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, Missing paintings p. 46, Local World BV, 2008.
The painting was rediscovered and provisionally attributed to Rembrandt and his workshop by Gary Schwartz and Christiaan Vogelaar. Subsequent research—combining meticulous documentation, stylistic evaluation, and scientific analysis—led to its definitive attribution to Rembrandt van Rijn, affirming his authorship. This conclusion is endorsed by Prof. Dr. Volker Manuth, Gary Schwartz, Ger Luijten, and Prof. Dr. Fernando García-García and supported by Ernst van de Wetering’s authoritative literature. As with most of Rembrandt’s works after 1628, minor workshop contributions cannot be totally excluded.
To maintain the painting’s authenticity and physical history, the pentimenti and traces of earlier restorations, such as the eunuch’s sleeve, were intentionally left visible despite some loss of visual unity. Although this choice may lead uninformed viewers to misinterpret these features as minor student contributions—which is inaccurate—it remains a straightforward matter for a restorer to correct if necessary. Proposed restoration.
The Baptism of the Eunuch by Rembrandt, ca. 1630, is exceptionally well-documented compared to many other paintings of his œuvre.
What significant traces did Ernst van de Wetering uncover that led to the rediscovery of the lost painting from circa 1630?
“Missing paintings: Sometimes traces of such paintings remain, for example in written descriptions from the past, or in copies or reproduction prints.”
E. v. d. Wetering, A Life in 180 Paintings, Local World BV, 2008.
“There is probably another trace of the same painting: a rapidly painted head, done in broad strokes, of an old man bending forward. […] an oil sketch for the head of the apostle Philip who is baptizing the rich Moorish courtier whom he was converted to Christianity.”
E. v. d. Wetering, A Life in 180 Paintings, Local World BV, 2008.
According to Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s painting style evolved not only across different periods but also within the same period, often exhibiting radical variations. During Rembrandt’s early period, his style was frequently more “rough” than “fine,” as exemplified in The Head of the Old Man in a Cap. Van de Wetering successfully persuaded the Rembrandt Research Project team of this observation. He references J. Bruyn: “We now agree that his conception, backed with impressive argumentation sourced from contemporary texts from Rhetoric, is an argument that makes the range of styles within the same period entirely acceptable.” (What is a Rembrandt? Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt Paintings Revisited: A Complete Survey, Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings VI, p. 52).
Although differing in size, the brushstrokes and style in Head of the Old Man in a Cap (c. 1630) and St. Philip’s head, along with the line work in Van Vliet’s engraving, demonstrate remarkable consistency.
According to van de Wetering, in Corpus IV, The Self-Portraits, Dordrecht, Springer, p. 628: Philip appears to have been painted from the same model used for Head of an Old Man in a Cap, dating from the same period. Ernst van de Wetering even captions the Head of an Old Man as a study for the lost Baptism of the Eunuch. He suggests, “It is most likely that the present painting (the Old Man in a Cap c. 1630) served as an oil sketch for the (now lost) Baptism of the Eunuch, a composition reproduced in a print by Van Vliet in 1631.”
The resemblance extends beyond the model’s outward appearance, encompassing the facial structure and the techniques employed by the artist to render it. Gary Schwartz, A Rembrandt Invention: a new Baptism of the Eunuch, 2020, p. 55.
“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.
Rembrandt selected this personal painting ca. 1630 as the model for Van Vliet’s print, as unequivocally confirmed by the inscription crediting Rembrandt as the inventor.
“Van Vliet’s indication on the print after Oil study of an old man in a cap, c. 1630, that Rembrandt was the ‘inventor’ of the image concerned, should in my view be accepted as sound evidence that this painting (and the other paintings copied by Van Vliet) must have been from Rembrandt’s hand.”
Stichting Foundation, Rembrandt Research Project, Ernst van de Wetering, Corpus VI, Rembrandt’s painting revisited, 2017 p. 41.
There are two contemporaneous print copies of the painting, in two different formats, bearing the inscription “Rembrandt invent”: J.G. van Vliet’s engraving 1631 and C. J. Visscher’s engraving 1631-1652.
The presence of two differently formatted copies, each bearing the inscription “invented by Rembrandt,” suggests that the original work may have been horizontal. This challenges the prevailing assumption that only a vertical format was possible.
- “Their compositions too are cut off at just the same point. […] because both prints were copied after this particular painting.” Gary Schwartz, A Rembrandt Invention: a new baptism of the eunuch, 2020, p. 67.
“The model for the prints was not a hypothetical lost original by Rembrandt, but the existing painting here presented”. Gary Schwartz, A Rembrandt Invention: a new baptism of the eunuch, 2020, p. 67.
What can we learn from Visscher’s engraving?
“It is apparent to me that the painting [..] is the most likely candidate to be the model for Claes Jansz’s engraving, and I take seriously the inscription Rembrandt invent”. Gary Schwartz, A Rembrandt Invention: a new baptism of the eunuch, 2020, p. 9.
- 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.
What can we learn from Vliet’s engraving?
As usual, J.G. van Vliet is predominantly faithful to Rembrandt’s models.
The resemblance between the motifs is undeniable but…
What insights emerge upon closer examination of Van Vliet’s work?
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 fulfill their duty of protection of the dignitary Ethiopian.
- 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.”
All the painted copies in vertical composition exhibit the same anomalies, sometimes even worse, clearly proving that they are copies of Van Vliet’s engraving and not of the 1630 painting.
A troublesome iconography detail
- A troubling iconographic 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.
What transformative discovery unveiled the connection between Rembrandt’s painting and Van Vliet’s etching?
- Rembrandt probably made this drawing to explain to Van Vliet how he could adjust the format.
- The faces of the eunuch’s entourage are only roughly sketched. The facial expressions remain indistinct. This absence of head’s expression can explain the anomalies in Van Vliet’s work, as he didn’t have the proper material to align the heads of the figures surrounding the eunuch toward the main scene.
According to Otto Benesch, Wolfgang Wegner, Thea Vignau-Wilberg, Christian Tümpel, Marian Bisanz, Martin Royalton-Kisch, Gary Schwartz, and Odilia Bonebakker, the Munich Baptism of the Eunuch drawing is believed to belong to Rembrandt’s early period and was not created in preparation for the etching by Rembrandt in 1641. The article written by Odilia Bonebakker on Rembrandt’s drawing in Munich (2003) presents concordant arguments “to suggest that the drawing was made around the same time as the lost painting of 1629/30.”
Prof. Dr Odilia Bonebakker, Rembrandt’s drawing of The Baptism of the Eunuch in Munich: Style and Iconography p.39. Rembrandt and his followers, drawings from Munich, Thea Vignau-Wilberg (2003).
Volker Manuth and Gary Schwartz identify Rembrandt’s Munich drawing as a preparatory work based on the present painting, “serving as the model for the vertical composition in Van Vliet’s reproduction print” Gary Schwartz, A Rembrandt Invention: a new baptism of the eunuch, 2020, p. 32.
From Rembrandt’s original horizontal painting to Vliet’s vertical etching
Gary Schwartz cites in his book “The essential factor here is the sum total of the motifs, and not the way they are set out in the composition.” J. Bruyn, op. cit. (note 32), p. 53. See also Schuckman, Royalton-Kisch and Hinterding, op. cit. (note 28), p. 45.
“[…] The arguments for regarding the present painting as van Vliet’s model are not to be denied.” Gary Schwartz, A Rembrandt Invention: a new baptism of the eunuch, 2020, p. 69.
Rembrandt’s drawing of the Baptism of the Eunuch (in Munich) is an indication for the composition of Vliet’s vertical etching.
What can we learn from the biblical tradition?
- The painting The Baptism of the Eunuch from circa 1630 belongs to an ancient pictorial tradition. This tradition includes manuscripts, frescoes, and reliefs of sarcophagi, which present the essential elements of the theme: Philip, the eunuch, a scroll text, a horse-drawn wagon (sometimes) with one horse facing the viewer, a page and a dog.
- Philip and the eunuch sit in a chariot drawn by four horses, while on the right, the deacon stands at an altar in a ciborium.
The respect for pictorial tradition, with its ancient symbols and timeless iconographic elements, is a defining characteristic of the master.
What unique vision sets Rembrandt apart from his predecessors in portraying the baptism?
- “the Eunuch’s receiving the Holy Spirit light: Rembrandt subtly introduced a focal point (1.5 cm illuminated circle) that distinguishes him from his predecessors in interpreting”
The Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch from the New Testament (Acts 8:26-39).
- A discreet and enigmatic miracle, performed by a divine ray of light. This tiny halo appears as a “visual exegesis,” symbolizing God’s presence and embodying the allegorical significance of a spiritual light that purifies the soul without altering the color of the skin.
- “Most of all, the painting expresses dignity, the dignity and self-possessedness of all the figures, engaged in a mysterious rite of solemn portent.” Gary Schwartz, A Rembrandt Invention: a new baptism of the eunuch, 2020, p. 75.
The choice of baptism by divine light stands out as a distinct break from both contemporary and earlier interpretations.
What can we learn from Rembrandt’s own enriched version (still horizontal) of the Baptism of the Eunuch made 10 years after?
The mirrored composition, key figures, and recurring details are elements only Rembrandt could conceive.
Rembrandt reproduces his artistic qualities, even graphic imperfections, from his swift and inspired process.
Philip’s hand and arm
- Philip’s arthritic hand is rendered identically .
- Ten years later, his St. Philip foreshortening of the arm in 1641 is still awkward, but Rembrandt softened it with the interruption of the cloak, which allows the arm to appear more naturally integrated with the shoulder. Let’s note that there are other arms forshortenings in Rembrandt’s œuvre such as Jesus in Christ Appearing to Magdalena at the Tomb, 1638.
The Ethiopian Eunuch gesture
- It’s as if the 1641 engraving, executed ten years later was a new sequence, seconds later, with a tilted angle. The hands clasped on the chest and raised to the sky.
Presence of the same ornaments
- In the engraving, the page holds the turban with a more ornate aigrette and pointing upward.
- Ten years after, the lack of attention given to the page’s hand which could have been wrongly interprated in the painting, is surprisingly worse.
- Just like in the painting, behind the page, the dog with the collar observes and seems ready to bark.
Details in the landscape, the same tiny characters
- Tiny figures in the landscape, in a similar position in the present painting and Rembrandt’s etching of 1641.The small figures might not only animate a biblical landscape. Still, they could also represent Saint Philip, the exegete, seated before the angel, instructing him to help the eunuch to interpret the text and to convert him. The recurring postures of these figures across both works might recall Heemskerk’s scene in his two pages engraving on the theme.
- The small figures might not only animate a biblical landscape. Still, they could also represent Saint Philip, the exegete, seated before the angel, instructing him to help the eunuch to interpret the text and to convert him. The recurring postures of these figures across both works might recall Heemskerk’s scene in his two pages engraving on the theme.
While the painting is in good and stable condition, what have we learned from the current state of the support?
- The three boards of baltic wood that make up the panel have undergone the effects of time.
- The lack of unity in the texture of some parts that can hinders the eye in recognising the master’s hand is due to repeated poor quality restorations along the lines of the panel joints.
- The panel has been trimed on all borders at different points in time, however the senestre side’s crude cut is notable. The back of the panel has been thinned to prevent from worm damage.
In his report (July 22, 2022, Paris) on the present painting, M. van de Laar states “The condition of this painting is stable and very good.” Following the advice of Michiel Franken from the Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD), the restoration was carried out by Regina Costa Pinto (former restorer at the Louvre) under the supervision of Ger Luijten and Fernando García-Garcia.
Michel van de Laar notes: “the damages, fillings and abrasion along and around the original two gluing joints and the two prominent cracks are concurrent for a 17th century painting with this construction. Study of the painting under UV reflection light, with the LED torch, a loupe and with the naked eye shows that the retouches of the last restoration were carried out skillfully, carefully and with the finest precision.”
The imperfections along specific panel joint lines are unmistakable evidence of the restorers’ interventions and cannot be attributed to hypothetical workshop involvement.
What do the marks of time and restoration on the painting’s surface tell us about the painting?
- The dendrochronology carried out by Prof. Dr. Peter Klein leads to a probable date of 1631. Although Rembrandt coul have used a seccativ treatment to dry up the first paint layer (the underneath nature morte), it can seem a little short for a creation date in late 1631, but as Ilona van Tuinen, Head of the Rijksmuseum Print Room states, dendrochronology is known to have variable results from one expert to another. Futhermore, the dating task becomes even more imprecise when the panels are cropped and/or thinned, as is the case with the present painting. In conclusion, the period 1630–1631 provides a highly satisfactory timeframe, given the inherent limitations of this field.
- The Reflectography & X-ray, UV fluorescence photography, and Infrared reflectography directed by Art in Lab on the 27. 10. 2022, show an older image, upside down, which was typical of Rembrandt’s practice: Ernst van de Wetering comments*: “Rembrandt made some thirty paintings on top of other paintings. […] is an argument in favour of an attribution”. These studies also showed some reworked details such as the covered Eunuch garment at the knee level, as well as some covered foliage that indicate a cut on the dextre side of the painting.
*A corpus of Rembrandt paintings, vol. VI, Rembrandt’s paintings revisited: A complete survey, (Notes to the plates), Dordrecht (Springer) 2017, p. 503, nr. 45, Oil study of an old man, c.1630, Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst.
- Multispectral and reflectography analysis conducted by Lumière Technologie, also showed the remaining portions of foliage that Rembrandt subsequently covered over to rebalance the composition and erase nonsensical foliage due to the cut on the dextre side.
- We can also notice de covering of the Eunuch’s garment portion in front of the knee, which is still visible in Vliet and Visscher’s prints.
- “All the samples examined contain pigments already known or used in the 17th century. Large aggregates of lead white, the use of calcium carbonate as a filler, etc, were quite common at this time. The graph of the trace elements also agrees with that of the Dutch paintings.”
Dr. Hermann Khun, study of the pigments (from extracted fragments) and stratigraphy by stereo binocular, microscope by macro photography, U.V. in Mme Brans’ workshop February 5th 1985. - All the samples show a total compatibility with the painting material that Rembrandt could have used at this point in time.
All scientific analyses provide compelling evidence for a Rembrandt autograph work.
What have we learned from the traceability?
The first probable record of the painting being purchased directly from Rembrandt dates to 1641, when François Langlois, commissioned by his friend Claude Vignon (see letter), acquired it, with Vignon subsequently producing a painted copy.
Proof of the painting’s presence in France around 1641.
Around November 1641, Claude Vignon, French painter, member of the Académie Royale, probably acquired the painting from the art dealer François Langlois after his visit to Rembrandt.
Page 445 of the “Lettere su la pittura, scultura ed architettura”
something from him”. Page 446 of the “Lettere su la pittura, scultura ed architettura”
There is a faithful painted copy probably made by Vignon himself around 1641, which attests to its presence in France during this period.
The striking resemblance between the fragment painted by Vignon and Rembrandt’s Baptism of the Eunuch (ca. 1630), as noted by Claude Vignon specialist Dr. Paola Pacht Bassani, establishes several points:
- It confirms a direct connection with Rembrandt’s work, which Vignon’s close friend F. Langlois.
- Reportedly brought back from Amsterdam, as detailed in Vignon’s mission letter. Langlois was well aware of Vignon’s deep interest in this theme, as Vignon had painted it in 1638 for the “Mays” of Notre Dame. Shortly after that, Vignon named his son Philippe and Langlois became his godfather, underscoring the theme’s personal significance. This likely influenced Langlois’s decision to choose this work specifically for Vignon.
- Vignon tended to produce his own copies of certain paintings he acquired before reselling them. His reproductions in such cases were often executed with speed, focusing on the central fragment—Philip baptizing the eunuch.
Paola Pacht Bassani, ‘Claude Vignon’ (1593-1670), Arthena, 1993, ‘Vignon et compagnie’ p.65, mentions F. Langlois’ travel to the Netherlands with a visit to Rembrandt (Vignon’s letter of mission to Langlois, November 1641). It’s interesting to note that Langlois was also selling paintings, drawings, and engravings to the Charles I collection, because after the king’s death and the dispersal of the collection, the painting is presented (and sold) in Amsterdam, on April 6. 1695, as Catalogus Schilderyen mentions (lot 48), then sold again in London with the works of the masters of King Charles the First collection (reconstituted by Charles II), on June 9. 1798, as Christie’s catalogue mentions (lot 66).
A testimonial painting: evidence supporting Claude Vignon’s acquisition and direct copy of Rembrandt’s Baptism of the Eunuch, ca. 1630.
The Baptism of the Eunuch in London in 1798 and again in 1973.
- Christie’s sales catalogue with auctioneers’ handwriting showing the exact dimensions of the painting with the same lot 86 and Christie’s code 642VR printed on the former cradle of the present painting (it is now in a small transparent pocket inserted in the current frame) and the seller’s name: Adolf Stein.
The supposedly lost painting has in fact been sold under its rightfull attribution at least three times.
What insights can we draw from workshop copies?
- Two painted copies of the original artwork were found in the RKD archives. These copies show the painting before it was cut off, in its original proportions.
These workshop copies clearly reveal what is attributable to Rembrandt’s hand and what belongs to his pupils.
The painting already exhibited.
Even before the latest decisive findings for its attribution to Rembrandt van Rijn, the painting was already included in several exhibitions.
Literature
- 2017-2019: Ernst van de Wetering, regarding the attribution of the painting, circa 1630, to Rembrandt, recommended referring to his writings as follows: A Life in 180 Paintings, Missing Paintings, Local World BV, 2008, p. 46.
- What is a Rembrandt? Rembrandt Paintings Revisited: A Complete Survey, Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings VI, Springer, 2017: p. 41. (Notes to the plates) p. 503, nr. 45. p. 52.
- Corpus IV, The Self-Portraits, Dordrecht, Springer: p. 628: The Head of an Old Man in a Cap, c.1630 (A. Etherington Art Centre, Queen’s University), identified as the model for St. Philip’s head.
- 2019, Catalogue Young Rembrandt-Rising Star, Leiden, The Baptism of The Eunuch [cat 53], written by Christiaan Vogelaar. p. 146.
- 2020, A book written by Gary Schwartz, A Rembrandt Invention: a new Baptism of the Eunuch, (Primavera Press, Leiden).
- 2020, Catalogue: Rembrandt’s Orient, Kunstmuseum, Basel, The Landscape of the Bible: Early Rembrandt and His Influences, The Baptism of The Eunuch, written by Gary Schwartz, [Cat. 62], p. 216.
- 2021, Catalogue: Rembrandt’s Orient, Museum Barberini, Potsdam,The Landscape of the Bible: Early Rembrandt and His Influences, The Baptism of The Eunuch, written by Gary Schwartz [Cat. 62], p. 216.
- 2021, Elmer Kolfin’s critique of Gary Schwartz’s A Rembrandt Invention: A New Baptism of the Eunuch lacked substance, omitting key elements, misquoting, and distorting the text, without ever having inspected the painting in hand. Leading Rembrandt specialists have since confirmed it as Rembrandt’s original.
- 2023, Volker Manuth report: The rediscovery of The Baptism of the Eunuch, ca. 1630, by Rembrandt, Summary and conclusion.
- 2023, Gary Schwartz report: in which, the art historian attributes The Baptism of the Eunuch, ca. 1630 to Rembrandt.
- 2023, An interactive knowledge bank, the Art Model System dedicated to The Baptism of the Eunuch by Rembrandt, ca. 1630 is available upon request (1500 slides and over 1000 pages on and off line).
Acknowledgements
This research benefited from the contributions of many individuals. Gratitude is extended to Volker Manuth, Ernst van de Wetering, Gary Schwartz, Ger Luijten, Christiaan Vogelaar, Odilia Magdalena Bonebakker, Michiel Franken, Fernando García-García, Michel van de Laar, and Regina Costa Pinto for sharing their notes, sources, and expertise, which greatly informed this work. Thanks are also due to the Fondation Custodia, Paris, where The Baptism of the Eunuch was kept, with particular appreciation for Ger Luijten, the former director. Photographies of “The Baptism of the Eunuch” used in this research was provided by Gilles Alonzo and Doro Keman.
Disclaimer
The content provided on this website is for informational and educational purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented, no guarantee is given regarding its completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The views and interpretations expressed on this site are those of the authors and do not constitute professional advice. This website is non-commercial and is intended solely to promote knowledge and appreciation of art. It does not offer valuations, certifications, or any other professional services. All materials, including text and images, are shared in good faith and with respect for intellectual property rights. If you are the rightful owner of any material published on this website and believe it has been used without proper authorization or credit, please contact us. We will address your concerns promptly and take appropriate action. By using this website, you acknowledge and agree that the owners and contributors of this site shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or any damages arising from its use. Thank you for supporting the appreciation of art!