The Quack

Entry

A richly clad horseman sings the praises of his wares to a crowd against the backdrop of a street scene that looks like a stage set. The subject was once thought to be of a seller of paintings, perhaps because of the premises of an art dealer in the corner house in the background.² However, the depictions and inscriptions on the painted canvas behind the horseman leave one in no doubt that this is a scene of a travelling quack. Portraits of cured patients, packets of bladder stones that have been removed from them, certificates with wax seals, and the curing of a blind woman illustrate the skill of the quack, who probably had his portrait painted in the centre of the canvas. It served as an advertisement that could be rolled up.³

Snyder believed that this was the portrait of a real quack,⁴ but the satirical touches make this unlikely. A formal portrait of the kind on the advertisement, or a genre scene in which the quack was carrying out some medical treatment, would be more in keeping if that was the case. Nor is there anything to support Fresia’s theory that this might be the portrait of a successful surgeon, an actor, or even the artist himself.⁵ The knife-grinder in the left foreground, who according to Fresia signifies that a sharp knife was essential for the quack’s work,⁶ could also be a reference to the quack’s ‘sharp practice’, possibly contrasting with the man and the woman reciting something for the smaller crowd in the right middleground. Given the other mocking elements in the scene, such as the pickpocket working the crowd, this can be regarded as a satirical genre scene with a quack in the starring role.⁷

The painting was auctioned as a work by Adriaen van de Venne in 1887, was registered by the museum as a possible Pieter de Bloot, and was then catalogued as anonymous.⁸ Bol placed it in Droochsloot’s circle,⁹ but it is usually regarded as anonymous. The figure types and the anecdotal nature of the scene do recall the work of Adriaen van de Venne and Pauwels van Hillegaert, but the treatment is far too wooden and unpainterly for it to be placed in their vicinity. For the time being no attribution is possible.

The advertisement behind the quack lists various dates that are still legible, ranging from 1611 to 1619, so on this evidence the painting can be dated in or after 1619. The costumes and tall hats suggest a date between 1619 and 1625, which is in line with the dendrochronological findings.¹⁰

Yvette Bruijnen, 2007

See Bibliography and Rijksmuseum painting catalogues
See Key to abbreviations and Acknowledgements

This entry was published in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, I: Artists Born between 1570 and 1600, coll. cat. Amsterdam 2007, no. 419.