Geertruidenberg, many of these fish were transported to cities in Brabant and Flanders, including Antwerp, Brussels, Malines, and Ghent. Fish is prone to decay, so to preserve fish it was often smoked, salted, or pickled. Freshwater fish could also be transported and sold alive. Foreign visitors to Antwerp were amazed by the variety of freshwater fish that was sold alive from buckets.²⁵ In many paintings of fish markets, such buckets or barrels with living river fish are depicted.

Evidence from various bills and accounts confirms that herring and cod were the most consumed fishes in the early modern Low Countries.²⁶ This is validated by archaeological research.²⁷ Salmon was usually reserved for festive days. More extraordinary were also eel, pike, and other river fish. In general, a large percentage of households’ and institutions’ budgets was spent on food. Most of this money went to grain products, and only a relatively small percentage went to fish.²⁸ But of course differences in wealth determined how much people spent on food and what they ate. There was a great difference between the meagre and monotonous diet of the poor and the generous and varied diet of the middle and upper classes. The dichotomy between the ‘thin kitchen’ and the ‘fat kitchen’ was a popular pictorial theme in the Low Countries. Sometimes these pictures included fish or shellfish. Well known are the prints of the Thin Kitchen and the Fat Kitchen designed by Pieter Bruegel and published by Hieronymus Cock in Antwerp in 1563 (in the Thin Kitchen the poor eat mussels, in the Fat Kitchen the figures eat meat). The oldest presently known meal still lifes from the Low Countries are two paintings of A Rich Man’s Meal and A Poor Man’s Meal by Hieronymus II Francken from around 1600.²⁹ In these paintings, Francken combined the still life of the foreground with a vista to a landscape in the background (so not yet a ‘pure’ still life and somewhat similar to some of Beuckelaer’s market compositions).³⁰ Prominent in A poor man’s meal are three herring on the left side, and on the right side a herring cut in pieces on a plate. In A rich man’s meal there is an oyster next to other delicacies.

Next to socio-economic realities, the development of fish paintings fit with collecting trends in the Low Countries. In both the southern and northern Netherlands, people amassed collections that included aquatic animals. In Antwerp, these naturalia were part of collections that also contained many other objects, often with an emphasis on (local) painting. In the northern Netherlands there were also collectors who started to specialize more in natural history.³¹ In collections in the Low Countries we find many aquatic naturalia: shells, coral, blowfish, lyra, seahorses, turtle shells, whole turtles, crocodiles, horseshoe crabs, snakes, ‘tongues of fishes’ (which were, in fact, fossilized shark teeth), and generically described ‘dried fish’. Notably, Rembrandt’s collection contained ‘soo see- als lantgedierte’ (both sea- and land animals); ‘seegewassen’ (sea crops, probably coral); ‘een groote witte coraelberch’ (a large white piece of coral); and ‘een groot seegewas’ (a large sea crop).³² Also, there were many luxury items made with or from shells, coral, pearl, tortoiseshell, and whalebone (baleen).³³

An alternative for actual naturalia were drawings of plants and animals. In the sixteenth century, collectors throughout Europe started assembling drawings of plants and animals in albums.³⁴ In the southern Netherlands, several animal albums were made in the second half of the sixteenth century, some of them specifically devoted to fish, including one by Hans Bol and another by Joris Hoefnagel, both of whom started composing them in the 1570s.³⁵ Quickly thereafter, specialized animal series in print appeared in Antwerp. These print series had no equivalent in other European cities at the time and were reprinted for decades to come. The first print series specifically devoted to fish was probably Abraham de Bruyn’s Libellus varia genera piscium complectens, which appeared c.1594, a few years before Adriaen Collaert’s fish series Piscium vivae icons.³⁶

Fish albums, print series, and paintings form the sixteenth century onwards visualized the variety of aquatic animals. For naturalists who wanted to differentiate between species, it was crucial to have detailed and precise images.³⁷ So, images also played a crucial part in what may be considered the earliest works of ichthyology. As is mentioned in the Introduction to this volume, in the 1550s heavily illustrated fish books were published by Pierre Belon, Guillaume Rondelet, Ippolito Salviani, and Conrad Gessner within a single decade. The above-mentioned Adriaen Coenen formed a link between the worlds of fishery and natural knowledge. His manuscript was a combination of written text and hand-made images. The works of these early ‘ichthyologists’ often included references to popular belief, long textual traditions, and symbolic meanings of fishes. But empirical information as described in texts or visualized in imagery gained ground. Early modern fish paintings also show this duality: they can be interpreted as carriers of meaning, referring to popular beliefs and older texts, but they can also be read as precise and detailed descriptions of actual species. Often, they are both. But whereas the generic depiction of fish in paintings was age-old (for instance in depictions of the Miraculous catch of fish), the detailed and precise depiction of a much larger number of species was new. This duality is clearly seen in the fish markets of Joachim Beuckelaer, to which we turn next.

Fish motifs could have a symbolic meaning related to sexuality, fertility, procreation, and eroticism. Perhaps the pekelharing depicted by Joseph de Bray in his well-known painting Ode to the Herring was seen as an aphrodisiac, since salty food in general was considered good for fertility and potency.³⁸ Various motifs in Aertsen’s and Beuckelaer’s markets have been ascribed sexual meaning. In Beuckelaer’s fish markets, the recurring vibrant red salmon steaks may be related to female genitals. The obscene gazes and hand gestures of some of the figures add to the supposed erotic meaning of these paintings. But more than just erotic meaning, the abundance of products from land and water in market scenes was related to the general themes of fertility and procreation.³⁹

One noticeable and recurring motif in several fish markets by Beuckelaar (and others) is a ray positioned on its back.⁴⁰ This may have been just a way for the painter to show both sides of the fish (and demonstrate knowledge of the ray’s anatomy), but it may also relate to a popular belief that is mentioned by Antony van Leeuwenhoek in one of his letters. Van Leeuwenhoek writes that, according to popular folklore, rays had a monthly period during which they had to be avoided (and not eaten). In the letter from 21 May 1695, he writes that ‘dit onnoozel gevoelen’ (this silly belief) can be explained by the fact that the intestines of rays often hang out of the body and have a vibrant red colour.⁴¹ This is precisely how Beuckelaer depicted rays in the some of his paintings, presumably referring to this belief – and in line with the references to fertility and procreation in his market paintings. Van Leeuwenhoek denounces this popular belief and argues that the vibrant red colour only becomes visible at the moment the ray dies. This has to do with the way the blood solidifies after death. His proposition also undermines the idea that rays have ‘water vessels’ next to their blood vessels, an idea that was suggested to Leeuwenhoek by a ‘certain gentleman’. Van Leeuwenhoek’s observation can be seen in the fierce seventeenth-century debates about the circulation of blood and the question of whether all animals have blood vessels. Notably, Van Leeuwenhoek notes how he got information from local fishermen, who confirmed that certain parts of the ray only become red after the animal dies.⁴² As is recently argued by historians of science, fieldwork and eye-witness reports played a crucial part in the development of natural history in the early modern period.⁴³

The letter in which Van Leeuwenhoek discusses the ray was addressed to Pieter Rabus (1660–1702), a poet and writer from Rotterdam. Rabus had visited Van Leeuwenhoek in Delft, where he looked through microscopes and witnessed the circulation of blood. Rabus greatly admired the microscopist and wrote him a laudatory poem in 1693.⁴⁴ The 1695 letter on rays is a response to an earlier letter by Rabus, in which he had asked Van Leeuwenhoek to comment on this fish. Next to the issue of the blood vessels, Van Leeuwenhoek also writes that rays have different type of eggs compared to other fish. He observed that most fish lay large amounts of small eggs, but that rays in comparison lay large eggs – like the eggs of birds. Notably, Coenen had already observed the eggs of rays a century earlier.⁴⁵ Both Coenen’s and Van Leeuwenhoek’s observations must be seen in the context in which naturalists were debating about the procreation of animals. The interest by someone like Rabus shows how widespread the interest in such issues was.⁴⁶

Van Leeuwenhoek himself was fascinated by the procreation of small animals. He investigated the procreation of oysters and described his observations in a letter to Frederik Adriaan van Reede van Renswoude (1659–1738), a baron and diplomat who served as a deputy at the Peace of Utrecht.⁴⁷ Again, the correspondence between Leeuwenhoek and Reede van Renswoude (who also sent Van Leeuwenhoek specimens, such as a large caterpillar⁴⁸) points to the widespread (elite) interest in natural history.⁴⁹ In this letter on oysters, Van Leeuwenhoek describes how he acquired some oysters from a local fisherman in Delft.⁵⁰ He observes and describes the offspring of the oysters. When ‘vyf voorname Heeren’ (five distinguished gentlemen) came to visit Van Leeuwenhoek, they were amazed about the ‘volmaaktheyt’ (perfection) of the young oysters. Van Leeuwenhoek’s observations of the oysters proved for him – again – that the idea of spontaneous generation was false. A point of disagreement among naturalists was whether even the smallest of animals procreated, or if they could (also) come into existence by spontaneous generation. The idea that animals could spontaneously come into existence (in particular in the Element of Water) had been common since antiquity. Throughout the seventeenth century, many scholars did not rule out the possibility of spontaneous generation, in particular that of insects.⁵¹ Muddy pools, swamps, or dead animals were deemed fertile grounds for spontaneous generation, which does not seem all that illogical for anyone who has ever seen mosquitoes at a pool of water or maggots in an animal corpse. Someone like Van Leeuwenhoek disproved the theory of spontaneous generation by showing how even the smallest animals, such as oysters and fleas, procreated.⁵²

Natural history was fascinating for relatively large numbers of people among the middle and elite strata of society, which is one factor that explains the exponential growth of natural historical knowledge in the early modern period. In books, old and new knowledge was registered in text and image. In letters, people informed each other of natural phenomena, such as the anatomical features and procreation of rays, or remarkable events, such as beached whales or a particular large fish caught somewhere.⁵³ And in collections, naturalia, including (parts of) aquatic animals, were on display next to images of nature. In this context, painters invented new genres in which the variety of animal species was depicted with a precision that was thus far unseen.

3 Fish Paintings: Production

The Amsterdam-born painter Pieter Aertsen moved to Antwerp around the same time as Guicciardini. In this thriving commercial city, Aertsen and his nephew and pupil Joachim Beuckelaer came on the market with newly invented paintings of food stalls and market scenes.

These paintings marked the beginning of a new type of imagery and are generally seen as precursors to still life painting.⁵⁴ Aertsen’s large Market, now in the Wallraf-Richartz-Museum in Cologne, is probably the only one in which he depicted fish.⁵⁵ However, he was associated with paintings of fish markets by contemporaries, as is revealed in an inventory from 1652 that contains a listing of a ‘vischmerckt naer Lange Peer’ (a fish market after Lange Peer [the nickname of Pieter Aertsen]).⁵⁶ Beuckelaer, on the other hand, painted numerous fish markets – and these compositions were eagerly copied by other painters. Whereas depictions of the biblical story of the miraculous catch of fish had long been popular, Beuckelaer depicted recognizable fish species in incredible detail. Fish was elevated from bijwerk (secondary motifs) to main subject. In some cases, the biblical story was moved to the background, while in other cases it was omitted altogether. Compare Beuckelaer’s Miraculous Draught of Fishes (1563), now in the Getty, with The Element of Water (1569), now in the National Gallery in London. The latter painting is a new type of market scene, in which fish take up at least half of the canvas, while in the background (in a vista through a gate), very small, Beuckelaer has depicted the scene of the miraculous draught of fish.

Shortly after the establishment of still life as a mature genre around the turn of the century, Netherlandish painters started to produce specialized fish still lifes. The oldest example presently known is the Still life with Fish, a Candle, Artichokes, Crab and Prawns from 1611 by the Antwerp painter Clara Peeters (c.1580–c.1621), now in the Prado [Fig. 8.2].⁵⁷ In another fish still life, now in the Rijksmuseum, Peeters added exotic shells, such as the conus marmoreus, which were highly desirable and fashionable collectables. Other early examples from Antwerp are by Osias Beert (c.1580–1623), who is known for his tables with oysters and confectionary goods, and which sometimes included fish.⁵⁸ Based upon evidence from inventories and works presently known, the most productive fish still life painter from Antwerp was Alexander Adriaenssen (1587–1661).

View Full Size

Clara Peeters, Still life with Fish, a Candle, Artichokes, Crab and Prawns. 1611. Oil on panel, 50 × 71.6 cm. Madrid, Museo del Prado

Image © Museo Del Prado

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Frans Snyders’s (1579–1657) large canvases of fish market scenes were eagerly collected by Antwerp’s elites.⁵⁹ He included not only common fish but also seals, otters, porpoises, and even more exotic species. His Fishmarket (c.1620) in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, for instance, shows two horseshoe crabs.⁶⁰ Snyders also added a range of exotic and expensive shells (including a nautilus shell and a conus marmoreus), which points to the fact that such paintings were a kind of collection in their own right rather than a realist documentation of a fish stall.⁶¹ Moreover, the genre of the ‘gallery picture’ or ‘constcamer painting’ was invented in Antwerp in the 1610s: paintings that depicted (idealized) collections. Its most important representative, Frans Francken the Younger, often included aquatilia in his paintings, such as shells, coral, seahorses, blowfish, sawfish, horseshoe crabs, and dolphin skulls.⁶² Finally, traditional depictions of the miraculous draught of fishes were also still made and collected in Antwerp throughout the 17th century. Famous examples presently known are those by Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) and Jacob Jordaens (1593–1678).

Painters in the northern Netherlands also made different types of fish paintings. There, Jacob van Nieulandt (1593/94–1634) and Floris van Schooten (c.1586–1656) were among the first to paint markets and kitchens with fish. Only a few fish still lifes (thus, without active figures) were painted before 1630. Important centres of fish still life painting in the Dutch Republic were The Hague and Utrecht, but they were also produced in other cities. Pieter de Putter from The Hague was presumably the first specialized fish still life painter in the Dutch Republic.⁶³ Fish still life painters from Utrecht include Willem Ormea, Jan de Bont, and Jacob Gillig. The most productive Dutch painter in this genre was probably Abraham van Beijeren (1620/21–1690), whose earliest dated fish still lifes are from 1654 or 1655. A herring cut in pieces or oysters were often included in ‘breakfast’ or ‘banquet’ still lifes, for instance those by Pieter Claesz (1596/97–1661) and Willem Claesz Heda (1594–1680). Pieter Claesz was born near Antwerp and moved to Haarlem in 1620, where he became a successful still life painter. The still life painter Harmen Steenwijck made several still lifes in which he combined fish with other types of food.⁶⁴ Herring and other fishes were also included in genre paintings. Paintings of herring sellers by Leiden fijnschilder Gerrit Dou (1613–1675), for instance, could be sold for gigantic sums (see below). Paintings of fishery and fishermen were made, for instance, by the enigmatic Amsterdam painter Arent Arentz Cabel (1585/86–1631).

4 Fish Paintings: Ownership

To investigate the ownership of fish paintings in Antwerp, Amsterdam, and Haarlem, the research on inventories by Erik Duverger, John Michael Montias, and Pieter Biesboer is used.⁶⁵ I searched the inventories they collected for specific records of fish paintings: where the words ‘fish’, ‘fish market’, or ‘fishing’ were used in the description of a painting; or particular species, such as ‘herring’, ‘cod’, ‘crab’, ‘lobster’, ‘oyster’, or ‘salmon’.⁶⁶ The inventories are from the period 1600–1699 (Antwerp), 1597–1681 (Amsterdam), and 1572–1745 (Haarlem). The total number of ‘fish paintings’ I have counted per city in these periods were: Antwerp 381, Amsterdam 150, and Haarlem 52. This is only a tiny percentage of the total number of paintings in these inventories. In Montias’s database of Amsterdam, for instance, a total of 35,839 paintings are listed. Because of the small percentages and the relatively small absolute numbers, one must be careful with drawing general conclusions about the popularity of certain genres or comparative conclusions of these three cities. Other issues are the different dates of the inventories and the fact that one never knows what is missing (which objects or possessions were not listed in inventories). And perhaps most importantly, the terminology used to describe paintings may have differed from notary to notary and city to city. Contemporary descriptions may lead to a distorted idea about the number of certain genres as compared to other genres. To give just one example: Antwerp allegories, which often contained fish motifs, are not described in inventories as having fish motifs (so, they are missing in my numbers). What inventories do provide, however, is a sort of objectivity in that they list actual objects: they give us a unique insight into the ownership of paintings by a wide variety of people. From 17th-century descriptions in inventories from Antwerp, Amsterdam, and Haarlem, we can distinguish four common types of fish paintings: first, fish still lifes; second, fish markets, fish kitchens, and fishmongers; third, scenes of fishing and fishery (including whale hunts); and fourth, biblical scenes with fish or fishing (plus category 5, other – unidentifiable fish paintings), see Table 1.

View Full Size

Fish paintings per genre per city

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

These categories are based upon the contemporary descriptions I have found in the inventories. For most paintings, there is no painter listed, as was common in this period. Where the painter was mentioned, this usually indicated a relatively higher value.⁶⁷ But a majority of the fish paintings in inventories were not valued (in Antwerp even less so than in Amsterdam and Haarlem). Moreover, there were no collectors who specialized in fish paintings: most inventories in which fish paintings were listed contained only one or a few such paintings.⁶⁸ The only exceptional case was the collection of the Antwerp resident Joanna van Schayenborch, the widow of a fish merchant. She was probably related to the fish still life painter Pieter van Schayenborgh (see below). In Antwerp, there were some other collections with a large number of fish paintings.⁶⁹ For instance, the inventory of Suzanna Willemsen from 1657 contained 17 fish paintings (9 still lifes, 5 markets, and 3 fisheries).⁷⁰ This is an unusually high number, but it was also an unusual collection: it was one of the most magnificent in Antwerp, containing around 1,500 paintings (so the percentage of fish paintings was still very low).⁷¹

Notaries and their clerks went from room to room in a house to list the valuables, sometimes accompanied by experts to help them identify paintings and other objects. As mentioned above, their descriptions do not necessarily match our contemporary descriptions or genres. For instance, biblical scenes are often very descriptive (‘a St. Peeter fishing’), while scenes of fishery are also quite literal, noted as ‘a whale hunt’ or ‘people fishing’. The described fish markets and ‘fish kitchens’ probably contained large still-life parts, but also one or more active figures. It is notable that in two versions of an Antwerp will, the same painting was once called a ‘fish market’ and the other time a ‘kitchen’.⁷² Paintings of fishmongers also include the typical Dutch genre pieces, which often contained only one or a few fish (one herring, for instance). But because these paintings are also a combination of one or more active human figures and a fish motif, I have combined them in category 2 (fish markets, fish kitchens, and fishmongers). Also, there are paintings listed as being or containing a ‘pekelharing’ (salted herring). In most cases these paintings were probably still lifes, but ‘pekelharing’ was also the name of a comical figure of a happy drinker.⁷³ Moreover, the term ‘fish market’ is often used in inventories, but the term ‘still life’ is hardly employed. Paintings that are listed summarily as ‘a fish’ or ‘a herring’ are categorized here as still lifes (as is common practice). The term ‘still life’ in connection with fish only appears in a few inventories of my data set – and only in Haarlem. The earliest example is a Haarlem inventory from 1657, with a painting described as ‘1 stuck van eenige stilstaende kreeften’, literally translated as ‘1 piece of stagnant/still lobsters’.⁷⁴ In another one from 1673, there is a painting listed as ‘een schilderij vant stille leven met schelle vis’ (a painting being a still life with cod).⁷⁵ Finally, in an inventory from 1713 we find the description of a ‘een creefje stil leeven’ (a lobster still life).⁷⁶

5 Fish Still Lifes

Although they were not usually described as such, still life was by far the most popular subgenre of fish paintings in the three cities that were investigated. Still life in general, and in particular fish still lifes, were not very much appreciated by art theorists.⁷⁷ The percentages of still lifes among the fish paintings were: Antwerp 51%, Amsterdam 43%, and Haarlem 63%. The number of fish still lifes in Antwerp steadily rose to a peak in the years 1650–1659, only declining in the last decades of the century.⁷⁸ In Amsterdam, the peak was reached in the decade 1660–1669. In Haarlem the first fish still lifes are found in 1640–1649, but the numbers are too small to draw general conclusions about the popularity of fish still lifes. Whereas descriptions of paintings in the other categories usually only contain the term ‘fish’, in the category of fish still lifes there is more variety. Some are more precisely described in terms of species, see Table 2. The most listed species are lobster, herring, and crab. Sometimes more than one species is mentioned, often in the combination of lobster and oysters (or lobster and fruit).

View Full Size

Fish species as noted in contemporary descriptions of still lifes

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The first still life with aquatic creatures found in Antwerp inventories is listed as ‘een lanck paneel met een bancket van eenen creft’ (a long panel with a banquet with a lobster) in the estate of the painter Francoi Mirou in 1617.⁷⁹ In total, 193 fish still lifes are listed in Antwerp inventories, of which 25 are by Alexander Adriaenssen (while most are listed without the name of the painter). Adriaenssen was the Antwerp specialist in fish paintings, which is also confirmed by the fact that he was sometimes listed with merely his first name, such as ‘een schilderye van visschen van Alexander’ (a painting of fishes by Alexander).⁸⁰ Only one of Adriaenssen’s fish still lifes in Antwerp inventories is appraised, at the relatively large sum of 56 gulden and 4 stuivers.⁸¹

Even though Clara Peeters was the first known artist to paint a fish still life, her name occurs only once in Antwerp inventories.⁸² A ‘stoffasiken van visch van Peeters’ (a staffage of fish by Peeters) was owned by the Antwerp surgeon Benedictus I van den Walle in 1652.⁸³ The Dutch term ‘stoffasiken’ probably refers to ‘stoffage’ (staffage), here in the meaning of the ‘decorative’ fish motifs. In this case, it probably refers not to decorative motifs in a larger scene, but to the main subject of the still life. It is not a very common term in inventories, but in this particular inventory is it used several times, presumably with regard to still life painting.⁸⁴ Peeters’s name also appears in 1627 in a collection in Rotterdam, which includes a ‘fish after Clara Pieters’.⁸⁵ This demonstrates that she was already a copied artist early in her career. Paintings by Peeters were further found in seventeenth-century collections in Amsterdam, Haarlem, and Madrid.⁸⁶

Notable was the aforementioned Antwerp collection of Joanna van Schayenborch (d. 1655), widow of Anselmus van den Steen, a fish merchant. In her otherwise relatively modest collection (a total of 17 paintings), there were 6 fish paintings. It seems reasonable to assume that this preference was prompted by the occupation of her late husband and other relatives. Five of the fish paintings were still lifes: two ‘schelviskens’ (haddocks) by Alexander Adriaenssen and three ‘viskens’ (fishes) by Peeter van Schaeyenborch.⁸⁷ There is some debate about whether the Alkmaar painter Pieter van Schaeyenborgh (a member of the Guild of Saint Luke in Alkmaar since 1635) is the same person as an apprentice of this name in the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke in 1610.⁸⁸ It seems likely that it is the same person, who after his apprenticeship in Antwerp moved to Alkmaar. Although there is no conclusive evidence, the painting in Joanna’s inventory is a strong indication that it was indeed the same painter, since Antwerp collectors had a strong preference for local Antwerp painters. Paintings from the northern Netherlands were exceptional in Antwerp inventories, and then usually only by the most famous masters. Further, it seems likely that the fish painter Pieter van Schayenborgh (not a very common name) was related to Joanna van Schaeynborch, who had links to the Antwerp fish trade. As stated above, her deceased husband was the fish merchant Anselmus van den Steen. Moreover, the guardian of Joanna’s children was François van Schayenborch, presumably the same François van Schayenborch who was the dean of Antwerp’s fish merchants’ guild. François’s own collection, inventoried in 1659, also contained a painting of a haddock, as well as one of a salted herring.⁸⁹

Already in the years 1620–1629 several fish still lifes were listed in Amsterdam inventories. One early example from 1627 is the type associated particularly with Dutch still life painting: ‘een ontbijtje van een pekelhering’ (breakfast with a salted herring), found in the inventory of Louijs Rocourt.⁹⁰ There are three more fish still lifes listed as ‘breakfasts’ in Amsterdam inventories (one with lobster instead of herring). There are also several paintings listed as ‘banquets’. Prices for fish still lifes in Amsterdam inventories ranged between 0.25 and 50 gulden. The cheapest one was in the inventory of Grietje Tijmans, a fishmonger living in Moddermolensteeg.⁹¹ The most expensive one was a ‘stuck van fruyten ende creeft’ (piece of fruit and lobster), valued at 50 gulden and 10 stuivers in the collection of Jacob Claesen van Hoorn, who also owned a relatively expensive ‘schilderij van visscherij’ (painting of fishery) of 29 gulden and 5 stuivers.⁹² Another expensive still life was the ‘crabbebancket, Pieter Claesz’ (crab banquet, Pieter Claesz), worth 42 gulden, in the collection of Catharina Thijs.⁹³ There are many paintings by Claesz presently known that comply with this description. Finally, Amsterdam inventories include still lifes by a certain Juriaen Vlegel, who was perhaps Georg Flegel (c.1566–1630), one of the earliest European still life painters.⁹⁴ One example by Vlegel is the valuable still life described as ‘een nacht stuckken kreeft ende kaers van Jeuriaen Vlegel’ (a night scene of a lobster and a candle by Juriaen Vlegel), worth 30 gulden.⁹⁵ In another inventory, there is a ‘peeckelharingh’ (salted herring) worth 10 gulden by Vlegel.

As Pieter Claesz worked in Haarlem most of his life, it is no surprise to find four fish still lifes by him in Haarlem inventories. Two of them were owned by Hester Cluysaenes, who had them on display in her house on the Lange Begijnenstraat.⁹⁶ Other named painters of fish still lifes in Haarlem inventories were Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem (1562–1638), Gerrit Adriaensz Berckheyde (1638–1698), and Jan Jansz Treck (1605/06–1652). The ‘schilderije met een pekelharingh’ (painting with a salted herring) by the Amsterdam still life painter Treck was estimated at 24 gulden and the most expensive fish still life in Haarlem inventories.⁹⁷ This painting was on display in the kitchen of the wealthy merchant Eduard van Cralen and his wife Agneta van den Heuvel. Their collection of around 70 paintings contained other expensive pieces, such as a landscape by Cornelis Vroom (175 gulden), a painting with the story of Tobias by Rembrandt (90 gulden), and a piece by Philip Wouwerman (85 gulden).⁹⁸

Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem is not known for fish still lifes, but in the inventory of Agatha van Stuyvesant there is ‘een stuck met vissen van Mr. Cornelis’ (a piece with fishes by Mr. Cornelis).⁹⁹ The painting was on display in the kitchen, together with 11 other pieces by the same painter.¹⁰⁰ Cornelisz van Haarlem was Van Stuyvesant’s uncle, which explains the relatively large number of his paintings in her collection of approximately 60 paintings.¹⁰¹ The painter Gerrit Berckheyde was not known for his fish still lifes either, and perhaps the ‘stuck van Bercheyden met een peeckelharingh’ (piece by Berckheyde with a salted herring) was not a still life, but in fact one of his known cityscapes with a fish market.¹⁰²

6 Fish Markets, Fish Kitchens, and Fishmongers

In Antwerp, markets, kitchens, and fishmongers make up the second largest category of fish paintings, at 23%. In Amsterdam and Haarlem the category is less prominent, with 13% and 10%, respectively. Contrary to Antwerp, where most of these pieces were described as fish markets, in Amsterdam around half of the paintings in this category were kitchen scenes or genre pieces, such as ‘a girl with a herring’, ‘a women buying herring from a boy’, or ‘a woman cleaning fish’.

In Antwerp, this category included paintings by Frans Snyders, Joannes Fijt (1609–1661), Adriaen van Utrecht (1599–1652), Alexander Adriaenssen (as well as a copy of Adriaenssens), and a certain Christiaen van Dom. Although most paintings in this category are simply listed as ‘a fish market’, there is also one specifically described as a ‘herring market’, as well as an ‘Antwerp fish market’, ‘Venetian fish market’, and a ‘Scheveningen fish market’. As mentioned above, I have included in this category paintings described as ‘a fishmonger’ or ‘a fish kitchen’, since they refer to paintings with active figures, similar to fish markets (and unlike still lifes). The most remarkable of these ‘fish genre paintings’ was the one in Antwerp described as an ‘een vrouken met pekelharinck’ (a woman with a salted herring), by Gerrit Dou, appraised at 1,000 gulden in 1691.¹⁰³ There are several paintings known today by the Leiden fijnschilder Dou that match this description, for instance the one in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg or the one in the Leiden Collection in New York [Fig. 8.3].¹⁰⁴

View Full Size

Gerrit Dou, Herring Seller and Boy. c.1664. Oil on panel, 43.5 × 34.5 cm. New York, The Leiden Collection

Image Courtesy of The Leiden Collection, New York

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Dou’s incredibly valuable painting was inherited in 1691 by Theresia Maria Anthoine from her father, Antwerp’s late postmaster Jan Baptist I Anthoine (d. 1691). The Anthoine collection was one of the most grandiose in Antwerp at this time.¹⁰⁵ In 1664, the Anthoine family was portrayed by Gonzales Coques, which is probably the family portrait by ‘Gonsael’ mentioned in the inventory.¹⁰⁶ The Anthoine collection contained statuettes, naturalia (such as coral, ‘see-theeth’, and coconuts), reliquaries, objects from India and China, and some books. But his collection of over 300 paintings estimated at a total value of 46,130 gulden was particularly impressive.¹⁰⁷ Yet the amount of 1,000 gulden for the Dou painting was exceptionally high, even for this collection. Notably, among the other top-priced paintings was another one with fish: ‘een cleijn stucxken Moijses vissinge van Paulo Cavillarij Veronese’ (a small piece, Moses fishing, by Paulo Caliari Veronese), estimated at 800 gulden.¹⁰⁸

In another of Antwerp’s most grandiose collections, there was ‘een stucxken van Mostart wesende een Vischmerct op paneel in ebbenhoutte lyste’ (a piece by [Gillis] Mostaert being a fish market on panel in ebony frame).¹⁰⁹ This painting was on display in the front room of the house De Witte Pluym of Gillis de Kimpe. De Kimpe owned an incredible collection of paintings, drawings, prints, books, instruments, and naturalia.¹¹⁰ As far as we know, he was the only Antwerp collector at this time who owned a horseshoe crab, and it was probably this specimen that was depicted in the gallery pictures by Frans II Francken, who knew De Kimpe.¹¹¹ De Kimpe further owned several other aquatic naturalia as well as a ‘constboeck van alderleye visschen’ (art book of all sorts of fishes).¹¹²

Among the paintings in the category of ‘fish markets, fish kitchens, and fishmongers’ in Amsterdam inventories, a relatively large share is valued and the values are relatively high.¹¹³ Notable is ‘een schilderytge van een vrouw die haring coopt van een jonge’ (a painting of a woman buying herring from a boy), probably a genre piece, worth 100 gulden.¹¹⁴ The most expensive piece in Amsterdam was a fish market, by Jan I Brueghel, described as ‘een binnewater ofte vismarckt van den jongen Breugel’ (an internal water or fish market by the young Brueghel).¹¹⁵ This valuable painting, worth 240 gulden, was on display in Samuel Godijn’s house on the Keizersgracht. The wealthy merchant Godijn (1561–1633) was originally from Antwerp and settled in Amsterdam, where he became one of the administrators of the Northern Company and the West Indian Company. Brueghel made several paintings with fish markets located in a riverscape with a large number of figures, like the three paintings now in the Alte Pinakothek in Munich [Fig. 8.4].¹¹⁶ Like Godijn, the painter Abraham Vinck (1574/75–1619) also emigrated from Antwerp to Amsterdam, where he died in 1619. His inventory lists two fish markets, one described as ‘een groote vismarck principael van Vincx’ (a large fish market, an original by Vincx) worth 80 gulden.¹¹⁷ In another Amsterdam inventory there is a fish market by Emmanuel de Witte (1617–1692), of whom several fish markets are known today, such as the one in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam [Fig. 8.5].¹¹⁸

View Full Size

Jan Brueghel the Elder, Large Fish Market. 1603. Oil on panel, 58.5 × 91.5 cm. Munich, Alte Pinakothek

Public domain (CC BY-SA 4.0)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

Emanuel de Witte, The Nieuwe Vismarkt (New Fish Market) in Amsterdam. 1655–1692. Oil on canvas, 52 × 62 cm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum

Public domain (CC0 1.0)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In Haarlem inventories, there are only five paintings in this category, of which four include the name of the painter. As in Amsterdam, there is a fish market by Emanuel de Witte, which was in the collection of the Haarlem painter Cornelis Dusart (1660–1704).¹¹⁹ Dusart also made fish markets himself, such as the one now in the Rijksmuseum [Fig. 8.6].¹²⁰ His inventory lists one unfinished fish market by him: ‘een gedootverwde vismarckt van Corn. Dusart’ (a fish market imprimatura by Cornelis Dusart).¹²¹ The inventory of another Haarlem painter, Jan Miense Molenaer (1609–1668), contained a fish market by a certain ‘de oude de vriest’ (perhaps the Antwerp painter Guilliam de Vries) and a kitchen scene by Molenaer’s wife, Judith Leyster (1609–1660), described as ‘een boere keuckentje daer de meyt vis breeckt van Juff. Molenaer’ (a famer’s kitchen where a maid breaks fish by Miss Molenaer).¹²²

View Full Size

Cornelis Dusart, Fish Market. 1683. Oil on canvas, 67.8 × 90.1 cm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum

Public domain (CC0 1.0)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

7 Fishing and Fishery

The most notable difference between fish paintings in Antwerp, Amsterdam, and Haarlem was the large percentage of fishery paintings in the latter two cities. In Amsterdam and Haarlem fishery was the second largest category, with 35% and 25%, respectively. In Antwerp, this category represents only 12%.¹²³

In Antwerp there was a ‘visscherije’ by Rubens listed in the inventory of Jeremias Wildens in 1653. Father and son Jan (1585/86–1653) and Jeremias (1621–1653) Wildens were painters and dealers of paintings. Jan collaborated with Rubens on several occasions, and he had several paintings by Rubens for sale in his large townhouse.¹²⁴ In other Antwerp inventories, there were two whale hunts by Andries van Eertvelt (1590–1652), who was known for his marine pieces.¹²⁵An ‘oeverken met visch’ (shore with fish) by Jan van Kessel (1626–1679) was in the collection of Knight Joan van Weerden.¹²⁶ Van Kessel’s painting is included in this category because of the landscape element, but the large and detailed depiction of fish species in many of his paintings is different from most paintings in this category. Notable were also the many descriptions of a ‘landscape fishery’ or ‘landscape (with) fishing’ in Antwerp inventories.

The Amsterdam cloth merchant Arent Pietersz Brugman and his wife, Neeltgen Cornelis, owned three fishery paintings, part of a collection of over 60 paintings. One was by Hendrick van Avercamp (1585–1634) and two were by Arent Arentz Cabel (1585/86–1631). Brugman also owed a ‘St Pieters visschuyt’ (St. Peeter’s fishing boat) by Cabel, who was the brother-in-law of Brugman’s mother.¹²⁷ Cabel was the son of an Amsterdam sailmaker and painted numerous fishing boats and fishermen in summer landscapes. Sometimes the foreground of his paintings contains details of fish just caught. Although Avercamp is primarily known for his winter landscapes, there are similarities with Cabel’s work. In the Amsterdam inventories there are two paintings of a ‘fisherman’ and a ‘fishery’ by Avercamp, the first appraised at 6 gulden. Values in this category range between 1 and 50 gulden in Amsterdam. The most expensive fishery at 50 gulden was a ‘schilderije vande Prins Mauris ende van Prins Hendrick opt strant bijde vissers’ (painting of Prince Maurits and Prince Hendrik on the beach with fishermen).¹²⁸ This must be the large painting by Adriaen van Nieulandt (1586/87–1658) that still exists today [Fig. 8.7].¹²⁹ This scene of the Princes of Orange meeting fishermen on the beach may have been similar to the meetings, decades earlier, that Adriaen Coenen had with William of Orange on the beach of Scheveningen in 1574 and 1581, where he showed the prince his Visboeck and told him about fishes and beached whales.¹³⁰

View Full Size

Adriaen van Nieulandt, Maurits (1567–1625) and Frederik Hendrik (1584–1647), Princes of Orange, on the Beach at Scheveningen. 136.3 × 199.3 cm, oil on panel. Amersfoort, Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE) (formerly Mauritshuis)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In Haarlem, too, there are a few paintings described as a ‘beach with fishermen’, but also landscapes and seascapes with fishermen and one of the ‘haring vangst’ (herring catch). In an inventory of 1717, there is a riverscape by Karel du Jardin (1626–1678).¹³¹ There is also one painting described as a ‘schilderij sijnde een henglaertie’ (painting being an angler), a more exceptional description.¹³²

8 Biblical Fish Paintings

Paintings in the last category – biblical scenes in which fish are particularly mentioned – are mostly found in Antwerp (47 paintings). Only seven of the paintings in this category are found in Amsterdam inventories, and zero are in Haarlem. Both in Antwerp and Amsterdam, most are described as either ‘Saint Peter fishing’ or ‘Moses fishing’. In Antwerp some are described as the ‘Apostles fishing’ or ‘Christ fishing’ or ‘Christ eating fish’. The literal description ‘miraculous draught of fish’ (as we would use today) does not occur in Antwerp or Amsterdam inventories from the seventeenth century, but the description of ‘Saint Peter fishing’ referred to one of the two biblical stories of the miraculous draught of fish (in Luke 5:1–11 and John 21:1–14). Both stories tell of a miraculous catch of fish in which Peter plays a prominent role. Peter was a fisherman when one day Christ came preaching on his boat. Afterwards, Christ told Peter to put out the nets, whereupon he caught an incredible number of fishes. According to the Gospel of Luke, Peter fell at Jesus’s knees, who told the fisherman: ‘from now on you will catch man’. The second story tells of a very similar miracle, but now after Christ’s death and resurrection. After Peter’s realization that the miracle is caused by the resurrected Christ, Peter jumps into the water to meet him. Finally, ‘Saint Peter fishing’ can also refer to the miracle of Peter finding the coin in the fish’s mouth (Matthew 17:24–27).

The description of ‘de Visschinge van Moeijses’ or ‘Moeyses Vissinge’ probably refers to the story of Moses, who as a baby is ‘fished’ out of the water in his wicker crib by the daughter of the Pharaoh. This is confirmed by one particular description of ‘een schilderije schouwstuck affbeldende Moyses Visschinge in de Wiegh’ (a painting being a mantelpiece depicting Moses fishing in the crib).¹³³

In Antwerp inventories, three paintings in this category are listed with the name of the painter: one by ‘sotten Cleve’ (probably Joos van Cleve, who mistakenly acquired the nickname ‘mad’) and ‘Breugel’ (not indicated which member of the family). Then there is ‘een schilderye schouwstuck wesende Vischerye van Sinte-Peeter origineel van Jordaens’ (a painting mantelpiece being a fishing of Saint Peter original by Jordaens), which was on display in the salet (salon) of the tapestry merchant Michiel Wauters.¹³⁴ Several paintings of Saint Peter fishing by Jacob Jordaens (1593–1678) are known today.¹³⁵ The way it was described as an ‘original by Jordaens’ is an indication that it was among Wauters’s most precious paintings. Wauters probably admired the work of this painter, as he bought several cartoons (designs for tapestry) from Jordaens’s estate.¹³⁶

Rembrandt owned a painting ‘een scheepie Petri van Aertie van Leijden’ (a ship Peter by Aertgen Claesz. van Leyden).¹³⁷ Next to the other paintings with Saint Peter and Moses in Amsterdam, there is also a painting of a ‘visgen Jonas’ (fish Jona), worth only 16 stuivers (in another inventory we find a wooden sculpture of ‘Jonasie uytte vis’, Jona out of the fish).¹³⁸ The most expensive appraised painting in this category in Amsterdam was ‘een groot landschap schilderye in vergulde lyste synde vising van Moses’ (a large landscape painting in gilded frame being a fishing of Moses), appraised at 20 gulden and on display in the ‘groote camer’ (large room) of the house of Toussain Blanche on the Herengracht.¹³⁹

9 Conclusion

Based upon evidence from inventories from Antwerp, Amsterdam, and Haarlem, paintings with fish motifs made up a small portion of the total number of paintings. Among these fish paintings, fish still lifes were most popular, although the way paintings were described may lead to some distortions about different categories of fish paintings. The most notable difference between the three cities was the larger percentage of biblical fish paintings in Antwerp and the larger percentage of fishery paintings in Amsterdam and Haarlem. This relatively stronger emphasis on biblical history painting is in accordance with earlier research on collecting trends in Antwerp compared to the Dutch Republic.

Changing conceptions of the natural world went hand in hand with the emergence of new pictorial genres, such as market scenes and, around the turn of the century, still life painting. The interest in natural history among relatively large parts of the population may have been one factor that explains the popularity of animal motifs in painting. It probably also worked the other way around: animal motifs in painting may have further spurred the interest in nature. Moreover, the importance of fish in the daily life and economy of the Low Countries, combined with the increasing specialization of painters working for an open market, resulted in specialized fish genres.

In our modern view of painting as a ‘fine art’, we tend to think of paintings as self-contained works of art with a fixed title. Of course, in the early modern period there were no fixed titles, only descriptions of objects. Only in exceptional cases was the name of the painter included, which points to the fact that ideas about the ‘author’ of a ‘work of art’ were only slowly changing. The norm was still to list paintings anonymously, while subject, size, and material (and often picture frame) were much more important. Inventories reveal how the language to describe paintings changed over time and how more or less fixed genres only slowly developed.

In early modern fish paintings, fish prints and fish books, descriptive facts and symbolic meaning were often combined. There was a great overlap between what we would consider the separate domains of ‘art’ and ‘science’. Painters were interested in documenting facts about nature, but also in the meaning of nature. The same is true for natural historians, who were documenting facts about nature, but for a long time also included references to the (symbolic) meaning of nature in their works (inherited from a long and respectable tradition). The same logic underpinned collections. Through the ownership of fish paintings – as well as other types of animal imagery – it may argued that these ideas about nature also ended up in the houses of early modern collectors.