RKD STUDIES

Oil on canvas, 81.3 x 64.9 cm
Mexico City, Museo Soumaya

The style of the woman’s costume, especially that of the bonnet, is known from the mid-1630s onwards. However, precisely this type of cuffs and bonnets appear frequently in portraits of women dating from the 1640s, for example in the work of Johannes Cornelisz. Verspronck (1600/1603-1662) – such as The regentesses of the Holy Spirit Almshouse in Haarlem, dated 1642.¹ In addition, the cool, grey overall tonality of the present painting supports a date in the 1640s as well.

The uniformly smooth and opaque paint layer, with consistent craquelure across the entire surface, is striking. The eyes, nose, and upper lip areas, as well as the woman’s clear gaze can be attributed in the first instance to Frans Hals’s own subtle and confidently executed brushwork. He is also likely to have laid out the entire composition. However, the soft painterly execution in uniformly opaque color differs from Hals’s style. The different handling is also apparent in the structure of the craquelure, which is atypical for Hals. The execution of the bonnet, the pearl earring, the collar, and the dark clothing is very detailed and characterized by thin contour lines; it must be attributed to an assistant. The same assistant is likely to have painted the left hand, while the modelling design and the loosely applied cuff with the lace trimming could be by Hals himself [1]. Unfortunately, the canvas was cut on all sides, which becomes particularly noticeable in the loss of the right hand hanging down.

I no longer uphold my earlier assignment of the present picture to a gentleman’s portrait of the same size.² On the basis of proportion, the 1643 Portrait of Paulus Verschuur (A1.107) would come closest as a possible companion piece, but there are no other indications that support this hypothesis. Too many of Hals’s works were lost in the meantime, and the gaps in documentation are simply too extensive.

A3.40
© Museo Soumaya, Fundación Carlos Slim

1
Detail of cat.no. A3.40
© Museo Soumaya, Fundación Carlos Slim

Oil on panel, 29.5 x 23 cm
Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv.no. GK 218
Pendant to A3.42

It is not clear whether this and the following painting were independent miniature portraits – for example as friendship portraits – or studies for a larger-scale project of either individual pictures or a group portrait. The faces and hair in both paintings are confidently accentuated and were designed in a fluid brushstroke that is typical for Hals. In contrast, the collars are shaped quite hesitantly, as are the too small hands in the present picture, and even more so in the pendant. It is therefore conceivable that Hals merely designed these two depictions as facial studies and that they were later completed as small bust-length portraits by another hand.

Oil on panel, 30.5 x 24.5 cm
Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv.no. GK 217
Pendant to A3.41

Dendrochronological examination has revealed a date post quem for the creation of this painting of 1642, which corresponds to the proposed date on a stylistic basis.³

The execution of the hands and gloves differs significantly from Hals’s approach; it is probably the work of a workshop assistant. It is not clear in this case whether the sketchy design of the face was elevated to its current portrait-status by later additions, or whether the execution of the present picture was partly delegated from the start.

Oil on canvas, 78 x 65 cm, monogrammed, inscribed, and dated lower left: AETATIS / 46 / SVAE / 1643 / FH
Greifswald, Pommersches Landesmuseum

The alert face, looking at the viewer with an almost amused expression in the eyes, is a typical achievement by Frans Hals. His confident brushwork is apparent in the modelling of eyes, nose, and mouth [2]. During cleaning in 1937, it had become clear that the painting had been the subject of interventions. An addition had increased the painting in size. It is not clear whether this was done in order to match it to Portrait of a man (A1.108), its supposed pendant, or whether there was already a connection between these two roughly contemporary paintings.⁴ The woman is depicted in a frontal position; her upright posture does not correspond to the view from below that is adopted in the man’s portrait. The woman’s costume, sleeves, cuffs, and gloves, but especially her two hands are executed in a clumsy smoothness [3]. Without an in-depth technical examination, it is not possible to decide whether today’s paint surface conceals an earlier execution by Frans Hals or whether these areas were originally executed by another hand. The impression given by the blurry hairline and the blunt, thick application of paint would rather support the first option, which would also be seconded by the convincing composition of the subject matter.

A3.43
© Pommersches Landesmuseum, Greifswald

2
Detail of cat.no. A3.43
© Pommersches Landesmuseum

3
Detail of cat.no. A3.43
© Pommersches Landesmuseum

Oil on canvas, 82.2 x 66.2 cm, inscribed and dated center right: AETAT SVAE 57 / AN° 1643
Merion (Pennsylvania), The Barnes Foundation, inv.no. BF262
Pendant to A3.45

The sitter is amicably turned towards the viewer while holding a pocket watch in his hand, with a key hanging from it – a symbol of the transience of life as well as a valuable piece of property. The painting’s composition and that of its pendant are typical for Frans Hals himself, as are the accents in the expressive postures. His hand is also recognizable in the modelling of the face and beard. However, the hat, collar and cloak appear two-dimensional and lack accentuation in the design. The execution of the hands displays an anatomical weakness that is characteristic for Jan Hals (c. 1620-c. 1654). Especially the shaded lower hand appears as a shapeless dissolving appendage.

Oil on canvas, 82.6 x 67.3 cm, inscribed and dated center left: AETAT SVAE 52 / AN° 1643
Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv.no. NM6421
Pendant to A3.44

In the present portrait there are confidently executed areas next to hesitantly painted and somewhat finicky details. While the hands and the area around the eyes and nose are modelled generously, the line and corners of the mouth, the shadow of the chin and the neck appear strangely vague in definition. The collar and the edge of the bonnet as well as the hairline are hesitantly dashed. The portrait lacks the shadow modelling that so clearly completes the women’s faces in the 1640 Portrait of a woman in Cologne (A1.100) and the 1643 Portrait of a woman at the Yale University Art Gallery (A1.105). In addition, the wavering stripes along the edge of the collar and cuffs, as well as the amorphous glove and the undefined clothing overall, are contributions that the master must have delegated to an assistant.

Oil on panel, 74.5 x 60.8 cm, inscribed on the reverse: A 1644 / den 12 augst.
Amsterdam, Six Collection

This man’s cheerful face with alert eyes and the slightly open mouth is impressive. The central area and the composition of the figure in its spirited turn towards the viewer, as well as the design of the hand are typical for Frans Hals only. Yet, the painting diverges from his autograph style in the folds of the sleeve, the execution of the cuff, the collar, and the tassel, but also in the hat and hair. These differences may relate to the changes in the painting that became apparent in an X-radiograph. It revealed that the sitter originally wore a wide collar, had a different shoulder contour and was bare headed. The inscription on the reverse was also altered: the third digit of the year was changed from a 3 into a 4. It may be understood to mean that the picture was painted in 1634 and reworked ten years later.⁵ This could possibly also have included adding a darker background.

The Six family purchased the portrait in the 19th century with an identification of the sitter as Dr. Nicolaes Tulp (1593-1674). The assumption of this identification seemed to be supported by the listing of a picture by Hals in a 1709 inventory drawn up for Margareta Tulp, daughter of Nicolaes Tulp.⁶ However, the facial resemblance does not support this. Tulp was painted so often and by very reliable portraitists that an error can be excluded. Secure portraits such as those by Cornelis van der Voort (1576-1624) of c. 1625, Rembrandt (1606/1607-1669) of 1632 and Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy (1588-1650/1656) of 1633-1634 [4] show consistently different facial features compared to the portrait by Hals and assistant.⁷ The proportions of the nose and mouth, the shape of the nose and eyes all differ. Accordingly, Hals’s portrait is that of an unidentified sitter, about whom future investigation may reveal more. Similarly, examination of the panel support should be able to establish whether the oval format is original.

A3.46

4
Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy
Portrait of Nicolaes Tulp (1593-1674), 1633-1634
Amsterdam, Six Stichting

Oil on canvas, 82.6 x 64.8 cm, inscribed, dated, and monogrammed lower right: AETA 32 / 1644 / FH
Chicago, The Art Institute of Chicago, inv.no. 1894.1023

The painting is not in good condition and soiled; the paint layers have abraded, while retouchings obscure the original appearance. Sensitive areas such as the hairline next to the illuminated part of the forehead and the shaded hand under the arm out akimbo have been masked by such later interventions. The lower edge of the painting seems to have been cut, which also affects the hand, of which the row of fingers is compressed in an atypical manner for Hals. The other hand is still faintly visible under the overpainting. The cord of the collar and the row of buttons were overpainted in part, as well as the remaining parts of the coat and the hat. In spite of these limitations, the preserved parts of the head, collar and the thumb show the typical light touch of Hals himself. The fresh and lively expression of the face with its slightly open mouth is contrasted with the heavy-handed execution of the arm area, which is a workshop contribution. A restoration will not be able to reverse all interventions but could at least reduce the brown stains in the varnish and give a better impression of what has been preserved of the original state.

The palette on the background wall to indicates that the sitter was a painter. The side turn with the glance over his shoulder gives his representation an air of ambition, which is certainly commensurate with depicting the role of an artist. It is worth comparing the Portrait of Paulus Potter by Bartholomeus van der Helst (c. 1613-1670) from ten years later, with a similar facial type, though with blond hair.⁸ An identification of the present painting has not yet been possible; several suggestions – Harmen Hals (1611-1669), Leendert van der Cooghen (1632-1681) or David Teniers (1610-1690) – could not be verified.⁹ As already outlined by Slive, there is insufficient resemblance to a portrait drawing from the 18th century in the Haarlem archive that has been referred to as a portrait of Harmen Hals, rightly or wrongly.¹⁰ Van der Cooghen was only born in 1632, and David Teniers looked differently, based on his confirmed portraits.¹¹

A3.47

Oil on canvas, 82.6 x 66 cm, monogrammed, inscribed, and dated upper right: FH / M CONRADVS VIETOR/ ÆTATIS 56 / A° 1644
New York, The Leiden Collection, inv.no. FH-101

The sitter was identified through the painting’s inscription as well as the engraving created after Viëtor’s death by Jonas Suyderhoef (1614-1686) (C40). Conrad Viëtor (1588-1657), as the inscription below the engraving informs us, was a Lutheran priest from Aachen who was called to Haarlem in 1617 where he continued to live and work until his death. As Walter Liedtke explained, the name Viëtor was a latinized German name which must originally have been ‘Küffner’ or ‘Fassbinder’.¹² In 1615 the Haarlem town council had given permission to Lutherans to hold freely accessible worship services. In spite of the small size and limited importance of the small Lutheran congregation, Viëtor was the first Lutheran priest in Haarlem who became actively engaged in many current disputes with Reformed theologians, for example regarding child baptism. He supported the politically influential party of Remonstrants and was said to have even distributed treatises by the Protestant theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609).

The depiction of a theologian with a book, almost always a bible, was a traditional concept and adopted in many other portraits of theologians. But in contrast to, for example, Johannes Hoornbeeck’s (1617-1666) powerful grip of his bible (A1.116), the hands in the present picture are lacking in expression and appear anatomically awkward, as if broken up and crammed into the composition at the lower edge of the painting. Based on available images of this area and the two-dimensional treatment of the collar and clothes, my previous catalogues did not categorize the present painting as a work with any involvement by Frans Hals. However, when faced with the cleaned original on the occasion of an auction in 2008, this impression changed fundamentally. Today, clear, high-resolution reproductions allow the appreciation of the expressive facial features that are entirely characterized by soft brushwork. Hals’s calligraphic brushstrokes are preserved unadulterated from the eyebrows to the beard. The primary areas of the face’s psychology appear thoughtfully moved, especially the area of the left eye with the raised brow above, but also the slightly open mouth. Hals’s typical manner of observation is evident in the particular lightness of representation. However, beginning with the brim of the hat and the edge of the collar, the remaining painted surface is covered in an expanse of hesitantly anxious execution. It is surprising that the virtuoso painter Hals did not object to these very weak areas. From today’s perspective, we are looking for a consistent concept in design, not least because we are used to the modern idea of an ‘artwork’ as an entity of experience. Yet if we accept the historical contributions in their diversity, this example in particular allows us to perceive different abilities of expression.

A3.48

Oil on canvas, 60.5 x 54.5 cm, monogrammed center left: fH
Vaduz, Kunstmuseum Liechtenstein, inv.no. LSK 1968.06

A3.49
Photo: Heinz Preute

Oil on canvas, 66 x 65,4 cm, remains of monogram lower right: HF
Sale New York (Christie’s), 4 June 2014, lot 89

This composition of a young flute player is recorded in two almost identical variants. The figures are represented in the same size, but the Christie’s 2014 version (A3.49a) retains more space around the figure as well as the original diamond-shaped format. In both pictures the canvas was stretched diagonally. The painting in Vaduz (A3.49) originally also used to have a lozenge shape, but at an unknown point in time the four corners were cut off, resulting in a standard rectangle. The skillful adaptation of the proper left sleeve suggests that this change was carried out already in the Hals workshop. The present position of the figure with the flute lowered to the left was clearly intentional, as indicated by the vertical monogram on the left – even though this contains an unusually rounded f.

In many details, the execution of the Vaduz version is more sensitive and more confident, especially in the main lines and the shadow edges of the side-lit face, which are just thinly sketched in a grey-brown color. Here, the visible and anatomically correct execution is as sparse as it is precise, especially in the typically contorted area of the mouth. This is not the case with the creamy application of paint at the hands, the cuffs, and the folds of the cloak. The subtle transition in the modelling shades of the face shows the autonomous design of the master and turns an overall composition that was probably executed in accordance with his instructions, into a coherent whole. In comparison with the uniform and opaque paint application in the Christie’s version, the Vaduz painting illustrates the sensitivity of Hals’s painterly approach. The Christie’s painting can be considered to be a workshop replica, only differing from its example in minor details. The composition and style are mostly consistent, yet the handling is sketchier. The version is of interest as it documents a compositional variation, which probably was conceived within Hals’s workshop.

A3.49a