RM24002 Rembrandt – A young entrepreneur in Leiden

Listen to the episode here.

1            Son of a miller

When I meet people, they often say: Rembrandt? Wasn’t he a child from a poor miller’s family in Leiden? To their surprise, the reality is different.

The impression of poverty goes back to October 1628 when Constantijn Huygens (1596–1687) visited Leiden. Huygens was the secretary to Stadholder Frederik Hendrik, Prince of Orange, and an art lover. He was the highest ranked officer to the Orange family. At the same time, he was also part of Holland’s cultural elite. He was especially pleased with Rembrandt’s painting depicting Judas bringing back the silverlings or ‘Judas Repentant, Returning the Thirty Pieces of Silver’ (‘Judas geeft de zilverlingen terug’). This painting was finished in 1629, and signed ‘RL 1629’. Huygens wrote in his diary, in sheer rapture: ‘… that a youth, a Dutchman, a beardless miller, could put so much into one human figure and depict it all. Even as I write these words I am struck with amazement. All honour to thee, Rembrandt!’ Huygens was wildly enthusiastic. And given his high-class social standing, he is generally considered the person who ‘discovered’ Rembrandt.

Also, some 40 years later, around 1670, one of Rembrandt’s former students, Joachim von Sandrard, expressed a similar view. He was astonished that a miller’s son, a child of the countryside of Leiden, could have succeeded in reaching the summit of European art. By the way, Von Sandrard also noted that Rembrandt received course fees from pupils, which could add up to 2,500 guilders a year.

Again, 50 years later, in 1718, Arnold Houbraken presented his three-volume series of biographies of Dutch painters. He emphasized Rembrandt’s humble origins (p. 254): ‘His Father …, a miller at the Korenmolen between Leyerdorp and Koukerk aan den Ryn, …, who by that profession could make an honest living.’ He is terribly mistaken about the location of the mill.

By calling Rembrandt a miller (which is in fact his father’s profession), Rasterhof (2017, p. 231, with regard to Rembrandt and his fellow painter Jan Lievens) submits that Huygens expresses three things: (i) that the social background of Rembrandt was humble; (ii) that his masters (i.e. Jacob van Swanenburgh in Leiden and Pieter Lastman in Amsterdam) were not quite worthy of the talent of their pupils; and (iii) that the training they had received was inexpensive.

In as far as Huygens stresses their humble origins and that they belonged to a certain class they were born into, Bikker expresses pertinent criticism (2019, p. 16). He also rightly submits that Rembrandt belonged to a rather – in today’s terms – prosperous middle-class family.

Rembrandt’s home in Leiden was situated in a rather busy area near the Wittepoort. There, his father Harmen operated what at that time was quite an innovative industrial enterprise, a mill. He also acted as a district ‘senior’ with quasi-public powers. The Van Rijn family thus enjoyed a good deal of respect and social esteem in Leiden when Rembrandt left for Amsterdam in the early 1630s.

So, back to the question. As far as can be determined from the available information, the image that Rembrandt is a son from a poor miller’s family is incorrect. I think it is a somewhat romanticized image to say that Rembrandt was a child from a poor miller’s family in Leiden. This view has been heavily influenced by time. In the 19th century, a romantic filter was placed over the past. After the separation of the Netherlands and Belgium in 1838, words such as ‘nation’, ‘glory’ and ‘pride’ became vogue. The spirit of the 19th century blew over many of the bearers of Dutch history. This perspective, developed in the 19th century, was intended to provide information and entertainment, combining certain facts with some degree of fiction. This perspective, nevertheless, has certainly influenced the perception that still exists today!

The conscious adjustment of Rembrandt’s life story goes one step further. This is the deliberate adjustment or omission of facts to propagate a certain type of person. This is the ‘framing’ of Rembrandt. One nasty example is the German silent film of 2020 ‘Tragödie eines Grossen’ (Tragedy of a Great One). In this biopic (biographical fiction film) Rembrandt is portrayed as a hero of the Germanic people. His bankruptcy would be caused by his Jewish neighbours. In this way, Rembrandt is encapsulated in an anti-Semitic message. An ultimate example of framing (reference to the exhibition ‘Framing Rembrandt’, Rembrandthuis Museum, 4 November 2023 to 4 February 2024).

2            The mill

The mill, always present in Rembrandt stories, deserves some special attention. It has a turbulent history. Rembrandt’s ancestors had been millers since the late 15th century. His grandmother proved to be quite entrepreneurial soon after the relief of Leiden in 1574 (ending the Spanish siege). Where’s the proof of this?

Rembrandt’s grandmother replaced the mills that were taken down during these war-like days with Spain. She had another mill built and sold and she then transferred the ownership of half of it. Another mill was also purchased. It was transported from some ten kilometres outside Leiden to the place near where Rembrandt was born. By further subdividing the mill into quarters, half of the mill ended up, many decades later, as property in the inheritance of his mother, Neeltgen.

When Rembrandt was 34, in 1640, Rembrandt’s mother passed away. From the available sources, it follows that she was rather wealthy. The estate included seven small houses, half of the barley mill, a garden in ‘Soeterwoude’ (just outside the city of Leiden), two leases and three bonds.

The notary calculated a total of 11,184 guilders. As an indication, in those days a common skilled worker would earn around 300 to 350 guilders a year and the daily wage of an artisan was around 20 stuivers (one guilder). The salary of a Leiden University professor would be around 1,500 guilders. But we should be conscious of the times we are describing. Only since the 19th century, did a professor’s salary function as a necessity to cover full living costs. In the 17th century, it was more an indication of one’s place in the academic/university pecking order. Certain academic positions included non-financial rewards, such as rent-free or low-rent housing, gifts, taking in lodgers or pupils or certain products (vegetables, meat, fish, beer, a book or a painting). For instance, an Amsterdam professor would receive a clothing allowance (30 guilders) and free housing rent for himself and his messenger.

Back to the inheritance. As to the value of the inheritance estate (over 11,000 guilders in 1640), I note that a year earlier, in 1639, Rembrandt had bought a house in Amsterdam for 13,000 guilders. Buying this house is generally seen as a financial milestone around Rembrandt’s neck, an opinion which I will criticize in a subsequent episode of this podcast.

To finalize the story of the Leiden mill, it was a property included in the inheritance estate of his mother. There were four surviving children, and the mill was allocated to Rembrandt’s oldest brother Adriaen. After deducting the outstanding charges of 1,224 guilders, Rembrandt was to receive a share of 2,490 guilders. As a comparison, this is close to 20% of the sum needed to purchase the house and studio in the Amsterdam Breestraat the year before. Thirteen years later, the mill itself left the Van Rijn family in 1653 and after being demolished and rebuilt in stone in the 1730s, it disappeared completely in 1864. Well, I never knew that a mill could produce such an intriguing story!

3            The Van Rijn family

 Rembrandt’s Leiden period starts with his birth in 1606 and ends with his move to Amsterdam in the early 1630s. So, he lived in Leiden for about 25 years. His Leiden period is not well documented. As for his whole life, also for the younger years, Rembrandt left hardly any notes about his life, his working methods, his apprentices or his artistic output, let alone any business administration. But of course, this is all history and possible notes from over 300 years ago may simply have been lost or have been burned.

Just a few facts. Doubts have grown among authors, particularly in the first two decades of the present century, about the accuracy of his date of birth (15 July 1606) given by 17th century authors. There is some evidence to support these doubts, but in my opinion, it is too thin.

Rembrandt’s father was Harmen Gerritsz. Van Rijn. Rembrandt’s parents, Harmen and Neeltgen, married in the Pieterskerk in Leiden on 8 October 1589.They had no fewer than ten children, the first two being sons Gerrit (?–1631) and Adriaen (1597–1652). Gerrit would become a miller and Adriaen a miller and a shoemaker. Their eighth child was Willem, who became a baker. Rembrandt, therefore, was their ninth child, and their tenth and last child was Elysabeth. One could say that Rembrandt was an ‘afterthought’, as his eldest brothers were nine or more years older.

As to the name ‘Rembrandt’, it still is not a common first name. Current Dutch statistics show that between 1880 and 2016, the first name Rembrandt was given to just a little over 200 persons over this whole period; in the last few years only between 4 to 10 times. In comparison, the popularity of ‘Bob’ as a first name for men between 1880 and 2016 results in a figure close to 9,000. Between 2007 and 2017, every year, between 40 to 50 boys born were given the name Bob. As for me, a note especially for American listeners: it’s not Robert, just Bob. In the Netherlands in 2023, the most popular name for a boy has been Noah, for a girl Julia.

One particular, but major aspect in those days was religion. Religion played a significant role, not only in the religious experience of a person themselves, but especially in a person’s social environment, who you associated with and the jobs you can got. Religion had an overpowering effect. With the implementation of religious reform in Leiden, with the Reformed Church as the public church, catholic persons were unable to obtain official posts in the community. From around 1620 onwards, the most important jobs were only open to those who followed the Protestant faith. Father Harmen’s family belonged to this Reformed Church. The family of his mother, Neeltgen, however were Catholics (Bikker, 2019, p. 16). This religiously diverse background may not have helped to advance Rembrandt’s career, which got underway around 1625.

4            Becoming an artist

As I already indicated, written sources about this period are scarce. Other unknowns in his early period in Leiden concern the question of whether Rembrandt followed lectures at the University of Leiden; if so, for how long; and whether his registration as a student was purely a way of gaining advantages on certain duties (tax, the city’s civil patrol duties). Whatever, he drops out of university as he wants to be a painter. Rembrandt was apprenticed as a painter with Jacob van Swanenburgh, staying with him for three years – the usual length for such a training. If you ever go Leiden University’s law faculty at the Kamerlingh Onnes Building, go 100 metres around the corner and you’ll find the Van Swaenburgh art studio, now called ‘Young Rembrandt Studio’ which is well worth a visit. See  https://www.visitleiden.nl/nl/highlights/jonge-rembrandt/young-rembrandt-studio.

Subsequently, he followed a six-month period of a post-apprenticeship advanced training with Pieter Lastman in Amsterdam. In those days, Lastman was the most prominent history painter. It is also unknown whether the Lastman period indeed followed Van Swanenburgh directly or several months later. Another unknown is in which period the six-month internship with Lastman took place. Dates given in the literature range from 1622 to 1625.

It is certainly noteworthy that unlike many other young men at the time, Rembrandt did not follow his father in his profession. Father Harmen was, after all, a fourth-generation miller. It could have been because his older brothers were already working in the mill and later succeeded his father Harmen. Rembrandt also did not take on other familiar work in the family. He could have become a baker which was the profession of one of his brothers and of his grandfather on his mother’s side. No, Rembrandt embarked on the profession of artist which was without any precedent in his family.

5            His own studio

After returning from the Lastman period in Amsterdam to Leiden, Rembrandt started his own studio. His work focused mainly on history painting, in which he tried to outdo his teacher Lastman. In addition, he produced many ‘tronies’. These are paintings and etchings of faces depicting historical figures, persons with imaginary costumes, or etchings of his own face, making funny faces or showing tousled and unruly hair. When Rembrandt was around 18 years of age, he painted a series of paintings, known as his Four Senses. These are the Spectacles Seller (Allegory of Sight), Stone Operation (Allegory of Touch), Three Musicians (Allegory of Hearing) and Unconscious Patient (Allegory of Smell). No elegant figures, rather everyday scenes with which anyone could identity. In 2024 Museum De Lakenhal is 150 years old. These paintings are on view in the museum till mid June 2024. See https://www.lakenhal.nl/en/overview/exhibitions.

Indeed, in this early period Rembrandt also began to produce etchings, a technique that he mastered with no prior training. It is generally recognized that in these years Rembrandt lay the foundation for techniques and representations he would continue to develop over the years in a way that experts consider unparalleled. See Charrier (2022, p. 1113 ff.). There is no evidence of any coaching by a mentor, for example from his teacher Van Swanenburgh.

However, when it came to painting in the Leiden market, he had a formidable competitor in Jan Lievens. Rembrandt’s work was not very popular, partly because he charged high prices. All the literature mentions that Rembrandt and Lievens received much praise from Constantijn Huygens. I just told you about Huygens, the influential secretary to two successive stadholders and the ‘discoverer’ of Rembrandt in 1628. Working as an independent young master in Leiden, Rembrandt built up his own clientele of well-known figures in The Hague. He also took on customary additional activities such as teaching pupils. The painter Gerard Dou is the most well-known pupil from the Leiden period.

6            Running a business

Being a starting entrepreneur, in today’s world, it is necessary to attract clients, get a solid, continuous stream of income and manage costs. Rembrandt seems to have been able to limit his costs while running his business for some six years in Leiden. His studio was in his parents’ house. Houbraken notes in 1718 (p. 255) that Rembrandt works in ‘his parents’ house’ (‘zyner Ouders huis’). There is no data indicating that he had another location for a studio. He produced, marketed and sold his etchings, tronies, and paintings himself, without using an agent. At least, there are no sources mentioning such an intermediary. He funded his enterprise from the sales of his artwork and fees paid by pupils. Any shortages in his income flow and business earnings were most probably buffered by his parents.

As I explained earlier, Rembrandt’s father was well regarded in local society and his parents were generally speaking rather wealthy. Onno Blom, the Dutch biographer on his Leiden period, concluded in 2019 that Rembrandt grew up in a large, loving, middle-class family, with hardworking, well-to-do parents (Blom, 2019, p. 245). Against this background, it is not to be expected that Rembrandt would have had other jobs besides working in his studio; for example, an additional job to supplement his income at the start of his career.

7            Is Rembrandt’s business going well?

His Leiden period only offers a few bits and pieces of useful information. There is no evidence of large investments, possibly except for an etching press. Although he apparently shared certain costs with the young painter Jan Lievens, the latter and Rembrandt never became business partners. He was, as his 17th century biographer Jan Orlers notes, on his own and taking his own decisions. Rembrandt’s first biographer Jan Orlers (1570–1646) was a historian, a poet and a bookseller. In 1631, he was burgomaster of Leiden. In that position, his knowledge will partly be based on general statements or rumours.

It cannot be ruled out, however, that in the Leiden market his paintings were indeed considered too expensive. More generally, Leiden was a poor city. At the time, it had about 50,000 inhabitants. About three-quarters of the working population worked in textile production, often in small houses and in poor living conditions. The high prices he asked will have limited his production and demand for his work. It also could explain why he switched to etching – a totally new activity for him. I have, however, found no indication to assume his etching was intended to compensate for the downturn in other activities.

So, how were his affairs doing? Was his business going well? Professor Stephanie Dickey, from Canada, writes in CODART September 2021: ‘By the time Rembrandt was in his mid-twenties, he had established a thriving art practice in Leiden … He could surely have remained there and built a career as one of his hometown’s leading artists. Yet, around 1632, he chose to relocate to Amsterdam, the commercial hub of the nascent Dutch Republic.’ I wonder whether Rembrandt indeed had a successful art practice in Leiden and summarize my arguments as follows:

• His business is fully (or partly?) located in rather small houses of his parents. That doesn’t seem to be very inviting when it comes to attracting possible clients. There would be no room to work on larger sized commissions either.
• His contemporary Jan Lievens had many Leiden clients, Rembrandt just had a few.
• Rembrandt had Remonstrant protectors, following the theological ideas of Leiden professor Arminius who was a moderate, rather tolerant thinker. Leiden city’s population, however, was fiercely against ‘Arminianism’.
• Leiden in those days was quite poor; Rembrandt charged high fees.
• In 1628, Rembrandt started etching (with no previous training); was that because his paintings didn’t sell?
• In Leiden there was no Guild of Saint Luke, so there was no protection against outsiders.
• In the early 1630s, several painters left Leiden, including De Heem (to Antwerp), Jan Lievens (to London) and Jan van Goyen (to The Hague). Rembrandt’s father died in 1630. Rembrandt perhaps found it rather quiet in Leiden and no longer had a personal reason to stay.

All in all, I believe sufficient comments to challenge the statement that Rembrandt had a flourishing practice.

8            Maintaining the Leiden studio?

My assessment is that Rembrandt’s studio was not going well, at least that his business is not thriving. It appears that his work did not sufficiently meet the wishes of the Leiden market. So, he chose to move to Amsterdam, where his work was already in great demand and where he could expect a more attractive future financially. Stephanie Dickey (2021–2022, p. 22) also submits that after Rembrandt’s move to Amsterdam, over the next two years he ‘lodged’ with Uylenburgh ‘while keeping his Leiden studio open and travelling to The Hague and Rotterdam’. This is a very interesting observation. The quotation advances two propositions: (i) did Rembrandt maintain the Leiden studio after going to Amsterdam?; and (ii) did he travel to The Hague and Rotterdam? I touch upon the first proposition.

A rather recently developed view is that Rembrandt continued his Leiden workshop after his departure to Amsterdam. It is submitted by Vogelaar, the former curator of the Leiden Museum De Lakenhal (Vogelaar, in: Brown, Van Camp and Vogelaar (2019/2020), 28ff.) that his pupil Gerrit Dou was in charge in this studio. Gerrit Dou (1613–1675) was Rembrandt’s fist pupil. He was born in Leiden, where his father manufactured stained glass. He studied drawing and was trained in the stained glass workshop until his father sent his son, aged around 15, to study painting at Rembrandt’s studio. Rembrandt was then aged around 22 and lived nearby, in the Weddesteeg, a location that no longer exists. It was demolished in 1927.

For a background on the Weddesteeg, see https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2021/11/rembrandt-made-a-mess-of-his-legal-and-financial-life The Dou family home on the Korte Rapenburg was around 100 metres away. Dou stayed with Rembrandt until the latter moved to Amsterdam in 1631, so Gerrit Dou remained with Rembrandt for about three years, from 1628 to 1631. Onno Blom (2019, p. 213), submits that Rembrandt not only earned money from the tuition fee, but also from selling Dou’s work! This would typically be a subject for further study: did masters in those days also sell the works of their pupils? Later, Dou produced highly polished paintings, typical of the style of the Leiden fijnschilders, see https://www.theleidencollection.com/artists/gerrit-dou/?pdf=1

There is certainly a lot of uncertainty as to whether Rembrandt kept on a part of his business in Leiden. Follow-up research on this is welcomed! Closing the Leiden chapter, I would not like to deprive you of a recent view. It depicts the phenomenon of Rembrandt in his Leiden period in, what is in my opinion, rather high-sounding language. I quote without giving comment: ‘The early years of Rembrandt van Rijn’s career have been recognized as ones of daring experimentation, experimentation that culminated in a signature pictorial vocabulary around 1630. … Contextualized by work from his colleagues and students, Rembrandt emerges as a defining figure of the Leiden market.’ (Agnes Etherington Art Centre).

9            Why not The Hague?

Stephanie Dickey also submits that ‘while keeping his Leiden studio open [Rembrandt was] travelling to The Hague and Rotterdam’. In my book, I asked the question: Would Rembrandt have perhaps considered leaving Leiden – not for Amsterdam, but for The Hague? An inventory dated 16 August 1632 of the collection of Prince Frederik Hendrik in his house on the Noordeynde in The Hague, lists a portrait in profile of the Prince’s wife Amalia of Solms. It was painted in profile or side view (Een contrefeytsel van Haere Ex ce in profijl by Rembrandts gedaen). In the same year, Rembrandt produced portraits of at least four other persons living in The Hague, including the captain of the civic guard Joris de Caullery and his son Johan, and the artist Jacques de Gheyn III and Maurits Huygens.

Although Rembrandt had a good track record in Leiden – producing history and genre pieces, and developing an etching practice – overall, his work does seem not to have been very profitable. He also built up a solid client base in The Hague. Collectors from The Hague paid considerably more compared to what his Leiden contemporaries received. Between 1628 and 1635, the number of commissions from clients from The Hague total more than 20 paintings. Gary Schwartz (Schwartz (1984), p. 132) is, however, certain that The Hague was no alternative. The painter Gerard van Honthorst had a strong position in that city and Rembrandt’s work for the Court was only occasional. Furthermore, he would be able to serve the market in The Hague from his base in Amsterdam.

This assumes that Rembrandt liked to make the journey from Amsterdam to The Hague. However, he wasn’t much of a traveller. With a few exceptions, he always stayed in the province of Holland. The journey to The Hague – apart from the cost and inconvenience – easily took a full day, probably being a combination of a canalboat and a carriage.

10         So, Amsterdam it was!

So, Amsterdam it was! Rijksmuseum curator Bikker (2019, p. 60) exclaims: ‘The booming metropolis was simply the place to be in the seventeenth century.’ Although still working and living in Leiden, Rembrandt already had customers from Amsterdam. In 1628, the Amsterdam regent Joan Huydecoper was one of them and Alfonzo López, during his stay in Amsterdam, was the first buyer of the Lastman-inspired painting Bileam. López was not a nobody, he was an arms dealer for Richelieu, a highly regarded cardinal in the French Catholic Church. In 1624, López was also prime minister under King Louis XIII.

Having footprints in Leiden and The Hague, in reality Rembrandt was – with the benefit of hindsight – not only a Leiden painter; he was actually in the early stages of building up a ‘Holland’ clientele. The move from Leiden to Amsterdam, where his work was far more appreciated then in Leiden, was probably not a difficult step to take. A true professional also wishes to be as close as possible to its clients.

Over the next more than 30 years, Rembrandt would nearly always stay in Amsterdam. He was a bit of a homebody. In addition to Leiden and Amsterdam, he had also been to Rotterdam. For his marriage to Saskia Uylenburgh, he had gone to Friesland (Sint Annaparochie, 16 kilometres Northwest of Leeuwarden). His appreciation for Rubens’ work, however, never brought Rembrandt to Antwerp. It is also doubtful whether he was ever in Dordrecht. Rembrandt was a stay-at-home man, in his case also in his studio.

In addition, the strength of religious beliefs in the society were having an impact. By moving to Amsterdam, he may have been able to escape the heavy burden of the religious environment in Leiden. In January 1632, the Remonstrant hierarchy in Amsterdam was restored in the city’s elections: ‘The patronage of Rembrandt, a newly arrived outsider who was not even a member of the local guild, was another useful symbol of this new era of intellectual independence’. I am citing Pettegree and der Weduwen (2019, p. 253 ff.) in their 2019 book ‘The bookshop of the World. Making and Trading Books in the Dutch Golden Age’. They also say ‘… and Rembrandt, for suitable fees, was all too happy to identify himself with this new wave’.

In the literature it is claimed that for Rembrandt and his art, the early 1630s Amsterdam was the place to be. Is that correct? Again, former Leiden Museum De Lakenhal curator Vogelaar (Vogelaar (2019/2020)) throws a spanner in the works by submitting that Rembrandt kept open the option of returning to Leiden. His arguments are not without good reason: (i) in Amsterdam, Rembrandt did not move into an independent studio; (ii) he did not register as a citizen (‘poorter’); (iii) he did not become member of the Guild of Saint Luke; and (iv) until 1633, he kept on signing his artwork as being located or coming from Leiden (signing with monograms like RH, RL or RHL).

With an uncertain outlook in Amsterdam with fierce competition, Rembrandt did not want to permanently be in Amsterdam; he had not severed his ties with Leiden, Vogelaar concludes. If we assume that the Leiden studio is still active, the question arises for what purpose. Did Rembrandt want to continue to influence the purchase of Dou’s paintings in this way (and charge a commission for it)? Did he want to attract students in his name in this way? Did he want to keep the studio to generate some turnover? With the sale of less common works of art? Or was Rembrandt seeking insurance in case his Amsterdam practice was unsuccessful? We don’t know. However, it seems extremely implausible to me that Rembrandt would move his work to Leiden again. The Leiden market was small, and its customer base would be limited. The Leiden religious climate had little room for individual and artistic freedom. As a matter of fact, Remonstrants were persecuted, and their houses looted. Serving ‘Dutch’ customers from Leiden? Would Amsterdam regents travel to Leiden for a portrait? However, as is often the case, there are no documents providing answers to these questions. Rembrandt left virtually no notes, so we have to content ourselves with the answer: based on the facts, we simply don’t know.

References

References referred to can be found under Sources.

• Claire Charrier, Rembrandt van Rijn, kopergraveur, in: Frijhoff, Willem, Catherine Secretan en Andreas Nijenhuis-Bescher, De Gouden Eeuw in 500 portretten, taferelen & analyses, Band 2: M-Z, Amersfoort: Uitgeverij Van Wijmen 2022, p. 1113ff.
• Jacquelyn N. Coutré (et al.), Leiden circa 1630. Rembrandt Emerges, Agnes Etherington Art Centre, Kingston (ON; Canada), 2019.
• Stephanie S. Dickey and Jochen Sander, Rembrandt in Amsterdam. Creativity and Competition, National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa/Städel Museum, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, distributed by Yale University Press, 2021-2022.
• Agnes Etherington Art Centre https://agnes.queensu.ca/exhibition/leiden-circa-1630-rembrandt-emerges/