jUDITH LEYSTER'S PROPOSITION.

~
.
..
4
i
~
i
! ;;
when he visited Haarlem in 1634, just
three years after her painting was
completed, and he may have
remembered it when painting the
same subject many years later. But
Ter Borch's elegant setting and the
quiet mood do not change the attitude
of the artist or the intention of
the officer, here, who declares his
needs to the young woman with his
op~ and his open palm filled
~ ~o~ F or eveninT ei~
mtimate scenes, the men are entertained
by the women who are clearly
courtesans serving luscious fruit and
wine. And although his work is a rar
cry from the blatant Caravaggesque
procuresses, Ter Borch nevertheless
does not concern himself with the circumstances
or victimization of
woman, but sees her only as the vehicle
to fulfill the sexual relationship.
Figure 7-Gabriel Metsu. An Orrer ur Wine.
c. 1650. Vicnna. Kunsthistorisches Museum
new
Figure 8-Jan Yermeer. TM Concert. C 1660.
Boston. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.
Leyster.s Proposition as a prototype
foT this theme. Also, Lawrence Gow.
ing. in his book Vermeer." uses Metsu.s
painting lO illustrate the idea of
lhe interrumed moment (soecifjcall,.
~ theme of ~stitution,
procuresses, brothels, and prodigal
sons. alone. one can see a continuum
~ hjS subject through the century.
"ye here are, for example, deli berate
ausions to the past in some of
Vermeer's paintings of the 1 660s. In
one of them, The Concerl (Fig. 8), no
doubt itself a brothel scene, hanging
on the wall at the right is an earlier,
blatant example of the procuress
type, Baburen's Procuress of 1622,
which has already been discussed.
Therefore, thatthe first generation
orseventeenth century genre painters
exerted an innuence on the taler ones.
or were in some way renected in their
\\ork, ciln be seen in an evaluation of
this subject miltter. That the work of
Mel~u and Ter Borch was innuenced
by the intimste proposition scene of
Judith Leyster is certainly possible.
Her work may have inspired the
quieter mood in genre painting of the
proposition theme. Certainly. if
Judith Leyster was not their direct influence,
she was, at the very least,
their unrecognized forerunner.
rOOTNOTES
'This arlicle ..as presenled in a slighlly
different form as a paper for Ihe College Arl
Associalion in January. 1975 1 should like 10
thank Professor Ann Sulherland Harris for
first Inlroduclng me 10 Ihe works of Judith
Leysler. Her unwavering support and genuine
enthusiasm for Ihis work and her continued encouragemenl
Ihroughout the ..,iling of my
M.A. thesis. Judi/h L~.I's/~r A Pr~/irninar)'
(ala/ugu~ (Hunter Colle~e). hiS meanl a ~real
deal IU me I would also like 10 Ihank Professor
Marlin Eldelberg rar his prodding crilicism
and qulel encoura~emenl during Ihe wriling of
Ihis arlicle and Ihe CAA paper-and 10 Ihank
hirn most or all for his patience
I Juliane Harms. ., Judilh Leysler: Ihr
Leben und ihr \\erk:' Oud-Ho//and, XLIV.
19~i. MM-96, 113-126, 145-154, 221-242,275-
279 The base of Harms's research ..as
Cornelius Hof siede de Grool's discover'j, in
IM93. or Le'j'sler's monogram on Tht Happ)'
('oup/~. no.. in Paris, The Louvre. The painlin~
had lust been sold as a Frans Hals, and
Horslede de Grool's discover'j resulled in a 1a..
suil He also. eiled si~ other monogrammed
works by Leyster "hich he had found. C
Horslede de Grool. .. Judith Leysler." Jahr-
buch d~r Kunig/ich Pr~sussisch~n Kuns/-
.larnm/u/lg/'/l. Val. XIV. IM93, pp. 190-198,
232. 11 is also noleworthy thai the eighteenth
century biographer, Arnold Houbraken, in his
D~ KruD//' schouburgh d~r ,\td~r/an/sch~
Aonsl'chi/d~rs ~n schi/d~r~ss~n (1718). did not
include Leysler, allhough he did include almosl
t..o dozen olher warnen arlisls (including
Maria van Ooslerwyck. Maria de Grebber.
and Anna Maria van Schuurmans). as weil as
Leysler's husband, Jan Miense Molenaer.
2. Harms. ,. Judilh Leyster,'. 90.
3 HofsIede de Groot. Jahrbüch. p, 192,
Leysler, 100. played a ward game of her own in
her monogram. wh ich is a connecled J. L. and
a Slar.
4 A, Bredius. "Een Connecl lusschen
Frans Hals en Judilh Leysler ," Oud-Ho//and,
XXXV. 1917.71-77
5 The lilie PrupuSilion is used hefe,
allhou~h the painting has borne several olher
litles in Ihe pasl. It has been called both Th~
T~"'pling Offt'r (Ihe implicalions of which are
tao obviousl) se~isl rar elaboration) and /h~
Rt:it'CI/'d Oll/'r. allhough the aclual rejeclion
has nOI yet laken place And Ihe nineleenlh
CenlUr) lilie. Th~ S~ornslr~ss. gives rar too lil-
Ile Inrormalion 10 be or an] value.
6. Andor Pigler, 8arock/h~m~n, 11, 1956.
pp. 529. 544-546
7, One nolable ex.: eplion is Baburen.s
Procur~ss of 1623, in the Residenz, Wurzburg
". . Ihe girl is un",lling. the old procuress is
firm. and the soldler demanding.' Leonard J
SIOIlkes. DircJ; von 8obur~" (c /595-/624/ A
25