If I say ‘The Night Watch’, most Dutch people can immediately conjure up an image of this famous painting. What’s more – they think about it with not only a sense of admiration, but also national pride. Although the original Dutch title of the painting is much longer, it is now known as the ‘Nachtwacht’. By the way, we only started using this name (now in English: Night Watch’) from 1797 when it was first referred to like this.
There’s a feeling among the Dutch that the Night Watch belongs to all of us. As I said in the first podcast of this series, citing the words of sociologist Paul Schnabel: ‘It has become our national icon and the whole world comes to see it.’
Vasyatka1, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
.jpg){kind=link}
His most famous painting holds the most prominent position in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and the literature on nearly all aspects of this enormous painting is extensive and continues to expand. I refer here to just two websites, the website of the Rijksmuseum, www.rijksmuseum.nl and http://colmilquetoast.blogspot.nl/2013/05/rembrandts-night-watch.html#WhosWho.
Without a doubt, the magnificent work The Night Watch is Rembrandt’s most appealing painting. It is enormous in scale and what exactly it represents is the subject of ongoing debate. I am also interested in how the commission came about. Which people we see. What they did in daily life. And how Rembrandt presented these people as a group. That is why I dedicate this podcast and a subsequent podcast (RM24019) to this extremely appealing work, the Night Watch.
Below, unless indicated otherwise, pictures/illustration are provided by the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam Netherlands, the Rijksstudio.
1 The painting’s commission
What do we see? The painting depicts a civil militia group, in Dutch called a ‘schutterij’. The word ‘schutter’ (shooter) comes from ‘beschutten’ (to shelter), which was the most important task of a ‘schutterij’ (or militia group, civic guard or ‘shooting guild’): to protect the city from outside threats. Amsterdam would have had over 20 of these civil militia groups. The shooters had to provide their own armament. This entailed costs, so that only important and wealthy citizens could become shooters.
An interesting question that arises is to whom Rembrandt owed the commission for the painting. Hard evidence is lacking due to the absence of surviving militia archives. There are at least two possibilities. The first is art dealer Uylenburgh. Indeed, Middelkoop does not think it too far-fetched to believe that Uylenburgh played a crucial role as an intermediary in the realization of the Night Watch commission for Rembrandt. More in general, Uylenburgh had played a crucial part in introducing Rembrandt and, later, young Govert Flick (Rembrandt’s pupil who was 27 years of age in 1642), on the Amsterdam market for portraits and history pieces (Middelkoop (2019), 189).
The second possibility put forward by Harriet Stoop-de Meester in 2020 (Harriet Stoop-de Meester (2020), 149), suggests that the central figure in the Night Watch, Frans Banninck Cocq, probably commissioned Rembrandt directly. Rembrandt and Banninck Cocq likely knew each other as indirect neighbours. Bannick Cocq’s parental home was situated diagonally opposite Rembrandt’s house. He owned the house from 1633 to 1646, although he only lived there from 1621 to 1630.
[Man walking while in red sash, black hat and white collar.
Identified as Captain Frans Banning Cocq (1605-1655)]
I’m inclined to follow Middelkoop’s suggestion. To back up my instinct, I point to a financial transaction between Uylenburgh and Rembrandt which took place on 20 January 1640. That could be a few months prior to the final commission. In an agreement, Hendrick Uylenburgh gave his entire shop (‘sijnen gehiele winckel’) as a pledge (‘pandrecht’) to no less than 18 creditors, including Rembrandt. Uylenburgh likely received a minimum of 8500 guilders and perhaps 500 guilders from Rembrandt. He is mentioned in the margin of the loan instrument, with a signature from Uylenburgh for approval. Had Uylenburgh persuaded Rembrandt to contribute by reminding him of his rewarding investment of close to ten years ago? Or was Rembrandt persuaded by Uylenburgh’s promise to introduce him to the militia group which led to the commission?
As to the year of the commission, I can say the following. The musketeer companies that used the building as their stopping place were portrayed between 1640 and 1645 by order of the ‘kloveniers’, according to Van Tussenbroek (2018), 61. Büttner (2014), 112, mentions as the year of the commissions a year between 1638 and 1645. In principle, this only applied to those musketeers who wanted to pay Rembrandt the requested amount. As with many pieces of Rembrandt’s work, his commission for the Night Watch is not documented. We have no information about the date on which he received the commission and any instructions given by the client(s). Rembrandt was chosen, as Van Tussenbroek claims (2018), 64, because he was a talented, universal artist, who used a variety of styles and was even competent in etching. At that time, he was Amsterdam’s society painter to go to, ready to paint everyone who wanted to pay, whatever the customers’ religious background. Rembrandt was young and successful and a big spender.
Jan Clasen Leydeckers is the person behind the Lieutenant (in yellow), Willem van Ruytenburch. He is blowing into the powder pan of a musket, Leydeckers had made a will at the end of 1640. He died a week later, so it is assumed that the militia (or at least the part in which Leydeckers (1597-1640) is portrayed) must have been depicted in the present composition before December 1640. The commission must therefore have been given at some time point before that date and perhaps even further back.
[Man leaning over to blow out the pan of his matchlock. Identified as Jan Claesen Leijdeckers (1597-1640), musketeer].
It is generally believed that Rembrandt worked for around a year on the portrait, maybe a bit longer. So, the commission would likely have been given in the course of 1640. The Night Watch was completed in 1642 when Rembrandt was 36 years old. It would prove to be a pivotal year in his life, not only professionally, but also personally: his wife Saskia died.
2 Original meaning of the Night Watch
The key player in the Night Watch is Captain Frans Bannick Cocq (in front, on the left-hand side). In a family album, produced in 1650, he wrote that the painting depicts the moment when he orders his Lieutenant Willem van Ruytenburch (in front, on the right-hand side) to give the command for the militia company to start marching.
With the gesture of Banninck Cocq’s hand, which seems to stick right out of the painting, he orders his Lieutenant to command the company into action: have them march out!
Van Ruytenburch indicates the march direction with his forward-facing stabbing weapon (a partisan or sponton).
The Captain’s left hand casts a shadow on the costume of Van Ruytenburch. It indicates the direction from which the light is falling in the painting.
The viewer’s gaze is symbolically guided to Amsterdam via the shadow of Bannick Cocq’s hand.
We are guided to a detail in Van Ruytenburch’s jacket, to the place where the three crosses of
the Amsterdam city coat of arms are embroidered in Van Ruytenburch’s costume.
And the ensign hoists the banner, while the entire group seems to move forward, all undoubtedly as Banninck Cocq will have ‘desired and ordered’, as stated in the album. For more information on this family album, see also Middelkoop (2019), 77, 111 and 198.
In the twilight, several anonymous figures are added – some poorly marked with part of their heads. In this way Rembrandt manages to give the impression that the group of shooters is much larger and even continues beyond the frame of the paining. On the right, Sergeant Rombout Kemp points to the left forward, where the command comes from, while looking back (a ‘no-look’ action).
The look and gesture are not only intended for the shooter right next to him, but also for the invisible members of the company to the right of the scene.
3 Identity of the persons who paid Rembrandt
Although we can all visualize the group of people in the Night Watch under the command of Captain Frans Banninck Cocq, it has only been known since 2009 that the vast canvas depicts a total of 34 people. In the middle of the upper half of the painting, concealed in darkness, an ornamental frame, also known as a cartouche, has been added. Slive (1995), 72, claims it was added by an anonymous hand. The cartouche was possibly added around 1653. Stoop-de Meester (2020), 155, however, dates it between 1642 and 1649. It lists the names of the 18 persons who had paid for their portrait, obviously as a way to preserve the identity of the persons depicted for eternity. All 18 musketeers, including Captain Frans Banning Cocq (Lord of Purmerlant and Ilpendam) (1605-1655) and Lieutenant Willem van Ruytenburch (Lord of Vlaerdingen) (1600-1652), are listed on the cartouche; not, as might be expected, from left to right, but instead according to the length of their engagement with the civil militia group of District II in Amsterdam at that time.
[Cartouche from the Night Watch]
The names of the (paying) 18 musketeers listed on the cartouche are: ‘Barent Harmansen, Jan Adriaensen Keyser, Elbert Willemsen, Jan Clasen Leydeckers, Jan Ockersen, Jan Pietersen Bronchorst, Harman Iacobsen Wormskerck, Jacob Dircksen de Roy, Jan vander Heede, Walich Schellingwou, Jan Brugman, Claes van Cruysbergen and Paulus Schoonhoven’.
The other 13 persons were ordinary musketeers and in between them are two girls and a boy.
For the investigation of the identity and background of the persons on the Night Watch, in particular personal information regarding all 18 musketeers and of (non-paying) other ordinary riflemen, a drummer (which may have been Jacob Jorisz, see Middelkoop (2019), 125), a trumpet player, the two girls, with first and second names, data (birth, baptism, death, burial), family origin, religion, studies, offices, professions, careers, (noble-sounding) titles, (political) functions, military ranks, interests, family data (names parents, parents-in-law, partners, children), legacies, residences or addresses, I refer to literature (Dudok van Heel (2009); Dudok van Heel (2009a); Van Tussenbroek (2018), 31ff.; Middelkoop (2019), 76ff.).
The paying persons were 18 musketeers in all, five of whom held a rank.
First a captain – Frans Banninck Cocq, Lord of Purmerlant and Ilpendam (1605-1655). His father was Jan Jansz. Cocq (1575-1633), an immigrant from Bremen who was a pharmacist in Amsterdam. He received the two titles after the death of his father-in-law, Volckert Overlander, in 1630, having married his daughter Maria.
The manor Purmerend and Ilpendam was located north of Amsterdam, near Edam. Frans Banninck Cocq studied law in Poitiers (France). When he was 27, he was already Commissioner in Marital Affairs. Later, among other positions, he became an Amsterdam burgomaster from 1650-1652 and in 1653.
Then a lieutenant, Willem van Ruytenburch of Vlaerdingen, Lord of Vlaerdingen and Vlaerdingerambacht (1600-1652). He was a member of the Dutch gentry and Amsterdam patriciate of the Dutch Golden Age. He came from a family of spice merchants, involved in the Eastern trade. His father Pieter married Aeltge Pietersdr, an offspring of the powerful Amsterdam Bicker family. Willem had two sisters, Anna van Ruytenburch (1589-1648) who married Adriaen Pauw, Grand Pensionary of Holland, and Christina van Ruytenburch (1591-1666), who married his brother Reinier Pauw, President of the High Council of Holland, Zeeland and West Friesland. So, it’s clear that this family holds quite some power! Willem van Ruytenburch also studied law. Among other things, Willem was an alderman of Amsterdam.
The others who hold a rank are an ensign, Jan Cornelisz. Visscher, and two sergeants, Rombout Kemp (1597-1653) and Reijnier Engelen (1588-1651), both of whom are cloth merchants.
As to the ensign, Hijmans et al. (1976), p. 42, reports that an ensign as bearer of the identification mark of his banner must meet very special requirements: he had to be young, handsome and unmarried. Jan Vischer, merchant, active in the Baltic Sea (1610-1650) was 32 years old. I don’t know if he was handsome and unmarried.
As for Sergeant Kemp, in 1646 he would succeed Van Ruytenburch in his role as lieutenant.
4 Some background to the persons depicted
The Captain is holding a walking stick as a symbol of his seniority.
The girl in the light might resemble Saskia, aged around 10 years. Hanging from her waistband is a chicken with large claws. Behind it a kind of a pistol can just be seen, known as a ‘klover’. The claws and the klover were the symbols of this militia company, the ‘Kloveniers’ or Arquebusiers. It is thought that the girl served as a mascot, bringing good luck to the militiamen.
The boy behind the Captain, very hard to identify, has oak leaves on his helmet. For the militia, oak leaves were the symbol of the strength of the citizenry. Claws and oak leaves formed the motif of the silver marksman’s badge that the winner of the annual shooting competition was allowed to keep (Hijmans et al. (1976), p. 59).
Only pikeman (‘piekenier’) Schoonhoven (on the far right, the last name mentioned on the ornamental frame) would live longer than Rembrandt. Schoonhoven (1595-1679, a broker/dealer) passed away 37 years after the Night Watch was completed, in 1679. As said, the full group of persons adds up to 34. See also:
https://archive.is/20120530031452/http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/pers/algemeen/nachtwacht-ontrafeld?lang=nl, and https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/3063.
The persons on the Night Watch all come from different religious backgrounds, including Reformed, Remonstrants and Catholics. Not Mennonite, however, because they never took up arms. No less than 8 out of 18 were involved in the cloth trade.
The figure with just one eye visible and wearing a beret may well be Rembrandt himself. He’s standing diagonally behind the ensign, a partially visible male head wearing a beret, whose eye is watching the company’s ensign being raised. Interestingly, Middelkoop (2019), 124, refers to the custom that apparently existed when composing a group portrait, that the artist was allowed to include his own portrait.
To give you some additional background information: as a group portrait of a number of shooters, the Night Watch is part of a tradition in Amsterdam dating back to 1529, when Dirck Jacobsz. (1496-1567) painted the oldest known militia painting, a group portrait of a number of ‘kloveniers’. See Van Tussenbroek (2018), 44ff.; Middelkoop (2019), 142ff. The latter author notes (o.c., 195), that the genre of militia pieces comes to an end around 1650 to 1653. This was the period following the Treaty of Münster (Treaty of Westphalia) of 1648, when the raison d’être for the shooting ranges (‘doelen’), i.e. the maintenance of the marksmanship of resilient male civilians (‘poorters’), had died out. The fact that the walls of the buildings of these militia groups were already amply filled with portraits will also not have contributed to any new initiatives being undertaken.
In the cities of the regions of Holland and Zeeland, 135 of such often life-sized militia pieces from the 16th and 17th centuries have been preserved. See Prak (2019), 153. Smis (2007-2008), 59ff., provides an overview of a comparison of several pieces of the civil patrol (‘schutterstukken’), including nature and origin of the iconographic sources. However, from whatever perspective the Night Watch is viewed, she submits, the painting remains primarily a group portrait of Amsterdammers who have in common that they served in the local militia; a corps of civilians trained in the use of arms, charged with guarding and maintaining public order. Middelkoop (2019), 15ff. and 58ff., indeed stresses the joint responsibility that has been entrusted in the protagonists portrayed in the militia and civic guard portraits. That responsibility was temporary, however the portrait helped keep alive the memory of the period in which these unpaid positions were held and in which the persons depicted were traditionally succeeded by their sons. A group portrait such as this one propagated collective responsibility which included the inclusion of secondary figures (an innkeeper, a concierge, a drummer) in the portrait; see Middelkoop (2019), 120.
It is striking that after more than a century of development of the fairly static group portrait, at the end of this genre someone comes up with a completely new view on such a portrait. Compared to the very static militia group portraits of his contemporaries (persons arranged in neat static rows), Rembrandt painted the group in action as they were starting to march, led by Captain Banninck Cocq and Lieutenant Willem van Ruytenburch, respectively, in the centre left and centre right. Rembrandt had turned a relatively boring genre of the group portrait into a monumental and compelling historical piece. In a following episode, I’ll continue this moving story, which gradually brings us closer to Rembrandt’s work magnificent work.
References
Titles of referenced literature cited available through Sources in www.rembrandtsmoney.com.
Hijmans, Willem, e.a., Rembrandts Nachtwacht. Het vendel van Frans Banning Cocq, de geschiedenis van een schilderij, Leiden: A.W. Sijhoff 1976.
Middelkoop, Norbert E., Schutters, gildebroeders, regenten en regentessen. Het Amsterdamse corporatiestuk 1525-1850, diss. Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2019 (3 delen).
Moser, Benjamin, De wereld op zijn kop. Ontmoetingen met de Hollandse meesters, Amsterdam/Antwerpen: Uitgeverij de Arbeiderspers, 2023.
Schnabel, Paul, Anders gekeken. Het beste en het boeiendste uit de Hollandse schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw, Zwolle: Waanders Uitgeverij 2021.
Sloten, Leonore van, et al, Directed by Rembrandt. Rembrandt and the World of Theatre, Zwolle: WBOOKS / Amsterdam: Museum Rembrandthuis, 2024.