'Notitie der Teekeningen van Sybrand Feitama', II: 'verkocht, verhandeld, verëerd, geruild en overgedaan'

After the death of his father Isaac Feitama in 1709, the young Sybrand continued collecting, making several purchases that same year. Not all of them were happy ones, however. The Presentation in the Temple by Jan van Neck (Fig. 1, Note 2), bought from Simon Schijnvoet, proved to be a worked-up offset of the original drawing, which he eventually acquired from his friend Egidius Beukelaar in 1736 (Fig. 2, Note 3), so he sold it to L.F. Duboug in 1754 (Note 5). He seems not to have known that the original drawing was probably a preliminary study for the altarpiece mentioned by Houbraken as Van Neck's best work (Note 4). As in this case, so most of the background information on the Feitama drawings has been lost since the sale of 1758, the catalogue giving only a description of the subject, the measurements and the technique (Note 6). It is precisely the additional information that makes the 'Notitie' so fascinating, although the least interesting part of it now are the prices Sybrand 11 noted so carefully as his own main concern. It is worth noting, however, that exceptionally high prices are mentioned for sheets by Nicolaas Berchem, Gerard Dou, Frans van Mieris, Adriaen van Ostade and Adriaen van de Velde, Rembrandt coming nowhere by comparison. Some of the valuable information provided by the `Notitie' was dealt with in the previous article (Note 7). Some of this is very clear, e.g. in the case of a Ruisdael drawing virtually certainly to be identified with a view of the country-house Kostverloren (Fig. 3, Note 8). The authenticity of this work, which was bought by Cornelis Ploos van Amstel in 1758, has been doubted (Note 10), but the problem would seem to be solved by Feitama's note that it is one of those which Dirck Dalens acquired from Ruisdael's estate after 1682 and subsequently worked up (Note 11). Another of these is a view of Alkmaar now in Budapest (Fig. 4, Note 13). An example of additional information that might easily be overlooked is the note relating to a drawing by Frederik de Moucheron bought in 1745. This must have come from the album of