© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 2 of 12

Self-Portrait
Govaert Flinck(Kleve 1615 – 1660 Amsterdam)1643
oil on panel
73.1 x 53.5 cm
signed and dated in brown paint along left
side of narrow horizontally oriented lower
plank: “G.flinck.f.1643”
GF-103

How to cite
Van Tuinen, Ilona. “Self-Portrait” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 2nd ed. Edited by Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017–20. https://theleidencollection.com/artwork/self-portrait-2/ (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.

© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 3 of 12

With a posture and expression that exude status and youthful self-

Comparative Figures

confidence, Govaert Flinck painted himself in 1643, at age twenty-eight,
facing slightly to the right with his right arm leaning on a brown ledge and hiseyes directed straight at the viewer. He wears a gold-trimmed velvet mantle
over a low-cut jerkin, and a white, high-collared vest whose frilled edges arevisible below his neck and at his wrist. His shoulder-length, ginger-coloredhair flows out from under his velvet beret. Around his neck, partiallyconcealed by his mantle, hangs a chain.

Fig 1. Detail of Govaert
Flinck, GF-103, showing the
brocade and collar

Flinck’s assuredness of execution is comparable to that of his appearance.
He modeled the face with bold, patchy brushstrokes, while accenting his
proper right cheek and the rim of his nose with pink highlights. He provided awarm, rich tone for the hair, the moustache, and the area around his proper
left eye by allowing the ocher-colored ground to remain exposed. Flinck
executed the brocaded trim of his mantle with bravura, generously dappling
the upper right shoulder with yellow and white highlights, while merely
outlining the shaded areas of trim in yellow, with only an occasional
additional highlight (fig 1).
At the time Flinck executed this painting, he had been an independent artist
for about eight years and already had enjoyed considerable success as aportrait painter in Amsterdam. In contrast to Rembrandt van Rijn (1606–69),
with whom he had studied around 1634–35, Flinck painted only two
autonomous self-portraits in his career: this one and one dated 1639 in the
National Gallery, London.[1] He also drew his self-portrait in 1643 (fig 2).[2] As

Fig 2. Govaert Flinck, Self-Portrait
in Uniform, 1643, black chalk andgray wash on paper, 255 x 180
mm, Stiftung Weimarer Klassik
und Kunstsammlungen, Weimar,
inv. KK 4947

scholars have frequently noted, Flinck based his compelling 1643 SelfPortrait on two of Rembrandt’s self-portraits: his etched Self-Portrait Leaning
on a Stone Sill of 1639 (fig 3) and his painted 1640 Self-Portrait at the Age of
34 at the National Gallery, London (fig 4).[3] Rembrandt’s iconic and highly
innovative self-portraits, which also inspired several self-portraits by other
Rembrandt students, show him leaning on a wall with one arm and looking
directly at the viewer.[4] In creating these works, Rembrandt drew inspirationfrom Raphael’s Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione of ca. 1514–15 andTitian’s Portrait of Gerolamo (?) Barbarigo of ca. 1510, both of which were in
Amsterdam in 1639 in the collection of Alfonzo Lopez.[5] Nevertheless, ineach instance, Rembrandt portrayed himself in fanciful early sixteenthcentury Northern European fashion, known to him through the prints by
Lucas van Leyden (1494–1533) and Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528), among
others.[6] Rembrandt thus firmly placed himself in a tradition of great local
and international artists. As a newly established painter, Flinck was no doubt

Fig 3. Rembrandt van Rijn, SelfPortrait Leaning on a Stone Sill,
1639, etching, 200 x 164 mm,
British Museum, London, Malcolm
Collection, inv. PD
1895-9-15-411, © Trustees of the
British Museum© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 4 of 12

drawn to his master’s models for their bold self-representation.
Flinck based the diagonal slant of his beret on Rembrandt’s etched selfportrait, but, following Rembrandt’s painting, he positioned himself facing
right. As in the master’s self-portraits, Flinck portrayed himself wearing ashirt with conspicuous frills and a jerkin, both which reflect early sixteenthcentury fashion.[7] Unlike Rembrandt, however, he did not depict himself
wearing a cross hanging from the gold chain around his neck. Such a crosswould have been anathema to Flinck who, in the early 1640s, had important
contacts among the Amsterdam Anabaptist elite. He would later become amember of the Remonstrant community.[8]When the painting was auctioned at Christie’s in London in 1943, it waspresented with a presumed pendant, which was separated after the auction,and emerged from a private Munich collection in 2015 (fig 5).[9] The pair was

Fig 4. Rembrandt van Rijn, SelfPortrait at Age 34, 1640, oil oncanvas, 102 x 80 cm, National
Gallery, London, inv. no.
NG672, © National Gallery,
London / Art Resource, NY

attributed to Rembrandt, one thought to be a self-portrait and the other aportrait of his wife, Saskia.[10] After the 1943 auction, Flinck’s signature wasdiscovered on the present painting during a conservation treatment, and in1953 it was exhibited in London as a Portrait of Rembrandt by Flinck.[11] In
1980 Bas Dudok van Heel recognized Flinck’s likeness by comparing theimage to the artist’s self-portrait in his 1648 group portrait Civic Guardsmenof the Company of Captain Joan Huydecoper and Lieutenant Frans van
Waveren.[12] He also identified the female sitter in the presumed pendant as
Flinck’s wife, Ingetje Thovelingh (ca. 1620–51), whom the artist married in
1645. Since the female portrait is no longer considered to be an intended
pendant of the present painting, the identification of Flinck’s wife no longer
seems plausible.[13]The painting today looks quite different than it did in 1985, when it was

Fig 5. Govaert Flinck, Portrait of a
Woman (Ingetje Thovelingh?), ca.
1645, oil on panel, 71 x 52 cm,
formerly private collection, Munich

auctioned at Sotheby’s in London.[14] At that time Flinck’s mantle and beretwere black. When the painting was restored in 1986–87, the uppermost black
layer was determined to be a later addition and it was removed, leaving theburgundy undermodeling over a freely executed black sketch that is visible
today.[15] Subsequently, when Dutch conservator Peter Hermesdorf
examined the painting in 1988, he concluded that the mantle and beret were
“unfinished.”[16] However, since the brocade, which lies on top of the mantle,
is quite finished in appearance, and since traces of black paint are visible
under the brocade, it seems unlikely that the painting is unfinished. Thisconclusion is further reinforced by the finished state of the face and hair.
Hence, it is quite likely that the mantle and beret were originally black, andFig 6. X-radiograph of GF-103[17]

that this paint layer was removed at some earlier date.

© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 5 of 12

Many questions also surround the character of the painting’s panel support,
which consists of four planks of Baltic oak, three vertically grained planks
and one horizontally grained plank across the bottom of the painting (fig 6).
A fundamental question, which has not been satisfactorily resolved, iswhether the bottom, horizontal plank, which extends the parapet on which
the sitter’s arm rests, was original to Flinck’s composition or added later. A
copy of the painting, which was with the London art dealer Ronald Cook in
the mid-1970s, and which depicts the sitter with a black beret and black
mantle, does not include this lower portion of the painting (fig 7).[18] This fact,
along with some technical evidence, seems to suggest that the horizontal
plank was not part of the original panel construction.[19] On the other hand,the signature and date, which are on this lower portion of the painting,appear to be old and are consistent with those on Flinck’s 1643
drawing Self-Portrait in Uniform (see (fig 2)).
Another question about the panel support concerns its arched top. The copyof the painting has a rectangular format, which was also the original format ofFig 7. After Govaert Flinck, SelfPortrait of Govaert Flinck,
unknown date, oil on panel, 69.8 x
52 cm, formerly with Ronald Cook,
London, 1975 (photo: taken froman RKD (Rijksbureau voor
Kunsthistorische
Documentatie/Netherlands
Institute for Art History) photo
mount)

the Rembrandt self-portraits that inspired Flinck when making this work.[20]Hence, it seems probable that the arched top was a later revision to thepainting. At the time the painting’s shape was changed, the background wasapparently overpainted.[21] The current greenish layer, which covers a more
freely brushed background paint, extends over the curved upper edge of thepanel.[22]Regardless of the painting’s complex and confusing display of various paintstages and later additions, the areas around Flinck’s face, shirt, andbrocaded trim demonstrate his impressive abilities as an artist. Moreover, thelush, fluid undermodeling in the beret and mantle provide a unique insight
into his painting practice.

- Ilona van Tuinen, 2017

© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 6 of 12

Endnotes

1. Self-Portrait Aged 24, 1639, oil on panel, 65.8 x 54.4 cm, signed and dated, bottom right, “G.
Flinck 1639,” National Gallery of Art, London, inv. NG4068.
2. See Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School, 10 vols. (New York, 1979–92), 4:
1896–97, no. 867.
3. This observation has already been made in Horst Gerson, Rembrandt’s Influence in theSeventeenth Century: Catalogue of a Loan Exhibition (Exh. cat. London, Matthiesen Gallery)(London, 1953), 32, no. 33. See also David Bomford, ed. Rembrandt: Art in the Making (Exh.
cat. London, National Gallery of Art) (London, 1988), 82.
4. For a Self-Portrait by Ferdinand Bol in The Leiden Collection inspired after these same
Rembrandt compositions, see FB-107.
5. Titian, Portrait of Gerolamo (?) Barbarigo, ca. 1510, oil on canvas, 81.2 x 66.3 cm, National
Gallery, London, inv. NG1944 (thought in Rembrandt’s time to be a portrait of the poet
Lodovico Ariosto). Raphael, Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, ca. 1514–15, oil on canvas, 82
x 67 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. 611. See Peter Schatborn, “Rembrandt: Self-Portrait
Leaning on a Stone Wall,” in Rembrandt by Himself, ed. Christopher White and Quentin
Buvelot (Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis; London, National Gallery of Art) (Zwolle,
1999–2000), 170–72, no. 53.
6. For an in-depth discussion of the clothing in Rembrandt’s 1639 and 1640 self-portraits, seeMarieke de Winkel, Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings(Amsterdam, 2006), esp. 175–79.
7. See Marieke de Winkel, Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings(Amsterdam, 2006), 176: this type of jerkin was called a paltrock; the smockwork and frills at
the neck of the shirt were typical of fashion during the first thirty years of the sixteenth
century.
8. For Flinck’s Anabaptist clients and his own joining of the Remonstrant community in 1651,
the year in which his wife died, see the artist’s biography in this catalogue. For the discussionof chains in Rembrandt’s self-portraits, see Marieke de Winkel, Fashion and Fancy: Dressand Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings (Amsterdam, 2006), 168–69. De Winkel notes thatchains worn around the shoulders were part of the “historicizing costume that was based on
fashionable dress at the beginning of the sixteenth century.”
9. See the auction catalogue of Sotheby’s London, 9 December 2015, no. 31. The female
portrait was exhibited in 1992, when it was with a private Swedish collector. See Bo
Lundström, “Govert Flinck: Dam i fantasidräkt,” in Rembrandt och hans tid, ed. Görel CavalliBjörkman (Exh. cat. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum) (Stockholm, 1992), 258, no. 87.
© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 7 of 12

10. See the auction catalogue of Christie’s London, 16 July 1943, nos. 106–7.
11. See the note provided by Noortman Master Paintings, on file at the Leiden Collection, in
which they mention a restoration after the 1943 auction. It is not known where and by whom
this restoration took place, but it must have taken place between 1943 and 1953, the year inwhich the painting was exhibited as being by Flinck. See Horst Gerson, Rembrandt’s
Influence in the Seventeenth Century: Catalogue of a Loan Exhibition (Exh. cat. London,
Matthiesen Gallery) (London, 1953), no. 33.
12. Civic Guardsmen of the Company of Captain Joan Huydecoper and Lieutenant Frans van
Waveren, 1648, oil on canvas, 265 x 513 cm, Amsterdam Museum, inv. no. SA 7318. See
S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, “Enkele portretten à l’antique door Rembrandt, Bol, Flinck en
Backer,” Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 32 (1980): 216 n. 7.
13. See the discussion in the auction catalogue of Sotheby’s London, 9 December 2015, no. 31.
14. See the sales catalogue, Sotheby’s, London, 11 December 1985, no. 62.
15. The painting was acquired by Colnaghi at a sale at Sotheby’s, London, on 11 December
1985, no. 62. At the time of the auction, the mantle and beret were still black. In early 1987,
while the painting was with Colnaghi, it was restored by Robert Shepherd, who noted that theblack paint extended over areas of paint loss and was soluble. Toward the end of therestoration, conservation scientist Nicholas Eastaugh was called in to examine the painting totake selective paint samples. My thanks to Tim Warner Johnson at Colnaghi for forwarding tome, in November 2011, Eastaugh’s report, dated 10 February 1987; to Simon Howell at RMS
Shepherd Associates (Shepherd Conservation Ltd.) in Wimbledon for sending me Robert
Shepherd’s full report, dated 31 July 1986, along with an X-radiograph, infrared image, andthree photographs taken before and after cleaning; and to Nicholas Eastaugh forcommunicating his thoughts in November 2011. Both reports and the photographs are on fileat the Leiden Collection.
16. Thanks to Eddy Schavemaker, e-mail correspondence in November 2011, for informing methat the painting had been examined by Hermesdorf in 1988 while with Noortman Old Master
Paintings. Thanks to Tom van der Molen for consulting Hermesdorf’s (incomplete) restoration
report at the RKD (Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie/Netherlands Institute for
Art History), and for making note of Hermesdorf’s letter to Noortman, dated 23 December
1988, stating: “Het bijzondere van dit schilderij is, dat het niet voltooid werd, met name in demantel en de baret.”
17. It is not possible to determine when this black layer was removed, although certainly prior to
its restoration in 1986–87 (see note 13). Another possibility is that some or all of the black
paint that was removed in 1986–87 was, in fact, original.
18. This copy after Flinck’s Self-Portrait was with the London art dealer Ronald Cook in 1975.
Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 6 vols. (Landau and Pfalz, 1983–94),© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 8 of 12

6:3608, wrote in his “Corrigenda et Addenda” that the present Self-Portrait was with art dealer
Bruno Meissner in Zurich after the 1985 auction at Sotheby’s, where, during a very careful
restoration, all the paint came off the panel. Sumowski suggested that the painting was anineteenth-century copy and that the original is still missing. Sumowski most likely confused
the present painting with the Cook painting, as the Leiden Collection Self-Portrait was neverwith Bruno Meissner. Some years earlier, Sumowski had listed the Cook copy in his
discussion of the Self-Portrait, and described it as having a straight top. See Sumowski, 2:1035, no. 680, 1112. See also Ariane van Suchtelen, “Govert Flinck: Self-Portrait Aged 24,”in Rembrandt by Himself, ed. Christopher White and Quentin Buvelot (Exh. cat. London,
National Gallery of Art; The Hague, Mauritshuis) (Zwolle, 1999–2001), 254 n. 310, who
adopts Sumowski’s suggestion that Flinck’s original Self-Portrait was destroyed.
19. See the reports by Robert Shepherd, dated 31 July 1986, and Nicholas Eastaugh, dated 10
February 1987, on file at The Leiden Collection. Eastaugh noted that the pigment samples
taken from the horizontal plank were inconsistent with those taken from the rest of thepainting. It is, however, not clear whether later retouching plays a role in these results. See
also the Technical Summary for this work, in which Annette Rupprecht notes that the paint of
the sleeve that extends onto the horizontal panel demonstrates a different kind oftransparency in the infrared than the paint above the join. Dendrochronological analysis of thepainting has not clarified this problem. The painting was researched by Peter Klein, report
dated 16 September 1988, and by Ian Tyers, report dated November 2012, copies of which
are on file at The Leiden Collection. Both Klein and Tyers dated the youngest year ring of the
middle plank of the three vertical boards of the main panel to 1627. Tyers did not analyze thebottom strip due to the horizontal grain (too few year rings). Based on the signature and date,
Klein suggested that the bottom part was added within at most five years of 1643.
20. For a discussion of the change in format of the canvas with Rembrandt’s 1640 self-portraitfrom rectangular to arched, see David Bomford, ed., “Rembrandt: Self-Portrait at the Age of34,” in Rembrandt: Art in the Making (Exh. cat. London, National Gallery) (London, 1988), 82.
21. According to the report of conservation scientist Nicholas Eastaugh, dated 10 February 1987,
on file at The Leiden Collection. Eastaugh writes that the upper layer is definitely not original
since it is “continuous with various alterations such as the black areas, but the lower layer
appears to be early.” Eastaugh also writes that the ruff and shirt frill “extend […] over clear
areas of paint loss” and concluded that these areas are not original. Annette Rupprecht,
however, did not find any evidence of this during visual examination of the ruff undermagnification and under UV light. Indeed, the handling of the paint in the areas of white, forexample, the shirt, appears to be entirely comparable to the handling of the paint in the
undoubtedly original areas of the face and hair.
22. John Twilley, independent conservation scientist in Hawthorne, New York, noted that theedges of the upper part of the panel are jagged. He also noted the curved lines above and to© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 9 of 12

the right of Flinck’s head, which extend to the upper edge of the panel and suggest that theformat may in fact once have been taller. See the notes dated 1 December 2011 by thepresent author of a meeting held at the Leiden Collection on 18 November 2011, kept on fileat the Leiden Collection, and the X-radiograph. See also the Technical Summary by Annette
Rupprecht, who notes that it is unclear whether these curved lines were made in the groundor the lower paint layers. The lines, which appear to have been applied with a blunt object ora finger, do not correspond to any elements in the background in its current state.

Provenance
Sir Berkeley Digby George Sheffield (1876–1946), 6th Baronet, Nomanby Hall, Flixborough,
Lincolnshire (sale, Christie’s, London, 16 July 1943, no. 106, as a Self-Portrait by Rembrandt[to Edward Speelman, London for £315]).
Sir Charles Clore (1904–79), London (his sale, Sotheby’s, London, 11 December 1985, no.
62 [to Colnaghi, London; Noortman Gallery, Maastricht and London, 1988]).
Private collection, The Netherlands [Noortman Gallery, Maastricht and London, 2007].
From whom acquired by the present owner in 2007.

Exhibition History
London, Matthiesen Gallery, “Rembrandt’s Influence in the 17th Century,” 20 February–2
April 1953, no. 33 [lent by a private collector (Sir Charles Clore?)].
Charlottesville, The University of Virginia, The Fralin Museum of Art, “A Portrait of the Artist,
1525–1825,” 30 January–7 June 2015 [lent by the present owner].
Kleve, Museum Kurhaus Kleve, “Govert Flinck–Reflecting History,” 4 October 2015–17
January 2016, no. 12 [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].
© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 10 of 12

References
Matthiesen Gallery. Rembrandt’s Influence in the 17th Century. Exh. cat. London, Matthiesen
Gallery. London, 1953, 32, no. 33.
MacLaren, Neil. National Gallery Catalogues. The Dutch School 1600–1900. London, 1960,
321–22 no. 7.
Van Hall, Hendrik. Portretten van Nederlandse Beeldende Kunstenaars. Amsterdam, 1963,
273–74, no. 112.
Von Moltke, Joachim Wolfgang. Govaert Flinck (1615–1660). Amsterdam, 1965, 26, 157, no.
434, plate 48.
Linnik, Irina. Gollandskaia zhivopis? XVII veka i problemy atributskii kartin. Leningrad, 1980,
127, fig. 163.
Dudok van Heel, S.A.C. “Enkele portretten à l’antique door Rembrandt, Bol, Flinck en
Backer.” Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 32 (1980/81): 6.
Dudok van Heel, S.A.C. “Het “Schilderhuis” van Govert Flinck en de kunsthandel van
Uylenburgh aan de Lauriergracht te Amsterdam.” Jaarboek Amstelodamum 74 (1982): 72.
Bruyn, Josua. “Boekbespreking A. Blankert, Ferdinand Bol (1616–1680), Rembrandt’s Pupil,
Doornspijk 1982.” Oud Holland 97 (1983): 216 no. 7.
Sumowski, Werner. Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler. 6 vols. Landau and Pfalz, 1983–94, 2:1035, no. 680, 1112; 6: 3608.
Bomford, David, ed. Rembrandt: Art in the Making. Exh. cat. London, National Gallery of Art.
London, 1988, 82.
Lundström, Bo. “Govert Flinck: Dam i fantasidräkt.” In Rembrandt och hans tid: Människan iCentrum/Rembrandt and His Age: Focus on Man. Edited by Görel Cavalli-Björkman, 258, fig.
87a. Exh. cat. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum. Stockholm, 1992.
Chong, Alan, and Marjorie Wieseman. “De figuurschilderkunst in Dordrecht.” In De Zichtbaere
Werelt: schilderkunst uit de Gouden Eeuw in Hollands oudste stad. Edited by Peter
Marijnissen, Wim de Paus, Peter Schoon, and George Schweitzer. Exh. cat. Dordrecht,
Dordrechts Museum. Zwolle, 1992, 29 no. 51.
Suchtelen, Ariane van. “Govert Flinck: Self-Portrait Aged 24.” In Rembrandt by Himself.
Edited by Christopher White and Quentin Buvelot. Exh. cat., London, National Gallery; The
Hague, Mauritshuis. London and The Hague 1999–2000, 254, n. 310.
Van der Molen, Tom. “How nature fears the painter who gave life to his canvases: Poems on
the life and work of Govert Flinck.” In Govert Flinck – Reflecting History. Edited by Tom vander Molen and Valentina Vlasic, 38. Exh. cat. Kleve, Museum Kurhaus Kleve. Kleve, 2015.
© 2020 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 11 of 12

Gottwald, Franziska. “Tronies in Govert Flinck’s oeuvre – Fantasy portrayal versus mimetic
representation.” In Govert Flinck – Reflecting History. Edited by Tom van der Molen andValentina Vlasic, 55, 59. Exh. cat. Kleve, Museum Kurhaus Kleve. Kleve, 2015.
Vlasic, Valentina. “Focus Flinck: Observations on the collection’s history, the oeuvre and theexhibition.” In Govert Flinck – Reflecting History. Edited by Tom van der Molen and Valentina
Vlasic, 93. Exh. cat. Kleve, Museum Kurhaus Kleve. Kleve, 2015.
Van der Molen, Tom and Valentina Vlasic, eds. Govert Flinck – Reflecting History. Exh. cat.
Kleve, Museum Kurhaus Kleve. Kleve, 2015, 97, 132, no. 12.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “Self-Portrait.” In Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The
Leiden Collection. Edited by Lara Yeager-Crasselt, 58; 176, no. 19. 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, 76.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “Self-Portrait.” In The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer: Masterpiecesof The Leiden Collection. Edited by Polina Lyubimova, 222–23; 248, no. 48. 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.

Technical Summary
The support is a composite panel composed of four planks of Baltic oak: three vertically grainedand vertically oriented planks that form a rectangular shape with an arched upper edge and one
narrow horizontally grained and horizontally oriented rectangular plank attached to the lower
edges of the three vertical planks.[1] Fine diagonal tool marks along the composite panel reverse
indicate it was thinned prior to being cradled. Traces of a horizontal bevel remain along the lower
edge of the outer two vertical planks, where they join the horizontal plank. There is one label but
no wax collection seals, import stamps, stencils, or panel maker’s marks.
A light-colored ground has been thinly and evenly applied. A series of semicircular arched shapes
inscribed into the ground or lower paint layers above and to the right of the figure’s head do not
relate to the plain green background.
During a 1987 restoration treatment in London, the black paint along the figure’s jacket and cap
was found to be soluble and removed. A red transparent underlayer, applied with loose brushwork
in a sketchy manner allowing the light-colored ground to show through, was revealed. In contrast,
the figure’s face is executed with opaque paint with a high level of finish, and areas of detailalong the brocade border of the jacket’s edge have been applied in low impasto.
© 2020 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Self-Portrait
Page 12 of 12

In 1988, scientific analysis of the green paint along the plain background determined it was
restoration. Additional analysis of paint cross-sections taken from the horizontally oriented lower
plank, which bears a “G.flinck.f.1643” signature and date in brown paint along the left side,suggested the paint was not a part of the original structure of the painting. Dendrochronology
undertaken at the time concluded the earliest use date of the central vertical plank is 1638 and amore plausible first use date is 1642. It was reasoned that since the lower horizontal plank bears
the signature and a 1643 date, the lower plank was either part of the original composite panel orapplied at most five years later.[2]No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images captured at 780–1000 nanometers. The
images reveal that the red paint along the elbow and sleeve on the narrow horizontally oriented
lower plank does not have the same transparency as the red paint along the sleeve on thevertically oriented plank above the panel join. In the X-radiograph, the figure’s proper left arm
appears to have been shifted closer to the torso during the paint stage.
The painting has not undergone conservation treatment since its acquisition in 2007. The painting
is in a good state of preservation. It is presented with a combination of exposed underlayers andrestoration, and may be an unfinished work.

Technical Summary Endnotes

1. The identification of wood is based on dendrochronology reports by Peter Klein, dated 16
September 1988, and Ian Tyers, dated November 2012.
2. According to the GF-103 technical report by Nicholas Eastaugh, dated 10 February 1987, andPeter Klein’s dendrochronology report of 1988.

© 2020 The Leiden Collection