Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Godefridus Schalcken(Made 1643 – 1706 The Hague)ca. 1692–1706
oil on canvas
76.5 x 63.8 cm
signed in light-colored paint, lower rightcorner: “G. Schalcken.”
GS-129© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 2 of 8

How to cite
Jansen, Guido. “Lovers (Prodigal Son)” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 2nd ed. Edited by Arthur
K. Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017–20. https://theleidencollection.com/artwork/the-lovers-the-prodigal-son/(archived May 2020).
A PDF of every version of this entry is available in this Online Catalogue's Archive, and the Archive ismanaged by a permanent URL. New versions are added only when a substantive change to the narrativeoccurs.

© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 3 of 8

By the light of a single candle, we see a young woman holding a blue ribbon

Comparative Figuresin her right hand. Her rather revealing dressing gown of orange and yellow
satin trimmed with ermine, and her double pearl bracelet suggest her
comfortable circumstances. She looks at a young man who is rendered inlost profile, his gesturing hand indicating that they are deep in conversation.
In this darkened interior, one can barely make out the young man’s notched
beret and the elegant red-brown garment he wears over a white shirt
trimmed with lace at the neck. He also wears a blue shawl and a goldcolored armband above his left elbow. Barely visible at the left is an oldFig 1. Gerrit van Honthorst, The
Procuress, 1625, oil on panel, 71 x
104 cm, Centraal Museum,Utrecht, inv. 10786

woman, seen in profile. She has placed her left hand on the young woman’s
shoulder while simultaneously holding the veil draped over the girl’s hair,
having pulled it back to reveal the young woman’s beautiful face.
The candle is situated on a table covered with a dark green cloth, and lying
next to the simple brass candleholder are gold coins and a string of jewels.
Considering the expensive items on the table, one can only assume that thepicture depicts a young man visiting a woman of easy virtue, a reading that iscorroborated by the presence of the old procuress standing behind her.
Godefridus Schalcken made deliberate use of his specialty—the illuminationof a setting with the light of a burning candle—to accentuate the intimacy andsexual innuendo of the scene. This setting immediately defines theencounter as one that cannot take place by the light of day, as something
furtive and immoral. Schalcken painted a large number of erotic scenes,
which is remarkable considering that he came from a prominent Dordrecht

Fig 2. Godefridus Schalcken, SelfPortrait by Candelight, 1659, oil oncanvas 109.5 x 88.5 cm,
Leamington Spa Art Gallery &Museum, Acc. no. LEAMG:
A452.1953

family of rather dogmatic clergymen and theologians who certainly would
have frowned on such themes. Nevertheless, the good family relations, towhich the archival documentation testifies, were in no way spoiled by theartist’s choice of subject matter.
Bearing in mind Schalcken’s background, it is probable that this brothel
scene portrays the Prodigal Son squandering his inheritance “with riotousliving” (Luke 15:13). An additional important clue is the old-fashioned
notched beret worn by the young man, which immediately calls to mind
Caravaggesque interpretations of this New Testament parable that wereproduced from the 1620s to the 1640s by Utrecht artists such as Jan vanBijlert (1597/98–1671) and especially Gerrit van Honthorst (1592–1656).[1] In
Van Honthorst’s paintings, moreover, candlelight often plays an importantrole, and Schalcken doubtless took note of his manner of portrayal. An
interesting example is Van Honthorst’s Merry Company of 1622 in Munich, apainting first documented in 1719 in Düsseldorf in the collection of Johann© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 4 of 8Wilhelm, Elector Palatine, as “The Prodigal Son in the brothel, succumbing
to the temptations of drinking and caressing.” [2]A later, thematically related composition by Van Honthorst, The Procuress, ispreserved in Utrecht (fig 1). On this panel of 1625 we see, just as in
Schalcken’s painting, three figures at a table on which stands a lighted
candle partly concealed by the young man (whether or not identifiable as theProdigal Son).[3] The depictions of the procuress in these two paintings arestrikingly similar.[4] By highlighting the low neckline of the strumpet’s dress,
her lute, and the feathers adorning her hair, however, Van Honthorst leaves
no doubt about her dishonorable profession. Schalcken, by contrast,
portrayed his young lady with greater subtlety, even though hiscontemporaries would have had no trouble understanding what his painting
depicted. Schalcken’s wealthy international clientele undoubtedly preferred
his sophisticated and veiled interpretation of a visit to a courtesan over Van
Honthorst’s more plebeian portrayal of the same subject.
Lovers was long part of one of England’s most important private collections:the Cook Collection at Doughty House, Richmond. This collection wasformed by Sir Francis Cook (1817–1901) with the help of Sir John Charles
Robinson (1824–1913). The years from 1868 to 1876 were particularly rich inacquisitions; indeed, in the latter year Sir Francis had no fewer than 510
paintings in his possession.[5] Schalcken’s work, too, probably entered hiscollection in that period, when the artist’s reputation was particularly
strong.[6] In 1880 Schalcken’s fame as a candlelight painter was given an
additional boost in England by the publication of a widely read ghost story
about the Dordrecht artist written by Sheridan La Fenu (1814–73).[7] Cookeven acquired a second painting by Schalcken, a self-portrait of the artist
holding his palette and brushes by candlelight (fig 2).[8] This painting, dated
1695, originated during Schalcken’s stay in London.[9] It is possible todate Lovers to the same period, 1692–96, but its origin in the painter’s lastperiod, when he was living in The Hague, cannot be ruled out. At any rate, itsexecution on a rather large canvas, its light palette, the uniform and thin
application of paint, and the woman’s trappings and her high foreheadclearly show that the picture originated some time between 1692 and 1706.

- Guido Jansen, 2017

© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 5 of 8Endnotes

1. On Van Bijlert, see Paul Huys Janssen, Jan Van Bijlert (1597/98–1671): Painter inUtrecht (Amsterdam, 1998), nos. 22 and 147, with illustrations. On Van Honthorst, see J.
Richard Judson and Rudolf E. O. Ekkart, Gerrit van Honthorst, 1592–1656 (Doornspijk,1999), nos. 282, 283, and 284. Judson and Ekkart prefer to call the subject a “MerryCompany.” Just how closely the subjects of a Merry Company and the Prodigal Son wererelated emerges from Paul Huys Janssen, Jan Van Bijlert (1597/98–1671): Painter inUtrecht (Amsterdam, 1998), no. 22, in which the scene of the expulsion of the Prodigal Sonfrom the brothel appears in the background, to make the subject of the painting abundantlyclear.
2. “Der verlohrne Sohn welcher in dem Bordello mit Trincken und Caressiren sich verführenläst.” Karsch, 1719, unpaginated, Das zweyte Zimmer N. 148. See J. Richard Judson andRudolf E. O. Ekkart, Gerrit van Honthorst, 1592–1656 (Doornspijk, 1999), no. 282, for theirinterpretation of the picture. With regard to this discussion, see also Albert Blankert andLeonard J. Slatkes, eds., Nieuw licht op de gouden eeuw: Hendrick ter Brugghen en
tijdgenoten (Exh. cat. Utrecht, Centraal Museum; Braunschweig, Herzog Anton UlrichMuseum) (Utrecht, 1986–87), no. 63.
3. J. Richard Judson and Rudolf E. O. Ekkart, Gerrit van Honthorst, 1592–1656 (Doornspijk,1999), no. 292. For a discussion of the interpretation of the picture as the Prodigal Son in thebrothel, see Liesbeth Helmus, Schilderkunst tot 1850, in Verzamelingen van het Centraal
Museum Utrecht, no. 5 (Utrecht,1999), 169–72, 975–77, no. 293.
4. Thierry Beherman, Godfried Schalcken (Paris, 1988), nos. 174 and 177, where both paintings
are dated to 1685–90. On the painting in Salzburg, see also Peter Hecht, ed., De Hollandse
Fijnschilders, van Gerard Dou tot Adriaen van der Werff (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum)(Amsterdam, 1989), 208–11, no. 44. In fact, Schalcken’s earlier work also displays the motifof the old woman, who appears in the same place in the composition in such paintings as
Virginity Threatened in Salzburg and The Useless Lesson in Antwerp.
5. Elon Danziger, “The Cook Collection, Its Founder and Its Inheritors,” The Burlington
Magazine 146, no. 1216 (July 2004): 448.
6. ElonDanzigerandJohn

Somerville,“TheCookCollectionArchive”(2004)

http://www.burlington.org.uk, no. 355, according to whom Lovers entered the Cook Collection
by 1914; they apparently overlooked W. Cook, Catalogue of the Art Collection: 8, Cadogan
Square, SW, (London, 1904); see Provenance.
The painting was seen by Abraham Bredius in 1888 in Richmond and descirbed in his
notebook (now in the Museum Bredius) on folio 201 as: Schalcken, groote dame bij© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 6 of 8kaarslicht, rechts 2e dame, de andere met blauw bandje.
7. The story, titled “Strange Event in the Life of Schalken [sic] the Painter,” first appeared aspart of “The Purcell Papers” in May 1839 in the Dublin University Magazine. It was reprinted
in 1851, but did not become widely known until The Purcell Papers were reprinted in three
volumes in London in 1880. See Gary William Crawford, J. Sheridan La Fenu: A BioBibliography (Westport, 1995), passim.
8. Thierry Beherman, Godfried Schalcken (Paris, 1988), no. 57, where it is dated to between
1692 and 1699. See also Elon Danziger and John Somerville, “The Cook Collection Archive”(2004), no. 354, who state that Cook most likely acquired the Self-Portrait from Robinson in1882. This painting was purchased from the Cook Collection in 1953 by the museum inLeamington Spa in Warwickshire.
9. Sonia Roe and Pat Hardy, Oil Paintings in Public Ownership in the City of London (London,2009), 170, where the painting is dated 1695. See also the BBC website, where all thepaintings (more than 125,000) published in the large series of Oil Paintings in [British] Public
Ownership can be viewed. Schalcken’s Self-Portrait is no. 54466 and has a good color image
that can be enlarged. Christopher Wright, Dutch Painting in the Seventeenth Century: Imagesof a Golden Age in British Collections (London, 1989), no. 37, does not mention a date.

Provenance
Sir Francis Cook, Bt. (1817–1901), Doughty House, Richmond, Surrey, until 1901; SirFrederick Cook, Et. (1844–1920), Doughty Richmond, Surrey, bequest from Sir Francis Cook,1901–20; Sir Herbert Cook, Et. (1868–1939), Doughty House, Richmond, Surrey, bequestfrom Sir Frederick Cook, 1920–39; Sir Francis Ferdinand Maurice Cook, Bt. (1907–78),
Doughty House, Richmond, Surrey, bequest from Sir Herbert Cook, 1939–58 (sale, London,Sotheby’s, “The Cook Collection Sale,” 25 June 1958, no. 120, £70 to Lubin).
David Benedict (sale, Doyle, New York, 21 January 2004, no. 85 [Johnny van Haeften Ltd,London, 2004]).
From whom purchased by the present owner.

Exhibition History
Sheffield, Graves Art Gallery, “Dutch Masterpieces: An Exhibition of Paintings,” 3 March
1956–5 April 1956, no. 47 [on loan from Sir Francis Cook, Bt., and The Trustees of the Cook© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 7 of 8Collection].
Norfolk, Virginia, The Chrysler Museum, on loan with the permanent collection, 2010–2011[lent by the present owner].
Wellesley, Davis Museum at Wellesley College, on loan with the permanent collection, 1August 2016–1 August 2017 [lent by the present owner].

References
Cook, Sir Francis. Abridged Catalogue of the Pictures at Doughty House, Richmond. London,1903, 34, no. 155.
Krönig, J. O. A Catalogue of the Paintings at Doughty House, Richmond, and Elsewhere inthe Collection of Sir Francis Cook, Bt. Visconde de Monserrate. London, 1913–15, 96, no.
335.
Cook, Sir Herbert. Abridged Catalogue of the Pictures at Doughty House, Richmond, Surrey,
in the Collection of Herbert Cook, Bart. London, 1932, 38, no. 355.
Graves Art Gallery. Dutch Masterpieces: An Exhibition of Paintings. Exh. cat. Sheffield,Graves Art Gallery. Sheffield, 1956.
Danziger, Elon, and John Somerville. “The Cook collection, its founder and itsinheritors.” Burlington Magazine 146, no. 1216 (July 2004): concordance.
Franits, Wayne. Godefridus Schalcken: A Dutch Painter in Late Seventeenth-CenturyLondon. Amsterdam, 2018, 117–18, fig. 60.

Technical Summary
The support, a fine, plain-weave handkerchief linen, has been lined. Linear creases 1.5 cm into
the face of the painting along all four edges suggest the tacking margins have been turnedout.[1] Paper tape extends into the face of the painting along all four edges. There are two paperlabels and white chalk inscriptions but no wax collection seals or import stamps along the lining orstretcher.
A light-colored ground has been thinly and evenly applied. Scientific analysis of paint crosssections indicate “the oil ground consists of a single buff, or brown, mixed from lead white,charcoal black, and various iron oxides.”[2] The paint has been applied wet-into-wet extremely
thinly and smoothly, with areas of low impasto created by lead white highlights along the female
figure’s pearl bracelet, the flame tip, the upper candle edge, the candleholder base, and thehighlight along the male figure’s proper left sleeve.
© 2020 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 8 of 8

No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images captured at 780–1000 nanometers.
Compositional changes visible in the images include alterations to the width and angle of the blue
ribbon between the female figure’s proper right pointer finger and the back of her proper left
hand. This section of ribbon was originally wider and sloped further to the right, toward thefigure’s wrist.

Technical Summary Endnotes

1. Or that the painting was previously stretched onto a smaller stretcher. There is no Xradiograph of the painting.
2. Undertaken in 2004 by Catherine Hassall Paint Analysis, 5 Patshull Road, London NW5 2JX.

© 2020 The Leiden Collection