Review of: ‘Allart van Everdingen 1621-1675’ (2021)
ARTHUR K. WHEELOCK JR.
Review of: Christi M. Klinkert and Yvonne Bleyerveld (eds.), Allart van Everdingen 1621-1675. Master of the rugged landscape, Rotterdam [NAi/010], 2021
This engaging and informative catalogue brings to life this important, though today largely overlooked, Dutch master who was born and raised in Alkmaar.1 Allart van Everdingen’s (1621-1675) rugged Scandinavian landscapes, which are characterised by rocky terrain, roaring waterfalls, log cabins and dense forests, are his most famous and lasting contribution to the story of Dutch art (fig. 1). Nevertheless, the authors of this publication, which was ably compiled and edited by Christi M. Klinkert and Yvonne Bleyerveld, also reveals that Van Everdingen’s creative energies as a painter, draftsman and printmaker were wide-ranging and extensive (consisting of over 180 paintings, 650 drawings and 100 prints).2 Aside from his Scandinavian scenes, Van Everdingen also depicted marine subjects, topographical views of the Dutch countryside and even a remarkable illusionistic cityscape (albeit fanciful), which he painted for the Trippenhuis in Amsterdam. His considerable abilities as a storyteller are also evident in the extensive series of drawings and prints that he made to illustrate the medieval tale of Reynard the Fox, which were included in the exhibition.
The core of this publication consists of four essays that carefully assess, respectively, the character of Van Everdingen’s paintings, drawings, prints: Christi Klinkert focuses on the paintings; Yvonne Bleyerveld, the drawings; and Erik Hinterding, the etchings; and Marjan Pantjes, the fascinating story of the artist’s print series depicting the tale of Reynard the Fox. The catalogue also includes three shorter essays, called ‘Spotlights’, on related topics. Cynthia Osiecki’s examination of the political situation in Scandinavia creates an excellent framework for understanding the complicated relationships between Norway and Sweden in the mid-seventeenth century; Ellis Dullaart’s discussion of a small book of brunaille landscapes and seascapes highlights an important project that Van Everdingen embarked upon in the late 1630s; and Paul Knolle’s assessment of how eighteenth- and nineteenth-century artists and art theorists responded to Van Everdingen’s Scandinavian landscapes, which discusses how concepts such as poetic naturalism and the sublime became associated with these works. Klinkert rightly notes that while the catalogue structure is clear and comprehensible, it does not allow for a full appreciation of the multiple connections between these three aspects of Van Everdingen’s oeuvre throughout the course of his career. This issue, which will be discussed below, also hinders the opportunity to come to grips with an overarching appreciation of his artistic achievement and historical reputation.
Cover of Allart van Everdingen 1621-1675. Master of the rugged landscape
Middle left: fig. 1 Image used on the exhibition's book cover: Allart van Everdingen, Mountain landscape with a river and a castle, c. 1660s, oil on canvas, 219 x 193 cm., Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen, inv. no. KMSsp512 [Ill. 91. cat. 67]
Middle right: fig. 2 Allart van Everdingen, Landscape with a Waterfall, possibly near Trollhätten, c. 1644, pen and brush and black and grey-brown ink, grey wash, 121 x 163 mm., Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, inv. no. KdZ1311 [Ill. 101. cat. 43]
Right: fig. 3 Allart van Everdingen, View of Haarlem from the Noorder Buiten Spaarne, oil on canvas, 39 x 65.5 cm., Fans Hals Museum, Haarlem, inv. no. OS 1-82 [Ill. 69. cat. 52]
Klinkert begins her introductory essay on Van Everdingen’s life and career by recounting Arnold Houbraken’s (1660-1719) description of the artist’s first encounter with the Scandinavian landscape.3 Houbraken writes that Van Everdingen had set sail to visit some cities in the Baltic Sea when his boat ‘ran into a dangerous storm, which, willing or not, caused him, not undamaged, to land on the coast of Norway’. This unexpected diversion provided him the opportunity to make coloured drawings that would inspire the imaginative views of this rugged countryside that he made throughout his long and successful career. Bleyerveld notes that Van Everdingen executed the drawings he made in Norway with a brush and grey or black ink, occasionally over a black chalk sketch. Many of these works are on similarly sized sheets of paper, which suggests that they were part of a sketchbook. She postulates that, much as Jan van Goyen (1596-1656) and other landscape draftsmen, Van Everdingen often drew in sketchbooks and then worked up these studies in his studio, often by adding washes and figural elements (fig. 2).
Van Everdingen’s Norwegian adventure likely occurred around 1644, long after he had begun his artistic career in the early-to-mid 1630s. Houbraken indicates that like his older brother, Caesar van Everdingen (1616/17-1678), Allart initially studied with a local artist in Alkmaar before for undertaking further training in Utrecht, where the family had long-standing ties. In Utrecht, Allart studied with Roelandt Savery (1576-1639), whose paintings, drawings and prints of Tyrolian landscapes likely inspired Van Everdingen’s later interpretations of the deeply forested, mountainous terrain with crashing waterfalls that the artist encountered in Norway.
Aside from related subject matter, Savery’s drawing style, in which he fused carefully observed views of nature with the imagination, was also important for Van Everdingen’s own creative endeavours. Savery often applied transparent watercolours to his pen and wash drawings to focus and enliven his compositions, an approach comparable to the ‘coloured drawings’ that Houbraken described Van Everdingen making when he was stranded in Norway in 1644. Finally, in Utrecht Van Everdingen would also have met the important marine painter Adam Willaerts (1577-1664), who often visited Savery’s studio. Willaert’s depictions of ships in distress along a rocky coastline had a profound influence on Van Everdingen’s early marine paintings.
By 1639 Van Everdingen had moved to Haarlem, where, according to Houbraken, he studied with Pieter de Molijn (1595-1661). De Molijn would have guided him in depicting the native landscape, a subject that Van Everdingen often represented early in his career.4 Klinkert, Bleyerveld and Hinterding all emphasize the many stylistic and thematic connections that exist between De Molijn’s paintings, drawings and prints and those by Van Everdingen. For example, Van Everdingen made large, coloured panoramic drawings that relate to those that De Molijn made during the 1630s. Like Savery, De Molijn was not only an accomplished draftsman and painter, but also a printmaker, which may explain why Van Everdingen similarly embraced all three modes of pictorial representation in his own work. Hinterding clearly articulates stylistic relationships in Van Everdingen’s etchings with prints by both masters.
Haarlem in the late-1630s still was a vibrant artistic center, and Van Everdingen demonstrated remarkable versatility in the types of paintings and drawings he created as he sought to establish a flourishing career. Aside from De Molijn, for example, he admired the new vogue for tonal paintings seen in the works Jan Porcellis (c. 1584-1632), and he eventually owned 13 of this master’s works. Inspired by Porcellis’ example, as well as by the work of other masters, including Jan van Goyen and Pieter Mulier I (c. 1595/1610-1659/61), Van Everdingen produced the remarkable album of small-scale landscapes and marine paintings executed in brunaille that Ellis Dullaart discusses in her ‘Spotlight’. Since some brunailles in this album (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) depict imaginary rock formations like those seen in paintings by Savery and Willaerts, Dullaart plausibly dates the album between 1639 and 1643, before Van Everdingen encountered first-hand the rugged terrain along the Norwegian coast in 1644.
Left: fig. 4 Allart van Everdingen, Glue factory on Lange Bleekerspad in Amsterdam, brush and watercolor over traces of black chalk, Amsterdam City Archives, 169 x 284 mm., accession no. 10055, inv. no. 16 [Ill. 121. cat. 36]
Middle: fig. 5 Allart van Everdingen, Landscape with a large rock, n.d., etching and drypoint, 102 x 111 mm., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-1879-A-3058, [Ill. 189, cat. 9]
Right: fig. 6 Allart van Everdingen, Design for the title print of Reynard the Fox, pen and brush and brown ink, brown wash, heightened with light grey, on brown prepared paper, The British Museum, London, inv. no. 1836.0811.187 [Ill. 217. cat. 69]
In 1645 Van Everdingen married Janneke Cornelisdr, at which time he moved from Alkmaar to her hometown Haarlem and, in the following year, joined its St. Luke’s Guild. Aside from marines and harbour views of Haarlem and Alkmaar, Van Everdingen seems to have begun depicting Scandinavian subjects, a landscape type new to Dutch art. While some of these paintings and drawings accurately reflected the buildings and topography that he had rendered in Norway, many were fanciful recreations of that distant, rugged landscape. The authors have made careful assessments of the relative accuracy of Van Everdingen’s images, often basing their conclusions on photographs of comparable Norwegian sites. As with his depictions of the native landscape, and like many of his colleagues, Van Everdingen frequently exaggerated pictorial elements in his paintings for dramatic intent.
In 1652 Van Everdingen and his family left Haarlem and moved to Amsterdam where he found a welcome market for his Scandinavian scenes, likely because of the extensive trade that existed between Dutch merchants there and the Baltic region. Perhaps because of this expanded market, Van Everdingen added printmaking at this time as part of his artistic repertoire, with most etchings depicting Scandinavian landscapes. During the 1650s he began to create a hybrid form of Scandinavian scene, in which he combined Norwegian elements with those from other countries and regions, including Germany, a country he never visited.5 The paintings, drawings and prints that he created in Amsterdam often include densely wooded landscapes, half-timbered houses, watermills and castles that reflect the example of Jacob van Ruisdael (1628-1682), particularly the dramatic images of Bentheim castle that Van Ruisdael painted after he travelled to Westphalia around 1650 (see, fig. 1). Many of Van Everdingen’s hybrid scenes also included a greater presence of human activity. Nevertheless, as Klinkert notes, Van Everdingen’s artistic strengths were with landscapes not figures, hence in his landscape paintings he often collaborated with staffage specialists, among them Nicolaes Berchem (1621/22-1683), Johannes Lingelbach (1622-1674) and Adriaen van de Velde (1636-1672).
A remarkable give-and-take existed between Van Everdingen and Van Ruisdael during the 1650s and 1660s, particularly after Van Ruisdael moved from Haarlem to Amsterdam in the mid-1650s. Hinterding explains that Van Everdingen looked closely at the way Van Ruisdael rendered foliage in his etchings and developed a comparable technique of ‘jagged zigzag hatching and short scribbled lines’ (p. 127) to indicate foliage in his own etchings. On the other hand, Van Ruisdael, noting the success of Van Everdingen’s paintings with waterfalls, began depicting them in his own landscapes. As Stechow already noted, however, Van Ruisdael’s adaptation of the waterfall motif was not to Van Everdingen’s lasting benefit because of the superiority of his compositional acumen.6
As the authors acknowledge, very few reliable points of reference exist in Van Everdingen’s career to assess his chronology. While he consistently signed his works, often with the monogram AVE, he only dated a few paintings, and none of his drawings or prints. Depictions of specific locations are few and far between, but the ones that do exist provide some frame of reference. For example, Van Everdingen made his drawings with identifiable Norwegian motifs when he was in Norway in 1644 (see, fig. 2); similarly, he likely painted his view of Haarlem (fig. 3) when he was living there in the late-1640s and early-1650s. A small group of drawings and prints, and, as well, a painting of Montjardin Castle (The Hague, Mauritshuis), can be associated with a trip he made to Spa in the Ardennes in the mid-1650s.
Van Everdingen presumably sold most of his drawings on the open market, although he probably received commissions for specific subjects, as, for example, for a large, carefully coloured drawing of an Amsterdam glue factory (fig. 4). This drawing can be convincingly dated to the early-1660s because the glue factory’s owner, Abraham van Beelkamp, who likely commissioned the drawing, died in 1663. This dating is confirmed by the fact that the Amsterdam Town Hall, which is seen in the background, lacks its great dome, which was built between 1662 and 1665. Van Everdingen probably also received commissions for a series of drawings he made of the four elements, the four seasons, and, following Pieter de Molijn, the series of the months (seven complete sets are still extant). He also made a remarkable set of over 50 small-scale drawn landscapes and seascapes (each measuring only 48 by 84 mm.) that he must have sold as a group.
Much as with his drawings, Van Everdingen likely painted primarily for the open market, although he did receive important commissions from the Trip family. In the early-1660s members of the Trip family, which had made its fortune trading in iron, copper, and armaments from Sweden, asked the artist to paint a series of works for its dual mansion in Amsterdam, the Trippenhuis. This commission consisted of a large painting depicting a canon foundry in Sweden (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam), and four overdoor paintings (still in situ) depicting waterfalls and other canon foundries. Later in the 1660s, the Trip family commissioned two other paintings for the Trippenhuis: an illusionistic, though fanciful city view that incorporated three locations important to the Trip family: Dordrecht, Amsterdam and Scandinavia (on loan to the Dordrechts Museum); and another waterfall scene (Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen), a work that Van Everdingen based on one of the drawings he had made in Norway in 1644 (Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen).
As with his drawings and paintings, Van Everdingen’s prints are extremely difficult to date, although Erik Hinterding’s study of watermarks seems to indicate that the artist did not begin making prints until the 1650s, thus after he moved to Amsterdam. Hinterding notes that while drawings are at the core of Van Everdingen’s creative process, only 19 of them can be linked to his etchings, and only five of these are indented for transfer. These numbers suggest that Van Everdingen worked directly on the copper plate. He was apparently quite comfortable revising his compositions with the etching needle to create more effective and balanced designs, and several of his prints have multiple states. He even made compositional adjustments in those instances when he incised a drawing to transfer it to the copper plate. Hinterding highlights two examples where Van Everdingen made such revisions, one of these being Landscape with a large rock (fig. 5). In this print he made a few striking changes from the preparatory drawing (Amsterdam Museum), including eliminating a distant church, a cross on a hill, and placing a seated man in the light rather than in the shade. He also occasionally indicated revisions he would like to his etchings by drawing on a proof state with a brush and grey ink. Van Everdingen was also not averse to cutting his copper plate from a rectangular to a square shape, thereby eliminating large portions of a composition.
A more complete assessment of the nature of Van Everdingen’s working process is possible when one considers the prints that he created for the story of Reynard the Fox. It is likely that the artist marketed the Reynard the Fox prints as a series, complete with a title page, for which he made several drawn studies (fig. 6). No fewer than 35 indented preliminary studies still exist for the 57 prints in the series. Just why Van Everdingen decided to devote so much energy to this medieval story, which was conceived as a mirror of human behavior, is not known. In her essay, Marjan Pantjes examines the history of the story of Reynard the Fox as well as Van Everdingen’s efforts to create a compelling narrative over the full scope of the endeavour. Even though the narrative focuses on animals, including Reynard the Fox, King Noble the Lion, Bruin the Bear, Hirsent the She-Wolf and others, Van Everdingen also devoted considerable attention to their natural surroundings to create dynamic and compelling compositions. He made many alterations to his drawings, but he also retouched proof impressions with a pen and then etched these revisions into the copper plate. Van Everdingen’s experimental nature is also evident in his use of mezzotint to enhance tonal effects in his images. This printing technique, which was only introduced to the Netherlands in 1665, provides evidence that he worked on this series late in his career.
One of the impressive aspects of this entire publication lies in the consistent approaches of the various authors to the material in their separate essays, whether paintings, drawings, etchings, the album of brunailles, or the print series devoted to Reynard the Fox. Each author discusses the subject matter, technique, relative chronology, the likely market for these works, and, finally, their history and reception over the centuries. For example, while it is unknown for whom Van Everdingen made the album of brunaille landscapes and marines, Dullaart traces its history from 1684, when the album was presented as a gift from one owner to another, to its present location (largely intact) in the Rijksmuseum.
Bleyerveld’s assessment of Van Everdingen’s drawings indicates that they were well-received throughout their history. For example, Jan van de Cappelle (1626-1679) owned 52 drawings by the master, which he probably bought directly from the artist. His drawings also appealed to eighteenth-century collectors, including the Amsterdam collector/art dealer Jan Pietersz Zomer, who owned many his works. In 1744 the French dealer Edmé-Francois Gersaint wrote that Van Everdingen’s reputation was highly valued.7 Bleyerveld notes that eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sales catalogues consistently praised his drawings for being ‘finely and pleasingly’ rendered.
Little is known about the collecting of Van Everdingen’s prints during the seventeenth century, but, as Hinterding notes, his landscape etchings were sufficiently admired that Abraham Rutgers (c. 1632-1699) made drawn copies of about 50 of them. By the early eighteenth century, it becomes evident that collectors sought to acquire the full scope of Van Everdingen’s etched oeuvre, not only his landscape prints but also his series of Reynard the Fox, which were described in a sales catalogue from 1728 as being ‘rare’. This inclusive way of collecting was likely possible because Van Everdingen’s heirs had inherited all his copper plates, and presumably as well, a few complete sets of the printed impressions that he had pulled from these plates. The copper plates remained in the family possession until around 1750, at which time the landscapes and the Reynard the Fox series were separated.
The French print publisher Pierre-François Basan, one of the earliest commentators on Van Everdingen’s prints, admired them for being etched ‘in a most lively manner’. Later publishers and printmakers reworked Van Everdingen’s copper plates to keep them fresh for an expanding market. During the latter part of the eighteenth century, complete sets of Van Everdingen’s etchings appeared in at least 45 sales, most of these pulled from reworked copper plates. Interestingly, in 1783, Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832), who was a huge admirer of Van Everdingen’s etchings, proudly acquired fine impressions of the Reynard the Fox series, which he described as being, "first impressions and as if they were made yesterday".8
The history and reception of Van Everdingen’s paintings follows a rather different path than that of his drawings and prints, which have continually grown in admiration over the centuries. As Paul Knolle notes in his ‘Spotlight’ essay, the trajectory in the appreciation of Van Everdingen’s paintings has been ‘erratic’. His greatest success occurred in the Netherlands in the seventeenth century, when his views of Scandinavia were admired for being both exotic and realistic. As Arnold Houbraken wrote, Van Everdingen’s, ‘thickly planted forests, which the eye can't penetrate because of their depth with the clustered blossoms painted so playfully and friskily that they appear to waft in the air, and waterfalls, and sea storms in which the breaking of the seawater against the hard rocks, and the thinly dissipated spray have been observed so finely and inventively that the works could pass for masterpieces.’9
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, artists and art theorists, inspired by the Romanticism of the era, greatly admired Van Everdingen and Van Ruisdael for the naturalism of their paintings and for their interpretations of untamed nature, which they connected with the idea of ‘sublime’. In 1786, after travelling from the Brenner Pass, Goethe remarked that he had seen a moonlit landscape with waterfalls and foaming waters of a river rushing between age-old pines that reminded him of a painting Van Everdingen. In 1842 the biographer Johannes Immerzeel gave high praise to Van Everdingen for his romantic view of nature and his ‘poetic imagination’ in depicting storms at sea, waterfalls, and thunderstorms. He noted that Van Everdingen was rightly called the ‘Noordsche Salvatore Rosa.’ Immerzeel also documented the high prices that the artist’s paintings, drawings, and prints, including the series of Reynard the Fox, had achieved in recent sales.10 Van Everdingen’s example also played an important role in the development of Norwegian landscape painting. Knolle writes that the Norwegian artist Johan Christian Dahl (1788-1857) admired Van Everdingen’s paintings because he ‘had studied the Norwegian scenery with a pioneer’s eye’.
During the very period that these positive assessments of Van Everdingen’s paintings were being expressed, a strikingly different view of his work was also being expressed by certain Dutch artists and writers who wished to restore the glories of seventeenth-century Dutch art. Primary among them was the influential Roeland van Eynden (1747-1819), who dismissed Van Everdingen’s Scandinavian subjects as being ‘un-Dutch’. Van Eynden appreciated Van Everdingen’s accuracy and naturalness, but he did not believe that an artist who portrayed distant lands belonged at the heart of the Dutch school. His attitudes held sway among later critics, and Van Everdingen remained outside the canon of Dutch landscapes well into the twentieth century, which, as Stechow has noted, valued depictions of native scenery over that of foreign realms.11
This conflicted attitude towards Van Everdingen’s paintings, unfortunately, has carried over to contemporary appreciations of his work. Klinkert tellingly notes the reality of researching this artist’s paintings: "In so far as they are represented in public collections, by no means all of them hang in the gallery…"12 She also observes that Van Everdingen’s paintings have only sporadically appeared in recent exhibitions of Dutch landscapes and seascapes, further evidence that he occupies a diminished place in the pantheon of Dutch landscape artists than he did in the seventeenth century. The question, unanswered here, is why.
An essay that answers some of the unresolved and implicit questions raised here would have been a welcome addition to this publication. What, for example, are twentieth and twentieth-first-century attitudes toward the artist? Has the increased awareness of the international character of Dutch art affected attitudes towards his art, or is he still considered somewhat outside the canon of Dutch landscape painting because he did not prioritize native scenery? Does the nineteenth-century interest in the ‘sublime’ still resonate when viewing his Scandinavian paintings? How does one assess Van Everdingen’s oeuvre in relation to that of Van Ruisdael, whose works have so often been brought into discussions of his work? Finally, what is the relative level of appreciation among his drawings, prints, and paintings in the estimation of contemporary collectors and scholars, and why? Even without such a concluding, overarching essay, this publication, with its engaging text and thoughtful observations, provides a far greater understanding and appreciation of the rich and varied nature of Allart van Everdingen’s artistic creations than has ever before been possible, and for that, we are extremely grateful.
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.
Senior Advisor, The Leiden Collection; and former Curator of Northern Baroque Painting, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
1 This publication accompanied the exhibition 'Allart van Everdingen 1621-1675: The rugged landscape/Reynard the Fox' held at the Stedelijk Museum Alkmaar in 2021-2022. It was one of a series of monographic exhibitions that the museum has mounted in recent years to celebrate seventeenth-century artists born in Alkmaar.
2 In creating this exhibition and publication, the authors benefitted enormously from the advice and encouragement of Alice Davies, whose important publications on Allart van Everdingen’s paintings and drawings, published in 2001 and 2007 respectively, are frequently cited in the text and notes.
3 A. Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen, Amsterdam, 3 vols., 1718-1721, pp. 2, 96. [English translation by Hendrik J. Horn and Rieke van Leeuwen, Houbraken translated. Arnold Houbraken's great theatre of the Netherlandish painters and paintresses, The Hague (RKD) 2021, pp. 2, 96.]
4 In the catalogue it is suggested that Van Everdingen may also have studied with Pieter Mulier I (c. 1610-1659) since Van Everdingen painted a few maritime scenes at this period of his career.
5 Van Everdingen did travel to the Ardennes in the mid-1650s, and he incorporated some elements of the landscape and buildings he encountered in these hybrid paintings.
6 W. Stechow, Dutch landscape painting of the seventeenth century, London 1966, p. 145. Stechow writes that, ‘Even the finest Everdingen [painting of a waterfall] suffers strangely when compared with [a comparable painting by Ruisdael]; He then makes a detailed comparison between two such works to emphasize the superiority of Van Ruisdael’s compositional approach.
7 Interestingly, in the latter part of the eighteenth-century, Cornelis Ploos van Amstel (1726-1798) reproduced one of the artist’s landscape drawings in the extensive series of reproductive prints that he produced at that time.
8 Quoted by M. Pantjes, ‘Reynard the fox in pictures: Remarkable drawings and prints by Allart van Everdingen,’ in Allart van Everdingen 1621-1675: Master of the rugged landscape, Rotterdam 2021, p. 160.
9 A. Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen, Amsterdam, 3 vols., 1718-1721, pp. 2, 95. [English translation by Hendrik J. Horn and Rieke van Leeuwen, Houbraken translated. Arnold Houbraken's great theatre of the Netherlandish painters and paintresses, The Hague (RKD) 2021, 2, 96.] Van Everdingen’s success is also evident in Jacob van Ruisdael’s appropriation of pictorial elements from his paintings, such as waterfalls, in his own works.
10 J. Immerzeel, and C. H. Immerzeel, De levens en werken der Hollandsche en Vlaamsche kunstschilders, beeldhouvers, graveurs en bouwmeesters: van het begin der vijftiende eeuw tot heden, Amsterdam 1842-43, pp. 1, 225-226.
11 W. Stechow, Dutch landscape painting of the seventeenth century, London 1966, p. 130.
12 C. M. Klinkert, ‘The life and work of Allart van Everdingen’, in Allart van Everdingen 1621-1675: Master of the rugged landscape, C. M. Klinkert and Y. Bleyerveld (eds.), Rotterdam 2021, p. 33.
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., 'Review of: Allart van Everdingen (1621-1675)', Oud Holland Reviews, November 2022.