Talk:Maria de Knuijt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confusion between Maria de Knuijt and Maria Thins and inaccuracies of information.[edit]

Maria de Knuijt was the wife of Pieter van Ruijven. Both were independently wealthy patrons of Johannes Vermeer. Maria Thins was the mother-in-law of Johannes Vermeer. She obtained a legal separation from her brewer husband, Rainier Bolnes, and moved with her daughters Cornelia and Catharina to Delft. Maria Thins never remarried. 2001:8003:1C43:4600:CCAF:8AE6:1D69:8B7C (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. That has been sorted out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Girl with a Pearl Earring, a Vermeer painting owned by De Knuijt
Girl with a Pearl Earring, a Vermeer painting owned by De Knuijt

5x expanded by CaroleHenson (talk) and Drmies (talk). Nominated by Drmies (talk) at 15:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Maria de Knuijt; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Interesting expansion, on fine sources. The image is licensed and a good illustrations, however, it somehow needs to be connected in the hook. I am not sure if the sequence of inheriting the estate is really lead material, and would prefer to see there why she is now believed to be the main patron. While that is optional as far DYK is concerned, I'm also waiting for a qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerda Arendt, Good to see you here!
How would it be to swap in "who painted the Girl with a Pearl Earring"? It's covered in the source.
ALT1: ... that Maria de Knuijt, rather than her husband, was actually the main patron of Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer, who painted Girl with a Pearl Earring"Source: https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/maria-de-knuijt/ –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's play with it. I miss the recent scholarship a bit, and couldn't we say that she owned it?
Also: I was perhaps not precise, - we don't have to mention the title in the hook (which is an unwanted duplication) but need to make a connection by saying what is pictured (because the first idea would be that de Knuijt is pictured), for example:
ALT0a: ... that according to scholarship published in 2023, Maria de Knuijt, rather than her husband, was actually the main patron of Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer (work pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Offline and subscription sources accepted AGF. I feel that I can approve because I added no new content, only helped with the wording. I'll watch it for new ideas but will be more away than there until Monday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Gerda Arendt. I made some changes here, most of which was adding inline citations for each of the paintings in the art collection section, as discussed on the talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Drmies!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

de Knuijt family[edit]

@CaroleHenson and Drmies:, I don't know how reliable this is, but according to H. G. Slager at http://www.essentialvermeer.com/history/neighbours-slager.pdf:

  • Maria was baptised 21-12-1623
  • her father was Simon Vincenten (Senten) de Knuijt, cloth merchant
  • her mother was Magdalena Willems
  • her brother was Vincent de Knuijt TSventon (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for reaching out, TSventon. I do not consider essentialvermeer to be a reliable source. I did use Slager's paper with well cited biographical information in a note. That's the best I could find.
I could try taking the individual bits (father, baptism, etc.) and research on that info / what you listed out here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tried poking around and remembered how hard this was before. I think the issue is that other than Montias, there's noone else interested enough in Maria's biographical information to have done the research. Slager appears to have research primary records for baptisms, burials, tax records, civic records, etc. to piece together a good story, which as I have said is in a note in the article.
I have been thinking that it's likely that someone would question the info even being put in a note. I am sure he did a good job, but it's missing some essential elements for a good source: 1) that it's had editorial review and 2) has been published by a reliable publisher or website. Essentialvermeer seems to be a personal website.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson Apparently the exhibition catalogue has identified Vermeer's house using research by Slager: "De catalogus wijst nu de precieze plaats aan: het voormalige huis genaamd ‘Trapmolen’, twee deuren verwijderd van het pand dat meestal als Vermeers woning wordt aangemerkt. De identificatie is gebaseerd op onderzoek door onafhankelijk onderzoeker Hans Slager dat alleen nog op websites als essentialvermeer.com was te lezen." from https://nltoday.news/valt-er-nog-wat-nieuws-te-vertellen-over-vermeer/ TSventon (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon, What do you think needs to be done?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is fine for now, hopefully the Slager evidence will be republished somewhere in due course. TSventon (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit re: Provenance[edit]

TSventon, I reverted the edit here. It seems as if it is not clear to you that we're saying about the same thing. The only thing is, there are a number of sources that state that it's not likely that Jacob in particular bought more paintings... he was broke. And, when you look through the provenance of the paintings in Maria's article, they consistently say that it's likely these paintings came from the parents. There is old scholarship that some paintings were bought by Jacob, but that's because he had the first major auction of Vermeer paintings - not because he was a collector. (i.e., it was a mistaken conclusion.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Leiden bio says two different things it is likely that many of the twenty-one paintings by Vermeer in the estate of the Delft printer Jacob Dissius (1653–95) had formerly belonged to Van Ruijven then Magdalena ... probably came into possession of these [twenty-one] works through the estate of her mother, Maria de Knuijt. Are there better sources saying it is unlikely that Magdalena, Abraham or Jacob bought any paintings after they had inherited (part of) Maria's estate? TSventon (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragaph starts out

The belief that all 21 paintings owned by Jacob Dissius at his death came from Pieter Claesz van Ruijven is not documented.

- "is not documented"
Then,

According to art historian John Michael Montias, though, Pieter Claesz van Ruijven was Vermeer's patron beginning in 1657 when van Ruijven made a loan to Vermeer of 200 guilders, which also corresponds to a significant change in subjects and themes for his works.[22]

- i.e., what makes one think that there's a correlation with this generation - particularly since Maria seemed lived very near Vermeer since childhood. And she and her husband were known art collectors.
And,

It is possible that some of the paintings that ended up in Jacob Dissius's collection could have been acquired by Dissius, his wife Magdalena, or his father Abraham.[23]

Finally,

It is likely, though, that the 21 Vermeer paintings in the 1696 auction following Jacob Dissius's death had initially been purchased by Pieter Claesz van Ruijven and Maria de Knuijt.[13]

What source are you questioning that's in the body of the article?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added the underlined sentence.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson I have rewritten the section in my sandbox then posted into the article. You can discuss or revert if you don't think it is an improvement. TSventon (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings by Vermeer[edit]

CaroleHenson, how did you produce the list? I checked the sources and didn't find a few of the works (possibly I missed them) together with several you didn't mention. According to Montias' Vermeer and His Milieu p. 266 (via Google books), several of the paintings on the Dissius list are lost, e.g. "Seigneur washing his hands". I wrote "may have included" as some identifications are stronger than others. TSventon (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember there being lists - I had to search for them. What paintings are you not finding?
What is your source for other paintings that you've found? Do they show the provenance?–CaroleHenson (talk)
Re: the "may have included" could apply to anything from any source - it's a slippery slope, in my opinion. And the provenance section really details out that there are questions. I am not big on redundancy.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if any of this sounded terse. I don't mean to be. I have a migraine. It's very cool that you have an interest in this couple.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to break down the citations by paintings a bit later today, which will clearly identify the source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you are feeling better, I couldn't find Study of a Young Woman, the Astronomer, or the Guitar Payer in the sources (I may well have missed them), but I did find Women Reading a Letter, Dresden (presumably Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window) in Montias (1987) and Lady Standing at a Virginal in Broos & Wheelock (1996). Also Girl with a Red Hat appears twice. On page 202 Broos & Wheelock hypothesise that Abraham or Jacob Dissius bought Lady Standing at a Virginal or Lady Seated at a Virginal from Diego Duarte (art collector) before 1691. Vermeer's Family Secrets, Benjamin Binstock (2013) may not be mainstream scholarship but has a user friendly list, including catalogue descriptions, on pp 306-307, which includes three lost works. In Vermeer and His Milieu page 266 Montias also says that several works on the Dissius list are lost. TSventon (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool. I am just popping over to work on putting citations at each title right now. I'll do that and then compare what I find to your list here as a cross-reference.
I am much better today, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied your comments here to make it easier to address:

  • I couldn't find:
    • Study of a Young Woman - I couldn't find it in these three either, but I did find it in its article with Liedtke, Plomp & Rüger 2001, p. 393.
    • the Astronomer - Montias 1987, p. 73.
    • Guitar Payer in the sources (I may well have missed them) - Broos & Wheelock 1996, p. 47.
  • but I did find
    • Women Reading a Letter - Me, too - I added it
    • Dresden (presumably Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window) in Montias (1987) - There is a painting Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window - but so far I am not finding its provenance
    • Lady Standing at a Virginal in Broos & Wheelock (1996) - Me, too - I added it
  • Also Girl with a Red Hat appears twice. - Yes, I merged them (i.e. dates)
  • On page 202 Broos & Wheelock hypothesise that Abraham or Jacob Dissius bought Lady Standing at a Virginal or Lady Seated at a Virginal from Diego Duarte (art collector) before 1691. - I am having a hard time thinking about how to word this since that are several unclear elements. I wouldn't add it. If you want to add it as a note, though, that's fine. What I am seeing is:

Before his death in 1691 Duarte sold a third of his art treasures, probably among them the painting by Vermeer.15 At that time Abraham or Jacob Dissius must have acquired the painting, adding it to the twenty Vermeers noted in the Van Ruijven/Dissius inventory of 1683.16 The picture was sold at the Dissius sale for forty-two guilders and ten five-cent pieces (stuivers) as "A Playing Lady on the Harpsichord by dito (J. vander Meer van Delft)."17 It is not clear from the mentions of the work in the Duarte Collection and the Dissius sale whether these refer to the present painting or A Lady Standing at the Virginal^ Presumably, however, the latter picture is the "lady playing on the harpsichord" that was in the estate of the widow of Nicolaes van Assendelft in 1711 (see page 48).

  • Vermeer's Family Secrets, Benjamin Binstock (2013) may not be mainstream scholarship but has a user friendly list, including catalogue descriptions, on pp 306-307, which includes three lost works. - okay, that would be good to cross-check
  • In Vermeer and His Milieu page 266 Montias also says that several works on the Dissius list are lost. - yes, that would be good to add as a note

-- updates, work in progress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC) -- done with updates.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Family Secrets book and the list has 40 paintings. Do you know how Binstock came up with 40 paintings? Are they all Vermeer? Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by that is - the total number of known Vermeer works is about 37 paintings. Someone says 34. It's known that there were other collectors. De Knuijt and her husband bought more than half, but not all, of Vermeer's paintings.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I just figured it out the list of 40 paintings has a break in numbering between 12 and 31, when counting up the number of lines of Vermeer paintings, the list has 21 paintings. I will cross-check the list.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the paintings in order by Binstock's list of paintings to the 1696 catalogue. Very helpful! Thanks for bringing this up. It's makes one wonder why there are a number of paintings said to have been owned by Knuijt or her family, but not in the 1696 catalogue. It would be interesting to know if any other authors made a connection of paintings to the 1696 catalogue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the article and, as far as I can see, all the "Otherwise identified" paintings are linked to the 1696 sale in the sources. The 1696 sale descriptions are ambiguous, so 7 young lady and letter brought by a maid could be The Love Letter or Mistress and Maid; 9 merry company in a room could be The Procuress or The Girl with the Wine Glass; 10 gentleman and lady making music could be Girl Interrupted at Her Music or The Concert; 37 Lady playing the clavecin could be A Young Woman Seated at the Virginals or Lady Standing at a Virginal and so on. TSventon (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon, Yes, I agree, that's why I wondered if someone else that published a book might have matched paintings to the 1696 catalogue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woman Reading a Letter in the "Otherwise identified" section seems to be an error. Montias 1987 mentions "Women [sic] Reading a Letter in Dresden of 1659-60, ... which turned up in the auction of Dissius' paintings in 1696". Woman Reading a Letter is at the Rijksmuseum, while Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window is at Dresden. A similar sentence in Montias' Vermeer and His Milieu p 248 has "the Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window ( Fig . 26 ) of 1659- 1660". However according to Vermeer and His Milieu p 265 "Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window" and "Woman in Blue Reading a Letter" are not included in 17th century inventories. TSventon (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this set of comments: I needed to break it down starting with the List of paintings by Johannes Vermeer for the museum info for each painting (I was confused that there was a discussion of more than 2 paintings):

  • Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window[12] (also known as Young Woman Reading a Letter at an Open Window, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden - 1. Montais says within the 1696 collection. 2. Vermeer and His Milieu says it's not in the 17th century inventories
Yes, that's why it's in the "Otherwise identified as paintings made by Vermeer and claimed to have been owned by de Knuijt, the van Ruijvens, or Dissius" grouping.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woman Reading a Letter, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam - You call the painting Women in Blue Reading a Letter 1. Vermeer and His Milieu says it's not in the 17th century inventories
Yes, this is not anywhere in the Art Collection section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson I will try again with longer quotes (emphasis added by me). Montias gives two versions of the same information written around 1987

This loan may have been an advance toward the purchase of one or more paintings. The sale of the Girl Asleep at a Table generally dated 1657-58, of The Officer and the Laughing Girl of 1658-59, of The Little Street of 1658-60, and of the Women Reading a Letter in Dresden of 1659-60, all four of which turned up in the auction of Dissius' paintings in 1696 and had almost certainly once belonged to Pieter van Ruijven, may have helped to repay the loan of 1657.

(Vermeer's Clients and Patrons p 69)

This loan, I argued earlier, may have been an advance toward the purchase of one or more paintings . The sale of the Girl Asleep at a Table (Fig. 25 ), generally dated 1657–1658, The Officer and the Laughing Girl ( Fig. 15 ) of 1658–1659, The Little Street ( Fig. 24 ) of 1658–1660, and the Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window ( Fig. 26 ) of 1659-1660, all four of which turned up in the auction of Dissius's paintings in 1696 and had almost certainly once belonged earlier to Pieter van Ruijven, may have helped to repay the loan of 1657.

(Vermeer and His Milieu p 248)

The article currently uses the first version, but I am arguing that the second is more likely to be what Montias meant, as the painting in Dresden is known as Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window, not Women Reading a Letter. TSventon (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon Does this edit resolve the issue?
This way, we are acknowledging that it was once said to have been part of the 1696 (so someone doesn't think it's been missed), but Montias said differently later.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it didn't - I see that you're saying that I mixed up the two "reading a letter" paintings with their museums / cities. I thought I double-checked that a LOT, including several times in the past 24 hours, but I guess I wasn't catching it. Does this work now?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mixing up paintings with similar titles is easily done, and Montias seems to have done it first. I would prefer to use Vermeer and his Milieu for the references in both sentences and say "Later in the same book, however, Montias said in Vermeer and his milieu that this painting was not part of the 1696 inventory." The current wording suggests Montias changed his mind, but he (or at least his manuscripts) seem to have been confused. For completeness, the second quote from Vermeer and His Milieu is

According to my first hypothesis, the following paintings that have survived were not mentioned in seventeenth - century inventories : ( 1 ) Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window; ( 2 ) Woman with a Wine Jug; ( 3 ) Woman in Blue Reading a Letter ...

(Vermeer and His Milieu p 248) TSventon (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


TSventon I am sorry, but I am so confused. I don't have access to the Vermeer and his milieu book, which would help a LOT.
I thought we were comparing what Montias said in the "Vermeer's Clients and Patrons 1987 source to the Vermeer and His Mileu 1989 book. It sounds like now we wouldn't be citing the 1987 book at all, and instead say the book Vermeer and his mileu says two different things about the painting.
I don't understand the part about "According to my first hypothesis,..." That is different from what he said in 1987.
I don't understand what conclusion he came to in 1989.
I think at this point it might just be easier if you make the specific changes to the article that you want.
Even if you change it to him saying two different things in the same book, it seems to me that he still changed his mind. What he said in 1987 is different than he says in 1989. I am assuming anyway from what you are saying.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My gut reaction is to research what other authors / art historians are saying. I am going to see what I can find from the museum that holds the painting and other books about this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

part 2[edit]

inserted a subsection to make it easier to edit–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added info that I found about the provenance for the Girl Reading at an Open Window - from the museum that holds the painting and Broos and Wheelock (1996). Neither of those mention the 1696 auction. It is really seeming that no one now considered the painting part of the 1696 auction.

Perhaps we could make a note - rather than having it in it's current list - so if someone sees the 1987 book by Montias, we have the explanation. What do you think?

I had a happy find. In the Broos and Wheelock book I found the 1696 catalogue numbers in the provenance. I am going to try crosschecking those to see if they see things differently than Binstock. That should be interesting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created a work page Talk:Maria de Knuijt/list of paintings to make note of where the assignment of paintings to the 1696 are the same checkY or different.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to make updates to the work page. I don't know if the layout is good or not, but it's a stab.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to show how multiple assignments to the same 1696 catalogue entry might be presented. It seemed to make sense to have a column for the 1696 painting description to the instances of associated paintings. Anything that could be done to make it better -- or another approach would be better? Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, thank you for the edit for Maid and mistress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The table looks good. I have done a copy edit of the introduction and will take another look tomorrow. I found an source saying the auction descriptions "though brief and sometimes ambiguous, allow the majority to be identified with surviving works" Vermeer (John Malcolm Nash, 1991) Page 22. TSventon (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Thanks so much.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for context, Binstock says "Vermeer's patron bought every painting that he produced from 1656 onward except for variations of his compositions that Van Ruijven already owned and the exceptional cases of Vermeer's Art of Painting and Allegory of Faith" in Vermeer's Family Secrets (Binstock, 2013) p. 269, which shows how he is using his list. I found this via a journal paper by Binstock at https://www.jstor.org/stable/20067179. TSventon (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am still a bit concerned that the sources for de Knuijt as the major patron are reporting new research from the exhibition catalogue. Presumably the exhibition organisers wanted to find a new angle. It would be useful to see what the catalogue actually says and how far future scholars accept it. As I don't have the exhibition catalogue or a crystal ball I can't use either source in the article. TSventon (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I copied over the table from Talk:Maria de Knuijt/list of paintings here.
Thanks for your copy edits to the article and the work page with the list of paintings!
For the part "Binstock says "Vermeer's patron bought every painting that he produced from 1656 onward except for variations of his compositions" - what needs to be done with that (e.g., add a note from other sources that state the other buyers of Vermeer's work in his lifetime?, something else)?
I am not understanding "I am still a bit concerned that the sources for de Knuijt as the major patron are reporting new research..." What do you think needs to be done? What catalogue?
Would you please make edits to the article that you think need to be made?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think anything needs to be done now. Binstock's book argues that Vermeer's daughter painted several works now attributed to Vermeer, so he may have interpreted the 1696 catalogue in a way that suits his argument. Again, the catalogue for the current 2023 Rijksmuseum exhibition, which is quoted by one of the press sources for de Knuijt as main patron, may have overstated the case to make the catalogue more interesting, time will tell.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TSventon (talk • contribs)
Okay, TSventon. The museum has a very interesting presentation for the exhibition. Lots of information and images that might be helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

part 3[edit]

A few more comments, which don't need any action at this stage.

  • 1. Possibly the list of paintings could be moved to an article on the Dissius art sale, which seems to be notable in its own right.
That is fine with me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon, Thanks! I think that this is helpful information. The question is, though, what is the right place for the information:
It seems to me that it makes most sense for the information to go in the articles about the individual paintings and/or the list of paintings. What do you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, I see the article got 15,800 views yesterday, which is pretty good.
I think it would be good to move the list of paintings in the Dissius sale to a neutral location as it is equally relevant to the Pieter van Ruijven, Maria de Knuijt and Jacob Dissius articles. I would be happy to move it to the List of paintings by Johannes Vermeer, but think an eventual stand alone article would be better as list of paintings by X articles seem to follow a common format, which does not include a section on an early sale. Hopefully in time more scholars will weigh into the discussion of the respective roles of van Ruijven and de Knuijt.
Additionally, a provenance section could be added to the paintings articles, for example The Milkmaid (Vermeer) has one but Mistress and Maid does not. TSventon (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon, The idea of making an article about the 1696 auction makes more sense to me when you mention that it would be referred to by Maria, Pieter, and Jacob's articles. And, the List of paintings article should mention it, too.
It would be easy split (Art collection section to the article about the 1696 auction) and linking exercise. And then round out the article with the points you've made in this subsection.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, I will add this to my to do list. It is not not particularly complex, but I don't have time at the moment. TSventon (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon, Sounds good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table of paintings by Vermeer[edit]

The article says 'twenty-one paintings owned by de Knuijt'; the table of 'Paintings by Vermeeer' lists 24. Is this a table of all known paintings by Vermeer? Or just the ones owned by de Knuijt (in which case, why don't the numbers tally, 21 vs 24?) If they are all the known paintings by Vermeer, why have them listed in this article - surely they belong in the Vermeer article rather than here? If the table is of all the known paintings and is deemed relevant for this article, why not at least a column to show those owned by de Knuijt? It's very unclear (unless I'm being dim, which is not unlikely...) Stronach (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The table lists paintings that have been identified as part of the collection auctioned by de Knuijt's son-in-law Jacob Dissius and are therefore likely to have been owned by de Knuijt. Sources differ on which existing paintings they identify with the items in the sale, so there are more than 21 paintings in the table. For example item 7 in the auction, young lady and letter brought by a maid could have been The Love Letter (Vermeer) or Mistress and Maid. Possibly the table should be explained more clearly. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - but this should be in the article to make it clear, even if only as a footnote. Stronach (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stronach and TSventon:, I broke out the part about "multiple paintings" in the title of the table here. If you have a better way to make that clearer, that would be great! Thanks for bringing this up so it's clearer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_de_Knuijt&oldid=1207842768"