Gesina ter Borch (1631-1690)
A Testimony of Love
Carla van de Puttelaar with Fred G. Meijer
ZEBREGS&RÖELL
Gesina ter Borch (1631-1690)
A Testimony of Love
Carla van de Puttelaar with Fred G. Meijer
ZEBREGS&RÖELL “We sell Stories, not Fairytales.”
Amsterdam - Maastricht
www.zebregsroell.com
Gesina ter Borch (1631-1690) Portrait of Moses ter Borch as a two-year old in 1647 (circa 1667) Signed Gesina Ter Borch lower right Annotated A: i647. Ætatis.Sua.2. upper left Oil on canvas, H. 56 x W. 45 cm Provenance: - Gesina ter Borch (1631-1690), by descent to - Catharina ter Borch (1634-before 2 October 1704), by descent to - Hillegonda Schellinger (1674-1750) & Jean de Lambert (c.1660-1733) Probably - David van der Kellen Jr. (1804-1879) - Auction, Amsterdam, J.C. van Pappelendam and G.J. Schouten, at ‘De Brakke Grond’, 30 March 1874, lot 102 - Purchased for 36 guilders by Mr. A. Wolff, possibly the Parisian art critic Albert Abraham Wolff (1835-1891) - Collection Loynel d’Estrie, France, by descent to - Jean Jacques Loynel d’Estrie (1920-1995), Paris, by descent to - Private collection, Paris - Antiques dealer, Paris, purchased from the above in October 2023 - Zebregs&Röell Fine Art & Antiques, Amsterdam
Fig. 1
A Testimony of Love: Memorial Portrait by Gesina ter Borch of Moses ter Borch as a two-year old Dr Carla van de Puttelaar with Dr Fred G. Meijer
Recently, an unusual and endearing portrait of a two-year-old boy (fig. 1) emerged from a French private collection, where it had been kept for several generations as a work by Gerard ter Borch II. However, it turned out to be fully signed by Gesina ter Borch, and the little boy can be identified convincingly as her brother, Moses ter Borch. In this article, the portrait is analysed and placed into context.
The ter Borch family belongs to the most well-regarded families of artists from the seventeenth-century Northern Netherlands. The family was based in Zwolle and consisted of father Gerard ter Borch I (1582/83-1662), Gerard ter Borch II (1617-1681), Anna ter Borch (1622-1679), Gesina ter Borch (16311690), Harmen ter Borch (1638-before 1677), and Moses ter Borch (1645-1667), of whom Gerard ter Borch II became the most prolific and best-known member of the family, painting and drawing a substantial number of portraits as well as genre scenes. Their other siblings did not have an artistic output. Members of the ter Borch family, Gerard’s sister Gesina in particular, regularly served as his models. Gerard ter Borch was born from his father’s first marriage, with Anna Bufkens (1587-1621) from Antwerp. Gesina, Harmen, and Moses were three of the nine children from their father’s third marriage, with Wiesken Matthijs (16071683). Their father, Gerard ter Borch the Elder, was a draughtsman who chose to work as a licence master in Zwolle and gave up his artist’s career. However, he continued to promote the artistic qualities in his children and gave drawing lessons to the most talented ones. Gesina may have followed (some) lessons together with her younger brothers, Harmen and Moses, though only one known drawing by her is annotated by her father (fig. 19), whereas more drawings by her brothers bear their father’s annotations.1 Initially, Gesina’s drawings were influenced by the drawings of her brothers Gerard and Harmen and she also copied several of their drawings, but later on she developed a distinct individual style. In the 1650s she developed a relation-
ship with the Amsterdam merchant Henrik Jordis (active 1650s-1660s), who frequently contributed texts to her albums, until 1662. In the 1660s the amateur writer Sijbrant Schellinger (c.1645-before December 1699) appeared in her life.2 He married her sister Jenneken (Johanna) ter Borch (1640-1675) in 1668. They named their two firstborn sons Moses, but both boys died after a few months.3 The couple emigrated to Curaçao in 1672. After Jenneken had died in 1675,
Fig. 2 Gesina ter Borch, Portrait of Hillegonda Louise Schellinger (1674-1750) in Curaçao, signed and dated, ‘Gesina Ter Borch.F.1680’, watercolour on paper, 243 x 360 mm (size of the sheet). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1887-1463-92
Fig. 3 Sijbrant Schellinger (poet), Gesina ter Borch (calligrapher), Poem in honour of Moses ter Borch, ink and pen on paper, 243 x 360 mm (size of the sheet). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1887-1463-82
Fig. 4 Gerard ter Borch II and Gesina ter Borch, Memorial portrait of Moses ter Borch (1645-1667), 1667-1669, signed, lower left: ‘G. ter Borch’, oil on canvas, 76.2 x 56.5 cm (detail). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-A-4908
their three remaining children, Gerrit (Ger(h) ard) (born 1671), Cornelis (1672-1698), and Hillegonda Schellinger (1674-1750), came to live with Gesina in the house on Sassenstraat.4 She must have cared deeply for them, as they are mentioned as important beneficiaries in her will. Gesina lived on Sassenstraat until her death on 16 April 1690. At that time, Hillegonda was still living with her (fig. 2). Three of Gesina’s albums have survived, the Materi-boeck, De papiere Laure Krans (poetry book) and the Konstboek (an art book, or more of a scrapbook, in which many drawings, also by her father and brothers, and texts were collected). In her will, Gesina decided that her sister Catherina ter Borch (1634-before 2 October 1704) should receive the care of the studio legacy, which consisted of albums, sketchbooks, documents, and nearly 700 drawings. This collection was later inherited by Hillegonda Schellinger and her husband Jean de Lambert (c.1660-1733), who also became the owners of the house on Sassenstraat in 1711. The collection stayed in the family for generations until it was sold at auction in 1886 by Hillegonda’s great-grandson L.F. Zebinden.5 The majority ended up in the collection of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. No oil paintings by Gesina were part of the sale.6 Harmen ter Borch showed some talent as
a painter and draughtsman, but he gave up his artistic career in 1661 when he took over his father’s job as licence master. Moses ter Borch was a highly talented artist who made expressive, well-observed and well-executed portraits when he was in his teens, mainly in the form of drawings. Several extant self-portraits show a confident handling of brush and pen. Sadly, Moses decided to join the Dutch navy when he was almost twenty years old and died in 1667 during the siege of Fort Languard near Felixstowe. A collaboration of love From the Konstboek (a sketchbook in which she also pasted drawings by her father and brothers, but which primarily consists of numerous drawings in ink and watercolour by Gesina herself), started in the 1650s, it becomes clear that Gesina, more than other family members, had a very hard time to come to terms with the death of her much beloved younger brother Moses, to whom she must have been very close and who she perhaps had helped to nurse, together with her mother, as Moses was Gesina’s junior by fourteen years. She made several drawings of him in the later 1660s and 1670s, particularly after his death in 1667 (figs. 5, 19, 20 and 21), and also lamented his death in verses, see, for example, figure 3.
Fig. 5 Gesina ter Borch, Moses ter Borch on the beach at Harwich, signed and dated, ‘Gesina Ter Borch i667’, watercolour on paper, 243 x 360 mm (size of the sheet). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-18871463-83
Fig. 8 Gesina ter Borch, Self-portrait, with a poem by Joost Hermans Roldanus, 1661, watercolour and ink on paper, 243 x 360 mm (size of the sheet) (detail).
Shortly after Moses’ death, Gerard ter Borch II and Gesina ter Borch collaborated on a memorial portrait of Moses, signed by Gerard, now in the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum (see fig. 4). In any case, the face and the hands were painted by Gerard and probably the general figure as well. However, other motifs were done by Gesina: the background, (part of) Moses’ costume (particularly the sleeves), various objects with an allegorical reference to Moses’ death, such as a skull (death), an hourglass (time), and animals such as the dogs (fidelity), butterfly (transformation, freedom, and rebirth), snail (patience, perseverance, and resilience) and a serpent (evil), and military objects and shells, referring to the sea and Moses’ military career.7 In a signed drawing by Gesina, which is dated (or bears the date) 1667, Moses wears the same costume as in the painting (fig. 5). It appears that this drawing preceded the painting, in which case Gerard may well have used it
as a starting point for his portrait of Moses.8 The oil painting, the signature and the inscription No paintings in oils signed by Gesina ter Borch were known until now. She was primarily regarded as a draughtswoman who made many drawings and watercolour paintings, who only once collaborated with her half-brother Gerard on the memorial portrait in oils of their deceased brother Moses, though the art historian Sturla Gudlaugsson mentioned in his book on Gerard ter Borch II that Gesina took some lessons in oil painting from her brother Gerard.9 The newly discovered portrait, however, is clearly signed at bottom right ‘Gesina ter Borch’ in the distinct calligraphy of Gesina’s signature on, among others, the drawings in figures 2 and 5. In the upper left is an inscription ‘A: i647. Ætatis. Sua.2.’ in yellow ochre paint, which might be in a different hand. It could have been done
Figs. 6a & b Letters ‘G’ and ‘a’ in the artist’s signature in black paint, see: Technical report Redivivus, The Hague, 2024
Figs. 7a & b Letters and the digit 2 of the inscription in yellow-ochre paint, see: Technical report Redivivus, The Hague, 2024
Fig. 9 Gerard ter Borch (II), Study of Moses ter Borch, c.1653-1654, black chalk, and ink on paper, 87 x 97 mm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-T-00-52
Fig. 11 Moses ter Borch, Self-portrait (detail). 1661, black and white chalk, and possible ink or watercolour on blue paper, 144 x 109 mm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-T-1887-A-1052
Fig. 10 Detail of the present painting.
Fig. 12 Moses ter Borch, Self-portrait, 1660-1661, oil on canvas, 26.5 x 18 cm (detail). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-A-2241
by one of the poets who wrote poems for her, for example Joost Hermans Roldanus (c.15951682), a schoolmaster at the Latin school in Zwolle, who also calligraphed an ode below one of Gesina’s self-portraits (fig. 8). On the other hand, the inscription does not differ substantially from examples of Gesina’s calligraphy on paper (cf. fig. 5). It must have been done by someone who could work with oil paint. Both the signature and inscription were clearly painted at the same time as the rest of the painting as the fine lines of the craquelure run through the paint, and the signature and inscription remained fully intact during cleaning. This can be very well observed through the microscopic images of part of the signature and the inscription (figs. 6a, 6b, 7a and 7b).
Fig. 13 Detail of the present painting, the medal
The identification: Moses ter Borch and possible Orangist connection The date and year mentioned in the inscription fit for Gesina’s brother Moses, who was 2 years old in 1647. The boy also has his characteristic features, the upturned nose, the ginger curly hair and full cheeks known from several drawings and paintings, for example, by Gerard ter Borch II, such as in the drawing in figure 9 and notably several (later) self-portraits by Moses (figs. 11 and 12) in which the young boy can easily be recognised. Moses was a very gifted artist who started drawing when he was only 7 years old. If he had pursued a professional artistic career, he probably could have become an artist of very high esteem, like his half-brother Gerard. Moreover, the sitter indeed clearly looks like a little child of about two years old, with his toys spread around him. To the left is a black toy horse on wheels with a green base, which is worn where it had been stepped on many times (probably also by other siblings), with a little horsewhip next to it.10 In the other lower corner of the painting a flute, a violin and bow, and a long thin stick with ribbons can be seen just above a toy sword attached to a gold-embroidered sash that nearly touches the signature below it. Little Moses is beating a drum (fig. 1). From a long golden chain on his chest a golden coin or medal is suspended. It might depict Fig. 15 Anonymous, Portrait of a boy, possibly Lodewijk of Nassau [...], dated and inscribed: [...] 1604, oil on panel, 90 x 69 cm. Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-A-956
Fig. 14 Double Pistole or 4 Ecu d’or. Obv. bust of Frederik Henry of Nassau to the right FRED· HENR· D· G· PRIN· AVR· CO· NAS.
Rev. combined crowned coat of arms SOLI· DEO· HONOR· ET· GLOR.
Fig. 15a Detail of fig. 15 of the medal with the portrait of Maurice of Orange
Frederik Henry of Orange, who died in 1647 (figs. 13 and 14).11 It is rather similar in type to the golden chain with the coin of Maurice of Orange (1567-1625) shown in an anonymous painting of a boy from 1604, possibly representing Louis of Nassau (1602-1665), later Lord of Beverweerd, de Leck, Odijk, and Lekkerkerk (figs. 15, 15a). Also, the Orangist flag to the left appears to refer to support for the House of Orange. It might be that objects such as the sword on the floor, and the idle instruments refer to the death of the statesman. After all, Moses
had joined the navy in defence of his country. Date of the painting judging from the costume Despite the inscription at upper left, there are several distinct features that contrast with the date of 1647. First and foremost, the costume with the exuberant ribbons worn by the toddler was in fashion around 1665-1670 and is certainly not appropriate for 1647. A date of around 1667 would be spot on. A portrait of a boy by Hendrick Berckman (1629-1679), which is signed and dated 1667 shows a highly similar garment (fig. 16) as in the portrait of Moses: the flat, square collar with a lace border, the abundant ribbons on the hat, shoulders and sleeves, the long white apron over a coloured silk(?) dress and the long golden chains are all very similar. The same date fits for the black hat with the feathers. Moreover, it appears that Gesina, in the late 1640s and 1650s, consistently signed as ‘Geesken’ (figs. 17 and 18) and only started to sign her work as ‘Gesina’ around 1660, in the exact same calligraphy as on the oil painting
Fig. 17 Gesina ter Borch, Two Women, signed and dated, ‘Geesken Ter Borch 1654.’, watercolour on paper, 243 x 360 mm (size of the sheet) (detail). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1887-1463-117
(fig. 1). Moreover, Gesina was sixteen-years old in 1647 and her drawing style in the late 1640s and 1650s was much more linear, less skilled, less lively, and less individual, and her use of watercolours was less opaque and intricate than after 1660 (figs. 176, 19 and 26). Moreover, her earliest known drawing, of a series of figures, dates from 28 April 1648
Fig. 18 Gesina ter Borch, Portrait of a child in an interior, signed and dated: ‘Geesken Ter Borch 1657’, black chalk and ink on paper, 255 x 190 mm (sheet-size)) (detail). Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-T-1887-A-1196 Fig. 16 Hendrick Berckman, A young boy with a dog, signed and dated, ‘HBerckman. F / 1667.’, oil on mahogany panel, 79.5 x 63 cm (detail). With Lawrence Steigrad Fine Arts, 2011
(fig. 19).12 Comparison with other work, handling of the paint and attention to details Comparing the newly-found painting in oils of little Moses with watercoloured drawings from the 1660s in Gesina’s Konstboek results in distinct similarities beyond the signature, such as the drawing-like handling, the strong contours, and the display of the various objects scattered around a figure. The way the toys are placed in the portrait shows a very strong similarity with the portrait of Moses in the Rijksmuseum (fig. 4). They fill voids in the painting and are identical in style and handling. The handling of the paint does not suggest that it was done by an artist very familiar with working in oils. This can be observed particularly in the costume, which is detailed and has a drawing-like rendering, while there is a strong emphasis on the meticulously portrayed toys and other details. It is highly likely that the painting was intended by Gesina ter Borch as another memorial portrait of her
brother Moses, recalling him as a toddler. Dating it to around 1667-1669, the same time when the other memorial painting (fig.4) originated, is far more plausible than to interpret the inscription as providing the date of origin. Also, a drawing Gesina did of her brother Moses around 1670 shows the same handling of the costume as can be observed in the painting of little Moses, such as the strong contours in the lace and other aspects of the costume, the use of strong blacks in the darkest parts of the costume and the large black pupils of the eyes (fig. 20).13 Moreover, Gesina’s in testament, made up in Zwolle on 16 (?) April 1690, it is stated that: ‘En zullen al mijn conterfeitsels, en van broeder Moses en van vader en moeder en bestevader en bestemoeder, alsmede al mijn zilverwerk en het huislinnen dat ik van moeder geërft hebbe mede niet verkoft, maar voor de kinderen bewaart moeten worden’ (all my portraits, and those of brother Moses and of father and mother and grandfather and grandmother, as well as my silver and the linen I inherited from my mother must not be sold
Fig. 19 Gesina ter Borch, Figure Studies, dated 28 April 1648, watercolour and ink on paper, 155 x 211 mm (sheet-size) (detail). Part of the Materi-Boeck van Gesina ter Borch. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1890-1950-10
Fig. 20 Gesina ter Borch, Moses ter Borch, c.1670, watercolour, ink and egg white on paper, 243 x 360 mm (size of the sheet). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1887-1463-84
Fig. 21 Gesina ter Borch, Moses ter Borch, in the countryside around Zwolle, signed and dated, ‘Gesina Ter Borch.F.1666’, watercolour on paper, 243 x 360 mm (size of the sheet). . Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1887-1463-79
Fig. 22 Gesina ter Borch, Moses ter Borch at the English coast, c.1667, signed, ‘Gesina Ter Borch’, watercolour on paper, 243 x 360 mm (size of the sheet). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1887-1463-81
but will have to be kept for the children).14 Below the surface To allow thorough understanding of the picture, technical research has been performed. One issue was to establish whether Gesina used an underdrawing for her painting, which turned out to be the case. Interestingly, part of the underdrawing had become visible in a small spot on the drum where the upper paint layer was lost. Distinct drawing lines are visible through the microscope (fig. 23). Also, it becomes clear from this image that the artist made the underdrawing directly on the light ground layer. More of the underdrawing can be observed with the aid of Infrared Reflectography (IRR) (fig. 24),
Fig. 23 A loss in the paint of the drum shows the preparatory drawing material underneath (applied directly on the ground), see technical report Redivivus, The Hague, 2024
particularly in the drum. Additionally, it has become clear that Gesina ter Borch originally planned to depict a longer and wider skirt which is clearly visible in the IRR photo (fig. 24).15 Apparently, the longer skirt was never fully executed. It does, however, support the assumption that the portrait was made around 1667-1668 and not in 1647 when Moses was actually
two years old, as the artist appears to have started with a taller figure rather than with a two-year old modelling for her. One might wonder, however, on which sketches or paintings she based Moses’ face and posture in the portrait and whether a study of his toddler’s face existed by her father or by her brothers Gerard or Harmen. Interestingly, it appears that the face in the painting disappears in the x-ray image that was made, which indicates that hardly any whites were used in painting it (fig. 25). The sketch she made around 1650 (fig. 26, after a drawing by Harmen ter Borch) may depict Moses with his curly red hair playing his violin. Most likely, she had made other sketches of him during those years. The handling, however, is simpler, more doll-like than her more individual intricate sketches from the 1660s on, but as this appears to be a copy after her brother’s drawing, the handling is difficult to assess. The violin in the drawing differs somewhat in shape, and the flowers on the soundboard of the violin in the painting are different (fig. 27). On close inspection of the IRR of Moses’ hat in the oil painting, it appears it may have been changed in the process. Just above the rim of the hat some lighter strokes (hair or ribbons?) are visible. It might be that originally it looked more like a black beret or a falling hat (also called a bumper or pudding hat), such as the one with green ribbons or with the blonde hair peeping out from above of the head of Gerrit Schellinger, one of Gesina’s little nephews, whom she portrayed several times (figs. 28, 29 and 32).16 The bumper hat and black beret were also depicted by Gesina in a drawing from around 1660 of women and children (fig. 30). But it could also be that the hat was painted over the hair and has (in part) become transparent over time.17 The rendering of Moses in the oil painting shows further similarities with drawings of the late 1660s and 1670s. For example, with
Fig. 24 IRR image of the painting in fig. 1
Fig. 25 X-ray image of the present painting.
Fig. 26 Gesina ter Borch (after Harmen ter Borch), Portrait of a small child playing the violin, c.1650, watercolour and ink on paper, 155 x 211 mm (sheetsize) (detail). From the MateriBoeck. Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1890-1950-17
Fig. 27 Detail of thepresent painting (lower right), the musical instruments and sword.
Fig. 28 Gesina ter Borch, Gerrit and Cornelis Schellinger as children in an interior, signed and dated: ‘Gesina Ter Borch i672’, watercolour and ink on paper, 163 x 222 mm (sheet-size) Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1887-1463-72
the drawing of Sijbrant Schellinger and Jenneken ter Borch with two of their children (probably Gerrit (Gerard/Gerhard) and Cornelis) in an interior. The faces of the persons appear to display the same kind of treatment with strong round black eyes, rosy lips, and strong contours and rather thick drawing-like handling of the clothes. Moreover, in the painting there are intense shiny black parts (notably the black hat and wooden horse, and some shadow areas) which remained extra black and shiny after cleaning (figs. 1 and 31). The explanation may be the use of extra finely ground black pigment, which causes a dense and
Fig. 29 Gesina ter Borch, Probably Gerrit Schellinger as a young boy, c.1672, watercolour and ink on paper, 243 x 360 mm (sheetsize). Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1887-1463-105
shiny effect.18 It may be, however, that Gesina ter Borch added extra layers of a thin pigment glaze on these black areas to gain a glossy and intense black effect. Apparently, she used a similar method in her drawings: to achieve intense black in some parts of her drawings she glazed/washed those areas with egg white. In this respect, it is interesting that the black in the eyes appears to be rather well preserved, whereas often in portraits in oils, it has suffered. Moreover, this appears to indicate a direct relationship between her way of working and thinking concerning her drawings and paintings.
Fig. 30 Gesina ter Borch, Three women and their children in an interior, c.1660/61, signed bottom left in brown ink: ‘Gesina ter Borch’, watercolour and ink on paper, 163 x 222 mm (size of the sheet). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1887-1463-21
Fig. 31 Detail of the present panting, the horse
Daily life at home Many drawings by Gesina ter Borch have a homey feel, and many actually depict daily life at home. This sense and illustration of life at home is also visible in the painting of her brother Moses. The boy is actively playing. It feels as though he is caught in a moment of it. He is drumming, was perhaps playing the violin earlier, did some horse riding and sword fighting. For just one split second he looks at us (through his sister, who captured him in this particular moment). As said, the depiction of all these toys in a very lifelike way is unusual in the portraiture of children, particularly when it
concerns an actual portrait and not a genre scene. The fact that Gesina was a female artist who observed life around her with grown-ups and children on a daily basis, may very well have intensified the urge to document these observations by way of her art. In the drawing of the three women with children (fig. 30), a busy life at home with children playing, running around, horse riding, and with one woman breastfeeding, it gives the ultimate impression of life in a household with many children. The depiction is so lifelike and full of movement that is not difficult to imagine the sounds of children’s voices and footsteps.
Fig. 32 Gesina ter Borch, Sijbrant Schellinger and Jenneken ter Borch with two children in an interior, signed and dated: ‘Gesina Ter Borch. 1669.’, watercolour and ink on paper, 243 x 360 mm (size of the sheet). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1887-1463-74
Fig. 33 Interior of the apartment at Place Furstenberg as featured in L’Oeil, October 1965
The painting’s history In October 1965, the portrait of Moses ter Borch was published in L’Oeil, a French magazine, in which the interior of the apartment at Place Furstenberg in Paris of the collector and dentist Jean Jacques Loynel d’Estrie (1920-1995) was featured (fig. 33). The apartment showed an enormous number of art objects, and it becomes clear that the collector had many interests. After his death, the Musée du Louvre received his impressive collection of verre émaillé in lieu of inheritance tax in December 1997, and subsequently deposited it at the Musée de Nevers in 1998.19 In the 1965, publication the portrait of Moses was singled out (fig. 34) with the following caption: ‘Gérard Terborch [sic]: Philippe Prosper, Infant d’Espagne, à l’âge de deux ans, en 1647. Il existe au Rijks Museum [sic] d’Amsterdam un autre portrait de l’infant par Terborch, exécuté l’année précédente. Celui-ci vient de la famille maternelle de M. Loynel d’Estrie, qui était fixée en FrancheComté à l’époque où cette province était encore possession espagnole’ (Gérard
Terborch: Philippe Prosper, Infant of Spain, at the age of two, in 1647. Another portrait of the infant by Terborch, made the previous year, exists at the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam. This one comes from the maternal ancestors of Mr. Loynel d’Estrie, who were settled in Franche-Comté at the time when that province was still a Spanish possession). The mentioned sitter is Philip Prosper, Prince of Asturias (1657-1661), who was actually born 12 years later than the boy (Moses) in Gesina ter Borch’s portrait. Prince Philip was portrayed as a two-year old in 1659 by Diego Velázquez (1599-1660) (fig. 35). Both the age of the Spanish boy and his likeness by Velázquez make it fully clear that the identification was incorrect. Lastly, it is mentioned that the painting had come down to Loynel d’Estrie through the maternal line and that that family had settled in Franche-Comté when the province was still under Spanish rule. However, since Franche-Comté was ceded to France in 1678 in the Treaty of Nijmegen, such an early provenance is impossible, as the painting must have remained in the ter Borch family until well past the time of Gesina’s death in
Fig. 34 The portrait of Moses ter Borch by Gesina ter Borch as featured in L’Oeil, October 1965
descendant of the ter Borch family is yet unclear, but as he had eight paintings in his possession that were related to the ter Borch family, there may well be a family connection. Moreover, the group of paintings consigned by van der Kellen appears to concur with the group of portraits of which Gesina had ordained in her will that they ‘must not be sold but will have to be kept for the children’.22
1690. The painting is almost certainly the Portrait d’Enfant by Gesina Terburg [sic], lot 102, oil on canvas, 54 x 45 cm (this is slightly smaller in height than the actual measurements, the catalogue probably gave the sight size of the framed painting), that was sold on 30 March 1874 in Amsterdam with J.C. van Pappelendam and G.J. Schouten at hotel ‘De Brakke Grond’ (fig. 36).20 In the auction catalogue is written that the consignor of the portrait and several other paintings by and of the ter Borch family members (and many other old master paintings) in the sale was David van der Kellen Jr. This is probably, the engraver (among others) who was born on 25 September 1804 in Amsterdam and who died there on 30 March 1879. His son David van der Kellen III (1827-1895) was also called Jr., which complicates matters, also because he had the same occupations as his father besides being a museum director. The painting was sold for 36 guilders to A. Wolff, who also bought three other paintings in the sale.21 It may well have been the Parisian art critic Albert Abraham Wolff (1835-1891) through whom the portrait of Moses ended up in Paris, and subsequently in the family of Jean Jacques Loynel d’Estrie. Whether the owner, David van der Kellen Jr, was a
It might be that the memorial portrait of Moses ter Borch, painted by Gerard ter Borch II and Gesina ter Borch, originally came from this group of paintings as well. That portrait was bought in Paris before 1853 by Thomas Jefferson Bryan (1800?-1870) an American art collector who came to France when he was 21 and who stayed in Paris for the following thirty years, acquiring an extensive collection of European Art. He took his art collection, including the portrait of Moses by Gerard and Gesina ter Borch, to New York where he opened a gallery in that year.23 After the death of Jean Jacques Loynel, the painting was inherited by family and finally sold privately in October 2023 to a French antiques dealer, from whom acquired by Zebregs&Röell,who sold it to the present owner, who consigned it back to Zebregs&Röell after they had discovered the signature of Gesina ter Borch.
Fig. 35 Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez, Philip Prosper, Prince of Asturias, 1659, oil on canvas, 129 x 100 cm. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. no. Gemäldegalerie, 319
Fig. 36 Auction J.C. van Pappelendam and G.J. Schouten at hotel ‘De Brakke Grond’, 30 March 1874: ‘Gesina Terburg [sic] [lot] 102 - Portrait d’Enfant Toile. Hauteur 54, largeur 45 cent.’ Scan of the auctioneer’s copy of the auction catalogue with annotations. The Hague, RKD
A unique testimony of love The newly found portrait of Moses ter Borch by Gesina is a unique expression of the deep affection that Gesina must have felt for her much younger brother. It is the only signed portrait by the artist in oils and the only original depiction by her of Moses as a toddler. Painting it must have been a way for her to conquer the loss she felt upon the sudden death that had separated her from a very dear brother. Again, love and art prevailed over death, just like it did in her watercolour The Triumpf of Painting over Death in 1660 (fig. 37) and by guarding his legacy and that of other family members causing it to survive almost intact through the centuries, so it can still be admired and loved by many. As will this portrait now that it has re-emerged with the correct names of the sitter and the artist, Moses ter Borch and Gesina ter Borch.
Fig. 37 Gesina ter Borch, Triumpf of Painting over Death, 1660, signed: ‘Gesina Ter Borch’, watercolour and ink on paper, 243 x 360 mm (size of the sheet). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BI-1887-1463-2
We are indebted to Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones and Rebecca Chipkin of Redivivus for their information on technical aspects of the painting, to Marjan Brouwer for sending us her book on Gesina ter Borch,and to Dickie Zebregs for giving us the opportunity to do research and to write this essay. 1 See A. McNeil Kettering, Drawings from the Ter Borch Studio Estate in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 1988, pp. 92, 93, cat. nos. GJr 1 and GJr 2. 2 https://gw.geneanet.org/cofranssen?lang=en&n=schellinger&oc=0&p=sijbrantm, accessed 12 February 2024. 3 This clearly shows that Jenneken and probably Sijbrant as well were also much affected by Moses’ death in 1667. Moses Schellinger, baptised, 17 March 1669, Stadsarchief Amsterdam (SAA), DTB Dopen (Baptisms), archive no. 5001, inv. no. 63, p.47, deed DTB 63, buried 27 June 1669, DTB Begraven (Burials), archive no. 5001, inv. no. 1056, p. 8 and p. 9, deed DTB 1056; Moses Schellinger, baptised, 12 March 1670, Stadsarchief Amsterdam (SAA), DTB Dopen (Baptisms), archive no. 5001, inv. no. 44, p. 272, deed DTB 44, buried 14 April 1670, DTB Begraven (Burials), archive no. 5001, inv. no. 1056, p. 29 and p. 30, deed DTB 1056. 4 M.E. Houck, Mededeelingen betreffende Gerhard ter Borch, Robert van Voerst, Pieter van Anraedt, Aleijda Wolfsen, Derck Hardensteijn en Hendrik ter Bruggen, Zwolle 1899, p. 160. 5 Houck 1899 (note 4), p. 160; S.J. Gudlaugsson, Katalog der Gemälde Gerard ter Borchs sowie biographisches Material, 2 vols, The Hague, 1959-1960, vol. 2, p. 45. 6 See McNeil Kettering 1988 (note 1), p. 362; https://resources. huygens.knaw.nl/vrouwenlexicon/lemmata/data/Borch, accessed between 20 January and 14 February 2024; M. Brouwer, De Gouden Eeuw van Gesina ter Borch, Zwolle 2010. 7 See also: A. McNeil Kettering, ‘Portret van Moses ter Borch door Gerard en Gesina ter Borch’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum, 43, 1995, pp. 317-335. 8 See also: A.K. Wheelock Jr., A. McNeil Kettering and A. Wallert, Gerard ter Borch, Zwolle, 2004-2005, cat. no. 46, p. 168. 9 Gudlaugsson 1959-1960 (note 5), vol. 2: 38, 285-287. The author mentions as only fully signed (and dated 1665) painting by Gesina ter Borch a Simson and Delilah in the Municipal Museum in Zwolle, a painting that was later unmasked as by Hendrik Bloemaert (C.J.A. Wansink, ‘Simson en Delila, niet Gesina ter Borch, maar Hendrik Bloemaert’, Oud Holland 102, 1988, pp. 236-242). Gudlaugsson further singled out eleven paintings, mainly previously attributed to Gerard ter Borch II, among them the collaborative work with Gerard (also in his catalogue of that artist, no. 227). His catalogue number 9 ‘Bildnis eines Kindes’ Leinwand 54 x 45 cm, auctioned in Amsterdam with J.C. van Pappelendam and G.J. Schouten at “De Brakke Grond”, 30-31 March 1874, lot 102, is most probably the newly discovered painting discussed here (see paragraph of the history of the painting), his catalogue number 10, supposedly signed and in an American collection, he had only heard of and not seen. The attribution to Gesina ter Borch of the remaining eight works, judging from photos, holds no ground. A small full-length portrait in oils of Moses ter Borch, now in the National Gallery in Washington DC (inv. no. 2022.106.1), has been published as ‘Ter Borch family Studio. Attributed to Gesina ter Borch and Gerard ter Borch the Younger’, see Salomon Lilian Old Masters 2022, pp. 16-27, cat. no. 2, catalogue entry by J. Hillegers. Most probably this is the painting that was offered for sale in the same auction on 30 March 1874, lot 99, Portrait de jeune homme, dit Mozes Terburg [sic] le frère du peintre by G, [Gerard] Terburg [sic], panel, 36 x 28 cm, which also came from David van der Kellen Jr. and did not sell, as it did not attain the reserve price of 200 guilders (bidding stopped at 115 guilders). See fig. 36 in this essay of the catalogue page. 10 With thanks to Alexander Christian Stal who observed the difference in colour, verbal communication 6 February 2024. 11 From her will of 16[?] April 1690 it becomes clear that Gesina owned several gold and silver medals and coins: ‘Neeve
Gerhard ter Borch zal hebben mijn groote gouden pennink daar op de eene zijclt de wijnparsse staat, en Tomas ter Borch de vierdubbele pistolet van 36 gl. zoo hij mij overleeft, anders zal die in ’t gemeen zijn aen de drie neven Jacobus ter Borch en Gerhard en Cornelis Schellinger, noch zal Jacobus ter Borch hebben een gouden ducaton van 15 gl. ’t stuck, met een ducaat van 5 gl. en Gerhard Schellinger sal hebben mijn grootste zilveren medalie daar een oog aan is dat men ze hangen kan, met een 155 klein zilveren penninkjes en een gouden ducaat van 5 gl.’, Houck 1899 (note 4), pp. 154, 155. 12 H. Luijten, ‘“Swiren vol van leer, amblemsche wijs geduijt”. Een opmerkelijk zeventiende-eeuws poëzie-album van Gesina ter Borch’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum, 36, 1988, pp. 315342. 13 The costume and template of the drawing was copied by Gesina after the portrait of François de Vicq, later Burgomaster of Amsterdam, from 1670 by Gerard ter Borch II, now in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-2417. 14 Houck 1899 (note 4), p. 156. 15 See technical report of Redivivus, February 2024. 16 The falling hat, used in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was usually a sausage-shaped bumper roll with an open top with ribbons that was often fastened with ribbons under the chin, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bumper_headguard_cap, accessed 9 February 2024. 17 Email correspondence with Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones, 12 February 2024. 18 With thanks to Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones, who pointed this out to us, 6 February 2024. 19 http://www2.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/joconde_fr?ACTION=CHERCHER&FIELD_98=APTN&VALUE_98=%20 Jean%20Loynel%20d&DOM=All&REL_SPECIFIC=3, accessed 10 February 2024. 20 The painting was also mentioned by Gudlaugsson 1960-1961 (note 5), p. 286 (see also note 5). 21 A. Wolff also acquired: Circle of Rachel Ruysch (lot 92), Manner of Ostade (lot 88) and an anonymous portrait of a woman (lot 62). 22 See above and note 14. In the auction of 1874, this concerned the following lots: Inconnu 58. - Portrait d’un homme d’Age (dit le père du peintre G. Terburg). Bois Hauteur 66, largeur 55 cent. Inconnu 59. - Portrait d’une dame d’Age (dit le mère du peintre G. Terburg). Bois Hauteur 66, largeur 52 cent. L. de Jongh 64. - Portrait du peintre Gérard Terburg. Bois Hauteur 71, largeur 63 cent. L. de Jongh 65. - Portrait de la femme de Gérard Terburg. Bois Hauteur 71, largeur 68[?] cent. G. Terburg 99. - Portrait de jeune homme, dit Mozes Terburg, le frère du peintre. Bois Hauteur 36, largeur 28 cent. G. Terburg 100. - Portrait de savant. Toile. Hauteur 40, largeur 33 cent. Maniére de G. Terburg 101. - Portrait de Gesina Terburg. Bois. Hauteur 27, largeur 21 cent. Gesina Terburg 102. - Portrait d’enfant. Toile. Hauteur 54, largeur 45 cent. 23 https://medievalartus.ace.fordham.edu/exhibits/show/bryan-gallery/the-bryan-gallery--a-first-for, accessed 11 February 2024.
About the authors
Carla van de Puttelaar (1967) graduated from the Rietveld Academy, Amsterdam (1996). She holds a PhD in art history from Utrecht University (2017). In 2021 her seminal book Scottish portraiture 1644-1714 was published. She is a specialist on Dutch, Flemish and British portraiture 1500-1800. Carla has written essays for exhibition catalogues and art journals, and was co-editor and author for three libri amicorum. She is currently the Cochair and Journal Editor of the Scottish Society for Art History. Her photographic work has gained worldwide recognition, being exhibited in several museums and galleries, and appearing in publications including eight monographs. Carla is the creator of the portrait project Artfully dressed: Women in the art world (www.womenintheartworld.com).
Fred G. Meijer (1955) worked in the department of Old Netherlandish Painting at the RKD, Netherlands Institute for Art History, from 1980 until mid-2017, when he founded Fred G. Meijer Art History (www.fredgmeijer.com). His main field of interest is still-life painting from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but his specialist knowledge concerns many areas of Dutch and Flemish art from c.1600-1850. He has published numerous articles, contributed to catalogues, and wrote catalogues on still-life collections in Rotterdam (1989) and Oxford (2003). He has also published a dictionary of Dutch and Flemish still-life painters with A. van der Willigen (2003). In 2016 he received the degree of doctor at the University of Amsterdam for his research concerning the still-life painter Jan Davidsz. de Heem (1606-1684). This year his monograph on this artist will be published.
Published by
Guus Röell and Dickie Zebregs Tefaf 2024 Maastricht 6211 LN, Tongersestraat 2 guus.roell@xs4all.nl tel. +31 653211649 (by appointment only) Amsterdam 1017DP, Keizersgracht 541-543 dickie@zebregsroell.com tel. +31 620743671 (by appointment only) Instagram @zebregsroell www.zebregsroell.com
Photography Michiel Stokmans Design A10design Printed by Pietermans Drukkerij, Lanaken, Belgium
WWW.ZEBREGSROELL.COM