RKD STUDIES

Oil on canvas, 131.4 x 99.7 cm, monogrammed lower center: fh
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv.no. 14.40.605

This composition is brimming with life, depicting a carnival feast of boisterous personalities in actors’ costumes. A drawn copy by Matthias van den Bergh (c. 1615-1687), dated 1660 and inscribed on the reverse: Vastenavondsgasten [1], as such identifies the merrymakers as revelers on Shrove Tuesday (D2). Slive pointed out that the main figures can be matched to types from popular theatre plays from the time.¹ Apart from the pretty girl in her finery, these are Peeckelhaering and Hans Wurst. The former is hung with sausages, eggs, fish, and a pig’s trotter; in his right he is holding the insignia of the fool, a foxtail. Together with the various objects on the dining table, these evoke sensual pleasure and voracity. A restoration of 1951 revealed the entire blaze of colors in this picture, as well as the wild figures in the background, that had been overpainted. It also exposed the obscene gesture of the fool on the right, that had been rearranged to make him appear holding a stick in his fist [2]. Van den Bergh’s drawing from 1660 is proof that this censoring overpainting cannot have taken place before 1660. The colors and the diagonal composition bring to mind Flemish examples. Unlike Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) and Jacques Jordaens (1593-1678), Hals did not arrange his figures across the spatial depth, but instead spread them out in a flat compositional tableau.²

Walter Liedtke quite rightly asked the question who might have commissioned a depiction of such a coarse subject, which was hardly suitable for moral education or spirited entertainment in a private home.³ It is more likely that the painting was commissioned by a rhetoricians’ association, perhaps on the occasion of a celebration, and intended rather for decorative means than for profound interpretation. The picture’s character as a special production might also explain its peculiar contradictions and weaknesses in execution. As a whole it seems a composite of individual studies, which were not harmonized in size and scale. Even the proportions of the three main figures are at odds. Head and hands of the pretty girl in the center are too small in comparison with the heads and fists of the two men behind and next to her. The heads of all three figures have not been adapted to their bodily proportions, which are too narrow in the shoulders. The disproportion is most obvious in the young woman with her thick neck. The figures in the background are depicted even coarser and anatomically distorted. This difference in execution was most likely the reason for their later overpainting.

The execution can be structured accordingly in several steps. The composition and the design of the three main faces are quite typical for Frans Hals himself. These are vivid momentary studies from life, whose painterly finish, however, does not show the brilliant soft brushwork that is recognizable in other works by Hals from this period.⁴ Nevertheless, Hals’s masterly design will have been copied mostly faithfully onto the painting. This is apparent in the accents of light and shadow, especially in the modelling of the area around eyes, nose, and mouth of the woman in the center. The background figures are the weakest, but these could be an independent contribution of a workshop assistant, without relying on a detailed sketch of the master. The foreground with the still life of a variety of objects, however, is an excellent and confident component, probably executed by another hand than the other parts of the picture. This passage is similar in perspective and dense arrangement to the objects on the table of the guardsmen in the Banquet of the officers of the St George civic guard (A2.0)[3][4]. It is probable that this contribution is by Hals himself, even though he was not a specialist in painting kitchen scenes or dining tables.⁵

The present composition is documented in several copies and variations. They show that the original picture format was taller. Two excellent drawings by Willem Buytewech (c. 1591/1592-1624) are preserved, which depict the two male protagonists (D3, D4). They were, however, not done after the present picture, but after Hals’s lost sketches. As Buytewech moved to Rotterdam before August 1617, these drawings, created prior to his move, establish the terminus ante quem for the execution of the preparatory sketches. Buytewech's drawing of the elderly man on the left of the central young lady in the present painting, does not wear a black hat, but a cap similar to the one worn by the man to her right (D3). In this and other details, the drawing agrees with two paintings that show this Peeckelhaering as a single figure, with a fox's tail over his right shoulder and hints of the necklace of sausages, eggs, and fish hanging from his left (A3.1b, A3.1c). Also, in these versions, the overcut half of the face from the New York painting is now completely and credibly reproduced, as is the white collar, which corresponds to the collar of the same model in the contemporaneous painting by Buytewech.⁶ Many details of the Peeckelhaering character found in Buytewechs's painting Merry company also agree with these observations.⁷ Taken together, these indicate that one or more representations of the model’s head and chest by Hals existed, which were also used as a model for the face of the male figure in the New York painting [5][6][7].

Both faces of the male figures are more accurately captured in Buytewechs's drawings (D3, D4), than in Hals’s painting. Similarly, the cap of the man on the right has been modelled more coherently – which suggests the existence of more precisely elaborated templates. When it comes to the relation between Hals and Buytewech, the template for the drawing of the Peeckelhaering character may be similar to the portraits of the grandparents of the Haarlem painters Nicolaes de Kemp (1609-1672) and Jan de Kemp, which are mentioned in a deed dated 6 November 1656: ‘[the] portraits are made and painted by master Frans Hals the Elder and the “comparquement” by Buytewech, or otherwise called Witty Willem’.⁸ Slive adds in this context: ‘The meaning of “comparquement” is obscure, but it possibly refers to the kind of decorative cartouche which serves as a frame for Buytewech's drawing based on Hals's “Peeckelhaering”’.⁹ The examination of the individual parts of the New York painting proves that the depiction of the figures goes back to Hals' models, but these were not transferred onto the canvas by Hals himself. On the other hand, Buytewechs's drawings are subtle reproductions of lost works by Hals. We can imagine its colored appearance on the basis of the repetition in Musée Marmottan Monet (A3.1b).

A3.1

1
Matthias van den Bergh
Merrymakers at Shrovetide, dated 1660
Paris, Fondation Custodia - Collection Frits Lugt, inv./cat.nr. 6310a

2
Condition prior to restoration

Oil on panel, 31.5 x 24 cm, signed and dated lower right: DHALS 1637
Paris, Fondation Custodia – Collection frits Lugt, inv.no. 2212

Slive noted that the dress of the seated young woman was altered to fit in with the fashion of the 1630s.¹⁰

A3.1a

Oil on canvas, 44 x 63 cm
Paris, Musée Marmottan Monet, inv.no. 4005

This copy gives an idea of the no longer extant preliminary study on which the male protagonist in Merrymakers at Shrovetide (A3.1) is based. Despite abrasion of the upper paint layers, it is still fresh in color. The existence of this copy demonstrates that the motif of the Peeckelhaering character must have been popular. Together with Willem Buytewech’s drawing ((D3), it shows the full facial surface of the male model, who also occurs in the two variants of the Merry trio (B2a, B2b). The painting also shows small traces of the turnips that hang down from the man’s neck, which are only visible similarly in Buytewech’s drawing. This correspondence proves that the motif was an independent creation by Hals, which probably preceded the more elaborate New York painting.

A3.1b
© musée Marmottan Monet, Paris / Studio Christian Baraja SLB

Oil on canvas, 51.4 x 43.8 cm
Sale Carmel (Guernsey’s), 17 November 2018, lot 291

A3.1c

Oil on canvas, 147 x 205 cm
Sale Paris (Palais Galliera), 8 December 1964, lot 49

In this painting two of the three main figures from Merrymakers at Shrovetide (A3.1) have been placed behind a kitchen counter that is laid with the spoils of the hunt and baskets of fruit and vegetables.¹¹ Compared to the cat in the window on the left and with the objects in the foreground of the scene, it becomes clear that their proportions are too small. This speaks for a later, not originally planned insertion into the composition.

It is not known who has created this painting. Van Regteren Altena’s suggestion, that the figures could have been executed by Jan van den Bergh (c. 1587/1588-after 1650) is plausible.¹² This artist, trained by Hendrick Goltzius (1558-1617) in Haarlem, worked as an assistant in Peter Paul Rubens’s (1577-1640) workshop from 1615 onwards. A relation between Van den Bergh and Frans Hals is also suggested by the drawing that his son Matthias van den Bergh (c. 1615-1687) made after the Merrymakers at Shrovetide in 1660 (D2).

A3.1d

Oil on panel, 46.7 x 49.5 cm
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv.no. 89.15.34

This picture’s subject matter is most closely related to that of the following painting, Young man and woman in an inn (A3.3). While wine is consumed there, in the present composition, a clay pipe points to smoking as a frivolous sensual pleasure, savored by the grinning young man as much as the simultaneous embrace of a young woman. A bed curtain is drawn aside to reveal a female servant with a jug of wine, implying the scene to be set in a tavern or alehouse. The man’s hairstyle, with one large lock hanging over the face, was satirized in a poem printed in 1635:

‘A powdered and pale fertile nest for nits
A lock on the left and curled on both sides
A tuft over the squinting eyes as a curtain
A braid, a lock a curl, a coil [...]’.¹³

Slive outlined several possible interpretations of the scene. It could either be an allegory of the senses, that is the sense of touch; a moral warning against ‘eating and drinking smoke’; an allusion to the implicit connection between smoke and love - referring to the 1618 emblem of Jacob Cats (1577-1660), Fumo Pascuntur Amantes – or to the concept of transience as described in Psalm 102: ‘for my days vanish like smoke’.¹⁴ Based on the world view at the time, where – from our perspective – most perceptions were symbolically charged (that is, they conveyed meanings above and beyond today’s sober perception), a picture was especially effective if it evoked lasting connotations. The additional meanings that were present either consciously or unconsciously could be condensed into recognition through emphatic visualization. In this depicted scene, the senses of touch, taste, and smell are closely connected. The painting is a drastic illustration of the most dangerous vices of the time, drunkenness and tobacco use, as they were to be admonished soon in Samuel Ampzing's (1590-1632) Mirror of the Vanity and the Unrestrainedness of our Ages of 1633.¹⁵

At the same time, the present picture is an excellent example for the distinction of different hands in the execution. As Hofstede de Groot already remarked, the execution of the male face differs from those of the two other figures, which was however disputed by Valentiner, Slive and Liedtke.¹⁶ Nevertheless, an examination of the details is indispensable in determining which ‘hands’ took part in the execution of the painting. Close-up reproductions of details are the only method approaching the actual performance of painting and can give insight into the skill of the handling. In the smoker’s face these identify a virtuoso interplay of suggested form and a characterization of facial expression, while the two women’s faces are done in a commonplace or even clumsy manner. This is especially true with regard to the background figure on the right with her enormous hand, but also for the sweetheart on the left. Nevertheless, the shadow lines on the eyelids and the bridge of this girl’s nose are likely to be by the hand of the master. There is no question that the loose composition overall, but also the preparatory drawing of the protagonist’s clothing, and the design of the three-hand area, as well as the sketch of the green bed hanging form a coherent ensemble, initially designed by Hals himself. Yet, the painterly execution betrays a much weaker hand. This is already tangible in the areas of the collars and clothing. The paint layers visible today display the broad illuminated lines to the left of the girl’s nasal root and on her forehead as outlines of a first sketch for the painting [7]. These were smoothed over by the covering layer of overpainting. Sadly, overpainting has also blurred the shock of hair of the smoker which appears under the left hand of his sweetheart.

A3.2

7
Detail of cat.no. A3.2

Oil on panel, ø 35.3 cm
Formerly Kaliningrad, Kunstsammlungen der Stadt Königsberg

The black-and-white reproductions of this painting reveal a coarse handling and anatomical weaknesses which far remove it from the original in New York. It is hard to understand how Valentiner could accept it as an original.¹⁷

A3.2a

Oil on canvas, 105.4 x 79.4 cm, signed and dated upper right: FHALS 1623
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv.no. 14.40.602

For a long time, the original subject of the present painting was obscured by the title Jonker Ramp and his sweetheart. Accordingly, it was offered for sale at an auction in 1786, where also a drawn copy by Cornelis van Noorde (1731-1795) (D66) was offered under the same description.¹⁸ All attempts to identify this ‘Jonker Ramp’ remained in vain, which is why Valentiner had already suggested a renaming of the painting as a representation of the Prodigal Son.¹⁹ Slive supported this suggestion, by connecting the painting to contemporary imagery, especially printed illustrations.²⁰ Hals’s contemporaries could read several meanings in this picture, based on their familiarity with the subject matter of their time and printed illustrations. The cocky young beau in the room of an inn, warmed by the fire and lifting a glass full of wine while sharing his good fortune with an affectionate girl, was the Prodigal Son. The appearance emphasizes a devotion to sensual pleasure: seeing, feeling, smelling, and tasting – the dish presented by the innkeeper, the wine, the proximity of the girl, and also the sniffing and cuddling up of the dog. The densely arranged objects convey a recognition of being lost in animal nature. The candle in the holder on the chimneypiece has burned down, indicating a fading of emotions as well as of earthly existence as such. Underneath it, a shelf holds an ink pot with a quill – or maybe a piece of chalk? Some of the motifs match those in an engraving dated 1597 by the Haarlem-based Gillis van Breen (c. 1560- in/after 1602), after Karel van Mander (1548-1606).²¹ It depicts the Prodigal Son in an inn with two flirting ladies and two dogs jumping up. The inscription reads: ‘The nuzzle of dogs, the love of whores, the hospitality of innkeepers: None of it comes without cost’. If Hals trained with Van Mander, he probably knew this engraving or its modello.²² Another print, designed by Hendrick Goltzius, was probably used as an example for the dog’s head [8].²³

In the present painting, the posture and movements of the figures combined create a single diagonal across the picture plane. This simplified composition, as well as the figures with laughing faces, are typical inventions by Hals. In this instance he uses the same model for his protagonist as is depicted in the Lute player (A1.15). However, individual details fall behind Hals’s confident style of painting. These are the figure of the innkeeper on the right, the dog’s head and the fingers of the young man touching it, and also the execution of the head and hands of the girl. In contrast, the difficult area of the man’s raised hand is designed in a superior manner, unlike his face which is done in a coarser way here than the comparable face of the Lute player. One explanation might be that Hals designed the composition, outlining the head and hand of the protagonist. He then added only some accents, for example enlivening the areas of the young man’s dark hair with scratches of the brush handle.

The lively movement and the bright illumination of the protagonist suggest that Hals had already seen Utrecht paintings such as the Merry fiddler by Gerard van Honthorst (1592-1656), dated 1623.²⁴ The increasingly consistent observation of light effects, the close-up perspectives and the enhanced plasticity over the following period – for example in the two Lute Players (A1.15, A1.26) and Young man holding a skull (A1.29) – indicate Hals’s response to the half-length figures that were painted by the Netherlandish Caravaggisti precisely during his work on the present picture.

A3.3

8
Jan Saenredam and after design by Hendrick Goltzius
Man and woman with flowers: Smell, c. 1595
London (England), British Museum, inv./cat.nr. 1874,0711.1862

Oil on panel, ø 30.5 cm, monogrammed lower left: FHF
The Hague, Mauritshuis, inv.no. 1032

This is Hals’s most freely painted and at the same time most expressive depiction of a child. It was executed in loose, yet repeatedly softly blended brushwork, and formed the model for a number of copies. Nevertheless, the confidently executed face is combined with a coarsely painted collar that has nothing to do with the relaxed elegance of Frans Hals: compare the children’s collars painted by him in the two roundels from Schwerin (A1.35, A1.36). We may speculate why Frans Hals did not complete his facial study either in this case or in others. Similar to the present painting, the following two pictures (A3.5, A3.6) were also completed with collar areas and allegorical elements by a weaker hand

A3.4

Oil on panel, ø 30 cm, monogrammed lower left: FH
Sale Zürich (Koller), 19 September 1996, lot 43

This copy, which is accurate in size as well as in most details, was valued relatively high on the art market. In 1972, it achieved the unusually high auction price of CHF 175.000 at Koller’s in Zurich. In 1996 it was reoffered as ‘attributed to Frans Hals’ by the same firm with a hammer price of CHF 15.000.

A3.4a

Oil on panel, 35.2 x 34.5 cm, monogrammed lower left: FH
Augsburg, Kunstsammlungen und Museen Augsburg, inv.no. 12577

A3.4b
© Kunstsammlungen und Museen Augsburg / photo: Andreas Brücklmair

Oil on panel, ø 29 cm
England, private Collection

Judging from photos and book illustrations, the present boy’s face is accurately modelled with clear brushstrokes. The execution of the hand and collar, however, appears weak. The hair also seems to have been sketched by the master, but not executed by him.

A3.5

Oil on panel, ø 30 cm, indistinctly monogrammed lower left: FH
Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv.no. R.F. 1949 1

This is most likely a contemporary adaptation of Laughing boy holding a flute (A3.5), which is of interest because of the added attributes of a mussel and soap bubbles, underlining the Vanitas- character of the child’s laughter.

A3.5a
© 2018 RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Mathieu Rabeau

Oil on panel, 34 x 28.6 cm
Richmond, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, inv.no. 49.11.38

Probably copied after Child with a soap bubble in the Louvre (A3.5a).

A3.5b
© Virginia Museum of Fine Arts / Photo: Troy Wilkinson

Oil on panel, 37 x 36.7 cm
Abbeville, Musée Boucher de Perthes, inv.no. BdP 100
Pendant to B3A [x]

This painting appears to be the most accurate and the most reliable copy after the prime version, Laughing boy with a flute (A3.5). However, it differs in its somewhat softer technique, which is particularly visible in the hair, and also in the depiction of the collar and shoulders. The picture belonged to the Boucher de Perthes Foundation as early as 1868 and, if it is a more recent copy, was possibly painted together with its counterpart (B3A) in the 1860s at the earliest. That would be remarkable in view of the rediscovery of Hals, which only began in 1857 with Thoré-Bürger's exhibition reviews and catalogue entries.

Oil on panel, ø 27.9 cm, monogrammed upper right: FH
Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Museum, inv.no. AC1992.152.144

The steeply diagonal wood grain, visible in several places, is of interest in this picture. While the execution of the neck and collar area is merely sketched, it nevertheless differs slightly from Hals’s usual brushwork. In contrast, the execution of the laughing child’s face is confidently accentuated. The sweepingly modelled hair is also typical for the master Hals’s brushwork. This cheerful child’s face seems to have been very popular; many copies and variants are documented accordingly.

It is instructive to compare the area of the chest with that in the copy, Laughing child with a soap bubble (A3.6a), which also depicts a soap bubble, yet much more clearly, and combined with the depiction of the child’s hands. In the copy, the raised finger underlines the moralistic message of the painting that puts the transience of all joy in life at the center of the visual experience. Thus, the content of the present picture corresponds to that of numerous contemporary depictions, such as the Child with a soap bubble in the Louvre (A3.5a) and its variants. Having seen Laughing child with a soap bubble (A3.6a), and taking it seriously as a document of the original design of the composition, one can actually make out the outline of the raised hand with the stretched-out finger showing through on the right side of the present painting. This proves that there were three stages of reworking the picture. First, the child’s face was painted – by Frans Hals himself –, then the hands and the soap bubble – probably by a member of the workshop – and finally, a later intervention once again removed the didactic additions through overpainting.

A3.6

Oil on panel, 34 x 30.5 cm
Private collection

This slightly coarser repetition of the Los Angeles Laughing child (A3.6) illustrates the original composition. Considering the technique of the present painting, it was probably painted in the workshop of Frans Hals. It is certainly contemporary to the version in LA. According to this, it seems likely that the addition of the hand areas in that painting was carried out soon after the face was painted by Hals. In the same way, the noticeable twist of the roundel is likely to reflect the artist’s original intention.

A3.6a

Oil on canvas, mounted on panel, 60.2 x 49.2 cm
England, private collection

As Slive pointed out, the paint layers of this portrait have been flattened, rubbed, and are concealed by retouchings, so that the original appearance cannot be visualized without thorough and extensive restoration.²⁵ The lively expression of the eyes and some areas of the hair, especially the moustache and the area around the eyes, nose and mouth suggests that this is an overpainted original. Approximately a quarter of the surface, to the right above the face, has been cut out and supplemented with a differently structured piece of canvas. The background color has been applied all around the hair and shaded part of the face. The originally 1-2 mm wider jaw can still be observed, its contour shimmering through the upper layer on the right. The costume is similarly overpainted from the shoulders down.²⁶ Careful cleaning can provide further clarification on the painting’s conservation history and may possibly lead to an idea of its original appearance. Nevertheless, even in its current condition, the depiction of the facial features and the style of modelling suggest a date around the mid-1620s.

A3.7
© Private collection

Oil on panel, 26.3 x 20.7 cm, dated in verso: 1625
Berlin, Gemäldegalerie der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, inv.no. 801F

Precise photographic documentation of the face reveals differences when compared to the Portrait of Willem van der Camer (C16), whom I had suggested as the sitter in 1972.²⁷ The same high resolution images, however, indicate different qualities in the execution of the face. Hals’s brushwork is partly recognizable in the modelling of the central areas around eyes, nose, and mouth as well as in the design of the moustache and the chin beard, but the execution is not consistent. Beginning with the neck, the ear, and the hair, the remainder of the surface illustrates a style of painting different from that of Frans Hals. The head, which is too large in proportion to the body, and the raised shoulder give an impression of scoliosis, but this could also be the result of a clumsy compression of the arms. The weakest parts are the small, two-dimensional hands and the equally two-dimensional cuffs. Based on these observations, it seems likely that Frans Hals sketched the face in this instance or supplied a preparatory study, while the execution of different areas of the painting was delegated to an assistant. It is also possible that an unfinished sketch by Hals was finished here without his involvement.

A3.8
Photo: Christoph Schmidt; Public Domain Mark 1.0

Oil on canvas, 76.2 x 63.5 cm, inscribed and dated upper right: AETAT 36 / AN° 1625
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv.no. 49.7.34

Similar to many portrait engravings since the 16th century, the sitter appears as in a medallion, bust- length within an architectural frame. In his oeuvre, Hals adopted this traditional motif several times, which suggested the dignity of an antique bust. It is first encountered in the Portrait of a man holding a portrait miniature (A1.2) and the Portrait of Johannes Bogaert (C2). But unlike the decorative framing of the Portrait of Isaac Abrahamsz. Massa (A1.13), Hals's sitter appears increasingly natural in the present picture, as if he had casually stepped up to a hole in the wall. The frame cuts across his appearance quite arbitrarily, creating a natural closeness. Nevertheless, the sitter is placed in a way that makes the desired appearance sufficiently visible, together with the affirming gesture required by the patron. A comparison with a similar composition in a bust-length portrait of 1613 demonstrates the deliberate function of placing the hand in front of the chest, together with the facial expression, in characterizing the sitter.²⁸

Typical of Frans Hals are the facial movements he captured, with the slightly raised right hand eyebrow, as well as the lighting and modelling. Deviating from his brushwork and handling, is the uniformly opaque, monotonous, and smoothly applied paint of the surface of the face, the ear, mouth, hair, and beard. The collar also appears depicted insecurely, especially when compared to the sovereignly executed collar of Jacob Pietersz. Olycan (1596-1638) from 1625 (A1.17). From these observations, it can be concluded that a design of the master was transferred onto the canvas by an assistant. However, the execution of the sleeve section on the left and the hand modelled in loose strokes can be attributed to Hals' own hand.

A3.9