RKD STUDIES

Oil on canvas, 87 x 82 cm
Germany, private collection

According to the Munich restorer Leo Cremer (1911-1989), the painting still had its original canvas edges in the 1960s, including the holes for the tension line and a remnant thread of the latter. In order to get maximum use out of a piece of available canvas, it could be attached to a larger stretcher with thread. Once the painted surface had dried, the canvas was then nailed onto the final stretcher.¹

The present portrait’s soft modelling and the somewhat wistful-looking face with the raised eyebrows is closest to the faces in the Portrait of a man of c. 1650-1652 (A1.123) and Portrait of a man of about a decade earlier (A3.52). The broad application of both delicate and stronger shades of grey is a feature in Hals’s later oeuvre. The painting should date from the beginning of the 1650s, which matches the style of the hat and the clothes. Slive pointed to the distinctly accentuated pattern on the black silk sleeve, which resembles that on the upper arm of Joseph Coymans (*1591) in his portrait from 1644 (A1.111) [1], even though the pattern is more softly connected with the modelling there. in other words, the subject matter is the same, but in the present painting the pattern has become detached from the three-dimensional shape of the sleeve. The same effect can be observed in the comparison of the two areas of the gloves. In the present painting, everything has been rendered with a suggestive calligraphy of the brush. The result is further emphasized through the stripy pattern of the folds and the two-dimensional decoration of ornaments, which were probably contributed by another hand. Designed by Hals and painted by him in the areas of the face and hands, the picture shows a similar, yet harder style in the execution of the hair, the collar and the area of the chest and the arms, where the contouring neglects detailed shapes, curvatures, and shading. As convincingly explained by Slive through a comparison, this has nothing in common with Jan Hals (c. 1620-c. 1654).² An independent creative talent – perhaps Frans Hals (II) (1618-1669) – was involved, working in a simplified variant of Hals’s style.

A3.56

1
Frans Hals (I)
Portret van Joseph Coymans (1591-?), 1644 gedateerd
Hartford (Connecticut), The Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, inv./cat.nr. 1958.176
cat.no. A1.111
© Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art / Photo: Allen Phillips

Oil on canvas, 114 x 85 cm
Washington, National Gallery of Art, inv.no. 1942.9.29

This painting was altered in its format several times. Having been temporarily put on a smaller stretcher measuring approximately 108 x 80 cm, it was later returned to the full size of the preserved canvas. During that restoration, a canvas strip of 2.5 cm was added in order to regain the gap that had surely been present between the hat and the picture’s upper edge.³

This imposing frontal representation depicts an unidentified dignitary: ‘his fashionable attire and dignified bearing indicate that he was a person of some means’.⁴ The figure’s turn to the right indicates the presence of a former pendant, which could not be identified among the paintings preserved today. The magnificent capturing of the face and the hair as well as that of the hanging hand outshines the imprecise and randomly stripy execution of the coat that makes it appear so flat. The illuminated side of the collar, the white tassel, the cuffs, and gloves, as well as the area where the hand is put on the hip can also be attributed to Hals’s assistant.

A3.57

Oil on panel, 57 x 45 cm
Zürich, Kunsthaus, The Ruzicka Foundation, inv.no. R 12

The difference between the confident area of the face and the weak painting of the hand and glove, as Slive emphasized, had initially also led me to exclude this picture from Hals’s oeuvre.⁵ When taking a possible workshop involvement into account, I no longer regard this as justified. The central area of the face, as well as the collar and the tassel are confidently envisaged and loosely applied, most likely based at least on an initial design by the master. The blurry, somewhat patchy brushwork of the eyes, mouth and nose shows some similarities with the late Portrait of a man in Amsterdam (A3.60). The zone of the hair is either little developed or abraded, while the hand and the glove were added by a hesitant hand.

A3.58

Oil on canvas, 76.2 x 63.5 cm
Private collection

Thanks to a recent restoration by Martin Bijl, the appearance of the figure and the background has become brighter, and the space can be better imagined. The cleaning of the face has recovered an original loose application of paint in shades of ochre and red. The clear facial expression and the determined gaze in this area suggest an execution by Frans Hals himself. I consider my earlier attribution of the entire picture to Jan Hals (c. 1620-c. 1654) disproved by the qualities that are visible today in the central area.⁶ Nevertheless, the darker area of the coat was executed by a weaker hand.

A3.59

Oil on panel, 37.1 x 29.8 cm, monogrammed lower right: FH
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv.no. SK-A-2859

The sitter has not been identified. An identification as the Haarlem preacher Jan Ruyll proposed by Hofstede de Groot is impossible, as is an identification as a priest in general, since the black cap was worn by other people as well.⁷ As noted by Slive, the portrait of Ruyll that was praised in the poem by Arnold Moonen (1644-1711) cannot as yet be matched with any of the preserved paintings created by Hals.⁸

Dendrochronological examination of the panel supports a date of creation from 1657 onwards.⁹ The rhythmically, stripy brushstrokes in the strongly contrasted face convey a determined expression. The execution of the areas of the face and also of the white collar display a soft application of the brush and a smoothness which differ from Hals’s autograph brushwork. Nevertheless, the clarity of the contours and individual sharp accents suggest that the master designed the facial features and added final touches – for example in the area of the eyes and on the upper lip. In contrast to this dominating area, the hands and the dark suit were executed with a loose brushstroke, but not confidently shaped. The compositional relationship between the fingers and the diagonal brushwork in the area of the head is probably based on Hals’s design; the painterly execution is, however, weaker than in comparative areas that were executed by Hals himself – for example in the Portrait of Willem Croes (A1.128). The hand area is stylistically reminiscent of the execution of the Portrait of a man in Musée Jacquemart-André (A4.3.52) which is most likely also by Frans Hals (II) (1618-1669) [2][3].

A3.60

2
Detail of cat.no. A3.60

3
Detail of cat.no. A4.3.52
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Portrait of a seated man, c. 1660
Paris, Musée Jacquemart-André
Institut de France © Studio Sébert Photographes

Oil on canvas, 113 x 81.9 cm, monogrammed upper left: FH
New York, The Frick Collection, inv.no. 1917.1.70

The sitter of this portrait has not been identified. Earlier identifications as admiral Michiel de Ruyter (1607-1676) were based on the ostentatious presentation of this expensively dressed gentleman and were already rejected in the 19th century through comparisons with secure likenesses of the Dutch maritime hero.

The composition of the white collar, shirt and cuffs anticipates the effects that Hals was to adopt with even greater impact in the 1664 Regents of the Old men’s Almshouse (A3.62). But if one compares the surfaces of the similarly cut-out shirt sleeves in the two paintings, the difference in brushwork and paint thickness becomes clear. Whereas in the group portrait, a thin application of paint in repeatedly similar diagonal directions predominates [4], the present single portrait shows a creamy application of paint in all directions [5]. Instead of the flat brush used for calligraphically defining the shapes, a well-charged soft-haired brush is used more uniformly here. The ochre-colored glove is indicated by layers of amorphous strokes [6]. If the zones of the black robe are slightly overexposed, a coarse crisscross of brushstrokes becomes visible here as well. Only the upper part of the white cuff and the palm below are rendered in a more disciplined manner. The application of the colors in the face, dissolved into flaky dabs [7], also departs from the delicate toning and sparse lines of the late group portrait. Yet, the clear depiction of the eyes and the equally confident highlighting of the nose and mouth leave no doubt that Frans Hals himself did the portrait work here, presumably through a preparatory study of the man’s features. The passages with the more uneasily applied paint are then the contribution of an assistant.

A3.61
© The Frick Collection

4
detail of cat. no. A3.62
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, 1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

5
Detail of cat.no. A3.61
© The Frick Collection

6
Detail of cat.no. A3.61
© The Frick Collection

7
Detail of cat.no. A3.61
© The Frick Collection

Oil on canvas, 172.3 x 256 cm
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv.no. OS I-115

Two widely differing group portraits of Dutch painting were created almost simultaneously. In 1662, at the age of 58, Rembrandt (1606-1669) completed The sampling officials of the Amsterdam Drapers’ Guild – also known as The Syndics [8]. Perhaps still in 1662, but more likely from 1663 to 1664, Frans Hals, aged 81 or 82, painted The Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse in Haarlem. Rembrandt’s painting measures 191.5 x 279 cm, Hals’s canvas is a bit smaller: 172.3 x 256 cm. Both show the three-quarter-length figures of five elderly men and a servant. And both depict the observation of a brief moment, yet Rembrandt’s portrait remains within the convention of the representation of a group in conversation, while Hals’s depiction transcends this in the sense of presenting a montage of six separate snapshots.

The regents and regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse who had themselves painted around 1663-1664, were no idle dignitaries but witnesses of the most demanding period for their institution. In 1664, a plague epidemic raged in Haarlem, killing almost a third of the population. Impoverished and abandoned citizens crowded the municipal charitable institutions. Perhaps it was a sense of collective responsibility that prompted the desire for a group portrait. The arrangement of the sitters in this late commission resembles that of the 1640-1641 Regents of St. Eliabeth’s Hospital [9]. Again, the scene is a thoughtful moment, a pause in conversation of the five dignified gentlemen. Two of them, and the servant, are looking directly at the viewer, while the third is pensively turned in the same direction. The depicted men, who served the Haarlem Old Men’s Almshouse from 1662 to 1665, are known by name, yet cannot be identified individually in the painting. They are: Jonas de Jongh († 1702), Mattheus Everswijn († 1688), Cornelis Westerloo, Daniël Deynoot († 1680) and Johannes Wallis (1617-1665). Unfortunately, there is no record of the seating order, and the recognizable functions of the two gentlemen on the left as secretary and treasurer cannot be allocated to specific names.

Today’s appearance of the painting is affected by the darkening of the background and shaded areas as well as by local discolorations. In addition, there are interventions by a second hand involved in the execution, which weaken the character of the painting as it was intended by Hals. Saponification of the lead white, which was mixed in with most of the colors, has caused a loss of opacity in many of the nuanced tones, sinking them into the darker background. The white only maintained its opacity in places where it was either applied more thickly or mixed in in sufficient quantities. As a result, the heads, collars, hands, and cuffs stand out strongly from their dark surrounding as bright islands. Just how much more clearly pronounced the overall figures were originally and how much more three-dimensional they appeared becomes apparent in comparison with a watercolor copy by Wybrand Hendriks (1744-1831) [10], created c. 1780-1820. During the research and conservation of the painting it was discovered that the tablecloth, which is now dark brown, was originally green. It is not clear whether the seating cushions of the men were originally green or carmine red.¹⁰

In spite of the sinking in of the darker half tones, the sensitive transition of different degrees of brightness is still impressively distinct today. Rather than a precise three-dimensional modelling of individual shapes, there is a clearer shading of the differently lit areas in the faces, hands, collars, and cuffs. The light and airy design of the six heads, and – under stronger light – also their hair, present a visual course in masterly simplification. Within the white shirts and collars, white, silver grey and grey brushstrokes form delicate abstract patterns, with contrasts notably decreasing towards the background. As Pieter de Grebber (c. 1600-1652/1653) put it in his 1649 pamphlet on the rules of art: ‘make sure that as figures diminish in size with distance, their colors also dim’.¹¹ This demonstrates the awareness of differences in visual perception in Hals’s time. The representation of the servant in the background certainly adheres to this principle, as do the differences in contrast within the group of men.

The cleaning and examination of the painting in the conservation studio of the Frans Hals Museum in 2017 permitted the first inspection in a long time of the darker areas of the costumes. Under strong lighting of the cleaned surface, the brushwork became visible in those passages. It revealed the handling in the black-grey areas of the clothing of the seated gentlemen, whose folds only seem coherent in the upper bodies of the three men on the right. In contrast, in the lower half of the composition and in the two sitters on the left, the rendering is hard and anatomically incorrect, and carried out with repeatedly interrupted brushstrokes. This treatment differs from Hals’s confident modelling of shapes and his rhythmical structuring throughout. These weaknesses become especially apparent in the black clothing of the man seated on the far left [11]. His left upper arm comes out flat and much too small in comparison with the foreshortened lower arm. The same, weaker hand probably also painted the silver tray with the writing equipment, whose edge appears on the left behind the central figure. Equally hesitant is the painting of the brownish curtain in the far-left upper corner.

It follows that the composition was begun by executing the areas of the heads and hands, followed by the bodies of the figures and the spatial background. The sequence of sitters would have depended to a large extent on the entire concept, but also on the sitters’ individual availability. In any case, it seems as if the heads of the three seated gentlemen in the right-hand half of the picture were finished first. They are also designed with the greatest attention to detail. Behind – that is, in the picture plane above this trio – the servant is captured in a more subdued lighting, with his head, collar and hands modelled in a few confident accents. His mischievous smile counterbalances the gravitas in the representation of the three distinguished personages in the foreground. From a perspective of social history, this light-hearted establishment of contact with the viewer by an anonymous marginal figure is notable. The two sitters on the left were probably added subsequently to the group on the right. The second head from the left was probably executed last, and clearly by another hand [12]. The listless modelling of the hair and the face, especially the blurry characterization of the eyes, differ from the other portraits and bring to mind the facial features in the family-portraits in London and Madrid (A4.3.19, A4.3.24). The same painter is likely to have executed these as well, probably Hals’s later assistant, his son Frans Hals (II) (1618-1669). In contrast, the angular and rhythmical execution of the gentleman’s face on the far left differs significantly. As Liesbeth Abraham pointed out, it remained unfinished in the shaded area to the right of the bridge of the nose [13].¹² The sparing contour lines in the area of the eyes demonstrate Hals’s particular grasp of characterization. There are few paintings where the contribution by an assistant and the handwriting of the master are so clearly juxtaposed. The latter’s ‘lion’s paw’ has long been recognized, especially in the hands, gloves, and cuffs in the center of the composition and on its right-hand side. All these rhythmically arranged, abstract shapes are likely to form part of the final phase of the execution that Hals undertook personally. An area that was probably left unfinished is the left hand of the second regent from the right, which is not clearly defined and somewhat too small.

These observations suggest a strenuous, highly focused approach by the painter, as he designed the composition and laid out at least five faces and several hands in color himself. The collars, hands, gloves, and the faces of the man on the far left and the servant – which are reduced to merely lighter and darker strokes of color – reveal a kind of angular abbreviation which may have been caused by a loss of strength in the over-80-years-old Hals, but at the same time is entirely in keeping with the master’s bold brushwork. This abbreviation appears spontaneous and therefore as if painted directly onto the canvas in front of the sitters. It was easier to do so for the figures placed on the edges of the composition, than for those positioned more towards the center of the large picture plane. The faces of the group on the right could have conceivably been created on the basis of intermediary separate facial studies that were afterwards included by Hals in the correct format. In this process, the face of the third figure from the right has come out slightly too large.

On closer examination of the faces in this group, it is notable that some of the features have been reworked. Softly rubbed paint covers the corners of the mouths of all three sitters on the right, but also parts of the eyes, especially the shaded eye of the man seated in the center. There is also overpainting in the face of the sitter seated to his right. Thick, impasto paint is apparent in the corners of the mouth, along the ridge of the nose and to the side and over the eye of the sitter on the far right. In all these cases it seems as if accents that appeared to harsh have been concealed at a later stage in the creation process. This hypothesis is supported by the sudden disappearance of the craquelure in these areas, as is being covered by a cloud. The painting must have been completely dry at the moment of this intervention.¹³

During one of the discussions of the advisory board for the restoration of the regents’ group portraits at the Frans Hals Museum, it was discussed that the heads and hands of the five regents all appear somewhat large in relationship to the size of their bodies. This is true; however, a similar impression is already noticeable in the early civic guard portraits. The three-dimensionally modelled heads and hands stand out brightly lit against the closely arranged figures of the bodies which appear flat in their darkly colored clothing. The relatively large hands of the two groups of regents – equally noticeable in the group portrait of the Regents of St Elisabeth’s Hospital of c. 1640-1641 (A1.102) – correspond to a close-up observation, where the painter is positioned directly in front of his sitter and perceives objects in proximity to himself as larger in proportion. In any case, the regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse are closer to the viewer than the regentesses, who were painted almost at the same time or a little later under Hals’s supervision (A3.63). The latter’s faces are about one fifth smaller. Another significant difference is created by the impression of the wide hats and the light and airy hairstyles. These enhance the visual appearance of the gentlemen, which would have been even more distinct in the original contrast against the formerly lighter background colors.

It is difficult to date the present painting precisely, since the few other pictures from Hals’s final years can only be categorized as a sequence in very general terms. These are sometimes painted in unconnected color stripes and dots. The frequently adopted date of 1664 for the present painting is connected to the unusual circumstance that the impoverished painter Hals, who lived on handouts from the municipal authorities, was in a position to guarantee a credit of 458 guilders for his son-in-law in January 1665.¹⁴ Traditionally, a date of execution just before this date is therefore assumed. Nevertheless, the differences in execution between the present group portrait of the regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse and that of its regentesses, which is nearly identical in size, indicate a sequence in production of the two commissions. Since Hals’s own contribution is clearly discernible in the painting of the gentlemen, and only traces of it remain in that of the women’s, the present commission was most likely executed earlier.

A3.62

8
Rembrandt
The sampling officials of the Amsterdam drapers guild, dated 1662
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-C-6

9
Frans Hals (I)
Regents of St Elisabeth’s Hospital, c. 1640-1641
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv./cat.nr. OS I-114
cat.no. A1.102

Wybrand Hendriks
Regents of the old men’s alms house, c. 1780-1820
Haarlem, Teylers Museum, inv./cat.nr. W 045
cat.no. D32

11
Detail of cat.no. A3.62
brightness increased

12
Detail of cat.no. A3.62

13
Detail of cat.no. A3.62

Oil on canvas, 170.5 x 249.5 cm
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv.no. OS I-116

According to a description of c. 1750, this group portrait hung in the meeting room of the regentesses in the Old Men’s Almshouse of Haarlem and was probably intended for this separate position from the outset.¹⁵ Similarly to the almost contemporary pendant of the regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse (A3.62), the four regentesses are grouped around a table and are represented in slightly varying degrees of brightness – increasing towards the foreground – against the background of a room’s wall in parallel to the picture plane. The woman appears more static than the men; three are seen from the front, the woman on the left turns her gaze towards the viewer, and only the servant looks ahead as she appears from the side, following her task of delivering a message. Without being able to identify them individually, we know the sitters’ names from the plaque listing the Regentesses from the period 1662-1665. They are: Adriaentje Schout, Marijtje Willems, Anna van Damme and Adriana Bredenhoff (1606-1666).¹⁶ Solely the gesture of the woman on the far left indicates her role as treasurer. The entering servant is captured more fleetingly in her facial features and remains nameless.

The painting visible on the back wall has not been identified to match any surviving picture. However, Biesboer discovered that the 1786 inventory of the Old Men’s Almshouse listed a painting of the Good Samaritan as part of the furnishings of the regentesses’ meeting room. He drew a connection to the present picture, based on records about a lost Landscape with the Good Samaritan by Nicolaes Berchem (1621/1622-1683) that is visible in a group portrait of the regentesses of St Elisabeth’s Hospital, painted by Frans Decker (1684-1751) in 1740.¹⁷ That painting’s subject matter suggests an appeal for selfless assistance, which functions as a symbolic commentary on the work of the portrayed ladies. Unfortunately, even after cleaning, the landscape details are difficult to interpret in the present painting. Most distinct is the back of a standing man with a hat, whose illuminated shoulder line can be discerned as a light arch. This silhouette corresponds to the scene with the Good Samaritan helping the wounded man on the back of a mount. Once more, we find that there is no random or accidental decoration in the representation of interiors and portraits from the 17th century. We must always be prepared to factor in meaningful observations.

Technical research executed by the conservators and the conservation scientist of the Frans Hals Museum proved that the painting was originally lighter and more colorful. The green colors have now turned brown and other paint layers have darkened. This negates the frequent interpretation of a scene interpreted as bare and dark, and as a view into the realm of the dead. What appeared as a ghostly presence in the copies by known painters, in all book reproductions and in many commentaries – Michel Foucault (1926-1984) referred to the picture as ‘one of the most distressing pieces ever painted in the West’ – must be newly perceived and ‘read’, taking into account both the much lighter former appearance and its meaning within the context of 17th-century symbolism.¹⁸

Hints about the original appearance of the two late group portraits of the regents and regentesses were provided by the results of the research and conservation treatment of the paintings in 2015 and 2016 and the comparison with other works by Hals and his contemporaries, particularly the watercolor copy of the regents’ portrait by Wybrand Hendriks (1744-1831) (D32) [10], as well as the changes that were made to paintings by Hals in general, that can be assessed in comparison with copies. Research during the last conservation treatment proved that the table cloths must have been matte green and not very dark, most likely similar to the much brighter fabric in other group portraits that have been better preserved in their original coloring, such as Johannes Cornelisz Verspronck’s (c. 1600/1603-1662) 1642 Regentesses of the Holy Spirit Alsmhouse in Haarlem.¹⁹ Even if the appearance of coloring and illumination in Hals’s painting had been darker by design, Hendriks’s copy makes it clear that the background must be read as a bright wall in an interior space, either white grey or light ochre in tonality. The darkly clad sitters stood out against it as powerful silhouettes, in both group portraits. Technical examination of the area of the curtain and the landscape painting indicated green and other local pigments, whose brightness must have disappeared mainly because of the effect of the lead white’s loss in opacity. Significant changes could already be diagnosed between the date of execution of the pair in the early 1660s and the copy that was made around 1800. For example, the latter copy already shows the tablecloth, formerly painted in shades of green, as dark red. With this awareness in mind, the spatial arrangement as well as the modelling of the individual figures can be imagined as an appearance that was perceived in proximity to the viewer and more three-dimensional than today.

Since the late 19th century and the discovery of Hals as a precursor of modern painting, the present group portrait repeatedly met with an enthusiastic reception and was copied by famous painters, such as Édouard Manet (1832-1883), Mary Cassatt (1844-1926), Max Liebermann (1847-1935), John Singer Sargent (1856-1925), William Merrit Chase (1849-1916) and James Ensor (1860-1949). The painting’s particular fame long stood in the way of an objective perception of its painterly execution, that certainly differs in many areas from that of the group portrait of the Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse. Yet, the quality of free “Halsian” brushwork is particularly notable in this example, where it is derived from Hals’s effective style of painting, without actually matching it. Based on the documented circumstances, Frans Hals was not only commissioned both these late group paintings, but he also received the payment for it – this is the only explanation for him being able to guarantee a sum amounting to more than twice his annual pension for his son in law in 1665.²⁰ The size of the pictures, their composition and the proportions of the sitters can be assumed to have been agreed with him overall, as well as the palette of colors. Since the regents’ portrait displays Hals’s individual touch in many areas, this is likely to have been the one designed and executed first. Technical examination of the canvas, the ground and the paint layers has revealed many similarities with the companion piece. Accordingly, there is no doubt that Hals designed both of these outstanding commissions and was ultimately responsible for both.

In the portrait of the regentesses, heads and hands were most likely outlined by the master himself. His characteristic grading of brightness levels is most discernible in the two heads and collars in the center of the composition. In their diagonal brushstrokes from top right to lower left these most clearly display the accents which are typical for Hals [14][15]. It is also worth noting the x-ray published by Groen and Hendriks, that indicates a shift in the position of the head of the second woman from the left, and already clearly displays the modelling of the facial features at a point ahead of the execution of the picture surface.²¹ Nevertheless, many areas of the picture plane show differences from the painterly technique in the group portrait of the regents, which is loose and at the same time more bold and consistent. The execution of all hands and collars, but especially the details of the brightly illuminated faces of the women seated on the right [16] and the left, display a linearity and two-dimensionality that clearly diverges from the painterly richness and tonality of the contemporary regents’ picture, as well as from other autograph portraits by Hals. There are noticeable insecurities in the anatomical treatment of the hands and cuffs, in the foreshortening and in the illumination, while the use of hard contours is similar to that already noticed in the two family portraits in London (A4.3.19) and Madrid (A4.3.24) as well as in several individual portraits from the 1640 and 1650s. While only visible under strong light, the deepening of the folds in the clothing by black contours is also different from the regents’ group portrait. The accents in the men’s picture are set with a rich, soft technique of brushwork that models and also structures the three gentlemen on the right in a rhythmical manner. In contrast, the light edges and shadows in the ladies’ clothes are marked in an abrupt and hard technique that is not confident in shaping [17]. It resembles the clothes of the men on the left side [18]. These differences in the ability of representation are discernible despite a matching technical process; therefore, they cannot be distinguished in technical photographs, but only through a comparison of the respective stylistic and creative approach. On the whole, the two group portraits together demonstrate an unmistakable fading of the bold painter’s powers of observation and representation. Hals’s design is increasingly reduced to the point of becoming mere hints which are hesitantly followed by the assistant, with a comparable broad brushstroke. In the regents’ picture, Hals’s unaccommodating bravura in emphasizing degrees of light and modelling nuances is clearly visible in parts, while in the regentesses’ portrait it only shines through the later supplementary execution.

It is surprising that Hals received the commission for the present group portrait of the regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse, for two decades earlier he had not been chosen for depicting the regentesses of St Elisabeth’s Hospital. It had been Verspronck who received that commission in 1641. But the situation had changed since: Hals had survived the established portrait painters in Haarlem. Pieter Soutman had died in 1657; Verspronck was buried on June 30, 1662; Jacob van Loo (1614-1670) had fled to Paris from Amsterdam in 1660; and the much-acclaimed Jan de Braij (1626/1627-1697) was already occupied with the painting of the children of the Haarlem orphanage, and the group portraits of the regents and regentesses of this institution, which he would complete in 1663 and 1664.²² His greatly esteemed father Salomon de Bray (1597-1664) had lost his wife, probably in the plague epidemic of 1663, and died of the same disease a year later, together with four of Jan’s siblings. If the patrons wished to have their paintings completed in the not-too-distant future, they probably had no choice but to refer to the elderly Frans Hals.

A3.63

14
Detail of cat.no. A3.63

15
Detail of cat.no. A3.63

16
Detail of cat.no. A3.63

17
Detail of cat.no. A3.63
brightness increased

18
Detail of cat.no. A3.62
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum
brightness increased

Oil on canvas, 85.8 x 67 cm, monogrammed lower right: FH
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv.no. 66.1054

The painting is well-preserved overall. On the left edge a strip of four centimeters wide was added to the canvas. This is probably the latest of preserved individual portraits from the Hals workshop and it is remarkable for its unfettered technique, which is adopted especially in the accessories. Around the face and towards the edges this becomes increasingly noticeable. The composition is based on the same lay-out as the portrait in the Bührle collection [19], but while in the latter the focus is entirely directed at the facial features, they remain vague in the present picture. The man’s gaze is blurred, and his forehead and cheeks are excessively illuminated. In contrast, the energetic brushwork has been confined to the less perilous peripheral zone around the face. The present portrait also lacks the lively movement of the features which makes the Zürich picture so eloquent. Nevertheless, the Boston painting deserves to be appreciated as a substantial parallel achievement, based on Hals’s style, and completing his unfinished work. His typical diagonal stripy brushstrokes are evident in and around the mouth, the shadow lines of the forehead and the contours of the right eye, but also in the shadow lines under the chin and in the neck. Again, his style is recognizable and unadulterated in the grey and white stripes of the shirt and the execution of the cuff, as well as in the hand, which is loosely modelled with a few soft brushstrokes. The diagonal red lines of the coat are probably still integral to Hals’s own design, while the light, mechanical brushwork at the top layer can be attributed to an assistant. The overly flat and randomly repeated shadow lines of the wig are also the assistant’s work.

This loosely painted portrait depicts the fashionable performance of a wealthy gentleman in a curly wig and wearing a Japanese-style dressing gown called a ‘Japonsche rock’. The possession of such a precious garment was much sought-after for informal appearances, ever since the shoguns had presented thirty kimonos to their trading partners in the Dutch East India Company on the occasion of signing the annual renewal of the trade agreement. The Dutch soon had to meet a demand from far beyond their own borders, which kept tailors busy, both in the East and at home.²³ Those who found a ‘Japonsche rock’ to expensive could rent an ‘Indian gowne’, as the famous diarist Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) did for his portrait of 1666 by John Hayls (†1679).²⁴ In this dressing gown, Pepys appeared seemingly informal and private; ostensibly turning towards a visitor entering unexpectedly in a relaxed manner. At the same time, his exotic outfit signaled his elevated status.

A3.64

19
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of a man, c. 1662-1664
Bührle Foundation, inv./cat.nr. 151
cat.no. A1.129