RKD STUDIES

Oil on canvas, 80.5 x 65.4 cm
Sale Munich (Neumeister), 28 September 2016, lot 250

This portrait was deaccessioned from the collection of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in the late 1970s. The stiff representation of the sitter’s posture, and the strict adherence to contours are typical features of the style of Jan Hals (c. 1620 – c. 1654).¹ The frozen smile on the face demonstrates the artist’s difficulty in adopting his father’s visually oriented observation of fleeting moments. Altogether, this is quite an attractive artwork, which is consistent for this painter working in his father’s shadow. Based on the costume, the painting is datable to c. 1645.

A4.3.11

Oil on canvas, 76.2 x 63.5 cm, inscribed, dated, and monogrammed center right: AETATIS SVAE 24/ ANNO 1644 iH
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art, inv. no. 52.9.42

An inspection of this painting under UV-light revealed that the original monogram had been altered at a later stage, changing the i by inserting a horizontal line, creating an F.² In his comparison of collar areas in the present painting and in the 1643 Portrait of Paulus Verschuur (A1.107), Slive demonstrates the difference between Frans Hals’s autograph manner of depicting the visual effects of a collar, and Jan Hals’s (c. 1620 – c. 1654) meticulous rendering of the fabric surface – especially the stitches and openings in the lace.³ Nothing is known about the sitter who is presented in such a conventional posture. Interestingly, Hofrichter suggested to Weller that the picture might be an early self-portrait by the young Jan Hals.⁴ The age would fit, as would the direct turn of the gaze – as towards a mirror.

A4.3.12
© North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh, purchased with funds from the State of North Carolina

Oil on canvas, 87.6 × 71.1 cm, monogrammed, inscribed, and dated center right: iH/AETAT SVAE 37/1644
Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts, inv. no. 52.144

While this portrait is not in good condition, the original iH signature has been preserved. Similar to several other paintings by Jan Hals (c. 1620 – c. 1654), this one features a somewhat too large and doughy hand – in this case wearing a glove – its contours highlighted with strong lines [1]. The difference between the present hand and a visually convincing rendering of a hand by Frans Hals, which is understood anatomically, even in a glove, can be demonstrated by a comparison with a detail from the 1644 Portrait of Joseph Coymans (A1.111)[2].⁵

A4.3.13

Oil on canvas, 76 x 63 cm
Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden – Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv.no. 1361

This portrait is one of the best preserved and most freely executed commissions by an assistant of Hals, probably Jan Hals (c. 1620 - c. 1654). The collar and shoulders are plausibly modelled, the hands in the white gloves are pleasantly proportioned, and in their succinct contours they are also summarized in a visually credible manner. The very narrow face, with its stylized eyes, appears rigid and aloof, its modelling almost reduced to contour lines only. These elements differ fundamentally from the sitters that were portrayed in the same period by Frans Hals, such as those in the portraits of 1643 (A1.105) and 1644 (A1.112). Nevertheless, the restrained elegance of the present painting explains why a portrait by Jan Hals was valued in Amsterdam in 1657 at 50 guilders – equivalent to the top end of the known prices paid for pictures by his father.

The traditional identification of the sitter as ‘Frau Schmale’ was based on the assumption that the portrait is a pendant to the signed painting by Jan Hals, known as ‘Herr Schmale’ (A4.3.22).⁶ However, the male portrait is dated 1648, and therefore unlikely to be the companion piece to this female portrait of 1644.

A4.3.14
© Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden. Photo: Elke Estel/ Hans-Peter Klut

Oil on canvas, 75.9 x 65.2 cm, inscribed, dated, and monogrammed center left: AETA 35/1644/FH
Cape Town, Michaelis Collection, inv. no. 14/21

The quality of this painting varies in different areas. The weakest part is the hand section, where the fingers appear frozen, and which is executed in an impasto manner with strongly emphasized contours. The face, eyes, nose and cheeks are modelled three-dimensionally and lightly gradient in their levels of brightness, while the sharply carved line of the mouth, the shadow of the chin, and the contour of the cap can be attributed to a weaker hand. Equally, the millstone collar was executed mechanically, with uniformly minute details. It is therefore conceivable that Hals sketched the face and delegated the finishing to an assistant. The clearly visible contour lines on the left cheek down to the chin, on the lower edge of both lower eyelids, and on the upper edge of the upper lip should also be seen in this context.

A4.3.15

Oil on panel, 42.4 x 33.2 cm, monogrammed lower right: FH
Ottawa, National Gallery of Canada, inv. no. 15901

Jan Gerard Waldorp (1740-1808) created two chalk drawings after this portrait [3][4]. Both are marked as copies after Frans Hals, with the second drawing bearing the inscription in verso ‘de Digter Post’. Yet, to our knowledge, there was no poet called Post. The alternative identification of the sitter as the artist Frans Post (1612-1680) cannot be maintained either, for he looked quite different, as can be seen in his portrait engraving (C50) and the related painted portrait (A4.1.18). This erroneous identification seems to have accompanied the painting for quite some time, as it was sold as such in Amsterdam in 1773 for 42 guilders.⁷

The early Hals literature lists this painting as a work by the master’s own hand; it was only the 1941 catalogue by Trivas that excluded it. Slive defended its authenticity as a work by Frans Hals, which I would question in the present publication only with regard to the attribution of the final execution. The painting has been configured in a manner that is drawn with a thin brush, rather than painted, and which differs from Hals’s soft tonality. The dashed contour markings create floating reflections in the face, hair, collar, and sleeve, which appear detached form the actual shapes they aim to represent. Nothing conveys the same solidity of three- dimensional shape, as can be observed in comparable portraits by Hals himself, from the same period (A1.114, A1.118). In my view, notwithstanding the identity of the sitter, the facial shape is dependent on the model of Hals' Portrait of Adriaen van Ostade (A1.113). A comparison of the facial modelling in the two pictures certainly demonstrates a difference in manner of execution. However, the lower half of the present painting is comparable with the area of the arm and hands in the Portrait of Willem Coymans (A1.114). Moreover, the two folding edges of the sleeve and the extension of the collar edge in the diagonal fold in the sleeve, appear to be adopted from the same model [5]. Bearing in mind the unerring audacity in the hand of Willem Coymans, the timid imitation in this instance can only be attributed to a less experienced assistant. Overall, the execution of the fragile-looking, too narrow-shouldered figure has most in common with the Portrait of an unknown man, dated 1643 (A4.3.10)

A4.3.16
© National Gallery of Canada. Photo: NGC

3
Jan Gerard Waldorp
Portrait of a seated man, dated 1778
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv./cat.nr. otp I-1058a
cat.no. D50

4
Jan Gerard Waldorp
Portrait of a seated man, dated 1790
Haarlem, Teylers Museum, inv./cat.nr. PP 0990
cat.no. D51

5
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Willem Coymans (1623-1678), dated 1645
Washington (D.C.), National Gallery of Art (Washington), inv./cat.nr. 1937.1.69
cat.no. A1.114
Photo courtesy National Gallery of Art, Washington

Oil on canvas, 82.5 x 66.6 cm
Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby Mak van Waay), 26-28 April 1977, lot 55

The smooth execution of the face, hand and clothing, especially the contouring of the gloved hand, are closest to Jan Hals’s (c. 1620-c. 1654) works from the period of 1644 to 1648.

A4.3.17

Oil on canvas, 78.5 × 67.3 cm
London, National Gallery, inv. no. NG2528

The painted surface has been moderately well-preserved and is abraded in many areas. The hard contours in the face, and the equally angular reflections differentiate the handling in the face from Frans Hals’s own painterly approach, which is consistently focused on visual nuances. Bolder brushstrokes in peripheral areas, such as the collar, demonstrate the work of a dependent imitator, since they do not contribute to the realistic representation of the sitter. The execution of the hands clearly shows anatomical uncertainty; in the right hand, this it is combined with a coarse brushstroke. This mixture of hesitancy and boldness can also be found in signed portraits by Jan Hals, such as the 1644 Portrait of a man (A4.3.13).

A4.3.18

Oil on canvas, 148.5 x 251 cm
London, National Gallery, inv. no. NG2285

The painting was trimmed substantially along the upper and lower edges – probably by about 15 cm, causing the current overcrowded impression. Furthermore, about 2.5 cm on the left and 1.5 cm on the right remain invisible, as the canvas was folded back around the stretcher. The provenance of the picture cannot be traced far back. It is probably identical with the family portrait sold from the collection at Buckingham House in London in 1763.⁸ In 1908, the National Gallery bought the painting from the Talbot collection at Malahide Castle for 25.000 pounds – a price which was considered exorbitant at the time.⁹

The sitters in this large group portrait – a family of ten people in total – are unidentified. Bezold mentions a handwritten note in the files of the National Gallery, probably written by Martin Davies.¹⁰ According to this note, an identification with Cornelis Guldewagen (1599-1663) and his family was considered, based on the number and age of the depicted family members. However, a comparison with Hals’s later portrait of Guldewagen (A4.3.54) and the portrait of his wife Agatha van der Horn (1602-1680) by Jan de Braij, does not support this hypothesis.¹¹ Conversely, there is a strong resemblance between the man in Hals’s group portrait and the sitter in the Budapest Portrait of an unknown man [6]. The facial features of the father’s head can also be compared with the second regent from the left in Hals’s late Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse (A3.62 [7]. This resemblance, which is also connected to the style of painting, was already discussed in the catalogues of the National Gallery from 1925 and 1960.¹² Since the names of the depicted men cannot be connected with their portraits in the group portrait to date, it remains difficult to further investigate the abovementioned hypothesis. In any case, the father in the London family portrait cannot be identical to the regent Mattheus Everswijn (1617-1688) – as Slive noted – since he did not have any children and his only wife had passed away in 1645.¹³

MacLaren noted weaknesses in the execution of individual areas, such as the baby on the far left. Conversely, Slive emphasized the overall stylistic consistency, which I would, however, certainly not attribute to Frans Hals himself. Rather, it was probably the same assistant who also painted the family portrait in the Thyssen collection (A4.3.24). The 2018-2019 exhibition in Toledo, Brussels, and Paris on family portraits by Hals highlighted the characteristics and the close similarities between these two group pictures. As in the entire late production of the Hals workshop, the faces and figures are characterized by a two-dimensional approach and the use of hard brushstrokes. Similar anatomical faux-pas as in other works can be observed in this group, especially in the clumsy execution of the hands [8][9]. While there is some bold brushwork on the collars and cuffs, it lacks the sophisticated variation in brightness, and the spatial effect that Hals was able to suggest in such a masterly manner.¹⁴

According to MacLaren's analysis, the landscape background was painted after the figures had been completed.¹⁵ The backdrop of trees behind the figures, which has darkened significantly, and the view into the open landscape on the left were designed by the same landscape specialist who also cooperated on the family portrait in Madrid (A4.3.24). Slive attributed this part to Pieter de Molijn (1595-1661), even though his colors are generally lighter and he rendered foliage and trees in a more delicate and rhythmically structured manner.¹⁶ Thanks to the availability of sharply detailed photographs of landscape paintings by Cornelis Symonsz. van der Schalcke (1617-1671), we can discern a high level of correspondence with this master’s style. In comparison with several signed and dated paintings by Van der Schalcke, we can observe the same relatively dark, green-grey-brown color of the empty landscape, and the heavily overcast sky that darkens towards the upper edge of the picture plane. The contour of the dune landscape, which slightly rises diagonally to the right, is also similar.¹⁷

A4.3.19

6
Workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Portrait of an unknown man
panel, oil paint, 64.5 x 46.3 cm
Budapest, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, inv.no. 277
cat. no. A4.3.36

7
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

Oil on canvas, 84.3 x 68.0 cm
New York, art dealer Wildenstein & Co.

This woman’s clothing and the painterly style of her portrait are closely related to the young woman on the far right in the family portrait in the National Gallery (A4.3.19). in addition, her folded hands somewhat resemble those in the Portrait of Maria Bastiaens van Hout, dated 1643(A3.45). However, a comparison with the virtuoso painterly treatment of comparable motifs in autograph painting by Frans Hals demonstrates that the painter of the present picture struggled with the creative execution. The position of the sitter, turned to the side, suggests the painting once had a pendant.

A4.3.20

Oil on panel, 35 x 29 cm
Bucharest, Aurora Art Fund

Slive published the inscription of a label on the back of this painting, which identified the sitter as Maria Vernatti (1622/1623 - after 1699). She was a member of a Dutch family which had emigrated to England in the 17th century and had come to prominence there. Born around 1622/1623 in Rotterdam, she married Frederick Backer in Delft in 1648. Her portrait may have been painted in connection with their marriage.¹⁸

The hard lines of the face, as well as the short brushstrokes used to render the clothing, do not match Hals's calligraphic brushwork. Instead, they are closer to the more two-dimensional style of painting in the Portrait of a seated woman holding a fan in Cincinnati (A4.3.30).

A4.3.21

Oil on canvas, dimensions unknown, signed and dated center right: janhals / 1648
Frederikstad, private collection

This painting was first published in 1914 as a signed work by Harmen Hals (1611-1669).¹⁹ However, in 1922 it was mentioned by Hofstede de Groot in his entry on ‘Johannes Hals’ in the Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler.²⁰ In comparison with his father's oeuvre, an occasional, superficial imitation of the latter's brushwork becomes apparent in this portrait. All the painter's energy seems to have gone into creating a faithful likeness of the sitter. As a result, the painterly temperament was only given leeway in the periphery, in the execution of the lower hand with the glove. The posture and the movement of the gaze are borrowed from Frans Hals the elder. The configuration wavering between attention to small details and lively brushwork shows the responsible workshop assistant was lacking in independence.

A4.3.22

Oil on canvas, 103 x 81.3 cm
Private collection

This portrait was especially praised during the time of Hals's rediscovery. It was cut on all sides and supplemented by strips along the upper and lower edges. Accordingly, the original format was somewhat larger and could have matched that of the Portrait of an unknown man (A4.3.42) [10], with which it had been combined as an assumed pendant since about 1873, when both were in the Epstein collection in Vienna. The two remained together over several changes in ownership, including their expropriation in 1938 and their absorption into the collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna from 1947 onwards, until the present picture was restituted and sold at auction in 1999.²¹

While the sizes of the two portraits probably correspond in their original measurements, they also fall into a standard size, given by the width of the looms. Even adding eight centimeters to the height, in order to balance out today's difference in comparison with the male portrait, would not resolve the fact that the female portrait is proportionally bigger, and the sitter is place closer to the picture plane. It is also rendered in a smoother style and probably painted earlier than the male portrait. The overall manner of execution shows a tendency to overemphasize contour lines – evident in the more drawn than painted areas of the nose, mouth, collar, and hands. Hals's typical attractive graduation of brightness is lacking. The areas of the dress – collar, bow, cuffs, but also the sections of dark grey fabric – therefore appear flat. This noticeably draughtsman-like execution seems closest to the handling in the Portrait of a seated woman holding a fan in Cincinnati (A4.3.30), the 1650 Portrait of a woman in Houston (A4.3.33), the Portrait of a standing man with his arm akimbo in Kansas City (A4.3.34), the Portrait of a lady with gloves in Haarlem (A4.3.37), the New York Portrait of a woman (A4.3.39), the Portrait of a young woman in Hull (A4.3.45), the Portrait of an unknown woman in Oxford (A4.3.50), the Boston Portrait of a preacher (A4.3.53), the family portraits in London and Madrid (4.3.20, A.4.3.25), as well as the Regentesses of the Old Men's Almshouse (A3.63). All of these paintings show similar contour lines and two-dimensionality. Based on an entirely different assessment of the works in this group – as executed by Frans Hals himself – Slive noted the stylistic similarity: ‘[…] analogous in treatment to a similar panel in the full skirt worn by the model who posed for the Portrait of a Woman in St. Louis’.²²

Two drawn copies after the present painting are still known today [11][12].

A4.3.23
© Christie’s Images

10
Workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Portrait of an unknown man
canvas, oil paint, 108 x 80 cm
Vaduz/Vienna, Liechtenstein The Princely Collections
© LIECHTENSTEIN. The Princely Collections, Vaduz–Vienna
cat.no. A4.3.42

11
Anonymous 18th century or Jan Gerard Waldorp
Portrait of a lady, 18th century

cat.no. D55

12
Anonymous 18th century
Portrait of a lady, 18th century
Florence, London (England), private collection Charles Fairfax Murray
cat.no. D56

Oil on canvas, 202 x 285 cm
Madrid, Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, inv. no. 179 (1934.8)

As emphasized by Slive, this family portrait with two seated adults and three standing children was a sizeable commission for the painter. Unfortunately, nothing is known about the patrons who were looking to introduce such a monument to their generation into their home. The joined hands of the man and the woman symbolizing the promise of fidelity, as well as the dog as a sign of marital harmony, demonstrate a clear commitment to family tradition. The Black boy holding an expensively decorated baton, or a type of standard in his right hand, had probably come into the family as an enslaved servant. Lawrence Nichols pointed to the appearance of African servants in Dutch family portraits from the 1630s, shortly after the foundation of the West India Company (WIC).²³

Recently, it was suggested that the portrait might depict Jacob Ruychaver (c. 1620-1656), his wife Maria Hendrixs and their children Geertruid (1633-1710) and Willem (1634-1673). Ruychaver was one of the first directors-general of the trading fort Elmina, off the coast of nowadays Ghana. Elmina was an important WIC center for the trade in gold, ivory and enslaved people. Ruychaver returned to Haarlem in 1646 and stayed there until 1650, when he took on a second term as director-general in Elmina. It is thus possible that he commisioned a portrait of his family during this period, which coincides with the proposed dating of the painting.²⁴

The execution of the present painting was undertaken with a wide brush and unconnected brushstrokes. It is conceivable that Hals designed the outlines of the composition and made studies of the individual faces. The oversized heads suggest both such a transfer method and its awkward implementation. The figures are executed without the confident command of human anatomy that we find in Hals, which is especially notable in the very narrow-shouldered figures of father and son on the left. The seated giant of a father with his short arms is unimaginable standing up. The painterly execution throughout differs from the hand of Frans Hals. This is apparent in the coarse brushstrokes modeling the clothing, most obviously the boot cuffs and stockings. The painter demonstrates a similar tendency as is visible in other works that shows the same hand: hands are blurred with little regard for proportions and wrists, and the facial features are reduced to the main contours. Other painting that have been executed by the same hand are the London family portrait (A4.3.19), and the large group of late works, including contributions to the Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse (A3.62) and the Regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse (A3.63). The style of the background landscape is identical to that in the London family portrait as well, particularly in the muddy brown and dark green tones. In addition, the two trees set off against the sky behind the figures are rendered in a similar style as the trees in a pair of river landscapes in the British Royal Collection [13].²⁵ In the present painting, the landscape is not a mere accessory in the composition, but it displays an independent artistic expression that can only be found in the far reaching views in the landscapes by Cornelis Symonsz. van der Schalcke (1617-1671).

A4.3.24
© Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid

13
Cornelis Symonsz. van der Schalcke
River landscape with fishermen beside a boat, c. 1647
Great Britain, private collection The Royal Collection, inv./cat.nr. RCIN 406029
© His Majesty King Charles III 2024