62 “observing minute objects”: Quoted ibid., p. 21.
62 Around the same time: The Dutch diplomat Willem Boreel would later claim that Sacharias Janssen made the first microscope; he described seeing an instrument made by Janssen in 1619, constructed with a foot-and-a-half tube made of gilded brass that rose vertically from three dolphin-shaped legs. See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 7.
62 “possessed Drebbel”: Quoted in Tierie, Cornelis Drebbel, p. 27.
63 “suddenly rose”: Quoted ibid., pp. 60–61.
63 In 1662 Boyle wrote: See ibid., pp. 66–67.
64 Magnification was increased: Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” p. 21. See also Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 7.
64 The use of two convex: Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 7.
64 After looking through one: Huygens recollected this experience in 1630. Quoted ibid., pp. 8–9.
64 “periscope or occhiale”: Quoted in Freedberg, The Eye of the Lynx, p. 152.
65 Cesi would later employ: See Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” p. 46, and Freedberg, The Eye of the Lynx.
65 “I should also mention”: Faber to Cesi, April 13, 1625, quoted in Freedberg, The Eye of the Lynx, p. 153.
65 For the next forty years: Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” p. 34. See also Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 39.
65 Insects, in particular: See Kircher, Ars magna lucis et umbrae, p. 834, and Borel, De vero telescopii inventore, p. 15, both cited in Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, pp. 38–39.
65 Gioanbatista Odierna conducted: Odierna, L’occhio della mosca. See Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” p. 47.
65 Francesco Fontana delicately: See Fontana, Novae coelestium terrestrium, pp. 148–49; cited in Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 38.
PART 3: FIRE AND LIGHT
67 The subject of his portrait: See Plomp, “Along the City Walls,” p. 554.
68 “as if the pools”: From Bleyswijck’s description, quoted in Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 46. See also Liedtke et al., Vermeer and the Delft School, p. 486.
68 All the windowpanes: Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, 46–47, Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 137, and Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 870.
68 All that was left: Liedtke et al., Vermeer and the Delft School, p. 486.
69 Yet at least one was: See Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 193. Liedtke believes this was a painting on canvas, not a mural painted directly on the wall. See “Delft Painting ‘in Perspective,’” p. 119.
69 “a very fine and outstanding”: Bleyswijck, Beschryvinge der stadt Delft (1667), quoted and translated in Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 192.
69 Van der Poel, haunted by: Plomp, “Along the City Walls,” p. 554.
69 After depicting the obliterated: Liedtke et al., Vermeer and the Delft School, pp. 325–26.
70 Delft also hosted a brief: See Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 874, and Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, pp. 221–27.
71 Vermeer and his wife: See Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 131–32.
72 The latter was listed: See Liedtke, “De Hooch and Vermeer,” p. 151. Another picture, Saint Praxedis, a copy (with the addition of a crucifix in the saint’s clasped hands) of a painting by the Florentine master Felice Ficherelli, has been championed as a very early work by Vermeer by Arthur Wheelock of the National Gallery in Washington (see Duparc and Wheelock, eds., Johannes Vermeer, pp. 86–89). Most other experts, including Wadum in “Contours of Vermeer” (pp. 215–19) and Blankert in Vermeer of Delft, have disputed the attribution. Liedtke, agreeing with this consensus, did not mention the work in his 2008 catalog (Vermeer). In June 2014, just as this book was going to press, the auction house Christie’s announced that a scientific study had concluded that the painting was an authentic Vermeer. The conclusion was based on a study of the lead white pigment used in the ground painting, which, Christie’s claimed, consisted of a lead ore common in Northern European painting and not in that of Southern Europe, including Italy. The composition of the paint was found to be similar to that used by Vermeer in Diana and Her Companions. However, it is not clear that enough is known about the trade in paint in Italy and the Netherlands in the seventeenth century to conclude that the attribution to Vermeer of Saint Praxedis is secure. Perhaps reflecting the uncertainty surrounding the picture, it was sold at auction on July 8 to an anonymous private collector for a little over $10 million, at the low end of its presale estimate. It seems that a “wait and see” attitude is prudent at this point. For the claim by Christie’s, see the catalog listing at http://www.christies.com/presscenter/pdf/2014/Catalouge_Note_Johannes_Vermeer_Delft_1632_1675_Saint_Praxedis_lot_39.pdf, accessed July 16, 2014. See also “For Old Masters, It’s All About the Name,” International New York Times, July 11, 2014.
72 Indeed, the similarities: Wheelock, Vermeer and the Art of Painting, p. 36. Liedtke, too, says that Vermeer must have “made the rounds” in Amsterdam before painting this picture. See his Vermeer, p. 57.
73 Most art historians believe: See Liedtke, Vermeer, p. 60.
74 In his next painting: As Wheelock notes, however, the earlier paintings are not completely dissonant from this one and those that followed: running throughout Vermeer’s oeuvre is the thread of quiet moments, either spent alone or in psychological interactions with others, rather than more active moments of physical interaction. See Wheelock, Vermeer and the Art of Painting, p. 27.
74 Painters at the time generally: Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 556.
74 In Delft, Christiaen: Liedtke, Vermeer, p. 63, and Liedtke et al., Vermeer and the Delft School, p. 240.
74 Gerrit van Honthorst: Israel, The Dutch Republic, pp. 558–59.
74 He may have been: Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 146.
74 Like many of these bordeeltjes: As Schama notes, the trope of the vicious old woman as insatiable and avaricious is at play here; once their own sexual activity ceases, these women “transfer its urge from lust to commerce, from sex to money.” See Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 430–31.
74 What stands out is: Liedtke suggests that the prostitute and her client were modeled by Vermeer’s sister and brother-in-law. “Vermeer: Style and Observation,” MMA, April 22, 2014.
75 Chemical analysis has shown: For more on vivianite in Vermeer’s works and in Dutch painting, see Sheldon, “Blue and Yellow Pigments—The Hidden Colors of Light in Cuyp and Vermeer,” and Richter, “Shedding Some New Light on the Blue Pigment ‘Vivianite’ in Technical Documentary Sources in Northern Europe.”
75 Indeed, in Medieval Latin: Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 28.
75 It is a common misperception: See Kemp, The Science of Art, p. 9, and Livingstone, Vision and Art, p. 115.
76 Plato had a more complex: See Plato, Timaeus, 35b–d. However, as Lindberg points out, both in this passage and more clearly in the Theaetetus, Plato suggests that there is a third emanation of rays, those from the body being viewed. See Lindberg, Theories of Vision, pp. 5–6.
76 Later, Aristotle rejected: Aristotle argued for the theory that rays are received from the object in his works on the senses (De sensu) and on biology (De anima), but took a somewhat more moderate position in On the Generation of Animals and even appeared, in his Meteorologica, to accept the theory that rays are emitted from the eye. See Lindberg, Theories of Vision, pp. 6–7, 217–18n39.
76 “Here our eyes are”: Huygens, Ooghen-Troost (1647), quoted in Weststeijn, The Visible World, p. 334.
76 This cone, with its apex: See Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 30.
76 A visible object’s position: See Lindberg, Theories of Vision, p. 13, and Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 30.
76 Although Euclid accepted: See Lindberg, Theories of Visi
on, p. 59.
77 Visual impressions received: Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 31.
77 Galen adopted a bidirectional: Lindberg, Theories of Vision, p. 63.
77 The surface of the crystalline: Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 34.
77 Alhazen insightfully: See Lindberg, Theories of Vision, pp. 61–62 and 71. Lindberg notes that some ambiguity in Alhazen’s writings has led other scholars to believe that his view was more like Galen’s, accepting an intromission-extramission sequence. Lindberg argues convincingly that he did not accept this. See ibid., pp. 65–66.
78 Vision is transmitted not: Ibid., pp. 74–79.
78 This quality is then: Ibid., p. 81.
78 Another way of putting: Ibid., p. 109.
78 This notion of the “pyramid”: The fact that the term pyramidis is used by Alberti does not necessarily signify a break from Euclid’s depiction of a visual cone, because the term was used in Latin for both figures (without entailing a particular shape of the base). However, the rise of mathematical perspective theory seems to derive from discussions of the geometry of vision not only by Euclid but also by Alhazen and his followers. See ibid., pp.263–64n8.
78 “consists of setting down”: Manetti, The Life of Brunelleschi, p. 42.
79 “the spectator felt he saw”: Ibid., p. 44.
79 Alberti refused to: See Alberti, On Painting, p. 103. Wheelock, in Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 5, believes that continuing debates in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries about optics and vision influenced views of the laws of perspective.
79 The vanishing point: Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, pp. 38–39.
79 “window through which”: Quoted in Panofsky, The Codex Huygens, p. 92.
79 This innovation was possible: As Lindberg claims, in Theories of Vision, p. 152, it is “beyond conjecture” that “the creators of linear perspective knew and utilized ancient and medieval optical theory.”
80 By devising laws: Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, pp. 27–28.
80 “I shall ride to Bologna”: Quoted in Kemp, The Science of Art, pp. 54–55, emphasis added. See also p. 53, for “visual alchemy.”
80 Galileo weighed in: See Panofsky, Galileo as a Critic of the Arts, p. 9.
81 “so intensely foreshortened”: See http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue/procuress.html#.U3zIbMaVvwI.
81 This mastery of one aspect: Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 144.
81 Vermeer would continue: Huerta, Giants of Delft, p. 103, and Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 262. See also part 5.
82 “If you should desire”: Quoted in Yiu, “The Mirror and Painting in Early Renaissance Texts,” p. 192.
82 In an imperfect mirror: See Schechner, “Between Knowing and Doing,” pp. 153–54.
82 “Since you can see”: Leonardo da Vinci, The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, p. 264.
83 Earlier, Alberti had: See Yiu, “The Mirror and Painting in Early Renaissance Texts,” p. 198.
83 He could have learned: Liedtke, “Delft Painting ‘in Perspective,’” pp. 116–17.
83 The use of a mirror: See Liedtke, Vermeer, pp. 63–64.
84 The artist looking at: Kemp, The Science of Art, p. 169.
84 “Nothing can be found”: Alberti, On Painting, pp. 68–69.
84 Numerous depictions and: Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 42; on Dürer see Andersen, The Geometry of an Art, p. 297.
85 Tiny pinholes at the vantage: By 1995 Wadum had found pinholes in thirteen of Vermeer’s canvases. See Wadum, “Vermeer in Perspective,” pp. 67–70. More recently, he told Liedtke that he found such pinholes in eighteen of Vermeer’s pictures. Liedtke, “Vermeer: Style and Observations,” MMA, April 22, 2014.
85 This large-scale machine: Kemp, The Science of Art, pp. 173–74.
85 Cigoli was a friend of: See Panofsky, Galileo as a Critic of the Arts, p. 5, and Kemp, The Science of Art, p. 94.
85 At the same time: See Huerta, Giants of Delft, p. 58, and Reeves, Painting the Heavens, p. 5.
86 But its use seems: On Cigoli’s device, see Kemp, Seen/Unseen, pp. 248–49, and The Science of Art, pp. 179–80.
86 This was difficult: See Kemp, The Science of Art, pp. 178–80, 183.
87 When Wren demonstrated: See Wren, “Instrument for Drawing in Perspective,” pp. 898–99.
87 Kepler, following discoveries: See Reeves, Painting the Heavens, p. 123.
88 While it could make sense: For more details, see Lindberg, Theories of Vision, pp. 188–93.
88 In this way he drew: See Malet, “Early Conceptualizations of the Telescope as an Optical Instrument,” p. 254.
89 No perspective theorist: Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 155.
89 However, this clashed: Ibid., pp. 323–24. See also p. 158.
89 A kind of uneasy uncertainty: Ibid., pp. 5–6, 15–16.
89 This more casual attitude: Still, Van Hoogstraten did agree with Alberti’s book in many respects. Ibid., p. 25.
89 This was not only because: Ibid., p. 27. Kemp disagrees with this position, seeing much more of a serious engagement with geometrical perspective among Dutch artists. See Kemp, The Science of Art, esp. pp. 109–18.
89 In 1678 Van Hoogstraten: Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 52. As Wheelock notes, some medical doctors still doubted the Keplerian theory of vision and its postulation of the retina as the seat of vision as late as the mid-seventeenth century.
89 Van Hoogstraten had studied: See ibid., p. 206.
90 Accordingly, their interests: As Kemp points out, there was a reaction against perspective theory elsewhere, including in Italy, not from the point of view of visual theories, but rather from the issue raised earlier by Leonardo and Michelangelo about virtuosity. In 1607 Federigo Zuccaro wrote, “I say strongly … that the art of painting does not derive its principles from the mathematical sciences and has no need of recourse to them to learn the rules and means for its practice; for art is not the daughter of mathematics but of nature and design.” Quoted in Kemp, The Science of Art, p. 85.
90 Most artists would know: Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 8.
90 There were exceptions: Ibid., p. 17.
90 A manuscript at the British Library: William Bourne, “The property or Qualytyes of glaces Accordyng unto ye severall mackyng pollychynge & Grindyng of them,” quoted ibid., p. 185n68.
90 “With the concave lens”: Quoted in ibid., p. 161.
91 There is evidence that: See ibid., p. 160.
91 It is unlikely, however: For more on this debate, see Hockney, Secret Knowledge, Schechner, “Between Knowing and Doing,” and all the articles in the journal Early Science and Medicine 10, no. 2 (2005).
91 A painter would use: Mary Merrifield, Original Treatises on the Arts of Painting (1849), cited in Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 165.
92 “look at the world”: See Lüthy, “Hockney’s Secret Knowledge, Vanvitelli’s Camera Obscura,” p. 315, and Hockney, Secret Knowledge, p. 136.
92 An inventory taken: See Kemp, The Science of Art, p. 104. Velázquez was called a “second Caravaggio” because “he imitated nature so successfully.” Antonio Palomino, quoted in Bailey, Velázquez and the Surrender of Breda, p. 35.
92 Dou placed a concave lens: Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 166.
92 With this device: See Huerta Giants of Delft, p. 26.
92 This technique would account: See Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 166.
92 Jan van der Heyden: Ibid., pp. 167–68.
92 Fabritius almost certainly: See ibid., pp. 194–205. Liedkte disagrees with this assessment, believing that the distortions arise because the painting was
originally bent into a curved shape, possibly as part of a perspective box. See Liedtke, “Delft Painting ‘in Perspective,’” p. 114.
92 “every stone in the building”: Houbraken, Groote Schouburgh, 3:63, quoted in Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 167. For help with the translation I am grateful to Steffen Ducheyne.
92 Van der Heyden’s painting: See Kemp, The Science of Art, p. 206.
93 He was also interested: Kemp claims that Van der Heyden may also have used a camera obscura, since his pictures “share many of the tonal, coloristic and spatial qualities of camera images.” See ibid., p. 196. On street lighting in Amsterdam, see Multhauf, “The Light of Lamp-Lanterns.”
93 Like Vermeer a son of: See Liedtke, “Frans Hals,” pp. 21, 17.
94 Several of Leyster’s works: See Biesboer, “Judith Leyster,” p. 77.
94 Unlike Hals, Leyster: See Broersen, “‘Judita Leystar.’”
94 Some of her paintings: See also Biesboer, “Judith Leyster,” p. 82.
94 Dou, Van Mieris, and Gabriel Metsu: Liedtke, “De Hooch and Vermeer,” p. 151.
95 This becomes most obvious: Wheelock, “Johannes Vermeer,” at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/626156/Johannes-Vermeer/233666/Artistic-training-and-early-influences.
95 In their works, visual: Liedtke, “De Hooch and Vermeer,” pp. 156, 164.
95 Van Ruijven was a distant cousin: Plomp, “Drawing and Printmaking in Delft,” p. 178.
96 Spiering and Van Ruijven were: Another of the fijnschilders, Frans van Mieris the Elder, also received a yearly stipend from a patron in Leiden. Wheelock is uncertain, however, that Vermeer had a similar agreement with Van Ruijven, but I believe the evidence for that relation is strong. See Wheelock, “Vermeer of Delft: His Life and His Artistry,” pp. 22–23.
96 He did eventually own: See Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 134–35.
96 In another indication: See Westermann, “Vermeer and the Interior Imagination,” pp. 224–25.
96 This was a familiar theme: See Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, p. 208. When sold in Amsterdam on May 6, 1696, the picture was described in the catalog as depicting “a drunken, sleeping girl at a table.” See Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 57.
Eye of the Beholder: Johannes Vermeer, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, and the Reinvention of Seeing Page 40