© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 2 of 15

Portrait of Antonie Coopal

1635
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-103Rembrandt van Rijn and Workshop(Leiden 1606 – 1669 Amsterdam)

How to cite
De Witt, David, and Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.. “Portrait of Antonie Coopal” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 3rded.

EditedbyArthurK.

Wheelock

Jr.

and

Lara

Yeager-Crasselt.

New

York,

2020–23.

https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/ (archived December 2023).
A PDF of every version of this entry is available in this Online Catalogue's Archive, and the Archive is managed by apermanent URL. New versions are added only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

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

Comparative Figures

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 andcuff, which stands out starkly against his black cloak, were at the height of fashion in
1635 when he sat for his portrait. As he gazes at the viewer over his right shoulder,
the sitter has drawn his right hand up to his chest in a gesture that bespeaks humility
and sincerity.
A Dutch label on the painting’s verso (fig 1), with a French translation on a secondlabel, identifies the sitter as Antonie Coopal (ca. 1606–72). There is no reason to

Fig 1. Label on verso of RR-103

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
Uylenburgh, the sister of Rembrandt’s wife, Saskia.[1] Coopal, who hailed from
Vlissingen in the province of Zeeland, studied medicine at Leiden University in the© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 3 of 15

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] The label adds a spurious
title of Margrave of Antwerp, a position that Coopal sought, but never attained, as
well as an unverifiable statement that he served as ambassador to Poland and England,
assertions that likely reflect social concerns of his descendants. Coopal’s place inhistory is best known by his audacious scheme to facilitate the capture of Antwerp by
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 basis of the description
and measurements, it can be connected to a painting by Rembrandt from the ChoiseulPraslin Collection, sold in Paris in 1793.[4] In 1938 Rembrandt’s fame, as well as theportrait’s compelling presentation of the sitter, no doubt attracted Adolf Hitler’s

Fig 2. Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait ofPhilip Lucasz, 1635, oil on
panel, The National Gallery, London,
inv. no. NG 850 © The National
Gallery, London / Art Resource, NY

agents, who looted this work from the collection of its then owner, Alphonse deRothschild 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 thenacquired by Baron and Baroness Charles and Edith Neuman de Vègvàr of Greenwich,
Connecticut, whose descendants lent it to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, from1984 to 2007, at which time it was purchased by the present collector.
Despite Coopal’s familial connections to Rembrandt and the signature and date, theattribution of this portrait to Rembrandt has been the subject of much 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 the Museum ofFine Arts while he had served as the curator of Dutch paintings. In 1989 theFig 3. Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait ofPhilips Lucasz, X-ray, 1635, oil on
panel, The National Gallery, London,
NG 850 © The National Gallery,
LondonRembrandt Research Project, led by Josua Bruyn, similarly concluded that thepainting 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, andpostulated 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 byRembrandt, 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

Fig 4. X-radiograph of RR-103

painting was also attributed to Rembrandt in an exhibition at the Wadsworth© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 4 of 15

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 andConnoisseurship.[10]The attribution issues related to this painting reflect many of the uncertainties
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, despite extensive research by Van de Wetering and others,
there are many gaps in our knowledge of how Rembrandt’s studio functioned in
Amsterdam in the early to mid-1630s, an issue intimately connected to questions
about the character 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 theworkshop, which was called an “academy” in its day. Rembrandt remained with
Uylenburgh until 1635, when he and Saskia (Uylenburgh’s niece, who Rembrandt
married in 1634) moved to a different residence. By then Rembrandt had joined theSaint Luke’s Guild and had begun working as an independent master.
During the early to mid-1630s, artists who had previously been trained elsewhere,
including Jacob Backer (1608/9–51) 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 to learn 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; the specific 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 relegated the costumeand hands to assistants. At other times he may have blocked in the sitter’s form andthen 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 have to 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 thepainting, the team pointed to the thick application of paint, long and straightbrushstrokes modeling the face (versus the “shorter more flexible strokes” it© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 5 of 15

characterized as typical of Rembrandt), the simple and strong (“spiky”) contrasts ofthe figure with its surroundings, the lack of an atmospheric character to thebackground, the selective bravura in brush handling, and the superficial modeling of
the lace 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 work also
signed and dated 1635 (fig 2).[16] The team’s close comparison of 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, feltthat the paintings were so similar that one seemed to have been painted right after theother. Because of these correspondences, the portrait of Antoine Coopal was brought
to London in June 2015 so that scholars could examine the two paintings side by sidein the conservation laboratory of the National Gallery.
The juxtaposition of these two portraits was very revealing, and confirmed that thepaintings 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 ofthe 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 in India andspent much time at sea, which may account for his apparent physical strength andstolid demeanor in this portrait. The Coopal portrait presents a softer and flashierpresence 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 his white 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 the criticismsof the Coopal portrait noted by the Rembrandt Research Project. Rembrandt musthave been impressed by Philips Lucasz’s strong character, which he expressed
through the dense interworking of brushstrokes he used to model his form. Althoughboth paintings are executed wet-into-wet, the X-radiograph of the Lucasz portrait
reveals the richness of Rembrandt’s brushwork (fig 3). The X-radiograph of the
Coopal portrait (fig 4), on the other hand, confirms that his face was modeled more
quickly and with fewer brushstrokes, perhaps because Rembrandt wanted to convey
the youthful flair of this younger sitter. One must also wonder whether the financial© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 6 of 15

arrangements for portraying a family member were the same as for a commissioned
portrait, and whether the time allotted for creating a portrait differed from one to theother.
Assessing the process by which Rembrandt created portraits when he was head of the
Uylenburgh workshop in the early to mid-1630s is a complex matter, but thejuxtaposition of these works furthered our understanding 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, is entirely
consistent with the work of the master. It also became evident that Rembrandt
executed the painting with workshop assistance, most obviously in painting the lacecollar. The collar is not particularly well painted and it has a superficial character thatneither indicates the complexity of the lace patterns nor enhances the threedimensional presence of the sitter. This finding is quite significant for the question of
attribution. When the Rembrandt Research Project rejected the attribution of theportrait of Coopal to Rembrandt, it assumed that only one artist painted this work. On
the other hand, in arguing for the correctness of the Rembrandt attribution of thePhilips 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 notseem to have any structural connection to the underlying shape of the arm andshoulder. Interestingly, this problem is not nearly as evident in the X-radiograph ofthe painting, where the shape of the collar is somewhat different and the archedshadowed area defining the shoulder is larger (see (fig 4)). The three-dimensional
logic and nuance in the shading of this quickly blocked-in form is further indicationthat 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 distinction in the face in thebrushwork of the blocking-in stage and the final layer as is evident in the collar. He
also believes that the brushstrokes used to define Antoine Coopal’s features—theeyes, nostril, mouth and moustache—are remarkably similar to those of Philips
Lucasz even though they are more rapidly executed in the latter portrait. For example,
in both paintings, the lower edge of the left eyelid is defined by a pink stroke and has
a light accent at the lower left. Similar ocher strokes define the upper edge of the left
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 7 of 15

nostril of both men, and in each instance bold brushstrokes of flesh-colored painthave been pulled down over the upper edge of the moustache. Wheelock considers it
difficult to imagine two different artists painting in such identical manners, even if
they were teacher and assistant. David De Witt, on the other hand, considers thebroad and regular character of the brushwork in the face more characteristic ofGovaert Flinck’s handling than that of the master, and believes that Rembrandt
enlisted Flinck to complete this area of the painting, as well as the hair and hat. He is
also struck by the pronounced ridge along the nose that separates the lit side of theface from the shaded side, which he argues is characteristic of Flinck’s manner ofmodeling faces 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 attribution of works from thisperiod of Rembrandt’s career. In this instance some of the dissimilarities may be
accounted for by the age and personalities of the sitters, and some may be due todistinctions in the collaborative character of the workshop in executing these
portraits. One must also consider the human dimension in artist-patron relationships:
how likely is it, for example, that Rembrandt would assign a portrait of his relative toanyone other than himself. As has been stressed in this entry, there are many
unknowns in dealing with such complicated issues as collaboration in the Rembrandt
workshop, and one must be mindful of the limits of our knowledge. Recognizingthese uncertainties, and given the preponderance of stylistic connections toRembrandt’s work from the mid-1630s, the authors of this entry agree that the
attribution of this compelling portrait should be Rembrandt and Workshop.

- David de Witt, Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., 2017

© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 8 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 derVeen, “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, theLeiden Collection. The use of such a panel is quite unusual, as Rembrandt generally painted on oak.
Perhaps the wood came from a packing crate connected to a shipment from the Americas. For a broader
discussion of Rembrandt’s use of panels, 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 (as byRembrandt 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 (asuncharacteristic of Rembrandt).
8. Email correspondence from Ernst van de Wetering, head of the Rembrandt Research Project, to theowner, 19 May 2010 (Curatorial files, the Leiden Collection). Van de Wetering points to a number ofanomalies in the painting technique in making his judgment. He sees no evidence that the figure
overlaps the laying-in of the background, as is characteristic of Rembrandt portraits. He also notes thatthe entire painting is executed “in almost one go, without the slightest hesitation… [and that] the entire
surface of the painting seems to have been painted wet‐in‐wet. I am not aware of ever having seen thisway of working in portraits by Rembrandt.” Van de Wetering is also critical of the rendering of thecatch lights in the eyes and the modelling of the nose. He notes that “the lit wing of the nose has no
shaded ‘bottom’. Rembrandt’s portraits always have. As a rule with Rembrandt, it is reddish…” He also
critiques the handling of the hair and collar. Finally, he does not consider the signature to be authentic,© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 9 of 15

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 and produced
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 andCommerce 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 the Rembrandt
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 (asuncharacteristic 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, and London, 1989), 679. The
signature and date, however, are integral to the paint surface. For an assessment on how the abnormalityof the panel surface may have affected the appearance 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 were originally 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 century andAntoine Coopal around 1606.
18. Given the range of Rembrandt’s painting techniques, one must always remain conscious of the fact thatvariations 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),© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 10 of 15

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 ofdark eyes against pale skin tones. Flinck’s brushwork tended toward even regularity, such as seen in thelong linear strokes in the face and costume (to the lower right of the Coopal portrait for instance) and in
the undifferentiated curls of the hair. Along the ridge of the nose in both paintings, where the surface
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 in 1938 and taken to the
Führerbau, Munich, by 1943 (no. 3116); collected by the Allies and taken to the Munich Central
Collecting Point (no. 1661/1); released to the United States Forces in Austria (K1106); returned to theRothschild family on 25 April 1946; [Frederick Mont, New York].
Baron and Baroness Charles and Edith Neuman de Vègvàr, Greenwich, 1947–62; by descent until 2007,
as by Flinck and Rembrandt [Otto Naumann, Ltd., New York, 2007].
From whom acquired by the present owner in 2007.

Exhibition History
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 9 July 1984–8 January 2007, on loan with the permanent collection, [lentby 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,” 16September–10 December 2006 [lent by Neuman de Vègvàr].
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 7 November 2008–20 May 2009, on loan with the permanentcollection [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 permanent collection© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 11 of 15[lent by the present owner].
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, June 2010–June 2011, on loan with the permanent collection [lent by thepresent owner].
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art, “Rembrandt in America: Collecting and Connoisseurship,” 30
October 2011–22 January 2012; Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art, 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].
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 [lent by the present
owner].
Moscow, The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, “The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer: Masterpiecesof 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 the present owner].
Abu Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi, “Rembrandt, Vermeer and the Dutch Golden Age. Masterpieces fromThe Leiden Collection and the Musée du Louvre,” 14 February–18 May 2019 [lent by the present
owner].

References
Von Bode, Wilhelm, and Cornelis Hofstede de Groot. Rembrandt: beschreibendes Verzeichniss seiner
Gemälde mit den heliographischen Nachbildungen: Geschichte seines Lebens und seiner Kunst. 8 vols.
Paris, 1897–1906, 3:114, no. 185.
Rosenberg, Adolf. Rembrandt: Des Meisters Gemälde. Edited by Wilhelm R. Valentiner, 211, 555.
Klassiker der Kunst in Gesamtausgaben. 3rd edition. Stuttgart and Berlin 1908.
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. Edited and translated by Edward G. Hawke, 6:305, no. 634. 8 vols. London, 1907–28. Originally published as

Beschreibendes und kritisches© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 12 of 15

Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten höllandischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts. 10 vols.
Esslingen and Paris, 1907–28.
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, 165,
564–65, no. 203. London, 1966.
Lecaldano, Paolo, and Giovanni Arpino. L’opera pittorica complete di Rembrandt. Milan, 1969, 104, no.
172.
Lecaldano, Paolo, and Gregory Martin. The Complete Paintings of Rembrandt. London, 1969, 98, no. 87,
no. 172.
Bolten. Jaap, and Henriette Bolten-Rempt. The Hidden Rembrandt. Oxford, 1978, 183, no. 217.
Schwartz, Gary. Rembrandt, His Life, His Paintings: A New Biography with All Accessible Paintings
Illustrated in Colour. New York, 1985. Originally published as Rembrandt, zijn leven, zijne schilderijen:
Ein nieuwe biografie, met all beschikbare schilderijen in kleur afgebeeld. Maarsen, 1984, 147–48, fig.
130.
Tümpel, Christian. Rembrandt mythos und methode. Antwerp, 1986, 104, 429, no. A89 (as byRembrandt workshop).
Slatkes, Leonard. Rembrandt: Catalogo completo dei dipinti. Florence, 1992, 251, no. 158.
Bruyn, Josua, et al. A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings. Vol. 3: 1635–1642. Stichting Foundation
Rembrandt Research Project. The Hague, 1989, 178-80, 681–84, no. C 108 (as uncharacteristic of
Rembrandt).
Tümpel, Christian. Rembrandt: All Paintings in Colour. Antwerp, 1993, 104, 432, no. A89 (as byRembrandt workshop).
Liedtke, Walter. “Rembrandt’s ‘Workshop’ Revisited.” Oud-Holland 117, nos. 1–2 (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 and1655.” In Uylenburgh & Son: Art and Commerce from Rembrandt to De Lairesse, 1625–1675. Exh. cat.
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 13 of 15

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 (as by Rembrandt).
Weller, Dennis P. “Rembrandt Paintings in America.” In Rembrandt in America: Collecting andConnoisseurship. Edited by George S. Keyes, Tom Rassieur, and Dennis P. Weller, 25, fig. 2, 27. Exh.
cat. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art; Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art; Minneapolis,
Minneapolis Institute of Arts. New York, 2011 (as by Rembrandt).
Weller, Dennis P. “Portrait of Antonie Coopal.” In Rembrandt in America: Collecting andConnoisseurship. Edited by George S. Keyes, Tom Rassieur, and Dennis P. Weller, 12, 184, no. 20. Exh.
cat. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art; Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art; Minneapolis,
Minneapolis Institute of Arts. New York, 2011 (as by Rembrandt).
Liedtke, Walter. “Rembrandt in America: Raleigh, Cleveland, and Minneapolis.” Burlington
Magazine 154, no. 1307 (February 2012): 150, fig. 79.
Surh, Dominique. “Portrait of Antonie Coopal.” In Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection: The Age of
Rembrandt. Edited by Blaise Ducos and Dominique Surh, 84, no. 32. Exh. cat. Paris, Musée du Louvre.
Paris, 2017.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “Portrait Antonie Coopal.” In Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The
Leiden Collection. Edited by Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 44–5; 174, no. 12. 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 fromThe Leiden Collection. Exh. cat. Shanghai, Long Museum, West Bund. Shanghai, 2017, 66–67.
DeWitt, David. “Govert Flinck Learns to Paint Like Rembrandt.” In Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck –Rembrandt’s Master Pupils. Edited by Norbert Middelkoop and David DeWitt, 30, fig. no. 22. Exh. cat.
Amsterdam, Amsterdam Museum; Amsterdam, Museum Het Rembrandthuis. Zwolle, 2017 (as byRembrandt and Flinck).
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, 18, 21; 29, 32.
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 “Portrait of Antonie Coopal.” In The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer:
Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection. Edited by Polina Lyubimova, 184–85; 244, no. 59. 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. “The Leiden Collection and the Dutch Golden Age.” In Rembrandt, Vermeer andthe Dutch Golden Age. Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection and the Musée du Louvre. Edited by
Blaise Ducos and Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 29. Exh. cat. Abu Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi. London, 2019.
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 14 of 15[Exhibition catalogue also published in French and Arabic.]
Blanc, Jan. “Being Modern, Being Dutch: The Seventeenth-Century Invention of the Golden Age.” In
Rembrandt, Vermeer and the Dutch Golden Age. Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection and the Muséedu Louvre. Edited by Blaise Ducos and Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 42. Exh. cat. Abu Dhabi, Louvre Abu
Dhabi. London, 2019. [Exhibition catalogue also published in French and Arabic.]
Ducos, Blaise, and Lara Yeager-Crasselt, eds. Rembrandt, Vermeer and the Dutch Golden Age.
Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection and the Musée du Louvre. London, 2019, 54, 84–5, no. 21. Exh.
cat. Abu Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi. [Exhibition catalogue also published in French and Arabic.]
Middelkoop, Norbert, ed. Rembrandt and Amsterdam Portraiture, 1590–1670. Exh. cat. Madrid, Museo
Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza. Madrid, 2020, 141, fig. 80.
Dudok van Heel, S.A.C. “Rembrandt als portretschilder bij Hendrick Uylenburgh, 1631–1635, met
opdrachten in Den Haag, Leiden en Rotterdam,” Amstelodamum 107-2 (2020), 82–83, fig. 35.
Rorimer, James R. Monuments Man: The Mission to Save Vermeers, Rembrandts, Da Vincis, and Morefrom the Nazis’ Grasp. New York, 2022, 203, ill.
Vogelaar, Christiaan. “The Leiden Collection.” In Rembrandt and his Contemporaries: History Paintingsfrom The Leiden Collection. Edited by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. and Caroline Van Cauwenberge, 10. Exh.
cat. Amsterdam, Hermitage Amsterdam. Zwolle, 2023. [Exhibition catalogue also published in Dutch.]

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.. A clearwhite wax coating, applied to the entire reverse, covers the labels and inscriptions and extends onto the paneledges.
A light warm-colored ground has been thinly and evenly applied and remains visible through the thinly
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. Boththe paint and the ground spill over onto the thickness of the panel edges.
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.
Further technical information about this artwork is available in The Rembrandt Database.
© 2024 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Portrait of Antonie Coopal
Page 15 of 15

Technical Summary Endnotes

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, and may 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 / [de Po]logne et D’angletere, /[consei]ller et pensionaire de /[Fles]sing en Zeelande.” A third label, at the center top, and probably more or less contemporary withthe earlier Dutch label, reads: “35 g[u]l[den] 11 st[uivers]” and may reflect a price once given to thepainting.

© 2024 The Leiden Collection