Logo DBNL
Jaarboek voor Nederlandse Boekgeschiedenis. Jaargang 26 (2019)

Jaarboek voor Nederlandse Boekgeschiedenis. Jaargang 26

(2019)– [tijdschrift] Jaarboek voor Nederlandse Boekgeschiedenis–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Vorige Volgende

Wouter de Vries
‘One can't imagine they have ever read the Bible!’
On accuracy and knowledge in the prints of Willem Goeree

Between 1682 and 1685, the publisher and author Willem Goeree (1635-1711) issued a 4-volume edition of Petrus Cunaeus' Republica Hebraeorum.1 The book deals with a variety of topics related to Mosaic history, such as the Temple of Solomon and the Tabernacle, a tent-like temple built in accordance with divine design. In the introduction to the second part of the book, published in 1683, Goeree recounts seeing a print of the Tabernacle quite recently, and the print struck him as particularly odd. It portrayed the Tabernacle during its build, and Goeree wonders whether ‘to laugh or to cry’ at the abysmal quality of it - it even makes him wonder whether these people had actually read the Bible! One would expect to find terribly drawn buildings or all sorts of hideous anachronisms in this print, but the errors are even more dramatic; instead of oxen, the author lets the chariots in the picture be drawn forth by horses! ‘Wie sach sijn dagen dryster domheyd?’

The Republiek der Hebreeën was the product of Goeree's redaction of his late father's notes, Hugo Willem Goeree, a theologian from Middelburg who died when Willem jr. was still in his infancy. Choosing a career in the book-business, Goeree had, according to the biographer Van der Aa, never let go of his interest in the arts and sciences.2 His career in business gained momentum when he married Elizabeth van Waesberge, daughter of the successful Amsterdam printer Johannes Janssonius van Waesberge, and this progression continued when the two moved to Amsterdam in 1680. It is there that Goeree devoted ever more time to his writing and less time to his publishing activities - although the latter were not abandoned entirely. All three of their sons participated in the business: David and Willem took over their father's printing and publishing shop, while Jan Goeree chose a career as engraver.3

His work as an author can roughly be divided in two parts. Until the early 1680s his

publications dealt with art and art history, after that his works focused exclusively on (Biblical) history. Moreover, the two are not to be regarded as collections of separate treatises, but each part was informed by a desire to write an encompassing overview of the subject matter. After the ‘web of painting’, which dealt with all forms of the visual arts, he turned to a grand Biblical historical project.4 Goeree presenting them as such does not mean that the two projects are entirely unrelated, and the relation between the two is one of the aims of this contribution, namely: how do Goeree's ideas on art inform the production and use of prints in his Biblical historical works?

There exists a large body of research into the role of visual material in knowledge practices and knowledge transfer in the seventeenth century.5 It is from the perspective of this body that I will look at the oeuvre of Goeree. In particular, I will problematize the role of prints in the production and dissemination of knowledge, and the demands that this places upon their production. In his later work, it would seem that Goeree presents a strong faith in this ability of art to represent the visible world as it is (or as God has created it) - the ‘sienlijcke dingen’, as he calls them. At the same time, those things that are invisible (‘niet sienlijck’) should not be the subject of art, because they can only be presented to us through faith.6 A related contradistinction he makes is that between ‘painterly’ and ‘schematic’ representations of visible things. In a sense, the analysis of these terms in Goeree's works is a return to the decades-old discussion spurred by Svetlana Alpers: is Dutch art revolutionary for its attempt to simply describe the world around us instead of hidden, allegorical or metaphorical meanings?7 I do not want to face that discussion head-on, nor do I want to delve too deep into Goeree's art-theory. However, part of the aim of this article is to investigate what Goeree's standpoint in this discussion is, if only in order to say something about the production of his prints. For if art is a ‘second nature,’ then what can the role of prints in works on historical topics be - and what is required of these prints in terms of production?

Goeree, by virtue of both his background and his explicit style of writing, presents us with the opportunity to study the interaction between the production of prints on the one hand, and the way in which they contain or are intended to transfer knowledge on the other. His engaged style of writing reveals a lot about his practice as an author, in particular about the way in which he includes prints in his works. Sometimes in passing, sometimes in page-long descriptions; every print is discussed at least to some extent, and this sometimes includes information on his contacts with, for example, engravers. His criticism of the anonymous representation of the Tabernacle is backed up by the exquisite material in his own works; they are larded with large prints, made by

some of the best engravers available, such as Jan Luyken and his own son, Jan Goeree. As both an art-theorist, Biblical historian and publisher, Goeree left his mark on most of the stages of the prints' production: from the initial idea, delineation and engraving, to their inclusion in his works. The following paragraphs will follow these stages in order to fully understand the way(s) in which prints play a role in the circulation of knowledge. After a more general analysis of Goeree's ideas on the role and nature of art, the article moves on to a more in-depth analysis of the production of his prints and, finally, their place in his work.

The Web of Painting

It is his art-theoretical work that has made Goeree most famous. Starting in 1668 with his Inleydinge tot de al-ghemeene teycken-konst, he continues with works on painting (Inleyding tot de Practyk der Algemeene Schilderkonst, 1670), architecture (d'Algemeene Bouwkunde, 1681) and the painting of humans (Natuurlijk en schilderkonstig ontwerp der menschkunde, 1682). What the works have in common is a desire to fit the production of art (whether it is visual art or architecture) on a foundation strongly rooted in both classical knowledge as well as natural philosophy - depending on the subject matter. Together, they make up what Goeree lovingly calls his ‘Webbe van Schilderkunst,’ his Web of Painting, a large series of works wherein all the different theoretical and practical aspects of the visual arts are comprised - ranging from paints and illumination, to the correct anatomy of the human body.8

According to Goeree, the role and importance of draughtsmanship cannot be overstated. Amongst the many nicknames he uses for drawing are: ‘womb’, ‘mother of all arts and sciences’ and ‘first designer, ruler and creator of all things imaginable’.9 It can be compared to a ‘visible poetry’, because ‘through untruth and disguise, it shows us, before the eyes, the truth of things that are or have been’. By doing so, it creates a virtual reality, by virtue of its ability to seduce the eyes into believing what is portrayed to be real: ‘she is a second nature, for she teaches all of creation through imitation, so that the eyes and the hands can be deceived’.10

The terminology used by Goeree invites a comparison with the art-theory of contemporaries such as Samuel van Hoogstraten, who published his Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst; anders de zichtbaere werelt (1678) several years after Goeree's - a comparison, moreover, that has been made by others in much greater detail.11 What I believe Goeree and Van Hoogstraten have in common is what Thijs Weststeijn calls ‘opposing vantage points [such as] the “Book of Nature” versus the “Holy Scriptures”, the

visible versus the invisible world, and the paradox between appearance and reality that underlies painterly illusion.’12 The second opposing vantage point that Weststeijn describes is of particular interest in this context: both Goeree and Van Hoogstraten deal with the question of to what extent art can mimic or represent reality. Art, Weststeijn says, is an ‘activity geared towards imitating nature,’ and it is Van Hoogstraten's solid conviction that art is capable of mimicking nature and ‘evoking a virtual reality’.13

Throughout his art-theoretical work, Goeree presents a position that is perhaps even stronger than that of Van Hoogstraten.14 His art-theory revolves around some of the same questions: to what extent can art mimic or recreate nature and what is the position of art in relation to the sciences? His answer is that if art is created in the right way, it can indeed recreate the visible world, or in the words of Bert van de Roemer:

Goeree's opinions on art found footing in a fluid merging of notions from classicist art theory, Protestant beliefs and the New Philosophy (...) he was convinced that men should produce art according to the same regular procedures with which God governed his creation.15

In this sense, Goeree is slightly more explicit than Van Hoogstraten. Where Van Hoogstraten leaves some room for painterly imprecision, Goeree demands that the print is in exact accordance with reality and produced on the basis of (often natural philosophical) knowledge, which will be detailed in the next paragraphs. What they both have in common, is a belief in the fact that knowledge about the make-up of the natural world is important for creating art that represents this world.16

The following paragraphs will investigate whether Goeree brings this idea into practice by looking not at the art-theoretical, but the Biblical historical part of his work. First, I will examine how Goeree believes that prints can or should be constructed - what knowledge is required and what is the best way to ‘put’ that into a print. This is not solely a matter of theory, but also a matter of practice, as prints are not only imaginary, but very physical objects too. After that, I shall discuss the effects of Goeree's particular way of producing prints. What does it mean for the relation between text and image, and for the role that prints can fulfill in the transmission of knowledge? These two themes will be central in the remainder of this article and will shed light upon the interconnectedness of the different stages of both the production of the book, and the epistemological value of prints.



illustratie
Figure 1. Title-page of the d'Alghemeene Bouwkunde, which includes a drawing perhaps attributable to Willem Goeree. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, kw 68 b 11


d'Alghemeene Bouwkunde

Goeree's work on art-theory seems to focus almost exclusively on the visual arts, but there is one exception, his d'Alghemeene Bouwkunde, which discusses the history and theory of architecture. While the book does not stand out for its originality per se, it does form what Charles van den Heuvel calls ‘the first successful [Dutch] attempt to understand the public nature of architecture in all its facets’.17 At the same time, Goeree's authority in this field was not uncontested, as his architectural ideas on the construction of the Temple of Salomon were met with fierce opposition from established scholars.18



illustratie
Figure 2. One of the empty spaces in the Bouwkunde. In some cases we find traces of glue, indicating that there has been a print at some point, but not here. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, kw 68 b 11


From the perspective of this article, it is not the content or the printed version of the work that is the most interesting. The Koninklijke Bibliotheek holds a manuscript version of the book that gives a unique insight in the earliest stages of both Goeree's writing and his use of visual material.19 The differences between the printed and manuscript version of the work have been analyzed in detail by Van den Heuvel.20 One of the conclusions is that the manuscript version contained both more text and more visual material than the printed one. Goeree himself offers as explanation the lack of capable printers in his home-town of Middelburg and suggests that this was one of the reasons behind his relocation to Amsterdam in 1680.21

The manuscript offers great insight into the way in which Goeree wrote his books. It has clearly been a work in progress, as the book contains all sorts of scribblings that were added later, crossed out pieces of text and even entire pages that have been erased. Smaller and larger sheets of paper have been pasted into the book, ranging from small additions to several pages being pasted together. What is interesting from the perspective of this contribution is the place visual material hold in the manuscript. The prints all orig-

inate from what Goeree calls the ‘Storehouse of Architectural Models and Tools of Force and Practice’, a collection containing models of buildings, works of public engineering and many drawings and prints - reputedly so large as to require several rooms.22 The prints themselves offer an even richer view on Goeree's practice of writing. In contrast to the first printed edition, the manuscript version of D'Alghemene Bouwkunde is larded with visual material. With only one (minor) exception, all the visual material in the manuscript has been cut out of other books and was pasted into the Bouwkunde.23 Many of the prints originate from Villalpando's Commentary on Ezekiel (first publication 1596), editions of Vitruvius' Ten Books on Architecture and Palladio's The Four Books of Architecture (first publication 1570). The borrowed prints include technical drawings of pillars, temples and other constructions, but also maps, plans, drawings of different kinds of materials and even tables that contain measurements and proportions.



illustratie
Figure 3. Calimachus' invention of the Corinthain Capital with the text ‘this has already been made’. Goeree describes this discovery as ‘the old representation’ (‘volgens d'oude voorstelling’). Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, kw 68 b 11


The prints were added later, but this does not mean that they were not part of the initial authorship - on the contrary, in many parts of the book, spaces are left blank so that Goeree could later add the appropriate print, or prints have again been taken out,

perhaps to be handed to the engraver or to be repurposed by Goeree himself. Moreover, the prints did not enter their new context unchanged. Most cutouts receive a new title, and many receive additions in the print as well. This can range from new descriptions for the different elements in the print, to combining several elements from other prints into one new print with an entirely different description. It seems that the manuscript was also used during the production of the printed book, on a representation of Calimachus' invention of the Corinthian Capital, the text ‘this has already been made [dit is al gemaakt]’ is scribbled over it (figure 3).

What the book shows is that visual thinking pervaded every level of Goeree's practice as an author. Even in the first stages of writing he was thinking about what visual material should be included and where. This is essential, for it reveals the extent to which Goeree believed visuality to be important; pictures are not something to be added later, they are an inherent part of both the production of the book and the conception of the ideas reflected in it. Furthermore, the immediate editing of the images shows that Goeree was both able to appropriate the visual material with ease, and think about the physical place the print should have in the work from the very start.

Representing the Tabernacle, or, how to make accurate prints

Goeree's 1680 turn to Biblical historical topics would lead to the publication of his two most monumental works: the Joodse oudheden ofte Voor-Bereidselen tot de Bijbelse Wijsheid (1690, two volumes) and the Mosaize Historie der Hebreeuwse Kerke (1700, four volumes), both in folio. In addition to this, he published two smaller works: an edition of Petrus Cunaeus' Republyk der Hebreeën (1682-5) in octavo and the Kerklyke en Wereldlijke Historiën (1705) in quarto. The Joodse Oudheden was published by himself, the Mosaize Historie by his sons Willem and David.

This part of his work, and in particular the Joodse Oudheden, takes a completely different turn than his previous publications, and can be read as an attempt to place the Old Testament in historical and natural philosophical reality; in order to understand scripture, one has to understand the time and the people that it is about. As a result, the Joodse Oudheden contains analysis of the language, the alphabets, the clothing, buildings, practices and history of the Jews, the Egyptians, the Chaldees and other peoples featured in the Old Testament. Along the way, Goeree discusses (amongst other) things the Chinese alphabet, or natural philosophical contemplations on the nature and history of planet earth.24

In all this, Goeree did not let go of his interest in art and drawing entirely. His books on Biblical history feature many prints which have been put together with the greatest attention for detail. His attempt to provide a more historically correct contextualization of Biblical history is reflected in these prints, which seek to be accurate representations of the matter at hand. Perhaps more so than in his books on draughtsmanship and art, the sec-

ond part of his oeuvre contains reflections on the relationship between reality and visuality, and the ability of images and prints to produce and convey knowledge (instead of merely explaining or elucidating). Simultaneously, however, the strong focus on the active role of prints in the production of knowledge places new demands on these prints. For Goeree, the visual representation should be an accurate representation of reality, so that from that visual image the viewer might deduce (or even create) knowledge.

In this rather abstract discussion, the representation of the Tabernacle can serve as a concrete example of the way in which Goeree designs his prints. After heavily criticizing the print of the Tabernacle discussed in the first part of this article, he embarks upon a discussion of that very building. Over the course of several chapters he discusses the construction, the materials used, the objects placed in the Tabernacle and the way in which they were used. Here, Goeree clearly departs from the original content of the Republica Hebraeorum and at the same time reveals his interest in both architecture and visual theory.

When it comes to the latter, Goeree seems to believe that art can be useful for the study of history in two ways. The first is found in his Inleydinge tot de Algemeene Teycken-Konst, where he states that drawing (and art) are so very useful because they can reveal ‘to the soul and to the mind’ those pasts which have been all but forgotten.25 The second reason is more interesting for our discussion here, and follows from his introduction to the second part of his edition of Cunaeus' Republica Hebraeorum:

And we have provided for our prints with the same confidence, that they are as accurate [naauwkeurig] and as much in correspondence to the truth [waarheyd], and in particular with what our Author says on the topic, as possible.26

In short, the prints are as accurate (‘naauwkeurig’) as possible and show what the Author (Moses) says about (in this case) the Tabernacle. However, that still does not make precisely clear what Goeree understands by ‘accurate’ - if it means ‘in correspondence with reality,’ it can still be represented in a great variety of ways. Moreover, if one takes a closer look at how the prints are designed, it becomes clear that Goeree adds quite some information that was not provided by Moses.

There are several prints representing the Tabernacle and its parts and associated objects, a selection of which is included here (figures 4-6). The prints were not produced in isolation, they form an episode in a much longer tradition of representing the Tabernacle itself, as well as the objects that are associated with it. The most important discussion (and representation) of the Tabarnacle available in Goeree's time and context is that of Jacob Juda Leon (1602-1675), who had built scale models of both the Temple of Solomon and the Tabernacle and displayed them in his home in Amsterdam.27 Looking at the



illustratie
Figure 4. A print describing the different layers of the Tabernacle's outer wall. From Willem Goeree, Republiek der Hebreeën (1683), print by Jan Luyken. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, rp-p-1896-a-19368-326




illustratie
Figure 5. The Tabernacle and its court. From Willem Goeree, Republiek der Hebreeën (1683), print by Jan Luyken. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, rp-p-1896-a-19368-316


representations printed in his 1654 Retrato del Tabernaculo de Moseḩ I cannot escape the notion that Goeree has leaned heavily on these prints: not only is the overall layout of both the Tabernacle itself and the camp that surrounds it identical, Leon has taken some of the steps that Goeree would later follow to show, in the image, the material of which the Tabernacle was built (see figure 5).



illustratie
Figure 6. Print showing the inside of the Tabernacle. Note the flap in the center, which is lifted slightly. From Willem Goeree, Republiek der Hebreeën (1683), print by Jan Luyken. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, rp-p-1896-a-19368-315


Perhaps believing the representations by Leon to be lacking in scope or detail, Goeree's Republiek der Hebreën intends to provide more of both. The first few chapters of the second part read as an elaborate discussion of the way in which the Tabernacle is built, and by extension how the print is designed. This includes, for instance, a page-long discussion of the paints used in the production of the fabric of the tent (as well as how that paint was produced), the type of wood used in the construction, but most importantly: the design itself. He is concerned with amongst others the precise width, thickness, height, et cetera, of all the different components of the building, but also with the actual building practices.28

Of the several prints in the book, I shall focus on the first in this series, (figure 6) the print that provides a view of the Tabernacle's interior. The image in the print consists roughly of three parts. First comes the outer border which shows how the Tabernacle is

located spatially in a camp. Then comes the forefront of the image, which in a more allegorical way (hence the figures pulling away the curtain) tells us how to ‘consume’ the image; it is a presentation that the viewer can dive into. This third inner part of the print contains several types of information. The most important being the knowledge of the arrangement of the insides of the Tabernacle. This print's purpose is both to elaborate on the design of the building, and also on its ordering. By looking at the print, the viewer can gain exact knowledge of the placement of the different objects and the dimensions of the building. As Goeree explains in extreme detail over the following few dozen pages, while the image might not be a hundred percent geometrically correct, the architectural and geometric calculations and considerations can tell us precisely where everything was. All this is part of Goeree's attempt to present a historically correct version of the buildings he describes.29

In his criticism of earlier images of the Tabernacle, Goeree is most concerned with the fact that they represent the builders in too orderly a manner:

For it is easy to imagine that more wagons and beasts of burden have been necessary to move that vast building; who will believe that there are precisely twelve that were in service of the build of the Tabernacle; or that they have been positioned around it in so orderly a fashion. (...) So they produced [the prints] very crudely, and most of the Jewish shrines were portrayed in such a way that we can barely tell how they were used, and whether they were built with ladders or something else.30

For Goeree, an accurate representation of a building consisted both of its geometrical and architectural correspondence to reality, but also of representing its proper use. In the case of the Tabernacle, he believes that the appearance of the pillars in the front can be reconstructed with the help of architectural history, even though Moses has said nothing about the matter. After all, knowing the proportions of the Tabernacle, it is the rules of the Corinthian building style that prescribe the exact proportions of the pillars (that the pillars took the Corinthian style is presented without explanation, perhaps Goeree believed this to speak for itself). And while his prints cannot show this in a geometrical way (‘meet-kundig’), they will most certainly do so in a painterly way (‘schilderkunstig’).31 This means that Goeree's representations of the Tabernacle are supposed to represent things as Goeree believed they actually were. Draughtsmanship and the study of architecture can provide us with certain knowledge, in the words of Goeree:

For if Moses describes this in general, (...) we believe that the suitability of the arts of architecture and drawing can teach us the proper and possible way of production, so that we can make certain [seker] claims on the subject.32

This last comment is of particular importance in light of the brief discussion of Goeree's art-theory in the second paragraph. I concluded that draughtsmanship, in the mind of Goeree, is capable of re-creating reality, or creating a virtual reality - and that is precisely the idea that is reflected here in Goeree's own work. It is through the visualization of architectural knowledge that Goeree claims to re-create the past, which allows both him and the reader to ‘make certain claims’ on the basis of these representations.

However, the accuracy of the image is not only the result of the knowledge that is ‘put’ into it, the context of its production (which includes the way it is engraved and printed) appears to have been just as important. Unfortunately, this part of the knowledge-production process is largely undocumented. No correspondence of Goeree has survived, and there are very few designs for the prints that ended up in his works, making it difficult to trace the production of these prints. However, even from the scant words Goeree devotes to the subject, we can gather that he believes the physical production of the image to be of the utmost importance. It is for that reason that he entrusts his ideas only to ‘his good friend’ Jan Luyken, whose ‘biddable spirit’ and ‘quiet mind’ he believed to be most suitable to the task.33 Goeree's main concern in this matter was the loss of control. If he had not entrusted the prints to Luyken, he would have had to entrust it to someone who would most likely produce them on their own, without taking Goeree's wishes into account. What would have happened, he fears, is that these people would have copied (‘mannetje na mannetje’) elements of older prints and models without much thought, ‘as is done in many of these cases’.34 At the same time, he does not blame others for blindly copying those that came before, for it often follows from a fear of a damaged reputation.35

However, even under close supervision by himself, and entrusted to the capable hands of Luyken, the prints in De Republiek der Hebreeën are, according to his own words, not flawless. Part of these mistakes are the result of the inadequacy of the medium, the book is too small (‘bekrompen’) to allow for the most accurate of geometrical representation.36 Other mistakes are the result of miscommunication, resulting in the misplacement of a pillar here or there.37 But even in the face of such dramatic shortcomings, Goeree's faith in his own abilities does not waver, these prints will without doubt ‘compete with any other made until now’.38

For the several reasons mentioned here, Goeree chose to be involved so directly in the different stages of the production of his prints. The next paragraph will delve deeper

into the effects of this micromanagement for his discussion of text and image. For now, I conclude that for Goeree, accuracy meant a correspondence with reality that allows the viewer to draw conclusions on the physical (or real) nature of that which is represented, as well as on its use. In order to develop these ‘accurate’ prints, one had to have knowledge of the subject matter (such as architecture or natural philosophy), but also of draughtsmanship.

The Ark and the Earth: different types of prints

Because of his insistence on the accuracy of his prints, Goeree fits very well in two connected developments in this period that both correspond to the spirit of the early Enlightenment. The first is the desire to contextualize the Bible in worldly terms.39 The second development is the increased desire for accuracy (or at least a change in its definition) in the study of people that are either geographically or chronologically distant from the Early Modern Dutch Republic, and the interest in practices, customs and (their connected) objects that relates to this. Perhaps the best example of this is Bernard Picart's Cérémonies et Coutumes Religieuses de tous les Peuples du Monde (1723-1743). Working only a few decades later, Picart, too, seems to have been enamored by the idea of accuracy. ‘In his pursuit of accuracy, Picart paid special attention to ritual instruments and to the exact position of participants in the different religious ceremonies. (...) Even the most cursory glance at the engravings uncovers the artist's determined quest for authenticity’.40

The particular nature of Goeree's idea of accuracy is reflected in the terms he uses to describe his prints. Most of the prints fit in one of two categories: it is either a ‘vertoogschets’ (design) or ‘print-verbeelding’ (print-representation). The latter seems to be a more general term, it can indicate a variety of different representations and hints more at the medium (print) than at the content (representation). The term ‘vertoogschets’, however, is more interesting. Not every print can be a ‘vertoogschets’, the term seems to be reserved for prints that in a model-like fashion, depict a specific object, construction or in some way makes claims about the make-up of things in the natural world. The term is found not only in the Joodse Oudheden, but also in Goeree's other works, and in works of other authors such as De Lairesse's Het Groot Schilderboek (1707) and even Nicolaas Duyn's Reize Rondsom de Vaste Kusten des Aardkloots (1742), where the ‘vertoogschets’ is a textual description of the layout of Constantinople.41 In all of these cases, a ‘vertoogschets’ is a print or image that ‘dissects’ the thing in question or details its design. It is no surprise then, that the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal defines the term as a ‘plan’, ‘design’ or ‘blueprint’.42

The reconstruction of long-lost constructions is a recurring theme in Goeree's work and is an important part of the Joodse Oudheden. One of the most detailed reconstructi-

ons in this book is that of Noah's Ark. In a similar fashion to that of the Tabernacle, Goeree discusses (again, at length) the materials, instruments, dimensions and many more aspects of the ship. According to Goeree, Abraham built a scale model himself before attempting to build the Ark life-sized, and it is tempting to assume that Goeree imagines himself following in Noah's footsteps.43



illustratie
Figure 7. Goeree's adaption of these prints from his Joodse Oudheden (1690). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, rp-p-1896-a-19368-833


As with the Tabernacle, one of the most interesting aspects of Goeree's discussion of the Ark is his criticism on earlier representations of the object, in particular those by the Jesuit Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680). Figure 7 shows an overview of several types of representations of the Ark, the first four of which are copied from Athanasius Kircher's Arca Noë.44 Goeree's main criticism is that Kircher's statements are not in correspondence with his prints.45 Other authors have fared even worse; Lyranus, for instance, only managed to get the location of the cesspool right.46 Goeree himself turns this completely around and puts parts of the text in service of the prints, which is attested to by the vast descriptions of what is printed, and why this print has been composed the way it is - in a similar fashion as his discussions of the Tabernacle.

Understanding, moreover, requires several modes of representation or perspectives. Representing or re-creating the Ark in visual terms, for Goeree, is not only about forming a schematic overview of the building. He is quite convinced of the importance of visualising the Ark in a painterly way as well:

It shall help us a great deal that we have created, according to our thoughts, a painterly [schilderkundig] scene of the build of the ark in advance; so that after, through the perspectival [doorsigtkundig] representation, we have found a tool to imagine the start and progress of the build; after that it can provide an accurate explanation of all the parts and connections, and how the three floors are divided, and how they were regulated within the God-given measurements.47

In other words, a perspectival or schematic print (‘doorsigtkundige afbeelding’) cannot show everything. If the reader wants to understand the building in its entirety, and if they want to know what the purpose and function of each room was, they need to have a ‘schilderkunstig’ or painterly representation of the Ark. By doing so, the reader cannot only form a mental image of what the outlay would have been, but is also able to imagine the way in which the rooms would have been used. This is essential for Goeree, the building is something that had a particular use and in order to understand how it was built, one must be able to place him or herself in the construction. To quote Goeree again: it is the painterly scene that prepares the reader for the perspectival view.48

The second print in the series that discusses the Ark does just that, it is a scene of the Ark while under construction. I would argue that this print is most indicative of the relation between Goeree's use of print and his overarching goal (understanding through representation). As was the case with the Tabernacle, the discussion of the Ark is a dis-

cussion of the way in which it was built and used. That discussion is deeply visual in nature. Both the text and the image serve to incite the imagination, and to allow the viewer/reader to experience the building as if they were there:



illustratie
Figure 8. The building of the Ark, according to Willem Goeree. The print includes a vast legend, which explains the different elements in the print. From Willem Goeree, Joodse Oudheden (1690). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, rp-p-1896-a-19368-834


For that is why we have added the ground plan of every floor together with the painterly representation; so that the Viewer, without trouble, can enrich themselves solely with the eyes, and see how the entire world, ordered wisely, be contained in so small a space.49

For Goeree then, to understand the role, function and history of the Ark, it is imperative that the viewer visualizes it in several ways. Thinking back to Goeree's claims on the role and nature of his prints of the Tabernacle, the thorough way in which Goeree has created this visualization then lends it an accuracy that allows for ‘certain’ knowledge of the object. In other words, in order to understand the constructed Ark, one needs to quite literally re-construct it.

A theme that plays in the background is the tension between reality and illusion, which brings us back to the aforementioned tension between image and reality in seventeenth-century painting. In this context, the term painterly denotes the illusory character of art: ‘It is precisely the contingencies of the visible world - water drops, fruit, faces and the like - that are assessed with the concept of painterly by seventeenth-centu-



illustratie
Figure 9. The earth without water. Willem Goeree, Joodse Oudheden (1690). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, rp-p-1916-404


ry artists’.50 Schematic prints (sometimes ‘vertoogschetsen’) can show the order that informs reality and painterly prints can let us imagine seeing reality. In both cases, however, reality is mediated. One final example can conclude this discussion: the construction of earth itself. For the historical contextualization of Genesis, Goeree has chosen a natural philosophical perspective, which he bases mostly on the work of the Englishman Thomas Burnet.51 In a series of folio-size prints that are reminiscent of those of René Descartes in style, form and sign-language, Goeree explores the process of creation in almost mechanical terms. Planet earth was created out of a ball of chaos, from which different layers formed. The Deluge, in turn, resulted from a subterranean sea bursting upwards, destroying the perfect surface of the first earth and creating mountains in the process. In order to understand all this, Goeree uses 13 folio-size prints as investigative instruments. One of them (figure 9) helps the reader understand to what extent the Deluge has scarred the earth:

Indeed, if one brings to their mind or their eye those vast stretches of sea, dry and without water; then one must awe at the terrible size of it. And so that we can support this line of thought with a visible [sienelijk] example, we have drawn the earth from two sides; so that we might understand, in what form the earth would present itself to us, if we were to regard that body with our eyes, emptied of water.52

This description is followed by elaborate discussions on the formation of the earth, which bears close resemblance to his descriptions of the build of the Tabernacle or the Ark - they tell the reader how the earth came to be composed, and by extension how these prints came to be designed. Some of them are ‘vertoogschetsen’ that show this divine design with great precision, while others, such as figure 9, are mere ‘print-verbeeldingen’ that help us to get an impression of the subject. In all cases, however, imagining the earth in visual terms is an essential part of actualizing the past and creating a visual space in which and through which it can be understood.

Conclusion: understanding through visualization

The significance of Goeree using terms such as ‘schilderkunstig’ and ‘vertoogschets’ should be clear by now, for him, many (but not all) of his prints are investigations of the way in which the subjects of his discussion work, are constructed, or are composed. The usage of these terms is intimately connected with his claim of accuracy (‘nauwkeurigheid’). One of the results of this explicitly formulated claim, is a change in the perception of what prints and images can and cannot do. His addition to the existing representations of the Tabernacle and its associated objects occurs on the level of details, not of

grand designs. Yet it is in these details that the changed nature of his prints can be found. If an image can represent reality accurately, one can make claims about that reality on the basis of these prints - in other words, the epistemological function of the print can change.

The previous paragraphs have explored how the prints in Goeree's Biblical histories were produced, but we've discussed only in passing what this means for the way in which they were used. As I have proposed above, for Goeree, the fact that we can visualize the Tabernacle accurately means that we can produce knowledge on the basis of this print. In other words, the looks of the temple do not just serve to dress it up and help the viewer to get an image that is detached from reality, the way it was constructed and the way it was used are essential to understanding it. The image is not only a way of illustrating reality, but it can produce knowledge of the object. It allows the reader to contemplate on, learn from and even interact with the image - and by doing so, the image becomes a virtual, constructed reality - an idea which is completely in line with the art-theory as expressed in Goeree's earlier works.

In the case of the Tabernacle, my interpretation of Goeree's print is supported by at least one additional element of the print. As can be seen in figure 10, part of the print can be lifted up, the curtain in the middle of the Tabernacle which separates the sanctuary from the rest of the holy place and hides the Ark of the Covenant from view. The ‘flap’ invites the reader to interact with the print and reinforces the role of the image as empirical tool. The reader is invited to imagine the space as if it were real, and the tactile interaction with the print allows one to place themselves into the space that is represented on it. Knowing that Goeree has (at exhaustive length) discussed the proper dimensions of the building, as well as the placement of the objects within it, is an essential element in this process; only if the representation is accurate can we truly imagine being there.

This observation, of course, is incidental - there are no other moving parts in the Republiek der Hebreën or any other of Goeree's works. At the same time, it is telling that the flap was included in the subsequent reprints of the books, and even in the French edition by Mortier from 1705.53 More importantly, however, it tells us something about the function that the prints have within the book. What the prints of the earth show even better than those of the Ark and the Tabernacle, is that the particular way in which Goeree produced his prints went hand in hand with the way in which he used them. The accuracy of the visual material allowed it to be used for much more than simple illustration, instead it becomes an essential part of the book. It is inseparably connected to the works in which they it appears for they both share the same goal: to understand, to contextualize and to reconstruct the world of the Old Testament. And how better to do that than by visualizing it?

As both a publisher and author, Goeree was deeply involved in most of the stages of his books' production, and as both art-theorist and (Biblical) historian he was able to use insights from the first sphere in that of the latter. At the same time, this means that we

should be careful with taking Goeree as an example of a wider culture. He is unique in several ways, and this limits the bearing of the conclusions drawn here. Not many authors had a background as printer, and even fewer had a background in art-theory as well. The fact that most of the prints that have been discussed here deal with buildings or constructions of some sort is on the one hand true to Goeree's work (which included this type of print in large amounts), but also raises questions as to whether we can extrapolate to other types of prints. Nevertheless, with these caveats in mind, we can say a great deal at least about Goeree himself.



illustratie
Figure 10. Lifting the ‘flap’ reveals the inner sanctum of the Tabernacle. Willem Goeree, Republyk der Hebreen (1683). Universiteitsbibliotheek Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, xi.08439


Visual material pervaded every stage of the production of Goeree's books, as the case of the Bouwkunde shows best. Prints were not added later to explain or embellish an otherwise textual narrative. Instead, they are an essential part of the epistemology of the work, allowing for a better balance between text and image in Goeree's books. In all this, the practical side of producing them was not inconsequential, and the reasons for selecting his engravers carefully and consulting with them on many of the prints' aspects reveals the extent to which Goeree deemed this important.

In order to understand how Goeree's prints were intended to work, we need to understand the context of their production. Knowledge of both the function and the construction of a building or object was essential for understanding its role and place in history, and this knowledge was visually constituted to a large extent. The particular

role of these prints relies on the idea that art is capable of (re)creating a visual reality. For Goeree, the print had to be accurate in order to fulfill its function, and the accuracy of the print relied for a large part of the ability of the print to represent both the way in which the building had originally functioned as well as the way in which it had been built. This connects the different parts of Goeree's oeuvre: prints were constructed on the basis of a combination of artistic skill and knowledge of the thing portrayed, and the accuracy gained through this practice allows Goeree to give the prints a central role in his works.


Vorige Volgende

Over dit hoofdstuk/artikel

auteurs