Chapter 1

Rembrandt’s Amsterdam

Reprinted, by permission of Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, from “The Print-Collector’s Quarterly”

Frits Lugt

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 1915

CONTENTS

Map Key REMBRANDT’S AMSTERDAM Footnotes

ILLUSTRATIONS

PLAN OF THE CITY OF AMSTERDAM ABOUT 1650 Plate 1. View of Amsterdam from the East. _(reversed)_. After the etching by Rembrandt Plate 2. The Old Town Hall in Amsterdam. After an engraving by Cl. Jz. Visscher. Plate 3. The Ruins of the Old Town Hall in Amsterdam, after the Fire in 1652. After the drawing by Rembrandt, formerly in the Heseltine Collection, now in the Rembrandt House in Amsterdam. Plate 4. The New Town-Hall in Amsterdam, about 1660. The square building on the right is the public Weighing-House, where Rembrandt sketched the ruins of the old town-hall (see preceding illustration). After an etching by J. van der Ulft, 1656. Plate 5. The Bridge Called “Grimnessesluis” in Amsterdam. After the drawing by Rembrandt in the Louvre, Paris. Reproduced, by permission, from a copyright photograph by Messrs. Braun and Co., Dornach. Plate 6. View of the Ramparts of Amsterdam, with the St. Anthony-Gate in the Distance. After the drawing by Rembrandt, formerly in the Heseltine Collection. Plate 7. Mills on the West Side of Amsterdam, Looking Toward the Town. After the drawing by Rembrandt, formerly in the Heseltine Collection, now in a private collection in Kopenhagen. Plate 8. View of the Same Side of Town as in Plate 7, but Looking Outward. The tower on the left is the same as sketched by Rembrandt (_plate 13_). After an etching by R. Zeeman, about 1650. Plate 9. The Tower Called “Montelraanstoren” In Amsterdam After the drawing by Rembrandt, formerly in the Heseltine Collection, now in the Rembrandt House, Amsterdam Plate 10. The Same Tower as in the Preceding Illustration, with its Steeple and Surroundings. After an etching by R. Zeeman, about 1650. Plate 11. The Canal called “Singel” in Amsterdam. On the left-hand side Rembrandt’s son, Titus, lived during his short married life. In the distance, the “Janroopoortstoren”. After an etching by R. Zeeman, about 1650. Plate 12. The Tower called “Swyght-Utrecht”, and the “Doelen” in Amsterdam (see _plate 20_). After the drawing by Rembrandt in the collection of Dr. C. Hofsteded de Groot, The Hague. Plate 13. The Tower Called “Westertoren” In Amsterdam. After the drawing by Rembrandt, in the Fodor Museum, Amsterdam Plate 14. The Canal called “Prinsengracht” in Amsterdam. The tower seen on the left is the same as seen in the preceding illustration. After an etching by R. Zeeman, about 1650. Plate 15. The St. Anthony-Market in Amsterdam, with the Old Gate Transformed into a Weighing-House. After an etching by R. Zeeman, about 1650. Plate 16. Rembrandt’s House In The “St. Anthonie-breestraat” In Amsterdam On the left: As it must have looked when Rembrandt occupied it. On the right: Present state. Plate 17. The Bridge and Sluice called “St. Anthonie-sluis” in Amsterdam, seen from the North. Rembrandt’s home (_plate 16_) stood in the immediate vicinity of this spot. After the drawing by A. Waterloo, in the Fodor Museum, Amsterdam. Plate 18. The “doelenstraat” In Amsterdam (old situation) The receding building, behind the low wall with gate, on the right, is the “Doelen” for which Rembrandt painted “The Night Watch.” The house where the master lived in 1636 was next to the house seen on the extreme right. The tower seen above the roof is the one sketched by Rembrandt (_plate 12_). Compare also _plate 20_ After the drawing by R. Vinkeles in the Archives in Amsterdam Plate 19. The Back of the Houses in the “Doelenstraat” in Amsterdam. The narrow house in the middle, two windows wide, is, although rebuilt, the one where Rembrandt lived in 1636. To the left, part of Messrs. Frederk Muller & Co.’s aution and exhibition rooms. Plate 20. The Tower “Swyght-Utrecht” and the Backs of the Houses of the “Doelenstraat” in Amsterdam. The third house from the tower must be the one occupied by Rembrandt in 1636. After an engraving by van Meurs of about 1660. Plate 21. The Old Exchange in Amsterdam. After an engraving by Cl. Jz. Visscher. Plate 22. The Inn Called “de Keizers Kroon” In The Kalverstraat, Amsterdam. Here Rembrandt’s collections were sold by auction, after his bankruptcy, in 1657 and 1058. After an anonymous drawing in the Archives in Amsterdam. Plate 23. The House Of Mr. F. Banning Cocq (the Captain And Prominent Person In Rembrandt’s “Night-watch”) In Amsterdam After an anonymous drawing in the family archives of Jhr. D. de Graeff at The Hague Plate 24. The Star of the Kings. Children before a street door on Epiphany-evening. After the drawing by Rembrandt, in the British Museum, London. Salting Bequest. Plate 25. Children Refore A Street Door: The One In The Middle With A “Rommelpot”. After the drawing by Rembrandt, in the British Museum, London Plate 26. A Quacksalver on a Market-Place. After the drawing by Rembrandt. In the collection of Frederich August II, in Dresden. Plate 27. Portrait Of Jan Lutma. From an impression, in the First State, of Rembrandt’s etching, in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

[Plan of the City of Amsterdam about 1650]

PLAN OF THE CITY OF AMSTERDAM ABOUT 1650

MAP KEY

[image]

Line indicating the extension of the town, started during the last ten years of Rembrandt’s life.

1. House of the painter Pieter Lastman, the master of Rembrandt, in the “St. Anthonie-breestraat.” In the same street was the house of the dealer Hendrick Uylenburgh, with whom Rembrandt stayed during the first years after his settlement in Amsterdam. 2. House in the “Doelenstraat” where Rembrandt lived in 1636 (see plates _18_, _19_, _20_). 3. Part of the Amstel where Rembrandt seems to have lived towarda 1639. 4. House in the “St. Anthonie-breestraat” (now called “Joden-breestraat,” No. 4) occupied and owned by Rembrandt from 1639 until 1658 (see _plate 16_). On the canal behind was the Synagogue of his friend Menasseh-ben-Israel. The bridge and sluice seen on _plate 17_ is the one between this red number and number 1. 5. House on the “Rosengracht” (now No. 184) where Rembrandt lived during the last ten years of his life. 6. The “Bloemgracht” where Rembrandt is said to have used a store-house as a studio, principally for his pupils, during his first years in Amsterdam. 7. The place where Rembrandt’s son Titus lived, on the “Singel,” opposite the apple-market, in 1668, during his short married life (see _plate 11_). 8. House on the “Keizersgracht” (now No. 208) of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, the principal person in Rembrandt’s painting _The Anatomical Lesson._ Next to him lived Dr. Aernout Tholinx, whose portrait was etched and painted by Rembrandt. 9. House on the “Singel” (now Nos. 140-142) of Mr. F. Banning Cocq, the Captain in Rembrandt’s masterwork, _The Night-watch_ (see _plate 23_). 10. House on the “Kloveniersburgwal” (now No. 47) in which apparently lived Mr. Jan Six, a well-known and influential person in Rembrandt’s life, whose painted and etched portraits count among Rembrandt’s finest productions. 11. House in the “Kalverstraat” (now No. 10) of the print-dealer and publisher Clement de Jonghe whose portrait Rembrandt etched. 12. The old St. Anthony-gate, in Rembrandt’s days Public Weighing-House, and, on the first floor, the seat of the Surgeon’s Guild, of which Dr. Tulp and Dr. Deyman were the foremen. 13. The “Doelen,” meeting-place of the Civic Guard, for which Rembrandt’s _Nightwatch_ was painted. At its side the tower, Swyght-Utrecht (see _plates 18_,_19_,_20_). 14. The Staalhof, the office for which Rembrandt executed his celebrated picture known as _The Syndics._ 15. The inn called De Keizers Kroon in the Kalverstraat (now No. 71) where Rembrandt’s collections were sold at auction, after his bankruptcy, in 1657 and 1658 (see _plate 22_). 16. The Dam, with the town-hall on the right and the Public Weighing-House in the middle (see plates _2_,_3_,_4_). 17. The bridge called Grimnessesluis (see _plate 5_). 18. The St. Anthony-gate (see _plate 6_) at the end of the street where Rembrandt lived. 19. The spot where Rembrandt has apparently sketched the mills and the views of the town (see _plate 7_). 20. The tower called Montelbaanstoren (see plates _9_ and _10_) and the bridge from which Rembrandt sketched it. 21. The bridge called “Leliebrug,” from which Rembrandt sketched the tower of the church called _Westerkerk_. This church, on the map, is between the bridge and the house numbered 8. (See _plate 13_.) In this church Rembrandt was buried. 22. About this spot Rembrandt must have found the subject for his etching _View of Amsterdam_ (see Frontispiece, _plate 1_). When this etching was executed, the tongue of land, near there, with the two bastions, did not yet exist. 23. Bridge called Blaubrug (Blue Bridge) where Rembrandt sketched the perspective along the Amstel river. 24. Houses on the “Singel” (now Nos. 234-236) where the caligrapher Lieven Willemsz. Coppenal, an intimate friend of Rembrandt, had his school, and probably lived. 25. House on the “Keizersgracht” (stated as the second house from the “Beerenstraat”), where the painter Johan van de Cappelle, a friend and fervent admirer of Rembrandt, lived until 1663. 26. House in the “Koestraat” (now No. 15), where the same painter lived after 1663. This house, until then, had been inhabited by the celebrated musician Sweelinck and his descendants. 27. House on the “Lauriergracht” (probably between the first and second bridge) where Rembrandt’s pupil Govert Flinck lived from 1644, until his death in 1660. Ten years earlier he was staying in the house of the dealer Hendrick Uylenburgh (see above) where Rembrandt then also lived.

To locate the houses of some others of Rembrandt’s artist-friends and pupils is more difficult: Ferdinand Bol lived, in Rembrandt’s time, on the "Fluweele burgwal" (i.e., on the map, the left-hand side of the canal numbered 28), and afterwards in the new extension on the "Keizersgracht" near the "Spiegelstraat." So did Gerbrand van den Eeckfwut, who died on the "Heeren-gracht" near the " Viyselstraat." Philips Koninck lived, in Rembrandt’s time, on the "Keizersgracht," the same canal where we found Tulp and van de Cappelle.

REMBRANDT’S AMSTERDAM

By Frits Lugt

I

[Plate 1. View of Amsterdam from the East. ]

Plate 1. View of Amsterdam from the East. _(reversed)_. After the etching by Rembrandt

“The city seems to float upon the waters and looks like the sovereign of the deep. It is crowded with merchants of every nation and its habitants are themselves the most eminent merchants in the world. It appears, at first, not to be the city of any particular people, but to be common to all, as the centre of their commerce. The vessels in this harbour are so numerous, as almost to hide the water in which they float; and the masts look at a distance like a forest.”

“I gazed, with insatiable curiosity, upon this great city, in which everything was in motion.”

This impression of Amsterdam by a seventeenth century author (1) takes us back to the time when no rivals had yet contested with the town its commercial monopoly,— when its full and radiant display struck the eyes of every visitor. Tempted though we feel to recall this glorious past (the period and direct surroundings of its greatest painter), we naturally take Amsterdam’s present state as a basis, and in doing so painfully notice the loss of precious reminiscences which the course of time has inevitably involved. But realising that such loss is not only the consequence of neglect and lack of respect, and that to a large degree modern life with its different requirements and intensity forcibly causes cruel changes, we must conquer our regrets and rather view with open eyes the vitality of the town and the renewed energy of its present existence. Sad indeed is the aspect of towns, known as “dead cities,” which preserve their old architectural appearance, and where all life seems extinguished. They are but their own shadows and a perpetual outcry against the reverses of Fate or the relaxation of human energy, which proved unable to carry on the aspirations of preceding generations. Fortunately Amsterdam escaped this disgrace, because its spark of life never quite died out; the burning vigour of its inhabitants, which was instrumental in raising the town’s prosperity in the seventeenth century, may seem a high-flaming fire compared to the peaceful existence of its rich population in the eighteenth century; and it may be true that the former energy and enterprise were reduced to glowing embers about the beginning of the nineteenth century; but let it be recognised that the same fire always smouldered and that it is now spreading anew with a sympathetic stubbornness. When Motley says, in his “History of the United Netherlands,” that the Dutch Republic was “sea-born and sea-sustained,” we have to apply this, in the first place, to its most important town, Amsterdam, and if we then remember that the suppression of a nation accustomed to maritime pursuits is one of the rarest things in history, we shall arrive at a better understanding of Amsterdam’s vitality.

In a town where life so maintained its course, we cannot expect to find whole quarters preserved, just as they appeared in the first half of the seventeenth century; the general disposition of the town, however, is so original and effective that its indestructible plan survived until our days. There are in the world but few towns that possess such a charming singularity, and Venice is probably the only town offering a similar attraction, although it differs in many respects. Hence, Amsterdam’s surname of _The Venice of the North_ is easily accounted for, and appears already in the writings of Guicciardini, the sixteenth-century historian. It is the water that lends to the town its peculiar charm, and while some canals had to be filled in to create carriage accommodation in the old parts, most were preserved, and though in their water other house-fronts are reflected, the visitor can reconstruct, without great difficulty, a vision of Amsterdam in Rembrandt’s days.

Let us offer some help to the visitor in his efforts to revive the old town in his imagination. Such assistance is needed, because Amsterdam is not a place where one would prefer to be left alone with his dreams. Modern life overshadows the past to such an extent, that one cannot transpose one’s self three centuries by simply eliminating the present; there are no ruins which induce us to reconstruct, in our mind, that which has vanished, no population which has arrested its progress at the period of its greatest prosperity. Fortunately the _nature_ of Amsterdam’s beauty and originality has not changed and from this fact every newcomer may derive great help in his efforts to rebuild the scenes of bygone times.

First of all, let the stranger take into consideration that Rembrandt took up his abode in the town when it was rapidly growing, and when the picturesqueness of its late-mediaeval appearance had to concede to graver conceptions, based on the classics and the Italian renaissance. Let him remember that the threefold girdle of wide canals lined with big houses, which now embraces the old city, was at that time only in course of construction, and that less stately canals preserved a more intimate aspect. These narrower waterways in the heart of the old town, filled with barges between quays crowded with merchandise, reveal more the city’s growth and nature,—the stately but less lively canals of a later extension typify better the pride and ease ensuing from the reaped harvest.

When Rembrandt came to Amsterdam about 1631 he found the town broken through its boundaries and new quarters risen on the fields outside, which a former generation had known only as meadows and vegetable gardens. The artist must have noticed many changes even since he passed his years of apprenticeship in Amsterdam in the studio of Pieter Lastman, returning again to his native town Leyden during the intermediate seven or eight years.

Until the period of Rembrandt’s settling in Amsterdam, this city, although having been long the metropolis of the Northern Netherlands, had not been very different in aspect to other important Dutch towns; its seventeenth-century buildings belong to the same school of architecture as those of the other cities, like Haarlem, Alkmaar, Leyden. Its immense prosperity and development as Europe’s most important seaport since about 1600, however, originated a notable change: its aspect gradually became more individual, until in the second part of the golden century it had assumed the grandeur worthy of “the capital of Europe, the neighbours’ support and hope,” as our greatest poet then justly called her. Important buildings and a very logically and royally planned extension of its canals and streets were the causes of this alteration. We do not know of any other big town of that period so systematically laid out, with such a preservation of its original beauty and with such an outspoken aim to obtain in its new thoroughfares a similar attraction to the eyes. Of all the cities of the Netherlands none possessed the means, or were forced to undertake such big works, as Amsterdam. Consequently the best Dutch architects of that time erected their finest and most important edifices in Amsterdam, and very often exclusively built there; and this accounts for her assuming that individual aspect of stateliness.

Rembrandt got acquainted in Amsterdam with two distinct architectural periods: 1st, the one just closed on his arrival, dominated by the eminent architect and sculptor Hendrick de Keyser (father of the celebrated portrait-painter Thomas de Keyser); 2d, the following period, influenced by Jacob van Campen. The first period enriched Amsterdam with a great number of buildings, generally in red brick with decorations in clear sandstone, of a varied and often baroque appearance; their style, although based on early sixteenth-century Italian renaissance, may be called a typical Dutch one, strongly personified as it was, towards the end of the sixteenth century, by Netherlandish architects, like Cornells Floris and Vredeman de Vries.—In the second period, when the classical style after Palladio became generally accepted, the variety of aspect and the baroque details had to yield to monumentality and severity.

[Plate 2. The Old Town Hall in Amsterdam.]

Plate 2. The Old Town Hall in Amsterdam. After an engraving by Cl. Jz. Visscher.

The spirit of the town’s aspirations is best reflected in her town-hall, which marks the culminating point of her evolution (about 1650). That imposing square building, still in existence in Amsterdam’s centre, called the Dam, must be familiar to all who have visited the town, and the interested art-lover may have noted that this building, grand and magnificent as it is, has no typical Dutch character such as marks Amsterdam’s earlier buildings. He will have remarked a strong tendency to the classic style of Italy, and the rich marble sculptures inside must have appeared to him as belonging to another school than the contemporary Dutch pictures, which he admired in Amsterdam’s Rÿksmuseum. In this circumstance we may find the clue to the disharmony which existed between Rembrandt and his surroundings in his later years. His art and the spirit of his contemporaries were going athwart with different aims. When the artist settled down in Amsterdam, at the age of twenty-five, circumstances were still favourable to a good mutual understanding: the ambitious and pulsating spirit of the growing commercial city must have felt akin to the boisterous aspirations of the young, gifted artist. His great material success during the first years furnishes a proof of this supposition. Then more and more came the alienation, and it is most instructive to compare the different results at which the artist and the intelligent population arrived: the artist, guided by the strength of his immense personality and talent, remained himself, but his fellow-citizens gradually changed their taste and predilections in matters of art and intellect, uncertain as they were of themselves in these matters. Being more gifted as traders than as artists, they showed that short-sightedness and narrowmindedness in judging their contemporary artists, which so often repeats itself in history (even in our time!). They were unable to understand the strength and value of the country’s native art, and turned to foreign taste, even to foreign workmanship, as in the case of the commission to Quellinus, the Flemish sculptor, to execute the sculptures in the town-hall, thus emphasizing their preference for the school of Rubens and Van Dyck above the one of Hals and Rembrandt. This tendency occasioned a preference for foreign theories and forms, and so we see between 1648 and 1660 a town-hall built, ten times bigger than the former one and costing, according to our money, about twenty million guilders, resulting in a work of art, imposing but not essentially Dutch (plates _2_, _3_, _4_).

[Plate 3. The Ruins of the Old Town Hall in Amsterdam, after the Fire in 1652.]

Plate 3. The Ruins of the Old Town Hall in Amsterdam, after the Fire in 1652. After the drawing by Rembrandt, formerly in the Heseltine Collection, now in the Rembrandt House in Amsterdam.

[Plate 4. The New Town-Hall in Amsterdam, about 1660.]

Plate 4. The New Town-Hall in Amsterdam, about 1660. The square building on the right is the public Weighing-House, where Rembrandt sketched the ruins of the old town-hall (see preceding illustration). After an etching by J. van der Ulft, 1656.

[Plate 5. The Bridge Called “Grimnessesluis” in Amsterdam.]

Plate 5. The Bridge Called “Grimnessesluis” in Amsterdam. After the drawing by Rembrandt in the Louvre, Paris. Reproduced, by permission, from a copyright photograph by Messrs. Braun and Co., Dornach.