RKD STUDIES

Oil on panel 17.8 x 18.1 cm, monogrammed upper right: FH
London, Guildhall Art Gallery, City of London Corporation, inv.no. 3724

Judging from the color reproduction in Peter Sutton’s 1992 catalogue, the tonality and painterly technique of this picture are reminiscent of works by the Hals workshop from the late 1620s.¹ Especially the flat modelling of the hands, the clumsy modelling of the face, with its randomly applied highlights, and the awkward shaping of the collar and the left cuff would exclude an involvement by the master himself. Based on the similar format, Valentiner saw a relationship between the present work and the other two diamond-shaped depictions of children (A3.13, A3.14). However, these are painted in a different, thin-lined manner.²

A4.2.12
© City of London Corporation

Oil on panel, 25 x 18.5 cm
Eindhoven, private collection Dr. A. F. Philips

The unusually wide brushstrokes of the hair and arm areas would argue against an attribution to Hals. Also, any modelling following the direction of the light is missing. Nevertheless, the confident modelling of the face places this painting in the 17th century, and therefore in Hals’s workshop. Unfortunately, this assessment can only be based on an old black-and-white reproduction. The painting has not surfaced since 1937.

A4.2.13

Oil on panel, ø 18.9 cm
Antwerp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh, inv.no. 799

This is either a repetition of the composition listed above (A4.2.13), or both have been on the same design. The execution of the collar and hair differs from the technique of Hals and his workshop.

A4.2.13a
© KIK-IRPA, Brussels (Belgium), cliché X001554

Oil on canvas, mounted on panel, 62 x 51 cm, monogrammed upper left: FH
Formerly Washington, private collection Kingdon Gould

The posture of the figure in the foreground is copied in reverse from Peeckelhaering in Leipzig (A1.51) [7] and this analogy provides the basis for a supposed date of c. 1630-1632. Instead of Peeckelhaering’s pointing finger, a coin was inserted as a reference to the sense of touch. Slive criticized the distorted foreshortened hand, even though this passage may not be original and could be the result of later reworking.³ Both heads are modelled fairly confidently; the one at the back is based on facial studies in the style of the children’s heads listed above (A4.2.2, A4.2.3, A4.2.4, A.4.2.5). Wallerant Vaillant (1623-1677) reproduced the painting in a reversed mezzotint (C21) [8].

A4.2.14
Photo: Museum der bildenden Künste Leipzig | Punctum B. Kober

7
Frans Hals (I)
Peeckelhaering, c. 1630-1631
Leipzig, Museum der bildenden Künste Leipzig, inv./cat.nr. G 1017
cat.no. A1.51

8
Wallerant Vaillant
Two laughing boys
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. RP-P-OB-17.451
cat.no. C21

Oil on panel, ø 25 cm
Whereabouts unknown

As far as can be deduced from the reproductions, this is a workshop creation without any involvement by Hals. Slive assumed a reference to 16th-century models in the otherwise unusual composition in profile.⁴

A4.2.15

Oil on panel, 16.7 x 16.2 cm
Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv. no. NM 3384

This pleasant, softly modelled study of a youth’s head may have been based on a model from the 16th century.⁶ The execution is close to Hals. However, it does not show the latter’s sensitive regard for differences in lighting, as is visible in the consistent edges of reflections and in the design of the hair. Where the brushstrokes are apparent, they appear as uniform stripes – especially noticeable on the collar. Later intervention has obscured the transition from the neck to the collar. According to dendrochronological examination, the painting cannot have been created before 1632. At the same time, it must have been painted in 1637 at the latest, since, as Hofrichter noted, this framed picture appears in the background of a merry company by Dirck Hals (1591-1656), dated 1639.⁷

Hofrichter attributed the present painting to Judith Leyster (1609-1660), which seems quite plausible to me, especially when we assume that a template by a different hand was used for the head.⁸ However, in the absence of a decisive comparative work from Leyster’s hand, a definitive attribution does not appear possible to me.

A4.2.16
Photo: Erik Cornelius / Nationalmuseum

Oil on canvas, 82.0 x 60.2 cm, monogrammed lower left: FHF
Germany, private collection

As in the Two fisherboys (A3.30), this composition is characterized by luminous blond coloring. I presume that this is typical for the first few paintings from the series of lively half-length figures. Also, the bright, wide-open landscape is likely to pre-date the dark atmosphere of the merely sketched backgrounds in the other paintings of this type. The landscape is painted in a softer manner and most probably by a different hand. It resembles the style of Pieter de Molijn (1595-1661).

The posture of the boy, seemingly in motion with its rising and falling diagonals, is consciously composed and was probably designed by Hals himself. The position of the arms is not random, but the result of the bearing of the basket’s weight and the danger of the carrying straps slipping, as Slive plausibly argues.⁹ Nevertheless, the manner of execution is harder than that of Hals. Unlike in the two previously listed pictures, the brushwork is angular in character, both in the light streaks and in the dark contours. The anatomically impossible wrists and palms indicate a superficially trained assistant, who was not competent in handling the proportions and foreshortening of the human anatomy.

A4.2.17
Fürst zu Bentheimsche Domänenkammer

Oil on canvas, 86.4 x 70 cm
Madrid, Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, inv.no. 178 (1930.30)

As a pleasing composition similar to that of the previous picture, this merry violinist is a further example of Hals's flair for a vivid snapshot. The hands, the bow, the shoulders, the violin, and the fur cap, as well as the ascending background scenery are all placed within the typical framework of corresponding diagonal directions. The face was most likely designed by Hals himself, be it as a separate study or as a first sketch on the present canvas. His approach is most noticeable in the facial area. In contrast, the hard contours of the hands, and the only coarsely depicted violin are painful to perceive. The landscape with the tower on the left and the beach scene on the right corresponds to conventional landscape views and was probably painted by a specialist for this subject matter – be it in Hals's workshop or outside it. Van Ebbinge-Wubben suggested Pieter de Molijn (1595-1661) as this specialist, which is supported by the comparison with several other works, especially Two fisherboys (A3.30). Based on his observation of overlapping layers of color, he concludes that the execution of the background was completed before that of the figure.¹⁰ It is not possible to identify the tower that is depicted in this painting and in appears in this picture and in Laughing fisherboy with a basket (A4.2.29). It is ‘quite possibly an invention rather than a depiction of a specific site’.¹¹

A4.2.18
© Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid

Oil on panel, 25 x 20 cm
Zurich, W. C. Escher Abegg collection¹²

Copy after Fisherman playing the violin in Madrid (A4.2.18).

Oil on canvas, 62.3 x 59.8 cm
New York, Mrs. H. Metzger collection¹³

Copy after Fisherman playing the violin in Madrid (A4.2.18).

Oil on canvas, 80.6 x 66.7 cm, monogrammed lower left: FH
New York, private collection.

This painting is very well preserved and still shows the original stretcher folds and holes. The only other known example with this feature in Frans Hals’s oeuvre is the late Portrait of a man (A3.56).

The present picture depicts a young girl offering fish for sale. As all genre paintings of the period, it is to be read allegorically as a reference to the simple life, or to people living close to the elements of water and air. Due to its particular quality, the artwork sparked off a fundamental debate about the place of the various fisherchildren in Hals's oeuvre. Like most works of this stylistic group, it is marked with Hals's monogram, but the quality of the background lifts it far above the rest. Slive noted the atmospheric density of this dune landscape and regrets that Hals did not paint landscapes more often.¹⁴ While I share his enthusiasm, I see a separate contribution in the landscape by a painter about whom we can only speculate at this point, until comparative examples turn up. A candidate would be Philips Wouwerman (1619-1668), who lived in Haarlem until 1638 and was, according to a statement of Cornelis de Bie (1627-1711), a pupil of Hals's.¹⁵ Gregory Martin was the first to make the connection, but suggested a fruitful influence by Hals as a landscape painter on Wouwerman.¹⁶ However, the reverse is conceivable, with the pupil making an early, remarkable contribution in the present picture. All other landscapes in Hals's paintings from this period are executed as different views and do not offer the inherent experience that characterizes the dune landscape here. The roughly contemporary artworks in Madrid (A4.2.18), Antwerp (A4.2.20), and Dublin (A4.2.21) show a restricted perspective under a uniformly bright sky. If the sequence of the half-length figure paintings in an open landscape that is suggested in the present publication is correct, this painting’s landscape passage would be a turning point: all later backgrounds adopted its deeply atmospheric, and increasingly gloomy lighting. The wide perspective soon became a merely suggested dune setting.

As observed, this scene’s protagonist, the girl offering fish, has been painted by an entirely different hand than the landscape. Using a broad brush and semi-dry paint, she is more drawn than painted. The style of the figure is similar to related representations, especially the Antwerp boy (A4.2.20), the Dublin boy (A4.2.21), and the girl in Cologne (A4.2.22). It demonstrates a tendency frequently observed in the work of followers, who do not use Hals's expressive brushstrokes in the face, but rather let them run riot on risk-free areas such as that of the blouse. Nevertheless, the sketch-like manner in which the girl's head has been painted, is attractive. In its tonality and angular modelling, it is close to the head of Malle Babbe in New York (A4.2.31). I would therefore also consider Frans Hals the Younger (1618-1669) as a possible author of the present figure. Whether the elder Hals created a preparatory sketch, or initially sketched the composition onto the canvas, will be difficult to determine even with infrared photography, since almost all contours are covered with black or grey paint. In 1937, Van Dantzig made the interesting observation that the figure was painted prior to the background.¹⁷ Such a division of labor seems probable in most pictures from this group. As the depictions of fisherchildren in Antwerp, Dublin, and Cincinnati (A4.2.23) suggest, the execution of these compositions commenced with the head and upper body of the figure.

A4.2.19

Oil on canvas, 74 x 61 cm, monogrammed lower right: FH
Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv.no. 188

The naturally merry, squinting boy from the coast in this painting represents proximity to nature and the elements. Together with the other depictions of fisherchildren, this artwork can be read as a reminder of the advantages of a 'natural life' as opposed to city life. Julius Held interpreted it as such, referring to a poem by the popular poet Jacob Cats (1577-1660), who contrasted living and working on the seashore with the pomp of living in a town.¹⁸ While Susan Koslow interpreted the folded arms as a sign of laziness, Slive pointed out that this posture was required to hold the heavy fish baskets on the shoulders.¹⁹ The fresh and independently designed painting adjusts Hals's brushwork into a bold application of light and dark accents. It imitates Hals's loose style, even in the diagonal rhythm of the brushstrokes. Yet, the pattern of short and unblurred stripes is superimposed on the area of chest and arms, making them appear flat and thus obscuring the physical presence and the psychology of Hals's autograph figures. It is a far cry from the clear shaping and calligraphic transformation of Hals's brushstrokes, which never become detached as dry lines. The melting transition from impasto to transparent paint, that is apparent in Hals's Schwerin roundels (A1.35, A1.36), as well as in the head of the Young woman selling fruit and vegetables of 1630 (A2.9), is completely absent in the present painting. The dunes in the background are sketched in an evenly opaque, soft style of painting, probably by another hand. It matches with several other backgrounds in fisherchildren paintings.

A similar subject – fishermen with a basket full of their catch – has been depicted in the foreground of Beach scene with fishermen, attributed to Jan Miense Molenaer (c. 1610-1668) (B14).

A4.2.20

Oil on panel, 41.6 x 30.3 cm
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, inv.no. SK-A-950

The copy is of interest as it repeats the subject, while fully disregarding the painterly style.

A4.2.20a

Oil on canvas, 81 x 64 cm
Sale Paris (Palais de Congres), 26 February 1984, unknown lot

This painting combines the figure types from the Antwerp Fisherboy (A4.2.20) and the Schwerin Laughing boy with a flute (A1.36) into a new composition.

A4.2.20b