RKD STUDIES

Oil on panel, 24.7 x 19.7 cm
The Hague, Mauritshuis, inv.no. 618

Numerous previous considerations about the identification of the group of three small male portraits have not yet led to conclusive agreement (A1.59, A1.60, A1.61).¹ However, Dudok van Heel most recently published his hypothesis that the three pictures are independent portraits in a family series. This assessment is better suited to the character of the pictures than considering them to be portrait sketches for a group portrait.² According to Dudok van Heel, we are dealing with portraits of the three Nachtglas brothers from Amsterdam, whose commissions Hals took on during his first excursion to work on the Meagre company (A2.11). According to an inventory in the Amsterdam archive, a sister of the three sitters owned three portraits.³ The sitters can be identified as: Pieter Jacobsz. Nachtglas (1600-after 1636), who embarked on a journey to East India in 1633 and was last recorded as a merchant in Batavia in 1636; the painter Albert Nachtglas (1602-1655) and Claes Jacobsz. Nachtglas (1605- c. 1635). Considering the start date of Hals’s work on the Meagre company in 1633, and the departure of the eldest Nachtglas brother, the portraits must have been executed already by 1633. This date matches the painterly style, especially when taking the fashionable collars into account, which were not yet worn in Haarlem, but were first introduced in Amsterdam at the time. On the basis of his hypothesis, Dudok van Heel could also identify the sitters individually in each portrait. He was able to connect the present picture to a larger pastel copy by Cornelis Ploos van Amstel, dated 1751 (D43). The copy is inscribed verso: ‘This is the portrait / of Pieter Jacobsz Nachtglas / in the 15th year that he had been part of the Vroedschap of Amsterdam; the painting is still / in his family. After Frans Hals 1610 / by C.P. [in ligature] v. Amstel 1751’.⁴

The use of the relatively expensive panels, the compositional coherence of the portraits and the detailed execution of the clothing, especially the collars, moreover contradict the assumption that these were mere preparatory sketches, which would normally have sufficed to be carried out on paper or canvas. The adoption of such an unusual but obviously deliberate format for the portraits can only be explained by the intentions of the patron, which was probably Jacob Pietersz. Nachtglas (1577-1654) from Amsterdam, the father of the three brothers.

A1.59

Oil on panel, 24.5 x 19.5 cm
Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, inv.no. 1358

Albert Nachtglas (1602-1655) was documented as a painter, and reported in Rome around 1625.⁵ There is no information available about his works. Dudok van Heel pointed out that he can be identified through his inclusion in the group painting The Headmen of the Arquebus civic guard house of 1655 by Bartholomeus van der Helst.⁶ He can be seen there as the house custodian, holding a jug in the crook of his arm.

A1.60
© Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden
Photo: Elke Estel/Hans-Peter Klut

Oil on panel, 24.5 x 19.7 cm
Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, inv.no. 1359

Claes Jacobsz. Nachtglas (1605-c. 1635) is only recorded in very few instances. Born in 1605 as the youngest of the Nachtglas brothers, he is last mentioned in 1635.

A1.61
© Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden
Photo: Elke Estel/Hans-Peter Klut

Oil on canvas, 79.5 x 66.5 cm
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv.no. SK-A-1246
Pendant to A1.63

Ever since this portrait and its pendant were donated to the Rijksmuseum by a member of the Van de Poll family, the sitters were identified in accordance with family tradition as Nicolaes Hasselaer (1593-1635) and his second wife, Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen (1594-1667). After mix-ups and doubts about this identification, the provenance of the two pictures is now clear and can indeed be traced back by inheritance to the descendants of the present sitter's half-brother.⁷ The male sitter was therefore confirmed to be Nicolaes Hasselaer, highly respected Amsterdam brewer with assets valued at 90.000 guilders in 1631, member of the Dutch delegation to Moscow in 1616, Regent of the Amsterdam orphanage, and major of the Amsterdam company of mercenaries.

The finery of this highly important gentleman includes the so-called ‘nits nest’ hair-style over his forehead, and is matched by the equally elaborate costume of his wife.⁸ His commanding gesture and spontaneous side turn of the head are depicted with extremely loose brushwork. Dudok van Heel underlined the informal character of the male portrait, which differs from the more conventional decorum and softer manner of execution in the female counterpart.⁹ The highlights around the eyes and nose, as well as the proper right hand and the white cuffs display an emphasis on flowing paint substance that seems partially detached from the mere modeling of the surface, while perfectly capturing the impression of the materials. Hals appears to have been given relatively free range in his style for this commission. The result is one of his most virtuoso portraits, with an extremely loose brushstroke throughout, that has fortunately been preserved very well. Dudok van Heel convincingly gives it to the brief period of private commissions from Amsterdam which Hals took on during his work on the group portrait of the Meagre company (A2.11). He also refers to the representation of Hasselaer in the 1633 group portrait by Abraham de Vries: ‘Hasselaer, unlike his fellow regents of the Burgerweeshuis, is not depicted in civilian black clothing, but rather unconventionally as a military commander of the city “in’t gewaat als Majoor” (in the attire of a Major). He wears boots with spurs, old-fashioned grey puffy breeches with a light grey satin studded doublet, and a small flat collar with minimal lace, like the one worn by Dr. Tulp in Rembrandt's 1632 Anatomy Lesson. He holds his commander’s staff in his right hand and his ceremonial rapier is tucked under his left arm. In his single portrait by Hals he is wearing civilian black attire’.¹⁰

Oil on canvas, 81.5 x 68 cm
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv.no. SK-A-1247
Pendant to A1.62

The wife of Nicolaes Hasselaer (1593-1635) is turned slightly towards the viewer. According to the now confirmed identification of the male portrait, she is Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen (1594-1667), who became Hasselaer’s second wife on 14 August 1622. Like its pendant her face is drawn in a loose and visibly sketchy style of painting. This approach, as well as that of the glittering parts of her slashed sleeve, is closely related to the handling in the ensign of the Meagre Company that Hals painted probably around the same time in Amsterdam (A2.11) [1][2]. Based on the conventional posture of the wife, which is more in keeping with decorum, Norbert Middelkoop assumes a slightly later date of execution for the female portrait, yet not later than 1635.¹¹

1
detail of cat.no. A1.63

Oil on canvas, 77.7 x 66 cm, monogrammed center right: FH
Sale New York (Christie's), 26 January 2012, lot 20

This picture was inaccessible for a long time and has suffered through cleaning. The paint layers are partially very thin, and the position of the sitter's right arm and the shape of the armchair have become indistinct through darkening of the pigments. The expression in the eyes is also marred by paint losses. Apart from these weaknesses in condition, the portrait displays areas of superb painting. A stripy application with a dry brush appears repeatedly in the facial details. The modelling of the area around the eyes and nose is closely related to the Portrait of Nicolaes Hasselaer (A1.62). The execution of the upper arm also shows a light and confident use of grey reflections that is in keeping with the soft folds of the fabric.

A1.64
© 2012 Christie's Images Limited

Oil on canvas, 117 x 87 cm, inscribed and dated upper right: AETAT SUAE 36 / AN° 1634
Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art, inv.no. 1999.173
Pendant to A1.66

This superb portrait of a rich textile merchant brimming with self-confidence, depicts a man with a wide network of trade relationships, a friend of Willem van Heythuysen (1585-1650) and also his executor in the end, who had to manage the construction of the old people's home in the Hofje van Heythuysen and its later administration. The identification of the sitter as Tieleman Roosterman (1597-1672) and the clarification of its pendant in the portrait of Catharina Brugman became possible through the restoration carried out around 1935. At the time, the restorer Sebastian Isepp (1884-1954) removed background overpainting which was concealing the Roosterman coat of arms in the upper right hand corner. Ludwig Baldass (1887-1963) assumed that the overpainting had been added on aesthetic grounds to tone down the colors. It seems that, ‘to 19th century taste, the garish colors (of the coat of arms) must have seemed to clash with the restrained black and white color scheme of the picture. In the ornament on the crest, the brushwork of Frans Hals is just as unmistakable as in the lace cuff, the silken ribbons or the glove’.¹² A few years ago, pigment analysis of this and other coats of arms that were included in portraits, resulted in the identification of Prussian blue, which only came onto the market in 1720. Therefore, the coats of arms must have been added later in a similar manner as the case of the portraits of Pieter Olycan (1572-1658) and his wife Maritge Claesdr. Vooght (1577-1644) (A3.32, A3.33). The Cleveland museum hence decided to reapply the overpainting of the coat of arms.¹³ The picture has consequently gained in consistency of appearance and convincing spatial depth.

Oil on canvas, 115 x 85 cm, inscribed and dated upper left: AETAT SVAE 22/AN° 1634
New York, private collection
Pendant to A1.65

Slive pointed out the discrepancy between the sitter’s age that is inscribed on the painting and her the documented baptism date – 15 October 1609 in the Oude Kerk in Amsterdam.¹⁴ As Catherina Brugman’s parents were reformed Calvinists, a baptism soon after birth seems likely. Accordingly, she must have been 25 in 1634, even though the inscription gives her age as 22.

Catherina Brugman is sumptuously dressed, with a double collar and gloves abundantly covered in lace. She looks pregnant in the picture; between 1633 and 1652 she gave birth to nine children. The present portrait is one of the few works not seen since the 1940s.

Oil on canvas, 80 x 63.5 cm, monogrammed and dated center left: FH 163..¹⁵
USA, The Kremer Collection

The shape of this painting’s canvas altered form an originally rectangular format into the present oval shape. Its composition suggests that it was painted with a feigned oval frame, like several other paintings by Hals and his workshop (A1.2, A1.13, A1.44, A1.72, A1.79, A1.80, A3.11, A3.36, A4.3.6). The stripes on the collar that Slive criticized were identified as later overpainting and could be removed during the picture's restoration in 1990 by David Bull. It was also possible to clarify the reasons for the inconsistencies in the dark costume. Curiously, an arm had been added to the man’s body on the right side, which the restorer was able to remove during cleaning, together with the weak depiction of a cuff [3]. Subsequently, the modelling of the arm and chest formed a logical whole again. The especially expressive face with the amused eyes turned towards the viewer is well preserved. Its smooth modelling indicates a date in the mid-thirties.

A1.67

Oil on canvas, 82.5 x 70 cm, inscribed and dated upper right: AETAT SVAE 26/ AN° 1634
Budapest, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, inv.no. 4158
Pendant to A3.26 [4]

The posture of the young man was adopted by several other sitters of Hals; the cloak partly thrown over his left arm is comparable to that in the Portrait of Cornelis Hendricksz. Coning (A3.15). The contours of the shoulders, arms and coat form a compositional structure of rising and falling diagonals that supports the brightly lit head above the white collar. The melancholic expression with raised eyebrows conveys a sense of individual thoughtfulness and a slightly affected emphasis on emotion, which is detached from the man’s formal posture.

The picture's canvas was cut on all four edges. The drawing in the Städel Museum, also dated 1634 (D34), probably shows the present painting’s original three-quarter length figure.

A1.69 see: A3.26

Oil on panel, 73.3 x 56.2 cm, inscribed, dated and monogrammed upper right: AETA SVAE 48 / AN° 1634 / FH
San Diego, Timken Museum of Art, Putnam Foundation, inv.no. 1955:003
Pendant to A1.71

The execution on panel, the measurements and the correspondences in the representation confirm the present picture and the following as pendants. In addition, two watercolor copies were preserved, that depict the sitters' ages and a date of execution in 1634 on the right side of the upper edge [5][6]. On the left upper edge each is inscribed with ‘Joh. Vr Spronck’. It is possible, as suggested by Slive, that Frans Hals's two oil paintings were copied by the painter's younger portraitist colleague Johannes Cornelisz. Verspronck (1600/1603-1662) in Haarlem as a commission by relatives.¹⁶ It is also possible that the original FH monogram had become faint in the 18th century and that an attribution was added in line with other pictures in the family. Both watercolors are inscribed on the reverse with the names of the sitters, which in the male portrait’s case reads: ‘Mons: Mers. en / huisvrouw’ (Mr Mers and his wife).

Oil on panel, 73 x 56.2 cm, inscribed, dated and monogrammed center left: AETA SVAE 34/AN° 1634 / FH
Detroit, The Detroit Institute of Arts, inv.no. 23.27
Pendant to A1.70

On the reverse of the 18th-century watercolor [6], the sitter is referred to as ‘Cath: Vulp huisvrouw van mons: Mers’ (Cath. Vulp, wife of Mr Mers). The paint surface has suffered through abrasion. The gesture of the joined hands suggests female humility and prudence; it is a recurring motif in works by Hals and his contemporaries. In the present picture, the hand area is brilliantly represented, with unusually confident brushstrokes and few contour lines, while exquisitely characterizing the softness of the back of the hand and the fingers.