RKD STUDIES

In a famous anecdote in his treatise, Samuel van Hoogstraten takes his master’s criticism of a composition to heart, to the point of tears, and did not pause until his mistake was corrected.¹ We cannot be sure, however, that any such drawings have come down to us. By the time he produced his earliest known signed and dated drawing, of 1646, Samuel van Hoogstraten was already a fully formed artist. In it he took up a rare pictorial theme from the Old Testament, in which the prophet Balaam blesses the Israelites, after being summoned by King Balak and the elders of Moab to do the opposite, as they headed into battle (Numbers 22:2-24). The young artist appears to have undertaken the theme on his own initiative, as no other representation of it is known in the work of Rembrandt or his circle.² Very striking is how the composition is completely developed and worked up, with a full range of technique to create a pictorial effect. Extensive washes generate a complete range of tonalities to indicate the fall of light. Van Hoogstraten assiduously uses darker tonality to push some figures back, allowing lighter figures to come forward, or stand out, and generate houding, or spatial effect. As with his early paintings, there are open brush strokes and free lines, but they are not vigorous, and do not draw attention to themselves, the way that Rembrandt used pen and wash in the second half of the 1630s, for example in his Capture of Samson in Dresden, or Lot and his daughters, followed by pupils of the period such as Govert Flinck (1615-1660), Ferdinand Bol (1616-1680), and Gerbrand van den Eeckhout (1621-1674) in the late 1630s and early 1640s.

We already see here the beginnings of the facial types that Van Hoogstraten went on to employ, in sharp contrast with Rembrandt’s demonstrative variation. They follow a formula of appealing proportions, dividing the forms of the face evenly, with large eyes, with regularly curving eyelids yielding an almond shape, or a cursory alternative of a line and a squat vertical stroke, often bleeding a bit, for the pupil. As a result, his drawn faces are distinctive and recognizable.

In terms of technique, red chalk introduces an element of colour, as discussed in the Introduction, and point to the possible function of such drawings as practice or training in painting.³ The adoption of this element by Barent Fabritius (1624-1673), the younger brother of Van Hoogstraten’s friend Carel Fabritius (1622-1654), as well strongly suggests interaction in Rembrandt’s pupil’s atelier.⁴ Even so, one would not call this drawing a finished work, as it still incorporates many corrections and construction lines, some quite quick and sketchy, left visible in the final product. It appears that such a performance was intended for connoisseurs and fellow artists who would have appreciated these traces of the creative process. With the gradual recession in space from cluster to cluster, Van Hoogstraten followed Rembrandt’s emphasis on houding, or seamless spatial effect.⁵ Less prominence is given to emotions, especially facial expressions: only in the face of Balak is anger conveyed in the eyebrows and mouth, but the most explicit indication is his clenched fist at his proper right side.

Nearly identical in technique and handling is another early signed sheet, of Incredulity of Thomas, this time undated, but very likely close in date, around 1646/47. The many thin construction lines in ink combine with heavier pen lines to accentuate forms, and black and red chalk, and richly layered washes, to give the effect of light. Not surprisingly for a pupil, it is based on a painting by Rembrandt, his decidedly earlier The incredulity of Thomas of 1634 in Moscow, which was in the collection of Ameldonck Leeuw, a fellow Mennonite in Amsterdam, at the time [28]. The ambitious pupil transformed his source however, drawing much greater focus to the figure of Jesus, giving him a more active role in grasping the hand of Thomas to put it in the wound in his side, his assurance providing a foil to Thomas’s doubt. The idealized rendering of Christ’s figure appears to have benefitted from study of the nude model, such as undertaken in Rembrandt’s studio around the same period. Curiously, Van Hoogstraten seems to have had another model pose in an naturalistic way for Thomas, modestly awkward, replacing the grand, Rubenesque figure recoiling from Jesus in Rembrandt’s painting. Van Hoogstraten took the opportunity to promote himself by including his self-portrait among the Apostles. He then parlayed his study into a finished painting, of 1649, now in Mainz [29]. Its concept, with a luminous Christ isolated at the centre, drawing all focus to the wound in his side, and pushing the smallish figures of the Apostles pushed to the side, casting them in darkness, departs quite radically from the drawing.

28
Rembrandt
The incredulity of Thomas (John 20: 24-29), dated 1634
Moscow, Pushkin Museum, inv./cat.nr. 2619

29
Samuel van Hoogstraten
The risen Christ appearing to his apostles, dated 1649
Mainz, Landesmuseum Mainz, inv./cat.nr. 1180