Hagar and the Angel
Carel Fabritius(Middenbeemster 1622 – 1654 Delft)ca. 1645
oil on canvas
157.5 x 136 cm
signed in brown paint, bottom left corner: “C P
Fabritius”
CF-100© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 2 of 16

How to cite
Surh, Dominique. “Hagar and the Angel” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 3rd ed. Edited by Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr. and Lara Yeager-Crasselt. New York, 2020–23. https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/ (archived
December 2023).
A PDF of every version of this entry is available in this Online Catalogue's Archive, and the Archive is managed by apermanent URL. New versions are added only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 3 of 16

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

Delft powder house in 1654, painted this masterpiece around 1645, shortly after hehad 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
moments from the Bible and classical mythology, often unusual subjects that hetreated in movingly human terms. Here, in this rare and wonderful example, 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 atHagar’s darkest hour, Fabritius invites the viewer to become fully engaged in thestory.
Fabritius’s monumental depiction of a woman kneeling in prayer while being visitedby an angel is a powerfully moving interpretation of the Old Testament story of Hagar
and the angel. In this biblical narrative, which appears in Genesis 21:15–19, Hagar

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

and her son Ishmael are expelled from Abraham’s house and wander in the wilderness
for days. Having run out of water, Hagar can no longer bear the sight of her sufferingson, so she leaves Ishmael under a bush and goes off to pray. She thinks to herself, “Icannot 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.” God opens 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.
This painting depicts the second of two biblical episodes in which Hagar is visited byan 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 the wilderness as a young, pregnant woman

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, Liverpool(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 havetraditionally identified 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 the presence of water
become the dramatic fulcrum of the story: it leads to her salvation and, ultimately, thefulfillment of God’s promise. A factor that previously complicated the identificationof the correct biblical passage was that, prior to the painting’s restoration in 2012, thewater in the spring was obscured by layers of discolored varnish and not visible to thenaked eye.[5]Fig 3. Ferdinand Bol, Hagar and theAngel, ca. 1650, oil on canvas, 115.6 x© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 4 of 16

Fabritius’s nuanced interpretation of the story is consistent with the later biblicalepisode. The kneeling Hagar, with her robust stature, ruddy cheeks and weathered,

97.8 cm, Museum Pomorskie,
Gdansk, © 2015, photo: Scala,Florence

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 of warm, bluish-gray, while the pale corals and blues of her
striped shawl are depicted 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, the water vessel isfurther accentuated by the technique of scratching into the wet paint with the butt of
the brush to create added depth and texture. Tenderly, Hagar holds a thin, whitehandkerchief clasped between her folded fingers—a conventional gesture of prayer as

Fig 4. Detail of infrared photographof the signature, Hagar and the Angel,CF-100well as one of despair. Resigned to her grief, she rests her mouth on her hands in astate of quiet surrender. Fabritius offers a measure of her sorrow with a single
highlight at 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 light surround the angel’s
head in concentric bands of colors, while semitransparent streams of light emanatefrom his form, as though he were passing through the haze of heavy mist. His
confident yet intuitive brushwork adds to the otherworldly character of the angel andconveys the sense of a divine apparition materializing into form. Fabritius’s modelingof 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 angel motions toward the source ofFig 5. C. Geyer after Carel Fabritius,
Hagar and the Angel, engraving(published in A. R. von Perger, Die
Kunstschätze Wien’s in Stahlstich nebst
erläuterndem Text [Triest, 1854], as byRembrandt)

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 human emotions.[7] One important
pictorial prototype for Fabritius’s conception of the story and its compositionalorganization was Rembrandt’s 1637 etching, Abraham Casting Out Hagar andIshmael (fig 1). 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 isdepicted holding a handkerchief to her face while carrying a knapsack under her arm,a water bottle at her side, and a knife hanging from her belt.[8] Fabritius adopted thesemotifs 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 a central position in the etching.
A work depicting the same biblical episode from Rembrandt’s workshop of the later© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 5 of 16

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 angelas a towering figure at center with Hagar kneeling in the right foreground. Like thepresent example, Hagar is shown in profile holding a white handkerchief with a waterbottle and knapsack beside her. However, unlike Fabritius’s rendition of the story, theartist 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 ofRembrandt, provides yet another example of the story in a painting from ca. 1650
now in Gdansk (fig 3).[9] In a composition that resembles Fabritius’s prototype, Bolomits the figure of Ishmael but includes a prominent fountain at the center right. Theangel’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 loweredhead 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 these reasons, 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 beenin the same private collection for over 250 years.[11] It was first recorded in the
Schönborn-Buchheim Collection inventory of 1746, at which time it was attributed toRembrandt, 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 of the painting to a newly discovered work by Fabritius, Mercury andArgus from about 1645–47 in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, and concluded
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 that time further demonstrated its
close connection with other paintings by the artist. Canvas weave analysis revealed astriking similarity with the signed Raising of Lazarus from ca. 1643 in Warsaw, andindicated that the two canvases might have been cut from the same bolt.[16] Finalconfirmation of the painting’s attribution occurred in 2005, when infrared lightrevealed 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© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 6 of 16

close correspondence in style, color and brushwork of Hagar and the Angel with thepainting in Warsaw, Frederik Duparc proposed a date of ca. 1645 for the painting.[18]In 2012, Michael Gallagher, head of conservation at the Metropolitan Museum ofArt, New York, undertook a comprehensive conservation treatment of Hagar and theAngel.[19] Previously, the work had only been selectively cleaned in isolated areas
around the figures, while other areas in the landscape were obscured by discoloredvarnish. Widespread overpainting, particularly in the angel’s right wing, concealed thelogic 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 thearea 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 the painting’s overall state prior to 2012 was its unevensurface condition caused by an earlier, unsuccessful wax relining. Together, theseissues made it extremely difficult to assess the painting’s pictorial character.[21]The conservation treatment allowed the range and variety of Fabritius’s masterfulhandling of paint to be revealed once again. Significantly, the restoration brought tolight Fabritius’s original signature.[22] It also helped clarify a number of pictorial
elements in the painting, including the presence of the well in the landscapewhich possesses such great significance for the painting’s iconography. The delicate
reflections of light on 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 theangel’s expressive gesture, which led the viewer’s eye to discover this delicately
executed area of the landscape. Indeed, Fabritius intended the appearance of the well
to be suggestive rather than obvious. By his nuanced portrayal and sensitivity to thenarrative, Fabritius ensured that its recognition by the viewer would anticipate theawe and revelation of Hagar’s own discovery.

- Dominique Surh, 2017

© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 7 of 16

Endnotes
1. For the details of Fabritius’s apprenticeship with Rembrandt in Amsterdam, see Piet Bakker’s biographyof Rembrandt in this catalogue.
2. Four of these history paintings, including the present canvas, have been added to the artist’s oeuvre since1985. In his 1981 monograph, Christopher Brown included only the signed Raising of Lazarus in
Warsaw among Fabritius’s history paintings. The present painting was added to Fabritius’s oeuvre in1983 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 published Mercury 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
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 Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols.
(Landau and Pfalz, 1983–94), 5: 3096, no. 2071; 6: 3641, no. 2071; Christopher Brown, “‘Mercury andArgus’ by Carel Fabritius: A Newly Discovered Painting,” The Burlington Magazine 128 (1986): 797–98;
Frederik J. Duparc, “‘Mercury and Aglauros’ Reattributed to Carel Fabritius,” Burlington Magazine 128(1986): 799–802; and Marina Senenko, Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts: Collection of Dutch
Paintings: XVII–XIX 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, 2006), 2, 133.
4. In the published literature on the Leiden Collection painting from 1965 to 2006, the identification of theearlier episode (Gen. 16:7–12) is prevalent. 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), no. 2, 86; Henri van de Waal, ‘“Hagar in de woestijn’ door Rembrandt en zijn school,”
Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 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, 2006), 96, fig. 17, 100, n. 13. I am grateful to Ilona van Tuinen, who firstquestioned—during close examination of the painting while it was undergoing conservation treatment in2012—whether Fabritius meant to illustrate the earlier episode in the narrative and suggested that theartist might have intended the later episode.
5. Of the present painting, which Seelig notes as representing Hagar’s first encounter with an angel 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,” inCarel Fabritius 1622–1654, ed. Frederik J. Duparc (Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis; Schwerin,
Staatliches Museum) (Zwolle, 2004), 86–87, no. 2. I would like to thank Michael Gallagher for pointing
out the reemergence of the delicate reflection of the water as a result of the cleaning (personal© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 8 of 16communication).
6. This aspect of Fabritius’s brushwork is also described by Gallagher: “What seems significant is that theartist has used both light and shadow to simultaneously model and dissolve form—to create solidity andmutability. This is most pronounced in the figure of the Angel who almost appears to be still in theprocess of coalescing into being behind the figure of Hagar.” Michael Gallagher, “Condition andTreatment Report: Carel Fabritius, Hagar and the Angel,” unpublished conservation report, 2013,
curatorial files, The Leiden Collection, New York.
7. Richard 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, 2006),
6–7.
8. Three related drawings by Rembrandt illustrating the dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael date from the1640s 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 with brown wash heightened with whiteand 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 thethird 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 toprotray the scene as described in Gen. 21:17–20, he did so more accurately than his colleagues were in
the habit of doing.” Seelig identified the subject matter, as did Senenko in reference to a copy of thepainting 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 theAngel,” in Carel 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 Senenko, Pushkin State
Museum of Fine Arts: Collection of Dutch Paintings: XVII–XIX 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 in the background thatprobably refers to Ishmael in the later episode. Seelig identifies it as a preparatory 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. 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
another drawing 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© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 9 of 16

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 and remained in
the same private collection until its acquisition by The Leiden Collection in 2011.
12. Beschreibung des fürtreflichen Gemähld-und Bilder-Schatzes, welcher in denen hochgräflichen 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 byRembrandt; 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, Flemishand French painters, 9 vols. (London, 1829–42), 7: 3, no. 6, as by Rembrandt; Georg Kaspar 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), 12:4 25, as by Rembrandt; Anton Ritter von Perger,
Die Kunstschätze Wien’s in Stahlstich nebst erläuterndem Text (Triest, 1854), 88, as by Rembrandt; andGustav 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 thework to Flinck and Blankert rejected the attribution to Bol in his monograph on the artist, consigning thepainting instead to the “Circle of Rembrandt.” See Theodor Frimmel, Kleine Galeriestudien, 3 vols.
(Bamberg, 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, 1983–94), 5: 3096, no.
2071; 6:3641, no. 2071; Frederik J. Duparc, “Carel Fabritius (1622–1654): His Life and Work,” inCarel Fabritius 1622–1654, ed. Frederik J. Duparc (Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis; Schwerin,
Staatliches Museum) (Zwolle, 2004), 19–21, 32–33; Frederik J. Duparc, “Results of 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 Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz,
1983–94), 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.
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 10 of 16

16. The identical thread count of the canvas support of The Leiden Collection painting and Raising of
Lazarus in Warsaw suggest that they were cut from the same bolt of canvas, thus also suggesting that thetwo paintings are close in date. See Frederik J. Duparc, “Results of the Recent Art Historical andTechnical Research on Carel Fabritius’s Early Work,” Oud Holland 119 (2006): 84–85.
17. Jørgen Wadum made the discovery of the signature during his extensive technical research on thepainting in 2005. For the discovery and other technical insights on the painting, 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 the dating ontechnical and stylistic grounds to ca. 1645. 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), no. 2, 85–89; cf. Frederik J. Duparc, “Results of the Recent Art Historical andTechnical 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 and Treatment Report: Carel Fabritius, Hagar and theAngel,” 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 by Rembrandt,
was published by Anton Ritter von Perger, Die Kunstschätze Wien’s in Stahlstich nebst erläuterndem Text
(Triest, 1854), and shows a dark cloud that partially covers the angel’s proper right wing. It is quitepossible, as suggested by Michael Gallagher (personal communication), that it was misunderstood bylater restorers who attempted to clean or clarify the area, resulting in the obscuring of Fabritius’s original
intent. Geyer’s print indicates that the dark area over the angel’s wing was present from at least 1854.
Seelig also questioned the logic of the cast shadow in this area and wondered whether there might haveoriginally 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 thepainting’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; andChristopher Brown, “The Carel Fabritius Exhibition in The Hague: A Personal View,” Oud Holland 119(2006): 141. For a full technical report of the 2012 restoration, see Michael Gallagher, “Condition andTreatment 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.
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 11 of 16

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,” 24 September 2004–9
January 2005; Schwerin, National Museum, 28 January–16 May 2005, no. 2 [lent by the SchönbornBuchheim 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].
Shanghai, Long Museum, West Bund, “Rembrandt, Vermeer and Hals in the Dutch Golden Age:
Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection,” 23 September 2017–25 February 2018 [lent by the present
owner].
Moscow, The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, “The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer: Masterpiecesof The Leiden Collection,” 28 March 2018–22 July 2018 [lent by the present owner].
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 12 of 16

St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, “The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer: Masterpieces of
The Leiden Collection,” 5 September 2018–13 January 2019 [lent by the present owner].
Abu Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi, “Rembrandt, Vermeer and the Dutch Golden Age. Masterpieces fromThe Leiden Collection and the Musée du Louvre,” 14 February–18 May 2019 [lent by the present
owner].
Amsterdam, Hermitage Amsterdam, “Rembrandt and his Contemporaries: History Paintings from The
Leiden Collection,” 4 February–27 August 2023, no. 9 [lent by the present owner].

References
Beschreibung des fürtreflichen Gemähld-und Bilder-Schatzes, welcher in denen hochgräflichen 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 (asby Rembrandt van Rijn).
Neues Archiv für Geschichte, Staatenkunde, Literatur und Kunst. 2 vols. Vienna, 1830, 2: 167 (as byRembrandt van Rijn).
Smith, John. 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 van Rijn).
Nagler, Georg Kasper. 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 by Rembrandt van Rijn).
Von Perger, Anton Ritter. 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 byRembrandt; 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).
Hofstede de Groot, Cornelis. “Die Rembrandt-Ausstellungen zu Amsterdam (September–October 1898)
und zu London (Januar–März 1899).” Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 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).
Wurzbach, Alfred von. Niederländisches Künstler-Lexikon. 3 vols. Vienna, 1906–11, 1:538 (as by Govert
Flinck).
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 13 of 16

Thieme, Ulrich, and Felix Becker. Allgemeines Lexicon der Bildenden Künstler von der Antike 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. Edited and translated by Edward G. Hawke, 8vols. London, 1907–28, 6:456, no.4. Originally published as Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis
der Werke der hervorragendsten höllandischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts. 10 vols. Esslingen andParis, 1907–28 (as by Govaert Flinck).
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., Franz Fuhrmann, and Annemarie Ingram. 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., Franz Fuhrmann, and Annemarie Ingram. Residenzgalerie Salzburg mit Sammlung
Czernin und Sammlung Schönborn-Buchheim. Salzburg, 1970, 34, no. 17 and no. 21 (as by Ferdinand
Bol).
Blechinger, Edmund. Salzburger Landessammlungen. Residenzgalerie mit Sammlung Czernin undSammlung 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, 1983–94, 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. “Hagar und der Engel.” In Meisterwerke, Residenzgalerie Salzburg. Edited by
Gabriele Groschner et al. 14–15. Salzburg, 2001.
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, 32–33, 35. Exh. cat. The Hague, The Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis;
Schwerin, National Museum. Zwolle, 2004.
Seelig, Gero. “Hagar and the Angel.” In Carel Fabritius 1622–1655. Edited by Frederik J. Duparc,
85–90, no. 2. Exh. cat. The Hague, The Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis; Schwerin, National Museum.
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 14 of 16

Zwolle, 2004.
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.
Surh, Dominique. “Hagar and the Angel.” In Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection: The Age of
Rembrandt. Edited by Blaise Ducos and Dominique Surh, 34, no. 7. Exh. cat. Paris, Musée du Louvre.
Paris, 2017.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “Rembrandt and His Time: China and the Dutch Republic in the Golden Age.”In Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection. Edited by Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 9;14, no. 22. Translated by Li Ying. Exh. cat. Beijing, National Museum of China. Beijing, 2017.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “Hagar and the Angel.” In Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The
Leiden Collection. Edited by Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 64–65; 177, no. 22. Translated by Li Ying. Exh. cat.
Beijing, National Museum of China. Beijing, 2017.
Wang, Jia. “Dutch Painting in Golden Age.” In Journal of National Museum of China 169, no. 8 (2017):
36.
Long Museum, West Bund. Rembrandt, Vermeer and Hals in the Dutch Golden Age: Masterpieces fromThe Leiden Collection. Exh. cat. Shanghai, Long Museum, West Bund. Shanghai, 2017, 83.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “The Leiden Collection and the Dutch Golden Age.” In The Age of Rembrandt
and Vermeer: Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection. Edited by Polina Lyubimova, 18; 29. Translated by
Daria Babich and Daria Kuzina. Exh. cat. Moscow, The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts; St.
Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum. Moscow, 2018.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “Hagar and the Angel.” In The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer: Masterpieces of
The Leiden Collection. Edited by Polina Lyubimova, 220–21; 247, no. 77. Translated by Daria Babichand Daria Kuzina. Exh. cat. Moscow, The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts; St. Petersburg, The State
Hermitage Museum. Moscow, 2018.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “The Leiden Collection and the Dutch Golden Age.” In Rembrandt, Vermeer andthe Dutch Golden Age. Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection and the Musée du Louvre. Edited by
Blaise Ducos and Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 26, 29. Exh. cat. Abu Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi. London, 2019.
[Exhibition catalogue also published in French and Arabic.]
Ducos, Blaise, and Lara Yeager-Crasselt, eds. Rembrandt, Vermeer and the Dutch Golden Age.
Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection and the Musée du Louvre. Exh. cat. Abu Dhabi, Louvre Abu
Dhabi. London, 2019, 53, 99, no. 31. [Exhibition catalogue also published in French and Arabic.]
Wadum, Jørgen. “Are the Changed Appearances of Carel Fabritius’ Paintings a Consequence ofMobility?” In Ground Layers in European Painting 1550–1750. Edited by Haack Christensen, Anne,
Angela Jager, and Joyce H. Townsend, 108–109. CATS Proceedings V. Copenhagen, 2020.
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Hagar and the Angel
Page 15 of 16

Wadum, Jørgen. “In Search of Rembrandt’s Underdrawing” In Rembrandt Now: Technical Practice,Conservation and Research. Edited by Marika Spring, and Ashok Roy, 26–27, fig. 6. London, 2022.
Van Cauwenberge, Caroline. “Carel Fabritius, Hagar and the Angel.” In Rembrandt and His
Contemporaries: History Paintings from The Leiden Collection. Edited by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. andCaroline Van Cauwenberge, 52–53, no. 9. Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Hermitage Amsterdam. Zwolle, 2023.
[Exhibition catalogue also published in Dutch.]
Wheelock, Arthur K., Jr. “Rembrandt and Dutch History Painting from The Leiden Collection. In
Rembrandt and his Contemporaries: History Paintings from The Leiden Collection. Edited by Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr. and Caroline Van Cauwenberge, 18–19, no. 9. Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Hermitage
Amsterdam. Zwolle, 2023. [Exhibition catalogue also published in Dutch.]

Versions
Prints
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. von Perger, Die
Kunstschätze Wien’s in Stahlstich nebst erläuterndem Text [Triest, 1854], as by Rembrandt).

Technical Summary
The painting was executed on a medium-weight, plain-weave canvas constructed from two pieces of fabricjoined with a horizontal seam. It has been lined and the tacking margins on the top, bottom and right sides
are later additions that were sewn on. The red ground on the added tacking margins extends onto the surfaceof the painting in some areas. Most of the left tacking margin remains intact. It contains fragments of paintwhich 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-radiographs
indicate that the ground was applied with a palette knife. The composition was fluidly painted with a wet-intowet 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 notablechange 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© 2024 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Hagar and the Angel
Page 16 of 16

the pool of water in the middle ground. The painting was treated between 2011 and 2013. During thistreatment, discolored varnish and retouchings were removed, an old lining was replaced with a morecompatible 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 light microscopy and Raman
Spectroscopy. It was found to contain lead white, ocher, vermillion and carbon-based black pigments.
Silvia A. Centeno, examination and analysis report, 5 February 2013.
2. Analysis of a cross-section showed that the skirt was original painted with smalt and lead white. Thiswas 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.

© 2024 The Leiden Collection