DOI issue:
Nr.1-2
DOI article:Brusewicz, Lech; Nason, Pieter [Ill.]: The paintings by Pieter Nason in polish collections
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18863#0030
RKD), shows that here Nason employed still different scheme, the one often applied by F. Hals
(and others) for the portraits of scientists115.
It is hard to suppose that the artist who used a specific and common motive of "a picture
within a picture", freąuently met in representations of scientists, unexpectedly turned to an
, unusual, at the time, symbol of a window, not typical of portraits of this kind.
It is not possible, either that this should be a portrait of a landscape painter sińce in such
case the indicating gesture should be understood in the way suggested by A. Chudzikowski
(see: cat. No. 5) and hołd an indication to his work. In this case the picture would have most
probably been signed also by a landscape painter or would have included some attributes (e.g.
a paintbrush), because such generał (unobjective) symbols of artistic activity did not appear
as early as in the 17th century. Besides, this landscape painter could not have been then Jan
van Goyen whose features are known from several portraits. Another artist can hardly be con-
sidered, because he not only should have been a faithful imitator of van Goyen, but also an
outstanding landscape painter eąualling him in artistic invention.
The most convincing interpretation of the Warsaw painting is to see it as the painter's self
portrait, in which he emphasized his own "exceptionality" and intentionally stressed the fact
that he represented himself as a living person. This manifestation in the context of the landscaps
assumes the features of a conscious document of the painter's presence during something im-
portant going on, or at some place which particularly deserves being seen by the spectator.
The key to the riddle of this landscape seems to be the date of the picture and to some extent
the movement of the right hand which does not point the river or the town visible on the othei,
high bank. The movement of the hand may refer as well to the lowland on this side of the river,
on which the artist finds himself, that is —according to the suggestion of B.J.A. Renckens—
to the territory of the Republic of the United Provinces, separated by a broad water boundary
from the neighbouring state. The two rivers may here be taken into account: the Rhein and
Meuse. The towns which might be coming into the ąuestion: Roermond and Maastricht, should
be excluded on the ground of the presence of ships on the river, pointing to the proximity of
the sea, moreover Nijmegen, as we know, had defense walls on the Rhine side.
What purpose woold be served, however by such a symbolic landscape which did not cor-
respond to the Holland's actual borders in the 17th century and why should this be a Dutch
territory?
If we remember the 17th century Dutchmen identifying their own state with the ancient
state of Batavs and typological image of the Republic's history through the prism of the le-
gendary history of their Batavian ancestors — or even as its continuation — one may presume
that the territory indicated by Nason is an allusion to the Insula Batavorum, the seat of
the Katt tribe, which, as a result of home disurbances, abandoned their former seats in Hesse
and, having passed the Rhine, settled down in the territory encircled by Meuse and the Rhine,
described by Eumenes in his famous panegyric of Constantine, as the land soaked with water,
the surface of it only slightly raised above the water level.
This hypothesis is supported by the date of the picture 1648, which was commemorated in
the history of Europę by the signing of the Peace in Westphalia, which brought the young
Republic of the United Provinces a finał recognition of its sovereignty and independence.
The ancient Batavia fought with the Roman Empire for its freedom, sometimes victoriously,
too. The Dutch Republic had to fight for its independence as well, with a theoretically stronger
power which continued in the sphere of political ideology — that of the Roman Empire. Whene-
ver it came to the memories or glorification of this stiuggle, the Dutch most often availed them-
115. See: K. Bauch, Der fruhe Rembrandt vnd seine Zeit, Berlin, 1960, p. 40, (Portrait of Scritenius by F. Hals).
24
(and others) for the portraits of scientists115.
It is hard to suppose that the artist who used a specific and common motive of "a picture
within a picture", freąuently met in representations of scientists, unexpectedly turned to an
, unusual, at the time, symbol of a window, not typical of portraits of this kind.
It is not possible, either that this should be a portrait of a landscape painter sińce in such
case the indicating gesture should be understood in the way suggested by A. Chudzikowski
(see: cat. No. 5) and hołd an indication to his work. In this case the picture would have most
probably been signed also by a landscape painter or would have included some attributes (e.g.
a paintbrush), because such generał (unobjective) symbols of artistic activity did not appear
as early as in the 17th century. Besides, this landscape painter could not have been then Jan
van Goyen whose features are known from several portraits. Another artist can hardly be con-
sidered, because he not only should have been a faithful imitator of van Goyen, but also an
outstanding landscape painter eąualling him in artistic invention.
The most convincing interpretation of the Warsaw painting is to see it as the painter's self
portrait, in which he emphasized his own "exceptionality" and intentionally stressed the fact
that he represented himself as a living person. This manifestation in the context of the landscaps
assumes the features of a conscious document of the painter's presence during something im-
portant going on, or at some place which particularly deserves being seen by the spectator.
The key to the riddle of this landscape seems to be the date of the picture and to some extent
the movement of the right hand which does not point the river or the town visible on the othei,
high bank. The movement of the hand may refer as well to the lowland on this side of the river,
on which the artist finds himself, that is —according to the suggestion of B.J.A. Renckens—
to the territory of the Republic of the United Provinces, separated by a broad water boundary
from the neighbouring state. The two rivers may here be taken into account: the Rhein and
Meuse. The towns which might be coming into the ąuestion: Roermond and Maastricht, should
be excluded on the ground of the presence of ships on the river, pointing to the proximity of
the sea, moreover Nijmegen, as we know, had defense walls on the Rhine side.
What purpose woold be served, however by such a symbolic landscape which did not cor-
respond to the Holland's actual borders in the 17th century and why should this be a Dutch
territory?
If we remember the 17th century Dutchmen identifying their own state with the ancient
state of Batavs and typological image of the Republic's history through the prism of the le-
gendary history of their Batavian ancestors — or even as its continuation — one may presume
that the territory indicated by Nason is an allusion to the Insula Batavorum, the seat of
the Katt tribe, which, as a result of home disurbances, abandoned their former seats in Hesse
and, having passed the Rhine, settled down in the territory encircled by Meuse and the Rhine,
described by Eumenes in his famous panegyric of Constantine, as the land soaked with water,
the surface of it only slightly raised above the water level.
This hypothesis is supported by the date of the picture 1648, which was commemorated in
the history of Europę by the signing of the Peace in Westphalia, which brought the young
Republic of the United Provinces a finał recognition of its sovereignty and independence.
The ancient Batavia fought with the Roman Empire for its freedom, sometimes victoriously,
too. The Dutch Republic had to fight for its independence as well, with a theoretically stronger
power which continued in the sphere of political ideology — that of the Roman Empire. Whene-
ver it came to the memories or glorification of this stiuggle, the Dutch most often availed them-
115. See: K. Bauch, Der fruhe Rembrandt vnd seine Zeit, Berlin, 1960, p. 40, (Portrait of Scritenius by F. Hals).
24