RKD STUDIES

Can we judge Van Hoogstraten’s sojourn in England to have been a success? It is hard not to escape the impression that the artist himself regarded this period as one that was largely undistinguished. While much ink was spilled by Van Hoogstraten and his pupil Arnold Houbraken (1660-1719) in recounting his triumphs at the Viennese court, both are laconic about his London years.¹ Clearly, his failure to win favour with Charles II must have irked him. There were many possible reasons for this frustration. Charles was not the Maecenas that his father had been. Thomas Povey, the courtier who he had undoubtedly hoped would advance his cause at court, was experiencing personal and professional setbacks during these years and his influence may have been waning. It is curious that Povey is one of the few English contacts that Van Hoogstraten mentions in the Inleyding – in a passage dealing with the exceptional hospitality and variety of a dinner that he organised at his home – but never informs the reader that he was a patron of his work. Perhaps he felt aggrieved with him at some level. When Thomas Povey proposed to the Royal Society in August 1666 that a subcommittee should be formed to have discussions with some of the ‘chief masters of these times’, Peter Lely, Samuel Cooper (1608-1675) and Robert Streater were listed by him.² His omission perhaps indicates that Van Hoogstraten never achieved ‘name recognition’ in cultural circles and Povey was reluctant to include him in such august company. Pepys marvelled at his illusionistic ingenuity, but did not record his name as he did with other Dutch émigré artists such as Hendrick Danckerts (1625-1680), Jan Looten (1617/18-1680/81) and Simon Verelst (1644-1710). Of course, this was partially because of the complexity of his name to English eyes and ears, but it might also suggest that his work failed to resonate with a sufficient body of patrons. The number of portraits that he produced was small and he could never compete with the silky skills or status of Lely. Even when he identified ‘lovely maidens’ as something distinctive about English portraiture [25], only one painting [26] of this type by him is known.³ Similarly, his surviving letter rack paintings are relatively rare, and it was only later with Collier that these trompe l’oeils became popular with the picture-buying public. Van Hoogstraten’s perspective paintings may have been the most impactful and there is some evidence in the sources that these at least were commercially lucrative for him.⁴ His latter years in London, bracketed by plague and fire, must have been disruptive for the Dordrecht artist, and hastened his final departure.⁵

25
Peter Lely
Portrait of a lady, 1660s
Hampshire (county), Kildare (county), private collection 2nd Baron Brocket Nall-Cain, Arthur

26
possibly Samuel van Hoogstraten
Portrait of a lady in a red dress holding a letter, c. 1660