RKD STUDIES

Oil on canvas, 69.2 x 59.1 cm, monogrammed lower left: FHF
Sale New York (Sotheby’s), 20 May 1993, lot 94

The senses of Hearing, Sight, Touch and Taste are combined in this painting, in the tradition of the Five Senses illustrating transience. The jug alludes to Taste and also points to the setting of the scene in a tavern. The blonde boy’s gaze at the sheet of paper held by his companion may refer to Sight, and his hand touching his friend’s back to Touch. The singing of the dark-haired boy, finally, may symbolize Hearing.

Stylistically, this cheerful picture is close to Two boys singing in Kassel (A1.24). The face of the boy in front is executed with great verve in a few brushstrokes, using confidently graduated color tones. The design of his hands, especially the back of the hand in the front, displays the same confident brushwork, which must unquestionably be attributed to Frans Hals himself. The rest of the picture is painted in a coarser manner. The protagonist’s jacket, but also the face, hands, and clothes of the boy behind him are executed in wide, two-dimensional strokes. It is surprising in this case as in others how tolerant Hals seems to have been towards the work of his assistants. Only a speedy production to satisfy market demands might provide an explanation.

A3.10

Oil on panel, ø 22.8 cm, inscribed and dated center right: AETAT SVAE 66/ AN 1628
England, private collection
Pendant to A3.12

This striking portrait has been associated with an erroneous sitter’s name ever since Valentiner identified the model for this portrait as the schoolmaster, humanist and first eulogist of Hals, Theodorus Schrevelius (1572-1653).¹ Slive's tentative doubts of the identification seem more than justified to me.² Today’s possibilities of comparative observation of the two Schrevelius engravings (C3, C4) allow a precise comparison of the differing eyes and nose. A comparison with the painted portrait of Schrevelius of 1617 (A4.1.1A) and the copy (A4.1.1Aa) results in the same verdict. The inscription of the present small portrait indicates that the sitter was 66 years old in 1628. Schrevelius was born in 1572, and therefore would have been only 56. Neither do the dates of his wife match those of the companion piece (A3.12). This leaves the option of cataloguing the portrait as that of an unknown man, whose head, collar, and left shoulder show Hals’s own brushwork, whereas the hand held against the chest was executed slightly mechanically. A variant of the present picture, probably executed in Hals’s workshop, is listed in catalogue part A4 (A4.1.8). An excellent drawing after the picture, attributed to Jonas Suyderhoef (1614-1686) is in the collection of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam [1].

1
possibly Jonas Suyderhoef
Portrait of a man, possibly Theodorus Schrevelius, after 1628
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. RP-T-1937-55
cat.no. D33

Oil on panel, ø 22.8 cm, inscribed and dated upper left: AETAT SVAE 60/ AN 1628
England, private collection
Pendant to A3.11

Valentiner's identification of the sitter as Maria van Teylingen (1570-1652) cannot be upheld, following the objections raised in the entry on the companion piece (A3.11). There is no resemblance between this portrait and the one in the Murnaghan collection (B1), and in addition, Maria van Teylingen would have been 58 years old in 1628. The distinctive head of the sitter in the present painting is painted fluidly and accentuated accordingly. However, the execution of the collar, the bonnet and the hand are weaker.

Oil on panel, 18.2 x 18.4 cm, monogrammed center right: FH.
Richmond, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, inv.no. L2020.6.14
Pendant to A3.14

Oil on panel, 18.4 x 18.8 cm, monogrammed lower left: FH
Richmond, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, inv.no. L2020.6.15
Pendant to A3.13

The coloring and the modelling of these two paintings, and their smooth surface indicate a date of creation in the late 1620s. With regard to attribution, both are borderline cases, where surface corrections by Hals are recognizable, though there are no entire areas painted by him. It is quite obvious that the equally bright parallel lines on the girl's chest do not conform to the graduations of lightness that characterize Hals’s visual approach. Equally noticeable are the anatomically unconvincing, flat, and small hands, an objection even more applicable to the hand of the boy and the lopsided violin. It is conceivable that both faces were designed by Hals; there are faintly visible lines of an underlying sketch in both eye areas, which should become clearer in infrared light photography. The girl’s face also shows a few final summary corrections. These appear in the shadows of the chin, the light streaks on the ear, the modelling of the mouth and the left eye area, which was reworked in a stripy brushwork using a thin, dry flat brush. The calligraphically structured hair over and around the illuminated side of her face also shows the confident lines of Hals.³ The head of the boy is executed with a thin brush and is more drawn than painted. Therefore, it was not modelled completely by Hals himself, as becomes especially obvious in the light and shadows around the nose. The nostril with its striking illumination from below recurs similarly in The serenade by Judith Leyster (1609-1660), dated 1629.⁴ Correcting lines added later by Hals himself are likely to be the lights on the edge of the forehead and below the right eyelid, but also the shadow under the upper lip and in the fur of the boy’s cap. The diagonal grain of the panel – running from the upper left to the lower right – shines through noticeably and corresponds to the diagonal composition of the pendant.

These two diamond-shaped paintings – a format which Hals used occasionally – allude to the transience of human nature, as becomes evident in the fleeting impressions of the senses. In this case, we see Sight and Hearing symbolized, perhaps originally as part of a larger series.⁵

Oil on canvas, 108 x 81.3 cm, inscribed and dated center left: AET SVAE 29 / AN° 1630
Allentown, Allentown Art Museum, inv.no. 1981.030.000

The convincing identification of the sitter was possible through a comparison with the figure of lieutenant Cornelis Hendricksz. Coning (1601-1671) in the group portrait of the Officers and sergeants of the St George civic guard of 1639 (A2.12) [2].⁶ Coning was councilor, juror, and mayor of Haarlem. He served as a lieutenant with the Calivermen civic guard from 1636 to 1639 but was included in the group picture of the St George’s guardsmen completed in 1639, where he probably stood in for someone else for a limited period of time. Nevertheless, he wears a white sash in the group painting, marking him as the leader of the white company of the Calivermen civic guard. Subsequently he moved to the civic guard of St George, where he was to serve as a captain from 1642 to 1651. By 1654 he returned to the Calivermen and served as captain there until 1657.⁷

The present painting was cut down on both outer sides and along the lower edge, which has diminished the effect of the composition. Nevertheless, the confident modelling of the face and the loose design of the left hand leave no doubt about the involvement of Hals. The execution of the clothing appears a little smooth in earlier photographs, which is probably why Slive, and other art historians did not support an attribution to Hals.⁸ After the picture was cleaned by Marco Grassi in 1982, today's cooler tonality and subtle modelling in the areas of arm and chest became apparent, especially the delicate grey-blue slashes. However, if one compares the manner of painting by means of high-resolution color photographs, all details presuppose the preparation by Hals, yet appear flatter and more summary in execution. As in the male portrait of 1630 in the British Royal collection (A3.16), the painterly execution seems to have been entrusted to a very good workshop assistant. In the color palette and the design of the reflections, however, we are dealing with a different hand than in the latter painting.

A3.15
© Foto A. Frequin

2
Detail of cat.no. A2.12
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Officers and sergeants of the St George civic guard, 1639
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

Oil on canvas, 116.7 x 90.2 cm, inscribed and dated upper right: AETAT SVAE 36/ AN. 1630
Great Britain, The Royal Collection, inv.no. RCIN 405349

This portrait’s sitter is identified with high probability by Frans Grijzenhout. He proved the Cincinnati family portrait of c. 1635 (A3.29) to be a depiction of Nicolaes van Heuvel (c. 1603-1661) with his wife Susanna van Haelwael (c. 1606/07-1667) and their two eldest daughters.⁹ The fact that his brother was also portrayed by Frans Hals is testified by an inventory of 1675. According to this, Agneta van den Heuvel († after 1691), a niece of Godfried van den Heuvel (c. 1594/1595-1669), owned ‘the portrait of the late Geurt van den Heuvel by Frans Hals, as well as a small ditto of the same van Heuvel’.¹⁰ Since on July 15th, 1642, Godfried had given his age as 47, Grijzenhout concludes that he must have been born in 1595 or 1594. By 1630, the date of the present portrait, he would have been 36 years old – matching perfectly with the inscription on the painting.¹¹

This painting was first reported in the inventories of Buckingham Palace during the reign of George III (1738-1820). It was noted by Gustav Friedrich Waagen (1797-1868), who praised the composition as ‘unusually spirited and animated even for Frank [sic] Hals’ and felt that ‘the real value of this painter in the history of Dutch painting has never been sufficiently appreciated’.¹² The picture combines the formal gestures that were repeatedly used, with a momentary tension in the facial features, resulting in creating a relationship with the viewer in spite of the conventional appearance. The composition suggests a pendant. With regard to the cleaning of the picture in 1970-1971, Slive noted: ‘The picture had been overpainted, particularly heavily in the costume. The fall of drapery below the sitter’s elbow and the area of draping below the waist on the right hand had been painted out. The inscription had been strengthened’.¹³

If one goes by the first impression of the painting, it appears as a uniformly executed work by Hals, typical in its observation of light and modelling. The momentary character of what is seen is convincingly captured. The face appears to be moving: the right eyebrow is slightly raised and the mouth is open to speak. But the close comparison with the three-quarter length portraits in the Frick Collection (A1.41) and in private ownership (A1.48), which are contemporary and almost identical in format, is surprising. The surface of the present painting shows a uniformly opaque, impasto application of paint, and craquelure that differs from Hals's previous works. The sculptural form stands out, but all the contours are blurred. The sketchy stroke of the flat brush that is so typical of Hals, is missing. The otherwise accentuated lines of movement of the facial expression are faded out. The shadow between the chin and the collar, and the contours of the folds of the fabric are also hazy. This difference is also visible in the depiction of the hands, where the execution with the flat brush appears rigid and wood-like. The imitation of Hals' loose brushwork becomes schematic here and poorly characterizes the optical impression. This also can be said for the cuffs, which appear angular and illogical with their light stripes [3][4].¹⁴ This means that Hals probably designed the composition and prepared a study of the face on the final canvas, or – more likely – on a separate support. We can also assume a precise design for the hands and clothing. The assistant who created the final portrait has put together these elements with great routine on the basis of his master’s guidelines.

The identity of this assistant cannot be ascertained, but the most likely candidate is Johannes Cornelisz. Verspronck (c. 1600/1603-1662). His earliest known portraits date from 1634, and he had enrolled the Haarlem painters' guild two years before. This means that he had not previously worked as an independent master. Since his portraits show a marked dependence on Hals' compositions, it is likely that he was temporarily employed in his workshop.¹⁵ The Hals painting that comes closest to Verspronck’s early works is the present portrait of 1630, which shows a skilled, but for Hals uncharacteristically smooth brushwork. It also displays the bent left hand, braced on the hip, with the fingers held in a flat row, which we do not encounter in other Hals-portrait, yet which does appear in several later portrait by Verspronck.¹⁶ Also worth mentioning in this context is the copy of Hals’s 1639 Portrait of Maritge Claesdr. Vooght (A3.33a), of which the style corresponds to Verspronck’s strongly contoured manner.

A3.16
© His Majesty King Charles III 2023

3
Detail of cat.no. A3.16
© His Majesty King Charles III 2023

4
Detail of cat.no. A3.16
© His Majesty King Charles III 2023

Oil on panel, 43.6 x 36 cm, inscribed on the right: AETAT SVAE 30
New Orleans, M.S. Rau Antiques

As Slive noted, an earlier identification of the sitter as Willem van Warmondt (1583-1649) cannot be upheld, based on the lack of resemblance, the difference in age and the stylistic features of around 1630.¹⁷ In comparison with the captain of the Calivermen civic guard, who is depicted in the group portrait of 1627 (A2.8A) [5], the sitter in the present picture is noticeably younger. According to the attribute in his hand, he could have been a scribe or penman, perhaps also a schoolmaster or a scholar. The sitter’s hand is modelled in Hals’s typical confident brushwork. This became apparent once overpainting in this area had been removed, after the auction of 2007. A careful cleaning of the picture and the removal of retouchings revealed the face and beard being more distinctly characterized by the movement of the brush, and at the same time drawn concisely. This is especially true for the area of the eyes, the nose, and the slightly open mouth. Only Frans Hals himself could have created these central parts. Unfortunately, remnants of overpainting obscure the shaded right eye. The appearance of the ‘Rembrandtesque’ collar, whose brushwork differs from that of Hals, has not been resolved. The stiff collar edge and the adjoining blurry area of the side whiskers also result from the current partial removal of overpainting. The shadow of the hood, the beginning of the left arm and the area of the chest are faintly visible in their original modelling. Stylistically, the portrait fits into the period around 1630.

A3.17

Oil on canvas 75.7 x 61.4 cm
Berlin, Gemäldegalerie der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, inv.no. 800

The canvas was extended by adding strips measuring between one and three centimeters wide to the outer sides and along the lower edge. Stylistically, the portrait is placed in between the soft modelling of round shapes of the early 1630s and the emphasis on profiling with hard shadows within the facial area. The nearest comparative in style is the Meeting of the officers and sergeants of the Calivermen civic guard of 1632-1633 (A2.10). The sitter’s lateral position indicates a pendant that has not been preserved. The picture was acquired by the museum in 1840 together with the Portrait of a woman (A1.77), which is similar in size but seen from a different distance: the sitter is placed further back in the pictorial space [6]. Based on the soft modelling of the face and the brushwork, the woman’s portrait is also stylistically later and can be dated c. 1635.

On close inspection of all details, the present picture shows a paint application which differs from that in works that are solely attributed to Frans Hals. The areas of the face and hands as well as the clothing were consistently executed with thick paint. There is no loose brushwork in a repeated diagonal direction rising from softly blended colors to distinct edges, or conversely phasing out angular edges to transparency. Instead, individual, unblended color strokes are visible as highlights in illuminated areas. This approach is especially obvious on the illuminated side of the nose, but also on the modelling of the fingers and of the folds of the jacket and shirt. The modelling of the hair area also shows a pasty consistency, lacking the lightness and transparency of suggestions which appear otherwise. This contributes to an overall more coarse and clumsy impression than we observe in the autograph areas of other pictures. It can be assumed that a design of the facial features by Hals was the basis of the execution. The assistant who was involved cannot be named. However, there is a kinship with the execution of the faces in the Meeting of the officers and sergeants of the Calivermen civic guard of 1632-1633 (A2.10).