Arnold Houbraken’s remark, that in his later years Rembrandt limited his social contacts to ‘common types, and those having to do with art’, has many implications.¹ This process appears to have started already in the 1640s, after the Night Watch (1642),² but perhaps more significantly also in the wake of the death in the same year of his wife Saskia Uylenburgh, who as the daughter of a burgomaster likely drove his social ambitions during their years together.³ Some of the people Rembrandt did welcome at his house on the Sint Antoniesbreestraat in Amsterdam were former pupils of his, who had maintained contact with him, or even become his friends. Houbraken specifically said of Gerbrand van den Eeckhout that he had been a pupil of Rembrandt, but also that he was a ‘great friend’ of his.⁴ In the 2019 exhibition Rembrandt’s Social Network, the Rembrandt House Museum devoted special attention to his artistic contacts, including the artists Van den Eeckhout and Roeland Roghman, and connoisseurs such as Jan Six and Constantijn Huygens.⁵ In Huygens’s case it continued into the following generation: his sons evidently had contact with the artist as well, as collectors of drawings.⁶ More recently, research by the author on the late pupil Abraham van Dijck unearthed clues that pointed to a return visit to Rembrandt, years after his period of study with him.⁷ Further research on this artist, and on Samuel van Hoogstraten and Nicolaes Maes, suggests this was part of a more substantial interaction with Rembrandt, taking place in or around 1656.

By May of that year, Abraham van Dijck, Nicolaes Maes, and Samuel van Hoogstraten, were together again in Dordrecht. Maes had already returned to his native city in 1653, from study under Rembrandt in Amsterdam,⁸ and Van Hoogstraten in 1656, from his extensive travels to Germany, Austria, and Italy.⁹ Abraham van Dijck returned in 1654, after studying around three years under Rembrandt. He had been there as a discipel, or advanced pupil, after initial study under Van Hoogstraten. In a 2020 monographic study on this pupil, the author traced a logical turn in his work toward moralizing genre themes, after settling in Dordrecht, directly influenced by Maes, his former fellow Rembrandt pupil, friend, and neighbour on the Steegoversloot.¹⁰ Accordingly, he also adopted a smoother manner, already seen in his Widow of Zarephath and her Son and his Portrait of a Woman, both in the Bader Collection, of or around 1655.¹¹ This is especially evident in the smooth, rounded forms of his Old Man Asleep in The Mauritshuis, which bears a date of 1656, and includes a half-empty bottle to the left, so warning against the vice of drunkenness (fig. 1).¹²

The author additionally posited that a few years after his departure from Rembrandt, Van Dijck returned for a visit. This hypothesis was based purely on stylistic evidence, in particular the broad, flamboyant brushwork in his remarkable canvas of An Old Couple Saying Grace from c. 1656 in a private collection in New York (fig. 2). It appears that soon after the Mauritshuis Old Man, Van Dijck received an impulse to experiment again with the bold, open brushwork, that he had already seen Rembrandt developing in the early 1650s. But now he went much further than when he initially studied under the master, there and in a number of other paintings, including his striking depiction of The Old Painter, recently acquired by The Rembrandt House Museum (fig. 3).¹³ An evocative head study that recently resurfaced in Milan (fig. 4) belongs to the same moment in Van Dijck’s oeuvre, with a freer, sketchier technique.¹⁴ By contrast, another depiction of a humble and pious old couple, dated 1657, shows Van Dijck retreating again from Rembrandt and toward the smoother handling and smaller figure scale of his later work.¹⁵ This gives us a brief window of 1656, or perhaps 1657 for the creation of these and other similar paintings.

More recently, the proposed scenario of such a return visit to Rembrandt received support from striking new evidence. A research team consisting of John K. Delaney, Kathryn A. Dooley, and Marjorie Wieseman carried out a program of technical research on the painting of St. Paul in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, long attributed to Rembrandt (fig. 5), convincingly clarifying an interim state of the painting using X-ray fluorescence imaging spectroscopy (macro-XRF or XRF-IS) and visible and infrared (400 to 2500 nm) reflectance imaging spectroscopy (RIS).¹⁶ In consultation, this author drew attention to the significance of a drawing in Berlin (fig. 6).¹⁷ The sheet had been taken up by Werner Sumowski in the manuscript volume of anonymous drawings left behind on his death in 2015, as a presumed record of this interim state: it corresponds extensively to the findings of the Washington team. On stylistic grounds, in particular the tonal washes, fine hatching, and dry dragged lines, the author could attribute it to Abraham van Dijck. It can comfortably be dated to around 1656, as the rendering of the hand, as well as the bent-over pose of the figure, do still align closely with that seen in the Mauritshuis painting.

It was in the same year that Van Dijck’s first teacher Samuel van Hoogstraten returned to Dordrecht, from his trip to Germany, Austria, and Italy, begun five years earlier. Already in his 1981 volume of Drawings of the Rembrandt School, in the section on Van Hoogstraten, Sumowski had posited a subsequent visit by Van Hoogstraten to Rembrandt, based solely on the evidence of a single drawing, of Jupiter and Mercury in the House of Philemon and Baucis in the Rijksmuseum (fig. 7).¹⁸ It is an adaptation of the painting of the same theme, again in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., produced in Rembrandt’s workshop, in part by Rembrandt himself, according to Ernst van de Wetering (fig. 8).¹⁹ Van Hoogstraten will have seen it taking shape on the easel sometime between 1656 and 1658, the date it bears. This serves as a chronological anchor for a whole group of related drawings given by Sumowski to Van Hoogstraten. These show the introduction of broad, open brush strokes in ink for contour lines, which at the same time evoke mass and solidity of form.²⁰ This very striking element furthermore had no source in the draughtsmanship of another artist Van Hoogstraten could have studied. He was most likely inspired by the open brushwork of Rembrandt’s late paintings (including his direct model, the Jupiter and Mercury in Washington) in the free medium of drawings made for exercise and sharing with friends, connoisseurs and pupils. In his drawings, Van Hoogstraten sought to study, explore, and perhaps even compete with this remarkable development in Rembrandt’s art, which could not have escaped his notice, as it had not that of Abraham van Dijck.

In his paintings, Van Hoogstraten generally adhered to the very controlled and measured facture he had established, also for textural effects. It is however possible that some aspects of Rembrandt’s late manner also rubbed off there as well, in particular the use of a larger figure scale for concentration and monumental effect. In 1657, Van Hoogstraten painted an Ecce Homo now in Munich, largely in muted brownish hues (fig. 9).²¹ Although the surfaces are rendered smoothly, the figure is presented with an imposing monumentality, the bulky figure filling the frame, isolated against the background, the single hatted tormenter pushed off into the shadows. This could be dismissed as a one-off experiment, except that Van Hoogstraten applied this effect in an undated Madonna and Child, again with looming figures, and a limited palette of muted hues, punctuated by accents of red in the flowers, which can be placed in the same period.²²

There are also echoes of Rembrandt c. 1656 in the work of Nicolaes Maes.²³ When this pupil at first established himself as an independent artist in Dordrecht, he applied himself to history painting, one of his best-known examples being the Dismissal of Hagar in the Metropolitan Museum, signed and dated 1653.²⁴ Its concentration and powerful effect of grazing light already demonstrate Rembrandt’s late style, but less so its brushwork. Maes quickly turned however towards moralizing genre scenes featuring pious old women and young women in various roles, both negative and positive. While firmly entrenched in Dordrecht, he nonetheless appears to have visited Rembrandt in Amsterdam, in 1656. This is the date of a painting of St. Thomas as an Architect in Kassel, accompanied by a Rembrandt signature, and related to the Apostle paintings Rembrandt had recently started painting around that time (fig. 10). The inscription was taken as proof of authorship, until in 1987 Sumowski astutely reattributed the painting to Nicolaes Maes.²⁵ The modelling of the head and hands indeed aligns with Maes’s genre depictions of old women, with the stark lighting yielding flattened surfaces, and casting harsh shadows (in particular at the vein in Thomas’s lowered hand), and also in the use of relatively smooth brush work built up in layers to conjure aged flesh. However, the compositional alternation of light and dark patches, and also the prominent display of the texture of fur in fantasy antique costume, echo a painting of the same year by Rembrandt, notably in the same museum, his Jacob Blessing Ephraim and Menasseh (fig. 11).²⁶ Even more specifically, Thomas’s distinctive sharply pointed nose resembles that of the aged Jacob. In some passages, such as a highlighted ridge in Thomas’s sleeve to the left, and in his white chemise, Maes incorporates some bolder, thicker strokes of paint, possibly prompted by Rembrandt’s painterly performance in the white coat of Jacob, much like Van Hoogstraten and Van Dijck experimented with bolder brushwork around the same time, likely on the same occasion. It appears Maes, like Abraham van Dijck, was caught up by Rembrandt’s Apostle paintings.

It is in this illustrious company that at least one other work now takes its place: a Portrait of a Bearded Man, currently in a Belgian private collection (fig. 12). The presentation of the face, with strong lighting from the side, is so close to the Thomas that it was first thought to be by Maes. Further analysis of the manner, in particular the use of open brush strokes, especially the long, thin whitish strokes in the collar, beard, and hair, made it clear that the artist was Maes’s friend and neighbour, Abraham van Dijck. It even appears possible that the sitter was his father Leendert van Dijck, whom we know from an early portrait historié of the family, of 1651 (fig. 13).²⁷ Van Dijck adopted Maes’s framework of pose and lighting of Thomas’s head, to create one of the more severe presentations of a sitter in seventeenth century Dutch art. In this respect he may have been prompted by another Apostle Rembrandt was painting at the time, in his studio, the St. Bartholomew in San Diego (fig. 14).

Samuel van Hoogstraten, Nicolaes Maes, and Abraham van Dijck each made works of art that indicate that they visited their former teacher in his workshop in or around 1656 or 1657. This appears to have been the product of heightened interactions between these artists and Rembrandt, and it is tempting to speculate that they may even have gone to Amsterdam together. At any rate, such meetings would have taken place in Rembrandt’s house on the Sint Antoniesbreestraat, which he occupied until 1658. The visitors will undoubtedly have noticed that the process of Rembrandt’s insolvency was underway, triggered by his application for cessio bonorum on 14 July 1656, but it did not leave evident traces in their art.²⁸ The impulse for such interactions most likely came from Van Hoogstraten, looking to catch up on new developments that had taken place in his absence. He likewise quickly caught up with the perspective experiments that Carel Fabritius had made in the years before his untimely death, and also the rapid development of the elegant interior scene in the work of Gerard Ter Borch, and responded with works of his own.²⁹ As a major exhibition in Paris and Dublin demonstrated, Dutch genre painters were by then already accustomed to travelling around regularly to study each other’s works, making use of an efficient transportation system, especially passenger barges on special waterways.³⁰ Van Hoogstraten, the intrepid world traveller, was famously eager to keep up with innovations in the work of other artists.³¹ Undoubtedly having heard about new developments, Rembrandt was evidently high on his list.

1. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen vol. 2, Amsterdam 1719, p. 272: “Hy verkeerde in den herfst van zyn leven wel meest met gemeene luiden, en zulke die de Konst hanteerden.”
2. Ernst van de Wetering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings V: The Small-Scale History Paintings, Dordrecht 2011, pp. 3-6; vol. 6, pp. 296-297; and: Eric Jan Sluijter, in Govert Flinck: Reflecting History, Cleves 2015, pp. 68-69.
3. Ben Broos, “Saskia, Rembrandt’s Frisian Bride”, in: Marlies Stoter (ed.), Rembrandt & Saskia: love and marriage in the Dutch Golden Age, Zwolle, 2018, pp. 23-24.
4. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), pp. 100, 174.
5. Epco Runia, David de Witt, Rembrandt’s Social Network: family, friends, and acquaintances, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2019.
6. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e12959, with reference to a letter from Constantijn Huygens Jr. to his brother Christiaen, of 6 December 1663, in the Leiden University Library; see Hendrick E. van Gelder, “De jonge Huygensen en Rembrandt”, Oud Holland 73 (1958), pp. 238-241, identifying the drawings, currently: River Scene with Boats and Figures Bathing, c. 1590/1595. Pen in brown, 111 x 205 mm. Formerly Chatsworth, Duke of Devonshire Collection; most recently, Alfred Taubman sale, New York, (Sotheby’s), 27 January 2016, lot 33 (as the original, but without noting the Rembrandt provenance); and the copy with Everhard Jabach in Paris: pen in brown, 112 x 186 mm. Washington, National Gallery of Art, inv. no. NGA 72075 (as also as the original).
7. David de Witt, Abraham van Dijck (1635-1680): Life and Work of a Late Rembrandt Pupil, Zwolle 2020, p. 32.
8. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandtschüler vol. 2, Landau 1987, p. 1951.
9. Michiel Roscam Abbing, Eigentijdse bronnen & oeuvre van gesigneerde schilderijen, Leiden 1993, pp. 42-49. 
10. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 12-13.
11. Abraham van Dijck, The Widow of Zarephath and her Son, signed, c. 1655, oil on canvas, 115.6 x 95.9 cm.; Portrait of a Fifty-Year-Old Woman, signed and dated 1655, oil on panel, 75 x 62 cm, both Kingston ON, Agnes Etherington Art Centre, acc. nos. 60-001 and 56-003.10; see: De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 98-101, nos. P22, P23.
12. First spotted by Sabrina Meloni, after cleaning in 2014. 
13. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 126, no. P35.
14. Sale, Milan (Lucas Casa d’Arte), 21 May 2025, lot 220.
15. Monogrammed and dated 1657, oil on panel, 35 x 29.5 cm, The Hague, with S. Nijstad, in 1983; De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 118, no. P31.
16. The idea that the Washington painting had been altered from a generic scholar into a St. Paul was already proposed by Arthur K. Wheelock, in: Arthur K. Wheelock, Rembrandt’s Late Religious Portraits, Washington: National Gallery of Art; Los Angeles: Getty Museum, 2005, pp. 141-157; followed by Van de Wetering: Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited: a complete survey II, Dordrecht 2017, 2017, cat. 254, p. 640 (as c. 1655). The new study brings conclusive evidence in support of this scenario, based on an extensive technical research: Marjorie Wieseman, John K. Delaney and Kathryn A. Dooley, “Compositional Changes in Rembrandt’s The Apostle Paul: New Technical Findings”, Rembrandt as a Painter: New Technical Research. ArtMatters. International Journal for Technical Art History. Special Issue #2, 2025, pp. 80-92. https://doi.org/10.64655/AM.si25r.b1963 (accessed 16 December 2025). 
17. The connection with an interim state of the painting was already surmised by Werner Sumowski, in: Drawings of the Rembrandt School, vol. 11: Anonymous Drawings (manuscript left unpublished on his death in 2015; forthcoming in an edition translated and edited by the author, with Brill).
18. Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School vol. 5, New York, 1981, p. 2712, no. 1224x: https://rkd.nl/images/311330.
19. Van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s (see note 16), p. 650-651, no. 265: https://rkd.nl/images/54379.
20. David de Witt, “A New and Individual Approach to Contour: 1653, 1658 and Beyond”, in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/a-new-and-individual-approach-to-contour-1653-1658-and-beyond/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
21. https://rkd.nl/images/289005.
22. Samuel van Hoogstraten, Madonna and Child, c. 1660, oil on canvas, 92 x 71.2 cm, Amsterdam (Christie’s), 25 May 2016, lot 74: https://rkd.nl/images/314055.
23. David de Witt, “Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying under a Genius”, Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying Under a Genius, exh. cat. Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2015, p. 85, with reference to:  Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 1951; also posited in Roscam Abbing, Schilder (see note 9), p. 40. It is true that Maes consulted drawings by Van Hoogstraten for his early painting of Christ Blessing the Children in London, but this is very likely because he had access to Van Hoogstraten’s drawings left behind in his studio when he left for Vienna and Italy in 1651: they were moreover older drawings, from c. 1646-1648; see: David de Witt, “Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Drawings: History, Life, Universality” in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/the-core-group-from-pictorial-technique-to-innovative-contour/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
24. https://rkd.nl/images/285887.
25. Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 2009, no. 1324: https://rkd.nl/images/251100.
26. My thanks to curator Justus de Lang for sharing his thoughts on the connection, reflected in part in the hanging of both works near each other in the gallery.
27. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 52-53, no. P1.
28. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e4704.
29. David de Witt, “From Rembrandt’s Nae ‘t leven to Van Hoogstraten’s Zichtbaere Werelt”, in: David de Witt and Leonore van Sloten, Samuel van Hoogstraten. The Illusionist, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2025, pp. 74-79.
30. Adriaen Waiboer, Vermeer and the Masters of Genre Painting: Inspiration and Rivalry, Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland; Washington: National Gallery of Art; Paris: Musée du Louvre, 2017-2018, and specifically on travel: Blaise Ducos, “The “Tour of Holland”: Visitors from Abroad in the United Provinces”, pp. 101-111.
31. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), p. 157.

The Rembrandt pupil Ferdinand Bol is known primarily for his paintings, being one of the most sought-after portraitists in Amsterdam from the mid-1650s through the 1660s, who also received extremely prestigious public commissions from the City of Amsterdam and The Admiralty through the 1660s.³² Print scholars and enthusiasts know him as one of only a few of Rembrandt’s pupils who also etched, leaving us with approximately 20 prints. One of his earliest efforts in the medium is the etching known as The Hour of Death (fig. 1). New research into its publication as a book illustration changes its place in Bol’s earliest period as a printmaker, and its relationship to his early paintings as well.³³

It has been commonly thought that Bol made this etching as an illustration for Jan Krul’s (1601/2 – 1646) Pampiere Wereld, first published in 1644.³⁴ This book was a compilation of some of Krul’s writings. Bol’s etching was added to one of the texts in the book, a moral dialogue called Den Christelyken Hovelingh.³⁵However, this was not the earliest publication of this text. It had already appeared separately in Amsterdam, in 1642, with Bol’s etching included after the title page.³⁶ It was in its fourth state, and was subsequently modified again for inclusion in the Pampiere Wereld.

The new terminus ante quem of 1642 places The Hour of Death among the group of Bol’s earliest datable prints. These include the Old Man with Flowing Beard and Velvet Cap (H.9), and Portrait of an Officer (H.12), both of 1642. The majority of Bol’s prints (approximately thirteen or fourteen of approximately twenty) seems to have been made in the years 1641/2-1645, evidently a period of substantial interest in the medium in the years immediately after Bol had left Rembrandt’s studio.³⁷ His departure is marked by his earliest signed and dated painting, Gideon’s Sacrifice (Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht), of 1640.³⁸ 

Copies of this first edition of Krul’s Den Christelyken Hovelingh of 1642, incorporating Bol’s print as the frontispiece, are extremely rare. It is likely that it was published in a very limited edition by the author himself.³⁹ Krul himself also likely published the Pampiere Wereld in 1644, in a lavish folio edition.⁴⁰ Around the same time he also published an octavo edition, but without giving the publisher, location, or date. The date of 1644 does however appear with an excerpt of the privilege inside, and on the title page of the play Theodorus and Dianira (on p. 297).⁴¹ The same printer, Jan Jacobsz Schipper, produced both editions, but did not include Bol’s etching in the smaller format, instead replacing it with an anonymous copy, one which has not been described previously (fig. 2).⁴² Only seven of the 94 illustration plates of the folio edition of 1644 were of a size such that they would fit in the smaller octavo edition (16.9 x 10.4 cm) of 1644-1645. Of these seven, all appeared in the latter volume except for Bol’s etching, although it would have been small enough (13.3 x 9.0 cm), likely because the lower price of the edition would not have justified the wear of the fine etching plate. It was likely a financial calculation in what were difficult economic times for Krul.⁴³ Krul’s text appeared in yet another volume of his works, in 1650, again without Bol’s print. Other earlier and later editions of that volume contain neither Krul’s Den Christelyken Hovelingh, nor Bol’s print.⁴⁴ A later edition of the 1644 anthology, containing a previously unidentified later state of the original Hour of Death, appeared in Amsterdam in 1681, this time in quarto format.⁴⁵

In the process of arriving at the frontispiece for Den Christelyken Hovelingh, Bol went through at least three known proof states of the plate, printed in very low numbers and remaining extremely rare. The composition was already largely laid out in the first state, known only from an impression in the Albertina (DG 72373) (fig 1.). It is a touched proof, with Bol’s name added in red chalk to the blank square that appears to be the end of a coffin, to the lower left (fig. 3). Bol’s signature can be seen etched on the blade of the spade, in reverse, so this appears to have been a proposal for a change. His signature on the end of the coffin was not however included in the second state, even though in the second state his name on the spade is partially erased. The second state has substantial changes to the plate.⁴⁶ The need arose to include a Latin text, for which the space at the end of the coffin was too small (see below).  An outline of a cartouche is visible in retouching in white body colour, of the unique impression of the second state (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam [RP-P-OB-189]), stretching out beyond the small confines of this space.

Bol proceeded to plan further changes in this proof, which appear in the third state, of which only two impressions are known (Paris [Reserve Cb-13(A, 37)-Boite Ecu]; and Munich [1921-16]; fig. 4). He incorporated the cartouche for the Latin inscription, but left the lettering to be added, likely by a specialized letter engraver.⁴⁷ This occurred in the fourth state, which was used for the initial publication of Den Christelyken Hovelingh in 1642 (fig. 5).

With each of the following publications of the print, the plate was altered. The fifth state incorporates changes to the background, addition of details, and reworking, and was included in the 1644 edition of Krul’s book (fig. 6).⁴⁸ A critical review of the hand suggests that, contrary to previous assumptions, Bol was no longer involved. This very obviously applies to the crude reworkings of the sixth state, included in the 1681 volume (fig. 7).⁴⁹ The print was undoubtedly commissioned by Krul, who may have known Rembrandt.⁵⁰ Krul may have been aware, as well, of Rembrandt’s etching known as The Ship of Fortune, of 1633 [B. 111, NH 123] as it had appeared one year later in the publication of Elias Herckmans’s narrative poem: Der Zee-Vaert lof Handelende vande gedenckwaerdighste Zee [‘In Praise of Sea-Faring’], (Amsterdam, 1634). By the early 1640s, Bol had also developed literary connections. Van Sloten has recently convincingly proposed⁵¹ that a Bol painting in the Rembrandthuis Museum, Amsterdam, Shepherdess in a Landscape, which she dates to 1640, is associated with a play by Soet (1610-1674), Clorinde en Dambise.⁵² The play was both published and performed (in May and June) in Amsterdam in 1640.⁵³ It seems likely that Krul would have known of the play and perhaps the painting.

Krul was asking Bol to illustrate a text that he had not yet published, and which he had to share with him. In its introduction, Krul described it as an allegory; it is about a wise courtier (the man in the tent, who has left the Court) who is a reformed sinner and sought to reform the ways of the courtly courtesan sinner (the woman, Florentina). Wijngaards⁵⁴ concluded that for the portrayal of Florentina, Krul referred to the 1539 treatise decrying court life,⁵⁵ by the Spanish bishop and writer Antonio de Guevara (c. 1480-1545), which was well-known in The Netherlands at that time. Bol echoed the general composition of one of Rembrandt’s recent etchings, Death Appearing to the Wedded Couple, 1639 (B.109, NH 174), also with a moral message, which he saw take shape during his time in the studio. This was much the same as Bol did with other prints from this period, for instance his Holy Family in a Dark Room of 1643, (H.4) emulating Saint Jerome in a Dark Chamber, 1642, (NH 212) and Bol’s self-portrait, Portrait of an Officer (H.12). In following his master, Bol was wisely cautious in rendering restrained emotions and expressing the action mainly through gestures: the man’s pointing is the theme of Krul’s work, and the woman stretching out her arms suggests that she responds to the man’s urgings.

In Krul’s text, the “Christian Courtier”, stresses to Florentina (and the reader) that one should reject sin now, while the opportunity exists, before death intervenes. Bol places his skeleton off to the edge of the print, not centrally, and depicts it only partially. The hourglass, the scythe, the coffin, and the spade complete the Vanitas reference.⁵⁶ However, it may not have been clear enough for Krul. Bol modified his design of the first state, very likely at his request, by including a cartouche for the addition of a written note in the Latin text in the fourth state, that expressed Krul’s theme specifically and explicitly: translated as “You who see this image, why do you not reject mortal things, For in such a home every man is buried”.⁵⁷ 

Bol’s etching known as The Hour of Death would be his only commissioned print. It was created several years earlier than thought, in 1642 or perhaps even 1641.⁵⁸ Six states can be identified, the first three ascribed to Bol; in addition, four copy prints are known now. With the alterations from state to state, at the behest of the patron, Bol demonstrated the pliability that later served him well as a painter. Bol effectively graphically represented Krul’s written theme that sin should be rejected now.

Acknowledgements

This article is dedicated to Ger Luijten. The author is grateful to him for his suggestion and encouragement for writing this article. The author gives special thanks to David de Witt, who provided an extraordinary quality and quantity of editorial assistance; to Jaco Rutgers for his expert review of early drafts of the manuscript, and for his numerous contributions and advice; and to Leonore van Sloten for her review of the manuscript and comments. The author also expresses his appreciation to the many curators and their staffs at numerous museums and collections for their invaluable, kind assistance.

1. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen vol. 2, Amsterdam 1719, p. 272: “Hy verkeerde in den herfst van zyn leven wel meest met gemeene luiden, en zulke die de Konst hanteerden.”
2. Ernst van de Wetering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings V: The Small-Scale History Paintings, Dordrecht 2011, pp. 3-6; vol. 6, pp. 296-297; and: Eric Jan Sluijter, in Govert Flinck: Reflecting History, Cleves 2015, pp. 68-69.
3. Ben Broos, “Saskia, Rembrandt’s Frisian Bride”, in: Marlies Stoter (ed.), Rembrandt & Saskia: love and marriage in the Dutch Golden Age, Zwolle, 2018, pp. 23-24.
4. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), pp. 100, 174.
5. Epco Runia, David de Witt, Rembrandt’s Social Network: family, friends, and acquaintances, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2019.
6. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e12959, with reference to a letter from Constantijn Huygens Jr. to his brother Christiaen, of 6 December 1663, in the Leiden University Library; see Hendrick E. van Gelder, “De jonge Huygensen en Rembrandt”, Oud Holland 73 (1958), pp. 238-241, identifying the drawings, currently: River Scene with Boats and Figures Bathing, c. 1590/1595. Pen in brown, 111 x 205 mm. Formerly Chatsworth, Duke of Devonshire Collection; most recently, Alfred Taubman sale, New York, (Sotheby’s), 27 January 2016, lot 33 (as the original, but without noting the Rembrandt provenance); and the copy with Everhard Jabach in Paris: pen in brown, 112 x 186 mm. Washington, National Gallery of Art, inv. no. NGA 72075 (as also as the original).
7. David de Witt, Abraham van Dijck (1635-1680): Life and Work of a Late Rembrandt Pupil, Zwolle 2020, p. 32.
8. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandtschüler vol. 2, Landau 1987, p. 1951.
9. Michiel Roscam Abbing, Eigentijdse bronnen & oeuvre van gesigneerde schilderijen, Leiden 1993, pp. 42-49. 
10. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 12-13.
11. Abraham van Dijck, The Widow of Zarephath and her Son, signed, c. 1655, oil on canvas, 115.6 x 95.9 cm.; Portrait of a Fifty-Year-Old Woman, signed and dated 1655, oil on panel, 75 x 62 cm, both Kingston ON, Agnes Etherington Art Centre, acc. nos. 60-001 and 56-003.10; see: De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 98-101, nos. P22, P23.
12. First spotted by Sabrina Meloni, after cleaning in 2014. 
13. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 126, no. P35.
14. Sale, Milan (Lucas Casa d’Arte), 21 May 2025, lot 220.
15. Monogrammed and dated 1657, oil on panel, 35 x 29.5 cm, The Hague, with S. Nijstad, in 1983; De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 118, no. P31.
16. The idea that the Washington painting had been altered from a generic scholar into a St. Paul was already proposed by Arthur K. Wheelock, in: Arthur K. Wheelock, Rembrandt’s Late Religious Portraits, Washington: National Gallery of Art; Los Angeles: Getty Museum, 2005, pp. 141-157; followed by Van de Wetering: Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited: a complete survey II, Dordrecht 2017, 2017, cat. 254, p. 640 (as c. 1655). The new study brings conclusive evidence in support of this scenario, based on an extensive technical research: Marjorie Wieseman, John K. Delaney and Kathryn A. Dooley, “Compositional Changes in Rembrandt’s The Apostle Paul: New Technical Findings”, Rembrandt as a Painter: New Technical Research. ArtMatters. International Journal for Technical Art History. Special Issue #2, 2025, pp. 80-92. https://doi.org/10.64655/AM.si25r.b1963 (accessed 16 December 2025). 
17. The connection with an interim state of the painting was already surmised by Werner Sumowski, in: Drawings of the Rembrandt School, vol. 11: Anonymous Drawings (manuscript left unpublished on his death in 2015; forthcoming in an edition translated and edited by the author, with Brill).
18. Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School vol. 5, New York, 1981, p. 2712, no. 1224x: https://rkd.nl/images/311330.
19. Van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s (see note 16), p. 650-651, no. 265: https://rkd.nl/images/54379.
20. David de Witt, “A New and Individual Approach to Contour: 1653, 1658 and Beyond”, in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/a-new-and-individual-approach-to-contour-1653-1658-and-beyond/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
21. https://rkd.nl/images/289005.
22. Samuel van Hoogstraten, Madonna and Child, c. 1660, oil on canvas, 92 x 71.2 cm, Amsterdam (Christie’s), 25 May 2016, lot 74: https://rkd.nl/images/314055.
23. David de Witt, “Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying under a Genius”, Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying Under a Genius, exh. cat. Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2015, p. 85, with reference to:  Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 1951; also posited in Roscam Abbing, Schilder (see note 9), p. 40. It is true that Maes consulted drawings by Van Hoogstraten for his early painting of Christ Blessing the Children in London, but this is very likely because he had access to Van Hoogstraten’s drawings left behind in his studio when he left for Vienna and Italy in 1651: they were moreover older drawings, from c. 1646-1648; see: David de Witt, “Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Drawings: History, Life, Universality” in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/the-core-group-from-pictorial-technique-to-innovative-contour/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
24. https://rkd.nl/images/285887.
25. Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 2009, no. 1324: https://rkd.nl/images/251100.
26. My thanks to curator Justus de Lang for sharing his thoughts on the connection, reflected in part in the hanging of both works near each other in the gallery.
27. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 52-53, no. P1.
28. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e4704.
29. David de Witt, “From Rembrandt’s Nae ‘t leven to Van Hoogstraten’s Zichtbaere Werelt”, in: David de Witt and Leonore van Sloten, Samuel van Hoogstraten. The Illusionist, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2025, pp. 74-79.
30. Adriaen Waiboer, Vermeer and the Masters of Genre Painting: Inspiration and Rivalry, Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland; Washington: National Gallery of Art; Paris: Musée du Louvre, 2017-2018, and specifically on travel: Blaise Ducos, “The “Tour of Holland”: Visitors from Abroad in the United Provinces”, pp. 101-111.
31. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), p. 157.
32. Rudi Ekkart, ‘Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol: The Portraits’, in: Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck: Rembrandt’s Master Pupils, Zwolle, 2018, p. 158; Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘Out of Rembrandt’s Shadow: Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol as History Painters’, pp. 129-131.
33. The etchings by Ferdinand Bol in this article are cited by the Hollstein number, in: F.W.H. Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish Etchings Engravings and Woodcuts, Amsterdam 1950, Vol. 3. pp. 15-35. However, the states noted here are updated, as anticipated in the forthcoming New Hollstein volume.
34. The first one to point this out was Pierre Yver: Supplement au catalogue raisonné de M. M. Gersaint, Helle & Glomy: de toutes les pieces qui forment l’oeuvre de Rembrandt. Amsterdam 1756, pp. 39-40, no.108, although he referred to the third, 1681 edition of the book. The etching is already present in the first, 1644 edition, published in Amsterdam.
35. Den Christelyken Hovelingh has been commonly described as a play, but it is written as a poetic dialogue. If it was meant to be a play and/or if it was ever staged is not known to me. It is not listed as having been staged from 1637 to 1772: see Creative Amsterdam. An E-Humanities Perspective. Onstage. Online Datasystem of Theatre in Amsterdam from the Golden Age to the present: https://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/onstage/plays (accessed 7 July 2024). The title page of the 1642 volume indicates ‘Den Christelyk Hovelingh’. However, the headers on all pages of that volume use the spelling ‘Christelyken’, as do subsequent authors and libraries. See Jan Harmensz. Krul: Den Christelyk Hovelingh, Amsterdam 1642.
36. This appears to have been first noted in N.C.H. Wijngaards.: Jan Harmens Krul: zijn leven, zijn werk en zijn betekenis, Zwolle, 1964, and is also described in: H.C. van Bemmel: Bibliografie van de werken van Jan Hermans Krul, Amsterdam, 1984.
37. David de Witt and Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol: Rembrandt’s Disciple’ in: Bol and Flinck (note 1), p. 48; and: Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol, the Etcher’, in: Bol and Flinck (note 1), p. 207; and Sophia Thomassen, ‘Timeline’, in: Bol and Flinck, 2018 (note 1), p. 11.
38. De Witt and Van Sloten, Bol, 2018 (note 6); Robert Schillemans: Bijbelschilderkunst rond Rembrandt, Utrecht 1989, pp. 31-34.
39. Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5). I have been able to trace only thee copies: Library of the University of Amsterdam (2780 C 51), Royal Library, Den Haag, (KB: 3 C 20:10), and Noord-Hollands Archief, Haarlem (Oude Boekerij: 88 A 16). The copy in Den Haag lacks the page (A2) with Bol’s print.
40. Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5).
41. The 1644 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, First edition. Amsterdam1644) is a folio edition measuring 302 x 190 mm; the 1681 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, 3rd edition. Amsterdam, the widow of van Jan Jacobsz Schipper) is in quarto, measuring 216 mm x 170 mm. and the 1644-45 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, 2nd edition, Amsterdam) is in octavo, measuring 169 x 104 mm. Book and library catalogues commonly ascribe c.1650 as the date for the latter, but the source of this attribution is not clear, and it is in error. See also Van Bemmel, Bibliographie (note 5).
42. Van Bemmel, Bibliographie (note 5); The anonymous copy is in reverse, by an unknown hand, is neither signed nor dated, measures 85 x 74.5 mm, is of the same theme and general composition, but is artistically distinctly different. The shield is blank in this copy of Bol’s etching. I have not found any impressions of this copy that were not part of the printed book. I have identified three other distinct copies after Bol’s print, for a total of four, rather than the single copy identified by Hollstein (note 2).
43. In 1644 and again in 1645 Krul obtained two successive loans, with the second providing funds to pay off the first, to permit him to publish the first two editions of Pampiere Wereld. Krul gave successively each lender volumes of the work, the patent rights and ‘some’ copper plates for the period of the loan. It is not clear if the plates included Bol’s etching. See Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5).
44. Jan Harmensz. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam 1650-51, J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam; J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Joost Hartgers, Amsterdam, 1640; J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Michiel de Groot, Amsterdam, 1662; Jan Harmensz. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam, 1669-72.
45. Hollstein gives only four states; more recently, George C. Kenney lists five, albeit described differently than the six here. See George C. Kenney: The Illustrated Bartsch, vol. 51. Supplement: Netherlandish Artists. Ferdinand Bol. New York 2017, p. 73, no. 18.
46. In addition to the partial burnishing out of Bol’s name on the blade of the spade in the second state, lines are added partially obscuring the remaining portion of the signature; additional background work is added in several places; there is some work added on the scythe, table, book and the skull of the skeleton; and some additional work on the woman’s headdress/cape (fig. 2). The unique impression of this state is touched with black chalk and lead white, including the addition of a domed building in the distant background, horizontal lines below and to the left of the domed building, and the outline of a blank shield (or cartouche) covering the left part of the end of the coffin. Kenney also mentioned this state, but mistakenly describes the building in the background as a state difference. See: Kenney, Bol, 2017 (note 14). Only two other Bol prints have retouchings by the artist that appeared in the subsequent state: The Philosopher, H.6ii, 1643 (Amsterdam, RP-P-BI-1994); and The Young man Wearing a Plumed Cap, H.14i, 1642 (London, 1921,1008.21; and Dresden, A41073). The retouchings for H.6ii and H.14i appear in the plates for the next state of their respective prints. It is interesting to note that all retouched impressions were done in approximately the same period, and that the retouchings for H.6 and H.14 are very small in comparison to the significant retouchings for H.18. It is possible that this is a reflection of Bol’s satisfying his client’s wishes. Retouchings of impressions of other Bol prints are not judged to have been by his hand.
47. My thanks to Jaco Rutgers for this suggestion
48. The fifth state has added substantial additional background work and some work to the woman’s dress, and a bit on the shield, and the skull of the skeleton.
49. The sixth, and final, state has added rather crude extensive reworking consisting of regular patterns of cross-hatching using the burin, for instance on the back of the skull, the inside of the tent, and the clothes of the female courtier. See fig 6.
50. It had long been thought that Rembrandt painted his portrait in 1633. However, more recently, this has been called into question by Ernst van de Watering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 6: Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited, Dordrecht 2017, p. 526, no. 91. There were also family connections; see M. Louttit: ‘The Romantic Dress of Saskia van Ulenborch: Its Pastoral and Theatrical Associations’, The Burlington Magazine 115 (1973), pp. 317-326.
51. Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol in de voetsporen van Rembrandt: Twee herontdekte schilderijen’, in: Rudie van Leeuwen, Lilian Ruhe, and David de Witt, eds, Not Always Rembrandt; 37 studies in Baroque art. Turnhout, Belgium 2023, pp. 20-31.
52. Jan Soet, Soets Clorinde en Dambise, Amsterdam 1640.
53. University of Amsterdam: Creative Amsterdam. An E-Humanities Perspective. Onstage. Online Datasystem of Theatre in Amsterdam from the Golden Age to the present. https://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/onstage/plays/359 (accessed 7 July 2024).
54. N.C.H. Wijngaards, (note 5).
55. Antonio de Guevara: Menosprecio de corte y alabanza de aldea. Valladolid 1539.
56. See: S. Oosterwijk, ‘Morbid morality. The Danse macabre motif in Dutch art of the Golden Age’, in: Ilona Hans-Collas et al. (eds.), Mort n’espargne ne petit ne grant [Texte imprimé] : études autour de la mort et de ses représentations : actes du XVIIIe Congrès international de l’association Danses macabres d’Europe, Paris, 19-23 mars 2019, Paris 2019, pp. 174-195.
57. Translation: Linda Stone-Ferrier: ‘Ferdinand Bol: The Hour of Death’, in: Dutch Prints of Daily Life: Mirrors of Life or Masks of Morals? Lawrence, Kansas: The Spencer Museum of Art of The University of Kansas, 1983, pp. 144-146, credits Oliver C. Phillips, Classics Department, University Of Kansas, for the translation.
58. There is no Bol print dated earlier than H.18, although he may have created one, Abraham’s Sacrifice (H.1), when working in Rembrandt’s studio; however, this is uncertain, as it is not dated.

Extramarital relationships, whether or not unequal in nature or not, were a common matter in early modern Amsterdam. Not infrequently these led to (unwanted) pregnancies. Sex outside marriage was not permitted. In Amsterdam, matters of love, sex, and adultery fell under the commissioners of Marital Affairs. That Rembrandt had to appear there in 1649 is well known; that his colleague and (youthful) friend Jan Lievens had already been obliged to account for an extramarital relationship in the same chamber three years earlier has not previously been noted.

Dispute registers of the Chamber of Marital Affairs
In the seventeenth century, attempts were made to regulate sex and marriage. In Amsterdam, the Chamber of Marital Affairs was established for this purpose. Every year in February, five commissioners were appointed. The commission met weekly on Saturdays.⁵⁹ They also kept the registers of marriage banns: the names, origins, ages, and addresses of all those wishing to marry in the city were recorded. Disputes of (extra)marital nature were taken before the Chamber of Marital Affairs and recorded in the Krakeelregister (dispute register). Initially, all of this took place in the Spiegelkamer (Mirror Room) behind the Roodeur (Red Door) of the Oude Kerk (fig 1); after 28 October 1656 in the Chamber of Marital Affairs in the New Town Hall on the Dam.⁶⁰

It is a well-known episode in Rembrandt’s life. After Saskia Uylenburgh died in the summer of 1642, Rembrandt entered into a relationship with Geertje Dircx of Edam (c. 1610–in or after 1656). Geertje had come to live in the house on the Jodenbreestraat as dry nurse to the infant Titus. Rembrandt and Geertje entered into a sexual relationship, which would lead to a complicated affair, in the course of which Geertje ultimately ended up in the spinhuis (women’s house of correction) of Gouda. In 1649, Geertje attempted to force Rembrandt to marry her by summoning him before the Chamber of Marital Affairs. The case was eventually settled. Alongside several other agreements, it was stipulated that Rembrandt would pay Geertje annual maintenance, on the condition that Titus would be and remain her universal heir.⁶¹ As in so many matters, Jan Lievens also preceded his old friend and colleague Rembrandt in the hallway leading to the dispute chamber. This emerges from a previously unpublished document in the Amsterdam City Archives.

Between Amsterdam and Antwerp
Although Lievens was much more eager to travel than his fellow townsman Rembrandt, both spent a significant part of their careers in Amsterdam. This began in the workshop of Pieter Lastman on the Sint Antoniesbreestraat, where Lievens began advanced training in 1617. In 1618 he returned to his native city. After working in Leiden for a period, he travelled first to London and subsequently stayed in Antwerp from 1635 onwards. In December 1638 the painter married Susanna Colijns de Nole (c. 1615–c. 1646), the daughter of a sculptor,⁶² in that city. The couple had at least two children, the first son died young. In January 1644 another boy was born: Jan Andrea (1644–1680), who would later also become a painter. Shortly after Jan Andrea’s baptism in Antwerp, the family moved to Amsterdam. A notarial deed shows that at the beginning of 1644 they were living in the household of the painter couple Judith Leyster and Jan Miense Molenaer, or at least that Lievens shared a studio with them.⁶³ In the course of that year he must have opened his own studio on the Rozengracht.

These were difficult years for Lievens. Financially, things were not going well: in 1643 he was forced to transfer his possessions to creditors in Antwerp.⁶⁴ On a personal level, too, Lievens went through a low point: after the move to Amsterdam, Susanna died. Precisely when and where she was buried is unknown. Lievens thus found himself alone with his young son Jan Andrea. In spite of his financial situation, he is likely to have sought a nursemaid to help raise and care for the child, just as Rembrandt had done a year earlier.

Lievens vs Jacobs
Just as Rembrandt did, Lievens also entered into a sexual relationship with an employee following the death of his wife, although it remains unclear what exactly her role was within the household. On Saturday, 8 December 1646, Lievens was required to give account before the commissioners of Marital Affairs, present being the commissioners Jacob Bas Dircksz, Hendrick Hooft and Cornelis Abba (fig. 2).⁶⁵ Lievens’s 22-year-old pregnant maidservant, Annetje Jacobs, tried to compel him to marry her. Annetje had previously lived in Lievens’s house, where she had supervised the household. This appears from a notarial statement given by Belitje Jacobs the day before the hearing in the Chamber of Marital Affairs.⁶⁶ Belitje too worked in Lievens’s household. A month earlier, Annetje had taken a considerable quantity of butter from Lievens’s stores. Belitje had not dared refuse her “because she had previously lived as her superior in the service of the petitioner [Lievens]”.⁶⁷ 

Annetje must therefore have left the painter’s household at the beginning of November. But she did not intend to stay away; on the contrary. Before the commissioners of Marital Affairs, Annetje declared that the painter “had given her promises of fidelity, not ever to abandon her, and had given her a square piece, together with another small silver piece, and that, moreover, he had lain with her and impregnated her”.⁶⁸ She was of the opinion that she therefore ought to be married by him. Lievens stated that he had indeed shared the bed with Annetje, but that he had paid her for this with the coins, and certainly had not promised to marry her. In other words, in Lievens’s view the coins were not a marriage token, but a payment as if she were a sex worker.

Rembrandt (after Lievens)
The accusation corresponds closely to that brought against Rembrandt two years later. Geertje Dircx likewise declared that she had received a verbal promise of marriage from Rembrandt; in her case, this was said to have been sealed with a golden ring. She stated that they had shared a bed on several occasions (“diverse reyzen”).⁶⁹ She was probably never pregnant – in contrast to Annetje Jacobs – for otherwise she would certainly have used this against Rembrandt as well. Rembrandt was not even willing to acknowledge that he had so much as slept with Geertje. In this case the commissioners acted as mediators, resulting in an annual maintenance payment.

What the outcome was of this hitherto undescribed case of Annetje Jacobs against Jan Lievens is not clear. The case was referred to the municipal court. Unfortunately, the archives for this early period have not survived. Nor is it clear whether a child resulted from the affair,⁷⁰ and we do not know whether compensation was paid, either as a settlement or for the upkeep of the possible child.⁷¹ Nor, therefore, whether he was pushed further into financial difficulties as a result. A marriage to his maidservant certainly did not follow, just as it did not in Rembrandt’s case.

Lievens eventual second marriage
In contrast to Rembrandt, the widower Jan Lievens would indeed enter into a second marriage. On 23 April 1648, Jan Lievens appeared once more in the Spiegelkamer of the Old Church, this time together with the 20-year-old Cornelia de Braij, in order to have their intended marriage registered. Her father, the lawyer Jan de Braij, acted as witness. The marriage was registered by Jacob Hinlopen and Cornelis Abba. Abba had also been present at the matter concerning Annetje Jacobs. Would Abba have reminded Lievens one more time of the affair with his maidservant? The announcement of this marriage did not proceed entirely smoothly. The ‘first notice’ – the announcement in church – was blocked, but this had to do with the inheritance of Jan Andrea. After he had accounted for the inheritance of his child to the Orphans’ Chamber on 26 July 1648, Lievens was able to marry a second time on 2 August 1648 – three and a half months after the betrothal – to enter into marriage for the second time. The marriage was solemnised in Ouderkerk aan de Amstel.

1. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen vol. 2, Amsterdam 1719, p. 272: “Hy verkeerde in den herfst van zyn leven wel meest met gemeene luiden, en zulke die de Konst hanteerden.”
2. Ernst van de Wetering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings V: The Small-Scale History Paintings, Dordrecht 2011, pp. 3-6; vol. 6, pp. 296-297; and: Eric Jan Sluijter, in Govert Flinck: Reflecting History, Cleves 2015, pp. 68-69.
3. Ben Broos, “Saskia, Rembrandt’s Frisian Bride”, in: Marlies Stoter (ed.), Rembrandt & Saskia: love and marriage in the Dutch Golden Age, Zwolle, 2018, pp. 23-24.
4. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), pp. 100, 174.
5. Epco Runia, David de Witt, Rembrandt’s Social Network: family, friends, and acquaintances, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2019.
6. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e12959, with reference to a letter from Constantijn Huygens Jr. to his brother Christiaen, of 6 December 1663, in the Leiden University Library; see Hendrick E. van Gelder, “De jonge Huygensen en Rembrandt”, Oud Holland 73 (1958), pp. 238-241, identifying the drawings, currently: River Scene with Boats and Figures Bathing, c. 1590/1595. Pen in brown, 111 x 205 mm. Formerly Chatsworth, Duke of Devonshire Collection; most recently, Alfred Taubman sale, New York, (Sotheby’s), 27 January 2016, lot 33 (as the original, but without noting the Rembrandt provenance); and the copy with Everhard Jabach in Paris: pen in brown, 112 x 186 mm. Washington, National Gallery of Art, inv. no. NGA 72075 (as also as the original).
7. David de Witt, Abraham van Dijck (1635-1680): Life and Work of a Late Rembrandt Pupil, Zwolle 2020, p. 32.
8. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandtschüler vol. 2, Landau 1987, p. 1951.
9. Michiel Roscam Abbing, Eigentijdse bronnen & oeuvre van gesigneerde schilderijen, Leiden 1993, pp. 42-49. 
10. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 12-13.
11. Abraham van Dijck, The Widow of Zarephath and her Son, signed, c. 1655, oil on canvas, 115.6 x 95.9 cm.; Portrait of a Fifty-Year-Old Woman, signed and dated 1655, oil on panel, 75 x 62 cm, both Kingston ON, Agnes Etherington Art Centre, acc. nos. 60-001 and 56-003.10; see: De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 98-101, nos. P22, P23.
12. First spotted by Sabrina Meloni, after cleaning in 2014. 
13. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 126, no. P35.
14. Sale, Milan (Lucas Casa d’Arte), 21 May 2025, lot 220.
15. Monogrammed and dated 1657, oil on panel, 35 x 29.5 cm, The Hague, with S. Nijstad, in 1983; De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 118, no. P31.
16. The idea that the Washington painting had been altered from a generic scholar into a St. Paul was already proposed by Arthur K. Wheelock, in: Arthur K. Wheelock, Rembrandt’s Late Religious Portraits, Washington: National Gallery of Art; Los Angeles: Getty Museum, 2005, pp. 141-157; followed by Van de Wetering: Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited: a complete survey II, Dordrecht 2017, 2017, cat. 254, p. 640 (as c. 1655). The new study brings conclusive evidence in support of this scenario, based on an extensive technical research: Marjorie Wieseman, John K. Delaney and Kathryn A. Dooley, “Compositional Changes in Rembrandt’s The Apostle Paul: New Technical Findings”, Rembrandt as a Painter: New Technical Research. ArtMatters. International Journal for Technical Art History. Special Issue #2, 2025, pp. 80-92. https://doi.org/10.64655/AM.si25r.b1963 (accessed 16 December 2025). 
17. The connection with an interim state of the painting was already surmised by Werner Sumowski, in: Drawings of the Rembrandt School, vol. 11: Anonymous Drawings (manuscript left unpublished on his death in 2015; forthcoming in an edition translated and edited by the author, with Brill).
18. Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School vol. 5, New York, 1981, p. 2712, no. 1224x: https://rkd.nl/images/311330.
19. Van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s (see note 16), p. 650-651, no. 265: https://rkd.nl/images/54379.
20. David de Witt, “A New and Individual Approach to Contour: 1653, 1658 and Beyond”, in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/a-new-and-individual-approach-to-contour-1653-1658-and-beyond/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
21. https://rkd.nl/images/289005.
22. Samuel van Hoogstraten, Madonna and Child, c. 1660, oil on canvas, 92 x 71.2 cm, Amsterdam (Christie’s), 25 May 2016, lot 74: https://rkd.nl/images/314055.
23. David de Witt, “Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying under a Genius”, Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying Under a Genius, exh. cat. Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2015, p. 85, with reference to:  Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 1951; also posited in Roscam Abbing, Schilder (see note 9), p. 40. It is true that Maes consulted drawings by Van Hoogstraten for his early painting of Christ Blessing the Children in London, but this is very likely because he had access to Van Hoogstraten’s drawings left behind in his studio when he left for Vienna and Italy in 1651: they were moreover older drawings, from c. 1646-1648; see: David de Witt, “Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Drawings: History, Life, Universality” in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/the-core-group-from-pictorial-technique-to-innovative-contour/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
24. https://rkd.nl/images/285887.
25. Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 2009, no. 1324: https://rkd.nl/images/251100.
26. My thanks to curator Justus de Lang for sharing his thoughts on the connection, reflected in part in the hanging of both works near each other in the gallery.
27. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 52-53, no. P1.
28. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e4704.
29. David de Witt, “From Rembrandt’s Nae ‘t leven to Van Hoogstraten’s Zichtbaere Werelt”, in: David de Witt and Leonore van Sloten, Samuel van Hoogstraten. The Illusionist, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2025, pp. 74-79.
30. Adriaen Waiboer, Vermeer and the Masters of Genre Painting: Inspiration and Rivalry, Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland; Washington: National Gallery of Art; Paris: Musée du Louvre, 2017-2018, and specifically on travel: Blaise Ducos, “The “Tour of Holland”: Visitors from Abroad in the United Provinces”, pp. 101-111.
31. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), p. 157.
32. Rudi Ekkart, ‘Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol: The Portraits’, in: Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck: Rembrandt’s Master Pupils, Zwolle, 2018, p. 158; Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘Out of Rembrandt’s Shadow: Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol as History Painters’, pp. 129-131.
33. The etchings by Ferdinand Bol in this article are cited by the Hollstein number, in: F.W.H. Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish Etchings Engravings and Woodcuts, Amsterdam 1950, Vol. 3. pp. 15-35. However, the states noted here are updated, as anticipated in the forthcoming New Hollstein volume.
34. The first one to point this out was Pierre Yver: Supplement au catalogue raisonné de M. M. Gersaint, Helle & Glomy: de toutes les pieces qui forment l’oeuvre de Rembrandt. Amsterdam 1756, pp. 39-40, no.108, although he referred to the third, 1681 edition of the book. The etching is already present in the first, 1644 edition, published in Amsterdam.
35. Den Christelyken Hovelingh has been commonly described as a play, but it is written as a poetic dialogue. If it was meant to be a play and/or if it was ever staged is not known to me. It is not listed as having been staged from 1637 to 1772: see Creative Amsterdam. An E-Humanities Perspective. Onstage. Online Datasystem of Theatre in Amsterdam from the Golden Age to the present: https://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/onstage/plays (accessed 7 July 2024). The title page of the 1642 volume indicates ‘Den Christelyk Hovelingh’. However, the headers on all pages of that volume use the spelling ‘Christelyken’, as do subsequent authors and libraries. See Jan Harmensz. Krul: Den Christelyk Hovelingh, Amsterdam 1642.
36. This appears to have been first noted in N.C.H. Wijngaards.: Jan Harmens Krul: zijn leven, zijn werk en zijn betekenis, Zwolle, 1964, and is also described in: H.C. van Bemmel: Bibliografie van de werken van Jan Hermans Krul, Amsterdam, 1984.
37. David de Witt and Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol: Rembrandt’s Disciple’ in: Bol and Flinck (note 1), p. 48; and: Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol, the Etcher’, in: Bol and Flinck (note 1), p. 207; and Sophia Thomassen, ‘Timeline’, in: Bol and Flinck, 2018 (note 1), p. 11.
38. De Witt and Van Sloten, Bol, 2018 (note 6); Robert Schillemans: Bijbelschilderkunst rond Rembrandt, Utrecht 1989, pp. 31-34.
39. Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5). I have been able to trace only thee copies: Library of the University of Amsterdam (2780 C 51), Royal Library, Den Haag, (KB: 3 C 20:10), and Noord-Hollands Archief, Haarlem (Oude Boekerij: 88 A 16). The copy in Den Haag lacks the page (A2) with Bol’s print.
40. Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5).
41. The 1644 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, First edition. Amsterdam1644) is a folio edition measuring 302 x 190 mm; the 1681 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, 3rd edition. Amsterdam, the widow of van Jan Jacobsz Schipper) is in quarto, measuring 216 mm x 170 mm. and the 1644-45 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, 2nd edition, Amsterdam) is in octavo, measuring 169 x 104 mm. Book and library catalogues commonly ascribe c.1650 as the date for the latter, but the source of this attribution is not clear, and it is in error. See also Van Bemmel, Bibliographie (note 5).
42. Van Bemmel, Bibliographie (note 5); The anonymous copy is in reverse, by an unknown hand, is neither signed nor dated, measures 85 x 74.5 mm, is of the same theme and general composition, but is artistically distinctly different. The shield is blank in this copy of Bol’s etching. I have not found any impressions of this copy that were not part of the printed book. I have identified three other distinct copies after Bol’s print, for a total of four, rather than the single copy identified by Hollstein (note 2).
43. In 1644 and again in 1645 Krul obtained two successive loans, with the second providing funds to pay off the first, to permit him to publish the first two editions of Pampiere Wereld. Krul gave successively each lender volumes of the work, the patent rights and ‘some’ copper plates for the period of the loan. It is not clear if the plates included Bol’s etching. See Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5).
44. Jan Harmensz. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam 1650-51, J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam; J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Joost Hartgers, Amsterdam, 1640; J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Michiel de Groot, Amsterdam, 1662; Jan Harmensz. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam, 1669-72.
45. Hollstein gives only four states; more recently, George C. Kenney lists five, albeit described differently than the six here. See George C. Kenney: The Illustrated Bartsch, vol. 51. Supplement: Netherlandish Artists. Ferdinand Bol. New York 2017, p. 73, no. 18.
46. In addition to the partial burnishing out of Bol’s name on the blade of the spade in the second state, lines are added partially obscuring the remaining portion of the signature; additional background work is added in several places; there is some work added on the scythe, table, book and the skull of the skeleton; and some additional work on the woman’s headdress/cape (fig. 2). The unique impression of this state is touched with black chalk and lead white, including the addition of a domed building in the distant background, horizontal lines below and to the left of the domed building, and the outline of a blank shield (or cartouche) covering the left part of the end of the coffin. Kenney also mentioned this state, but mistakenly describes the building in the background as a state difference. See: Kenney, Bol, 2017 (note 14). Only two other Bol prints have retouchings by the artist that appeared in the subsequent state: The Philosopher, H.6ii, 1643 (Amsterdam, RP-P-BI-1994); and The Young man Wearing a Plumed Cap, H.14i, 1642 (London, 1921,1008.21; and Dresden, A41073). The retouchings for H.6ii and H.14i appear in the plates for the next state of their respective prints. It is interesting to note that all retouched impressions were done in approximately the same period, and that the retouchings for H.6 and H.14 are very small in comparison to the significant retouchings for H.18. It is possible that this is a reflection of Bol’s satisfying his client’s wishes. Retouchings of impressions of other Bol prints are not judged to have been by his hand.
47. My thanks to Jaco Rutgers for this suggestion
48. The fifth state has added substantial additional background work and some work to the woman’s dress, and a bit on the shield, and the skull of the skeleton.
49. The sixth, and final, state has added rather crude extensive reworking consisting of regular patterns of cross-hatching using the burin, for instance on the back of the skull, the inside of the tent, and the clothes of the female courtier. See fig 6.
50. It had long been thought that Rembrandt painted his portrait in 1633. However, more recently, this has been called into question by Ernst van de Watering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 6: Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited, Dordrecht 2017, p. 526, no. 91. There were also family connections; see M. Louttit: ‘The Romantic Dress of Saskia van Ulenborch: Its Pastoral and Theatrical Associations’, The Burlington Magazine 115 (1973), pp. 317-326.
51. Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol in de voetsporen van Rembrandt: Twee herontdekte schilderijen’, in: Rudie van Leeuwen, Lilian Ruhe, and David de Witt, eds, Not Always Rembrandt; 37 studies in Baroque art. Turnhout, Belgium 2023, pp. 20-31.
52. Jan Soet, Soets Clorinde en Dambise, Amsterdam 1640.
53. University of Amsterdam: Creative Amsterdam. An E-Humanities Perspective. Onstage. Online Datasystem of Theatre in Amsterdam from the Golden Age to the present. https://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/onstage/plays/359 (accessed 7 July 2024).
54. N.C.H. Wijngaards, (note 5).
55. Antonio de Guevara: Menosprecio de corte y alabanza de aldea. Valladolid 1539.
56. See: S. Oosterwijk, ‘Morbid morality. The Danse macabre motif in Dutch art of the Golden Age’, in: Ilona Hans-Collas et al. (eds.), Mort n’espargne ne petit ne grant [Texte imprimé] : études autour de la mort et de ses représentations : actes du XVIIIe Congrès international de l’association Danses macabres d’Europe, Paris, 19-23 mars 2019, Paris 2019, pp. 174-195.
57. Translation: Linda Stone-Ferrier: ‘Ferdinand Bol: The Hour of Death’, in: Dutch Prints of Daily Life: Mirrors of Life or Masks of Morals? Lawrence, Kansas: The Spencer Museum of Art of The University of Kansas, 1983, pp. 144-146, credits Oliver C. Phillips, Classics Department, University Of Kansas, for the translation.
58. There is no Bol print dated earlier than H.18, although he may have created one, Abraham’s Sacrifice (H.1), when working in Rembrandt’s studio; however, this is uncertain, as it is not dated.
59. Gerard Roosenboom, Recueil van verscheyde keuren, en costumen. Midtsgaders maniere van procederen binnen de stadt Amsterdam. Eerst gecollecteert en beschreven, door Gerard Rooseboom, Amsterdam, 1656, pp. 120-131.
60. Stadsarchief Amsterdam (hereafter SAA), 5061, 3051 Memorieboek, p. 29.
61. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e4581 (accessed 3 December 2025).
62. Arthur K. Wheelock jr., “Jan Lievens: Bringing new light to an old master”, in: Wheelock Jr. ed, Jan Lievens. A Dutch master rediscovered, exh. cat. Washington: National Gallery of Art; Milwaukee: Milwaukee Art Museum; Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum, 2008-2009, pp. 6-7.
63. SAA, 5075, 1745 not. Jan Quirijnen Spithof, pp. 124-125, 1-3-1644; Abraham Bedius, “Het verblijf van Jan Miense Molenaer te Amsterdam, in documenten”, in: Frederik D.O. Obreen, Archief voor Nederlandsche Kunstgeschiedenis, vol. 7, Rotterdam 1888-1890, p. 293.
64. Arthur K. Wheelock jr., in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2009 (see note 4), pp. 17-18.
65. SAA, 5061, 3063 Huwelijkskrakeelregisters, 8-12-1646.
66. SAA, 5075, 1080, not. Joost van de Ven, ff. 203r-203v, 7-12-1646.
67. “ter saecke sij als haar regeerster bij den req[uiran]t gewoont hadde” (see note 8).
68. “haer beloften van trouw heeft gedaan, van haer in eeuwig niet te sullen verlate & haer een vierkant stucken, neefens een ander silvere stuxkens gegeven & daarbeneffens van hem beslaepen & beswangert” (see note 7). The mentioned silver square piece was a klip, an emergency coinage at that time struck mainly in West Friesland, or a medal/jeton.
69. SAA, 5061, 3064, Huwelijkskrakeelregisters, 14-10-1649.
70. The name Anna or Annetje Jacobs was fairly common; in 1647, eleven children were baptised in Amsterdam whose mother bore a variant of this name.
71. The notarial archives contain many examples of such payments, both as compensation for the woman and as maintenance costs for any illegitimate children. For instance, Jan van de Velde agreed to the payments of two guilders per week in maintenance for the child he had conceived out of wedlock with Trijn Jans in 1636 (SAA, 5075, 601 not. Laurens Lamberti, p. 456, 17-07-1642). Whether this concerns the painter Jan van de Velde (III) from Haarlem, active in Amsterdam, is not clear. In 1661 David Abraham Cardozo paid no less than 1,000 guilders for “defloration” and the maintenance of two children resulting from his extramarital relationship with Dorothea Jans Bentem (SAA, 5075, 2210 not. Adriaen Lock, pp. 1107-1108, 27-05-1661).

Recently, an impressive, large seventeenth-century painting featuring the Christian New Testament feast of Pentecost appeared on the market (fig. 1). The unsigned and undated work was published for the first time in an auction catalogue in December 2020 as: “Dutch School, circa 1650”.⁷² No provenance was offered, other than that it came from an English private collection. There are, however, strong indications to believe this work was executed by the German-Dutch artist Jürgen Ovens. According to Arnold Houbraken (1660-1719), Ovens was a pupil of Rembrandt (1606-1669).⁷³ Although this is uncertain, the painting clearly demonstrates that Ovens was influenced by several of Rembrandt’s religious etchings.

An invoice and old collection catalogues
After having worked in Amsterdam in the 1640s, Ovens set up a studio in Friedrichstadt in his native Schleswig-Holstein in 1651, where he became the preferred painter of Duke Frederick III (1597-1659) the next year.⁷⁴ In 1654, Ovens addressed a handwritten invoice of 500 Reichstaler to the Duke for “the Pentecost of your royal Highness”.⁷⁵ The opening words, “What painting[s] I have submissively made for you […]”, make it clear that the work was commissioned by the Duke.⁷⁶ This Pentecost could very well be the painting being discussed here: the fairly high price indicates that Ovens delivered a sizeable work. Fortunately, this painting can be traced over the next 150 years in collection catalogues of Schloss Gottorf, the main residence of the Dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorf, and Schloss Salzdahlum near Braunschweig, but after about 1815 it seems lost.

The depicted scene is set in a large room, where the Holy Spirit descends upon the apostles and other followers of Jesus Christ while they are in Jerusalem celebrating the Feast of Weeks, as described in the acts of the apostles (Acts 2:1-13): “When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that came down to rest on each of them.”. Looking at the manner in which the work is painted, it can be placed mid-century, as it reflects the developments in Amsterdam around this time in the oeuvre of Govert Flinck (1615-1660) and his circle. The fluid, characteristic brushwork in a large part of Pentecost, the depiction of forms, the use of colours, the distribution of light and dark, the handling of space and the compositional scheme recall the style of Flinck’s pupil Ovens. These aspects compare well with his Marriage of Princess Hedwig Eleonora of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorf with King Charles X of Sweden on the 24th of October 1654, which is signed and has never been questioned (fig. 2).⁷⁷ The whippet dog in the Pentecost corresponds to the one in this painting, whereas the sleeping boy echoes the small child in the centre of Ovens’s painting of The Procession of the Swedish Queen Hedwig Eleonora of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorf (fig. 3).⁷⁸ Furthermore, the boy and dog in the two Eleonora paintings are executed in the same style as those in Pentecost.

The odds that this painting is the work in the abovementioned invoice and catalogues are increased by the rarity of the theme of Pentecost in Northern Baroque art, and the absence of any archival reference to another example by the artist. At the end of the nineteenth century, Pentecost was very likely owned by the American beer brewer John William Brown (1844-1903), in whose memory it was donated to the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences in 1906.⁷⁹ In the course of the twentieth century we lose track of the painting until it resurfaces at the 2020 auction.

We can exclude the possibility that this is the painting appearing in the 1691 estate of Jürgen’s widow Maria Ovens. A “large piece of the sending of the Holy Spirit […]” is mentioned under the section “copies of paintings”.⁸⁰ It is visible to the naked eye that Ovens made several corrections during the creative process, such as the overpainted book at the bottom right, the face of the turbaned man on the balcony and the raised left hand of his brown-haired neighbour, which was originally extended. In all probability the painting with Maria Ovens was a copy after our Pentecost. Unfortunately, all traces of this work are lost.

Ovens looks to Rembrandt
It is most interesting to note that Ovens composed parts of this work by borrowing from no less than seven of Rembrandt’s religious prints. Most obviously, he was inspired by the etching of The Triumph of Mordecai (c. 1641) for the low, draped balcony, in mirror-image, as well as by the motif of the carpet thrown over a white sheet, and even its pattern of wavy lines, rendered in red (fig. 4).⁸¹

The mother under the painted balcony, carrying her son on her left arm, calls to mind the woman with child on the far right in the etching. They are both positioned at more or less the same location in the composition. An old, bearded man standing close to her and raising his hand to his chest is taken over by Ovens for the figure to the far left. His face in turn resembles that of the apostle Saint Peter in Rembrandt’s Hundred Guilder Print from circa 1648 (fig. 5).⁸²

The kneeling, helmeted soldier in the left foreground of the Mordecai etching could very well have been the prototype for Ovens’s apostle – dressed in a brown tunic and wearing a scapular over his left shoulder – who functions as a repoussoir. His hands, folded in prayer near his face, echo those of the kneeling, lightly sketched man to the right in the print. Rembrandt’s small barking dogs likely inspired Ovens to add a whippet to his scene.

Significantly, Ovens’s balcony is the first known (partial) borrowing from Rembrandt’s Mordecai print in the German-speaking areas. Up till now, an engraved copy in mirror-image in the print bible of the German artist Melchior Küsel (possibly 1622-1681/83), published in Augsburg in 1679, was considered the earliest following of Rembrandt’s etching.⁸³

The balding man with outstretched arms in a red robe to the left in Ovens’s painting has stepped out of the Hundred Guilder Print, where he kneels behind Christ. In the etching he turns his eyes to the Saviour, but in the painting he looks up to the Holy Spirit. Ovens granted this figure a more prominent role, uniting the foreground with the middle ground, thereby drawing the viewer into the picture.⁸⁴ Ovens would return to the Hundred Guilder Print a decade later in two drawings of  The Raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-44) , in which he adapts Christ and the surrounding figures.⁸⁵ These sheets testify to his enduring admiration for this masterpiece etching.

From another etching by Rembrandt, his 1639 Death of the Virgin (fig. 6), Ovens borrowed the wooden chair with a low rectangular back and decorated arms in the right foreground.⁸⁶ He turned the chair to the right in order to suggest that the kneeling apostle has just stood up from it. Perhaps the slightly elevated platform in the middle plan of the painting was also taken over from Rembrandt’s print. The upward looking Virgin, wearing a blue veil and seated with an open booklet on her lap, could go back to the etched mourner near the foot of Mary’s deathbed.⁸⁷ The boy with a red cloth over his arm might have been partly modelled after the apostle with outstretched arms standing somewhat separately on the right in The Death of the Virgin, though one, of course, should give Ovens some room for inventions of his own.

Ovens also drew inspiration from slightly older Rembrandt etchings. The prototype for the woman in the orange cloak, presumably Mary Magdalene, was the hooded Virgin who gazes down toward the ground at the bottom right of the large print of The Descent from the Cross: Second Plate that Rembrandt made (together with Johannes Gillisz. van Vliet [1600/10-1668]) in 1633 (fig. 7).⁸⁸ The mourning, bearded man standing behind her recalls the brown-haired figure between the apostle with raised arms in the centre of Ovens’s painting (probably Saint Peter) and the Virgin. The brown-bearded man turning away from the light, next to the column in the background, echoes (in mirror image) the onlooker to the right in Rembrandt’s etching The Circumcision: Small Plate (fig. 8) of circa 1630, and the figure to the left in The Tribute Money (fig. 9), created some five years later.⁸⁹ The man with a book on Ovens’s balcony might even be a free variant of the reader to the far left in this etching. And lastly, the large red curtain to the right recalls the similar element in Rembrandt’s print Medea: or the Marriage of Jason and Creusa from 1648 (fig. 10).⁹⁰

A homage to Rembrandt?
Ovens’s extensive use of figures and motives from Rembrandt’s prints in one single painting is especially striking when we consider that – as far as is known – there are no other such borrowings in any of his paintings.⁹¹ We may assume him to be familiar with the remark by Karel van Mander (1548-1606) that “well-cooked turnips [“rapen”, a pun which also refers to gleanings] make a good soup”, which means that an artist who borrows elements from the works of other masters should do so in such a subtle way that it escapes notice.⁹² Ovens subtly combined figures from several of Rembrandt’s most ambitious, important and technically complicated religious prints, altered their poses and reinterpreted their roles. Thus, he adhered to the contemporary Dutch art-theoretical notion of imitatio: a respectful transformation by the artist of his models.⁹³ Ovens might have wanted to measure up, and pay homage to his possible teacher. He surely will have admired Rembrandt’s mastery of the etching technique. Ovens produced several (history) prints himself, in which the manner of applying etched lines recalls Rembrandt’s graphic work.⁹⁴

Already in the 1630s, several former Rembrandt pupils drew on his prints for their paintings, for instance Flinck’s Annunciation to the Shepherds of 1639, which goes back to the 1634 etching of the same theme.⁹⁵ Such examples may have provided an impetus for Ovens to base Pentecost in part on Rembrandt etchings. Aert de Gelder (1645-1727), Rembrandt’s last known pupil, drew extensively on his master’s prints when realising history paintings such as his Passion Series, dating from as late as circa 1715.⁹⁶ And, for example, most of the figures in De Gelder’s 1684 painting The Presentation in the Temple are taken from Rembrandt’s etching of circa 1640.⁹⁷ In around 1651, Heinrich Jansen (1625-1667) from Flensburg, who studied with Rembrandt in Amsterdam between 1645 and 1648, painted a copy of his 1636 print of Christ before Pilate: Large Plate, made in collaboration with Van Vliet, for an epitaph in the church of Mary in Husum, not far from Friedrichstadt.⁹⁸ Perhaps Ovens had already met Jansen during his apprenticeship in Amsterdam. Ovens and Frederick III could certainly have known Jansen’s painting in Husum, which is, just like Pentecost, almost square-shaped. It might have (further) triggered their desire to have a large painting produced after Rembrandt’s graphic works.

Maria Ovens’s 1691 estate inventory does not list any Rembrandt etchings, but her well-to-do husband could have acquired and studied them in Amsterdam. Although Ovens might not have been taught directly by Rembrandt, he certainly moved in his circle. Next to being an artist, Ovens was a collector and an art dealer as well. In November 1652, shortly after the painter returned to Schleswig-Holstein, Frederick III paid him for a copper plate that had been engraved in Amsterdam, evidently a commission from the Duke.⁹⁹ Ovens might also have sold graphic work by Rembrandt in Northern Germany.¹⁰⁰ However, no information is available about possible ownership of Rembrandt prints by Frederick III.¹⁰¹

The idea that Ovens studied under Rembrandt is not borne out by his painting of Pentecost. The dynamic, colourful canvas bears little stylistic resemblance to the painted oeuvre of the famous artist. However, by way of his prints, the great Dutch master occupied Jürgen more than was hitherto known.

1. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen vol. 2, Amsterdam 1719, p. 272: “Hy verkeerde in den herfst van zyn leven wel meest met gemeene luiden, en zulke die de Konst hanteerden.”
2. Ernst van de Wetering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings V: The Small-Scale History Paintings, Dordrecht 2011, pp. 3-6; vol. 6, pp. 296-297; and: Eric Jan Sluijter, in Govert Flinck: Reflecting History, Cleves 2015, pp. 68-69.
3. Ben Broos, “Saskia, Rembrandt’s Frisian Bride”, in: Marlies Stoter (ed.), Rembrandt & Saskia: love and marriage in the Dutch Golden Age, Zwolle, 2018, pp. 23-24.
4. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), pp. 100, 174.
5. Epco Runia, David de Witt, Rembrandt’s Social Network: family, friends, and acquaintances, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2019.
6. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e12959, with reference to a letter from Constantijn Huygens Jr. to his brother Christiaen, of 6 December 1663, in the Leiden University Library; see Hendrick E. van Gelder, “De jonge Huygensen en Rembrandt”, Oud Holland 73 (1958), pp. 238-241, identifying the drawings, currently: River Scene with Boats and Figures Bathing, c. 1590/1595. Pen in brown, 111 x 205 mm. Formerly Chatsworth, Duke of Devonshire Collection; most recently, Alfred Taubman sale, New York, (Sotheby’s), 27 January 2016, lot 33 (as the original, but without noting the Rembrandt provenance); and the copy with Everhard Jabach in Paris: pen in brown, 112 x 186 mm. Washington, National Gallery of Art, inv. no. NGA 72075 (as also as the original).
7. David de Witt, Abraham van Dijck (1635-1680): Life and Work of a Late Rembrandt Pupil, Zwolle 2020, p. 32.
8. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandtschüler vol. 2, Landau 1987, p. 1951.
9. Michiel Roscam Abbing, Eigentijdse bronnen & oeuvre van gesigneerde schilderijen, Leiden 1993, pp. 42-49. 
10. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 12-13.
11. Abraham van Dijck, The Widow of Zarephath and her Son, signed, c. 1655, oil on canvas, 115.6 x 95.9 cm.; Portrait of a Fifty-Year-Old Woman, signed and dated 1655, oil on panel, 75 x 62 cm, both Kingston ON, Agnes Etherington Art Centre, acc. nos. 60-001 and 56-003.10; see: De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 98-101, nos. P22, P23.
12. First spotted by Sabrina Meloni, after cleaning in 2014. 
13. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 126, no. P35.
14. Sale, Milan (Lucas Casa d’Arte), 21 May 2025, lot 220.
15. Monogrammed and dated 1657, oil on panel, 35 x 29.5 cm, The Hague, with S. Nijstad, in 1983; De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 118, no. P31.
16. The idea that the Washington painting had been altered from a generic scholar into a St. Paul was already proposed by Arthur K. Wheelock, in: Arthur K. Wheelock, Rembrandt’s Late Religious Portraits, Washington: National Gallery of Art; Los Angeles: Getty Museum, 2005, pp. 141-157; followed by Van de Wetering: Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited: a complete survey II, Dordrecht 2017, 2017, cat. 254, p. 640 (as c. 1655). The new study brings conclusive evidence in support of this scenario, based on an extensive technical research: Marjorie Wieseman, John K. Delaney and Kathryn A. Dooley, “Compositional Changes in Rembrandt’s The Apostle Paul: New Technical Findings”, Rembrandt as a Painter: New Technical Research. ArtMatters. International Journal for Technical Art History. Special Issue #2, 2025, pp. 80-92. https://doi.org/10.64655/AM.si25r.b1963 (accessed 16 December 2025). 
17. The connection with an interim state of the painting was already surmised by Werner Sumowski, in: Drawings of the Rembrandt School, vol. 11: Anonymous Drawings (manuscript left unpublished on his death in 2015; forthcoming in an edition translated and edited by the author, with Brill).
18. Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School vol. 5, New York, 1981, p. 2712, no. 1224x: https://rkd.nl/images/311330.
19. Van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s (see note 16), p. 650-651, no. 265: https://rkd.nl/images/54379.
20. David de Witt, “A New and Individual Approach to Contour: 1653, 1658 and Beyond”, in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/a-new-and-individual-approach-to-contour-1653-1658-and-beyond/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
21. https://rkd.nl/images/289005.
22. Samuel van Hoogstraten, Madonna and Child, c. 1660, oil on canvas, 92 x 71.2 cm, Amsterdam (Christie’s), 25 May 2016, lot 74: https://rkd.nl/images/314055.
23. David de Witt, “Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying under a Genius”, Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying Under a Genius, exh. cat. Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2015, p. 85, with reference to:  Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 1951; also posited in Roscam Abbing, Schilder (see note 9), p. 40. It is true that Maes consulted drawings by Van Hoogstraten for his early painting of Christ Blessing the Children in London, but this is very likely because he had access to Van Hoogstraten’s drawings left behind in his studio when he left for Vienna and Italy in 1651: they were moreover older drawings, from c. 1646-1648; see: David de Witt, “Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Drawings: History, Life, Universality” in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/the-core-group-from-pictorial-technique-to-innovative-contour/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
24. https://rkd.nl/images/285887.
25. Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 2009, no. 1324: https://rkd.nl/images/251100.
26. My thanks to curator Justus de Lang for sharing his thoughts on the connection, reflected in part in the hanging of both works near each other in the gallery.
27. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 52-53, no. P1.
28. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e4704.
29. David de Witt, “From Rembrandt’s Nae ‘t leven to Van Hoogstraten’s Zichtbaere Werelt”, in: David de Witt and Leonore van Sloten, Samuel van Hoogstraten. The Illusionist, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2025, pp. 74-79.
30. Adriaen Waiboer, Vermeer and the Masters of Genre Painting: Inspiration and Rivalry, Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland; Washington: National Gallery of Art; Paris: Musée du Louvre, 2017-2018, and specifically on travel: Blaise Ducos, “The “Tour of Holland”: Visitors from Abroad in the United Provinces”, pp. 101-111.
31. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), p. 157.
32. Rudi Ekkart, ‘Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol: The Portraits’, in: Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck: Rembrandt’s Master Pupils, Zwolle, 2018, p. 158; Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘Out of Rembrandt’s Shadow: Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol as History Painters’, pp. 129-131.
33. The etchings by Ferdinand Bol in this article are cited by the Hollstein number, in: F.W.H. Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish Etchings Engravings and Woodcuts, Amsterdam 1950, Vol. 3. pp. 15-35. However, the states noted here are updated, as anticipated in the forthcoming New Hollstein volume.
34. The first one to point this out was Pierre Yver: Supplement au catalogue raisonné de M. M. Gersaint, Helle & Glomy: de toutes les pieces qui forment l’oeuvre de Rembrandt. Amsterdam 1756, pp. 39-40, no.108, although he referred to the third, 1681 edition of the book. The etching is already present in the first, 1644 edition, published in Amsterdam.
35. Den Christelyken Hovelingh has been commonly described as a play, but it is written as a poetic dialogue. If it was meant to be a play and/or if it was ever staged is not known to me. It is not listed as having been staged from 1637 to 1772: see Creative Amsterdam. An E-Humanities Perspective. Onstage. Online Datasystem of Theatre in Amsterdam from the Golden Age to the present: https://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/onstage/plays (accessed 7 July 2024). The title page of the 1642 volume indicates ‘Den Christelyk Hovelingh’. However, the headers on all pages of that volume use the spelling ‘Christelyken’, as do subsequent authors and libraries. See Jan Harmensz. Krul: Den Christelyk Hovelingh, Amsterdam 1642.
36. This appears to have been first noted in N.C.H. Wijngaards.: Jan Harmens Krul: zijn leven, zijn werk en zijn betekenis, Zwolle, 1964, and is also described in: H.C. van Bemmel: Bibliografie van de werken van Jan Hermans Krul, Amsterdam, 1984.
37. David de Witt and Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol: Rembrandt’s Disciple’ in: Bol and Flinck (note 1), p. 48; and: Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol, the Etcher’, in: Bol and Flinck (note 1), p. 207; and Sophia Thomassen, ‘Timeline’, in: Bol and Flinck, 2018 (note 1), p. 11.
38. De Witt and Van Sloten, Bol, 2018 (note 6); Robert Schillemans: Bijbelschilderkunst rond Rembrandt, Utrecht 1989, pp. 31-34.
39. Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5). I have been able to trace only thee copies: Library of the University of Amsterdam (2780 C 51), Royal Library, Den Haag, (KB: 3 C 20:10), and Noord-Hollands Archief, Haarlem (Oude Boekerij: 88 A 16). The copy in Den Haag lacks the page (A2) with Bol’s print.
40. Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5).
41. The 1644 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, First edition. Amsterdam1644) is a folio edition measuring 302 x 190 mm; the 1681 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, 3rd edition. Amsterdam, the widow of van Jan Jacobsz Schipper) is in quarto, measuring 216 mm x 170 mm. and the 1644-45 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, 2nd edition, Amsterdam) is in octavo, measuring 169 x 104 mm. Book and library catalogues commonly ascribe c.1650 as the date for the latter, but the source of this attribution is not clear, and it is in error. See also Van Bemmel, Bibliographie (note 5).
42. Van Bemmel, Bibliographie (note 5); The anonymous copy is in reverse, by an unknown hand, is neither signed nor dated, measures 85 x 74.5 mm, is of the same theme and general composition, but is artistically distinctly different. The shield is blank in this copy of Bol’s etching. I have not found any impressions of this copy that were not part of the printed book. I have identified three other distinct copies after Bol’s print, for a total of four, rather than the single copy identified by Hollstein (note 2).
43. In 1644 and again in 1645 Krul obtained two successive loans, with the second providing funds to pay off the first, to permit him to publish the first two editions of Pampiere Wereld. Krul gave successively each lender volumes of the work, the patent rights and ‘some’ copper plates for the period of the loan. It is not clear if the plates included Bol’s etching. See Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5).
44. Jan Harmensz. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam 1650-51, J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam; J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Joost Hartgers, Amsterdam, 1640; J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Michiel de Groot, Amsterdam, 1662; Jan Harmensz. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam, 1669-72.
45. Hollstein gives only four states; more recently, George C. Kenney lists five, albeit described differently than the six here. See George C. Kenney: The Illustrated Bartsch, vol. 51. Supplement: Netherlandish Artists. Ferdinand Bol. New York 2017, p. 73, no. 18.
46. In addition to the partial burnishing out of Bol’s name on the blade of the spade in the second state, lines are added partially obscuring the remaining portion of the signature; additional background work is added in several places; there is some work added on the scythe, table, book and the skull of the skeleton; and some additional work on the woman’s headdress/cape (fig. 2). The unique impression of this state is touched with black chalk and lead white, including the addition of a domed building in the distant background, horizontal lines below and to the left of the domed building, and the outline of a blank shield (or cartouche) covering the left part of the end of the coffin. Kenney also mentioned this state, but mistakenly describes the building in the background as a state difference. See: Kenney, Bol, 2017 (note 14). Only two other Bol prints have retouchings by the artist that appeared in the subsequent state: The Philosopher, H.6ii, 1643 (Amsterdam, RP-P-BI-1994); and The Young man Wearing a Plumed Cap, H.14i, 1642 (London, 1921,1008.21; and Dresden, A41073). The retouchings for H.6ii and H.14i appear in the plates for the next state of their respective prints. It is interesting to note that all retouched impressions were done in approximately the same period, and that the retouchings for H.6 and H.14 are very small in comparison to the significant retouchings for H.18. It is possible that this is a reflection of Bol’s satisfying his client’s wishes. Retouchings of impressions of other Bol prints are not judged to have been by his hand.
47. My thanks to Jaco Rutgers for this suggestion
48. The fifth state has added substantial additional background work and some work to the woman’s dress, and a bit on the shield, and the skull of the skeleton.
49. The sixth, and final, state has added rather crude extensive reworking consisting of regular patterns of cross-hatching using the burin, for instance on the back of the skull, the inside of the tent, and the clothes of the female courtier. See fig 6.
50. It had long been thought that Rembrandt painted his portrait in 1633. However, more recently, this has been called into question by Ernst van de Watering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 6: Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited, Dordrecht 2017, p. 526, no. 91. There were also family connections; see M. Louttit: ‘The Romantic Dress of Saskia van Ulenborch: Its Pastoral and Theatrical Associations’, The Burlington Magazine 115 (1973), pp. 317-326.
51. Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol in de voetsporen van Rembrandt: Twee herontdekte schilderijen’, in: Rudie van Leeuwen, Lilian Ruhe, and David de Witt, eds, Not Always Rembrandt; 37 studies in Baroque art. Turnhout, Belgium 2023, pp. 20-31.
52. Jan Soet, Soets Clorinde en Dambise, Amsterdam 1640.
53. University of Amsterdam: Creative Amsterdam. An E-Humanities Perspective. Onstage. Online Datasystem of Theatre in Amsterdam from the Golden Age to the present. https://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/onstage/plays/359 (accessed 7 July 2024).
54. N.C.H. Wijngaards, (note 5).
55. Antonio de Guevara: Menosprecio de corte y alabanza de aldea. Valladolid 1539.
56. See: S. Oosterwijk, ‘Morbid morality. The Danse macabre motif in Dutch art of the Golden Age’, in: Ilona Hans-Collas et al. (eds.), Mort n’espargne ne petit ne grant [Texte imprimé] : études autour de la mort et de ses représentations : actes du XVIIIe Congrès international de l’association Danses macabres d’Europe, Paris, 19-23 mars 2019, Paris 2019, pp. 174-195.
57. Translation: Linda Stone-Ferrier: ‘Ferdinand Bol: The Hour of Death’, in: Dutch Prints of Daily Life: Mirrors of Life or Masks of Morals? Lawrence, Kansas: The Spencer Museum of Art of The University of Kansas, 1983, pp. 144-146, credits Oliver C. Phillips, Classics Department, University Of Kansas, for the translation.
58. There is no Bol print dated earlier than H.18, although he may have created one, Abraham’s Sacrifice (H.1), when working in Rembrandt’s studio; however, this is uncertain, as it is not dated.
59. Gerard Roosenboom, Recueil van verscheyde keuren, en costumen. Midtsgaders maniere van procederen binnen de stadt Amsterdam. Eerst gecollecteert en beschreven, door Gerard Rooseboom, Amsterdam, 1656, pp. 120-131.
60. Stadsarchief Amsterdam (hereafter SAA), 5061, 3051 Memorieboek, p. 29.
61. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e4581 (accessed 3 December 2025).
62. Arthur K. Wheelock jr., “Jan Lievens: Bringing new light to an old master”, in: Wheelock Jr. ed, Jan Lievens. A Dutch master rediscovered, exh. cat. Washington: National Gallery of Art; Milwaukee: Milwaukee Art Museum; Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum, 2008-2009, pp. 6-7.
63. SAA, 5075, 1745 not. Jan Quirijnen Spithof, pp. 124-125, 1-3-1644; Abraham Bedius, “Het verblijf van Jan Miense Molenaer te Amsterdam, in documenten”, in: Frederik D.O. Obreen, Archief voor Nederlandsche Kunstgeschiedenis, vol. 7, Rotterdam 1888-1890, p. 293.
64. Arthur K. Wheelock jr., in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2009 (see note 4), pp. 17-18.
65. SAA, 5061, 3063 Huwelijkskrakeelregisters, 8-12-1646.
66. SAA, 5075, 1080, not. Joost van de Ven, ff. 203r-203v, 7-12-1646.
67. “ter saecke sij als haar regeerster bij den req[uiran]t gewoont hadde” (see note 8).
68. “haer beloften van trouw heeft gedaan, van haer in eeuwig niet te sullen verlate & haer een vierkant stucken, neefens een ander silvere stuxkens gegeven & daarbeneffens van hem beslaepen & beswangert” (see note 7). The mentioned silver square piece was a klip, an emergency coinage at that time struck mainly in West Friesland, or a medal/jeton.
69. SAA, 5061, 3064, Huwelijkskrakeelregisters, 14-10-1649.
70. The name Anna or Annetje Jacobs was fairly common; in 1647, eleven children were baptised in Amsterdam whose mother bore a variant of this name.
71. The notarial archives contain many examples of such payments, both as compensation for the woman and as maintenance costs for any illegitimate children. For instance, Jan van de Velde agreed to the payments of two guilders per week in maintenance for the child he had conceived out of wedlock with Trijn Jans in 1636 (SAA, 5075, 601 not. Laurens Lamberti, p. 456, 17-07-1642). Whether this concerns the painter Jan van de Velde (III) from Haarlem, active in Amsterdam, is not clear. In 1661 David Abraham Cardozo paid no less than 1,000 guilders for “defloration” and the maintenance of two children resulting from his extramarital relationship with Dorothea Jans Bentem (SAA, 5075, 2210 not. Adriaen Lock, pp. 1107-1108, 27-05-1661).
72. London (Christie’s), 17 December 2020 (online auction 18877), lot 231 (inaccurately described as 185.4 x 195.5 cm); Old Master Paintings, Vienna (Dorotheum), 10 November 2021, lot 82 (as Jürgen Ovens, Pentecost).
73. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen I, Amsterdam 1718, p. 273.
74. Constanze Köster, Jürgen Ovens (1623-1678). Maler in Schleswig-Holstein und Amsterdam, Petersberg 2017, p. 53; pp. 327-328, Qu. II.A.7.
75. Archive of Schleswig-Holstein (LAS), Abt. 7, no. 6504, f. 1r; Köster 2017 (see note 3), pp. 37-38; p. 326, Qu. II.A.2.
76. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 38.
77. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 389, G145.
78. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 390, G147.
79. The Eighteenth Year Book of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, 1905-1906, pp. 70, 124, 224; “Department of Fine Arts”, The Museum News (Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences) 1 (1906) no. 10, p. 144.
80. Handwritten list of Maria Ovens’s estate (private collection, location unknown), cited after Harry Schmidt, “Das Nachlass-Inventar des Malers Jürgen Ovens”, Oud-Holland 32 (1914), p. 44, no. 16, note 7; Harry Schmidt, Jürgen Ovens. Sein Leben und seine Werke. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der niederländischen Malerei im XVII. Jahrhundert, Kiel 1922, p. 150, under no. 59a, p. 271, note 26 (as probably a copy after an original by Ovens); Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 39; p. 325, Qu. I.4.c.
81. Erik Hinterding, Jaco Rutgers, The New Hollstein, Dutch & Flemish etchings, engravings and woodcuts, 1450-1700. Rembrandt, Ouderkerk aan den IJssel 2013, text 2, pp. 59-60, no. 185.
82. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 151-154, no. 239.
83. Melchior Küsel, Icones Biblicae Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Figuren biblischer Historien alten und neuen Testaments, Augsburg 1679, ‘Book of Esther, Chapter 6’, fig. 20; reprint Hildesheim 1968. See also: Peter van der Coelen, ‘Rembrandt in Duitsland – Iconografie en verspreiding van zijn etsen in de zeventiende eeuw’, Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 2004, no. 1-2, p. 3, fig. 2.
84. or a mirror-image of this man in the Hundred Guilder Print, see: Ernst van de Wetering et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings V. Small-scale history paintings, Dordrecht 2011, p. 144, fig. 4.
85. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 397, Z12-13.
86. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), pp. 39-41, no. 173.
87. The presence of Mary or of other women at Pentecost, such as Mary Magdalene, is usually inferred from Acts 1:14: “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus […]”.
88. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 1, pp. 189-191, no. 119.
89. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 1, p. 84, no. 55; pp. 220-221, no. 138.
90. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 158-159, no. 241.
91. The only possible exception in this respect is Ovens’s painted self-portrait from c. 1652 in the Hamburger Kunsthalle (inv. no. HK-26), which seems to go back to Rembrandt’s famous 1639 etching Self-Portrait leaning on a Stone Sill. See: Patrick Larsen, “The relationship between Govert Flinck and Jürgen Ovens”, in: Stephanie S. Dickey (ed.), Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck. New research, Zwolle 2017, p. 182, fig. 12.2, p. 184; Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 33-35, no. 171.
92. Karel van Mander, Het schilder-boeck, Haarlem 1604, fol. 5r; Philips Angel, Lof der schilder-konst, Leiden 1642, pp. 36-37.
93. For Ovens’s artistic appropriations of figures and motives from seventeenth-century art of the Low Countries during his Northern German periods, see: Patrick Larsen, “The Imitation of Dutch and Flemish Art in Jürgen Ovens’ (1623-1678) Paintings in Schleswig-Holstein”, in: Rieke van Leeuwen, Juliette Roding (eds.), Masters of Mobility. Cultural exchange between the Netherlands and the German lands in the long 17th century (Gerson Digital VI), The Hague: RKD, 2020, https://masters-of-mobility.rkdstudies.nl/13-the-imitation-of-dutch-and-flemish-art-in-j%C3%BCrgen-ovens-1623-1678-paintings-in-schleswig-holstein/.
94.  Nadine M. Orenstein, “Printmaking among artists of the Rembrandt School”, in: Stephanie S. Dickey (ed.), Rembrandt and his circle. Insights and discoveries, Amsterdam 2017, p. 308, fig. 16.3. For Ovens’s prints, see: Tilman Falk, Robert Zijlma, “Jürgen Ovens”, in: Hollstein’s German engravings, etchings and woodcuts, 1400-1700, vol. XXXI, Amsterdam 1991, pp. 61-74, nos. 1-10b; Köster 2017 (see note 3), pp. 415-416, R1-R7.
95. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler II, Landau/Pfalz 1983, p. 1020, no. 615; Hinterding, Rutgers (see note 10), text 1, pp. 201-202, no. 125.
96. Guus Sluiter, “‘De Passie, anders de Historie van den lydenden Christus’. Arent de Gelders Passieserie”, in: Peter Schoon et al., Arent de Gelder (1645-1727). Rembrandts laatste leerling, exh. cat. Dordrecht: Dordrechts Museum; Cologne: Wallraf–Richartz-Museum, 1998, pp. 73-75, figs. 2-13; pp. 78-80, 85; Guus Sluiter, “De fascinatie van Arent de Gelder voor Rembrandts etsen”, Bulletin Dordrechts Museum 22 (1998), pp. 35-45.
97. Sumowski 1983 (see note 24), p. 1163, no. 738; Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 57-58, no. 184.
98. Sumowski 1983 (see note 24), p. 1421, no. 935; Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 1, pp. 251-253, no. 155.
99. LAS, Abt. 7, no. 2311, fol. 90r; Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 304, note 195; p. 332, Qu. II.B.1.1652. Also see: Patrick Larsen, “Jürgen Ovens (1623-1678) as an Art Agent for the Dukes of Gottorf”, in: Rieke van Leeuwen et al., The Big Picture. Collecting Dutch and Flemish Art in Germany 1600-1850 (Gerson Digital VIII), The Hague: RKD, 2022, https://the-big-picture.rkdstudies.nl/2-jürgen-ovens-16231678-as-an-art-agent-for-the-dukes-of-gottorf/.
100. Rembrandt prints were offered for sale in the German-speaking lands fairly early. See Van der Coelen 2004 (see note 12), pp. 5-15; Jaco Rutgers, “Rembrandt op papier. De rol van prenten bij het vestigen van Rembrandts reputatie als schilder”, in: Jaco Rutgers, Mieke Rijnders (eds.), Rembrandt in perspectief. De veranderende visie op de meester en zijn werk, Zwolle 2014, p. 122.
101. Neither the so-called Gottorf account books nor the 1694, 1710 and 1743 inventories of Gottorf castle mention works on paper by Rembrandt.

With the passing of Sébastien Abraham Corneille Dudok van Heel on 20 January 2025 at the age of 86, we have lost a distinguished archivist, historian and art historian, and a distinct voice and colourful character within the field of Rembrandt studies. Bas, as he was known to his family, friends and colleagues, was a free and independent spirit, sharp-minded and outspoken, with an infectious sense of humour. His home was always open to family and friends as well as to colleagues from around the world; he was an exceptionally generous host.

When it came to scholarship, Bas was uncompromising, some might even say stubborn. Facts to him were essential for any kind of research, and disregard for them was unacceptable. Bas presented his views with great conviction and could be impatient and unforgiving in academic discourse. At the same time, sitting in the corner of his sofa by the window overlooking the Prinsengracht, and in his last home the Reguliersgracht, Bas was generous with his time and loved to share his own findings, his phenomenal knowledge, and his opinions. Many will fondly remember his unique way of talking about Amsterdamers of past centuries as if they were neighbours. Bas connected easily with younger generations, despite never having operated a computer or a smart phone. His writings revolved around sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Amsterdam, its art and people and their place in history and society, long before ‘contextualising’ became a buzzword.

Born in Bergen-op-Zoom and raised in Amersfoort, Bas moved to Amsterdam after a brief stint as an assistant teacher; the city remained his home for the rest of his life. From 1969, he was employed by the City Archives Amsterdam (then called Gemeentearchief). Bas soon passed the oral exam required to read history at the University of Amsterdam (as he did not have the relevant secondary school qualifications); he graduated in 1979. Aged 63, he took early retirement from the Archives. Bas was proud that he overcame subsequent challenges and obtained his PhD in art history at Radboud University in Nijmegen in 2006.

Bas’s interest in Rembrandt developed at the Archives under the tutelage of the eminent scholar of Amsterdam, Isabella H. van Eeghen (1913-1996). It is probably fair to say that Bas initially took inspiration more from documents relating to Rembrandt than the artist’s works. His visit to the paintings section of the vast exhibition at the Rijksmuseum in 1956, celebrating the 350^th anniversary of Rembrandt’s birth left him far from impressed. The 18-year-old was deeply disappointed by what he recalled decades later vividly as the “poepkleuren” (poo colours) of most paintings on display. The 300^th anniversary of Rembrandt’s death in 1969 provided him with a first occasion to publish, unleashing a steady stream of articles and essays, many devoted to the artist’s life and work, over the following 50 years.

With his groundbreaking Rembrandt biography for the catalogue of the memorable exhibition in Berlin, Amsterdam and London (1991-1992), Bas reshaped the understanding of the artist. A thorough analysis of the Rembrandt documents (to the publication of which, in 1979, he had contributed significantly) placed the artist firmly in his artistic and social environment. He included pioneering maps of Amsterdam, pinpointing the homes of the artist, colleagues, patrons and collectors, visualising his essential social networks. He also threw more light on Rembrandt’s often questionable behaviour towards contemporaries, including his partner Geertje Dircx. Bas elaborated on the latter aspect in the biography for the exhibition catalogue Rembrandt’s Women (Edinburgh and London 2001), an essay that was also published separately by the Rembrandt House Museum.

His PhD thesis, De jonge Rembrandt onder tijdgenoten (The Young Rembrandt among Contemporaries, 2006), based on seminal, revised and enlarged articles, contains a wealth of information, including on artists such as Pieter Lastman and his circle. It places Rembrandt and his art in the context of the religious confrontations of the 1620s and 1630s. Bas continued to elaborate upon themes of this book, for example on Hendrick Uylenburgh’s workshop and its significance for portraiture in Amsterdam, exploring Rembrandt’s role, and suggesting an intriguing cameo appearance of Frans Hals, in 1633. He summarised the fruits of this research in his last publication on Rembrandt, for the exhibition catalogue Rembrandt and Amsterdam Portraiture 1590-1670 (Madrid 2020).

While this latter essay is available in English, most of Bas’s articles appeared in Dutch, in periodicals such as Maandblad and Jaarboek van het Genootschap Amstelodamum, Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis, Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie and De Nederlandsche Leeuw. It is to be hoped that his PhD thesis and a selection of his ground-breaking articles will be made accessible in English in the future, to benefit international Rembrandt research.

Many will remember Bas as an outstanding Rembrandt scholar, but he was a prolific author on a wide range of subjects and artists, from Jacob Cornelisz to Frans Hals and Jacob de Wit, and from the history of collecting to that of the full-length portrait in Amsterdam, among others.

However, his magnum opus is Van Amsterdamse burgers tot Europese aristocraten (From Amsterdam Burghers to European Aristocrats), a multi-volume monument to his decades-long research in the archives. It explores an early 15th-century Amsterdam couple and the three branches of their family. Their patrician descendants for centuries dominated the economy, politics and culture, at first in Amsterdam, subsequently expanding across the Dutch Republic, its colonies, and beyond. The books contain a staggering wealth of information and will remain immensely useful to historians, genealogists, heraldists, and social as well as art historians. The first two volumes were published in 2008, followed by volumes IV to VI in 2024, together covering two of the three branches of the family. Volume III, containing the essays accompanying the latter volumes, was finished shortly before Bas died and a group of dedicated friends and colleagues is working towards its publication in the near future.

Suffering from poor eyesight since childhood, Bas never rode a bicycle – highly unusual in the Netherlands – but walked whenever possible. Building on this fitness, he took to bodybuilding in his early eighties. And, as was characteristic of him, he did so systematically and with enormous discipline, and thus also with the desired, visible results – of which he was very proud. It was this extraordinary strength of mind and body that allowed him to complete his magnum opus during the final two years of his life, even while suffering from terminal cancer.

Bas Dudok van Heel will live on through his profound scholarship, and in our memories. Many of us have not only lost a special colleague but also a dear friend.

Christian Tico Seifert
Senior Curator (Northern European Art), National Galleries of Scotland, Edinburgh

1. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen vol. 2, Amsterdam 1719, p. 272: “Hy verkeerde in den herfst van zyn leven wel meest met gemeene luiden, en zulke die de Konst hanteerden.”
2. Ernst van de Wetering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings V: The Small-Scale History Paintings, Dordrecht 2011, pp. 3-6; vol. 6, pp. 296-297; and: Eric Jan Sluijter, in Govert Flinck: Reflecting History, Cleves 2015, pp. 68-69.
3. Ben Broos, “Saskia, Rembrandt’s Frisian Bride”, in: Marlies Stoter (ed.), Rembrandt & Saskia: love and marriage in the Dutch Golden Age, Zwolle, 2018, pp. 23-24.
4. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), pp. 100, 174.
5. Epco Runia, David de Witt, Rembrandt’s Social Network: family, friends, and acquaintances, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2019.
6. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e12959, with reference to a letter from Constantijn Huygens Jr. to his brother Christiaen, of 6 December 1663, in the Leiden University Library; see Hendrick E. van Gelder, “De jonge Huygensen en Rembrandt”, Oud Holland 73 (1958), pp. 238-241, identifying the drawings, currently: River Scene with Boats and Figures Bathing, c. 1590/1595. Pen in brown, 111 x 205 mm. Formerly Chatsworth, Duke of Devonshire Collection; most recently, Alfred Taubman sale, New York, (Sotheby’s), 27 January 2016, lot 33 (as the original, but without noting the Rembrandt provenance); and the copy with Everhard Jabach in Paris: pen in brown, 112 x 186 mm. Washington, National Gallery of Art, inv. no. NGA 72075 (as also as the original).
7. David de Witt, Abraham van Dijck (1635-1680): Life and Work of a Late Rembrandt Pupil, Zwolle 2020, p. 32.
8. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandtschüler vol. 2, Landau 1987, p. 1951.
9. Michiel Roscam Abbing, Eigentijdse bronnen & oeuvre van gesigneerde schilderijen, Leiden 1993, pp. 42-49. 
10. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 12-13.
11. Abraham van Dijck, The Widow of Zarephath and her Son, signed, c. 1655, oil on canvas, 115.6 x 95.9 cm.; Portrait of a Fifty-Year-Old Woman, signed and dated 1655, oil on panel, 75 x 62 cm, both Kingston ON, Agnes Etherington Art Centre, acc. nos. 60-001 and 56-003.10; see: De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 98-101, nos. P22, P23.
12. First spotted by Sabrina Meloni, after cleaning in 2014. 
13. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 126, no. P35.
14. Sale, Milan (Lucas Casa d’Arte), 21 May 2025, lot 220.
15. Monogrammed and dated 1657, oil on panel, 35 x 29.5 cm, The Hague, with S. Nijstad, in 1983; De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 118, no. P31.
16. The idea that the Washington painting had been altered from a generic scholar into a St. Paul was already proposed by Arthur K. Wheelock, in: Arthur K. Wheelock, Rembrandt’s Late Religious Portraits, Washington: National Gallery of Art; Los Angeles: Getty Museum, 2005, pp. 141-157; followed by Van de Wetering: Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited: a complete survey II, Dordrecht 2017, 2017, cat. 254, p. 640 (as c. 1655). The new study brings conclusive evidence in support of this scenario, based on an extensive technical research: Marjorie Wieseman, John K. Delaney and Kathryn A. Dooley, “Compositional Changes in Rembrandt’s The Apostle Paul: New Technical Findings”, Rembrandt as a Painter: New Technical Research. ArtMatters. International Journal for Technical Art History. Special Issue #2, 2025, pp. 80-92. https://doi.org/10.64655/AM.si25r.b1963 (accessed 16 December 2025). 
17. The connection with an interim state of the painting was already surmised by Werner Sumowski, in: Drawings of the Rembrandt School, vol. 11: Anonymous Drawings (manuscript left unpublished on his death in 2015; forthcoming in an edition translated and edited by the author, with Brill).
18. Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School vol. 5, New York, 1981, p. 2712, no. 1224x: https://rkd.nl/images/311330.
19. Van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s (see note 16), p. 650-651, no. 265: https://rkd.nl/images/54379.
20. David de Witt, “A New and Individual Approach to Contour: 1653, 1658 and Beyond”, in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/a-new-and-individual-approach-to-contour-1653-1658-and-beyond/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
21. https://rkd.nl/images/289005.
22. Samuel van Hoogstraten, Madonna and Child, c. 1660, oil on canvas, 92 x 71.2 cm, Amsterdam (Christie’s), 25 May 2016, lot 74: https://rkd.nl/images/314055.
23. David de Witt, “Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying under a Genius”, Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying Under a Genius, exh. cat. Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2015, p. 85, with reference to:  Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 1951; also posited in Roscam Abbing, Schilder (see note 9), p. 40. It is true that Maes consulted drawings by Van Hoogstraten for his early painting of Christ Blessing the Children in London, but this is very likely because he had access to Van Hoogstraten’s drawings left behind in his studio when he left for Vienna and Italy in 1651: they were moreover older drawings, from c. 1646-1648; see: David de Witt, “Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Drawings: History, Life, Universality” in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/the-core-group-from-pictorial-technique-to-innovative-contour/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
24. https://rkd.nl/images/285887.
25. Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 2009, no. 1324: https://rkd.nl/images/251100.
26. My thanks to curator Justus de Lang for sharing his thoughts on the connection, reflected in part in the hanging of both works near each other in the gallery.
27. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 52-53, no. P1.
28. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e4704.
29. David de Witt, “From Rembrandt’s Nae ‘t leven to Van Hoogstraten’s Zichtbaere Werelt”, in: David de Witt and Leonore van Sloten, Samuel van Hoogstraten. The Illusionist, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2025, pp. 74-79.
30. Adriaen Waiboer, Vermeer and the Masters of Genre Painting: Inspiration and Rivalry, Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland; Washington: National Gallery of Art; Paris: Musée du Louvre, 2017-2018, and specifically on travel: Blaise Ducos, “The “Tour of Holland”: Visitors from Abroad in the United Provinces”, pp. 101-111.
31. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), p. 157.
32. Rudi Ekkart, ‘Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol: The Portraits’, in: Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck: Rembrandt’s Master Pupils, Zwolle, 2018, p. 158; Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘Out of Rembrandt’s Shadow: Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol as History Painters’, pp. 129-131.
33. The etchings by Ferdinand Bol in this article are cited by the Hollstein number, in: F.W.H. Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish Etchings Engravings and Woodcuts, Amsterdam 1950, Vol. 3. pp. 15-35. However, the states noted here are updated, as anticipated in the forthcoming New Hollstein volume.
34. The first one to point this out was Pierre Yver: Supplement au catalogue raisonné de M. M. Gersaint, Helle & Glomy: de toutes les pieces qui forment l’oeuvre de Rembrandt. Amsterdam 1756, pp. 39-40, no.108, although he referred to the third, 1681 edition of the book. The etching is already present in the first, 1644 edition, published in Amsterdam.
35. Den Christelyken Hovelingh has been commonly described as a play, but it is written as a poetic dialogue. If it was meant to be a play and/or if it was ever staged is not known to me. It is not listed as having been staged from 1637 to 1772: see Creative Amsterdam. An E-Humanities Perspective. Onstage. Online Datasystem of Theatre in Amsterdam from the Golden Age to the present: https://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/onstage/plays (accessed 7 July 2024). The title page of the 1642 volume indicates ‘Den Christelyk Hovelingh’. However, the headers on all pages of that volume use the spelling ‘Christelyken’, as do subsequent authors and libraries. See Jan Harmensz. Krul: Den Christelyk Hovelingh, Amsterdam 1642.
36. This appears to have been first noted in N.C.H. Wijngaards.: Jan Harmens Krul: zijn leven, zijn werk en zijn betekenis, Zwolle, 1964, and is also described in: H.C. van Bemmel: Bibliografie van de werken van Jan Hermans Krul, Amsterdam, 1984.
37. David de Witt and Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol: Rembrandt’s Disciple’ in: Bol and Flinck (note 1), p. 48; and: Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol, the Etcher’, in: Bol and Flinck (note 1), p. 207; and Sophia Thomassen, ‘Timeline’, in: Bol and Flinck, 2018 (note 1), p. 11.
38. De Witt and Van Sloten, Bol, 2018 (note 6); Robert Schillemans: Bijbelschilderkunst rond Rembrandt, Utrecht 1989, pp. 31-34.
39. Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5). I have been able to trace only thee copies: Library of the University of Amsterdam (2780 C 51), Royal Library, Den Haag, (KB: 3 C 20:10), and Noord-Hollands Archief, Haarlem (Oude Boekerij: 88 A 16). The copy in Den Haag lacks the page (A2) with Bol’s print.
40. Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5).
41. The 1644 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, First edition. Amsterdam1644) is a folio edition measuring 302 x 190 mm; the 1681 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, 3rd edition. Amsterdam, the widow of van Jan Jacobsz Schipper) is in quarto, measuring 216 mm x 170 mm. and the 1644-45 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, 2nd edition, Amsterdam) is in octavo, measuring 169 x 104 mm. Book and library catalogues commonly ascribe c.1650 as the date for the latter, but the source of this attribution is not clear, and it is in error. See also Van Bemmel, Bibliographie (note 5).
42. Van Bemmel, Bibliographie (note 5); The anonymous copy is in reverse, by an unknown hand, is neither signed nor dated, measures 85 x 74.5 mm, is of the same theme and general composition, but is artistically distinctly different. The shield is blank in this copy of Bol’s etching. I have not found any impressions of this copy that were not part of the printed book. I have identified three other distinct copies after Bol’s print, for a total of four, rather than the single copy identified by Hollstein (note 2).
43. In 1644 and again in 1645 Krul obtained two successive loans, with the second providing funds to pay off the first, to permit him to publish the first two editions of Pampiere Wereld. Krul gave successively each lender volumes of the work, the patent rights and ‘some’ copper plates for the period of the loan. It is not clear if the plates included Bol’s etching. See Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5).
44. Jan Harmensz. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam 1650-51, J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam; J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Joost Hartgers, Amsterdam, 1640; J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Michiel de Groot, Amsterdam, 1662; Jan Harmensz. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam, 1669-72.
45. Hollstein gives only four states; more recently, George C. Kenney lists five, albeit described differently than the six here. See George C. Kenney: The Illustrated Bartsch, vol. 51. Supplement: Netherlandish Artists. Ferdinand Bol. New York 2017, p. 73, no. 18.
46. In addition to the partial burnishing out of Bol’s name on the blade of the spade in the second state, lines are added partially obscuring the remaining portion of the signature; additional background work is added in several places; there is some work added on the scythe, table, book and the skull of the skeleton; and some additional work on the woman’s headdress/cape (fig. 2). The unique impression of this state is touched with black chalk and lead white, including the addition of a domed building in the distant background, horizontal lines below and to the left of the domed building, and the outline of a blank shield (or cartouche) covering the left part of the end of the coffin. Kenney also mentioned this state, but mistakenly describes the building in the background as a state difference. See: Kenney, Bol, 2017 (note 14). Only two other Bol prints have retouchings by the artist that appeared in the subsequent state: The Philosopher, H.6ii, 1643 (Amsterdam, RP-P-BI-1994); and The Young man Wearing a Plumed Cap, H.14i, 1642 (London, 1921,1008.21; and Dresden, A41073). The retouchings for H.6ii and H.14i appear in the plates for the next state of their respective prints. It is interesting to note that all retouched impressions were done in approximately the same period, and that the retouchings for H.6 and H.14 are very small in comparison to the significant retouchings for H.18. It is possible that this is a reflection of Bol’s satisfying his client’s wishes. Retouchings of impressions of other Bol prints are not judged to have been by his hand.
47. My thanks to Jaco Rutgers for this suggestion
48. The fifth state has added substantial additional background work and some work to the woman’s dress, and a bit on the shield, and the skull of the skeleton.
49. The sixth, and final, state has added rather crude extensive reworking consisting of regular patterns of cross-hatching using the burin, for instance on the back of the skull, the inside of the tent, and the clothes of the female courtier. See fig 6.
50. It had long been thought that Rembrandt painted his portrait in 1633. However, more recently, this has been called into question by Ernst van de Watering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 6: Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited, Dordrecht 2017, p. 526, no. 91. There were also family connections; see M. Louttit: ‘The Romantic Dress of Saskia van Ulenborch: Its Pastoral and Theatrical Associations’, The Burlington Magazine 115 (1973), pp. 317-326.
51. Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol in de voetsporen van Rembrandt: Twee herontdekte schilderijen’, in: Rudie van Leeuwen, Lilian Ruhe, and David de Witt, eds, Not Always Rembrandt; 37 studies in Baroque art. Turnhout, Belgium 2023, pp. 20-31.
52. Jan Soet, Soets Clorinde en Dambise, Amsterdam 1640.
53. University of Amsterdam: Creative Amsterdam. An E-Humanities Perspective. Onstage. Online Datasystem of Theatre in Amsterdam from the Golden Age to the present. https://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/onstage/plays/359 (accessed 7 July 2024).
54. N.C.H. Wijngaards, (note 5).
55. Antonio de Guevara: Menosprecio de corte y alabanza de aldea. Valladolid 1539.
56. See: S. Oosterwijk, ‘Morbid morality. The Danse macabre motif in Dutch art of the Golden Age’, in: Ilona Hans-Collas et al. (eds.), Mort n’espargne ne petit ne grant [Texte imprimé] : études autour de la mort et de ses représentations : actes du XVIIIe Congrès international de l’association Danses macabres d’Europe, Paris, 19-23 mars 2019, Paris 2019, pp. 174-195.
57. Translation: Linda Stone-Ferrier: ‘Ferdinand Bol: The Hour of Death’, in: Dutch Prints of Daily Life: Mirrors of Life or Masks of Morals? Lawrence, Kansas: The Spencer Museum of Art of The University of Kansas, 1983, pp. 144-146, credits Oliver C. Phillips, Classics Department, University Of Kansas, for the translation.
58. There is no Bol print dated earlier than H.18, although he may have created one, Abraham’s Sacrifice (H.1), when working in Rembrandt’s studio; however, this is uncertain, as it is not dated.
59. Gerard Roosenboom, Recueil van verscheyde keuren, en costumen. Midtsgaders maniere van procederen binnen de stadt Amsterdam. Eerst gecollecteert en beschreven, door Gerard Rooseboom, Amsterdam, 1656, pp. 120-131.
60. Stadsarchief Amsterdam (hereafter SAA), 5061, 3051 Memorieboek, p. 29.
61. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e4581 (accessed 3 December 2025).
62. Arthur K. Wheelock jr., “Jan Lievens: Bringing new light to an old master”, in: Wheelock Jr. ed, Jan Lievens. A Dutch master rediscovered, exh. cat. Washington: National Gallery of Art; Milwaukee: Milwaukee Art Museum; Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum, 2008-2009, pp. 6-7.
63. SAA, 5075, 1745 not. Jan Quirijnen Spithof, pp. 124-125, 1-3-1644; Abraham Bedius, “Het verblijf van Jan Miense Molenaer te Amsterdam, in documenten”, in: Frederik D.O. Obreen, Archief voor Nederlandsche Kunstgeschiedenis, vol. 7, Rotterdam 1888-1890, p. 293.
64. Arthur K. Wheelock jr., in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2009 (see note 4), pp. 17-18.
65. SAA, 5061, 3063 Huwelijkskrakeelregisters, 8-12-1646.
66. SAA, 5075, 1080, not. Joost van de Ven, ff. 203r-203v, 7-12-1646.
67. “ter saecke sij als haar regeerster bij den req[uiran]t gewoont hadde” (see note 8).
68. “haer beloften van trouw heeft gedaan, van haer in eeuwig niet te sullen verlate & haer een vierkant stucken, neefens een ander silvere stuxkens gegeven & daarbeneffens van hem beslaepen & beswangert” (see note 7). The mentioned silver square piece was a klip, an emergency coinage at that time struck mainly in West Friesland, or a medal/jeton.
69. SAA, 5061, 3064, Huwelijkskrakeelregisters, 14-10-1649.
70. The name Anna or Annetje Jacobs was fairly common; in 1647, eleven children were baptised in Amsterdam whose mother bore a variant of this name.
71. The notarial archives contain many examples of such payments, both as compensation for the woman and as maintenance costs for any illegitimate children. For instance, Jan van de Velde agreed to the payments of two guilders per week in maintenance for the child he had conceived out of wedlock with Trijn Jans in 1636 (SAA, 5075, 601 not. Laurens Lamberti, p. 456, 17-07-1642). Whether this concerns the painter Jan van de Velde (III) from Haarlem, active in Amsterdam, is not clear. In 1661 David Abraham Cardozo paid no less than 1,000 guilders for “defloration” and the maintenance of two children resulting from his extramarital relationship with Dorothea Jans Bentem (SAA, 5075, 2210 not. Adriaen Lock, pp. 1107-1108, 27-05-1661).
72. London (Christie’s), 17 December 2020 (online auction 18877), lot 231 (inaccurately described as 185.4 x 195.5 cm); Old Master Paintings, Vienna (Dorotheum), 10 November 2021, lot 82 (as Jürgen Ovens, Pentecost).
73. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen I, Amsterdam 1718, p. 273.
74. Constanze Köster, Jürgen Ovens (1623-1678). Maler in Schleswig-Holstein und Amsterdam, Petersberg 2017, p. 53; pp. 327-328, Qu. II.A.7.
75. Archive of Schleswig-Holstein (LAS), Abt. 7, no. 6504, f. 1r; Köster 2017 (see note 3), pp. 37-38; p. 326, Qu. II.A.2.
76. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 38.
77. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 389, G145.
78. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 390, G147.
79. The Eighteenth Year Book of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, 1905-1906, pp. 70, 124, 224; “Department of Fine Arts”, The Museum News (Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences) 1 (1906) no. 10, p. 144.
80. Handwritten list of Maria Ovens’s estate (private collection, location unknown), cited after Harry Schmidt, “Das Nachlass-Inventar des Malers Jürgen Ovens”, Oud-Holland 32 (1914), p. 44, no. 16, note 7; Harry Schmidt, Jürgen Ovens. Sein Leben und seine Werke. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der niederländischen Malerei im XVII. Jahrhundert, Kiel 1922, p. 150, under no. 59a, p. 271, note 26 (as probably a copy after an original by Ovens); Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 39; p. 325, Qu. I.4.c.
81. Erik Hinterding, Jaco Rutgers, The New Hollstein, Dutch & Flemish etchings, engravings and woodcuts, 1450-1700. Rembrandt, Ouderkerk aan den IJssel 2013, text 2, pp. 59-60, no. 185.
82. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 151-154, no. 239.
83. Melchior Küsel, Icones Biblicae Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Figuren biblischer Historien alten und neuen Testaments, Augsburg 1679, ‘Book of Esther, Chapter 6’, fig. 20; reprint Hildesheim 1968. See also: Peter van der Coelen, ‘Rembrandt in Duitsland – Iconografie en verspreiding van zijn etsen in de zeventiende eeuw’, Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 2004, no. 1-2, p. 3, fig. 2.
84. or a mirror-image of this man in the Hundred Guilder Print, see: Ernst van de Wetering et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings V. Small-scale history paintings, Dordrecht 2011, p. 144, fig. 4.
85. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 397, Z12-13.
86. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), pp. 39-41, no. 173.
87. The presence of Mary or of other women at Pentecost, such as Mary Magdalene, is usually inferred from Acts 1:14: “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus […]”.
88. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 1, pp. 189-191, no. 119.
89. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 1, p. 84, no. 55; pp. 220-221, no. 138.
90. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 158-159, no. 241.
91. The only possible exception in this respect is Ovens’s painted self-portrait from c. 1652 in the Hamburger Kunsthalle (inv. no. HK-26), which seems to go back to Rembrandt’s famous 1639 etching Self-Portrait leaning on a Stone Sill. See: Patrick Larsen, “The relationship between Govert Flinck and Jürgen Ovens”, in: Stephanie S. Dickey (ed.), Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck. New research, Zwolle 2017, p. 182, fig. 12.2, p. 184; Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 33-35, no. 171.
92. Karel van Mander, Het schilder-boeck, Haarlem 1604, fol. 5r; Philips Angel, Lof der schilder-konst, Leiden 1642, pp. 36-37.
93. For Ovens’s artistic appropriations of figures and motives from seventeenth-century art of the Low Countries during his Northern German periods, see: Patrick Larsen, “The Imitation of Dutch and Flemish Art in Jürgen Ovens’ (1623-1678) Paintings in Schleswig-Holstein”, in: Rieke van Leeuwen, Juliette Roding (eds.), Masters of Mobility. Cultural exchange between the Netherlands and the German lands in the long 17th century (Gerson Digital VI), The Hague: RKD, 2020, https://masters-of-mobility.rkdstudies.nl/13-the-imitation-of-dutch-and-flemish-art-in-j%C3%BCrgen-ovens-1623-1678-paintings-in-schleswig-holstein/.
94.  Nadine M. Orenstein, “Printmaking among artists of the Rembrandt School”, in: Stephanie S. Dickey (ed.), Rembrandt and his circle. Insights and discoveries, Amsterdam 2017, p. 308, fig. 16.3. For Ovens’s prints, see: Tilman Falk, Robert Zijlma, “Jürgen Ovens”, in: Hollstein’s German engravings, etchings and woodcuts, 1400-1700, vol. XXXI, Amsterdam 1991, pp. 61-74, nos. 1-10b; Köster 2017 (see note 3), pp. 415-416, R1-R7.
95. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler II, Landau/Pfalz 1983, p. 1020, no. 615; Hinterding, Rutgers (see note 10), text 1, pp. 201-202, no. 125.
96. Guus Sluiter, “‘De Passie, anders de Historie van den lydenden Christus’. Arent de Gelders Passieserie”, in: Peter Schoon et al., Arent de Gelder (1645-1727). Rembrandts laatste leerling, exh. cat. Dordrecht: Dordrechts Museum; Cologne: Wallraf–Richartz-Museum, 1998, pp. 73-75, figs. 2-13; pp. 78-80, 85; Guus Sluiter, “De fascinatie van Arent de Gelder voor Rembrandts etsen”, Bulletin Dordrechts Museum 22 (1998), pp. 35-45.
97. Sumowski 1983 (see note 24), p. 1163, no. 738; Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 57-58, no. 184.
98. Sumowski 1983 (see note 24), p. 1421, no. 935; Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 1, pp. 251-253, no. 155.
99. LAS, Abt. 7, no. 2311, fol. 90r; Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 304, note 195; p. 332, Qu. II.B.1.1652. Also see: Patrick Larsen, “Jürgen Ovens (1623-1678) as an Art Agent for the Dukes of Gottorf”, in: Rieke van Leeuwen et al., The Big Picture. Collecting Dutch and Flemish Art in Germany 1600-1850 (Gerson Digital VIII), The Hague: RKD, 2022, https://the-big-picture.rkdstudies.nl/2-jürgen-ovens-16231678-as-an-art-agent-for-the-dukes-of-gottorf/.
100. Rembrandt prints were offered for sale in the German-speaking lands fairly early. See Van der Coelen 2004 (see note 12), pp. 5-15; Jaco Rutgers, “Rembrandt op papier. De rol van prenten bij het vestigen van Rembrandts reputatie als schilder”, in: Jaco Rutgers, Mieke Rijnders (eds.), Rembrandt in perspectief. De veranderende visie op de meester en zijn werk, Zwolle 2014, p. 122.
101. Neither the so-called Gottorf account books nor the 1694, 1710 and 1743 inventories of Gottorf castle mention works on paper by Rembrandt.
102. Werner Sumowski, Paul Huys Janssen, The Hoogsteder Exhibition of Rembrandt’s Academy, exh. cat. The Hague: Hoogsteder & Hoogsteder, 1992, cat. no. 28.
103. Exhibition catalogues: Albert Blanckert, Jezus in de Gouden Eeuw, exh. cat. Rotterdam: Kunsthal, 2000–2001; Akira Kofuku, Rembrandt and the Rembrandt School. The Bible, mythology and ancient history, exh. cat. Tokyo: Museum of Western Art, 2003; Arthur K. Wheelock et al., Jan Lievens. A Dutch Master Rediscovered, exh. cat. Washington: National Gallery of Art; Milwaukee: Milwaukee Art Museum; Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum, 2008-2009, cat.no. 52; Louis van Tilborgh, Constantijn Huygens. Kunstkenner en verzamelaar, exh. cat. The Hague: Museum Bredius, 2013, cat. no. 14. Other literature: Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandtschüler, vol. 4, Landau, 1983, p. 3726, no. 2356, fig. 3964; Helga Gutbrod, Lievens und Rembrandt : Studien zum Verhältnis ihrer Kunst, Frankfurt am Main, 1996, p. 299; Edwin Buijssen (ed.), Haagse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw, Het Hoogsteder lexicon van alle schilders werkzaam in Den Haag 1600-1700, The Hague, 1998, p. 191; Lloyd DeWitt, Evolution and Ambition in the career of Jan Lievens, 1607-1674, Phd. Diss. University of Maryland, College Park, 2006, p. 228.
104. DeWitt, Evolution (see note 2), p. 228.
105. For example those mentioned in the Montias Database of 17th Century Dutch Art Inventories and the Getty Provenance Research Index.
106. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), p. 220.
107. Dr Gaston Gaudinot sale, Paris (Drouot), 13-14 February 1869.
108. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), p. 220.
109. Ibid.
110. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), p. 226. Huys Janssen explains that the miracle as described in Luke and John differs from the version told by Matthew.
111. After listening to the centurion, and before addressing him directly, Jesus speaks to his followers: “I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 8:11) Perhaps Lievens incorporated this part of the text and explicitly included people coming from the east (from the standpoint of his Dutch audience). A second possibility is that they are Pharisees. This group plays the role elsewhere in Matthew of disbelieving critics, and here they may serve to accentuate the belief of the centurion in the Christian faith. In early prints (Sebald Beham, Israhel van Meckenem, Hans Schaüfelein and Cornelis Massijs) and several Italian prints from Lievens’s time (seventeenth century prints after Paolo Veronese), Pharisees wear such headdresses. A parallel between blacks and overseas regions, such as in Lievens’s Brinio, is convincingly outlined by Elmer Kolfin (in: Elmer Kolfin, De kunst van de macht, Jordaens, Lievens en Rembrandt in het Paleis op de Dam, Zwolle, 2023, p. 67), does not seem to apply here.
112. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), p. 223.
113. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), pp. 223, 226.
114. The right eye from the perspective of the viewer. There, a pupil was painted in, in a later restoration. Because of the sketchy manner it is difficult to ascertain whether or not both eyes are present, but in the left the lower eyelid is visible, while it is undefined in the right eye.
115. For example: Jacobus Neeffs (after Jacob Jordaens), Judgement of Christ, etching, c. 1630-1645; Marinus van der Goes (after Jacques Jordaens), Judgement of Christ, engraving, c. 1614-1639; Willem Panneels (after Peter Paul Rubens), Adoration of the kings, etching, 1630; Nicolaes Lauwers (after Peter Paul Rubens), Ecce Homo, engraving, c. 1619-1652; and many more. Generally, for examples of inspiration drawn from prints by Lievens, see De
     Witt, Evolution (see note 2).
116. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), p. 226. Huys Janssen refers to examples by Nicolaes Moeyaert (Herentals, St. Waltrudis church) and Adam Camerarius (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-A-733). DeWitt refers to a painting by Bartholomeus Breenbergh (Karlsruhe, Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe, inv. no. 228) and the Moeyaert in Herentals (DeWitt, Evolution (see note 2), p. 227). But also see a woodcut with this subject by Cornelis van Sichem II in Der zielen lusthof (1629). Also of interest: Claes Moeyeart, Christ and the Centurion, 1632 (Minneapolis, Minneapolis Institute of Art, inv. no. 2012.84.5). Although the painting is known under this subject, it may in fact depict Cornelius kneeling before Peter, since more than one figure is shown kneeling and the composition closely resembles prints of this subject.
117. Henri van de Waal, “’s Lands oudste verleden in de voorstelling van Vondel en zijn tijdgenooten”, Elsevier’s Maandschrift 47 (1937); Henri van de Waal, “Tempesta en de historieschilderingen op het Amsterdamse stadhuis”, Oud Holland 56 (1939); Henri van de Waal, Drie eeuwen vaderlandsche geschied-uitbeelding 1500-1800, een iconologische studie, The Hague, 1952; Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10).
118. Antonio Tempesta (after Otto van Veen), Print 8 in (…)De Batavische oft oude Hollandtsche oorloghe teghen de Romeynen, 1612. Etching, 167 x 210 mm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-OB-37.614. Jürgen Ovens based his drawing for the Batavian Series depicting Claudius Civilis leaving the Women and Children to fight at Xanten (Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle, inv. no. 22342) on this print.
119. On the period in The Hague: Buijssen Haagse (see note 2), pp.191-193.
120. Haarlem, Teylers Museum, inv. no. P 006. For the identification and context, see: Gregor Weber, “Dus leeft de dappre Graaf: Zu einem Bildnis Andries de Graeffs von Jan Lievens (1607-1674)”, Oud Holland 99 (1985), pp. 44-56.
121. Van de Waal, Eeuwen (see note 16), p. 230; Kolfin, De kunst van de macht (see note 10), pp. 19-20.
122. Van de Waal, “’s Lands” (see note 16), p. 301-302.
123.  Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10), p. 41. Four Batavian scenes were never completed. For two the themes are known, for the other two are not known.
124. Munich, Staatliche Graphische Sammlung München, inv. no. 1451; Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. no. 22342. A lesser-known drawing of Rembrandt’s Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis (Edinburgh, National Galleries of Scotland, inv. no. D 23862) shows – when compared to the drawing in Munich – that the lower section of the painting is covered by a frieze and that portions of the left and right sides are obscured. This may indicate that an alternative conception of the framing of the lunettes was considered before the one ultimately implemented. It is possible that this earlier framing was already envisioned when Lievens produced his oil sketch Christ and the Centurion.
125. Van de Waal, Eeuwen (see note 16), p. 225, referring to SAA, 5039, 2 resolutieboek, f. 66r.
126. Ibid., referring to SAA, 5039, 153 rapiamus 1661, f.195v.
127. Van de Waal, Eeuwen (see note 16), p. 225.
128. Gregor Weber, “Jan Lievens’s ‘The Shield-raising of Brinio’ a Second Oil Sketch”, Hoogsteder-Naumann Mercury 12/13 (1992), nt. 8.
129. Dewitt, Evolution (see note 2), p. 221.
130. Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10), p.67.
131. Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10), p. 44.
132. For, among other things, contemporary poetry in which Civilis and others are compared to the members of the House of Orange: Van de Waal, Eeuwen (see note 16), pp. 220-221, 223.
133. Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10), p. 47.
134. Margriet van Eikema Hommes, Elmer Kolfin, De Oranjezaal in Huis ten Bosch, Een zaal uit loutere liefde, Zwolle, 2013, p. 77.
135. Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10), pp. 41-47, 77.
136. One may ask, in light of points discussed in this article, whether the “Christ” figure in the first version was in fact Christ at all. If so, the oil sketch would initially have represented solely a Christian scene without any reference to the Batavian Revolt, thereby less relatable to the (eventual) decoration program of the Town Hall’s gallery. Given that in the initial design the groups left and right with Biblical and/or eastern figures do not seem to have been included (aside from a bearded man on the right, judging from the x-ray), the large central figure may originally have been Julius Civilis. In compositional terms, this would align the painting more closely with the print by Tempesta after Van Veen. The apparent similarity in hairstyle between the final Christ figure and the initial figure, together with the possible initial presence of a (holy) beam of light directed toward the figure, may argue against this hypothesis; nevertheless, Brinno in Lievens’s Brinio Raised on the Shield likewise features long hair and even incorporates a diagonal compositional line through the clouds, comparable to the line through the foliage in the initial version of the present subject. The later insertion of Christ could then be understood as a deliberate twist, imparting a more prominent Christian meaning to the historical scene. These suggestions and observations were kindly shared by Jochem van Eijsden.

Introduction: “When I was still a disciple” 
In his Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst (1678), Samuel van Hoogstraten calls himself a ‘’discipel’’ (pupil), when referring to his time with Rembrandt,¹³⁷ between circa 1642 and 1647. For a long time, this was seen as the sole extent of his role during this period. Later art historians (Werner Sumowski, Jonathan Bikker and David de Witt) opted for another dimension: that of Rembrandt’s teaching assistant, during the last four years of his stay.¹³⁸ In the context of the recent exhibition and research project on Van Hoogstraten (Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, Rembrandt House Museum, and RKD),¹³⁹ the notion of an assistantship following his pupilship has become commonplace.¹⁴⁰ However, there are no documented assistenten (assistants) in painters workshops in seventeenth-century Holland.¹⁴¹ Leerlingen (pupils) and gezellen (journeymen) though, are well attested. All three roles imply a subordinate position,¹⁴² and an assistant role could still be assumed by Van Hoogstraten in his capacity as a pupil, but the idea of an assistant may equally connote remuneration and professional skill. This suggests that he may have served as a journeyman, a capacity not yet considered. This article examines how Van Hoogstraten’s possible role, articulated in the literature as a “teaching assistant”, in Rembrandt’s workshop should be understood, based on guild regulations, dictionary entries, archival documents, and artworks.

1.1 The rules
In order to clarify Van Hoogstraten’s proposed assistant role, it is helpful to examine the implications of the use of the term “assistant” for his probable de jure role (pupil or journeyman) in the context of a seventeenth-century Amsterdam painter’s workshop. The most formal reference point for understanding Van Hoogstraten’s position with Rembrandt is the ordinances of the Amsterdam Guild of Saint Luke.¹⁴³ An eighteenth-century ordinance book states that Amsterdam-based pupils (called “leerjongens”) had to be registered with the guild and serve a pupilship for the minimum of two years.¹⁴⁴ Journeymen (called “(werk)gesellen” and “knechts” – servants or hands),¹⁴⁵ are described simply as working: no minimum term or registration requirement is mentioned.¹⁴⁶ Both pupils and journeymen had to appear with a master at the guild office upon arrival in the city and pay a fee of ten stivers.¹⁴⁷ Journeymen who failed to find employment received reimbursement for travel and lodging expenses.¹⁴⁸ This was effectively a refund of the ten stivers.

The guild ordinances, however, do not further define the terms pupils and journeyman. The Dutch-Latin dictionary Etymologicum Teutonicae Linguae (1599), offers some clarification through contemporary synonyms. The term  “leerlinck” is translated as “discipulus”, which is also the Latin translation given for “leerkind”, “leer-ionghe”, “leerknecht”, and “discipel”.¹⁴⁹ The phrase “gheselle van een ampt” (journeyman in a trade) is translated in Latin as “collega” (colleague),¹⁵⁰ while “knecht” – synonym for “dienaer” (servant) – is translated as “servus”, “famulus”, “minister”, and “puer”.¹⁵¹ In correspondence with the regulations in the guild ordinances, a journeyman painter was a trained practitioner working in someone else’s employ. This fits with the profile of a documented example: Louis du Prêt. In 1624, at around the age of thirty-five, this painter was described as a “knecht” of portraitist Cornelis van der Voort. ¹⁵² Among his colleagues however, Du Prêt was an esteemed connoisseur of Italian painting.¹⁵³

1.2 The practice 
Moreover, the guild ordinances do not clearly specify the distinct roles or tasks of pupils and journeymen. As Ronald de Jager (1990) has shown, surviving contracts between master painters and young aspiring ones also rarely distinguish between these functions.¹⁵⁴ Broadly speaking, all young men in a master painter’s studio were expected to be diligent and obedient, to paint, to prepare materials, and to act only with permission.¹⁵⁵ While a distinction between pupil and journeyman evidently existed, the official period of pupilship appears to have been prolonged in seventeenth-century Amsterdam, as we will see. De Jager already notes that artistic training was generally lengthy and often consisted of an initial phase of about four years, followed by a second, concluding phase of approximately two.¹⁵⁶ Despite the diversity of contracts, a rough trajectory from novice pupil to experienced journeyman in Amsterdam can be discerned, comparable to a line emerging from a scatter plot. This will help to estimate Van Hoogstraten’s formal role in Rembrandt’s workshop.

The starting point is the 1626 agreement in which fourteen-year-old Gerrit Willemsz Horst began a six-year pupilship with Anthony Lust.¹⁵⁷ In the contract, the term “dienaer” is consistently crossed out and replaced by “leerknecht”.¹⁵⁸ Horst’s age, title and (remarkably long) contract mark him as a typical novice. A next step in pupilship is found in the 1635 contract of Adriaen Carman, who at seventeen became Isaac Isaacsz’ “leerknecht” for two years. Though also described as a “dienaer”, Carman was taught painting and related skills, prepared canvases, and ground pigments.¹⁵⁹ No tuition or wage was paid; instead, Carman’s father annually gifted Isaacsz a small barrel of herring or stockfish, worth about twelve guilders,¹⁶⁰ modest compared to common fees.¹⁶¹ He thus appears to have occupied a position virtually between pupil and journeyman. Notably, Carman was permitted to create his own work: one painting per year on a daelder (Dutch silver thaler) size canvas or panel (c. 123 × 92 cm).¹⁶²

1.3 Learning on the job
A typical journeyman was Markus Waltusz. Although this twenty-one-year-old entered into service with Bartholomeus van der Helst as a “discipel” in 1652, he did so for a daily wage of ten and a half stivers. His duties included painting, keeping shop, and following orders. Van der Helst was to instruct him.¹⁶³ While not explicitly referred to as a journeyman, Waltusz effectively functioned as one: he got paid,¹⁶⁴ was hired for only a year (shorter than permitted for pupils), and had already been described as a painter six months earlier at the time of his marriage.¹⁶⁵ A final example, at the endpoint of the progression from pupil to journeyman, is the 1649 contract between Gerardus van Berleborch and Lambertus Jansz de Hue,¹⁶⁶ both referred to as “schilder” (painter). Van Berleborch entered De Hue’s service for one year at fifteen stivers per day, with restrictions on painting for himself or others except on Sundays and during the time of one free month.¹⁶⁷

The case of Waltusz (and to some extent Carman) illustrates that in Amsterdam, one could functionally be a journeyman while remaining contractually a pupil. Masters and guilds appear to have prolonged pupil status as much as possible. This seems to reflect a broader development from the late sixteenth to the early eighteenth century. ¹⁶⁸ A 1766 publication compiling all known Amsterdam guild regulations shows that in 1553, masters were limited to two pupils,¹⁶⁹ and by 1579, journeymen were required to pay a weekly fee of one half or one stiver, depending on their wages.¹⁷⁰ Such distinctions between pupils and journeymen are absent in the abovementioned ordinance book.¹⁷¹ This practice of gradually blurring the boundaries between pupils and journeyman, and extending the pupilship period, makes it convincing that Van Hoogstraten formally remained a pupil throughout his time with Rembrandt, even if he may already have taken on responsibilities more typical of a journeyman, or even a master.

1.4 Early signs
The fact that Carman, as a pupil, and Van Berleborch, as a journeyman, were allowed to produce independent work invites addressing a complicating aspect of Van Hoogstraten’s time in Rembrandt’s workshop: between 1644 and 1647, Van Hoogstraten made and signed paintings, one or two works per year.¹⁷² It has previously been argued that only master painters were entitled to sign their work, as a mark of completed training.¹⁷³ This view is primarily based on guild regulations from The Hague and Utrecht dating to the 1650s,¹⁷⁴ the only known ordinances of their kind. No such rule appears to have existed in Amsterdam. There, both pupils and journeymen (with their master’s consent) could produce independent work. Moreover, some Amsterdam contracts specify who owned the work produced by pupils,¹⁷⁵ suggesting such arrangements were negotiable. Clearly, attitudes in Amsterdam differed from those in The Hague and Utrecht.

Although Carman’s is the only known pupil with such an production arrangement, among the scarce surviving pupil-master contracts from Amsterdam, it is possible that Van Hoogstraten – who as a pupil produced around two small-format paintings per year (ranging from 54 × 45 cm to 74 × 48 cm, grote stooter (groat) to tien stuiver (ten stivers) size),¹⁷⁶ but roughly adding up to a daelder size – had had a similar opportunity as Carman. De Witt and Leonore van Sloten have already noted that Van Hoogstraten’s early works display a distinctly personal character,¹⁷⁷ suggesting they may not have been intended for open-market sale, or made on commission. So even if Amsterdam guild practice held that only masters sell signed work, such production might have gone unnoticed by the guild. In any case, Van Hoogstraten’s early signed and dated paintings offer little indication that he was a master; he probably created them while still a pupil.

2.1 A teaching pupil
In the literature, the idea of Van Hoogstraten as Rembrandt’s teaching assistant has largely relied on the suggestion that he gave painting instructions to Drost while still working in Rembrandt’s studio. Although this notion is convincing of itself – based on the proposed stylistic similarities between the two artists’ works – it remains just one example.¹⁷⁸ However, recent research by the author into the life and work of Barent Fabritius now provides further support for the notion of Van Hoogstraten as a teaching pupil within Rembrandt’s workshop, this time in the domain of drawing. Fabritius is likely to have spent some years of his training in Rembrandt’s studio, approximately between 1645 and 1647, just as his elder brother Carel a few years before. This is primarily based on the evidence of Barent Fabritius’s early drawings, which also reveal a striking affinity with works by Van Hoogstraten from the latter half of the 1640s.¹⁷⁹

Although Barent Fabritius is generally not considered a pupil of Rembrandt in the most recent literature on him,¹⁸⁰ several of his early drawings do suggest his presence in Rembrandt’s workshop. The most important of these is a copy after Rembrandt’s painting Susanna and the Elders. Fabritius reproduced the painting faithfully (figs. 1 and 2). There are some differences between the copy and the original, and technical examination of the painting indicates that the drawing must have been made after an intermediate stage in the painting’s creation, in 1646 or 1647.¹⁸¹ At that moment it was a direct copy. In fact, it was so precise, it shows that Rembrandt was still at work on the painting: he was in the process of correcting the position of Susanna’s left foot.¹⁸² The painting must therefore have been present in the studio at the time the drawing was made – when Van Hoogstraten was also active there.

2.2 Drawing inspiration
The Suzanna drawing thus originated in Rembrandt’s studio, yet notably, Fabritius did not adopt Rembrandt’s drawing style. The drawings currently attributed to Rembrandt from the second half of the 1650’s are characterized by a more sketchily approach, in solely black ink and chalk.¹⁸³ Fabritius appears to have been inspired instead by Van Hoogstraten. Several of Fabritius’s drawings were at one point even attributed to him.¹⁸⁴ Shared characteristics include doll-like figures, a pictorial rendering in a full tonal range, and use of varied materials (fig. 3 and fig 4).

In the early part of the second half of the 1640s, both artists employed multiple media, especially red chalk. Van Hoogstraten though used it more prominently, primarily in the initial layout and contours of the figures. Barent applied it more sparingly, mainly for accentuation and detailing. There are also differences in how each artist created houding in their drawings.¹⁸⁵ Fabritius typically developed the background in chalk, leaving it more indistinct in order to achieve a convincing atmospheric perspective.¹⁸⁶ Van Hoogstraten tended to work more sketchily with a fine pen in the backgrounds, while rendering the foreground with greater precision.

Van Hoogstraten’s role as his drawing instructor becomes apparent in Fabritius’s Rest on the Flight into Egypt (fig. 5).¹⁸⁷ The drawing’s chaotic character stems from the variety of materials, linework, and especially the coexistence of different drawing styles. It appears to have been corrected – there are even two Josephs – confirmed by handwritten suggestions on the verso, strikingly rare among Rembrandt and his pupils.¹⁸⁸ In the corrections, the angular black pen lines in Joseph’s face are particularly telling, echoing Van Hoogstraten’s figural stylizations, such as the sharp nasal bridge and long, slightly arched eyebrows seen in his drawings from around 1647 (Table 1).¹⁸⁹ The “second”, more sketch-like Joseph is faint, but resembles Van Hoogstraten’s looser sketched works of the period: the lobed coiffure and broken, scratchy contour of the left shoulder recall those of Joseph in his Adoration of the Shepherds (c. 1647), while the facial features echo the peering Zechariah in Van Hoogstraten’s Visitation (1646/1648). That the drawing at the basis of the Dresden sheet is in fact by Fabritius, is evident from, among other things, the dark grey washes and broad zigzag hatching in the shadow areas.¹⁹⁰ These features closely resemble those found in Barent’s Susanna and the Elders. In addition, the restrained use of red chalk – in the Dresden drawing for instance applied on the donkey, is comparable in its seemingly arbitrary application for emphasis and detail in the two drawings. The text on the back is possible too by Barent’s hand.¹⁹¹

Table 1.
u.l.: detail from fig 5. 
u.ctr.: detail from fig 4.
l.l.: detail from fig 5. 
l.ctr.: Samuel van Hoogstraten, The Adoration of the Shepherds, c. 1646-1647. Black chalk, pen in brown, red chalk, brown wash, brush in brown, heightened with white, 153 × 204 mm. Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle, inv. no. 22050.
l.r.: Samuel van Hoogstraten, The Visitation, c. 1646-1648. Pen in brown, red chalk, brown wash, brush in brown, 72 × 88 mm. Amsterdam, Amsterdam Museum, inv. no. TA 10153. 

2.3 Dual master

Taking a step back, it is striking that three key elements in the two drawings by Fabritius discussed here are echoed in Van Hoogstraten’s discussion of drawing in his Inleyding: the value of copying paintings as a means of sharpening perception and understanding composition;¹⁹² the didactic function of corrections in the drawing itself;¹⁹³ and the painterly quality of red chalk drawing.¹⁹⁴ Combined with stylistic affinities and the presence of corrections by Van Hoogstraten in one of Fabritius’s sheets, this suggests a pedagogical relationship between them, likely dating to 1645-1647. Additionally, these principles appear to have been situated within the context of Rembrandt’s workshop. Fabritius’s Dresden drawing is closely related to an undated sketch by Rembrandt in Berlin with the same subject, and the annotations on Fabritius’s sheet are in turn visualized by Rembrandt himself (fig. 6).¹⁹⁵ While Van Hoogstraten’s role in Fabritius’s training seems more direct, Rembrandt, too, appears to have contributed to his artistic development.

The three-way artistic relationship between Fabritius, Rembrandt and Van Hoogstraten is likewise revealed in Fabritius’s drawing of The Adoration of the Shepherds in Leiden (fig. 7) The drawing closely relates to Van Hoogstraten’s painting of the same subject from 1647, almost certainly created in Amsterdam (fig. 8).¹⁹⁶

Striking similarities include a figure lifting the cloth in the manger like a crumpled rag, the half-height wooden partition on the right, and the wide-brimmed hat. The shepherd seen from the back is derived from the figure of Saint John the Evangelist in Van Hoogstraten’s drawing The Crucifixion (fig. 9).¹⁹⁷ At the same time, Fabritius seems to have drawn inspiration from Rembrandt’s Tobit and Anna with the Kid from 1645–46 (fig. 10), echoing the lighting from the left, the slanted shanty roof in the upper right, and the seated figure right of center. Thematically and compositionally, the drawing also resonates with Rembrandt’s The Dream of Joseph in the Stable (fig. 11).

2.4 Primus inter pares
In the context of the idea that Van Hoogstraten remained a pupil throughout his time with Rembrandt, it is worth pointing to evidence that he was still in training between 1644 and 1647. In 1646, he made a drawing of The Adoration of the Shepherds, after a painting Rembrandt made for the Passion series, commissioned by Stadtholder Frederik Hendrik.¹⁹⁸ Several comparable drawings by other Rembrandt pupils from around 1646 survive.¹⁹⁹ Fabritius’s Susanna and the Elders is not unique in this regard. During this same period, figure drawing from nude models also took place in Rembrandt’s workshop. Three such drawings by pupils and an etching by the master himself, The Walking Trainer (B 194), attest to this practice.²⁰⁰ One of the pupil drawings has long been attributed to Van Hoogstraten (fig. 12); another, long unattributed (fig. 13),²⁰¹ appears to be by Barent Fabritius.²⁰² Around 1646, Van Hoogstraten thus participated in group training exercises alongside Fabritius – at a similar level, even while giving him drawing instruction.

There is no evidence that around 1645 other Rembrandt pupils were correcting each other’s work. It is therefore justified to assume that peer correction was not standard practice in the studio, and that Van Hoogstraten acted as primus inter pares – a pupil with teaching responsibilities. This raises the question whether his role was unique in the history of Rembrandt’s studio, or if there were predecessors or successors. A possible predecessor may have been Van Hoogstraten’s fellow Dordrecht native Ferdinand Bol.²⁰³ Although Bol already referred to himself as a painter in Dordrecht as early as 1635, he worked in Rembrandt’s studio in the late 1630s, which is usually considered a pupilship.²⁰⁴ Only from 1642 onward does he seem to produce works typical of a master painter.²⁰⁵ Moreover, Bol appears to have influenced later Rembrandt pupils, such as Carel Fabritius.²⁰⁶ So, while no direct evidence has been found, Bol may have served as a functional forerunner to Van Hoogstraten.²⁰⁷ At a later stage in his career, Van Hoogstraten appears to have implemented a similar system in his own studio. Arnold Houbraken was, according to himself, the eldest pupil among Van Hoogstraten’s disciples and had a room of his own.²⁰⁸

Conclusion: Once a disciple, always a disciple
Recent scholarship has argued that Samuel van Hoogstraten, after starting a pupilship with Rembrandt in 1642, became an “assistant” in the studio from 1644, until 1647, entrusted with teaching pupils and producing his own work. While this may imply the status of a journeyman, it is unlikely that Van Hoogstraten attained that position. In the course of the seventeenth century, extended pupilship (with some privileges) appeared to be favored over journeymanship in Amsterdam. Van Hoogstraten thus likely remained, in formal terms, a pupil under Rembrandt. The idea of Van Hoogstraten being a teaching assistant instructing his peers, as a primus inter pares, is further substantiated by evidence that he provided drawing instruction to Barent Fabritius. His early drawn works reveal corrections by Van Hoogstraten, but also stylistic affinities with him, and pedagogical principles later articulated by him in his Inleyding. The close parallels between Fabritius’s drawings and Rembrandt’s works further underscore that this happened under the supervision of Rembrandt. Van Hoogstraten thus emerges as a key figure mediating Rembrandt’s pedagogy within the workshop, in the capacity of a pupil. Whether other pupils before or after him adopted comparable roles remains an open question, meriting further research.

1. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen vol. 2, Amsterdam 1719, p. 272: “Hy verkeerde in den herfst van zyn leven wel meest met gemeene luiden, en zulke die de Konst hanteerden.”
2. Ernst van de Wetering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings V: The Small-Scale History Paintings, Dordrecht 2011, pp. 3-6; vol. 6, pp. 296-297; and: Eric Jan Sluijter, in Govert Flinck: Reflecting History, Cleves 2015, pp. 68-69.
3. Ben Broos, “Saskia, Rembrandt’s Frisian Bride”, in: Marlies Stoter (ed.), Rembrandt & Saskia: love and marriage in the Dutch Golden Age, Zwolle, 2018, pp. 23-24.
4. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), pp. 100, 174.
5. Epco Runia, David de Witt, Rembrandt’s Social Network: family, friends, and acquaintances, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2019.
6. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e12959, with reference to a letter from Constantijn Huygens Jr. to his brother Christiaen, of 6 December 1663, in the Leiden University Library; see Hendrick E. van Gelder, “De jonge Huygensen en Rembrandt”, Oud Holland 73 (1958), pp. 238-241, identifying the drawings, currently: River Scene with Boats and Figures Bathing, c. 1590/1595. Pen in brown, 111 x 205 mm. Formerly Chatsworth, Duke of Devonshire Collection; most recently, Alfred Taubman sale, New York, (Sotheby’s), 27 January 2016, lot 33 (as the original, but without noting the Rembrandt provenance); and the copy with Everhard Jabach in Paris: pen in brown, 112 x 186 mm. Washington, National Gallery of Art, inv. no. NGA 72075 (as also as the original).
7. David de Witt, Abraham van Dijck (1635-1680): Life and Work of a Late Rembrandt Pupil, Zwolle 2020, p. 32.
8. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandtschüler vol. 2, Landau 1987, p. 1951.
9. Michiel Roscam Abbing, Eigentijdse bronnen & oeuvre van gesigneerde schilderijen, Leiden 1993, pp. 42-49. 
10. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 12-13.
11. Abraham van Dijck, The Widow of Zarephath and her Son, signed, c. 1655, oil on canvas, 115.6 x 95.9 cm.; Portrait of a Fifty-Year-Old Woman, signed and dated 1655, oil on panel, 75 x 62 cm, both Kingston ON, Agnes Etherington Art Centre, acc. nos. 60-001 and 56-003.10; see: De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 98-101, nos. P22, P23.
12. First spotted by Sabrina Meloni, after cleaning in 2014. 
13. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 126, no. P35.
14. Sale, Milan (Lucas Casa d’Arte), 21 May 2025, lot 220.
15. Monogrammed and dated 1657, oil on panel, 35 x 29.5 cm, The Hague, with S. Nijstad, in 1983; De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), p. 118, no. P31.
16. The idea that the Washington painting had been altered from a generic scholar into a St. Paul was already proposed by Arthur K. Wheelock, in: Arthur K. Wheelock, Rembrandt’s Late Religious Portraits, Washington: National Gallery of Art; Los Angeles: Getty Museum, 2005, pp. 141-157; followed by Van de Wetering: Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited: a complete survey II, Dordrecht 2017, 2017, cat. 254, p. 640 (as c. 1655). The new study brings conclusive evidence in support of this scenario, based on an extensive technical research: Marjorie Wieseman, John K. Delaney and Kathryn A. Dooley, “Compositional Changes in Rembrandt’s The Apostle Paul: New Technical Findings”, Rembrandt as a Painter: New Technical Research. ArtMatters. International Journal for Technical Art History. Special Issue #2, 2025, pp. 80-92. https://doi.org/10.64655/AM.si25r.b1963 (accessed 16 December 2025). 
17. The connection with an interim state of the painting was already surmised by Werner Sumowski, in: Drawings of the Rembrandt School, vol. 11: Anonymous Drawings (manuscript left unpublished on his death in 2015; forthcoming in an edition translated and edited by the author, with Brill).
18. Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School vol. 5, New York, 1981, p. 2712, no. 1224x: https://rkd.nl/images/311330.
19. Van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s (see note 16), p. 650-651, no. 265: https://rkd.nl/images/54379.
20. David de Witt, “A New and Individual Approach to Contour: 1653, 1658 and Beyond”, in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/a-new-and-individual-approach-to-contour-1653-1658-and-beyond/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
21. https://rkd.nl/images/289005.
22. Samuel van Hoogstraten, Madonna and Child, c. 1660, oil on canvas, 92 x 71.2 cm, Amsterdam (Christie’s), 25 May 2016, lot 74: https://rkd.nl/images/314055.
23. David de Witt, “Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying under a Genius”, Rembrandt’s Late Pupils: Studying Under a Genius, exh. cat. Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2015, p. 85, with reference to:  Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 1951; also posited in Roscam Abbing, Schilder (see note 9), p. 40. It is true that Maes consulted drawings by Van Hoogstraten for his early painting of Christ Blessing the Children in London, but this is very likely because he had access to Van Hoogstraten’s drawings left behind in his studio when he left for Vienna and Italy in 1651: they were moreover older drawings, from c. 1646-1648; see: David de Witt, “Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Drawings: History, Life, Universality” in: Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678): Catalogue Raisonné: https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstratens-drawings-history-life-universality/the-core-group-from-pictorial-technique-to-innovative-contour/ (accessed 25 May 2025).
24. https://rkd.nl/images/285887.
25. Sumowski, Gemälde (see note 8), vol. 3 (1987), p. 2009, no. 1324: https://rkd.nl/images/251100.
26. My thanks to curator Justus de Lang for sharing his thoughts on the connection, reflected in part in the hanging of both works near each other in the gallery.
27. De Witt, Van Dijck (see note 7), pp. 52-53, no. P1.
28. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e4704.
29. David de Witt, “From Rembrandt’s Nae ‘t leven to Van Hoogstraten’s Zichtbaere Werelt”, in: David de Witt and Leonore van Sloten, Samuel van Hoogstraten. The Illusionist, Amsterdam: The Rembrandt House Museum, 2025, pp. 74-79.
30. Adriaen Waiboer, Vermeer and the Masters of Genre Painting: Inspiration and Rivalry, Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland; Washington: National Gallery of Art; Paris: Musée du Louvre, 2017-2018, and specifically on travel: Blaise Ducos, “The “Tour of Holland”: Visitors from Abroad in the United Provinces”, pp. 101-111.
31. Houbraken, Schouburgh (see note 1), p. 157.
32. Rudi Ekkart, ‘Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol: The Portraits’, in: Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck: Rembrandt’s Master Pupils, Zwolle, 2018, p. 158; Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘Out of Rembrandt’s Shadow: Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol as History Painters’, pp. 129-131.
33. The etchings by Ferdinand Bol in this article are cited by the Hollstein number, in: F.W.H. Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish Etchings Engravings and Woodcuts, Amsterdam 1950, Vol. 3. pp. 15-35. However, the states noted here are updated, as anticipated in the forthcoming New Hollstein volume.
34. The first one to point this out was Pierre Yver: Supplement au catalogue raisonné de M. M. Gersaint, Helle & Glomy: de toutes les pieces qui forment l’oeuvre de Rembrandt. Amsterdam 1756, pp. 39-40, no.108, although he referred to the third, 1681 edition of the book. The etching is already present in the first, 1644 edition, published in Amsterdam.
35. Den Christelyken Hovelingh has been commonly described as a play, but it is written as a poetic dialogue. If it was meant to be a play and/or if it was ever staged is not known to me. It is not listed as having been staged from 1637 to 1772: see Creative Amsterdam. An E-Humanities Perspective. Onstage. Online Datasystem of Theatre in Amsterdam from the Golden Age to the present: https://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/onstage/plays (accessed 7 July 2024). The title page of the 1642 volume indicates ‘Den Christelyk Hovelingh’. However, the headers on all pages of that volume use the spelling ‘Christelyken’, as do subsequent authors and libraries. See Jan Harmensz. Krul: Den Christelyk Hovelingh, Amsterdam 1642.
36. This appears to have been first noted in N.C.H. Wijngaards.: Jan Harmens Krul: zijn leven, zijn werk en zijn betekenis, Zwolle, 1964, and is also described in: H.C. van Bemmel: Bibliografie van de werken van Jan Hermans Krul, Amsterdam, 1984.
37. David de Witt and Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol: Rembrandt’s Disciple’ in: Bol and Flinck (note 1), p. 48; and: Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol, the Etcher’, in: Bol and Flinck (note 1), p. 207; and Sophia Thomassen, ‘Timeline’, in: Bol and Flinck, 2018 (note 1), p. 11.
38. De Witt and Van Sloten, Bol, 2018 (note 6); Robert Schillemans: Bijbelschilderkunst rond Rembrandt, Utrecht 1989, pp. 31-34.
39. Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5). I have been able to trace only thee copies: Library of the University of Amsterdam (2780 C 51), Royal Library, Den Haag, (KB: 3 C 20:10), and Noord-Hollands Archief, Haarlem (Oude Boekerij: 88 A 16). The copy in Den Haag lacks the page (A2) with Bol’s print.
40. Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5).
41. The 1644 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, First edition. Amsterdam1644) is a folio edition measuring 302 x 190 mm; the 1681 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, 3rd edition. Amsterdam, the widow of van Jan Jacobsz Schipper) is in quarto, measuring 216 mm x 170 mm. and the 1644-45 edition (J.H. Krul: Pampiere Wereld, 2nd edition, Amsterdam) is in octavo, measuring 169 x 104 mm. Book and library catalogues commonly ascribe c.1650 as the date for the latter, but the source of this attribution is not clear, and it is in error. See also Van Bemmel, Bibliographie (note 5).
42. Van Bemmel, Bibliographie (note 5); The anonymous copy is in reverse, by an unknown hand, is neither signed nor dated, measures 85 x 74.5 mm, is of the same theme and general composition, but is artistically distinctly different. The shield is blank in this copy of Bol’s etching. I have not found any impressions of this copy that were not part of the printed book. I have identified three other distinct copies after Bol’s print, for a total of four, rather than the single copy identified by Hollstein (note 2).
43. In 1644 and again in 1645 Krul obtained two successive loans, with the second providing funds to pay off the first, to permit him to publish the first two editions of Pampiere Wereld. Krul gave successively each lender volumes of the work, the patent rights and ‘some’ copper plates for the period of the loan. It is not clear if the plates included Bol’s etching. See Wijngaards, Krul, 1964 (note 5); Van Bemmel, Bibliographie, 1984 (note 5).
44. Jan Harmensz. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam 1650-51, J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam; J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Joost Hartgers, Amsterdam, 1640; J. H. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Michiel de Groot, Amsterdam, 1662; Jan Harmensz. Krul: Minne-Spiegel ter Deughden, Amsterdam, 1669-72.
45. Hollstein gives only four states; more recently, George C. Kenney lists five, albeit described differently than the six here. See George C. Kenney: The Illustrated Bartsch, vol. 51. Supplement: Netherlandish Artists. Ferdinand Bol. New York 2017, p. 73, no. 18.
46. In addition to the partial burnishing out of Bol’s name on the blade of the spade in the second state, lines are added partially obscuring the remaining portion of the signature; additional background work is added in several places; there is some work added on the scythe, table, book and the skull of the skeleton; and some additional work on the woman’s headdress/cape (fig. 2). The unique impression of this state is touched with black chalk and lead white, including the addition of a domed building in the distant background, horizontal lines below and to the left of the domed building, and the outline of a blank shield (or cartouche) covering the left part of the end of the coffin. Kenney also mentioned this state, but mistakenly describes the building in the background as a state difference. See: Kenney, Bol, 2017 (note 14). Only two other Bol prints have retouchings by the artist that appeared in the subsequent state: The Philosopher, H.6ii, 1643 (Amsterdam, RP-P-BI-1994); and The Young man Wearing a Plumed Cap, H.14i, 1642 (London, 1921,1008.21; and Dresden, A41073). The retouchings for H.6ii and H.14i appear in the plates for the next state of their respective prints. It is interesting to note that all retouched impressions were done in approximately the same period, and that the retouchings for H.6 and H.14 are very small in comparison to the significant retouchings for H.18. It is possible that this is a reflection of Bol’s satisfying his client’s wishes. Retouchings of impressions of other Bol prints are not judged to have been by his hand.
47. My thanks to Jaco Rutgers for this suggestion
48. The fifth state has added substantial additional background work and some work to the woman’s dress, and a bit on the shield, and the skull of the skeleton.
49. The sixth, and final, state has added rather crude extensive reworking consisting of regular patterns of cross-hatching using the burin, for instance on the back of the skull, the inside of the tent, and the clothes of the female courtier. See fig 6.
50. It had long been thought that Rembrandt painted his portrait in 1633. However, more recently, this has been called into question by Ernst van de Watering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 6: Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited, Dordrecht 2017, p. 526, no. 91. There were also family connections; see M. Louttit: ‘The Romantic Dress of Saskia van Ulenborch: Its Pastoral and Theatrical Associations’, The Burlington Magazine 115 (1973), pp. 317-326.
51. Leonore van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol in de voetsporen van Rembrandt: Twee herontdekte schilderijen’, in: Rudie van Leeuwen, Lilian Ruhe, and David de Witt, eds, Not Always Rembrandt; 37 studies in Baroque art. Turnhout, Belgium 2023, pp. 20-31.
52. Jan Soet, Soets Clorinde en Dambise, Amsterdam 1640.
53. University of Amsterdam: Creative Amsterdam. An E-Humanities Perspective. Onstage. Online Datasystem of Theatre in Amsterdam from the Golden Age to the present. https://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/onstage/plays/359 (accessed 7 July 2024).
54. N.C.H. Wijngaards, (note 5).
55. Antonio de Guevara: Menosprecio de corte y alabanza de aldea. Valladolid 1539.
56. See: S. Oosterwijk, ‘Morbid morality. The Danse macabre motif in Dutch art of the Golden Age’, in: Ilona Hans-Collas et al. (eds.), Mort n’espargne ne petit ne grant [Texte imprimé] : études autour de la mort et de ses représentations : actes du XVIIIe Congrès international de l’association Danses macabres d’Europe, Paris, 19-23 mars 2019, Paris 2019, pp. 174-195.
57. Translation: Linda Stone-Ferrier: ‘Ferdinand Bol: The Hour of Death’, in: Dutch Prints of Daily Life: Mirrors of Life or Masks of Morals? Lawrence, Kansas: The Spencer Museum of Art of The University of Kansas, 1983, pp. 144-146, credits Oliver C. Phillips, Classics Department, University Of Kansas, for the translation.
58. There is no Bol print dated earlier than H.18, although he may have created one, Abraham’s Sacrifice (H.1), when working in Rembrandt’s studio; however, this is uncertain, as it is not dated.
59. Gerard Roosenboom, Recueil van verscheyde keuren, en costumen. Midtsgaders maniere van procederen binnen de stadt Amsterdam. Eerst gecollecteert en beschreven, door Gerard Rooseboom, Amsterdam, 1656, pp. 120-131.
60. Stadsarchief Amsterdam (hereafter SAA), 5061, 3051 Memorieboek, p. 29.
61. http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/#/document/remdoc/e4581 (accessed 3 December 2025).
62. Arthur K. Wheelock jr., “Jan Lievens: Bringing new light to an old master”, in: Wheelock Jr. ed, Jan Lievens. A Dutch master rediscovered, exh. cat. Washington: National Gallery of Art; Milwaukee: Milwaukee Art Museum; Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum, 2008-2009, pp. 6-7.
63. SAA, 5075, 1745 not. Jan Quirijnen Spithof, pp. 124-125, 1-3-1644; Abraham Bedius, “Het verblijf van Jan Miense Molenaer te Amsterdam, in documenten”, in: Frederik D.O. Obreen, Archief voor Nederlandsche Kunstgeschiedenis, vol. 7, Rotterdam 1888-1890, p. 293.
64. Arthur K. Wheelock jr., in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2009 (see note 4), pp. 17-18.
65. SAA, 5061, 3063 Huwelijkskrakeelregisters, 8-12-1646.
66. SAA, 5075, 1080, not. Joost van de Ven, ff. 203r-203v, 7-12-1646.
67. “ter saecke sij als haar regeerster bij den req[uiran]t gewoont hadde” (see note 8).
68. “haer beloften van trouw heeft gedaan, van haer in eeuwig niet te sullen verlate & haer een vierkant stucken, neefens een ander silvere stuxkens gegeven & daarbeneffens van hem beslaepen & beswangert” (see note 7). The mentioned silver square piece was a klip, an emergency coinage at that time struck mainly in West Friesland, or a medal/jeton.
69. SAA, 5061, 3064, Huwelijkskrakeelregisters, 14-10-1649.
70. The name Anna or Annetje Jacobs was fairly common; in 1647, eleven children were baptised in Amsterdam whose mother bore a variant of this name.
71. The notarial archives contain many examples of such payments, both as compensation for the woman and as maintenance costs for any illegitimate children. For instance, Jan van de Velde agreed to the payments of two guilders per week in maintenance for the child he had conceived out of wedlock with Trijn Jans in 1636 (SAA, 5075, 601 not. Laurens Lamberti, p. 456, 17-07-1642). Whether this concerns the painter Jan van de Velde (III) from Haarlem, active in Amsterdam, is not clear. In 1661 David Abraham Cardozo paid no less than 1,000 guilders for “defloration” and the maintenance of two children resulting from his extramarital relationship with Dorothea Jans Bentem (SAA, 5075, 2210 not. Adriaen Lock, pp. 1107-1108, 27-05-1661).
72. London (Christie’s), 17 December 2020 (online auction 18877), lot 231 (inaccurately described as 185.4 x 195.5 cm); Old Master Paintings, Vienna (Dorotheum), 10 November 2021, lot 82 (as Jürgen Ovens, Pentecost).
73. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen I, Amsterdam 1718, p. 273.
74. Constanze Köster, Jürgen Ovens (1623-1678). Maler in Schleswig-Holstein und Amsterdam, Petersberg 2017, p. 53; pp. 327-328, Qu. II.A.7.
75. Archive of Schleswig-Holstein (LAS), Abt. 7, no. 6504, f. 1r; Köster 2017 (see note 3), pp. 37-38; p. 326, Qu. II.A.2.
76. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 38.
77. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 389, G145.
78. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 390, G147.
79. The Eighteenth Year Book of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, 1905-1906, pp. 70, 124, 224; “Department of Fine Arts”, The Museum News (Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences) 1 (1906) no. 10, p. 144.
80. Handwritten list of Maria Ovens’s estate (private collection, location unknown), cited after Harry Schmidt, “Das Nachlass-Inventar des Malers Jürgen Ovens”, Oud-Holland 32 (1914), p. 44, no. 16, note 7; Harry Schmidt, Jürgen Ovens. Sein Leben und seine Werke. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der niederländischen Malerei im XVII. Jahrhundert, Kiel 1922, p. 150, under no. 59a, p. 271, note 26 (as probably a copy after an original by Ovens); Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 39; p. 325, Qu. I.4.c.
81. Erik Hinterding, Jaco Rutgers, The New Hollstein, Dutch & Flemish etchings, engravings and woodcuts, 1450-1700. Rembrandt, Ouderkerk aan den IJssel 2013, text 2, pp. 59-60, no. 185.
82. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 151-154, no. 239.
83. Melchior Küsel, Icones Biblicae Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Figuren biblischer Historien alten und neuen Testaments, Augsburg 1679, ‘Book of Esther, Chapter 6’, fig. 20; reprint Hildesheim 1968. See also: Peter van der Coelen, ‘Rembrandt in Duitsland – Iconografie en verspreiding van zijn etsen in de zeventiende eeuw’, Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 2004, no. 1-2, p. 3, fig. 2.
84. or a mirror-image of this man in the Hundred Guilder Print, see: Ernst van de Wetering et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings V. Small-scale history paintings, Dordrecht 2011, p. 144, fig. 4.
85. Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 397, Z12-13.
86. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), pp. 39-41, no. 173.
87. The presence of Mary or of other women at Pentecost, such as Mary Magdalene, is usually inferred from Acts 1:14: “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus […]”.
88. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 1, pp. 189-191, no. 119.
89. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 1, p. 84, no. 55; pp. 220-221, no. 138.
90. Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 158-159, no. 241.
91. The only possible exception in this respect is Ovens’s painted self-portrait from c. 1652 in the Hamburger Kunsthalle (inv. no. HK-26), which seems to go back to Rembrandt’s famous 1639 etching Self-Portrait leaning on a Stone Sill. See: Patrick Larsen, “The relationship between Govert Flinck and Jürgen Ovens”, in: Stephanie S. Dickey (ed.), Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck. New research, Zwolle 2017, p. 182, fig. 12.2, p. 184; Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 33-35, no. 171.
92. Karel van Mander, Het schilder-boeck, Haarlem 1604, fol. 5r; Philips Angel, Lof der schilder-konst, Leiden 1642, pp. 36-37.
93. For Ovens’s artistic appropriations of figures and motives from seventeenth-century art of the Low Countries during his Northern German periods, see: Patrick Larsen, “The Imitation of Dutch and Flemish Art in Jürgen Ovens’ (1623-1678) Paintings in Schleswig-Holstein”, in: Rieke van Leeuwen, Juliette Roding (eds.), Masters of Mobility. Cultural exchange between the Netherlands and the German lands in the long 17th century (Gerson Digital VI), The Hague: RKD, 2020, https://masters-of-mobility.rkdstudies.nl/13-the-imitation-of-dutch-and-flemish-art-in-j%C3%BCrgen-ovens-1623-1678-paintings-in-schleswig-holstein/.
94.  Nadine M. Orenstein, “Printmaking among artists of the Rembrandt School”, in: Stephanie S. Dickey (ed.), Rembrandt and his circle. Insights and discoveries, Amsterdam 2017, p. 308, fig. 16.3. For Ovens’s prints, see: Tilman Falk, Robert Zijlma, “Jürgen Ovens”, in: Hollstein’s German engravings, etchings and woodcuts, 1400-1700, vol. XXXI, Amsterdam 1991, pp. 61-74, nos. 1-10b; Köster 2017 (see note 3), pp. 415-416, R1-R7.
95. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler II, Landau/Pfalz 1983, p. 1020, no. 615; Hinterding, Rutgers (see note 10), text 1, pp. 201-202, no. 125.
96. Guus Sluiter, “‘De Passie, anders de Historie van den lydenden Christus’. Arent de Gelders Passieserie”, in: Peter Schoon et al., Arent de Gelder (1645-1727). Rembrandts laatste leerling, exh. cat. Dordrecht: Dordrechts Museum; Cologne: Wallraf–Richartz-Museum, 1998, pp. 73-75, figs. 2-13; pp. 78-80, 85; Guus Sluiter, “De fascinatie van Arent de Gelder voor Rembrandts etsen”, Bulletin Dordrechts Museum 22 (1998), pp. 35-45.
97. Sumowski 1983 (see note 24), p. 1163, no. 738; Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 2, pp. 57-58, no. 184.
98. Sumowski 1983 (see note 24), p. 1421, no. 935; Hinterding, Rutgers 2013 (see note 10), text 1, pp. 251-253, no. 155.
99. LAS, Abt. 7, no. 2311, fol. 90r; Köster 2017 (see note 3), p. 304, note 195; p. 332, Qu. II.B.1.1652. Also see: Patrick Larsen, “Jürgen Ovens (1623-1678) as an Art Agent for the Dukes of Gottorf”, in: Rieke van Leeuwen et al., The Big Picture. Collecting Dutch and Flemish Art in Germany 1600-1850 (Gerson Digital VIII), The Hague: RKD, 2022, https://the-big-picture.rkdstudies.nl/2-jürgen-ovens-16231678-as-an-art-agent-for-the-dukes-of-gottorf/.
100. Rembrandt prints were offered for sale in the German-speaking lands fairly early. See Van der Coelen 2004 (see note 12), pp. 5-15; Jaco Rutgers, “Rembrandt op papier. De rol van prenten bij het vestigen van Rembrandts reputatie als schilder”, in: Jaco Rutgers, Mieke Rijnders (eds.), Rembrandt in perspectief. De veranderende visie op de meester en zijn werk, Zwolle 2014, p. 122.
101. Neither the so-called Gottorf account books nor the 1694, 1710 and 1743 inventories of Gottorf castle mention works on paper by Rembrandt.
102. Werner Sumowski, Paul Huys Janssen, The Hoogsteder Exhibition of Rembrandt’s Academy, exh. cat. The Hague: Hoogsteder & Hoogsteder, 1992, cat. no. 28.
103. Exhibition catalogues: Albert Blanckert, Jezus in de Gouden Eeuw, exh. cat. Rotterdam: Kunsthal, 2000–2001; Akira Kofuku, Rembrandt and the Rembrandt School. The Bible, mythology and ancient history, exh. cat. Tokyo: Museum of Western Art, 2003; Arthur K. Wheelock et al., Jan Lievens. A Dutch Master Rediscovered, exh. cat. Washington: National Gallery of Art; Milwaukee: Milwaukee Art Museum; Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum, 2008-2009, cat.no. 52; Louis van Tilborgh, Constantijn Huygens. Kunstkenner en verzamelaar, exh. cat. The Hague: Museum Bredius, 2013, cat. no. 14. Other literature: Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandtschüler, vol. 4, Landau, 1983, p. 3726, no. 2356, fig. 3964; Helga Gutbrod, Lievens und Rembrandt : Studien zum Verhältnis ihrer Kunst, Frankfurt am Main, 1996, p. 299; Edwin Buijssen (ed.), Haagse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw, Het Hoogsteder lexicon van alle schilders werkzaam in Den Haag 1600-1700, The Hague, 1998, p. 191; Lloyd DeWitt, Evolution and Ambition in the career of Jan Lievens, 1607-1674, Phd. Diss. University of Maryland, College Park, 2006, p. 228.
104. DeWitt, Evolution (see note 2), p. 228.
105. For example those mentioned in the Montias Database of 17th Century Dutch Art Inventories and the Getty Provenance Research Index.
106. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), p. 220.
107. Dr Gaston Gaudinot sale, Paris (Drouot), 13-14 February 1869.
108. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), p. 220.
109. Ibid.
110. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), p. 226. Huys Janssen explains that the miracle as described in Luke and John differs from the version told by Matthew.
111. After listening to the centurion, and before addressing him directly, Jesus speaks to his followers: “I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 8:11) Perhaps Lievens incorporated this part of the text and explicitly included people coming from the east (from the standpoint of his Dutch audience). A second possibility is that they are Pharisees. This group plays the role elsewhere in Matthew of disbelieving critics, and here they may serve to accentuate the belief of the centurion in the Christian faith. In early prints (Sebald Beham, Israhel van Meckenem, Hans Schaüfelein and Cornelis Massijs) and several Italian prints from Lievens’s time (seventeenth century prints after Paolo Veronese), Pharisees wear such headdresses. A parallel between blacks and overseas regions, such as in Lievens’s Brinio, is convincingly outlined by Elmer Kolfin (in: Elmer Kolfin, De kunst van de macht, Jordaens, Lievens en Rembrandt in het Paleis op de Dam, Zwolle, 2023, p. 67), does not seem to apply here.
112. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), p. 223.
113. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), pp. 223, 226.
114. The right eye from the perspective of the viewer. There, a pupil was painted in, in a later restoration. Because of the sketchy manner it is difficult to ascertain whether or not both eyes are present, but in the left the lower eyelid is visible, while it is undefined in the right eye.
115. For example: Jacobus Neeffs (after Jacob Jordaens), Judgement of Christ, etching, c. 1630-1645; Marinus van der Goes (after Jacques Jordaens), Judgement of Christ, engraving, c. 1614-1639; Willem Panneels (after Peter Paul Rubens), Adoration of the kings, etching, 1630; Nicolaes Lauwers (after Peter Paul Rubens), Ecce Homo, engraving, c. 1619-1652; and many more. Generally, for examples of inspiration drawn from prints by Lievens, see De
     Witt, Evolution (see note 2).
116. Sumowski, Huys Janssen, Academy (see note 1), p. 226. Huys Janssen refers to examples by Nicolaes Moeyaert (Herentals, St. Waltrudis church) and Adam Camerarius (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-A-733). DeWitt refers to a painting by Bartholomeus Breenbergh (Karlsruhe, Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe, inv. no. 228) and the Moeyaert in Herentals (DeWitt, Evolution (see note 2), p. 227). But also see a woodcut with this subject by Cornelis van Sichem II in Der zielen lusthof (1629). Also of interest: Claes Moeyeart, Christ and the Centurion, 1632 (Minneapolis, Minneapolis Institute of Art, inv. no. 2012.84.5). Although the painting is known under this subject, it may in fact depict Cornelius kneeling before Peter, since more than one figure is shown kneeling and the composition closely resembles prints of this subject.
117. Henri van de Waal, “’s Lands oudste verleden in de voorstelling van Vondel en zijn tijdgenooten”, Elsevier’s Maandschrift 47 (1937); Henri van de Waal, “Tempesta en de historieschilderingen op het Amsterdamse stadhuis”, Oud Holland 56 (1939); Henri van de Waal, Drie eeuwen vaderlandsche geschied-uitbeelding 1500-1800, een iconologische studie, The Hague, 1952; Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10).
118. Antonio Tempesta (after Otto van Veen), Print 8 in (…)De Batavische oft oude Hollandtsche oorloghe teghen de Romeynen, 1612. Etching, 167 x 210 mm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-OB-37.614. Jürgen Ovens based his drawing for the Batavian Series depicting Claudius Civilis leaving the Women and Children to fight at Xanten (Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle, inv. no. 22342) on this print.
119. On the period in The Hague: Buijssen Haagse (see note 2), pp.191-193.
120. Haarlem, Teylers Museum, inv. no. P 006. For the identification and context, see: Gregor Weber, “Dus leeft de dappre Graaf: Zu einem Bildnis Andries de Graeffs von Jan Lievens (1607-1674)”, Oud Holland 99 (1985), pp. 44-56.
121. Van de Waal, Eeuwen (see note 16), p. 230; Kolfin, De kunst van de macht (see note 10), pp. 19-20.
122. Van de Waal, “’s Lands” (see note 16), p. 301-302.
123.  Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10), p. 41. Four Batavian scenes were never completed. For two the themes are known, for the other two are not known.
124. Munich, Staatliche Graphische Sammlung München, inv. no. 1451; Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. no. 22342. A lesser-known drawing of Rembrandt’s Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis (Edinburgh, National Galleries of Scotland, inv. no. D 23862) shows – when compared to the drawing in Munich – that the lower section of the painting is covered by a frieze and that portions of the left and right sides are obscured. This may indicate that an alternative conception of the framing of the lunettes was considered before the one ultimately implemented. It is possible that this earlier framing was already envisioned when Lievens produced his oil sketch Christ and the Centurion.
125. Van de Waal, Eeuwen (see note 16), p. 225, referring to SAA, 5039, 2 resolutieboek, f. 66r.
126. Ibid., referring to SAA, 5039, 153 rapiamus 1661, f.195v.
127. Van de Waal, Eeuwen (see note 16), p. 225.
128. Gregor Weber, “Jan Lievens’s ‘The Shield-raising of Brinio’ a Second Oil Sketch”, Hoogsteder-Naumann Mercury 12/13 (1992), nt. 8.
129. Dewitt, Evolution (see note 2), p. 221.
130. Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10), p.67.
131. Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10), p. 44.
132. For, among other things, contemporary poetry in which Civilis and others are compared to the members of the House of Orange: Van de Waal, Eeuwen (see note 16), pp. 220-221, 223.
133. Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10), p. 47.
134. Margriet van Eikema Hommes, Elmer Kolfin, De Oranjezaal in Huis ten Bosch, Een zaal uit loutere liefde, Zwolle, 2013, p. 77.
135. Kolfin, Kunst (see note 10), pp. 41-47, 77.
136. One may ask, in light of points discussed in this article, whether the “Christ” figure in the first version was in fact Christ at all. If so, the oil sketch would initially have represented solely a Christian scene without any reference to the Batavian Revolt, thereby less relatable to the (eventual) decoration program of the Town Hall’s gallery. Given that in the initial design the groups left and right with Biblical and/or eastern figures do not seem to have been included (aside from a bearded man on the right, judging from the x-ray), the large central figure may originally have been Julius Civilis. In compositional terms, this would align the painting more closely with the print by Tempesta after Van Veen. The apparent similarity in hairstyle between the final Christ figure and the initial figure, together with the possible initial presence of a (holy) beam of light directed toward the figure, may argue against this hypothesis; nevertheless, Brinno in Lievens’s Brinio Raised on the Shield likewise features long hair and even incorporates a diagonal compositional line through the clouds, comparable to the line through the foliage in the initial version of the present subject. The later insertion of Christ could then be understood as a deliberate twist, imparting a more prominent Christian meaning to the historical scene. These suggestions and observations were kindly shared by Jochem van Eijsden.
137. Samuel van Hoogstraten, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst: anders de zichtbaere werelt, Rotterdam 1678, p. 18. Van Hoogstraten here refers to the period when he was “still a disciple”, during which, as part of a “we”, he and others discussed a particular question, to which a certain “Fabritius” responded with an answer. It is generally assumed that this refers to Carel Fabritius, who is assumed to have studied with Rembrandt between approximately 1641 and 1643.
138. Werner Sumowski described Van Hoogstraten as “pädagogisch begabt, Assistent Rembrandts gewesen” (Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler II, Landau/Pfalz 1984, p. 1286). As supporting evidence, Sumowski argued that Van Hoogstraten corrected drawings by Constantijn Daniël van Renesse (; p. 1290, nt. 2). When discussing one of these drawings (Moses and Reuel’s Daughters at the Well, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-T-1893-A-2782) Sumowski suggested the possibility that “Samuel van Hoogstraten acted as assistant to the master on occasional trips even at a later date”. (Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School IX, New York 1985, no. 2159x). Building on this, Jonathan Bikker suggested in his monograph on Willem Drost that Van Hoogstraten “might have supervised Drost during his early days in Rembrandt’s studio” (Jonathan Bikker, Willem Drost, A Rembrandt Pupil in Amsterdam and Venice, New Haven/London 2005, p. 11). David de Witt later observed, in his Abraham van Dijck monograph, concerning Van Hoogstraten: “by 1646 his training would have been complete, but he appears to have stayed on as a tutor or head pupil for several years” (David De Witt, Life and Work of Late Rembrandt Pupil Abraham van Dijck, c. 1635-1680, Amsterdam 2020, p. 11).
139. Sabine Pénot, Rembrandt – Hoogstraten. Colour and Illusion, exh. cat. Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, 2024; Nathalie Maciesza, Epco Runia, Samuel van Hoogstraten. De Illusionist, exh. cat. Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum, 2025; Sabine van Beek, Leonore van Sloten, David de Witt et al., Samuel van Hoogstraten: Catalogue Raisonné, The Hague 2025.
140. The catalogue of the Vienna exhibition assumes a position for Van Hoogstraten as an assistant for approximately three to four years (Angelina Illes, in: exh. cat. Vienna 2024 (see note 3), p. 29; Jonathan Bikker, in: exh. cat. Vienna 2024 (see note 3), p. 93), though it makes no mention of any teaching responsibilities. These are, however, included in the publication accompanying the exhibition at the Rembrandt House Museum (Michiel Roscam Abbing, in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2025 (see note 3), p. 19; David De Witt, in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2025 (see note 3), p. 131), and in the online Van Hoogstraten catalogue raisonné by the RKD (Michiel Roscam Abbing, in: The Hague 2025 (see note 3), “With Rembrandt in Amsterdam”. https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/samuel-van-hoogstraten-the-ingenious-and-poetic-painter/with-rembrandt-inamsterdam/, 26 May 2025).
141. The term “assistent” was used in Holland in the 17th century, albeit in other contexts, see: Woordenboek Nederlandse taal, s.v. assistent, https://gtb.ivdnt.org/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M004535&lemma=assistent&domein=0&conc=true, 11
     July 2025.
142. “Een min of meer ondergeschikte helper”, a more or less subordinate helper (see note 5); “A person who helps or supports somebody, usually in their job”: Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. assistant, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/12041, 11 July 2025.
143. The guild archive has been lost. For a comprehensive account of the Amsterdam Guild of Saint Luke and its ordinances, see: Isabella H. van Eeghen, “Schilders of Sint Lucasgilde”, in: Isabella H. van Eeghen (ed.), Inventarissen der archieven van de gilden en van het brouwerscollege, Amsterdam 1951, passim.; Isabella H. van Eeghen (Jasper Hillegers, translator), “The Amsterdam Guild of Saint Luke in the 17th Century”, Journal of Historians for Netherlandish Art 4.2 (2012), passim., DOI:10.5092/jhna.2012.4.2.4, 11 July 2025. The current article relies exclusively on the guild regulations of the Amsterdam De Kroniek 2024/25 – Museum Rembrandthuis 10 painters’ guild. It is often assumed that the regulations of painters’ guilds in different Dutch towns did not differ substantially in content. On that assumption, gaps in the regulations of one town might be filled by those of another. However, the discussion later in this article regarding whether apprentices were permitted to produce their own work shows that crucial differences did in fact exist. For that reason, guild regulations from other cities are not used here to fill the gaps in the surviving Amsterdam regulations.
144. Extract van de willekeuren en ordonnantien den gilde van St. Lucas verleent, Amsterdam 1720, p. 11.
145. Extract (see note 8), p. 11; This is also the case in the chapter title and margin of the 1766 publication of all known guild charters: Ordonnantien en willekeuren van het Lucas-gilde binnen Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1766, p. 64, 68. It is noteworthy that the dean and headmen of the guild employed a gilde kneght (Extract (see note 8), pp. 26-27. This was not a pupilship, and the tasks meet the definition of an assistant in the Oxford English Dictionary and the Woordenboek Nederlandse Taal (see note 6)
146. Extract (see note 8), pp. 12-13
147. Extract (see note 8), pp. 11-12.
148. Extract (see note 8), p. 12.
149. Cornelis Kiliaen (ed. Frans Claes), Etymologicum teutonicae linguae, Antwerp 1599 (The Hague 1972), p. 278, s.v. leerionghe; leer-kind; leer-knecht; leerlinck; p. 703, s.v. discipel. In the regulations of the Haarlem Guild of St. Luke from 1634 (NHA, 1105, Ambachtsgilden te Haarlem (Gilden Haarlem), no. 219), the terms “leerling”, “leerjongen”, and “discipel” are
     used. This might suggest that a distinction existed between them, but they are actually used interchangeably. The same applies to the terms “(werk)gezel”, “knecht”, and – a new term – “gast”. The latter is synonymous with journeyman or servant: “Knecht van een ambachtsman of fabrikant; gezel, werkknecht”, servant of a tradesman or manufacturer; journeyman, workshop hand: Woordenboek Nederlandse taal, s.v. gast, https://gtb.ivdnt.org/iWDB/searchactie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M017355.re.35&lemma=werkgast&domein=0&conc=true,
     16 oktober 2025.
150. Kiliaen, Etymologicum (see note 13), p. 139, s.v. ghe-selle van een ampt. The Latin word “collega” is likewise a translation for “ambtgenoot”, “maet”, and “vennoot” (Kiliaen, Etymologicum (see note 13), p. 18, s.v. ampt-ghenoot; p. 302, s.v. maet, med-maet, maetken; p. 579, s.v. veyn-out, veyn-noot, ven-noot, vennoot, veyn-gnoot).
151. Kiliaen, Etymologicum (see note 13), p. 244, s.v. knecht, dienaer.
152. Nicolaas de Roever, “Drie Amsterdamsche Schilders (Pieter Isaaksz, Abraham Vinck, Cornelis van der Voort)”, Oud Holland 3 (1885), p. 198.
153. In 1619, he was asked together with several artists who had traveled to Italy, including Pieter Lastman, Adriaen van Nieulandt, and Barent van Someren, to assess the authenticity of a Caravaggio painting from the collection of the late Louis Finson. Abraham Bredius, Nicolaas de Roever, “Pieter Lastman en François Venant”, Oud Holland 4 (1886), pp. 7-8.
154. Ronald de Jager “Meester, leerjongen, leertijd. Een analyse van Zeventiende-eeuwse Noord-Nederlandse leerlingcontracten van kunstschilders, goud- en zilversmeden”, Oud Holland 104 (1990), p. 96, nt. 107. The title of “gezel” is, in fact, never mentioned in the known Amsterdam contracts.
155. De Jager, “Meester” (see note 18), pp. 73-75.
156. De Jager, “Meester” (see note 18), p. 71.
157. Stadsarchief Amsterdam (hereafter SAA), 5075, 393A, nots. Jacob Jacobs and Nicolaes Jacobs, ff. 59r-59v, 20-07-1626; Abraham Bredius, “Gerrit Willemsz. Horst”, Oud Holland 50 (1933), pp. 5-6; De Jager, “Meester” (see note 18), p. 98, no. 7.
158. This underscores a clear distinction: as was also evidenced by the entries in Kiliaen, Etymologicum (see note 13), dienaer was a synonym for knecht, not for leerknecht (see note 15).
159. Abraham Bredius, Künstlerinventare. Urkunden zur Geschichte der holländischen Kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts V, The Hague 191, pp. 1482-1483; De Jager, “Meester” (see note 18), p. 98, no. 10.
160. The value of a barrel of herring in Amsterdam in 1635 was approximately 120 grams of silver (Bo Poulsen, Dutch Herring. An Environmental History, c. 1600–1860, Amsterdam 2008, p. 93, table 6.9); in the seventeenth century, ten grams of silver corresponded to the value of roughly one guilder.
161. The tuition fees in Holland for a two-year contract averaged 61.5 guilders per year (De Jager, “Meester” (see note 18), p. 75).
162. Josua Bruyn, “Een onderzoek naar 17de -eeuwse schilderijformaten, voornamelijk in Noord-Nederland”, Oud Holland 93 (1979), p. 113.
163. Abraham Bredius, Künstlerinventare. Urkunden zur Geschichte der holländischen Kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts II, The Hague 1916, pp. 400-401; De Jager, “Meester” (see note 18), p. 98
164. As a journeyman painter Waltusz earned less than half the daily wage of peers in other trades. In 1652, journeymen carpenters and bricklayers in Amsterdam earned approximately 26 to 27 stivers per summer day (although there are no exact figures for 1651, data is available for 1633, 27 and 25 stivers respectively, and for 1667, 28 and 27 stivers respectively).
     This disparity between painter’s journeymen and their peers in other trades mirrors the situation in 1579. The guild
     regulations (gildebrief) of the St. Luke’s Guild from that year mention journeymen earning 4 stivers and others earning 10
     stivers per day (Ordonnantien (see note 9), p. 17, art. 11). Taking the average of 7 stivers, these were notably low wages –
     practically half – when compared to the 14 and 12 stivers earned by carpenters and bricklayers, respectively, in that same
     year. For the wages of the workers mentioned here, see: Hubert Nutseling, Welvaart en werkgelegenheid in Amsterdam
     1540–1860, Amsterdam/Dieren 1985, p. 252, appendix 5.1, table A.
165. SAA, DTB 5001, 469, p. 241, 30-09-1651; Judith van Gent, Bartholomeus van der Helst (circa 1613-1670): een studie naar zijn leven en zijn werk, Utrecht (Utrecht University), p. 41.
166. Virtually nothing is known about Gerardus van Berleborch (Bernard Renckens, “G. van Berkborch”, Oud Holland 84 (1967), no. 4, passim). He or his father was likely from the region around Bad Berleburg in Germany. He appears to have been present in Leiden in 1665, when he is recorded as a witness (“Gerrit van Berleberg”) at the baptism of a child of the painter Jacobus Geutkien (Erfgoed Leiden en Omstreken (hereafter ELO), DTB 1004, 237, fol. 236v, 3-12-1665).
167. SAA, 5075, 875, not. Jacob van Zwieten, pp. 638-640, 16-10-1649; Johannes G. van Dillen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven en het gildewezen van Amsterdam 1510-1672 III, p. 540, no. 1057.
168. A possible reason for this may be that young painters attained the status of master more quickly. This benefited the guild financially, as it earned income only from masters and pupils, not from journeymen.
169. Ordonnantien (see note 9), p. 10, art. 3.
170. Ordonnantien (see note 9), p. 17, art. 11.
171. Joachim von Sandrart’s famous anecdote about Rembrandt’s studio being filled with “countless elite children”, pupils who each paid an annual tuition fee of 100 guilders suggests that the legal limit on the number of pupils was, in practice, a dead letter (Joachim von Sandrardt, Teutsche Academie, Nuremberg 1675, p. 326; Van Eeghen, “Guild” (see note 7), p. 6).
172. Young Man Reading with a Vanitas Still Life, 1644, oil on panel, 58 x 74 cm, Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, inv. no. 1386; Self-portrait, 1644, oil on panel, 63 x 48 cm, The Hague, Museum Bredius, inv. no. 056-1946; Self-portrait, 1645, oil on panel, 54.1 x 44.8 cm, Liechtenstein, The Princely Collections, Vaduz-Vienna, inv. no. GE 107; Portrait of a Child, 1645, oil on panel, 68.6 x 57.8 cm, private collection; The Adoration of the Shepherds, 1647, oil on canvas, 58.2 x 70.8 cm, Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum, inv. no. DM/980/567.
173. Godefridus J. Hoogewerff, De geschiedenis van de St. Lucasgilden in Nederland, Amsterdam 1947, p. 24; Ernst van de Wetering “Problems of Pupilship and Studio Practice” in: Josua Bruyn et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings II: 1631-1634, Amsterdam 1986, p. 57; Bikker, Drost (see note 2), p. 11; Angelina Illes, in: exh. cat. Vienna 2024 (see note 3), p. 29.
174. Samuel Muller Fz., Schilders-vereenigingen te Utrecht. Bescheiden uit het Gemeentearchief, Utrecht 1880, p. 76; Frederik D.O. Obreen, Archief voor Nederlandsche Kunstgeschiedenis IV, Rotterdam 1881/1882, p. 51. The very fact that such a regulation had to be instituted in these cities already indicates that works were being signed by non-masters.
175. De Jager, “Meester” (see note 18), pp. 77-79.
176. Bruyn, “Onderzoek”, (see note 26), p. 113.
177. David de Witt, Leonore van Sloten, in: The Hague 2025 (see note 3), “Rembrandt’s Impact”, https://vanhoogstraten.rkdstudies.nl/catalogus-schilderijen/rembrandts-impact/, 3 June 2025.
178. Almost exclusively, reference is made to Bikker, Drost (see note 2), p. 11. Also in the exhibition catalogue of the Van Hoogstraten exhibition in Amsterdam, Drost is cited as an example of an early student of Van Hoogstraten (David de Witt, in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2025 (see note 3), p. 131.
179. Since Daniël Pont’s monograph on Barent Fabritius, (Daniël Pont, Barent Fabritius 1624–1673, The Hague, 1958) and Sumowski’s Drawings of the Rembrandt School (see note 2), no subsequent scholarly efforts have systematically De Kroniek 2024/25 – Museum Rembrandthuis 12 reconstructed his drawn oeuvre or analyzed the development of his distinctive style. The author’s forthcoming dissertation addresses this lacuna, and catalogues drawings by Barent Fabritius.
180. Pont was among the first to suggest he may not have been a direct pupil of Rembrandt, but instead only came into contact with Rembrandt’s work indirectly, through his brother Carel (Pont, Barent (see note 43), p. 96). In the literature, uncertainty on this matter appears to have become the norm, with scholars consistently noting – or implicitly dealing with – the lack of evidence for a formal pupilship with Rembrandt (see: Paul Huys Jansen, Werner Sumowski, The Hoogsteder Exhibition of Rembrandt’s Academy, exh. cat. The Hague: Hoogsteder & Hoogsteder, 1992, p. 139; Walter A. Liedkte in: Hubert von Sonneburg, Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art I, exh. cat. New York City: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1995, cat. 48, pp. 145-146; Peter C. Sutton in: Albert Blankert, Rembrandt. A Genius and his impact, exh. cat. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria; Canberra: National Gallery of Australia, 1997, p. 283; Jan Blanc, Dans l’atelier de Rembrandt. Le maître et ses élèves, Paris 2006, p. 140.
181. Holm Bevers, “Das Susanna-Thema im Werkstattzusammenhang: Zeichnungen”, in: Holm Bevers, Katja Kleinert, Claudia Laurenze-Landsberg, Rembrandts Berliner Susanna und die beiden Alten. Die Schaffung eins meisterwerks, exh. cat. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett; Gemäldegalerie, 2015, pp. 49-50.
182. Katja Kleinert, Claudia Laurenze-Landsberg, “Wandlungen eines Gemäldes. Rembrandts Berliner Susanna und die beiden Alten”, in: exh. cat. Berlin 2015 (see note 45), p. 19, 32.
183. See for instance Rembrandt’s Holy Family in the Carpenter’s workshop or his Star of the Kings (London, The British Museum, inv. nos. 1900,0824.144, 1910,0212.189).
184. The drawing of a male model (here attributed to Barent Fabritius) has been described as stylistically very close to Van Hoogstraten (Martin Royalton-Kisch in: Catalogue of Drawings by Rembrandt and his School, London: The British Museum, 2010, cat. 71). The Departure of the Prodigal Son, a drawing already earlier attributed to Fabritius, is still considered a work by Van Hoogstraten (Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum, inv. no. 817).
185. A convincing spatial representation of the scene, achieved through a successful use of proportion, perspective, light, and color. For a elaboration on this definition, including references, see: Leonore van Sloten, “Regels voor de kunst”, in: David de Witt, Leonore van Sloten, Jaap van der Veen, Rembrandts late leerlingen. In de leer bij een genie, exh. cat. Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum, 2015, p. 73, note 31.
186. In drawings by Barent Fabritius from the second half of the 1640s, his preparatory chalk underdrawing is generally careful and precise but not detailed, with clear, exact contours rendered in continuous, rounded lines. The somewhat squat figures possess a doll-like, slightly caricatural character. When using pen to trace or fill in the figures, particularly those in the foreground, the style becomes sketchier and more angular. Fabritius’s hatching lines become more carefully placed as they  grow finer, laid loosely side by side with only occasional thin-pen scratching, while thicker lines, including contours, are rendered in a zigzag, looser manner, often applied to foreground elements such as a repoussoir. Groups of hatching in shadowed, complex motifs (e.g., figures or foreground foliage) are neither intertwined nor uniformly oriented, and though the balance of light and shadow varies between drawings, it remains consistent within each composition; early mastery is evident in his wash applications, where loosely brushed transitions in shadows lend a painterly quality, enhancing figural plasticity and atmospheric depth, as seen in drawings with dramatic chiaroscuro effects.
187. Although it has been argued by Holm Bevers that this drawing is by Constantijn Daniël van Renesse and dates from between 1650 and 1652 (Holm Bevers, “Ausstellungen zu Rembrandt in Rückblick”, Kunstchronik, 58 (2005), p. 480; Holm Bevers, in: Rembrandt. Die Zeichnungen im Berliner Kupferstichkabinett, exh. cat. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, 2006, cat. no. 45, p. 158, nt. 12; Holm Bevers in: Holm Bevers et al., Drawings by Rembrandt and his Pupils. Telling the Difference, exh. cat. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 2009, cat. no. 31.2, pp. 190-191), a number of features are so uncharacteristic of Van Renesse that the attribution cannot be sustained. This applies in particular to elements such as the heavy, coarse scratches in the shadow areas and the sketch-like rendering of the faces of Joseph and Mary. Van Renesse typically keeps shadow areas and light transitions in brush clear and even. Also characteristic is his meticulous penwork, marked by fine, short strokes in the contours and hatching lines (see for instance: The Judgment of Salomon, New York City (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Robert Lehman Collection, inv. no. 1975.1.806; Daniel in the Lion’s Den, Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, inv. no. MB 200). Generally, it shows the boldness of Barent much more than the careful restraint of Renesse
188. “Beeter waer ‘t dat [om de veranderin[g]] een eesel van achteren was, dan dat al de hoofden iuist wt het stuck sien. Dat oock omtrent de boom wat meerder groente was. | 1 losep heft af te swaer en te onbesuist | 2 Maria most het kindeken wat meerder vieren, want een teeder kint magh sulck duwen niet ver[dragen]. | losep al te kort en dick, sijn hooft wast hem wt de [borst?]. Sijn hebben alle beide al te groote koppen”. Transcript from: Leonore van Sloten, in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2015 (see note 49), p. 73, nt. 27. “It would be better that [for the alteration] there were a donkey from the back, than that all the heads are looking straight out of the work. That there were also somewhat more greenery around the tree. | 1 Joseph lifts too heavily and too inconsiderately. | 2 Mary ought to ease the little child somewhat more, for a tender infant cannot [endure] such pushing. | Joseph is all too short and stout, his head grows out of the [chest?]. They both have all too large heads”. These instructions are also partly articulated within the drawing itself. Joseph is indeed shown tugging firmly at Mary’s arm, whereas in the more sketch-like version, he supports her more gently at the back. The small patch of greenery in the lower corner may also be a later addition, in correspondence with the suggestion.
189. The face does not appear to be a correction in the technical sense, but rather an example of a foreshortened face viewed from below – a challenging principle of perspective.
190. An attribution proposed Christian Dittrich (Christian Dittrich in: Christian Dittrich, Thomas Ketelsen, Rembrandt. Die Dresdener Zeichnungen 2004, exh. cat. Dresden: Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Kupferstich-Kabinett, 2004, cat. no.14, pp. 80-81).
191. Brusati implied the possibility that the text was written partly by Rembrandt and partly by Van Hoogstraten (Celeste Brusati, Artifice & Illusion. The Art and Writing of Samuel van Hoogstraten, Chicago/London 1995, pp. 31, 275, note 40). Rembrandt was excluded as the author of the instructions by Bevers, while Van Hoogstraten as author remained an option. Van Renesse was likewise ruled out by Bevers, based on a comparison with the handwriting on his Daniel in the Lions’ Den drawing and The Judgment of Solomon drawing (see note 51); Holm Bevers, in: exh. cat. Los Angeles 2009 (see note 51), cat. 31.1–31.2, p. 190; 191, note 3). To this may be added that the handwriting also closely resembles that of Barent Fabritius. Although little comparative material survives, the compact, small script of Fabritius’s name beneath the death inventory of his sister-in-law Aeltje, dated 24 April 1643 (SAA, 5075, 1628a, not. David de l’Hommel, p. 399), shows a strong resemblance to the instructions on the Dresden sheet.
192. “Once you have mastered your handling and your eye is somewhat clarified, it will no longer trouble you to translate many naturalistic paintings into a naturalistic drawing”. “Wanneer gy uwe handeling nu machtich zijt, en uw oog wat verklaert is, zoo zal ‘t u ook niet verscheelen veel verwige Schilderyen in een verwige teykeningen na te klaren” (Van Hoogstraten, Inleyding (see note 1), p. 27)
193. “I advise masters, when they review the drawings of their pupils, to improve them by making sketches of the same subject themselves. This is an excellent exercise and has greatly assisted many in the art of composition”. “De meesters raed ik, als ze de Teykeningen haerer discipelen overzien, datze de zelve, met schetssen op ‘t zelve voorwerp te maeken, verbeeteren. Dit oeffent ongemeen, en heeft veelen geweldich in de schikkunst geholpen” (Van Hoogstraten, Inleyding (see note 1), p. 192).
194. “And certainly, this manner of drawing with pen and brush is likewise the most suitable for completing a masterly work in its full force. For one can also, whenever it proves convenient, work into it with red chalk and crayons, as though one were almost painting with colours”. “En zeker deeze wijze van met pen en pinseel te teykenen, is ook allerbequaemst om een meesterlijk werk in zijn volle kracht te voleinden. Dewijl men’er ook, als’t pas geeft, met rood krijt en kryons in kan speelen, als of men byna met verwen schilderde” (Van Hoogstraten, Inleyding (see note 1), p. 31.
195. On stylistic grounds, this Rembrandt drawing has been placed among a group of history drawings dating to around 1650 (Otto Benesch, The Drawings of Rembrandt V, New York 1957, no. 902). Among other arguments, this dating led Bevers to attribute the Dresden drawing to Constantijn van Renesse, rather than Barent Fabritius (Holm Bevers, in: exh. cat. Berlin 2006 (see note 51), cat. no. 45, p. 157, 158, nt. 12) However, it remains questionable whether the Rembrandt drawing in Berlin should be understood within that context. Unlike the other history drawings, this work is not an autonomous composition but rather a sketched response to the Dresden sheet. It is plausible that the sketch was already made around 1647. In terms of linework, it is not far removed from the portrait sketch of Jan Six, dating from in or before 1647 (Amsterdam, Six Collection).
     It is drawn in a similarly free style, applied in a sketch, comparable to other drawings from the second half of the 1640’s (see
     note 47). Rembrandt’s Berlin drawing could thus have been made quite soon after Fabritius’s corrected drawing
196. Josua Bruyn, “Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler II by Werner Sumowski Review”, Oud Holland 101 (1987) no. 3, p. 229.
197. https://rkd.nl/images/313061, 17 July 2025. In terms of drawing style, this work is not far removed from Van Hoogstraten’s drawing The Sacrifice of Manoah of 1649 (Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum, inv. no. Z 335; https://rkd.nl/images/71286, 17 July 2025). We may even assume that The Crucifixion predates it; the departing angel in the  Braunschweig drawing – also seen from the back – appears to be a more developed and refined treatment of the motif of a figure seen from behind.
198. Samuel van Hoogstraten, The Adoration of the Shepherds. London, The British Museum, inv. no. 1895,0915.1203; https://rkd.nl/images/313552, 17 July 2025. A drawing of The Circumcision, likewise painted as a part of the Passion series in 1646, has been attributed to Gerbrand van den Eeckhout (Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten België, inv. no. 4060/1212). There are also two copies after Rembrandt’s Holy Family with a Curtain from 1646 (London, The British Museum, inv. no. 1895,0915.1200; Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, inv. no. WA1986.56).
199. Josua Bruyn in: Josua Bruyn et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings III: 1635-1642, Amsterdam 1989 pp. 13-16.
200. Martin Royalton-Kisch, Drawings by Rembrandt and his Circle in the British Museum, London: The British Museum, 1992, cat. no. 87, pp. 180-182; Holm Bevers, “Drawings in Rembrandt’s Workshop”, in: exh. cat. Los Angeles 2009 (see note 51), pp. 13-17; David de Witt, “Leren van het leven: tekeningen van Rembrandts leerlingen” in: Judith Noorman, David de Witt, Rembrandts Naakte Waarheid. Tekenen naar naaktmodellen in de Gouden Eeuw, exh. cat. Amsterdam: Rembrandt House Museum, 2015, pp. 117-120.
201. Initially, this drawing was attributed to Rembrandt, but as early as 1908, this attribution was already being questioned (Martin Conway, “Some Rembrandt Drawings”, Burlington Magazine 14 (1908/1909), p.37).
202. This sheet has previously been judged the weakest of the three (David de Witt, in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2015 (see note 64), p. 118), and it has even been suggested that Rembrandt may have corrected it. (Martin Royalton-Kisch, in: col. cat. London 2010 (see note 48), cat. 71). The fine parallel pen strokes in the boy’s torso are comparable to those in the body of Susanna in the Budapest drawing. The somewhat arbitrary use of red chalk (in the model’s right armpit area, on the reverse side of the cushion, and in the upper left corner) also stands out in both sheets. The type of loose, heavy pen lines used for the cushion corresponds to those found in the cloak of the old man in the Susanna drawing.
203. For a first suggestion of Bol being the assistant of Rembrandt, see: Albert Blanckert, Ferdinand Bol (1616-1680). Rembrandt’s Pupil, Doornspijk 1982, pp. 17-18.
204. Blanckert, Bol (see note 67), pp. 17-18; David de Witt, “Ferdinand Bol, discipel van Rembrandt”, in: Norbert Middelkoop, Ferdinand Bol en Govert Flinck. Rembrandts meesterleerlingen, Amsterdam (Rembrandt House Museum/Amsterdam Museum) 2017, pp. 44-45
205. Portrait of a Lady, 1642. Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 809. However, there are paintings by Bol, or attributed to him, of an earlier date or dating. The Liberation of St Peter (private collection), dated around 1636, may be, given its strong connection to the work of Benjamin Cuyp (David de Witt, in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2017 (see note 68), pp. 42-43), made before Bol’s departure to Amsterdam. Gideon’s Sacrifice of 1640, signed by Bol (Utrecht, Museum Catharijneconvent, inv. no. RMCC s24), is typical in subject matter and composition of his later work from the 1640s, and may
     be made under conditions comparable to those proposed in this article for the paintings by Van Hoogstraten, dating from
     between 1644 and 1647. Other works attributed to Bol prior to 1642 are often copies or adaptations of compositions by
     Rembrandt.
206. Christopher Brown, Carel Fabritius, Oxford 1981, p. 47; Gero Seelig in: Frederik J. Duparc, Carel Fabritius 1622-1654, exh. cat. The Hague: Mauritshuis; Schwerin: Staatliches Museum, 2004-2005, cat. no. 4, p. 97.
207. Erna Kok erroneously states that Bol is mentioned as Rembrandt’s “werckgesel” in a document of 30 August 1640 (Erna Kok, “Govert Flinck en Ferdinand Bol en hun netwerken van opdrachtgevers,” in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2017 (see note 68), p. 71, p. 244, n. 37). Bol’s exact role during his time in Rembrandt’s workshop is never documented. It is striking that the drawn copies after three of Rembrandt’s paintings from around 1636 are attributed to Ferdinand Bol (Peter Schatborn, “Tekeningen van Govert Flinck en Ferdinand Bol”, in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2017 (see note 68), p.185). Apart from these sheets and those datable around 1646 by later pupils, there are few, if any, known drawings by Rembrandt’s pupils that are direct copies after his history or figure paintings. It is possible that Bol played an important role in introducing this method into the studio, and that it was later adopted by Van Hoogstraten. Van Hoogstraten is likely to have been in contact with Bol while in Amsterdam. After Bol established himself as an independent master, around 1642, he too began to draw in red chalk. He did so, however, almost exclusively in preparatory studies for (mainly) paintings – see, for instance, Joseph brings his Father before Pharaoh (Dresden, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 1605), and its preliminary drawing (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. RP-T-1883-A-276). Van Hoogstraten may well have adopted this practice from him. This suggests that, even as an official pupil of Rembrandt, Van Hoogstraten felt the freedom to look to the work of other contemporaries as well. Van Sloten has argued that Bol continued to visit Rembrandt during the first half of the 1640s (Leonore van Sloten, “Ferdinand Bol, de etser”, in: exh. cat. Amsterdam 2017 (see note 68), pp. 218–221). Bol’s use of red chalk for preparatory studies may therefore have been the source of Van Hoogstraten’s conception that the use of red chalk contributes to the painterly quality of a drawing.
208. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen, Amsterdam, 1976, p. 165.