Listen to this episode here
In a previous podcast, I ended with the problems surrounding the acceptance of Rembrandt’s inheritance which concerned various people. Here, I’ll provide some background information on these people. This podcast is a counterpart to podcast RM24022 which dealt with the last ten years of Rembrandt as a professional artist. Now, the subject is the last years of his private life.
1 Hendrickje Stoffels
I start with Hendrickje Stoffels.
Rembrandt’s marriage to Saskia ended when she passed away in 1642. They had a son, Titus, who was only nine months old at the time. Geertje Dircx then became Titus’s nanny and would soon also become Rembrandt’s lover. That relationship, however, ended in bickering and bitterness.
From around 1648, Rembrandt lived together with Hendrickje Stoffelsdr. Jaeger. She was born in 1626 in Bredevoort, a small town in the eastern part of what is now the Netherlands. Hendrickje was therefore 22 when she started living with Rembrandt – 16 years younger than Geertje Dircx and 20 years younger than Rembrandt. They would remain together until 1663, when Hendrickje passed away at the age of 37. She was buried on 24 July 1663 in the Westerkerk in Amsterdam.
[Bathing woman (Hendrickje?), 1654, National Gallery London]
The couple, Rembrandt and Hendrickje, lived together without being married. In the State of Holland in those days, a situation of unwedded cohabitation went against accepted public morals, certainly in the eyes of representatives of the Reformed Church. I’ve already told you about the uncompromising stance of the Church council in a previous podcast. In 1654, it admonished Hendrickje Stoffels and banned her from receiving communion (‘de tafel des Heren’) as she had admitted to having committed fornication (‘hoererij’) with Rembrandt. In these days, Hendrickje was pregnant. Their daughter Cornelia was born In 1654.
For some 14 years, Rembrandt and Hendrickje seem to have had quite a stable relationship. It was an example of the relationships that existed between men and women in those days in Amsterdam, where the woman had a fair amount of economic independence and participated in the labour market. Hendrickje may have been responsible for the assignments and administration of Rembrandt’s business for several years.
Having shared hearth and home for around 14 years, Hendrickje passed away in 1663, very likely the victim of a plague epidemic. Little Cornelia was around nine years old at the time. Hendrickje had signed two legal documents (a witness statement and her will) with a cross, most probably because she was illiterate.
Her will was drawn up in 1661. She appointed Rembrandt as guardian of their child Cornelia, though they were not married. The will also wished that Rembrandt would not be liable for damages, losses or bankruptcy, nor be held accountable thereof. This provision was clearly not only naïve, but legally void.
She appointed Titus as universal heir and stated as her wish that his father would receive the benefits and enjoyment thereof for his nourishment during the rest of his life, again shielding Rembrandt from creditors.
In 1664, after Hendrickje’s death, Rembrandt drafted a will. Hendrickje’s will empowered him to appoint another guardian for Cornelia in the event of Rembrandt’s own death. In his will he appointed his former pupil Christiaen Dusart.
Now that Hendrickje was no longer alive, Rembrandt’s family circle – apart from Cornelia and relatives far away in Leiden – was reduced to his son Titus. In 1668, Titus, then aged 27, married Magdalena van Loo in Amsterdam. Magdalena was the niece of Saskia’s sister Hiskia. By that time, dark clouds had started to gather above the Van Rijn family. Titus died only six months into the marriage, most probably having succumbed to the plague.
[Titus (1641-1668)
Titus had made a will in Leiden, the place where he died. His remains were shipped to Amsterdam. Bikker (2019), 181, has doubts about the cause of death as he submits that 1668 was not a plague year in Amsterdam, nor in Leiden. It is indeed doubtful whether the cause of death was the plague, as in that case the body would not have been allowed to be transferred from Leiden to Amsterdam. It is interesting to mention that the inventory of his rich legacy also mentions four portraits of his father, his mother and himself.
Magdalena was pregnant at the time of Titus’ death. Their only child would be named Titia, who was baptized in March 1669. But the dark clouds continued to multiply above the already small Van Rijn family. Magdalena died only two weeks after Rembrandt passed away on 4 October 1669.
[Magdalena van Loo (1641-1669)
2 Rembrandt’s inheritance
On 11 October 1669, one week after Rembrandt’s death, Frans or Francois van Bijlert was appointed by the Amsterdam Orphan Chamber as the guardian of Titia, the child of Titus and Magdalena, and Rembrandt’s granddaughter. Van Bijlert’s appointment included the authority to act as the administrator of her property.
The Court ordered Van Bijlert to observe and promote her rights as a child in law and justice and towards everyone and to account for his actions and administer her goods in the most useful way and with the highest yield (‘over des selfs goederen gesielt ende geordonneert francois van bijlert omme des voors(chreven) kindts reght en gereghtigheydt allomme op en jegens een jegelyck rvaer te neemen te bevorderen ende te verantwoorden, ende voorts des selfs goederen t’Haeren meesten nut, oorbaer en profyte te regeren ende te administreren’). Van Bijlert accepted the assignment.
Two weeks later, on 28 October 1669, the consequences of Rembrandt’s death became clear to Van Bijlert: little Titia was the sole heir. Cornelia had no position in Rembrandt’s inheritance. She had been appointed as the sole heir in Hendrickje’s will. Van Bijlert issued a request to the Supreme Court of Holland (‘Hoogen Raede in Hollandt’), in which he mentioned that he was worried that the estate may include some unknown debts (‘beducht is, dat deselffs boedel met eenige onbekende schulden soude moge sijn geïnsolveert’). Therefore, he wished to accept the estate under beneficiary acceptance (‘benefitie van Inventaris’). This method required first making an inventory and then making a choice to accept the estate in full (with all liabilities) or not. The inventory was made for the benefit of the Orphan Chamber which would then have an insight into Titia’s financial position.
3 Rembrandt’s granddaughter Titia
Titia van Rijn, the child of the late Titus and Magdalena, was born in March 1669 and baptized on 22 March 1669. Titia’s mother, Rembrandt’s daughter-in-law Magdalena van Loo, passed away on 21 October 1669. An inventory (probate inventory after death (‘inventaris van sterfhuis’)) of her estate was probably taken on 23 December 1669 by the notary Francois Meerhout. What was Titia’s finacial position?
The notarial document itself is incomplete due to fire damage. However, it does list four paintings by Adriaen Brouwer, three artbooks filled with all the beautiful drawings Rembrandt had made during his lifetime (‘Drie constboecken gevult met al (de) costelyckste printen, die Rembrant van Rijn in syn leven gemaekt heeft’) and a portrait of Magdalena’s husband Titus, resting on his arm (‘een conterfeytsel van des overledens man, daer hy Over de leuning leyt’).
On 27 August 1670, Pieter Sahlier was appointed as Titia’s guardian by the Commissioners of the Orphan Chamber. This was ten months after Rembrandt’s death. Sahlier was to represent Titia’s interests insofar as these concerned Rembrandt’s goods with regard to the current issues and difficulties between the estate of Rembrandt versus those of Titus and further in general against all others. He was required to promote and account for the interests of the child. Pieter Sahlier assumed this assignment when present at the Orphan Chamber and he promised to perform this task properly.
Nearly one year after Rembrandt’s death, on 19 September 1670, payment was made of a debt to Christiaen Dusart. The debt had been left behind by Rembrandt and Titus, and the collateral – a book/portfolio with drawings by Lucas van Leyden – was returned to the guardian of Titia van Rijn.Notary Johannes Hellerus wrote that Christiaen Dusart, a skilful painter (‘konstrijck schilder’), residing on the Prinsengracht, had indicated that Rembrandt and Titus, had borrowed 600 guilders from him and that Titus van Rijn, as a voluntary pledge in return, had handed him a book containing the work of Lucas van Leyden, as well as some drawings by the latter. Dusart further stated that Francois van Bijlert, the guardian of Titia (‘Tietje’), had given him in full payment the said 600 guilders as well as the unpaid interest of 28 guilders. Dusart declared that he had been paid. Van Bijlert, who was also present in the notary’s office, declared that he had received the book and the drawing of Lucas van Leyden from Dusaert in the presence of the notary, discharging him and indemnifying him from all further demands (‘namaninge’).
4 Conflict between the guardians of daughter Cornelia and granddaughter Titia
Some two months after Rembrandt’s death, a dispute was recorded on 9 December 1669 between the guardians of Cornelia (Abraham Francen and Christiaen Dusart) and Titia van Rijn (Francois van Bijlert). A legal notification (‘insinuatie’) given by notary Jan Quirijnen Spithoff to Van Bijlert clarifies the matter. In his position as guardian, Van Bijlert had summoned both Cornelia’s guardians, via the bailiff (‘deurwaarder’) Gout, to be present on 11 December at the house of mourning (‘t sterfhuys’) of Rembrandt to monitor the taking of the inventory of the goods located there (‘de goederen aldaer berustende, te sien inventariseren’). An unpleasant discussion developed over several months, particularly about a cupboard, said to have belonged to Hendrickje, and money that was kept separately in it by Cornelia. In notarial deeds, three women gave several statements presenting their view on the truth with regard to the cupboard and the cash.
This particular episode draws to a close insofar as it was documented. It appears that not only Rembrandt himself, but also his seemingly few possessions, were still cause for legal quarrels. In the last years of his life, he certainly displayed a rather unpleasant side to his character. Bikker (2019), 10, concludes that ‘… the aged artist had been penniless during his last years and for some time already had been dipping into his daughter Cornelia’s inheritance to pay the household bills’, submitting that 15-year-old Cornelia must have been devastated not only to lose the last member of her immediate family (she had lost her mother Hendrickje when she was eight years old), but also confronted with the terrible fact that her own father had probably been stealing from her.
5 Cornelia
A few words about Cornelia. In 1670, Hendrickje and Rembrandt’s daughter Cornelia must have been around 17 or 18 years old. She then marries a person called Cornelis Suythoff. Their wedding banns were registered. On 3 May 1670, an announcement was made by Cornelis Suythoff from Amsterdam, painter, 24 years old, whose parents were deceased (‘ouders doot’), assisted by his guardian Adriaan de Fijn, residing on the Rozengracht, and Cornelia van Rijn from Amsterdam, 18 years old, whose parents were deceased (‘ouders doot’), assisted by her guardian ‘Abram Franse’.
In this document Cornelia is 18 years old, so she must have been born in 1652. Bikker (2019), 182, however submits (without providing sources) that Cornelia was only 15, as does Büttner (2014), 215, so almost ten years younger than her husband. Manuth et al. (2019), 386, say that Cornelia was 16 when she married on 3 May 1670. This date was exactly six months after Rembrandt’s death, ‘the minimal period of mourning’. Giltaij (2018), 25ff, speculates about the reasons why Rembrandt may have hesitated in having Cornelia baptized.
One year and a day after Rembrandt’s death, his (and Hendrickje’s) daughter Cornelia van Rijn and her husband, the painter Cornelis Suythoff, made their wills.Their chosen future was to live and work in the Dutch East Indies; now Indonesia, a former colony of the Kingdom of the Netherlands until the 1940s.
On 5 October 1670, the notary Jacobus Hellerus recorded that before him had appeared Cornelis Suythoff, painter, and Miss Cornelia van Rijn, husband and wife, residing in Laurierstraat (‘Cornelis Suythoff Schilder ende juffr. (Cornelia van) Rijn echteluyden wonende in de Laurierstraat’) who intended moving their residence to the East Indies, in Batavia, with the ship ‘Tulpenburgh’ (‘… voorgenomen hebbende hun metterwoon na Oo(st-Indië te) begeven op Batavia met het schip Tulpenburgh’). They declared the following to be their will:
First, that they, giving their souls to God almighty, wish that they will be buried according to a Christian funeral. Second, they stipulate that the person who dies first (‘de eerstaflyvige van hen beyde’) with or without children or further living descendants appoints the other as sole and universal heir who will have all property movable, immovable, money and claims, wherever in the world with no exceptions (‘alle goederen roerende, onroerende actien, crediten en gerechtigden gene ter werelt uytgesondert’).
Eight days later, the young couple set off on the ship the Tulpenburgh for Batavia. They sailed on 13 October 1670 from Texel, which was a common roadstead for large ships bound for Asia. The ship arrived in Batavia more than five months later, on 23 March 1671.
[Ludolph Bakhuizen, Nederlandse schepen op de rede van
Texel / Dutch ships onTexel’s roadstead; 1671]
The Tulpenburgh is a ship with a crew of 150, built in 1668 for the Chamber of Amsterdam at the VOC yard in Amsterdam and in use by the VOC from 1668 to March 1680. It departed three times from Texel with Batavia as the destination, via the Cape of Good Hope, in 1668, 1669 and 1670. The ship departed and sailed via S. Vincente (with 4 or 5 days’ stay) to the Cape (6 crew members had died before reaching the Cape). Also, the master of the ship (Dirk van Rijn; no family) died on 30 October 1670. He was succeeded by Klaas Pietersz. Sluiter. The ship arrived at the Cape on 10 January 1671, departed from the Cape on 20 January 1671, and finally arrived in Batavia on 23 March 1671. The ship was then laid up and was sold at Batavia on 1 March 1680.
In 1673, four years after Rembrandt’s death, Rembrandt’s grandson, named Rembrant Suijthoff, was baptized in Batavia (now Jakarta), Indonesia. The following was recorded: 5 Dec. 1673 Rembrant (without ‘d’), the child of Cornelis Suythoff and Cornelia van Reyn (spelt with ‘ey’) (‘5 Dec. 1673 Rembrant, ‘t kint van Cornelis Suythoff en Cornelia van Reyn’).Two years later, on 17 October 1675, another grandson of Rembrandt was baptized in Batavia, also named Rembrant. The document on that date notes: ‘K. Rembrant, V. Cornelis Zuijthof, M. Cornelia van Rijn’. ‘K’, ‘V’ and ‘M’ stand for Child, Father and Mother.
[Stadhuis van Batavia, rond 1710 gebouwd, nu het Jakarta Historisch Museum. Tekening: Johannes Rach (1770 ).
Batavia City Hall, built around 1710, now the Jakarta Historical Museum. Drawing by Johannes Rach (1770 )]
In Dutch society, it is odd to have two children bearing the same first name. It is therefore suggested that the first child, with the same name, had died. Three years later, another of Rembrandt’s grandsons, named Hendric Suythoff, was baptized on 14 July 1678 in Batavia. Suythoff Senior remained a painter, but after some 12 years he took on the rather profitable job of jailer at the city prison for women in Batavia. Cornelia died in (present-day) Indonesia, either before 1684 or in 1684; Suythoff passed away in 1691. There are no works of art known by Suythoff.
6 Titia
What about Rembrandt’s granddaughter Titia? She was only six months old when he died in 1669. When she was two years old, in 1671, as her grandfather’s sole legal heir, she was paid an amount of 3,150 guilders from the sale of paintings, drawings and ‘rarities’. She married Francois van Bijlert junior who was the son of her guardian. Titia died on 22 November 1725, the last descendant of Rembrandt. She was around 55 years old and died on the Blauwburgwal ‘between the Singel and the Langestraat’, which was probably the house where her husband, Frans van Byler Jr., ran his jewellery business. Titia and Francois had no children.
The burial book of the Westerkerk in Amsterdam, refers to the burial of ‘Tia’ under the date 27 November 1725: ‘1759 2 May cleared’ (‘1759 2 Mey geruimd’). The buyers note that this grave had been completely cleared, and the bones had remained with the church (‘dit graft in ‘t geheel schoongemaakt, de gebeentens aan de kerk gebleven’).
7 End of the family line?
We know of no other descendants of Rembrandt and so with Titia’s death, the Van Rijn family line had come to an end.
Or had it? Over 250 years later, in 1931, an attempt was made to have Rembrandt rehabilitated via a specific type of insolvency proceedings as provided for in the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (DBA). A ‘Jonkheer’ (squire in English) called Van Lennep claimed to be a direct descendant of one of Saskia’s brothers. He applied for Rembrandt’s rehabilitation.
The District Court of Amsterdam has to decide.
In short, the court decides two things:
1. Leaving aside the analysis of the historical transitional law, the applicant has not put forward any facts showing that Rembrandt or his heirs could have asserted a right to rehabilitation under the law applicable at the time; and
2. the applicant’s contention that rehabilitation should at least be granted in accordance with contemporary law, i.e. existence of the creditors and not proof of satisfaction of the creditors. The Amsterdam court is formal: according to Art. 207 DBA, the issue was not whether creditors still exist afterwards, but whether creditors were acknowledged at the time and whether they were fully paid. No evidence has been presented for this.
The conclusion is short: your request inadmissible. By the way, this provision of Art. 207 DBA still exists in Dutch legislation, but it is seldom used.
The court does provide some consolation:
‘The Court, however, does not want to hold back the remark that with Rembrandt’s fame as an artist all over the world, the fact that he had been insolvent during his life has been completely overshadowed.’
Conclusion
What remains is Rembrandt’s art as a lasting testimony to one of the most admired Dutch artists in the ‘Golden Age’. In the two centuries after his death, Rembrandt’s work was not viewed as outstanding. He had not been regarded as exceptional and – as we’ve seen discussing his pupils from Dordrecht – his artistic influence in the work of pupils and followers had been limited. However, from the mid-19th century his work had gradually become widely appreciated. Rembrandt represented the Netherlands, as a symbol of national pride. In the 20th century, Rembrandt’s artistic reputation continued to grow, making him the Dutch national hero he is today.
And if you want proof of that, listen (perhaps again) to the first podcast in this series, RM24001, about Rembrandt as a Dutch national Icon.
References
References mentioned or cited are available through the sources provided on www.rembrandtsmoney.com.