I would not want
to argue that this identification of the site provides any kind
of conclusive proof of Vermeer's use of the camera obscura on
this occasion. Even if the painting was truthful to the actual
view, the perspective could still have been constructed in other
ways. My purpose has been a more limited one: to contest the kinds
of counterargument that 'The Little Street' must necessarily be
a kind of collage of elements from different scenes, and that
Vermeer always felt free to alter what was in front of him for
compositional reasons(15). I hope
I have shown the dangers, in that kind of argument, of relying
on topographical drawings by other artists whose supposed veracity
is accepted without question. Much better to rely on a photograph.
Notes
1. Swillens, P
T A (1950) Johannes Vermeer: Painter of Delft 1632-1675,
Spectrum, Utrecht and Brussels, p.95
2. Montias, J
M (1989) Vermeer and his Milieu: A Web of Social History,
Princeton University Press, Princeton N J p.132
3. For an extended
discussion see M P van Maarseveen (1996) Vermeer of Delft:
His Life and Times, Stedelijk Museum het Prinsenhof, Delft
and Bekking Publishers, Amersfoort, Chapter 6, 'Where was Vermeer's
Little Street?' In 1922 the town's municipal archivist L.G.N.
Bouricius suggested No 25 Oude Langendijk, on the corner of the
Molenpoort, the house believed by Swillens to have belonged to
Maria Thins. Montias has since argued that Swillens was incorrect
(see Vermeer’s Camera, Chapter 5). In 1948 J.H. Oosterloo
proposed No 1 Spieringstraat, a house which is not however of
sufficiently early date. Other writers have identified No 22 Vlamingstraat,
and Nos 22-26 Nieuwe Langendijk, but with no very strong justification.
4. Swillens,
op.cit. pp.95-6 and plate 60b. The Rademaker drawing is in
the Delft Municipal Archive
5. Dirck van Bleyswijck,
Beschrijving der Stadt Delft, Delft 1667 Vol.II pp.526-7,
quoted by Swillens op.cit. pp.94-5
6. Swillens, op.cit.
plate 61a
7. Van Bleyswijck,
op.cit. Vol.II p.646 ff. See Swillens op.cit. pp.35-7
8. H L Houtzager
et al, eds (1997) De Kaart Figuratief van Delft, Elmar,
Rijswijk, Sheet 45 p.131
9. G Lamberts,
'View of St Luke's Guildhall from the Oude Manhuissteeg' 1820,
Delft Municipal Archive
10. J M Montias,
'Vermeer and his milieu: conclusion of an archival study', Oud
Holland Vol.94,1980 pp.44-62. See pp.58-59.
11. Preserved
in the Delft Municipal Archive, and reproduced in Swillens, op.cit.
plate 37a..
12. These defects
are if anything yet more exaggerated in Schenk's engraving. He
has the pilasters much too tall. He has also inserted some round-headed
arches that are not shown by Rademaker. The distortions are worse
still in a crude 18th century drawing in the National Gallery
of Art Library, Washington, reproduced in A K Wheelock ed., (1995-6)
Johannes Vermeer, catalogue of an exhibition held at the
National Gallery of Art, Washington and the Mauritshuis, The Hague,
Yale University Press, New Haven, p.105 fig.3. This is presumably
copied from Schenk. (It even reproduces Schenk's frisky dog.)
It can hardly have been drawn on site.
13. I have examined
these in situ. Each measures 90 x 160 cm.
14. J M Montias
disagrees with Swillens's identification of the site of 'The Little
Street', for two main reasons ('Vermeer and his milieu: conclusion
of an archival study', pp.58-59). The present analysis I believe
overcomes both these objections. First, Montias says that the
long side of the Old Men's House as shown in Blaeu map of 1648
"bears little resemblance to the gabled house on the right of
Het Straatje, the short side of which abuts the street." But he
overlooks the western range of the building, whose gable does
abut the Voldersgracht in the relevant position. Second, Montias
argues that Swillens's superimposition of Schenk's engraving over
Vermeer's painting would indicate a much more extensive, and expensive,
rebuilding than is recorded in the Guild's accounts. Windows would
have had to be lowered, a door moved sideways and so on. All these
are misapprehensions flowing, I would suggest, from the inaccuracies
of Schrenk's engraving. My superimposition of the 1870s photograph
indicates little change to the ground floor of the building, other
than the extension to the left by perhaps a metre. A J J M van
Peer also disputed this location ('Rondom Jan Vermeer van Delft',
Oud Holland Vol.74, 1959 pp.240-45). He argued that the
Old Men's House was entirely within the block and did not abut
onto the Voldersgracht. Only the chapel of the institution, he
thought, was on the street front. This is plainly contradicted
by the Blaeu map. Van Peer also claimed that the chapel was converted
for use by the St Luke's Guild without rebuilding, and that there
was therefore no question of an older house - painted by Vermeer
- having been pulled down. In this, ironically, he was I believe
closer to the truth.
Top
/ Next