Object data
oil on canvas
support: height 78 cm × width 62.5 cm × thickness 3.8 cm
outer size: depth 7.3 cm (support incl. frame)
Paulus Moreelse
c. 1623
oil on canvas
support: height 78 cm × width 62.5 cm × thickness 3.8 cm
outer size: depth 7.3 cm (support incl. frame)
The support is a finely woven, plain-weave canvas that has been lined. A strip of canvas has been added at the top. The lack of cusping on the sides and the shallow cusping at the bottom indicate that the painting may have been cut down here. A beige imprimatura was applied over the red ground layer. The paint layers were finely applied with minimal brushmarking and impasto.
Fair. The painting is abraded, especially in the flesh areas. The red lake used for the curtain has discoloured, and the varnish is thick and shiny, with matte patches.
...; ? collection H. Hilleveld Hzn (?-1859), Amsterdam;1...; from Ms J.M. Weigel, fl. 900, to the museum, 18652
Object number: SK-A-277
Copyright: Public domain
Paulus Moreelse (Utrecht c. 1571 - Utrecht 1638)
De Bie was the first author to give Moreelse’s year of birth; the artist’s baptismal record has not come down to us. His father, Jan Jansz Moreelse, was a cooper from Louvain. According to his 17th- and 18th-century biographers, Moreelse studied for two years with Michiel van Mierevelt, probably in Delft, and then spent a long period in Italy, where he received numerous portrait commissions in Rome. None of the paintings executed by Moreelse in Italy are known today. He returned to Utrecht by 1596, when he reportedly joined the saddlers’ guild, to which painters also belonged. In 1602 Moreelse married Antonia van Wintershoven. Because the ceremony took place in the town hall of Utrecht, Moreelse would not have been a member of the Reformed Church at this point. Later, however, he did join that congregation. His first dated painting, a Portrait of a Man is also from 1602.3 In the spring of 1611, Moreelse was elected dean of the saddlers’ guild and in September of the same year he became the first dean of the newly founded Guild of St Luke. He held this post again in 1612, 1615 and 1619. Twenty-eight pupils are recorded as having trained with Moreelse from 1611 on, more than with any other guild member. Together with Abraham Bloemaert, Moreelse was also one of the principal teachers at the drawing academy set up in Utrecht some time after the painters’ guild gained independence. Among Moreelse’s pupils were Dirck van Baburen (1594/95-1624), Pieter Portengen (c. 1612-43) and Jan ter Borch (?-1676). Two of his sons, Johan (after 1602-34) and Benjamin (before 1629-51), also became painters, and one of his daughters is reported to have assisted Moreelse with the execution of a portrait.
Moreelse was chiefly active as a portrait painter. In addition to his many portraits of Utrecht’s leading citizens, he received commissions from court circles, such as the 1621 Portrait of Sophia Hedwig, Countess of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, as Caritas, with her Children.4 Moreelse’s 1616 Officers and Other Civic Guardsmen of the IIIrd District of Amsterdam, under the Command of Captain Jacob Gerritsz Hoyngh and Lieutenant Nanningh Florisz Cloeck (SK-C-623) is the only civic guard piece by a Utrecht painter to have survived. Moreelse also painted histories and genre pieces, and is credited with introducing the single-figure shepherdess into Dutch painting. His activities as an architect include a plan for enlarging Utrecht (executed posthumously in 1663) and the design of the Catherijnepoort (1621-25; destroyed), one of the town gates. After having supported Prince Maurits’s dismissal of Utrecht’s town council in 1618, Moreelse was given a seat on the new town council, which he occupied until his death. He also served as churchwarden of the Buurkerk, headman of the civic guard, an alderman, and chief treasurer of Utrecht. Paulus Moreelse died on 6 March 1638 and was buried in the Buurkerk.
Jonathan Bikker, 2007
References
Van Mander 1604, fol. 280v; De Bie 1661, p. 131; Von Sandrart 1675 (1925), pp. 171, 178; Houbraken I, 1718, p. 49; Hoevenaar 1778, p. 9; Swillens 1926; De Jonge 1938, pp. 1-7, 139-53 (documents); Bok in Utrecht-Braunschweig 1986, pp. 322-25; Bok in Amsterdam 1993, pp. 311-12; Bok in San Francisco etc. 1997, p. 386; Domela Nieuwenhuis 2000; Domela Nieuwenhuis 2001, I, pp. 13-60, 203-50 (documents)
After its purchase in 1865, the present painting was catalogued as ‘Het Prinsesje’ (The little princess) by the museum. The girl’s rather formal pose and demeanour, and her ornate dress with standing batiste collar and gold braid, jewelled rosette and gold chains were surely what led to this nickname. In her 1938 monograph on Moreelse, De Jonge identified her not as a princess but as Countess Elisabeth van Nassau-Dietz (1620-28), the daughter of the Frisian stadholder Ernst Casimir.5 De Jonge’s identification was questioned in the Rijksmuseum’s 1960 collection catalogue and has been rejected by subsequent scholars. The similarities with Wybrand de Geest’s substantiated portrait of Elisabeth van Nassau-Dietz are indeed slight.6 The most persuasive argument against the identification, however, is the dating of Moreelse’s portrait to around 1627-28 which would be necessary to accommodate Elisabeth’s age. Der Kinderen-Besier discusses the sitter’s dress in the context of fashions from around 1620, and both Haak and Ekkart have dated the portrait to around this date.7 Domela Nieuwenhuis prefers a date of around 1623, pointing out that the type of sleeves of the girl’s bodice appear in other portraits by Moreelse from between 1622 and 1625.8 Stylistically, Domela Nieuwenhuis places the portrait between Moreelse’s 1622 Portrait of Gertrud van Aldenbochum and his 1624 Portrait of Armgaert van Dorth.9 While the girl cannot be identified as Countess Elisabeth van Nassau-Dietz, she is not necessarily someone from a courtly milieu either; as ornate as it is, her type of dress appears in bourgeois portraits as well.10
Domela Nieuwenhuis has cast doubt on the attribution of the present painting, claiming that a workshop assistant is responsible for at least the sitter’s collar and the curtain.11 This view cannot be supported. Although the girl’s face is worn, its execution is definitely up to Moreelse’s standard. Abrasion and discoloured glazes have resulted in the less than optimal appearance of the curtain. The execution of the lace cuffs, moreover, is very fine, indicating that the somewhat weak appearance of the standing collar is also the result of abrasion.
Jonathan Bikker, 2007
See Bibliography and Rijksmuseum painting catalogues
See Key to abbreviations and Acknowledgements
This entry was published in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, I: Artists Born between 1570 and 1600, coll. cat. Amsterdam 2007, no. 217.
De Jonge 1938, p. 110, no. 210 (as Portrait of Elisabeth of Nassau-Dietz (1620-28)); Haak in Amsterdam 1962, pp. 3, 14; Ekkart in Haarlem-Antwerp 2000, pp. 127-29, no. 18; Domela Nieuwenhuis 2001, II, pp. 432-34, no. SBP72, with earlier literature
1880, p. 220, no. 242; 1887, p. 116, no. 980; 1903, p. 184, no. 1660; 1934, p. 198, no. 1660; 1960, p. 214, no. 1660; 1976, pp. 397-98, no. A 277 (as Portrait of a Girl, thought to Be Elisabeth (1620-28), Countess of Nassau-Dietz); 2007, no. 217
J. Bikker, 2007, 'Paulus Moreelse, Portrait of a Girl, known as ‘The Little Princess’, c. 1623', in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.4642
(accessed 10 November 2024 06:13:14).