Listen to this episode here
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. As I said in earlier podcasts of this series, citing the words of sociologist Paul Schnabel: ‘It has become our national icon and the whole world comes to see it.’ 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. Therefore, I dedicated two podcasts to the painting. The first one is RM24018, The Night Watch – The commission, and today’s podcast, diving to other aspects of this extremely appealing work, the Night Watch.
5 The building ‘Kloveniersdoelen’
In 1630, a piece of land was filled near the Amstel, creating space for a new two-storey high building. On the top floor was a large hall of unprecedented height, measuring about five metres in height. The enlargement of the ‘Kloveniersdoelen’ resulted in a redistribution of the 20 militia companies among the three ‘doelen’ (in English ‘targets’). That would have been a reason to immortalize the officers among their men. The Night Watch was intended for the Great Hall of the Kloveniersdoelen (Arquebusiers’ Civic Guard headquarters or Militia Guild Hall). For more information on the decoration of the Great Hall, see Middelkoop (2019), 193. The ‘doelen’ were originally the place where training on the use of weapons took place. Later, it became the name for the entire guild building.
[View of the Kloveniersdoelen in Amsterdam, Jacob van Meurs (possible),
1663 – 1664 – Etching – Rijksstudio – Rijksmuseum]
The Kloveniersdoelen (literally ‘Musketeers’ shooting range’) was a complex of buildings in the centre of Amsterdam in a bend in the Binnen-Amstel. It served as the headquarters and a shooting range for the local civic guard or civic militia (‘schutterij’). It also served as the most important reception room for the Amsterdam city council.
As to its name, the companies of ‘kloveniers’ were armed with an early type of musket, also known as an arquebus (in the Dutch language at that time: ‘bus’, ‘haakbus’ or ‘klover’, hence the name kloveniers). In addition to longbow archers (by hand) and archers (by foot), there were cleavers. They didn’t shoot with a bow, but with handguns, a kind of early musket rifle or ‘couleuvrines’, Van Tussenbroek (2018), 54, explains.
The Kloveniersdoelen was located on the corner of Nieuwe Doelenstraat and Kloveniersburgwal (a bend in the Binnen-Amstel), both names reflecting the historical meaning of the former shooting range. Later, the Doelen Hotel was built on this spot. It’s now possible to book a special ‘Rembrandt Suite’, see https://www.tivolihotels.com/nl/tivoli-doelen/rooms.
[The tower of the Doelen Hotel is reminiscent of the Kloveniersdoelen.
The two cleavers depicted have lost their guns.
Author: Jvhertum, Public domain]
6 The canvas
The Night Watch itself was one of several mutually matching paintings hung along a wall as part of a continuous frieze (‘fries’). Rembrandt’s contribution deviates considerably from the other five works in composition, colour and vitality, which could indicate a free interpretation of his assignment, in that the patron let him have ‘a free hand’. The other five civil guard group portraits (‘schuttersstukken’) were produced by Rembrandt’s earlier assistant Govert Flinck (only 27 years old at that time), and by Jacob Adriaensz. Backer, Bartelomeus van der Helst, Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy (Rembrandt’s neighbour) and Joachim de Sandrard.
[Govert Flinck – Four governors of the arquebusiers’ civic guard,
1637, Rijksmuseum – Amsterdam]
[Nicolaes Eliaszoon Pickenoy, ‘Officers and other civil guards of the IVth district of Amsterdam,
under the command of Captain Jan Claesz van Vlooswijck and Lieutenant Gerrit Hudde, 1642 (Rijksmuseum Amsterdam]
The measurements of the painting are a story in itself. According to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam where it hangs, the painting measures 379.5 x 453.5 cm. Others claim it’s actually 14 cm shorter and 15 cm narrower (Manuth at al. (2019), 673, mentioning 363 x 438). Without the frame, the painting weighs 170 kg, with the frame 337 kg.
The original painting was actually larger, about 420 cm in height and – estimates vary – between 479 and 523 cm in width. In 1715, it was made to fit a smaller space in the city hall, after the original site at the Kloveniersdoelen had lost its ‘militia’ function; see Middelkoop (2019), 199. It was hung in the city hall between two doors. To make it fit this space, a strip was removed from all sides so that some parts have been lost. From the left-hand side of the painting: a bridge rail, two riflemen and the plume of the hat of a third man. These men are presumably Jan Brughman (1614-1652) and Jacob Dircksz. de Roy (1601-1659), with Brughman on the far left. On the right-hand side, a small strip containing the neck of the drummer has been cut off.
In an earlier podcast I told you about the original size of Rembrandt’s house and art studio. So, where did he paint this enormous work? It is estimated that Rembrandt must have worked on the painting for about a year. The large canvas wouldn’t have fitted in his workshop. Rembrandt, after acquiring his new house in 1639, he is residing in ‘… a house opposite of the new Anthonis Sluys’. This is some five minutes’ walk from the Kloveniersdoelen. The work is probably painted in a small gallery or shed in the courtyard of his house, i.e. (‘… Galerijtgen twelck … Rembrandt … maaect has a muyr of desen huyse’). It’s been suggested that Rembrandt might have worked on it outdoors, sheltered however from rain and direct sunlight. In 1656, the inventory of Rembrandt’s estate lists two items (nos. 346 and 347) as being located, ‘Op de schilder loos’, old Dutch meaning in the painter’s shed or painting shed. The large work could only have left Rembrandt’s art studio as a rolled-up canvas, and probably not via the living room, but via the basement corridor under the house, to the street side. This was a cellar that Rembrandt rented to his neighbour De Pinto for the storage of trade items.
It should be remembered that Rembrandt was working on the canvas and completed it very close to the date Saskia died. Bikker tries to imagine how Rembrandt put the final touches to the Night Watch that he would deliver to the Kloveniersdoelen only one month after Saskia’s death (which was 14 June 1642).
Was he emotionally drained? Did the work provide a distraction from the dramatic event that had occurred in his personal life? He would certainly have had feelings and emotions, but Rembrandt did not share these – at least not in a diary, for example. Such a document may, however, have existed and been lost or burned.
7 The unpronounceable name of the painting
Rembrandt’s famous work does not have an unambiguous, generally accepted title. The official name of the canvas is based on information from a family album by Banninck Cocq I told you about earlier. In the album, in addition to a watercolour copy of the painting, the following text is written (translated in English): ‘Sketch of the Painting on the Great Sael [large hall] of the Cleveniers Doelen in which the Young Lord van Purmerlandt as Captain, gives instructions to his Lieutenant, the Lord of Vlaerdingen, to get into formation and to march his group of civilians’).
[Banninck Cocq – The Nightwatch
Rijksstudio, Rijksmuseum – Amsterdam]
The Night Watch, Rembrandt van Rijn, 1642 – Rijksmuseum
District II is what is now the area between Damrak (‘Water’) and Singel. It is interesting to note that both Banninck Cocq and Van Ruytenburgh lived just beyond this district. Bannick Cocq was probably asked to become a captain because he was one of the few who could afford the expensive command.
8 Payment for the Night Watch
Now, the money question. Who paid for the Night Watch?
Little is known about the rates that painters charged for group portraits. For one of the first regent (group of persons) pieces in Amsterdam in 1617, Van der Voort received 50 guilders from each of the six regents. The frame maker received three guilders per person. These were payments in private that were not charged to the organization the regents represented.
It took some 17 years after the painting’s finalisation, before a part of the answer to the above question emerged. In 1659, two of the musketeers stated in a notarial document that 16 of them each paid Rembrandt around 100 guilders. And they added: some more than others, depending on whether that person was more or less prominently visible. What was the reason for giving this statement? It was provided at the request of Louis Crayers, a lawyer, in his capacity as guardian to Titus van Rhijn.
[Portrait of the Artist’s Son, Titus;
between 1654 and 1658 Rijksprentenkabinet]
At that time, Titus was around 18 years old. The depositions given indicate that Titus’ guardian, Louis Crayers, apparently considered the amount due and owing to Rembrandt on the day of Saskia’s death, on 14 June 1642. In his role as Titus’ guardian, it was important to establish the value of Rembrandt and Saskia’s estate at the time of her death, including the determination of the fact which assets and money belonged to the community of property and which didn’t, because according to his mother’s will, Titus had a substantial stake in her inheritance.
Settling an estate can take some time. The settlement of an estate in which one of the beneficiaries has become insolvent can take even more time. Indeed, Rembrandt’s insolvency was settled in 1658. So, some justification can be found for the long period of 17 years before these facts about the painting surfaced.
The two musketeers making their Statement are Jan Pietersz. Bronchorst (1587-after 1666), cloth merchant (‘laecen coper’), at that time of this declaration 72 years of age. The other is Nicolaes van Cruijsbergen, a merchant (1613-1663). Van Brochorst declared in lieu of taking an oath, that he had been painted and portrayed by Rembrandt van Rhijn, together with other members of his company and platoon, 16 in all (‘tot sestien int getall’) in a painting now located in the Great Chamber of the ‘Cloveniersdoele’. According to his recollection, each of them paid on average 100 guilders, one a bit more, the other a bit less, depending on their respective placement in the picture (‘… dooreen de somme van hondert guldens, d’een wat meer en d’ander wat minder nae de plaets, die sij daer in hadden’). Note that the drummer did not have to pay; he was employed by the militia and was paid for his work (Hijmans et al. (1976), p. 55).
Maarten Prak, a professor of social and economic history (Prak (2020), 144ff.) has submitted that 100 guilders was the equivalent of six months’ wages. It was a hefty sum for a portrait that would not be privately owned. In his view, this points to the great importance that people apparently attached to being portrayed as a member of a militia in a painting that would hang in a public place.
The other musketeer, Nicolaes (or Claes) van Cruijsbergen, provost of the citizenry of the city, declared it to be true that the costs of the picture in the ‘Cleuveniersdoelen’ were 1,600 guilders (‘… heeft gekost de som van sestienhondert guldens’). The notary notes, that Nicolaes gave as the source of his knowledge that he paid his share of it, and also declared that he heard the amount being mentioned on several occasions at that time.
Contrary to the number mentioned in these affidavits, there are 18 (prior to 1946 the reading was 17) names on the cartouche in the painting. The statements show that the payments to the artist were made before Saskia’s death in June 1642. This aligns with the date shown on the painting. It is quite likely that the painting had been completed by then. Or better, that these payments have been advanced payments. Ergo, the money received should be a part of the estate.
Because of these statements, for a long time it was assumed that Rembrandt had earned around 1,600 guilders for the painting. Not all agree here. The biography that Baldinucci published in Florence in 1686, mentions 4,000 ‘scudes’ – roughly more than twice as much. Baldinucci’s main source was a Danish painter, Bernhard Keil, who was apprenticed to Rembrandt at the time of the Night Watch.
In line with this, Bob Haak (1926-2005) – a Dutch art expert known mostly as one of the founders of the Rembrandt Research Project – considers 1,600 guilders an unlikely low amount compared to what Rembrandt received for other pieces in those years. He suspects that the two riflemen in their statement only took notice of the amounts paid by the ordinary riflemen, but not the amounts for the musketeers with a rank, such as Banninck Cocq and Van Ruytenburch. After all, they are depicted in their entirety on the canvas (in full length; ‘ten voeten uit’) and are clearly the most important figures. Dudok van Heel is a Dutch historian and former archivist, who is now in his mid-80s. He considers it plausible that Banninck Cocq and Van Ruytenburch each paid approximately 500 guilders, the same amount that later mayor Andries de Graeff (1611-1678) paid for his portrait that was painted by Rembrandt in 1639 (Dudok van Heel (2009), 74). Another author Bouwman (2018), 76, mentions – without substantiation – an amount of over four hundred guilders, and submits that Van Ruytenburch paid 100 guilders. Van Tussenbroek suggests that for this reason musketeer Jan van der Heede, on the left-hand side of the little girl and painted in full, must have paid more than Bronchorst.
[Lieutenant Van Ruytenburch – The Nightwatch – Rijksstudio,
Rijksmuseum – Amsterdam]
Middelkoop assumes that Captain Banninck Cocq and Lieutenant Van Ruytenburch, being the highest in rank, were not included in the count on the ornamental frame. However, the suggestion that they paid a higher fee of 500 guilders seems to Middelkoop to be ‘on the high side’. Since the Night Watch, in 1642, around 100 hundred guilders per person for a group portrait seemed to be the standard rate, concludes Middelkoop (2019), 86.
As an aside, Dudok van Heel (1998), 33, notes that in the 17th century, Rembrandt and Bartholomeus van der Helst were among the best-paid portrait painters of the Amsterdam elite. They charged ‘exceptionally high rates’; see Middelkoop (2019), 85. In the late 1630s, Rembrandt also charged 500 guilders for a (now lost) double portrait of VOC governor Abraham Wilmerdoncx (1605–1668) and his wife, and at least 1,600 guilders from those depicted in the Night Watch. Dudok van Heel also notes that these amounts were modest compared to the commissions that Bartholomeus van der Helst later received for his work and that were paid to Gerard van Honthorst at the internationally oriented Hague Court. For Honthorst, taking his international fame into account, these amounts were often significantly higher. In general, however, the study of Middelkoop (2019), 51ff., shows that in the course of nearly two hundred years, the average price for an individual to appear in a portrait increased from 50 guilders in 1617 to 100 guilders in 1642, ‘… plus a couple of guilders towards the frame, after which the price remained constant until the start of the nineteenth century’ (Ibid., at 727).
9 Is the painting a true representation?
An important part of the action in the painting is the chronological representation of the act of handling a firearm.
There are three stages to this: loading, firing and cleaning the musket. In the Night Watch, the man in red is loading the gunpowder, a musket is fired behind the Captain and an older man is blowing away the excess of the powder behind the Lieutenant. Musketeer Jan van der Heede loads his musket (a light gun) by emptying a cartridge of gunpowder into the barrel. A military man wearing a helmet wreathed with oak leaves is hidden behind the Captain. He fires a musket, producing a burst of flame and a plume of smoke, slowly vanishing behind the white feathers in the Lieutenant’s hat. To the right, behind the Lieutenant, musketeer Jan Claesen Leijdeckers, is cleaning a gun after it had been fired. He blows powder out of the pan of the musket.
[Three stages: loading, firing and cleaning the musket.
The Nightwatch – Rijksstudio, Rijksmuseum – Amsterdam]
On closer inspection, the whole scene appears to be in disarray. The three musketeers are dressed quite differently, with archaic garments and headgear. They don’t seem to have much confidence in using weapons. The entire group seems to be responding not so much to the command to ‘march’, but rather to the unexpected shot (hard bang) of the musket of the purple-clad musketeer.
And this is again followed by a drum roll, started by Jacob Jorisz (1591-after 1646) (on the right side of the paining), causing the dog beside him to cower in fear and start yapping.
Rembrandt’s contemporary and student Samuel van Hoogstraten found the work so beautiful, so ‘so graceful in its movement’ (‘zoo zwierig van sprong’), and so powerful that, according to some, all other shooting pieces paled in comparison. He did, however, wish that Rembrandt had added more light to it (‘iets meer licht in ontstoken had’). In this work, Rembrandt was not so much the painter of light, he was the painter of darkness, of darkness mixed with light (compare Moser (2023), p. 17).
10 Interpreting the Night Watch
Many interpretations exist about the painting. Some praise the light and the ‘boldness’ in the painting. Others say it depicts an episode from a well-known 17th century theatre play ‘Gysbrecht van Aemstel’ in 1637, written by Joost van den Vondel and performed in the first stone building of the Amsterdam theatre.
It is also claimed to be a recollection of the performance during the visit to Amsterdam of Maria de’ Medici, the French Queen Mother, in 1638, as recognition of the young Republic. Van Tussenbroek (2018), 11ff., distances himself from this latter interpretation. Manuth et al. (2019, 673) refer to the complex symbolism in the painting.
In a February – May 2024 an exhibition has been held in the Rembrandthuismuseum (and several other Amsterdam location with adjacent activities). The central theme has been (as explained by Leonore van Sloten and other authors in the accompanying book), that indeed – like theater directors – Rembrandt manipulated all elements in his works of art. It was his aim portraying a story as compellingly and convincingly as possible. To practice facial expressions, Rembrandt sat in front of the mirror and made his well-known etchings. As seven of Rembrandts most important directing techniques are mentioned: the choice of the moment, hand gestures, facial expressions, attributes tributes and costumes, attitudes, lighting and composition (Van Sloten (2024)).
And you, of course, are free to add your own interpretation.
11 Conclusion
After the turbulence surrounding the painting itself, let’s return to the more sober, perhaps soporific legal eye. The story behind the Night Watch makes it clear what his clients were looking for; acquiring or confirming personal prestige in Amsterdam society at that time. The painting reveals that it was the result of manual dexterity and craftsmanship. It also served a functional goal, with its dimensions later being adjusted to the space it was hung. You could almost say it was like how wallpaper is viewed today – strips disappear because the doorpost is more important.
Almost all those depicted in the Night Watch paid a contribution; 100 guilders per person and it is likely that those in the foreground would have paid more. Knowledge about these payments only surfaced more than 15 years later when Titus’ guardian, Louis Crayers, tried to reconstruct whether these amounts had been obtained by Rembrandt prior to or after Saskia’s death. It was important to determine this. If these payments, or parts of them, had been part of the income when Saskia was still alive, the amounts would have been included in the community of property regime under which Rembrandt and Saskia were married, and would therefore be part of her estate. In this case, this legal matter provides a piece of the puzzle, allowing us to better understand the developing story behind the Night Watch.
Finally, in Rembrandt’s professional life, the Night Watch was a highlight. But in a sense, it was also an end point. He had observed and demonstrated compositional variation and the greatest possible mobility. He had staged this with dramatic darkness, mixed with brilliant light, while offering enormous depth and spaciousness. In the 1640s, Rembrandt experimented with his style idiom and sense of piety. However, according to Van de Wetering (see Manutch 277), he ultimately took a new path.
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.