RKD STUDIES

Oil on panel, 54.5 x 41.2 cm, inscribed and dated upper left: AETATIS SVAE/77 AN° 1611
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv.no. OS I-511

Jacobus Hendricksz. Zaffius (1534-1618) was a Catholic priest and the last Catholic provost of the St.-Bavo cathedral in Haarlem. He was born in Amsterdam in 1534 and was appointed as St.-Bavo’s first provost and archdeacon in 1571. As he witnessed the wave of iconoclasm, he tried to rescue the remains of the church furnishings. He decided to face prison rather than hand over the property of the bishop's chapter to the town; though he was soon released again. In 1578, St.-Bavo’s was converted for Protestant services and Zaffius's responsibilities there ceased. Afterwards, he worked as a priest for Catholic congregations in Haarlem. He died in January 1618.

An engraving by Jan van de Velde (1593-1641) dated 1630 (C1) depicts Zaffius at three-quarter length [1]. The present portrait is partially identical with the print, featuring only the sitter’s head and chest, and has therefore long been regarded as a fragment. However, technical examinations have concluded that the paintings preserved in its original format, apart from a trim along the right hand edge. Because of this Pieter van Thiel came to the conclusion that the present painting must be an early 17th-century copy.¹ Accordingly, it was listed as a copy after Hals in the 2006 collection catalogue of the Frans Hals Museum.² Nevertheless, the manner of execution of Zaffius’s portrait does not suggest that it could be a copy by another hand. The highly accentuated brushstrokes show free and confident nuances that do not have the characteristics of a copy. It is possible that several portraits of Zaffius were commissioned by charitable institutions he was associated with and that benefited from his estate, or by remaining Catholic congregations. And it would be unusual, though not inconceivable for Hals to paint the same head twice, respectively to copy his own work in a second version. Still, it is possible that the present bust portrait came before a larger three-quarter-length version – likely on canvas – that formed the model for the print. This same sequence in variants occurred with several second versions by other painters, such as Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641).

The narrowly wedged-in coat of arms in the present painting’s upper left corner, that was probably copied from the lost large format, may support the assumption of the painting having been completed by an assistant. However, the rendering of the fur collar and the coat do not show any characteristics that would contradict an attribution to Hals, even though their pigments have probably darkened over time. Rather, Hals’s typical loose brushwork is in evidence in those areas. While Koos Levy-van Halm regards that area as indicative for the work of a copyist, she points out that the somewhat listless appearance of tufts of hair is also influenced by their having been painted on top of a black paint layer for the cloth – and thus they have darkened as the paint decreased in opacity. In contrast, the fur sections of the female portrait from 1631 seem fresher today, as they were painted over a layer of colored paint in lighter tones.³ There are, however, reasons to believe that these somewhat crudely executed parts are not done by Hals.

It is difficult to place the Zaffius-portrait stylistically within Hals's artistic development, as this can be traced only in a few works. The nearest dated paintings by Hals are a portrait of 1614 (A1.2) – with a badly abraded surface – and the ones in Birmingham and Chatsworth that probably date from c. 1616 and which display a recognizable Flemish influence (A1.4, A1.5). The date of 1611 on the present painting is certainly plausible, since dendrochronological examinations have established a possible felling date between 1602 and 1608 for the wood of the panel.⁴ As far as we can infer from the 1630 engraving, the lost larger portrait of Zaffius was probably a very early work by Hals himself as well. The wide-angled perspective and the rhetorical composition with the skull would only fit into the period before his journey to Antwerp in 1616 and before he came into contact with Flemish painting. It is therefore also unlikely to assume an addition which was only conceived by 1630, that would have served as the modello for the engraving. Especially the conclusive use of the skull and the coat of arms would speak against it. It is therefore also conceivable that Hals' model for the engraving was created at the same time as the present painted portrait, maybe not in a large format, but sufficient enough for the engraving. Everything considered, the Zaffius-portrait is a technically well preserved and artistically clear and impressive example from Frans Hals's early career, when he was still influenced by late Mannerism.

A1.1

1
Jan van de Velde (II)
Portrait of Jacobus Hendricksz. Zaffius (1534-1618), dated 1630
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. RP-P-OB-15.269
cat.no. C1

Oil on canvas, 73.7 x 55.2 cm
Brooklyn, Brooklyn Museum, inv.no. 32.821

In spite of the abrasion of the paint layer and a smoothing layer of overpainting – unfortunately especially noticeable in the face – this is the earliest surviving half-length portrait from Hals's Mannerist phase, before he came into contact with Antwerp painting in 1616. The depiction is still characterized by affected gestures. Similar to the engraving after the portrait of Johannes Bogaert (c. 1554-1614) (C2), the portrait is set within an oval frame which is recognizable as such by being lit from the side. The three-dimensional modelling of the figure probably appeared more pronounced, before the halftones sank into the background due to discoloring of the pigments. The upper body that moves out of the oval frame is captured in a wide-angle view. The face and hands are modelled by exaggerated lighting; the hand in front is much lighter than the one holding the rim of a hat inside the frame. The medallion in the sitter's hand depicts a bust portrait of a young woman. The coat of arms in the upper right side has not been identified. It seems likely that this portrait had a counterpart, or was part of a series of portraits.

A1.2
Photo: Brooklyn Museum, 32.821_SL1

Oil on canvas, 87.5 x 69.2 cm, dated upper right: 1616
Pittsburgh, Carnegie Museum of Art, inv.no. 61.42.2

This painting is an unusual combination of a moralizing genre scene and a formal portrait. It depicts the Dutch saying ‘to give someone a herring’, which means as much as to rebuke someone.⁵ The moralistic character is further conveyed by the inscription ‘who desires’, which probably refers to mankind being blinded by its desires, and of the necessity of reprimanding it.⁶ The fool gives back to man what he desires. In this way, the portrayed figure appears as someone lecturing the misguided.

The sitter was identified as Pieter Cornelisz van der Morsch (1543-1629) by Cornelis Hofstede de Groot in 1910, on the basis of a watercolor copy by the Haarlem painter Vincent Jansz. van der Vinne (1736-1811) (D85) [2] and the entry in the 1779 Van Tol sale catalogue, where it was described as a painting of ‘Piero, municipal beadle and rhetorician of Leiden’.⁷ Van der Morsch took part in performances by the Leiden chamber of rhetoric De Witte Accoleijen (The White Columbines), where he played the role of the jester. Van Thiel found a volume with poems by Piero in the Leiden municipal archive, including an epitaph written by himself and stating that he ‘doled out smoked herrings’ and had been Leiden’s beadle.⁸ The coat of arms is equally ambiguous. While its placement is the same as for a person of social standing, Piero in fact had no coat of arms. In the present painting he is identified through an escutcheon hanging from a monkey’s head. It shows a unicorn in the sea that can be interpreted as a narwhal, playing on the Dutch word for fool, ‘nar’.

The unusually stripy and colorful style of painting in the lower area of the composition also fits in with the entertaining character of the subject and has no parallel in Hals’s formal portraits. Nevertheless, the honorable public role of the sitter indicates that this was no genre painting intended for the open market but rather a commission, either by the town of Leiden or the Leiden rhetoricians.

A1.3

2
Vincent Jansz. van der Vinne
Portrait of Pieter Cornelisz. van der Morsch (1543-1629)
Paris, Fondation Custodia - Collection Frits Lugt, inv./cat.nr. 505
cat.no. D85

Oil on panel, 94 x 72.5 cm
Birmingham, The Henry Barber Trust, Barber Institute of Fine Arts, University of Brimingham, inv.no. 38.6
Pendant to A1.5

The possibility of showing this portrait together with Portrait of a woman from Chatsworth (A1.5) in the Frans Hals exhibition of 1989-1990, as well as new color reproductions of both paintings, make it clear that they are companion pieces. This is confirmed by the matching dimensions of the panel supports. Groen and Hendriks published photographs of the unusual curving grain of the panels, which must have been cut ‘back to back’ from the same piece of timber and were probably delivered to Hals’s workshop at the same time.⁹ Even though the female portrait is more colorful, and the male portrait appears more ‘modern’ than the Portrait of Pieter Cornelisz. van der Morsch (A1.3), stylistically, it is in keeping with the vigorous male characters in the Banquet of the officers of the St. George civic guard of 1616 (A2.0). At the same time, the friendly turn of the man’s gaze suggest that he is about to make spontaneous contact. This is an early example of the ‘role-distance’ we find even more pronounced in later Hals portraits: the sitters seem to step out of their inevitably conventional portrait poses and address the viewer with a wink of the eye.¹⁰ Still, the sitter’s explanatory hand gesture and the insertion of the skull as a symbol of transitoriness seem old-fashioned, even though these symbolic elements must have been included in agreement with the patron.

Oil on panel, 94.2 x 71.1 cm
Chatsworth, The Devonshire Collections, inv.no. 267
Pendant to A1.4

The influence of Flemish art – especially the work of Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) – on Hals’s paintings has often been noted. It is not clear which exact paintings may have had an impact on the Haarlem artist, and whether he came into contact with them only during his trip to Antwerp from June to September 1616 or even earlier.¹¹ The civic guard portrait of 1616 (A2.0) was probably executed prior to Hals’s sojourn, yet the present painting and – to a lesser extent – its pendant (A1.4) definitely display a Flemish influence. It is probable that they were created after the trip, but it is also conceivable that the visit to Antwerp increased the impression that Flemish art had already had on Hals.

A light coloring of the flesh tones and highlighting with yellow and red shades are noticeable in the present painting, in which the face and parts of the hands glow like the amber-colored paint glazes in Rubens’s portraits. Heads and hands emerge as equally radiant three-dimensional shapes, while the compactness of the body is emphasized to a lesser extent.

A1.6 see: A2.0

A1.7 see: A4.1.1A

Oil on canvas 93 x 77 cm, dated upper right: 1619
Dijon, Musée des Beaux-Arts, inv.no. 1366 - Legs de Joseph Chenot, 1899

This painting is a valuable document for Frans Hals’s development. It combines a traditional, formal portrait appearance with already a hint of an amicable turn towards the viewer. The mouth and eyes seem to be gently moving, and the fingers holding the hat are observed in a similar manner. Individual, slanting highlights were worked into the soft smoothness of the intense skin color. Hals’s typical tendency towards ever more liberated expression is recognizable here, but it is still restrained. When comparing Hals’s further development in observing his sitters, and that of his painting technique, a different stylistic acceleration becomes apparent in the different categories of subject matter. The genre paintings were his laboratory for experimentation, beginning with the Portrait of Pieter Cornelisz. van der Morsch (A1.3) and the Merrymakers at Shrovetide of 1616-1617 (A3.1), then rapidly continuing with the two versions of Peeckelhaering of 1630-1631 (A1.50, A1.51). Hals’s commissioned single portraits channel his observation of emotion in a sublimated way, while the group portraits, and especially the banqueting guardsmen, left more room for spontaneity. The individual portraits were subject to stricter expectations of the client, even though men were generally represented more freely than women. Children, in their turn, we depicted differently from adults. An early 17th-century patron’s demands with regard to their appearance can be demonstrated in the present sitter’s fashionable attire.

Unfortunately, the paint layer of the present painting is much abraded: areas where the paint was applied thinly have been rubbed away, especially in the area around the collar. Both saponification – the becoming transparent of the formerly opaque lead white pigments – and the abrasion of thin contours have blurred the once precisely imaginable shape of the folds. What this collar originally looked like is most easily imaginable when looking at the Portrait of a man in Kassel (A1.10), which is also badly damaged [3]. During an earlier restoration of the Dijon portrait, a filigree lace ruff had been added [4], based on contemporary collars. The closest related lace collar by Hals is found in the portrait of ensign Boudewijn van Offenberch (1590-1653) in the 1616 Banquet of the officers of the St. George civic guard (A2.0) [6] and in the Portrait of Paulus van Beresteyn of c. 1620 (A2.1) [7]. During the most recent cleaning of the Dijon portrait a few years ago, the addition was removed again, making visible the remains of the original collar, painted in opaque lead white [5]. Both options have something to them, even though they are equally far removed from the original state of the portrait, and the currently visible remnants of the collar do no longer define its form. Finally, smoothing overpainting is also discernible, especially in the elegantly designed hand that is holding a hat. During the last restoration overpainting in the hair was also removed, and a ring on the man’s hand was revealed.

It is possible that this portrait was conceived with a no longer extant pendant, or perhaps even as a sequence of family portraits. However, this remains speculative as the documentation is scarce. The canvas was trimmed on all four sides, so that the original composition and size cannot be established. The coat of arms in the upper right hand corner is seen at an angle, similar to those in Portrait of a woman (A2.0) and Portrait of Paulus van Beresteyn (A2.1), suggesting an indistinct spatial depth. The left field of the coat of arms probably refers to the Van Alckemade family, whose members were councilors in Haarlem in the 17th century.¹² The inscription on the right below the coat of arms was reworked several times and has become partly illegible. The date 1619 is, however, credible. The features of the sitter bear a resemblance to the Portrait of a man with a lute painted around the same time, who may be identified as Cornelis Adriaensz. Gael (c. 1589-1672) (A4.1.1).

A1.8
© Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon/François Jay

3
Detail of cat.no. A1.10
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of a man, c. 1619
oil paint, canvas on panel, 102.5 x 79 cm
Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel), inv.no. GK213
© Hessen Kassel Heritage, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister

Oil on canvas 112.4 x 91 cm
USA, private collection

The painting was formerly in the well-known collection of the industrialist Leonard Koppel (1854-1933) in Berlin. It documents once again the irreverent way in which portraits were treated in the 18th and 19th centuries. Until 2017, the painting depicted an evening landscape in the background on the right hand side, that was added later, similar as in other paintings by Hals (A1.31, A4.3.38, A4.3.39). Additionally, the coat of arms on the left hand side was overpainted. The strongest intervention, however, concerns the woman’s face, which has been rubbed off, leaving only the tiniest traces.¹³ The reason for this is unknown. It may be due to irreparable damage to the paint layer, or to a dislike of the features of the depicted sitter. In any case, in the 19th century a new passage was inserted for the face and bonnet, a slightly clumsy copy based on the female portrait in Chatsworth (A1.5). The loose brushstrokes in both hands and also the preserved parts of the dress are recognizably and unquestionably by the hand of Frans Hals.

Small traces of the original features of the face became visible in 2017, uncovered by Martin Bijl and again during examination by Ivo Mohrmann at the Hochschule der bildenden Künste in Dresden in 2022. Restorer William Suhr, who worked at the Frick Collection in New York until 1970, had examined this painting for the first time. He assumed – on the basis of individual sections of overpainting – that the area of the head as it is visible today, must have been glued onto the canvas.¹⁴ However, only individual losses in the face and background have been filled by insertions of pieces of canvas. The overall composition and the execution of all preserved original details are characteristic for Frans Hals himself. Yet, the surface of the bust and arms of the woman’s costly dress have suffered severely from abrasion. The original coloring and the pattern of the embroidery are still recognizable on the right arm, and remnants of it on the left arm and the torso. Both in 2017 as well as in 2021-2022 all later additions have been taken off and the remaining original condition was documented with technical photographs. The remains of the face and the lace bonnet have been elaborated on with a free reconstruction. The overall composition, which has been largely preserved in its original format, suggests that the portrait was designed to be paired with a companion piece.

A1.9
© 2016 Christie's Images Limited

Oil on canvas on panel, 102.5 x 79 cm
Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv.no. GK 213
Pendant to A1.11

This portrait depicts a person of rank with an only partly identified coat of arms: the upper half contains a cross, and the lower half displays three round leaves, which refer to the Van der Meer family. The man is therefore probably a relative of the brewer Nicolaes Woutersz. van der Meer (1574-1637) (see A3.19).

The sitter is depicted in a formal, stiff pose with the left hand holding a hat and the right hand placed the hip. In contrast to the dominating black and grey shades of the clothing, the hands and face are executed in light flesh tones. The attentive gaze towards the viewer with slightly raised eyebrows and the slight opening of the mouth emphasize Hals’s momentary observation and provide the sitter with an element of spontaneous and impulsive movement.

In contrast to the very well preserved female counterpart, the head and collar of the male sitter are covered in smoothing overpainting. The surface of the skin, including the ears, has been affected by this as well. The hair, which in Hals’s portraits is usually loosely applied, especially in the moustaches and beards, is unpleasantly blurred here. The complex layers of the collar appear flattened in the present condition. The later intervention may also have caused the distinct cupping in the paint surface. This unusual breaking up of the painted surface affects the face and left hand, while the right hand seems undamaged. An equally thorough, yet sensitive restoration would be desirable for this painting.

Oil on canvas on panel, 92 x 57 cm
Geldrop, Gemeentelijke Oudheidkamer
Pendant to A1.10a

Copy after the Portrait of a man in Kassel (A1.10).

Oil on canvas on panel, 103 x 82.5 cm
Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv.no. GK 214
Pendant to A1.10

The present woman’s elaborate clothes, especially the long, rounded stomacher laid over a wide skirt that is shaped by a farthingale, as well as her gold chain and bracelet, indicate a high-ranking and wealthy person. Her facial features appear unmoved, but the lively facial colors and a hint of movement in the tension of the eyelids and the corners of the mouth contribute to an impression of spontaneity and impulsivity in the turning of the gaze. In contrast to that of the male pendant, the paint layers of the present painting are well-preserved.

Oil on canvas on panel, 92 x 57 cm
Geldrop, Gemeentelijke Oudheidkamer
Pendant to A1.10a

Copy after the Portrait of a woman in Kassel (A1.11).

Oil on canvas, 86 x 65 cm
Berlin, Gemäldegalerie der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, inv.no. 801 G

Research by Bas Dudok van Heel has led to the identification of the sitters and consequently to a precise dating of the painting.¹⁵ According to this, the small child is Catharina Hooft, born in Amsterdam on 28 December 1618, and died in Ilpenstein Castle in 1691. Shortly after the child had been baptized, the parents moved to Haarlem in January 1619. The friendly-looking woman presenting the cheerful small person is identified in the 1709 inventory of the deceased estate of Pieter de Graeff (1638-1707), the sitter's son. There, the picture is described as ‘a wet-nurse with a small child by Frans Hals’.¹⁶ The plain and slightly old-fashioned clothing also indicates the lower status of the woman, who nevertheless appears as a particular confidante and is presenting a sweet, round piece of fruit – not an apple, but a Reine Claude, or greengage plum, as indicated by the indentation and stem. Its meaning is probably symbolic of life's destiny and the Christian hope for salvation. The child's elevated status is demonstrated by the precious clothing, the gold brocade cap, the golden bracelet, a gold chain with a ruby and a golden rattle. Two leashes are attached to her back, indicating that the girl is only just beginning to walk. Taking this into account together with the facial features, her age should be between one year and eighteen months. At that age, children are able to sit for portraits, albeit with some effort and in several attempts. This was the case here, since it would have been impossible for anybody to create such a coherent painting without a study from life. The fruit held by the wet-nurse may have worked to capture the girl's attention and fixate her head turn. The reason for painting the child with the nurse and not her mother may have been based on the intention to enhance her importance. Aged sixteen, Catharina married Cornelis de Graeff (1599-1664), an influential Regent and later mayor of Amsterdam. In 1636, Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy (1588-before 1656) painted life-size portraits of the couple, where Catharina's eyes are brown, while they still appear blue here.¹⁷

A1.12
Photo: Christoph Schmidt; Public Domain Mark 1.0