Lovers (Prodigal Son)ca. 1692–1706

Godefridus Schalcken(Made 1643 – 1706 The Hague)

oil on canvas
76.5 x 63.8 cm
signed in light-colored paint, lower right corner:“G. Schalcken.”
GS-129© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 2 of 9

How To Cite
Jansen, Guido. "Lovers (Prodigal Son)." 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

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 3 of 9

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

Comparative Figures

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

old woman, seen in profile. She has placed her left hand on the youngwoman’s shoulder while simultaneously holding the veil draped over thegirl’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, andlying next to the simple brass candleholder are gold coins and a string ofjewels. Considering the expensive items on the table, one can only
assume that the picture depicts a young man visiting a woman of easy
virtue, a reading that is corroborated by the presence of the old procuress
standing behind her. Godefridus Schalcken made deliberate use of his
specialty—the illumination of a setting with the light of a burning
candle—to accentuate the intimacy and sexual innuendo of the scene.
This setting immediately defines the encounter as one that cannot takeFig 2. Godefridus Schalcken, SelfPortrait by Candelight, 1659, oilon canvas 109.5 x 88.5 cm,Leamington Spa Art Gallery &Museum, Acc. no. LEAMG:
A452.1953

place by the light of day, as something furtive and immoral. Schalcken
painted a large number of erotic scenes, which is remarkable consideringthat he came from a prominent Dordrecht family of rather dogmaticclergymen and theologians who certainly would have frowned on suchthemes. Nevertheless, the good family relations, to which the archival
documentation testifies, were in no way spoiled by the artist’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 mindCaravaggesque 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© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 4 of 9

important role, and Schalcken doubtless took note of his manner ofportrayal. An interesting example is Van Honthorst’s Merry Company of1622 in Munich, a painting first documented in 1719 in Düsseldorf in thecollection of Johann Wilhelm, Elector Palatine, as “The Prodigal Son in thebrothel, succumbing to the temptations of drinking and caressing.” [2]A later, thematically related composition by Van Honthorst, TheProcuress, is preserved 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 alighted candle partly concealed by the young man (whether or not
identifiable as the Prodigal Son).[3] The depictions of the procuress inthese two paintings are strikingly similar.[4] By highlighting the low necklineof 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 his contemporaries would have had no trouble
understanding

what

his

painting

depicted.

Schalcken’s

wealthyinternational 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. Thiscollection was formed by Sir Francis Cook (1817–1901) with the help ofSir John Charles Robinson (1824–1913). The years from 1868 to 1876
were particularly rich in acquisitions; indeed, in the latter year Sir Francis
had no fewer than 510 paintings in his possession.[5] Schalcken’s work,
too, probably entered his collection in that period, when the artist’sreputation was particularly strong.[6] In 1880 Schalcken’s fame as acandlelight painter was given an additional boost in England by thepublication of a widely read ghost story about the Dordrecht artist written
by Sheridan La Fenu (1814–73).[7] Cook even acquired a second painting
by Schalcken, a self-portrait of the artist holding his palette and brushes bycandlelight (fig 2).[8] This painting, dated 1695, originated during
Schalcken’s stay in London.[9] It is possible to date Lovers to the sameperiod, 1692–96, but its origin in the painter’s last period, when he wasliving in The Hague, cannot be ruled out. At any rate, its execution on arather large canvas, its light palette, the uniform and thin application ofpaint, and the woman’s trappings and her high forehead clearly show that© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 5 of 9

the picture originated some time between 1692 and 1706.
-Guido Jansen© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 6 of 9Endnotes
1. On Van Bijlert, see Paul Huys Janssen, Jan Van Bijlert:1597/98–1671 (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 “Merry Company.” Just how closely thesubjects of a Merry Company and the Prodigal Son were related emerges from Paul Huys
Janssen, Jan Van Bijlert: 1597/98–1671 (Amsterdam, 1998), no. 22, in which the scene of
the expulsion of the Prodigal Son from the brothel appears in the background, to make thesubject of the painting abundantly clear.
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., Holländische Malerei in neuem Licht: Hendrick ter Brugghen undseine Zeitgenossen (Exh. cat. Utrecht, Centraal Museum; Braunschweig, Herzog Anton
Ulrich-Museum) (Utrecht, 1986), 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 bothpaintings are dated to 1685–90. On the painting in Salzburg, see also Peter Hecht,DeHollandse Fijnschilders, van Gerard Dou tot Adriaen van der Werff (Exh. cat. Amsterdam,Rijksmuseum) (Maarssen and The Hague, 1989), 208–11, no. 44. In fact, Schalcken’s
earlier work also displays the motif of the old woman, who appears in the same place in thecomposition in such paintings as Virginity Threatened in Salzburg and The Useless Lessonin Antwerp.
5. Elon Danziger, “The Cook Collection, Its Founder and Its Inheritors,” The Burlington
Magazine 146, no. 1216 (July 2004): 448.
6. ElonDanzigerandJohn

Somerville,“TheCookCollection

Archive”(2004)

http://www.burlington.org.uk, no. 355, according to whom Lovers entered the CookCollection 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
kaarslicht, rechts 2e dame, de andere met blauw bandje.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 7 of 9

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 ofOil 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:
Images of a Golden Age in British Collections (London, 1989), no. 37, does not mention adate.

Provenance
Sir Francis Cook, Bt. (1817–1901), Doughty House, Richmond, Surrey, until 1901; Sir
Frederick Cook, Et. (1844–1920), Doughty Richmond, Surrey, bequest from Sir FrancisCook, 1901–20; Sir Herbert Cook, Et. (1868–1939), Doughty House, Richmond, Surrey,
bequest from 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
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 8 of 9Collection].
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.
Kronig, G. O. A Catalogue of the Paintings at Doughty House, Richmond, and Elsewhere in
the 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.
Dutch Masterpieces: An Exhibition of Paintings . Exh. cat. Sheffield, Graves Art Gallery.
Sheffield, 1956.

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 liningor stretcher.
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.
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 theblue 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 the© 2017 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lovers (Prodigal Son)
Page 9 of 9

figure’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 NW52JX.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection