The earliest portable watches appeared in Europe during the sixteenth century, following earlier developments in large mechanical clocks for churches, town halls, and domestic interiors. These early watches were costly objects, admired for their ingenuity and decorative cases, but their accuracy was limited. They were first and foremost luxury possessions, owned by those who could afford both the mechanism and the craftsmanship required to produce them.

A major advance in the history of timekeeping was made by the Dutch mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695). In 1656, he developed the pendulum clock, which greatly improved the precision of stationary clocks. Nearly two decades later, in 1675, Huygens devised the spiral balance spring for portable timepieces, an innovation that significantly increased their accuracy and laid the foundation for the modern watch. The first examples were constructed in Paris by the renowned clockmaker Isaac Thuret (c. 1630-1706), whose technical skill transformed Huygens’ theoretical design into a practical reality. Although Huygens and Thuret later became embroiled in a dispute over credit for the invention, their collaboration illustrates the close relationship between scientific innovation and skilled craftsmanship in the development of early watches.

The improved accuracy made possible by the balance spring contributed significantly to the growing popularity of the pocket watch. By the eighteenth century, it had become a visible symbol of refinement, prosperity, and punctuality, carried by merchants, gentlemen, scientists, and travelers alike. As production increased and prices gradually declined, pocket watches became more accessible throughout the century, and by its end they were owned by a broad segment of society, particularly the urban middle classes.

When not being worn, early pocket watches were suspended from decorative wall hooks or furniture-mounted brackets known in France as crochets porte-montre or crochets de montre. Introduced during the seventeenth century, these simple supports allowed owners to display their valuable timepieces within the home while keeping them readily accessible. As pocket watches gained popularity and the desire to display them grew, these functional hooks gradually evolved into more elaborate porte-montres, or watch stands. The majority were produced in wood. An early example is a watch stand from the personal collection of King Louis XIV (1638–1715), of France (Fig. 1). Throughout the eighteenth century, freestanding watch stands were produced not only in carved wood but also in a variety of more luxurious materials, including gilt bronze, silver, and ceramics. While examples in gilt bronze and silver reflected the growing demand for costly luxury goods, ceramic watch stands, despite their inherent fragility, also gained increasing popularity. Their decorative appeal and the opportunity they offered for artistic display evidently outweighed the practical disadvantages of a more delicate material.

It is possible that France, as an important center for the production of watch stands, also played a role in the development of faience examples. A Rouen faience watch stand, dating to around 1730, suggests that ceramic interpretations of the form were already being produced in France during the first half of the eighteenth century. Whether France was the first to produce ceramic watch stands remains uncertain, however, as a Viennese porcelain example dating to around 1725 is also known.

Following this broader European development, Delft potters produced their own tin-glazed earthenware versions of the fashionable watch stand, although no surviving Delft examples appear to predate about 1760. Most extant Delft watch stands date from the Rococo period and reflect the exuberant asymmetry and playful ornamentation characteristic of the style. Among the most popular models is one featuring several young boys climbing over and hanging from the framework of the stand (Fig. 2). Produced in a number of closely related variations, these watch stands are generally unattributed, and the factory responsible for the original design remains unknown.

A particularly elaborate polychrome example with a unique design formerly in the Aronson collection demonstrates how successfully this fashionable model was translated in Delft faience (Fig. 3). Its richly modeled Rococo ornament, lively polychrome decoration, and carefully framed circular aperture transformed a practical support for a pocket watch into an elegant decorative object.

Not all Delft watch stands, however, followed the Rococo idiom. A later blue-and-white example in the Louis XVI style, which is on view in the Princessehof, Leeuwarden (Fig. 4) reflects the changing taste of the final decades of the eighteenth century. The exuberant curves and animated figures of the Rococo gave way to a more restrained and symmetrical design, illustrating how Delft potters continued to adapt the watch stand to contemporary fashions.

As independent objects, watch stands were most commonly displayed on a mantelpiece or commode, where they combined the practical function of supporting a pocket watch with an ornamental role in the interior. During the eighteenth century, however, Delft potters also produced more elaborate compositions in which the watch stand was incorporated into an inkstand, following a fashionable European type (Fig. 5). By combining the watch holder with writing implements, these multifunctional objects found a natural place on the writing desk or in a gentleman’s study, where they united practicality with fashionable display.

Even rarer are ceramic models of pocket watches themselves. Carefully moulded and painted to imitate contemporary metal watches, these trompe l’oeil objects reproduce the characteristic convex case, suspension loop, and painted dial, while one example proudly bear the inscription “DELFT” (Fig. 6). It has generally been assumed that they were intended to occupy the aperture of a watch stand when the owner’s pocket watch was being worn, thereby preserving the visual completeness of the display.

Although ceramic watch models are often associated with Dutch Delftware, the earliest example presently known is an English Delftware model bearing the initials MD and dated 1696. The origin of this remarkable object type therefore remains uncertain. The earliest surviving Delft examples are of a later date, suggesting that the idea may already have been established elsewhere before being adopted by Delft potters.

Surviving ceramic watch models are exceptionally rare. Besides the early English example, only six Dutch Delft examples are currently recorded, all polychrome: one in a German private collection, one in the collection of Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, an example in the Royal Museum for Art and History in Brussels and three in the Aronson collection (Figs. 6 and 7). Their function has never been documented in contemporary sources, and whether they indeed served as substitutes for pocket watches remains a plausible, though as yet unproven, interpretation.

Although many questions surrounding the origin and function of these remarkable objects remain unanswered, the Delft examples demonstrate how rapidly potters responded to new fashions and technological innovations by translating pocket watches and their accessories into faience. They not only testify to the creativity and ingenuity of Delft potters, but also illustrate the profound cultural significance of the pocket watch during the eighteenth century. Their rarity and the limited number of known examples underscore the need for further study.

Notes

1. Landes, David S. Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1983. Revised edition, 2000, p. 87
2. Landes, 2000, p. 116
3. Landes, 2000, p. 125
4. Ibidem
5. Bernd Bauer (ed.), Taschenuhrständer, Pocket-Watch Stands, Porte-montre, Stuttgart, 2024, p. 11
6. Bauer, 2024, p. 240
7. Bauer, 2024, p. 386
8. This stand is depicted in Bauer, 2024 on p. 240
9. Bauer, 2024, p. 299
10. Bauer, 2024, p. 293
11. Depicted in Louis L. Lipski and Michael Archer, Dated English Delftware, Sotheby’s Publications, London, 1984, p. 418, no 1754
12. The first is depicted in: Bauer, 2024, p. 248, no 476 and the second in: D.C. Mees, Kunstnijverheid en Tegels 1600-1800, 1997, p. 194, no B 235

Although Delft potters had begun experimenting with ways to replicate Chinese porcelain as early as the first half of the seventeenth century, it was not until around the 1650s that these efforts achieved real success. By the time Samuel van Eenhoorn acquired De Grieksche A in 1678, the Dutch market was experiencing a growing demand for exotic luxury goods, while imports of Chinese porcelain had become increasingly scarce. Delft factories responded by creating sophisticated tin-glazed earthenware that captured the appearance and prestige of Asian porcelain.

This remarkable vase reflects that pivotal moment in Delftware history. Whether its distinctive pear-shaped form was inspired by a Chinese prototype or was an original creation developed by Van Eenhoorn and his workshop remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that Van Eenhoorn was among the most innovative Delftware producers of his time. During his ownership, De Grieksche A became known for its extraordinary variety of forms, including polygonal bottles, elegant vases, and other ambitious decorative objects.

D2518
Blue and White Pear-Shaped Vase
Delft, circa 1680

Marked SVE 5 in blue for Samuel van Eenhoorn, the owner of De Grieksche A (The Greek A) factory from 1678 until 1685

DIMENSIONS
Height: 26.7 cm. (10.5 in.)

PRICE
€ 9.500 (US$ 11,000 export*) incl. shipping
(excl. local taxes, if applicable)

Coffee: few commodities are as widespread or as deeply woven into daily life. For many people, the day begins with a cup of coffee, accompanied by the vessels and utensils designed for its preparation and enjoyment. The remarkable relationship between coffee and ceramics continues to attract scholarly and public interest. This is reflected in the forthcoming exhibition Coffee? A Dutch History in Ceramics, at the Princessehof National Museum of Ceramics in Leeuwarden, which explores the role of coffee in Dutch history through the lens of ceramic production and consumption. This article examines the arrival of coffee in the Dutch Republic and the ways in which the growing coffee culture influenced the development of Delftware during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Coffee had a long history before it entered Dutch society in the seventeenth century. According to one of the many legends surrounding the discovery of coffee, its stimulating effects were first observed by goats. Although the story lacks historical evidence, it remains too compelling to omit. The goats of an Ethiopian goatherd named Kaldi supposedly became unusually energetic, jumping around, after eating the berries of the coffee shrub. An abbot from a nearby monastery discovered that the berries of the coffee plant provided this energy. He gave them to his monks, enabling them to stay awake longer for prayer and work. This discovery is said to have laid the foundation for coffee culture in the Middle East.

From Ethiopia, coffee plants were brought to Yemen by Arab traders during the fourteenth or fifteenth century. The principal export harbor was Mocha, located on the Red Sea, whose name would later become synonymous with coffee itself. It was here that Coffea arabica was traded, the aromatic coffee variety prized for its refined flavor and relatively limited production. The term “mocha” derives directly from this harbor city, while “arabica” still refers today to the same species of coffee bean that once circulated through the Arab trade networks.

Although Dutch merchants had secured trading rights in Mocha by 1617, the coffee trade to the Dutch Republic developed only gradually. In 1628, the VOC purchased its first known cargo of raw coffee beans in Yemen for trade in Persia, marking the beginning of a long-standing coffee trade within Asia.

During the same period, coffee was steadily making its way westward through the Ottoman Empire into Europe. The Ottomans played an important role in promoting its consumption, and in 1638 coffee was publicly auctioned in Venice for the first time, one of the earliest documented moments at which the beverage entered European commercial life.

The Dutch Republic followed somewhat later. Coffee was first auctioned in Amsterdam in 1661 and quickly gained popularity among urban consumers. Known at the time as cauwe, a word likely derived from the Arabic qahwa, the beverage soon became a familiar feature of city life. Amsterdam records mention a coffeehouse as early as 1663, and by around 1700 no fewer than thirty-two officially registered coffeehouses were operating within a small district of the city center alone (Fig. 1).

For the Dutch East India Company (VOC), importing coffee exclusively from Mocha ultimately proved insufficiently profitable. In 1699, coffee cultivation was introduced by the Dutch on Java, and in 1712 more successful plantations were established in Suriname, both colonies of the Dutch Republic at the time. These developments marked the beginning of an extensive Dutch coffee trade, transforming the Dutch Republic into an important distribution center for Scandinavia and the German territories.

Although coffeehouses played a significant role in introducing the beverage to Dutch consumers, the most significant development occurred during the first half of the eighteenth century when coffee drinking increasingly shifted into the domestic sphere. Falling prices and expanding imports enabled a growing number of households to prepare and serve coffee at home, stimulating the production of specialized coffee wares that transformed coffee consumption into a distinctly domestic ritual.

Coffee pots and mills for grinding coffee beans were initially unknown in the Dutch Republic. The earliest European coffee pots, used primarily in coffeehouses, were tall, slender vessels. Usually made of tin or copper, they were designed to withstand the prolonged heating required for traditional coffee preparation. Their high spouts reflected the practical need to pour coffee while leaving the grounds settled at the bottom of the vessel. Teapots, which contained loose tea leaves that moved freely within the liquid during brewing, generally had lower spouts. This distinction is clearly illustrated by a yellow-ground Delft bowl depicting a coffee pot (right) beside a teapot (left) (Fig. 2).

From around 1680 onward, porcelain coffee pots were imported from Japan and later from China, many of them produced specifically for the Dutch domestic market. Around 1700, the original conical form gradually evolved into the pear-shaped coffee pot inspired by Persian examples, a silhouette that would become the standard European coffee pot throughout the eighteenth century. An early Delft coffee pot in the collection of the Groninger Museum (Fig. 3) demonstrates how quickly Delft potters responded to evolving tastes and new patterns of consumption.

Alongside these forms, the kraantjeskan developed, a vessel fitted with one or more taps from which coffee could be dispensed directly into cups. Similar forms were already known in Europe by the late fifteenth century, when large tap-equipped guild vessels were used for serving beer and wine.

Coffee cups followed a somewhat different course of development. Delft potters had already been producing small cups for tea consumption since the seventeenth century, and these forms could readily be adapted for the serving of coffee. As the consumption of coffee and chocolate increased, taller and more cylindrical forms appeared that were better suited to these beverages.

VOC records indicate that at least three different types of coffee cups were in use: double ware, large Dutch coffee ware, and single Dutch coffee ware. The latter measured approximately 6.5 cm (2.6 in.) in height and 7.5 cm (2.9 in.) in diameter. These dimensions correspond closely to surviving late seventeenth and early eighteenth century coffee cups, which were generally smaller than the vessels commonly used for coffee today. An interesting example is found in a set of four cups fitted with a handle, produced by Pieter Adriaensz. Kocx around 1700, although it remains unclear whether they were intended for the consumption of coffee or chocolate (Fig. 4). Probate inventories nevertheless suggest that cups were frequently used interchangeably for tea, coffee, and chocolate, indicating that distinctions between these beverages were not always reflected in everyday household practice.

As coffee drinking spread beyond the coffeehouse and into the domestic sphere, Dutch potters responded to the growing demand for specialized coffee wares. An archival source from 1695 records the shipment of Hollants Porceleyn coffee pots from Delft to The Hague. Since Hollants Porceleyn was the contemporary term for Delft faience, this shipment provides one of the earliest documentary indications that Delft potters were producing coffee pots by the 1690s. Given the time required for the introduction and commercial distribution of new forms, production likely began somewhat earlier.

Delft potters adapted models that had originally been developed in metal and porcelain. A Delftware coffee pot with tap, preserved in the collection of the Kunstmuseum Den Haag demonstrates how functional metal prototypes were transformed into fashionable ceramic table wares (Fig. 5). Another model, preserved in the collection of the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, is clearly derived from contemporary metal coffee pots and features a cylindrical body with a straight spout (Fig. 6). This type also occurs with a reinforcing bridge connecting the upper part of the spout to the body of the pot, providing additional stability.

Yet Delftware coffee pots were produced in smaller numbers than metal examples. Metal vessels remained more practical for daily use because they could withstand direct heat and frequent handling, whereas Delftware coffee pots were fragile and likely intended primarily for serving coffee at the table rather than brewing it. This may also help explain why comparatively few Delftware coffee pots survive today.

The growing popularity of coffee also found expression in Delftware decoration, as is reflected in Fig. 1. Next to this example, is a pair of polychrome vases made at Het Morieanshooft (the Moors Head) factory during the directorship of Rochus Hoppesteyn depicts elegantly dressed figures gathered around a table furnished with cups and a clearly recognizable coffee pot (Fig. 7). Similar imagery appears on a Hoppesteyn vase in the collection of the Moritzburg Art Museum in Halle, where two distinct coffee pots are represented within an elaborate interior scene. Such depictions are particularly valuable because they preserve visual evidence of contemporary coffee wares that may no longer survive and demonstrate that coffee drinking had become sufficiently familiar to serve as a recognizable decorative motif.

During the eighteenth century, the rococo style came to exert a strong influence on Delftware production. Coffee pots, like many other ceramic forms, became less rigid in appearance and adopted more fluid silhouettes and organic contours. Among the few surviving Delftware coffee pots, one of the finest examples is a large polychrome coffee pot and cover in our collection (Fig. 8). Its elegant pear-shaped form, enriched with rococo scrollwork, reflects the mature European coffee pot type that developed during the eighteenth century. A closely related example, decorated in a slightly different palette, is preserved in the collection of the Princessehof Museum.

Very few Delftware coffee wares survive when compared to the relatively large numbers of tea wares produced during the same period. This disparity may reflect differences in the preparation of the two beverages. Tea was typically infused in a teapot and served directly from it, making ceramic vessels ideally suited to the process. Coffee, by contrast, was often prepared over a fire and required more durable equipment. Metal coffee pots therefore remained more practical and widely used throughout the eighteenth century, while Delftware examples were likely intended primarily for serving coffee at the table and displaying refinement and taste. Produced in smaller numbers than tea wares, they remain comparatively rare today. Yet precisely because of their scarcity, surviving Delftware coffee pots provide valuable insight into the growing popularity of coffee in the Dutch Republic and the ways in which Delft potters adapted their products to accommodate changing patterns of consumption.

Notes

1. On view from October 10, 2026, until August 29, 2027.
2. Pim Reijnders and Thera Wijsenbeek, Koffie in Nederland. Vier eeuwen cultuurgeschiedenis (Delft/Zutphen, 1994), p. 12.
3. Reijnders and Wijsenbeek, 1994, p. 19.
4. Reijnders and Wijsenbeek, 1994, p. 11.
5. Rudi Matthee, “Coffee in Safavid Iran: Commerce and Consumption,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 37, no. 1 (1994), p. 2.
6. Anne E. C. McCants, “Poor Consumers as Global Consumers: The Diffusion of Tea and Coffee Drinking in the Eighteenth Century,” Economic History Review 61 (Special Issue, 2008), pp. 175–176.
7. Reijnders and Wijsenbeek, 1994, p. 43.
8. Reijnders and Wijsenbeek, 1994, p. 24.
9. Marijke de Koning, Henk Snelders, and Els Stronks, “Niet zo beschaafd als we dachten: Koffiehuizen, sociabilisering en literaire socialisatie in Amsterdam, c. 1685–c. 1785,” Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 139, no. 1 (2023), p. 40.
10. Judith te Kronnie, “From Elite Brew to Everyday Fuel: The Evolution of Dutch Coffee Culture in the 18th Century,” Public History Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, September 27, 2024.
11. Reijnders and Wijsenbeek, 1994, p. 55.
12. Anna Preußinger, Material Culture in Early Modern Amsterdam Coffeehouses: The Sociability and Aesthetics of Porcelain Coffee Ware (Leiden University, 2022), p. 31.
13. Ibid.
14. Reijnders and Wijsenbeek, 1994, p. 75.
15. Reijnders and Wijsenbeek, 1994, p. 58.
16. J. de Kleyn, “De kraantjeskan met conische vorm, een oud type koffiekan,” Antiek, no. 6 (1972/1973), pp. 435–436.
17. Reijnders and Wijsenbeek, 1994, p. 91.
18. Preußinger, 2022, p. 37.
19. Reijnders and Wijsenbeek, 1994, p. 75.
20. Ibid.

]]> https://aronson.com/delftware-coffee-utensils-the-rise-of-coffee-drinking-in-the-dutch-republic/feed/ 0 https://aronson.com/d2621-pair-blue-white-cruet-set/ https://aronson.com/d2621-pair-blue-white-cruet-set/#_comments Thu, 07 May 2026 11:02:54 +0000 https://aronson.com/?p=80936 Each month, we highlight a special object from the Aronson Antiquairs collection. This month, we are pleased to present this blue and white cruet set.

Among the most elegant expressions of Delft ceramics produced around 1700 are objects intended for the dining table. This refined cruet set, made at the celebrated De Roos (The Rose) factory in Delft, reflects the growing sophistication of dining culture in the Dutch Republic at the turn of the eighteenth century.

The set comprises two gracefully modeled covered vessels, preserved together with their original fitted stand. Intended for the presentation of condiments during formal meals, such ensembles combined utility with decorative refinement and formed an important part of fashionable table display within affluent Dutch households.

Marked with an R in blue for De Roos, the set belongs to a period in which Delft potters achieved remarkable artistic and technical refinement. During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, dining customs became increasingly elaborate, influenced by French court culture and the emergence of multi-course service. Decorative table accessories gained prominence as symbols of taste and civility, encouraging Delft factories to create coordinated ensembles of exceptional elegance.

The present cruet set demonstrates the delicacy and assurance characteristic of the finest Delft production of the period. The vessels are distinguished by their elegant silhouettes, with elongated necks, scrolling handles, and finely curved spouts that lend the composition both balance and vitality. Their forms reveal careful consideration not only of practical function, but also of visual harmony.

The cobalt-blue decoration is executed with remarkable finesse upon a luminous white tin-glazed ground. Floral sprays, scrolling foliage, and playful putti animate the surfaces with a sense of lightness and rhythm. The painter skillfully balances richly ornamented passages with areas of open white ground, allowing the decoration to enhance rather than overwhelm the elegant contours of the vessels.

Cruet sets of this type are comparatively rare, particularly when preserved complete with their original stand and covers. Their survival provides valuable insight into the rituals of dining and domestic display during the Dutch seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when even functional tableware was designed to contribute to an atmosphere of refinement and cultivated taste.

More than three centuries after its creation, the cruet set continues to convey the elegance and sophistication that once adorned elite Dutch interiors. It remains both a functional object and a compelling work of art, a beautifully preserved example of early Delft craftsmanship at its finest.

D2621
Blue and White Cruet Set
Delft, circa 1700

Marked R in blue for De Roos (The Rose) factory

DIMENSIONS
Height: 18.5 cm. (7.3 in.)

PRICE
€ 11.500 (US$ 13,500 export*) incl. shipping
(excl. local taxes, if applicable)

In the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, dining in Europe became increasingly formalized. Meals were arranged with growing attention to order, symmetry, and display, a development closely linked to the adoption of dining à la française, a style associated with the court of Louis XIV. Dinners were organized in successive courses, beginning with cold dishes, followed by hot preparations, and concluding with preserved fruits and sweetmeats, a precursor to the modern dessert. Dishes were set out in balanced compositions across the table, from which guests served themselves. In this setting, tableware played an active role, as each course introduced a new combination of functional and decorative objects.

Within this context, cruet sets provided a practical means of serving liquid condiments, most notably oil and vinegar, directly at the table. Their presence also signals a broader shift in taste. Flavors became lighter and less dependent on heavy seasoning in the kitchen, while diners were given greater control to adjust their food according to individual preference. Initially produced in metal and glass, these sets soon offered Delft potters an opportunity to explore both form and decoration within a clearly defined functional type.

Strictly speaking, the term cruet refers to the individual vessel, a small bottle with a narrow neck and stopper, rather than to the ensemble as a whole. The supporting structure is more accurately described as a stand or frame. The direct origins of such vessels most likely lie outside the domestic sphere. In medieval liturgical practice, small containers known as ampullae were used to hold wine and water for the Eucharist, typically presented as a pair. These were sometimes marked with the letters “V” for vinum and “A” for aqua to distinguish their contents. They were most often made of metal, while glass examples became more common from the Renaissance onward.

Although their appearance in the seventeenth century may seem novel, the combined use of oil and vinegar has a much longer history. An early example of a joined cruet is found in a Roman or Syrian glass vessel with a double body (Fig. 1). This type is often described as an oil and vinegar bottle, although its precise function remains uncertain.

By the early medieval period, however, the pairing of oil and vinegar is securely attested in elite contexts. At the court of Charlemagne (742-814), meals could include vegetables or salads prepared with oil, vinegar, and generous quantities of pepper. This use primarily took place in the kitchen, as part of the preparation of dishes, rather than at the table, as would become customary in later periods.

Seen in this light, the growing presence of oil and vinegar in Northern European dining during the seventeenth century does not represent an entirely new development, but rather a transformation in the way they were presented and used. No longer confined to the kitchen, they became part of the table setting itself, presented in dedicated vessels and ultimately giving rise to the cruet set as a distinct and recognizable object.

A late sixteenth-century oil and vinegar vessel in Medici porcelain may represent one of the earliest European examples intended for use at the table (Fig. 2). Marked with the letters “O” and “A,” referring to oleum and acetum, it invites comparison with the earlier liturgical practice of marking paired vessels. While a direct connection cannot be firmly established, the parallel suggests a continuity in the visual language used to distinguish liquids. At the same time, the object points to the emergence of a comparable use in a secular and more refined dining context. By this date, such vessels were no longer confined to liturgical settings, but were also incorporated into the material culture of the table. Its execution in costly Medici porcelain underscores both the novelty of the form and its association with elite settings.

Over the course of the seventeenth century, cruet sets became part of increasingly elaborate table arrangements. Their emergence in a courtly context is often linked to Cardinal Mazarin (1602-1661), whose role at the court of Louis XIV (1638-1715) has given rise to the suggestion that he played a decisive part in their dissemination. Such claims, however, remain difficult to substantiate. While it is clear that Mazarin acted as an important intermediary for Italian taste within France, direct evidence for his role in introducing or popularizing cruet sets is lacking.

A small pouring vessel listed in his inventory nevertheless offers a more tangible point of reference. The so-called burette, recorded in 1644 and now preserved in the Louvre, demonstrates that refined vessels for controlled pouring were already present within elite circles at an early date (Fig. 3).

The development of cruet sets should be understood within a broader European context, in which forms and ideas circulated between different regions. The earliest Dutch example for secular use is a silver set dating from 1642, reflecting this wider exchange (Fig. 4). Made by the silversmith Anthony Grill, who originated from Augsburg but was active in Amsterdam, it consists of a tray with a detachable frame, an oil vessel, two casters, and a salt. A closely comparable set appears in a later print made for a lottery held in Durgerdam, near Amsterdam, organized to raise funds after a devastating fire in 1689 (Fig. 5).

Delft cruet stands appear to derive from contemporary metal prototypes, such as those attributed to the silversmith Anthony Grill. The vessels are raised on a foot, fitted with a handle, and conceived as bridge-spouted ewers, the spout set low on the body and connected to the neck by a supporting strut.

Delft potters translated these elements into faience, adapting both form and function to suit ceramic production. This development is exemplified by one of the earliest known Delft faience cruet stands, produced in the late seventeenth century at De Metaale Pot (The Metal Pot) factory under the directorship of Lambertus Cleffius, owner from 1679 to 1691. This blue and white set forms part of an extensive dinner service commissioned for Prince Wenzel Ferdinand Lobkowicz of Bílina (1656-1697), now known as the Lobkowicz service. The cruet stand was conceived to hold three vessels: two bottles intended for oil and vinegar, and a third container, most likely for mustard. The ensemble offers an exceptional insight into the level of sophistication achieved by De Metaale Pot as early as the 1680s.

In addition to the Lobkowicz service, another important early blue and white set, attributed to Frederik van Frytom (1632-1702) on account of its finely painted landscapes, and possibly also produced at De Metaale Pot, follows a similar model, with accommodation for three vessels. A further early example, now in the collection of Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, is attributed to De Witte Ster (The White Star) factory and bears a coat of arms, suggesting a noble provenance.

Production at De Metaale Pot continued under Lambertus van Eenhoorn, successor to Lambertus Cleffius, who owned the company from 1691 to 1721. From this period, blue and white cruet stands are known that were designed to accommodate four or five vessels. A late seventeenth-century example of such production is a cruet set marked IVB for Johannes Verburg, comprising a stand for four elements, including two bottles for oil and vinegar, a mustard pot, and a caster, now part of a private collection collection (Fig. 6).

The factory De Grieksche A (The Greek A) was likewise engaged in the production of cruet stands during this period, under the directorship of Adrianus Kocx from 1687 to 1701. A notable blue and white set of six elements, comprising a stand, two bottles, a large caster, a smaller example, and a mustard pot, is preserved in the Amsterdam Museum (Fig. 7). A comparable blue and white set, marked APK and bearing the coat of arms and monogram of the Danish baron Iver Juel Høg and his wife, indicates that production of this model continued under Adrianus’ son, Pieter, who owned the company from 1701 until his death in 1703. As Iver Juel Høg had already died in 1683, the commission was likely made by his widow, Helle Nielsdatter Trolle (1657-1722).

In the eighteenth century, the use of cruet sets became more widespread, extending beyond elite circles to a broader public. This development allowed for the introduction of new models and color schemes. In addition to blue and white, Imari and so-called cashmere palettes were employed (Fig. 8). While the spouted form remained in use, a model with a rounded body and a wider neck fitted with a pouring lip appears to have gained particular popularity (Fig. 9).

On the basis of extant examples, it may be cautiously suggested that the earliest Delft cruet sets comprised between three and five vessels arranged within a stand. As is often the case with new dining practices, such sets were likely conceived as part of larger services and intended for use within aristocratic, and possibly royal, contexts. Over the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, these more elaborate configurations were gradually simplified, and cruet sets were increasingly reduced to two bottles intended solely for oil and vinegar.

The use of oil and vinegar sets increased over the course of the eighteenth century. Extant examples indicate that such wares were produced at several Delft factories, including De Witte Ster, De Metaale Pot, De Grieksche A, De Drie Posteleyne Astonne, De Twee Scheepjes, De Romeyn, and In ’t Fortuyn, demonstrating the extent to which this form had become firmly established within Delft faience production.

Notes

1. Acqui Newling and Scott Hill, Pass the Cruet, Sydney Living Museums, February 12, 2015, published online: https://blogs.sydneylivingmuseums.com.au/cook/cruet-sets/index.html
2. John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 1 (A–B), New York, Harper & Brothers, 1896, p. 206.
3. Wina Born, Eten door de eeuwen. De geschiedenis van de culinaire cultuur, Baarn, Bosch & Keuning, 1989, p. 93.
4. Besides the example illustrated here, a comparable model is preserved in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (inv. no. 12.717).
5. Rijksmuseum Bulletin, “Keuze uit de aanwinsten,” 1997, p. 157.
6. Marion S. van Aken-Fehmers and Loet A. Schledorn, Delfts aardewerk. Geschiedenis van een nationaal product, Zwolle, 2001, pp. 53–54.
7. Illustrated in A. Vecht, Frederik van Frytom (1632–1702). Life and Work of a Dutch Pottery Decorator, Amsterdam, 1968, pp. 74–75.
8. A stand with five compartments, lacking its vessels and marked LVE for Lambertus van Eenhoorn, owner of De Metaale Pot (The Metal Pot) from 1691 to 1721, was sold at Christie’s Amsterdam on November 2, 2005, as lot 415. Another holder for four vessels, marked LVE G 24, is in the collection of the Kulturen Museum in Lund (inv. no. KM 9342).
9. Cruet set, Attributed to De Witte Ster (the White Star) factory, Delft, circa 1700, Collection of the Boijmans van Beuningen Museum (inv. no. A 2249 a-f (KN&V))
10. Ulla Houkjær, Tin-Glazed Earthenware from the Netherlands, France and Germany 1600–1800, Copenhagen, Design Museum Danmark, 2016, p. 160.

This exceptional pair of Delft trays presents a refined and politically charged homage to Prince William IV, Stadtholder of the United Provinces, and his consort, Princess Anne of Hanover. Executed in a deep cobalt blue, the trays combine courtly portraiture with rich ornamental detail, embodying both the technical sophistication of Delft potters and the broader cultural significance of the House of Orange-Nassau in the mid-18th century.

Each tray is centered with a finely painted bust-length portrait, set within an architectural window opening that lends the composition both depth and a sense of staged grandeur. Princess Anne is depicted with elaborate coiffure, wearing pearl earrings and a sumptuous gown, her ermine-trimmed mantle emphasizing her royal dignity. Behind her, a landscape of trees and clouds is framed by a classical pillar, suggesting both cultivated taste and dynastic stability. The upper register is adorned with stylized acanthus leaves and a harp—perhaps an allusion to harmony and refinement—while beneath, a banderole identifies her as ANNA VAN BRUNSWYK LUNENBURG / Prinsesfe van Oranje enz. enz. enz. The composition is flanked by orange branches, alongside a lion holding a bundle of arrows and the head of a unicorn, reinforcing themes of sovereignty and legitimacy.

The companion tray depicts Prince William IV, shown wearing a short powdered wig, a sash, and an ermine-lined mantle over his embroidered uniform. The insignia of the Order of the Garter—conferred upon him in 1733—is prominently displayed, reflecting his international prestige. He holds a coat of arms featuring a lion rampant with sword and arrows, a potent symbol of Dutch unity and authority. His portrait is similarly framed within a window opening, crowned by acanthus ornamentation, a chain with a pendant of Saint George and the dragon, and a command staff. The banderole below reads WILLEM CAREL HENDRIK FRISO / Erfstadhouder der Vereenigde Nederlanden, accompanied by an orange branch.

Both trays are bordered by an upturned rim decorated with a blue-ground diaper pattern, rhythmically interrupted by floral panels. The undersides are raised on four bracket feet, a distinctive feature that enhances both their elegance and functionality.

Historically, these trays commemorate a significant moment in Dutch history. William IV (1711–1751), born posthumously to Johan Willem Friso, became Stadtholder of Friesland and Groningen at birth and later, in 1747, the first hereditary General Stadtholder of all seven United Provinces. His marriage in 1734 to Princess Anne of Hanover, daughter of King George II of Great Britain, symbolized a powerful Anglo-Dutch alliance. Though his tenure was brief, William IV is remembered for administrative reforms, including the abolition of indirect taxation.

The portraits are directly based on a print dated 1750 by Pieter Tanjé, after a drawing by Gerard Sanders, a German-born court painter active in Düsseldorf and later Rotterdam. This translation from print to ceramic illustrates the close interplay between graphic media and Delftware production, as well as the widespread dissemination of royal imagery through decorative arts.

As a pair, these trays carry an added layer of meaning: together they celebrate not only individual status but dynastic unity. Objects such as these would have functioned as both decorative showpieces and expressions of political allegiance, reflecting the pride and identity of their owners within the socio-political landscape of the Dutch Republic.

D1734
Pair of Blue and White Royal Portrait Trays
Delft, circa 1750

Each painted in the center with a bust-length portrait, one depicting Princess Anne elaborately coifed and wearing pearl earrings and a lavish gown with an ermine fur mantel, placed in a window opening with a background of trees, clouds and a pillar, the top of the window decorated with stylized acanthus leaves and a harp, beneath her a banderole inscribed ANNA VAN BRUNSWYK LUNENBURG / Prinsesfe van Oranje enz. enz. enz., flanked by orange branches with on one side a lion holding a bundle of arrows and on the other side the head of a unicorn; the other depicting Prince William IV wearing a short light wig, a sash and mantel with ermine fur collar, and the Order of the Garter on his embroidered uniform, and holding the coat of arms with a lion rampant with sword and a bundle of arrows, also placed in a window opening with a background of trees and clouds, the top of the window decorated with stylized acanthus leaves, a chain with a pendant in the form of Saint George and the dragon and a command staff having on a ribbon, the banderole beneath him inscribed WILLEM CAREL HENDRIK FRISO / Erfstadhouder der Vereenigde Nederlanden, and an orange branch, the upturned rim with a blue ground diaper work border interrupted with floral panels, and the underside raised on four bracket feet.

DIMENSIONS
Heights: both 27.2 cm. (10.7 in.);
Widths: both 27.6 cm. (10.9 in.)

PRICE
€ 18.000 (US$ 21.000 export*) incl. shipping
(excl. local taxes, if applicable)

William of Orange chose Delft for its strategic advantages. The city proved both loyal to the rebel cause and defensible: it lay beyond the immediate reach of Spanish forces, was protected by strong fortifications, and benefited from an extensive network of waterways that facilitated communication and supply. At the same time, his efforts to impose greater order on the military organization of the revolt proved crucial to its survival. He strengthened discipline, curbed the often unruly conduct of the Geuzen captains, and laid the foundations for a more structured military administration, responsible for the supply of artillery, gunpowder, transport, and provisions, as well as for the improved mustering and payment of troops.

Following his assassination in 1584 by Balthasar Gérard, authority passed to the States General until his son Maurice of Nassau was appointed stadholder in 1585. Building on the organizational and administrative foundations laid by his father, Maurice, in close cooperation with his cousin William Louis, stadholder of Friesland, initiated far-reaching reforms of the Dutch States Army. In 1599, the Ordre op de Wapeninge (Order Concerning the Arming of Troops) was established, setting standardized regulations for the armament and payment of infantry and cavalry units. These measures were particularly significant for the infantry, which formed the backbone of the Republic’s army during the Eighty Years’ War and accounted for a substantial portion of state expenditure. A growing emphasis was placed on the use of firearms, and the training of soldiers was increasingly systematized through drill instructions developed by William Louis and codified in the influential manual by the Southern Netherlandish artist Jacob de Gheyn (1565–1629).

Although Maurice did not reside in Delft, the city retained its military importance. Its role shifted from a centre of political leadership to one of logistical significance. Delft became a crucial hub within the Republic’s military infrastructure, housing both the provincial arsenal of Holland and the Generality’s central magazine. Together, these institutions formed a vital nexus in the supply and distribution of arms and munitions to both the standing army and civic militia units.

At the same time, this infrastructure entailed considerable risk. The catastrophic explosion of the gunpowder magazine in 1654, the so-called Delft Thunderclap, devastated a large part of the city and claimed many lives. Contemporary accounts describe the scale of destruction: approximately 200 houses were completely destroyed, a further 300 lost their roofs and windows, and scarcely a household in the city remained untouched. Entire neighborhoods were erased, and the disaster entered both visual and written memory as one of the most traumatic events in Delft’s history (Fig 1).

This event did not lead to a complete relocation of military storage from Delft. Already in the 1660s, a new gunpowder magazine was constructed at a distance of “a cannon shot” from the city, in an effort to prevent a recurrence of such devastation. At the same time, the arsenal in the city centre was extended (Fig. 2). Further expansion followed in the 1690s, when the arsenal doubled in size; to accommodate this enlargement, thirty-one houses were purchased and demolished.

The concentration of military resources profoundly shaped the character of Delft. Practices such as inspection, storage, and distribution formed part of daily life, reinforcing broader military reforms that emphasized order, coordination, and discipline. Even after the Peace of Münster in 1648, which marked the formal end of the Eighty Years’ War, the Dutch Republic did not enter a period of lasting stability. The Republic remained engaged in successive conflicts, including the Anglo-Dutch Wars, colonial confrontations overseas, and the crisis of the Rampjaar (Disaster Year) of 1672, when it faced invasion on multiple fronts. Within this context of persistent military tension, Delft retained, and indeed reaffirmed, its importance as a centre of military infrastructure.

By the eighteenth century, Delft’s role within this system had become more stable and institutionalized. While the city no longer functioned as a centre of military innovation or political leadership, its arsenals and depots remained in operation. The military thus persisted as a continuous presence within the urban fabric, embedded in its structures, labour, and daily routines.

Within this context, military imagery on seventeenth- and eighteenth century Delftware might be expected as a logical and meaningful theme, reflecting a system deeply embedded in the identity of the city. Yet, surprisingly few such objects have survived. Military subjects are far more commonly encountered on Delft and Northern Netherlandish tiles and tile panels, where they appear in greater number and variety. Engravings of soldiers by Jacob de Gheyn, for instance, served as an important source of inspiration and were widely adapted in seventeenth-century tile production.

Based on surviving objects, a modest interest in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century military themes in Delftware emerges towards the mid eighteenth century. This renewed attention may be linked to the political and military developments surrounding the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748). As an ally of Austria and Great Britain, the Republic became increasingly involved in the conflict, particularly when French forces advanced into the Southern Netherlands. The invasion of 1747 exposed the vulnerability of the Republic and led to significant political change.

In response to this crisis, William IV (1711–1751), Prince of Orange-Nassau, was appointed stadholder of all seven provinces, becoming the first to hold this office on a hereditary basis. At the same time, he was installed as Captain-General of the Union, consolidating both political and military authority. His wife, Anna of Hanover (1709–1759), Princess of Brunswick-Lüneburg and daughter of King George II of Great Britain, embodied the Republic’s dynastic ties with Britain and played an active political role, later serving as regent. Their elevation was accompanied by a surge in Orangist sentiment and public expressions of loyalty, reflected in Delft faience, such as a pair of bustes featuring the royal pair (fig. 3).

A small group of Delftware butter tubs preserved in the collection of Museum Prinsenhof Delft (fig. 4), decorated with military motifs and bearing an Orangist association, combines these themes. The Orangist secretary of Delft, Gaspard Rudolph van Kinschot, commissioned the butter dishes on the occasion of the inauguration of William IV as Captain-General of the Union on May 15, 1747. The museum’s collection also includes two plates dating from the first half of the eighteenth century, both depicting card-playing soldiers after a print by Cornelis Bloemaert II (1603-1692) (fig. 5), as well as a plate dating from the same period, showing the conquest of Maastricht by the Duke of Parma in 1579 (fig. 6).

An intriguing plaque from the Aronson Collection (main image), depicting military exercises, may be understood as part of this broader eighteenth-century emergence of the visual expression of military identity in Delftware. Although it appears to be unique, with no closely comparable examples currently known, it fits within this developing context. The composition is arranged in three horizontal registers, each illustrating a different aspect of military drill and exercise. The upper two registers depict artillery drills with a cannon and seem to be inspired by Jacques Callot’s (1592–1635) series Les exercices militaires (fig. 7), while the lower register shows two soldiers engaged in a fencing exercise.

While Callot produced numerous prints depicting military drill and the handling of weapons, these were not conceived as formal instructional tools comparable to the manuals of Jacob de Gheyn. Rather, they functioned as widely circulated visual observations of contemporary military practice. Their clarity of gesture and sequence nevertheless endowed them with a quasi-didactic quality, making the principles of drill and discipline accessible to a broader audience beyond the strictly military sphere.

Whether this plaque was intended as an instructive object or as a commemorative reflection on the importance of drill and discipline, introduced by Maurice and William Louis in the seventeenth century, remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that it demonstrates the remarkable breadth of subject matter explored by Delft pottery painters and reveals how military themes, though relatively rare, could be adapted into complex and intellectually layered compositions within Delft faience.

NOTES

1. K.W. Swart (eds. Raymond Fagel, M.E.H.N. Mout and Henk van Nierop), Willem van Oranje en de Nederlandse Opstand 1572–1584, The Hague, 1994, p. 69

2. A Geuzen captain was a leader of irregular rebel forces during the early stages of the Dutch Revolt, often commanding groups of insurgents or privateers who operated with a considerable degree of autonomy before the army became more formally organized.

3. The States General was the central governing body of the Dutch Republic, representing the collective interests of the seven United Provinces.

4. M.A.G. de Jong, ‘Militaire hervormingen in het Staatse leger en de opbouw van het wapenbedrijf 1585–1621’, in: Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 118, The Hague, 2003, p. 470.

5. M.A.G. de Jong, Militaire hervormingen in het Staatse leger en de opbouw van het wapenbedrijf 1585–1621, vol. 118, The Hague, 2003, p. 469. A “Generality magazine” (Generaliteitsmagazijn) was a centrally administered arsenal supplying the army of the Union as a whole, as opposed to provincial magazines maintained by the separate provinces.

6. Reinier Boitet, Beschryvinge van de Stad Delft, Delft, 1729, p. 564

7. Ibidem

8. ‘Zwaar Geschut’, City Archive Delft, published online, July 15, 2023

9. Wilhelm Joliet, Wisselwerking van sponsen en decors, Harlingen – Rotterdam, Wapenhandelinghe van roers, musquetten ende spiessen, n.d.

10. Caption with inventory number B 2-428-A

In this article, we look beyond the objects in the Van Gelder Collection themselves to the substances they formerly contained. Rather than focusing on form or decoration, we explore the collection through the lens of so-called wondermiddelen (wonder medicines): substances whose reputed powers were sustained by long-standing tradition and a belief in wonders that once formed an accepted part of medical practice.

In the early twentieth century, the Dutch physician and medical historian M. A. van Andel published his study Klassieke Wondermiddelen, a work rooted in a growing interest among physicians in the history of their own discipline. Van Andel did not approach these remedies as curiosities or superstitions to be dismissed, but as an accepted part of earlier medical practice, using them to illustrate how deeply tradition and belief in wonders had shaped pre-modern medical practice.¹

Remarkably, Van Andel wrote from Gorinchem, the same town in which the pharmacist Van Gelder would later establish his own pharmacy. What at first appears to be a minor coincidence proved a fruitful point of departure for connecting Van Andel’s historical perspective with the material legacy preserved in the Van Gelder Collection. Where Van Andel reconstructed a medical worldview that has largely receded in the western world through texts and historical sources, the Van Gelder Collection preserved its material remains.

Among the many substances discussed by Van Andel, adeps hominis stands out as one of the most striking examples. Known in medical Latin as adeps hominis, and often obtained from the bodies of executed criminals, hence its vernacular designation beulszalf (executioner’s creme), it was prescribed for wounds, rheumatism, and disorders of the nerves.² Its use reflects a set of assumptions fundamental to apothecary practice: the belief in transferable qualities, the authority of long-established tradition, and the search for substances endowed with extraordinary efficacy. According to this logic, vital force was thought not to vanish immediately at death, but to remain active in bodily matter and capable of being transmitted through it. Fat taken from individuals who had died suddenly in full health and physical strength, was therefore considered especially potent. Although such remedies gradually disappeared from regulated pharmaceutical practice, the broader medical logic they exemplified also informed the use of other animal, vegetal, and mineral substances in early modern medicine, albeit on different grounds.

While the apothecary ceramics assembled by Van Gelder do not include vessels associated with adeps hominis, they do preserve inscriptions naming substances that occupied a similar conceptual space.

One such substance is dragon blood, Sanguis Draconis. Despite its evocative name, it is neither blood nor connected to the world of dragons, but a deep red gum-like resin obtained from trees native to the Canary Islands and Madeira, as well as from various tropical plants (Fig. 1).³ In early modern Europe, however, the distinction between appearance and material reality was far less decisive. Its vivid color and suggestive name encouraged its interpretation as a powerful vital substance. Sanguis Draconis was used primarily for wound treatment and to staunch bleeding, applications that aligned closely with its perceived sanguine nature. The belief that the “blood of a dragon” could restore or protect human blood exemplifies a medical imagination shaped by analogy and symbolism. A vessel inscribed Sang. Dragon. thus records not only a medicinal substance, but a way of thinking (Fig. 2).

Equally charged, though rooted in the animal world, was castoreum, inscribed on apothecary jars in the collection as O(leum) Castorei (Fig. 3). This pungent substance was obtained from the scent glands of the beaver and was widely prescribed for nervous disorders, convulsions, and what early physicians described as hysteria. Castoreum was surrounded by a persistent and vivid myth, already circulating in antiquity and recorded by authors such as Pliny the Elder: the belief that a hunted beaver would bite off its own testicles to escape, sacrificing part of itself to survive.⁴ This misconception also led to the erroneous assumption that castoreum itself was derived from the testicles rather than from specialized scent glands. Although anatomically false, the story lent castoreum an aura of self-sacrifice and extraordinary potency. Its repellent odor, rather than undermining confidence in the remedy, was taken as proof of its strength. At the same time, castoreum does possess genuine pharmacological properties, as it contains salicylic acid, a compound derived from the beaver’s diet of willow bark.⁵ In this sense, Oleum Castorei functioned as a wonder medicine whose reputation was shaped by both myth and measurable effect

A more subtle, but no less evocative substance is spermaceti. Spermaceti is a waxy material extracted from the head of the sperm whale, an animal that early modern Europeans knew primarily through perilous maritime encounters (Fig. 4). It is encountered in the collection on a vessel inscribed u ceti u spermat:ceti (Fig. 5). Literally, the inscription reads Unguentum Ceti sive Sperma Ceti (ointment of ceti, that is, spermaceti). The double formulation reflects early modern pharmaceutical practice, in which a single substance could circulate under different names in medical literature and prescriptions, and served to ensure clear identification rather than grammatical precision.  Whales occupied a liminal position between the known and the monstrous, and substances derived from them inherited this ambiguity. Spermaceti was valued for its cooling, soothing, and restorative qualities and was widely used in ointments for burns, wounds, and skin conditions. Its perceived efficacy drew not only on practical experience, but also on its exotic origin and the dangers involved in its acquisition. As with many wonder medicines, rarity and risk enhanced therapeutic credibility. The cylindrical jar mentioned above, shows that this substance was used around 1810.

Together, these substances, human fat, dragon blood, castoreum, and spermaceti, each grounded in different forms of tradition and experience, reveal a medical culture in which belief, observation, and material practice were closely intertwined. The pharmaceutical ceramics of the Van Gelder Collection give material form to this world and offer a rare and compelling insight into the enduring power of wonder within the history of medicine.

Notes

1. M.A. van Andel, Klassieke Wondermiddelen, Gorinchem, 1928, p. 3

2. Van Andel, 1928, p. 49

3. Nationaal Farmaceutisch Museum, collection no. 193

4. Igor Rosa, From Scythia to Sarmatia – Medical Use of Beaverʼs Body Parts from the  Antiquity to the Early Modern Period, Bratislava, 2018, p. 9

5. Rosa, 2018, pp. 7-8

Delft flower baskets, intended for floral arrangements, have formed part of the repertoire of Delft potteries since the later seventeenth century. Certain workshops even appointed specialists devoted exclusively to the production of these so-called bennetjes. Dated examples reveal that they were frequently commissioned as gifts for festive or ceremonial occasions, underscoring their dual function as both utilitarian and ornamental objects. Their presence in distinguished collections, including that of Paleis Het Loo, attests to their prestige.

This mid-eighteenth-century pair, with its intended use indicated on the bottom, confirms that the tradition of arranging flowers in ceramic baskets continued, albeit on a more modest scale. The relatively small number of surviving eighteenth-century examples suggests that the practice reached its zenith in the final quarter of the seventeenth century. The delicately pierced body and carefully executed decoration of this pair point to the hand of an accomplished and experienced maker.

D2554
Blue and White Pair of Open Work Baskets
Delft, circa 1750

Each marked IB in blue for Justus Brouwer of De Porceleyne Byl (The Porcelain Axe) factory from 1739 to 1775

Each finely painted with an elaborate central scene depicting a basket brimming with fruit, resting on an ornate baroque table and surrounded by delicately rendered insects and butterflies, the pierced sides highlighted in cobalt blue, the handles molded in the form of interlocking dolphins, the upper rim featuring a scrollwork band both on the exterior and the interior, the lower exterior decorated with a geometrical band of squares and triangles with stripes in the middle.

DIMENSIONS
Width: 25.5 and 26 cm. (10 and 10.2 in.)

PROVENANCE
Cor & An Erwich (Barbet) Collection, Belgium;
Aronson Antiquairs, Amsterdam

PRICE
€ 26.000 (US$ 31.000 export*) incl. shipping
(excl. local taxes, if applicable)

For thousands of years, salt has been an indispensable commodity. Essential for preserving and flavoring food, it once held such universal value that it functioned as an international medium of exchange. In antiquity, Roman soldiers were famously paid in salt, giving rise to the Latin salarium, the origin of the modern word “salary.” Salt was also among the earliest commodities to be taxed, with records of salt taxation in China dating back as far as 2000 BC. Given its economic and cultural importance, it is hardly surprising that salt occupied a prominent place on medieval and Renaissance dining tables.

Salt cellars, often referred to simply as “salts”, were designed to contain this precious substance, with the earliest known examples already in use in classical Rome. Beyond their practical function, salts served as powerful social indicators. The quality of salt presented by a host reflected both wealth and status, while a guest’s position at the table could be judged by their proximity to the salt cellar: to sit “above the salt” was a mark of distinction. The most luxurious salts were fashioned from precious metals, while others were made from porcelain, earthenware, or pewter.

By the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the symbolic significance of salt gradually diminished, and salt cellars became correspondingly smaller. The present Delft salt cellar, however, belongs to an earlier tradition. Its square form and notable height point to a period when salt still held considerable ceremonial importance. Archival sources confirm that square salts were produced in Delft from at least 1667 onwards, yet very few examples of this particular model have survived. As such, this piece offers a rare and evocative glimpse into the rituals and hierarchies of the seventeenth-century table.

D2512
Blue and White Square Salt Cellar
Delft, circa 1670

Biconical vessel on a square base with four round feet in each corner, continuous decoration with on each side a figure in a various landscape, at the top, a square basin with a cherry motif surrounded by a band of scroll work.

DIMENSIONS
Height: 12 cm. (4.7 in.)

PROVENANCE
German Private Collection, Hessen