Talk:The Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis

Flinck
Nice to see this, but I wonder how it was replaced with a Flinck, when Rembrandt only got the job because he had died? Perhaps somebody else worked it up from his sketches? Does anybody know? Also, what is the size of the actual fragment, which is what should be used? Johnbod 12:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Ok - size done. Johnbod 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello John, I have never seen an article growing so quickly, I am fairly new here, but why did you repeat the books you were using under the references? They are mentioned in the notes already, it looks stupid to me. What do you want to prove? Also the system in your notes look chaos to me, please improve!
 * This is because you have changed half of them I think. Johnbod 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably this is one of the very few cases in which Jurriaen Ovens is not a minor figure, dont be so strict, my dear. Dont you want to be remembered after 350 years?
 * He is certainly obscure (and called so and worse by Clark). Remembering him under one name is enough, especially when Getty only lists that - they often have a huge list of variants. Johnbod 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Getty should mention his Dutch name, can you inform them? I read a lot of old stuff and each time he mentioned as Jurriaen. He also became a citizenship of Amsterdam, in order that get that job.

Also Flinck was a German, which was important when the commission was provided, after German (e.q. Brandenburg) royalty announced to visit the city and see the new and already world famous building.
 * What exactly did happen here? When was the visit? Would they have left the spaces empty without it? She was the Stadtholder's widow, not visiting royalty. Even I know that. Reference please. Johnbod 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can read Dutch I will put the paragraph here. She came twice, and after the first time the burgomaster probably talked to Flinck to have him designed 8 paintings and 4 for the corners.
 * Flinck's contract for the 12 is dated Nov 28 1659 (Slive), so the second visit doen't seem relevant. Johnbod 12:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dont reject everything you have never heard of. I am quite sure I know more about the history of Amsterdam than you.


 * I should certainly hope so. Johnbod 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How many languages do you speak or write? My English is sufficient, and I have to admit not as good as I wish it would be.
 * Bits of several, but I don't attempt to write articles in them. Johnbod 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My English will probably improve when this goes on. Besides there are Bessel Dekker, a professional translator, and Neddy to check my English.

I hope someone (Neddy?) will add pages to the books by Adda and Schama, so they can be used as references. Bye. Taksen 05:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Schama is not (so far I think) a book, but a TV series. I'm not sure we now need these as everything is referenced to Slive etc. We could give a link to the bbc site on the schama, which has a useful brief appreciation. Johnbod 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Au contraire - there is a book of the series (see here), which is more a glossy coffee table book saying the same as the series than an academic book itself, but it might be some help. It's at a local library to me, so will try to get it.Neddyseagoon - talk 13:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you used Slive yourself? - you have moved some of the references around so they appear to reference different material from when I added them. Can you pick the relevant Crenshaw page to ref?


 * I will, but I haven't read Slive, and everything before Gary Schwartz (1987) seems to be old-fashioned. I am sorry, but please take care yourself. I have not deleted any one. The article is still under construction, but we are close to the end.
 * Not entirely justified but what you have referenced to Schwarz! Johnbod 12:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you in a bad mood? I like to mention his name, his book is very interesting, and usufull to start with, many details on Amsterdam citizens.

It seems to me there is a problem with this sentence. ''A contract of August 1662 gives one of his creditors, the mayor of Amsterdam, Cornelis Jan Witsen, a quarter-share in any proceeds. Shall we split the sentence and I will add to what it was, causing Rembrandt's bankruptcy?


 * No, I have no problem with Schwarz, but I think the painting's history was already well understood before. I'm not sure what the problem with the sentence is supposed to be. Rembrandt's "bankrupcy" (which in fact wasn't) was several years earlier.  Johnbod 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is speculation on who bought the painting, (Andries de Graeff) but it did not look very reliable to me and worth to mention now. I will ask around. Taksen 13:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes let's leave for now. It's not actually known for sure it was Rembrandt who cut it down, though all my sources assume this. Johnbod 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Did we have one just now? Johnbod 20:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently. Incidentally, it may well be that my edit "introduces various mistakes", but the revert re-introduces the linguistic errors, of course. Well, so be it. It's certainly not worth an edit war to me. Bessel Dekker 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It does, but also reintroduces the material I had added. Although I'm not sure about some of your language changes, some are certainly correct. All yours now, but please note eg - not his largest painting so far, but ever. Irridescent is how Slive spells it etc. Johnbod 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not like to meddle with the content of the article, nor to be caught up in any controversy. All I did is rephrase some of the sentences and streamline the referencing. Finally, irridescent must be a typo in Slive then: there is no such word. Small matter, admittedly. Bessel Dekker 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrival in Stockholm
The article states that Claudius Civilis has been in Stockholm since 1795. That is contradicted by one of the Nationalmuseum links which says that it came to Stockholm in 1766. The painting is also depicted hanging on the wall in the background in Elias Martin's painting "Gustav III visits the Academy of Art" from about 1782. Hegvald 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have amended to "since the 18th century" pending a solid ref. Johnbod 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see what other refs I can find. I found a very low-resolution picture of the Martin painting here: http://www.auktionsverket.se/auk106.pdf. There are better pictures available in print, but I am unsure about copyright. Hegvald 22:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl Nordenfalk, an art historian and earlier director of the Nationalmuseum, has written a small book (or booklet is perhaps more precise, with 56 pp in the Swedish edition) on the painting, in which he claims that the painting must have been in Sweden before 1767, based on its obvious influence on an altarpiece by Louis Masreliez in the parish church of Romfartuna. The Elias Martin painting I mentioned previously is indeed dated to 1782 according to Nordenfalk. See Carl Nordenfalk, Batavernas trohetsed: Rembrandts enda monumentalmålning (Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 1982), p. 10. There is an English edition of this book, but I have no access to that at the moment.

According to Nordenfalk (who cites an article by C. Müller-Hofstede from 1973 in this context), the extra sword was added by the 18th century conservator Erik Hallblad to mask some damage produced in the process of transferring the painting from the original canvas to a new one.

There are things in Nordenfalk that should be added, but I find it difficult to do so, as he is mostly summarising previous research, but without exact references (he has a bibliography at the end of the book), and I cannot really tell what should be attributed to Nordenfalk as his own conclusions and what comes from his sources. Hegvald (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can reference things to Nordenfalk regardless, they don't need to be his originally. Johnbod (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Witsen
I am happy to remove him - you were the one who brought him in int the first place.
 * I did not add Slive, I don't have his book here. I only wanted to mention Cornelis Jan Witsen, because there are hardly any links to him. He seems to be important, causing his bankruptcy. Happily they made up a list of Rembrandt's belongings, which is very important for research, you should not better. It is the best information you can find in the archives on a citizin, when someone goes bankrupt. Dont be so strict, there is enough reliable information in the article. Taksen 09:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

He is not named in Slive, but I assumed that was what your original cryptic and heavily-referenced addition was about - it seems perhaps wrongly. Though I can't actually see why causing the bankrupcy would conflict. Johnbod 07:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait till I gathered and added more information! Taksen 09:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my first question: Why did you repeat the books you were using in the notes under the references? They are mentioned in the notes already, it looks silly to me. What is the difference between notes and references? What do you want to prove? Taksen 10:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you added Witsen. Now you add the mythical Hull visit, which no reputable source believes in. Who says he added the figure on the left? My sources say it isn't at all clear he repainted at all. Also the figure looks the same as in the Munich sketch. Just because "there is enough reliable information in the article" doesn't mean we can start to add unreliable info! It isn't ok as it is, but I will leave for a while in hope you can clarify. Please make sure the references are in the right place for the material referenced. I will tidy the references when the article settles down - many articles have notes and references sections. I'm not trying to prove anything. Johnbod 10:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Location??
Greetings--I may be missing something here, but this painting is located in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. I saw it there less than a year ago. Was it only on loan? Can someone please clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.139.51 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)