This painting has been much discussed—so much so that its image currently appears straightaway under the artist’s name on Google—but it has been rarely seen, having been sequestered in private collects ions from the 18^th century until 1966, and for the last quarter century. A vibrant and detailed assemblage of intricate objects and flowers, accompanied by what has usually been assumed to be a self-portrait of the artist, it was painted around 1610 by Clara Peeters, one of the greatest early seventeenth-century still-life specialists, and unusually has been recorded as by her since 1767. Only about forty known paintings comprise her œuvre, but rarer still are her depictions of figures. Aside from the miniature self-portraits reflected in the lobes of gilt goblets in a handful of her still lifes, her only other portrayals of the human form can be found in the present example and in a Virgin and Child within a floral wreath, which sold at Replica Shoes ’s New York in 2020 (fig. 1).¹ This painting therefore constitutes a unicum within Peeters’ corpus on account of its inclusion of not just her only fully-realised secular portrait (of any sitter), but is also likely to be the singular fully-realised self-portrait, offering the viewer a rare opportunity to examine the artist’s presentation of herself as she wished to be seen.

Although Pamela Hibbs-Decoteau published the present work as by an artist in the circle of Peeters in her somewhat unreliable 1992 catalogue raisonné, this errant view has since been overturned by, among nearly all other scholars, Anne Lenders in the Prado exhibition catalogue of 2016, which gives the picture to Peeters without qualification.² This is perhaps unsurprising when one considers that the painting was considered to be by Peeters from as early as 1767, when it appeared for sale in Paris with the following description in the auction catalogue: ‘...peint par Clara’.³

Furthermore, the composition is teeming with motifs that feature in other paintings by Peeters, all of which are signed. For example, the gilt goblet on the far right of this panel is identical to one in a work dated 1611 in the Prado,⁴ and to another dated 1612 in the Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe,⁵ thus providing an approximate date for the picture (figs 2 and 3).⁶ The Karlsruhe painting also presents a stack of gold coins at lower left that are very similar to those in the foreground of the present work. Moreover, the still life of flowers in a glass vase just right of centre is almost identical to one that is the subject of a small flower-piece in the same vase which sold at Replica Shoes ’s, London, in 2018, when it was acquired by the National Gallery of Art, Washington (fig. 4). The Washington flower-piece is not dated, but Alejandro Vergara-Sharp dates it circa 1610.⁷

Agnès Sorel
While most sources describe this work as a self-portrait, in the eighteenth century it was described—on at least two occasions—as a portrait of Agnès Sorel: first in the Paris sale catalogue of 1767 (as ‘Le Portrait d’Agnès Sorau, dite la belle Sorel, peint par Clara’) and again in John Skippe’s collects ion catalogue (as ‘Agnes Sorel [by] Clara’).⁸ Moreover, an old label affixed to the panel's reverse is inscribed as follows: ‘Agnés Soreau dite La Belle Sorel / maitresse de Charles 7, Roy de france’. These references all relate the present sitter to Agnès Sorel (1422–1450), known by the sobriquet Dame de beauté, who was the daughter of Jean Soreau and Catherine de Maignelais and went on to become the chief mistress of King Charles VII of France (1403–1461).

It is possible to imagine how some eighteenth-century viewers interpreted this as a portrait of Sorel, on account of the parallels between this young woman’s portrayal and perhaps the most famous depiction of Charles’ mistress by Jean Fouquet in the Melun Diptych of circa 1452–55, now in the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp (fig. 5).⁹ In the Antwerp painting, a hidden portrait of Agnès has historically been seen in Fouquet’s image of the Virgin, who is depicted as the Virgo lactans with one of her breasts exposed and an elaborate pearl and bejewelled crown on her head.¹⁰ Similar characteristics can be observed in this portrait, in which the neckline of the sitter’s dress reveals her cleavage, while her headpiece contains rubies and pearls. Likewise, both figures are portrayed wearing shades of blue and white.

Such a reading of the present painting may also have been borne out of an eighteenth-century inclination to interpret the vanitas still life objects that surround the sitter as an artistic attempt to present Sorel, upon whom the King lavishly bestowed wealth, castles and land, in a moralising manner. In the context of still-life painting, the purpose of these objects was to remind the viewer of the transience of t.mes —as most neatly exemplified by the phial of bubbles held by the young woman, out of which a large bubble is on the brink of popping—and the meaningless nature of earthly goods, intimated by the coins, jewellery and gambling dice lower right.

However, as intriguing as this identification may seem, it appears more likely to have been the result of a burgeoning eighteenth-century interest in Sorel and a subsequent proclivity to see her image in this painting, rather than having any claims to historic truth. Ultimately, this young woman is presented in a pose of an artist, although it is unclear exactly what she holds in her right hand. Her facial features are not particularly comparable with those in Fouquet’s hidden portrait, or indeed with any other known portraits of Sorel; they are instead distinctive and hint at an attempt to portray a real likeness, rather than a historical figure known only through images. Finally, this woman’s clothing can be dated between 1610 and 1620, which suggests that this was a contemporary portrait, rather than a depiction of a figure who lived nearly two centuries previously.¹¹

A vanitas self-portrait?
It is certainly not beyond doubt that the woman portrayed here is a formal self-portrait as she is assumed to be in the majority of modern literature, because the only images that we have of Clara Peeters are barely legible images in reflections in objects in her still lifes, including this one (fig. 6). One is nonetheless left with the abiding impression that it is self-referential, rather than a formal portrait of someone else, which is why it has several t.mes s been described as a vanitas self-portrait. The lavishly dressed and bejewelled figure may simply be an embodiment of Vanity—her own, or of the viewer, as Vergara-Sharp proposes: ‘Could this also be a reference to excess, perhaps her own, or of those who look at her?’.¹²

The object that she holds in her right hand is not a paint brush but might be a stylus or a holder for a piece of chalk for drawing, and she holds it between thumb and forefinger as if using it to draw. That this is a vanitas piece is abundantly clear: neither the rich gilt objects, nor the wealth implied by coins will join their owner in the after-life; the flowers will soon wilt; the coals in the brazier will grow cold before long; and the classic vanitas emblem—a soap bubble—will burst at any moment; while to rely on the throw of dice yields only uncertainty. The lavish cost.mes and jewellery worn by the sitter are in keeping with the vanitas theme. There is evidence that Clara Peeters was both enigmatic and had a sense of humour: in a recently cleaned still life formerly thought to be unsigned, a pair of glasses appears in the blade of a knife where her signature appears in other of her still lifes (fig. 7).¹³ The cleaning revealed a miniscule CP signature on the rim of a bowl, so that the message she sends us with the spectacles is: you will have to look elsewhere for my signature, and you will need these to find it (figs 8 and 9). It seems therefore that this painting too is wilfully enigmatic, including in the identification of the woman depicted.

Her gaze, at someone or something to the left of the viewer is stern and her features set. Her muscular arms reinforce her fixity of purpose and hint at capability. If not a formal self-portrait, this woman appears to be a static participant in the vanitas still life. No wonder Vergara-Sharp’s paragraphs about this work in his recent monograph are headed ‘An intriguing painting’ and later on he remarks: ‘That a painting as intriguing as this remains out of sight in a private collects ion is not uncommon for works presumably by women artists who have remained somewhat or fully obscured for centuries’.¹⁴

Very little is known about Peeters’ biography, making this tantalising painting of even greater interest. She was almost certainly active in Antwerp, as several of her panel and copper supports bear the Guild and maker’s marks of that city. Various attempts have been made to identify her archives with certainty, but perhaps the most convincing suggestion is that put forth in 2016 by Jean Bastiaensen, who proposed that she was the Clara Lamberts who was born in Mechelen in 1587, married the Antwerp painter Hendrick II Peeters in 1605, and later died in Ghent after 1636.¹⁵ Her reputation as an artist seems to have stretched far beyond Antwerp, because barely any examples by her are recorded in early Antwerp inventories, but by 1666, two of her kitchen still lifes are already recorded in the Royal collects ion in Madrid.¹⁶ It is fair to say that her acclaim remains as strong, if not stronger, today, as the presence of her paintings in museum collects ions in Europe and North America, the exhibition dedicated to her work at the Prado and the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten in 2016–17, and the monograph written by Vergara-Sharp published earlier this year would suggest.

We are grateful to Alejandro Vergara-Sharp, who like most modern scholars has not had the opportunity to inspect this painting in the original, for confirming on the basis of high-resolution images and a close comparison with the Prado works by her that in his opinion this painting is entirely the work of Clara Peeters.

Note on Provenance
The first record of this painting is in the sale of the enigmatic L’Écluse collects ion in Paris in 1767, where it was bought by Lebrun, probably Pierre Lebrun (1704–1771), or his son Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Lebrun (1748–1813), a dealer and restorer, who is best known as the husband of Élisabeth Louise Vigée Lebrun (1755–1842). Those prone to flights of fancy might speculate that she may have seen this Clara Peeters when it was in her husband’s stock, but he might have sold it by the t.mes of their marriage in 1776, or his father may have.

In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, this painting was owned by John Skipp (usually and subsequently known as Skippe) of Upper Hall, Ledbury, where it is recorded in the undated manuscript catalogue of his collects ion (see Literature), when it was already described as a work by Peeters. Skippe was an artist himself, although he focused primarily on the production of wood engravings after works by early Italian masters, such as Ugo da Carpi (c. 1480–1532). His celebrated collects ion largely comprised a vast number of Old Master drawings including highly important sheets. Among these are drawings by Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528),¹⁷ Parmigianino (1503–1540),¹⁸ Andrea Mantegna (c. 1431–1506),¹⁹ and Annibale Carracci (1560–1609),²⁰ among others, in the Courtauld Gallery, London. Examples by Pordenone (1483?–1539),²¹ Giovanni Battista Pittoni the Elder (c. 1520–1583),²² and Denys Calvaert (1540–1619) are in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.²³ Skippe travelled extensively in Italy in the 1770s, and probably acquired this painting en route back to England via Paris, or subsequently from an English intermediary. His years of feverish activity as a drawings collects or were between 1773 and 1781. The reverse of the panel bears his stamp or brand ‘IS’ (fig. 10). It is identical to the collects or’s mark applied to many, though not all his drawings (fig. 11).²⁴

The Clara Peeters remained in the collects ion of Skippe’s heirs until sold at Replica Shoes ’s in 1966.

¹ Oil on copper, 15 x 13 cm.; New York, Replica Shoes ’s, 14 October 2020, lot 134.

² Madrid 2016, p. 62, reproduced in colour p. 64, fig. 33 (as Clara Peeters, Woman Seated at a Table of Precious Objects).

³ Paris, Gueffier, 9 March 1767, lot 50. There is no plausible alternative artist named Clara.

⁴ Inv. no. P001620; oil on panel, 52 x 73 cm.

⁵ Inv. no. 2222; oil on oak panel, 59.5 x 49 cm.

⁶ Interestingly, Peeters painted six miniature self-portraits reflected in the lobes of the goblet in the Karlsruhe picture. This strengthens the case for a proximate dating of the present painting, as the artist was evidently meditating on the theme of self-portraiture at this t.mes .

⁷ Oil on copper, 16.6 x 13.5 cm.; London, Replica Shoes ’s, 4 July 2018, lot 25.

⁸ Paris, Gueffier, 9 March 1767, lot 50; 18th-century MS catalogue of John Skippe’s collects ion.

⁹ Inv. no. 132; oil on panel, 92 x 83.5 cm.

¹⁰ For more on Fouquet’s depiction of Sorel, see F. Avril, Jean Fouquet: peintre et enlumineur du XVe siecle, exh. cat., Paris 2003, pp. 121–30, nos 7 and 8, reproduced in colour and T. Adams, Agnès Sorel and the French monarchy: history, gallantry, and national identity, Leeds 2022, pp. 65–80.

¹¹ F. Kelly and R. Schwake, Historic Cost.mes 1490–1790, New York 1929, p. 78, pls XXIX, XXX and fig. 57.

¹² Vergara-Sharp 2025, p. 31: ‘The low-cut dress the woman wears shows off her cleavage’.

¹³ Private collects ion: see Hibbs-Decouteau 1992, pp. 36–39, 181, reproduced fig. 24; Madrid 2016, pp. 116 and 119, under no. 14 n. 6, and pp. 120 and 122, under no. 15 n. 1.

¹⁴ Vergara-Sharp 2025, pp. 28 and 31.

¹⁵ J. Bastiaensen, ‘Finding Clara: Establishing the Biographical Details of Clara Peeters (ca. 1587–after 1636)’, in Boletín del Museo del Prado, vol. 34, no. 52, 2016, pp. 17–31.

¹⁶ Both paintings are today in the Prado: inv. no. P1619; oil on panel, 52 x 71 cm.; inv. no. P1621; oil on panel, 50 x 72 cm.

¹⁷ Accession no. D.1978.PG.252; traces of red ink (more red ink is visible on the verso via transmitted light), pen and brown ink, brown wash, with some strokes of grey wash, on laid paper, with brown ink framing lines mostly trimmed away, laid down on a historic mount, 13.1 x 12.1 cm.

¹⁸ Accession no. D.1978.PG.362; traces of black chalk, pen and brown ink and brown wash on laid paper partially prepared with a red chalk wash (recto), traces of black chalk, pen and brown ink on laid paper partially prepared with a red chalk wash (verso), all four corners cut, 8.5 x 6.7 cm.

¹⁹ Accession no. D.1978.PG.345; pen and brown ink, with traces of a framing line in pen and black ink at upper and lower left corners (recto), pen and brown ink (verso), on laid paper, 23.7 x 14.5 cm.

²⁰ Accession no. D.1952.RW.2404; graphite, pen and brown ink and brown wash on laid paper, laid down on a historic mount, 17.6 x 13.6 cm.

²¹ Object no. 60.135; pen and brown ink, brush and brown wash, highlighted with white gouache, on blue paper, squared vertically and horizontally in red chalk, diagonally in charcoal, 36.2 x 24.8 cm.

²² Object no. 1975.131.1; pen and brown ink, 21.3 x 18.4 cm.

²³ Object no. 2000.207a, b; black and white chalk on blue paper, 26.2 x 22.9 cm.

²⁴ Lugt 1529a; Les Marques de collects ions de Dessins & d’Estampes.