RKD STUDIES

For Frans Hals, fame came late. Only a few lines in writings by his contemporaries refer to him. He was greatly appreciated for his portraits among a limited circle of clients and connoisseurs, and yet never escaped from a humble existence. Most of his over 80 years were spent in Haarlem, a commercial town that had soon recovered economically from the Spanish occupation in 1577 and grown in size through the influx of refugees. In 1622 it had more than 40.000 inhabitants and was the second largest town in what was then the Northern Netherlands.¹ The prosperous local burghers provided many commissions for Hals’s outstanding abilities in painting portraits. Yet, with few exceptions his clientele remained within the confines of Haarlem, and the appreciation of his achievements was limited, due to the low ‘artistic’ standing of portrait and genre painting at the time.

Hals only stepped into the spotlight of history two hundred years after his death, and not because of recognition for the excellently observed and life-like representations that he probably would have regarded as his main objective. Rather, the reason was a result of the changed conception of ‘art’ in the modern era, especially inspired by the movements of Realism and Impressionism. The roots of this new perception lay in European Enlightenment. Since the mid-18th century, painting and other visual arts – as products of creative design had previously been referred to – had taken on a new meaning. They lost the aspiration to be means of conveying transcendental and abstract-spiritual concepts that they had had in our culture. No longer did they reflect ‘learning’, and no more did they demonstrate the personal ambition and societal importance of the people who were represented. They were no longer cognitive instruments revealing obscure powers and laws – or, as Rembrandt’s pupil Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678) had worded it in his art theory of 1678 [6] – instruments of education and pleasure.² Rather, since the beginning of the modern era, they were regarded as manifestations of a seemingly universal ‘aesthetic’ need shared by all humanity – ‘art’ designed for sensual pleasure and limited to sensual or emotional experience. ‘Art’ in the singular was being rediscovered as an independent field of spiritual human endeavor, and presented in a growing number of examples in recently founded ‘museum’ institutions.

‘Art’ now appeared to be a magical gift of sensual impression that transcended its former representational purposes. Thanks to this gift, achievements of expression seemed to become visible beyond the boundaries of epochs and cultures. This timelessness was first perceived in the marble figures and idealized subjects of epochs such as Classical antiquity, and the Renaissance that imitated it, but in the course of the 19th century the idea of a universal production of ‘art’ and continuous ‘art history’ moved away from this one-sided identification. Eventually, a strictly ‘aesthetic’ way of perception made the subject matter of pictures and sculptures incidental. No longer did it offer a more profound reality; now it was only something fictitious, a motif chosen by the artist in order to demonstrate qualities of expression. This dispensed with a hierarchy of different ‘artistic’ subject categories. By the middle of the 19th century, achievements in painting that had been regarded as lowly, such as scenes of everyday life and portraits, could move into a position of high ‘art’, seen as emotional achievements of ‘pure painting’. ‘Pure painting’ fitted those works that focused on color effects, with a visible brushstroke that could be experienced as a subjective pattern of description. This applied to 16th-century Venetians, to Flemish painting since Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), and last but not least, especially to Frans Hals.

Nevertheless, the new requirement of ‘pure painting’ first needed to be established within the context of academic tradition. In a paragraph from a letter to Émile Bernard (1868-1941) dated 1888, Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) expressed exactly this effort to gain a new perspective on painting:

‘Let’s talk about Frans Hals. Never did he paint Christs, annunciations to shepherds, angels or crucifixions and resurrections; never did he paint voluptuous and bestial naked women. He painted portraits; nothing nothing nothing but that. Portraits of soldiers, gatherings of officers […]. He painted guttersnipes and laughing urchins, he painted musicians and he painted a fat cook. He doesn’t know much more than that, but it’s well worth Dante’s Paradise and the Michelangelos and Raphaels and even the Greeks. It’s beautiful like Zola, and healthier and more cheerful, but just as alive, because his epoch was healthier and less sad.’³

From a historical perspective, it is ironic that ‘voluptuous and bestial naked women’ actually did come rather close to Frans Hals in the end, in the shape of two bronze muses on the plinth of the monument erected in his honor by his hometown of Haarlem in 1900 [7]. Created by the sculptor Henri Scholtz (1868-1904), it shows Hals in double life-size, proudly erect, with a palette in his hand and gazing into the distance. One of the female figures holds sheets of drawing paper, the other, equally scantily clad, a few roses [8]. At the time, academic allegories such as these seemed to be the sole means of conveying that the painter had been elevated to the higher sphere of ‘the arts’. Both would have been unthinkable for Frans Hals the historical figure, be it ‘art’ as timeless and removed from content, or a monument to himself. In his own century, the latter was reserved for military commanders and princes. Allegorical figures on the plinth were also at odds with Hals the sober observer, whose gaze on life appears most clearly in sitters from the fringes of contemporary society such as Peeckelhaering (A1.50, A1.51) or Malle Babbe (A1.103).

6
Title page of Samuel van Hoogstraten
Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst
Rotterdam 1678

7
Henri Scholtz
Monument to Frans Hals, 1900
bronze cast
Haarlem, Florapark

8
Detail of fig. 7
Henri Scholtz
Monument to Frans Hals, 1900
Florapark, Haarlem

The changed focus towards an ‘aesthetic’ perception of traditional compositions was a process first affecting connoisseurs and art critics and subsequently reaching an ever wider public. It was driven forward by the newly-founded art museums that sprang up in many places. When Hals’s gatherings of officers and portraits of magistrates became available to the general public in the museum set up in the Haarlem town hall in 1862, together with a further one hundred and fifteen paintings, his particularly gripping and realistic style of painting created a memorable experience for scores of visiting art enthusiasts and painters. Inspired by publications by influential art critics, led by Théophile Thoré-Bürger (1807-1869) in 1857, within a few years an euphoric reassessment of the Haarlem master became accepted worldwide, leading to imitations of Hals’s bravura approach in copies of his pictures, his palette and his brushstroke techniques, as well as academic publications, purchases of his paintings by great museums, and exploding prices on the art market.⁴ This abrupt rediscovery of the long-overlooked painter was an unprecedented cultural event that followed a similar pattern as the simultaneous perception of paintings by the Delft artist Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675).

Strictly speaking, this was not a rediscovery but an entirely new vision. It was not as if the world perceived something that had already been experienced in Haarlem or Delft. Neither works by Hals nor by Vermeer had ever been seen for their aesthetic qualities, that is detached from the depiction of specific people, their way of dressing and the ambiance of the surrounding living spaces. The new gaze on old painting was connected to a particular mental reversal of the former mode of perception. For the first time, when Gustave Courbet (1819-1877), Mihály von Munkácsy (1844-1900), Wilhelm Leibl (1844-1900), Wilhelm Busch (1832-1908), Édouard Manet (1832-1883), Claude Monet (1840-1926), Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890), Mary Cassatt (1844-1926), John Singer Sargent (1856-1925), William Merrit Chase (1849-1916), Frank Duveneck (1848-1919), James Whistler (1834-1903), Julian Alden Weir (1852-1919), Max Liebermann (1847-1935), Lovis Corinth (1858-1925), John Keating (1889-1977) and many other modern painters were fascinated by Hals. This had nothing to do with the figures depicted as members of the Meagre company (A2.11) or with other group paintings. Nobody took an interest in their names or their fate, even though they had originally commissioned and paid Hals to preserve their likeness for collective memory. Unlike Hals’s, these artists’ vision went right through them as individuals. Solely Hals the painter’s brushwork and colors, detached from the representation on the surface, were recognized. As art critic Georges Rivière (1855-1943) put it in 1877: ‘What distinguishes the Impressionists from other painters is that they treat a subject for its tonal values and not for the subject-matter itself’.⁵

Hals’s surviving paintings, like those by Vermeer, were claimed as immediate precursors of modern painting, and therefore as tokens of a new, independently ‘aesthetic’ and innovative ‘art’-historic perception. This reinterpreting update elevated Hals and Vermeer, with their close connection to past reality, to the same rank as the equally ‘modern’ Rembrandt. The latter’s work had been appreciated for longer due to the fact that it had already met previous requirements for great ‘art’, based on Rembrandt’s achievements on the major stage of historical and religious scenes, both in his paintings and his widespread engravings. Nevertheless, portraits by the two Dutch masters shared a common destiny that warrants a closer look. They faded, as long as they were understood in their original intention. With each new generation, different events, people and objects moved to center stage. Over time, all inherited objects become gradually removed from the immediate sphere of living, and their purpose follows changes in requirements. In the long term, this happened to most 17th-century paintings, even if their message was to last beyond the day, such as philosophical instruction and moral guidance, or as powerful portraits of remembrance for formerly esteemed or feared figures. ‘Their very survival [was] subject to the vagaries of fortune as time and circumstance removed them from the original purposes for which they were made‘, as Frances S. Jowell wrote about Hals’ portraits and genre paintings.⁶ Very few remained untouched, nearly all lost their original frames, some were changed in format, others partly overpainted as they were adapted to some new decorative purpose. Restoration protocols supply a rich picture of the unselfconscious handling of preserved pictures. The catalogue part of the present publication lists the most severe operations on the pieces that were passed down to us. However, the largest part of the paintings that had become old-fashioned and unsightly was thrown out like other unused furniture, or left to slowly decay in attics or cellars, most likely a multiple of what is conserved today.

The best-preserved works were those that had been commissioned by civic institutions and remained in place for a long time – in Hals’s case, commissions by civic guards, the St Elisabeth’s Hospital [9] and the Old Men’s Almshouse (A3.62, A3.63). They documented a part of town history and social history, and were monuments of leading families. They remained as such, even as the institutions were adapted, modernized and replaced by others. Out of nineteen civic guard paintings created in Haarlem between 1583 and 1642, eighteen survive. The history of preservation of Frans Hals’s and other painters’ large civic guard pictures documents an early protective handling of paintings entrusted to the public in changing times. Nevertheless, this form of handling also included the notices of 1810 and 1819 that several group paintings in the guard house of the Kloveniers (their officers shot with an arquebus, or ‘hook tube’, a heavy infantry weapon) had been subject to damages by practicing soldiers.⁷ Thus, Haarlem’s memorial pictures of the town’s civic guards suffered a similar fate to the even more elaborate large-scale paintings in neighboring Amsterdam, painted by Rembrandt (1), Govert Flinck (2) and Bartholomeus van der Helst (5), who had long been known to many connoisseurs and artists all over Europe – unlike Frans Hals.

Rembrandt’s so-called Night Watch presented the officers and guardsmen of the Amsterdam civic guard company under captain Frans Banninck Cocq (1605-1655) and lieutenant Willem van Ruytenburch (1600-1652) [10]. Dated 1642, it used to measure circa 440 by 550 centimeters when it was placed in the great hall of the Amsterdam Kloveniersdoelen. This room was ‘one of the premier locations in the city, where visiting dignitaries would be received and official dinners were held’.⁸ In 1715, the picture was moved for improved security to the Amsterdam Town Hall. Since many other civic guard and regents paintings also needed to be stored there, the available wall space soon became too small. Rembrandt’s painting was cut on three sides in order to precisely fit its new place in the Small War Council Chamber, and today it measures only 363 by 437 centimeters. ‘Until it was moved to a proper museum in 1815,⁹ the large canvas always hung in spaces that were used for various purposes. It looked down on hundreds of meetings of military men and politicians, receptions, auctions and other events of the kind that take place in banquet halls and government offices. It is no surprise that it was damaged. Conservators have counted sixty-three different tears and holes in the canvas’.¹⁰

9
Frans Hals (I)
Regents of St Elisabeth’s Hospital, c. 1640-1641
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv./cat.nr. OS I-114
cat.no. A1.102
probably the only painting by Hals that is still in its original frame

10
Rembrandt
Civic guardsmen of Amsterdam under command of Banninck Cocq, dated 1642
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-C-5

Treatment of other pictures in other places was similarly pragmatic at the time. Changes in size were determined by the availability of different hanging places and frames. Many of Hals’s single portraits were therefore reduced in size at a later stage; half-length figures became busts, and busts became head and shoulder pictures. The essential element of the picture mattered, not so much the original composition. This is also the context for the reduction in size of Frans Hals’ first group portrait of 1616, which becomes apparent in comparison with two contemporary drawings after the picture [11] (D77). Thus, the canvas of the Banquet of the officers of the St George civic guard was cut on the left side by a narrow strip, but on the right side by substantial 25 centimeters [12].

The change of location of Rembrandt’s Night Watch corresponds to the rehanging of the large group portrait of the Amsterdam crossbowmen, known as the Meagre company [13]. Frans Hals had received the commission for it in 1633, but it was only completed in 1637 by the Amsterdam painter Pieter Codde (1599-1678). The picture measures 207.3 by 427.5 centimeters. Originally, it hung in the headquarters of the crossbowmen, the Voetboogdoelen, from where it was moved to the office of the Large War Council Chamber in the Amsterdam Town Hall on Dam square, and later to the mayor’s room in the new town hall in the former Prinsenhof. As a loan from the city, it came to the newly built Rijksmuseum in 1885, thus interrupting its traditional usage as an object of remembrance and instruction as well as the representative decoration that it had had for two centuries. In the museum, the painting entered a new sphere, the timeless space of ‘Art’. In the form of public museums, European culture had redefined and gradually institutionalized this space since the middle of the 18th century. The change in location suspended the typical career of a functional object which was needed less and less, such as in the case of the Meagre company whose purpose had been the life-size presentation of the ceremonial appearance of the leaders of the civic guard. Hals’s painting had now been discovered for a new, higher purpose. This was its presentation and conservation as a work of art, a creative achievement now defined aesthetically and seemingly timeless. Simultaneously, it became a document of the national contribution to global art history. Somewhat at a distance, Hals’s work now followed in the footsteps of the Night Watch, that had already been made accessible to the public as ‘art’ seventy years earlier.

Vincent van Gogh saw the Meagre company in the year when it had been rehung. The 32-year-old artist described it in detail in a letter to his brother Théo in Paris. This enthusiastic response is the source of the epigraph to this book. The experience of becoming ‘frozen’ in front of a 250-year-old picture of strange military personnel, of being cast entirely under a spell, was novel. Van Gogh did not just stop in front of the painting, but his own paintings changed under the influence of what he had seen. The emphasis on the brushstroke and the sequence of parallel colored lines that he had observed in Hals’s paintings, but also the light coloring in the faces, encouraged him to paint more freely and adopt a lighter palette in his own pictures.

Van Gogh was not the only artist to connect with Hals’s color palette and style of painting - rather it was an entire generation of artists from Europe and North America that undertook difficult and expensive travel to comparatively far-flung places in order to study Hals’s works.¹¹ Quite a few painters gathered for weeks of study and copying in the rooms of museums: in Haarlem and Amsterdam, Paris and London, Kassel and Berlin, and in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, where a version of Malle Babbe had been on view since 1872 [14]. Frank Duveneck was to copy it there. Sometimes the painters worked in the galleries between the visitors; on rare occasions the pictures were taken off the wall and moved to separate copying rooms. Gustave Courbet had already seen the Malle Babbe lent by the collector Suermondt to the Exhibition of Paintings by Older Masters in Munich in 1869 [15], and had been given the opportunity to copy it [16].¹² William Merritt Chase, Mary Cassat, Alden Weir, John Singer Sargent, Max Liebermann and Lovis Corinth also took the trouble to personally copy works by Hals. However, even only a thorough study of Hals's painting had an unmistakable effect on a number of other painters. For example, Édouard Manet had visited Amsterdam and Haarlem in June 1872. When he exhibited his painting Le Bon Bock [17] in May 1873 at the annual Paris Salon, art critic Albert Wolff (1835-1891) remarked in the Figaro that the painter had ‘poured water into his bock beer’, thus tempering his aggressive style of painting.¹³ The painter Alfred Stevens (1823-1906) commented on this return to Old Master technique as follows: ‘Why water, it is pure Haarlem beer’. Other contemporaries took similar views of Hals's effect on this work by Manet, though he himself was offended by the comment.¹⁴

Manet's picture shows the engraver Émile Bellot smoking his pipe in the Café Guerbois with a glass of beer in his hand. Hals's example is noticeable not so much in the brushwork as in the handling of the muted greys of the suit and in the momentary observation: the alert face with the slightly raised right eyebrow is turned towards the viewer. Simply comparing the passage around Bellot's eyes and that of Hals's Merry Drinker (A1.49) illustrates the connection between these works [18][19]. Manet's concentration on an ‘eloquent’ moment in combination with a painting technique that becomes less emphasized and more two-dimensional towards the edges is close to Hals's works, though focusing on an atmospheric painterly impression of what is seemingly unintentionally perceived, instead of the representative presentation in Hals's commissioned works and the demonstrative gestures in his genre paintings. This is tonal painting similar to other Realist painters such as Wilhelm Leibl, but also Salon painters such as Alfred Stevens and Mihály von Munkácsy.

13
and Pieter Codde Frans Hals (I)
Militia company of district XI under the command of captain Reynier Reael (1588-1648) and lieutenant Cornelis Michielsz Blaeuw, 16331637
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-C-374
cat.no. A2.11

14
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Malle Babbe, c. 1640-1646
canvas, oil paint, 74.9 x 61 cm
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv.no. 71.76
cat.no. A4.2.31

15
Frans Hals (I)
Malle Babbe, c. 1639-1646
Berlin (city, Germany), Gemäldegalerie (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin), inv./cat.nr. 801C
Photo: Christoph Schmidt
cat.no. A1.103

16
Gustave Courbet after Frans Hals (I)
Woman drinking, with an owl on her shoulder, dated 1869
Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle, inv./cat.nr. 2262
bpk Photo: Elke Walford

17
Édouard Manet
Le Bon Bock, 1873
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Philadelphia Museum of Art, inv./cat.nr. 163-116-9

Manet is said to have devoted a total of sixty or even eighty sessions to Le Bon Bock, which shows that his concern was not merely the portrait of the sitter. Immediately after the exhibition he was able to sell the picture for a top price at the time – 6.000 francs –, to Jean-Baptiste Fauré (1830-1914), baritone at the Paris Opéra. This was ten or twenty times the usual price for this painter and his friends in those years. A brasserie in the Quartier Latin called itself Le Bon Bock, magazines published pantomimes after the picture, and the sitter Bellot founded an eponymous association which also published a weekly magazine.¹⁵ However, prices for genre paintings by the highly appreciated and fashionable painter Ernest Meissonnier (1815-1891) reached 100.000 francs in the 1870s.¹⁶ These facts illustrate the enormous public response and atmosphere of great expectations that exhibitions as well as individual pictures generated at the time, setting the scene for Frans Hals’s painting to suddenly become topical.In a short period, Frans Hals had entered the consciousness of painters, collectors and art experts in the Western world, together with other great and equal ‘Artists’. Jowell has outlined the dramatic change that took place in the assessment of Frans Hals's paintings after the middle of the 19th century.¹⁷ In early 19th-century French and English publications about Dutch painting Hals is not featured, especially not in what connoisseurs regarded as the authoritative Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the most eminent Dutch, Flemish and French painters by John Smith, published in nine volumes between 1829 and 1842.¹⁸ The life-size Portrait of Willem van Heythuysen [20] that dominates the Dutch Old Masters room in the Alte Pinakothek in Munich today, had been purchased by the Prince of Liechtenstein in 1821, still as a work by Bartholomeus van der Helst (c. 1613-1670). It was only in 1866 and 1868 respectively that the art critic Gustav Friedrich Waagen (1797-1868) and the art writer Théophile Thoré-Bürger challenged this attribution and proposed giving the portrait to Frans Hals.¹⁹ Even in Franz Kugler's Hand-book of painting, published first in German in 1847 and in 1854 in English, Van der Helst was listed as the most famous Dutch portrait painter. It was only Thoré-Bürger's enthusiastic partisanship that changed this evaluation.²⁰

Prices on the art market illustrate how the appreciation for works by Hals shifted in the course of the 19th century. In 1800, the abovementioned portrait of Willem van Heythuysen had still been sold at a Haarlem auction for 51 guilders. In 1816 the newly founded Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam bought Hals's Merry Drinker at auction in Warmond near Leiden for 325 guilders (A1.49).²¹ At an auction on 7 June 1825 in Utrecht, the two portraits of Michiel de Wael [21] and Cunera van Baersdorp [22] were bought jointly for 200 guilders.²² ‘In 1865 Lord Hertford and Baron Rothschild competed at auction for a certain Portrait of a Gentleman. The bidding reaching a spectacular 51.000 francs [...]. The painting in question was, of course, the so-called Laughing cavalier’ [23]. ²³ About five weeks later, on 8 May 1865 the underbidder James, baron de Rothschild (1792-1868), paid 35.000 francs in Paris for the small-scale portrait of the seated Willem van Heythuysen (A3.22).²⁴ While the collector Barthold Suermondt (1818-1887) was still able to purchase the genre painting of Malle Babbe (A1.103) [15] in 1867 at an auction in Hoorn for just 1600 guilders,²⁵ Baroness Mathilde de Rothschild had to pay a record price of 210.000 francs for the full-size portrait of Emerentia van Beresteyn [24] in 1882 that was attributed to Frans Hals at the time (today this charming portrait is attributed to Pieter Soutman and hangs in Waddesdon Manor).²⁶ In 1886 the dealer Bourgeois sold the portrait of Stephanus Geraerdts to the Antwerp museum for 85.000 francs (A1.119); ²⁷ and finally in 1889 Edward Cecil Guinness, Lord Iveagh (1847- 1927), successfully bid for Hals's portrait of Pieter van den Broecke (A1.58) at 100.500 francs.²⁸ At the time, the guilder's value was almost at parity to that of the franc.

The abovementioned prices are figures at the top of the market for paintings at the time, which can only be converted to today's values with great difficulty. They document the change in perception that took place in the middle of the 19th century, driven by Thoré-Bürger, Waagen and other art historians and writers. Hals's achievement was now considered ‘Art’ in the modern sense, while previously it had been regarded as the skillful feat of portraiture. For a long time, portraits had been of lesser interest than Italian landscapes or flower still lifes. This becomes clear in Slive's comparison with earlier sale prices. Hals's portrait of the Laughing cavalier ‘could not have generated much interest at the Heemskerk sale held in The Hague in 1770, for it only fetched 180 florins, while a Griffier landscape brought 435 florins, a Berchem landscape 1265 florins, a Huysum still-life 2100 florins and a Jan van der Heyden was carried away for 1305 florins. At Locquet’s sale in 1783 at Amsterdam the portrait brought 247 florins, not an impressive price when we learn that an Asselyn fetched 626 florins and a Berchem was sold for 3000 florins.’²⁹ At the Gildemeester auction in Amsterdam in 1800 the Laughing Cavalier fetched three hundred guilders, at the Brentano sale in the same town in 1822 it was 700 guilders, after all.³⁰ The buyer in that sale, Comte de Pourtalès, was able to sell it in 1865 for the abovementioned price, another seventy-fold increase.³¹

Such a result indicated the new caliber of ‘art’ as a universal event for humanity. Over the 18th century, man-made objects had gained a new currency that replaced the former ‘arts’ of representation. What fell into this category could achieve prices that could no longer be estimated by the masters of the painters guilds, who had been entrusted with valuations of pictures in the ‘old times’. Writers and ‘art’ critics had now taken on this task. Indeed, on 18 March 1782 a picture by the contemporary Jean-Baptiste Greuze, L'Accordée de village [25], whom Diderot had held in great esteem, achieved a price of 16.690 francs in Paris.³² At the same auction, Hals's Young woman [26] was still sold for 301 francs, a 55th part of the aforementioned sum.³³ Today, both works are on display in the Louvre. Greuze's work was bought for the French Royal Collection in 1782, Hals's picture came into what was by then the national art collection through a donation in 1869.³⁴

20th-century sale figures in the millions merely demonstrate value shifts within the modern cultural segment of ‘Art’; they have become extreme today after more and more objects entered museums and thus moved out of the market's reach. Any high-level valuation of such testimonies to eternal ‘art’ is detached from the pre-modern market for those more or less expressive and thoughtful portraits and genre portraits whose low and hardly variable prices provided Hals with an income. It was an entirely different, narrowly limited, and hierarchically structured world that becomes evident in Hals's and his clients' personal circumstances.

20
and Pieter de Molijn Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Willem van Heythuysen (?-1650), c. 1625-1626
Munich, Alte Pinakothek, inv./cat.nr. 14101
cat.no. A2.6

21
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Michiel de Wael (1596-1659), c. 1625-1626
Cincinnati (Ohio), Taft Museum of Art, inv./cat.nr. 1931.450
Tony Walsh Photography
cat.no. A1.22

22
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of a woman, probably Cunera van Baersdorp (1600-1640), c. 1625-1626
Private collection
© Susan and Matthew Weatherbie Collection
cat.no. A1.22

23
Frans Hals (I)
The laughing cavalier, dated 1624
London (England), Wallace Collection, inv./cat.nr. P84
cat.no. A1.16

24
attributed to Pieter Soutman
Portrait of Emerentia von Berensteyn (c. 1623-1674), c. 1634
Aylesbury, Waddesdon Manor-The Rothschild Collection, inv./cat.nr. 2502

25
Jean-Baptiste Greuze
The village accord, 1761
Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv./cat.nr. 5037
© 2010 RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Franck Raux

26
Frans Hals (I)
Young woman, c. 1628
Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv./cat.nr. MI 926
© 2009 RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Jean-Gilles Berizzi
cat.no. A1.43