RKD STUDIES

Wilhelm von Bode’s (1845-1929) 1883 publication about the signed original version of the Merry trio also mentioned the most significant difference in comparison with the Berlin picture [108]. Instead of the girl’s head behind the two main figures there was a depiction of ‘a jolly fellow with thick hair’.¹ The Sotheby’s painting [109], sold in 1979 as ‘circle of Frans Hals’ and probably identical with a painting sold in Paris in 1881 as attributed to Frans Hals, shows just such a head in a plausible manner. But was this painting really just created in 1629/1630 or later, as a borrowing from Judith Leyster (1609-1660), as Slive and Hofrichter suggest?² I find this hard to imagine. Assuming the signature and the date of the Sotheby’s painting to be authentic – the third digit is not clear, but could not be moved by decades for stylistic reasons – we have a place of creation that was Hals’s workshop and 1616 as a terminus post quem non for the two variants of this composition. The likelihood that the execution of the main figure and probably also that of the female figure in the Berlin painting can be attributed to Willem Buytewech (c. 1591/1592-1624) does not contradict these findings. The Sotheby’s version would then be a slightly simplified workshop replica, where the somewhat rigid girl’s head was exchanged for the more spirited portrayal of a laughing boy. The direction of movement, combining the boy’s hand, arm, and head, corresponds to Hals’s compositional templates and seems to anticipate the gestures of the Young man and woman in an inn of 1623 (A3.3). And the design of the face in movement with a laughing open mouth and merry eyes is so typical for Hals that he seems likely to be the originator.

If we compare the details, there are striking similarities with the face of the main figure in The Merry company by Judith Leyster [110]. Looking at the edge of the collar, the outline of the cap, and the lights and shadows in the face, it becomes clear that the same pattern applies [111] [112]. It is also clear that Leyster’s execution is superior. But how can we explain this parallel, thirteen years before its execution? If we do not want to ignore the date of the Sotheby’s picture, its style and its ties to the Hals workshop of c. 1616, then the two faces are original, and meaningful as documents of a lost workshop model by Frans Hals. The similarities between both executions and their relationship with other creations by Hals support this conclusion. If this assessment is correct, it also becomes understandable that the Merry company was attributed several times in former years to both Hals and Leyster together.³ Clearly, a motif from Hals’s stock of study material has been reused there.

108
after Frans Hals (I)
Merry trio, c. 1616
canvas, oil paint, 81 x 62 cm
formerly Berlin, Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum, inv.no. 801D
cat.no. B2a

109
after Frans Hals (I)
Merry trio, after 1616
canvas, oil paint, 78.5 x 60 cm
upper right: FH:1616
sale Amsterdam (Sotheby Mak van Waay), 23-25 April 1973, lot 76
cat.no. B2b

110
Judith Leyster
Merry company, c. 1629
Switzerland, Belgium, private collection Eric and Marie-Louise Albada Jelgersma
© Christie’s Images Limited [2018]

This kind of reuse deserves closer inspection. Ever since Judith Leyster was discovered as an independent artistic personality in 1893, the influence of Frans Hals on her paintings has been frequently referred to.⁴ Leyster’s first signed work dates from 1629 and documents her activity as an independent painter. The Merry company is not dated, but its style places it in this early period, which also applies to its probable pendant, The last drop.⁵ The fairly large painting is further authenticated by the self-portrait of the painter in front of her easel, in which the violin player at the right of the composition is depicted [113]. As such, its invention by Leyster is underlined, which may be in the context of representing herself as a painter of portraits and figures – aiming for admission into the Haarlem guild of St Luke’s, which accepted her in 1633.⁶ None of these pictures shows a close imitation of Frans Hals, neither in the composition nor in the color design. The sometimes coarse brushstroke is similar, but with Leyster it goes in different directions and usually along the preconceived facial contours. In this way, she does not create original visual patterns. Hals’s style only becomes apparent in the composition and painterly execution of the head, which is skillfully linked to the diagonal direction of the facial lines. This laughing face is the virtuoso part of the picture, executed differently from the other faces of the trio [112] [114] [115] and probably an exact copy of the design sketch that was also used for the Sotheby’s painting. It displays a simplified variant of the scratching technique with the handle of the brush is, which Hals used repeatedly to represent hair.

113
Judith Leyster
Self portrait of Judith Leyster (1609-1660), c. 1630
Washington (D.C.), National Gallery of Art (Washington), inv./cat.nr. 1949.6.1

114
Detail of fig. 110
Judith Leyster
Merry company, c. 1629
sale London (Christie’s), 6-7 December 2018, lot 12

115
Detail of fig. 110
Judith Leyster
Merry company, c. 1629
sale London (Christie’s), 6-7 December 2018, lot 12

In contrast to any finished paintings, the collection of models and designs remained in the Hals workshop, where it could be added to, varied on, and used repeatedly. This lower level of image production enabled experiment and development, as we can see in the head of the Violin player (A4.2.8a) [116]. There, the observation of the face from below is even more pronounced and enhanced by the lighting. Hofrichter attributes this painting to Leyster and dates it to c. 1633-1635, yet I perceive a different mode of expression than that of Leyster.⁷ Another telling example of the reuse and development of certain models, are the head and hand of the Boy with a lute and a wineglass (A4.2.7). The portrait ‘snapshots’ of the respective models, taken from different angles and in different light, provided authentic impressions which made the paintings attractive. Sometimes even earlier studies were used for this purpose, as in the example of the so-called Young man holding a lily [117] from the Hals workshop. It depicts a painting on an easel showing the old man wearing a red hat with a fox tail, whom we encountered already in the two variants of The merry trio (B2a, B2b) and in the drawing by Willem Buytewech (c. 1591/1592-1624) (D3). The bold dissolution of the representation in short dashes of color is particularly striking [118]. The protagonist of the painting, a young man wearing a beret, is holding a lily in his hand and seems to lean back while absorbed in thought. The relationship of his posture and gesture to the painted figure behind him is unclear. Probably the old man in the painting on the easel is declaiming something meaningful about the fading of life from the open book in his hands. The question arises as to how these visual quotations came about and how they were chosen. Particularly in the case of the Young man holding a lily, of which there are five known versions in a similar size (A4.2.47b, A4.2.47c, A4.2.47d, A4.2.47e), three of them showing an easel and only the version in the Louvre including a legible painted scene on it. Traditionally, art historians assumed that the executing painter made the necessary decisions on the content and design. Indeed, this is true for the modern era, when painting materials were cheaper, and thus motifs to be depicted may be chosen at liberty, the market was receptive for various offers, and the buyers were anonymous. In Hals’s century, however, panel supports, canvases and ground layers already represented a significant cost, with brushes and pigment even more so. The work that went into the creation of a painting was planned economically and coordinated in accordance with the wishes of patrons or potential buyers. The selection of a certain composition and of motifs had stood the test of time and was based on readily available models in drawings, colored sketches, and engravings. There were no freely available models from books, prints and visual media like there are today – and neither were there picture collections that were accessible to the public. In the circumstances of Hals’s century, the majority of sold paintings were subsequently out of reach, with only a small share available for viewing at art dealers and in private homes. The option to create detailed and time-consuming copies, as in the example of the Merry company or Young man holding a lily, was limited to painters’ workshops and dealers’ rooms. If pictures were copied there fully or in part, it was with regard to a commission or a plausible marketing opportunity. Because of this, the much repeated compositions reflect the interest of contemporaries in the visible aspects of human behavior.

The study heads of laughing children and young fish sellers formed a particular repertoire of the Hals workshop, which met this interest in the 1620s and 1630s. This production was based on the master’s portrait sketches. Assistants would more or less rework and complete those to saleable paintings, as can already be seen in the examples of the Young boy in profile (A3.31) and the Laughing child (A3.6). The composition of the Boy with a flute, for which Seymour Slive lists a total of seven versions, seems only slightly supplemented.⁸ Four of these are roundels in the same size measuring c. 28 to 31 cm in diameter (A4.2.3a, A4.2.3b, A4.2.3f, A4.2.3g) and two more with a diameter each of 38 and 39 cm (A4.2.3c, A4.2.3d). In addition, there is another example of the same size in the first group in a diamond shape (A4.2.3e). But in spite of all similarities, none of these variants can be considered the prime, original model that inspired the remaining versions. Nevertheless, there is a superior execution of a highly similar face within a larger composition: Two children with a cat [119], signed by Judith Leyster and most likely dating from her earliest period. Dated paintings by Leyster are preserved from 1629 onwards, and therefore this picture was most often dated to c. 1629-1630.⁹ The close correspondence of the motifs in the two compositions casts new light on the work of Leyster in Hals’s workshop. Only there could she have found the model for the boy’s face, which appears accurate in every detail in her painting. She adapted Hals’s model by turning it noticeably to the left, thus aligning it within her composition that is based on a sequence of repeating diagonals. This arrangement follows examples by Frans Hals, from whom she borrowed the central motif as well. The result is her most ‘Halsian’ painting, which in turn became known to a wider public through an engraving by Cornelis Danckerts (1604-1656) (C15) and continued to make an impression in painted copies and variants (A4.2.3h).¹⁰ Clearly, the central motif borrowed from Hals was the main attraction, which also shows in later copies where Leyster’s figure of a second child was dispensed with [120] [121][122].

With the Danckerts print, there is the unusual fact that it reproduces a signed painting by Leyster, yet is inscribed F. Hals pinxit. This cannot be explained as an error, since engraving was a laborious procedure, and no other genre painting by Hals was engraved promptly after it was created. The only examples possibly that may have been created just within Hals’s lifetime, are two mezzotints after paintings created in 1624-1625 (C12) and 1630-1632 (C21), made by Wallerant Vaillant (1623-1677) who only learned this technique in 1658. The exceptional reproduction in Danckert’s engraving must therefore have had a particular occasion or patron, who probably knew what the maker’s mark F.Hals meant. An execution of Leyster’s painting in Hals’s workshop, and carried out under his supervision would thus be an obvious assumption. As in the case of the boy in the Merry company, Judith Leyster conveyed a clear impression of a lost portrait model by Hals.

116
Detail of cat.no. A4.2.8a
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Jan Miense Molenaer
The violin player, c. 1626-1628
Virginia Museum of Fine Arts
Photo: Troy Wilkinson

117
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Young man holding a lily, 1640
canvas, oil paint, 85 x 70 cm
center right: F.H./1640
Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv.no. RF 2130
© 2017 RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Tony Querrec
cat.no. A4.2.47a

118
Detail of fig. 117
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Young man holding a lily, 1640
Paris, Musée du Louvre
© 2017 RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Tony Querrec

119
Judith Leyster
Two children with a cat, c. 1629
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-C-1846
cat.no. A4.2.10

120
workshop of Frans Hals (I)
Laughing boy with a flute, c. 1624-1629
panel, oil paint, 29.5 x 29.5 cm
sale New York (Sotheby’s), 15 January 1993, lot 173
cat.no. A4.2.3a

121
workshop of Frans Hals (I)
Head of a laughing boy, c. 1624-1629
panel, oil paint, 30 x 30 cm
upper right: FH
cat.no. A4.2.3b

122
workshop of Frans Hals (I)
Laughing boy with a flute, c. 1624-1629
panel, oil paint, 38 x 38 cm
formerly Paris/New York/London, F. Kleinberger Galleries
cat.no. A4.2.3c