.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The present work was published by Eduard Trautscholdt (encouraged by Wilhelm Valentiner) in his entry on Segers for Thieme-Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon, in volume XXX of 1936. There it was listed in his category III of certain or nearly certain attributions. Segers' authorship seems to have been generally accepted in the 1940s and '50s; and Trautscholdt, following the picture's cleaning in 1970-1, affirmed his belief in it in an article published in 1972.
However the picture - whether significantly or not - had not been included in the Segers exhibition of 1954 in the Boijmans Museum, and in 1973 Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann pronounced his reservations: 'I found a number of characteristic features of the artist in the manner of execution, particularly of the trees, but not sufficient elsewhere to consider for certain that he painted it.' In a letter to Hans Cramer of 20 October 1986 he enlarged on his views: '...it is either a somewhat uncharacteristic late work by the artist...or it is by another artist, close to Segers in time...' a non liquet (deferred judgement) to which he adhered following a recent examination of the picture in New York, when he also concluded that the arguments against the attribution weighed more heavily than those in favour of it. Recent published opinions have been not favoured the attribution (but whether after an examination of the original is unclear).
Dendrochronological research into the oak support has been carried out by Dr. Peter Klein (his report dated 13 November 1985 is available for inspection). The support is made up of two members joined horizontally (when the picture was discovered in 1930 it had been cut vertically in half). Dr. Klein has established felling dates of 1617-1623 and 1612-1618 for them, and he suggests that the earliest use of the support is likely to have been from circa 1619. Such a dating would seem to conform with the style of hats worn by the man and child in the foreground. Furthermore Joris Dik, an independent scientific researcher, in Amsterdam, has found through microscopic analysis azurite and lead-tin yellow - both pigments typically used in Dutch paintings of the seventeenth century; he states that the presence of azurite 'may even indicate an early-seventeenth-century origin' (his report is available for inspection).
Professor Haverkamp-Begemann has reviewed the relationship between Segers' etchings and his (far fewer) paintings; he describes the present painting as after the Valley with towns, churches and other buildings (his The Complete Etchings, no. 29). There are of course notable differences between the etching and the painting, most obviously the introduction in the latter of the two figures breasting the bank in the foreground. Although-Haverkamp Begemann (op. cit., p. 33), found a precedent for such a motif in a work by Jacob Pynas (other examples can be found in his staffage of Alpine landscapes by de Momper), the prominence here accorded to the motif may be thought to be inventive and original. Other obvious differences are the absence of the large boulders in the river and the substitution of a tiled circular edifice for the classical-style building in the centre of the middle ground of the print. Variants of the circular building appear in the signed Rotterdam painting and in the etching The Large Tree (ibid., no. 34a).
The print with which the present painting closely connects is one of the panoramic scenes by Segers generally thought to have been the early products of his genius and to have been inspired by the work of Joos de Momper, paintings by whom had been owned by his master in Amsterdam, Gillis van Coninxloo. The handling and colour range in the present painting also have close affinities with de Momper, a prolific master active in Antwerp from 1590.
That Segers' prints betray an incredible originality and inventiveness needs no emphasis here. His genius as revealed in his extant paintings is the more elusive because of their scarcity, though few would gainsay the miraculous qualities of his two greatest paintings in the Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum and the Uffizi. But for the rest - particularly those of imaginary views - his remarkable genius is variable and unpredictable indeed. We know that his paintings were admired in his lifetime and much of his painted oeuvre must be lost. Whether the present work should be considered as part of it has engaged the critical faculties of connoisseurs for over fifty years. The possibility remains that one day a full attribution will once more be made that gains a wide acceptance.
However the picture - whether significantly or not - had not been included in the Segers exhibition of 1954 in the Boijmans Museum, and in 1973 Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann pronounced his reservations: 'I found a number of characteristic features of the artist in the manner of execution, particularly of the trees, but not sufficient elsewhere to consider for certain that he painted it.' In a letter to Hans Cramer of 20 October 1986 he enlarged on his views: '...it is either a somewhat uncharacteristic late work by the artist...or it is by another artist, close to Segers in time...' a non liquet (deferred judgement) to which he adhered following a recent examination of the picture in New York, when he also concluded that the arguments against the attribution weighed more heavily than those in favour of it. Recent published opinions have been not favoured the attribution (but whether after an examination of the original is unclear).
Dendrochronological research into the oak support has been carried out by Dr. Peter Klein (his report dated 13 November 1985 is available for inspection). The support is made up of two members joined horizontally (when the picture was discovered in 1930 it had been cut vertically in half). Dr. Klein has established felling dates of 1617-1623 and 1612-1618 for them, and he suggests that the earliest use of the support is likely to have been from circa 1619. Such a dating would seem to conform with the style of hats worn by the man and child in the foreground. Furthermore Joris Dik, an independent scientific researcher, in Amsterdam, has found through microscopic analysis azurite and lead-tin yellow - both pigments typically used in Dutch paintings of the seventeenth century; he states that the presence of azurite 'may even indicate an early-seventeenth-century origin' (his report is available for inspection).
Professor Haverkamp-Begemann has reviewed the relationship between Segers' etchings and his (far fewer) paintings; he describes the present painting as after the Valley with towns, churches and other buildings (his The Complete Etchings, no. 29). There are of course notable differences between the etching and the painting, most obviously the introduction in the latter of the two figures breasting the bank in the foreground. Although-Haverkamp Begemann (op. cit., p. 33), found a precedent for such a motif in a work by Jacob Pynas (other examples can be found in his staffage of Alpine landscapes by de Momper), the prominence here accorded to the motif may be thought to be inventive and original. Other obvious differences are the absence of the large boulders in the river and the substitution of a tiled circular edifice for the classical-style building in the centre of the middle ground of the print. Variants of the circular building appear in the signed Rotterdam painting and in the etching The Large Tree (ibid., no. 34a).
The print with which the present painting closely connects is one of the panoramic scenes by Segers generally thought to have been the early products of his genius and to have been inspired by the work of Joos de Momper, paintings by whom had been owned by his master in Amsterdam, Gillis van Coninxloo. The handling and colour range in the present painting also have close affinities with de Momper, a prolific master active in Antwerp from 1590.
That Segers' prints betray an incredible originality and inventiveness needs no emphasis here. His genius as revealed in his extant paintings is the more elusive because of their scarcity, though few would gainsay the miraculous qualities of his two greatest paintings in the Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum and the Uffizi. But for the rest - particularly those of imaginary views - his remarkable genius is variable and unpredictable indeed. We know that his paintings were admired in his lifetime and much of his painted oeuvre must be lost. Whether the present work should be considered as part of it has engaged the critical faculties of connoisseurs for over fifty years. The possibility remains that one day a full attribution will once more be made that gains a wide acceptance.