© 2024 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 ofnarrow horizontally oriented lower plank:“G.flinck.f.1643”
GF-103

How to cite
Van Tuinen, Ilona. “Self-Portrait” (2017). 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 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.

© 2024 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 3 of 12

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

Comparative Figures

Govaert Flinck painted himself in 1643, at age twenty-eight, facing slightly to theright with his right arm leaning on a brown ledge and his eyes directed straight at theviewer. He wears a gold-trimmed velvet mantle over a low-cut jerkin, and a white,high-collared vest whose frilled edges are visible below his neck and at his wrist. His
shoulder-length, ginger-colored hair flows out from under his velvet beret. Around hisneck, partially concealed by his mantle, hangs a chain.
Flinck’s assuredness of execution is comparable to that of his appearance. He

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

modeled the face with bold, patchy brushstrokes, while accenting his proper rightcheek and the rim of his nose with pink highlights. He provided a warm, rich tone forthe hair, the moustache, and the area around his proper left eye by allowing the ochercolored ground to remain exposed. Flinck executed the brocaded trim of his mantle
with bravura, generously dappling the upper right shoulder with yellow and whitehighlights, while merely outlining the shaded areas of trim in yellow, with only anoccasional 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 a portrait 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: thisone and one dated 1639 in the National Gallery, London.[1] He also drew his self[2]portrait in 1643 (fig 2).

As scholars have frequently noted, Flinck based hiscompelling 1643 Self-Portrait on two of Rembrandt’s self-portraits: his etched SelfPortrait Leaning on a Stone Sill of 1639 (fig 3) and his painted 1640 Self-Portrait at

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

the Age of 34 at the National Gallery, London (fig 4).[3] Rembrandt’s iconic andhighly 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 inspiration from Raphael’s
Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione of ca. 1514–15 and Titian’s Portrait of Gerolamo (?)
Barbarigo of ca. 1510, both of which were in Amsterdam in 1639 in the collection of
Alfonzo Lopez.[5] Nevertheless, in each instance, Rembrandt portrayed himself infanciful early sixteenth-century Northern European fashion, known to him throughthe 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 drawn to
his master’s models for their bold self-representation.
Flinck based the diagonal slant of his beret on Rembrandt’s etched self-portrait, but,following Rembrandt’s painting, he positioned himself facing right. As in the master’s

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© 2024 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 4 of 12

self-portraits, Flinck portrayed himself wearing a shirt with conspicuous frills and ajerkin, both which reflect early sixteenth-century fashion.[7] Unlike Rembrandt,
however, he did not depict himself wearing a cross hanging from the gold chain
around his neck. Such a cross would have been anathema to Flinck who, in the early
1640s, had important contacts among the Amsterdam Anabaptist elite. He would later
become a member of the Remonstrant community.[8]When the painting was auctioned at Christie’s in London in 1943, it was presented
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 attributed to Rembrandt,
one thought to be a self-portrait and the other a portrait of his wife, Saskia.[10] Afterthe 1943 auction, Flinck’s signature was discovered on the present painting during a
conservation treatment, and in 1953 it was exhibited in London as a Portrait ofFig 4. Rembrandt van Rijn, SelfPortrait at Age 34, 1640, oil on canvas,
102 x 80 cm, National Gallery,
London, inv. no. NG672, © National
Gallery, London / Art Resource, NY

Rembrandt by Flinck.[11] In 1980 Bas Dudok van Heel recognized Flinck’s likeness bycomparing the image to the artist’s self-portrait in his 1648 group portrait Civic
Guardsmen of 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 thefemale 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 auctioned at
Sotheby’s in London.[14] At that time Flinck’s mantle and beret were black. When thepainting was restored in 1986–87, the uppermost black layer was determined to be alater addition and it was removed, leaving the burgundy undermodeling over a freely
executed black sketch that is visible today.

[15]

Subsequently, when Dutch conservatorPeter Hermesdorf examined the painting in 1988, he concluded that the mantle andFig 5. Govaert Flinck, Portrait of a
Woman (Ingetje Thovelingh?), ca.
1645, oil on panel, 71 x 52 cm,
formerly private collection, Munich

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. This conclusion isfurther reinforced by the finished state of the face and hair. Hence, it is quite likelythat the mantle and beret were originally black, and that this paint layer was removed
at some earlier date.[17]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, is whether the bottom, horizontal
plank, which extends the parapet on which the sitter’s arm rests, was original toFig 6. X-radiograph of GF-103

Flinck’s composition or added later. A copy of the painting, which was with theLondon art dealer Ronald Cook in the mid-1970s, and which depicts the sitter with a© 2024 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 5 of 12

black beret and black mantle, does not include this lower portion of the painting (fig7).[18] This fact, along with some technical evidence, seems to suggest that thehorizontal 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 copy of thepainting has a rectangular format, which was also the original format of theRembrandt self-portraits that inspired Flinck when making this work.[20] Hence, it
seems probable that the arched top was a later revision to the painting. At the time thepainting’s shape was changed, the background was apparently overpainted.[21] The
current greenish layer, which covers a more freely brushed background paint, extends
over the curved upper edge of the panel.[22]Regardless of the painting’s complex and confusing display of various paint stages
and later additions, the areas around Flinck’s face, shirt, and brocaded trim

Fig 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 from an RKD(Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische
Documentatie/Netherlands Institutefor Art History) photo mount)demonstrate his impressive abilities as an artist. Moreover, the lush, fluid
undermodeling in the beret and mantle provide a unique insight into his painting
practice.

- Ilona van Tuinen, 2017

© 2024 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 the SeventeenthCentury: 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 ofArt) (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, see Marieke deWinkel, 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 inwhich his wife died, see the artist’s biography in this catalogue. For the discussion of chains in
Rembrandt’s self-portraits, see Marieke de Winkel, Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in
Rembrandt’s Paintings (Amsterdam, 2006), 168–69. De Winkel notes that chains worn around theshoulders 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 Cavalli-Björkman (Exh. cat. Stockholm,
Nationalmuseum) (Stockholm, 1992), 258, no. 87.
10. See the auction catalogue of Christie’s London, 16 July 1943, nos. 106–7.
© 2024 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 7 of 12

11. See the note provided by Noortman Master Paintings, on file at the Leiden Collection, in which theymention 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 in which 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 the black paint extended over areas ofpaint loss and was soluble. Toward the end of the restoration, conservation scientist Nicholas Eastaugh
was called in to examine the painting to take selective paint samples. My thanks to Tim Warner Johnson
at Colnaghi for forwarding to me, in November 2011, Eastaugh’s report, dated 10 February 1987; toSimon Howell at RMS Shepherd Associates (Shepherd Conservation Ltd.) in Wimbledon for sendingme 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 for communicating histhoughts in November 2011. Both reports and the photographs are on file at the Leiden Collection.
16. Thanks to Eddy Schavemaker, e-mail correspondence in November 2011, for informing me that thepainting 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 formaking note of Hermesdorf’s letter to Noortman, dated 23 December 1988, stating: “Het bijzondere vandit schilderij is, dat het niet voltooid werd, met name in de mantel 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 wasremoved 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), 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 thepanel. Sumowski suggested that the painting was a nineteenth-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 never with 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,© 2024 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 8 of 12

2: 1035, no. 680, 1112. See also Ariane van Suchtelen, “Govert Flinck: Self-Portrait Aged 24,” inRembrandt by Himself, ed. Christopher White and Quentin Buvelot (Exh. cat. London, National Galleryof Art; The Hague, Mauritshuis) (Zwolle, 1999–2001), 254 n. 310, who adopts Sumowski’s suggestionthat 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 thehorizontal plank were inconsistent with those taken from the rest of the painting. It is, however, notclear whether later retouching plays a role in these results. See also the Technical Summary for thiswork, in which Annette Rupprecht notes that the paint of the sleeve that extends onto the horizontal
panel demonstrates a different kind of transparency in the infrared than the paint above the join.
Dendrochronological analysis of the painting has not clarified this problem. The painting was researchedby 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 the bottom
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-portrait fromrectangular to arched, see David Bomford, ed., “Rembrandt: Self-Portrait at the Age of 34,” inRembrandt: 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” andconcluded that these areas are not original. Annette Rupprecht, however, did not find any evidence of
this during visual examination of the ruff under magnification and under UV light. Indeed, the handlingof the paint in the areas of white, for example, the shirt, appears to be entirely comparable to thehandling 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 the edges of theupper part of the panel are jagged. He also noted the curved lines above and to the right of Flinck’s
head, which extend to the upper edge of the panel and suggest that the format may in fact once havebeen taller. See the notes dated 1 December 2011 by the present author of a meeting held at the Leiden
Collection on 18 November 2011, kept on file at 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 ground or the lower paint layers. The lines, which appear to have been applied with ablunt object or a finger, do not correspond to any elements in the background in its current state.

Provenance© 2024 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 9 of 12

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 [toEdward Speelman, London for £315]).
Sir Charles Clore (1904–79), London (his sale, Sotheby’s, London, 11 December 1985, no. 62 [toColnaghi, 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 [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].

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,
© 2024 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 10 of 12

plate 48.
Linnik, Irina. Gollandskaia zhivopisʹ 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 aande 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.
Lootsma, Hilbert. “Tracing a Pose: Govert Flinck and the Emergence of the van Dyckian Mode ofPortraiture in Amsterdam,” Simiolus 33, no. 4 (2007/2008), 235–36, fig. 18.
Van der Molen, Tom. “How nature fears the painter who gave life to his canvases: Poems on the life andwork of Govert Flinck.” In Govert Flinck – Reflecting History. Edited by Tom van der Molen andValentina Vlasic, 38. Exh. cat. Kleve, Museum Kurhaus Kleve. Kleve, 2015.
Gottwald, Franziska. “Tronies in Govert Flinck’s oeuvre – Fantasy portrayal versus mimetic
representation.” In Govert Flinck – Reflecting History. Edited by Tom van der Molen and Valentina
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© 2024 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 11 of 12

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 fromThe Leiden Collection. Exh. cat. Shanghai, Long Museum, West Bund. Shanghai, 2017, 76.
Yeager-Crasselt, Lara. “Self-Portrait.” In The Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer: Masterpieces of The
Leiden Collection. Edited by Polina Lyubimova, 222–23; 248, no. 48. Translated by Daria Babich andDaria Kuzina. Exh. cat. Moscow, The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts; St. Petersburg, The State
Hermitage Museum. Moscow, 2018.
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.

Technical Summary
The support is a composite panel composed of four planks of Baltic oak: three vertically grained andvertically oriented planks that form a rectangular shape with an arched upper edge and one narrowhorizontally grained and horizontally oriented rectangular plank attached to the lower edges of the threevertical planks.[1] Fine diagonal tool marks along the composite panel reverse indicate it was thinned prior tobeing 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 tobe 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 executedwith opaque paint with a high level of finish, and areas of detail along the brocade border of the jacket’s edge
have been applied in low impasto.
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 ofthe original structure of the painting. Dendrochronology undertaken at the time concluded the earliest use
date of the central vertical plank is 1638 and a more plausible first use date is 1642. It was reasoned thatsince the lower horizontal plank bears the signature and a 1643 date, the lower plank was either part of theoriginal composite panel or applied at most five years later.[2]No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images captured at 780–1000 nanometers. The images reveal© 2024 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Self-Portrait
Page 12 of 12

that the red paint along the elbow and sleeve on the narrow horizontally oriented lower plank does not havethe same transparency as the red paint along the sleeve on the vertically 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 thepaint stage.
The painting has not undergone conservation treatment since its acquisition in 2007. The painting is in a goodstate of preservation. It is presented with a combination of exposed underlayers and restoration, 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, and Peter
Klein’s dendrochronology report of 1988.

© 2024 The Leiden Collection