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
“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
“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.
“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.
What can we learn from Visscher’s engraving?
- 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?
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.
- 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.
The missing link
- A compositional drawing made by Rembrandt for Vliet’s vertical engraving.
- The faces of the eunuch’s entourage are not inclined toward the baptism scene; they are only roughly sketched. The facial expressions remain indistinct.
According to Otto Benesch, Wolfgang Wegner, Thea Vignau-Wilberg, Christian Tümpel, Marian Bisanz, 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”
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).
From Rembrandt’s original horizontal painting to Vliet’s vertical etching
Gary Schwartz writes in his book, A Rembrandt invention: a new Baptism of the eunuch p.32. “I agree with those who date the drawing about 1630, before the print was made. It was then that Rembrandt created not only the drawing but a large painting of the baptism of the eunuch, the “invention” copied by van Vliet”, The essential factor here is the sum total of the motifs, and not the way they are set out in the composition.
Rembrandt’s drawing of the Baptism of the Eunuch in Munich is an indication for the composition of Vliet’s etching.
What can we learn from Rembrandt’s own enriched version of the Baptism of the Eunuch made 10 years after
The mirrored composition, key figures, and recurring signature details are elements only Rembrandt could conceive.
Rembrandt reproduces his artistic qualities, including 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.
The Ethiopian Eunuch
- 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 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.
It is implausible to claim that Rembrandt was merely copying a workshop piece.
The ultimate proof of authenticity lies in Rembrandt’s hand. His purposeful reworking of themes, the self-replication of strengths and imperfections, and the consistent development of his creative process are undeniable evidence.
While the painting is in good condition and stable, what have we learned from the actual state of the support?
- The three pieces 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 worm damage.
In his report on the present painting, M. van de Laar states “The condition of this painting is stable and very good.”
An opinion: “The painting is largely the work of a single hand with notably good renderings of the eunuch, the rider and his horse.”
M. van de Laar, former conservator at the Rijksmuseum.
The fact that the imperfections to be found in the paint layer are all located along the joint lines of the panel, tends to convince us that these imperfections must be attributed to the restorers rather than to any hypothetical workshop involvement.
What have we learned from the scentific analyses?
- The dendrochronology carried out by Prof. Dr. Peter Klein leads to a probable date of 1630. 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 1631, but dendrochronology is known to have variable results from one expert to another. Futhermore, the dating task is even more imprecise when the panels are cropped and/or thinned, as is the case with the present painting.
- The Reflectography & X-ray, UV fluorescence photography, and Infrared reflectography directed by Art in Lab on the 27. 10. 2022, show an older pictorial layer, reworked details such as the covered Eunuch garment at the knee level, as well as some covered foliage that indicate a cut on the dexter side of the painting.
- 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 dexter 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, and oil-based mediums with added resins were quite common in the 17th century. 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.
From the baltic wood boards to the pigments passing by x-rays and other stratigraphy, all scientific analysis have proven the authenticity of the support.
What have we learned from the traceability?
Proof of the painting’s presence in France around 1641.
There is a faithful painted copy made by Vignon’s circle around 1641, which attests to its presence in France during this period.
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”
A testimonial painting: evidence supporting Claude Vignon’s acquisition and direct copy of Rembrandt’s Baptism of the Eunuch, ca. 1631
The striking resemblance between the fragment painted by Vignon and Rembrandt’s Baptism of the Eunuch (ca. 1630), as noted by Claude Vignon specialist P. 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).
……
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 two times.
What have we learned from the 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 presumed original proportions.
Although the crop on the senestre side was evident because of the roughness of the cut all along the edge, these workshop copies clearly show that the dexter side has also been cropped.
The painting already exhibited
Even before the latest decisive findings for its attribution, the painting was already included in several exhibitions.
What litterature can we find on the painting?
- 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). 79 pages.
- 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, 2021,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 omits key elements, misquotes, and distorts the text to dismiss the rediscovery of The Baptism of the Eunuch (c. 1630) without examining the original. Since its publication, leading Rembrandt specialists have confirmed this rediscovered painting as Rembrandt’s original and the model for Vliet and Visscher’s etchings.
- 2023, Volker Manuth report: The rediscovery of The Baptism of the Eunuch, ca. 1630, by Rembrandt, Summary and conclusion, The rediscovery of the Baptism of the Eunuch.
- 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).
Although the crop on the senestre side was evident because of the roughness of the cut, these workshop copies clearly show that the dexter side has also been cropped.