Flemish or Dutch master, ca. 1600

Flemish or Dutch master, ca. 1600.
"Portrait of a lady".
Oil on oak panel.
Nineteenth-century frame following seventeenth-century models.
In the upper left corner of the work is the family emblem, which incorporates the motto "PLUS PENSER QVE DIRE" (More to think than to speak). This maxim, taken from a 15th century poem, was a popular motto that many families adopted as their own during the 16th and 17th centuries.
Measurements: 66 x 50 cm; 87 x 71 cm (frame).

This court lady portrait is a masterful work that captures the essence of the transition between the late Renaissance and early Baroque in the Netherlands.

Stylistically, and because of its high quality, the aura of influence of Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt (1567-1641) is apparent, both in the preciosist attention to detail reproduction, fabric textures and lace. Mierevelt was Delft's most prolific and influential portraitist.

The lady, captured half-length, wears a sumptuous costume, in which the "millstone" type of collar that frames the face stands out. This type of collar, starched and with precise pleats, was a symbol of extreme status (as it made manual labor impossible) and is characteristic of the Spanish fashion that influenced Flanders and Holland well into the 17th century. The transparent bonnet that adorns her red hair was also typical of highborn women, and both pieces border the facial oval emphasizing the lady's haughty rigidity.

Such rigidity in posture and the lady's direct but distant gaze are hallmarks of Mierevelt's workshop. This master established this standard of sober but richly detailed portraiture that pleased the Protestant bourgeoisie.

Her features are delicate, with fine and delineated lips, light flesh tones animated by a slight flush, profiled eyebrows and a clear forehead. The blue gaze is defiant. The bodice of the gown boasts the texture of damask or black velvet, and the puffed sleeves of silver silk with gold embroidered trim are the luminous counterpoint with their silvery sheen.

The young woman wears bracelets of red beads, probably coral. At that time, coral was used not only for aesthetics, but also as a protective amulet against illness or the evil eye.

She holds a flower in her right hand. In the pictorial language of the time, this used to symbolize the fragility of life (Vanitas), ephemeral beauty or, in the case of an engagement portrait, virtue and the promise of marriage. At her waist seems to hang a pomander (a perfumed sphere), a luxury accessory that served to smell good in an era of poor hygiene.

The inscription "PLUS PENSER QVE DIRE" (More to think than to speak) in the upper left corner is highly significant: it reflects the Stoic virtue of prudence and discretion, qualities expected of a noblewoman. The fact that it is painted on the panel indicates that the moral identity of the sitter was as important as her physical appearance.

The work belongs to the style of the Delft and Hague School. In addition to Mierevelt, mention should be made of Paulus Moreelse (1571-1638), who was a pupil of Mierevelt, active mainly in Utrecht.Although Moreelse later developed a looser, more pastoral style, his early portraits (ca.1600-1610) are very difficult to distinguish from those of his master. His early female portraits present clear concordances with the one we are inviting.

Another key author of reference to situate this work is Jan Antonisz van Ravesteyn (ca. 1572-1657), famous for painting rich costumes and complicated gorgets with a pre-photographic realism. This fact, in addition to the way the sleeves and lace cuffs of our lady are painted, is clearly linked to Ravesteyn's technique. The author used to give his figures an aristocratic and static air, very similar to the licitada painting.

In short, this work is an outstanding example of an official portrait of the early Golden Age. It does not seek psychological introspection (as Rembrandt would do) or expressive movement (like Frans Hals), but rather seeks to document the social position, wealth and moral virtue of the subject.

It is very likely that the author is a member of the workshop or a direct follower of Mierevelt, as the work meets all the requirements of the official style that he and his contemporaries (Moreelse and Ravesteyn) imposed in the Netherlands in the early 17th century.