The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
How to cite
Franken, Michiel, and Jaap van der Veen. “The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries” (2022). In
The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 3rd ed. Edited by Arthur K. 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 essay 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.

Relatively little attention has been paid to the intriguing practice of signing paintings in
the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic. Whereas in the past a painting was accepted
as a work by a certain artist because it bore a signature, today this no longer seems socertain for works from this period. Contemporary sources that could provide someclarity in this matter are scarce. Moreover, differences are evident among seventeenth© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 2 of 18

century painters not only in the frequency and context of signing works—whether theirown or those created with or by their pupils—but also in the application of various
forms of signatures. Of the twenty paintings in The Leiden Collection made byRembrandt van Rijn (1606–69) or produced in his workshop, thirteen bear a
Rembrandt signature, either with his monogram or his first name in cursive script.[1]The signatures span nearly his entire career, beginning with Unconscious Patient(Allegory of Smell), which was part of a series of the Five Senses originating around
1624–25, and extending to Portrait of a Seated Woman with Her Hands Clasped, dated
1660. The proportion of signed paintings in the Leiden Collection roughly corresponds
to the percentage of signed works in Rembrandt’s entire painted oeuvre: of the 349
paintings Ernst van de Wetering recorded in 2017 as works by Rembrandt, whether or
not produced in collaboration with assistants, 257 bear a signature.[2]Fig 1. Rembrandt van Rijn, Portraitof Marten Looten, 1632, oil on
panel, 92.71 x 76.2 cm, Los
Angeles County Museum of Art,
inv. no. 53.50. Photo © Museum
Associates / LACMA.

In the seventeenth century, signing practices among artists varied. For instance, thehigh percentage of signed works by Rembrandt highlights a significant difference
between his oeuvre and that of Flemish artist Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) in
Antwerp. Rubens did so very rarely: we know of only five signed paintings in his
extensive oeuvre.[3] This distinction reflects the divergent practices regarding signingworks of art in the Northern and the Southern Netherlands more broadly.[4] However,dissimilarities in these practices can be observed within the Northern Netherlands aswell. They concern not only the frequency of signing but also the way in which it wasdone. The following essay first considers the name by which a person was known inthe seventeenth century. It then discusses Rembrandt’s various signatures on his
paintings, comparing them to those of other artists, particularly the signatures of his
teachers and other painters from his immediate circle. Finally, it examines the practiceof signing, drawing attention to the scarce seventeenth-century documents in which
signatures are mentioned and considering the question of when Rembrandt signed his

Fig 2. Rembrandt van Rijn, YoungGirl in a Gold-Trimmed Cloak,
1635, oil on canvas, 138 x 116.5
cm, The Leiden Collection, New
York, inv. no. RR-104.

work.

“Rembrantio nomen est”— “Rembrandt is the Name”
A person’s identity is determined by various factors, for example their place of origin
or profession. A name also contributes greatly to an individual’s identity. Until the
beginning of the seventeenth century, many people in the Dutch Republic used theirbaptismal name in combination with a patronymic, formed from the father’s forename
followed by “son” or “daughter.” For men, once they became employed, it wascustomary to add their professional designation. In the 1600s, the use of surnames
steadily became more popular, as individuals adopted the name of their place or regionof origin or that of their occupation. Some surnames, particularly those related to placeof origin, were added by later commentators to help identify particular individuals. For

Fig 3. Rembrandt van Rijn, Portraitof a Young Woman (“TheMiddendorf Rembrandt”), 1633, oil
on oval panel, 62.4 x 50.4 cm, The
Leiden Collection, New York, inv.
no. RR-126.

example, in 1604, Karel van Mander (1548–1606) used the name Lucas van Leyden© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 3 of 18(1494–1533) in his Schilder-boeck, while it can be deduced from documents that theartist’s contemporaries knew him as Lucas Hu(y)gensz.[5] Rembrandt had already been
provided for at birth, for his father was called Van R(h)ijn, and—while this was not an
obvious practice at the time—the artist also went by this surname. A receipt he drew
up in 1630 for the apprenticeship fees he received from Isaac de Jouderville (ca.
1612–45/48) begins thus: “ick, Rembrant Harmensz. van Rijn” (I, Rembrandt
Harmensz. van Rijn).[6]For a long time, however, people in the Dutch Republic considered a person’s given
name as their actual name. For example, guild members were often addressed as“master” followed by their first name—even if they had a surname. In Leiden,
Coenraet Adriaensz van Schilperoort (1577–1636), a contemporary of Rembrandt, was
known as “Mr. Coenraet.” Landscapes by him are credited as such in Leiden estateFig 4. Rembrandt van Rijn, Portraitof a Man in a Red Coat, 1633, oil
on oval panel, 63.7 x 50.8 cm, The
Leiden Collection, New York, inv.
no. RR-108.

inventories.[7] Similarly, in 1645, a wine merchant in Leiden gave his father-in-law in
Amsterdam his household effects, including a portrait of his wife “gedaen bij mr.
Ysack” (“done by Master Isaac”).[8] The portraitist must have been the Isaac de
Jouderville mentioned above.
In the case of artists with a very common forename, using it would not have beenpractical. But a name like Coenraet was not easily confused with another artist, nor, forthat matter, was Isaac. The same certainly applied to Rembrandt, a name rarely foundoutside of Holland and Zeeland in the seventeenth century and, moreover, one that
occurred very rarely even in these coastal regions.[9] In sources from the early part ofhis career, Rembrandt’s work is already referred to by his first name. In 1628, Joan
Huydecoper (1599–1661) recorded the purchase of a small painting by “Rembrant” inhis cash book, after initially writing the name incorrectly as “Warmbrant.”[10] Although
this may have simply been an error, one wonders if Huydecoper, from Amsterdam,Fig 5. Rembrandt van Rijn, Bust ofa Bearded Old Man, 1633, oil on
paper, mounted on panel, 10.6 x 7.2
cm, The Leiden Collection, New
York, inv. no. RR-116.

was not yet familiar with the name of Rembrandt of Leiden. As we shall see below, if
this work was signed, it must have borne Rembrandt’s monogram and not his first or
last name. The fact that he was already known by his first name before signing his
work with it is also apparent from the autobiography that the Hague resident
Constantijn Huygens (1596–1687) wrote in Latin between 1629 and 1631. He
mentions Rembrandt only by his first name (“Rembrantio nomen est”) in the same
breath as Jan Lievens (1607–1674), whose patronymic Huygens added to the artist’scommon first name.[11]Fig 6. Pieter Lastman, David Gives
Uriah a Letter for Joab, 1619, oil
on panel, 42.8 x 63.3 cm, The
Leiden Collection, New York, inv.
no. PL-100.

Rembrandt’s Signature
When Rembrandt signed documents, he did so with his first and last name, while inofficial deeds he also added his patronymic (“Rembran[d]t Harmensz van Rijn”). As
noted above, Rembrandt’s receipts for the guardians of Isaac de Jouderville, drawn up© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 4 of 18

between the beginning of May 1630 and mid-November 1631, were signed in the lattermanner. In these documents, he spelled his forename “Rembrant,” ending in -nt. By
contrast, he initially signed works of art with his initials only. In his early years in
Leiden, he used several types of monograms. His monogram on his earliest signed
painting, dated 1625, is a capital R. He subsequently added the letter H, sometimes
with a lower-case or capital f (for fecit, Latin for “made”) and usually followed by adate. Rembrandt kept this monogram until 1627. In 1628, the year in which he firstprovided his monogrammed and dated prints, he included an L (Leydensis, “fromLeiden”)[12] after his two initials. Rembrandt only used the L for a short while,abandoning it in the course of 1632, one year after he began working for Hendrick
Uylenburgh (ca. 1584/9–1661) in Amsterdam. His relocation to that city was probably
gradual, for it seems that he continued to work in his Leiden studio through the firstFig 7. Jan Lievens, Bookkeeper at
His Desk, ca. 1627, oil on panel,
89.7 x 72.7 cm, The Leiden
Collection, New York, inv. no.
JL-101.

half of 1632.
During Rembrandt’s transition from Leiden to Amsterdam, he began to paint portraits,
a genre not known from his Leiden years. He signed his first two likenesses “RHL
1631,” a monogram he continued to use in early 1632, as, for instance, in the Portraitof Marten Looten (fig 1). This sitter holds a note on which can be read “xj. Januyary”
and, farther down, the monogram and date “RHL 1632.” During this year, the artist
began to add “van Rijn” to his monogram, as seen in The Leiden Collection’s YoungGirl in a Gold-Trimmed Cloak (fig 2). In 1632 and 1633, Rembrandt began signing his
paintings with his first name only, written in cursive script, initially ending with -nt andthen with -ndt. Such signatures can be seen in three paintings from 1633 in The Leiden
Collection: Portrait of a Young Woman (fig 3), signed with only -nt; and Portrait of a
Man in a Red Coat (fig 4) and Bust of a Bearded Old Man (fig 5), both of which are

Fig 8. Jan Lievens, Self-Portrait, ca.
1629–30, oil on panel, 42 x 37 cm,
The Leiden Collection, New York,
inv. no. JL-105.

signed with -ndt. Rembrandt continued signing paintings with only his first name until
his death in 1669.[13] While his monograms include his initials in various characters, his
first-name signatures generally exhibit the same, somewhat idiosyncratic cursive
script.[14]Both monograms and names written out in full can be found in signed works of art by
Rembrandt’s teachers, as well as by his Leiden companion Jan Lievens. Only a few
paintings by his first teacher, Jacob Isaacsz van Swanenburgh (1571–1638), are known,
three of which are signed—one with the monogram “IVS” and two with his full name.
Based on this modest number, little can be said about his signatures. This is not thecase, however, with Rembrandt’s second teacher, Pieter Lastman (1583–1633), who
frequently signed his paintings with his monogram, “PL,” or his signature, either“Pietro Lastman” or “PLastman,” as found in David Gives Uriah a Letter for Joab in
The Leiden Collection (fig 6). Dated works by Lastman indicate that he alternatedbetween monograming and signing. In his younger years, Jan Lievens, who also studied
under Lastman, signed his paintings considerably less often than Rembrandt did. WhileFig 9. Rembrandt van Rijn,
Unconscious Patient (Allegory of
Smell), ca. 1624–25, oil on panel,
inset into an 18th-century panel,
21.5 x 17.7 cm (31.8 x 25.4 cm
with 18th-century additions), The
Leiden Collection, New York, inv.
no. RR-111.

© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 5 of 18

Rembrandt signed about 70 percent of his paintings in Leiden, Lievens signed less than
30 percent.[15] The majority of Lievens’s signatures consist of the letter L, as in The
Leiden Collection’s Bookkeeper at His Desk (fig 7), or the monogram “IL” seen in Card
Players and in Self-Portrait (fig 8), also in The Leiden Collection. Occasionally, hesigned his paintings “J. Lievens,” or the Latinized version of it, “J. Livius.” While all
four artists thus inscribed their works with monograms as well as signatures, Lastman
and Lievens used both forms simultaneously, while Rembrandt shifted over time frommonogram to signature.
As noted, the percentage of Rembrandt’s signed paintings is high: approximately threequarters of his currently known oeuvre bears his name. This percentage would
undoubtedly have been higher originally, given that signatures may have disappeared
when canvases and panels were cut down at a later time. In addition, pictures that areeither part of a series or considered pendants are generally not all signed individually.

Fig 10. Isaac de Jouderville,
Portrait of Rembrandt in Oriental
Dress, ca. 1631, oil on panel, 70.8 x
50.5 cm, The Leiden Collection,
New York, inv. no. IJ-100.

Not infrequently, only one work of a series or in a pair of pendants is signed, whereby
the series as a whole can be considered as signed. This is the case with Rembrandt’sseries of the Five Senses.[16] Of the four paintings from this series now known, only
Unconscious Patient (Allegory of Smell) is signed: the monogram “RHF” appears on thedrawing on the back wall, a tronie of an old man (fig 9). Of the six surviving paintingsof the Passion Series that Rembrandt painted between 1632 and 1646 for thestadholder’s court in The Hague, only The Ascension of Christ (1636), The Resurrection(1639), and The Adoration of the Shepherds (1646) are signed.[17] Similarly, of thethree busts painted on copper plates covered in gold leaf—Old Woman Praying (ca.
1629–30),[18] Laughing Man (ca. 1629–30),[19] and Self-Portrait (1630)[20]—only thelatter work bears a signature. The identical format and corresponding, highly unusual
support of these three paintings indicate that they were conceived as a series.[21]In 1632, Rembrandt began signing his work with his first name in cursive script.

Fig 11. Rembrandt van Rijn, Bustof a Young Bearded Man, ca.
1656–58, oil on panel, 40.4 x 31.3
cm, The Leiden Collection, New
York, inv. no. RR-117.

Famous Italian Renaissance painters such as Leonardo, Raphael, and Titian, who were
known by their first names, are often cited as sources of inspiration for Rembrandt’s
decision to sign in this manner. However, the practice was not unique to these Italianpainters. As already indicated, in the Dutch Republic, the given name had long been
considered to be an individual’s actual name; nevertheless, signing a painting with agiven name was very unusual in Rembrandt’s time. One other Dutch painter with anuncommon first name who also did so is Hercules Segers (1589/90–1633/40). Of his
five known signed paintings, one is signed “herkeles segers” and three “hercules
segers,” but one bears only the artist’s first name, “Hercules.”[22]The Seventeenth-Century Practice of Signing
The question of why artists signed their work in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

Fig 12. Workshop of Rembrandt
van Rijn (possiby Ferdinand Bol),
Man in Oriental Costume (possibly
the Old Testament Patriarch Dan),
164(1?), oil on panel, 103.1 x 83.5
cm, The Leiden Collection, New© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 6 of 18

is not easy to answer.[23] Painters had to comply with the rules of their local guilds;

York, inv. no. RR-125.

however, guild regulations do not contain any prescriptions about signing paintings.
For example, the ordinance of the Delft Guild of Saint Luke of 1611, with addenda
recorded in later years, contains no provisions whatsoever regarding the signing ofworks of art. Similarly, the 1590 charter of the Haarlem artists’ guild does not mention
signing, nor does the extensive, unofficial draft of 1631, which was not formallysanctioned by the magistrate of this city. The same situation is found in Amsterdam,
where the guild charter of 1579 includes nothing about signing, nor do the additions
and amendments to it in later years.
The fifteenth article of the Hague painters’ confraternity, issued by the city on 21

Fig 13. Rembrandt van Rijn,
Susanna and the Elders, 1647, oil
on panel, 76.6 x 92.8 cm, Staatliche
Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie,inv. no. 828E.

October 1656, states that a disciple or pupil who has progressed to the point of signing
his work was obliged to pay a contribution to the confraternity. This meant that he wasthen considered a master. The fact that an artist signed his name was apparently taken
for granted, which is not to say that everyone actually did so. This regulation offers no
insight into the choice of individual artists to sign or not to sign, and there are virtuallyno other documents dealing with this subject. An article in an addendum made to theUtrecht ordinance of the Guild of Saint Luke issued on 15 March 1651 (first issued in1644) also mentions something about signing without giving insight into the choice ofwhen or how to sign by individual masters, although this passage has often been
misinterpreted.[24]Cultural and cognitive changes in the early modern period, in which the notion ofindividuality gradually came to the fore, may have encouraged artists to distinguishthemselves emphatically from their colleagues by means of their signature. Sales may

Fig 14. Rembrandt van Rijn,
Portrait of Petronella Buys
(1605–1670), 1635, oil on oval
panel, 79.5 x 59.3 cm, The Leiden
Collection, New York, inv. no.
RR-115.

also have played a significant role in the matter of signing. The landscape painter Jan
van Goyen (1596–1656) frequently signed not only his paintings but also many of his
drawings with a clearly legible name. However, he generally did not mark the sketches
he kept for his own use.
Rudi Ekkart has argued that there were local differences as to whether portraits
produced in the Dutch Republic were signed or not. The late sixteenth-century Delft
painters Jacob Willemsz Delff (ca. 1545/50–1601) and Herman van der Mast (ca.
1550–1610), for example, usually signed their portraits, as did their younger fellow
townsman Michiel van Mierevelt (1567–1641) from 1607 onward. In contrast,
likenesses made in Amsterdam before 1620 were seldom signed.[25] In subsequent
years, Ekkart suggests, a noted increase in the number of signatures applied to portraits
made in that city was related to artists’ growing sense of self-awareness.[26]The decision to sign a work need not have been solely the reserve of the maker,
however; it might also reflect the will of the patron. Especially in the case of portraits,
which were usually commissioned, the influence of the sitter or commissioner was© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 7 of 18

crucial. It applied to the determination of the format, the pose of the sitter, and how
the portrait was painted, as well as the application of an inscription, such as the
subject’s age or the painting’s date, and the placement of a signature. For example,
when they engaged Michiel van Mierevelt to paint four portraits of members of theHouse of Orange, the burgomasters of Delft specified that the artist should sign the
portraits. Van Mierevelt accepted the commission and promised “syn eygen naem tesullen teykenen” (to sign [the pieces] with his own name).[27] The patrons’ request
undoubtedly had to do with the destination of the likenesses: they were to hang in theformal burgomasters’ chamber in the town hall, where distinguished guests could view
the portraits produced—and signed—by the famous Delft artist.
In addition to patrons or buyers of paintings, art dealers also may have influenced thepractice of signing works of art. From the beginning of the seventeenth century
onward, more and more paintings were sold by dealers rather than by their makers.
The professional art dealer was a new phenomenon in the early years of the Dutch
Republic; previously, painters, merchants, and agents had been engaged in the art
trade. In 1621, the schilderijverkopers (painting sellers) in Amsterdam joined the Guildof Saint Luke. Without this membership and the citizenship that was a prerequisite forit, they could not trade in paintings. In this city of professional art dealers, early
documented examples of this occupational designation include Guilliam Bouwens (ca.
1561–after 1627), who is called “schilderijcooper” (painting buyer) in 1625;[28] andWillem Sybrantsz. van der Bent (d. 1652), referred to as “schilderijcooper” in 1642
and, after his death in 1656, as “coopman van schilderijen” (painting merchant).[29]Hendrick Uylenburgh, who played an important role in Rembrandt’s career, firstworked in Amsterdam as “coopman” (merchant; 1627–29) before being listed as“cunsthandelaer” (art dealer; 1631, 1634), “schilderhandelaer” (painting dealer; 1636),
and “schildervercoper” (painting seller; 1637).[30] Bouwens came from Antwerp, where
the professional art trade began significantly earlier than in Amsterdam. Painters,
though, continued to trade in art as well, their winckels (shops) designated both
workshop and salesroom.
It was in the dealers’ interest that the paintings they offered bore a signature. No matter
how good, an anonymous work of art generally fetched less than one by a known
painter. Interesting in this respect are the documents relating to two flower pieces
shown to the board members of the Antwerp guild for appraisal in 1684, both signed
by Nicolaes van Verendael (1640–91). The guild’s verdict was that the works wereoriginals and could be sold as such. Four months later, Van Verendael himself
appeared in the guild hall. He had, as he testified, painted over the pieces in question
but did not consider them to be his own work; rather, he signed them because he had
had a hand in them.[31] The artist made a statement about this situation before a notary,and his desposition provides additional information. It reveals that a frame maker© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 8 of 18

involved in the art trade had obtained the two flower pieces at an early stage andshowed them to Van Verendael. The frame maker asked him to paint over them for aconsiderable fee conditioned on Van Verendael “sijnen naeme op deselve twee stucxkens
soude moeten stellen” (signing these two pieces). Initially, the painter refused to do this.
Only when the frame maker promised he would not trade the pictures in Antwerp did
Van Verendael comply. A related statement shows that the flower pieces were by theartist’s former pupil.[32]This anecdote raises the question of what value a contemporary attributed to thesignature on a painting in the Dutch Republic. Did it give him a guarantee of
autography? It does seem that owners of paintings placed their trust in signatures.
Hence, it was with good reason that the art dealer and frame maker urged Van
Verendael to sign his work. This may have also been the case with Meleager andAtalanta by Abraham Janssen (1576–1632), now in Le Havre,[33] on which the pristine
monogram “AB. I.” and, beneath it, the year “1625” came to light during restoration. In
1627, Hendrick Uylenburgh owned a painting by Janssen of this subject. Since weknow that this dealer had previously purchased art in Antwerp and that Janssen, whoworked there, rarely if ever signed his paintings, it is not implausible that this work wassigned by its maker at the buyer’s behest.[34] The signature seems to have had adifferent meaning for makers than for buyers. When artists added a signature topaintings by pupils or advanced assistants that they had painted over or retouched, thisdid not automatically mean that they considered them to be autograph works; rather,
the signature authenticated such paintings as studio pieces. Similarly, if a paintercollaborated with another artist, this was not necessarily reflected in the signature.
An interesting source providing insight into this practice is the notebook of Adriaen
van der Werff (1659–1722). This painter from Rotterdam kept meticulous records ofthe paintings he produced between 1716 and 1722. He noted the subject of eachpainting, the name of the person for whom he made the work, and how much he asked
for it. He determined the asking price on the basis of the number of dashes herecorded, whereby a dash represented a day’s work. He kept a record not only of thetime he had spent on a painting, but also of that of his brother Pieter van der Werff(1665–1722), who contributed to almost all the paintings recorded.[35] Several of theworks mentioned in the notebook can be identified with extant paintings. It is clear that
Pieter’s share in the production was not expressed in the signature. Even in the
exceptional case that Pieter spent considerably more time on a painting than his
brother, it only bore Adriaen’s name. For example, the “Shepherd with the two dancing
women” recorded in the notebook, on which Adriaen worked for nine weeks andPieter for no less than thirteen, is signed only “Chevr vr/werff. fec. 1718.”[36]The Practice of Signing in Rembrandt’s Workshop© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 9 of 18

Whereas Pieter van der Werff was an independent artist hired by his brother Adriaen,
Rembrandt’s situation was different: he was the head of a workshop in Amsterdam
with pupils and assistants. It has often been noted that Rembrandt predominantly
attracted advanced pupils, often called “disciples,” who had already completed an
apprenticeship elsewhere and who were employed by him in his production. According
to the German painter and biographer Joachim von Sandrart (1606–88), who spent
several years in Amsterdam from 1637 onward, the sale of paintings and prints by
Rembrandt’s pupils contributed significantly to his income.[37]Data on the sale of Rembrandt’s works is extremely scarce, but a note by Rembrandt
himself provides some insight. He recorded the sale of certain studio works on theback of a drawing, which can be dated around 1636. Rembrandt documented thenames “Fardynandus” and “Leendert,” as well as the subjects of three of the paintings
that were sold, namely a “Flora,” a “Vaandeldrager” (standard-bearer), and an“Abraham.” Rembrandt also noted several prices, including five guilders for which hehad sold “Leenderts floorae.”[38] This and other recorded prices do not indicate drawn
copies, as is sometimes assumed, but rather paintings: a drawing would not have soldfor more than one guilder in those days. Because paintings by Rembrandt of the above
subjects from 1634, 1635, and 1636 are known, the pieces mentioned in the note aremost likely painted copies or variants made by pupils after examples by the master.
Whether these works were signed is not known.
The fact that Rembrandt included on the back of this drawing the names of his pupils
who made these paintings could indicate that he sold them not under his own name but
as works made by advanced pupils under his supervision. “Fardynandus” refers to
Ferdinand Bol (1616–80) and “Leendert” to Leendert van Beijeren (1619–48), both ofwhom are documented as Rembrandt’s disciples shortly after the mid-1630s. The 1638
inventory of Leendert’s father’s estate mentions paintings of “Flora” and “Abrahams
Offerhande” (Abrahams’s Sacrifice)—the latter described as “groot” (large)—and
three more pieces “naer Rembrandt gecopieert” (copied after Rembrandt). The
relatively low price paid for such studio work must mean the buyers knew that thesepieces—signed or not—were absolutely not by the master himself.
Whether the paintings by Rembrandt’s pupils that he sold, as his note on the back of
the drawing indicates, were signed and, if so, how cannot be determined with certainty.
A Rembrandt signature can be found on assorted painted copies and variants based on
prototypes by the artist and, for various reasons, considered to be apprentice works
made in his workshop.[39] This is the case with the Portrait of Rembrandt in Oriental
Dress in The Leiden Collection attributed to Isaac de Jouderville (fig 10). However,the signature “Rembrandt ft. 1641” on that work was added later, probably after 1818.
An auction catalogue of that year, where the painting was recorded for the first time
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 10 of 18

with a detailed description, does not mention a signature.[40] This painting was copiedin Rembrandt’s workshop after his Self-Portrait in Oriental Dress with a Spanish Water
Dog, which is signed “Rembrant. f 1631.”[41] The copy was made before the painterintroduced the dog in the prototype, between 1631 and 1633, and therefore not in
1641, as the signature on the copy would have us believe.
If a signature forms an inextricable part of the painted image, then the act of signing isdirectly connected to the genesis of the painting. This is evident when the signature isplaced in the wet paint, as in the undated Bust of a Young Bearded Man from ca.
1656–58 in The Leiden Collection (fig 11). Yet even if it can be established that asignature is part of the genesis of a painting, this does not clarify whether Rembrandt
signed solely his own work or also pictures wholly or partly made by his workshop
assistants. Looking for an answer to this question, it is interesting to consider the
exploratory research of the handwriting experts of the Dutch Forensic Laboratory.[42]They subjected the signatures on 88 paintings from the period 1632–42, 15 of which
are signed “RHL van Rijn” and 73 “Rembrant” or “Rembrandt,” to a comparative
handwriting analysis. The first group was too small to draw any conclusions. Of thesecond group, they considered the signature to be autograph in only 23 cases. As theexamination was based on photographs, they took no account of the actual size of thesignature or its material condition. The conclusions of the forensic research werecompared to the Rembrandt Research Project’s (RRP) views on the attributions of thepaintings in question. It emerged that three paintings with a signature recognized as
autograph by the handwriting experts were, according to the RRP, not by Rembrandt,
but probably made in his workshop—which goes to support the idea that Rembrandt
did sign pictures executed by or with help from his assistants.[43]In their publication, the forensic handwriting analysts point out that art historians withlittle expert knowledge of handwriting should be cautious in assessing signatures on
paintings. Nevertheless, for example, we deem the signature on one painting attributed
to Rembrandt’s workshop (possiby Ferdinand Bol), the Man in Oriental Costume in The
Leiden Collection (fig 12), a copy after a prototype by Rembrandt in Chatsworth
House (ca. 1639), as not autograph.[44] The very regularly formed and spaced lettersdeviate too much from the handwriting that is qualified as autograph by the
handwriting experts. With the information available to us, it is not possible todetermine by whom and when the painting was signed.
The examination of the signatures by the forensic handwriting experts proved
innovative, but it left many questions unresolved. They chose to examine the signatures
according to their own methodology, analyzing the signatures as if they were writtenwith pencil or pen, rather than painted, and without any knowledge of the paintings
that could influence their results. And while it would be interesting to continue this© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 11 of 18

kind of investigation, some conclusions must be drawn from the exploratory research
about the way in which a signature on a painting should be examined. First, whenassessing signatures, differences between those painted with a brush and those writtenwith a pen or pencil should be taken into account. Moreover, the handwriting experts’assessment was based on photographs of the signatures and disregarded all kinds of
relevant information, such as the size of the signature, its place in the painting, themanner of application—for example in the wet paint or only after the work wascompleted—and the condition of the painting, often worn or worked up. A forensic
handwriting investigation should be integrated with art historical research andcombined with the expertise of other specialists, including painting conservators.
Only then would it be useful to reexamine the signature on Rembrandt’s The Anatomy
Lesson of Dr Nicolaes Tulp (1632),[45] for example, which the handwriting experts put
forward as an example of an inauthentic signature because the letters deviate fromthose of signatures considered trustworthy. The signature on this painting, however, isintegrated into the scene: it is placed on a roll of paper hanging on the back wall, which
may help to explain the different writing. Something similar happens to the signatureon other Rembrandt paintings such as Susanna and the Elders (fig 13) in Berlin, in
which the signature is placed at an angle so that it follows the perspective of thepainting. This phenomenon also occurs in early paintings by Rembrandt withmonograms integrated in the scene, as in the case of the Unconscious Patient (Allegoryof Smell) (fig 9) and the Portrait of Marten Looten (fig 1).

At What Point Did an Artist Sign?
A fascinating aspect of Rembrandt’s art is his creative process, especially the changes
he made in the course of executing his works. The complex genesis of Susanna and theElders (fig 13), for example, can be clearly discerned, informed by drawings, written
sources, and technical research. This documentation also provides us with an
exceptionally good sense of the time span of the painting’s entire creation process.
Rembrandt began this ambitious work in the 1630s and changed it drastically over theyears. It must have been completed in some form in 1642, when his wife, Saskia, died,because it is mentioned in a document relating to her estate. But Rembrandt thencontinued to work on the painting until as late as 1647, when he sold it to Adriaen
Banck for 500 guilders, as indicated in a statement by the latter. The year 1647 is also
inscribed with the painting’s signature, which may therefore indicate both the date ofits completion and the time it was sold and left the workshop.[46]In the case of the Portrait of Petronella Buys in The Leiden Collection (fig 14), too, it
is highly likely that the date 1635 accompanying the signature refers to the moment
when it left Rembrandt’s workshop. An inscription on the back of the painting, applied© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 12 of 18

later in the seventeenth century, reads: “Jonckvr. Petronella Buijs: sijne Huijsvr. Naer
dato getrout aen de Hr. Borgerm. Cardon” (Jonkvrouw Petronella Buijs, . his [Philips
Lucasz] wife/ after this married to Burgomaster Cardon). The term Jonkvrouw refers
to her unmarried status. She must, therefore, have sat for Rembrandt before 27 August
1634, the day she wed Philips Lucasz in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam. The pendant
depicting her husband would have also been created in the same period.[47] The year
would have been applied when both portraits were completed or delivered, about theexact date of which there is no certainty. Although the couple left for the East Indies
on 2 May 1635, the portraits were not intended for the sitters themselves, but rather
Petronella’s sister and brother-in-law, in whose possession they are mentioned in 1653
and 1655.[48]The year inscribed with the signature usually marks the end of the creation process, but
this does not always seem to be the case. Rembrandt signed his Self-Portrait in Oriental
Dress with a Spanish Water Dog “Rembrant.f . . . 1631” upon completion after having
added the dog. However, the spelling “Rembrant” does not appear on other works fromthe year 1631. This spelling of the name does occur a little later, namely in 1632 and
1633. Due to the Self-Portrait signature’s close resemblance to that on a painting signed
and dated 1633, the Rembrandt Research Project concluded that Rembrandt did notsign the Self-Portrait in 1631; rather, they propose he added the signature in 1633 after
the addition of the dog.[49] Rembrandt would thus have antedated the Self-Portrait to1631, in all probability the year it was finished in the form copied in Rembrandt’s
workshop as the Portrait of Rembrandt in Oriental Dress (fig 10) in The Leiden
Collection.[50]As Rembrandt’s Self-Portrait attests, the presence of the artist’s signature, whether or
not accompanied by a date, is just one thread in a complex web of clues about thecircumstances of a seventeenth-century painting’s production. The twenty paintings in
The Leiden Collection that can be attributed to Rembrandt and his workshop not onlyreflect the high percentage of signed works in Rembrandt’s oeuvre but also afford
great insight into the various signature forms he used throughout his career. More
broadly, the signatures of Rembrandt and his contemporaries reflect a wide range ofcustoms and forms of signing works of art. The study of signatures can provide insightnot only into the practices of individual artists and their workshop production but also
into the requirements of their clients and art dealers.

Translated by Katy Kist and Jennifer Kilian- Michiel Franken and Jaap van der Veen, 2022

© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 13 of 18

Endnotes
1. The authors would like to thank Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. and Lara Yeager-Crasselt for their criticalcomments and useful additions to a first version of this contribution.
The number twenty is based on the paintings in The Leiden Collection Catalogue designated as being by
Rembrandt and/or his workshop as of June 2022: seventeen under the heading of Rembrandt, two as
Workshop/Studio of Rembrandt (RR-125, JL-106), and one as Isaac de Jouderville (IJ-100). See
Appendix for a complete list of Leiden Collection works with Rembrandt signatures.
2. Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited: A Complete Survey (Dordrecht, 2017). These
257 signed paintings do not include those with signatures that were added later.
3. Ann Jensen Adams, “Rembrandt f[ecit]: The Italic Signature and the Commodification of Artistic
Identity,” in Künstlerischer Austausch = Artistic Exchange: Akten des XXVIII. Internationalen Kongresses
für Kunstgeschichte, Berlin, 15.–20. Juli 1992 (Berlin, 1993), 2: 581–94, esp. 588n6, refers to one signed
painting by Rubens dated 1613 and four dated 1614.
4. As far as the authors are aware, there is no specific literature on the differences in the practice ofsigning between Flemish and Dutch painters. However, the relative rarity of signatures on Flemish
paintings can be observed not only in works by Rubens but also in those of other Flemish painters, suchas Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641), Jacob Jordaens (1593–1678), Gonzales Coques (1614/18–1684),
and Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613–1654).
5. KarelvanMander,Hetschilder-boeck(Haarlem,1604),

fol.

211–15,

http://dbnl.org/tekst/mand001schi01_01/. For an English translation, see Karel van Mander, The Livesof the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters, from the First Edition of the“Schilder-Boeck” (1603–1604), 6 vols., ed. Hessel Miedema (Doornspijk, 1994–99).
6. Walter L. Strauss and Marjon van der Meulen, The Rembrandt Documents (New York, 1979), doc.
1630/2; document/remdoc/e1654.
7. One of many possible examples is the inventory of his possessions drawn up by Jan Jansz Orlers in
1640, which includes seven works by “Mr. Coenraet.” Orlers is known as Rembrandt’s first biographer.
8. Erfgoed Leiden en omstreken, notary M. Tersijden, ONA 575, deed 31, 17 March 1645. The sameentry is found in deed 33, 20 March 1645, a virtually identical deed in which the valuation of theportrait is lowered from 20 to 15 guilders.
9. Reinier van ’t Zelfde, “Rembrandts naam en faam,” RKD Bulletin 2012, no. 2 (2012): 213–16.
10. “Een tronitgen van rembrant 29 [guilders]” (a tronie by Rembrandt 29 [guilders]); Utrecht, Het Utrechts
Archief, Huydecoper Family Archive, inv. no. 30, fol. 5v, 10/15 June 1628, document/remdoc/e4385.
11. Huygens wrote his autobiography, which he called “De Vita Propria” (“My Own Life”), in 1629–30,
introducing the two painters as follows: “Priori, quem acupictoris filium dicebam, Ioanni Livio, alteri,© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 14 of 18

cuius a moletrinâ prosapiam derivavi, Rembrantio nomen est.” (“The name of the first one, who, as I was
saying, was the son of an embroider, is Joannes Lievens; the other, from the miller’s family,
Rembrandt.” Or, translated literally, “Rembrandt is the name.”) See Alan Chong, ed., Rembrandt Creates
Rembrandt: Art and Ambition in Leiden, 1629–1631 (Exh. cat. Boston, Isabella Stewart Gardner
Museum) (Zwolle, 2000), 134–36.
12. Other seventeenth-century painters also sometimes included a place name in a signature on a painting,either written out in full or abbreviated by a letter. The place can refer to the city where the painter wasborn, as in signatures by Cornelius Jonson (1593–1661), who indicated in two portraits that he camefrom London. It can also refer to the place where the painting was made or the painter’s place ofresidence, as in the case of signatures by Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem (1562–1638).
13. For a detailed overview of Rembrandt’s signatures, see Josua Bruyn, “A Descriptive Survey of the
Signatures,” in A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 1, 1625–1631, Josua Bruyn et al., Stichting
Foundation Rembrandt Research Project (The Hague, 1982), 53–59; “A Selection of Signatures
1632–1634,” in A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 2, 1631–1634, Josua Bruyn et al., Stichting
Foundation Rembrandt Research Project (Dordrecht, 1986), 99–106; and “A Selection of Signatures,
1635–1642,” in A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 3, 1635–1642, Josua Bruyn et al., Stichting
Foundation Rembrandt Research Project (The Hague, 1989), 51–56.
14. Ann Jensen Adams “Rembrandt f[ecit]: The Italic Signature and the Commodification of Artistic
Identity,” in Künstlerischer Austausch = Artistic Exchange: Akten des XXVIII. Internationalen Kongresses
für Kunstgeschichte, Berlin, 15.–20. Juli 1992 (Berlin, 1993), 2: 581–94, esp. 585–86.
15. In his Leiden years, Rembrandt placed his signature on 40 out of 58 paintings, or approximately 70
percent, whereas Lievens did so on 40 out of 146 paintings, or less than 30 percent. The latter
percentage was calculated on the basis of documentation in Bernhard Schnackenburg, Jan Lievens:
Friend and Rival of the Young Rembrandt (Petersberg, 2016).
16. The extant works from the series include Rembrandt’s Spectacles Seller (Allegory of Sight), ca.
1624 (Museum De Lakenhal, Leiden, inv. no. S 5697); and three works in The Leiden Collection, Stone
Operation (Allegory of Touch), ca. 1624–25 (RR-102), Three Musicians (Allegory of Hearing), ca.
1624–25 (RR-105), and Unconscious Patient (Allegory of Smell), ca. 1624–25 (RR-111).
17. Rembrandt van Rijn, The Ascension of Christ, 1636; The Resurrection, 1639; and The Adoration of theShepherds, 1646 (Alte Pinakothek, Munich, inv. nos. 398, 397, and 393).
18. Rembrandt van Rijn, Old Woman Praying, ca. 1629–30 (Residenzgalerie, Salzburg, inv. no. 549).
19. Rembrandt van Rijn, Laughing Man, ca. 1629–30 (Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 598).
20. Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-Portrait, 1630, signed “R[..] 1630” (Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, inv. no.
NM 5324).
21. Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited: A Complete Survey (Dordrecht, 2017), 497.
22. Huigen Leeflang and Pieter Roelofs, Hercules Segers: Painter, Etcher (Exh. cat. Amsterdam,
Rijksmuseum; New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art) (Amsterdam, 2016), 1: cat. nos. P2, P7, P8,© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 15 of 18

P11, and P14. Initially, the painter called himself Herkeles or Hercules Pietersz, later Hercules Segers.
Various inventories from the seventeenth century mention landscapes by “Harkelis,” “Hercles,” or“Harculus” without a patronymic or last name.
23. The most recent study is Tobias Burg, Die Signatur: Formen und Funktionen vom Mittelalter bis zum 17.
Jahrhundert (Berlin, 2007), esp. 521–41. See also Josua Bruyn, “A Descriptive Survey of the
Signatures,” in A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 1, 1625–1631, Josua Bruyn et al., Stichting
Foundation Rembrandt Research Project (The Hague, 1982), 53–59; Ann Jensen Adams, “Rembrandt
f[ecit]: The Italic Signature and the Commodification of Artistic Identity,” in Künstlerischer Austausch =Artistic Exchange: Akten des XXVIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Berlin, 15.–20. Juli
1992 (Berlin, 1993), 2: 581–94; Jaap van der Veen, “By His Own Hand: The Valuation of Autograph
Paintings in the 17th Century,” in A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 4, Self-Portraits, Ernst van deWetering et al., Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project (Dordrecht, 2005), 3–44, esp. 10–17
and 27–29 and doc. 15 and 30a–c; and Anna Tummers, The Eye of the Connoisseur: Authenticating
Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries (Los Angeles, 2011), 92–97.
24. The passage reads that “gepermitteerde Meesters” (registered masters) were not allowed “eenige vreemde,of ook inwoonende persoonen, op tytels als discipulen, ofte voor haar schilderende, en echter van haarhandelinge niet zynde, ende haar eygen naam teekende, aan te houden, ofte in het werk te stellen,” S.
Muller Fz., Schilders-vereenigingen te Utrecht (Utrecht, 1880), 76. This means that masters registeredwith the guild were not allowed to retain or work with foreign artists, nor with artists lodging with them
who were known to be “disciples” or who painted for them but did not work in their style and signedwith their own names.
25. Rudi E.O. Ekkart, “De praktijk van de portrettist in de Gouden Eeuw,” in Dutch Portraits: The Age of
Rembrandt and Frans Hals; Hollanders in Beeld, portretten uit de Gouden Eeuw, Rudi E.O. Ekkart andQuentin Buvelot (Exh. cat. London, National Gallery; The Hague, Mauritshuis) (Zwolle, 2007), 49–63,
esp. 60–61 about signatures.
26. Rudi E.O. Ekkart, Portrettisten en portretten. Studies over portretkunst in Holland, 1575–1650 (PhD diss.,
University of Amsterdam, 1997), stelling 5.
27. J. Soutendam, “Eenige aanteekeningen betreffende Delftsche schilders, getrokken uit de ‘Lopende
Memorialen van Burgemeesters van Delft,’ van 1601–1668, en andere bronnen,” De Nederlandsche
Spectator (1870): 443–45, 452–53, and 457–58, esp. 443. A follow-up commission for three otherportraits from 1624 also required him to “met sijn eyge naem sal teyckenen” (sign with his own name);
see J.J. Terwen, “Het stadhuis van Hendrik de Keyser,” in Delftse Studiën (Assen, 1967), 168n30. Anita
Jansen, Rudi E.O. Ekkart, and Johanneke Verhave, De portretfabriek van Michiel van Mierevelt(1566–1641) (Exh. cat. Delft, Museum het Prinsenhof) (Zwolle, 2011), cat. no. 5. A work contracted to
the Antwerp painter Pieter Ykens in 1695 involved two paintings that he was to execute himself andupon completion “synen naem ende toenaem daer op te setten” (place his name on it); Erik Duverger,
Antwerpse kunstinventarissen uit de zeventiende eeuw (Brussels, 1984–2002), 12: 362–63, doc. 4187.
28. Nicolaas de Roever, “Drie Amsterdamsche schilders (Pieter Isaaksz, Abraham Vinck, Cornelis van der© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 16 of 18

Voort),” Oud Holland 3 (1885): 171–208, esp. 197.
29. Amsterdam, Stadsarchief, Archief van de Schepenen (5062), inv. no. 39, fol. 98v, 28 March 1642;
Amsterdam, Stadsarchief, Archief van de Notarissen (5075), notary H. Schaeff, inv. no. 1306, fol. 2v-3,
8 January 1656.
30. Friso Lammertse and Jaap van der Veen, Uylenburgh en Zoon: Kunst en commercie van Rembrandt tot De
Lairesse 1625–1675 (Zwolle, 2006), 45–54.
31. Jaap van der Veen, “By His Own Hand: The Valuation of Autograph Paintings in the 17th Century,” in
A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 4, Self-Portraits, Ernst van de Wetering et al., Stichting
Foundation Rembrandt Research Project (Dordrecht, 2005), 3–44, esp. 15.
32. Erik Duverger, Antwerpse kunstinventarissen uit de zeventiende eeuw (Brussels,1984–2002), 11: 206, doc.
3,615, and 206–7, doc. 3,616.
33. Abraham Janssen, Meleager and Atalante, 1625 (Musée d’art modern André Malraux, Le Havre,
France).
34. Friso Lammertse and Jaap van der Veen, “Hendrick en Gerrit Uylenburgh, oud en nieuw (2),” Kroniek
van het Rembrandthuis, no. 1–2 (2008): 54–63, esp. 54–56.
35. Barbara Gaehtgens, Adriaen van der Werff 1659–1722 (Munich, 1987), 442–44.
36. Adriaen van der Werff and Pieter van der Werff, Nymphs Dancing to a Pipe-Playing Shepherd, 1718
(Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 1945).
37. Joachim von Sandrart, Teutsche Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste, Nuremberg 1679), 2:
326, http://ta.sandrart.net/-text-552; document/remdoc/e14097.
38. Rembrandt van Rijn, Susanna and the Elders, ca. 1634–37 (Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin, inv. no. KdZ5296). Inscription on the verso of the drawing: “verkost syn vaendraeger synde
15.-.-/ [e]en flora verhandelt 4. 6.-/ fardinandus van syn werck verhandelt/ aen ander werck van synvoorneemen/ den Abraham een floorae/ Leenderts floorae is verhandelt tegen 5.-.-.” ([I have sold] hisstandard bearer [for] 15.-.-/ Sold a “For a” 4. 6.- / Sold a work of Ferdinand [Bol]/ and another of his/
The “Abraham” and “Flora”/ Sold Leendert [van Beyeren’s]/ “Flora” 5.-.-); Holm Bevers, Rembrandt.
Die Zeichnungen im Berliner Kupferstichkabinett (Berlin, 2006), 82–85; document/remdoc/e13493.
39. Michiel Franken, “Learning by Imitation: Copying Paintings in Rembrandt’s Workshop,” in Rembrandt:
Quest of a Genius, ed. Ernst van de Wetering (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Museum Het Rembrandthuis;
Berlin, Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin) (Zwolle, 2006), 153–77.
40. Catalogue d’une collection précieuse, et du plus beau choix, de tableaux des trois écoles . . . après le décèsde Mme. Le Rouge, Paris, 27 April 1818, no. 46, as by Rembrandt.
41. Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-Portrait in Oriental Dress with a Spanish Water Dog, 1631 (Petit Palais, Paris,
inv. no. PDUT925).
42. Wiebo Froentjes, Huub J.J. Hardy, and Rita ter Kuile-Haller, “Een schriftkundig onderzoek van
Rembrandt signaturen,” Oud Holland 105 (1991): 185–208; and Huub J.J. Hardy, Wiebo Froentjes, and© 2024 The Leiden Collection

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 17 of 18

Rita ter Kuile-Haller, “A Comparative Analysis of Rembrandt Signatures,” in Künstlerischer Austausch =Artistic Exchange: Akten des XXVIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Berlin, 15.–20. Juli
1992 (Berlin, 1993), 2: 595–606.
43. Portrait of a Young Man in a Hat, 1634 (Hermitage, St Petersburg, inv. no. ГЭ-725; in Abraham
Bredius, Rembrandt: Schilderijen [Utrecht, 1935], no. 196; Josua Bruyn et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt
Paintings, vol. 2, 1631–1634, Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project [The Hague, 1986],
C78, as workshop of Rembrandt; Ernst Van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s Paintings Revisited: A Complete
Survey [Dordrecht, 2017], no. 105, as Rembrandt and workshop); Self-Portrait, 1635 (The National
Trust, United Kingdom, inv. no. 810136; in Bredius, 25; Josua Bruyn et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt
Paintings, vol. 3, 1635–1642, Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project [The Hague, 1989], C
92, as Rembrandt’s workshop; Ernst van de Wetering et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol.
4, Self-Portraits, Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project [Dordrecht, 2005], 232–38, 604, asRembrandt’s workshop [or Rembrandt?]; Van de Wetering 2017, no. 134, as Rembrandt and possibly
his workshop); and Man in Oriental Clothing, 1635 (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-3340, in
Bredius, 206; Corpus, vol. 3, 1635–1642, C 101, as workshop of Rembrandt; Van de Wetering 2017, no.
141, as Rembrandt).
44. For more on this signature, see the entry Man in Oriental Costume (possibly the Old Testament PatriarchDan) by Lara Yeager-Crasselt in this catalogue, n27.
45. Rembrandt van Rijn, The Anatomy Lesson of Dr Nicolaes Tulp, 1632 (Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no.
146).
46. Ernst van de Wetering et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 5, Small-Scale History Paintings,
Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project (Dordrecht, 2011), no. V-1.
47. Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of Philip Lucasz, 1635 (National Gallery, London, inv. no. NG850).
48. Walter L. Strauss and Marjon van der Meulen, The Rembrandt Documents (New York, 1979), doc.
1653/4 (document/remdoc/e4626); doc. 1655/5 (document/remdoc/e4682).
49. Josua Bruyn et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 1, 1625–1631, Stichting Foundation
Rembrandt Research Project (The Hague, 1982), A 40.
50. The same phenomenon can be found in two retouched impressions of the second and the sixth state of
the etching Self-Portrait in a Soft Hat and Embroided Cloak (Bartsch 7) in the British Museum, London(1842,0806.134) and the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris (Réserve CB-13, A,1-Boîte Écu). The artist
signed and dated both sheets in black chalk: “Rembrandt” and “1631.” Both sheets bear the inscription“AET 27,” and in both the “7” is changed into a “4.” Rembrandt backdated the sheets in the British
Museum and the Bibliothèque Nationale by about two years, from 1633–34, when he was 27 years old,to 1631. This explains why the artist’s age is corrected in both from “27” (1633–34) to “24” (1630–31).
See Erik Hinterding and Jaco Rutgers, Rembrandt: The New Hollstein Dutch and Flemish Etchings,
Engravings and Woodcuts 1450–1700 (Ouderkerk aan den IJssel, 2013), 1: no. 90.

© 2024 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

The Signing of Paintings by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries
Page 18 of 18

Appendix
Signed Rembrandt Paintings in The Leiden Collection
1. Rembrandt van Rijn, Unconscious Patient (Allegory of Smell), signed in monogram on the upper right ofthe center panel: “RHF”
2. Rembrandt van Rijn, Young Girl in a Gold-Trimmed Cloak, signed and dated in dark paint along thebackground, center right: “RHL van Rijn / 1632”
3. Rembrandt van Rijn, Bust of a Bearded Old Man, signed and dated along top: “Rembrandt 1633”
4. Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of a Man in a Red Coat, signed and dated in light brown paint, lower right:“Rembrandt. fec. / 1633.”
5. Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of a Young Woman (“The Middendorf Rembrandt”), signed and dated atlower left: “Rembrant f. / 1633”
6. Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-Portrait with Shaded Eyes, signed and dated in dark paint, lower right quadrant:“Rembrandt. f. / 1634”
7. Rembrandt van Rijn and Workshop, Portrait of Antonie Coopal, signed and dated in dark paint, lower
right: “Rembrandt. ft (followed by three dots set as a triangle)/ 1635”
8. Rembrandt van Rijn, Minerva in Her Study, signed and dated in dark paint, centered along left edge:“Rembrandt. f / 1635”
9. Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of Petronella Buys (1605–1670), signed and dated at lower left:“Rembrandt·f. 1635″
10. Rembrandt van Rijn and Workshop, Man with a Sword, signed and dated at lower right: “Rembrandt·f.
1644”
11. Workshop of Rembrandt van Rijn (possibly Ferdinand Bol), Man in Oriental Costume (possibly the Old
Testament Patriarch Dan), signed and dated in dark paint, lower left: “Rembrandt : / f. 164(1?)”
12. Rembrandt van Rijn, Bust of a Young Bearded Man, signed in dark paint, center right: “Rembrandt f”
13. Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of a Seated Women with Her Hands Clasped, signed and dated at centerright: “Rembrandt f. 1660”© 2024 The Leiden Collection