This imposing middle-aged gentleman is depicted in a three-quarter-length pose with his right shoulder turned slightly toward the viewer and his left arm akimbo. His shoulder-length, wavy brown hair falls on either side of his face from under a black hat with a moderately wide brim. With his right hand he gently pulls forward a black cape at his back that encompasses his shoulders and arms. Three fingers of a glove he is holding are visible below his left hand.
The dates 1650/1652 generally suggested for the Washington painting seem probable, although as Seymour Slive has cautioned, “[documentary] evidence to establish a firm chronology for the last period of Hals’ life is meager.” Part of the difficulty in dating Hals’ portraits is that he frequently returned to earlier conventions for his poses. He had used the energetic pose of this gentleman, for example, as early as 1625 in his portrait of Jacob Petersz Olycan (Mauritshuis, The Hague). Nevertheless, the style of the costume, the broad brushwork used to articulate it, and the bold silhouette of the figure against the gray background are consistent with other works generally dated to the early 1650s. The features are modeled with broad, bold strokes that have great strength and surety. The closest equivalent among Hals’ paintings is the equally impressive Portrait of a Man (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) that Slive also dates to this same period.
The identity of the sitter is not known, but his fashionable attire and dignified bearing indicate that he was a person of some means. Not unreasonably, the title given to the picture in the nineteenth century was Portrait of a Burgomaster. Quite possibly, although not necessarily, he was part of a pair. Wilhelm Valentiner suggests that the pendant might be the Portrait of a Woman in the Louvre, Paris. Although the dimensions of the Louvre painting are smaller, there is technical evidence that the Portrait of a Gentleman was once on a stretcher whose dimensions were identical to that of the Louvre portrait. Nevertheless, sufficient reasons exist to reject Valentiner’s proposal. Slive rightly argues against it on grounds of date (he dates the woman about 1648–1650 and the Washington portrait about 1650–1652) and composition (the woman is comparatively small in the picture). To these objections, one could also add costume, for the woman’s clothes are unacceptably conservative for a mate to this dashing gentleman.
A number of PentimentiAn alteration made by the artist to an area that was already painted. are visible in the background area around the figure, particularly near the hat, as Hals altered its shape more than once. The hat now has a narrower brim. These alterations are presently visible because the background and, indeed, much of the black jacket and cape are somewhat abraded [see AbrasionA gradual loss of material on the surface. It can be caused by rubbing, wearing, or scraping against itself or another material. It may be a deteriorative process that occurs over time as a result of weathering or handling or it may be due to a deliberate attempt to smooth the material.]. The face and hands, however, are in excellent condition. Damages exist along all four edges of the painting as a result of its having once been placed on a smaller stretcher. At that point the image was about 2.5 centimeters smaller along both sides and the bottom, and 5 centimeters smaller along the top edge. At the time of this reduction a strip may have been cut off the top. During a later restoration the canvas was restored to its present large stretcher and a strip 2.5 centimeters in width was added to the top to provide some space between the hat and the top edge of the painting area.
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.
April 24, 2014
