Attributed to Gaspar de Crayer

Jan Lucas Bierens (1591?-1641) and Mechteld Lintermans (d.1641), Antwerp;
Thence by unbroken descent to Waleron baron van Erp, Brussels, 1926 (as by van Dyck);
With Guido Arnot, London and New York, by 1927 and until at least 1929 (as Circle of Pieter Claesz. Soutman);
Arthur J. Sulley, Esq., London;
His sale, London, Christie's June 1, 1934, lot 27, to William Randolph Hearst (as Cornelis de Vos);
William Randolph Hearst, California, until 1950 (as Cornelis de Vos);
Gift of William Randolph Hearst to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, 1950, (acc. no. 50.28.3) (as Cornelis de Vos).

Brussels, Trésor de l'art belge au XVIIe siècle, 1910, no. 533.

Trésor de l'art belge au XVIIe siècle, exhibition catalogue, Brussels 1910, cat. no. 533 (as Cornelis de Vos);
G. Glück, Rubens, van Dyck und ihr Kreis, Vienna 1933, pp. 337-341;
E. Greindl, "Les Portraits de Cornelis de Vos", in Annuaire des Musées Royaux de Belgique, II, 1939, p.171 (as Cornelis de Vos);
B. Ulrich and F. Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der Bildenden Künstler, Leipzig 1940, vol. 34, p. 551 (as Cornelis de Vos);
E. Greindl, Corneille de Vos: Portraitiste Flamand (1584-1651), Luxembourg 1944, p. 144, reproduced, plate 51 (as Cornelis de Vos);
W.R. Valentiner, "The Portrait of Mathilde Lintermans," in Quarterly, Los Angeles County Museum, Spring 1951, p. 12 (as Cornelis de Vos);
Los Angeles County Museum, Catalogue of Paintings II: Flemish, German, Dutch and English Paintings XV-XVIII Century, Los Angeles 1954, p. 21, cat. no. 16 (as Cornelis de Vos);
S. Schaefer, et al. European Painting and Sculpture in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles 1987, p. 99 (as Cornelis de Vos);
K. van der Stighelen, "Cornelis de Vos as a Draughtsman," in Master Drawings, vol. xxvii, 1989, p. 331.

The following condition report has been provided by Simon Parkes of Simon Parkes Art Conservation, Inc. 502 East 74th St. New York, NY 212-734-3920, simonparkes@msn.com , an independent restorer who is not an employee of Sotheby's. This large painting has been fairly recently restored. The varnish is a little uneven but cleaning the picture is not necessarily recommended, although improvements could always be made to restorations such as these. The canvas was originally made from two sections of canvas joined horizontally through the center of the piece. It is now lined; the lining is effective and the surface is stable. The paint layer may be slightly dirty yet reads quite well. The face of the mother and her figure generally are in good condition. The face and figure of the child standing beneath the mother are also quite healthy, although restorations have been applied to diminish some cracking to this child's face. In the girl in the lower right restorations are visible under ultraviolet light in her face diminishing not only cracks but also some abrasion. There are other retouches here and there in the dark column in the center of the piece, in the sky and in the light colored dresses of the children. For a large, 17th century family portrait, the condition may be considered to be quite reasonable and the quality of the work shows very well. Although the frame and certain aspects of the restoration could be improved, the picture is close to being ready to hang.
"This lot is offered for sale subject to Sotheby's Conditions of Business, which are available on request and printed in Sotheby's sale catalogues. The independent reports contained in this document are provided for prospective bidders' information only and without warranty by Sotheby's or the Seller."

It is likely that the present painting acted as a pendant to one of two known full length portraits of Linterman's husband Jan de Bierens, Lord of Montford.  Those two paintings (now both location unknown) are of virtually the same composition, with variations in dress, the most significant being the inclusion of armour in one of the two canvases.  It is the picture depicting de Bierens in a breast plate that was together with the present canvas in the Sulley collection, until they were sold as separate lots in 1934, and thus appears to be slightly more probable as the true pendant to the present work (see provenance).  This matter is more confusing as it seems possible that one or both of the portraits of de Bierens may have been painted earlier than the portrait of his wife and children, which may have been done slightly later and created as a mate to it, rather than having been conceived as a pair originally.¹

Whatever the exact genesis of the Portrait of Mathilde Lintermans and her Children, the painting exemplifies the type of elegant and high style portraiture favoured by the Antwerp elite in the early decades of the 17^th Century.  The couple, while not aristocrats, did in fact lead a very wealthy and privileged lifestyle. Through his various business affairs, de Bierens eventually aligned himself with prince Wladeslaus IV (1595-1648), future King of Poland, as well as other powerful noblemen. It is recorded that de Bierens represented the Polish King in his acquisition of paintings and tapestries within Brussels and Antwerp.

The couple had ten children altogether, with six being born between 1625 and 1630, the likely dates during which the present painting was executed. Here, only the eldest son and daughter are represented in the foreground passing a piece of fruit. Lintermans poses beside an oriental tapestry dressed in flowing drapery and adorned with finery for her formal portrait. The family is set in a lovely pastoral setting, as was customary in upper class portraits of the time. Although full length, life size portraits such as this were rare, it was this type of formal portraiture that was favoured by the upper echelons of Flemish society, and that with which de Crayer found widespread popularity as a working artist.

A preparatory drawing for the present composition was sold at Christie's, Amsterdam, November 9, 1998, lot 43 (see fig. 1). While both the drawing and the present picture have been fully attributed to Cornelis de Vos in the past, Professor Kathelijne van der Stighelen rejects this attribution, preferring instead to give the picture to Peter Thys (1614-1678). Taking a likely date of execution of 1625-30, as well as Thys' dates, then this attribution would seem highly improbable. Erick Duverger, in his 1995 article on de Bierens, suggests that Abraham van Diepenbeeck (1596-1675), the godfather of Maria Bierens, could be the likely artist. However, while Diepenbeeck was known to paint miniatures of the family, he was never known to have painted large format compositions such as the present canvas. If however, we are to take into account Gaspar de Crayer's ties to the Court, his patronage by the upper-class, and the predominance of formal full length portraits in his oeuvre, we are presented with evidence which can support the attribution of this work to his hand.

 

1.  We are grateful to Amy Walsh for making her notes on the present work available. Dr. Walsh has suggested that the format and composition of the painting, with the subject appearing to the viewer's right, as opposed to the traditional left ,may suggest that the pendant was originally conceived as a singular composition.