© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 2 of 15

Portrait of Antonie Coopal

1635

Rembrandt van Rijn and Workshop

oil on brazilian chestnut (sucupira)83.5 x 67.6 cm
signed and dated in dark paint, lower right:“Rembrandt. ft (followed by three dots set as atriangle)/ 1635”
RR-103Currently on view at: The National Museum ofChina, Beijing

How To Cite
De Witt, David and Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. "Portrait of Antonie Coopal." In The Leiden Collection
Catalogue. Edited by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017.
https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/.
This page is available on the site's Archive. PDF of every version of this page is available on the Archive,
and the Archive is managed by a permanent URL. Archival copies will never be deleted. New versions areadded only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 3 of 15

This bust-length portrait of a young man with long curly blond hair and a

Comparative Figures

wide-brimmed hat has an appealing directness that immediately engages
the viewer. The sitter’s elegant demeanor and refined features are
reinforced by his stylish turned-up moustache and carefully manicured
chin tuft. His expansive broad lace collar and cuff, which stands out starkly
against his black cloak, were at the height of fashion in 1635 when he satfor his portrait. As he gazes at the viewer over his right shoulder, the sitterhas drawn his right hand up to his chest in a gesture that bespeaks
humility and sincerity.
Fig 1. Label on verso of RR-103

A Dutch label on the painting’s verso (fig 1), with a French translation on asecond label, identifies the sitter as Antonie Coopal (ca. 1606–72). Thereis no reason to question the sitter’s identification, especially in light of
Coopal’s close family relationship to Rembrandt van Rijn: Antonie’s
brother François was married to Titia van Uylenburgh, the sister ofRembrandt’s wife, Saskia.[1] Coopal, who hailed from Vlissingen in theprovince of Zeeland, studied medicine at Leiden University in the
mid-1620s, after which he returned to his native city. In 1633 he assumed
the first of the many administrative posts he held in that port town.[2] Thelabel adds a spurious title of Margrave of Antwerp, a position that Coopal
sought, but never attained, as well as an unverifiable statement that heserved as ambassador to Poland and England, assertions that likely reflectsocial concerns of his descendants. Coopal’s place in history is best
known by his audacious scheme to facilitate the capture of Antwerp by

Fig 2. Rembrandt van Rijn,
Portrait of Philip Lucasz, 1635, oil
on panel, The National Gallery,
London, NG 850 © The National
Gallery, London

Prince Frederik Hendrik in 1646 with massive bribes to the Spanish
garrison stationed there.
Painted on a highly unusual South American chestnut panel,[3] this portrait
is signed and dated in the lower right: Rembrandt.ft…/1635. On the basisof the description and measurements, it can be connected to a painting by
Rembrandt from the Choiseul-Praslin Collection, sold in Paris in 1793.[4] In1938 Rembrandt’s fame, as well as the portrait’s compelling presentationof the sitter, no doubt attracted Adolf Hitler’s agents, who looted this workfrom the collection of its then owner, Alphonse de Rothschild in Vienna.
The painting was returned to the Rothschild family in 1946; subsequently it
was with the art dealer Frederick Mont in New York. It was then acquiredby Baron and Baroness Charles and Edith Neuman de Vègvàr ofGreenwich, Connecticut, whose descendants lent it to the Museum of Fine

Fig 3. Rembrandt van Rijn,
Portrait of Philips Lucasz, X-ray,
1635, oil on panel, The National
Gallery, London, NG 850 © The
National Gallery, London

Arts, Boston, from 1984 to 2007, at which time it was purchased by the© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 4 of 15

present collector.
Despite Coopal’s familial connections to Rembrandt and the signature anddate, the attribution of this portrait to Rembrandt has been the subject ofmuch dispute. The first scholar to express concerns about the attribution
was Horst Gerson in his 1969 revision of Abraham Bredius’s 1935
catalogue of Rembrandt’s paintings.[5] In 1986 Christian Tümpel assigned
the painting to Rembrandt’s workshop,[6] citing supporting negative
judgments by Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann, Seymour Slive, and Peter C.
Sutton, who knew the painting well because it had been on loan to theFig 4. X-radiograph of RR-103

Museum of Fine Arts while he had served as the curator of Dutch
paintings. In 1989 the Rembrandt Research Project, led by Josua Bruyn,
similarly concluded that the painting was likely executed by an unidentified
member of Rembrandt’s workshop.[7] In a letter to the current owner, dated
19 May 2010, Ernst van de Wetering questioned whether the painting
actually originated in Rembrandt’s workshop, and postulated that it might
be a later copy after a lost prototype by the master.[8] These negative
judgments, however, stand in stark contrast to the opinions of other
Rembrandt scholars. In 1992 Leonard Slatkes published the painting as
by Rembrandt, with possible contribution of an assistant in the costume.[9]Walter Liedtke and Christopher Brown both attributed the work to
Rembrandt when they exhibited it in their respective museums: Liedtke at
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, in 2008, and Brown at the
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, in 2010. The painting was also attributed toRembrandt in an exhibition at the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art in
Hartford in 2009–10, and again in 2011–12, when it was included in the
exhibition Rembrandt in America: Collecting and Connoisseurship.[10]The attribution issues related to this painting reflect many of theuncertainties surrounding the portraits produced in the Rembrandt
workshop in the 1630s, about which there have been many disagreements
in recent years. The issues are multiple and reflect the fact that, despiteextensive research by Van de Wetering and others, there are many gaps in
our knowledge of how Rembrandt’s studio functioned in Amsterdam in theearly to mid-1630s, an issue intimately connected to questions about thecharacter of the workshop of Hendrick Uylenburgh (1584/89–ca. 1660).[11]Rembrandt, who entered into a business partnership with Uylenburgh in
1631 when he was still in Leiden, soon moved into Uylenburgh’s
Amsterdam home and ran the workshop, which was called an “academy”© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 5 of 15

in its day. Rembrandt remained with Uylenburgh until 1635, when he andSaskia (Uylenburgh’s niece, who Rembrandt married in 1634) moved to adifferent residence. By then Rembrandt had joined the Saint Luke’s Guildand had begun working as an independent master.
During the early to mid-1630s, artists who had previously been trained
elsewhere, including Jacob Backer (1608–51) and Govaert Flinck(1615–60) came to work in Uylenburgh’s “academy” under Rembrandt’s
guidance. Exactly when these artists entered the workshop is not certain,
but it was probably between 1633 and 1635. They presumably came tolearn Rembrandt’s style of painting, but it seems that they, and others in
the workshop, also collaborated in producing paintings, particularly
portraits, which was a common practice in the Dutch and Flemish portrait
tradition.[12] The nature of such collaborations in the workshop was
probably quite varied. Some of the variables included the personal or
professional relationships between sitter, Rembrandt, and Uylenburgh; thespecific demands or expectations of the patron; the scale of the painting;
and whether it included hands or other attributes. These considerations
were important when projecting the time allotted for producing the portrait,and hence the cost. In some instances Rembrandt painted the entire
portrait, but occasionally he executed just the sitter’s head and relegatedthe costume and hands to assistants. At other times he may have blockedin the sitter’s form and then had assistants execute the work in his manner
before putting in finishing touches.[13] With so many uncertainties in our
knowledge of how the workshop functioned, judgments of attribution haveto be cautiously approached.
The most extensive critique of the Rembrandt attribution for this portrait of
Coopal was published by the Rembrandt Research Project in 1989.[14] In
its assessment of the painting, the team pointed to the thick application ofpaint, long and straight brushstrokes modeling the face (versus the“shorter more flexible strokes” it characterized as typical of Rembrandt),
the simple and strong (“spiky”) contrasts of the figure with its
surroundings, the lack of an atmospheric character to the background, theselective bravura in brush handling, and the superficial modeling of thelace collar. It also did not accept the signature and date as authentic.[15]The Rembrandt Research Project’s primary point of comparison was with
Rembrandt’s Portrait of Philips Lucasz. in the National Gallery, London, a© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 6 of 15

work also signed and dated 1635 (fig 2).[16] The team’s close comparisonof these two portraits is entirely apt, for the two paintings do share many
characteristics in composition, pose and scale. Indeed, Christopher
Brown, who had lived with the Lucasz painting for more than two decades
as chief curator at the National Gallery in London, felt that the paintings
were so similar that one seemed to have been painted right after the other.
Because of these correspondences, the portrait of Antoine Coopal was
brought to London in June 2015 so that scholars could examine the twopaintings side by side in the conservation laboratory of the National
Gallery.
The juxtaposition of these two portraits was very revealing, and confirmedthat the paintings were comparable in scale and character. Differences,
however, were also evident that had not previously been noted. For
example, it became immediately apparent that the portrait of Antonie
Coopal is more brightly lit than that of Philips Lucasz. One also became
conscious of the differences in the physical appearance of the sitters. In
1635, when they were both portrayed, Philips Lucasz. was some years
older than Antoine Coopal.[17] He was also a rugged man who had lived inIndia and spent much time at sea, which may account for his apparent
physical strength and stolid demeanor in this portrait. The Coopal portrait
presents a softer and flashier presence enhanced by the sitter’s long, curly
locks and the dynamic rhythms of his wide-brimmed black hat. He looks as
though he were someone who had yet to witness the world in a way that
had Philips Lucasz. The large gold chain that Lucasz sports beneath hiswhite lace collar, which is probably related to administrative positions heheld in the Indies, adds to a sense of his gravitas, a characteristic lacking
in the portrait of the younger, more elegant Coopal.
The physical differences between the sitters help account for many of thecriticisms of the Coopal portrait noted by the Rembrandt Research Project.
Rembrandt must have been impressed by Philips Lucasz’s strong
character, which he expressed through the dense interworking of
brushstrokes he used to model his form. Although both paintings are
executed wet-into-wet, the X-radiograph of the Lucasz portrait reveals therichness of Rembrandt’s brushwork (fig 3). The X-radiograph of the
Coopal portrait (fig 4), on the other hand, confirms that his face wasmodeled more quickly and with fewer brushstrokes, perhaps because
Rembrandt wanted to convey the youthful flair of this younger sitter. One© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 7 of 15

must also wonder whether the financial arrangements for portraying afamily member were the same as for a commissioned portrait, and whether
the time allotted for creating a portrait differed from one to the other.
Assessing the process by which Rembrandt created portraits when he
was head of the Uylenburgh workshop in the early to mid-1630s is acomplex matter, but the juxtaposition of these works furthered ourunderstanding of how the Coopal portrait was painted.[18] To begin with,the similarities of these two portraits made it clear that Rembrandt
conceived and blocked in both compositions. Coopal’s pose, as he looks
out at the viewer over one shoulder, and the position of his hands, isentirely consistent with the work of the master. It also became evident that
Rembrandt executed the painting with workshop assistance, mostobviously in painting the lace collar. The collar is not particularly wellpainted and it has a superficial character that neither indicates thecomplexity of the lace patterns nor enhances the three-dimensionalpresence of the sitter. This finding is quite significant for the question of
attribution. When the Rembrandt Research Project rejected the attributionof the portrait of Coopal to Rembrandt, it assumed that only one artist
painted this work. On the other hand, in arguing for the correctness of theRembrandt attribution of the Philips Lucasz portrait, where the collar has
similar weaknesses, it argued that it was executed by one of Rembrandt’s
assistants. The same logic should apply to both works.
A particularly unsuccessful area of the collar is the arched shadow, which
does not seem to have any structural connection to the underlying shapeof the arm and shoulder. Interestingly, this problem is not nearly as evident
in the X-radiograph of the painting, where the shape of the collar issomewhat different and the arched shadowed area defining the shoulder islarger (see (fig 4)). The three-dimensional logic and nuance in the shadingof this quickly blocked-in form is further indication that this layer was
painted by Rembrandt and that an assistant executed the final design.
Coopal’s thinly painted hand and cuff apparently belongs to this same
initial phase in the painting process, for they convincingly demonstrate
Rembrandt’s touch.
Despite these areas of agreement, the authors of this entry differ in theirinterpretations of the modeling of Coopal’s face. Arthur Wheelock has
concluded that it was painted entirely by Rembrandt. He sees no© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 8 of 15

distinction in the face in the brushwork of the blocking-in stage and thefinal layer as is evident in the collar. He also believes that the brushstrokes
used to define Antoine Coopal’s features—the eyes, nostril, mouth andmoustache—are remarkably similar to those of Philips Lucasz eventhough they are more rapidly executed in the latter portrait. For example, inboth paintings, the lower edge of the left eyelid is defined by a pink strokeand has a light accent at the lower left. Similar ocher strokes define theupper edge of the left nostril of both men, and in each instance boldbrushstrokes of flesh-colored paint have been pulled down over the upperedge of the moustache. Wheelock considers it difficult to imagine twodifferent artists painting in such identical manners, even if they wereteacher and assistant. David De Witt, on the other hand, considers thebroad and regular character of the brushwork in the face morecharacteristic of Govaert Flinck’s handling than that of the master, andbelieves that Rembrandt enlisted Flinck to complete this area of thepainting, as well as the hair and hat. He is also struck by the pronounced
ridge along the nose that separates the lit side of the face from the shadedside, which he argues is characteristic of Flinck’s manner of modelingfaces in the latter part of the 1630s.[19]The similarities and differences in the appearance and handling of these
two works go to the heart of the many disputes surrounding the attributionof works from this period of Rembrandt’s career. In this instance some ofthe dissimilarities may be accounted for by the age and personalities of thesitters, and some may be due to distinctions in the collaborative characterof the workshop in executing these portraits. One must also consider thehuman dimension in artist-patron relationships: how likely is it, forexample, that Rembrandt would assign a portrait of his relative to anyone
other than himself. As has been stressed in this entry, there are many
unknowns in dealing with such complicated issues as collaboration in theRembrandt workshop, and one must be mindful of the limits of ourknowledge.

Recognizing

theseuncertainties,

and

given

the

preponderance of stylistic connections to Rembrandt’s work from themid-1630s, the authors of this entry agree that the attribution of thiscompelling portrait should be Rembrandt and Workshop.
- David De Witt and Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 9 of 15

Endnotes
1. Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings , vol.
3, 1635–1642, ed. Josua Bruyn et al. (Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1989), 683. François
married Titia in 1628. For the complex family relationships between Rembrandt and Saskia’s
family, see: Jaap van der Veen, “Hendrick Uylenburgh’s art business. Production and trade
between 1625 and 1655,” in Friso Lammertse and Jaap van der Veen, Uylenburgh & Son,
Art and Commerce from Rembrandt to De Lairesse1625-1675 (Exh. cat. London, Dulwich
Picture Gallery; Amsterdam, Rembrandt House Museum) (Zwolle, 2006), 137–42.
2. On Coopal see Willem Iman Cornelis Rammelman Elsevier, “Prins Frederik Hendrik en het
kasteel van Antwerpen,” Kronijk van het Historisch Gezelschap te Utrecht 5 (1849):
111–13.
3. The wood used for the panel was found to be a ‘sucupira’ species of Diplotropis, a tropical
hardwood that ranges from Columbia, Venezuela, Brazil, and Peru. See Regis B. Miller,“Report on the wood for the Rembrandt panel painting entitled “Portrait of Anthonie Coopal,”
dated June 2012, on file, the Leiden Collection. The use of such a panel is quite unusual, asRembrandt generally painted on oak. Perhaps the wood came from a packing crateconnected to a shipment from the Americas. For a broader discussion of Rembrandt’s use ofpanels, see: Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt: The Painter at Work (Berkeley, 2000),
16–17.
4. See Provenance.
5. Abraham Bredius, Rembrandt: The Complete Edition of the Paintings , ed. Horst Gerson(London, 1969), no. 203, 165.
6. Christian Tümpel, Rembrandt mythos und methode (Antwerp, 1986), 429, no. A89, 104 (asby Rembrandt workshop).
7. Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings , vol.
3, 1635–1642, ed. Josua Bruyn et al. (Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1989), 679–84, no.
C. 108 (as uncharacteristic of Rembrandt).
8. Email correspondence from Ernst van de Wetering, head of the Rembrandt Research
Project, to the owner, 19 May 2010 (Curatorial files, the Leiden Collection). Van de Wetering
points to a number of anomalies in the painting technique in making his judgment. He seesno evidence that the figure overlaps the laying-in of the background, as is characteristic of
Rembrandt portraits. He also notes that the entire painting is executed “in almost one go,without the slightest hesitation… [and that] the entire surface of the painting seems to havebeen painted wet‐in‐wet. I am not aware of ever having seen this way of working in portraits
by Rembrandt.” Van de Wetering is also critical of the rendering of the catch lights in theeyes and the modelling of the nose. He notes that “the lit wing of the nose has no shaded© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 10 of 15‘bottom’. Rembrandt’s portraits always have. As a rule with Rembrandt, it is reddish…” Healso critiques the handling of the hair and collar. Finally, he does not consider the signature
to be authentic, and believes that it must be copied from a hypothetical prototype.
9. Leonard Slatkes, Rembrandt: Catalogo completo dei dipinti (Florence, 1992), 251, no. 158.
10. See Exhibitions.
11. See, among his many excellent studies of Rembrandt: Ernst van de Wetering,Rembrandt:
The Painter at Work (Berkeley, 2000). For the Uylenburgh workshop, see: Friso Lammertse
and Jaap van der Veen, Uylenburgh & Son, Art and Commerce from Rembrandt to De
Lairesse 1625–1675 (Exh. cat. London, Dulwich Picture Gallery; Amsterdam, Rembrandt
House Museum) (Zwolle, 2006).
12. The Uylenburgh workshop specialized in portraits, although it also restored paintings andproduced copies as well. See: Jaap van der Veen, “Hendrick Uylenburgh’s art business.
Production and trade between 1625 and 1655,” in Friso Lammertse and Jaap van der Veen,
Uylenburgh & Son, Art and Commerce from Rembrandt to De Lairesse 1625–1675 (Exh.
cat. London, Dulwich Picture Gallery; Amsterdam, Rembrandt House Museum) (Zwolle,
2006), 117–205.
13. For a discussion of such issues, see Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., “Issues of Attribution in theRembrandt Workshop,” in Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century , NGA Online
Editions (Washington D.C., 2014).
14. Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings , vol.
3, 1635–1642, ed. Josua Bruyn et al. (Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1989), 679–84, no.
C. 108 (as uncharacteristic of Rembrandt).
15. The Rembrandt Research Project considers the inscription as not autograph because it“lacks any homogeneity.” See: Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project, A Corpus
of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 3, 1635–1642, ed. Josua Bruyn et al. (Dordrecht, Boston, andLondon, 1989), 679. The signature and date, however, are integral to the paint surface. For
an assessment on how the abnormality of the panel surface may have affected theappearance of the signature, see: John Twilley, “Scientific Testing of Rembrandt’s Portrait of
Anthonie Cooal, 1635 Interim Report Part 1—Observations on Condition and Technique,and Part 2—Analytical Studies,” on file, the Leiden Collection.
16. Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings , vol.
3, 1635–1642, ed. Josua Bruyn et al. (Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1989), 175–82, no.
A. 115. This comparison is particularly pertinent since the formats of the two paintings wereoriginally identical. The portrait of Philip Lucasz was originally rectangular in shape before
being changed into an oval format. Presumably when this change was made the sitter’s left
hand was overpainted.
17. The exact birthdates of neither sitter are known, but Philip Lucasz was born in the late 16th
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 11 of 15

century and Antoine Coopal around 1606.
18. Given the range of Rembrandt’s painting techniques, one must always remain conscious of
the fact that variations in handling and approach will be inevitably be found in any
comparison of only two of his works.
19. He cites as a comparative example, Flinck’s Portrait of a 44 Year-Old Man, 1637, in the
Mauritshuis (See: Ben Broos and Ariane van Suchtelen, Portraits in the Mauritshuis
1430–1790 (Zwolle, 2004), 89–91, no. 17). In an earlier draft of this entry, written in April
2015, he wrote: “Comparable in these two works is the way the figures are set against
contrasting backgrounds, as well as the juxtaposition of dark eyes against pale skin tones.
Flinck’s brushwork tended toward even regularity, such as seen in the long linear strokes in
the face and costume (to the lower right of the Coopal portrait for instance) and in theundifferentiated curls of the hair. Along the ridge of the nose in both paintings, where thesurface slopes away from light into shadow, a thick undulating line of dark color dramatizes
this transition.”

Provenance
Probably Choiseul-Praslin Collection (Choiseul-Praslin Sale, Paris, 18 February 1793, no. 35[to De Praslin].
Collection of Michael Bryan, London (his sale, George Squibb, London, 20 June 1821, no.
52).
Probably E. W. Lake Collection, London, 1845 and 1848 [Thomas Lawrie & Co., London,
1898].
Collection of Baron Nathaniel de Rothschild (1836–1905), Vienna, 1898; by descent to his
nephew Baron Alphonse de Rothschild (1878?–1942), Vienna; seized by Nazi Forces in1938 and taken to the Führerbau, Munich, by 1943 (no. 3116); collected by the Allies andtaken to the Munich Central Collecting Point (no. 1661/1); released to the United States
Forces in Austria (K1106); returned to the Rothschild family on 25 April 1946; [FrederickMont, New York].
Baron and Baroness Charles and Edith Neuman de Vègvàr, Greenwich, 1947–62; bydescent until 2007, as by Flinck and Rembrandt [Otto Naumann, Ltd., New York, 2007].
From whom acquired by the present owner in 2007.

Exhibition History© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 12 of 15

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 9 July 1984–8 January 2007, on loan with the permanentcollection, [lent by Neuman de Vègvàr].
London, Dulwich Picture Gallery, “Rembrandt & Co.: Dealing in Masterpieces,” 7 June–3
September 2006, and Amsterdam, Rembrandthuis, “Rembrandt en Uylenburgh, handel in
Amsterdam,” 16 September–10 December 2006 [lent by Neuman de Vègvàr].
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 7 November 2008–20 May 2009, on loan with thepermanent collection [lent by the present owner].
Hartford, Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, “Rembrandt’s People,” 10 October
2009–24 January 2010, no. 2 [lent by the present owner].
Amsterdam, Museum Het Rembrandthuis, April 12–June 2010, on loan with the permanentcollection [lent by the present owner].
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, June 2010–June 2011, on loan with the permanent collection[lent by the present owner].
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art, “Rembrandt in America: Collecting andConnoisseurship,” 30 October 2011–22 January 2012; Cleveland, Cleveland Museum ofArt, 19 February–28 May 2012; Minneapolis, Minneapolis Institute of Arts, 24 June–16
September 2012, no. 26 [lent by the present owner].
New York, Brooklyn Museum, on loan with the permanent collection, March 2013–June
2015, [lent by the present owner].
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, on loan with the permanent collection, 7 July 2015–August
2016 [lent by the present owner].
Paris, Museé du Louvre, “Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection: The Age of Rembrandt,”
22 February–22 May 2017 [lent by the present owner].
Beijing, National Museum of China, “Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The
Leiden Collection,” 17 June–3 September 2017 [lent by the present owner].

References
Von Bode, Wilhelm and Hofstede de Groot, Cornelis. The Complete Work of Rembrandt . 8
vols. Paris, 1897–1906, 3:114, no. 185.
Rosenberg, Adolf and Valentiner, Wilhelm R. Rembrandt: Des Meisters Gemälde in 643
Abbildungen. Stuttgart and Berlin, 1908, 211, 555.
Hofstede de Groot, Cornelis. A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent
Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century Based on the Work of John Smith . 8 vols.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 13 of 15

London, 1907–27, 6:305, no. 634.
Benesch, Otto. Rembrandt: Werk und Forschung. Vienna, 1935, 20.
Bredius, Abraham. Rembrandt: Gemälde. Vienna, 1935, no. 203.
Bredius, Abraham. The Paintings of Rembrandt. London, 1937, 12, no. 203.
Roger-Marx, Claude. Rembrandt. New York, 1960, 168, no. 49.
Bauch, Kurt. Rembrandt: Gemälde. Berlin, 1966, 20, no. 377.
White, Christopher. Rembrandt and His World. London, 1966, 43–44, 135, no. 43.
Gerson, Horst. Rembrandt: Paintings. Amsterdam, 1968, 296–97, 495, no. 183.
Bredius, Abraham. Rembrandt: The Complete Edition of the Paintings.

Edited by Horst

Gerson. London, 1969, 165, 564–65, no. 203.
Lecaldano, Paolo and Arpino, Giovanni. L’opera pittorica complete di Rembrandt . Milan,
1969, 104, no. 172.
Lecaldano, Paolo and Martin, Gregory. The Complete Paintings of Rembrandt . London,
1969, 98, no. 87, no. 172.
Bolten, Jaap. The Hidden Rembrandt. Oxford, 1978, 183, no. 217.
Schwartz, Gary. Rembrandt: his life, his paintings. Maarssen, 1985, 147–48, fig. 130.
Tümpel, Christian. Rembrandt mythos und methode. Antwerp, 1986, 104, 429, no. A89 (asby Rembrandt workshop).
Slatkes, Leonard. Rembrandt: Catalogo completo dei dipinti. Florence, 1992, 251, no. 158.
Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project. 3:681-684, no. C. 108 (asuncharacteristic of Rembrandt).
Tümpel, Christian. Rembrandt: All Paintings in Colour . Antwerp, 1993, 104, 432, no. A89(as by Rembrandt workshop).
Liedtke, Walter. “Rembrandt’s Workshop Revisited.” Oud-Holland 117 (2004): 67.
Schwarz, Birgit. Hitlers Museum, Die Fotoalben “Gemäldegalerie Linz”: Dokumenta zum
Führermuseum. Vienna, 2004, 103, no. II/38.
Broos, Ben. “Rembrandt’s Zeeuwse Connective: François Coopal en Titia Uylenburgh.”
Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 1–2 (2005): 32–33.
Schwartz, Gary. The Rembrandt Book. New York, 2006, 50 n. 2.
Van der Veen, Jaap. “Hendrick Uylenburgh’s Art Business, Production, and Trade Between
1625 and 1655.” In Uylenburgh & Son: Art and Commerce from Rembrandt to De Lairesse,
1625–1675. Edited by Friso Lammertse and Jaap van der Veen. Exh. cat. London, Dulwich
Picture Gallery; Amsterdam Museum Het Rembrandthuis. Zwolle, 2006, 141–43, fig. 86.
Zafran, Eric. Rembrandt’s People. Exh. cat. Hartford, Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art.
Hartford, 2010, 8–9, no. 2.
Keyes, George S., Rassieur, Tom and Weller, Dennis P., eds. Rembrandt in America:© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 14 of 15

Collecting and Connoisseurship. Exh. cat. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art;
Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art; Minneapolis, Minneapolis Institute of Arts. New York,2011, 184, no. 20.
Weller, Dennis P. “Rembrandt Paintings in America.” In Rembrandt in America: Collecting
and Connoisseurship. Edited by George S. Keyes, Tom Rassieur, and Dennis P. Weller.
Exh. cat. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art; Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art;
Minneapolis, Minneapolis Institute of Arts. New York, 2011, 25, fig. 2, 27.
Liedtke, Walter. “Rembrandt in America: Raleigh, Cleveland, and Minneapolis.” Burlington
Magazine 154, no. 1307 (February 2012): 150, fig. 79.

Technical Summary
The support, a single plank of vertically grained, rectangular-shaped Brazilian chestnut(sucupira), has bevels on all four sides and pronounced vertical grain along the right third. The
panel is unthinned and uncradled. Clipped metal brads along all four outer edges suggest shims
have been removed. Four paper labels and four inscriptions are located along the panel reverse,
but there are no wax seals, stencils or import stamps.[1]. A clear-white wax coating, applied to theentire reverse, covers the labels and inscriptions and extends onto the panel edges.
A light warm-colored ground has been thinly and evenly applied and remains visible through thethinly applied paint along the upper right quadrant. The paint has been thinly applied with visible
brushwork throughout and there are areas of low impasto along the white highlights of the
figure’s wide lace collar. Both the paint and the ground spill over onto the thickness of the paneledges.
No underdrawing or compositional changes are readily apparent in infrared images captured at
780–1000 nanometers.
The painting is signed and dated in dark paint along the background in the lower right.
The painting was cleaned and restored in 2009 and remains in a good state of preservation.
John Twilley, independent conservation scientist, arranged for radiocarbon dating of the panel.
The results are still pending.

Technical Summary Endnotes© 2017 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 15 of 15

1. A label on the reverse reads: “De Heer Antoni Coopal / MarckGraaf van Antwerpen/
Gewesene Ambassaduer aen / ‘t hof van Polen & Engelant / Raett pensionaris van Flissinge/ in Zeeland &.” Judging from the script, the handwriting suggests a late seventeenth-century
to early eighteenth-century origin. A second label in French translates the Dutch label, andmay date from the mid-to-late eighteenth century, when the RR-103 provenance is recorded
in France: “Antoni Coopal. / […] neur marquis D’anvers / [Amba]ssadeur dans les Cours / [dePo]logne et D’angletere, /[consei]ller et pensionaire de / [Fles]sing en Zeelande.” A thirdlabel, at the center top, and probably more or less contemporary with the earlier Dutch label,reads: “35 g[u]l[den] 11 st[uivers]” and may reflect a price once given to the painting.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection