Officers and Other Civic Guardsmen of District XVIII in Amsterdam, under the Command of Captain Albert Dircksz Bas and Lieutenant Lucas Pietersz Conijn

Support The support consists of two pieces of plain-weave canvas, with an average of 15.2 horizontal (weft) by 16.1 vertical (warp) threads and 12.2 horizontal (weft) by 13.3 vertical (warp) threads per centimetre, and has been wax-resin lined. A vertical seam runs approx. 47 cm from the left edge. All tacking edges have been removed. X-radiography revealed deep cusping at the top, somewhat deeper at the bottom of the original support and shallow on the right, but not at all on the left. A strip of canvas (approx. 3 cm) was added to the bottom at a later date. At the top and on the left and right the picture plane is folded over the current stretcher, reducing the original height of the composition by at least 1 cm and the width by at least 8 cm.
Preparatory layers The double ground extends up to the current edges of the support. The first layer is a homogeneous, brick-red with occasional black and white pigment particles. The second ground on the right piece of canvas, visible just to the right of the face of the man at top centre, is a warm pink-grey and consists of coarse chunks of white pigment, charcoal black and earth pigments. The second ground on the left piece, apparent along the seam, is of a similar but not identical composition and colour. The strip of canvas at the bottom has a single ground consisting of white, fine black and occasional yellow pigment particles.
Underdrawing No underdrawing could be detected with the naked eye or infrared photography.
Paint layers The paint extends up to the current edges of the support at the top and on the left and right, and approx. 1 cm over the bottom edge. A first lay-in was loosely applied in white and black for the contours, umber for the shadows and ochre for the broad highlights, making use of the ground as a middle tone. This undermodelling is still visible in the lightest flesh tones and ochre-coloured clothing, lending it a somewhat blotchy appearance. Bold white strokes of impasto are also part of the undermodelling and can be detected under the multi-coloured feathers on the hat of the civic guardsman in the centre. The painting was generally built up from the back to the front, reserving the banner, the main figures and, in turn, their hands, most obviously those of Lieutenant Lucas Pietersz Conijn at the bottom left. A design was scratched into the wet paint of the standard bearer’s doublet. Many compositional changes were made, several of them visible to the naked eye. For example, the position of the left hand of the seated figure in silver was modified, as was the right arm of the guardsman clad in blue-green standing directly behind him. Furthermore some of the colours were adjusted. Under the ochre-coloured trousers of the guardsman in the centre, for instance, there is a salmon-red, and beneath the grey sleeve of the lieutenant an earlier finished version in yellow and black can be seen. The paint was loosely applied with visible brushstrokes. Compositional elements which seem to have been partially cut off include the lieutenant, the banner, the figure at the top right and the chair at the bottom right. On the far right, at the level of the balustrade, an entire figure was truncated, with only the knuckles of his hand remaining.
Gwen Tauber, 2023

Fair. The paint surface is severely abraded in many areas and there is much old overpaint in the sky. The vertical seam is very visible. An area of traction cracking is evident around the hand of the figure on the far left.

Commissioned by or for the sitters for the Great Hall of the Kloveniersdoelen, Amsterdam; first recorded in the Kloveniersdoelen, 1653 (‘Ibid. [op de grootte kamer] aen Slijncke-sijde. Albert Bas Capn, Lucas Conijn Lut. gedaen bij Govert Flinck 1645’);¹¹G. Schaep, ‘De schilderijen in de drie doelens te Amsterdam 1653’, transcr. in P. Scheltema, Aemstel’s oudheid of gedenkwaardigheden van Amsterdam, VII, Amsterdam 1885, pp. 121-41, esp. p. 135, no. 3. transferred to the Burgomasters’ Chamber in the Town Hall on Dam Square, Amsterdam, 1753;²²See N. Middelkoop, ‘De oude meesters van de stad Amsterdam’, in N. Middelkoop, G. Reichwein and J. van Gent, De oude meesters van de stad Amsterdam: Schilderijen tot 1800, coll. cat. Amsterdam (Amsterdams Historisch Museum) 2008, pp. 16-55, esp. p. 23. transferred to the house of Cornelis Sebille Roos (Trippenhuis), 29 Kloveniersburgwal, Amsterdam, 1808;³³See H. Brugmans, Van Raadhuis tot Paleis: Documenten betreffende den overgang van het Amsterdamsche Stadhuis tot Koninklijk Paleis, Amsterdam 1913, p. 60. transferred to the Prinsenhof, 195-99 Oudezijds Voorburgwal, Amsterdam, 1808;⁴⁴See H. Brugmans, Van Raadhuis tot Paleis: Documenten betreffende den overgang van het Amsterdamsche Stadhuis tot Koninklijk Paleis, Amsterdam 1913, p. 60, note 2. on loan from the City of Amsterdam to the museum since 1885

ObjectNumber: SK-C-371

Credit line: On loan from the City of Amsterdam

The earliest of the two civic guard portraits in his oeuvre, Govert Flinck executed this one in 1645 as the last of seven works made for the Great Hall of the Kloveniersdoelen, the headquarters of the arquebusiers’ civic guard.¹⁶¹⁶Flinck’s other guard piece, which hung in the Voetboogdoelen (the headquarters of the crossbowmen’s civic guard) is Officers and Other Civic Guardsmen of District I in Amsterdam, under the Command of Captain Joan Huydecoper and Lieutenant Frans van Waveren, 1648, Amsterdam Museum; illustrated in W. Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, II, New York 1984, p. 1149, no. 717. The unusual upright format is explained by the painting’s placement on the short wall facing the entrance, between the fireplace, above which his own Portrait of the Governors of the Kloveniersdoelen of 1642 hung,¹⁷¹⁷SK-C-370. and the long wall opposite the windows (fig. a). This was the least advantageous space in the room, not only due to its verticality but also because the fireplace stuck out, blocking the daylight.

Hanging to the left of the fireplace was Joachim von Sandrart’s 1640 portrait of the civic guardsmen of district XIX.¹⁸¹⁸SK-C-393. In their present forms, the latter work is 12 centimetres wider than Flinck’s, but both are approximately the same height – 338.7 centimetres (Flinck) and 341.3 centimetres (Von Sandrart). The difference in width has been chalked up to the wainscoting, which – it has been argued – may have varied on either side of the fireplace.¹⁹¹⁹S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, ‘The Night Watch and the Entry of Marie de’ Medici: A New Interpretation of the Original Place and Significance of the Painting’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 57 (2009), pp. 4-41, esp. p. 21. However, both paintings have been cut down on the left and right.²⁰²⁰See Technical notes. Also J. Bikker and G. Tauber, ‘Odd Men Out: Govert Flinck and Joachim von Sandrart’s Civic Guard Portraits for the Kloveniersdoelen’, Simiolus 38 (2015-16), pp. 260-72, esp. pp. 263-64. In addition to a lack of cusping here in Flinck’s portrait, the composition continues over the edges of the strainer and the figures are truncated. Although it has been claimed that these two works would have been originally 381 centimetres high,²¹²¹H. Colenbrander, ‘Hoe hoog hing de Nachtwacht? Een kwestie van ellen, voeten en duimen’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 105 (2013), pp. 238-75, esp. p. 260, who for no apparent reason also claims that the wall where they hung had this height. research has now shown that the height of Von Sandrart’s picture was originally just 306 centimetres,²²²²The approximately 35 cm strip of canvas at the top of his portrait is a later addition; see J. Bikker and G. Tauber, ‘Odd Men Out: Govert Flinck and Joachim von Sandrart’s Civic Guard Portraits for the Kloveniersdoelen’, Simiolus 38 (2015-16), pp. 260-72, esp. p. 269. while X-radiography of Flinck’s canvas indicates that it was only marginally trimmed at the top. Flinck, therefore, adapted the height neither to the painting on the same wall, nor to those on the long wall opposite the windows; in their present, cut-down states Rembrandt’s Night Watch and Jacob Backer’s guard piece exceed the height of Flinck’s canvas by 21 centimetres and 31 centimetres respectively.²³²³SK-C-5 and SK-C-1174. The assertion made by Tümpel that the later paintings in the hall conformed to the formats and figure scale of the earlier works is incorrect; see C. Tümpel, ‘De Amsterdamse schuttersstukken’, in M. Carasso-Kok and J. Levy-van Halm (eds.), Schutters in Holland: Kracht en zenuwen van de stad, exh. cat. Haarlem (Frans Halsmuseum) 1988, pp. 74-103, esp. pp. 96-97. In addition to being taller, Flinck’s portrait differed from Von Sandrart’s by having fewer figures – 12 as opposed to 19 – shown on a larger scale.

Unlike the guardsmen in the other portraits in the Great Hall, all of whose identities have been recorded in one way or another, the names of only two of Flinck’s sitters are known with certainty, that of the captain, Dr Albert Dircksz Bas (1598-1650), and the lieutenant, Lucas Pietersz Conijn (1597-1652). After acquiring a doctorate in law from Leiden University, Albert Bas held a number of posts in the municipal government of Amsterdam, including that of burgomaster in 1647.²⁴²⁴For his biography, see J.E. Elias, De vroedschap van Amsterdam 1578-1795, I, Haarlem 1903, pp. 414-15. The son of one of the founders of the Dutch East India Company (VOC), Bas himself became a director of the West India Company (WIC) in 1645. At the time he was portrayed by Flinck he was living on Rokin, which was located in the district (XVIII) served by his company.²⁵²⁵E.W. Moes, ‘De portretten van de drie zwagers’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 10 (1912), pp. 149-51 (ill.), esp. p. 150. Based on his age and another documented likeness of him,²⁶²⁶Drawing, Vienna, Albertina; photo IB. he must be the seated figure dressed in black, wearing an ornamental gorget and holding a commander’s baton.

Lucas Conijn, who lived on Oude Zijds Voorburgwal in district XVIII, was appointed lieutenant in 1633.²⁷²⁷J.A. Jochems, Amsterdams oude burgervendels (schutterij), 1580-1795, Amsterdam 1888, p. 39. There has been some confusion about which figure he is in the painting, some scholars mistakenly identifying him as the seated guardsman in silver-coloured clothing at the bottom right of the composition.²⁸²⁸H. Havard, L’art et les artistes hollandais, II, Paris 1880, p. 105; R. Baarsen, Furniture in Holland’s Golden Age, Amsterdam 2007, p. 132; G. Korevaar, ‘De regenten van het Nieuwe Zijds Huiszittenhuis door Jacob Adriaensz Backer’, Maandblad Amstelodamum 95 (2008), pp. 31-45, esp. p. 36. Conijn, however, must be the standing man wearing a yellow buff coat on the left, as he holds a partisan, the weapon associated with the rank of lieutenant. About five years after the present work was completed, Conijn sat for Jacob Backer’s Portrait of the Regents of the Nieuwe Zijds Huiszittenhuis,²⁹²⁹SK-C-442. where he is probably the second seated figure seen in profile.³⁰³⁰For this identification, see J. Bikker, ‘The Identification of the Individual Sitters in a 1657 Group Portrait by Ferdinand Bol on Long-Term Loan to the Nationalmuseum from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam’, Art Bulletin of Nationalmuseum Stockholm 18 (2011), pp. 127-34, esp. p. 134, note 15. He is presumably also shown second from the left in a civic guard piece made in 1633 for district XVIII by Thomas de Keyser.³¹³¹Amsterdam Museum. As pointed out by Müller-Schirmer in N. Middelkoop (ed.), Kopstukken: Amsterdammers geportretteerd 1600-1800, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Amsterdams Historisch Museum) 2002-03, pp. 202-03, no. 72 (ill.). Judging from the weapon he holds in that portrait, Conijn was one of the district’s two sergeants at the time. He eventually attained the rank of captain, being recorded in this capacity for district XXXVI in 1650.³²³²J.A. Jochems, Amsterdams oude burgervendels (schutterij), 1580-1795, Amsterdam 1888, p. 64. It is not clear what Conijn’s function was between 1646, when he resigned the post of lieutenant for district XVIII, and 1650.

Although the names of none of the other guardsmen have been recorded, two more can be identified. The standard bearer in Flinck’s portrait, and probably in De Keyser’s, may well have been Willem Claesz van Campen (1611-1661), a wine merchant and distant cousin of the painter and architect Jacob van Campen.³³³³For his biography, see S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, ‘Doopsgezinden en schilderkunst in de 17e eeuw: Leerlingen, opdrachtgevers en verzamelaars van Rembrandt’, Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 6 (1980), pp. 105-23, esp. p. 30; M.J. Bok, ‘Familie, vrienden en opdrachtgevers’, in J. Huisken, K. Ottenheym and G. Schwartz (eds.), Jacob van Campen: Het klassieke ideaal in de Gouden Eeuw, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Koninklijk Paleis) 1995, pp. 27-52, esp. p. 36; The Montias Database of 17th Century Dutch Art Inventories, inv. no. 1153. He was recorded as the ensign for district XXVI in 1650. In that year, the number of civic guard districts was increased from 20 to 54 and their borders redrawn. The street where Willem van Campen lived until shortly before his death, Sint-Luciënsteeg, fell within the boundaries of district XVIII prior to the reorganization.³⁴³⁴SA, Transportakten voor 1811, NL-SAA-21626768, 12 April 1661. Moreover, his age – in 1645 he was 34 and in 1633 22 years old – coincides well with that of the standard bearer depicted by Flinck and earlier by De Keyser.

According to Colenbrander, it was originally intended that Flinck’s canvas be completed at the same time as The Night Watch and the two other civic guard pieces of 1642 for the long wall of the Great Hall, and that the reason for commissioning all seven portraits for this space came from the appointments of The Night Watch’s Frans Banninck Cocq and the present picture’s Albert Bas as captains of their respective companies.³⁵³⁵H. Colenbrander, ‘De decoratie van de Grote Zaal van de Kloveniersdoelen: Een vooropgezet plan?’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 105 (2013), pp. 218-37, esp. p. 229. That Flinck’s painting commemorates a change of captains was already suggested by D.C. Meijer Jr, ‘De Amsterdamsche schutters-stukken in en buiten het nieuwe Rijksmuseum’, Oud Holland 7 (1889), pp. 45-60, esp. p. 47. In order to account for the fact that the painting of Bas’s company was only finished in 1645, Colenbrander suggested that Flinck may have taken the project over from another artist, or that he himself was negligent or simply slow in executing it.³⁶³⁶H. Colenbrander, ‘De decoratie van de Grote Zaal van de Kloveniersdoelen: Een vooropgezet plan?’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 105 (2013), pp. 218-37, esp. p. 227, where in note 28 it is suggested that Flinck may have taken the commission over from Von Sandrart. However, the visual evidence firmly repudiates the notion that Flinck went to work on it at such an early date. A remarkable feature of his portrait is the presence of the man in silver in the lower right corner. Like Captain Bas, he is the only other seated figure and he also holds a commander’s baton. He is most likely a second captain and the painting does, therefore, probably commemorate a change of command, only not the one Colenbrander assumes it does. Unfortunately, it is not known precisely when Albert Bas became captain of district XVIII, only that it must have been between 1638, when Jacob Simonsz de Vries (1573-1654) is last reported as occupying that rank,³⁷³⁷J.A. Jochems, Amsterdams oude burgervendels (schutterij), 1580-1795, Amsterdam 1888, p. 39. and 20 May 1642, when Bas is recorded as one of the civic guard captains present at the ‘joyeuse entrée’ into Amsterdam of Queen Henrietta Maria of England.³⁸³⁸G.W. Kernkamp (ed.), De regeeringe van Amsterdam soo in ’t civiel als crimineel en militaire (1653-1672) ontworpen door Hans Bontemantel, I, The Hague 1897, p. 197. The mystery figure, at any rate, is certainly not De Vries, as he would have been in his 70s at the time and he already looks like an old man in Thomas de Keyser’s 1633 portrait.³⁹³⁹Amsterdam Museum; illustrated in N. Middelkoop (ed.), Kopstukken: Amsterdammers geportretteerd 1600-1800, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Amsterdams Historisch Museum) 2002-03, pp. 202-03. It seems more likely that he is Bas’s successor, Frans Pietersz Reael (1618-1669), who would have been about 27 at the time.⁴⁰⁴⁰J. Bikker and G. Tauber, ‘Odd Men Out: Govert Flinck and Joachim von Sandrart’s Civic Guard Portraits for the Kloveniersdoelen’, Simiolus 38 (2015-16), pp. 260-72, esp. p. 263. Frans Reael, whose father Pieter Jansz Reael was one of the governors who sat for Flinck in 1642,⁴¹⁴¹SK-C-370. was first recorded as captain of district XVIII in 1647, but it is perfectly conceivable that he had succeeded Bas earlier. Our knowledge of who held that rank in Amsterdam’s 20 civic guard companies, and in which years, is based on the notes made by Gerard Schaep, one of its members.⁴²⁴²SA, PA 5059, Collectie Stadsarchief Amsterdam: handschriften, no. 43, ‘Handschriften van Gerrit Pietersz. Schaep betreffende de geschiedenis van Amsterdam, ongedateerd: Schutterijen, ambten, colleges, onderwijs, godshuizen’. Schaep’s notes formed the basis for Jochems’s Amsterdams oude burgervendels (schutterij), 1580-1795, published in 1888. Schaep, however, was living in Middelburg between 1639 and 1646, and thus did not jot anything down for those years.⁴³⁴³See M. Kok, ‘Rembrandts Nachtwacht: Van Feeststoet tot Schuttersstuk’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 15 (1967), pp. 116-21, esp. p. 119. When he returned to Amsterdam in 1647 he recorded that Frans Pietersz Reael was captain of district XVIII, unwittingly giving the impression that his appointment took place in that year. Unfortunately there are no documented portraits of the latter with which the figure in silver can be compared.⁴⁴⁴⁴Frans Reael is, perhaps, the sitter on the far left of Bartholomeus van der Helst’s 1656 Portrait of the Governors of the Voetboogdoelen, Amsterdam Museum; illustrated in N. Middelkoop (ed.), Kopstukken: Amsterdammers geportretteerd 1600-1800, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Amsterdams Historisch Museum) 2002-03, p. 208. It seems likelier, though, that this man is Gerard Hasselaer; see Van Gent in ibid., pp. 208-09.

Reynier Schaep, who succeeded Lucas Conijn as lieutenant in 1646, may also be one of the civic guardsmen depicted. If he is identical with the merchant of that name living on Rokin in district XVIII between 1586 and 1660,⁴⁵⁴⁵For the biography of this Reynier Schaep, see J.E. Elias, De vroedschap van Amsterdam 1578-1795, II, Haarlem 1905, p. 868. he could – based on his age – be either the man directly to the left of the ensign or the one on the far left. While Flinck’s portrait diverges from the norm because of the inclusion of an extra high-ranking officer, it is also peculiar because of the seeming absence of the usual two sergeants each company had. Recognizable by the halberds they carry they were included in almost every seventeenth-century civic guard piece. They are probably present here, only the blades of their halberds are not visible because the picture was trimmed down.⁴⁶⁴⁶For a suggestion of which figures in the portrait may have been the sergeants, see J. Bikker and G. Tauber, ‘Odd Men Out: Govert Flinck and Joachim von Sandrart’s Civic Guard Portraits for the Kloveniersdoelen’, Simiolus 38 (2015-16), pp. 260-72, esp. p. 264.

The triangular composition of this painting with its top to the right mirrors that of Von Sandrart’s portrait.⁴⁷⁴⁷W. Martin, Van Nachtwacht tot feeststoet: Lotgevallen, inhoud en betekenis van Rembrandt’s schuttersstuk in het Rijksmuseum te Amsterdam, Amsterdam/Antwerp 1947, p. 15; E. Haverkamp-Begemann, Rembrandt: The Nightwatch, Princeton 1982, p. 59. Although Flinck’s use of a staircase has been attributed to the influence of Flemish art on his oeuvre,⁴⁸⁴⁸This was first proposed by J.W. von Moltke, Govaert Flinck, 1615-1660, Amsterdam 1965, p. 28. E.J. Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam 1630-1650, Amsterdam/Philadelphia 2015, p. 99, argues that Nicolaas Lauwers’s engraving after Rubens’s Adoration of the Magi now in the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels, served Flinck as a model; see also E.J. Sluijter, ‘On Diverging Styles, Different Functions, and Fame: Govert Flinck, Ferdinand Bol, and Rembrandt as History Painters’, in S.S. Dickey (ed.), Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck: New Research, Zwolle 2017, pp. 20-43, esp. p. 30. this strategy for exploiting the great height of the canvas was already employed not only by Von Sandrart but also by Jacob Backer in his 1642 piece. The diagonal created by the staircase is intersected by the diagonal formed by the flag held by the ensign, again as in Von Sandrart’s arrangement.⁴⁹⁴⁹W. Martin, Van Nachtwacht tot feeststoet: Lotgevallen, inhoud en betekenis van Rembrandt’s schuttersstuk in het Rijksmuseum te Amsterdam, Amsterdam/Antwerp 1947, p. 15. The calculated placement of some of the figures’ arms and bodies in Flinck’s painting skillfully reinforces the main converging diagonals. The poses of Lieutenant Conijn and the guardsman at the top of the stairs may have been inspired by two compositions of the Adoration of the Magi by Rubens, as Sluijter has suggested.⁵⁰⁵⁰E.J. Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam 1630-1650, Amsterdam/Philadelphia 2015, p. 99; E.J. Sluijter, ‘On Diverging Styles, Different Functions, and Fame: Govert Flinck, Ferdinand Bol, and Rembrandt as History Painters’, in S.S. Dickey (ed.), Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck: New Research, Zwolle 2017, pp. 20-43, esp. p. 30. Conijn’s stance, however, echoes that of Lieutenant Frederick van Banchem in Von Sandrart’s portrait, and the similarities between the frontally posed guardsman and the large, centrally placed Magus in Rubens’s Adoration executed for Sint-Michielsabdij in Antwerp (never reproduced in print) are, perhaps, coincidental.

The work’s light tonality, which is also a feature of some of Flinck’s individual portraits from around the same time,⁵¹⁵¹See, for example, the 1645 Portrait of a Man in LVR-LandesMuseum Bonn; illustrated in W. Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, II, New York 1984, p. 1132, no. 700. compensated for the ill-lit corner in the Great Hall where it hung, and the contrast with Rembrandt’s much darker Night Watch next to it on the long wall must have been great. Indeed, there is nothing in Flinck’s picture to remind one of his training with Rembrandt. This notwithstanding, the paint has been applied in a remarkably loose manner – probably a consequence of the canvas’s great size – and is quite unlike the polished treatment, already present in some of Flinck’s individual portraits of 1645, that would characterize his style for the rest of his career.

A number of scholars have commented on the elegance of the figures in Flinck’s picture, chalking this up to his attempt to rival Bartholomeus van der Helst’s 1643 civic guard piece in the same hall, as well as to the possible influence of Anthony van Dyck.⁵²⁵²D.C. Meijer Jr, ‘De Amsterdamsche schutters-stukken in en buiten het nieuwe Rijksmuseum’, Oud Holland 7 (1889), pp. 45-60, esp. p. 47; W. Martin, De schilderkunst in de tweede helft van de 17e eeuw, Amsterdam 1950, p. 22. While the impact on Flinck of Van der Helst’s painting is readily apparent, the suggestion made by one scholar that the poses of three of Flinck’s sitters were derived from Van Dyck’s 1645 published Iconography,⁵³⁵³H. Lootsma, ‘Tracing a Pose: Govert Flinck and the Emergence of the Van Dyckian Mode of Portraiture in Amsterdam’, Simiolus 33 (2007-08), pp. 221-36, esp. pp. 227-28. is not entirely convincing. One of them is that of the figure in the centre holding his hand over his heart. A sign of faithfulness, this was a frequently occurring portrait gesture by 1645.⁵⁴⁵⁴On the iconography of this gesture, see E. de Jongh, Portretten van echt en trouw: Huwelijk en gezin in de Nederlandse kunst van de zeventiende eeuw, exh. cat. Haarlem (Frans Halsmuseum) 1986, p. 128; J. Bruyn et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, II, The Hague/Boston/London 1986, p. 397. It occurs no fewer than three times in Backer’s 1642 piece in the Great Hall, and Flinck himself had already used it in his 1643 Portrait of Pieter Jansz Reael.⁵⁵⁵⁵Amsterdam Museum, on loan from the RCE; illustrated in N. Middelkoop, G. Reichwein and J. van Gent, De oude meesters van de stad Amsterdam: Schilderijen tot 1800, coll. cat. Amsterdam (Amsterdams Historisch Museum) 2008, p. 212, no. SB 6325. A likelier source for the figure leaning on the balustrade than the Portrait of Hubert van den Eynden in Van Dyck’s Iconography is Von Sandrart’s and Backer’s pictures in the Great Hall. It was, after all, the staircases in those works that very probably determined the composition of Flinck’s canvas. The final pose considered to be derived from the Iconography is the open-handed ‘speaking’ gesture of Captain Bas, but this too was already present in the hall in the paintings to the right and left of Flinck’s civic guard piece: The Night Watch and Flinck’s own Portrait of the Governors of the Kloveniersdoelen.⁵⁶⁵⁶Nor was this gesture unique to the civic guard pieces in the Great Hall. Rather than looking to Flemish sources in order to set his picture apart from the others in the Great Hall of the Kloveniersdoelen, Flinck appears to have drawn from those portraits, perhaps with an eye to fitting in.

Jonathan Bikker, 2023

See Key to abbreviations, Rijksmuseum painting catalogues and Acknowledgements

A. Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen, II, Amsterdam 1719, p. 23; D.C. Meijer Jr, ‘De Amsterdamsche schutters-stukken in en buiten het nieuwe Rijksmuseum’, Oud Holland 7 (1889), pp. 45-60, esp. pp. 47-48; J.W. von Moltke, Govaert Flinck, 1615-1660, Amsterdam 1965, pp. 27-28, 167, no. 477; E. Haverkamp-Begemann, Rembrandt: The Nightwatch, Princeton 1982, pp. 57, 59; W. Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, II, New York 1984, pp. 1005, 1041, no. 715; H. Lootsma, ‘Tracing a Pose: Govert Flinck and the Emergence of the Van Dyckian Mode of Portraiture in Amsterdam’, Simiolus 33 (2007-08), pp. 221-36, esp. pp. 227-28; S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, ‘The Night Watch and the Entry of Marie de’ Medici: A New Interpretation of the Original Place and Significance of the Painting’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 57 (2009), pp. 4-41, esp. p. 23; H. Colenbrander, ‘De decoratie van de Grote Zaal van de Kloveniersdoelen: Een vooropgezet plan?’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 105 (2013), pp. 218-37, esp. pp. 222-24, 226; H. Colenbrander, ‘Hoe hoog hing de Nachtwacht? Een kwestie van ellen, voeten en duimen’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 105 (2013), pp. 238-75, esp. pp. 252, 253, 263; N. Middelkoop, ‘“Met schuttersschilderijen behangen”: De Amsterdamse schuttersstukken in de drie doelens’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 105 (2013), pp. 12-107, esp. pp. 73, 88; J. Bikker and G. Tauber, ‘Odd Men Out: Govert Flinck and Joachim von Sandrart’s Civic Guard Portraits for the Kloveniersdoelen’, Simiolus 38 (2015-16), pp. 260-72; E.J. Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam 1630-1650, Amsterdam/Philadelphia 2015, pp. 97-99; N. Middelkoop, ‘Flinck and Bol: The Group Portraits’, in N. Middelkoop (ed.), Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck: Rembrandt’s Master Pupils, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Museum Het Rembrandthuis; Amsterdam Museum) 2017-18, pp. 165-77, esp. pp. 167-68; E.J. Sluijter, ‘Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck in the Burgomasters’ Cabinet’, in ibid., pp. 132-41, esp. p. 133; E.J. Sluijter, ‘On Diverging Styles, Different Functions, and Fame: Govert Flinck, Ferdinand Bol, and Rembrandt as History Painters’, in S.S. Dickey (ed.), Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck: New Research, Zwolle 2017, pp. 20-43, esp. p. 30

1887, p. 46, no. 364; 1903, p. 99, no. 924; 1934, p. 100, no. 924; 1960, p. 101, no. 924; 1976, p. 228, no. C 371

Jonathan Bikker, 2023, 'Govert Flinck, Officers and Other Civic Guardsmen of District XVIII in Amsterdam, under the Command of Captain Albert Dircksz Bas and Lieutenant Lucas Pietersz Conijn, 1645', in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.8427