Figure 21 Hendrick van Beaumont. Sheet 464-1 Figure 22 Hendrick van Beaumont. Sheet 464-3
65
Figure 24 Frederick Bloemaert after Abraham Bloemaert. Artis Apellae Liber, 1650. Plate 68 Figure 25 Chrispijn van de Passe. ‘t Light der Schilder-konst, 1643-44. Page 267, plate 26
To what extent does Hendrick van Beaumont’s drawing hand follow the visual sources he copied? And to what extent do they reflect the didactic process as it was laid out in Chrispijn van de Passe’s method? The drawings that make up the first and third page of sketchbook 464 correspond to prints that circulated as drawing examples (fig. 21 and 22). Both figures, a boy in a plumed hat and a soldier seen from the back, can be traced to Abraham Bloemaert’s well-known drawing book. The soldier leaning on a spear from 464-3 appears on plate 68 (fig. 24), the figure in the hat on plate 77 – but the drawings are both mirrored, compared to Bloemaert’s prints. A mirrored version of the same image can be found in some editions of Chrispijn van de Passe’s ‘t Light (fig.25).160 Interestingly, a print signed by one Hendrik Winter (fig. 23) also mirrors Bloemaert’s originals, and it contains both figures of the drawings, making it a likely source for the two drawings. But the soldier on this engraving is so similar to Van de Passe’s version it could have been printed from the same copperplate, again illustrating the difficulty in finding a drawing’s source that was explained in chapter one.
How did Hendrick van Beaumont follow the visual examples set by these prints? The figure of 464-1 unmistakably depicts the figure in the plumed hat on the right of Hendrik Winter’s engraving. The main visual elements – the cloak with its folds and elaborate sleeves, the walking stick, the handkerchief around the neck and the shadow under the feet – are all present. This means that these elements were discerned, identified and placed relative to each other by Hendrick. But the proportions and relative placement of these visual elements are different from the example. All proportions are shortened, almost as if Hendrick has turned the figure into a child. The plumed hat seems overly large in
66
comparison to the rest of the body. But the hat offers a further clue to the way the drawing was executed. The hatching on the hat seems more controlled and regular in comparison to the rest of the body. The confident curves of its plumes and the figure’s improvised curls are different from the shortand straight hatchings on the rest of the drawing, giving the impression that the image was started by one person, and finished by another – an impression we have already encountered in the first chapter, in the annotations under the drawings. Alternatively, if the drawing was made by Hendrick alone, he may have lost interest after the hat, perhaps pausing and continuing later. If the hat was drawn first it was too large to begin with, and an adjustment of the proportions would have been necessary to prevent the figure from taking up more than the entire paper. But for Hendrick, this flattening of the proportions immediately leads to trouble: the folds of the cloak can no longer take up enough space to hang down convincingly, and improvising to make the cloak appear shorter was not a success. The shadows roughly copy those in the engraving, but they lack its three-dimensionality: the cloak is drawn without an intuitive understanding of how fabric drapes and folds. Drawing 464-3 apparently repeats the same process: it contains a similar plumed hat, also a little over-sized but much less than in the first drawing. The hatchings on the feathers and the hat are lighter and neater than in the rest of the body; it may also have been drawn first. While the proportions in this drawing correspond more accurately to Hendrik Winter’s print after Bloemaert, the body and the hat may have been drawn by two different hands. If the two drawings were made in a chronological order, they might even show the dawning of an insight on the part of the person who drew the hats. By making the hat a little smaller, and positioning it so that there is enough space to copy the other parts in proportion, she or he makes the copying process easier for Hendrick.
The flautist faun of sheet 464-4 was similarly copied after a print intended as a drawing example (fig. 26 and 27); It comes from Cornelis van Dalen’s drawing book. The annotation of the original print is written out underneath the drawing, as well as the plate number, 48, which can be discerned on the bottom right side of Hendrick’s drawing. Strangely, the face on this drawn faun seems to visually ‘correct’ the one in the Van Dalen’s engraving. The small and round right cheek that, together with the strong shading, give the faun’s engraved face on a rounded and somewhat awkward appearance, have here been adjusted to depict a more harmonious face with different shadows and a head of soft hair. The hand and flute are copied accurately, their thin lines indicate that here the red chalk was cut into a very fine point. The perfectly straight line of the flute stands in contrast to the uneven lines of the pedestal. A ruler must have been used – selectively. The animal skin this faun carries over his arm (and which, in the marble statue, would have served to ingeniously cover up the fact that part of its weight rests on the pedestal) is a little too narrow, again pointing to the draughtsman’s trouble with rendering fabrics and drapery. The feet gave Hendrick some trouble too, especially when compared to the faun’s
67
delicate hands. But the proportions of the body and its shading show that the body was copied attentively; the outlines of the faun’s body are followed closely. The draughtsman did not copy the engraving’s curved hatchings, instead making subtle shadows in soft straight lines with the red chalk. The shadow cast over the faun’s torso by an arm is especially subtle and accurate, and shows that whoever drew it was paying close attention to its gradient, which goes from dark to light. The outer thigh a few centimeters under it, however, is done with far less precision.
68
69
Figure 28 Hendrick van Beaumont. Detail of sheet 464-19.
Another drawing in the first sketchbook strongly points to interventions by a different hand than Hendrick’s. On sheet 464-19, which copies a portion of a (bootlegged) illustration from Jacques Stella’s book, four of its putti are depicted blowing soap bubbles (fig. 33). The bodies are all rendered in a similar way: they are built up of outlines and shadows that together suggest puerile bodies, but do not evidence much underlying knowledge of their anatomy: arms wobble, shoulders have the wrong curves, and belly-buttons are flat dots on flat bellies. The heads of the two putti in the middle are only slightly more convincing. But the heads and facial features of the outer two children are completely different. They are so regular, detailed and neat that it is highly plausible that they were drawn by a different person; one with a preference for very thin lines, an advanced sense of tonality and contrast, and evident experience with rendering faces. Together with the visual aspects we have already seen Hendrick struggle with - drapery, anatomy -, the construction of the drawing shows that Hendrick’s apparently high skill level may be somewhat deceptive. If the drawings were made as part of a supervised didactic programme, the person behind these interventions might have been a more experienced family member, a governor or governess teaching more than one skill, or a drawing instructor especially hired for the task. Perhaps even more than one person occasionally helped
70
Hendrick. The accurate copying of compositions seems to have been one of the main criteria for judging a drawing’s quality, and for inclusion in the first sketchbook. The finer details, a correct rendering of human anatomy and the use of linear perspective seem to have had only a secondary priority. The erased sketch lines and the interventions in the putti’s faces suggest the presence of an adult set of eyes, perhaps correcting the composition where it does not correspond to the print, and an adult hand adding attractive little faces to the drawings, to inspire and perhaps amuse the young draughtsman. But sheet 464-19 is one of the most obvious examples. In other sheets, traces of interventions can sometimes be discerned, but it is often difficult to tell where the chalk was handled only by Hendrick or only by the instructor. Most drawings are similar in the sense that their overall compositions often correspond closely to the original print, but the finer details and visual elements like bodies, trees and foliage (in 464-8 and 464-20, see Appendix i) and pieces of buildings or furniture in perspective (425-21 and 465-25) show the inexperience of the draughtsman. Interestingly, on sheet 464-9 a bust of Seneca and a small portrait of Ignatius of Loyola are face to face (fig. 29). The small, smooth and neat portrait of Ignatius is a likely addition by someone who was not Hendrick, with the saint’s name in a neat handwriting on the picture’s drawn frame. The irregularly rendered bust of Seneca, by contrast, appears very much drawn by Hendrick, and is annotated with the name Seneca in a larger and more uneven handwriting.
71