RKD STUDIES

Unlike a repetition that uniformly diverges from the master’s style, many paintings in which the workshop was involved display a variety of different manners of execution. A typical example for such a convoluted mix of different kinds of ‘handwriting’ is Merrymakers at Shrovetide from c. 1616/1617, today in the Metropolitan Museum in New York [75]. As far as we are aware, this is the earliest genre painting by Hals. However, it is not his spontaneous invention, but more likely a commission, as the size and the rich iconography suggest. The patron may have been a ‘Rederijkerskamer’ – an association of people who focused on literature and theatrical performances – or one of its wealthy members.¹ The colorful composition depicts a carnival feast of people wearing actor’s costumes. A drawn copy by Mathias van den Bergh (c. 1617-1687) is inscribed in verso Vastenavondsgasten, suggesting the scene depicts guests at a celebration on Shrove Tuesday (D2). The main figures are characters from popular plays performed on stage at the time. Next to the dressed-up pretty girl in the center these are Peeckelhaering on the left [76] and Hans Wurst wearing the eponymous sausage on his hat at the top right [77]. Willem Buytewech (c. 1591/1592-1624) created two drawings on the basis of Hals's preliminary sketches for the New York painting [79] [78], most likely prior to August 1617, when he left Haarlem for Rotterdam. Thus, Hals's composition can be assumed to originate from 1617 at the latest.

75
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Merrymakers at Shrovetide, c. 1616-1617
canvas, oil paint, 131.4 x 99.7 cm
lower center: fh
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv.no. 14.40.605
cat.no. A3.1

On close inspection, it becomes clear that even though the painting is clearly signed fh, it is a work that was carried out by several hands. Frans Hals was involved in its creation in several ways. He certainly designed the overall composition, created the models for the main motifs, and took part in the painterly execution. The bold division of the picture plane is unusual and creates something like a highly striking snapshot. The composition is divided by two diagonals, whose intersection marks the laughing face of a young woman. Her face is framed by a diamond-shaped lace collar, of which the edges echo the diagonals of the composition. The outlines of the other faces, but also of the arms, shoulders and hats are placed in parallel to the rising and falling lines of this bright focal point. Even the pipe and spoon on the hats, and the contours of fingers and folds of clothing follow the two dominant diagonal directions. Hals was to repeat this manner of building a compositional grid by inserting noticeable contours many more times, above all in his group portraits.

Inconsistent with Hals’s personal style, however, are anatomical missteps such as the curved lower arm of the young woman and the body that is too narrow in relation to her firm neck and head – described by Walter Liedtke as ‘a young woman with a bull neck’.² Or could this be a slender young man just playing the bride – as in the theatre plays of the time? In any case, it is hard to envisage the anatomy of the shoulders and the position of the two arms. Equally puzzling is the anatomical relation between the head and the broad fist of Peeckelhaering on the left, as his shoulder and arm appear to be missing. These unconvincing anatomies are unthinkable for Frans Hals and dismiss the assumption that this painting is a copy after a lost original by the master. Any reasonably accurate copy would also repeat anatomically convincing proportions. Yet another irritating factor are the respective scales of hands and heads. The two male heads to the left and to the right of the woman are too large, and so are their hands in comparison to the woman’s hands. The separate areas in the composition were filled in with individually captured models of different sizes. The rendering of the respective motifs is poorly coordinated, which cannot be observed in any of Hals’s other group paintings. Furthermore, we encounter differences in painterly quality. There is an outstanding area – the woman’s face – where Hals’s playful application of paint is visible in the eyes, the edge of the nose, and the mouth [80]. Soft transitions are modelled with varying pressure of the brush, while alternating between impasto and fluid paint. There are at least some accents of Hals’s supple brushwork recognizable there. But the thick white brushstrokes on the illuminated side of the nose indicate a coarser hand. The same applies to the awkwardly added hair, which does not amalgamate into a convincing impression of curls with its thick dashes of highlights.

Unlike the delicately drawn facial features of the main figure, the style of painting of the two main male heads remains uniformly smooth and thus different from executions by Frans Hals. No energetic brushstrokes emerge from the creamily painted surface. Peeckelhaering’s face, for instance, has been created on the basis of a colored model by Hals, and executed in a smooth manner which lacks in emphasis [76]. Hals’s confident hand can only be identified in the man’s collar lower left, where the tube-like edges have been pressed into the wet paint in an unconventional manner. If we deattribute the two main male faces from Hals, then there must at least have been models by the master for these very individual representations, which were transferred into the painting. In fact, the two portrait drawings by Willem Buytewech have been interpreted as such, and even gave rise to the assumption that the entire composition was created by Buytewech [78] [79]. A precise comparison between the drawn and painted faces results in the former having some finer details and a more coherent representation. Anybody wishing to sew the cap of Hans Wurst today could only rely on the drawing. The same applies to his cloak. In other words, it is possible to create the painting on the basis of the drawing but not vice versa. Based only on the greater coherence of observation, Buytewech’s drawings cannot have been made after the New York painting, but must have been based on models which are no longer preserved. The drawn facial features therefore suggest that colored preparatory models by Frans Hals existed, and probably formed the basis for all three faces of the main figures. A fragment of a painted copy today in Musée Marmottan Monet [81], confirms the existence of at least one of these models. The purpose of Buytewech’s drawings is illustrated by the appearance of the motif in one of his paintings of merry companies [82]. Frans Hals’s brother Dirck Hals (1591-1656) also borrowed motifs from the Merrymakers at Shrovetide in his paintings, at least three times, and always only from the group of the three main figures [83]. Those paintings date from around 1620 and are today located in Frankfurt, Paris and St. Petersburg.³

But let us turn our attention back to the areas of sophisticated design, most particularly in the central figure. Her masterly depicted filigree collar is emphasized, as are the ornaments of her embroidered dress. In contrast to the collar, the waistcoat embroidery was not captured in varying shades of light and color, but rather uniformly depicted as a flat surface, which was later on covered in a shade of blue-grey in the shadow areas [84]. Both areas demonstrate a sensitive observation of small-scale details, and the loose brushwork of the collar, captured at an angle, contrasts with the meticulously delicate rendering of the embroidery. If the latter was a delegation, as were the blue bows, only Hals himself would have been capable of creating the structure of the lace collar which is as accurate as it is loose. It frames the face and covers the improbably skewed anatomy of the upper body. The subtlety of the embroidered decoration of the festive dress is in contrast to the awkward rendering of the two sleeves. We may thus conclude that responsibilities have been delegated. There are visible overlaps between the areas carried out by the different participants. For instance, the black cap of Peeckelhaering was already present when the laurel wreath and the forehead of the young woman were painted over it. Similarly, the areas below and behind the lace collar were finished first. But the woman’s blonde hair, then again, was added on top of the already present collar, as can be seen in a close-up detail [85]. The highlights in the curls were probably added by Hals himself, yet they have not been integrated into a convincing overall appearance of the hair.

Apart from the carefully prepared representations of the main characters, there are also some freely added elements, such as the grinning and grimacing ancillary figures in the background [86]. Whether these were executed by the same hand as the two male protagonists, or whether other assistants were involved here, is hard to determine. Based on the various early copies, the group of six additional figures directly surrounding the main figures was part of the original composition.

80
Detail of fig. 75
Frans Hals (I)
Merrymakers at Shrovetide, c. 1616-1617
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art

81
Workshop of Frans Hals (I)
The drinker
canvas, oil paint, 44 x 63 cm
Paris, Musée Marmottan Monet, inv.no. 4005
© musée Marmottan Monet, Paris / Studio Christian Baraja SLB
cat.no. A3.1b

82
Willem Buytewech (I)
Merry company
Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, inv./cat.nr. 2091

83
Detail of: Dirck Hals
Merry company, c. 1620
Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum

84
Detail of fig. 75
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Merrymakers at Shrovetide, c. 1616-1617
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art

85
Detail of fig. 75
Frans Hals
Merrymakers at Shrovetide, c. 1616-1617
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art

86
Detail of fig. 75
Workshop of Frans Hals (I)
Merrymakers at Shrovetide, c. 1616-1617
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art