The uneven survival of seventeenth-century Dutch painting has left a distorted view of the period. Canonical masterpieces by celebrated figures dominate cultural memory, while the vast substratum of everyday production that once sustained the Dutch art market has largely vanished. The late seventeenth-century mass production of landscapes, pastoral cattle scenes and decorative overdoors was often consumed as a form of domestic furnishing. Few designed cycles in original settings remain intact, and when such ensembles do survive, they stand out as rare evidence of a market that thrived on abundance, variety and serial consumption. What survives today privileges the extraordinary over the ordinary, so that what was once a living fabric of visual culture is now filtered through a narrow canon.
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–after 1690) represents this broader stratum of Haarlem painters whose work was less innovative than that of their early-century predecessors and relied more on well-elaborated formulas adapted to a saturated market (RKD n.d.). Haarlem itself held a distinctive place among the Dutch cities. Long an active centre of painting, its prominence grew after the fall of Antwerp in 1585, when shifting trade and migration patterns brought it new artists and new demand. The re-chartering of the Guild of St Luke in 1590 consolidated this position, and in the decades that followed Haarlem became renowned for the breadth of its artistic life (Miedema 1980). Naturalistic landscapes and animal pieces, formal portraiture, expressive tronies, peasant interiors, decorative cycles and ambitious history paintings all flourished, while a vigorous print industry bound its painters to civic identity and humanist culture. The guild itself remained the institutional framework: a body that regulated apprenticeship, certified masters, controlled who could sell paintings in the city, and protected its members against competition from outside, including from foreign-trained painters and from peripatetic dealers (Miedema 1980; Boers-Goosens 2001).
This flourishing was tempered by demographic and economic pressures. Recurrent plague, especially in the 1630s, reduced the city’s population and narrowed its market. Haarlem never ceased to produce, but by the mid-century its primacy was challenged by Amsterdam. Through the 1650s and 1660s its painters continued to refine and specialise, yet by then abundance had tipped into overproduction. The middle-class buyers who had once sustained Haarlem’s boom were themselves under pressure, and the market favoured repetition and familiar formulas (Bok 1994; North 1997).
It was in this environment that Dirck van den Bergen trained. What is known of him as a person comes almost entirely from Arnold Houbraken (1660–1719), whose De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen [The Great Theatre of Netherlandish Painters and Paintresses] appeared in three volumes between 1718 and 1721 (Houbraken 1718–1721). Houbraken modelled his project on Karel van Mander’s Schilder-boeck [The Book of Painters] of 1604, and through it on Vasari, but the resulting work is closer to a vernacular collection of moralised anecdotes than to documentary biography. Its entries on lesser painters typically run to a paragraph or two of recycled material, gathered from family memory, hearsay and Houbraken’s own opinions about how an artistic life should fit into a moral arc. The Van Bergen entry follows the standard pattern: pupil of Adriaen van de Velde (1636–1672), painter of pastorals in his master’s manner, jolly in temper, well paid in Haarlem but financially undisciplined, and reduced at the end of his life to such circumstances that his friends had to collect money for his funeral. The arc, gift then success then dissipation then posthumous tidy-up, is the kind Houbraken liked, and recurs almost word-for-word in his entries on several other minor painters; on its own it tells us less about Van den Bergen than about Houbraken’s habits of moral framing. What can be verified independently is the pupillage with Adriaen van de Velde, the Haarlem base, the membership of the Haarlem Guild of St Luke, and a working span of signed and dated pictures running from 1676 to 1690 (RKD n.d.; Dulwich Picture Gallery 2019).
His work belongs to the Italianising branch of the landscape tradition, a mode that idealised nature with warm Mediterranean light, harmonised compositions and the integration of figures and animals into Arcadian settings. The idiom had been imported into the Republic by Bartholomeus Breenbergh (1598–1657) and Cornelis van Poelenburch (c.1594/95–1667), and developed in the second generation by Jan Both (c.1618–1652), Jan Asselijn (c.1610–1652) and Nicolaes Berchem (1620–1683), who worked in Rome in the 1630s and 1640s, or absorbed its visual conventions at second hand, and brought back Arcadian fictions blending memories of the Campagna with Dutch narrative sensibilities (Biesboer, Buvelot and Bok 2006). Karel Dujardin (c.1622–1678) continued the tradition with lyrical elegance, Paulus Potter (1625–1654) gave cattle monumental autonomy, and Adriaen van de Velde produced smaller, highly finished pastorals of great refinement. Van den Bergen adopted these models yet remained in their shadow, producing competent, formulaic variants aimed at the broad middle tier of the market.
By the 1660s the wider Dutch system showed signs of strain. Production had been immense for decades, and households were saturated with paintings. The most accomplished masters still commanded high prices, but middling painters faced intensifying competition from second-hand pictures released through probate auctions (Bakker 2008). The crisis of 1672, the Rampjaar, accelerated the downturn: simultaneous French, English, and German invasions, the panic-flooding of the Hollandic Water Line, and the lynching of Johan and Cornelis de Witt disrupted trade so completely that the market for new paintings never returned to earlier heights (Loughman and Montias 2000). Adriaen van de Velde died on 21 January 1672, ending Van den Bergen’s formal connection with his Amsterdam master at almost exactly the moment the Republic itself entered its political and economic crisis. Local artistic ecosystems continued to function but their autonomy was weakened, and many second-rank painters looked abroad for work.
The London they reached was not a new destination for Dutch and Flemish painters but a long-established one, sustained by court patronage, religious community, and commercial contacts going back generations. Daniel Mytens the Elder (c.1590–1647) had served as court portraitist under James I and Charles I; Cornelius Johnson (1593–1661) trained and worked in London until the Civil War; Antoon van Dyck (1599–1641) had set the terms of English aristocratic portraiture during his decade as Charles I’s principal painter; Peter Lely (1618–1680), Haarlem-trained, settled in London in the early 1640s, became a freeman of the Painter-Stainers’ Company in 1647, was naturalised in 1662, and by the Restoration was Principal Painter to Charles II, with a studio that drew steadily on Dutch and Flemish assistants (Curd 2010; MacLeod and Marciari Alexander 2001). The Dutch Reformed Church at Austin Friars served as a community hub for newcomers, and dealers, frame-makers and intermediaries operated within it. By the 1670s this was a settled migration route rather than a sudden phenomenon, and the Rampjaar accelerated, rather than created, the flow. Painters arriving in London came through known channels, with known patrons, and to a recognisable infrastructure.
The institutional framework they entered was, however, fundamentally different from the Dutch one. The Worshipful Company of Painter-Stainers, established by royal charter in 1581 and with medieval antecedents, controlled the painting trade in the City of London, but its statutes excluded foreigners unless they took out English citizenship (Painter-Stainers’ Company n.d.). Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/98–1543), the model case, had never become a member; Lely is the conspicuous exception, who joined only after his career had already taken shape under royal patronage. Most Dutch painters in 1670s London therefore operated outside the guild altogether, working directly for the Crown, for the great noble households, or through a network of dealers, agents and resident colleagues. The guild itself was in any case losing power: when Charles II seized the City charters in the 1680s, the protective monopolies the livery companies had relied on were further eroded, and the market began to shift towards entrepreneurial dealers and auctioneers (Meadows 1988). Painters from the Republic slotted into this opening structure not as freemen subject to local regulation, but as suppliers of foreign skill on an essentially contractual basis. The arrangement was usually informal: lodging in or near a noble household, a stream of work specified by the patron or steward, and payment by the picture or per quarter rather than by stipend.
English aristocratic patrons drew on this supply selectively and along stratified lines. For grand ceiling and mural decoration in the new continental manner they recruited Italian painters: Antonio Verrio (c.1636–1707), born in Lecce and trained in Naples and France, crossed to England in March 1672 and within a few years was working on the vast scheme of Charles II’s State Apartments at Windsor Castle. For state portraiture they continued to rely on Flemish- and Dutch-trained painters in the Van Dyck and Lely tradition. For the Dutch specialities, marine painting, landscape, naval and topographical views, animal pieces and decorative panels, they recruited from the Republic directly. The pattern was set at court: on 12 January 1674 Charles II formally retained Willem van de Velde the Elder (1611–1693) and Willem the Younger (1633–1707) at £100 each per year, with a studio in the Queen’s House at Greenwich, and a further £50 to the elder from James, Duke of York (1633–1701), bringing the family’s combined royal income above Lely’s own and on a par with the highest court painters of the previous reign (Robinson 1990; Apollo Magazine 2023). Hendrick Danckerts (c.1625–1680) painted royal topographical views, including a record of Ham itself from the south (c.1675–1679); Abraham Begeyn (c.1637–1697) was working at Ham House at the same time as Van den Bergen and the younger Van de Velde (Royal Museums Greenwich 2023); Jan Wyck (c.1645–1700) painted equestrian and battle scenes. Payment hierarchies were steep. At the top, Italian ceiling painters and royal marine masters earned in the hundreds; in the middle, a single Lely portrait at Ham was valued at £80 in the 1679 inventory (Rowell 2013); at the lower end, middling specialists like Van den Bergen worked by the picture, almost certainly for modest sums via an agent or steward. No payment records survive for the Ham House cycle, and the figures must be inferred from comparable cases; what is clear is that English aristocrats were not uniformly generous but paid the rate the market set for the role each painter occupied within the household scheme. Some immigrants, such as the Van de Veldes and Wyck, established long-term careers; others, including Van den Bergen, found shorter-term employment before returning to the Republic.
This stratified patronage system sat inside a wider cultural reorientation. Charles II (1630–1685) had spent fourteen years in exile on the Continent, mostly between France (1646–1654) and the Spanish Netherlands (1654–1660), and the courtiers who shared that exile returned with him in 1660 to occupy the senior positions at court. French and Dutch taste was not, in this generation, a foreign import bolted onto an English original; it was the formative experience of the entire ruling class, absorbed during the Cromwellian years in Paris, Brussels, Bruges and The Hague (Thurley 2020). The decorative culture that emerged after 1660 reflected this. Puritan severity gave way to a fashion for magnificence, opulence and continental novelty (Restoration style; Britannica n.d.). Sash windows were introduced in the 1670s, classical orders and pediments were applied to country house facades, and interiors were reorganised around new hierarchies of room: a sequence of reception spaces leading to bedchambers and closets, with each room defined by fitted decoration, hangings and pictures coordinated to a single scheme. Grinling Gibbons (1648–1721) provided carved limewood swags, garlands and picture borders; Jean Tijou (active 1689–1712) supplied wrought ironwork; Verrio supplied ceilings; Italian, French and Netherlandish craftsmen supplied gilt furniture, marquetry, lacquer, mirrored glass and damask hangings. Within this layered scheme the painted overdoor and overmantel became standard architectural elements. They were not Dutch inventions, but had been developed earlier in Italy, by painters such as Annibale Carracci (1560–1609) at the Palazzo Sampieri in Bologna in the late sixteenth century (Overdoor n.d.). By the 1670s they had become one of the typical contexts in which Dutch and Flemish landscape and animalier painters supplied work to English aristocratic schemes.
There is a further oddity worth noting. Van den Bergen’s London period coincided with the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672–1674), in which the Republic and England were active military enemies. Charles II had signed the secret Treaty of Dover with Louis XIV in 1670, committing England to support France against Holland; the war began in March 1672. That Dutch painters were nevertheless welcomed in London during these years, and continued to work for the King and his ministers even as English and Dutch fleets fought in the Channel, says something about the porousness of cultural and political life in the Restoration. Painters operated under aristocratic protection at a level largely indifferent to the official state of hostilities, and the network of resident Dutch painters, dealers and intermediaries was robust enough to absorb new arrivals whatever the headlines from the North Sea.
Ham House in Richmond provides one of the rare surviving sites where this demand for coordinated decorative schemes can still be studied. John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale (1616–1682), and Elizabeth Murray, Countess of Dysart (1626–1698), modernised the interiors in the 1670s following their marriage in 1672 (Rowell 2013; Rylance-Watson 2022). Maitland was Secretary of State for Scotland and a member of Charles II’s so-called Cabal ministry; Elizabeth Murray managed the acquisitions and had her own continental experience, with substantial purchases of Dutch and Flemish painting, French furniture, Japanese lacquer cabinets and tapestry. Both had spent time on the Continent: Maitland had been in The Hague in 1649 to meet the new de jure king Charles II, where Cornelius Johnson painted him alongside William Hamilton, 2nd Duke of Hamilton (1616–1651); Elizabeth Murray is believed to have visited Vaux-le-Vicomte and to have drawn directly on French models for the Ham scheme (Rowell 2013). The diarist John Evelyn (1620–1706), visiting on 27 August 1674, called Ham ‘inferiour to few of the best Villas in Italy itselfe, The House furnished like a greate Princes’ (Evelyn 1955, IV, p. 43). Van den Bergen supplied at least eighteen canvases, an unusually large cycle for a minor painter, documented across the household inventories of 1677, 1679 and 1683.
The signed Landscape with an Old Herdsman and Young Market Girl Fording a Stream followed by Two Horse-and-Carts with Grooms (1675), bearing the monogram DVB on a chest in one of the carts, was probably the centrepiece. It first appears in the inventory of 29 May 1677 on the Great Staircase among ‘Nyne Pictures wt carv’d frames whereof two guilt’ (National Trust Collections n.d., NT 1139667), a phrasing that records as much about the framing trade as about the paintings: by this date framers were treated as part of the same coordinated decorative operation as the painters, and the carved and partly gilt frames were specified items in their own right. Mountainous Landscape with a Caravan and Landscape with Ruins, a Tomb, Herdsfolk, Sheep and Goats provided monumental anchors, drawing on Berchem’s vocabulary of ruins and antique motifs. Narrow horizontals such as Herdsman, Horseman and Cattle (NT 1140173), Night Scene with Figures grouped around a Fire and A Landscape with a Shepherd under an Awning were conceived as overdoors, integrating painting with architecture. Variations such as Landscape with Figures, Horses and a Dog, Ruins in the Distance and Landscape with Figures, Cattle, Sheep, and a Castle in the Distance reinforced decorative rhythm. Domestic inflections appear in A Mother with Two Children, Two Cows, Sheep, and an Ass outside a Cottage and Landscape with a Milkmaid milking a Cow, while myth and allegory were subdued into pastoral contexts in Landscape with Mercury and Battus (NT 1140142) and An Old Woman and a Young Girl in a Garden (Vertumnus and Pomona). A Pair of Lions with a Leopard in a Cave and Figures spearing a Lion devouring a Fallen Rider introduced controlled violence, providing contrast within the sequence. Several of the pictures share the standard 124 × 168 cm format and were almost certainly designed as paired or grouped sets along walls, with the 40 × 99 cm overdoors carrying the horizontal axis across doorways.
The Ham House cycle shows how a Haarlem idiom was repurposed abroad. In the Republic, Arcadian pastorals had become overfamiliar, and for a painter like Van den Bergen they were increasingly difficult to sell. In London, however, they could serve as signs of continental refinement. The Lauderdales did not seek singular masterpieces but required a coordinated programme to unify their rooms, and Van den Bergen’s canvases, serial and formulaic, fulfilled this decorative brief.
The reception of Italianised Arcadian landscapes in England helps to explain their success in this setting. In Holland by the 1670s, such pictures were crowded out by overproduction; in England, they retained cultural prestige because they were linked to continental models, Italy above all, and fitted comfortably into the classical language of country house interiors that was itself being imported wholesale from France and Italy. They carried the aura of antiquity and pastoral order, projecting cultivation without demanding the intellectual engagement of history painting. They were also safe. Unlike overtly religious images, they avoided confessional controversy in a fragile Restoration settlement; unlike mythological scenes in the grand manner, they carried no risk of excessive nudity or erotic display. They were also legally easy to acquire: until the law of 1694, paintings could enter English ports only for private use, not for public sale (Meadows 1988), which meant that aristocratic patrons either commissioned directly from resident painters or imported pictures through private channels. Hiring a Dutch landscape painter in person, lodging him near the house, and producing the entire cycle on site bypassed those restrictions entirely. Arcadian pastorals offered an idealised vision that was neutral yet cultivated, decorative yet resonant.
The Ham House ensemble shows how Dutch painting, even at its middling levels, could be exported as cultural capital, fitted into aristocratic schemes that required quantity as much as quality. It also reveals the precariousness of the migration: Dutch painters filled a niche in the London market, some establishing lasting careers, others working only briefly. The cycle embodies the dispersal of Dutch pictorial idioms abroad and the shifting hierarchies that marked the close of the Golden Age, when the Republic’s artistic surplus became an export commodity rather than a domestic necessity. The fact that we can still walk through the rooms where these pictures hang, alongside the carved frames, panelling and overdoors that were specified together with them, makes Ham House something close to a working specimen of late-Restoration interior practice. Almost nothing else of the period has survived intact at this scale. Without the accident of dynastic continuity that kept the house and its contents together from the 1670s to the gift to the National Trust in 1948, Van den Bergen would now be one of the many vanished painters of his generation: a name in a Haarlem guild list, a few signed cabinet pictures in distant museums, a paragraph in Houbraken.
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Landscape with an Old Herdsman and Young Market Girl Fording a Stream followed by Two Horse-and-Carts with Grooms, c.1675, oil on canvas, 122 × 203 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Mountainous Landscape with a Caravan, 1675–1677, oil on canvas, 134.6 × 180.3 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Landscape with Ruins, a Tomb, Herdsfolk, Sheep and Goats, 1670s, oil on canvas, 124.5 × 167.6 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Landscape with Figures, Horses and a Dog, and Ruins in the Distance, 1665–1690, oil on canvas, 124.5 × 112 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Landscape with Figures, Cattle, Sheep, and a Castle in the Distance, 1670s, oil on canvas, 123 × 112 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), A Mother with Two Children, Two Cows, Sheep, and an Ass, in a Clearing outside a Cottage, 1670s, oil on canvas, 127 × 99 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Landscape with a Milkmaid milking a Cow, a Farm Dwelling, Cows, Sheep, and a Donkey, 1670s, oil on canvas, 127 × 99 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Landscape with Mercury and Battus and Animals, 1670s, oil on canvas, 124 × 168 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), An Old Woman and a Young Girl in a Garden (Vertumnus and Pomona, with Juno’s Peacock), 1670s, oil on canvas, 112 × 99 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Herdsman, Horseman and Cattle, 1670s, oil on canvas, 40 × 99 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Night Scene with Figures grouped around a Fire, 1670s, oil on canvas, 40 × 99 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), A Landscape with a Shepherd under an Awning surrounded by Sheep and a Goat, 1670s, oil on canvas, 40 × 99 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Landscape with Nursing Herdswoman, Sleeping Herdsman and a Cow, a Horse, and Sheep, 1675, oil on canvas, 124 × 168 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Landscape with a Herdsman leading a Staling Mule, a Goat, Dog, Cattle and Sheep, 1670s, oil on canvas, 124 × 168 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Landscape with Cattle, Sheep, a Horse, a Goat and a Courting Couple of Rustics, 1670s, oil on canvas, 124 × 168 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), A Pair of Lions with a Leopard in a Cave, 1670s, oil on canvas, 124 × 168 cm, Ham House, London
Dirck van den Bergen (c.1645–c.1690), Figures spearing a Lion devouring a Fallen Rider, with a Dead Lion and other Horsemen, 1670s, oil on canvas, 124 × 168 cm, Ham House, London
References
Apollo Magazine (2023) ‘Naval-gazing in Restoration England’. Available at: https://apollo-magazine.com/marine-painting-van-de-veldes-queens-house-review/ (Accessed: 12 February 2024).
Bakker, P. (2008) Leiden Fijnschilders and the Local Art Market in the Golden Age. The Leiden Collection Catalogue. New York: The Leiden Collection. Available at: https://www.theleidencollection.com/essays/updated-leiden-fijnschilders-and-the-local-art-market-in-the-golden-age/ (Accessed: 12 February 2024).
Biesboer, P., Buvelot, Q. and Bok, M.J. (2006) Nicolaes Berchem: In the Light of Italy. Ghent: Ludion
Boers-Goosens, M.E.W. (2001) Schilders en de markt, Haarlem 1605–1635 [Painters and the Market, Haarlem 1605–1635]. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Leiden
Bok, M.J. (1994) Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt, 1580–1700 [Supply and Demand on the Dutch Art Market, 1580–1700]. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht. Available at, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284782085_MJ_Bok_Vraag_en_aanbod_op_de_Nederlandse_kunstmarkt_1580-1700 (Accessed 12 February 204)
Britannica (n.d.) ‘Interior design: English Styles, Furnishings, Decor’. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/art/interior-design/England (Accessed: 13 February 2024).
Curd, M.A. (2010) Flemish and Dutch Artists in Early Modern England: Collaboration and Competition, 1460–1680. Farnham: Ashgate.
Dulwich Picture Gallery (2019) Dirck van (den) Bergen entry, Dulwich Picture Gallery I. RKD Studies. Available at: https://dulwich-picture-gallery-i.rkdstudies.nl/bergen-both/dirck-van-den-bergen/ (Accessed: 12 February 2024).
Evelyn, J. (1955) The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. E.S. de Beer, 6 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Houbraken, A. (1718–1721) De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen [The Great Theatre of Netherlandish Painters and Paintresses], 3 vols. Amsterdam. Available via the Digital Library for Dutch Literature (DBNL): https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/houb005groo01_01/ (Accessed: 11 February 2024).
Loughman, J. and Montias, J.M. (2000) Public and Private Spaces: Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Houses. Zwolle: Waanders.
MacLeod, C. and Marciari Alexander, J. (2001) Painted Ladies: Women at the Court of Charles II. London: National Portrait Gallery; New Haven: Yale Center for British Art.
Meadows, A.W. (1988) Collecting Seventeenth-Century Dutch Painting in England 1689–1760. PhD thesis, University of London. Available at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1382491/ (Accessed: 10 February 2024).
Miedema, H. (1980) De archiefbescheiden van het St. Lucasgilde te Haarlem, 1497–1798 [The Archives of the Guild of St Luke in Haarlem, 1497–1798]. Alphen aan den Rijn: Canaletto
National Trust Collections (n.d.) Dirck van Bergen, paintings at Ham House. Individual records consulted: NT 1139667 (Landscape with an Old Herdsman and Young Market Girl fording a Stream), NT 1140173 (Landscape with Herdsman, Horseman and Cattle), NT 1140142 (Landscape with Mercury and Battus and Animals), NT 1140135 (Landscape with Nursing Herdswoman, Sleeping Herdsman and a Cow, a Horse, and Sheep). Available at: https://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/1139667 (Accessed: 12 February 2024).
North, M. (1997) Art and Commerce in the Dutch Golden Age. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Painter-Stainers’ Company (n.d.) ‘History of The Painter Stainers’ Company’. Available at: https://painter-stainers.org/history (Accessed: 12 February 2024).
RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History (n.d.) Dirck van Bergen. RKDartists, no. 7086. Available at: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/7086 (Accessed: 22 May 2026).
Robinson, M.S. (1990) Van de Velde: A Catalogue of the Paintings of the Elder and the Younger Willem van de Velde, 2 vols. Greenwich: National Maritime Museum.
Rowell, C. (ed.) (2013) Ham House: 400 Years of Collecting and Patronage. New Haven and London: Yale University Press for the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art and the National Trust
Royal Museums Greenwich (2023) ‘The Van de Veldes in Greenwich: Inside a 17th Century Artist Studio’. Available at: https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/sea-of-drawings-van-de-veldes/van-de-veldes-in-greenwich (Accessed: 12 February 2024).
Rylance-Watson, A. (2022) Ham House, National Trust. CODART Guide to Museums. Available at: https://www.codart.nl/guide/museums/ham-house-national-trust/ (Accessed: 10 February 2024).
Thurley, S. (2020) Charles II: The Court in Exile. Gresham College Lecture, 18 March 2020. Available at: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-03-18_Thurley_Exile-T.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2024).
Waterhouse, E. (1978) Painting in Britain 1530–1790. Pelican History of Art. 4th edn. New Haven and London: Yale University Press