p. 16-20 Rembrandt
16 MUSEUM OF AMSTERDAM.
... Mr. Nieuwenhuys, in his book published in London in 1834,1 and by many others. But this is nevertheless only a conjecture, which Mr. Scheltema rejects in his study on Rembrandt (Amsterdam 1853).2 According to him, and to me, the arquebusiers are simply going to shoot somewhere outside the city, and the cock carrying the little girl may be one of the prizes for the winners.
In any case, a better name for the painting would be: The Exodus of the Arquebusiers. But how do you change a name that has been so popular in all languages for so long? The Dutch themselves call their masterpiece by Rembrandt: Night Watch; the Flemish: the Nightguard;3 the English, – Reynolds in 1781, Smith in 1836, etc., – the Nightwatch;4 the French, in the eighteenth century, called it: le Guet, la Garde de nuit, la Patrouille de nuit; and today the solemn title is: la Ronde de nuit, although it is not a Ronde (patrol), nor a Guet (watch), nor a Garde (guard), nor a Patrouille (patrol), and it is broad daylight.
The Night Watch, without knowing exactly for whom it was painted, nor where it was originally placed, – no doubt in the doele of Captain Cock's company, – was in the old City Hall from the beginning of the eighteenth century, in the small room of the Council of War, which it did not leave until about 1808, to be moved to the museum.5
It is a pleasure to come across paintings that have only been moved ...
17 REMBRANDT.
... three times in three centuries, that have never had to suffer the whims of successive owners and have not been maltreated by conservators. The Night Watch did receive several restorations, most recently in 1852, but restrained and competent, by N. Hopman of Amsterdam.6 It is also in a perfect state of preservation, although Joshua Reynolds claimed as early as 1781, no doubt misled by some discoloration of the varnish, that the paint layer had deteriorated greatly.
Another question, rather questionable, is whether this painting was not originally larger.
An etching by Lambert-Antoine Claessens of Antwerp [10],7 reproduced several times in lithography, in fact adds on the left side of the painting two figures standing looking behind the balustrade on which the helmeted sergeant sits; also on the right side, the head of the drummer is complete, rather than cut in two by the frame; at the bottom, a little more floor in front of the captain's foot; at the top, a little more wall above the flag.
A very conscientious author, who in the eighteenth century wrote the Description artistique et historique de toutes les peintures de l'hôtel de ville, etc. (1), J. van Dijk, has included this information in his book ...
------
(1) Kunst en historiekundige Beschrijving van al de schilderijen op het Stadhuis van Amsterdam, etc. (Art and Historical Description of all the Paintings at the Town Hall of Amsterdam, etc.).
10
Lambertus Antonius Claessens after Rembrandt published by Lambertus Antonius Claessens and published by Cornelis Sebille Roos
Nightwatch, dated 1797
Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, inv./cat.nr. RP-P-1913-667
18 MUSEUM OF AMSTERDAM.
... recorded: "It is regrettable that so much of this painting has been removed in order to fit it between two doors; for on the right there were still two figures, and on the left the man with the drum was complete, as shown on the authentic model (the original sketch), now owned by Mr. Boendermaker".8 It is undoubtedly after this sketch, original or otherwise, of which every trace has disappeared, that Claessens' etching was made.
One of the directors of the museum, Praetorius, an old amateur artist who himself, though a banker, has often made excellent copies of old masters, has seen the Night Watch when it still hung in the City Hall, more than half a century ago; he told me that he has never known the painting to look anything but as it does now.9 So the mutilation, Van Dijk reports, would have been carried out at the time the masterpiece was installed in the small Room of the Council of War. But is the mutilation certain? The two additional figures in Claessens' etching are hardly Rembrandtesque; and why haven't we found that first, all-important sketch that Boendermaker owned? Smith, usually so well informed and so enthusiastic about Rembrandt, mentions following the Night Watch only a "very excellent small copy, attributed to Rembrandt in the Randon de Boisset collection, where it was sold in 1777 for 7,030 francs; also sometimes attributed to Gerard Dov". This copy or sketch on panel probably subsequently ended up in ...
19 REMBRANDT.
... the collection of George Gillows and was in Smith's time with Mr. William Brett. It is about 2 feet 1 inch long and 2 feet 8 inches wide [11].10
Despite this supposed mutilation, the large painting of Amsterdam, which I measured myself with the curator Engelberts, is now 3 meters and 59 centimeters high and 4 meters and 36 and a half centimeters wide (1).11 It has never been put into print, except by Claessens' etching, but it has been very badly lithographed several times; very recently Mouilleron has made a very good lithograph (2) [12]. What would be welcome, if possible, is a photograph of this masterpiece, with such marvellous gradations of color and especially with the dominant yellows and reds.
France should also give itself a copy, of the size of the original, just as it has copies made in the seventeenth century12 of the Raphaels in the Vatican, and there is a copy by Sigalon of Michelangelo's Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel.13 There is a French painter who may be talented enough to copy the Night Watch, I mean Jeanron, who in his copies of Rembrandt often struck their true character well.14
------
(1) The new cat. gives as dimensions: 3.59 high and only 4.35 wide.15
(2) We find a wood engraving in l'Histoire des peintres de toutes les écoles, in the biography of Rembrandt.16
11
attributed to Gerrit Lundens
Militia Company of Captain Frans Banninck Cocq and lieutenant Willem van Ruytenburch, after 1642
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-C-1453
12
Adolphe Mouilleron after Rembrandt
Nightwatch, 1837-1861
Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, inv./cat.nr. RP-P-1896-A-19326
20 MUSEUM OF AMSTERDAM.
The reputation of the Night Watch is universal. The Dutch, the English and the Germans wrote about it with great enthusiasm; the French, no doubt, also greatly appreciate it, although no exact description of it exists in that language. Mr. Nieuwenhuis, in his book already quoted, calls this painting one of the wonders of the world, and Rembrandt the most perfect colorist that ever existed.17 Smith calls it an extraordinary, unique work and says he knows of no painting more perfect in chiaroscuro, colorite and execution. Very reluctant to give a valuation, he suggests a figure of 6,000 pounds sterling (more than 150,000 francs).18 But if we were to auction the Night Watch anywhere in Europe today, it would come close to a million francs, for she is certainly worth much more than Murillo's beautiful Virgin and Angels, which fetched 615,300 francs at the Soult auction [13].19
A unique work really, this Night Watch, and which, despite its almost insane originality, is reminiscent of three or four of the greatest masters: Correggio above all, Giorgione and Titian, Velazquez. The little luminous girl resembles Correggio, yes! in the most radiant pieces of this painter from Parma. Waagen from Berlin also points to this analogy as do other refined connoisseurs. The man in red could be by Titian or Velazquez; Yes!
13
Bartolomé Esteban Murillo
The immaculate conception, c. 1660-1665, c. 1660-1665
Madrid (city, Spain), Museo Nacional del Prado, inv./cat.nr. P002809, inv./cat.nr. P002809
Notes
1 Nieuwenhuys 1834, p. 8-9. The art dealer and author Christianus Johannes Nieuwenhuys was originally Belgian, then British.
2 Scheltema 1853, p. 102-103.
3 It is unclear where Thoré-Bürger found this. In contemporary Flemish, the Dutch 'Nachtwacht' is also 'Nachtwacht'.
4 In the passage about the Amsterdam City Hall, Reynolds does not mention the name of Rembrandt's painting. He is rather disappointed with it (Reynolds/Mount 1781, p. 91). Smith uses the title Night Watch (Smith 1829-1842, vol. 7 (1836), p. 59).
5 When the Amsterdam City Hall had become a Royal palace, the city's paintings were first transferred to the Trippenhuis, under the care of Cornelis Sebille Roos. By order of Louis Napoleon, the city's seven most important paintings were brought back to the palace to become part of the Royal Museum (Bos 1996, p. 66-68). They then came to hang in the large Room of the Council of War. It was not until 1817 that the paintings were moved from the palace to the Trippenhuis, which housed the Rijksmuseum until 1885 (Bergvelt 1998, p. 97, 101 – on the arrangement of the museum in the Trippenhuis.
6 The restorer Nicolaas Hopman relined the painting in 1851 (Van Duijn/Filedt Kok 2016, p. 119-120).
7 Lambertus Antonius Claessens, Nightwatch, 1797, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-P-1913-667.
8 Van Dyk 1758, p. 61. This artwork was auctioned at sale Amsterdam (De Winter, Cok, Yver), 13 March 1786 (Lugt 1671), lot 1. It was purchased by Fouquet for 2,580 guilders, according to annotations in the Frick’s copy of the catalogue (see also: MacLaren 1960, p. 347-349, no. 289; MacLaren mentions several versions, but only one painted version has survived: Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings 1982-2015, vol. 3 (1989), p. 483, copy 1). For Boendermaker, see: Dudok van Heel 1977, no. 216.
9 Pieter Ernst Hendrik Praetorius was not director of the Rijksmuseum, but rather chairman of the Board of Governors. The Night Watch hung in the Royal Palace until 1817. Then the painting was transferred to the Trippenhuis (Bergvelt 1998, p. 97, 101).
10 Smith 1829-1842, vol. 7 (1836), p. 60-61, no. 140, as by Gerard Dou. The version that was in the collections of Gillow and Brett ended up with Thomas Halford, who bequeathed it to the National Gallery in London in 1857 (MacLaren 1960, p. 347): Gerrit Lundens, The Company of Captain Banning Cocq and Lieutenant Willem van Ruytenburch, after 1642, London, National Gallery, inv. no. NG289 (on loan to the Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-C-1453, since 1958). According to Smith, the painting at Randon de Boisset is the same as that in the English collections mentioned above. Maclaren does not believe this.
11 In 1858, Willem Jodocus Mattheus Engelbert was second supervisor, whose special duty it was to deal with the paintings. He was not a curator. After the death of Cornelis Apostool in 1844 who had been director of the Rijksmuseum since 1809 and de facto curator, there had been no curator.
12 A comma is inserted in the margin between 'copies' and 'faites au dix-septième siècle'.
13 Xavier Sigalon, Last Judgment, 1833, Paris, École nationale supérieur des beaux-arts, inv. no. MU 2371.
14 Philippe-Auguste Jeanron (1809-1877), like Thoré-Bürger, was a republican; he was an artist and museum employee; from 1848 to 1850 he was director of the Louvre. Thoré-Bürger had written about Jeanron in his Salon of 1836, characterizing him in such a way that Linda Nochlin called Jeanron a ‘significant forerunner of realism’, as quoted by Weisberg in Ten Doesschate Chu/Weisberg 1994, p. 101, 247-248 (note 34).
15 Amsterdam 1858, p. 123-125, no. 275. Dubourcq neither believes that the Night Watch was reduced in size.
16 Jean-Baptiste-Charles Carbonneau, The Night Watch, before 1852, London, The British Museum, inv. no. 1878,0713.2262. it is published in Blanc 1852, Rembrandt, between p. 2 and 3.
17 Nieuwenhuys 1834, p. 9, 10.
18 Smith 1829-1842, vol. 7 (1836), p. 59-60, no. 139.
19 Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, The Immaculate Conception, c. 1660-1665, Madrid, Museo del Prado, inv. no. Madrid. Soult auction: sale Paris, 19 May 1852 (Lugt 20846), lot 57, all five annotated copies in Brill's Art Sales catalogues Online state 586,000 francs. In Aanwijzing 1853, p. 23, no. 228, the Night Watch is valued at 500,000 guilders, as is Van der Helst's Banquet at the Crossbowmen's Guild (see: Bergvelt 1998, p. 174-176 and Appendix III, p. 384, for the 39 most expensive valuations). Converted, Thoré-Bürger's 1 million francs came out exactly at the fl. 500,000 of the 1853 valuation.