Seymour Slive, Frans Hals, 3 vols. (London, 1970–74), 3:78, wrongly asserts that the inscription on Suyderhoef’s print gives biographical information about the sitter. Instead, it is a generic text suitable for a preacher and praises his spirituality.
See Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477–1806 (Oxford, 1995), 374–76.
As explained in detail in Jo Spaans, “Negenenveertig Haarlemse Mirjams: Over het aandeel van vrouwen in de moeilijkheden rondom de Lutherse predikant Conrad Vietor,” Nederlands Archief voor Keerkgeschiedenis 67 (1987): 1–14.
Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477–1806 (Oxford, 1995), 395. This was undoubtedly meant to reveal parallels in the views of Luther and Arminius.
Seymour Slive, Frans Hals, 3 vols. (London, 1970–74), 3: no. 126; 2: pl. 204, engraved seven or eight years later by Suyderhoef.
Claus Grimm, in various publications (see References) has described this portrait as a workshop product, without much explanation. As in dozens of other cases, this designation is widely regarded as unconvincing.
See Francis Russell, John, 3rd Earl of Bute: Patron and Collector (London, 2004).
A phenomenon previously noted in Carol Christensen and Michael Palmer, “Deciphering artist’s intent in a late portrait by Frans Hals,” AIC Paintings Specialty Group postprits, 1994: 12–17, and in Anne van Grevenstein, et al. “Aspects of the restoration and technical examination of the Haarlem civic guard group portraits by Frans Hals,” ICOM Committee for Conservation, 9th Triennial Meeting, Dresden, 26–31 August 1990: 90–94.
Entry based on an examination report prepared by Yvonne Szafran, head of paintings conservation, J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, 2011.