RKD STUDIES

Since the invention of photography, ever more precise reproductions of paintings have become available, which enable comparison and increasingly provide insights into the way in which they were created. They allow us to distinguish between an autograph creation by the master and those of his workshop. While the oeuvre catalogues of the great names became shorter, lesser noticed and disputed artworks could now be included and be perceived as, in part, by the master himself. Signatures and other historical documents marked pictures which were partially created by Frans Hals, after his designs, and under his supervision, as works by him alone. In terms of contemporary understanding, all of these were creations by ‘Frans Hals’. And on close inspection, it turned out that many thus far undisputed masterworks also included shares by the workshop. It became clear that our modern terminology of identification differed from the historical concept of workshop production. Conversely, today’s focus is on individual achievement. We want to know what the master planned and organized and what he executed with his own hand.

Among the Frans Hals paintings in the collection of the Louvre, I had long considered the two large-scale portraits of the married couple Van Beresteyn as self-evident and unproblematic [1] [2]. To my mind, they represented Hals’s more conventional early phase which preceded today’s world-famous masterpieces like the Young woman (A1.43) and the Lute player (A1.15). My relative lack of interest, however, changed in a flash when I heard about the reattribution of the female portrait. In the exhibition catalogue Le siècle de Rembrandt of 1970-1971, Foucart had first suggested Pieter Soutman (c. 1593/1601-1657) as the artist.¹ Accordingly, the 1979 and 2009 collection catalogues of the Louvre list the painter as ‘entourage de Hals’.²

Paulus van Beresteyn (1588-1636) and his wife Catharina Both van der Eem (1589-1666) married on 12 December 1619 and they probably commissioned their portraits on this occasion. The final digit of the date in both paintings has been altered by a later hand. It is not clear whether it originally was a 0 or a 9, and the date should therefore read either 1620 or 1629. The most likely interpretation is 1620, as Slive reasoned: ‘On the basis of style, technique and costume a date of about 1620 […] is convincing’.³ With a wedding in mid-December 1619, execution of both portraits in the following year 1620 is certainly likely. The paintings were conceived as pendants and correspond perfectly in size, appearance of the figures, lighting and coloring. Yet once noted, the character of the lady’s portrait indisputably diverges from Hals and appears Flemish in style. Foucart found a plausible explanation for his attribution of the female portrait to Pieter Soutman.⁴ This painter came from a reputable Catholic family of brewers in Haarlem and had moved to Antwerp around 1616, where he worked as a pupil of Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), as reported by Cornelis de Bie.⁵ Soutman gained the citizenship of Antwerp in 1620, and as early as 1619, the ledgers of the guild of painters listed a student under his tutelage named Jan Timans.⁶ Consequently, we can be certain that Soutman was a fully trained painter by that year. As such, he could certainly have paid a passing visit to his hometown in 1620. A portrait commission by Paulus van Beresteyn, a member of a prominent Catholic family in Haarlem as well, and distantly related to Soutman, is thus conceivable. It would have been convenient for Soutman, as a visitor in his former home-town, to come to an arrangement with a local painter such as Frans Hals, as he was not allowed to work in Haarlem without permission from the local guild and did not have a studio to work in.

The fact that the two paintings are pendants is as evident as are the differences between them. Slive has always maintained the attribution of both portraits to Hals, even when discussing the arguments prompted by Foucart and the scientific examination of the pictures in 1988 at the Louvre laboratories. The examination showed that the canvas of both portraits is markedly similar in weave and that the ground layers and binding media are identical. Infrared photography however, revealed striking differences in painting technique: energetic brushstrokes in the male portrait, both in the areas of the head and the hands, as opposed to a more rigid handling in the female counterpart.⁷ Yet these differences in technique do not contradict the possibility of the pair originally belonging to each other, or being created by the same hand: similar differences can be noticed in other portrait pairs with the naked eye. Also, with the source of light on the left, the facial features of the lady on the right will be fully illuminated and will need to appear lighter and softer in style than the more shaded face of the gentleman. Nevertheless, Foucart’s observations were still on the table. In the 1989-1990 catalogue, Slive suggested the possibility of the female portrait being either a ‘Monday morning effort’ by Hals, ‘partially or entirely the work of a close follower’, or a contemporary copy after a lost Hals. He did not come to a conclusion by 1989, stating that ‘it seems prudent to leave these queries open until the original paint layer of the paintings […] can be studied afresh in the exhibition alongside unquestioned work by the master, datable to the same phase of his activity’.⁸ By 2014, however, the attribution to Hals was still maintained in Slive’s revised monograph.⁹ And vice versa, Barrett does not support the proposed attribution to Soutman in her monograph of 2012. She feels that ‘the painting should remain in the circle of Hals’ since ‘the facture of the paint composing Catharina is not discernible in either of Soutman’s portraits’.¹⁰

We are now in a position to examine and compare the facture of the paint more precisely. But what is our comprehension of Soutman’s portrait painting? For a period of many years, there has not been any female portrait that was certainly created by him, there are only attributions. As comparisons from the same period as the Louvre portrait, there are the two female portraits in The Hague [3] and Saint Louis [4], which can both be dated c. 1625-1630 on the basis of style and costume. Above all, the heads in the family portrait of the Van Beresteyn family need to be considered, as this painting is almost certainly by Soutman [5]. Based on the ages of the children, it can be dated to c. 1630-1631. I was intrigued by the exact comparison between the representations of Catharina Both van der Eem in the single portrait of 1620 and in the family portrait of some ten years later. In 1988, I requested permission from the Louvre to take detailed photographs, and balancing on a table and a ladder, I managed to reach the necessary height to inspect the important areas at close quarters. My impression that the faces of the women were by done the same painter was reinforced after this investigation [6][7]. I also observed that the execution of the embroidery on the women’s bodices is similarly accurate in both paintings [8][9]. Neither picture is a copy or a ‘Monday morning effort’, but they are executions by a confident hand that is clearly different from Hals’s.

3
Pieter Soutman
Portrait of a woman holding a glove, c. 1625-1630
The Hague, Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen Mauritshuis, inv./cat.nr. 755

4
Pieter Soutman
Portrait of an unknown woman, c. 1625-1630
canvas, oil paint, 118.1 x 91.4 cm
Saint Louis, Saint Louis Art Museum, inv.no. 139:1922

5
Pieter Soutman
Portrait of the Beresteyn family, c. 1630-1631
Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv./cat.nr. RF 426
© 2016 RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Tony Querrec

In order to attribute the portrait of Catharina Both van der Eem, I needed to focus only on the representation of her face and assume that the rest of the painting was done by Pieter Soutman, who was adapting to the style of Frans Hals [10][11]. Accordingly, I only included the portrait of Paulus van Beresteyn in my catalogue raisonné of 1989. That book includes detail illustrations that display Frans Hals’s very typical manner of painting, above all of Beresteyn’s proper right hand – a marvel of anatomical understanding, perspective skill and handling of light.¹¹ When comparing Beresteyn’s hands in his single portrait [12][13] with the hands in Soutman’s family portrait, the only question is who the sitter for these hands had been. The smooth shapes and impersonal gestures are recurrent types in Soutman’s work, which was influenced by Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641). In Frans Hals’s painting, hands were often individually characterized, regardless of the identity of the sitter. It would of course be highly unlikely that the patron would also be the specific model for the hands. Based on these observations, the opposite attribution remained in place. However, by chance I came across photographs a few years ago of the freshly cleaned group portrait of Gijsbert Claesz van Campen († 1645) and his family, which had been acquired by the Toledo Museum of Art (A2.3). Looking at the face of the father, a comparison with the single Beresteyn portrait occurred to me. While I had numerous individual images of the family portrait from the exhibition of 1989-1990, these showed the painting obscured by dirt and discolored varnish and did not convey a proper impression of the brushwork. At that time, both heads seemed to be executed in a fairly similar manner. But all previous assumptions shifted with what I saw now. A comparison of the faces of Gijsbert van Campen [14] and Paulus van Beresteyn [15] excluded Hals as the sole author of the latter’s portrait, even though the collar was probably executed by him.¹² Neither the ears nor the beards are comparable – and even less so the facial expressions. If the head of Van Campen in Toledo has been painted by Hals, then that in the Louvre is by someone else. The soft handling in the Beresteyn face has nothing to do with Hals’s brushwork. Yet, the latter suddenly makes a masterly appearance in the lace ruff, and even more so in that of his wife. But it is also discernible in other areas of the two portraits in the Louvre. Some further details can now be distinguished as executions by either Hals or Soutman.

In the past, nobody would have been prepared to imagine that a painter of Frans Hals’s standing would have contributed to portrait commissions where he was not to paint the faces himself. But this is precisely the case here. It is worth noting that he contributed even twice, in a pair of pendant portraits. But once we accept these circumstances, the differences become clearly visible: the manner of applying paint, of modelling eyes, nose, mouth, how the hair was executed, but also how the various parts of clothing were handled. The juxtaposition of the two hands reveals the particular character of Hals’s manner of painting in an almost provocative sense.

Hals’s individuality stands out from the smooth illusionism that his contemporaries adopted in order to present a fashionable staging of their prosperous clientele. They impressed with minute rendering of expensive fabrics, woven in patterns or embroidered, and the sitters’ lace bonnets, collars, and cuffs. Portrait specialists demonstrated these skills at a high level, above all the workshops of masters such as Michiel van Mierevelt (1566-1641) in Delft, Cornelis van der Voort (1576-1624) in Amsterdam, Jan van Ravesteyn (c. 1572-1657) in The Hague, or Paulus Moreelse (1571-1638) in Utrecht. For instance, taking a look at a portrait by Mierevelt from circa 1620 [16], the design and structure of the exquisite textile is clearly visible and provides a decorative frame for the representation of the sitter’s face [17] The effect of this kind of paintings often begins and ends with the brilliance of such precious status symbols, while the faces are comparatively void of expression. Conversely, Hals emphasized the visual allure of this decorative element [18]. The interplay of light and dark lines produces an abstract pattern that frames the sitter’s face, the attraction of which lies in its fleeting appearance.

14
Detail of cat.no. A2.3
Frans Hals (I), Salomon de Bray, and possibly Pieter de Molijn
Portrait of Ghijsert Claesz. van Campen, Maria Joris and their children, c. 1623-1624
Toledo Museum of Art
Face and ruff painted by Frans Hals (I)

15
Detail of fig. 1
Frans Hals (I) and Pieter Soutman
Portrait of Paulus van Beresteyn, 1620
Paris, Musée du Louvre
© RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Franck Raux
Face painted by Soutman, ruff painted by Hals

16
Michiel van Mierevelt
Portrait of an unknown woman, c. 1620
New Orleans (Louisiana), art dealer M.S. Rau Antiques
Image courtesy of M.S. Rau Antiques, New Orleans

When turning back to the portraits of Paulus van Beresteyn and Catharina Both van der Eem, the comparison of details can be driven even further. The following division of labour becomes apparent: Soutman painted the faces and clothes, Hals did the hands, ruffs, cuffs, lace bonnet, and bracelets of the woman as well as the man’s hat. This division saved both sides much time and left the important visual effects to Hals, most importantly the sketchy, half-transparent lace ruff which is merely suggested in a few brushstrokes depicting the shadows and highlights on the fabric [19].¹³ Still, Soutman took on the expanse of dark fabric in the clothes with its folds and the delicate representation of the festooned bodice, using an opaque layer of paint. Its metal-like décor needed to be recreated in minute detail [21] [22]. But how was it possible that the great Hals painted collars, cuffs, and hands for a fellow painter who is hardly a household name today? The faces were painted by the highly talented Pieter Soutman who had already been acclaimed in the studio of Rubens, who was given permission to make engravings after the latter’s pictures, and who was recommended to King Sigismund III Vasa of Poland (1566-1632) as a court painter in 1624. Soutman entered the king’s service and painted the portraits of him and his son Prince Wladyslaus IV (1595-1648). Painted version of the king’s portrait are now in Munich, and a portrait of his son is kept at Wilanów Castle near Warsaw.¹⁴ The high regard in which Soutman was held is also demonstrated by the portrait painted by Anthony van Dyck.¹⁵

19
Detail of fig. 2
Frans Hals (I) and Pieter Soutman
Portrait of Catharina Both van der Eem, 1620
Paris, Musée du Louvre
© RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Tony Querrec
Face and embroidery on the bodice by Soutman, collar by Hals

Pieter Soutman moved in the same circles as the wealthy Beresteyns and had family connections to them. He is likely to have won the portrait commissions and arranged for their execution together with Frans Hals. Material and labor costs were substantial for this project, so the commission must have surely been planned in detail. Hals was probably tasked with designing the composition, since it is a slightly adapted version of the one he used for the pendant portraits in Kassel [22][23]. The details in those paintings, especially that of the lady, further support the attribution of the respective parts in the Beresteyn portraits. The two Kassel portraits are painted on panel, which means that the brushwork has been preserved particularly well, leaving the brushstrokes precisely discernable, especially in the portrait of the woman [24][25]. The similarities between the two female portraits are striking. The hand on the right is copied almost exactly [26][28], and the hand on the left touches the lion’s head at a slightly different height [28] [29]. The bracelets are placed differently, and the finger position in the left hand of Catharina is slightly shifted. These similarities and differences in the hands can only be explained from the use of the same model, or of several studies of the same hand. In both paintings the black background color was applied right up to the fingertips, with overlaps. Especially in the left hand of the Kassel woman the tip of the index finger appears shortened as a result of this. In the hand of Catharina, damages and revisions are visible which obscure the appearance of the finger area.

24
Detail of fig. 23
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of a woman, c. 1619
Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister
Hessen Kassel Heritage, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister

25
Detail of fig. 2
Pieter Soutman
Portrait of Catharina Both van der Eem, 1620
Paris, Musée du Louvre
© RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Tony Querrec

Not only the repetition of the hand gently resting on the sculpted lion’s head on the back of a chair is of interest, but also that of the lion’s head itself. A comparison with Soutman’s portrait in Saint Louis illustrates the widespread use of this decorative element [30].¹⁶ A survey of Hals’s oeuvre shows the motif as a marker of recognition. In the examination method by Giovanni Morelli (1816-1891), a painter’s skill appears in the loose treatment of incidental details which are also hard to convey. At the same time, the treatment of such a recurring incidental motif provides insight into the continuity or characteristic change in painterly creation.¹⁷ Below, there is a compilation of the lion’s head motif in Hals’s paintings from the period 1619-1635 [31][32][33]. On the one hand, a uniformity in approach can be observed in executions from the same period, while on the other hand, a slowly increasing blurring can be discerned, increasing over time. This shows that the details in the background and along the edges of the composition in Hals’s paintings receded from the artist’s attention as time progressed. His observation became increasingly focused on the representation of his sitters. Within this line of development, only two lion heads differ, as they were painted by a workshop assistant of Hals, in a slightly too bright color and with short, somewhat choppy brushstrokes [32, left and center]. These edgy brush lines and thicker paint application can also be found in other areas of the portraits of Nicolaes Woutersz. van der Meer (A3.19) and Cornelia Claesdr. Vooght (A3.20).

30
Detail of fig. 4
Pieter Soutman
Portrait of an unknown woman, c. 1625-1630
Saint Louis Art Museum