Hagar and the Angelca. 1645

Carel Fabritius(Middenbeemster 1622 – 1654 Delft)

oil on canvas
157.5 x 136 cm
signed in brown paint, bottom left corner, “C P
Fabritius”
CF-100Currently on view at: The National Museum ofChina, Beijing© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 2 of 16

How To Cite
Surh, Dominique. "Hagar and the Angel." In The Leiden Collection Catalogue. Edited by Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017.
https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/.
This page is available on the site's Archive. PDF of every version of this page is available on the Archive,
and the Archive is managed by a permanent URL. Archival copies will never be deleted. New versions areadded only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 3 of 16

Carel Fabritius, who died tragically at the height of his career in the

Comparative Figures

explosion of the Delft powder house in 1654, painted this masterpiecearound 1645, shortly after he had completed his apprenticeship with
Rembrandt van Rijn (1606–69).[1] It is one of only five surviving history
paintings from his hand (only 13 paintings by him are known) and his sole
painting still in a private collection.[2] Fabritius selected dramatic momentsfrom the Bible and classical mythology, often unusual subjects that hetreated in movingly human terms. Here, in this rare and wonderfulexample, we see this gifted painter and storyteller at his very best. He
focuses the viewer’s attention on Hagar’s moment of suffering, while
alluding to other moments in the broader narrative. With the compelling
figure of the angel offering divine assistance at Hagar’s darkest hour,
Fabritius invites the viewer to become fully engaged in the story.
Fabritius’s monumental depiction of a woman kneeling in prayer while
being visited by an angel is a powerfully moving interpretation of the Old
Testament story of Hagar and the angel. In this biblical narrative, which

Fig 1. Rembrandt van Rijn,
Abraham Casting Out Hagar andIshmael, 1637, etching withtouches of drypoint, 13.3 x 10 cm,
The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York, Gift of Marietta
Morchand, 1994, inv.
1994.110.2,
www.metmuseum.org

appears in Genesis 21:15–19, Hagar and her son Ishmael are expelledfrom Abraham’s house and wander in the wilderness for days. Having runout of water, Hagar can no longer bear the sight of her suffering son, so
she leaves Ishmael under a bush and goes off to pray. She thinks toherself, “I cannot bear to watch Ishmael die,” and she begins to weep.
Then an angel appears to her and says, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do
not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up
and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.” Godopens her eyes, and she sees a well to provide water for her dying son.
She fills her empty flask with water and returns to the young boy to revivehim.

Fig 2. School of Rembrandt, The
Angel Appearing to Hagar, ca.
1658–59, oil on canvas, 109.5 x
100.5 cm, Walker Art Gallery,
LiverpoolThis painting depicts the second of two biblical episodes in which Hagar isvisited by an angel in the wilderness. In the first of these, the angel visits
Hagar as she rests near the fountain of Shur after having fled into thewilderness as a young, pregnant woman (Gen. 16:6–14). The second
episode, described above, occurs much later, when Hagar’s son Ishmael
is thirteen years old (Gen 21:15–19).[3] Scholars have traditionallyidentified the Leiden Collection painting as representing the earlier ofHagar’s two encounters with an angel, almost certainly because Ishmael is
not present in the scene.[4] Nevertheless, only in the later account does thepresence of water become the dramatic fulcrum of the story: it leads to her

Fig 3. Ferdinand Bol, Hagar and© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 4 of 16

salvation and, ultimately, the fulfillment of God’s promise. A factor that
previously complicated the identification of the correct biblical passage
was that, prior to the painting’s restoration in 2012, the water in the spring

the Angel, ca. 1650, oil oncanvas, 115.6 x 97.8 cm,
Museum Pomorskie, Gdansk, ©
2015, photo: Scala, Florence

was obscured by layers of discolored varnish and not visible to the nakedeye.[5]Fabritius’s nuanced interpretation of the story is consistent with the later
biblical episode. The kneeling Hagar, with her robust stature, ruddy
cheeks and weathered, middle-aged hands betraying her labor in the sun,is more evocative of a robust matriarch than of a pregnant youth. The
shadows of her skirt are modeled with heavy impastos in tonalities ofwarm, bluish-gray, while the pale corals and blues of her striped shawl are

Fig 4. Detail of infrared
photograph of thesignature, Hagar and the Angel,CF-100depicted with assured, lively strokes. The artist draws the viewer’s eye to a
red cloth sack and golden water flask wrapped in woven rope at the far
right. Heightened by distinct brushstrokes loaded with thick paint, thewater vessel is further accentuated by the technique of scratching into thewet paint with the butt of the brush to create added depth and texture.
Tenderly, Hagar holds a thin, white handkerchief clasped between her
folded fingers—a conventional gesture of prayer as well as one of despair.
Resigned to her grief, she rests her mouth on her hands in a state of quiet
surrender. Fabritius offers a measure of her sorrow with a single highlightat the base of her eye that conveys the hint of a falling tear.
For the majestic figure of the angel, Fabritius exploited the full range of his
painterly techniques to achieve expressive effects. Rays of heavenly lightsurround the angel’s head in concentric bands of colors, while

Fig 5. C. Geyer after Carel
Fabritius, Hagar and the Angel,engraving (published in A. R. vonPerger, Die Kunstschätze Wien’sin Stahlstich nebst erläuterndem
Text [Triest, 1854], as byRembrandt)

semitransparent streams of light emanate from his form, as though hewere passing through the haze of heavy mist. His confident yet intuitive
brushwork adds to the otherworldly character of the angel and conveys thesense of a divine apparition materializing into form. Fabritius’s modeling of
the flesh tones with splotches of color in both areas of highlights and in theconfines of form moving into shadow adds to the impression of a heavenly
apparition emerging into being.[6] With outstretched hands—one gently
touching Hagar’s head and the other gesturing toward the well—the angelmotions toward the source of Hagar’s salvation.
The story of Hagar was one of the most frequently portrayed Old
Testament narratives in Dutch art, particularly by Rembrandt and his
school, who were drawn to the subject for its expression of a wide array of© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 5 of 16

human emotions.[7] One important pictorial prototype for Fabritius’s
conception of the story and its compositional organization was
Rembrandt’s 1637 etching, Abraham Casting Out Hagar and Ishmael (fig1). Before sending Hagar and Ishmael away, the Bible says that Abraham
provided them with some bread and water for their journey. In this print,
Hagar is depicted holding a handkerchief to her face while carrying aknapsack under her arm, a water bottle at her side, and a knife hanging
from her belt.[8] Fabritius adopted these motifs in his treatment of the later
scene. His imposing angel also draws upon Rembrandt’s commanding
figure of Abraham who, with his outstretched arms, similarly occupies acentral position in the etching.
A work depicting the same biblical episode from Rembrandt’s workshop of
the later 1650s shows the young Ishmael lying under a tree at the far left
(fig 2). The scene bears striking compositional resemblance to the present
work and portrays the angel as a towering figure at center with Hagar
kneeling in the right foreground. Like the present example, Hagar is shownin profile holding a white handkerchief with a water bottle and knapsackbeside her. However, unlike Fabritius’s rendition of the story, the artist
includes the figure of Ishmael and illustrates the precise moment of
Hagar’s epiphany of the angel, who is shown gesturing with his proper
right arm to the boy lying in the landscape.
Ferdinand Bol (1616–80), Fabritius’s close contemporary and fellow
student of Rembrandt, provides yet another example of the story in apainting from ca. 1650 now in Gdansk (fig 3).[9] In a composition that
resembles Fabritius’s prototype, Bol omits the figure of Ishmael but
includes a prominent fountain at the center right. The angel’s frontal
position and commanding gesture correspond with Fabritius’s heavenly
figure, but the gesture of his right arm is disconnected from any element in
the narrative. Bol has portrayed Hagar as she reacts to the angel’s
presence. Her lowered head and downcast eyes suggest that she has not
yet seen the water source, yet its portrayal as a running fountain directly
beside her makes the logic of the narrative less compelling. For thesereasons, scholars have been confounded by the iconography, unclear as
to which of the two episodes Bol’s representation was meant to portray.[10]Before its acquisition by the Leiden Collection in 2011, Fabritius’s painting
had been in the same private collection for over 250 years.[11] It was first© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 6 of 16

recorded in the Schönborn-Buchheim Collection inventory of 1746, at
which time it was attributed to Rembrandt, an attribution that remained
intact until the end of the nineteenth century.[12] The painting was later
attributed to Rembrandt’s pupils, both to Ferdinand Bol and Govaert Flinck(1615–60).[13] In 1983, Werner Sumowski noted the stylistic similarities ofthe painting to a newly discovered work by Fabritius, Mercury andArgus from about 1645–47 in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, andconcluded that the two paintings were by the same hand.[14]Although Sumowski’s attribution of the painting to Fabritius did not initially
receive unanimous acceptance, the painting was included in the Fabritius
exhibition of 2004 in The Hague.[15] Technical studies carried out at thattime further demonstrated its close connection with other paintings by theartist. Canvas weave analysis revealed a striking similarity with the signed
Raising of Lazarus from ca. 1643 in Warsaw, and indicated that the twocanvases might have been cut from the same bolt.[16] Final confirmation of
the painting’s attribution occurred in 2005, when infrared light revealed
Fabritius’s signature in the lower left, which the artist had applied while theundermodeling was still wet (fig 4).[17] Based on these technical results,
and on the close correspondence in style, color and brushwork ofHagar
and the Angel with the painting in Warsaw, Frederik Duparc proposed adate of ca. 1645 for the painting.[18]In 2012, Michael Gallagher, head of conservation at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, undertook a comprehensive conservation
treatment of Hagar and the Angel.[19] Previously, the work had only been
selectively cleaned in isolated areas around the figures, while other areasin the landscape were obscured by discolored varnish. Widespread
overpainting, particularly in the angel’s right wing, concealed the logic of
the artist’s original form. An eighteenth-century print made after the Leiden
Collection painting (fig 5) indicates that Fabritius may have originally
executed the area of shadow across the angel’s wing as a dark billowing
cloud that may have been misunderstood in a later restoration, thereby
obscuring his original intent.[20] Perhaps the most serious aspect of thepainting’s overall state prior to 2012 was its uneven surface condition
caused by an earlier, unsuccessful wax relining. Together, these issues
made it extremely difficult to assess the painting’s pictorial character.[21]The conservation treatment allowed the range and variety of Fabritius’s© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 7 of 16

masterful handling of paint to be revealed once again. Significantly, therestoration brought to light Fabritius’s original signature.[22] It also helped
clarify a number of pictorial elements in the painting, including thepresence of the well in the landscape which possesses such greatsignificance for the painting’s iconography. The delicate reflections of lighton the water’s surface were revealed only when the painting was restored
in 2012.[23] The water’s reemergence also helped clarify the meaning of
the angel’s expressive gesture, which led the viewer’s eye to discover thisdelicately executed area of the landscape. Indeed, Fabritius intended theappearance of the well to be suggestive rather than obvious. By his
nuanced portrayal and sensitivity to the narrative, Fabritius ensured that its
recognition by the viewer would anticipate the awe and revelation of
Hagar’s own discovery.
-Dominique Surh

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 8 of 16

Endnotes
1. For the details of Fabritius’s apprenticeship with Rembrandt in Amsterdam, see Piet
Bakker’s biography of Rembrandt in this catalogue.
2. Four of these history paintings, including the present canvas, have been added to the artist’s
oeuvre since 1985. In his 1981 monograph, Christopher Brown included only the signed
Raising of Lazarus in Warsaw among Fabritius’s history paintings. The present painting wasadded to Fabritius’s oeuvre in 1983 by Werner Sumowski, and in 1986 Christopher Brown
published Mercury and Argus in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art as a painting by
Fabritius. On the basis of that attribution, also in 1986, Frederik J. Duparc publishedMercury and Aglauros in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston as a Fabritius, while Hera in the
Pushkin Museum was added to Fabritius’s oeuvre in 2000 by Marina Segeevna Senenko.
See Christopher Brown, Carel Fabritius: Complete Edition with a Catalogue Raisonné(Oxford, 1981), 121–22, no. 1, pls. 1, 13–18; Werner Sumowski,Gemälde der RembrandtSchüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–95), 5:3096, no. 2071; 6:3641, no. 2071;
Christopher Brown, “‘Mercury and Argus’ by Carel Fabritius: A Newly Discovered Painting,”
The Burlington Magazine 128 (1986): 797–98; Frederik J. Duparc, “‘Mercury and Aglauros’
Reattributed to Carel Fabritius,” The Burlington Magazine 128 (1986): 799–802; and Marina
Segeevna Senenko, Collection of Dutch Paintings: Seventeenth–Nineteenth Centuries(Moscow, 2009), 148–49, no. 496.
3. Sellin reports that nearly 40 paintings of the later episode survive; see Christine Petra Sellin,
Fractured Families and Rebel Maidservants: The Biblical Hagar in Seventeenth-Century
Dutch Art and Literature (New York and London, 2006), 2, 133.
4. In the published literature on the Leiden Collection painting from 1965 to 2006, theidentification of the earlier episode (Gen. 16:7–12) is prevalent. See Gero Seelig, “Hagar andthe Angel,” in Carel Fabritius 1622–1654, ed. Frederik J. Duparc (Exh. cat. The Hague,
Mauritshuis; Schwerin, Staatliches Museum) (Zwolle, 2004), no. 2, 86; Henri van de Waal,‘“Hagar in de woestijn’ door Rembrandt en zijn school,” Nederlands KunsthistorischJaarboek 1 (1947): 151, 164, fig. 8, as by Govaert Flinck; Christine Petra Sellin, Fractured
Families and Rebel Maidservants: The Biblical Hagar in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art
and Literature (New York and London, 2006), 96, fig. 17, 100, n. 13. I am grateful to Ilonavan Tuinen, who first questioned—during close examination of the painting while it wasundergoing conservation treatment in 2012—whether Fabritius meant to illustrate the earlier
episode in the narrative and suggested that the artist might have intended the later episode.
5. Of the present painting, which Seelig notes as representing Hagar’s first encounter with anangel in Genesis 16:5, he says: “Indeed, because the well is not depicted, as it is in the later
painting by Ferdinand Bol in Danzig, the flask is even misleading.” See Gero Seelig, “Hagar
and the Angel,” in Carel Fabritius 1622–1654, ed. Frederik J. Duparc (Exh. cat. The Hague,© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 9 of 16

Mauritshuis; Schwerin, Staatliches Museum) (Zwolle, 2004), 86–87, no. 2. I would like tothank Michael Gallagher for pointing out the reemergence of the delicate reflection of thewater as a result of the cleaning (personal communication).
6. This aspect of Fabritius’s brushwork is also described by Gallagher: “What seems
significant is that the artist has used both light and shadow to simultaneously model anddissolve form—to create solidity and mutability. This is most pronounced in the figure of theAngel who almost appears to be still in the process of coalescing into being behind the figureof Hagar.” Michael Gallagher, “Condition and Treatment Report: Carel Fabritius, Hagar andthe Angel,” unpublished conservation report, 2013, curatorial files, The Leiden Collection,
New York.
7. R. Hamann, “Hagars Abschied bei Rembrandt und im Rembrandt Kreis,” Marburger
Jahrbuch fur Kunstwissenschaft 8–9 (1936): 471–578; and Christine Petra Sellin, Fractured
Families and Rebel Maidservants: The Biblical Hagar in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art
and Literature (New York and London, 2006), 6–7.
8. Three related drawings by Rembrandt illustrating the dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael datefrom the 1640s and 50s: the earliest appears to have been the source for several variants by
Rembrandt’s pupils and followers and dates from ca. 1642–46, pen and brown ink withbrown wash heightened with white and a touch of red chalk, 188 x 237 mm, British Museum,inv. no. 1860-6-16-121; the second dates from ca. 1648–50, pen on brown paper, 171 x 224
mm, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-T-1930-2; and the third dates from ca. 1652–55, reed pen
and brown ink on brown paper, 200 x 245 mm, British Museum, inv. 1910-2-12-175. See
Martin Royalton-Kisch, Drawings by Rembrandt and His Circle in the British Museum(London, 1992), 106–8, no. 41, and 126, no. 54; and Peter Schatborn, Drawings by
Rembrandt: His Anonymous Pupils and Followers (The Hague, 1985), 88, no. 40.
9. Blankert notes that it is not certain which episode is referred to in Bol’s painting: “If Bol
wishes to protray the scene as described in Gen. 21:17–20, he did so more accurately thanhis colleagues were in the habit of doing.” Seelig identified the subject matter, as did
Senenko in reference to a copy of the painting in the Pushkin Museum, as representing
Genesis 16:7–12. See Albert Blankert, Ferninand Bol (1616–1680): Rembrandt’s
Pupil (Doornspijk, 1982), 89, no. 1, plate 11; cf. Gero Seelig, “Hagar and the Angel,” inCarel
Fabritius 1622–1654, ed. Frederik J. Duparc (Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis; Schwerin,
Staatliches Museum) (Zwolle, 2004), 86–90, no. 2, n. 6; and Marina Segeevna Senenko,
Collection of Dutch Paintings: Seventeenth–Nineteenth Centuries (Moscow, 2009), 59, no.
658. A drawing in Paris by Ferdinand Bol, Hagar and Ishmael in the Desert , pen and brush,
293 x 185 mm, Frits Lugt Collection, Fondation Custodia, depicts a figure to the far right inthe background that probably refers to Ishmael in the later episode. Seelig identifies it as apreparatory story for the painting in Gdansk, whereas Sumowski rejects this idea. See Gero
Seelig, “Hagar and the Angel,” in Carel Fabritius 1622–1654, ed. Frederik J. Duparc (Exh.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 10 of 16

cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis; Schwerin, Staatliches Museum) (Zwolle, 2004), 86–90, no. 2,
n. 6; Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School , 10 vols. (New York 1979–92)
1:524–25, no. 250; and Pieter Schatborn, Rembrandt and His Circle: Drawings in the Frits
Lugt Collection, 2 vols. (Paris, 2010), 1:108–11, no. 34. Sumowski identifies anotherdrawing by Bol in Amsterdam, Hagar at the Well On the Way to Shur , pen and brown ink,
brown wash, 182 x 232 mm, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-T-1930-27, as the preparatory study
for the painting in Gdansk. See Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School , 10
vols. (New York, 1979–92) 1:202, no. 89.
10. Albert Blankert, Ferninand Bol (1616–1680): Rembrandt’s Pupil (Doornspijk, 1982), 89, no.
1, plate 11; and Gero Seelig, “Hagar and the Angel,” in Carel Fabritius 1622–1654, ed.
Frederik J. Duparc (Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis; Schwerin, Staatliches Museum)(Zwolle, 2004), 85–86, no. 2.
11. The painting was first published in 1746 as part of the Schönborn-Buchheim Collection andremained in the same private collection until its acquisition by The Leiden Collection in 2011.
12. Beschreibungdesfürtreflichen

Gemähld-undBilder-Schatzes,

welcherindenenhochgräflichen Schlössern und Gebäuen deren Reiches-Grafen von Schönborn,
Buchheim, Wolfsthal, etc. sowohl in dem Heil. Röm. Reich, als in dem Ertz-Hertzogthum
Oesterreich zu ersehen und zu finden (Würzburg, 1746), no. 6, as by Rembrandt; Neues
Archiv für Geschichte, Staatenkunde, Literatur und Kunst , 2 vols. (Vienna, 1830), 2:167, as
by Rembrandt; John Smith, Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch,
Flemish and French painters, 9 vols. (London, 1829–42), 7:3, no. 6, as by Rembrandt; G. K.
Nagler, Neues allgemeines Küstler-Lexikon oder Nachrichten von dem Leben und den
Werken der Maler, Bildhauer, Baumeister, Kupferstecher, Formschneider, Lithographen,
Zeichner, Medailleure, Elfenbeinarbeiter, etc., 22 vols. (Munich, 1835–52), 12:425, as byRembrandt; A. R. von Perger, Die Kunstschätze Wien’s in Stahlstich nebst erläuterndem
Text (Triest, 1854), 88, as by Rembrandt; and Gustav Friedrich Waagen,Die vornehmsten
Kunstdenkmäler in Wien, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1866–87), 1:310, as by Rembrandt.
13. Frimmel first attributed CF-100 to Ferdinand Bol, whereas Cornelis Hofstede de Groot
attributed the work to Flinck and Blankert rejected the attribution to Bol in his monograph on
the artist, consigning the painting instead to the “Circle of Rembrandt.” See Theodor
Frimmel, Kleine Galeriestudien, 3 vols. (Bamberg and Leipzig, 1892–96), 3:24–25, no. 18,
as by Ferdinand Bol; cf. Cornelis Hofstede de Groot, “Die Rembrandt-Ausstellungen zu
Amsterdam (September–October 1898) und zu London (Januar–März 1899),” Repertorium
für Kunstwissenschaft 22 (1899): 164, as by Govaert Flinck; cf. Albert Blankert,Ferninand
Bol (1616–1680): Rembrandt’s Pupil (Doornspijk, 1982), 162, no. R3, fig. 97, as by circle ofRembrandt.
14. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–95),
5:3096, no. 2071; 6:3641, no. 2071; Frederik J. Duparc, “Carel Fabritius (1622–1654): His© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 11 of 16

Life and Work,” in Carel Fabritius 1622–1654, ed. Frederik J. Duparc (Exh. cat. The Hague,
Mauritshuis; Schwerin, Staatliches Museum) (Zwolle, 2004), 19–21, 32–33; idem, “Resultsof the Recent Art Historical and Technical Research on Carel Fabritius’s Early Work,”Oud
Holland 119 (2006): 82–83, esp. note. 15; and Werner Sumowski,Gemälde der RembrandtSchüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–95), 5:3096–97, nos. 2071 and 2072.
15. Duparc reports that at the time of the 2004–5 exhibition, both Albert Blankert and Jeroen
Giltaij were skeptical of the attribution of the painting to Fabritius. See Frederik J. Duparc,“Results of the Recent Art Historical and Technical Research on Carel Fabritius’s Early
Work,” Oud Holland 119 (2006): 82, n. 14.
16. The identical thread count of the canvas support of The Leiden Collection painting andRaising of Lazarus in Warsaw suggest that they were cut from the same bolt of canvas, thus
also suggesting that the two paintings are close in date. See Frederik J. Duparc, “Results of
the Recent Art Historical and Technical Research on Carel Fabritius’s Early Work,” Oud
Holland 119 (2006): 84–85.
17. On the discovery of the signature through infrared examination, see Frederik J. Duparc,“Results of the Recent Art Historical and Technical Research on Carel Fabritius’s Early
Work,” Oud Holland 119 (2006): 83–84, 88.
18. In the 2004 exhibition, the painting was dated ca. 1643–45, while Duparc narrowed thedating on technical and stylistic grounds to ca. 1645. See Gero Seelig, “Hagar and theAngel,” in Carel Fabritius 1622–1654, ed. Frederik J. Duparc (Exh. cat. The Hague,
Mauritshuis; Schwerin, Staatliches Museum) (Zwolle, 2004), no. 2, 85–89; cf. Frederik J.
Duparc, “Results of the Recent Art Historical and Technical Research on Carel Fabritius’s
Early Work,” Oud Holland 119 (2006): 88.
19. The conservation campaign involved cleaning, canvas relining and restoration. For a video
document describing this work, see the Media associated with this entry. During treatment,
select pigment analysis was carried out by Silvia A. Centeno, Department of Scientific
Research, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. See Michael Gallagher, “Condition andTreatment Report: Carel Fabritius, Hagar and the Angel,” and Silvia A. Centeno,“Examination and Analysis Report,” both unpublished reports, 2013, curatorial files, The
Leiden Collection, New York.
20. An 1854 engraving by C. Geyer after the present painting, Hagar and the Angel, noted as byRembrandt, was published by A. R. von Perger, Die Kunstschätze Wien’s in Stahlstich
nebst erläuterndem Text (Triest, 1854), and shows a dark cloud that partially covers theangel’s proper right wing. It is quite possible, as suggested by Michael Gallagher (personalcommunication), that it was misunderstood by later restorers who attempted to clean orclarify the area, resulting in the obscuring of Fabritius’s original intent. Geyer’s print indicatesthat the dark area over the angel’s wing was present from at least 1854. Seelig alsoquestioned the logic of the cast shadow in this area and wondered whether there might have© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 12 of 16

originally been a tree branch casting this shadow. See Gero Seelig, “Hagar and the Angel,”in Carel Fabritius 1622–1654, ed. Frederik J. Duparc (Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis;
Schwerin, Staatliches Museum) (Zwolle, 2004), 88–89, no. 2.
21. In 2006, Duparc characterized the condition of the painting as “far from perfect . . . dirty,
partially abraded, and large areas are overpainted, making it difficult to assess,” while
Brown describes the painting’s condition as “seriously problematic.” See Frederik J. Duparc,“Results of the Recent Art Historical and Technical Research on Carel Fabritius’s Early
Work,” Oud Holland 119 (2006): 83; and Christopher Brown, “The Carel Fabritius Exhibitionin The Hague: A Personal View,” Oud Holland 119 (2006): 141. For a full technical report ofthe 2012 restoration, see Michael Gallagher, “Condition and Treatment Report: Carel
Fabritius, Hagar and the Angel,” unpublished conservation report, 2013, curatorial files, The
Leiden Collection, New York. For Gallagher’s discussion of these issues in video format, see
the Media associated with this entry.
22. Michael Gallagher, “Condition and Treatment Report: Carel Fabritius, Hagar and the Angel,”
unpublished conservation report, 2013, curatorial files, The Leiden Collection, New York.
For his dicussion of the signature in video format, see the Media associated with this entry.
23. I would like to thank Michael Gallagher for pointing out the reemergence of the delicate
reflection on the water as a result of the 2012 cleaning (personal communication).

ProvenancePossibly Pieter Six (his sale, Amsterdam, 2 September 1704, no. 57 [for 16 florins], as by
Ferdinand Bol).
Schönborn-Buchheim Collection, Vienna, by 1746; [Galerie Nissl, Eschen, 2011].
From whom acquired by the present owner.

Exhibition History
Salzburg, Residenzgalerie, 1956–2010, on loan with the permanent collection, 1956–2010[lent by the Schönborn-Buchheim Collection, Vienna].
Munich, Haus der Kunst, “Barocke Sammellust. Die Sammlung Schönborn-Buchheim,
Wien,” 7 February–11 May 2003 [lent by the Schönborn-Buchheim Collection, Vienna].
The Hague, Mauritshuis, “Carel Fabritius 1622–1654, Young Master Painter,” 24September 2004–9 January 2005; Schwerin, National Museum, 28 January–16 May 2005,© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 13 of 16

no. 2 [lent by the Schönborn-Buchheim Collection, Vienna].
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, on loan with the permanent collection, May
2013–2016 [lent by the present owner].
Paris, Museé du Louvre, “Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection: The Age of Rembrandt,”
22 February–22 May 2017 [lent by the present owner].
Beijing, National Museum of China, “Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The
Leiden Collection,” 17 June–3 September 2017 [lent by the present owner].

References
Beschreibungdesfürtreflichen

Gemähld-undBilder-Schatzes,

welcherindenenhochgräflichen Schlössern und Gebäuen deren Reiches-Grafen von Schönborn,
Buchheim, Wolfsthal, etc. sowohl in dem Heil. Röm. Reich, als in dem Ertz-Hertzogthum
Oesterreich zu ersehen und zu finden. Würzburg, 1746, no. 6, as by Rembrandt van Rijn.
Neues Archiv für Geschichte, Staatenkunde, Literatur und Kunst . 2 vols. Vienna, 1830,
2:167, as by Rembrandt van Rijn.
Smith, John. Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch, Flemish andFrench Painters. 9 vols. London 1829–42, 7:3, no. 6, as by Rembrandt van Rijn.
Nagler, G. K. Neues allgemeines Küstler-Lexikon oder Nachrichten von dem Leben undden

WerkenderMaler,

Bildhauer,

Baumeister,

Kupferstecher,

Lithographen, Zeichner, Medailleure, Elfenbeinarbeiter, etc.

Formschneider,

22 vols. Munich, 1835–52,

12:425, as by Rembrandt van Rijn.
Von Perger, A. R. Die Kunstschätze Wien’s in Stahlstich nebst erläuterndem Text . Triest,
1854, 88, as by Rembrandt van Rijn.
Waagen, Gustav Friedrich. Die vornehmsten Kunstdenkmäler in Wien . 2 vols. Vienna,
1866–87, 1:310, as by Rembrandt van Rijn.
Frimmel, Theodor. Kleine Galeriestudien. 3 vols. Bamberg and Leipzig, 1892–96, 1:118, as
by Rembrandt; 3:24–25, no. 18, as by Ferdinand Bol.
Katalog der Gemälde-Gallerie seiner erlaucht des Grafen Schönborn-Buchheim in Wien .
Vienna, 1894, 4, no. 18, as by Ferdinand Bol.
HofstededeGroot,

Cornelis.

“Die

Rembrandt-Ausstellungenzu

Amsterdam(September–October 1898) und zu London (Januar–März 1899).” Repertorium fürKunstwissenschaft 22 (1899): 164, as by Govaert Flinck.
Katalog der Gemälde-Gallerie seiner erlaucht des Grafen Schönborn-Buchheim in Wien .
Vienna, 1902, 4, no. 18, as by Ferdinand Bol.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 14 of 16

Von Wurzbach, Alfred. Niederländisches Künstler-Lexikon. 3 vols. Vienna, 1906–11, 1:538,
as by Govert Flinck.
Thieme, Ulrich, and Becker, Felix. Allgemeines Lexicon der Bildenden Künstler von derAntike bis zur Gegenwart. 37 vols. Leipzig, 1907–50, 12:98, as by Govaert Flinck.
Hofstede de Groot, Cornelis. A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent
Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century Based on the Work of John Smith . 8 vols.
London, 1907–27, 6:456, no. 4, as by Govaert Flinck. Translated fromBeschreibendes und
kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten holländischen Maler des XVII.
Jahrhunderts. 10 vols. Esslingen and Paris, 1907–28.
Van de Waal, Henri. ‘“Hagar in de woestijn” door Rembrandt en zijn school.”Nederlands
Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 1 (1947): 151, 164, no. 8, as by Govaert Flinck.
Fuhrmann, Franz. Residenzgalerie Salzburg mit Sammlung Czernin und Sammlung
Schönborn-Buchheim. Salzburg, 1958, 6, no. 153, as by Ferdinand Bol.
Buschbeck, Ernst H., Fuhrmann, Franz and Ingram, Annemarie. Residenzgalerie Salzburg
mit Sammlung Czernin und Sammlung Schönborn-Buchheim . Salzburg, 1962, 36, no. 17
and no. 19, as by Ferdinand Bol.
Von Moltke, Joachim. Govaert Flinck: 1615–1660. Amsterdam, 1965, 224, no. 4, as by
Ferdinand Bol.
Buschbeck, Ernst H., Fuhrmann, Franz and Ingram, Annemarie. Residenzgalerie Salzburg
mit Sammlung Czernin und Sammlung Schönborn-Buchheim . Salzburg, 1970, 34, no. 17
and no. 21, as by Ferdinand Bol.
Bliechinger, E. Salzburger Landessammlungen: Residenzgalerie mit Sammlung Czernin
und Sammlung Schönborn-Buchheim. Salzburg, 1980, 45, no. 22, as by Ferdinand Bol.
Blankert, Albert. Ferninand Bol (1616–1680): Rembrandt’s Pupil. Doornspijk, 1982, 162,
no. R3 and no. 97, as by circle of Rembrandt.
Sumowski, Werner. Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler. 6 vols. Landau and Pfalz, 1983–95,
5:3096, no. 2071; 6:3641, no. 2071.
Ziemba, Antoni. “‘Die Auferweckung des Lazarus’ von Carel Fabritius in Warschau.”
Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte 29 (1990): 110, as by Ferdinand Bol.
Sitt, Martina. Auf den Spuren des Lichts: Studien zur niederländischen Malerei in der
Residenzgalerie Salzburg. Salzburg, 1991, 108–12, as by Ferdinand Bol.
Groschner,

Gabriele.

“HagarundderEngel.”In Meisterwerke,

Residenzgalerie

Salzburg. Edited by Gabriele Groschner et al. Salzburg, 2001, 14–15.
Kesting, Markus, ed. Barocke Sammellust. Die Sammlung Schönborn-Buchheim . Exh. cat.
Munich, Haus der Kunst. Munich, 2003, 104–5, 284.
Duparc, Frederik J. “Carel Fabritius (1622–1655), His Life and Work.” In Carel Fabritius
1622–1654. Edited by Frederik J. Duparc. Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis; Schwerin,© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 15 of 16

National Museum. Zwolle, 2004, 32–33, 35.
Seelig, Gero. “Hagar and the Angel.” In Carel Fabritius 1622–1654. Edited by Frederik J.
Duparc. Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis; Schwerin, National Museum. Zwolle, 2004,
85–90, no. 2.
Duparc, Frederik J. “Results of the Recent Art Historical and Technical Research on Carel
Fabritius’s Early Work.” Oud Holland 119 (2006): 81–88.
Seelig, Gero. “The Dating of Fabritius’s Stay in Amsterdam.” Oud Holland 119 (2006):
96–97.
Brown, Christopher. “The Carel Fabritius Exhibition in The Hague: A Personal View.”Oud
Holland 119 (2006): 141.

Versions
Engraved
1. Franz Wrenk after Carel Fabritius, Hagar and the Angel, mezzotint, 1804, 64.2 x 50 cm,
British Museum, London.

2. C. Geyer after Carel Fabritius, Hagar and the Angel, engraving (published in A. R. vonPerger, Die Kunstschätze Wien’s in Stahlstich nebst erläuterndem Text [Triest, 1854], as byRembrandt).

Versions Notes

Technical Summary
The painting was executed on a medium-weight, plain-weave canvas constructed from twopieces of fabric joined with a horizontal seam. It has been lined and the tacking margins on thetop, bottom and right sides are later additions that were sewn on. The red ground on the added
tacking margins extends onto the surface of the painting in some areas. Most of the left tacking
margin remains intact. It contains fragments of paint which match that of the painting. It is
unclear whether this edge was part of the finished composition or if the artist turned it over during
the painting process.
The support was prepared with a buff-colored ground.[1] Sweeping marks visible in the X© 2017 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Hagar and the Angel
Page 16 of 16

radiographs indicate that the ground was applied with a palette knife. The composition was
fluidly painted with a wet-into-wet technique. Fabritius also scraped into the paint with the butt
end of the brush in areas such as the leaves in the right foreground and the flask. Though they
do not appear on the surface of the painting, several artist’s changes are visible as dark
shadows peaking through the uppermost paint layers. The most notable change is in Hagar’s
skirt, which was changed from blue to gray.[2]The painting has suffered some abrasion, particularly in the shadows of the drapery and foliage.
The midtones have darkened over time, causing loss of clarity in some areas, such as the
background foliage and the pool of water in the middle ground. The painting was treatedbetween 2011 and 2013. During this treatment, discolored varnish and retouchings were
removed, an old lining was replaced with a more compatible one, surface deformations were
improved, and the abrasion and losses were inpainted.[3]Technical Summary Endnotes

1. The ground was analyzed with cross-sections in conjunction with polarized lightmicroscopy and Raman Spectroscopy. It was found to contain lead white, ocher, vermillion
and carbon-based black pigments. Silvia A. Centeno, examination and analysis report, 5February 2013.
2. Analysis of a cross-section showed that the skirt was original painted with smalt and leadwhite. This was covered with a layer of ochre, vermillion and carbon-based black. Silvia A.
Centeno, examination and analysis report, 5 February 2013.
3. Michael Gallagher, condition and treatment report, February 2013.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection