Dulwich Picture Gallery II

RKD STUDIES

Rembrandt DPG99


DPG99 – Portrait of Jacques de Gheyn III (1596-1641)

1632; oak panel, 29.9 x 24.9 cm
Signed and dated, top left: RH van Ryn / 1632 (RH in monogram). Inscription on back of panel: IACOBVS GEINIVS IVNR / H[UYGE]NI IPSIUS / EFFIGIE[M] / EXTREMVM MVNVS MORIENTIS / R MORIENTE. NVNC HABET ISTA SECVNDV HEV (Jacques de Gheyn the Younger / [bequeathed] his own / portrait to Huygens as a last duty when he died. / He may rest / now this [portrait] has his companion piece, alas).1


PROVENANCE
Jacques de Gheyn III; bequeathed by him to Maurits Huygens;2 Huygens family; Allard Rudolph van Waay sale, Utrecht, 27 Feb. 1764 (Lugt 1351), lot 123 (Twee origineele Pourtraiten uit de Familie van Huigens, door Rembrant. P[aneel] hoog 11½ en breed 9 3/2 [sic] duim (Two original portraits [i.e. with the portrait of Maurits Huygens, Related Works no. 1] [2] from the Huygens family, by Rembrandt. Panel, height 11½, width 9 3/2 [Utrecht] inches [30.8 x 25.5 cm]); not acquired at the Aubert sale, Paris, 2 March 1786 (see below);3 ?Desenfans private sale, 8 June ff. 1786 (Lugt 4059A), lot 264 (‘Rembrandt – A Head, 1' x 11"’ (includes the frame; 30.7 x 28.2 cm)).4

There are three possibilities for Desenfans’ acquisition of DPG99 (if it was not already in his possession in 1786, which is unlikely):
1) from the 1803 sale of the Prince of Monaco (one picture); bt Le Brun
2) from the Baron van Leyden sale of 1804 (one picture); bt Le Brun
3) from another source altogether.
ad 2) The Prince of Monaco’s picture had the following provenance: Aubert sale, Paris, 2 March 1786 (Lugt 3993), lot 17: Par le même [Rimbrandt van Rhyn]. Deux petits Tableaux, Portraits d’Artistes. Ils sont chacun ajustés d’une fraise autour du cou, & vêtus d’habillemens noirs. Ces deux morceaux portent le caractère de la plus grande vérité, & sont d’une belle couleur: leur manière moins libre que celle de différens ouvrages connus de Rimbrandt, nous fait juger qu’ils ont été peint dans sa jeunesse, & pendant qu’il suivoit l’Ecole de Gerardow. Hauteur 9 Pouces, largeur 7. B[ois]. (By the same [Rembrandt] Two small pictures, portraits of artists. Each has a ruff around his neck, and is dressed in black. These two pieces are very realistic & have beautiful colours; their manner is less free than that of other known works by Rembrandt, so we think that they were painted in his youth, & while he was a pupil of Gerard Dou. Height 9 inches, width 7 inches [c. 24.3 x 18.9 cm]. Panel); both bt by Hubert, Prince of Monaco, for 402 livres; his sale, Paris, 4 July 1803 (Lugt 6664), lot 31 (only one picture). Idem [= École du Même], Un petit portrait d’homme en manteau noir et en fraise, peint sur bois: hauteur 9 pouces, largeur 7 ([School of Rembrandt], A little portrait of a man in a black coat with a ruff, painted on panel, 9 x 7 inches). Bt Le Brun, 73 frs.5
ad 3) Baron van Leyden’s picture had the following provenance: ?Pieter Cornelis, Baron van Leyden, from Amsterdam, sale, Paris (Le Brun and Delaroche), 8 Nov. 1804 (Lugt 6841, 6852, 6864), lot 152 (Rembrandt (Van Rhin) – Portrait d'un Personnage vu presque de face, et aussi à mi-corps, dans un Habillement noir, ajusté d’une Fraise indiquant le costume d'un Magistrat. Morceau plein de vérité et de la plus riche couleur. Sur bois, haut. 11, larg. 9 p. (Rembrandt (Van Rijn) – Portrait of a figure seen almost full-face, and also half-length, dressed in black, with a ruff indicating that the costume is that of a magistrate. Very realistic and very rich in colour. On panel), c. 29.7 x 24.3 cm; sold or bt in, 300 frs; bt Le Brun.

After 1, 2 or 3 (unless it was already in Desenfans’ possession in 1786):6
Desenfans Bequest, 1807; Bourgeois Bequest, 1811; Britton 1813, p. 18, no. 171 (‘Closet in Upper Room: West / no. 5, Portrait – a head, full face with black gown P[anel] Rembrandt’; 1'6" x 1'4").

REFERENCES
Huygens 1633 (see text); Cat. 1817, p. 5, no. 56 (‘FIRST ROOM – North Side; Portrait of a Man; Rembrandt’); Haydon 1817, p. 374, no. 56;7 Cat. 1820, p. 5, no. 56; Hazlitt 1824, p. 31;8 Cat. 1830, p. 10, no. 189; Jameson 1842, ii, p. 473, no. 189;9 Hazlitt 1843, p. 24;10 Bentley’s 1851, p. 348;11 Waagen 1854, ii, p. 342 (not by Rembrandt);12 Denning 1858, no. 189 ((School of) Rembrandt); Denning 1859, no. 189 (School of Rembrandt van Rhyn; The subject is unknown); Sparkes 1876, p. 135; Richter & Sparkes 1880, p. 126 (‘It seems quite inexplicable that Dr. Waagen doubted its authenticity’); Dutuit 1885, p. 31;13 Richter & Sparkes 1892, p. 25, no. 99 (mentioned by Vosmaer); Michel 1894, i, p. 172, ii, p. 234; Bode & Hofstede de Groot 1897–1906, ii (1897), pp. 35–6, no. 77, fig. (Portrait of a young man), vii, 1902, p. 212, no. 77; Richter & Sparkes 1905, p. 25, no. 99; Rosenberg 1906, pp. 66, 394 (figs; the first mention of the pendant portrait in Hamburg, Related Works, no. 1) [2]; Valentiner 1907, p. 162, fig. 5 (the pendant portrait in Hamburg is Maurits Huygens; DPG99 is Constantijn Huygens?); Thompson 1910–12, iii (1912), fig. 5; Cook 1914, pp. 58–9, no. 99;14 Bredius 1915, p. 128; HdG, vi, 1915, p. 312, no. 745 (young man aged c. 25; Engl. edn 1916, p. 350); Cook 1926, pp. 58–9, no. 99; Bredius 1935, no. 162 (Young man, with its pair Maurits Huygens, no. 161); Van Regteren Altena 1936, p. 129; Van Gelder 1943 (first to identify De Gheyn); Van Gelder 1950; Slive 1952, p. 263 (about the portrait of Maurits Huygens); Cat. 1953, p. 33; Slive 1953, p. 19, fig. 3; Van Gelder 1953a, p. 107; Paintings 1954, pp. 3, [60]; Van Schendel, Cleveringa, Haak & Röell 1956, pp. 36–7, under no. 18; Van Gelder 1957, p. 8, no. 1; Van Gelder 1959b, p. 176; Bauch 1966, p. 18, no. 353; Gerson 1968, pp. 258 and 493, no. 105; Bredius & Gerson 1969, p. 561, no. 162; Haak 1969, pp. 81–3 (fig. 118); Sass 1971, p. 54; Strauss & Van der Meulen 1979, pp. 97 (Doc. 1633/1), 117 (Doc. 1635/3), 205 (Doc. 1641/1); Murray 1980a, pp. 100–101; Murray 1980b, p. 22; Van Regteren Altena 1983, i, pp. 154–5, 183 (note 9); White 1984, p. 54; Schwartz 1985, pp. 73, 92, 94–7 (fig.); Bruyn 1986, pp. 100–101 (fig. 6), 219–24 (A 56), 225, 228–9 (under A 57), 247 (under A 60); Tümpel 1986, pp. 133–5 (fig.), 412, no. 194; Chapman 1990, pp. 58, 124, fig. 86; Kitson 1992, pp. 46–7, no. 8; Slatkes 1992, pp. 202–3, no. 110; Beresford 1998, p. 191; Schama 1999, pp. 29, 707 (note 51); De Winkel 1999, pp. 62, 63 (fig. 7); Ketelsen 2000, pp. 29, 39, 44 (fig. 20), under no. 2 (Related works, no. 1) [2]; Shawe-Taylor 2000, pp. 50–51; Van de Wetering 2001, pp. 69–70 (fig. 20); Giltaij 2003, pp. 48–50, under no. 5 (Related works, no. 4) (fig. 5b); De Winkel 2005, p. 47; Van de Wetering 2005, pp. 202, 204, 211, 358; Van Straten & Moerman 2005, p. 225–8, ill. 406; Schwartz 2006, pp. 40, 157–9 (fig. 272), 185, 377; De Winkel 2006, pp. 144–5 (fig. 58); Lammertse & Van der Veen 2006, pp. 133 (fig. 77), 135, 279; Arnold, Tiramani & Levey 2008, p. 29 (fig. 21B, reversed); Jardine 2008, p. 99 (fig., reversed), 137–8; Dejardin 2009b, pp. 64–5; Weststeijn 2015b, p. 53, fig. 35 (Jacques de Gheyn III as visitor to the Arundel Marbles); Van de Wetering 2015, p. 514, fig. 68; Jonker & Bergvelt 2016, pp. 162–4, 172; Van de Wetering 2017, i, p. 133 (fig. 68), ii, p. 514, no. 68; Manuth, De Winkel & Van Leeuwen 2019, pp. 151, 623, no. 181; RKD, no. 32024: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/32024 (Feb. 13, 2019).

EXHIBITIONS
London 1899, p. 12, no. 16; London/Leeds 1947–53, n.p., no. 36; Edinburgh 1950, p. 8, no. 5 (E. K. Waterhouse); Amsterdam 1952, pp. 66–7, no. 136, fig. 26; London 1952–3, p. 32, no. 126; London 1964, p. 41, no. 59, fig. IV; Berlin/Amsterdam/London 1991–2, pp. 152–5, no. 12 (P. van Thiel); Melbourne/Canberra 1997–8, pp. 92, 108–14, no. 8 (A. Blankert & M. Blokhuis); Madrid/Bilbao 1999, pp. 124–7, no. 28 (I. Dejardin); Houston/Louisville 1999–2000, pp. 154–5, no. 48 (D. Shawe-Taylor); London/Amsterdam 2006, pp. 133 (fig. 77), 135, 279 (J. van der Veen); Leiden/Oxford 2019–20, pp. 50, 230–33, no. 110 (with no. 109, Related works, no. 1 [2]; C. Brown).

TECHNICAL NOTES
Single-member oak panel with vertical grain. The verso edges are bevelled and the bottom edge is slightly unevenly cut. On the reverse there is a worn Latin inscription in ink. The ground is a warm buff with grey imprimatura. The paint is fairly thick and there are broken brush hairs caught in the paint film. The face is painted more thinly. There are pentimenti: X-ray photography [1] shows that an area of background was painted in first around the reserve left for the painting of the head.15 The area for the hair was reduced a little when the final background layers were painted and the pleated collar extended a little lower than in the final paint layers. The paint is in good condition. There is an old restored nail hole in the top centre. Some wear in the collar and hair. Some slight blanching of the paint in the background. Previous recorded treatment: c. 1950, cleaned, Dr Hell; 1967, reframed after burglary; 1988, varnished, C. Hampton; 1997, cleaned and retouched, S. Plender.

RELATED WORKS
1) (pendant) Rembrandt, Maurits Huygens, signed and dated RH van Rij./ 1632, panel, 31.1 x 24.5 cm. Kunsthalle, Hamburg, 87 [2].16
2) Rembrandt, Self-Portrait as a Burgher, signed and dated RHL van Ryn/1632 (RHL in monogram), panel, 63.5 x 46.3 cm (oval). Culture and Sport Glasgow (Museums): The Burrell Collection, 35.600 (formerly 468) [3].17
3) Rembrandt, Two Old Men Disputing, monogrammed RL, panel, 72.4 x 59.7 cm. National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, cat. 1961, 349/4 [4].18
4) Rembrandt, Old Man asleep by a Fire (perhaps representing Sloth), signed and dated RL […] 29, panel, 51.9 x 40.8 cm. Galleria Sabauda, Turin, 393 [5].19
5) Rembrandt, The Anatomy Lesson of Dr Nicolaes Tulp, signed and dated Rembrant. ft: 1632, canvas, 169 x 216.5 cm. MH, The Hague, 146.20

DPG99
Rembrandt
Portrait of Jacques de Gheyn III (1596-1641), dated 1632
panel (oak), oil paint 29,9 x 24,9 cm
upper left : RH (in monogram) van Ryn / 1632
Dulwich (London), Dulwich Picture Gallery, inv./cat.nr. DPG99

#

1
X-ray of DPG99

2
Rembrandt
Portrait of Maurits Huygens, dated 1632
panel (oak), oil paint 31,1 x 24,5 cm
lower right : RH (in monogram) van Rij / 1632
Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle, inv./cat.nr. inv. no. 87

3
Rembrandt
Self Portrait, dated 1632
panel (oak), oil paint 63,5 x 46,3 cm
center right : RHL (in monogram) van Ryn / 1632
Glasgow (Scotland), The Burrell Collection, inv./cat.nr. 35/600

4
Rembrandt
Two old men disputing, c. 1628
panel (oak), oil paint 72,4 x 59,7 cm
lower left : RL.
Melbourne, National Gallery of Victoria, inv./cat.nr. 349-4

5
Rembrandt
An old man sleeping by the fire, perhaps typifying Sloth, dated 1629
panel (oak), oil paint 51,9 x 40,8 cm
lower right : P (to be read as R) L. [..]29
Turijn, Galleria Sabauda, inv./cat.nr. 41


One of the most famous pictures at Dulwich – and also one of the most frequently stolen paintings in the history of British collections (four times in the 20th century) – this depicts the draughtsman and printmaker Jacques de Gheyn III (1596–1641), son of the better-known painter and engraver of the same name. It is one of the paintings that are definitely by Rembrandt’s hand; as such it is used as a standard against which to judge unsigned and undated pictures of the 1630s, and thus to reconstruct Rembrandt’s œuvre.

The sitter was well known in his lifetime. He is first documented as an artist in 1614. In 1618 he travelled to London with Constantijn Huygens I (1596-1687) (the brother of Maurits Huygens, to whom De Gheyn was to bequeathe his portrait) [6], and in 1620 to Sweden; in 1634 he settled in Utrecht, where he became a canon of the Mariakerk. Rembrandt depicts him half-length, lit from the right, with his body turned slightly to the left, wearing a black doublet and cloak with a white pleated collar. X-ray analysis revealed that part of the background was painted first, leaving space for the head [1]. That was then painted in, and the surrounding area slightly reduced. The X-ray also indicated that the collar initially extended a little further down.21

The signature and the inscription on the back of the portrait tell us that Rembrandt painted it in 1632. That might have been when he was visiting The Hague, or in his old studio in Leiden.22 In the same year in Amsterdam he painted the large Anatomy Lesson of Dr Nicolaes Tulp and a number of commissioned portraits, nine of which are on a large scale.23 In its small scale and miniature-like technique DPG99 seems to look back to the way Rembrandt worked during his years in Leiden.

The painting is first documented in 1633 in a series of eight epigrams in Latin by Constantijn Huygens. Huygens was a poet, writer, musician, artist, and courtier (as secretary to two stadholders of the House of Orange-Nassau).24 Jacques de Gheyn had travelled to London with him in 1618. All eight say it is a poor likeness of the sitter, though a lovely painting:

January 1633
IN IACOBI GHEINIJ EFFIGIEM PLANE DISSIMILEM, SCOMMATA (On Jacob de Gheyn’s portrait, which is not at all like him: jokes)
Talis Gheiniadae facies si forte fuisset
Talis Gheiniadae prorsus imago foret.
(If De Gheyn’s face had looked like this, this would have been an accurate portrait of De Gheyn.)

January 1633
(ALIUD) (Another)
Haereditatis patriae probus Pictor
Invidit assem Gheinio, creavitque
Quem recreet semisse posthumum fratrem.
(The worthy painter envied De Gheyn’s inheritance from his father, and created a posthumous brother to gladden with half of it.)

January 1633
(ALIUD) (Another)
Quos oculos, video sub imagine frontem?
Desine, spectator, quaerere, non memini.
(Whose eyes and whose face do I see in this portrait? Stop your questions, viewer, I cannot remember.)

January 1633
(ALIUD) (Another)
Gutta magis guttae similis fortasse reperta est,
Tam similis guttae non, puto, gutta fuit.
(Perhaps a drop has been found that more resembled a drop. I think a drop has never been so little like a drop as this.)

(ALIUD) (Another)
Geiniadem tabulamque inter discriminis hanc est
Fabula quantillum distat ab historia.
(There is as little difference between De Gheyn and the painting as between myth and history.)

(ALIUD) (Another)
Tantum tabella est, si tabella quae bella est,
At haec, tabella bella, bella fabella est.
(It is only a painting, though a lovely painting; but this lovely painting is a lovely myth.)

18 February 1633
(ALIUD) (Another)
Cuius hic est vultus, tabulam si jure perculj
Quisque suam posit dicere, nemo sui?
(Whose face is this, that anyone can call his own for money, but no one can on the grounds of likeness?)

(ALIUD) (Another)
Rembrantis est manus ista, Gheinij vultus;
Mirare, lector, et iste Gheinius non est.
Eod. Die.
(This is the hand of Rembrandt, the face of De Gheyn. Look in wonder, reader, and it is not De Gheyn. On the same day [18 February 1633].)25

DPG99
Rembrandt
Portrait of Jacques de Gheyn III (1596-1641), dated 1632
panel (oak), oil paint 29,9 x 24,9 cm
upper left : RH (in monogram) van Ryn / 1632
Dulwich (London), Dulwich Picture Gallery, inv./cat.nr. DPG99

#

1
X-ray of DPG99

6
Paulus Pontius (I) after Anthony van Dyck
Portrait of Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687), c. 1632
paper, engraving 273 x 175 mm
Amsterdam, private collection Christiaan Pieter van Eeghen (1880-1968)


2
Rembrandt
Portrait of Maurits Huygens, dated 1632
panel (oak), oil paint 31,1 x 24,5 cm
lower right : RH (in monogram) van Rij / 1632
Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle, inv./cat.nr. inv. no. 87

DPG99
Rembrandt
Portrait of Jacques de Gheyn III (1596-1641), dated 1632
panel (oak), oil paint 29,9 x 24,9 cm
upper left : RH (in monogram) van Ryn / 1632
Dulwich (London), Dulwich Picture Gallery, inv./cat.nr. DPG99


According to Tümpel, the epigrams follow the Neo-Platonic idea that a portrait is a mere likeness, and not the actual person. Schwartz speculated that the second epigram implied that Rembrandt demanded half De Gheyn’s inheritance for painting the portrait, but that seems unlikely. Van Regteren Altena suggested that it might mean 1) that the sitter had been dissatisfied with the portrait, and had paid only half the artist’s fee; 2) that the father had already bought two paintings from the artist and had paid double what his son paid; or 3) that the sitter had paid Rembrandt twice his father’s amount, ‘and therefore no longer resembled himself when he halved the price’.26 What Van Thiel proposed is most likely: that the verse is suggesting that De Gheyn, an only child, had acquired a brother in the form of the portrait: he was no longer an only child and had to share his inheritance with his new brother.27

The picture is next mentioned in the will of the sitter, drawn up on the day before his death in Utrecht on 4 June 1641. It was bequeathed to Constantijn’s brother, Maurits Huygens (1595–1642), secretary to the Dutch Council of State. It was most probably Maurits who added the inscription on the back of the panel before his own death on 24 September 1642. That inscription indicates that DPG99 formed a pair with a portrait of Maurits Huygens, now in Hamburg (Related works, no. 1) [2] , although for the first eight years of their existence the pictures hung separately in the homes of their sitters. That the pictures were meant as a pair has been questioned: in a pair the light comes from the same direction, whereas Maurits Huygens is lit from the left and Jacques de Gheyn from the right. They have however been accepted as an exception.28 The Latin inscription and the verses suggest that the two belong to the tradition of humanist friendship portraits, popularized by Rubens in the early 17th century.29

Rosenberg in 1906 was the first to recognize that DPG99 had a companion in the portrait of Maurits Huygens. In 1943 H. E. van Gelder noted that the two pictures corresponded to those mentioned in the will of Jacques de Gheyn III, a suggestion confirmed by the discovery of the inscription on the back. It is clear that De Gheyn and the Huygens brothers, Maurits and Constantijn, were close friends. Constantijn had travelled with Jacques to London in 1618; he commented on Jacques’ portrait by Rembrandt in his verses, and he also noted his lazy character.30 Jacques’ family was rich enough for him to afford to be lazy. The two families were well acquainted and of similar social standing. In 1627 Jacques’ father, Jacques de Gheyn II (1596–1629), was a neighbour of Constantijn in Lange Houtstraat. Jacques and the Huygens brothers were connoisseurs and art collectors; they went on studio visits together, for instance to the young Rembrandt and Jan Lievens. There were also close ties with Rembrandt: as secretary to the princes of Orange-Nassau, Constantijn was the intermediary between the stadholder and Rembrandt for the commissions he received from the court. Jacques or his father is likely to have been the first owner of Rembrandt’s early Two Old Men disputing, now in Melbourne (Related works, no. 3) [4], and his Old Man asleep by a Fire, or Sloth, now in Turin (Related works, no. 4) [5]. In Jacques’ collection they were accompanied by prints and paintings by masters including Jan Porcellis (1584–1632) and Cornelis van Poelenburch (1594/5–1667), and also shells and other natural objets.31 In his contemporary Self-Portrait as a Burgher (Related works, no. 2) [3] Rembrandt showed himself in dress indicating that he belonged to (or wanted to belong to) the same social class.

The two paintings seem to have stayed in the Huygens family until the 18th century, when they appeared in a sale in Utrecht in 1764.32 DPG99 may have been in Desenfans’ possession in 1786, but the picture does not appear in his subsequent inventories or sales. It is more likely that Desenfans or Bourgeois acquired it after 1804, when a picture which might well have been DPG99 was handled in Paris in November by the art dealer Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Le Brun (1748–1813), Desenfans’ sometime business partner. It is not included in Desenfans’ 1804 Insurance List, which is dated 6 July. This could mean that the picture was acquired later. It could also mean that it was not considered to be valuable or important enough to be included in the Insurance List, since only 124 pictures feature there from a collection that in lists before and after 1804 consisted of more than 300 pictures; however that a Rembrandt was not deemed important enough to be insured by Desenfans is highly unlikely.

4
Rembrandt
Two old men disputing, c. 1628
panel (oak), oil paint 72,4 x 59,7 cm
lower left : RL.
Melbourne, National Gallery of Victoria, inv./cat.nr. 349-4

5
Rembrandt
An old man sleeping by the fire, perhaps typifying Sloth, dated 1629
panel (oak), oil paint 51,9 x 40,8 cm
lower right : P (to be read as R) L. [..]29
Turijn, Galleria Sabauda, inv./cat.nr. 41

3
Rembrandt
Self Portrait, dated 1632
panel (oak), oil paint 63,5 x 46,3 cm
center right : RHL (in monogram) van Ryn / 1632
Glasgow (Scotland), The Burrell Collection, inv./cat.nr. 35/600


Notes

1 Transcription and translation based on Strauss & Van der Meulen 1979, p. 97, Doc. 1633/31, and Bruyn 1986, p. 224. This note must have been written by Maurits Huygens between 6 June 1641 (the death of De Gheyn) and 24 Sept. 1642 (the death of Huygens). Van de Wetering 2015, p. 514, gives a slightly different transcription, but that has no consequences for the translation.

2 Bredius 1915, p. 128 (will of the sitter, drawn up in Utrecht on 3 June 1641): item maeckt ende legateert hij comparant aenden Heere Maurits Huygens, Secretaris vanden Raedt van Staten inden Hage, sijn comparants eijgen contrefijtsel bij Rembrand geschildert… (Item: the deponent makes over and bequeathes to Maurits Huygens, Gentleman, Secretary to the Council of State in the Hague, the deponent’s own likeness painted by Rembrandt…).

3 As mentioned in Bruyn 1986 (p. 224). Jonker & Bergvelt 2016 did not include this sale in the provenance of DPG99, since they thought it not likely that the description, given by the RRP and repeated by Van Thiel in Brown, Kelch and Van Thiel 1991, 152 (see below), refers to DPG99 and its pair. The pictures described are smaller; nothing in the Huygens and De Gheyn pair indicates that they were artists; and they are not colourful, which the pictures in the 1786 catalogue are said to be. Moreover those were bought by the Prince of Monaco at the Aubert sale in March 1786 (and one of them was sold by him in 1803: see GPID, June 22, 2020).

4 The RRP in Bruyn 1986 (p. 224) assume that this was a ‘real’ sale, and that the picture left Desenfans’ collection. They do not realize that Desenfans, as an art dealer at least until 1802 (after that he started to think about leaving his collection to the nation), was in the habit of offering pictures for sale, buying them in, and keeping them in his collection (see Jonker & Bergvelt 2016, p. 15). Moreover they assume that Desenfans was in possession of both paintings. If that had been the case he would have offered them both for sale, as more interesting for a connaisseur. They think that in 1786 Desenfans sold the picture that is now in Hamburg, the portrait of Maurits Huygens. That is not very likely.

5 Annotation in the copy in the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris: see http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb365209019 (June 22, 2020).

6 That is not very likely, since DPG99 is not mentioned in the 1804 Insurance list, dated 6 July 1804. Rembrandt was also the most important Dutch painter for Desenfans. So even though this painting was relatively small and from Rembrandt’s early period, it would certainly have been included in this list (as being signed and dated). So it seems to us most likely that DPG99 was only purchased after 6 July 1804 – after the Insurance List was made – from Le Brun (from the Baron van Leyden sale on 5 November 1804). The RRP consider that unlikely, since they assume that the Baron van Leyden picture is the Maurits Huygens portrait, now in Hamburg; they assume that Desenfans had acquired the pair, Maurits Huygens and Jacques de Gheyn III, at the Aubert sale in March 1786, and that Desenfans sold the portrait of Maurits Huygens in 1786 and kept DPG99; these assumptions do not take into account that the pair at the Aubert sale were purchased by the Prince of Monaco, after which one of them seems to have been sold in Paris in 1803 (see text); the description with une Fraise in the Baron van Leyden sale corresponds to DPG99 more than to the portrait of Maurits Huygens (they say: ‘It seems more likely that the picture described here is to be identified with no. A 57 [Huygens] (although it seems to correspond less well to the description, which mentions “une Fraise”) than with no. A 56 [De Gheyn] (which would rather seem to have remained in Desenfans’ possession)’, Bruyn 1986, p. 224).

7 ‘Rembrandt Van Rhyn. Portrait of a Man (unknown).’

8 ‘A small Head of an old Man, by Rembrandt, which is as smoothly finished as a miniature.’ The sitter in DPG99 is clearly not an old man, but Hazlitt did mean this picture: in his 1843 publication ‘189’ is added, the inventory number of DPG99 at the time.

9 ‘A small half-length; very fine; and highly finished.’

10 Same text as in 1824, with the addition of ‘189’ (see note 8).

11 ‘Then a small, male portrait (No. 189), firmly and brilliantly painted by Rembrandt, attracts us.’

12 ‘Among the pictures which bear the name of REMBRANDT there are some good works of his school, but none by his own hand.’

13 Portrait de Rembrandt, en buste, plus que demi-nature, vêtu de noir (Portrait of Rembrandt, half-length, larger than half life-size, dressed in black).

14 ‘well-preserved picture, of a lively and pleasant conception, and carefully executed in that style which Gerard Dou adopted as a model when he was a pupil of Rembrandt’.

15 For an extensive technical analysis see Bruyn 1986, p. 219.

16 RKD, no. 32021: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/32021 (March 20, 2019); Manuth, De Winkel & Van Leeuwen 2019, pp. 150, 622–3, no. 180; Van de Wetering 2017, i, p. 133, ii, p. 514 (fig. 67); Jonker & Bergvelt 2016, p. 162, fig. 1, under DPG99; Bruyn 1986, pp. 225–9, A 57.

17 RKD, no. 29527: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/29527 (July 18, 2018); see also https://www.vads.ac.uk/digital/collection/NIRP/id/34056/rec/2 (Jan. 16, 2021); Jonker & Bergvelt 2016, p. 162, fig. 2, under DPG99; De Winkel 2006, pp. 143–5 (fig. 56), 304; Bruyn 1986, pp. 230–37, A 58.

18 RKD, no. 59101: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/59101 (March 20, 2019); Blankert & Blokhuis 1997, pp. 90–95, no. 3; Bruyn 1982, pp. 159–68, A 13.

19 RKD, no. 46432: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/46432 (March 20, 2019); Giltaij 2003, pp. 48–51, no. 5; Bruyn 1982, pp. 202–7, A 17.

20 RKD, no. 3048: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/3048 (March 20, 2019); Bruyn 1986, pp. 172–89, A 51.

21 See Bruyn 1986, p. 219.

22 Van der Veen 2006, p. 131; Bruyn 1986, p. 224. Van Thiel suggested that Rembrandt was in The Hague to paint the portraits of Joris de Caullery and his son Johan, and the portrait of Amalia van Solms-Braunfels: Van Thiel in Brown, Kelch & Van Thiel 1991, p. 152. Brown however says that it is likely that the portraits of Maurits Huygens and Jacques de Gheyn III were painted in Leiden, where Rembrandt still kept his workshop, and which was closer to The Hague than Amsterdam: Brown, Van Camp & Vogelaar 2019, p. 231.

23 Blankert & Blokhuis 1997, pp. 108, 114 (note 1).

24 Constantijn was the father of Christiaan Huygens (1629–95), the famous scientist; see about the latter Aldersey-Williams 2020. An exhibition about Constantijn and Christiaan was held at the Grote Kerk in The Hague in 2013: see Leerintveld 2013.

25 See Worp 1893, ii, pp. 245–6. Quoted and translated in Bruyn 1986, ii, p. 223; here with amendments by Emily Lane. It should be noted that when Constantijn Huygens published the epigrams in 1644 as Joci (Jokes) in his anthology Momenta desultoria he omitted the last verse, the only one to mention Rembrandt; see also Strauss & Van der Meulen 1979, p. 97, Doc. 1633/1. Huygens probably did not want to be seen belittling Rembrandt.

26 Van Regteren Altena 1983, i, pp. 155, 183 (note 8).

27 See Brown, Kelch & Van Thiel 1991, p. 153, no. 12. About the poems see also Broekman 2010, pp. 39–41.

28 Bruyn 1986, pp. 222–3. In the summary on p. 224 they are accepted as a pair, lit in an exceptional way.

29 See Blankert & Blokhuis 1997, p. 113.

30 Constantijn Huygens’ manuscript Vita (Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, no. K.A. XLVIII, p. 965): condito talento sterili illaudabilique otio indormivisse (he dozed, hiding his talent in unfruitful and reprehensible sloth). Cited by Bruyn 1986, ii, p. 223.

31 For an overview of Jacques de Gheyn III’s collection of pictures, see Blankert & Blokhuis 1997, pp. 92, 110, 216, also p. 95; and Van Regteren Altena 1983, i, pp. 154–5. It has been suggested that the Old Man asleep by a Fire was a present from Constantijn Huygens with a comment on Jacques’ laziness, but Blankert does not agree: Blankert & Blokhuis 1997, p. 93.

32 It has been suggested that they might have featured in a sale after the death of Maurits Huygens’ son-in-law, Hendrik van Utenhove, squire of Amelisweerd, in 1715, but there is no firm documentation for that: see Van Gelder 1957, p. 9.

Cookies disclaimer

Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to deliver better content and for statistical purposes. You can disable the usage of cookies by changing the settings of your browser. By browsing our website without changing the browser settings you grant us permission to store that information on your device.
I agree