The rediscovery of a lost painting by Rembrandt

The Baptism of the Eunuch, ca. 1630 […] a painting that Rembrandt was apparently very proud of. 

Ernst van de Wetering, A Life in 180 Paintings, Local World BV, 2008

The Baptism of the Eunuch, ca.1630 by Rembrandt, Oil on oak panel, 64,8 x 95,3 cm, Private collection.

“Mostly attributions of paintings to Rembrandt are based exclusively on stylistic evidence because of the lack of primary sources.
His Baptism of the Eunuch is a remarkable exception.

Prof. Dr. Volker Manuth, Summary and conclusion,
The rediscovery of the Baptism of the Eunuch, ca. 1630 by Rembrandt.
May 30, 2023, Nijmegen.

Traces of existence of this painting.

Ernst van de Wetering’s hypothesis in direct relation with the painting, the Baptism of the Eunuch, ca. 1630:

Missing paintings: Although we suspect that the greater part of Rembrandt’s oeuvre has been preserved, it is still possible that many paintings have disappeared. Sometimes traces of such paintings remain, for example in written descriptions from the past, or in copies or reproduction prints. The latter is the case with the scene illustrated in fig.55 with the Baptism of the Eunuch. It is an exceptionally ambitious reproduction print (59.2 x 49.1 cm) of a painting that Rembrandt was apparently very proud of. There is probably another trace of the same painting: a rapidly painted head, done in broad strokes, of an old man bending forward.
E. v. d. Wetering, A Life in 180 Paintings, Local World BV, 2008

Page 46 of Rembrandt, A Life in 180 Paintings

Page 46 of Rembrandt, A Life in 180 Paintings

“The resemblance goes further than the outer appearance of the model. It extends to the facial structure and the means used by the artist to depict it.” Gary Schwartz, A Rembrandt invention: a new Baptism of the Eunuch, 2020, p. 55.

Head of the old man in a cap (detail) ca. 1630, Philip of the present painting ca. 1630 and Vliet’s print detail 1631.

“We think this is an oil sketch for the head of the apostle Philip who is baptizing the rich Moorish courtier whom he was converted to Christianity. The print (reproduced here in mirror image) was produced – without doubt commissioned by Rembrandt himself – by the graphic artist Jan G. van Vliet. It would certainly have contributed to Rembrandt’s fame.”
E. v. d. Wetering, Rembrandt, A Life in 180 Paintings, p. 46 Local World BV, 2008 Local.

Rembrandt would not have used a student work as a model for his first print copy by Vliet. The painted model of the print is not a work from Rembrandt’s workshop.

There are two contemporaneous print copies of the painting bearing the inscription “Rembrandt invent”:
J.G. van Vliet’s engraving 1631 and C. J. Visscher’s engraving 1631-1652.

J.G. van Vliet’s engraving 1631. The print mentions: “RH. v. Rijn inv.”
and “JG. v. Vliet fec. 1631”.
Visscher's Baptism of the Eunuch
C. J. Visscher’s engraving 1631-1652. The print mentions: “Rembrandt invent” and “Visscher exudebat”.

What can we learn from Visscher’s engraving?

The Baptism of the Eunuch, Rembrandt ca.1631
149 – Klebeband
  • Visscher arranged his scenario to achieve a meaningful double page version by sacrificing the transitional landscape we find in the painting. Had he not done so, the characters would have been too small. However, although this pragmatic choice does not call into question the utility of the intermediary landscape in the painting, it fails to protect Visscher from generating disproportionate figures.
  • Same format, same scene, but poor quality of the characters and an entirely different type of baptism.
  • The format and the “jeux de regards” are similar to the painting. The characters reminds those of Vliet. The gesture of Philip performing the act comes from the Baptism of the Eunuch by Abraham Blommaert ca. 1620-25.
  • Unlike Vliet’s print, they are all focused on protecting the eunuch, as Rembrandt depicted in the present painting.

J.G. van Vliet is known for being rather faithfull to the master’s models, is it the case for the present painting?

Philip and the Eunuch in the present painting, and in Vliet’s print.
The armed entourage of the Eunuch in the present painting and in Vliet’s print.

The resemblence between the motifs is undiniable, but if one takes a closer look at Vliet’s work…

Awkward elements in Vliet’s print:

The gazes of the entourage

  • The gazes of the entourage are disconnected from the main scene, which is unusual in Rembrandt’s overall œuvre. They cannot forfill their duty of protection of the dignitary Ethiopian.
Detail of the entourage in the Baptism of the Eunuch by van Vliet, 1631.
Detail of the entourage in the Baptism of the Eunuch by van Vliet, 1631.
  • Looking closely at the faces of the entourage, we notice that Vliet struggled to reorganise the gazes of the characters by reorienting the eyes directions.
  • None of the characters seems concerned by the sacred act that is taking place before their eyes. Only the animals are in alert but looking toward the foilage rather than the scene.

According to Gary Schwartz in A Rembrandt invention: a new Baptism of the eunuch, 2020, “the auxiliary figures are all looking in the wrong direction. The gazes of the rider and the rest of the entourage make perfect sense in the horizontal painting and perfect nonsense in van Vliet’s vertical print.”

A troublesome iconography detail

  • A troublesome iconography detail: the genitals of the horse on Saint Philip’s head.
  • This anomaly is another sound argument that underlines the sad side effect of the crude change of format.
Detail of Saint Philip’s head and the horse’s genitals in the Baptism of the Eunuch by van Vliet, 1631.

The missing link between Rembrandt’s horizontal painting and Vliet’s vertical print.

Rembrandt, The baptism of the eunuch, ca. 1630 Black chalk on paper.
  • A compositional drawing made by Rembrandt for Vliet’s engraving.
  • In the drawing, the faces of the eunuch’s entourage are not inclined toward the baptism scene; they are only roughly sketched. The facial expressions remain indistinct.

Traces of the Baptism of the Eunuch, ca 1630

  • In auction houses in Amsterdam 1695 and in London 1798 and 1973.
  • In letters of other painters in 1640-41.
Image of Christie’s catalogue, London, June 9. 1798
Details of Philip’s harm from the present painting and Jesus harm from Christ Appearing to Magdalena at the Tomb, 1638.

The actual state of the painting: the life of the support

  • The different cuts on all sides including the coarse cut on the senestre side.
  • The thinning of the panel.
  • The bumps and dimples.