Listen to the episode here.
1 Uylenburgh family
Rembrandt moved to Amsterdam and worked in the Amsterdam workshop of art dealer Hendrick Uylenburgh (ca. 1584–1661), with whom he also lodged. This would have been in or around 1631. Uylenburgh’s residence was located on the Breestraat (or Broadstreet).
Uylenburgh has an interesting background. Hendrick Gerritsz Uylenburgh was descended from family in Friesland, an independent state or district in the northern part of what is now the Netherlands. He was the youngest child of Gerard Uylenburgh, from the city of Leeuwarden, and Sara (no second name known). In the second half of the 16th century, they moved to Kraków (Krakau, in English: Krakow or Cracow), where he became a furniture maker at the court of the King of Poland, Zigismund III.
Of the three children born to Gerard and Sara, two of them, Rombout and Hendrick, also became painters and worked for the Polish court. Rombout established himself in Danzig (Gdansk, Poland) around 1612. Hendrick may have stayed a bit longer at the court and possibly joined his brother later in Danzig. Rombout and Hendrick both formed part of a large network of rather well-to-do Mennonite families in cities such as Danzig and, in Holland and Friesland, Amsterdam, Weesp, Leiden, and Leeuwarden.
Their uncle was Rombertus Uylenburgh, who was a mayor of Leeuwarden. He was also the father of Rembrandt’s future bride, Saskia.
2 Breestraat
Rembrandt had already worked near the Breestraat for six months during his apprenticeship with Pieter Lastman, from 1624–1625. So, he knew the area from around seven years before. The area itself was (and would continue to be) a well-known art district in Amsterdam – one could say the ‘art mile’ or ‘the beating heart of the art trade’. Besides jewellers, highly skilled craftsman (in glass or furniture), pigment sellers, frame makers and copy studios, as well as important painters were concentrated in this area: for example, Pieter Lastman, Barthelomeus van der Helst, Thomas de Keyser, Nicolaes Elias, Adriaen van Nieulandt, Dirk Dircksz Sanvoort, Pieter Codde, Cornelis van der Voort, Roeland Saverij, and Govert Flinck. In this area, you could easily pick up news about customer reliability, innovations that painters were introducing, and young talent that was looking for work.
Schwartz (2006), 130, notes that the street (and the streets crossing it) between the Sint Antonieswaag (now Nieuwmarkt) to the Sint Anthoniegate (now end of the Muiderstraat; starting point of the Plantage Middenlaan) counted 17 properties in which 26 renowned artists lived.
The name Breestraat or Breedestraat means Broad Street and was named this way in 1606. The sharp increase in the population had made it necessary to extend the city on the east side. The Breestraat was one of the more important streets with impressive commercial (merchant) properties, for which rent was charged of around 400 to 500 guilders a year. The Uylenburgh shop was located at (now) 2 Jodenbreestraat (Jews Broad Street), very close to Lastman’s studio at 59 Sint-Anthonisbreestraat, both streets at that time forming the Sint-Anthonisbreestaat.
3 Hendrick Uylenburgh
Hendrick established himself in Amsterdam in 1625. He must have been around 40 years old at the time. Although, generally speaking, he belonged to the large stream of migrants coming to the Republic, more particularly Amsterdam, it is assumed that his integration into society would have gone quite smoothly. After all, both he and his wife Maria had Dutch roots, with family in nearby cities such as Leiden and Weesp. Hendrick and Maria had a large family with 14 children in total. They lived on the Breestraat in a house on the corner of the Zwanenburgwal.
In the literature, the question has been raised whether Hendrick Uylenburgh took over the business of painter and art shop owner Cornelis van der Voort (1576–1624) at that location. Cornelis van der Voort had run a new, specialized portrait shop in the Breestraat, on the corner of the lock (‘sluis’) (now 2 Jodenbreestraat), since around 1614; not only for individual portraits and family groups, but also for larger militia pieces and the new genre of the regent piece (‘regentenstuk’) and full-length (‘ten-voeten-uit’) portraits. Van der Voort died in October 1624. In the second decade of the 17th century, Van der Voort dominated the market for institutional group portraits; see Middelkoop (2019), 12ff. He was one of the first painters who combined his work with quite a large art business, Boers (2012), 37, notes.
[Cornelis van der Voort, Portret van Laurens Reael, ca. 1620]
4 First contact between Rembrandt and Hendrick Uylenburgh
When did Uylenburgh and Rembrandt meet? The first evidence of contact between the two dates from 20 June 1631. A loan (‘geleende penningen’) of a sum of 1,000 guilders is provided by Rembrandt. The notary writes that Rembrandt is living in Leiden (‘wonende tot Leyden’). The lender is Hendrick Uylenburgh, art dealer.
The amount of the loan – 1,000 guilders – was a considerable amount of money at the time. In those days, Dutch artists would have had an average yearly net income of between 1,150 and 1,400 guilders. This is around three times as much as a master carpenter and more than other highly skilled craftsmen, where a common skilled worker earned around 300 to 350 guilders a year.
There are two occasions when the two men might indeed have met prior to the loan in June 1631; one meeting which perhaps took place in Amsterdam, the other in Leiden.
They may occasionally already have met in 1624 or 1625, when Rembrandt took his six-month apprenticeship with the famous Pieter Lastman. Rembrandt was around 18 years of age at the time and Lastman also lived and worked in the Breestraat. Although no records exist, it is possible that the two men might have encountered each other in the Breestraat or the surrounding ‘art district’. Uylenburgh started in that area in 1625.
Their meeting could have been in Leiden. Three years prior to the date of the loan, in 1628, Hendrick Uylenburgh visited Leiden. Rembrandt was already for a few years working as a young independent master in his own art studio. On 8 March 1628, Hendrick was present at the offices of a civil-law notary in Leiden to represent the widow of his brother Rombout. He acted as her representative in a disagreement about the ownership of certain paintings belonging to the widow and her children.
It is possible that Hendrick, an art dealer with a keen nose for business, took the opportunity to visit Rembrandt’s art studio at the same time. Perhaps he painted Rembrandt a rosy ‘commercial’ picture about joining his workshop and ‘academy’ in Amsterdam. You understand that I am thinking out loud. There is no written evidence to support all of this.
5 The loan of 1,000 guilders
A notarial deed records the declaration of a debt of Hendrick towards Rembrandt, ‘or the bearer of this’ (‘off den toonder deses’). This then indicates this notarial deed. It included the clause that if the lender wished to be repaid in one year, he would be obliged to give notice to Hendrick three months in advance, provided that five percent interest was paid annually.
The notarial deed is signed by two witnesses. Strauss and Van der Meulen (1979) submit that it can be assumed that Rembrandt contributed this considerable sum equivalent to an investment in Hendrick’s growing trade in paintings, in kind rather than in cash. It would indeed have been quite a large cash investment for a relatively young painter aged 25 years, whose early professional life had lasted six years in another city, with just a few pupils. Evidently, there is no proof of Rembrandt paying in kind.
The source of the money is uncertain. Some say that Rembrandt at that time was apparently already prosperous. This does not seem very likely given the course of his business in Leiden. Others point out that Rembrandt was only at the beginning of his career. It is possible that some money had come to him when his father passed away more than a year before.
The lawyer in me is just wondering whether it was indeed a loan. The 1,000 guilders could, under the guise of a loan, hypothetically, also reflect a lump sum payment, for instance:
1 a payment for the use of a location at the studio to work and sell works of art;
2 a tacit partial prepayment reflecting an oral agreement between Rembrandt and Hendrick that the former would acquire an exclusive position in Hendrick’s studio (without other artists working there knowing about it);
3 a payment for assurance to Rembrandt that he would receive a certain number of assignments;
4 a payment to Uylenburgh to do his utmost to arrange that Rembrandt would be given the right to live and work in the city of Amsterdam (‘poorterschap’); or
5 a contribution (in capital) brought into a firm or partnership against Hendrick’s non-cash contribution in work and diligence (‘arbeid en vlijt’).
The latter possibility is the view of Vogelaar, who suggests the existence of a firm, ‘… a kind of art company in a modern way, with Uylenburgh running the business and garnering commissions, while Rembrandt produced paintings. On 20 June 1631, Rembrandt himself invested no less than 1,000 guilders in the company and, a little later, set up a workshop at Uylenburgh’s home …’. The notarial document leaves the reader in some doubt.
This touches on the core question that has occupied art historians for many centuries and which has kept them deeply divided. Did Rembrandt find work as a portrait painter in Amsterdam in 1631 or did he set up his first workshop there? Setting up his workshop would then mean continuing his independent entrepreneurship which had started around six years earlier in Leiden. Nadler has more recently claimed (Nadler (2023), 184) that in January 1632, Rembrandt was employed full time by Uylenburgh, and that he also managed a studio where a company of artists copied paintings and painted new works: ‘It was Rembrandt’s job to act as head of the studio to monitor the execution of the assignments that Uylenburgh received’.
Dickey (Dickey (2019), 50) talks about his Amsterdam employer. Bakker (Bakker (2019), 82, 87) talks about ‘manag[ing] the busy shop of Uylenburgh’ as well as expanding its sales market.
6 The Uylenburgh art studio – arrival and departure
When did Rembrandt arrive in Amsterdam? Experts have posited 1630, 1631 (June, the loan agreement), 1632 and 1633. Others, like Dudok van Heel and Snackenburg, say that his move took place ‘… gradually between 1631 and 1633’.
[Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde (1638-1698), View of the Zijlpoort Haarlem; National Museum of Fine Arts – Stockholm – Sweden]
So, is he travelling back and forth – via Haarlem – to Leiden? Here, reality may shed a different light. It is possible that the ferry service from Leiden to Amsterdam had been improved after 1632 as a result of better transport from Haarlem to Amsterdam. This took place in a comfortable barge, pulled by horses, through straight canals. Today, Google tells us, that distance from the Weddesteeg in Leiden (where Rembrandt’s studio was located), to the Breestraat in Amsterdam is 46 kilometres (by car). Before the service through the canal was introduced, a boat would take around seven hours across an inland sea (which is now roughly Haarlemmermeer and Schiphol Airport) and it would take even longer in rougher waters. That doesn’t seem like a pleasant journey to me.
Again here, a notarial document is helpful. This time it’s July 1632.
At the request of Pieter Huygen de Boijs, residing outside Leiden, on the Hoge Most, a notarial certificate dated 16 July 1632 was drafted by an Amsterdam civil-law notary. The notary had gone to the home of ‘Mr Heijndrick Ulenburch’, painter, on the Breestraat close to the St. Anthonissluis in this city (‘… huijs van Mr Heijndrick Ulenburch, schilder, op de Breestraet aen St. Anthonissluijs binnen deser stede’). The certificate was required for a tontine.
A ‘tontine’ can have several meanings. Generally, it is a form of lottery, mixed with elements of an insurance contract. It was a rather common phenomenon in the 17th century in Holland. Such a tontine could be an investment plan for raising capital, for which each subscriber paid an agreed sum into a fund, and thereafter received an annuity. As the members died, their shares devolved to the other participants (‘aanwasbeding’ in Dutch) and in this way the value of each annuity increased. On the death of its last member, the fund was wound up. The tontine in question concerned 100 persons, established as being alive, and arranging that they would still be alive one year later. The civil-law notary had to establish the status (living or dead) of many persons. If Rembrandt had died, the circle of possible titleholders would have become smaller.
The notary knocks on the door and asks whether Mr Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn was present. In his legal language he refers to Rembrandt, painter (lodging in that house) (‘… Mr Rembrant Harmensz van Rijn, schilder (die ten huijse aldaer logeerde’) …’ After having established that Rembrandt was indeed present, the notary stated in the deed: that it appeared to me (the notary) that he (Rembrandt) still looked fresh, vigorous and in good health (‘… dat mij bleeck dat hij [was] noch fris, clouck ende wel te pas’). To this conclusion, Rembrandt responded: ‘that is true, I am – thank God – in good condition and in good health (‘… dat is waer, ick ben Godt loff in goede dispositie ende wel te pas’).
Here we witness an unique moment in Rembrandt history. As far as I can tell, these are the only words spoken by Rembrandt that were recorded by a third party during his entire life.
Van der Veen regards this document as important as it discloses that Hendrick is referred to as ‘Mr’, meaning that he was a member of the Amsterdam guild and painter, that his address is mentioned and that it seems clear that Rembrandt was a resident in Hendrick’s house in July 1632, temporarily or otherwise. Moreover, the document is evidence of the fact that Rembrandt, when he was still in Leiden, invested in such a tontine scheme. Because of a lack of other similar documentation on whether Rembrandt was involved in other tontine schemes or whether this was just a one-off, it cannot be established whether Rembrandt was developing himself, besides being an artist, as a financier (1,000 guilders loan) or as an investor (taking risks in a tontine).
When did Rembrandt leave the Uylenburgh facilities?
Here, too, experts give different dates. Usually, however, they mention 1635. Indeed, in early 1636 it appears that Rembrandt had moved, as he signs the first letter to Constantijn Huygens in February 1636 with: ‘… am living next door to the city secretary Boereel in the Nieuwe Doelenstraat’ (‘… woon naest den [pen]sijonaeris Boereel[el] niuwe doelstraet Feb. 1636’).
Willem Boreel was a lawyer. He worked for the Dutch East India Company, and for no less than 22 years, from 1627 to 1649 he was Pensionary of Amsterdam. He also was en envoy to England, Bremen, Sweden and Denmark, and a good friend of Huygens, see Broos (2012), 62.
 |
[Coat of arms of Willem Boreel (Middelburg, 1591 – Paris, 1668)]
In a document on the sale by the Orphan Chamber (‘Weeskamer’) of prints and drawings from Barent van Someren’s estate, held from 22 to 29 February 1635, Rembrandt is mentioned on 26 February 1635 as ‘Rembrant van Rijn tot Hendrick Uylenburgh’. This indicates that at that time he was still living and working at Uylenburgh’s studio. Or at least that’s what the auctioneer thought, who did not check this with the buyer.
7 Working at the Uylenburgh art studio
Rembrandt, no longer living in Leiden, at least not permanently, found his way to the Amsterdam workshop of the renowned art dealer Hendrick Uylenburgh, with whom he lodged (and later lived). As mentioned above, Uylenburgh was a painter and a merchant (art dealer). He had started a workshop in Amsterdam for the production of art. It attracted talented painters, such as Rembrandt, and also offered an ‘academy’ which produced artists such as Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol.
In or around 1632, Rembrandt moved into Uylenburgh’s house (adjacent to Rembrandt’s later home, currently the Rembrandt House Museum) to work in Uylenburgh’s studio. Rembrandt became chief painter at the ‘academy’ and married Hendrick Uylenburgh’s cousin Saskia in 1634. He worked for Uylenburgh until around 1635, during which time he painted an unprecedented number of portraits. In some three years, Rembrandt would be very productive, portraying at least 6o persons, receiving 500 to 600 guilders for each portrait, and according to Sandrart he would earn from teaching his pupils around 2500 a year. If one adds the fairly large dowry that Saskia brought with her, one finds that Rembrandt must have been an exceptionally well-off man, Van Sandrart noted.
For other adventures about this period and the interesting activities of Uylenburgh himself, see my book Rembrandt’s Money.’.
8 Rembrandt, an Amsterdam ‘poorter’
Now that Rembrandt has been living and working in the city for more than two years, he acquired citizenship (‘poorterschap’) of the city Amsterdam. A ‘poorter’ or full citizen acquired the right to live within the territorial legal circle of a city, i.e. have access to significant legal and social privileges. As a result, Rembrandt could become a member of the Guild of Saint Luke, could work as an independent master in Amsterdam, was allowed to train novice painters and he could sell the work he made on the Amsterdam market.
Since the mid-14th century, Amsterdam had such guilds; by the mid-15th century, there were 20 in total. These guilds had a religious background, but they were organized around a variety of crafts and professions such as cutters, pedlars, fruit sellers, fur workers, blacksmiths, seamen, bakers and barrel-makers. Several had their own altar or chapel. The term ‘poorter’ is derived from ‘port’ in the meaning of harbour (compare the Latin word ‘portus’), and by extension: city. The cities set numerous conditions for obtaining citizenship, so poorters belonged to a local (territorial) legal circle, with its own rights, its own court (‘schepenbank’) and its own privileges such as the right to safety or freedom of transport by water. To become a ‘poorter’ usually required a sum of money to be paid. Generally, guilds controlled the professional and commercial behaviour of their members, tried to maintain prices for the goods and services of their members, and tried to limit mutual competition among them. Painters were organized in the Guild of Saint Luke.
In 1634, Rembrandt possessed a funeral medal or token (‘begrafenispenning’) of the Guild of Saint Luke. This was a minted brass medallion engraved ‘recto: escutcheon’ with three blank shields, which are the customary arms of the Guild of Saint Luke, and the date 1634, and on the reverse side: Rembrant/Hermans/S. The letter ‘S’ stands for ‘schilder’ (painter).
The Guild of Saint Luke in Amsterdam was formally established in 1579. Its members included a wide range of glasscutters, sculptors, glass writers, goldsmiths, box or crate makers, printers, bookbinders and sellers, schoolmasters, playing card makers as well as art and print dealers. From 1621, persons who were not a member of the guild were forbidden to sell their works in Amsterdam, except through an art dealer.
As for the funeral medal of the Guild of Saint Luke, it has been debated what the date 1634 refers to. Possibilities suggested are either the date when the medal was cast, or alternatively the year that a member joined the guild. The bibliographical information in Corpus Rembrandt comments that the date 1634 is evidence that Rembrandt was a member of the Guild of Saint Luke in 1634. Only those registered as citizens of Amsterdam were eligible for membership of this guild. For this reason, the latter indication would appear correct.
Why pay the required fee of around 50 guilders to become a ‘poorter’? Rembrandt, having been a painter for some ten years, was now mature enough to act as an independent master in Amsterdam. His skills had developed and financially he seemed to be quite affluent. However, Rembrandt may also have been thinking about his personal future. Perhaps his membership of the guild was related to his intended marriage in the same year. Another reason may have been to safeguard the position of a (future) son as a member of the guild in obtaining certain privileges.
One of these would be that any child of a ‘poorter’ was welcome in Amsterdam’s civic orphanage in the event of their parents’ death. This was certainly an advantage at a time when there were severe plague epidemics. Or is something else on Rembrandt’s mind? He would marry Saskia Uylenburgh in the same year, in 1634. Was he already thinking about family planning?
References
List of Sources, at www.rembrantsmoney.com
Piet Bakker, Rembrandt and the Emerge of the Leiden Art Market, in: Jacquelyn N. Coutré (ed.), Leiden circa 1630. Rembrandt Emerges, Agnes Etherington Art Centre, Kingston (ON; Canada), 2019, 66ff.
Stephanie Dickey, Printmaking in Leiden circa 1630: Rembrandt, Lievens and Van Vliet, in: Jacquelyn N. Coutré (ed.), Leiden circa 1630. Rembrandt Emerges, Agnes Etherington Art Centre, Kingston (ON; Canada), 2019, 36ff.
Steven Nadler, De portretschilder. Frans Hals en zijn wereld, Amsterdam/Antwerpen, Uitgeverij Atlas Contact 2023.