Self-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Attributed to Gerrit Dou(Leiden 1613 – 1675 Leiden)

ca. 1628–29
oil on panel
66.6 x 50.9 cm
GD-112© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 2 of 17

How to cite
Surh, Dominique. “Self-Portrait (?) at an Easel” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 2nd ed. Edited by
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017–20. https://theleidencollection.com/artwork/self-portrait-at-an-easel/(archived May 2020).
A PDF of every version of this entry is available in this Online Catalogue's Archive, and the Archive ismanaged by a permanent URL. New versions are added only when a substantive change to the narrative
occurs.

In the quiet of his atelier, a young artist gazes out at the viewer while seatedComparative Figures

before a large, stretched canvas on a wooden easel, his right arm raised as
though he is about to apply paint to his composition. The horizontal shapeand substantial scale of the canvas indicate that the young artist iscomposing a history scene, the most difficult and prestigious in the hierarchyof painting genres. At the same time, his direct gaze suggests that his scene
incorporates some aspect of the real world, one that implicitly involves us.
The studio scene offers a fascinating glimpse into an artist’s workshop. One
sees here that Dutch artists sat when they painted, and the way they
stretched their canvases on a wooden frame. The young artist has alsobrought to his studio a number of props appropriate for a history painting.

Fig 1. Workshop of Rembrandt
van Rijn, possibly Gerrit Dou andGovaert Flinck, Parable of the
Hidden Treasure, ca. 1630,
Szépmüsézeti Múzeum, Budapest,
inv. 342

Some of these are in a large chest filled with costly vessels of silver andgold, exotic fabrics, and a heavy chain with a medallion, while on the floor
are a cuirass, plumed helmet or cabasset, and various patterned
textiles.[1] The large tome and horn are attributes associated with the muse ofhistory, Cleo. Also in the studio are wooden stretchers of different shapes
leaning against the back wall. The grisaille tronies of an old man and woman
tacked to the wall are the types of character studies artists often painted inLeiden during the late 1620s and early 1630s.
This intriguing work, which is unsigned and undated, is characteristic ofpaintings created in Leiden around 1630, but much debate has surrounded
its attribution. It was once thought to have been executed by Rembrandt van

Fig 2. Attributed to Gerrit Dou, An
Officer of the Leiden Civic Guard
with an Arms Still Life, ca.
© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 3 of 17

Rijn (1606–69), but that traditional assessment was challenged in 1911 when
Wilhelm Martin gave the painting to Rembrandt’s pupil, Gerrit Dou. Martin

1630–35, oil on panel, 66 x 51 cm,
Szépmüsézeti Múzeum, Budapest,
inv. 62.10

dated it to the period of Dou’s apprenticeship with Rembrandt from 1628 to
1631.[2] Subsequently, Kurt Bauch proposed that Rembrandt retouched thework in critical areas, specifically the face of the artist.[3] Werner Sumowski,
who initially accepted Bauch’s proposal, eventually concluded that Dou
made the various compositional adjustments himself.[4]An attribution of the painting to Dou, however, convinced neither Richard
Hunnewell nor Ronni Baer. In 1983 Hunnewell suggested an alternative
attribution to Rembrandt’s close circle, or possibly, Willem de Poorter(1608–48),[5] while Baer, in 1990, characterized the still-life elements in thepainting as “superficially Dou-like” but noted that their “formulaic highlights
and . . . rough, broad handling . . . find no parallel in Dou’s
autograph work.”[6] Baer suggested that the painting was executed by thesame unidentified hand or hands as Parable of the Hidden Treasure in the
Szépm?vészeti Múzeum in Budapest (fig 1).[7] She also noted that theFig 3. Attributed to Gerrit Dou,
Artist at His Easel, ca. 1630–32, oil
on panel, 59 x 43.5 cm, Private
Collection, United Kingdom

painting is closely related to The Rest on the Flight into Egypt formerly in
Downton Castle. Both paintings have been considered collaborative works inwhich Dou participated, but their attributions are uncertain.[8]In an unpublished essay from 2003, Bob van den Boogert defended theattribution of the painting to Dou. He argued that the painting is closely
associated in style and compositional organization with a painting in
Budapest: An Officer of the Leiden Civic Guard with an Arms Still Life (fig 2).

[9]Although the Budapest painting is unsigned and undated and theattribution is debated, Van den Boogert believed that the young Dou
executed both paintings. Both panels have the same dimensions, include

Fig 4. Rembrandt van Rijn, Artist
in His Studio, ca. 1628–29, 24.8 x
31.7 cm, Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston, 38.1838, Photograph©2017 Museum of Fine Arts,
Bostoncomparable still-life elements, and share a similar layering of objects thatcreates a consistent approach to spatial recession. A recent examination of
the two works side by side revealed striking similarities in palette andcompositional approach, increasing the likelihood that the same artist
executed both works.[10] Whether or not that artist is Dou, however, isanother question.
The ongoing discussions regarding the attribution of this painting to Dou
relate to larger unresolved questions about the character of Dou’s early
paintings. Very little is known about Dou’s apprenticeship with Rembrandt,
and experts do not agree on the paintings he produced during thistime.[11] The problem of defining the nature of Dou’s early style isexacerbated by the fact that there are no dated paintings by Dou before

Fig 5. Gerrit Dou, Self-Portrait, ca.
1645–46, oil on panel, 12.4 x 8.3© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 4 of 17

1637.

cm, Aetas Aurea Holding SA

One of the central issues in assessing Dou’s early works is the nature of his
painting technique. Baer, for example, believes that the young master
painted in a relatively smooth style, as is evident in Artist at His Easel (fig 3).[12] Jørgen Wadum, on the other hand, believes that from the beginning of
his career, even before he entered Rembrandt’s workshop, Dou executed
his works with fine, parallel hatchings.[13] Ernst van de Wetering has
discussed the didactic importance of imitation in studio practice and argues
that it is to be expected that Dou’s early painting style would closely
resemble Rembrandt’s own.[14] The question then remains as to whether thecharacter of Dou’s early brushwork is identifiable as a consistent,
idiosyncratic feature, or whether Dou expanded his technique andexperimented with brushwork during these years in Rembrandt’s studio. The
application of paint in the Leiden Collection painting is relatively loose andthick, but until a clearer resolution of these divergent views of Dou’s earlymanner of painting is achieved, it seems appropriate to designate this work
as “attributed to Gerrit Dou.”
Even though no firm attribution of this work can be made at the present time,
the pictorial influences that shaped the subject matter and composition of the
Leiden Collection painting are readily evident and point to an origin within
Rembrandt’s close circle in Leiden. The cuirass and plumed helmet, forexample, are similar to objects in the military still life in the foreground of
Rembrandt’s History Painting of 1626 in the Lakenhal.[15] The oval grisaillesketches on the back wall of the studio recall tronies and turbaned figures indrawings and prints by Rembrandt and his fellow Leiden artist, Jan Lievens(1607–74).[16] The most striking pictorial source for the Leiden Collection
painting, however, is Rembrandt’s Artist in His Studio, ca. 1628–29, in theMuseum of Fine Arts, Boston (fig 4).[17] Like Rembrandt’s work, thecomposition is organized around a large painting on an easel turned awayfrom the viewer, with a doorway on the right and a light source on the left.
Similar, as well, are the rustic wooden floorboards, crumbling plaster andorthogonally oblique wall in the middle of the room, which leave little doubtthat the Boston painting served as this painting’s direct prototype.
The identity of the artist sitting before the easel has been frequently
discussed, with scholars variously identifying the figure as either Rembrandt
or Dou.[18] Martin first cited the figure as an anonymous, generic artist, butlater identified it as a portrait of Dou.[19] Indeed, the artist’s features—roundedcheeks, a mouth with a full upper lip at the center, cleft chin, and slightly© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 5 of 17

upturned nose—are remarkably similar to Dou’s Self-Portrait from ca. 1635 in
the Cheltenham Art Gallery or another self-portrait from 1645 in the Kremer
Collection (fig 5). Dou would have been around seventeen years old in 1630,
when the Leiden Collection painting was executed, which seems consistent
with the age of the man in this work.
The dating of the painting to ca. 1630 is also supported bydendrochronological data, which indicates that the wood panel was ready for
priming by the middle of the 1620s.[20] The analysis provides further evidence
that the painting was executed within Rembrandt’s close circle: the panel
comes from the same tree as Rembrandt’s Head of an Old Man in a Cap
from ca. 1630, now in the Bader Collection.[21] This match suggests that thetwo wooden supports were obtained from the same panel maker in Leiden,
possibly acquired as part of a mutual workshop consignment.[22]Based on the aforementioned evidence, it seems most reasonable toconclude that the present painting originated within Rembrandt’s immediate
circle in Leiden, most likely by Gerrit Dou, although there were undoubtedly
other artists in Leiden whose names have not been recorded who worked ina similar style. Also supporting the notion of Dou’s authorship is thecharacterization of the artist as a pictor doctus surrounded by the objects of
his profession. Here, the young but erudite painter presents himself as askilled and ambitious artist, which is consistent with the presentation ofDou’s artistic persona in his later self-portraiture.[23] Although thecomplexities surrounding Dou’s early artistic personality are such that a firm
attribution of this work to the young master cannot yet be made, ongoing
research about the artist’s early career may eventually determine that thispainting holds an important place within his artistic evolution.

- Domique Surh, 2017

© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 6 of 17

Endnotes

1. Together, these objects have been interpreted as a vanitas still life and as an illustration of
the Hippocratic aphorism, “Ars longa, vita brevis” (“art endures but life is brief”). See J.
Richard Judson, “Artist in His Studio,” in Rembrandt after Three Hundred Years (Exh. cat.
The Art Institute of Chicago; The Minneapolis Institute of Arts; The Detroit Institute of Arts)(Chicago, 1969), 51–52, no. 36. The grouping of valuable objects and military attributes has
also been explained, albeit less convincingly, as a reference to the conflict that is caused by
the possession of gold. See Hans-Joachim Raupp, Untersuchungen zu Künstlerbildnis undKünsterdarstellung in den Niederlanden im 17. Jahrhundert (Hildesheim, 1984), 170.
2. During the nineteenth century the painting was attributed to Rembrandt and was considered aself-portrait. See Joseph H. Carter, Catalogue of the High Legh Collection [ca. 1893], 52, no.
28. Martin would have seen the painting in 1911, when it appeared with Kleinberger Galleries
in Paris, prompting his decision to include it as an autograph work by Dou in the French
edition of his monograph on the artist published that year. See Wilhelm Martin, Gerard Dou,sa vie et son oeuvre: Etude sur la peinture hollandaise et les marchaunds au dix septième
siècle (Paris, 1911), 173, no. 63. Hofstede de Groot also considered Artist at His Easel to be
by Dou, even though his volume on Dou went to press before the painting came on themarket, see Hofstede de Groot’s archival files at the RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor
Kunstgeschiedenis, where GD-112 is listed under “Dou: Bekende Mannen,” which
reproduces the text copied from the 1893 High Legh Collection catalogue, and includes thenote: “Is een bekende Gerard Dou.”
3. Kurt Bauch, Der frühe Rembrandt und seine Zeit: Studien zur geschichtlichen Bedeutungseines Frühstils (Berlin, 1960), 221–23; Kurt Bauch, Rembrandt: Gemälde (Berlin, 1966), 29,
A7. Kurt Bauch argued that the pentimenti along the figure’s face and back were indicationsof workshop corrections made by Rembrandt. He maintained that the confident modeling of
the sitter’s face was by the same hand as the Laughing Self Portrait in the Rijksmuseum, thenattributed to Rembrandt, and therefore concluded that Rembrandt had executed this part ofthe painting. On the numerous changes made during the painting phase, see the technicalreport by Joanna Dunn, on file, the Leiden Collection, New York. Several changes were madeduring the process of painting, which are visible to the naked eye in the upper layers of paint.
These include the adjustments made along the seated figure’s back and face (originallyhigher in the picture plane closer to the level of his lips, and along the right side of the trunk
where a curved silhouette was replaced by a rectangular edge. Other indistinct forms at thecenter left, located near the representations of the canvas stretchers leaning against the backwall are more readily visible through the X-radiograph, showing various silhouettes near theback wall that were later covered over with paint by the artist, indicating that the composition© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 7 of 17

was modified in the background during the painting process.
4. Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–94), 1:
528, no. 261. On the interpretation of the changes as retouchings made by Rembrandt,
Bauch compared the face of the New York painting to the Rijksmuseum’s Laughing SelfPortrait and argued that there is a strong similarity between the works, leading him to suggestthat the face in the Self-Portrait (?) at an Easel was painted by Rembrandt. However, theattribution of Laughing Self Portrait was rejected from Rembrandt’s oeuvre in 1982, when
Lievens’s name was first proposed as its possible author. See Josua Bruyn et al., A Corpus of
Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 1, 1625–1631, Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project(The Hague, 1982), 629–33, C34; Josua Bruyn et al. A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol.
4: Self-Portraits, Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project, (The Hague, 2005), 4:
166–67. On Bauch’s comparison of the Leiden Collection painting with the Rijkmuseum’s socalled Laughing Self-Portrait, see Kurt Bauch, Der frühe Rembrandt und seine Zeit: Studien
zur geschichtlichen Bedeutung seines Frühstils (Berlin, 1960), 221–23; Eduard Plietzsch,
Holländische und flämische Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1960), 37–38; Werner
Sumowski,“Rezension

von:

K.

Bauch,Der

frühe

Rembrandt

und

seine

Zeit

(1960),” Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 3–4 (1962): 209; and Horst Vey, Die Sammlung
Henle: aus dem grosen Jahrhundert der neiderländischen Malerei (Cologne, 1964), no. 10.
5. Hunnewell discussed the present work along with a group of seven unsigned, and four
spuriously signed paintings from the early 1630s representing the theme of the artist in his
studio that Martin or Van Hall had attributed to Dou. Because the group of paintings dates
from a period during which Dou’s development remains unclear, Hunnewell chose tocategorize them simply as an iconographic group needing further examination. Richard W.
Hunnewell, “Gerrit Dou’s Self Portraits and Depictions of the Artist,” 2 vols. (PhD diss.
Boston University, 1983), Appendix C (Listing of Rejected Self Portraits and Problematic
Works), 288, 291–92, no. 13.
6. I am grateful to Ronni Baer for sharing her reasons for doubting the painting’s attribution to
Dou during an examination in front of the painting in New York on 6 December 2013. Amongother aspects discussed, Baer does not find the handling of the pages of the manuscript in
the foreground, the modeling of the face, or the loose brushwork of the grisaille sketches tobe consistent with other works securely attributed to the artist. Ronni Baer, “The Paintings ofGerrit Dou (1613–1675),” 3 vols. (PhD diss. New York University, 1990), Catalogue C (Worksof Rejected Attribution), 23, no. C 1.
7. I am grateful to Ildikó Ember, who has shared the result of Peter Klein’s dendrochronologicalanalysis of the Parable of the Hidden Treasure, which consists of three boards in which theyoungest tree ring was formed in 1616, 1602, and 1617, making its possible creation
plausible after 1636. On the Parable of the Hidden Treasure, see Agnes Czobor, Rembrandt
and His Circle in Hungarian Collections (Budapest, 1969), plates 9–10.
© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 8 of 17

8. For a discussion of the 1669 inventory that mentions Rest on the Flight attributed to Dou andFlinck, see Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” 3 vols. (PhD diss., NewYork University, 1990), 20–24. The painting, formerly in Downton Castle, was initiallyregarded by the Rembrandt Research Project as originating from the later 1630s in Haarlem.
Josua Bruyn et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 1: 1625–1631, Stichting
Foundation Rembrandt Research Project (The Hague, 1982), 486, under C6; on the Rest on
the Flight into Egypt, see Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project, A Corpus of
Rembrandt Paintings. 5 vols. Edited by Josua Bruyn et al. (vols. 1–3) and Ernst van deWetering (vols. 4–5) (Dordrecht, 1982–2011), 1: 483–87, C6; 2: 848–53; 5: 312, as by Gerard
Dou and Govaert Flinck. For a more recent discussion of Parable of the Hidden Treasure that
follows the attribution to Dou and Flinck, see Christiaan Vogelaar, “The Parable of the Hidden
Treasure,” in Rembrandt and the Dutch Golden Age (Exh. cat. Budapest, Szépmüsézeti
Múzeum) (Budapest, 2014), no. 89, 342–43.
9. For the unpublished essay from 2003 on the present painting, see Bob C. van den Boogert,“Gerrit Dou (Leiden 1613–1675), Self-Portrait of the Artist in His Studio,” courtesy of Jack
Kilgore, copy kept on file, The Leiden Collection, New York. Regarding the painting in the
Szépmüsézeti Múzeum in Budapest as a work by Dou, see in Agnes Czobor, Rembrandt and
His Circle in Hungarian Collections (Budapest, 1969), pls. 18–19. Ronni Baer considers thispainting a work of uncertain attribution and has reserved final judgment on its attribution to be
determined upon firsthand examination. Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou(1613–1675),” 3 vols. (PhD diss., New York University, 1990), Catalogue B (Works of
Questionable Attribution), no. B1. See also Bob C. van den Boogert, “Gerard Dou (Leiden
1613–1675) (?), An Officer of the Leiden Civic Guard with an Arms Still Life, ca. 1630/35,” inThe Mystery of the Young Rembrandt, ed. Bernhard Schnackenburg and Ernst van deWetering (Exh. cat. Kassel, Staatliche Museen Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister;
Amsterdam, Museum Het Rembrandthuis) (Wolfratshausen, 2001) 336–39, no. 68.
10. I would like to thank Ildikó Ember and Júlia Tátrai for receiving GD-112 on loan at the
Szépmüsézeti Múzeum in the fall of 2014, and to Gerdien Verschoor for arranging a
discussion and examination session of the painting next to An Officer of the Leiden Civic
Guard with an Arms Still Life (inv. 62.10) on the occasion of a CODART Focus Study Day
devoted to “Rembrandt and the Dutch Golden Age” from 26–27 October 2014. Based on thisfirsthand examination, I concluded that the two works could both be by the same hand,
despite some differences in the paint handling, especially in the faces of the figures. In thecase of the Budapest work, the possibility of overpainting around the face could account forthe differences in paint handling between this area and the rest of the painting. Forthcoming
technical investigation of the Budapest painting may lead to additional insight, particularly as
it relates to the present work.
11. In the first major museum show devoted to Dou in 2000, a number of paintings attributed to© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 9 of 17

Dou’s early period were presented, many of which had been attributed to the artist since thetime of Martin and endorsed, more recently, by either Baer or Sumowski. Baer’s inclusion in
the exhibition of a number of these early, unsigned paintings to Dou has received somecriticism from experts in the field. Ernst van de Wetering argued that “during the recent Dou
exhibition . . . the work of mediocre Dou disciples was presented as early work of Dou
himself.” Similarly, in a discussion about Dou’s painting technique, Jørgen Wadum states:“We feel that in this exhibition weak imitations were presented as early works by Dou.” Thecomplexity of the situation is evident in Van den Boogert’s assertion that the attribution of thepresent painting to Dou only makes sense if other attributed works are removed from Dou’s
early oeuvre. The four paintings that Van den Boogert argues should not be consideredautograph are: Artist at His Easel, ca. 1630–32 (fig. 3); Man Writing at an Easel, ca. 1631–32,
oil on panel, 31.5 x 25 cm, formerly in the Ivor Collection, New York; Old Man Lighting a Pipe,ca. 1635, oil on panel, 49 x 61.5 cm, formerly in a private collection, England; and Old
Woman Peeling Apples, ca. 1629–31, Staatliches Museen, Berlin. The first three of thesepaintings were included in Ronni Baer, Gerrit Dou 1613–1675: Master Painter in the Age of
Rembrandt, ed. Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. (Exh. cat, Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art;
London, Dulwich Picture Gallery; The Hague, Mauritshuis) (Zwolle, 2000), nos. 1, 3, 5. Cf.
Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” 3 vols. (Ph.D. diss., New York
University, 1990), 9–33; Ernst van de Wetering, “Delimiting Rembrandt’s AutographOeuvre—An Insoluble Problem?” in The Mystery of the Young Rembrandt, ed. Bernhard
Schnackenburg and Ernst van de Wetering (Exh. cat. Kassel, Staatliche Museen Kassel,
Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister; Amsterdam, Museum Het Rembrandthuis) (Wolfratshausen,
2001), 63; Jørgen Wadum, “Dou Doesn’t Paint, Oh No, He Juggles with His Brush: Gerrit
Dou, a Rembrandtesque Fijnschilder,” Art Matters: Netherlands Technical Studies in Art 1(2002): 72; Bob C. van den Boogert, “Gerrit Dou (Leiden 1613–1675), Self-Portrait of theArtist in his Studio,” courtesy of Jack Kilgore, 2003, copy kept on file, The Leiden Collection,
New York.
12. Baer considers the paintings’ smooth handling and palette of cooler tonalities in aubergine,
violet, and blue, as well as the recurring motifs of the book, globe, and inkstand, to be
characteristic of Dou’s style around 1630–32. Ronni Baer, Gerrit Dou 1613–1675: Master
Painter in the Age of Rembrandt, ed. Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. (Exh. cat. Washington D.C.,
National Gallery of Art; London, Dulwich Picture Gallery; The Hague, Mauritshuis) (Zwolle,
2000), no. 1, 64–65; see also Ronni Baer, “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675),” 3 vols.
(PhD diss, New York University, 1990), no. 6.
13. Jørgen Wadum, “Dou Doesn’t Paint, Oh No, He Juggles with His Brush: Gerrit Dou, aRembrandtesque Fijnschilder,” Art Matters: Netherlands Technical Studies in Art 1 (2002):
62–77, esp. 73. On Dou’s formative training, prior to his apprenticeship with Rembrandt, withthe engraver Bartholomeus Dolendo and the glass-painter Pieter Couwenhorn, see Piet
Bakker’s biography on Dou in the present catalogue.
© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 10 of 17

14. After leaving Rembrandt’s studio in 1631, Dou began to work independently and presumably
began to have pupils of his own, whose imitations, in turn, would closely resemble his own
style. Thus, it is possible that some signed and unsigned paintings from the early 1630s were
executed by Dou’s own pupils or early imitators. See Ernst van de Wetering “Delimiting
Rembrandt’s Autograph Oeuvre—An Insoluble Problem?” in The Mystery of the Young
Rembrandt, ed. Bernhard Schnackenburg and Ernst van de Wetering (Exh. cat. Kassel,
Staatliche Museen Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister; Amsterdam, Museum Het
Rembrandthuis) (Wolfratshausen, 2001) 58–67.
15. Josua Bruyn et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 1: 1625–1631 Stichting Foundation
Rembrandt Research Project (The Hague, 1982), 104–13, A 6; Ernst van de Wetering et al.,A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 4: Self-Portraits, Stichting Foundation Rembrandt
Research Project (Dordrecht, 2005), 65, 178 (figs. 139 and 140), 179, 184; Ernst van deWetering et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 5: Small-Scale History Paintings,
Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project (Dordrecht, 2011), 4, 7 (fig. 5), 57 (fig. 63),
105, 150, 151 (fig. 10), 191, 212.
16. The sketch on the right relates to Rembrandt’s Bust of an Old Man with a Turban, ca. 1627,
signed, oil in panel, 26.5 x 20 cm., Collection Fondation Aetas Aurea; see Ernst van deWetering et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 4: Self-Portraits, Stichting Foundation
Rembrandt Research Project (Dordrecht, 2005), 635–66. This relates to a previously
unrecorded drawing that recently appeared on the market and is only one of a small numberof drawings by Dou that survive. See Sotheby’s, London, 9 July 2014, lot 107: Gerrit Dou, A‘Tronie’ of an Oriental Gentleman, black chalk on vellum, signed GDOU (GD in monogram),
154 x 122 mm. On the fascination with Middle Eastern costume in Rembrandt’s work, see
Walter Liedtke, “Man in Oriental Costume,” in Dutch Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum ofArt, 2 vols. (New York, 2007), 2: 554–67, no. 142. The female figure in profile also relates to
Jan Lievens’s Old Woman in Half-Length Profile, Facing Left, in the Maida and George
Abrams Collection in Boston, from ca. 1628–30; see Gregory Rubenstein, “Old Woman in
Half-Length Profile, Facing Left,” in Jan Lievens: A Dutch Master Rediscovered, ed. Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr. (Exh. cat. Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art; Amsterdam, Museum Het
Rembrandthuis; Milwaukee, Milwaukee Art Museum) (New Haven, 2008), 234, no. 96.
17. For an overview of the painting, see Josua Bruyn et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings,
vol. 1: 1625–1631, ed. Josua Bruyn et al. (The Hague, 1982), 208–13, A18.
18. Various scholars regarded the painting as a portrait of Rembrandt, an assertion that was first
put forward in 1893 when the painting was thought to be by Rembrandt, see Joseph H.
Carter, Catalogue of the High Legh Collection [ca. 1893], 52, no. 28; Kleinberger Galleries, A
Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue of 150 Paintings by Old Masters of the Dutch, Flemish,German, Italian, Spanish and French Schools from the Kleinberger Galleries (Paris, 1911),
no. 16; Leo Balet,“Die Sammlung Bachstitz,” Der Cicerone 13 (1921): 336–38; Horst Vey, Die© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 11 of 17

Sammlung Henle As dem grosen Jahrhundert der neiderländischen Malerei (Cologne, 1964),
no. 10.
19. Martin identified the sitter in Self-Portrait (?) at an Easel as a generic painter in 1911, but hedescribed it in 1913 as a self-portrait of Dou. See Wilhelm Martin, Gerard Dou, sa vie et son
oeuvre: Etude sur la peinture hollandaise et les marchaunds au dix septième siècle (Paris,
1911), 173, no. 63; cf. Wilhelm Martin, Gerard Dou, des Meisters Gemälde, Klassiker der
Kunst in Gesamtausgaben 24 (Stuttgart, 1913), 180, no. 13. More recently, the subject matterhas been identified as a portrait of Dou in an unpublished essay from 2003 by Bob van den
Boogert, “Gerrit Dou (Leiden 1613–1675), Self-Portrait of the Artist in His Studio,” courtesy ofJack Kilgore, copy kept on file, the Leiden Collection, New York.
20. Peter Klein indicates that the youngest year ring was formed in one of two boards in the year
1613 (with the earliest possible felling dates as 1622/28/49) with production possible from1627 to 1637. See Peter Klein, “Report on the Dendrochronological Analysis of the Panel‘The Artist in the Studio’ (G. Dou),” dated 2009, unpublished report, kept on file, The Leiden
Collection. A second dendrochronologist, Ian Tyers, was engaged to provide an additional
analysis, which yielded some contradictory information. Tyers states that the youngest year
ring of GD-112, in 2 of 3 boards, was formed in 1609 (with the earliest possible felling date
1618/24/45) with production possible from 1622 to 1633. See Ian Tyers, “GD-112 Gerrit Dou,
An Artist in His Studio,” dated November 2010, unpublished report, kept on file, The Leiden
Collection.
21. The connection between the two panels is made by Peter Klein. Although once doubted by
the Rembrandt Research Project, Head of an Old Man in a Cap is now widely considered to
be an undisputed work by Rembrandt. Strong evidence for this is the print made after thepainting by Jan Gillisz. van Vliet. See David De Witt, The Bader Collection: Dutch andFlemish Paintings (Kingston, 2008) no. 161, 261–65; Josua Bruyn et al., A Corpus of
Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 1: 1625–1631, Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project(The Hague, 1982), 1, C22, 16, 43–44, 576–80. I would like to thank David De Witt for sharing
Peter Klein’s unpublished dendrochronological report on the painting, which states that the
youngest year ring of the panel was formed in 1613, making a plausible creation date for thework ca. 1630.
22. For a discussion of the Leiden production of wood, panel makers and relevant bibliography,
see Dominique Surh, Ilona van Tuinen, and John Twilley, “Insights from Technical Analysis
on a Group of Paintings by Gerrit Dou in the Leiden Collection,” JHNA Art 6, no. 1 (Winter2014): DOI:10.5092/jhna.2014.6.1.3.
23. Richard W. Hunnewell, “Gerrit Dou’s Self Portraits and Depictions of the Artist,” 2 vols. (PhD
diss. Boston University, 1983), 1: 24–84. Walter Liedtke, “Self-Portrait,” in Dutch Paintings in
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2 vols. (New York, 2007) 1: 158–66, no. 27.

© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 12 of 17

ProvenancePossibly Count Joseph von Rechberg (1769–1833), Austria.
George Cornwall Legh, M. P. (1804–77), East Hall, High Legh, Knustford, Cheshire; bydescent to Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Martin Cornwall Legh (1839–1904).
Lindo S. Meyers, London; [Kleinberger Galeries, Paris, by 1911].
Fritz von Gans, Frankfurt-am-Main, by 1913; [K. W. Bachstitz, The Hague, by 1920, no. 29].
K. Henschel, Kassel, ca. 1924.
([Gustav Cramer, Berlin, 1938; K. Erasmus, Aerdenhout, 1938]; Christie’s, London, 24
February 1939, no. 37, as by Rembrandt [for £546 to Watson]).
Philippens, Amsterdam, ca. 1938–40.
[Schaeffer Galleries, New York, by 1948].
[F. H. Enneking, Amsterdam, 1958; Hans Max Cramer, The Hague, 1958].
Heinz Kisters (1912–77), Kreuzlingen, 1959 (to Günther and Anne Liese Henle).
Günther and Anne Liese Henle, Duisburg (his Sale, Sotheby’s, London, 3 December 1997,
no. 6, unsold; sale, Christie’s, London, 10 July 2002, no. 70; [Jack Kilgore & Co., New York;
Otto Naumann Ltd., New York, 2004]).
From whom acquired by the present owner.

Exhibition History
Delft, Prinsenhof Museum, “Xe Oude Kunst- en Antiekbeurs,” 21 August–9 September 1958
[lent by F. H. Enneking, Amsterdam].
Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, “Die Sammlung Henle: Aus dem grossen Jahrhundert
der niederländischen Malerei,” 22 February–5 April 1964, no. 10 [lent by Günther and Anne
Liese Henle, Duisburg].
Art Institute of Chicago, “Rembrandt after Three Hundred Years,” 25 October–7 December
1969; Minneapolis Institute of Arts, 22 December 1969–1 February 1970; Detroit Institute ofArts, 24 February–5 April 1970, no. 36 [lent by Günther and Anne Liese Henle, Duisburg].
The Hague, The Royal Cabinet of Paintings Mauritshuis, “Terugzien in bewondering / A
Collector’s Choice,” February–March 1982, no. 30 [lent by Günther and Anne Liese Henle,
Duisburg].
Amsterdam, K. & V. Waterman Gallery, “The Impact of a Genius: Rembrandt, His Pupils andFollowers in the Seventeenth Century,” 22 April–17 May 1983; Groningen, Groninger© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 13 of 17

Museum, 20 May–30 June 1983, no. 14 [lent by Günther and Anne Liese Henle, Duisburg].
Norfolk, VA, Chrysler Museum of Art, on loan with the permanent collection, 2005–6 [lent by
the present owner].
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum of Art, on loan with the permanent collection, December 2009–
January 2011 [lent by the present owner].
Philadelphia Museum of Art, “Dutch Treat: A Glimpse of Holland’s Golden Age,” 11 October
2011–6 January 2012 [lent by the present owner].
Leiden, Lakenhal Museum, “Gerrit Dou: The Leiden Collection From New York,” 9 March–31
August 2014 [lent by the present owner].
Budapest,

Szépm?vészeti

Museum,

on

loan

with

the

permanentcollection,

October–December 2014 [lent by the present owner].
Ithaca, Cornell University, Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, “An Eye For Detail: Dutch
Painting From The Leiden Collection,” September 2014–May 2015 [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].
Shanghai, Long Museum, West Bund, “Rembrandt, Vermeer and Hals in the Dutch Golden
Age: Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection,” 23 September 2017–25 February 2018 [lentby the present owner].
Moscow, The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, “The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer:
Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection,” 28 March 2018–22 July 2018 [lent by the present
owner].
St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, “The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer:
Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection,” 5 September 2018–13 January 2019 [lent by thepresent owner].
Abu Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi, “Rembrandt, Vermeer and the Dutch Golden Age.
Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection and the Musée du Louvre,” 14 February–18 May
2019 [lent by the present owner].

References
Carter, Joseph H. Catalogue of the Collection of Paintings at High Legh Hall. Birmingham,[ca. 1893], 52, no. 28, as a self-portrait by Rembrandt van Rijn.
Martin, Wilhelm. Gerard Dou, sa vie et son oeuvre. Etude sur la peinture hollandaise et lesmarchaunds au dix septième siècle. Paris, 1911, 173, no. 63 (as by Gerrit Dou).
Kleinberger Galleries. A Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue of 150 Paintings by Old© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 14 of 17

Masters of the Dutch, Flemish, German, Italian, Spanish and French Schools from theKleinberger Galleries. Sales cat. Kleinberger Galleries, New York and Paris. New York andParis, 1911, no. 16 (as probably a portrait of Rembrandt by Gerrit Dou).
Martin, Wilhelm. Gerard Dou, des Meisters Gemälde in 247 Abbildungen. Klassiker der Kunst
in Gesamtausgaben 24. Stuttgart and Berlin, 1913, 180, no. 13 (as a self-portrait by Gerrit
Dou).
Bachstitz Galerie. The Bachstitz Gallery. The Hague, 1920, 22, no. 29 (as a portrait ofRembrandt by Gerrit Dou).
Van Falke, Otto. The Bachstitz Gallery: Catalogue of Paintings and Tapestries. 3 vols. Berlin,
1921, 1: no. 34 (as a portrait of Rembrandt by Gerrit Dou).
Balet, Leo. “Die Sammlung Bachstitz.” Der Cicerone 13 (May 1921): 334 (as a portrait ofRembrandt by Gerrit Dou).
Bauch, Kurt. Der frühe Rembrandt und sein Zeit: Studien zur geschichtlichen Bedeutungseines Frühstils. Berlin, 1960, 221–23 (as a self-portrait by Dou, retouched by Rembrandt van
Rijn).
Plietzsch, Eduard. Holländische und Flämische Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig, 1960,
37–38, as by Dou, retouched by Rembrandt van Rijn.
Sumowski, Werner. “Rezension von: K. Bauch, Der frühe Rembrandt und seine Zeit
(1960).” Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 3/4 (1962): 209 (as by Gerrit Dou, retouched by
Rembrandt van Rijn).
Van Hall, Hermine. Portretten van nederlandse beeldende kunstenaars/Portraits of Dutch
Painters and Other Artists of the Low Countries. Amsterdam, 1963, 81–82, no. 25 (as by Dou,retouched by Rembrandt van Rijn).
Vey, Horst. Die Sammlung Henle: aus dem grossen Jahrhundert der neiderländischen
Malerei. Exh. cat. Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz Museum. Cologne, 1964, no. 10 (as by Dou,possibly retouched by Rembrandt van Rijn).
Bauch, Kurt. Rembrandt: Gemälde. Berlin, 1966, 29, A7 (as by Gerrit Dou, retouched by
Rembrandt van Rijn).
Judson, J. Richard. “Artist in His Studio.” In Rembrandt After Three Hundred Years: An
Exhibition of Rembrandt and His Followers. Edited by Charles C. Cunningham, Egbert
Haverkap-Begemann, J. Richard Judson, and Anne-Marie Logan, 51–2, no. 36. Exh. cat.
Chicago, The Art Institute of Chicago; Minneapolis, The Minneapolis Institute of Arts; Detroit,
The Detroit Institute of Arts. Chicago, 1969 (as by Gerrit Dou, possibly retouched by anotherhand).
Eckardt, Go?tz . Selbstbildnisse niederländischer Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1971,
176, no. 22 (as by Gerrit Dou).
Van de Watering, Willem L., Hans M. Cramer, John Hoogsteder, and Samuel Nystad.
© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 15 of 17

Terugzien in bewondering: A Collector’s Choice. Exh. cat. The Hague, Royal Cabinet of
Pictures Mauritshuis. The Hague, 1982, 98-99, no. 30 (as by Gerrit Dou).
Sumowski, Werner. Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler. 6 vols. Landau and Pfalz, 1983–95, 1:
528, 558, no. 261 (as by Gerrit Dou).
Blankert, Albert, Ben Broos, Ernst van de Wetering, Guido Jansen and Willem van deWetering. The Impact of a Genius: Rembrandt, His Pupils and Followers in the SeventeenthCentury: Paintings from Museums and Private Collections. Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Waterman
Gallery; Groningen, Groninger Museum. Amsterdam, 1983, 118-19, no. 14 (as by Gerrit Dou).
Hunnewell, Richard W. “Gerrit Dou’s Self Portraits and Depictions of the Artist.” 2 vols. PhD
diss. Boston University, 1983, 2: 288, 291-92, no. 13 (as Circle of Rembrandt van Rijn,
possibly Willem de Poorter).
Bruyn, Josua. “Review of Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, I by W. Sumowski; J. A. Backer;
A. van Dijck.” Oud Holland 98, no. 3 (1984): 161, no. 26 (as an uncertain attribution).
Raupp, Hans-Joachim. Untersuchungen zu Künstlerbildnis und Künsterdarstellung in den
Niederlanden im 17. Jahrhundert. 1984, 170, as by Gerrit Dou.
Bruyn, Josua, et al. A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings. Vol. 2: 1631–1634. Stichting
Foundation Rembrandt Research Project. The Hague, 1986, 2:33, no. 14.
Baer, Ronni. “The Paintings of Gerrit Dou (1613–1675)”. 3 vols. PhD diss. New York
University, 1990, 1:23, 3: no. C1 (as an uncertain attribution).
Van de Wetering, Ernst. Rembrandt: The Painter at Work. Amsterdam, 1997, 117 (as byGerrit Dou).
Brown, Christopher, Jan Kelch, and Pieter J. J. van Thiel, eds. Rembrandt: The Master and
His Workshop. 2 vols. Exh. cat. Berlin, Altes Museum; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum; London,
National Gallery, 1991, 1:94 (as by Gerrit Dou).
De

Winkel,Marieke.

Fashionand

Fancy:Dressand

MeaninginRembrandt’s Paintings. Amsterdam, 2006, 157, illustrated.
Kleinert, Katja and Cécile Tainturier. “Schilders uit de verf: Leidse ateliervoorstellingen uit dezeventiende eeuw.” De Zeventiende Eeuw 22 (2006): 114, no. 6 (as by Gerrit Dou).
Hirschfelder, Dagmar. “Training Piece and Sales Product. On the Functions of the Tronie in
Rembrandt’s Workshop.” Rembrandt 2006: Essays. Edited by Michiel Roscam Abbing, 1:
132, no. 9h. Leiden, 2006 (as attributed to Gerrit Dou).
Surh, Dominique, Ilona van Tuinen, and John Twilley. “Insights from Technical Analysis on aGroup of Paintings by Gerrit Dou in the Leiden Collection.” Journal of Historians ofNetherlandish Art 6:1 (Winter 2014): 37, n. 12, DOI:10.5092/jhna.2014.6.1.3 (as School ofRembrandt, possibly Gerrit Dou).
Schnackenburg, Bernhard. Jan Lievens: Friend and Rival of the Young Rembrandt.
Petersberg, 2016, 131.
© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 16 of 17

Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “Self-Portrait (?) at an Easel.” In Rembrandt and His Time:
Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection. Edited by Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 70; 178, no. 25.
Translated by Li Ying. Exh. cat. Beijing, National Museum of China. Beijing, 2017.
Long Museum, West Bund. Rembrandt, Vermeer and Hals in the Dutch Golden Age:
Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection. Exh. cat. Shanghai, Long Museum, West Bund.
Shanghai, 2017, 94–95.
Bijl, Martin. “Gerrit Dou as a Pupil of Rembrandt.” In Rembrandt and his Circle: Insights andDiscoveries. Edited by Stephanie S. Dickey, 171, 183, nn. 9. Amsterdam, 2017.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “The Leiden Collection and the Dutch Golden Age.” In The Age of
Rembrandt and Vermeer: Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection. Edited by Polina
Lyubimova, 17; 28, n. 5. Translated by Daria Babich and Daria Kuzina. Exh. cat. Moscow,
The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts; St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum.
Moscow, 2018.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “Self-Portrait (?) at an Easel.” In The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer:
Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection. Edited by Polina Lyubimova, 98–99; 234, no. 16.
Translated by Daria Babich and Daria Kuzina. Exh. cat. Moscow, The Pushkin State Museumof Fine Arts; St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum. Moscow, 2018.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “The Leiden Collection and the Dutch Golden Age.” In Rembrandt,
Vermeer and the Dutch Golden Age. Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection and the
Musée du Louvre. Edited by Blaise Ducos and Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 28. Exh. cat. Abu
Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi. London, 2019. [Exhibition catalogue also published in French andArabic.]Ducos, Blaise, and Lara Yeager-Crasselt, eds. Rembrandt, Vermeer and the Dutch Golden
Age. Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection and the Musée du Louvre. Exh. cat. Abu
Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi. London, 2019, 114–15, no. 44. [Exhibition catalogue also publishedin French and Arabic.]
Coutré, Jacquelyn N. “Rembrandus Hermanni Leydensis: Rembrandt, son of Harmen, of
Leiden.” In Leiden circa 1630: Rembrandt Emerges. Edited by Jacquelyn N. Coutré, 28-29,
no. 19. Exh. cat. Kingston, Agnes Etherington; Edmonton, Art Gallery of Alberta; Hamilton, Art
Gallery of Hamilton. Kingston, 2019.
Berry Drago, Elisabeth. Painted Alchemists: Early Modern Artistry and Experiment in theWork of Thomas Wijck. Amsterdam Studies in the Dutch Golden Age. Amsterdam, 2019,250–51, fig. 6.7.

Technical Summary© 2020 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Self-Portrait (?) at an Easel
Page 17 of 17

The painting was executed on a wood panel. The panel is comprised of three vertically grained
and oriented oak boards of unequal size. The left plank is 21 cm wide, the center is 24 cm wide,
and the right is only 5.5 cm wide. The left plank could not be dated, but the center and right planks
came from the same tree, which was felled after 1617.[1] There are no original bevels because thepanel has been thinned and cradled.
The panel was prepared with a thin, even, light-colored ground. The ground is radio-opaque,accentuating the wood grain in the X-radiographs. The paint was applied in thin, successive
layers of light over dark, with slight impasto in some areas. Infrared photography shows that thesitter was moved slightly to the right and his jaw was lowered slightly.[2] The jaw originally ended
at the present location of the sitter’s lips. An amorphous shape in the X-radiographs in the area
between the sitter’s back and the three canvases against the wall and brushwork unrelated to thefinal composition in this area implies that there was a more significant compositional change. The
X-radiographs also show large areas of reserve remain around the trumpet, fabric, and the scarf
in the lower left corner, indicating further changes in these areas. It appears the trumpet was also
shifted to the right.
The panel remains in plane, but it has cracked along the vertical cradle members at the top andbottom of the panel. There is a fair amount of abrasion to the paint in the background, the sitter’srobe, the lid of the trunk, and the shadows of the sitter’s face, and along the right edge. The
painting was treated in 2002.

Technical Summary Endnotes

1. Ian Tyers, dendrochronological report, November 2010. Tyers states that the boards are
narrower than normal, leading him to surmise that they have been trimmed. Therefore hedoes not give a possible creation date for the panel. Dr Peter Klein, who analyzed the panel
on a separate occasion, does not comment on the width of the boards and suggests anearliest possible creation date of 1630 (see Peter Klein, dendrochronological report, 2010).
2. Infrared photography was taken by Annette Rupprecht at 780, 850, and 1000 nm.

© 2020 The Leiden Collection