RKD STUDIES

Oil on canvas on panel, 107 x 85 cm, inscribed upper left: AETAT SVAE 36, dated upper right: AN° 1622
Chatsworth, The Devonshire Collections, inv.no. 266

Previously, the identification of this somewhat rubbed and flattened painting was in dispute. During cleaning in 1928, the inscription with the date of 1622 had been revealed. This matched Bode's dating on stylistic grounds from 1883.¹ Together with the sitter's age, the dates fit with Isaac Abrahamsz. Massa (1586-1643), whose face was painted by Hals in other paintings, especially in the very well preserved portrait of 1626 (A2.7), the double portrait in Amsterdam (A2.8) and the small portrait of 1635 (A4.1.11), equally rubbed, and the engraving after the lost model for this picture (C27). The facial features match perfectly; even the two small warts on the cheek are suggested here as well. However, the figure in the present painting is painted in a smooth style, with the sitter posing demonstratively, and differs significantly from another, more loosely painted painting of Massa that most recent publications also date to 1622. This is a double portrait for a married couple (A2.8), where the male features are certainly recognizable, in spite of the changed angle and the laughter widening the lower half of the face. Since the publication by De Jongh and Vinken, this picture has been identified as the wedding portrait of Massa and his first wife Beatrix van der Laen (1592-1639) and therefore dated closely to the nuptials on 25 April 1622.² The dominance of this mature major work probably caused authors such as Slive, De Jongh, Vinken and Ekkart to doubt the present painting as another contemporary depiction of Massa.³ In my opinion, the two sitters of the double portrait can be dated stylistically to the time of the Banquet of the officers of the Calivermen civic guard, that is 1627 (A2.8A). The wedding clothes could also have been used at this later stage. In this case, the double portrait would be a symbolical marriage portrait five years after the wedding, and the conceited pose of the present gentleman's portrait in a feigned oval would have been painted in the year of the wedding, 1622.

As part of the preparations for the Frans Hals exhibition in 2023/2024, infrared and X-ray images of the present painting were taken, revealing the presence of the emblematic figures of Envy and Death behind the sitter – overpainted at an unknown date. The fact that Massa's particular achievement was overcoming the hostility of envious people is expressed in the text under Massa’s portrait engraving of 1635 (C27) – which reads ‘Pursued by hatred and envy, he obtained honour from the Tsar and the Swedish king’.⁴ The sitter’s pose with folded arms can be interpreted as ‘one of defiance in the face of those he perceived as his enemies.⁵

A1.13
© The Devonshire Collections

Oil on canvas, 77.3 x 63.5 cm, signed center left: FHAL
Zurich, Koetser Gallery

The painting was offered at auction in 2012.⁶ After the sale, it was cleaned and some small damages were restored. Following the removal of a thick layer of grime and discolored varnish, the paint layers turned out to be well-preserved and, contrary to what Slive stated in 1974, not at all abraded.⁷ While the collar and dress are painted economically with just a few modelling accents, and both hands are loosely sketched, more elaborate soft modelling and decisive brushstrokes are noticeable in the smiling face. The flagon with its deliberate execution of light reflections and dark areas is typical for a work by Hals himself. Compared to the bravura of the later jug in Malle Babbe (A1.103), it appears like a first approach that is still rooted in representing the physical object.

This tavern scene has a symbolic flavor that we no longer perceive to its full extent today. The subject is not so much the young woman as a person, or the environment where she may be encountered, the topic is rather conveyed by the sway of the flagon and the knowing facial expression. In this context, we can refer to Slive's analysis of the vanity painting of Johannes Torrentius (1588-1644) painted in 1614 [1]. On a sheet of music below the wine glass we read ‘that which is immoderate has an excessively bad fate’.⁸ A moderate amount poured into the small drinking glass is therefore demanded by temperance and an individual's personal harmony. The chalk marks on the panel in the background of Young woman holding a glass and a flagon, keeping tally of the number of glasses ordered refer to the need for temperance as well. Harmony could also be suggested by the violin hanging from the back wall. As a symbol of vanity, it points to the fading of enchanting sounds. With her smile, the youthful pourer in the tavern herself embodies the swift passing of emotional experiences. This being said, Hals’s painting goes beyond mere moral instruction. The up-close and spontaneous human face is the center of attention. The woman’s half-smile expressing shyness and approachability was probably typical for the young woman who posed for Hals. Today, the painting remains a vivid image of direct human attention.

A1.14

1
Johannes Torrentius
Emblemetic still life with flagon, glass, jug and bridle, dated 1614
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-A-2813

Oil on canvas, 70 x 62 cm, monogrammed upper right: FH F
Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv.no. R.F. 1984-32

The Lute player marks the resounding impact of the Netherlandish Caravaggisti on Hals's genre paintings of the 1620s, which are inspired by the half-length figures of Hendrick ter Brugghen (1588-1629), Gerard van Honthorst (1592-1656) and Dirck van Baburen (c. 1592/93-1624) – possibly also Louis Finson (c. 1574/1576-1617). Hals adopted their subject matter of musicians, singers and actors as allegories of sensual experiences, lust for life, and transience. But he completely transformed the performances of these mostly youthful actors. He turned them into snapshots of one central impulse that dominates a painting. The movement shown in the facial features is visually continued and enhanced by the rest of the appearance.

There are several reasons for dating Hals's Lute player no earlier and no later than 1624. The model for this type of picture was Ter Brugghen's Lute player of the same year [2]. It cannot be excluded that this composition had a precursor, but the introduction of Caravaggesque lighting and subject matter in Hals's works of the mid-1620s is so distinct as in no other early dated work. The appearance of David Bailly's (1584-1657) drawing [1] after Hals's composition, dated 1624, establishes a closer terminus post quem non. There are several examples of the Utrecht painters’ strong lighting and sculptural modelling of similar moving half-length figures from the period between 1621 and 1623. The model of the Lute player also appears in a very similar facial study, the painting of the so-called Jonker Ramp, dated 1623 [3]. The slanting light and the view from below already feature there. However, the composition of the Lute player and the emphasis on the volume of head and hands are closer to the models from the Utrecht paintings.

The workshop-copy in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, which was long considered to be an original work by Frans Hals himself, is listed in catalogue part B (B4).

A1.15
© 2018 RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Mathieu Rabeau

1
David Bailly after Frans Hals (I)
Lute player, dated 1624
New York City, Clement C. Moore
cat.no. D6

Oil on canvas, 83 x 67.3 cm, inscribed and dated upper right: AETA SVAE 26 / A° 1624
London, The Wallace Collection, inv.no. P84

Today's popular title The laughing cavalier first appears in the catalogue of the 1888 Old Masters exhibition at the London Royal Academy.¹⁰ Reminiscent of a theatre performance, it disregards the fact that this is a commissioned portrait of a wealthy young man in the splendor of his expensive clothes – including many embroidered emblems on the slashed sleeve. This is the first instance in which Hals's typical momentary snapshots of self-confident male models has been fully developed. Their pose is always commanding, and is seen ever more frequently from below. They show off the luxury of their expensive dress and turn their upturned chest or their arms out towards the viewer. These theatrically exaggerated presentations are the starting point for a surprisingly open and often amicably winking turn of the gaze towards the viewer. Such a ‘role distance’ allows for an informal and highly individual observation.¹¹ Later bystanders are amused by it, whereas Hals's contemporaries would not have perceived the symbolic communication with gestures and fashions as an obvious form of ‘theatre’.

It has not yet been possible to identify the sitter, but two very different suggestions were put forward in recent years. Pieter Biesboer made the case for Tieleman Roosterman (1597-1672), based on the life dates and the dating of the painting.¹² In the present painting Roosterman would then be 26 years old, whilst in his portrait at the Cleveland Museum (A1.65) [4] he would be 36. However, the shape of the nose and eyes differ significantly. While Roosterman's head is more cone-shaped, The laughing cavalier's is narrower and more elongated. The same applies to the proportion of the nose, and last, not least the vertical crease above the nasal root. Roosterman's bushy brows are angular in shape, as opposed to the straight line of those of the sitter in the Wallace portrait. Overall, The laughing cavalier’s hair is lighter and thinner than Roosterman’s, and last but not least, the color of the eyes differ: blue to grey-blue in the present painting and greenish brown in Roosterman's portrait in Cleveland.

Research by Marieke de Winkel takes a completely different approach in trying to identify the sitter. In 1770 the painting was sold by the Van Heemskerck family, specifically by a descendant of the poet Johan van Heemskerck (1597-1656). The latter was born in 1597 and therefore had the same age as The laughing cavalier. Both shared a penchant for extravagant clothing, as is demonstrated by the Portrait of Johan van Heemskerck of 1628 which also shows him in a jacket with colorful embroidery and slashing.¹³ The most famous work by Van Heemskerck is the Pub. Ovidii Nasonis Minne-kunst […], which was based on Ovid’s Ars amatoria.¹⁴ De Winkel states: ‘The cavalier by Hals must have been intimately familiar with the text of Heemskerck’s Minne-kunst, since all the emblems (on his costume, ed.) reflect the text literally. For instance, the central motif of the caduceus with flames [...] stands for Heemskerck’s central belief that eloquence was the main weapon in the art of love. [...] In fact all emblems on the sleeve relating to love can be found in the book’.¹⁵

This portrait with its rich content underwent an astonishing career. As an icon of eternal ‘Art’ in the 20th century, it was reproduced on lamp shades, cushion covers, beer mats, postcards and posters worldwide. The change in the portrait’s perception is reflected in the sale prices, beginning with an auction in The Hague in 1770 at 180 guilders (where a landscape by Jan Griffier (1651/52-1718) realized 435 guilders, a landscape by Nicolaes Berchem (1621/22-1683) 1.265 guilders and a Jan van Huijsum (1682-1749) still life 2.100 guilders).¹⁶ In 1783 Hals's painting brought 247 guilders (a Berchem in the same auction was sold for 3.000), in 1800 it achieved 300 guilders in Amsterdam, 700 in 1822, again in Amsterdam, and finally in Paris in 1865 the record price at the time: 51.000 francs, while the guilder and the franc were almost at parity.¹⁷

A1.16

4
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Tieleman Roosterman (1597-1672), dated 1634
Cleveland (Ohio), The Cleveland Museum of Art, inv./cat.nr. 1999.173
cat.no. A1.65

Oil on panel, 69.7 x 59.8 cm
Sale London (Bonhams), 7 July 2010, lot 34

Copy after The Laughing cavalier (A1.16). The composition has been altered by removing the wide-brimmed hat and by simplifying the ornaments on the costume. Accordingly, hair has been added, which is darker than in Hals’s example – as goes for the moustache as well. It is possible that this painting was a fashionable adaptation, comparable to several other cases where the wide brimmed hat was removed (A3.38, A3.53A, A1.122). When comparing the copy with the original, the modern viewer can appreciate the vibrancy of the sitter’s clothing and its determining role in shaping the painting’s composition, whereas the present sober copy completely lacks in spirit.

A1.16a

Oil on canvas, 124.8 x 97.5 cm, inscribed and dated upper right: AETAT SVAE. 29 / A° 1625
The Hague, Mauritshuis, inv.no. 459
Pendant to A1.18

Thanks to examination and restoration in 2005-2006, this painting and its pendant have re-emerged with differentiated coloring and details of the costumes. It is commendable that on this occasion the unpleasantly overbearing coats of arms that had been added later, were overpainted – on the upper left side in the man's portrait and on the right side in the woman’s. The general spatial impression is now closer to the original concept.

The sitters of the two portraits married in 1624, and thus the paintings that were executed a year later can be understood as marriage portraits of the 29-year old Jacob Pietersz. Olycan (1596-1638) and his 19-year old wife Aletta Hanemans (1606-1653). The formal posture – one hand on the hip, the other holding a hat – suggests something like a presentation at an official event, where the man appears extraverted and the woman more restrained and observant. In this case the sitter's gaze is lowered as if he were wrapped in his own thoughts. Jacob Pietersz. Olycan also appears in another painting by Hals; he is fifth from the left in the Banquet of the officers of the Saint George civic guard of 1626/1627 (A1.30). Ove the years, Hals painted a total of 18 portraits of further members of the Olycan family.

This painting – which is restrained in color – and its counterpart (A1.18) are examples of Hals’s virtuoso execution of the many filigree details. Unfortunately, the facial part was subsequently smoothed out, similar to what can be observed in the pendant. A slightly brownish tone now distinguishes the skin of the face from that of the hands – the latter having been preserved in their original condition. However, the observation of the increasing and decreasing brightness in the modelling of the hands and the clothing, and their translation into graduated strokes and patches of color can be followed here in an exemplary manner. A juxtaposition with similarly composed depictions by contemporary colleagues [5][6], shows Hals's sensitivity, paired with the sketchy lightness of his paint application. Hals’s Portrait of Jacob Pietersz. Olycan may have served as a source of inspiration for the 1632 Portrait of a man, by the Amsterdam painter Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy (1588-1650).¹⁸

5
Detail of Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy
Portrait of a man, 1632
oil on panel, 121.9 x 85.1 cm
Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv.no. 94.PB.1

6
Detail of cat.no. A1.17
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Jacob Pietersz. Olycan, 1625
The Hague, Mauritshuis

Oil on canvas, 123.8 x 98.3 cm, inscribed and dated upper left: AETAT SVAE 19 / AN°. 1625
The Hague, Mauritshuis, inv.no. 460
Pendant to A1.17

Aletta Hanemans (1606-1653) ‘appears in the clothes she wore on her wedding day. She wears her wedding ring on the index finger of her right hand, in the other hand she holds the bridal gloves that were an engagement present from her (then) future husband. The most richly embellished garment is [...] the stomacher, which boasts floral and vine motifs embroidered with gold thread and paillettes. To make the skirt flare more widely, she wears a padded farthingale under it, which also has the effect of making her abdomen appear rather distended’.¹⁹ The task of rendering magnificent clothing in this and other female portraits of the 1620s forced Hals to extend his otherwise restrained palette. Sadly, the skirt in this painting has lost its original red and purple color, becoming pale and brownish through the influence of sunlight.

A review of the painting’s details reveals several findings that are similar to those that can be observed in several other female portraits by Hals, but which are particularly clear here. Despite the painting’s current state of preservation, it shows the master's own execution throughout. Unlike its well-preserved counterpart (A1.17), the area of the head is severely abraded and was probably already smoothed shortly after it was painted. This is what makes the impression of the face of the just 19-year-old Aletta Hanemans so flat and mask-like. The edge of the chin is scuffed, as is the facial contour on the left side, which is unconvincingly overlapped by the light grey of the bonnet – especially at the level of the eyes. From the root of the nose down to the chin, the facial features have been robbed of the accents that otherwise suggest the delicate movement of facial expression. This loss is contrasted by the breath-taking lightness of the well-preserved depiction of the hands, cuffs, gloves and embroidery of the bodice, as well as the delicate portrayal of the lace. Hals's incredible skill in capturing these intricate forms, soft fabrics and threads becomes ever so clear when compared with similar motifs in the Portrait of Johanna Le Maire, painted by Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy (1588-1650) in about the same period [7].

7
Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy
Portrait of Johanna le Maire, echtgenote van Pieter van Son, c. 1622
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-A 4957

A1.19 see: A3.9

Oil on canvas, 68.5 x 56.5 cm
Zürich, Koetser Gallery

Valentiner listed this painting as a work by Frans Hals, as did Gratama and myself.²⁰ However, Hofrichter included it in her monograph on Judith Leyster (1609-1660), even though there are no faces in Leyster’s oeuvre that show comparable modelling, or such a degree of psychological presence and lively eye movement.²¹ In contrast, the painting fits typically into Hals’s type portraiture from 1625; it demonstrates his confident study of moving, and appealing features. Dirt, overpainting and unequal cleaning have affected the appearance of the picture over time. A few years ago, these irritating interventions were successfully mitigated through restoration. The portrait retains its original shape, as indicated by the cusping in the canvas along all four edges.

A1.20
© Christie's

A1.21 see: A3.8

Oil on canvas, 118.8 x 95.3 cm
Cincinnati, Taft Museum, inv.no. 1931.450
Pendant to A1.23

This sensitively created portrait was repeatedly exhibited in American museums between 1935 and 1952, yet it has not received much appreciation in the literature so far. In 1825 it was sold at auction in Utrecht for 200 guilders, together with a pendant described as ‘Mr. Michiel de Waal, en Cornelia van Baardorp, echte lieden’.²² When Charles Phelps Taft (1843-1929) bought the picture in Edinburgh in 1906, the pendant was no longer known. The male portrait was described as Michiel de Wael (1596-1659) by Moes, Hofstede de Groot, Bode/Binder and also by Valentiner, but with a question mark.²³ Slive doubted this traditional identification, but it is confirmed by the indisputable facial resemblance between the various portraits of De Wael. Today’s option of comparing high resolution images through ubiquitous computer technology and the internet permits an unequivocal identification, as a publication and the website of the Taft museum emphasize.²⁴ Apart from the portrait which depicts De Wael as captain of the St George civic guard in the group portrait of 1626/1627 (A1.30), he appears as the guard’s fiscal in the painting of 1639 (A2.12). His representation in the present individual portrait follows the model of the Olycan portrait (A1.17). Like the latter, De Wael tilts his head pensively to the side and only registers the viewer with a casual sweep of his gaze. De Wael’s and his wife’s life dates are now known and the historic fashions of the present portrait and its pendant have also been analyzed, thanks to the publication of De Winkel and the research by Dudok van Heel that she referenced.²⁵

Discrepancies in measurements had been unclear so far: Hofstede de Groot records the measurements as 117.5 x 75 cm, which is in keeping with the cataloguing for the exhibition in the Royal Academy of 1902.²⁶ Valentiner and the 1935 Detroit exhibition catalogue list the size as identical, while Slive lists it as 121 x 95.8 cm, in accordance with recent information from the museum.²⁷ Such a considerable difference in width can only be explained by a folded canvas edge that was once again included in the picture surface, with the canvas on a larger stretcher. However, this raises the question of which format the ‘old frame’ had that Slive mentions and that was marked with the monogram ‘CHRG’.²⁸ This can only have been the frame at the time of purchase by Taft, in the already reduced format. The larger size that was recovered through restoration in the meantime would exclude this frame as an original one for the present painting. It was probably used when the painting’s size was reduced, if the picture was not cut down in the first place to fit the smaller frame. The changes of dimensions have caused a notable shift in the composition. The sitter is placed distinctly to the left of the center, leaving an unusual amount of space on the right towards the pendant. This impression is enhanced by the strip measuring about 4,5 cm in width, which runs along the right hand edge of the painting and differs in color with its grey overpainting. In some places, the original background shade can be seen through the overpainting, indicating that the strip of canvas is in fact original. The same color of overpainting is also visible along the other painting edges. Smoothing retouches carried out in the face, on the collar, at the upper edge of the left cuff and on both hands were probably also part of the same intervention process.

While the paint layer is well-preserved overall and displays Hals’s brushwork in many places, it is disturbed by overpainting – on the ear, the eyelids, around the nose, mouth and chin, but also the clumsy second upper edge of the cuff. The general impression of the portrait would markedly improve if these additions were to be removed.

Oil on canvas, 116.7 x 91.5 cm
Boston, private collection
Pendant to A1.22

This distinguished portrait of a lady with the hand on the hip – the only known portrait of this kind in Hals’s oeuvre – appears in the 1899 catalogue of the Parisian art dealer Charles Sedelmeyer (1837-1925), without reporting where it had come from, or who was the sitter.²⁹ It is most likely the pendant of the preceding Portrait of Michiel de Wael (A1.22), that was last recorded together with its counterpart at an 1825 Utrecht auction as ‘Mr. Michiel de Waal, en Cornelia van Baardorp, echte lieden’.³⁰ In spite of the duplication of the arm postures, the proportions in size in the two figures match exactly. Slive discovered the important piece of information about the wedding of Michiel de Wael (1596-1659) and Cunera van Baersdorp (1600-1640) in Haarlem on 22 April 1625.³¹ This wedding was probably the occasion of the portrait commission to Hals. Stylistically, the manner of painting and the costumes match these findings. In 1930, Frithjof van Thienen had already dated the dress in the female portrait to 1625.³² This date is consistent with the dating of the costume by Marieke de Winkel, who – with the help of Bas Dudok van Heel – was able to present more biographical details about the couple De Wael and Van Baersdorp: ‘They were married exactly a half year after Cunera’s mother died. This explains the bride’s wedding dress in half mourning: a black skirt, white gloves and white bracelets but with lace’.³³ The dimmed lighting and the relatively smooth execution of the face, but also of parts of the dress, would fall into the period before Hals introduced a lighter palette and enhanced modelling, as is visible in the oeuvre of 1626 onwards (see A1.24, A1.25, A1.26).

In addition, the identity of Van Baersdorp is further supported by the French provenance of the painting. After the joint sale in 1825, De Wael’s portrait passed into the collection of Charles Pillet (1869-1960) in Paris, and from there to the English trade, while Van Baersdorp’s portrait turned up in the French art trade in 1899. However, by then, there was a conspicuous difference: instead of the original 117.5 x 75 cm, the painting now measured 116 x 91 cm, and the canvas was laid down on panel. A broadening by 16 cm was not due to an added piece, but obviously to the inclusion of the preserved canvas that was folded back over the stretcher. The restoration of the female portrait’s original size somewhere between 1825 and 1899 anticipated the much later reconstruction of the male portrait. The original, and today relined, canvas has cusping on all four sides, with irregularly cut edges. Only narrow strips would have been lost. An examination of the present canvas at the restorer’s workshop also revealed rows of earlier nail holes.³⁴ An initial inspection of the distance between the assumed painting edges of the canvas with the strips folded back, resulted in an approximate width of c. 74-75 cm, which matches the size of the male pendant as described in the 1902 catalogue of the Royal Academy exhibition.³⁵