• 1 M. Bassens, in Borchert and Jonckheere 2015, p. 142-143, no. 26.

1This Portrait of a man holding gloves by the Master of the 1540s has survived after a rather intriguing history. Published in 2015 by Maarten Bassens in the catalogue of the exhibition Renaissance-portretten uit de Lage Landen at BOZAR in Brussels, not much was known about its provenance and even less about its physical history.1 Although not every gap has been closed yet, it is time to publish the various findings I was able to dig up in the last three years.

• 2 Martin 1907, p. VI, 61-62, no. 98.
• 3 Antwerp, Maagdenhuismuseum, inv. 127-128. Both portraits remained on loan to the Antwerp Royal Muse (...)

2The portrait [fig. 1] was first described in 1907 by Wilhelm Martin (1876-1954) – the director of the Mauritshuis in The Hague between 1909 and 1945 – in the catalogue of the paintings owned by the Prague collector Gustav Ritter Hoschek von Mühlheim (c. 1847-1907).2 Although Hoschek was primarily interested in Dutch 17^th Century paintings – 96 pictures from the 142 in his collection were from the Dutch Golden Age – he had a few earlier Netherlandish pictures from the 15^th and 16^th Centuries, among them this portrait, which Martin attributed to the young Pieter Pourbus, based upon the attribution at the time of two pendant portraits in Antwerp [fig. 2-3].3

• 4 I was able to study the portrait in detail on 25 March 2022 in the Snyders & Rockoxhuis in Antwerp (...)

3Although Martin did not provide any information on the portrait’s provenance, he indicated that a label was attached to the back of the panel with the text “Portrait of Pomarania by Holbein”. Apparently, the portrait was regarded as by Hans Holbein the Younger before Hoschek had acquired it and given the language on that label it most likely had a British provenance. The word Pomarania is a reference to the sitter, who was thought to have come from the southern shores of the Baltic, roughly between Lübeck in the west and Gdańsk in the east. Unfortunately, this label must have been lost, since it is not attached to the back anymore [fig. 4].4

• 5 Sale Helbing, Munich, 24 February 1902 (Lugt 59831), where 179 paintings, drawings and watercolours (...)
• 6 On this interesting, but complicated case, see Radványi 2006, p. 69-70, 177, 236, no. 60; Slavíček (...)
• 7 Sale Prague, 9 December 1908 (not in Lugt); Sale Kunstsalon G. Pisko, Vienna, 24 March 1909 (Lugt 6 (...)
• 8 Most of these purchases were Dutch 17^th-Century paintings, among them Johannes Verspronck’s Portrai (...)
• 9 Both photographs are at the RKD in The Hague and refer to the ownership of the portrait by Goudstik (...)

4Already during his lifetime Hoschek had sold many of the paintings from his collection, possibly to increase its quality, but more likely because he had financial burdens.5 After Hoschek passed away, the collection was offered in December 1907 to the Szépmüvészeti Múzeum in Budapest, by a lawyer named Maximilian Melnik. However, since the collection was loaded with debts, it was decided that the most important pictures, the Portrait of a man holding gloves among them, would go to the main creditor, being the Goudstikker gallery in Amsterdam, led at the time by Eduard Jacques Goudstikker (1866-1924), the father of the better known Jacques Goudstikker (1897-1940).6 What remained would be auctioned in Prague and Vienna.7 The Budapest museum would acquire no fewer than 17 pictures from the Goudstikker Gallery, but not the portrait by the Master of the 1540s, which would remain with the Amsterdam art dealer.8 This is confirmed by the oldest known photographs of the portrait that clearly point to the picture’s whereabouts shortly after 1907 [fig. 5].9

• 10 According to a note in Friedländer’s handwriting on the back of a photograph at the Friedländer-arc (...)

5Later it must have been purchased from the Goudstikker gallery by the well-known collector Gustav Robert Paalen (1873-1945), as was indicated in a note by Max J. Friedländer [fig. 6].10

• 11 He was the father of the well-known surrealist painter, sculptor and art theorist Wolfgang Paalen ( (...)
• 12 National Gallery of Art, Washington DC, acc. 1937.1.88. On Paalen and his role on the acquisition o (...)

6Paalen was a wealthy Austrian-Jewish merchant and inventor, who had converted to Protestantism in 1900, changed his name from Pollak, married the German actress Clothilde Emilie Gunkel (1879-1942) and managed to ascend into the distinguished Viennese upper-class of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.11 In 1912 the Paalen family moved to Berlin and Gustav Paalen continued to build a collection of old master paintings, became a member of the ‘Freundeskreis des Kaiser Friedrich-Museums’ and befriended Wilhelm von Bode and James Simon, from whom he would purchase Goya’s famous Portrait of Señora Sabasa Garcia, now in Washington.12 The Paalen family lived in Berlin and at the Rochusburg in Sagan, or Żagań, as it is called today, in Silesia.

• 13 Although Paalen is not listed as consignor for this sale, Friedländer’s notes (see note 10) and the (...)
• 14 Annotated copy of the sale catalogue, RKD, The Hague. In addition, see Kunstchronik und Kunstmarkt (...)
• 15 At the time the auction took place Wendland had just returned from Moscow where he had been active (...)

7When the family moved to Rome in 1919, a large part of the inventory of the Rochusburg, including many paintings, was sold at auction with Rudolph Lepke in Berlin, on November 25-26, 1919.13 Our portrait was auctioned as lot 41, as by Frans Pourbus the Elder, Bust portrait of a man dressed as a minister. The illustration in the catalogue makes clear this was indeed the same picture Martin had published twelve years earlier in the catalogue of the Hoschek Collection and was with Goudstikker afterwards [see fig. 5]. At auction, the portrait was purchased by the art dealer Hans Wendland, for the huge sum of 130.000 Mark [fig. 7].14 Dr. Hans Otto Carl Wendland (1880-c. 1965) was a German art agent with a very doubtful reputation.15 Since Wendland did not own a gallery himself, he often, but not always, cooperated with other art dealers.

• 16 As is stated in the 2008 auction catalogue of Christie’s London (see below, in text, following note (...)
• 17 A fragmented piece of paper on the back of the painting, which appears to be a German customs label (...)
• 18 I am very grateful to Sarah Done, Director of Restitution at Christie’s, for disclosing this inform (...)

8According to Christie’s, between 1919 and 1927 the portrait was owned by a certain Arthur V. Hansa from Charlottenburg, Berlin.16 This must have been Arthur Viktor Hansa (1880-1959) from New York. Hansa was originally from Berlin, but emigrated at a young age to New York, although he would travel regularly between the US and Europe.17 Hansa was not a well-known collector of old master paintings and his name does not appear anywhere else in the documentation of the portrait. It is not even known when he purchased the portrait and from whom. He was, however, most certainly the consignor for this portrait when it would appear at auction with Christie’s in London, on 18 November 1927.18

• 19 As is stated in Martin 1907.
• 20 Ring 1913. On the close relationship between Friedländer and Grete Ring, who was a niece of the imp (...)

9There it was sold as lot 124, as – once again – Pieter Pourbus, for 252 guineas to the London art gallery J. Leger & Son [fig. 8], apparently with a letter of expertise by Max Friedländer, who was already acquainted with the portrait when it was still with Hoschek in Prague.19 In 1927, Friedländer still thought the portrait might be an early work by Pieter Pourbus, no doubt influenced by the opinion of his protégé Grete Ring (1887-1952), who had published several of the portraits from the same hand as such in 1913, although the present portrait was, curiously enough, not among her list of paintings.20

• 21 According to the documentation of the gallery itself [http://heinemann.gnm.de/de/kunstwerk-43174.ht (...)

10On 8 December 1928 the portrait was offered for sale to the Munich Gallery Heinemann for £1000,- by Maurice Denhof, a Paris-based dealer Leger made use of as an intermediate [fig. 9].21

• 22 „Das Bild, dessen Photo ich hierbei zurücksende, ist / ein charakteristisches u[nd] gutes Werk von (...)

11Two days later, the gallery informed Max Friedländer of the offer and asked him for advice. The Berlin connoisseur gave his blessing and informed the gallery on the attribution to the Master of the 1540s [fig. 10].22

• 23 [http://heinemann.gnm.de/de/dokument-32067.htm] [Accessed 29 October 2022]. The post can be found o (...)
• 24 Curiously, there is only one index card for the portrait, one that is part of the index of pictures (...)
• 25 As is noted on the back of a photograph at the RKD in The Hague (no. 0000028931): “D. Heinemann Mün (...)
• 26 Friedländer 1936, p. 163, no. 260, with the reference “München, Kunsthandel (Heinemann 1935)”.

12The Munich gallery would indeed purchase the portrait a few weeks later, on 18 January 1929, for £600, clearly less than the original price it was offered for.23 The gallery number mentioned in their cashbook, 18740, is still attached to the back of the panel [see fig. 4].24 The purchase was confirmed by Friedländer as well.25 Six years later, the portrait was apparently still with the Heinemann Gallery, at least according to Friedländer, who would publish the portrait in 1936 under the said attribution to the Master of the 1540s.26

• 27 Sale Habsburg Feldman, New York, May 30, 1990, lot 6.

13The provenance history of the portrait between 1935 and 1990, when it would reappear in a New York sale, is still shrouded in fog. According to the 1990 sales catalogue – and those of later auctions in 1991 and 2008 – the picture’s last known provenance was a private collection in Germany, without any reference given.27 It is therefore important to focus our attention on the last known owner in 1935, the Heinemann Gallery in Munich.

• 28 On Schacht and the Heinemann gallery, Kopper 2006, p. 289-291.
• 29 Jooss 2012; Heuß 2012; Jooss 2019.

15Fritz Heinemann was able to emigrate to Switzerland in January 1938, leaving his share of the gallery’s ownership to one of its employees, Friedrich Heinrich Zinckgraf (1878-1954). His mother would stay behind in Munich and was taken into custody by the Gestapo, at Stadelheim Prison in November 1938. She was forced to sell both the gallery and its stock to Zinckgraf for an extremely low price, to be able to buy her ticket out of Nazi-Germany. Zinckgraf himself did not have access to the necessary capital, but he was aided to a credit of 275.000 Reichsmark by the former Minister of Economic Affairs in Nazi-Germany between 1934 and 1937 and President of the Reichsbank, Hjalmar Schacht (1877-1970).28 This way, Schacht would become a silent partner in the gallery, which would make huge profits in the years to come. Fritz Heinemann returned to Munich in 1946 and donated the gallery’s archive – that had partly survived the war – in 1972 to the Deutsches Kunstarchiv in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg. This archive was digitized and placed on line in 2010, followed by several publications.29

• 30 According to Dr. Anja Heuß, the painting cannot be found in the lists of sold pictures that Zinckgr (...)
• 31 After Zinckgraf’s death, the stock of the gallery was auctioned in Munich (Freiwillige Nachlaß-Vers (...)

16What happened to the Portrait of a man holding gloves by the Master of the 1540s? Did it remain in the gallery until after 1938 and was it part of the aryanized stock of the Heinemann Gallery and therefore fell to Zinckgraf, or was it sold beforehand? Unfortunately, the gallery’s stock ledgers of the traded pictures survived incomplete, those after 1924 are lost, whereas the absence of any mention of the portrait in the index cards of the traded paintings or pictures that remained in stock may be due to incomplete survival as well.30 The painting must have left the gallery sometime between 1935 and 1954, or possibly ended up with one of the three remaining shareholders of the gallery, the brothers Paul and Fritz Heinemann, and Hjalmar Schacht, after Zinckgraf had passed away on 7 June 1954.31

• 32 According to a handwritten note - “opg [opgehouden] 28.000” – in an annotated copy at the library o (...)
• 33 Sale Hugo Ruef, Munich, June 26-28, 1991, lot 1178. The lot is not mentioned in the so-called ‘Erge (...)

17As stated above, the Portrait of a man holding gloves by the Master of the 1540s would reappear in a New York sale of Habsburg Feldman, on May 30, 1990. The portrait was probably bought in,32 since it was put up for auction again one year later, this time with Ruef in Munich, where it was bought in once again.33 It is likely the portrait was actually sold privately after the sale, because it would take another 17 years to resurface, this time with Christie’s in London, on April 25, 2008, as lot 33. Again, the picture was bought in, but then acquired by a private collector, with whom it remains to the present day.

• 34 Two reports were made. The first is dated November 2022, and is the work of Livia Depuydt and Franz (...)

18Recently the painting was subjected to a technical examination at KIK-IRPA in Brussels, focusing on the condition of the oak support and the paint surface, the materials that were used, as well as examination of the underdrawing, using X-radiography, UV fluorescence and microscopy, infrared photography and infrared reflectography (IRR), as well as macro X-ray fluorescence (MA-XRF).34 When the painting is studied in detail, it becomes obvious that it suffered from several overzealous restorations in the past. The loss of glazes is especially visible in the sitter’s face [fig. 11], whereas the decorative pattern of his wonderful black tunic seems to have known better days [fig. 1].

• 35 The present size of the oak panel is 63,5 × 46,6 cm.

20As described in the KIK-IRPA reports and visible in the X-radiograph, infrared reflectography and MA-XRF scans, the wooden support has been subject to several changes. Sometime before 1907 the upper part of the panel was removed completely, in all likelihood because insects had been active in starting to demolish the oak support. The removed upper part was replaced by a single board of eight centimetres tall, whereas a much thinner strip at the bottom was replaced by a new strip of a single centimetre.35 Whereas the bottom strip would remain unpainted, the upper additional board was painted in completely. Unfortunately, any inscriptions, which were most likely part of the original portrait – as in virtually all portraits by the Master of the 1540s [see fig. 2-3, 23, 30, 37-40] – were not copied onto the newly added board.

• 36 The portrait was advertised in the Burlington Magazine, July 1928, p. 28. The sitter’s headdress ha (...)
• 37 Edinburgh, Scottish National Portrait Gallery/National Galleries of Scotland, acc. PG 580. Other ma (...)

26As follows from the picture’s condition shortly before and during the 1927 sale [fig. 18] and its appearance in the Burlington Magazine, in July 1928 [fig. 22], the portrait underwent another make-over in the first half of 1928.36 The most striking change – and there are quite a few – can be seen in the headdress [fig. 21]. The earlier images of the painting show a very flat black beret, a type that possibly could identify the sitter as a Jewish man from the Polish Baltic region [fig. 19-20], as was suggested by the old label that used to be at the back of the picture (see above). Between the end of 1927 and the summer of 1928 the top of this beret was completely altered into its present and more fashionable-looking shape, as can be seen best when two photographs from shortly before and after the restoration are compared [fig. 20 and 21]. This altered beret is exceptionally close to the headdress of Gilbert van Schoonbeke in Antwerp [fig. 2] or for that matter that of the 30-year-old man from 1543 in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh [fig. 23].37 It is not unlikely that in 1927-28 the responsible conservator became aware of the fact that the upper board was a later addition and he or she may have seen traces of the original headdress near the ridge of the two original boards and changed its shape accordingly. In addition, the face of the sitter was cleaned, all these single added hairs from the previous treatment removed and the beard, moustache and hair repainted [compare fig. 20 and 21]. The eyes were worked up, making them less transparent and darker, changing the position of the pupils of both eyes slightly and the reflections in the eyes even more, which would give the face of the sitter a different, more rigid, outlook [fig. 24-25]. Another remarkable change was the removal of the cords of his chemise, which were simply overpainted [compare fig. 18 and 22].

• 38 The portrait was documented by Sophie De Potter in November 2022 with the aid of the KIK-IRPA’s Apo (...)

28As stated above, the portrait was recently examined and documented with infrared reflectography [fig. 17].38 The outcome of the examination was quite remarkable, in more ways than one. First and foremost the IRR mosaic gives a very clear impression – better even than the UV image – of the original and non-original parts of the painting. A second remarkable aspect is the complete absence of any visible – black – underdrawing in the face of the sitter [fig. 26].

• 39 On the underdrawing of the Cambridge portrait, see Spronk 1997.
• 40 Wallraf-Richartz-Museum & Fondation Corboud, Cologne, inv. 485. On the examination of that portrait (...)

29Since no underdrawing could be detected with the naked eye either [fig. 11] – although the paint layers appear to be rather thin – this could effectively mean that the artist did not make use of any underdrawing for the preparation of the face, which would be a remarkable outcome. All other examined portraits by the Master of the 1540s present us with a very clear underdrawing in a dry black medium, not only for the contours of the face and its features, but for the prepared hatching zones for the areas that were meant to be in the shade as well, as is visible in the underdrawn face of the 1541 painted portrait in Cambridge [fig. 27],39 or for that matter in the underdrawn face of the 25-year-old woman in Cologne from 1544 [fig. 28].40

• 41 For a reconstruction of the initial position of the hands, see the report by KIK-IRPA of December 2 (...)

31It seems that the first set-up showed the two hands clasped together, not unlike the hands of the 26-year-old woman, formerly in the Von Pannwitz-collection [fig. 30-31], albeit with the proper left hand clasped around the right, since the lines for the fingers of the left hand seem to cut off those of the right hand. In addition, it looks like a ring was planned for the sitter’s right ring finger.41

• 42 The X-radiograph was produced by Catherine Fondaire at KIK-IRPA in November 2022, using the equipme (...)

32This first lay-out was limited to the underdrawing stage; it was not followed in paint, as is clear from the X-radiograph [fig. 32].42

• 43 The infrared reflectograms of the Sydney portrait were collected on an Osiris Infrared 52 mm lens C (...)

33Such a dramatic compositional change of interacting hands is not typical for this painter, although he hardly ever kept very strictly to the first lay-out in the underdrawing phase, as various other examples indicate, like the hands of the 49-year-old man in Turin [fig. 13], or those of the 22-year-old lady in Sydney, whose underdrawn clasped hands are evidentially smaller than the painted ones, whereas the position of the proper left thumb was changed during the painting stage [fig. 33-34].43

• 44 As is presented on a scheme on p. 29 of the report. The UV image [fig. 16] gives a good indication, (...)

34Examination of the painted surface and an analysis of the artist’s painting technique is made more difficult due to the condition of the paint surface. The original surface has been abraded and there are many retouchings and much overpainting from various restoration stages, as is clearly indicated in the first report by KIK-IRPA.44 Parts of the face and especially the proper right hand of the portrayed allow for a closer examination, though. The Master of the 1540s had a very peculiar painting technique with regard to modelling the face and applying the flesh colours. He made use of thin glazes of various shades of pink and avoided any hard contours, creating a very personal, velvet-like sfumato effect. Especially interesting is his brush technique for areas between light and dark, as can still be witnessed in the sitter’s proper left eyebrow, where the thin wet greyish paint has been spread with a broad brush [fig. 35].

• 45 For a detailed overview of the used equipment and the results, see the report by Steven Saverwyns.

36The additional report by Steven Saverwyns with the results of the MA-XRF scanning of the painting, clearly adds to the built-up knowledge on the specific materials and likely pigments that were used in the original painting, the added boards on top, left and right, as well as the retouching. It can be concluded that the pigments that were used in the original central part of the painting are in line with what can be expected from a mid-16^th-Century painting, whereas the materials that were used for the added boards clearly differ and indicate that the addition on top most likely dates from the second half of the 19^th century (as was discussed above, the thinner strips to the right and left were added at a later stage, between 1907 and 1919).45

• 46 Jonckheere 2011, p. 67, 239, fig. 6; M. Bassens, in Borchert and Jonckheere 2015, p. 142-143, no. 2 (...)

37Since Wilhelm Martin’s publication in 1907, the Portrait of a man wearing gloves has always been regarded as by the same hand as others from the core group, notably the two pendants in Turin, dated 1542 [fig. 37-38], the portraits of Gilbert van Schoonbeke and his wife Elisabeth Hendricx of 1544 in Antwerp [fig. 2-3], or for that matter the Portrait of a 25-year old woman in Cologne from the same year [fig. 39]. Other art historians, first and foremost Max Friedländer, and more recently Koenraad Jonckheere and Maarten Bassens, have confirmed that view.46 Both stylistically and typologically the portrait comes closest to those from the period 1542-45, like the 1542 dated Portrait of a 49-year old man in Turin [fig. 37], the Portrait of a 30-year old man in Edinburgh, painted 1543 [fig. 23] and of course the 1544 dated Portrait of Gilbert van Schoonbeke in Antwerp [fig. 2]. Especially the Edinburgh portrait, although in a rather poor state of conservation, is very close both in presentation and in outlook.

• 47 It is truly a shame that the fingers of the sitter’s proper left hand have been cut after the lower (...)
• 48 On that portrait Friedländer 1936, p. 163, no. 259, plate XLVIII. After ‘Kristallnacht’, the night (...)

39The same is true for many other stylistic characteristics, such as the wonderfully shaped hands and fingers with their cone-shaped nails, a true trademark of the painter [fig. 12, 36].47 Comparable hands, fingers and nails are found in all his other portraits, not only in the Turin portrait that was used for comparison earlier [fig. 13]. Although the paint surface is somewhat abraded, the well-shaped ear [fig. 42] has been painted in a similar way as those in the Antwerp and Edinburgh portraits [fig. 2, 23], whereas the ear of the unidentified male that used to be in the collection of Edith Weinberger in Munich, is especially close in shape and painting technique [fig. 42-43].48

• 49 Dendrochronological analysis might provide useful information on the terminus post quem of this por (...)
• 50 The only portrait dated in 1547, that of a 28-year-old man, was last seen in 1936, when Gallery P. (...)

40Style, type and painting technique do indeed confirm the attribution of this portrait to the Master of the 1540s, since it coincides with several of his other portraits, in particular those that are dated between 1542 and 1545.49 His later portraits, one dated 1547 and two from the 1550s, deviate from his earlier portraits in their quality of execution, as far as can be judged.50

• 51 Spronk 1996, p. 31; Spronk 1997, p. 200-201. On the Cambridge portrait, see above, notes 37 and 39, (...)

41As has become clear, no underdrawing could be detected underneath the painted face of the sitter, not with the naked eye, nor with the aid of infrared reflectography. As Ron Spronk already discussed with regard to the 1541 dated male portrait in the collection of the Harvard University Art Museums, the artist most likely prepared a detailed drawing of the face on paper first, which was then used alongside the underdrawing on the prepared panel as a guideline for the painted portrait.51 Whether this portrait drawing had washes, as Spronk suggested, cannot be determined, since no drawings that can be connected to the painted portraits have sprung to light. Spronk’s only argument that the rather precise zones of hatching in the various underdrawn faces should be regarded as linear translations of the washes in the portrait drawings, is certainly interesting, but at the same time speculative.

• 52 Van den Brink 2021.

42It is, however, more than likely that the Master of the 1540s made use of preliminary, lifelike portrait drawings. I believe that most portrait painters in the 15^th and 16^th centuries made use of detailed facial studies on paper. These were in fact a practical necessity to create a good likeness of the sitter and client, since the process of painting a portrait would take much longer than the short session that was needed to create a highly detailed portrait drawing, as we know full well from the practice Albrecht Dürer described in the journal he kept when he stayed in the Netherlands in 1520-21.52

• 53 On that famous portrait drawing in the print room of the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen in Dresden (inv (...)
• 54 On these annotations, Dierick 2000; T. Ketelsen, in Ketelsen and Neidhardt 2005, p. 62-63, 66, fig. (...)
• 55 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. 49.38. On that drawing and its identification, Märtl 201 (...)

44The earliest surviving preparatory portrait drawings in the North were done in silverpoint on grounded paper, such as Jan van Eyck’s Portrait of an old man, traditionally identified as Cardinal Niccolò Albergati, in Dresden, which was used for the painted portrait in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.53 That extremely precise portrait drawing is filled with original annotations, most of these indications of colour and tone of specific parts of the face, such as the skin, hair and the eyes that were meant as an aide mémoire for the artist when he would produce the painted portrait a few years later.54 Because it allowed the draughtsman to be extremely precise, metal points were used by several other portraitists as well, such as Jean Perréal or Jean Fouquet, as is clear from the latter’s Portrait of Alain de Coëtivy of c. 1451-55 in New York.55

• 56 On these two portrait drawings and the painted portraits, C. Müller and J. Sander, in Müller 2006, (...)

45This technique remained popular for portraits until the third decade of the 16^th Century, as is clear from silverpoint drawings by Gerard David and Albrecht Dürer, or for that matter Ambrosius Holbein and especially his brother Hans Holbein the Younger, who made use of this difficult technique for his earliest portrait drawings, such as those of Jacob Meyer zum Hasen, the Mayor of Basel, and his wife Dorothea Kannengieser, produced as models for their painted portraits of 1516.56 Following in Van Eyck’s footsteps, Holbein added written annotations on the male portrait drawing for colours that needed to be used for the final painting.

• 57 Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, KdZ 5578. On that drawing, Dietz and Korbacher 20 (...)
• 58 For another drawing attributed to Fouquet in a comparable, but not identical, technique in the Herm (...)
• 59 Jean Clouet, Portrait of an unknown man, formerly identified as Guillaume de Saulx, Sieur de Tavann (...)

46The 15^th Century saw the birth of an altogether different technique for preparatory portrait drawings that would remain popular even longer: the coloured drawing. The earliest portrait drawings in colour stem from Jean Fouquet and his best known example is the Portrait of Guillaume Jouvenel des Ursins in Berlin.57 That drawing was executed in a mixed technique of black, red, white and ochre-coloured chalk, heightened with brush in pink on grey grounded paper.58 This technique enabled the portrait painter to prepare for the painted portrait in an altogether different way, using actual colour instead of annotations. Half a century later this type of portrait drawing was lifted to a new level by Jean Clouet and especially Hans Holbein the Younger and fortunately there are dozens of their portrait drawings to corroborate this. The portrait drawings by Jean Clouet, and in his footsteps his son François, were all created in a similar technique, black chalk, with additional red chalk for the flesh colours and the occasional beard [fig. 44].59

• 60 Ainsworth 1990; Foister 1995, p. 21-26; Buck 2003, p. 28.

47Holbein, who no doubt learned about this technique when he travelled in France in 1524, developed a much wider variety of drawings in colour than father and son Clouet ever would. For the many portraits Holbein painted for his clients at the English Royal court, he would produce preparatory drawings in various types of chalk, black, white, red and even yellow, creating very lifelike portraits on paper that were sometimes used as cartoons for transfer.60

• 61 Hans Holbein the Younger, Portrait of an unknown young lady in Netherlandish dress, c. 1526, red, b (...)

48One of his most stunning portrait drawings shows a young lady, dressed in a Netherlandish costume, probably produced when Holbein remained in Antwerp in the Fall of 1526, before heading for England for the first time [fig. 45].61

• 62 On Lucas van Leyden’s portrait drawings from his 1521 stay in Antwerp, Kloek 2011, p. 160-163, and (...)

51Unfortunately, hardly any portrait drawings by Netherlandish artists from the first decades of the sixteenth century withstood the ravages of time, Lucas van Leyden being the notable exception. Following in Dürer’s footsteps he made several portrait drawings in Antwerp in 1521, of which six survive, although these were most likely autonomous drawings.62 Systematic research on Netherlandish portrait drawings from the first half of the 16^th Century in print rooms and private collections in Europe and the United States would most certainly be useful, since I am convinced that several of these drawings are still waiting to be discovered.

• 63 Willem Key, Portrait of a bearded man, c. 1543, black and red chalk, 217 × 166 mm, Staatliche Musee (...)
• 64 As Jonckheere has indicated, the inscription and date – 1556 – on the drawing in pen and brown ink (...)

52Only a few Netherlandish portrait drawings from the 1530s and 1540s have come to light, although it is uncertain whether these were meant to prepare for painted portraits. There is one interesting exception, though. A drawing in black and red chalk by Willem Key in the Berlin print room, showing the Portrait of a bearded man [fig. 46], is no doubt the preparatory model for the artist’s earliest painted portrait of a 59-year-old man, dated 1543 [fig. 47].63 Done in a similar technique as drawings by Clouet and Holbein, and firmly placed and dateable in Antwerp, 1543, the drawing at least gives us an indication of the type of preliminary portrait drawing the Master of the 1540s might have made.64

• 65 British Museum, London (inv. 1895,0915.995). Benesch 1929, p. 213, fig. 6; Horn 1989, vol. 1, p. 37 (...)
• 66 Another portrait drawing of a young woman in the British Museum (inv. 1933,0801.1), likewise in red (...)

53Another interesting example is a red chalk drawing in the British Museum, showing a Portrait of a young woman [fig. 48]. Traditionally given to Jan van Scorel, Hendrik J. Horn published it as by Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, following an earlier attribution by Otto Benesch.65 It is rather difficult to confirm an attribution to either artist, although it is certainly not impossible. It could be a potential attribution to the Master of the 1540s, too, for that matter. However, more important here is the question whether one of these two examples might have been the type of portrait drawing the Master of the 1540s would produce as a guiding model for a portrait painting. I do think both types might function quite well. Apart from the high quality of execution and life-like appearance, the faces have been carefully modelled, using the drawing tool convincingly to produce different gradations of shade. And indeed, red chalk is a no less effective technique for creating shadow areas than washes would be. It would therefore be important to find more comparable portrait drawings like these two drawings in London and Berlin.66

• 67 I am very grateful to Cécile Scailliérez for pointing out these drawings to me and to Nathalie Stra (...)
• 68 Strasser 2013, p. 36-39, no. 8. The size of the sheet, consisting of two reattached irregular piece (...)
• 69 Ibidem.

54Finally, there is this most fascinating work on paper that is in need of some thorough discussion, a sheet with two portrait drawings on its recto and verso and that is at present in the collection of Jean Bonna in Geneva [fig. 49-50].67 Cécile Scailliérez attributed these two portrait drawings to Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen and they were published as such by Nathalie Strasser.68 The two portraits present two different men, one older and a much younger one. Their facial features are close enough to suspect they could be related, as Strasser suggested.69

• 70 The earlier Self Portrait is part of the collection of Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid, i (...)

56The different stages of preparation of the two portraits might suggest these were studies by a young artist, a training session so to speak, and not necessarily preparatory drawings for two painted portraits, although that possibility cannot be ruled out entirely. Possibly the drawing on the recto may have been a self-portrait, whereas the older man might be a portrait of the young draughtsman’s father. Of course it would be tempting to see the features of Joos and Cornelis van Cleve in these two portraits and although there is some general resemblance between the features of the older man and some of the painted self portraits Joos van Cleve has left us, especially with his hair and strong nose, as follows from his earlier Self Portrait that can be dated to c. 1519 in Madrid [fig. 51], his last known portrait from the mid- to late 1530s in the Royal Collection [fig. 52], seems to depict another character.70

• 71 John & Mable Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota, Florida, acc. 713. On that drawing, Horn 1989, vol.  (...)

57There are certainly parallels between the two drawings and some of the portrait drawings that have been attributed to Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, especially the drawing in red chalk in Sarasota, but that portrait drawing more or less stands alone in the artist’s oeuvre, as Horn clearly stated.71 Nevertheless the hatching system that was used to define the face of the sitter is fairly close to that of the elder sitter on the Bonna drawing.

• 72 Max Friedländer’s attribution of various devotional pictures and altarpieces to Cornelis van Cleve, (...)
• 73 Friedländer 1936, p. 84, 87; Jonckheere 2011, p. 27, 30, 31.
• 74 On Cornelis van Cleve’s life, see Van de Velde 1996; Hand 2004, p. 6-7; Leeflang and Hand 2011, p.  (...)

60As I suggested in a previous publication, the hitherto unknown Master of the 1540s may in all likelihood be identified as Cornelis van Cleve (1520-after 1570), the son of Joos van Cleve (c. 1485-1540/41).72 Max J. Friedländer was the first, be it implicit, to connect the Master of the 1540s to Joos van Cleve’s studio in the 1530s, followed by Koenraad Jonckheere in his monograph on Willem Key (1515/16-1568).73 Jonckheere stated that both Key and the Master of the 1540s were probably trained in the successful Antwerp studio of Joos van Cleve to become skilled portrait painters. Furthermore, there is not the slightest doubt our painter started his career as an independent portrait painter in 1541 in Antwerp, exactly the same year that Cornelis van Cleve must have enrolled as a master painter in the Antwerp ledgers and took over his father’s successful studio.74

• 75 Portrait of a man, Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge (obj. 2001.169); Portrait of a young woman, aged  (...)
• 76 Portrait of a woman, aged 59, National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin (inv. 1359); The picture in priva (...)

61It is telling that especially in that first year, 1541, the Master of the 1540s must have produced at least ten portraits. Of the six portraits that are dated 1541, only two form a pair, the portraits in Cambridge and Sydney.75 The other four portraits, in Dublin, in private hands in Austria and Switzerland, as well as a fourth portrait, of which the present whereabouts are unknown, were undoubtedly part of a pair of pendants as well, bringing the total number to at least ten portraits in a single year.76

• 77 Jan Sanders van Hemessen (c. 1500-1556/57) occasionally painted portraits, whereas Jan Cornelisz Ve (...)
• 78 On Willem Key, see Jonckheere 2011.

62Such a spectacular production is fitting for a successful studio in a large and thriving city full of wealthy citizens, where hardly any other known portrait painters were active that year.77 The fact that his production seems to have declined after that booming first year, may be due to the fact that Willem Key was inscribed as a master painter in Antwerp the following year, 1542, the same year, his older brother, Wouter Key, had become Dean of the Guild of Saint Luke. Willem Key would prove to be very successful as a portrait painter and was no doubt a fierce competitor for the young Master of the 1540s, or Cornelis van Cleve, as I would prefer to call him from now on.78

• 79 This Portrait of a member of the Antwerp family De Deckere, aged 62, dated 1544, is at present part (...)
• 80 On that portrait, notes 40 and 75.
• 81 Unfortunately, the present whereabouts of this breathtaking portrait are unknown. As Hans Holbein t (...)

63The portraits the young artist painted between 1541 and 1545 show how much he was in demand with the Antwerp upper class, counting a member of the De Deckere family among his clients,79 as well as the young and wealthy entrepreneur Gilbert van Schoonbeke and his spouse Elisabeth Hendricx [fig. 2-3]. Other portraits, especially those of elegantly dressed young women, such as the 1541 dated portrait in Sydney,80 the Portrait of a young woman, aged 19, holding a nasturtium in her hands, painted in 1543 [fig. 40],81 the Portrait of a woman, aged 25 in Cologne from 1544 [fig. 39], or for that matter the Portrait of a woman, aged 26, dated one year later, now in the collection of The Aurora Trust in New York [fig. 30], confirm the painter’s renown in Antwerp’s rich society.

• 82 Van de Velde 1996, p. 426; Hand 2004, p. 6; Leeflang 2007, p. 31-32, note 92 for the reference to t (...)
• 83 Ibidem, p. 31, note 92. His stepmother, Katlijne van Mispelteeren, had sold her share of the house (...)
• 84 Van de Velde 1996, p. 426; Leeflang 2007, p. 31.
• 85 Ibidem, p. 31, note 93.
• 86 It is evident that in 1554 Cornelis van Cleve owned two houses in the Koningstraat, ‘Den Moeriaensc (...)

64Cornelis van Cleve’s success in Antwerp as one of the leading painters in the city is actually confirmed by the fact that he joined the Guild of Saint Luke’s mutual aid association, the so-called Armenbus, in 1545 and in the same year bought a house there, possibly ‘Den Moeriaenschen Coninck’ in the Koningstraat.82 That year Cornelis van Cleve had become 25 years of age, thus reached adulthood and came into possession of his inheritance, among others a share of his father’s house ‘Het Exterken’.83 It is therefore hardly surprising he felt confident enough to marry Anna Aerts, the daughter of a parchment maker, a year later, on 28 December 1546.84 Apparently, in 1546 and 1547 he experienced problems in securing the payment of his house.85 However, there is no reason to suggest these problems were of a structural nature, on the contrary. Cornelis van Cleve would hold on to his share of ‘Het exterken’ until 1554 and he would actually purchase a second house in the Koningstraat, not exactly a sign of poverty.86

• 87 Ibidem, p. 31, note 94, and p. 31-32, note 95.

65However, after 1545 the production of portraits on commission appears to have declined, since we know of only three dated (or datable) examples, none of which appear to come close to the quality of his previous portraits. Is it possible that the arrival of Anthonis Mor in Antwerp in 1547 would make it more difficult for Cornelis van Cleve to find attractive clients for his portraits? Or did he find other ways to make a living as a painter? The fact is that he did sell his share of his father’s house on 22 September 1554 to Marie Ymhove, and only ten days later ‘Den Moeriaenschen Coninck’, one of his houses on the Koningstraat, to his stepmother Katlijne van Mispelteeren.87

• 88 It is therefore more than unlikely that Cornelis van Cleve had Protestant sympathies, as Carl Van d (...)

67For a short period of time – until Mary died 17 November 1558 – London would have a Roman Catholic court. This was exactly the moment when Cornelis van Cleve decided to leave Antwerp and try his luck in England.88 He was possibly encouraged by his colleague Anthonis Mor, who had finally been appointed official court painter of Philipp II, 20 December 1554, although he had been working for both Granvelle and the Habsburg court since 1549. And although we do not know when Cornelis van Cleve travelled to England exactly, this must have taken place shortly after he sold both ‘Den Moeriaenschen Coninck’ as well as his share of ‘Het Exterken’, most likely in the early Spring of 1555.

• 89 Van de Velde 1996, p. 427.
• 90 Van Mander 1604, fol. 226v-227r.

68According to Van de Velde, basing himself on Van Mander’s account, Cornelis van Cleve “[…] tried to establish himself as a portrait painter […]”,89 but there is nothing in Van Mander’s story that corroborates that suggestion, although there might be a ring of truth to it.90 Van Mander’s rather colourful account of the young painter’s experience in England should be taken with a grain of salt any way, since he actually thought the traveller was not Cornelis, but his father Joos van Cleve, who had passed away some fifteen years earlier.

• 91 Ibidem, fol. 226v.
• 92 Ibidem, fol. 226v-227r.

69According to Van Mander Van Cleve actually sought the aid of Anthonis Mor, to help him sell some of his pictures to Philipp and although Mor did try to help him, the young Philipp II was too preoccupied with buying Italian paintings, especially of Titian, “[...] soo dat Moro niet con te wege brengen ten voordeel van Cleef”.91 This catastrophe would drive Van Cleve insane, according to his biographer: “Eyndlinghe Cleef werdt soo heel verbijstert in zijn sinnen, dat hy wonder dinghen dede: hy vernistede met Terbentijn vernis zijn cleeren, zijn cappe en zijn bonnet, en gingh soo al glimmende achter straet: hy beschilderde zijn Penneelen van achter, op datmen (seyde hy) alsse omgekeert stonden, evenwel sien soude”.92 This remarkable history would eventually give the painter his nickname: Sotte Cleef.