the rijksmuseum bulletin

348 the rijks gerard termuseum borch repeats bulletin

Gerard ter Borch Repeats On Autograph Portrait Copies in the Work of Ter Borch

(1617-1681)*

• gerbrand korevaar and gwen tauber •

n 12 April 1701 a painting Detail of fig. 13 standard monograph on the artist, credited to Gerard ter Borch regards the majority of these works O 2 was sold at auction in the Heeren­ as copies made by other artists. logement in Amsterdam. This was It has been argued more recently nothing out of the ordinary in itself, that among the copies, partial copies but the ensuing dispute tells us that the and free variants in Ter Borch’s current attribution was the subject of some oeuvre, there may be paintings made ‘discourse and wagers’. The collector by pupils as part of their training or and art dealer Jan Pietersz Zomer and as a product for the market.3 This the artist Jan van Hugtenburch were position is difficult to maintain when called on to judge whether this work there are a number of high-quality from the holdings of the Antwerp versions. In the immediate circle of collector Constantinus Francken had Ter Borch, who is not known for his been painted by Ter Borch or was a copy numerous pupils and followers, there by another artist. To reach a verdict, a were no artists who could equal the ‘similar work by said Ter Burgh’ was master’s standard.4 Caspar Netscher, brought to the sale room from another who was apprenticed to him in 1654, town for com­parison. The confron­ was his most talented pupil, but his tation revealed that not one, but both hand is markedly different from his paintings had to be originals by Ter teacher’s. Borch.1 While the question as to whether There is no indication of which Ter Borch often made replicas him-­ works sparked this debate, but the self may remain open to debate, a anecdote touches on an interesting thorough examination of the stylistic phenomenon in Ter Borch’s oeuvre: and technical evidence does point to the question as to whether the artist his authorship in two instances of painted repetitions of his portraits and portraiture. In this article we shall genre works himself. At the sale in examine two versions of the Portrait 1701, the experts who were called in of Godard van Reede (1588-1648)5 believed that they were dealing with (figs. 1, 2) and two of the Portrait of two auto­graph versions of a painting, Jacob de Graeff (1642-1690)6 (figs. 13, but the authenticity of a replica of 14) and attempt to detect from the a composition by Terborch has materials and techniques used how often been called into question in Ter Borch set about making a replica. the art historical literature. Sturla Divining the method of duplicate Gudlaugsson, the author of the production that was followed is often

349 the rijksmuseum bulletin

Fig. 1 gerard ter borch ii, Portrait of Godard van Reede (1588-1648), c. 1646-48. Oil on brass, 14.8 x 11 x 0.1 cm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum,­ inv. no. sk-a-3842.

350 gerard ter borch repeats

Fig. 2 gerard ter borch ii, Portrait of Godard van Reede (1588- 1648), c. 1646-48. Oil on copper, 14.4 x 10.9 x < 0.1 cm. Oud-Zuilen, Stichting Slot Zuylen, inv. no. s 190. Photo: Cees de Jonge.

351 the rijksmuseum bulletin

Figs. 3a, b a matter of tracing clues in all the gerard ter borch ii Amsterdam, available images. Close scrutiny of the or harmen ter Rijks­museum, inv. no. construction of each composition with borch, A Man in rp-t-1887-a-810; Three Positions, in purchased with the naked eye and through a microscope, or after c. 1640-45, the support of and interpreting available X-radio­ recto and verso. the Vereniging graphs, infra-red reflectograms and Black chalk; paper Rembrandt. cross-sections of the paint layers may blackened on provide enough clues to deduce the verso for transfer, method.7 Working from the material 110 x 175 mm.

352 gerard ter borch repeats

evidence, it is sometimes possible to material evidence of transfer tech­- determine the development of each n­iq­ues attest to their facility in composition individually and then mechanical transfer. In the Ter Borch even, by means of comparison, the Family Estate drawing collection in the relationship of one version to another. Rijksmuseum, the blackened versos of We hope this will contribute to the some drawings are evidence of the discussion surrounding Ter Borch’s regular practice of transferring the replicas.8 image on the front to a new support (figs. 3a, b). The back of the sheet is Identical Portrait Manufacture blackened with chalk, and the drawing An artist could tackle a commission is placed face up on a new support.10 for two identical paintings of the same The design is transferred by tracing sitter in a number of ways. He could, the original drawing lines with a hard, for instance, make a drawing from life blunt instrument, pressing the chalk and then copy it on to both panels using on to a prepared canvas or panel. a transfer method. We know that copy­ The drawing could also have been ing drawings from life on to differ­ent copied free hand to both supports. compositions was customary in Ter Free-hand copying was something the Borch’s practice. The gleaming satin well-trained Ter Borch family had also dresses for which the artist is famed practised repeatedly. Gerard Jr was are not all unique creations – he often even able to decrease or increase the re-used exactly the same design. His size of a motif he was copying while oeuvre is full of repetitions of figures keeping the parts in proportion (fig. 4), Fig. 4 gerard ter borch ii, and parts of them, which he usually or depict it from different angles (fig. 5). Three Studies of a Sleigh executed himself, although some were If there was no separate drawing, Drawn by a Horse, 1631. done by his pupils. The woman’s dress another method was to make a drawing Pen and brown ink over in Ter Borch’s Galant Conversation; from life directly on to a prepared traces of black chalk, known as the ‘Parental Admonition’ support. The second version would 80 x 180 mm. (c. 1654) in the Rijks­museum, for then either have been copied from the Amsterdam, instance, appears in no fewer than six first free hand or by means of a transfer Rijksmuseum, inv. no. rp-t-1887-A-789; compositions, among them a painting method such as tracing, pouncing or 9 11 purchased with the by his pupil Caspar Netscher. using a counter. Less likely, but pos­ support of the The numerous drawings and prints sible, would be that a sitter was asked Vereniging Rembrandt. by the artistic Ter Borch family with to pose for two drawings.

353 the rijksmuseum bulletin

Why a Replica? repetitions in his practice: replicas or It was not usually artists themselves copies account for some fifty percent who took the initiative when it came of his work.15 Van Mierevelt made high- to making replicas, copies or second, quality replicas of the most sought- perhaps modified versions of portraits; after works – the ‘principals’ – in his they were mostly undertaken at the oeuvre, often portraits of famous request of the person who owned or figures like Stadholder Frederick commissioned the work.12 Not infre­- Henry, Amalia of Solms or Elizabeth q­uently, of course, such a commission Stuart. He also produced more affor­d­ was prompted by an event in the able workshop copies, on commis­sion sitter’s private life. There are, for and for the open market. example, many known replicas and Ter Borch’s portrait production workshop copies of Michiel van was not professionalized in such a Miereveld’s 1612 portraits of the Delft manner or scale – there are in any burgomaster Paulus van Beresteyn, event far fewer known copies by him. which were given to each of his His working method – a consistent children, presumably on the occasion build-up with two or more drawing of their marriage.13 Rembrandt’s 1640 steps and a high degree of refinement portraits of Herman Doomer and his in the finishing – was essentially un­ wife Baertje Martens had to be copied suited to volume production for the after their deaths, according to a clause open market. Beyond this, small, finely in Baertje’s will of 1668, so that their painted portraits were usually more son Lambert could keep the originals expensive than larger ones.16 It would and his sisters could have copies.14 have been too great a risk to make There is usually no such docu­men­ replicas for the open market without tary evidence to explain the second the assurance of reasonable sales.17 version of a portrait, however, so the In Ter Borch’s case it is likely that he context of the creation of such a would not spend time on a second painting can only be reconstructed. version of a particular com­position In the case of a specialist portraitist unless he could be certain that he could like Michiel van Mierevelt we know sell it. This emerges from a correspon­d­ more about the great importance of ence in 1676 between Apollonio

354 gerard ter borch repeats

Fig. 5 Bassetti, secretary to Cosimo iii de’ dote he made the copy because he gerard ter borch ii, Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, and was afraid of spoiling the first version Four Studies of a Giochino Guasconi, the grand duke’s during a second session. He cherished Horse and Sleigh, 1631. dealer and agent in Amsterdam. The the ‘principal’. The sitting in The Hague Pen and brown ink, grand duke had set his heart on a Ter went well, however, which meant that brown wash, 74 x 325 mm. Borch self-portrait for his gallery of the artist could keep one of the portraits Amsterdam, artists’ portraits in Florence, for which for himself. Rijksmuseum, inv. no. Guasconi negotiated with the artist in On 5 September 1680, Ter Borch rp-t-1887-A-788; Amster­dam. Ter Borch had let it be signed a contract in Haarlem for a purchased with known that he needed at least four portrait of Elias Trip, which specifically the support of the months for a painting ‘della qualita stipulated that it was to be painted Vereniging Rembrandt. desiderata’, implicitly indicating that ‘in the same manner as that of His time and quality did not come cheap. Highness’. Trip was referring here to In the end the commission was not the portrait of William iii that Ter awarded because the fee Ter Borch was Borch evidently had with him and used asking for his work was too high.18 to demonstrate his skill to prospective Sometimes there was a more clients.20 It is clear from the inventory practical reason for making a replica, of Michiel van Mierevelt’s workshop as a story about the painting of a that this was by no means an unusual portrait of Stadholder-King William iii practice. This court painter kept replicas by Ter Borch suggests. Weyerman of the portraits of his most illustrious follows Houbraken in relating that patrons; those he could sell, but also when William’s portrait was still not those he could show to potential finished after an eight-hour session, customers to illustrate his abilities.21 Ter Borch purportedly asked if the stadholder would sit for him again. Portraits of Godard van Reede William agreed, provided Ter Borch Godard van Reede (1588-1648), scion would go to The Hague, ‘but fearing of an illustrious family and Lord of that something of the likeness might be Nederhorst, Vreeland, Kortenhoef, lost in the repainting, Ter Borch made Overmeer and Horsterweerd, was a a copy of it and took that with him to canon of Utrecht Cathedral from 1600 The Hague’.19 According to this anec­ to 1618. In that year he was admitted to

355 the rijksmuseum bulletin

the Utrecht knighthood, took a seat in 1646-48. He was an Orangist and the States of Utrecht on behalf of the fervently pro-French, and stubbornly aristocracy and became the Utrecht tried to force peace with Spain on delegate to the States General. Van condition that France was involved. Reede was involved in land reclam­- In January 1647 Godard was the only a­tion, while his ownership of copper member of the Dutch delegation mills meant he had significant interests who refused to sign the wording of in the arms industry. He attained his the treaty. On 21 April 1648, how­- greatest fame, however, in his post as ever, he appeared in Münster to governor in the Province of Utrecht, support the peace treaty. He was from which capacity he took part in seriously ill by then, and died two the peace negotiations in Münster in months later.22

Fig. 6 steven van lamsweerde, Portrait of Godard van Reede (1588-1648), 1649. Engraving, 297 x 221 mm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. rp-p-1903-a-23550; gift of Baron van Tuyll van Serooskerken.

356 gerard ter borch repeats

According to Gudlaugsson, Ter Borch’s frames’.27 These original black frames first portrait of Van Reede was probably have survived. He had in all likelihood painted in Münster in the last months inherited the paintings through his of 1646, but technical findings described wife, Anna Elisabeth van Reede below tell us that it could have been (1652-1682), Godard’s granddaughter. painted anywhere between 1646 and Both portraits of Godard van Reede 1648 (or even posthumously).23 During remained in the possession of the Van this period Ter Borch made a group of Tuyll van Serooskerken family until small oval portraits of men involved one of them was sold to the Rijks­ in the historic event. Alto­gether there museum in 1952. Neither painting is are now seven surviving portraits of signed.28 participants, all painted between 1646 and 1648 on a metal support.24 Although The Metal Supports and Grounds the oval shape of the support and the Despite stylistic similarities between portrayal en buste generally correspond, the two finely painted, small oval the dimensions are so varied that there portraits and their frames, the versions is no question of a uniform series. do differ in the materials and techniques Heights range from 10.8 to 21.5 cm and used. The portrait in Oud-Zuilen widths from 8.8 to 15.5 cm. was painted on a hammered copper Some of these portraits served as support measuring 14.4 x 10.9 cm, models for reproductive engravings by with two intersecting incised compass Pieter Holsteyn (a print of Adriaen circles on the back, which would have Pauw and his wife), Wenceslaus Hollar been used to determine the size and (a print of Casper van Kinschot) and shape of the oval plate (fig. 7, Slot Paulus Pontius (a print of Count Hugo Zuylen, support). These are absent Eberhard Kratz von Scharfen­stein). In from the Rijksmuseum portrait’s plate, 1649 Steven van Lamsweerde published which tells us that the Oud-Zuilen an engraving after Ter Borch’s portrait plate, once cut, most probably provided of Van Reede (fig. 6). All these prints the template for the other. The Rijks­ are roughly the same size as the painted museum plate is some millimetres originals. Ter Borch included almost all larger, and this makes sense when the delegates at Münster in his group one considers that when an outline is portrait on copper of The Swearing of traced around an object it is inevitably the Oath of Ratification of the Treaty larger. The Rijksmuseum’s portrait is of Münster in January 1648.25 Only Van executed on a rather thick brass plate Reede was missing, most probably (approximately 1 mm).29 because he was terminally ill when the Both plates were sanded in prepar­ treaty was signed. It has been suggested ation for the paint layers, and a thin that the small oval works ser­ved as ground layer consisting of finely ground preparatory studies for the group white pigment particles with a touch portrait,26 but this seems unlikely, given of iron oxide for a warm tinge was that the portraits in the group portrait applied (fig. 7, Slot Zuylen, ground).30 differ markedly from the individual The Rijksmuseum’s portrait was then likenesses. given an additional beige ground layer We do not know why Ter Borch of coarsely ground white particles, made a replica of this portrait. As early scattered iron oxides, and black and as 1692 the two portraits of Van Reede glassy turquoise particles (see fig. 7, were described together in the estate Rijksmuseum, ground). Given the inventory of Hendrik Jacob van Tuyll additional ground layer on the Rijks­ van Serooskerken (1642-1692) as museum painting, we can conclude ‘two small painted portraits of the that the portraits were begun at old Lord of Nederhorst in black different times.

357 the rijksmuseum bulletin

Fig. 7 Comparison of the Van Reede portraits.

construction rijksmuseum

support Size: oval, 14.8 x 11 cm Material: hammered brass (copper:zinc 3:1) Shape copied, no compass indications

ground 2. Upper ground: beige 1. Lower ground : warm white with green tinge of corrosion Application: diagonal, pastose strokes, sandy texture

composition Virtually identical to Zuylen

underdrawing/ Very thin, for contours intermediate Variable, dark, spontaneous redrawing drawing (irr) Possible registration line above left eye

undermodelling Transparent brown

last glazes/ Transparent brown shadows

pentimenti 1 Pentimento: (changes) Painted hairline covers different underdrawn/undermodelled locks of hair visible in irr image (at right)

signature and/or No signature coat of arms No coat of arms

358 gerard ter borch repeats

slot zuylen construction

Size: oval, 14.4 x 10.9 cm support Material: hammered copper Compass incisions verso indicate calculation of plate size and shape

1. Warm white, with green tinge of ground corrosion Application: diagonal, pastose strokes, smooth texture

Virtually identical to Rijksmuseum composition

Variable, short, contour lines of facial underdrawing/ features follow final version Rijksmuseum intermediate In the lower features, given as double, drawing (irr) parallel lines Possible registration line above left eye

Transparent brown wet-in-wet with an undermodelling opaque pink

Transparent red last glazes/ shadows

No pentimenti: pentimenti Contour of hair at forehead as in irr (at (changes) right), follows Rijksmuseum final contour

No signature signature and/or Coat of arms present coat of arms

359 the rijksmuseum bulletin

Fig. 8 gerard ter borch ii, Moses ter Borch, Drawing, 1650-55. Pen and brown ink over traces of black chalk, 103 x 100 mm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. rp-t-1887-a-1202; purchased with the support of the Vereniging Rembrandt.

The Underdrawings The underdrawing on both Van Reede As his drawings reveal, Ter Borch versions is clearly different. In the usually began by introducing the Amsterdam portrait, rather wider, composition with short, thin, faint more abundant, black undulating lines contour lines in graphite or black applied with variable pressure serve chalk, or a light tracing. He then deftly to mark the features and the curls of reinforced or improved the compos­ hair, to correct the scant initial lines ition with sure, fluid and variable and to modulate the contour of the strokes in pen and ink, as we see in his face. This is best exemplified by the drawing of Moses ter Borch (fig. 8). single, alternately thin and light then In his paintings, a second drawing darker, heavier line used to indicate phase sometimes came only after an the upper chin. Given the number of intervening paint layer of translucent drawings and other paintings by Ter modelling.31 Infrared reflecto­graphy Borch with evident wet, second-phase makes the underdrawing readily visible drawing lines, these could very well (figs. 9a, b). The darker appearance of have been applied wet, although they the picture in Oud-Zuilen is due to the look more like drawn lines in the abundant use of charcoal black in the ir reflectogram. background and to its thicker paint The combination of the sensitive layer. A few extremely thin, light, black modulation of pressure and the loose lines of a dry medium serve to mark spontaneity of an irregular angular the outlines of both faces and collars. line, such as that forming the jowl

360 gerard ter borch repeats

a b

Figs. 9a, b along the lit side of the face, is strongly rather than made in a mechanical irr images of the Portrait reminiscent of Ter Borch’s drawings process of copying. of Godard van Reede (see for example the variable lines Drawn and undermodelled strands (a: Rijks­museum, fig. 1; forming the hand and sleeve in the of hair found at the forehead, which b: Slot Zuylen, fig. 2), drawing of Moses Ter Borch, fig. 8). were not followed in the final painted detail of face. Though the initial short, light lines in hairline, remain as the single visible Figs. 10a-d the face could indicate Ter Borch’s pentimento or change by the artist. irr and normal light usual cautious start, or the use of a The Oud-Zuilen portrait shows no images: close up of Godard van Reede’s transfer method, the confident lines evident pentimenti. In fact, the Oud- forehead (a and b: Rijks­ of variable pressure were certainly Zuilen hairline follows the final museum, fig. 1; c and applied free hand. These spontaneous painted hair­line of the Rijksmuseum d: Slot Zuylen, fig. 2). lines are creative lines drawn from life painting (figs. 10a-d). From the mouth

a b

c d

361 the rijksmuseum bulletin on down in the Oud-Zuilen ir reflecto­ fleshy, more rounded painted phase of gram, one can also make out two short, the Rijksmuseum portrait rather than faint parallel lines which indicate a the scant first underdrawn lines of double register of the lines between that portrait or its more spontaneous upper and lower lips, the upper chin second drawing phase. We see this, for and upper jowl (fig. 11b). The lines example, in the IR reflectogram of the were thus pro­b­ably shifted up very unmodulated line of the chin and jowl slightly (2-3 mm) before the artist of the Oud-Zuilen picture, as seen moved on to the painting phase, as on the lit side of the face (figs. 11a, b). an intentional shift of a mechanical This indicates that the Oud-Zuilen transfer technique.32 plate was set aside, having served as a One line is boldly applied in both template for the Rijksmuseum plate, paintings, marking the eyelid of the and that the actual painting did not right eye and visible in both of the ir begin until the Rijksmuseum portrait reflectograms, as well as on the final was finished. surface (see fig. 7, both Rijksmuseum and Slot Zuylen, underdrawing). Since The Compositional Paint Layers it is visible on the surface, it may not Once the underdrawing was in place, reflect a drawing line below the surface. the first layer of the background was The interpretation must therefore quickly filled in with thin dark brown remain ambiguous – however, if it were paint, leaving a reserve for the figure. also a drawing line, then it could have This standard procedure was followed figured instrumentally as a ‘register’ in both paintings. The faces of the for the copy to fix the location of that portraits were also built up using this portrait in the background precisely as dilute, transparent brown as under­ on the other plate. A traced outline of modelling, primarily in the shadows the composition of the Rijksmuseum and in the hair. It can be found left painting (using a transparent overlay) uncovered in the thinly executed matches that of the Oud-Zuilen painting Rijksmuseum portrait: in the vertical perfectly. line delineating a shadow in the collar The adherence to the adjusted paint­ and the deep brown along the shaded ed hairline and the painted features of side of the nose (fig. 7, Rijksmuseum, the jowl of the Rijks­museum picture last glazes/shadows). The opaque Figs. 11a, b indicate that the Oud-Zuilen picture paint used for the flesh is carefully and Detail of Godard van Reede’s face was begun after the painting of the smoothly applied, at times leaving the (a: Rijksmuseum, Rijksmuseum portrait was complete. underdrawing visible, with the beige fig. 1) and irr image In fact, most of the underdrawing lines tone of the ground alongside. The flesh of the same detail in the Oud-Zuilen portrait follow the tones are applied in blended wet-in-wet (b: Slot Zuylen, fig. 2).

a b

362 gerard ter borch repeats

Fig. 12 strokes and contain vermilion, earth paint of the Rijks­museum picture. The irr image of colours and much black. Where the same dark paint creates a ‘halo’ around the Portrait of black under­drawing and brown under­ the head. Though the purpose of the Godard van Reede modelling is covered with increasingly horizontal hatching or zigzag strokes (Rijksmuseum, fig. 1). translucent, thin flesh tones through on the right is not known, the appli­ca­ time, an ever more prominent optical tion of such a halo of dark paint beyond grey tone of the flesh prevails. the hair reserve was an illusionistic Infrared examination reveals fluid trick of the trade to increase the optical strokes of dark paint containing carbon, dimensionality of the head during half a centimetre wide, forming a bold modelling (fig. 12). This is emphasized zigzag vertical on the far right below along the contour of the shaded side of the current unremark­able background the face. Such modelling was probably

363 the rijksmuseum bulletin applied during the sitting, as soon Amsterdam painting provided the as the underdrawing was complete. template for the composition of the The oil paint of the undermodelling Oud-Zuilen picture. Given how faith­ would have been left to dry before the fully the latter adheres to the final subsequent paint layers were built up. version of the altered Amsterdam painting, the differences in the The costume was prepared in wet-in- underdrawing are the result of the wet tones of dark grey and covered process of transferring the finished with a black design. A second layer of Rijksmuseum painting to the primed dark background paint was applied Oud-Zuilen plate, possibly with the around the figure. The lace pattern of help of a transfer drawing. This the collar was applied in pastose white presents us with a major puzzle paint. Finally, a dark brown glaze was concerning the order in which the used to deepen the shadows, modelling two portraits were made. If we accept the features for a most convincing the evidence that the Oud-Zuilen illusion of three-dimensionality. portrait was painted second, we are Although much of the same build-up left with the inconsistency of its plate of the paint layers and the meticulous having been cut first. The choice of and cautious brushstrokes typical of brass is also puzzling given that the Ter Borch can be found on the Oud- plates for the other miniature portraits Zuilen picture, indicating Ter Borch’s of the delegates were most probably all hand, there are four significant differ­ copper.33 Van Reede may even have had ences. To start with, the dark under­ a hand in suggesting or providing the modelling here (seen most clearly in brass plate, as he owned copper mills the gap between the two halves of the and thus, possibly, brass foundries. It collar) is tinged with an opaque pink. is not possible to ascertain the length Secondly, there is no evident ‘halo’ or of time that elapsed between the zigzag of dark paint beyond the hair application of the initial ground layers reserve in the under­layers. Thirdly, the to both supports and the subsequent flesh tones are somewhat lighter in application of the second ground layer colour and thicker, more pastose and to the Rijksmuseum plate, nor between more smoothly blended. And finally, the finishing of the Rijksmuseum the glazing of the shadows of the portrait and the continuation of the features is done with a deep red lake Oud-Zuilen painting. The initial over dark brown (see fig. 7, Slot Zuylen, preparation of two plates with a thin last glazes). The overall effect of these ground may have been intended for differences is to leave the Oud-Zuilen two commissioned copies of Van painting much pinker, and hence even Reede’s portrait or perhaps, given more lifelike than the Rijksmuseum their different metal supports, for Van portrait. The differences in tonality and Reede and another treaty delegate. It is texture of the pinker, smoother Oud- in any case clear that the Oud-Zuilen Zuilen portrait were per­haps meant composition was not begun until the as a subtle improvement over those Amsterdam version was finished and, features in the Rijksmuseum painting. given the precision of the copy, that it was painted in close proximity to the To sum up, we know that the Oud- ‘principal’ picture. This tells us that the Zuilen copper plate probably served artist worked on them side-by-side, yet as the template for the Rijksmuseum consecutively, not simultaneously. portrait’s brass plate since the former has incised lines on the back that were Portrait of Jacob de Graeff used to create the oval. Then, in a sur­ In the early 1670s Ter Borch, who had prising reversal of order, the finished settled in Deventer in 1654, was briefly

364 gerard ter borch repeats active in Amsterdam, where he made a The Circumstances series of portraits for the De Graeff It is possible that one of the two paint­ family in 1673 and 1674. Whereas Ter ings was intended for Pieter and the Borch generally portrayed his clients in other for his brother Jacob.37 Neither Overijssel in full-length small portraits, of the portraits in St Louis and patrons in Amsterdam preferred the Amsterdam by Ter Borch is dated,38 conventional three-quarter length small and only the latter is signed with portraits. The Deventer portraits are Ter Borch’s initials ‘GTB’ (see fig. 15, sober and restrained, while the more both Rijksmuseum and Saint Louis fashionable dress in his Amsterdam Art Museum, signature). The question portraits attests to the aristocratic of their method of production is pretensions of his clients there. As well intriguing. How did Ter Borch actually as the likeness of Jacob de Graeff (1642- paint the two panels: simultaneously 1690), Ter Borch also painted the por­ (back and forth) or consecutively? trait of Jacob’s uncle Andries de Graeff And if the latter, which was first?39 (1611-1678), his son Cornelis de Graeff It may even be possible to work out (1623-1678), Jacob’s brother Pieter de which one was intended for Jacob Graeff (1638-1707) and his wife in this himself, who, after all, paid for the period.34 There are two virtually commission. A 1709 inventory of the identical versions of Jacob’s portrait Grand Salon, which looked out on to on panel: one in the Rijks­museum in the canal in Jacob’s brother Pieter Amsterdam and the other in the Saint de Graeff’s fashionable new house Louis Art Museum (figs. 13, 14). at 573 Herengracht in Amsterdam, On 22 July 1673, Jacob de Graeff’s lists a portrait of Jacob de Graeff by brother Pieter de Graeff recorded the Ter Borch.40 The room was hung with commission for Jacob’s portrait in the paintings by renowned artists of the almanac of the Amsterdam chamber time, and at least three of them, the of the Dutch East India Company: ‘A aforementioned pendant portraits by commission to Gerard ter Borch, to be Caspar Netscher and a Ter Borch, were paid for by my brother [Jacob], to paint virtually identical in size and shape his portrait, for which he will pay the (with rounded, arched tops). Given the same as uncle Andries de Graeff paid similar dimensions, it has always been for the likeness of his son, Cornelis de assumed that the portrait of Jacob Graeff.’35 On the same day Pieter de referred to in the inventory was the Graeff wrote that he had bought ‘two version in St Louis,41 however the oval-topped wooden panels’ for one painting in the Rijksmuseum has until guilder.36 It would thus seem likely that now been published with incorrect, the client wanted to order two identical smaller measurements.42 In fact, they autograph versions of Jacob’s portrait are virtually identical in size. This from the outset, and the panels were means that the size is of no help in specifically purchased for the purpose determining which painting Pieter de (fig. 15, both Rijksmuseum and Saint Graeff owned. The current physical Louis Art Museum, support). The use condition of the version in the Rijks­ of an arched top is exceptional in Ter museum, on the other hand, may well Borch’s oeuvre. This shape was prob­ provide a clue. It is tempting to con­ ably chosen to go with the portraits of jecture that it was the Rijksmuseum Pieter de Graeff and his wife Jacoba picture that caught the sun as it hung Bicker of 1663 (figs. 16a, b) painted by in the Grand Salon opposite the large, Caspar Netscher (Ter Borch’s student south-facing windows, since the organic in Deventer from 1654 to 1658), which reds in the painting are now irrever­ were already in Pieter de Graeff’s sibly faded. The dramatic bleaching collection. must, in any case, be the result of long,

365 the rijksmuseum bulletin

Fig. 13 gerard ter borch ii, Portrait of Jacob de Graeff (1642-1690), c. 1673. Oil on panel, 51.6 x 35.6 x ≤ 0.5 cm, thinned and cradled. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. sk-a-3963.

366 gerard ter borch repeats

Fig. 14 gerard ter borch ii, Portrait of Jacob de Graeff (1642-1690), c. 1673. Oil on panel, 51.6 x 35.4 x 0.5-1.2 cm. St Louis, Saint Louis Art Museum, inv. no. 139:1916.

367 the rijksmuseum bulletin

Fig. 15 Comparison of the De Graeff portraits.

construction rijksmuseum

support Size: halfround top, 51.6 x 35.6 cm Oak panel Condition: thinned and cradled Inscription removed

ground Lower two layers: 2. Pinkish-beige, smooth 1. White chalk

composition Virtually identical to St Louis

underdrawing/ Comparable: few visible outlines: only intermediate short, thin drawn lines and broader lines drawing (irr) applied with a brush (former for the face and latter for the clothes)

undermodelling Dark, transparent brown shadows prepare facial features Ochre and grey under- modelling beneath clothing

detail brushwork Fine attention to detail, laborious

last glazes/ Overlying brown for facial features shadows Olive green shadows (sleeves)

pentimenti Many small alterations (changes) (irr and normal light) Salmon color beneath sleeve

signature and/or Monogram coat of arms Coat of arms: a later addition Identical to that on St Louis

368 gerard ter borch repeats

saint louis art museum construction

Size: halfround top, 51.6 x 35.4 cm support Oak panel Condition: original

No sample taken ground Ochre coloured layer at surface, applied in pastose, diagonal brushstrokes

Virtually identical to Rijksmuseum composition

Comparable: underdrawing/ also variable, short, contour lines of facial intermediate features (possibly wet) drawing (irr)

Dark, transparent brown shadows prepare undermodelling facial features and background No ochre or gray left visible

Fine attention to detail, fluid detail brushwork

Overlying brown for facial features last glazes/ Olive green shadows (sleeves) shadows

Many small alterations pentimenti (irr and normal light) (changes)

No signature/monogram signature and/or Coat of arms: a later addition coat of arms Identical to that on Rijksmuseum

369 the rijksmuseum bulletin

a b cumulative exposure to strong sunlight. Pieter de Graeff’s collection, it is Fig. 16a The damage makes the picture relatively most probable that the Rijksmuseum caspar netscher, subdued, as is evident in the faded red painting hung there as well.45 This Portrait of Pieter de tablecloth, the once purple, now brown seems to be supported by the unaltered Graeff (1638-1707), Lord of Zuid- curtain and even in the flesh tones, state of the St Louis panel, which Polsbroek, Purmerland 46 which are quite pale, especially in shows no trace of an inscription. and Ilpendam. Sheriff comparison to the ruddy flesh of the Indications of provenance such as of Amsterdam, 1663. St Louis painting. This accounts for inscriptions, coats of arms, labels and Oil on panel, many of the current differences between even frames of paintings are often 51.2 x 35.8 cm. the two pictures.43 valuable clues in tracing previous Amsterdam, An old photograph of the reverse relationships with other paintings in Rijksmuseum, inv. no. sk-a-3977. of one of the two paintings shows a various collections over time. The handwritten inscription in dark ink, original frame of the Rijksmuseum concerning the life and death of Jacob portrait has long since been replaced, de Graeff, on a bevelled panel with a but the St Louis painting retains its Fig. 16b rounded top (fig. 17). Gudlaugsson original ornate gilt frame (fig. 18). It caspar netscher, describes this biographical informa­ is not identical in motif and form to Portrait of Jacoba tion as having been on the back of the frames of the two other rounded Bicker (1640-1695), the Amsterdam painting before it arched-top paintings listed in the Wife of Pieter de was thinned and cradled.44 Since the room: the portraits of Pieter de Graeff Graeff, 1663. Oil on panel, inscription was put on long after the and his wife Jacoba Bicker by Caspar 51.3 x 35.6 cm. commission of the portraits, and it Netscher (see figs. 16a, b). In fact, Amsterdam, is known that other paintings with although the male pendant of these is Rijksmuseum, similar inscriptions originated in dated 1663, their ‘compo’ frames are inv. no. sk-a-3978.

370 gerard ter borch repeats

Fig. 17 Inscription formerly on the reverse of the Portrait of Jacob de Graeff (Rijksmuseum, fig. 13). Photo: rkd.

371 the rijksmuseum bulletin

372 gerard ter borch repeats

Fig. 18 most likely from after 1700, perhaps thin white layer and a smooth, beige Portrait of Jacob de even contemporary with the new upper layer (see fig. 15, Rijksmuseum, Graeff in the original house with its Grand Salon. The ground). The St Louis picture has a frame (Saint Louis Art carved frame on the St Louis picture coarser, warm ochre-coloured ground, Museum, fig. 14). is older. This, taken together with visible here and there at the surface, the earlier suggestions regarding the applied in diagonal pastose strokes.48 physical state of the Amsterdam picture Beige or ochre is customary for Ter and the former inscription on its Borch.49 Although the grounds of these reverse, corroborates the theory that two paintings are similar in that they it was the Amsterdam painting which are both light coloured, the fact that hung, facing the windows, in Pieter they are not identical means that they de Graeff’s house and that Jacob de were probably not prepared at the Graeff owned the St Louis version.47 same time. Given that both panels were commissioned at the same time, The Panel – Supports and Grounds and that a panel-maker often applied The St Louis portrait is in a remark­ the ground as well as making the panel, ably good state of preservation. As we it is puzzling as to why the panels were have said, there is no fading, the oak not prepared together. It is therefore panel is still the original thickness (a likely that it is only the upper layers that quarter-sawn panel varying in thick­ were applied at different times. It seems ness between 0.5 and 1 cm) and hardly that one panel was begun before the suffers from a single age crack. Regret­ other, but which? tably, the Rijksmuseum’s oak panel, though of the same dimensions and The Underdrawings Figs. 19a, b arched-top form, has been thinned Unlike the grounds, the method used irr images of and cradled (see fig. 15, Rijksmuseum, to begin the actual compositions of the Portrait of support), and the paint is irreversibly both pictures is quite similar. Infrared Jacob de Graeff faded and has been abraded during reflectography reveals a faint under­ (a: Rijksmuseum, fig. 13; b: Saint Louis restorations. drawing in black, reinforced with Art Museum, fig. 14), The Rijksmuseum picture has a broader black brushstrokes, in the showing the face. double ground comprising an initial St Louis picture, as it does in the

a b

373 the rijksmuseum bulletin painting in Amsterdam (figs. 19a, b).50 head is almost finished’ sounds more Broader dark, wet brushstrokes can like working the composition up in full be seen with the naked eye through colour rather than simply completing the translucent light areas of clothing the monotone undermodelling. In order (particularly in the sleeves) and in the to produce a painting in a week, Ter proper right glove. Borch could have made an initial It is possible that the faint, short drawing from life earlier. Sparse lines sketched lines seen in both pictures are could then have been transferred on indeed the initial, tentative placement to at least one of the prepared panels of compositional elements drawn from such an initial drawing prior to in with dry black chalk or perhaps the sitting – as, even, could a thin under­­- graphite, much as we have seen in modelling in oil. This would mean that the Van Reede portraits. In neither one portrait could have been begun picture do we find hard evidence of directly on one of the prepared and dry the remnants of a transfer technique, panels during the sitting on that day but the cursory lines could easily and immediately worked up in paint. be the result of such and sufficed to If we infer from De Graeff’s remark ‘so establish an almost identical placement that the rest shall follow’ that he was of features and head on both versions. referring to a painting, it would appear Neither underdrawing impresses us as that the head was practically complete having been drawn from life, which at the beginning of the painting process, suggests the use of a transfer technique rather than that the portrait was filled from a drawing from life. in on an otherwise completed picture as was sometimes the case.52 Or, more The Weightiest Article likely, given the order of painting from in Our Family back to front, the background was A letter written by Jacob de Graeff presumably partially finished before to his brother a week after the panels the sitting for the portrait, leaving were sent to Ter Borch describes the the costume as last, much as in an progress the artist had made so far: unfinished painting currently attrib­ -­­ ‘Concerning my portrait, looks very uted to Gonzales Coques (Antwerp accurate and the head is almost finished, 1614/18-1684), and formerly to Ter which has always been the weightiest Borch.53 Technical analysis shows that article in our family, so that the rest both compositions were, in fact, built shall follow.’51 up from background to foreground, It is unknown whether this note was reserving the costumed figure and hair, made after the first, the only or the last following the scant lines of drawing or sitting, or even whether it was about transfer. a drawing or a painting, but given that the sitting was within a week of Undermodelling delivery of the panels, a drawing would As in the Van Reede portraits, a dark, have been less trouble. Yet ‘the head is warm transparent brown paint was almost finished’ is a rather puzzling used to underpaint the shadows of statement if it was related to a drawing the facial features in both De Graeff whose main purpose would have been portraits. The background of the to capture a likeness for transfer to a St Louis version was also painted in panel – one would expect a drawing to brown, and although it is quite possible have been finished in one sitting. If he that the brown undermodelling also is referring to a painting then at least served as an underlayer in the back­ one of the panels was already prepared ground of the Amsterdam painting, with ground layers, perhaps even the an opaque, dark greyish-green is now undermodelling, and dry on time. ‘The visible on the surface.

374 gerard ter borch repeats

Slight shifts made in both eyes of the actual change in costume in both Rijksmuseum painting, visible under pictures (see fig. 15, Rijksmuseum, infrared examination, are revealing: it pentimenti). is clear that the sitter’s right pupil and There is another clear example of a iris were lowered and that the black shared colour pentimento in the paint lines of his left eyelid were adjusted. layers of both paintings, namely the The alteration of the eyes may have repainting of a small area in the bottom occurred during the sitting. No such left corner of the pictures just to the alterations were found in the St Louis right of the table, under the flap of the head (see fig. 15, Rijks­museum and coat. Obviously, if one portrait were a Saint Louis Art Museum, penti­menti). later copy of the other, the artist would Since the eyes in the St Louis picture have copied only the upper layer of the match the final eye placement of the earlier picture. However, if he was paint­- Amsterdam portrait, the latter must ing back and forth, working both pic­- have been copied. How­ever, Ter Borch t­ures up at more or less the same time, also adjusted the shape of the shaded the same alterations can occur. Other side of the face in the St Louis version pentimenti give further indications of and so did not copy the Rijksmuseum this simultaneous work-up and also version slavishly. The presence of a alternate copying from one picture to thick dark brush­stroke of under­model­ another, as seen in details of the proper ling along the left contour, used to left gloves and the variable use of re­- increase the volume of the St Louis ser­ves for the hats and the right gloves face (much like the ‘halo’ in the under­ on both. The numerous examples of the modelling of the Rijksmuseum’s­ Van order of execution reversing between Reede portrait), which was not exactly the two, lead us to believe that the copy­ followed in the working up, could on ing of alterations was most likely done the other hand indicate a live sitting. free hand rather than using a series of A glimpse of a preparatory layer for intermediary transfer draw­ings. Allow­ the clothes, very like that noted as ochre ing for at least a few initial transferred and grey undermodelling beneath outlines would, however, explain the costumes in other portraits by Ter precision of the likenesses in the por­ Borch, is present in the Amsterdam traits. Indeed, just as in the Van Reede picture in the proper right sleeve.54 portraits, a traced outline (using a trans­ No such ‘gap’ in the upper paint layers parent overlay) of the composition of the was found in the St Louis painting to Rijksmuseum painting matches that of be able to determine its presence or the St Louis painting almost perfectly. absence there (see fig. 15, Rijks­museum, Yet another shared characteristic undermodelling). supports this theory of simultaneous creation. Both paintings exhibit signs Back and Forth of the use of a similar paint medium Both paintings often reveal shared for the black paint of the pattern of alterations­ or pentimenti, which means the lower part of the diagonal sash. It that although they seem not to have pearls up in a resist pattern, indicating been prepared with ground at the same a lack of adhesion to the dried oil paint time, the pictures were indeed painted substrate below. Glazing with the same simultaneously, side by side, with the deep colours to strengthen shading, artist working back and forth between such as the dark olive-green paint for the two. Vibrant tones of deep orangey- the deep shadows of the folds of the pink are evident in both pictures beneath white sleeves, reminds us that the same the white and black sleeves, the silver- palette – literally – must have been threaded waistcoat and the silver sash. used (see fig. 15, Rijksmuseum and The colours beneath are due to an Saint Louis Art Museum, last glazes).

375 the rijksmuseum bulletin

In both pictures, the artist worked the St Louis picture is not. Although in general from darker to ever lighter neither Ter Borch’s personal conven­ parts like the collar and sleeves, ending tions nor those of the period regarding with fine, highlighted details. Final the signing of pictures and the dupli­ details exhibit precise brushwork built cation of images have been thoroughly up in small strokes (see fig. 15, Rijks­ established,55 it seems logical that if the museum and Saint Louis Art Museum, artist set out to paint two versions and detail brushwork), and the last flesh began with one por­trait for the sitting, tones on both are composed of deli­- that he himself might consider that one ca­ t­­ ely­ blended wet-in-wet brushstrokes. as the ‘original’ or ‘principal’ and the All the same, there are some remark­ other as the ‘reproduction’. able differences. With the naked eye, If one accepts this hypothesis, then the most striking difference between the original would probably carry more the two, aside from the condition, is of the weight of the act of invention, that the St Louis picture is more freely whereas the copy might reflect the executed with loose, fluent strokes rewards of greater certainty in design where, for example, the edges of the and pure relish in the art of painting. initial reserves are not as carefully The evident sureness of touch in the closed as in the Amsterdam version. St Louis painting, in stark contrast to The portrait in St Louis appears more the more laboured brushwork of the rapidly and spontaneously painted in Rijksmuseum portrait, could thus be general and this difference is also explained if the artist had had a sense evident on a microscopic level. Through that the latter was the ‘principal’. The the microscope, a wet-in-wet, ‘marbled’ position of the eyes in the Amsterdam swirl is visible between the left cuff version was altered at an early stage of the glove and the sleeve, like that and the final placement was copied of the swirled paint of the sash. In the to the St Louis picture, a fact that Amsterdam painting, however, no further supports this notion. However, evidence was found of the artist having this theory is far too black and white worked wet-in-wet other than in the to allow for the numerous shared softly blended flesh tones, and the pentimenti in both paintings and the entire picture appears instead a result fact that the St Louis picture was given of meticulous labour. The evidence to Jacob as the commissioned work. of small, short, laborious strokes, Evidently the artist worked with due conscientiously produced – perhaps consideration for his ‘reproduction’ the most characteristic feature of and considered it an equal, perhaps Ter Borch’s work and visible in the – as we surmised in the case of Van Rijksmuseum portrait – are not Reede – even an improvement. In fact, evident in the St Louis version. The even without comparing, it is difficult difference is in fact so apparent that to fathom any explanation for the one might suspect another hand, remarkably fluid technique of the were it not for the evidence of the pristine St Louis version, given all the shared pentimenti, the shared creation, minor pentimenti present in that version and the knowledge that Ter Borch alone. This remains a conundrum and never had a student who surpassed further debate is most welcome. his skill. In the St Louis picture he seems to have surpassed himself, or Conclusion perhaps deliberately varied his painting The comparison of the technical style. construction of each portrait makes The Amsterdam painting is signed it possible to conclude with certainty on the stone at right, gtb. (see fig. 15, that the two versions of the portraits Rijksmuseum, signature), whereas were painted side by side. The Van

376 gerard ter borch repeats

Reede portraits were painted more in-depth study of all the replicas in or less consecutively, the De Graeff Ter Borch’s oeuvre can shed more light portraits evidently simultaneously. on Ter Borch and his studio. Though Both the Rijksmuseum versions close observation and archival research bear evidence of the actual sitting or could resolve many questions in the sittings, yet both second versions are two cases presented here and bring improvements. It is highly likely that us closer to understanding the means all four portraits were painted by Ter of construction, the inexplicable and Borch, in view of the strong similarities uncanny similarity between the two in construction and materials, the versions of each composition is due to pentimenti and the high quality of the Ter Borch’s own close observation and works. The materials and techniques consummate craftsmanship. used also correspond to the findings of the technical research for the compre­ hen­sive catalogue on the other Ter Borch paintings in the Rijksmuseum. It remains to be seen whether such

notes * This article results from the research under- geschichte) 1974, pp. 74-75, no. 11; taken for the Rijksmuseum’s catalogue of K. Schaffers in A. van der Goes and seventeenth-century paintings (by artists J. De Meyere (eds.), Op stand aan de wand: born between 1600 and 1620), forthcoming. vijf eeuwen familieportretten in Slot Zuylen, Maarssen 1996, p. 70; and A.M. McNeil 1 A.C. Steenis-Muntjewerf, ‘Een weddenschap Kettering in A.K. Wheelock Jr et al. (eds.), over een Terburch’, Oud Holland 69 (1954), Gerard ter Borch, exh. cat. Washington pp. 123-24. (National Gallery of Art)/Detroit (The 2 S. Gudlaugsson, Gerard ter Borch, 2 vols., Detroit Institute of Arts) 2004-05, p. 66, The Hague 1959-60 (vol. 1, 1959; vol. 2, all regard it as an authentic Ter Borch. 1960), vol. 2, passim. 6 Gudlaugsson, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 2, pp. 227- 3 E. van de Wetering, ‘Een reisbrief van Ernst 28, nos. 265 i (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) van de Wetering: Gerard ter Borch en zijn and 265 ii (Saint Louis Art Museum), both atelier’, Kunstschrift 3 (2005), pp. 16-27. On as authentic. the making of copies by Leiden fine painters 7 Unfortunately the x-radiographs of Ter see E.J. Sluijter et al. (eds.), Leidse fijnschil- Borch’s compositions are often too faint and ders. Van Gerrit Dou tot Frans van Mieris de even in tone to provide much information. Jonge 1630-1760, exh. cat. Leiden (Stedelijk 8 There are other multiple versions of compos­ Museum de Lakenhal) 1988, pp. 34-36. itions by Ter Borch aside from those discussed 4 Documented pupils in Deventer were Caspar in this article. These are primarily genre Netscher (c. 1635/39-1684), Antoni Jordens pieces for the open market. Most famous is (1664-1715) and the otherwise unknown the Parental Admonition (1654) in the Rijks- Bartholt Berentsen. It is generally accepted museum in Amsterdam, and a second version that Pieter van Anraedt (before 1640-1678) (1654/55) in the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin. and Roelof Koets (before 1650-1725) worked A third very similar version, A Singing in Ter Borch’s studio. Practice (1654/55), is in the National 5 Gudlaugsson, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 2, p. 78, Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh. A Glass no. 47a, calls the work in Slot Zuylen a of Lemonade (early to mid-1660s) can be seventeenth-century copy. It is included as found in the Hermitage in St Petersburg; an original in H.R. Hoetink et al. (eds.), the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, and Gerard Ter Borch: Zwolle 1617-Deventer 1681, sale London (Christie’s), 3 July 2012, no. 26. exh. cat. The Hague (Mauritshuis)/Münster The Music Lesson (c. 1668) in the Toledo (Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kultur­ Museum of Art in Ohio is repeated in

377 the rijksmuseum bulletin

the Duet (1675) in The Rothschild Collection Konst-schilders en Konst-schilderessen, met (The National Trust), Waddesdon. Though een uytbreyding over de schilder-konst der only one version is extant, he purportedly ouden: verrijkt met de konterfeytsels der voor- also made two identical portraits of Philip iv, naamste konst-schilders en konst-schilderessen, King of Spain, in the late 1630s. Gudlaugsson, in koper gesneden door J. Houbraken, 4 vols., op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, p. 184; vol. 2, pp. 58-59, The Hague/Dordrecht 1729-69 (vols. 1-3, no. 9. 1729; vol. 4, 1769), vol. 2, p. 370. 9 A. Wallert, ‘The Miracle of Gerard ter Borch’s 20 ‘manier van gemelte Sijne Hoocheyt’, Satin’, in Wheelock Jr et al., op. cit. (note 5), Gudlaugsson, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 2, p. 30. p. 35. 21 Jansen, op. cit. (note 15), p. 51. 10 Black chalk is listed in the inventory of a trunk 22 For a biography of Van Reede see filled with art supplies sent to Ter Borch in P.C. Molhuysen et al. (eds.), Nieuw Neder- England by his father in 1635 (Paris, Institut landsch biografisch woordenboek, 10 vols., Néerlandais, Collection Frits Lugt, repro- Leiden 1911-37, vol. 3, 1914, cols. 1025-26; duced in Wheelock Jr et al., op. cit. (note 5), and H. Duchhardt et al. (eds.), ‘... zu einem pp. 188-89). This was most likely chalk stets währenden Gedächtnis’: die Friedenssäle blackened with carbon, though graphite in Münster und Osnabrück und ihre Gesand- carbon sticks were also available at the time tenporträts, Bramsche 1996, pp. 230-31. in England. For his role in the peace negotiations see 11 Tracing: using a blackened or whitened verso, R. de Bruin and D. Faber, Tegen de vrede! the drawing lines (recto) are retraced dry Utrecht en de vredesonderhandelingen in with the paper laid over a new support. Münster, exh. cat. Utrecht (Centraal Pouncing: charcoal or chalk powder is Museum/Domkerk) 1998. pushed through tiny pinpricks made along 23 Gudlaugsson, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, p. 58. the lines of a drawing while it is placed over Godard’s son Gerard van Reede (1624-1670) a new support. Counterproof: a mirror may have commissioned the second portrait. image of the drawing is made by pressing the He inherited the manor of Nederhorst and face of a wet (or powdery) original on to a after his father’s death in 1648 took his seat new support. in the first rank of the States of Utrecht. 12 M. Franken, ‘Learning by Imitation: Copy­- Godard’s death is a conceivable reason ing Paintings in Rembrandt’s Workshop’, for having a second version made, so that in E. van de Wetering et al., Rembrandt: the first could remain in the possession Quest of a Genius, exh. cat. Amsterdam (The of Godard’s second wife, Catharina van Rembrandt House Museum) 2007, p. 167. Utenhove (1598/99-1656). 13 R.E.O. Ekkart, ‘Portraiture in Practice’, 24 The supports of most may be copper (this has in R.E.O. Ekkart and Q. Buvelot, Dutch not been verified for three of the paintings), Portraits: The Age of Rembrandt and Frans however, the Van Reede portrait in the Hals, exh. cat. London (The National Rijksmuseum collection is painted on brass. Gallery)/The Hague (Mauritshuis) 2007-08, The other six portraits (and two additional p. 60. pendant portraits) are as follows: 14 I.H. van Eeghen, ‘Baertjen Martens en - Portrait of Adriaen Pauw (1585-1653) and Herman Doomer’, Maandblad Amstelo­damum Portrait of Anna van Ruytenburgh (1590- 43 (1956), pp. 133-37. 1648), c. 1646. Copper, 15.7 x 11.7 cm. 15 A. Jansen, ‘Atelier en atelierpraktijken aan Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv. nos. de oude Delft’, in A. Jansen et al., De portret- os 92-195, 196; private collection on long fabriek van Michiel van Mierevelt (1566-1641), term loan. Virtually identical portraits of exh. cat. Delft (Museum het Prinsenhof) Pauw and his wife are incorporated in a 2011, p. 51. large painting by Ter Borch, Entry of Adriaen 16 Ekkart, op. cit. (note 13), p. 59. Pauw and Anna van Ruyenburgh into Münster, 17 J.M. Montias, ‘Cost and Value in Seventeenth- 1646. Oil on canvas, 98.5 x 159 cm. Münster, Century Dutch Art’, Art History 10 (1987), Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und p. 462. Kulturgeschichte, inv. no. 210. 18 Gudlaugsson, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, - Portrait of Adriaen Clant van Stedum (1599- pp. 29-30. 1655), 1646-48. Supposedly oil on copper 19 ‘doch bevreest dat ’er iets van de gelykenis (the frame is covered on the reverse with mogt uytraaken door het overschilderen, marbled paper and has not been opened maakte hy ’er een Kopey na, en nam die for inspection), c. 14 x 10 cm. Groningen, mee na ’s Gravenhage’. J. Campo Weyerman, Groninger Museum, inv. no. 1964.0265; De levens-beschrijvingen der nederlandsche from C. Martins, 19 June 2013.

378 gerard ter borch repeats

- Portrait of Caspar van Kinschot (1622-1649), becomes clear whether they are separated 1646-47. C. Pottasch reports a note made by a layer of paint forming separate under- by Sandra R. Blackard on 3 June 1983, drawings and ‘intermediate’ drawings. It was ‘copper scratched prior to ground applica- also seen during microscopic examination of tion 11.9 x 8.8 cm, oval back is blackened’. Ter Borch’s portraits of Anna van Ruyten- The Hague, Mauritshuis, inv. no. 1050. burgh (Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, - Portrait of Eleazer Lootius (1595-1668) and inv. no. os 92-196; private collection on Portrait of the Wife or Daughter of Eleazer long term loan) and of Helena van der Lootius, 1646. Supposedly oil on copper, Schalcke (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, 21.5 x 15.5 cm. Private collection. inv. no. sk-a-1786). In personal communi­ - Portrait of Don Caspar de Bracamonte y cation with Melanie Gifford she con­firmed Guzman, Count of Peñaranda (1596-1676), the presence of a ‘re-sketching’ phase in 1647-48. Red copper (according to R.E.O. Ter Borch’s The Suitor’s Visit (Washington, Ekkart, Nederlandse portretten uit de 17e eeuw/ National Gallery of Art, Andrew W. Mellon Dutch Portraits from the Seventeenth Century, Collection, inv. no. 1937.1.58). exh. cat. Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans 32 Or they may have been double lines applied Van Beuningen) 1995, no. 4), 10.8 x 9.1 cm. simultaneously to indicate shadow as Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, suggested by Jorgen Wadum in relation to inv. no. 2529. his infrared examination of a Rembrandt - Portrait of Count Hugo Eberhard Kratz School portrait. See J. Wadum, ‘Rembrandt von Scharfenstein (1610-1663), 1646-48. under the Skin: The Mauritshuis Portrait Supposedly oil on copper, 17 x 12.5 cm. of Rembrandt with Gorget in Retrospect’, Private collection. Oud Holland 114 (2000), p. 166. 25 Namely Adriaen Pauw, Adriaen Clant van 33 See note 24. Stedum, Caspar van Kinschot, Eleazer 34 Andries: signed gtb, us, private collection Lootius, Jacob van der Burgh (c. 1600-1659; (illustrated in N. Middelkoop (ed.), Kop­ known only from an engraving by Pieter stukken: Amsterdammers geportretteerd 1600- Holsteyn) and Don Caspar de Bracamonte 1800, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Amsterdams y Guzman. Historisch Museum) 2002-03, p. 134, no. 33). 26 A.M. McNeil Kettering, Gerard ter Borch en Cornelis: signed gtb, The Hague, Maurits­ de Vrede van Münster, exh. cat. The Hague huis, inv. no. 883. Pieter: Germany, private (Mauritshuis) 1998, p. 37. collection (illustrated in Middelkoop, 27 ‘twee kleine geschilderde pourtraitjes van op. cit. (this note), p. 135, no. 34). Pieter’s de oude heer van Nederhorst in swarte wife: where­abouts unknown. lijsjes’; Rijksarchief Utrecht (rau), Archief 35 ‘Voor rekening van mijn broeder [Jacob] aen Huis Haarzuilens, inv. no. 959. Quoted Gerard ter Borch aenbesteed sijn pourtraict by R.E.O. Ekkart in Van der Goes and om dat te conterfeijten en soo veel daervoor De Meyere, op. cit. (note 5), p. 14. te betaelen als oom Andries de Graeff voor 28 The portrait in Oud-Zuilen bears a family coat ’t conterfeijtsel van sijn soon Cornelis de of arms painted over the background upper Graeff betaelt heeft.’ S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, right. None of the Münster portraits by ‘In Presentie van de Heer Gerard ter Borch’, Ter Borch bear such a coat of arms, yet this Essays in Northern European Art: Presented to appears upon examination to be part of the Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann on his Sixtieth original paint applied by the artist, which sug- Birthday, Doornspijk 1983, p. 67. gests it was requested with the commission. 36 ‘twee boven ovale houte peneelties’, in ibid., 29 An alloy of copper and zinc, in the ratio p. 67. The 1673 dating of the portraits of approximately 3:1. xrf analysis was conforms not only with the order dates performed using an Arttax x-ray tube: for the panels, but also with archival infor- Mo 40kv, 498 µA, 60 sec. Sanding grooves mation regarding Jacob de Graeff’s military found on the surface (visible at the site of service as a volunteer in the service of losses) formed a preparation for the paint William iii from 29 July 1673 to 19 Septem- layers. ber 1674 as noted in Jacob de Graeff’s letters 30 This layer has a green tinge in the (Amsterdam, City Archives, archive 76, Rijks­museum cross-section (see fig. 9, inv. no. 131). In fact, Jacob mentions in his Amsterdam, ground), probably due to first letter to his brother on 29 July 1673 corrosion products from the brass plate. that he has purchased boots from ‘Meester 31 The lines revealed by infra-red examination Harmsen van missieven’ and further that he show the two drawing phases simultaneously is dressed in a black raincoat from the town and it is only on close inspection that it of Naarden (‘Naarder regenrok (engelse

379 the rijksmuseum bulletin

zwarte)’), in a letter dated 16 September Robbert Jan van der Maal. No such inscrip- 1673, just as he is portrayed in the paintings. tions or traces of them have been found on 37 N. Middelkoop in Middelkoop, op. cit. the pendants of Pieter de Graeff and Jacoba (note 34), p. 136. Bicker by Netscher in the Rijksmuseum 38 Dendrochronological dating carried out by (see figs. 16a, b). Peter Klein on 9 September 2010 came up 46 Thanks to research by Paul Haner, Claire with 1657 as the earliest possible creation Walker and Rachel Aubochon and their date for the painting. Analysis has not been communication with the authors, we know undertaken on the St Louis picture. that the St Louis panel retains its original 39 The family coat of arms found on both thickness and bevelling at the edges. No trace paintings were added much later, probably of such an inscription could be found either by a descendant. with the naked eye or using ir examination, 40 Gudlaugsson, op. cit. (note 2), pp. 227-28. though there is paint covering the reverse. 41 Dudok van Heel, op. cit. (note 35), p. 67, note 9. 47 The dating of the frames is based on the 42 The erroneous dimensions of 45.5 x 34.5 cm expert opinion of the frame conservator, appeared as early as sale De Ridder (Villa Hubert Baija, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam Schönberg, Kronberg im Taunus), Paris (Gale- (personal communication). rie Georges Petit), 2 June 1924, no. 78. The 48 Cross-section numbers sk-a-3963/1 and actual dimensions of 51.6 x 35.6 cm are virtu- sk-a-3963/2. As no cross-section was taken ally identical to those of Netscher’s portraits from the St Louis painting, it is not known of Pieter de Graeff, 51.2 x 35.8 cm, and whether the ground is composed of one or Jacoba Bicker, 51.3 x 35.6 cm (see figs. 16a, b). two layers. 43 A.W. Wallert, ‘Ter Borch’s Materials and 49 Of the twelve other paintings examined for Methods of Painting: The Glass of Lemonade’, the technical entries of the forthcoming Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konser- Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in vierung 18 (2004), no. 2, p. 384, notes 10 and 11, the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, vol. 2, six have reveal the existence of a recipe for a cochineal beige or ochre-coloured upper grounds, five red lake known as ‘Root Lac van Cochenielje have varying shades of grey upper grounds, van Geerart ter Burg van Swol’ in a seven- and one is brown. teenth-century unpublished manuscript in 50 Near-infrared photograph was taken on the Frans Hals Museum in Haarlem (Ms. 16 September 2013 with a converted Nikon 93-94) as well as in W. Beurs, De Groote d300s (internal filter removed) with a Peca Waereld in ’t klein geschildert, Amsterdam 910 filter. (J. and G. van Waesberge) 1692. 51 ‘Wat aengaet mijn conterfeijtsel, lijkt seer wel 44 ‘Jacob de Graeff was born on 28 June 1642. On en is het hoofd bijnae gedaen, hetwelck altijdt 9 November 1666 he married Maria van der het meest wegende artikel in onse familie is Does, who died on 10 January 1667. In 1672 geweest, soodat de rest wel sal volgen.’ See he was Sheriff of Amsterdam. He died on Dudok van Heel, op. cit. (note 35), p. 67. 21 April 1690 and was interred or buried in 52 A. Blankert, ‘Invulportretten door Caspar the crypt beneath the Choir to the south of en Constantijn Netscher’, Oud Holland 81 the Tower, in the old church.’ (Mr. Jacob de (1966), pp. 263-69. Graeff is geboren op 28 Juny Aº: 1642 is op 53 A.K. Wheelock Jr, ‘The Artistic Development 9 November Aº 1666 getrouwd met Maria of Gerard ter Borch’, in Wheelock Jr et al., van der Does die op 10 January Aº: 1667 op. cit. (note 5), pp. 12-13, fig. 10. overleden is, is Aº: 1672 Schepen tot Amster- 54 Personal communication with Melanie dam geweest en overleden op 21 April 1690 Gifford, research conservator for painting en bijgeseth of begraven in de kelder onder technology, National Gallery of Art, ’t Choortie besuijden de Thooren, in de oude Washington, regarding her examination of kerk.) Quoted from Gudlaugsson, op. cit. Ter Borch’s Portrait of Gerhard van Suchtelen (note 2), p. 228. Robbert Jan van der Maal (Washington, Corcoran Gallery of Art, discovered a photograph of the inscription in inv. no. 26.174). the rkd Explore database and shared this 55 See on this for example N. De Marchi and with the authors. H.J. van Miegroet, ‘Pricing Invention: 45 For example on the anonymous Portrait of “Originals,” “Copies,” and their Relative Jan Oom Jacobsz alias Noom Pompemaker, Value in Seventeenth Century Netherlandish 1600-1700 (Amsterdam, Amsterdam Museum, Art Markets’, in V.A. Ginsburgh and inv. no. sa 3011) and the anonymous Portrait P.M. Menger (eds.), Economics of the Arts: of Andries Boelen (1455-1519) (Amsterdam, Selected Essays, Amsterdam 1996, pp. 27-70. private collection). Personal communication See also Jansen, op. cit. (note 15), pp. 47-49.

380 Detail of fig. 2 gerard ter borch repeats

381