.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Previously attributed to Jan Miense Molenaer, this painting is arguably too accomplished when compared with the artist's known works of the early to mid-1630s. Moreover, Molenaer appears to have only infrequently painted such full-length portraits, a rare example being the Portrait of a Gentleman dating to the late 1630s in the Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena. This painting comes closer to the works of Molenaer’s Amsterdam contemporaries Thomas de Keyser and, in particular, Pieter Codde. Indeed, the relatively summary treatment of the woman's long, slender fingers; her large, round eyes that delicately catch the light; and her arrested posture all compare favorably with securely attributed works by Codde, including the Portrait of a married couple dated 1634 in the Mauritshuis, The Hague.
Much like the Mauritshuis painting, this work surely was once one of a pair of paintings, the other portraying the woman’s husband, that was commissioned to commemorate the couple’s marriage. The woman wears a wedding ring on the ring finger of her left hand. In the Dutch 17th-century, only women wore wedding rings, and there was no rule on which finger it had to be worn (see M. de Winkel, Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings, Amsterdam, 2006, p. 67). The woman’s choice to wear the ring on her ring finger aligns her with the more conservative, traditional segments of Dutch society, as confirmed by the moralist Jacob Cats in his Houwelick (Marriage) of 1625:
To wear this piece of jewellery, that token of affection,
Which nowadays sits on the first finger, sheer through ostentation,
So, if you’re not too loose and if you’re not too bold,
Then wear that nuptial-sign as one did of old.
Beside her hand is a pair of splendid embroidered wedding gloves that both furthered the nuptial associations and, much like the ostrich feather fan held in the woman’s right hand, served as a fashionable accessory that displayed her wealth and status.
Her clothing, too, confirms that she is a woman concerned with the height of fashion. She pulls back her black overgown to reveal a more precious brocade textile beneath. Such textiles were typically largely hidden, with only glimpses revealed. The bumrolls around her waist further accentuate the slenderness of her hips, while the transparent linen of her cap and the tight pleats of her ruff suggest that only the finest linen was used in their manufacture.
Much like the Mauritshuis painting, this work surely was once one of a pair of paintings, the other portraying the woman’s husband, that was commissioned to commemorate the couple’s marriage. The woman wears a wedding ring on the ring finger of her left hand. In the Dutch 17th-century, only women wore wedding rings, and there was no rule on which finger it had to be worn (see M. de Winkel, Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings, Amsterdam, 2006, p. 67). The woman’s choice to wear the ring on her ring finger aligns her with the more conservative, traditional segments of Dutch society, as confirmed by the moralist Jacob Cats in his Houwelick (Marriage) of 1625:
To wear this piece of jewellery, that token of affection,
Which nowadays sits on the first finger, sheer through ostentation,
So, if you’re not too loose and if you’re not too bold,
Then wear that nuptial-sign as one did of old.
Beside her hand is a pair of splendid embroidered wedding gloves that both furthered the nuptial associations and, much like the ostrich feather fan held in the woman’s right hand, served as a fashionable accessory that displayed her wealth and status.
Her clothing, too, confirms that she is a woman concerned with the height of fashion. She pulls back her black overgown to reveal a more precious brocade textile beneath. Such textiles were typically largely hidden, with only glimpses revealed. The bumrolls around her waist further accentuate the slenderness of her hips, while the transparent linen of her cap and the tight pleats of her ruff suggest that only the finest linen was used in their manufacture.