Eye of the Beholder: Johannes Vermeer, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, and the Reinvention of Seeing

by Laura J. Snyder

  154 One of the few places: See Liedtke, “Painting in Delft from about 1600–1650,” p. 5.

  154 Like Turkish carpets: See Franits, Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting, pp. 186–87, Vergara, “Vermeer,” p. 215, and Westermann, “Vermeer and the Interior Imagination.”

  155 Indeed, there is no evidence: Liedtke, “De Hooch and Vermeer,” p. 140.

  155 This tradition of imaginary: See Liedtke, “Painting in Delft from about 1600–1650,” pp. 77–83. For the earlier use of tiled floors in paintings, see Gombrich, Art and Illusion, p. 261.

  155 Rather, the flowers: As, for instance, in the fenced-in section of a garden displayed in a painting by Hendrick van der Berch (see catalog no. 12, Liedtke et al., Vermeer and the Delft School, p. 218).

  156 Another, even simpler: See also Liedtke’s review of Steadman’s Vermeer’s Camera. As Liedtke notes, there is a sense in which Steadman’s whole argument is circular, relying on the assumption that the pictures are photographic replicas of the room and its contents in order to prove that they are tracings from a camera image.

  156 There is much evidence: See Simon, “‘Three-quarters, Kit-cats and Half-lengths.’”

  156 Many of Vermeer’s paintings: Costaras, “A Study of the Materials and Techniques of Johannes Vermeer,” pp. 148–50.

  156 In either case: In his “Vermeer’s Camera: Afterthoughts, and a Reply to Critics,” Steadman addresses these criticisms and others, but does not in fact resolve them. To take just one example, he dismisses the argument that Vermeer might have used standard-sized canvases by claiming, “The six canvases under consideration here are particularly varied in size.” These canvases, however, are quite close in size, with only one of them differing by more than a few centimeters in any one dimension. This can be seen in Steadman’s own figure in Vermeer’s Camera, p. 104. Moreover, all but one of the paintings are clustered closely around the 1:1.4 ratio typical of Vermeer’s canvases.

  156 His object would: See Wheelock, Vermeer and the Art of Painting, pp. 18–19. Wirth similarly argues that painters would have used the camera obscura image not for locating lines and points but for modulating light values; he considers that a more “painterly application” of the device. See Wirth, “The Camera Obscura as a Model of a New Concept of Mimesis in 17th Century Painting,” p. 152.

  157 Since the ideal: See Wadum, “Contours of Vermeer,” p. 212. As Wadum notes, Vermeer’s interiors are like this; they are a “mise-en-scène, with curtains, special light effects, and a composition with a strong spatial illusion. We, the spectators, are also staged by the artist and often placed behind a repoussoir in the background.”

  157 He was not merely: Wirth, who has experimented with painting with the camera obscura, offers this description: “It places the viewer in the eye itself, letting him look at the retina.… The retina is replaced by the canvas. With the camera this is the workplace of the painter, who has shifted his task from a retroactive reproduction of nature to the evocation of its manifestations.… The eye of the painter is located within another, artificial eye, a studiolo of visual perception.” See Wirth, “The Camera Obscura as a Model of a New Concept of Mimesis in 17th Century Painting,” pp. 151–52.

  PART 6: MATHEMATICAL ARTISTS

  159 Even the brisk furrows: See Wheelock, ed. Johannes Vermeer, p. 170.

  160 a “mathematical artist”: See Liedtke, Vermeer, p. 150.

  160 Could the model be: See Duparc and Wheelock, eds., Johannes Vermeer, p. 172, Brook, Vermeer’s Hat, p. 85, and Westermann, “Vermeer and the Interior Imagination.”

  160 The group portrait: See editors’ note, AB, 1:398–401n.

  160 According to the report: “Om dit werk meer luister bij te zetten.” Boitet’s Beschryving der stadt Delft (1729), p. 765, quoted in Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 160.

  161 Leeuwenhoek later observed two: See AvL to Hooke, Nov. 12, 1680, AB, 3:313–15, 313n36.

  161 Leeuwenhoek was related to: See DTB Delft 14, inv. 5, folio 89, cited at http://lensonleeuwenhoek.net/content/cousin-cornelia-jans-van-halmael-married-anthony-cornelis-de-man.

  161 Boitet reports that Leeuwenhoek: Boitet, Beschryving der stadt Delft, (1729), pp. 765–70, cited in Wheelock, Perspective, Optics, and Delft Artists around 1650, p. 284.

  161 Forasmuch as Antony: Quoted in Dobell, Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His “Little Animals,” p. 34.

  162 Leeuwenhoek commented on: AvL to Jan Meerman, burgomaster of Delft, March 14, 1713, quoted ibid., p. 35.

  162 Later, his correspondence: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 158.

  162 The book is Adriaen Metius’s: See Welu, “Vermeer’s Astronomer.”

  162 In the seventeenth century: Liedtke, Vermeer, p. 150.

  162 The pictures were originally: Now The Astronomer is a little smaller, 50 by 45 centimeters versus 53 by 46.5 centimeters. However, the reproduction in the catalog of a 1792 sale in Paris shows a greater part of the wall and the chair, suggesting that the canvas had previously been larger, and cut down on the right at a later date. See Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 58. Liedtke has suggested that the paintings were originally commissioned by Adriaen Paets I, a director of the East India Company (see Vermeer, p. 152).

  163 Several treatises on comets: See Huerta, Giants of Delft, p. 119.

  164 Although the production: Because of this difference, Van Helden sees the perspective glass as a precursor to the telescope rather than to the camera obscura. See Van Helden, The Invention of the Telescope, p. 33.

  164 Thomas Harriot used: See Camerota, “Looking for an Artifical Eye,” 274–75.

  164 Leeuwenhoek was already: See Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 318–19. Although Larson may have obtained the painting while in Delft, or from a Delft art dealer in The Hague, as Liedtke suggests, the point remains that Vermeer’s work was known outside of Delft. See Liedtke, “Delft and the Delft School,” p. 7.

  165 The guildhall was: Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, pp. 35–37.

  165 The board of the guild: See Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 38. In 1662 Cornelis de Man—who later included Leeuwenhoek in his anatomy guild picture—was the second painter chosen with Vermeer for the board.

  165 The board was responsible: Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 39.

  165 Each year the guild: On the administration of the guilds in Amsterdam, see Phillips, Well-Being in Amsterdam’s Golden Age, p. 47. For the administration specifically of Delft’s St. Luke’s Guild, see Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 135.

  165 Unfortunately for Vermeer’s: See Bailey, Vermeer, pp. 12–13.

  166 “all these gentlemen”: Quoted in Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, p. 180.

  166 “I do not believe”: Quoted ibid., p. 190.

  166 His father, François: See AB, 2:440–41, “Biographical Register.”

  167 In the decades since: See Adelheid Rech, “Constantijn Huygens, Lord of Zuilichem (1596–1687),” at http://www.essentialvermeer.com/history/huygens.html.

  168 The new law: See Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 791.

  168 They had a companionate: See Jardine, Going Dutch, pp. 149–52.

  168 “If Madame de Zulichem”: Quoted ibid., pp. 153–54.

  169 Huygens regularly did: Duarte was approached by the stadtholder to contribute funds for his political activity. See Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, p. 593. Huygens may have been a go-between for that transaction.

  169 Later, Gaspar’s son: Liedtke, “Delft and the Delft School,” p. 9.

  169 or, more likely: See Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 257.

  169 It has been suggested: See Jardine, Going Dutch, p. 167, and Jardine, “The Correspondence between Constantijn Huygens and Dorothea van Dorp,” p. 9.

  170 Cavendish went on to write: See Akkerman and Corporaal, “Mad Science beyond Flattery,” p. 1.

  170 Virginia Woolf would : Woolf, A Room of One’s Own, quoted ibid.

  170 He told Henry Oldenburg: Huygens to Oldenburg
, 1674, quoted in Jorink, Reading the Book of Nature in the Dutch Golden Age, p. 5.

  171 Huygens negotiated with: Jardine, Going Dutch, p. 83.

  172 He also painted a portrait: See Israel, The Dutch Republic, pp. 561, 523, and Brusati, Artifice and Illusion, p. 145.

  172 “I have agreeable tidings”: Huygens, Daghwerck, quoted in Alpers, The Art of Describing, p. 11.

  172 “And discerning everything”: Ibid., pp. 16–17.

  173 Huygens explicitly compared: See ibid., p. 24.

  173 Recalling his experience: Ibid., pp. 6–7.

  173 By the early 1670s: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 162.

  173 The trip between The Hague: See Liedtke, “Delft and the Delft School,” p. 3.

  173 While Leeuwenhoek was in: See, e.g., AvL to Lambert van Velthuysen, June 13, 1679, AB, 3:83: “When Mr. Constantine Huygens van Zuylichem was recently at the audit-offices of Delfland, he called on me in the morning and in the afternoon.”

  173 In the correspondence between: See AB, 1:66–67, 122–23, 206–7, 2:228–29, 3:82–83, and 7:360–63. See also Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 149.

  173 “To the picture of Ant.”: Verse reprinted in AB, 6:89n4.

  174 Huygens’s connection to Vermeer: Liedtke says it is “almost unthinkable” that Vermeer and Huygens were not in contact. See “Delft and the Delft School,” p. 14.

  174 Most likely, they all: See Huerte, Giants of Delft, p. 105, and Broos, “Un celebre peijntre nommé Verme[e]r,” p. 50. Liedtke quotes it slightly differently: Berkhout “made the trip to Delft on a yacht, as did Monsr. De Zuylichem” (Constantijn Huygens) and other dignitaries. See Vermeer, p. 144 Both versions place Huygens in Delft with Vermeer’s visitor.

  174 “the most extraordinary”: Quoted in Vergara, “Vermeer,” p. 206.

  174 “to discourse on this”: Quoted in Liedtke, Vermeer, p. 144.

  175 During his travels he: See Schwartz, “Vermeer and the Camera Obscura,” p. 173.

  175 While in London: See Weld, A History of the Royal Society, 1: 169–70.

  175 On that visit Monconys: Monconys, Journal des voyages, 2:17–18, and Steadman, Vermeer’s Camera, p. 57.

  175 The first volume: Schwartz, “Vermeer and the Camera Obscura,” p. 172.

  175 Monconys traveled to Delft: Liedtke suggests that the original reason for Monconys’s visit was his interest in Catholic affairs. See “Delft and the Delft School,” p. 12.

  175 On his way to Amsterdam: Monconys, Journal des voyages, 2:145, 153, 161, and Steadman, Vermeer’s Camera, p. 56.

  175 “In Delft I saw”: “A Delphis je vis le Peintre Vermer qui n’avoit point de ses ouvrages; mais nous en vismes chez un Boulanger qu’on avoit payé de six cents livres, quoiqu’il n’y eust qu’une figure, qui j’aurois trop payer de six pistols.” Voyages (1676), 2:149, quoted and translated in Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 26.

  176 Apparently, even at this: See Liedtke, “Delft and the Delft School,” p. 12.

  177 There were two rooms upstairs: The death inventory first lists a room “above in the back room” and then “in the front room,” making it clear that this “front room,” where the painting supplies were, was also “above,” and not on the ground floor, as Steadman maintains. See Vermeer’s Camera, p. 61.

  177 There was probably another room: Description of house as noted in the inventory taken after Vermeer’s death, dated Feb. 29, 1676. See Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 154–55.

  177 “not more than one hundred”: AvL to RSL, March 19, 1674, AB, 10:55.

  177 In the back of: AvL to F. A. van Renswoude, July 10, 1695, AB, 10:279. After his second marriage Leeuwenhoek would own another piece of property with a large garden, but in this letter his reference to bringing flowers into the house from the garden suggests that his home in Delft had a garden as well.

  178 on the ground floor: Judging by a letter in which Leeuwenhoek describes examining his semen after “conjugal coitus” within less than six beats of the heart. AvL to Lord Brouncker, Nov. 1677, AB, 2:281–93.

  178 family group portraits: See Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 517–22.

  178 Sometimes children were painted: Bol (1659) in the Six Collection, Amsterdam.

  178 Heijman Jacobi exemplified: Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, p. 517.

  179 Only then would the tax collector: Ibid., p. 521.

  PART 7: A TREASURE-HOUSE OF NATURE

  182 the globules overlapped: Leeuwenhoek describes this trip and his observations in a letter to Oldenburg, Sept. 7, 1674, AB, 1:159. Dobell believes, as do I, that Leeuwenhoek had a microscope with him on the trip to England, while Brian Ford thinks that it was his exposure to Hooke’s Micrographia on that visit which first aroused his interest in microscopes. See Dobell, Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His “Little Animals,” p. 51, B. J. Ford, Single Lens, pp. 39–40, and Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 148n3.

  182 The travel between: For more on the Dutch in London, see Harkness, The Jewel House.

  182 “mad for war”: Quoted in Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 766.

  183 Peace was signed: Ibid., p. 773.

  183 “baked, ’tis red”: In Leeuwenhoek’s time the term “porcelain” was applied more widely than now. Now porcelain refers to a ceramic product made mostly of kaolin (of a nonporous body), which is more or less transparent. Earthenware, by contrast, refers to pottery, composed of various kinds of clay, the body of which is porous. Leeuwenhoek’s comment that particles of clay are finer than particles of sand is correct, and he was also right that the Delft clay contained organic impurities. See editors’ note, AB, 1:163n44.

  184 The society planned to meet: On the founding of the Royal Society of London, see Sprat, History of the Royal Society, p. 93.

  184 They sent emissaries: Ibid., pp. 156, 169, 170.

  184 “to consider about all sorts”: See Weld, A History of the Royal Society, 1:108, and Birch, The History of the Royal Society, 1:20.

  184 “bring in a history”: Birch, The History of the Royal Society, 1:10–12.

  185 “broken eggs into two”: Ibid., 2:84, 227–30.

  185 Around this time: See Blanc’s review of The Visible World, p. 278.

  185 “this almost divine art”: Birch, The History of the Royal Society, 2:230–31.

  185 “A contrivance to make”: Philosophical Transactions (3): 741. See also M. S. Hammond, “The Camera Obscura,” pp. 295–96.

  186 “Seat of Learning”: Sprat, History of the Royal Society, p. 68.

  186 “to separate the knowledge”: Ibid., p. 62.

  186 “vex” nature: Bacon, “Plan of the Work,” in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:141.

  187 “The anatomist showed”: Galileo, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, p. 108, emphasis added.

  187 “world on paper”: Quoted in Panek, Seeing and Believing, p. 55.

  187 “I profess both to learn”: Quoted in ibid., p. 73.

  187 Leeuwenhoek would later: See AvL to RSL, Jan. 5, 1685, AB, 5:64–65.

  188 “It is obvious that”: Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, pt. 2, sec. 42, in The Philosphical Writings of Descartes, 1:62. For further discussion see Slowick, “Descartes’s Physics,” Garber, Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics, and Hattab, “Concurrence or Divergence?”

  188 “no phenomena of nature”: Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, pt. 4, sec. 199, in The Philosphical Writings of Descartes, 1:282–83.

  188 “I confess the excellent”: Sprat, History of the Royal Society, pp. 95–96.

  188 many a natural philosopher: See Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” p. 85.

  189 “grosse trials”: Sprat, History of the Royal Society, pp. 311–12.

  189 “the demonstrations are so”: Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, pt. 2, 7th rule, in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, 1:245. He makes similar comments elsewhere; see, e.g., “Description of the Human Body,” ibid., p. 317. While Descartes’s scient
ific method went against the empiricism of the day, his mechanism and corpuscularist physics did not; I discuss this aspect of his work and its influence on seventeenth-century science in part 9.

  189 “we behold with astonishment”: Bacon discussed the microscope in his 1620 book Novum Organum, bk. 2, aphorism 39, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 4:192–93. While he here seems to downplay the usefulness of the invention, he admits that “if it could be extended to … the minutiae of larger bodies, so that the texture of a linen cloth could be seen like network, and thus the latent minutiae and inequalities of gems, liquors, urine, blood, wounds, etc. could be distinguished, great advantages might doubtless be derived from the discovery.” Bacon thus divined—and perhaps inspired—how the microscope would soon be used. It should be remembered that microscopes had barely been invented when Bacon wrote that “the subtlety of experiments is far greater than that of the sense itself, even when assisted by exquisite instruments” (“Plan of the Work,” ibid., p. 26).

  189 “true and lawful goal”: Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 81, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 4:79.

  189 But Bacon believed that: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 37.

  190 “where sight ceases”: Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 50, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 4:58.

  190 Even before his reputation: See Rees, “Baconianism.”

  190 While Huygens did not: By the end of the decade Huygens was being “pestered” by the medical botanist Jan Brosterhuysen for a copy of Bacon’s Sylva sylvarum, his work comprising lists of proposed experiments and observations that became his most widely read work in his day. See ibid., pp. 108–9.

  190 “I have looked up”: Huygens’s autobiography, quoted in Alpers, The Art of Describing, pp. 4–5.

  190 “sacred respect”: Huygens’s autobiography, quoted in Jorink, Reading the Book of Nature, p. 4.

  190 Huygens agreed with: Another early reader of Bacon’s works in the Dutch Republic was Isaac Beeckman, who was a director of the Latin school in Rotterdam, then head of the university in Dordrecht. Between 1623 and 1628 Beeckman took careful and copious notes on Bacon’s aphorisms in the Novum Organum, and on Bacon’s experiments in the Sylva, commenting on when Bacon got things wrong, in Beeckman’s opinion, with the note “Verulamij errors.” Beeckman preferred Descartes’s rationalist, nonempirical approach. See Dibon, “Sur la réception,” p. 95.