Listen to this episode here
At the turn of the third and the fourth decade of the 17th century, when Rembrandt was in his mid-30s, several events occurred that would have a major impact on his life. Important decisions were taken and dramatic events occurred that greatly affected his professional and personal life. In 1639, Rembrandt purchased a house which also included a studio. In 1640, his mother died and her inheritance was subsequently settled. At the same time, Rembrandt provided a considerable loan to Hendrick Uylenburgh. In 1641, Saskia and Rembrandt’s son Titus was born. Soon after, in 1642, Saskia died and Geertje Dircks, a widow of around 32 years of age, became Titus’ carer. In that same year, the large painting of the Night Watch was completed and paid for. Throughout these years, Carel Fabricius and Samuel van Hoogstraten were pupils of Rembrandt.
One notable change in Rembrandt’s personal life was hiring Geertje Dircx (Edam, 1610 – Edam, 1656?) as a domestic helper, maid, and – after Saskia’s death – nanny for Titus. She moved to the house in 1642 and Rembrandt started a relationship with her. Later, they fell out which led to mounting problems with Geertje. After some seven years, Geertje left the house in 1649 when her successor Hendrickje Stoffels (Bredevoort, 1626 – Amsterdam, 1663) became Titus’ carer. In the same year, this all culminates in Geertje accusing Rembrandt of breaking his promise to marry her. The relationship between Rembrandt and Geertje would become a thorny path of legal disputes that went on until the mid-1650s. She is listed as one of the creditors in Rembrandt’s insolvency.
In this episode of the podcast Rembrandt’s Money, the spotlight is on Geertje Dircx.
1 Who is Geertje Dircx?
Geertje Dircx grew up in a simple family in Edam, a small town some 20 kilometres northwest of Amsterdam. She had an older brother, Pieter, a carpenter and sailor who had settled in a village called Ransdorp. This village, situated to the north of Amsterdam, officially became part of Amsterdam in 1921. In those days, women like Geertje could become maidservants, or, if they agreed, they could leave their hometown to become a nursemaid with a respectable family and do their best to make a good marriage. Geertje must have been illiterate, as she signed documents with a cross, a swastika in this case. In those days that symbol did not have the heavily charged associations it now has.
Geertje met Abraham Claesz, a bachelor from Hoorn, some 20 kilometres north of Edam, and the couple married on 26 November 1634. At that time, she is around twenty-four years of age. Abraham was a trumpet player. A trumpet player? Yes, this was most probably on a ship. A trumpeter warns other ships especially during the darkness of the night and if there is fog that limits the skipper’s view over the sea or canal. He blew the last march in 1635, when he died. In the literature, it is assumed that Geertje subsequently worked as a nanny for Trijntje Beets in the town of Hoorn. Having stayed with her brother in Ransdorp, it’s likely that she then ended up, most probably in 1642, living at the house of Rembrandt van Rijn and working as a ‘droge min’ (nanny) for Titus, who was born on 22 September 1641, and as a housekeeper. A ‘droge min’ is a nanny who does not breastfeed. After Saskia’s death in June 1642, Rembrandt started a relationship with Geertje which would last until around 1648. It all ended very unpleasantly.
Rembrandt and Geertje lived together openly, as husband and wife, even though they were not married. In social circles in Holland at the time, this was a phenomenon that was looked upon with aversion, particularly in ecclesiastical circles. Some 70 years later, Rembrandt’s biographer Houbraken provides information regarding Geertje. He will have heard about her from his teacher Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627–1678), who himself had been one of Rembrandt’s pupils around 1642 and later. By the way, they both came from Dordrecht.
Houbraken describes Geertje as a ‘country woman’ (‘boerinnetje’) from Ransdorp in Waterland, rather small in stature, but well-shaped with a plump figure (‘wat klein van persoon maar welgemaakt van wezen, en poezel van lichaam’). During their intimate relationship, Rembrandt gave his lover Geertje jewellery that had belonged to his wife Saskia. Although no information is available, it can be assumed that things went well between Rembrandt and Geertje for a long time. When Geertje had been with Rembrandt for some six years, she visited notary Laurens Lamberti to draw up her will in 1648.
2 Geertje’s will
I have not made a study of how notarial documents appeared in those days, but this notarial statement commences with: ‘In the name of Our Lord, Amen’, perhaps a sign of the times. The notary continues to observe that in the year of Our Lord 1648, the 24th of January at three o’clock in the afternoon, appeared [before me] Geertje Dircx, widow of the late Abraham Claesz, during his lifetime a trumpeter. In the event she should die without legal offspring, the notary notes, Geertje nominates as her sole and universal heir her mother, Jannetje Jans, who is to receive a net and legal portion of her property (‘naeckte ende bloote legitime portie’) belonging to her according to strictest legal determination, less whatever legal fees are applicable. And while assigning to her mother, in complete satisfaction of the aforementioned legal portion, all linen, woollen and other fabric clothing, belonging personally to the testatrix, but nothing else, the testatrix declaring that she did not consider as clothing any [note: crossed out is silver ware (‘silverwerck’)] jewellery she is wearing (‘t’haren lijve behorende’).
For all her other property, movable and immovable, securities and credits, and legal rights, to the exclusion of nothing, apart from the items allotted to her mother, the testatrix appoints and nominates as her sole and universal heir, Titus van Rijn, Rembrandt’s son, who may decide over it forever, according to his desire (‘sijne vrije wille ende geliefte’), as with his own possession, on condition that the aforementioned Titus van Rijn shall be obliged to give as a bequest to Trijntje Beets, the child of Pieter Lambertsz Beets of Hoorn, the sum of 100 carolus guilders in one payment and the portrait of the testatrix (‘haer testraces contrefeytsel’), nothing else (‘sonder ijets meer’).
At the time the will was made, Titus was a young boy of around seven years old. Strauss and Van der Meulennote: ‘The wording of Geertje Dircx’ last will appears to reflect Rembrandt’s influence. Geertje, a simple woman from Edam … , had acquired many of her belongings while living in Rembrandt’s house. For a time, they enjoyed an intimate relationship, and the artist had given her some of Saskia’s jewellery. She left only her clothing to her mother. All her other possessions are willed to Titus.’ Van der Veenrefers (probably with approval of the opinion expressed above) to Rembrandt’s involvement with Geertje Dircx ‘… who, probably while Saskia was still alive, was Titus’s dry nurse and with whom Rembrandt had a sexual relationship’. It is notable that it was only in the 1960s that two authors, Vis and Wijnman, describe Geertje’s life for the first time more elaborately. Before then, this personal relationship was concealed in art history or was only mentioned briefly in a one-line footnote. Van der Veen confirms the view that the jewellery referred to in the will was probably that which Rembrandt had given her and which originally belonged to Saskia.
In addition, Van der Veen expresses an obvious assumption that Geertje’s portrait had been painted by Rembrandt. Two works are displayed here.
[Geertje Dircx van voren gezien (Geertje Dircx seen from the front)
ca. 1641, British Museum, London]
[Saskia in bed en Geertje Diricx als verzorgster (Saskia in bed and Geertje Dircx as a caregiver), Fondation Custodia Collection, Paris]
In art history, various, differing views have been presented on whether both works represent Geertje. In his very recent overview, Giltaij (Giltaij (2023)) states that both paintings do represent Geertje. He points to the person’s plump figure, the somewhat protruding nose and the heavy double chin. In addition, he considers the clothing with the hat over her forehead and the very loose-fitting dress with a tightly constricted waist to be important.
3 Breach of promise of marriage
By the end of the 1640s, Rembrandt and Geertje had a serious disagreement about Rembrandt’s (alleged) promise to marry Geertje. What happened? As usual, some legal background is useful. Under the laws in those days, a marriage promise – the promise made by one person to another to enter into a marriage with them – was, in principle, binding. Such promises were sometimes confirmed by a medal, a notarial deed and in some cases in the 16th and 17th centuries with intercourse (‘bijslaap’). Only with good reason or lack of parental consent could a promise of marriage be broken through the courts.
The idea behind this marriage system was that it should not be too easy to deviate from the promise of marriage, because the promise had been given before the eyes of God. In some cases, a refund of a token or a deed was required to prevent the case from becoming a lawsuit. Reason to break a wedding promise can be found in the ‘Hollandse Consultatiën’, an influential collection of legal advice and case law. This source also mentions unchastity, double promises, and a promise given under the influence of alcohol. The literature also mentions serious illness, debt, hatred, a change of religion and differences in social class. For sources, I refer to Vermeulen (2009). The submission of Dudok van Heel (1991a), 97, however, that wedding promises made at that time were binding and could not be cancelled is incorrect.
Around the date of 15 June 1649, Geertje moved to a room around the corner, on the Rapenburg, with no alimony having been arranged, according to Wieringa (2014). On 25 September 1649, through the commissioners of the Chamber of Marital Affairs, Geertje Dircx charged Rembrandt (‘painter’) with breaching the promise of marriage. Rembrandt did not appear at the Chambers and he was fined the customary amount of one guilder. One week later, on 1 October 1949, Hendrickje Stoffels appeared before notary Laurens Lamberti. She had succeeded Geertje Dircx, who was around thirty-nine years of age at the time, as Rembrandt’s housekeeper. The notary states that Hendrickje is unmarried (‘vrijster’), twenty-three years of age, and was testifying at the request of the Hon. Rembrant van Rhijn, painter, that last 15 June when ‘Geertghe Dircx’, widow of the late Abraham Claesz, a trumpeter during his lifetime, who had resided there for some time and wanted to depart and leave him, she (Hendrickje) and Geertje were both present, together with Trijntje Harmans, the wife of Jan Pietersz Constabel, when making an agreement (‘accoort’). The agreement concerned the settlement of some disagreements Rembrandt had with Geertje. They dealt with them in the following manner. Rembrandt agreed that as soon as the following contract was drawn up according to the letter of the law, and was confirmed, he would pay Geertje the once-only sum of 160 guilders immediately, and also 60 guilders a year for the rest of her life and, furthermore if she so required, he would assist her annually at his discretion, according to her actual and reasonable needs (or indigence).
4 The agreement
The agreement was made under the condition that her last will in favour of the applicant’s young son (‘soontge’), drawn up before notary Lamberti a year and a half before on 24 January 1648, would remain intact and that Geertje would make no further demands on the applicant.
Two weeks later, on or around 14 October 1649, Geertje Dircx and Rembrandt reached an agreement. Geertje declared that she had lodged with Rembrandt for a considerable length of time, during which she had acquired the goods she now had in her possession. This is why, in her will, she had bequeathed her belongings to Rembrandt’s son Titus. After leaving Rembrandt’s home, she moved into a rented room. As she was having difficulty making ends meet, she turned to her former employer Rembrandt for assistance. He was to redeem the silver and gold items she had pawned and to give her two hundred guilders minus the amount he had already advanced to her (‘onder de cortinge van ’t gunt hij haer reets heeft verschoten’). In addition, he would pay her an annual sum of 160 guilders towards her maintenance until her death, provided that her will of 24 January 1648 in favour of Titus is the sole legally valid will.
At the time this agreement was drafted, drawn up again by notary Lamberti, several persons were present: ‘Geertghe Dircx, widow of the late Abraham Claesz, assisted by [blank] as her legal guardian selected for this purpose, on the one side, and the honourable famed painter Rembrandt van Rijn on the other.’ She had taken care of the boy and had resided for a considerable length of time with Rembrandt. She had acquired her possessions when residing in his house, though these were few and insufficient to sustain her. All this induced her on 24 January 1648, before me, the notary, to bequeath her possessions which she might leave behind to Rembrandt’s aforementioned son. And, the notary continues, because Geertje Dircx, since having moved from Rembrandt’s house to a room, had discovered that she is unable to live honourably on her means until the end of her life, but that under the present circumstances they will be consumed and exhausted within a short span of time, she requested her former master Rembrandt to come to an agreement for her maintenance, and he consented. They declared to those present that they have come to an irrevocable agreement and contract and accordingly arrived at the following agreement and contract, namely (summarized in my own words):
First, Rembrandt will redeem between now and the first year Geertje Dircx’ belongings, both gold and silver, which she had pawned, and will therefore rescue her this time (‘… haer also tenemalen te redden’), deducting the amount advanced to her. He will augment that amount to a sum of in total 200 carolus guilders, and moreover pay her for her decent sustenance and boarding the sum of 160 carolus guilders annually, for the rest of her life but no longer, beginning 28 June 1650 payable at each year end, representing full payment of all money due and claims which she has had in whatever manner or might still have on her aforementioned master, as well as any possible claim whatsoever, to the exclusion of none, known or unknown. However, with the explicit condition that the last will, drawn up by Geertje Dircx before the notary on 24 January 1648, in the presence of witnesses, in favour of young Titus, will remain unbreakable (‘onverbreeckelijck’) and will not be substituted by another will.
Furthermore, Geertje Dircx vowed that she would conduct herself in a proper manner (‘comporteren’), so that the ring with a cluster of diamonds, and all other property in her possession, including the items she will redeem with the aforementioned sum of money, will be left behind by her in free and unencumbered condition at the time of her death. It is also agreed that the sum of 160 guilders, paid to her annually, or her other belongings will not be used to pay off other debts incurred or yet to be incurred by Geertje Dircx. Rembrandt agreed to make these payments only under this condition, and not otherwise.
Both parties promised to abide by the terms of this contract, each holding it inviolate, and henceforth to refrain from making further claims of whatever nature. This all, with the condition of renunciation, according to law, and under penalty (‘op peene’) of the immediate loss of the sum of 160 guilders if Geertje Dircx acts adversely, and moreover obliging her to refund at once everything she had received (in addition) without the right of claims. The draft, generally, seems clear, but Geertje refused to sign it.
5 Geertje disagrees
On 14 October 1649, Octaeff Octaeffsz., a shoemaker, testified before notary Lamberti at the request of Rembrandt. Octaeff said that he had been present as a witness on 3 October with Geertje Dircx in Rembrandt’s house. He told the notary that Geertje, had concluded an agreement with Rembrandt. The agreement dealt with all the problems and claims stemming from either promises of marriage or from any other matters that had not been settled between them, as well as regards money that Rembrandt owed to Geertje. This could suggest that Geertje had borrowed money from Rembrandt (Giltaij (2023), p. 108), but it might also have been about outstanding wages that Rembrandt owed her. Geertje’s remuneration as a nanny would have consisted of room and board. The work she had done would most likely not be financially rewarded. This non-reimbursed financial component might have been discussed at the time of the breakup.
The agreement provided that Rembrandt, to settle all that was outstanding, would distribute and pay her either immediately or between now and the coming New Year, in order to redeem her goods, being silver and gold, being pawned and therefore to release her, deducting any advance given to her, yet arriving at a total of no less than 200 carolus guilders in a lump sum (‘eens’), and in addition the sum of 160 guilders annually for the rest of her life to enable her to sustain herself decently (‘tot haer eerlijck onderhout’) starting 28 June 1650, provided that the will which Geertje Dircx drew up on 24 January 1648 in favour of the young son of Rembrandt remains inviolate (‘soude blijven onverbreeckelijck’).
Van der Ven (2014), 101ff, examined the legal nature of this last sentence and understood it to mean that the sum to be paid by Rembrandt would be given under the condition that Geertje’s will, which states that Titus will be her universal heir, will never be changed and any other wills will be annulled. Van der Ven says this can be considered as a gift given provided a subsequent condition is met (‘schenking onder onbindende voorwaarde’). Van der Ven submits that under the laws at that time, this condition was most probably null and void. However, under present-day Dutch law she claims that it should be allowed.
Furthermore, Octaeff Octaeffsz. testified that the witness was present on the following 10th [of October] together with the notary and Geertje in the kitchen of Rembrandt’s house in order to sign the agreement. Geertje, however, protested vehemently and unreasonably against Rembrandt (who was also present on that occasion) and let it known that she did not want to listen to the reading of the agreement, much less sign it. The notary stepped in:
Nevertheless, I, the notary explained to her in words that the agreement contained nothing else than these conditions:
1. That the applicant would pay her a lump sum of 200 guilders immediately, so that she could redeem her possessions.
2. That beyond this she would receive 160 guilders annually for sustenance during her lifetime, but no longer.
3. That moreover her last will in favour of Titus, which she had drawn up before me, the notary, would remain inviolate, and that henceforth all actions and claims which the one might have had towards the other would be null and void.
In the words of the notary, Geertje Dircx [then] admitted that these conditions were indeed agreed upon, but that she did not want to sign the agreement under the pretext that in the event of illness or other infirmity a maid or nurse (‘een meijt ofte bewaerster’) would require more than 160 guilders annually. And although Rembrandt said that he was willing to adjust this at his discretion, Geertje Dircx did not want to sign an agreement before that time (‘voor die tijd’).
6 Geertje ‘goes to court’!
A few days later, on 16 October 1649, Geertje Dircx again summoned Rembrandt to appear before the commissioners of the Chamber of Marital Affairs. The commissioners granted to the plaintiff that the defendant had defaulted a second time (‘2e default’) and accordingly authorized Jan Winckelman to summon him to pay two fines (‘2 boeten’): ‘Acted upon 16 October 1649 in presence of Hendrick Hooft, Cornelis Abba and Jacob Hinlopen’.A few days later, on 16 October 1649, Geertje Dircx again summoned Rembrandt to appear before the commissioners of the Chamber of Marital Affairs. The commissioners granted to the plaintiff that the defendant had defaulted a second time (‘2e default’) and accordingly authorized Jan Winckelman to summon him to pay two fines (‘2 boeten’): ‘Acted upon 16 October 1649 in presence of Hendrick Hooft, Cornelis Abba and Jacob Hinlopen’.
The feud continued. According to the Marital Affairs Book (‘Krackeelboek’), on 23 October 1649, Geertje Dircx, widow, plaintiff vs. (‘contra’) Rembrandt van Rijn, defendant, declared that the defendant had made verbal promises of marriage and had given her a ring as pledge thereof (‘… ende haer daer over een rinck gegeven zeijt’). Furthermore, that he slept with her on several occasions, and she demanded that the defendant marry her or else support her. Rembrandt denied having made promises of marriage to her and furthermore that he was not obliged to admit that he had slept with her (‘dat hij bij haer heeft geslapen’). The plaintiff herself raised this point and would have to prove it, Rembrandt argued.
After the parties rested [their case], the commissioners, rendered their verdict as good men [to the effect] (‘Naer verblijff van perthijen geven Commissaris[sen] als goede mannen voor uijspraeck’), that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff instead of 160 guilders, the sum of 200 carolus guilders annually during her lifetime, everything else to remain in accordance with the contract, brought into the proceedings by the defendant, on 14 October 1649 passed under the hand of Laurens Lamberti, notary public, here in this city, enacted (‘Actum’) 23 October 1649 in the presence of Bernhart Schellinger, Cornelis Abba, and Jacob Hinlopen.
7 No marriage
One week later, on 23 October 1649, Geertje must also have known by now that there was no hope of a legal marriage. There could be several reasons for this realization. Marrying her would have constituted a remarriage for Rembrandt and that would require settling Saskia’s will. This would have resulted in the possibility that Rembrandt would then lose the rights to Saskia’s estate. In addition, there was probably a difference in status between Rembrandt and Geertje in light of their background, activities and social circles. It may also have become clear to Geertje that Rembrandt simply no longer felt anything for her or that he had merely substituted her for a younger woman (Hendrickje). In the absence of any evidence, these are all just probabilities. If there had ever been any romance, those days were over!
[Geertje Dircx in bed, 1647, National Galleries of Scotland, Edinburgh]
Does the painting above depict Geertje?
Art historians from the early part of the last century (Bredius and Gerson, among others), think it is likely that the woman is Hendrickje Stoffels. On the other hand, Schwartz (‘probably’) and Giltaij (Giltaij (2023), p. 123: ‘without doubt’) believe that the person portrayed represents Geertje. Giltaij points to the similarity with the figure and face in the two other portraits provided above. But what is this lady doing? Is she sick and calling for a glass of water? Is she eagerly looking forward to a visitor? Is she calling someone to please close the door? Perhaps she’s waiting for her lover? The latter explanation is indeed most likely. After all, she’s looking at her best, lying on a pillowcase that is richly decorated with lace, her hair combed back tightly, with a gold (coloured) round comb (?) in her hair.
8 Alimony
Once the alimony seemed to have been arranged, Geertje Dircx named her brother Pieter and a cousin as her guardians. From now on they would arrange her finances. Wierenga submits that Geertje Dircx always had a strong trump card to play throughout the negotiations: she still had Saskia’s jewellery. When building up her new existence, she had already pawned the jewellery. Time and time again – according to Wierenga – Rembrandt stipulated in his settlement proposals that she was not allowed to do this and that she was not allowed to use this as a means of payment. The Marriage Chamber now also imposed this prohibition on her.
Yet in 1650, she once again pawned the jewellery with Giertje Nannings in Amsterdam. Perhaps this was the reason to have Geertje locked up, though there could have been other reasons. In any case, Rembrandt was involved in her imprisonment. She also claimed that he did everything possible to make her detention last as long as possible.
9 Imprisonment in the Spinhuis in Gouda
As mentioned above, on 28 April 1650 Geertje drew up a power of attorney providing her brother Pieter and a cousin with an authorization to act on her behalf in a very broad sense on all types of legal matters, as she was about to move to ‘Rarep’, i.e. Ransdorp. She would not stay there for long. Geertje Dircks was imprisoned from August 1650 to May 1655 in the Spinhuis (Spinning House) in Gouda. This type of detention was usually carried out at the request of the family. No documentation on this matter, however, has been preserved. It is clear though from a statement by Cornelia Jans, the woman who brought or escorted Geertje to Gouda, that Rembrandt was also a party to the affair. Cornelia was able to reclaim the costs of Geertje’s transport and her assistance from Rembrandt, amounting to one hundred and forty guilders.
In 1652, Geertje Dircks asked the council of the Amsterdam Reformed Church to inform her relatives in Edam of her situation, hoping that they would apply for her release. The church council rejected this request ‘… because this concerns a secular matter’ (‘… dewijl dit een politicq werck is’). The council was not authorized to decide on such a matter.
In the end, salvation nevertheless came from Edam. On 2 March 1656, Geertje’s brother Pieter Dircksz., a carpenter on a ship called ‘Bever’, informed Rembrandt that he wanted to go to sea, but that his freedom of movement was restricted by an order which Rembrandt had obtained against him. Rembrandt had done so without giving a reason, but Pieter Dircksz. now knew that Rembrandt may have wanted him to appear as a witness. If he wanted anything from him, it would have to be done straight away. Rembrandt answered that he wanted to keep to the official procedure and would not allow the order imposed on Pieter Dircksz. to be lifted. Rembrandt most probably might have needed Pieter Dircksz. as a witness in the event that Geertje continued her disagreement with the board of the Spinhuis. This was most likely the reason for blocking Pieter from going to sea.
On 3 May 1656, a woman testified on Rembrandt’s behalf that in 1650 at the request of relatives of Geertje she had helped to bring her to the house of correction in Gouda. There she paid out approximately 140 guilders, a sum which was reimbursed by Rembrandt. A few days later, on 6 May 1656, at the request of Geertje, two women made a statement (Trijn Outger, a widow of 64, and Trijn Jacobsdr, a widow of 54). Geertje Dircx was residing in Edam at that time. The statements said that five years before, Trijn Outger and two of Geertje’s relatives had been asked by Cornelia Jansdr, from Amsterdam, on behalf of Rembrandt, if they would agree to Geertje being detained for another eleven years (‘noch de tijt van elff jaren’) in the house of correction in Gouda. They did not agree to this. About eleven months ago, the statement continues, the other witness, Trijn Jacobsdr., went to see Rembrandt and told him that she intended to have Geertje freed from the Spinhuis in Gouda. Rembrandt warned her not to do that, wagging his finger and saying ‘… if you go there, you will be sorry’ (‘… bij aldien ghi heen gaet het sal u rouwen’). Trijn however continued her journey and testified further that she learned upon her arrival in Gouda that several letters from Rembrandt addressed to the Hon. magistrate had arrived, forbidding the release of Geertje until such time that her brother, who was abroad (‘uijtlandich’), would return home. The statement ended with: ‘After that, the witness, with great trouble, at last obtained permission from the same gentleman (‘d’selve heeren’) that she be released from the Spinhuis, as then happened.’ Based on recent research in regional archives, it is now known that she was released on 31 May 1655 (Van der Vlugt (2019), p. 294).
10 Uncertain end to the story
Wieringa writes: ‘Less than a year after her release, Geertje Dircks deprived her brother of the power of attorney and had notarial deeds drawn up about Rembrandt’s role in her confinement. Rembrandt in the meantime tried to arm himself against this by having statements drawn up that blamed the family. Rembrandt and Pieter Dircks fell out: Rembrandt even had Pieter arrest him “to force him to speak the truth”. Everything indicates that Geertje was planning to file a complaint against Rembrandt and demand money from him again. That has not happened’ (Wieringa (2014)).
It is not known whether Geertje indeed did not demand any money subsequently, but this may have been the case. In 1656, in his application for cessio bonorum, ‘Geert Dircx’ is mentioned as one of Rembrandt’s creditors. This is the last mention of Geertje Dircx in the sources known so far. It is presumed that she died shortly afterwards in Edam. Bikker (2019), 138, observed that the question remains whether Rembrandt ‘… ever recovered Saskia’s jewellery from his jaded lover’.
11 Whose side do we take?
Historians, including art historians, are not averse to melodrama. They don’t shy away from juice and gossip and taking sides. They also seem to take pleasure in acting as psychologists or behavioural experts. That’s also the case with Geertje.
Bikker (2019), 137, concludes that Geertje was a manipulative person, who brought out the worst in Rembrandt. In the same vein, Lugt (1899), 89, points out that anyone who examines the Geertje incidents will be amazed that a woman, formerly so good and loyal to Titus, suddenly becomes so greedy, hot-tempered and unjust in her actions. The (sudden?) presence of Hendrickje and realising that her relationship with Rembrandt had (or was) ended, may have caused Geertje’s reactions.
Van der Vlugt (2019), 445ff, takes offence at this fairly negative image, emphasizing that Rembrandt displayed unreliable and vengeful traits. In the Dutch literature of the last thirty years, Rembrandt’s behaviour has indeed been characterized as vengeful, authoritarian and merciless. As Bosman (2019), 88ff, citing several authors, rightly submits, this assessment cannot be fully supported from the available legal documentation. Cappon (2020), 224, is convinced by his argumentation.
Very recently Giltaij (Giltaij (2023), p. 111) writes that it is not easy to understand what happened exactly; he joins, however, Bosman’s side. Bosman (2019), 95ff., elaborates further on the proposition that Geertje’s brother Pieter together with Rembrandt protected Geertje from herself. He also thinks it possible that Pieter had fooled everyone and – after all, he was Geertje’s guardian – that he himself had collected the jewellery from the pawnbroker. There is, however, no evidence to support these hunches.
In an unpleasant discussion with Bosman, Gary Schwartz (2020) paints a picture of Rembrandt’s character being a cocktail of litigiousness, untrustworthiness, recalcitrance, mendacity, arrogance and vindictiveness – and there’s more like it, in less outspoken terms.
In a nasty argument with a bitter ex, Geertje is portrayed as a manipulative seductress who’s after Rembrandt’s money. Or is she instead the victim of a man’s determination to rid himself of her? Moser, also very recently (Moser (2023), p. 25) concludes that if we did not have all that other evidence of Rembrandt’s ‘repulsive character’, we would be inclined to give Rembrandt the benefit of the doubt in this case. I actually feel more comfortable with Moser’s conclusion: ‘Is it any of our business anyway?’
References
References cited available through Sources in www.rembrandtsmoney.com.
Jeroen Giltaij, De vrouwen van Rembrandt. Saskia, Geertje, Hendrickje, Zwolle: WBOOKS, 2023.
Benjamin Moser, De wereld op zijn kop. Ontmoetingen met de Hollandse meesters, Amsterdam/Antwerpen: Uitgeverij de Arbeiderspers, 2023.
Gary Schwartz (2020) https://www.garyschwartzarthistorian.nl/380-whitewashing-rembrandt-part-2/
Frouke Wieringa, Dircks, Geertje, in Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland, available via https://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/vrouelexicon/lemmata/data/Dircks [13/01/2014]