Portrait of a Man, possibly Pieter Gerritsz Bicker (1497-1567)

Entry

The reception history of this portrait and its pendant, SK-A-3519 or fig. d, reflects the general underestimation of Maarten van Heemskerck’s work until relatively recently. When Martin and Moes published the portraits for the first time in 1912 they attributed them to Jan van Scorel, arguing that no other artist could have portrayed two people so well in the year 1529.²¹ As early as 1914, Beets suggested an attribution to Heemskerck, mainly on the basis of the stylistic similarities to his 1532 Virgin in St Luke Painting the Virgin.²² Most scholars remained reluctant to accept the Haarlem master as the creator of the Amsterdam paintings. It was not until De Jonge’s convincing article of 1932 that nearly all the specialists agreed with the attribution to Heemskerck,²³ but it was only after Bruyn’s 1955 contribution to the debate that it ceased to be a point of discussion.²⁴

These portraits belong to the earliest known works by Heemskerck, and are an astonishing example of his abilities in his early career, which exacerbates the frustration that we have no substantial knowledge of his training. The portraits also stand out within their period, as it was not common at the time to depict sitters amidst their daily activities in such a defined domestic interior.²⁵

The man, who is looking at the beholder, is seated at a table and is in the process of handling his financial administration. According to the carved scroll on the bottom of the frame he is 34 years old. Judging from the word ‘betaelt’ (paid to) in his account book, he is paying his debts.²⁶ Among his sand shaker, inkpot and other objects scattered on the table lies his personal seal with the device of an anchor. On the wall behind him hangs a prominent mirror, in which the man’s face is, curiously, shown in profile. It is likely that the mirror is a symbol for prudence.²⁷ The composition of this portrait is reminiscent of Jan Gossart’s Portrait of a Merchant dated c. 1530 in the National Gallery of Art in Washington,²⁸ but it resembles Portrait of a 42-year-old Man formerly in the Furst zu Wied Collection in Schloss Waldheim even more strongly.²⁹ It is unclear how these paintings connect to Heemskerck’s Amsterdam Portrait of a Man, although the Waldheim picture is probably not by Heemskerck,³⁰ and it seems likely that it was painted after the Amsterdam portrait.³¹

The woman is seated behind her spinning-wheel. According to the carved scroll on the bottom of the frame she is 26 years old. Unlike the man, she is not looking at the beholder but gazing at a point in the distance. The little basket on the wall is probably holding the balls of yarn already spun.³² Bruyn has pointed out the symbolism of the spinning-wheel, which must have been clear to the contemporary viewer. Spinning was a well-known symbol of the virtuous woman, as stated in Proverbs 31:13 and 19, a widely referenced and illustrated text at the time.³³ It is possible that Heemskerck’s pictorial source was a print dated around 1520, probably from the circle of Lucas van Leyden, depicting a spinning woman (fig. a).³⁴ It seems that Heemskerck used the Amsterdam portrait as the model for his larger Portrait of a Spinning Woman in the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza in Madrid, dated around 1530 (fig. b).³⁵ It is unclear what the function is of the golden letters AEN, which are embroidered on the distaff in the Rijksmuseum and the Madrid paintings.³⁶

Thus, as a pair, the portraits reveal the sitters in the roles inherent to their gender: the honest, working (i.e. active) man and the pious, calm (i.e. passive) woman. As Bruyn has noted, this is accentuated by the different depictions of the space surrounding them: the wall behind the man runs diagonally to the picture plane as opposed to parallel in the woman’s portrait.³⁷ Considering that the plinth behind the man is more elaborately decorated than in the companion piece, it seems that Heemskerck emphasised that both persons are sitting in different rooms and thus in their ‘own domains’. Interestingly, the woman is seated on the right side of her partner, a heraldic position that was usually reserved for the man. This could mean that the couple were betrothed but not yet married,³⁸ though it might also be that the woman had a higher position in society.³⁹

On the basis of the age of the sitters, Martin and Moes identified the man and woman as the Amsterdam mint master Pieter Gerritsz Bicker (1497-1567) and his wife Anna Codde (1504-?), ancestors of the mother of Baron Schmimmelpenninck van der Oye, in whose collection the portraits were until 1931.⁴⁰ Various inconsistencies led to this identification being rejected for the first time in the 1976 Rijksmuseum collection catalogue. The birth dates of the Amsterdam couple, for instance, do not quite match the ages on the frames, and there is little resemblance between the pendant portraits and the anonymous 1560 portraits of Pieter Bicker and Anna Codde in the Amsterdams Historisch Museum.⁴¹ The differences between the birth dates and the ages stated on the frames are slight, however, and similar discrepancies are encountered in other portraits from the period. In 1986, Bruyn rightly urged caution when comparing the sitters with those in the later pendant pair, given the time span between 1529 and 1560.⁴² In 1987, Harrison pointed out that Pieter Bicker’s personal seal did not contain an anchor, nor does his coat of arms in the 1560 painting.⁴³ It might, however, also be possible that the anchor is meant to be interpreted symbolically. In view of these factors, it seems that until a convincing new identification is proposed the traditional one cannot be dismissed entirely.

Infrared reflectography did not reveal traces of any underdrawing in either of the pendant portraits. Nonetheless, with the naked eye it is possible to see traces in the flesh tones of what seems to be an underdrawing in black brush. In the man’s face, the black line on his forehead might indicate that Heemskerck had initially intended the hairline to be lower.

Some significant changes took place in the woman’s head during the painting process. X-ray photographs reveal that a larger version of her cap and head exists under the present composition (fig. c). Traces of paint above the cap, visible to the naked eye, reveal that a different kind of headdress was indeed executed. The initial, larger one seems to have fallen on the woman’s back, much like the one in the print from Lucas van Leyden’s circle (fig. a). Indeed, the long, white slips of the woman’s cap in the Rijksmuseum painting seem to have been unplanned, later additions. The position of the woman’s original cap together with traces of an underdrawing or paint layer near the woman’s eyes, on her nose and to the left of her cap, all visible to the naked eye, reveal that Heemskerck had also initially intended the woman’s head to be tilted slightly more towards the right. This suggests that he had intended his sitter to be looking at her distaff. Interestingly, the spinning-wheel was not reserved, but overlaps the woman’s clothing. Considering the very specific position of the woman’s left hand, it does seem that Heemskerck had intended to include the spinning-wheel from the beginning. It is interesting to note that he also changed the position of the Virgin’s head in his 1532 St Luke Painting the Virgin in the Frans Hals Museum. In that painting, though, the adjustment was more radical.⁴⁴

(Ilona van Tuinen)