Paulus Moreelse (Utrecht 1571 - 1638 Utrecht)

A portrait of a gentleman, possibly a member of the Vis Blockhuysen family, wearing a black hat and a white ruff, his arm resting on a draped table

signed, dated and inscribed upper right: AEta Sua[e] 29./Moreel. fe: An. 1621
oil on unlined canvas
49 x 38 ½ inches (124.5 x 97 cm.)

Provenance:
Dirk Vis Blockhuysen (1799-1869), Rotterdam
Sale Coll. D. Vis Blockhuysen, Paris
(Petit, Lamme, C. P., Pillet), 1st April 1870, no. 47 (for ff 2995)
 Etienne Edmond Baron de Beurnonville (1825-1906), Paris
Sale E. E. Baron de Beurnonville,
Paris (Féral, G. Petit, C. P. , Pillet), 9th-19th May 1881, no. 384 (to ‘Mas’ for ff 2200)¹

Note: 
This painting is remarkable in that it is still on the original unlined, striped ticking canvas and its original stretcher

Portrait of a gentleman is the kind of painting that comes onto the market very rarely.  It is as close to its original state as a seventeenth-century painting can be—it has remained on its original stretcher for over three hundred and fifty years.² It is a simple observation, but one worth remembering, that paintings reflect the passage of time.  They experience time as we do, registering the effects of heat and light, excessive attention or neglect.  Anything from a painting’s placement in a room to the aesthetics of a restorer at any given time, can radically change its appearance. The condition of a painting is often closely related to its provenance, literally to the number of times that it has changed hands since its creation.  Portrait of a gentleman remained in the Netherlands until the second half of the nineteenth century and could have been with the sitter’s family for the majority of that time.³ While not without its signs of age, Portrait of a gentleman is precious today as much for its condition as for the quality of the image.  Moreelse was one of the most admired portraitists of his day and the emergence of this painting from obscurity after more than a century is an encouraging testament to the unpredictable nature of the art market.⁴

Paulus Moreelse was a wealthy, well-connected painter who served wealthy, well-connected patrons.  He travelled through Italy as a young man, painted histories and mythologies, and worked for the most important members of the European nobility.⁵ He painted at least one hundred and fifty portraits during the course of his career, ranging in type from group portraits such as that of the Amsterdam crossbowmen’s company (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) to the famous portrait historié of Sophia Hedwig, Countess of Nassau Dietz, surrounded by her children and posing as Charity (Apeldorn, Paleis Het Loo).  Portraiture is as subject to fashion as any other kind of painting—trends not only in the clothing and pose of the sitter, but also stylistically, with respect to lighting and context. Portrait of a gentleman is a good example of Moreelse’s works after 1620, which display a heightened contrast between light and dark, perhaps in response to the work of painters such as Gerrit van Honthorst and Dirk van Baburen, members of the group of painters now known as the Utrecht Caravaggisti.⁶

The inscription at the upper right describes the sitter as a young man of twenty-nine. Although his identity is not known, much about his status can be gleaned from the portrait itself.  He is dressed in fine, fashionable clothes and, while he holds a pair of gloves, a detail that in the seventeenth century suggested power and authority, he has none of the props associated with nobility: a coat of arms, a sword at one side, or a table covering of gold fabric.⁷ He appears in the intimate three-quarter length format favoured by the merchant class, in contrast to the more formal, full-length image reserved largely for the aristocracy.⁸ This portrait was almost certainly painted as a pendant to that of a young woman, most likely in recognition of their marriage.⁹ The sitter’s age is in keeping with that of seventeenth-century Dutch marriage practice and several aspects of the portrait reflect those of a typical marriage pendant.¹⁰ He appears in the position reserved for the husband—to the viewer’s left and to his bride’s right, a position of protection and power relating in part to the conventions of heraldry.¹¹ The couple would have faced one another over a shared table (emphasised by the placement of his left hand), an important domestic feature that provided visual continuity between the individual portraits.  His wife may have stood behind a chair, leaned on the table for support, or posed with her hands crossed at her waist.¹² The contrast was generally between the active man and the passive woman, the former taking up space and turning to face the world while the latter appeared in a self contained pose, often oriented towards her husband.  While she defers to him, he greets the viewer with confidence, his elbow jutting into the viewer’s space and his chin slightly raised.¹³ These were carefully choreographed images that reflect the sitters’ social roles more than any twenty-first century sense of identity.

Perhaps the most important indication of the portrait’s function as a marriage pendant is the pair of gloves that the sitter holds in his right hand.  Gloves were long associated with authority—they signified purity of heart and deed when worn by a priest and were given as a symbol of integrity in power in coronation ceremonies throughout Europe.¹⁴ Gloves retained their traditional association with authority in the seventeenth-century Netherlands and became an integral part of the ceremonies of birth, death, and marriage.  Indeed, they were often given as gifts not only to the bride and groom, but also to the wedding guests.  On a superficial level, gloves were expensive and fashionable, thus indicating wealth and status, and, while their specific meaning within the context of marriage is unclear, they may also have suggested integrity and fairness in the couple’s treatment of one another.  They were often decorated with traditional symbols of love such as the carnation, and, together with fans, formed part of an elaborate system of etiquette that governed polite society.

Moreelse’s approach to portraiture reflects that of his teacher, the Delft painter, Michiel van Mierevelt (1567-1641).¹⁵ Mierevelt became court painter to the stadholder in 1607 and depicted members of the court and foreign diplomats in an elegant, formal style reminiscent of the work of the earlier Utrecht portraitist, Antonis Mor, who left the city in 1567.  Moreelse adopted Mierevelt’s formality and technical skill but generally painted more fluidly, describing the details of clothing, for example, with less precise, more evocative brushwork.  His involvement in local politics must have helped to determine his clientele and his portraits of fellow town councillors, Philips Ram and Anthonie van Mansfelt, together with scholars such as Arnhout van Buchell and fellow painter Abraham Bloemaert, reflect the breadth of his connections.  Indeed, together with Joachim Wtewael, Moreelse became a member of the town council after a series of dramatic resignations in 1618 and held various public offices until his death in 1638.¹⁶ He also played an important role in the modernisation of Utrecht painting and in the establishment of the city’s scholarly community. He was one of the founders of the St. Luke’s Guild in 1611, serving as its first dean, and was closely involved in the founding of the University of Utrecht, which opened in 1636.  After his portraits, perhaps his most important artistic legacy is his invention of a genre that had a dramatic impact far beyond Utrecht: pendants of shepherds and shepherdesses in rural costume, posing as if for portraits and engaging the viewer with alluring details such as a plunging décolletage.  These kinds of paintings were avidly collected in court circles and comprised two of the four paintings given by the States of Utrecht to Frederick Hendrick and Amalia van Solms in 1627.

Paulus Jansz. Moreelse was from a well to do family that settled in Utrecht in 1568.  Van Mander records that he was the pupil of Michiel van Mierevelt and was in Italy before 1596, the year he became a member of the Utrecht saddle maker’s guild (the guild to which artists belonged until the establishment of a separate guild in 1611).  On 8th June he married Antonia Wyntershoven, with whom he had at least ten children.  The most famous of his pupils was Dirk van Baburen, who studied with him in 1611, the year he helped to establish a Guild of St. Luke.  Moreelse also supported plans to establish a university in Utrecht and was involved in details of its opening in 1636, designing, for example, the cap presented to graduating students. In addition to painting portraits, he was also an architect and urban planner and designed one of Utrecht’s city gates, the Catherijnepoort (since destroyed), which introduced the Italianate style to Utrecht. His plans for the city’s expansion, rejected during his lifetime, were implemented in 1663 by his son, Hendrick, law professor at the university and burgomaster of the city.  Three of his children became artists, as did a nephew.
-Meredith M.Hale