372020 In seareh of the orignal Spinoza - The Jerusalem Post
Jeruslem Pest > Olepora
In search of the original Spinoza
For many, Spinoza is iconic, a "secular saint,” combining his herculean efforts to
understand the world by methodical reasoning with the humble life.
By THOMAS SIMON JULY 29, 2020 11:48 eo Oo 6 oO
Kunstzaes A. Vshts"A Man before «Soulpu”Amterdam
(pt ret Courtesy)
Report.
Upon ending his ten-year tenure as a member of parliament of the
Netherlands in 2012, Liberal Democrat Boris Van der Ham handed a gift to
the Speaker of the House. It was the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus
(Theological-Political Treatise) by 17th century Dutch philosopher Baruch de
Spinoza (1632-1677). The author analyzes the Bible as being made by man
and criticizes religious institutions for exerting undue influence on politics
and civil liberties,
Shortly after its publication in 1670, Christian church authorities banned the
“blasphernous” and “godless” treatise, Fourteen years earlier, in 1656,
Spinoza, born and raised as a Jew, had been banned from the Jewish
community in Amsterdam, for expressing heretical views. The Tractatus,
although published anonymously, written in Latin and forbidden, found a
hips: www pst comfrusaler-reporvr-search-ofshe-rigna-spinaza-635965 7fbclid-WWARSOPNENMVY_D3GS6WC)MN_xIE¢H37HCRMACK|WETOv.
18372020
In search ofthe original Spinoza - The Jerusalem Post
wide public in the 17th century. And until today, interest in Spinoza Is very
much alive, Admirers can be found In academia and beyond. For many,
Spinoza is iconic, a “secular saint,” combining his herculean efforts to
understand the world by methodical reasoning with the humble life of an
optical lense grinder. For people like Boris van der Ham, Spinoza's ideas
constitute the bedrack of modern thinking,
‘Sympathy for Spinoza is enhanced by his image. A delicate face framed by
long dark hair, a pensive glance in his eyes. That captivating image is
transmitted through the ages by one portrait in the Herzog (Duke) August
Library in Wolfenbittel, Germany. Dutch art historian Rudi Ekkart suggests
that the Wolfenbiittel painting renders an idealized version of Spinoza. The
Image he judges to be more authentic, is an engraving in the Riksmuseurn
in Amsterdam, which adorned some later editions of Spinoza's Opera
Posthuma, The posthumous works were edited by Spinoza's friends and first
published in 1677. Spinoze had died earlier that year at the age of 44 from 2
lung illness. Both engraving and portrait were made after Spinoza’s death, at
the earliest in 1680. According to Ekkart in his study Spinoza in Portrait. The
Unknown Face (1999), the Wolfenbiitel portrait could be based on the
engraving, But, both painting and engraving could also spring from another
painting, made during Spinoza's lifetime, that got lost.
Portrait of a Man before a Sculpture
Since 2015 Spinoza experts, art historians and art restorers have been
engaged in a debate around a painting that was bought in 2013 by
Amsterdam Jewish art dealer Constant Vecht, third generation owner of the
gallery, Kunstzalen A. Vecht. Leafing through the October 2013 catalog of the
Parisian auction house Ader-Nordmann, his eyes fell on a painting titled
“Portrait of a Man before a Sculpture,” attributed to Barend Graat, a 17th
century Dutch second echelon painter. Vecht was struck by the resemblance
of the man in the painting to the well-known image of Spinoza. He left for
Paris and bought the painting,
\Vecht started to research whether his purchase could be that lost painting
Ekkart had envisaged: Was the attribution to 17th century painter Barend
Graat correct, and was the portrayed man Spinoza? Among the experts he
consulted were Ekkart and his team, who are researchers at the RKD-
Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD-NIAH).
In 2015, Ekkart came forward with a negative opinion on the painter and
expressed doubts that the portrayed man was Spinoza. This turned out to
be the clarion call for a debate. In her December 2015 published biography
of Barend Graat (1628-1709), with a catalog raisonné, art historian Margret
van der Hut makes no mention of Portrait of a Man before a Sculpture. 8y
doing so, she deviated from established practice to list all monogrammed
paintings, if need be with an add-on that authenticity is in doubt, She
hitpsswwupast.comjerusalem-eporr-search-othe-riginal-spinaza- 636965 fbclid-IwARJOPNENWY_D3G36WCiMh_xXIECHS7ECRMADKMETOv... 2/8372020
In search ofthe original Spinoza - The Jerusalem Post
ignored Vecht's request to explain herself, To outsiders it seemed as if she
acted out of obedience to Ekkart, who is a power broker in the Dutch art
world
In April 2016, the RKD-NIAH published a negative judgment on,
Graat/Spinoza on its website, based on Ekkart’s research. Influential Dutch
Spinoza blogger, Stan Verduk, copied that text to his own blog, which
became the vehicle for the ensuing debate on the painting. Vecht used
Verdult's blog in April 2016 to confront Ekkar/RKD-NIAH's criticisms with
the interim outcome of his own research,
Signature and style
The attribution to Barend Graat in the Ader-Nordmann auction catalog was
based on the signature on the bottom left side, “BGf 1666," or in full,
“Barend Graat fecit" (made by), in 1666. The monogram was encircled,
Ekkart had rejected the monogram as being “less spontaneous, too carefully
rendered and the encirclement as atypical for Graat." Vecht countered that
the signature was made with «
type of lettering and positioning of the year as seen on other paintings by
Graat
1e same sure-handedness, continuous curve,
The encirclement is not found on Graat’s other paintings, but Vecht asked:
Why would a forger add an obvious deviant characteristic?
Ekkart's criticism continued: “Various characteristics and elements in style
and technique are atypical for the artist's early artistic capabilities (such as
the general static nature of the sitter and the background; the proportion of
the figure within the composition; the slight lack of understanding of
perspective and of architectural elements in the background; the treatnent
of the sculpture and other details)” Vecht confronted these criticisms one by
one, He compared "A Man before a Sculpture” with undisputed paintings by
Graat. Starting with “the general static nature of the sitter and the
background,” Vecht pointed at two single portraits made by Graat in 1663
and 1666,
The 1663 portrait is the first Graat painting of a single person. Before that,
Graat painted group portraits. "A Man before a Sculpture” therefore fits in
Graat's development. The more so, because the single portraits Graat
painted at a later stage, are always *sitters in an interior," while the men in
the 1663 and 1666 portralts are outside, just lke "A Man before a
Sculpture" As for the “general static nature,” the men in the paintings from
1663 and 1666 are standing, while the “Man before a Sculpture” sits, But in
all three paintings, the body is turned somewhat and one hand rests on a
table or pedestal, At the background are sculptures and Italian type
hitpsshwoupast.comjerusalem-reporr-search-othe-riginal-spinaza-636965bclid-IwARJOPNENWWY_D3GB6WCiMh_xIECHS7ECRADKMETOv... 3/8372020
In search ofthe original Spinoza - The Jerusalem Post
landscapes, obelisks or pillars. In all three paintings, the sculptures in the
background probably refer to a quality of the portrayed person.
The sculpture in "A Man before a Sculpture" is a nude woman, standing on 2
globe, holding a sun in her left hand and a palm-branch in her right hand.
Vecht recognized it as the "Allegory of the Truth,” taken from the emblem
collection of the Italian, Cesare Ripa (1560-1645), that was used by many
artists, Including Graat, The Allegory of the Truth indicates that the portrayed
man was a philosopher. Ekkart had held the same view: “The sculpture
depicting ‘The Truth’ suggests that it could possibly be a portrait of a
philosopher." Another criticism by Ekkart addressed "the proportion of the
figure within the composition” as being atypical for Graat, Vecht objected by
listing seven of Graat’s paintings, among them “Pandora” in the
Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, which features the upper half of a person on
the foreground,
Vecht agreed with Ekkart that the painting showed "the slight lack of
understanding of perspective and of architectural elements in the
background; the treatment of the sculpture and other details; but countered
that perspective was often problematic for Graat, certainly in his early years,
and pointed to a number of Graat’s paintings, which show similar problems
in composition and perspective.
Baruch de Spinoza
Ekkart had dismissed the identification of the
in "A Man before a
Sculpture” with Baruch de Spinoza "after sound research into diverse
sources and upon close inspection of the original by him (Ekkart) and the
RKD Portrait Iconography Department.” Vecht countered with the research
he had commissioned to two forensic institutions, These determined that,
although the portrayed man is a younger version of the Spinoza on the
engraving and the Wolfenbiittel portrait, all other facial features are
Identical
Vecht also referred to the research published by Spinoza blogger Verdult. He
had produced a video in which the Wolfenbiittel portrait and the “Man
before a Sculpture” were scaled to the same size and projected over each
ther. To allow for the projection, the head of the “Portrait of a Man before
a Sculpture" was turned to a right angle, so the direction of the view was the
The stunning result was the complete averlap of the two faces, To Verdult it
was obvious: the “Man before a Sculpture” was no less Spinoza than the
Wolfenbiitel Spinoza. The paintings were either a copy of each other, or
both were copied from a third painting,
hitpsshwwupast.comjerusalem-eporr-search-othe-riginal-spinaza-636965fbclid-IwARJOPNENWVY_DSGB6WCIMh_xIECHS7ECRADKMETOv... 4/8372020 In search ofthe original Spinoza - The Jerusalem Post
In March 2016, Verdult had put the three pictures next to each other on his
blog. Verdult, however, accepted the authority of art historian Van der Hut
on the painter, Barend Graat. She had ignored Graat as the possible painter
of “A Man before a Sculpture.” But, as she categorically refused to be
interviewed, Verdult called her stand “puzzling,” - "the greatest riddle
around the Graat-Spinoza portrait.” Vecht’s research survey
At the end of 2016, Vecht produced a survey of the research he had
commissioned and done himself with his team. As to the originality of the
painting, infrared scans had evinced a painting process of trial and error, the
painter obviously searching for the appropriate composition. No add-ons of
alater date were found, It points to an original work, not a copied one. The
scans were made by Martin Bij, a renowned specialist on 16th to 18th
century paintings.
Research done with an electron microscope on the condition of the paint
showed that the painting was old, most probably 17th century. These
findings were confirmed by an analysis of the linen structure of the canvas,
Which had all the characteristics of a centuries-old fabric.
The “Man before a Sculpture" has a thin mustache. Until the middle of the
20th century, it wasn’t known that the young Spinoza had one, In his
Spinoza: A Life (Cambridge 1999), Prof. Steven Nadler mentions a letter that
was discovered in the 1950s, It was written in 1658 by Spanish captain
Miguel Perez de Maltranilla, who was under orders of the Spanish Inquisition
to investigate the Dutch philosopher.
After an encounter in Amsterdam he described Spinoza to his principals:
“Well-built, with long, black hair, a small mustache of the same color and 2
beautiful face.” The mustache was absent in the engraving and Wolfenbiittel
portrait, which suggests that Spinoza didn’t have a moustache later in life
Vecht argued, a forger who wanted to portray Spinoza, couldn’t have
painted the moustache if he made the portrait before 1950. And the linen
and paint are too old for 2 painting made after 1950,
Barend Graat
To authenticate the authorship of Barend Graat, Vecht listed a series of
arguments. The electron microscope had showed a red undercoating of the
painting, which is typical for Graat, who used red undercoating on various
paintings. Furthermore, the sleeve of ‘Spinoza’ is painted the same way as.
the sleeve on the portrait by Graat of 1666; the sculpture symbolizing Truth
on the right side of the painting is akin to the statue of Demosthenes on the
painting of 1666; pillars and a stone table are to be found on the other
Graat' portrait of 1666; the thread clouds and the Italian town on the hills
are familiar sceneries on works by Graat. Then there is the consistency of
the monogram with other signatures of Graat, apart from the encirclement.
hitpsshwwupast.comjerusalem-eporr-search-othe-riginal-spinaza-636965bclid-IwARJOPNENWY_O3GB6WCiMh_xIECHS7ECRMADKMETOv... 5/8372020
In search ofthe original Spinoza - The Jerusalem Post
And, as a proof from the absurd, there are no known forgeries of Graat's
paintings.
There is no documentary evidence of a personal contact, but Spinoza and
Graat for sure frequented the same circles in Amsterdam. Amsterdam was
booming economically and blooming culturally in its “Golden Age.” Regents
and merchants had themselves portrayed and their houses decorated
Countless painters made a living, Graat painted merchants and their families
and other works of art for thelr houses. One of his principals was
businesswoman Petronella de la Court, whose sister as well as one of her
daughters were married to close friends of Spinoza, She owned 150
paintings, six made by Graat.
A second circle of people connecting Graat with Spinoza, were involved with
the New Theatre Hall in Amsterdam. Graat portrayed people in the theatre
world and befriended some of them. At Spinoza’s side, some of his closest
friends were intimately involved with the theater. Lodewijk Meijer was active
4s a playwright, translator of French comedy and a regent, as was Spinoza’s,
friend Jacob Vallan. Spinoza’ Latit
Enden wrote plays. Some experts believe, Spinoza played a role in Van den
Enden’s adaption of Latin poet Terence’s “Eunuchus" in 1658,
‘acher and friend Franciscus van den
Who would have given Graat the assignment to portray Spinoza? Those
mentioned here and others in his circle of friends and admirers had enough
money and could have done so,
Essential facial features
The Dutch National Forensic Researchbureau (NFO) compared "A Man
before a Sculpture” biometrically with the engraving and the Wolfenbiiteel
portrait. The three were found identical on ten clearly visible facial features:
cheekbone, nose shape, nostrils, nasion point, philtrum, lip chin fold, lower
lip, corner of the mouth, eyebrow and hairline. The NFO concluded that ‘itis
much more probable’ that the man on the three portraits is the same
person, than not. That is the second highest classification used in the NFO’s
qualification system. To meet the highest criterion, "highly probable,” it
shouldn't concern renderings by artists, but a photo, the age of the person
on the three portraits should be the sarne, as well as the view direction and
the position of the head, The findings of the NFO were confirmed by a
second Dutch research company, VideoForensics.
For art historian and highly respected Dutch painting restorer, Ronald de
Jager, the facial similarities between the two painted portraits are absolutely
convincing, In Verdult's Spinoza blog he surnmed up these similarities: “The
slightly squinting eyes, the eye sockets, the long bended eye brows, the long.
nose with the little hump, the mouth, the hair cut, even the whole
hitpsshwwupast.comjerusalem-eporr-search-othe-riginal-spinaza-636965bclid-IwARJOPNENWWY_D3GB6WCiMh_xIECHS7ECRMADKMETOv... 6/2372020
In search ofthe original Spinoza - The Jerusalem Post
appearance with the soft, amiable glance, every one of them (in “A Man
before a Sculpture") (is) completely comparable to the Wolfenbiittel
portrait” In an August 2016 article on Smithsonian.com ("Is This a Portrait of
(One of the World's Most Influential Philosophers?"), Menachem Wecker
listed the views of some Spinoza experts on the identity of “A Man before a
Sculpture.” American professor Rebecca Newberger Goldstein held that
Spinoza’s philosophy largely renounced being fixated on personal identities.
Sitting for a portrait therefore would have been "extreme irony" for Spinoza,
She felt that Spinoza would have disapproved of such vanity, even if the
portrait was commissioned by one of his supporters. Nadler coincides: “I am
doubtful that Spinoza would have commissioned, or even sat for, a portrait
of himself. Call it just an intuition, but it doesn’t seem in keeping with his
character or values." Countering the intuitive opinions on Spinoza's
personality, Vecht introduced an activity of Spinoza which surprisingly was
overlooked by the Spinoza experts. Quoting Spinoza’s first biographer,
Johannes Colerus (1647-1707), in his Short, but Truthful Biography of
Benedict de Spinosa, from Authentic Documents and Oral Testimonies by
Living Persons, published in Amsterdam in 1705, and in English in 1706, who
wrote: “After he (Spinoza) had perfected himself in that Art (making glasses
for telescopes), he apyly'd himself to Drawing which he learn’d of himself,
and he cou’d draw a Head very well with Ink, or with a Coal. | (Johannes
Colerus) have in my Hands a whole Book of such Draughts, amongst which
there are some Heads of several considerable Persons who were known to
him, or who had occasion to visit him. Among those Draughts I find in the
4th sheet a Fisherman having only his Shirt on, with a Net on his Rig!
Shoulder, whose Attitude is very much like that of Massanello the famous
Head of the Rebels of Naples, as it appears by History, and by his Cuts.
Which gives me occasion to add, that Mr. Van der Spyck, at whose House
Spinosa lodged when he died, has assured me, that the Draught of that
Fisherman did perfectly resemble Spinosa, and that he had certainly drawn
himself” As Colerus observed, Spinoza had no qualms about drawing his
‘own portrait, and remarkably, in the role of revolutionary Massanello, also
known as Mas Anjello, who revolted against the Spanish rulers of Naples in
1647. In 1668 a play on Anjello’s revolt was performed at the New Theatre
Hall in Amsterdam, Obviously, Spinoza knew the play. Unfortunately, his
drawing book is lost.
Advocates
Besides old paintings restorer Ronald de Jager there are others who are
convinced that the “Man before a Sculpture” is no less Spinoza than the
ors at the
Wolfenbittel portrait and the engraving, To name a few: Cur.
‘Amsterdam Museum, Norbert Middelkoop and Tom van der Molen, bath
experts on 17th and 18th centuries art; Volker Manuth, professor at the
Radboud University in Nijmegen, who specialized in paintings, drawings and
prints from the 15th to 18th centuries; and American born art historian and
renowned expert on Rembrandt, Gary D. Schwartz.
hitpsshwwupast.comjerusalem-repordr-search-othe-riginal-spinaza-636965bclid-IwARJOPNENWWY_D3G26WCIMh_xIECHS7ECRMADKMETOv... 7/8372020
hips: www post comfrusaler-reporvr-search-ofshe-rigina-spinaza-635965 2fbclid-WWARSOPNENMVY_D36S6WC)MN_xIE¢H37HCRMACK|WETOv.
In search ofthe original Spinoza - The Jerusalem Post
Avery significant signal of acknowledgment is the print of "A Man before a
Sculpture” on the cover of the 2017 prestigious Oxford Handbook of
Spinoza. The editor, Spinoza expert Michael della Rocca (Yale University),
and Oxford University Press, obviously give the portrait the benefit of the
doubt.
The debate on the authenticity of the painting is ongoing, On the one side
are the skeptics, on the other side there are those who, based on historical
circumstantial evidence and positive results of scientific tests, say: this could
very well be Spinoza at the age of 34. Will it ever be possible to reach a final
conclusion? As the Oxford University Press has done in its own way, let's join
art restorer De Jager, who said: “The facts are that we see a portrait of a
man who very closely resembles Spinoza, as we know him from the other
two portraits; we see a signature BG and a date: 1666. Who would forge a
portrait of a prominent person like Spinoza and then sign with the
monogram of a second-class painter?”
ae