1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 1/17

Portrait of the Artist, oil on canvas by Rembrandt van Rijn,1652; in …

Burstein Collection/Corbis

Rembrandt van RijnRembrandt van Rijn, in full RembrandtHarmenszoon van Rijn, Rembrandtoriginally spelled Rembrant   (born July15, 1606, Leiden, Netherlands—diedOctober 4, 1669, Amsterdam), DutchBaroque painter and printmaker, one ofthe greatest storytellers in the history ofart, possessing an exceptional ability torender people in their various moodsand dramatic guises. Rembrandt is alsoknown as a painter of light and shadeand as an artist who favoured anuncompromising realism that wouldlead some critics to claim that hepreferred ugliness to beauty.

Early in his career and for some time,Rembrandt painted mainly portraits.Although he continued to paint—andetch and, occasionally, draw—portraitsthroughout his career, he did so lessfrequently over time. Roughly one-tenthof his painted and etched oeuvre consists of studies of his own face as well asmore-formal self-portraits, a fact that has led to much speculation.

The core of Rembrandt’s oeuvre, however, consists of biblical and—to a muchlesser extent—historical, mythological, and allegorical “history pieces,” all ofwhich he painted, etched, or sketched in pen and ink or chalk. Seen over hiswhole career, the changes in Rembrandt’s style are remarkable. His approach to

composition and his rendering of space and light—like his handling of contour, form, and colour, his brushwork, and (in hisdrawings and etchings) his treatment of line and tone—are subject to gradual (or sometimes abrupt) transformation, even withina single work. The painting known as Night Watch (1640/42) was clearly a turning point in his stylistic development. Thesechanges are not the result of an involuntary evolution; rather they should be seen as documenting a conscious search in pictorialand narrative respects, sometimes in discussion, as it were, with his great predecessors.

Rembrandt quickly achieved renown among Dutch art lovers and an art-buying public for his history paintings and etchings, aswell as his portraits and self-portraits. His unusual etchings brought him international fame during his lifetime, and his drawings,which in fact were done as practice exercises or as studies for other works, were also collected by contemporary art lovers.

According to the myth that evolved after his death, Rembrandt died poor and misunderstood. It is true that by the end of his lifehis realism had been supplanted by Classicism and had become unfashionable in Holland. Nevertheless, his internationalreputation among connoisseurs and collectors only continued to rise. Certain artists in 18th-century Germany and Venice evenadopted his style. He was venerated during the Romantic era and was considered a forerunner of the Romantic movement; fromthat point he was regarded as one of the greatest figures in art history. In the Netherlands itself, his fortunes have once againrisen, and he has become a symbol of both greatness and Dutch-ness.

Rembrandt was the fourth of 6 surviving children out of 10. Unlike many painters of his time, he did not come from a family ofartists or craftsmen; his father, Harmen Gerritszoon van Rijn (1568–1630), was a miller. His mother, Neeltgen Willemsdochter vanZuytbrouck (1568–1640), came from a family of bakers.

The first name Rembrandt was—and still is—extremely rare. It is akin to more common Dutch first names such as Remmert,Gerbrand, and IJsbrand. The way Rembrandt inscribed his name on his work evolved significantly. As a young man, he signed hiswork only with the monogram RH (Rembrant Harmenszoon, “son of Harmen”); from 1626/27, with RHL; and in 1632, with RHLvan Rijn (the L in the monogram presumably standing for Leidensis, “from Leiden,” the town in which he was born). At age 26 hebegan to sign his work with his first name only, Rembrant (ending only with a -t); from early 1633 onward until his death, hespelled his name Rembrandt (with -dt) and signed his works that way. It has been suggested that he began using his first name

as his signature because he considered himself the equal of the great artists of the 15th and 16th centuries; Michelangelo

Early years

Table of ContentsIntroductionEarly yearsThe Leiden period (1625–31)EtchingTeachingFirst Amsterdam period (1631–1635/36)PortraitsRembrandt and religionRembrandt and RubensSecond Amsterdam period (1635–42)Growing fameNight WatchThird Amsterdam period (1643–58)The myth of Rembrandt’s fallRembrandt’s late styleDomestic turmoilRembrandt’s collectingFourth Amsterdam period (1658–69)AssessmentRembrandt’s legacyResearch and attribution

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 2/17

as his signature because he considered himself the equal of the great artists of the 15th and 16th centuries; Michelangelo(Michelangelo Buonarroti), Titian (Tiziano Vecellio), and Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio) were also generally known by their first names.

Like most Dutch children of his day, Rembrandt attended elementary school (c. 1612–16), after which, from roughly 1616 to1620, he attended the Latin School in Leiden, where biblical studies and classics were the main subjects taught. The school’semphasis on oratory skills may have contributed to his ability to “stage” the figures in scenes depicted in his history paintings,drawings, and etchings. It is not clear whether Rembrandt completed his course of study at the Latin School. His first biographer,Jan Janszoon Orlers (1570–1646), provided a laudatory half-page biography of Rembrandt within his Beschrijvinge der stadt Leyden(1641; “Description of the Town of Leiden”). There Orlers wrote that Rembrandt was taken out of school prematurely and, at hisown request, was sent to be trained as a painter. The fact that Rembrandt was enrolled in Leiden University on May 20, 1620,does not necessarily contradict this. Whether for tax reasons or simply because they had attended the Latin School, it was notunusual for Leiden boys to be registered as students without being expected to attend any lectures. The extent of Rembrandt’sintellectual development and any possible influence this might have had on his work remain matters of speculation.

From approximately 1620 to 1624/25, Rembrandt trained as an artist. As was quite common in his time, he had two masters insuccession. Rembrandt’s first master was the Leiden painter Jacob van Swanenburgh (1571–1638), with whom, according toOrlers, he remained for about three years. Van Swanenburgh must have taught him the basic skills and imparted the knowledgenecessary for the profession. He was a specialist in architectural pieces and in scenes of hell and the underworld, which calledfor skill in painting fire and its reflections on the surrounding objects. In Rembrandt’s time this skill was considered distinct anddemanding. It may well be that Rembrandt’s early exposure to this kind of pictorial problem underlies his lasting interest in theeffects of light.

Rembrandt’s second teacher, Pieter Lastman (1583–1633), lived in Amsterdam. According to Orlers, Rembrandt stayed with himfor six months. Working with Lastman, who was well known at that time as a history painter, must have helped Rembrandt gainthe knowledge and skill necessary to master that genre. History painting involved placing various figures from biblical, historical,mythological, or allegorical scenes in complex settings. In the 17th-century hierarchy of the various genres, history painting heldthe highest position, because it required a complete command of all subjects, from landscape to architecture, from still life todrapery, from animals to, above all, the human figure, in a wide range of postures, expressions, and costumes. One Rembrandtbiographer, Arnold Houbraken (1660–1719), mentions another Amsterdam history painter, Jakob Pynas (c. 1585–1650), as one ofRembrandt’s teachers. (In 1718 Houbraken wrote the most extensive early biography and characterization of Rembrandt as anartist, although it was mixed with spurious anecdotes.)

On the basis of stylistic arguments, one could speculate on the impact that Jan Lievens (1607–74) may have had on Rembrandtduring his training. Lievens, one year younger than Rembrandt and originally a child prodigy, was already a full-fledged artist bythe time Rembrandt must have decided to become a painter. Although scholars know for certain only that Rembrandt andLievens worked closely together for some years after Rembrandt had returned to Leiden about 1625, following his training withLastman, the contacts between these two Leiden boys may have begun earlier. However, no trace of Rembrandt’s studentexercises has survived.

Over the course of 1625, Rembrandt settled in Leiden as an independent master. During the following six years, he laid thefoundations for many of his subsequent works and preoccupations. His earliest paintings relied heavily on Lastman’s work. Inseveral instances, he took apart, as it were, the colourful compositions by Lastman and reassembled them into newcompositions. (Later, although in a less drastic fashion, Rembrandt’s own pupils would also produce variations on the basis ofRembrandt’s own works.) For an aspiring painter, this was one of the typical methods employed to develop a personal styleunder a master’s guidance. Given the fact, however, that Rembrandt painted his variations on Lastman’s prototypes after he hadreturned to Leiden as an independent young master, one can speculate that Rembrandt actually may have been trying toemulate his former teacher by choosing the latter’s subjects but completely “rephrasing” them.

During his Leiden period, Rembrandt’s production as a painter was mainly devoted to small-scale history paintings and tronies(single figures in historicizing, Oriental, or imaginary costumes that connote old age, piety, soldierly bravery, the Orient,transience, and so on). Tronies were not meant to be portraits, although individuals must have posed for them (among themRembrandt himself, in the mirror). Also during this period, Rembrandt may have shared a studio with Lievens, who, likeRembrandt, had received his final training with Lastman—although six years earlier. The two young painters experimented withthe consistency of paint, attempting to use variations in the paint surface to render different materials. It may well be thatLievens had a stronger influence on Rembrandt in these early years than vice versa. The fact that, about 1630, they both severaltimes painted the same subject (such as the Raising of Lazarus) might suggest that they were competing with each other.

In 1628 or 1629 Rembrandt finished the Judas Repentant and, among other works, painted The Artist in His Studio. After amazinglyrapid changes in style from 1625 onward, Rembrandt reached a first major peak in his artistic development in the late 1620s.

The paintings he created soon after leaving Lastman still have a waxworks quality, with evenly lit, colourful figures acting in a

The Leiden period (1625–31)

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 3/17

Woman with the Arrow, etching by Rembrandt vanRijn, 1661; in the …

Courtesy National Gallery of Art, Washington. D.C.,Rosenwald Collection, 1944.2.62

The paintings he created soon after leaving Lastman still have a waxworks quality, with evenly lit, colourful figures acting in aclearly organized space. The revolutionary change that took place in Rembrandt’s style between about 1627 and 1629 involvedthe role of light. By concentrating the light and by exaggerating the diminuendo of the force of light in relation to the distancefrom the light source, Rembrandt arrived at what could crudely be termed “spotlight” effects. In order to create convincing lighteffects, Rembrandt—like Caravaggio, his great Italian precursor in this field—had to compensate by leaving large areas shroudedin shadow.

In 1628, in particular in the Peter and Paul Disputing, Rembrandt developed a method by which the lit elements in the painting arebasically clustered in one area, in such a manner that little shadow is needed to separate the various forms. By assembling lighthues of yellow, blue, pink, green, and other colours, he developed a system of bevriende kleuren (“kindred [or related] colours”).This area of the painting was surrounded by coherent clusters of darker tones that occupied the foreground and backgroundand especially the edges and corners of the work. Through this method Rembrandt not only created a concentrated, almostfurnacelike, intensity of the light, but he also obtained a strong unity in his composition. This unity enabled the viewer’s eye tograsp the image in one glance, before focusing on the details.

In order to achieve this result, Rembrandt had to sacrifice strong, saturated colours, since these would impair the desired effect.He also had to sacrifice much detail in order to maintain tonal unity throughout the painting. One could speculate that thesepictorial dilemmas eventually led to an artistic crisis that may have become manifest during the work on Night Watch (see below),which was in fact meant to be a scene lit by daylight.

Other developments in Rembrandt’s Leiden period, such as his activity as an etcher and a teacher, would also prove to beimportant for his whole artistic career.

About 1628 Rembrandt made his first etchings. Unlike drawing, etching is not anatural counterpart to painting, and his decision to begin etching meant taking asignificant new direction in his career. Much of his international fame during hislifetime would be based on the widely disseminated prints he produced from the 300or so etchings he made over the course of his career.

Analysis of Rembrandt’s early etched oeuvre gives the impression that he wasbasically self-taught in this field. Whereas Rembrandt’s contemporaries adopted theregular, almost stylized manner of applying lines and hatchings that could be found inthe much more common copper engravings, Rembrandt almost from the outset useda much freer technique, which at first strikes the viewer as uncontrolled, evennervous. Thanks to this new technique, however, he succeeded in developing amethod of working that appears partly sketchlike, yet which could also be describedas painterly. The painterly quality of his etchings is mainly due to the way in which heachieved an extraordinarily suggestive play of light and dark and how he created aconvincing sense of atmospheric space using different methods of hatching.

As early as the 18th century, specialists had thoroughly described and exploredRembrandt’s etched oeuvre, mainly for the benefit of print collectors. In the process,much attention was paid to the different stages—the so-called “states”—throughwhich many of Rembrandt’s etchings evolved as well as to the striking variety ofpapers upon which the etchings were printed. The latter fact led to the general beliefthat Rembrandt printed his etchings himself. About 1990 the technique of X-rayradiography was applied to the watermarks on the paper; this technique has made itpossible to reconstruct editions of prints and, as a result, to obtain greater insight intoRembrandt’s studio practice in this field.

Etching

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 4/17

The Three Trees, etching with drypoint and engraving by Rembrandt van …

© The British Museum/Heritage-Images

From 1628 to 1663, Rembrandt had pupils. Gerrit Dou (1613–75), who was later in life noted as a painter of meticulouslyexecuted genre paintings and portraits, was probably the first. Over the years Rembrandt’s fame attracted many young men—some from abroad—who were ambitious to study with him once they had completed their basic training elsewhere. It seemsthat Rembrandt never took beginners. Great talents such as Govaert Flinck, Carel Fabritius, and Aert de Gelder were amongthese students. Scholars know of the existence of Rembrandt’s individual pupils mainly by chance, since the official registers ofpainters’ trainees have been lost in both Leiden and Amsterdam. Only a rough estimate of the number of his pupils is possible.Over his entire career as a teacher (between 1628 and c. 1663) there must certainly have been 50 or so, and possibly many more.The German artist Joachim von Sandrart (1606–88), who lived in Amsterdam from 1637 to about 1645, referred to “countlesspupils” who studied and worked with Rembrandt.

A pupil’s parents had to pay Rembrandt an annual tuition fee of 100 guilders, a substantial sum, especially since Rembrandt,contrary to custom, did not provide boarding for these young men. According to von Sandrart, this fee, coupled with the sale ofhis pupils’ works, added substantially to Rembrandt’s income. It is likely that a number of Rembrandt’s pupils—including IsackJouderville (1613–before 1648), an orphan from Leiden—stayed on as studio assistants for some time. Rembrandt’s studentslearned, as was common practice in 17th-century studios, by copying their master’s works and, later, by painting and drawingmore or less free variations based on them. A passage in Houbraken’s biography of Rembrandt, confirmed by an archivaldocument from 1658, states that pupils worked in an attic in separate cubicles partitioned by sailcloth or paper.

In 1631 Rembrandt entered a business relationship with HendrickUylenburgh (1584 or 1589–c. 1660), an Amsterdam entrepreneur inpaintings who had a large workshop that painted portraits, carried outrestorations, and produced copies, among other activities. Rembrandtapparently had already planned or was inspired by Uylenburgh to leave

Leiden, then in decline, for Amsterdam, which was thriving.

Settling in another town and there becoming a master of the guild—which was essential, since in principle this status alone gaveone the formal right to sell work in that town—was not, however, a simple matter. It is known from the guild archives of severaltowns that a master aspiring to settle elsewhere had first to serve an obligatory period of one or two years in the workshop of alocal master before he could be admitted to the guild. This may be the reason that Rembrandt moved into Uylenburgh’s

workshop and, over the course of about four years, worked in his service,

Teaching

First Amsterdam period (1631–1635/36)

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 5/17

Portrait of the Artist Bare-Headed, oil on wood by Rembrandt vanRijn, …

© Photos.com/Jupiterimages

Portrait of the Artist with Tocque and Gold Chain, oil on wood by …

© Photos.com/Jupiterimages

workshop and, over the course of about four years, worked in his service,probably as head of the workshop.

Whether Rembrandt had already moved to Amsterdam in 1631 is a point ofcontroversy. Some Rembrandt specialists defend the idea that for severalyears he commuted between Leiden and Amsterdam. The two towns werethen separated by the Haarlemmermeer (a large lake since drained),traversable by regular transport service. It is known, however, thatRembrandt became a member of the Amsterdam St. Luke’s guild only in1634, the same year that he married Uylenburgh’s niece, Saskia vanUylenburgh (1612–42).

From 1631 to 1635, in Uylenburgh’s workshop, Rembrandt produced asubstantial number of portraits (mainly pairs of pendants) and some groupportraits, such as The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp (1632). He musthave conquered the Amsterdam portrait market rapidly. Partly relying on hisexperience as a history painter, he succeeded in producing much livelierportraits than those created by the specialized portrait painters who haddominated the Amsterdam scene before his arrival. By limiting the amountof detail and using simple but dynamic contours, Rembrandt avoideddistracting the viewer’s attention. He led the eye primarily to the face andthe suggested movement of the figure. He was also exceptionally good atrendering human skin convincingly.

There is doubt, however, about Rembrandt’s ability to capture the likenessof his sitters. Constantijn Huygens, a Dutch diplomat, intellectual, and artconnoisseur who discussed Rembrandt in an autobiography about hisyouth, wrote some epigrammatic Latin verses occasioned by a portrait ofone of his friends that Rembrandt had painted in 1632. In these verses hewittily mocked the inadequacy of the portrait’s likeness. The doubt thatRembrandt’s portraiture was accurate is only exacerbated when onecompares his authentic self-portraits with one another. The physiognomicdifferences between these images are considerable. In cases where it ispossible to compare a portrait by Rembrandt with portraits of the samemodel by other painters, one has the impression that the likenessproduced by Rembrandt was the least accurate. This seems to be the case,for instance, in his portrait of the famous banned Remonstrant preacherJohannes Wtenbogaert (1577–1644), who was also portrayed by MichielJanszoon van Miereveld and Jacob Adriaenszoon Backer.

Stylistic analysis of his portraits reveals that Rembrandt occasionally hadothers assist him to a varying degree in the painting of portraits, as indeedwas the custom in many portrait studios. For example, Wtenbogaert’sportrait session with Rembrandt is recorded in a written document; back inHolland for some weeks, the preacher recorded in his diary that on April 13,1633, he posed for Rembrandt during only that one day. Parts of thisportrait, such as the preacher’s hands, were clearly painted by a studioassistant, no doubt after the sitter had left the studio.

In his years with Uylenburgh, Rembrandt also made history paintings, mainly biblical scenes. A number of these works, in theform of grisailles, were apparently done with an ambitious series of prints in mind, which together were to constitute a Passionseries (unfinished). The fact that Rembrandt represented so many biblical stories, evidently basing them on a strict reading ofOld and New Testament texts, has always given rise to speculation as to the nature of his religious beliefs and denomination.

In fact, it is still unknown whether Rembrandt belonged to any religious community or, if so, to which. Filippo Baldinucci, anItalian abbot and art connoisseur, claimed in 1686 that Rembrandt was an Anabaptist. But Rembrandt could not have belonged

to the Anabaptist brotherhood (as Uylenburgh did, for

Portraits

Rembrandt and religion

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 6/17

The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, oil on canvas by Rembrandt …

Francis G. Mayer/Corbis

Bathsheba at Her Bath, oil on canvas by Rembrandt van Rijn, 1654; in …

© Photos.com/Jupiterimages

to the Anabaptist brotherhood (as Uylenburgh did, forexample) since he had his own children baptized asinfants (a practice specifically repudiated byAnabaptists). In other respects too, such as hismanner of dress, he did not fit the profile of thissectarian type of Protestantism. Because Rembrandt’sfather belonged to the Reformed Church and hismother was and remained a Roman Catholic, it maywell be that their son was one of those Christians whodeliberately avoided membership in any congregation.There was a ban at the time on the open practice ofCatholic rites and, during Rembrandt’s Leiden years, afierce antagonism between the Remonstrant andContra-Remonstrant communities (the issue being theCalvinist doctrine of predestination). Rembrandt mayhave preferred not to take sides.

In a self-portrait of 1661, Rembrandt depicted himselfas St. Paul. This could perhaps be seen as anindication that he was among those who weredeliberately opposed to religious antagonisms as such:in the Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul had warnedagainst sectarian tendencies among the early

Christians (1 Corinthians 3: 4–8; 21–22). It has also beensuggested that Rembrandt believed that the gulf betweenJews and Christians should be bridged. His close collaborationand possible friendship with the enlightened Rabbi Manassehben Israel, a strong advocate of reconciliation between Jewsand Christians, may be an indication of this. That Rembrandtdepicted so many Jews and Old Testament figures with suchevident sympathy would further support this idea.

During Rembrandt’s early Amsterdam period, the towering presence of Peter Paul Rubens was often felt. For a long timeRembrandt scholars tended to speak of Rubens’s influence on Rembrandt whenever they attempted to explain the Rubensianelements in Rembrandt’s work. But perhaps it is more appropriate to see Rembrandt as measuring himself against Rubens—asseen, for example, in a comparison of Rembrandt’s Descent from the Cross (1632/33) with the print after Rubens’s Descent from theCross that Rembrandt unquestionably used. Such a comparison shows that Rembrandt had fundamentally transformed Rubens’sheroic pathos into a powerful realism that evokes in the viewer a deep sense of involvement in Christ’s suffering.

Rembrandt must, however, have taken Rubens as a model for his own artistic ambitions during this period. The aforementioned

Rembrandt and Rubens

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 7/17

Danaë, oil on canvas by Rembrandt van Rijn, 1636; in the State …

Archivo Iconográfico,S.A./Corbis

Rembrandt must, however, have taken Rubens as a model for his own artistic ambitions during this period. The aforementionedincomplete print series on the Passion, for which Rembrandt did various oil sketches to be executed by professional engravers, isone example of this, as it reflected the grandness of Rubens’s various projects. In his early Amsterdam years Rembrandt alsocreated a number of allegorical and history paintings with life-size figures that show an ambition reminiscent of that of Rubens.There are various indications that he must have painted such works on his own initiative. In fact, they may have served primarilyas demonstration pieces. In this respect, Rembrandt contrasts sharply with Rubens, who produced his life-size allegories andhistory pieces with the help of a well-organized workshop for various European courts and churches.

It is documented that Rembrandt presented a largepainting to Constantijn Huygens—who was at that timesecretary to Prince Frederik Hendrik (1584–1647), theDutch stadholder—as a gift in appreciation ofHuygens’s having acted as an intermediary with thestadholder’s court. In view of the measurementsdocumented, the painting concerned could have beeneither the Blinding of Samson or the Danaë (both from1636) in its original form. It seems that Huygens did notaccept the gift.

In sad contrast to Rubens, Rembrandt received onlyone substantial commission from a court. Huygens hadseen Rembrandt’s Leiden masterpiece, the JudasRepentant from 1628/29, in the studio and had greatlyadmired it for its narrative qualities. Acting as mediatorto the court from roughly 1630 onward, he encouragedthe prince to buy several paintings by Rembrandt.These purchases continued until 1646, and for thegreater part they concerned paintings that togetherwere to form a Passion series, with seven paintedscenes from the life of Christ. Contacts with thestadholder’s court, however, remained infrequent. Ifone were to assume that Rembrandt had ambitions tobecome a court painter (a role that Gerard vanHonthorst would fulfill from his Utrecht workshop), onehas to conclude that he failed. Moreover, Rubens’sworks for the various courts generally involved large

paintings with life-size figures, whereas Rembrandt’s Passion series for Frederik Hendrik consisted of modestly sized paintingscrowded with small figures.

It is possible that some of Rembrandt’s history paintings were bought by patrons of his portraiture, however. Sometimes historypieces are found listed in inventories that also list portraits by Rembrandt. This could well indicate that some sitters tookadvantage of the occasion to acquire one of Rembrandt’s history paintings.

By the end of 1635, Rembrandt had left the house of Uylenburgh and established himself independently with his family. In 1639,after a period of living and working in rented dwellings, he bought a large house, built in 1606–07 and adjacent to the house inwhich he had begun his Amsterdam career with Uylenburgh. Rembrandt paid less than one-third of the full price. The debt heleft unpaid would later cause him great trouble. Rembrandt lived and worked in this house for almost 20 years. (Since 1906 it hasbeen the home of the Rembrandt House Museum.)

Rembrandt must have experienced the years around 1640 as the high point of his career. His fame had spread rapidly. AnEnglishman traveling through the Netherlands in 1640 noted this in his diary:

Second Amsterdam period (1635–42)

Growing fame

As for the art off Painting and the affection off these people [the Dutchmen] to Pictures, I thincke none other goebeeyond them, there having bin in this Country Many excellent Men in thatt Faculty, some att Presentt, as

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 8/17

Self-Portrait at the Age of 34, oil on canvas by Rembrandt van Rijn, …

© National Gallery Collection; by kind permission of the Trustees of theNational Gallery, London/Corbis

In 1641 Orlers noted that Rembrandt was “so talented that he has since become one of the most esteemed painters of thiscentury.”

In Rembrandt’s day there was a fast-growing but distinct interest in art and artists, with a public that was designated asLiefhebbers van de Schilderkonst (“Lovers of the Art of Painting”). The art lover’s main purpose was to understand paintings so asto be able to discuss them with other devotees and, preferably, with painters as well. Both the artist and the art lover ofRembrandt’s day were inspired by the special relationship between Alexander the Great and his court painter, Apelles (asrecounted by Pliny the Elder), and the almost equal footing that Titian enjoyed with Emperor Charles V. They admired andidentified with these great role models of the past in terms of both the mutual relationship enjoyed by artist and patron and theimportance each attached to the pursuit of the art of painting and to the deeper knowledge of that art—a mixture of art history,art theory, and technical understanding. Studio visits became popular. Texts written by artists for art lovers, and some by thelatter themselves, give the impression that the insights gained from studio visits to a great extent concerned the “miracle” ofcreating an illusion of reality on a flat surface, the pictorial and technical means employed in creating that illusion, and the manyaspects of the reality that was to be rendered—such as the natural grouping of the figures in a painting, the proportions of thefigures and the expressiveness of their poses and gestures, the play of light and its reflections, the natural rendering of drapedfabrics, and the use of colour.

The phenomenon of the art lovers and their studio visits may be key to understanding Rembrandt’s self-portraits. The greaterpart of Rembrandt’s activity in front of the mirror has long been considered to be a highly personal quest for the “self.” Accordingto the latest insights, however, these works must be seen, on the one hand, as portraits of an uomo famoso (“famous man”) and,on the other hand, as specimens of the reason for that fame: Rembrandt’s singular style and his exceptional technique inpainting and etching.

In a number of his self-portraits, Rembrandt is wearing various types ofantiquated dress. These costumes have been identified as allusions togreat predecessors. For instance, the 16th-century northern Europeancostume he is wearing in his famous 1640 self-portrait presumablyreferred to Albrecht Dürer, a fellow great peintre-graveur whomRembrandt greatly admired and tried to emulate.

The 1640 self-portrait belongs to a category of paintings that could betermed trompe l’oeil works. With these paintings viewers aremomentarily deceived by the sensation that they are in the same spaceas the painting’s subject, forgetting that they are looking at a flat surfaceand subsequently experiencing the pleasure of this deception. AmongRembrandt’s paintings from the period 1639–42, there are also still lifeswith dead birds, portraits, and group portraits that use trompe l’oeiltricks. Some of his pupils of that period, including Samuel vanHoogstraten, Fabritius, and Rembrandt’s German pupil, ChristophPaudiss (1630–66), continued to exploit trompe l’oeil effects.

Rimbrantt, etts.

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 9/17

The Company of Frans Banning Cocq and Willem van Ruytenburch, better …

DeA Picture Library

The artist with whom Rembrandt was most preoccupied during the second half of the 1630s was Leonardo da Vinci, and inparticular his Last Supper (1495–98), which Rembrandt knew from a reproduction print. It is evident from several of Rembrandt’ssketched variants (1635) on Leonardo’s composition that he was above all intrigued by the problem of the symmetry/asymmetryin the grouping of the figures. The Wedding of Samson (1638) can be seen as Rembrandt’s attempt to surpass Leonardo in thechallenge set by this compositional problem and as an effort to accomplish a much livelier scene than Leonardo had achieved inhis Last Supper.

In 1640–42 Rembrandt must have been occupied mainly with the large group portrait depicting members of an Amsterdam civicmilitia company. In a family album belonging to the captain of the company, the work is described as: “the…captain gives orderto his lieutenant,…to march out his company of citizens.” This implies that the 34 figures in the painting—actually only 18 militiamen out of a company of some 100 men who had decided to have themselves portrayed, plus the 16 extras Rembrandt hadadded in order to suggest a large group of people—were crowding together just before the company was to assemble for aparade.

In his painting of this scene, which later would acquirethe name the Night Watch, Rembrandt revolutionizedthe formula of the group portrait as part of hiscontinuing effort to achieve the ultimate liveliness inhis work. In the words of van Hoogstraten,Rembrandt’s former pupil, “Rembrandt made theportraits that were commissioned subservient to theimage as a whole.”

According to van Hoogstraten, Night Watch wasconceived by Rembrandt to be a unity (eenwezich).Rembrandt’s intentions in this respect are difficult toappreciate in the painting’s present state, since it hasbeen trimmed on all sides, most of all on the left side.As a result, the figures of the captain and hislieutenant have moved to the centre and into theutmost foreground of the composition. A copy,painted by Gerrit Lundens (1622–after 1677) soonafter the Night Watch was finished, shows that theoriginal composition was much more dynamic andcoherent than its present state indicates.

The present condition of the painting also reveals thework’s crucial problem, which is at the same time itsmost intriguing feature. Two intensely lighted figures

dominate the composition: the girl in the middle ground and the lieutenant in the foreground. Both are clad in yellow costumes,which strengthens the light effect. Because of this double “spotlight” effect, the tonal values of the painting as a whole seem tobe subdued. Consequently, the painting makes a dark impression that no doubt contributed to the epithet “Night Watch.” VanHoogstraten, who had praised the unity in the Night Watch’s composition, criticized his former master by complaining, “I wouldhave preferred if he [Rembrandt] would have kindled more light into it.” Van Hoogstraten’s remarks were published in his bookon the art of painting. His notes on the subordination of the portraits to the conception as a whole, and the lack of light in thepainting, have contributed to the myth of Night Watch being rejected and of Rembrandt’s subsequent “fall.”

In the decade following 1642, Rembrandt’s production changed in several ways. His output of paintings diminished drastically,

and the few paintings he made varied in subject, size, and style. Moreover, he produced no painted portraits, a fact that can be

Night Watch

Third Amsterdam period (1643–58)

The myth of Rembrandt’s fall

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 10/17

and the few paintings he made varied in subject, size, and style. Moreover, he produced no painted portraits, a fact that can beinterpreted in two ways: either he did not receive any portrait commissions during that period or he did not accept suchcommissions for the decade. At the same time, he embarked on a number of extremely ambitious etchings, such as the portrait(1647) of his friend Jan Six (1618–1700) and especially the Hundred Guilder Print, a large (unfinished) print with episodes fromchapter 19 of The Gospel According to Matthew.

The sparseness of Rembrandt’s production of painting in the period from 1643 to 1652 is one of the enigmas of his career.Speculations about what happened after he finished the Night Watch have contributed to the development of the “Rembrandtmyth,” according to which Rembrandt became largely misunderstood and was ignored after 1642 and, as a consequence,suffered increasing financial difficulty and eventually died in poverty. At the same time, according to this myth, his art deepened.The post-1642 Rembrandt would develop into the “real” Rembrandt, profoundly at one with his inner self and a classic exampleof a misunderstood genius. As art historian Jan Emmens argued in his book Rembrandt and the Rules of Art, the formation of thismyth owes much to a standard biographical model that might be called the “Saul-Paul model”—according to which the subject’slife suddenly undergoes a radical change in direction as the result of a crisis or conversion.

The death of Rembrandt’s wife, Saskia, and the presumed rejection of the Night Watch by those who commissioned it were longsupposed to be the most important events leading to the presumed change in Rembrandt’s life after 1642. But modern art-historical research has questioned the myth of a crisis in 1642, not least because there is simply insufficient evidence that theNight Watch was not accepted. The painting was paid for and remained exhibited in the place for which it was intended.Consequently, it cannot have been rejected. As to the other cause of the presumed turning point in Rembrandt’s life, nothing isknown about Rembrandt’s feelings over the deaths of Saskia and three of the children they had together, although these andother aspects of his private life have been amply romanticized in the older Rembrandt literature. One must also take intoaccount the omnipresence of premature death in the 17th century. Death during or after childbirth was a fate that awaited manywomen, and waves of the plague repeatedly ravaged Europe throughout the century, claiming many victims in Amsterdam.

The “underrated genius” myth arose mainly out of the criticism of Rembrandt’s art that was expressed after his death by some ofhis largely younger peers. On the face of it, a significant number of 17th-century writings seem to have portrayed Rembrandt inan unfavourable light. He was said to be a heretic in the field of painting and an artist who, with his use of impasto (locallyapplied thick paint), painted with “dung.”

Such criticisms should be examined in light of the rise of Classicism imported from France, which had brought about a radicalchange in taste over the course of Rembrandt’s later life. Rembrandt’s drastic and uncompromising realism had no place in theuniversalizing and idealizing approach of Classicism. For example, von Sandrart, writing in 1675, was judging Rembrandt by thenew ideology:

Yet this criticism of Rembrandt was not an indication that his genius was underrated. On the contrary, as Emmens writes,

Negative remarks from Rembrandt’s critics were in fact almost alwayscounterbalanced by the highest praise. The brilliant artist and writer onart Gérard de Lairesse (1640–1711), who met Rembrandt as a young manand was portrayed by him in 1665, confessed in 1707: “I do not want todeny that once I had a special preference for his manner; but at that time Ihad hardly begun to understand the infallible rules of art.” De Lairesse’s

laudatory words that follow explain why Rembrandt was admired:

Adhering to the practice [Rembrandt] had adopted, he was prepared to challenge our rules of art, of anatomy,human proportions and perspective, arguing against the use of antique sculptures, against Raphael’sdraughtsmanship and the systematic training of young artists, and against the Academies, so vital to ourprofession, asserting that one should rely only upon nature and observe no other rules.

The criticism levelled against Rembrandt by the writers of the 1670s makes it clear that he was still the toweringfigure of an older, and now old-fashioned, generation of Dutch painters. That is why the blows of the classicisticattack, which could have been just as well delivered to any other painter of his generation, all fell on his head.

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 11/17

Portrait of Gérard de Lairesse, oil on canvas by Rembrandt van …

© Francis G. Mayer/Corbis

But if criticism of Rembrandt’s art became manifest only in the 1670s, how could the sudden decline in Rembrandt’s productionof paintings between 1643 and 1652 then be explained? It is not impossible that, after having painted the Night Watch,Rembrandt arrived at the awareness that he may have overstretched the possibilities of the pictorial language he had developedover the previous two decades. It seems as though he had reached an impasse with his spotlight effects. Might it be that in theend Rembrandt’s crisis was an artistic crisis? This possibility seems to be strengthened by his apparent search for ways out ofthis cul-de-sac.

The great variation in style in his sparse paintings from the decade after 1642

Everything that art and the brush can achieve was possible for him, and he was the greatest painter of the timeand is still unsurpassed. For, they say, was there ever a painter who by means of colour came as close to natureby his beautiful light, lovely harmony, and unique, unusual thoughts [as to the narrative?] and so forth?

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 12/17

Holy Family with Angels, oil on canvas by Rembrandt van Rijn,1645; in …

Art Media/Heritage-Images

The great variation in style in his sparse paintings from the decade after 1642can be seen as an indication that Rembrandt was searching. A scene with theHoly Family (1645) is one of Rembrandt’s most-striking efforts to arrive at adifferent approach to the function of light in his paintings. Here heintroduced three light sources and made abundant use of light reflecting onone surface from another. In this painting he also introduced strong colour,through the glowing red of Mary’s gown. Colour, which up to this point hehad increasingly sacrificed to light, now returned—usually a strong red—inthe centre of some of his images, such as Jakob’s Blessing and, later, in the so-called Jewish Bride (see below). Compositions—which were often diagonal inearly works by Rembrandt, according to the logic of the concentrated light—were now more frontally constructed.

After creating several highly detailed images, such as The Woman Taken inAdultery (1644) and The Supper at Emmaus (1648), Rembrandt eventuallyseems to have sought the solution to his artistic “crisis” in a style grafted ontothat of the late Titian, a style that was only effective when the painting wasseen from a certain distance. Rembrandt’s contribution to this Titianesquemanner of painting was a deliberate use of impasto that created a light-reflecting surface in the lighter foreground passages of his paintings. Hisefforts to develop this new approach to painting started about 1645 andwould bloom from the early 1650s onward. That period marks the beginningof what is usually called Rembrandt’s “late style.”

The most obvious aspect of Rembrandt’s late style is that the brushwork is, ingeneral, broader. Individual brushstrokes sometimes remain visible, although the differentiation in the brushwork isextraordinary. Another aspect of the late style is that the brushwork, on whatever scale applied, seems to be governed muchmore by chance than before. Specifically referring to Rembrandt’s late style, Sir Joshua Reynolds observed, in the 12th of hislectures published as Discourses on Art: “Work produced in an accidental manner, will have the same free, unrestrained air as theworks of nature, whose particular combinations seem to depend upon accident.”

This freedom of the hand, however, does not lead to gratuitous sketchiness. The mysterious quality of Rembrandt’s later work isthat the intensity of observation and the painterly execution seem only to have grown, compared to his earlier work. Butwhereas the brushwork is livelier, the figures in Rembrandt’s later works are characterized by a remarkable stillness. In the earlyRembrandt works, each gesture, each movement of the bodies was typified by the naetuereelste beweechgelickheijt (“the mostnatural liveliness”), fulfilling Rembrandt’s aim to create convincing “drama.” Despite the near absence of gesture in his late work,however, the viewer senses that the image is not frozen but rather potentially dynamic. It may well be that the figures seem tobe alive because of the vitality of the execution as well as the blurring of the forms that results from an “open” treatment ofcontours. No doubt it is the vitality of either the brushwork in the paintings or the line in the etchings and the drawings thatcontributes to this feeling of a continuous state of transition.

In all this, light plays a new role, different from the role it played in the early works. From early on, one of Rembrandt’s majorconcerns was the creation of a hierarchy in light intensity within a painting. In the works of the 1650s and ’60s, this logic seems todevelop a magic quality as well. Whereas in the early works strong local light effects prevail, in the later works the space seemsto be filled with light lingering around the figures. An example is the seemingly illogical way in which the light radiates from thebust of Homer in the Aristotle of 1653. The same phenomenon is evident in the figure of Jakob in Jakob’s Blessing (1656) and in theConspiracy of the Batavians (1661). The light reflecting in the space around some of the figures seems to act as a mysterious aura.

A number of events in Rembrandt’s domestic life during the 1640s point to a crisis of another kind. A large number of documentshave survived concerning marriage, childbirth, and Saskia’s death, as well as the tensions between Saskia’s family andRembrandt over matters of inheritance after her death. A considerable volume of archival material also documents Rembrandt’slegal problems with a woman by the name of Geertje Dirckx (1610/15–c. 1656), who after Saskia’s death nursed Rembrandt’s onlysurviving child, Titus (1641–68). Rembrandt must have gotten entangled in an intimate relationship with Dirckx, who had becomehis housekeeper. In 1649 Dirckx said that Rembrandt had promised to marry her. In that same year the situation came to aclimax when she pawned some of the jewelry that was part of Saskia’s inheritance to Titus; she claimed to have received it as apresent from Rembrandt. In 1650 Rembrandt arranged for Dirckx’s confinement in the House of Correction (Spinhuis) at Gouda;

she remained there until 1655.

Rembrandt’s late style

Domestic turmoil

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 13/17

The Woman Taken in Adultery, oil on oak by Rembrandt van Rijn,1644; …

© National Gallery Collection; by kind permission of the Trustees of theNational Gallery, London/Corbis

Aristotle with a Bust of Homer, oil on canvas by Rembrandt van Rijn, …

Geoffrey Clements/Corbis

she remained there until 1655.

In 1649 Hendrickje Stoffels (1626–63), a young woman from Breedevoort inthe eastern part of Gelderland, succeeded Dirckx, first in the function ofhousekeeper, later in Rembrandt’s affection. The problems associated withTitus’s inheritance prevented Rembrandt from marrying the young Stoffels,who bore him a child and lived with him as his common-law wife from 1649until her death in 1663.

Despite the artistic crisis of the 1640s, Rembrandt’s fame certainly had notwaned. Between 1652 and 1663 he sold several paintings to the noblemanDon Antonio Ruffo, from Messina in Sicily. It is clear from thecorrespondence concerning these commissions that Rembrandt’s art,especially his etching work, was highly esteemed in Italy. Since Ruffo musthave bought the first of these paintings, the famous Aristotle with a Bust ofHomer, without knowing its subject, it must surely have been mainlyRembrandt’s fame that attracted him. Van Hoogstraten in his book onpainting refers to “name-buyers,” a phenomenon that apparently grewparallel to the emergence of the art lover. Once Ruffo was aware of thesubject of his painting, he subsequently ordered an Alexander the Great(1662; lost in a fire) as a companion piece and a Homer Dictating to His Scribes(1662/63), which, though heavily damaged—probably in the same fire—ispreserved in the Mauritshuis in The Hague.

Despite this fame, in the first half of the 1650s Rembrandt increasinglyincurred financial problems, brought on to a considerable extent by his ownfinancial mismanagement. He had neglected to pay off the debt on thehouse he had bought in 1639. On top of that, he had not received or

accepted portrait commissions since 1642. Calculations showthat the sums he spent on his collection (see below) up to theyear 1656, when he finally went bankrupt, would have beenmore than adequate to pay off the loan he had taken out topurchase his house.

Already in his Leiden period, Rembrandt may have started to build what was to become a richly varied personal collection. From

1628 onward his works exhibit carefully depicted ethnographic and other exotic objects. In that period Rembrandt may have

Rembrandt’s collecting

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 14/17

Saint Matthew and the Angel, oil on canvas by Rembrandt van Rijn, …

© Photos.com/Jupiterimages

1628 onward his works exhibit carefully depicted ethnographic and other exotic objects. In that period Rembrandt may havebegun to assemble a collection of both naturalia (natural objects such as shells and coral) and artificialia (man-made objects suchas medals, plaster casts from busts of Greek philosophers and Roman emperors, weapons, and musical instruments from avariety of cultures). This collection also contained numerous prints and paintings by other artists or after their works and, amongother items, a number of Mughal miniatures. The size and scope of this collection is known from the inventory of Rembrandt’spossessions drawn up in 1656 when, along with the house, the entire collection had to be auctioned in a vain effort to meet thedemands of his creditors. (A reconstruction of Rembrandt’s collection—as it may have existed about 1650 and arranged in theway Rembrandt kept it in his kunstkamer [“art room”]—can be seen in the Rembrandt House Museum in Amsterdam.)

The functional significance of this collection for Rembrandt is still not entirely clear. Was it just a varied range of studio props oran accumulation of precious objects for trade? (It is known that Rembrandt was also active as an art dealer.) Or was it perhaps anencyclopaedic collection of the type that might enable the miller’s son to move in higher circles as a gentleman virtuoso? As tothe collection of prints and paintings, this must have been the source of Rembrandt’s considerable art-historical knowledge,which at times became manifest in his own works. It is hard to escape the impression that, for Rembrandt, collecting must havebeen virtually an addiction. Having sold his house and moved to a much smaller rented house, Rembrandt soon began to collectagain. By the time of his death, two rooms of that house had been filled with this new collection.

But was he really ruined only by his collecting mania and his financial mismanagement concerning his house? The historicalcontext provides another clue to his bankruptcy: it occurred at a time when many other artists went bankrupt and when othersorts of business concerns also ran into financial difficulties. It transpires that this wave of insolvencies coincided with orfollowed the first Anglo-Dutch War (1652–54), when a blockade of the Dutch coast dealt a severe blow to the country’s trade withthe East. There is evidence that it was precisely the manufacturers of luxury goods—and Rembrandt’s expensive paintings cancertainly be included in this category—who suffered most as a result. This general financial malaise caused by the blockade ledcreditors to call in their debts. The documentary evidence suggests that it was this effect of the war that was fatal for Rembrandt.

Having sold his house in 1658, Rembrandt rented a house on theRozengracht. In 1660 a contract was drawn up between Rembrandt, hisson, Titus, and Hendrickje Stoffels. This was designed to protectRembrandt from his creditors and to enable him to continue working.The agreement entailed that Rembrandt should “give aid and assistance”to the other two parties, and then it stipulated that “[Rembrandt] wouldlive with them, receive free board, and be exempt from housekeepingexpenses and rent on condition that he will aid the partners in everyrespect to the extent possible, and promote the business.” In reality,Rembrandt now worked in the service of his son and his common-lawwife, as the agreement continued: “Having been granted some time agocessio bonorum [conveyance of goods], the reason why he has given upeverything and has to be supported.”

This does not mean, however, that the painter had been pushed to themargins of society, not even after both Titus and Stoffels had died.Emmens’s conclusion, mentioned above, that the old Rembrandt was stillconsidered a “towering” figure in his time is supported by severalinteresting documents. For instance, on December 29, 1667, Rembrandtwas visited by Prince Cosimo de’ Medici, the future grand duke ofTuscany. In the prince’s travel journal, Rembrandt was referred to as“pittore famoso” (“famous painter”). Only two of the other artists Cosimovisited were referred to as “famoso,” Gerrit Dou and Frans van Mieris.Cosimo probably bought one of Rembrandt’s late self-portraits in thesummer of 1669 on a second visit he is thought to have paid toRembrandt. These visits surely indicate that Rembrandt was esteemedhighly until his death. This is confirmed by the discovery among thepapers of the southern German art lover Gabriel Bucelinus of a list with

the “Names of the Most Distinguished European Painters” in which Rembrandt was mentioned. It is striking not only thatBucelinus recorded his name as a distinguished painter but that Rembrandt is the sole painter in this list of 166 names to whose

name was appended the note “nostrae aetatis miraculum” (“miracle ofour age”).

Nevertheless, there is a puzzling discrepancy between such evidence of Rembrandt’s fame and the fact that he was never chosen

as the first candidate for a prestigious commission. An outstanding

Fourth Amsterdam period (1658–69)

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 15/17

Self-Portrait, oil on canvas by Rembrandt van Rijn, 1660; in theMetropolitan Museum of Art, …

Photograph by dmadeo. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City,bequest of Benjamin Altman, 1913 (14.40.618)

The Syndics of the Amsterdam Drapers’ Guild, oil on canvas by …

as the first candidate for a prestigious commission. An outstandingexample is the case of the mausoleum in Palace Huis ten Bosch in TheHague, to be erected in the Central Hall, known as the Oranjezaal.Planned for this octagonal hall was a grand ensemble of paintingsdepicting the life and triumphs of stadholder Prince Frederik Hendrik,who had died in 1647. The extremely ambitious plans for this hall weredeveloped by Amalia van Solms, his widow; Huygens, his secretary; andthe painter and architect Jacob van Campen. Those considered to be thebest painters of that moment from the northern as well as from thesouthern Netherlands were invited to contribute one or more works toadd to this ensemble. Rembrandt was not among these painters; in theextremely well-preserved Oranjezaal there is no work from his hand,although Lievens, the friend of his youth, did contribute a work.

A similar example is the new Amsterdam Town Hall, now the RoyalPalace, which had an extensive decoration program. This would containa great number of large history pieces painted by different masters.Rembrandt was not invited, but his former pupil Flinck received themost prestigious of these commissions: he was commissioned to painta series of monumental history pieces in the lunettes of the CentralHall. However, Flinck died before he could finish the first painting of thisseries. It was only then that Rembrandt was invited, as a stand-in forFlinck, to paint one of these works, the Conspiracy of the Batavians. Itseems that the painting ultimately was not accepted.

The fact that both these projects, the Oranjezaal and the AmsterdamTown Hall, can be termed Classicist in style may explain the absence ofRembrandt’s works. Rembrandt did not fit the new fashion andapparently was not willing to adapt his style to these projects. It is true

that his huge Conspiracy of the Batavians was mounted for a short time in its place in the Town Hall, but then it was removed.Surviving documents mention that Rembrandt expected payment for changes he was to carry out. However, the painting did notreturn to its place. At some unknown point, it was cut down, possibly by Rembrandt himself, to a manageable size.

This may have been one of the situations in which Rembrandt proved to be a headstrong, self-willed man. He may well havegained the reputation of a man not malleable to his patrons’ wishes. Baldinucci, on the authority of Rembrandt’s Danish pupilEberhard Keil, makes mention of “Rembrandt’s lack of conformity” and points out that “his singularity in his way of paintingcorresponded to his way of life.” Baldinucci continues, “He was an umorista [capricious man] of the first order and disdainedeverybody. When he worked he would not receive the greatest monarch in the world; a king would have to return again andagain until he finished his work.” These statements may be exaggerated, but other documents confirm that they must containsome truth. Baldinucci further remarks that “Rembrandt associated with people below his station; the artist’s ugly and plebeianface was accompanied by dirty and untidy clothes because it was his habit to wipe his brushes on himself while he worked andto do other things of a similar nature.” But one should temper Baldinucci’s characterization with the testimonies of Rembrandt’scontemporaries, such as Huygens and von Sandrart, from which Rembrandt emerges as a person who was so intensely devotedto his work that he neglected everything that would interfere with it, including many social niceties.

Nevertheless, the old Rembrandt still receivedcommissions, mainly for portraits, among which agroup portrait of the sampling officials of theAmsterdam Drapers’ Guild (The Syndics of theAmsterdam Drapers’ Guild, 1662), an anonymous familygroup (mid-1660s), and an anonymous Portrait historiéas Isaac and Rebecca (1667), better known as The JewishBride (portrait historié is a phrase used to indicate aportrait in which the sitter is—or in this case the sittersare—rendered in a historic role with historicizingcostumes). Shortly before his death Rembrandt waspreparing a number of copperplates for an etchedPassion, commissioned by the Amsterdam art loverDirck Cattenburgh (1616–1704). He did not finish thisproject.

Rembrandt died at age 63 and was buried in theWesterkerk in Amsterdam. The cause of his death isnot known.

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 16/17

Art Media/Heritage-Images

Portrait historié as Isaac and Rebecca (better known as …

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam/SuperStock

Rembrandt is renowned for his outstanding ability to render the human figure and its emotions. He also was unusually gifted asan artist; the way in which he handled his pen or chalk, the etching needle, or the brush betrays a great sensitivity andspontaneity, and the resulting works convey a sense of freedom and creativity. Rembrandt thought about and experimentedwith purely pictorial matters—the possibilities of composition; the role of tone and colour in the creation of pictorial space, light,shadow, and reflection; and how to vary the properties of his paint to obtain specific effects—with sharp intelligence andoriginality.

Another aspect of Rembrandt’s genius is the acute and loving attention with which he observed the world around him. In hisrenderings of women and children and of animals and landscapes, he showed a strong understanding of the significant detail,but he noted these impressions with extraordinary freedom and economy. This dual quality made him exemplary for later artistsand, in some ways, one of the first “modern” artists.

Rembrandt was an innovator in technique in all three of his media. From his early, colourful history paintings to his glowing lateworks, it is clear that he was an artist continuously in search of new stylistic modes of expression and that he belongs to thatsmall category of artists whose development never ceased. Rembrandt’s evolution culminated in his remarkable late style,usually considered to be the summit of his art. In this sense, he may be compared with painters such as Titian and Goya orcomposers such as Beethoven and Verdi.

Paradoxically, Rembrandt’s continually changing style, which seems so personal, was faithfully imitated by his pupils in each of itsphases. This accorded with the common workshop practice of his time. However, since so many young artists wished to betrained in Rembrandt’s workshop, this training practice—in which his pupils produced marketable paintings and etchings inRembrandt’s style—subsequently caused much confusion (still unresolved) over the authenticity of many of the works that weretraditionally attributed to Rembrandt.

The Rembrandt Research Project has extensively researched the authenticity of paintings attributed to Rembrandt. Among thosepaintings that have survived to be investigated, however, many have suffered the ravages of time. Some have darkened overtime, others have been changed in format, and still others have been cleaned and restored too drastically. One thing is certain,

however: the number of faked Rembrandts is negligible, because so many school works could easily—often mala fide—be

Assessment

Rembrandt’s legacy

Research and attribution

1/14/2016 Rembrandt van Rijn ­­ Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.britannica.com/print/article/497584 17/17

however: the number of faked Rembrandts is negligible, because so many school works could easily—often mala fide—beupgraded to “genuine” Rembrandts or were for long unrecognized as school works because of their closeness to a (corrupted)image of Rembrandt’s personal style.

Many of the same attribution problems that apply to Rembrandt’s paintings continue to challenge scholars studying hisdrawings. Adding to this challenge is the fact that many of his drawings have been lost.

Authenticity issues regarding Rembrandt’s etchings have also arisen, albeit to a lesser degree than with the paintings anddrawings. The posthumous impressions from Rembrandt’s copperplates that continued to be printed well into the 19th centuryand the production of photographically generated facsimiles have all caused much confusion. Scholars are aware of about 80 ofRembrandt’s etching plates that have been preserved.

In the past, scholars struggled to find methods that could solve questions concerning attribution and Rembrandt’s artisticpractices. This struggle came about in part because very few of Rembrandt’s works are so conclusively documented that therecan be no doubt as to their authenticity. Consequently, the foundation on which to reconstruct his oeuvre is very narrow. At thesame time, written statements by Rembrandt on artistically and biographically relevant issues are extremely rare. Only a few(business) letters from his own hand have survived, and they rarely bear on artistic matters. Because of this scarcity ofcontemporary evidence, scholars long felt constrained to speculate on issues of authenticity.

Rembrandt research took a step forward in the later decades of the 20th century, when works by Rembrandt and his schoolbegan to be investigated as material objects subject to scientific methods of inquiry. These investigations provided informationabout the artist’s technique and, indirectly, his ideas on art and teaching. In correlating this information with relevantcontemporary treatises on art (especially the book on the art of painting by Rembrandt’s former pupil van Hoogstraten,published in 1678), it has been possible to reconstruct aspects of the contemporary art-theoretical background and terminologythat would have shaped Rembrandt’s ideas and practices. A great quantity of notary reports and other documents on legal,financial, and family affairs have come to light and are still being discovered, and a growing amount of recovered archivalmaterial sheds light on early owners of Rembrandt’s works. As a result, Rembrandt studies continued to evolve into the 21stcentury. The results of such studies will always leave room for new interpretations as historical perspectives continue to change.

6225

"Rembrandt van Rijn". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 14 Ian. 2016 <http://www.britannica.com/biography/Rembrandt-van-Rijn>.