RKD STUDIES

Oil on canvas, 127 x 101.6 cm, inscribed, dated, and monogrammed center right: AETATIS SVAE 55/ 1648 / IH
Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario, inv. no. 2523
Pendant to A4.3.26

Based on Van Gelder's discovery of the original form of the monogram as iH in 1954, this and the following painting could be identified as works by Jan Hals (c. 1620-c. 1654).¹ Both pictures adopt stylistic elements from contemporary works by Frans Hals, such as the disintegration of contours into unconnected brushstrokes, and an increasingly patchy treatment of facial areas. It is typical that this hesitant imitation of Hals's technique is only implemented in less precarious areas such as the hair. Conversely, in the central area of the face, it appears only as a stripy execution of the modelling shadows around the eyes and the shaded part of the face. Slive gives a detailed account of the pair’s provenance and discovery.²

Oil on canvas, 127.6 x 101.6 cm, inscribed, dated, and monogrammed center left: AETATIS SUA 47 / 1648 / IH
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no. 01.7445
Pendant to A4.3.25

In this portrait, both the flat and smooth execution of the hands and clothing, and the somewhat flickering handling in the facial features can be clearly observed. In this case, Frans Hals's concise highlights and cast shadows have been transformed into unstable contours. It is also noticeable that the facial expression is not understood as an overriding emotional characterization, the lips are merely showing a static, thin smile.

Oil on canvas, 86.4 x 66 cm
Sale New York, (Christie’s), 3 October 2002, lot 164

This portrait is based on Hals's standard compositions. Despite its bad condition and apparent repeated reworkings, it can be ascertained that this is not an autograph work by Frans Hals himself. Nevertheless, without a clarification of the material structure, a more precise attribution is not possible. Based on paintings of a related style, it can be dated to c. 1645-1650.

A4.3.27
© 2002 Christie’s Images Limited

Oil on panel, 76.3 x 111.8 cm
Italy, private collection

The partially abraded surface and the relatively small format complicate the comparison of this family portrait with other paintings by the Hals workshop. As Slive explained, the landscape is a contribution by a painter from the circle of Jacob van Ruisdael (1628-1682).³ In my opinion, this could be Hals's son Claes Hals (1628-1686).⁴ Due to the limited number of identified works by his hand, however, it is difficult to come to a definitive attribution.

The figures positioned in front of the staffage of trees follow the template of Hals’s other family portraits. The faces of the man and the woman are of fairly good quality. However, they are rigidly attached to bodies with much too small hands, as are the two children’s heads. It is conceivable that they have been carried out by Jan Hals (c. 1620-c. 1654).

A4.3.28
© Galleria Luigi Caretto

Oil on canvas, 109.8 x 82.5 cm
Cincinnati, Taft Museum of Art, inv. no. 1931.451
Pendant to A4.3.30

This portrait of a seated young man turned to the right is set up to form an impressive pair with its companion piece, the composition of both being possibly designed by Frans Hals himself. The hairstyle and general appearance of the man’s face correspond to a great extent to the Portrait of a man in New York (A1.124). However, the manner of execution shows typical differences which can be very well monitored in today’s circumstances. High resolution images that are available online permit a much more precise comparison than any printed reproduction. In this case, they demonstrate a different style of brushwork in the Cincinnati portrait, than can be observed in the New York picture, with sharp contour lines placed on the mouth, nose and eyes – giving the eyes a fixed expression. The dashed markings of the collar and the linear rendering of the curling hair differ from the soft tonality in the New York picture. The peculiarly shaped fist on the left and the too large, foreshortened hand on the right display a lack of anatomical understanding. The spread fingers can be compared to the hand holding a book in the Portrait of Johannes Hoornbeeck of 1645 (A1.116), which, however, shows a much softer and more varied modelling.

Oil on canvas, 109.5 x 82.5 cm
Cincinnati, Taft Museum of Art, inv. no. 1931.455
Pendant to A4.3.29

With her right arm over the back of the chair, the posture of the woman in this portrait is comparable to that in the Portrait of a seated lady, presumably Maria Vernatti in Bucharest (A4.3.21), the Portrait of a woman in New York (A4.3.39), the 1643 Portrait of Maria Bastiaens van Hout in Stockholm (A3.45), and the 1650 Portrait of a woman in Houston (A4.3.33). Additionally, the woman’s upright and proud pose resembles that in the Portrait of a woman in Paris (A3.53). The hands in the Stockholm and Paris paintings demonstrate the association between calligraphic brushwork and anatomical accuracy that is characteristic for Hals himself. In comparison, the hands in the present painting are surrounded by hard contours and are clumsily modelled, especially the lower hand, which is too narrow. Overall, the configuration of the contours is dashed, rather than softly modelled, which makes the cuffs, collar and bow appear flat. The consistently drawn line of the mouth and the contours of the eyes and eyelids, which are also too hard, give the impression of a frozen expression. Nevertheless, the loose application of paint creates a consistent overall effect of lightness.

Oil on canvas, 58.4 x 47 cm
Sale New York (Sotheby’s), 31 January 2013, lot 34

Stylistically, this painting is close to the works that were created in the Hals workshop. It is possible that it was painted there, even though the lighting is uneven and the contouring hesitant. There is no area where the application of paint demonstrates the master’s own rhythmically structured brushwork. An unequivocal direction of the gaze and the representations of distinctive facial features, always present in Hals, are neglected here in favor of a smooth surface representation and minute detailing in the beard area. According to anecdote, the portrait depicts minister John Livingston (1603-1672), who was banished from England and moved to Rotterdam in 1663.

A4.3.31

Oil on canvas, 84.4 x 65.9 cm, inscribed and dated upper right: AETAT 73 / 1650
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv.no. OS 2023-17 (on loan from Adam Williams Fine Art Ltd., New York)
Pendant to A4.3.33

The corresponding size, composition and provenance from Cholmondeley Castle confirm the relationship between the present portrait and the subsequent one as companion pieces. If the lost inscription on the back of the pendant would have been historically correct, the present sitter can be identified as Jonkheer Willem Adriaen van Hoorn, about whose life nothing could be found as of yet. More recently, an alternative identification as Johannes Claesz. van Loo († 1660) was proposed by Pieter Biesboer.⁵

The only part of the painting directly reminiscent of Hals’s approach, is the collar with its strong shadows. The execution of the hands and face is based on Hals’s style, but it is hesitant and lacks his rhythmical verve. Once again, a draughtsman-like reliance on contours dominates – for example in the bright strands of hair – which stands out clearly from Hals’s more abstract observation of the visual effects. The tiny ear on the left appears peculiar.

Oil on canvas, 84.8 x 69.2 cm, inscribed and dated upper left: AETAT 62 /1650
Houston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no. 51.3
Pendant to A4.3.32

Until shortly before 1935, this painting’s canvas had been mounted on panel, which bore an old inscription on the back, dating probably from the 18th century. It identified the sitter as ‘Elisabeth van der Meeren’, born in 1588 and married on 28 October 1604 to ‘Jonkheer Willem Adriaen van Hoorn’. Unfortunately, nothing is known about these persons so far.

The style of painting in the woman’s portrait differs from that of the man’s; it is more patchy and more colorful, which became particularly well visible after cleaning in 1998. Uncharacteristic to Hals’s brushwork, the face and hands are painted in short brushstrokes of equal width. The manner of execution shows parallels with the Portrait of a seated woman holding a fan in Cincinnati (A4.3.30), Portrait of an unknown woman in Saint Louis (A4.3.35), and Portrait of a young woman in Hull (A4.3.45).

Oil on canvas, 147.1 x 90.2 cm
Kansas City, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, inv. no. 31-90
Pendant to A4.3.35

This portrait and its pendant display a particularly pronounced drawn-like brushwork, with streaks of light and shadow inscribed in thin lines and semi-dry paint. Comparable to Jans Hals’s 1648 Portrait of an unknown man in Toronto (A4.3.25), the shadows on the eyelids and eyebrows are indicated by a bundle of dark lines [1][2]. There are further similarities in the bands of light and shadow in the hair, beard, and moustache, which are drawn with thin lines of dry paint. This handling is far removed from the soft and flowing paint application of Frans Hals himself. Uniform hard contour lines structure the face and hand, and blended flat stripes indicate the folds in the clothing, especially mechanically on the left arm.⁶ Hals may have drawn the first outlines of the laughing face himself, but the painted surface is entirely different from his brushwork. Naturally, the exceptionally large, rigid hand that hangs down as if paralyzed cannot be attributed to him.

1
Detail of cat.no. A4.3.34
Image courtesy Nelson-Atkins Media Services, Jamison Miller

Oil on canvas, 103.8 x 90.3 cm
St. Louis, Saint Louis Art Museum, inv. no. 272.1955
Pendant to A4.3.34

The woman’s pose, with the conventional gesture and the turn of the smiling face towards the viewer, may be based on a design by Frans Hals. Yet, the painterly execution is certainly not by him. To a great extent, the style of the planar treatment of the face, collar and cuffs matches that of the London family portrait (A4.3.19).⁷ In both cases, the contours of the eyes, nose and mouth are overemphasized, and the three-dimensional modelling of the face has been neglected in favor of a flat application of paint. The same applies to the hands, which are outlined by sharp contours – the hanging hand on the left is particularly unattractive. A peculiarity of this painting are the small bright dashes of the brush which demarcate the shadow of the nose and the highlighted edge of the cheek. The resulting expression of this portrait is a frozen smile, rather than a representation of captured vitality. Nevertheless, it is possible that the likeness was considered sufficient, on the basis of Hals’s design.

Oil on panel, 64.5 x 46.3 cm
Budapest, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, inv. no. 277

This painting was trimmed along its edges, especially on the outer sides. Ekkart, therefore, assumed an original size of approximately 67 x 57 cm.⁸ The identification of the sitter as the father in the London family portrait (A4.3.19), which was proposed by Gudlaugsson and Brochagen, seems plausible, even though this does not provide a specific name.⁹ Much less plausible is an identification with the painter Jan Asselijn (c. 1610-1652), which had been suggested in earlier literature.¹⁰ There is insufficient resemblance between the present painting and the portrait engraving of Asselijn by Rembrandt.¹¹]

The final execution of the portrait cannot be attributed to Frans Hals, because of the sharply drawn facial features and the clumsy modelling of the sleeve, shirt, and collar. It is therefore more probable that an assistant carried out the detailing after Hals’s design. The drawing-like style in this painting can be associated with the large group of artworks, beginning with Portrait of a seated man of c. 1645 (A4.3.16), and continuing via the two family portraits (A4.3.19, A4.3.24), up to the very latest pictures.

A4.3.36
© Museum of Fine Arts Budapest

Oil on canvas, 98.2 x 80 cm
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum Haarlem, inv.no. OS 2011-7 (on loan from private collection)

This painting was included in the early catalogue raisonnés as a work by Frans Hals but remained inaccessible for a long time. A watercolor copy by Anthonie Andriessen (1746-1813), together with another one that copied the now lost male pendant [3][4], were among the most exciting finds on Hals's oeuvre in recent times. It seems likely that Hals provided the initial design for the composition of the two portraits, which then formed the basis for the detailed painterly execution, that in the present case is attributable to an assistant – for which Slive tentatively considered Jan Hals (c. 1620-c. 1654).¹² Yet, with its less detailed approach, the strong contours and the confident brushwork, the picture may be closer to the large group of paintings tentatively associated with Frans Hals (II) (1618-1669). The entry in the 2008 sale catalogue noted the stylistic similarity to the female portraits in the Louvre (A3.53) and formerly in Vienna (A4.3.23), which the present publication also attributes to Frans the Younger.¹³

A4.3.37

3
Anthonie Andriessen
Standing gentleman, c. 1790
Private collection
cat.no. D68

4
Anthonie Andriessen
Standing Lady, c. 1790
Private collection
cat.no. D69

Oil on canvas, 100.3 x 82.9 cm, monogrammed and dated lower right: FH / 165..
New York, The Frick Collection, inv.no. 1906.1.71

Several attempts have been made to declare this and the following portrait (A4.3.39) to be pendants, and, more specifically, as a self-portrait of Frans Hals and a portrait of his second wife Lysbeth Reyniers.¹⁴ Even more adventurous was the attempt to recognize a portrait of Rembrandt (1606-1669) in it, which would have been complemented by a portrait of Geertje Dircx in the following female portrait.¹⁵

Today's appearance of the painting can only be explained through an implausible reworking process, which added the now visible hand up to the edge of the cuff, as well as the back of the chair, and its decoration. All of these are copied directly from the 1626 Portrait of Isaac Abrahamsz. Massa [5], and he brush was inserted exactly in the place where Massa holds a branch. The fact that these elements were added on top of the dried paint layers is also confirmed by the early onset of craquelure – which in this form results from adding paint onto a non-absorbent underlayer. The present construction of the resting arm, with both the incorrectly placed slit in the sleeve, and the light reflections on a baseless fold in the sleeve, is anatomically wrong. A drawing attributed to Casper Casteleyn (c. 1625- after 1661) (D59) shows a possible original position [6]. This pose corresponds to that of several other artist-portraits, such as Judith Leyster’s (1609-1660) self-portrait from c. 1630, or the one attributed to by Cornelis Bisschop (1630-1674).¹⁶ Such a seating position would also explain the location of the coat, which is visible at the lower edge. It follows from these considerations that no normal human body would rise so far above the back of a chair as in this painting unless it were a child's chair. This is also confirmed by the arm height in all other Hals-portraits. Only a low armrest could have been placed under the arm of the present sitter, as suggested in the Portrait of a man in Berlin (A3.18). It seems more likely that a large-scale change has taken place, which would need to be confirmed by X-ray photography. This being said, nothing visible to the naked eye suggests Hals’s brushwork. In addition, the execution of the face shows a lack of confidence that differentiates it from autograph facial areas by Hals.

A4.3.38

5
and Pieter de Molijn Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Isaac Abrahamsz. Massa (1586-1643), dated 1626
Toronto (Canada), Art Gallery of Ontario, inv./cat.nr. 54/31
cat.no. A2.7
Photo: © AGO

Oil on canvas, 100 x 81.9 cm
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. no. 91.26.10

This female portrait surely used to be associated with a male pendant, but it cannot be determined whether it was the abovementioned portrait, now in the Frick Collection (A4.3.38). Effectively, the size and style of painting in both correspond to the Hals-style of c. 1650, but they differ in tonality. When they were placed in direct comparison in December 1966, the experts from the Frick collection and the Metropolitan Museum agreed in rejecting the pendant hypothesis.¹⁷ The columns in the backgrounds are later additions which were presumably added to create or enhance the visual connection between the two, when hung next to each other. The two-dimensional execution of the clothing areas in the present painting resembles the modelling in the 1650 Portrait of a woman (A4.3.33), the Portrait of an unknown woman in St. Louis (A4.3.35) and the Portrait of a lady with gloves (A4.3.37). The facial expression is a little constrained; the loosest section is that of the folded hands, which is closest to Frans Hals or may have been reworked by him.

A4.3.39

Oil on canvas, 67.3 x 50.8 cm, monogrammed lower right: FH
Pasadena, Norton Simon Art Foundation, inv. no. M.1972.4.P

This half-length figure with a declamatory hand on his chest was identified by Valentiner as the marine painter Jan van de Cappelle (1626-1679).¹⁸ However, the only evidence is a listing of a portrait by Hals of Van de Cappelle in the latter’s estate inventory of 1680.¹⁹ The age of the sitter would make this identification plausible, but there is no other reference in the painting, and no certain comparative portrait has been found so far.

The execution of the painting typically differs from Hals's manner. Instead of the observation of a richly varied tonality and a calligraphic brushwork, partly detached from the subject, there is an emphasis on contours drawn with a broad brush. This portrait the group of pictures whose author is suggested as possibly Frans Hals (II) in the present publication. The opaque paint layer in the upper half of the composition gives no indication of whether a broad-brimmed hat may have been visible originally, has been overpainted. At least, the mechanical treatment of the hair area suggests later alterations.

A4.3.40
© Norton Simon Museum