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

The support consists of three vertically grained oak planks (28.5, 15 and 22.8 cm), 0.7-1.8 cm thick. The panel has an arched top. The planks were connected with four pairs of dowels, two of which are visible. It was planed down slightly for cradling, which has since been removed. Dendrochronology has shown that plank II of the panel comes from the same tree as planks I and III of the pendant (SK-A-3519). The youngest heartwood ring of plank III of the pendant was formed in 1504. The panel could have been ready for use by 1515, but a date in or after 1529 is more likely. The white ground was applied in the frame, as there are unpainted edges of 1-1.5 cm and a barbe on all sides (painted surface: 83.8 x 64.2 cm). A streaky priming is visible in the X-radiographs. Infrared reflectography did not reveal traces of an underdrawing; with the naked eye, however, there seems to be an underdrawing in black brush in the face and hands. The figure was reserved.

Good. There are discoloured retouched losses along the joins, and the varnish is slightly discoloured.

This frame (fig. g) and the one surrounding the pendant (fig. h) are almost identical and most likely original. They are segmental arch frames with plain friezes and shallow, carved ornamentation on both sides of the frieze. The friezes on the vertical members (fig. d) and the arches are wider than the friezes on the sills (fig. e). The frames are made of oak and have integral carved cartouches in the shape of a ribbon on the sill with raised text (see Inscriptions). Because the frames have been stripped and partly refinished in the past, it cannot be established whether the barbes on the panels correspond with the frames. The corners are constructed with mortise and tenon joints (fig. f). There are traces of various hanging methods on the frames, including so-called nostrils.

…; ? Alida van Leyden, née Van Ruytenburch (1671-1724);¹¹Martin/Moes 1912, nos. 20-21. ? her great-granddaughter, Sophia Dina (1778-1835) Baroness van Rhemen, née Van Leyden;²²Martin/Moes 1912, nos. 20-21. ? her daughter, Baroness Adriana Sophia Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, née Van Rhemen (1806-42), Huis de Poll, Voorst, near Zutphen;³³Martin/Moes 1912, nos. 20-21. her son, W.A.A.J. Baron Schimmelpenninck van der Oye (1834-89), Huis de Poll, Voorst, as Jan van Scorel;⁴⁴Martin/Moes 1912, nos. 20-21. his wife, Jacoba Christina Baroness Schimmelpenninck van der Oye-van Pallandt (1843-1931);⁵⁵Utrecht 1913, p. 94, no. 95; De Jonge 1932, p. 145. by descent to Jonkheer Rudolf Everard Willem van Weede (1858-1933), The Hague, widower of Nicoline Adrienne Sophie Baroness Schimmelpenninck van der Oye (1865-1921);⁶⁶Bruyn in Amsterdam 1986, p. 192. from whom on loan to the Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 1931-33;⁷⁷Bruyn in Amsterdam 1986, pp. 192-93.…; ? the dealer J. Goudstikker, Amsterdam;⁸⁸Bruyn in Amsterdam 1986, p. 192. …; purchased from a dealer by an unknown collector, USA, c. 1937;⁹⁹Hoogewerff IV, 1941-42, pp. 205, 230. …; from ‘Mr van Aalst’, probably the heirs of Cornelis Johannes Karel van Aalst (1866-1939), Hoevelaken, fl. 140,000, to the dealer D. Katz, Dieren, 1940;¹⁰¹⁰Muller/Schretlen 2002, p. 72, note 172; HNA, SNK archive, 2.08.42, inv. no.  154, note dd. 17 May 1951, p. 3. the dealer D. Katz, Dieren, 1941;¹¹¹¹Note by M.J. Friedländer on photo RKD no. 28050. from whom purchased by Hans Posse (1879-1942) for Adolf Hitler’s Führermuseum, Linz, 1941;¹²¹²Muller/Schretlen 2002, p. 72, note 172; MCCP website, file card nos. 4365, 4823; the Linz nos. 1902, 1903 are recorded in black on the reverse of the panels; HNA, SNK archive, 2.08.42, inv. no.  154, note dd. 17 May 1951: this document is not clear on the price Posse paid to Katz. war recuperation, SNK, 9 October 1945;¹³¹³MCCP website, file card nos. 4365, 4823 restituted to Benjamin and Nathan Katz, Dieren, fl. 35,000, 1947;¹⁴¹⁴Muller/Schretlen 2002, p. 72; HNA, SNK archive, 2.08.42,  inv. no. 154, list of restituted goods. by whom donated to the museum, 1948

ObjectNumber: SK-A-3518

Credit line: Gift of D. Katz, Dieren and N. Katz, Dieren

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 1529.²¹²¹Martin/Moes 1912, nos. 20-21. 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.²²²²Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum; illustrated in ENP XIII, 1975, no. 183, pl. 92. 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,²³²³De Jonge 1932, esp. pp. 151-60; see pp. 145-51 for a complete survey of the attributions prior to 1932. but it was only after Bruyn’s 1955 contribution to the debate that it ceased to be a point of discussion.²⁴²⁴Bruyn 1955, esp. pp. 31-34.

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.²⁵²⁵Bruyn in Amsterdam 1986a, p. 193.

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.²⁶²⁶See Inscriptions, and Harrison 1987, pp. 132-33. 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.²⁷²⁷See Harrison 1987, p. 133; Bruyn 1955, p. 21; Grosshans 1980, p. 91. 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,²⁸²⁸Illustrated in Grosshans 1980, pl. 141. but it resembles Portrait of a 42-year-old Man formerly in the Furst zu Wied Collection in Schloss Waldheim even more strongly.²⁹²⁹Illustrated in Bruyn 1983b, p. 217. It is unclear how these paintings connect to Heemskerck’s Amsterdam Portrait of a Man, although the Waldheim picture is probably not by Heemskerck,³⁰³⁰See Bruyn 1983b, pp. 217-18. and it seems likely that it was painted after the Amsterdam portrait.³¹³¹Grosshans 1980, pp. 94-95, no. 6.

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.³²³²See Harrison 1987, p. 130. 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.³³³³Bruyn 1955, p. 31. 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).³⁴³⁴Filedt Kok in Amsterdam 1978, p. 106, note 175; Harrison 1987, pp. 135-36. 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).³⁵³⁵Harrison 1987, pp. 141-46, no. 4, esp. p. 143. 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.³⁶³⁶See De Jonge 1941, p. 4; Bruyn 1955, p. 33; Grosshans 1980, p. 92.

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.³⁷³⁷Bruyn 1955, pp. 28-29. 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,³⁸³⁸See Kloek in Van Os et al. 2000, p. 145; De Jongh in Haarlem 1986, pp. 32-40, esp. pp. 36, 40. though it might also be that the woman had a higher position in society.³⁹³⁹Bruyn in Amsterdam 1986a, p. 194.

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 1931.⁴⁰⁴⁰For biographies of Pieter Gerritsz Bicker and Anna Codde see Elias I, 1903, p. 177. 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.⁴¹⁴¹Inv. no. SA 7259-60; coll. cat. Amsterdam 1975/79, pp. 372-73, nos. 522, 523; illustrated in coll. cat. 1976, p. 682, nos. C-33, C-34. 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 1560.⁴²⁴²Bruyn in Amsterdam 1986a, p. 194. 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.⁴³⁴³See Harrison 1987, p. 137, note 1. 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.⁴⁴⁴⁴See Harrison in Amsterdam 1986a, pp. 191-92, no. 70 (ill.).

(Ilona van Tuinen)

Martin/Moes 1912, nos. 20-21 (as Jan van Scorel); Beets 1914b, p. 89-91; Friedländer XII, 1924, p. 207, nos. 384-85 (as Jan van Scorel); De Jonge 1932, pp. 145-60; De Jonge 1941, pp. 1-5; Hoogewerff IV, 1941-42, pp. 230-44 (as Master of the Bicker Portraits); Bruyn 1955, pp. 27-35; ENP XII, 1975, p. 128, nos. 384-85 (as Jan van Scorel); ENP XIII, 1975, p. 113; Veldman 1977, p. 27, note 25; Grosshans 1980, pp. 91-93, nos. 3-4, with earlier literature; Bruyn 1983b, pp. 217-18; Bruyn in Amsterdam 1986a, pp. 192-94, nos. 71.1-2; Harrison 1987, pp. 126-40, nos. 2-3, with earlier literature; Kloek in Van Os et al. 2000, pp. 144-45, no. 52

1948, pp. 45, nos. 1128 A1, 1128 A2; 1960, pp. 125-26, nos. 1128 A1, 1128 A2; 1976, p. 264, nos. A 3518, A 3519

I. van Tuinen, 2010, 'Maarten van Heemskerck, Portrait of a Man, possibly Pieter Gerritsz Bicker (1497-1567), Haarlem, 1529', in J.P. Filedt Kok (ed.), Early Netherlandish Paintings, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.8651