It may look like Spinoza, but it's (probably) not.

The portrait is attributed to Barend Graat (and dated to 1666). It was exhibited at a prestigious Dutch art fair (TEFAF in Maastricht) by the dealer A. Vecht. The dealer, Dutch media (see here NIW) and blogs have all discerned Spinoza in this portrait. (HT Wim Klever on facebook.) This is no surprise because the portrait has an uncanny resemblance to the iconic portrait of Spinoza found on the old 1000 Guilders note (beloved by drug dealers and tax evaders):

The portrait on the 1000 Gulden note was almost certainly inspired by the famous (posthumous) 'Wolfenbütteler- portrait (HT Stan Verdult):

It is not impossible that the 'Wolfenbütteler portrait' was inspired by the painting now attributed to Barend Graat. And I am inclined to believe that the same person is portrayed in the 'Wolfenbütteler portrait,' the Graat-Spinoza, and 1000 Gulden note.

There is another posthumous portrait of Spinoza (dating from ca 1680) which was attached to some editions of his posthumous works, presumably by people who knew Spinoza. In my subjective view this is not obviously the same portrayed person as Wolfenbütteler portrait'/'Graat-Spinoza,' but decide for yourself thanks to a nicely edited image by Stan Verdult:

However, it is reported that in the judgment of the Het Nationaal Forensisch Onderzoeksbureau (NFO), it is more probable that these are all the same person than not. (One wonders if they think the probabilities are the same for each of the three portraits.) I have contacted the Institute, and when I hear back from them I'll report on my findings.

Be that as it may, the 'Graat Spinoza' has the advantage of being produced in Spinoza's life-time, and for all I know we will find documentary evidence (a sales contract, an estate catalogue, etc.) linking the portrait more directly to Spinoza. But for now it is worth being skeptical, and I would like to offer some reasons for this.

First, as Julie Cooper has argued Spinoza was against intellectual celebrities and cults of personality, which he identified with Descartes. This is not to claim that Spinoza thought biographical details were wholly irrelevant to the interpretation of his texts (as they are, say, in the interpretation of Euclid). But the biographical details that he and his friends thought that mattered are the ones that we learn primarily from his correspondence and terse autobiographical comments scattered through his texts. These letters were carefully selected/culled and generate a textual, composite portrait published alongside his other writings.

Second, except for the apparent likeness to what we think Spinoza looked like, the Graat-Spinoza portrait fails to connect Spinoza's personal or intellectual biography. The portrait does not include lenses or signs of lens-crafting; nor does the painting connect to Spinoza's then most important claim to fame: the 1663 Principia philosophiae cartesianae. The man portrayed is neither very learned nor obviously one of the philosophical Cartesian novatores (as, say, Leibniz saw him before he read Spinoza's Theological Political Treatise).

Third, the background includes a sculpture, fantasy architecture, a pyramid, and a mountain-landscape. I honestly do not see how this connects to either Cartesian or Spinozist themes of the day; if anything Spinoza's philosophy has warnings against taking the fantasies of the imagination seriously. The sculpture seems to hold a Sun-image in her hand, and maybe one can connect that with light-giving philosophy. But we're far removed from the inner light that Descartes and Spinoza preferred; this sun image is more akin to the imagery one associates with free-masons. I am not denying that there are neo-Platonic elements in Spinoza's thought (I have argued for that myself), but the solar image in this portrait is not associated with knowledge or astronomy, etc. (And again, Spinoza's lenses were also used in astronomy in the period.)

Fourth, even if we allow that despite his known skepticism about paintings being mute and passive (recall), Spinoza was vain enough to commission such a portrait or to agree to have such a portrait commissioned, he was presumably too poor to pay for it himself at the time. So, this must have been commissioned by an admirer. But the known admirers of the period are all folk that were attracted to Spinoza for either his ability to engage with their theological concerns, or to provide them with a guide to life. Again, right now I do not see any reason to connect this painting to such themes. So, until there is new evidence, I remain skeptical of the claim that Spinoza is being portrayed in the "Graat-Spinoza.' [UPDATE: For more on this issue, see here.]

 

Comments

[Wim Klever]

Thanks, Eric, for your skeptical comment. I have a few remarks. 1) on the basis of PPC/CM Spinoza 's claim to fame (if any) could not be great, yes. 2) but the KORTE VERHANDELING, from which his great identity became apparent for the insiders, started to circulatie around 1661. 3) there were a couple of influential Leiden medical / philosophical dokters in close connection with him, like learned Meyer and virtuoso Bouwmeester on the foreground of the Amsterdam public life, and the powerful forthcoming regent Hudde. 4) Olaus Borch wrote 1661 in his journal about Spinoza's and Van den Enden's freethinking movenent, to which also Glazemaker belonged. 5) some of his friend, like Simon de Vries, were rich enough to commission a portrait ( as they later offered him a pension). 5) of course we are far removed from the inner light with the dollar image, but Spinoza was not the painter, who clearly choosed to express his (or the commissioner's) admiration of the great philosophers with Renaissance symbols 6) some regents /merchants were had a kind of relation with Spinoza echter by ( maybe) hosting him after his bannisment ( Albert Burgh's father) or seeing their son playin in the city theatre next to Spinoza, glorified for this occasion by Vondel.

[Eric Schliesser]

Wim, I agree with you that Spinoza was not unknown by some wealthy and influential contemporaries by the early 1660s. And I am willing to believe that they would have thought him more than a neo-Cartesian. But nothing in this painting connects to Spinoza except the non-trivial likeness to the Wolffenbutel portrait.

[Matt]

Hi Eric, if you don't already know, I thought you might be amused (or annoyed, or perplexed, or something) to find out that this portrait is being used for the cover of the Oxford Handbook to Spinoza that you've contributed to. (I've only just noticed this via amazon, so maybe it's old news.) See:

https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Handbook-Spinoza-Handbooks/dp/0195335821/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&qid=1502886975&sr=8-19&keywords=oxford+handbooks+to+philosophy

[Eric Schliesser]

Hi Matt,I was aware of this. I think it's always possible/likely that other scholars do not find my arguments persuasive. But I also suspect that the novelty and attractiveness of this portrait also facilitate some uptake.

[Matt]

Thanks - I'm not close to being competent to comment on the merits, but found your argument mostly persuasive. It is an attractive portrait, and not as over-used as some others, so I can see the appeal in using it, if you can talk yourself into believing that it's Spinoza.

[John Holbo]

Thank you for this much needed public service announcement: people, you need to stop sharing 'pictures of Spinoza' on Facebook and Twitter without first checking if the source is reputable. Fake news! (Seriously, step away from your keyboards.)

I realize it's a bit late for me to be commenting since this is out of the news cycle now ...

[Taylor Carman]

The argument is that it’s not obviously Spinoza, so you’re skeptical. Fair enough, but does the headline say “probably not”?

Also, the man in the 1680 etching doesn’t look like the one in the painting, but the angle, the light and shadow, and even incidental details of hair and clothing are almost identical. There is no way those were coincidences.

[eric schliesser]

Taylor, if the painting is a forgery then indeed there is no coincidence.

[Taylor Carman]

Ah, I see you just say not the same person. Right.