COV.FEB.v7.qxp_cover.june.pp.

corr 18/01/2016 09:59 Page 1

FEBRUARY
2016
T H E BURLINGTON MAGAZI NE

Northern European art

A Netherlandish polyptych of Spanish origin | Hieronymus Cock’s house ‘The Four Winds’
Adriaen van de Venne’s debt to Hals’s ‘Pekelharing’ | New light on a staircase in Rotterdam
NO .

Early arrivals in America of Flemish old masters | ‘The anointing of Solomon’ by Gerard de Lairesse rediscovered
1355

The Cranach quincentenary | Rembrandt’s ‘Night watch’ and its conservation history
V OL . C L VII I

Balthus and de Chirico | Class distinctions in Dutch painting | Liotard | Crivelli | Schalcken | David Jones | Mondrian

February 2016
AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:44 Page 1

The Art of Conservation III:

The restorations of Rembrandt’s ‘Night watch’
by ESTHER VAN DUIJN and JAN PIET FILEDT KOK

43. The officers and

civic guards of Dis-
trict II of Amsterdam
under the command
of Captain Frans
Banninck Cocq and
Lieutenant Willem
van Ruytenburch,
known as the
Night watch, by
Rembrandt. 1642.
Canvas, 363 by
438 cm.
(Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam, on
loan from the City
of Amsterdam).

REMBR ANDT PAINTED THE Night watch in 1642 for the great hall
at the Kloveniersdoelen (Arquebusiers’ headquarters), Amsterdam
(Fig.43).1 It had been commissioned by the officers and men of
the company of Captain Frans Banninck Cocq and Lieutenant
Willem van Ruytenburgh, the men dressed respectively in black
and yellow at the centre of the composition. It was painted on
three strips of canvas arranged horizontally. In or soon after 1715
the painting was placed in the Kleine Krijgsraadkamer (Small War
Council Room) of the Amsterdam Town Hall, and, in order to fit
this new site, a wide strip was trimmed from the left-hand side,
while smaller strips were removed from the other three edges of
the painting. It subsequently underwent several treatments, which
are discussed in this article.
In 1947 the conservation of the Night watch, which had taken
two years, had nearly reached completion. That autumn a
lengthy article by Arthur F.E. van Schendel (1910–79) and
Henricus Hubertus Mertens (1905–81) appeared in Oud Holland
in which the authors discussed the painting’s earlier history,

The authors wish to thank Mandy Prins, who paved the way for this article with Ige Verslype and Ernst van de Wetering. Figs.44–47 and 55–57 are copyright the
her archival research from 2008 to 2010 on Van Schendel’s role in the international Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.
field of conservation, which will hopefully result in an article by Esther van Duijn 1 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, on loan from the City of Amsterdam since 1808, inv.

and her for The Bulletin of the Rijksmuseum in 2016–17. Van Duijn currently works
at the Rijksmuseum on a research project – made possible by the Luca Fund – on
the conservation history of the paintings’ collection of the Museum. The authors
would like to thank all those who made suggestions while this article was being
written and who commented on the first draft: Jonathan Bikker, Morwenna
Blewett, Nadja Garthoff, Anne van Grevenstein, Wouter Th. Kloek, Anna
Krekeler, Norbert Middelkoop, Mireille ter Marvelde, Petria Noble, Gwen Tauber,
no.SK–C–5. See J. Bruyn et al.: A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, III, Dordrecht,
Boston and London 1989, pp.430–85, no.A–146; H. Colenbrander: ‘De decoratie
van de grote zaal van de Kloveniersdoelen. Een vooropgezet plan?’ and ‘Hoe hoog
hing de Nachtwacht – Een kwestie van ellen, voeten en duimen’, De Amsterdamse
schutterstukken 1529–1656 – Jaarboek van het Genootschap Amstelodamum 105 (2013),
pp.218–36 and 238–75; and J. Bikker et al.: Dutch paintings of the seventeenth century in
the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, II: Artists born between 1601 and 1620, forthcoming.

the burlington mag a z i n e • clviI1 • february 2016 117

AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:44 Page 2
THE RESTORATIONS OF REMBRANDT’S ‘NIGHT WATCH’
44. Unrolling of the Night watch in the courtyard of the Rijksmuseum in June 1945.
46. The relining treatment of 1945; the painting is placed face down during the
removal of Hopman’s relining canvas.
observations made during the recent treatment and the treat-
ment itself.2 Although the article was in fact written by Van
Schendel,3 the role of the painting’s restorer, Mertens,4 was
acknowledged in the joint authorship, probably the first time
that a restorer was given due credit in the Netherlands.5 As well
as including Mertens’s observations on the painting’s technique
and its treatment, the article looked back over its entire conser-
2 A. van Schendel and H.H. Mertens: ‘De restauraties van Rembrandt’s
Nachtwacht’, Oud Holland 62 (1947), pp.1–52 (hereafter cited as Van Schendel and
Mertens). The article is published in Dutch with a summary and list of illustrations
in English.
3 For van Schendel, see A.M.M. de Jong, in J. Charité, ed.: Biografisch Woordenboek
van Nederland, The Hague 1985, II, pp.496–98. www.inghist.nl/Onderzoek/
Projecten/BWN/Lemmata/bwn2/Schendel (consulted 25th July 2015), and in
English: www.dictionaryofarthistorians.org/vanschendela.htm (consulted 25th July
2015); see also the forthcoming article by Van Duijn and Prins mentioned in the
acknowledgements above.
4 H.H. Mertens was born in 1905 in Roermond, in the southern Netherlands; in
1927 he left for Amsterdam. There he studied to be a drawing teacher at the Institute
Piersma and at the School for Drawing Teachers, from which he graduated in 1930.
In 1931 he started to work at the Rijksmuseum. It is unknown if by then he was
already trained as a restorer, although this seems probable since in 1931 there was
nobody at the Rijksmuseum to train him; his predecessor, Pieter Nicolaas Bakker
(1882–1940), had retired in 1930.
5 Throughout the article the term ‘restorer’ will be used for earlier practitioners,
since that is how they referred to themselves. The term ‘conservator’ will only be
118 f e b ruary 2016 • clviI1 • the burlington magazine
45. Inspection of the Night watch after its unrolling and restretching in June 1945.
The canvas is visibly deformed in the upper half and the vertical seams of the old
lining canvas are evident.
47. The relining treatment of 1945; Hopman’s relining mixture is removed by
Jenner.
vation history, based on Van Schendel’s archival research,
undertaken probably during the War in preparation for the
planned treatment of the painting.6
Soon after the liberation of the Netherlands from Nazi Ger-
man occupation on 5th May 1945, paintings were returned to
their museums from the various bombproof shelters in which
they had been housed during the War for six years.7 The
used for modern professionals with an academic training.
6 See the letters of 1943 and 1944 by the acting Director, M.D. Henkel; Haarlem,
Noord-Hollands Archief, 476 – Rijksmuseum en rechtsvoorgangers te Amsterdam
1807–1945, Kopieboek, pp.210 and 216, in which the Director writes that he set aside
lining canvases in the Museum for the treatment of paintings after the War; he
mentions the Night watch by name.
7 For the story of the Night watch during the War, see H. Baard: Kunst in Schuilkelders
– De Odyssee der Nationale Kunstschatten gedurende de Oorlogsjaren 1939–1945, The
Hague 1946; and T. Koot: Rembrandt’s Nachtwacht in nieuwen luister, Amsterdam 1947,
pp.34–36.
8 See Baard, op. cit. (note 7), p.26, and Koot, op. cit. (note 7), pp.34–36. An article
of 1947 (Ons Vrije Nederland, 22nd March – 5th April 1947) states that it was when
the painting was taken off its stretcher in the dunes, in the bright morning sunlight,
that it was realised just how dirty and yellow the varnish was and how much detail
was obscured by it.
9 The Committee (Commissie van Toezicht en Advies voor de Schilderijen der Gemeente
Amsterdam) consisted of Alderman A. de Roos, the art historians and museum
Directors D.C. Roëll, J.Q. van Regteren Altena and W.J.H.B. Sandberg, the artists
G. Reuter, F. Bobeldijk, G.V.A. Röling, A.C. Willink and H.J. Wolters, and the
AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:44 Page 3
48. Visitors in front of Rembrandt’s ‘Night watch’ at the Trippenhuis, by August
Jernberg. 1885. Canvas, 65 by 81 cm. (Konstmuseum, Malmö). Although the
painting may have had a yellow varnish of its own, the effect of the yellow tone of
the Night watch against the light and coloured costumes is striking.
Rijksmuseum re-opened on 15th July 1945 with an exhibition
Weerzien der Meesters (Return of the [Old] Masters), which was
visited by 166,000 people over a period of six weeks. During
the War, the Night watch had been kept hidden in no less than
four different places. It travelled upright from its first hiding
place in Medemblik on the night of 13th May 1940; upon
arrival at the second shelter at Castricum, the painting was too
large to get through the entrance. It was removed from its
stretcher on the dunes outside, and rolled onto a wooden cylin-
der, which already had Cornelis Troost’s Regents of the Almoners
Orphanage in Amsterdam (inv. no.SK–C–87) rolled onto it,
which measures 414 by 417 cm. It remained safely rolled up
while being moved twice more, until its triumphant return to
the Rijksmuseum on 29th June 1945.8 With the unrolling and
re-stretching of the Night watch, it became clear that plans to
restore it, which had already been considered during the War,
were fully justified (Figs.44 and 45). The City of Amsterdam,
which owned the painting, represented by the Committee
for Supervision and Advice for the Paintings of the City of
Amsterdam (hereafter referred to as the Committee), agreed to
the proposed treatment,9 and a sub-committee was established
to supervise the restoration on a regular basis.10 During the last
paintings restorer and chemist A.M. de Wild; see Van Schendel and Mertens, p.23.
10 Remarkably, the members of the sub-committee were all artists: F. Bobeldijk, G.
Reuter, G.V.A. Röling and H.J. Wolters. They were supplemented with Rijksmuseum
officials, the curator Van Schendel and director Roëll; see Koot, op. cit. (note 7), p.7.
11 Although in the sources the term ‘cleaned’ (‘schoonmaken’) is nearly always used
to indicate varnish removal, in this article the word ‘cleaned’ is avoided, because it
also means removing dirt from the paint surface. It must be noted that in this article
varnish removal does not necessarily mean the complete removal of all varnish layers,
but can also mean – and often does mean – a reduction of layers.
12 Jenner came to the Rijksmuseum in 1923 as a carpenter and was trained in the
structural treatment of paintings by the liner Willem Frederik Cornelis Greebe (born
1865). Jenner succeeded him in 1930 and in 1931 relined Rembrandt’s Anatomy lesson
of Dr Jan Deijman (1656; now in the Amsterdam Museum) after it was attacked with
an axe. Jenner stopped working for the Rijksmuseum in 1947 at the age of fifty-one
for unknown reasons. The division between restorers who specialised in structural
treatment and those who worked on the front of the painting was not unusual at that
time. At the Rijksmuseum this gradually changed during the late 1950s and the 1960s,
when restorers were increasingly expected to carry out all aspects of a treatment.
13 Research on the history of wax-resin lining has been carried out by M. te Marvelde:
THE RESTORATIONS OF REMBRANDT’S ‘NIGHT WATCH’
49. H.H. Mertens removing varnish from the Night watch in 1946–47 in the Night
watch extension. (Photograph by Willem van de Poll; © National Archive).
three months of 1945, the canvas was relined; in 1946 the layers
of varnish were removed;11 and the painting was finally
retouched and revarnished. Since it was the first treatment of
the Night watch to be fully documented, and its facts were made
public through Van Schendel’s article, the first publication of
its kind in the Netherlands, it is worth examining the process
more closely.
The first part of the treatment, the relining (glueing a canvas
onto the back of the original canvas), was carried out between
October and December 1945 by the Museum’s liner, Christiaan
Hendrik Jenner (1896–year of death unknown).12 The old lining,
which had been applied in 1851 by Nicolaas Hopman (1794–
1870), needed replacement. Jenner removed Hopman’s lining
canvas in one piece, and then scraped away by hand the old adhe-
sive from the back of the original canvas (Figs.46 and 47). After
that he carried out his own relining, with wax-resin, a method
that was by then well established in the Netherlands.13 Relining
was regarded as a fairly straightforward procedure, even for such a
large painting as the Night watch. However, it is interesting to
study the procedure in detail, especially since a handwritten report
by Jenner, previously unknown, has been recently discovered.14
‘How Dutch is ‘The Dutch method’? A History of Wax-Resin Lining in its Inter-
national Context’, in A. Oddy and S. Smith, eds.: Past Practice – Future Prospects, The
British Museum Occasional Paper 145, London 2001, pp.143–49, and idem: ‘25.4 Wax-
resin lining’, in J. Hill Stoner and R. Rushfield, eds.: The Conservation of Easel Paintings,
London and New York 2012, pp.424–33. Van Schendel and Mertens, p.25, state: ‘De
verdoeking werd uitgevoerd volgens de gebruikelijke methode’ (‘The relining was carried out
in the usual manner’).
14 Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Archive Arthur van Schendel (cited hereafter as Van
Schendel Archive), folder on the Night watch. The handwritten report has two pages.
It is the only known report by Jenner, although he must have (re)lined hundreds of
paintings during his career. The fact that this report was found in Van Schendel’s
private archive probably means that he had asked for it specifically in preparation for
the article in Oud Holland. The report is dated 25th November 1946 in pencil, in
what seems to be Van Schendel’s hand, which means that it was written almost a year
after the treatment took place. Some details lacking in Jenner’s report are supplied by
Van Schendel and Mertens in their article, for example the ingredients of the relining
mixture, which Jenner does not mention: 5 parts beeswax, 4 parts (unspecified) resin,
1 part Venetian Turpentine. Jenner mentions that 14 kilos of the mixture were used,
while Van Schendel and Mertens claim it was about 12 kilos.
the burlington mag a z i n e • clviI1 • february 2016 119
AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:44 Page 4
THE RESTORATIONS OF REMBRANDT’S ‘NIGHT WATCH’
The account of the 1945 relining also tells us more about
Hopman’s 1851 relining. His canvas consisted of three or four
vertical bands, the seams of which had become visible over time
on the front of the painting.15 The canvas was too thin, especially
for such a large painting, and by 1945 was too degraded to
bear the weight of the painting. Unfortunately, we have no
description of the type of canvas that Hopman used. The few
surviving lining canvases used by him are of a very specific type:
a blue-and-white herringbone canvas, known as bed ticking.16
Hopman’s relining of the Night watch is regarded as one of the
earliest reported examples of a wax-resin lining, which is not
surprising because he himself had invented the method, which is
also known as the ‘Dutch Method’.17 The wax-resin lining
method was invented in the first half of the nineteenth century
as an alternative to aqueous lining methods that were highly
unsuitable for the humid Dutch climate.18
Although there is no record of the exact process that Hopman
used for his wax-resin linings, a very plausible reconstruction
has been made by Te Marvelde.19 One feature of this method
was also used by Jenner when he relined the painting: the appli-
cation of two layers of wax-resin. The first layer was applied
directly to the back of the original canvas and was then ironed
in; the second layer was applied and ironed in after the new
lining canvas had been put into place. In 1976, as we will see,
the relining was done with only one application of wax-resin.20
There seems to be a direct line of descent in the wax-resin
lining method invented by Nicolaas Hopman and refined by
his son Willem Anthonij Hopman (1828–1910), which was
then used by his assistant and successor, Hendrik Heijdenrijk
(1848/49–1918), all of whom were employed by the Rijks-
museum on a regular basis.21
Nicolaas Hopman’s relining of the Night watch in 1851 was not
the painting’s first. From a letter written by Hopman, we know
that he had to remove an old relining in order to carry out his
own relining.22 Sources dating from before 1800 mention various
treatments to the paintings in the room where the Night watch
hung – before 1715 this was the upper room in the Kloveniers-
doelen; after 1715 the Kleine Krijgsraadkamer of the Amsterdam
Town Hall – but the painting itself was hardly ever mentioned
specifically. Between 1748 and 1768 the restorer Jan van Dijk
15 Jenner reports that there were three bands; Van Schendel and Mertens, p.25, men-
tion four. The report on the restoration of the Night watch by the sub-committee
(Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Archive, Night watch conservation files, no.18/8 a
K.1946) mentions two seams, implying three bands of canvas, suggesting that Van
Schendel and Mertens were wrong.
16 Te Marvelde 2012, op. cit. (note 13), pp.425–27. The photograph taken during the
1945 removal of the 1851 lining canvas (Fig.46) unfortunately does not show enough
detail to identify the specific weave type.
17 See both articles by Te Marvelde, op. cit. (note 13).
18 For more information on aqueous lining methods, see J. Reifsnyder: ‘25.2 Glue-
paste lining adhesives’, in Hill Stoner and Rushfield, op. cit. (note 13), pp.416–23.
19 Te Marvelde 2012, op. cit. (note 13), pp.425–27.
20 As a result less wax and resin was needed was during the 1945 relining: 8.5 kilos
compared to the 12–14 kilos needed earlier; see L. Kuiper and W. Hesterman:
‘Restauratieverslag van Rembrandts Nachtwacht / Report on the restoration of
Rembrandt’s Night watch’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 24 (1976), p.38.
21 N. Hopman worked for the Rijksmuseum until his death in 1870, after which his
son took over his studio and worked for the Museum until shortly before his retire-
ment in 1900. H. Heijdenrijk had learned the trade from W.A. Hopman and became
his first assistant. He took over Hopman’s studio in 1900 and worked for the
Rijksmuseum regularly, although in competition with the Hesterman family of
restorers. See also M.J. Brusse: ‘Het behoud der schilderkunst’, De Sumatra Post, 22nd
May 1905 (originally in the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant), and E. van Duijn: ‘Vader
en zoon Hopman. Een tijdsbeeld aan de hand van twee 19de-eeuwse restauratoren’,
Cr 7/3 (2006), pp.34–36. W.F.C. Greebe was the first liner permanently employed
120 f e b ruary 2016 • clviI1 • the burlington magazine
50. Detail of the Night
watch, showing the man
dressed in red loading his
musket and the two little
girls, after removal of the
varnish. (From T. Koot:
De Nachtwacht in nieuwen
luister, Amsterdam 1947).
(c.1690–1796) was responsible for all the paintings in the Town
Hall. In 1758 he published a small book on these paintings, often
including information on their condition.23 From this account
we know that he cleaned layers of ‘varnish and boiled oil’ from
the Night watch, but it is possible that he lined it too.24 It is prob-
able that it was lined again in 1796–97 when, after a plea from
two Amsterdam citizens, the neglected paintings belonging to
the city were treated.25 A note in an old Rijksmuseum catalogue
says that the Night watch was ‘verdoekt 1795’ (‘lined 1795’), which
may be related to the treatment in 1796–97. Any lining in this
period would have been glue or starch based, since wax-resin
lining had not yet been invented.26
In January 1946 Mertens started the most controversial part of
the treatment: the removal of the varnish. Although varnish
removals had been carried out on the Night watch before 1946 –
certainly in the eighteenth century by Jan van Dijk and very
probably during the 1796–97 treatment as well – it is uncertain
whether all the varnish layers were removed.27 Varnish was
removed again in 1851, but this time we know that the varnish
by the Rijksmuseum since 1920; he started as a guard in 1889 and was probably
trained by either Hopman or Heijdenrijk.
22 Van Schendel and Mertens, p.19.
23 J. van Dijk: Kunst– en historie-kundige beschrijving van alle de schilderijen op het stadhuis
van Amsterdam, met beoordeelingen en aanmerkingen over de stukken en korte levensbeschrijvin-
gen van derselver schilders, Amsterdam 1756 (with later editions in 1758, 1760 and 1790).
For an overview on the location of the militia paintings in the Town Hall based on the
description given by Jan van Dijk, see N. Middelkoop: ‘Schutterstukken kijken met Jan
van Dyk – Een reconstructie van de plaatsing in het Stadhuis op de Dam’, Amsteloda-
mum 96 (2009), pp.65–79 and Colenbrander, op. cit. (note 1), pp.219–22, and 246–51.
24 Van Dijk, op. cit. (note 23), pp.58–61. On 9th December 1761 Van Dijk was paid
483 guilders for ‘met linen te bekleeden, te repaareren en te conserveren’ of five unspecified
paintings hanging in two rooms of the Town Hall, in one of which hung the Night
watch. Van Schendel and Mertens, esp. pp.11–17. For more on Van Dijk, see M. te
Marvelde: ‘Jan van Dijk, an 18th–century restorer of paintings’, Preprints of the ICOM
committee for conservation, 11th triennial meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland, 1st–6th September
1996, pp.182–86.
25 The citizens were Dirk Versteegh and Willem van Vuurst; see J. Dynserinck: ‘De
Schuttersmaaltijd van Bartholomeus van der Helst’, De Gids 58 (1894), p.526 and Van
Schendel and Mertens, p.17.
26 During the 1975–76 treatment (see Kuiper and Hesterman, op. cit. (note 20), p.26)
no remnants of glue from pre-Hopman linings were found; the old glue had been
thoroughly removed from the original canvas either in 1851 or 1945. See also Jenner’s
report cited at note 14 above.
27 Van Schendel and Mertens, pp.14–17. Van Dijk probably removed most, if not all
AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:45 Page 5
51. Detail of the Night watch, showing Lieu- 52. X-radiograph of 1946 showing a detail of the drum-
tenant Willem van Ruytenburch, during mer’s head in the Night watch. (From A. van Schendel
removal of the varnish. (From T. Koot: De and H.H. Mertens: ‘De restauraties van Rembrandt’s
Nachtwacht in nieuwen luister, Amsterdam 1947). Nachtwacht’, Oud Holland 62 (1947), p.45).
was only reduced, not completely removed.28 After that, new
layers of varnish were added regularly, forming a ‘gallery tone’
that became increasingly brown (Fig.48).
While this brown tone was appreciated at the time by the
public, the build-up of multiple layers of varnish carried its own
problems, including micro-cracking causing the varnish to
become blanched or milky. This was initially remedied by
rubbing off the top layer with the fingertips, known as ‘fretting’
in English, and then adding a new layer of varnish, but this was
only a temporary solution, because micro-cracks soon became
visible again. In 1889 the painting was ‘regenerated’ for the first
time by W.A. Hopman, who in 1870 had translated Max von
Pettenkofer’s book Über Ölfarbe into Dutch within a year of its
publication in Germany.29 Pettenkofer, a chemist, had invented
a technique to regenerate varnishes on paintings, a method
whereby a painting is exposed to alcohol vapour for a fixed
the multiple layers of ‘varnish and boiled oil’; he reports that the names on the shield,
which could not be read before the treatment, were legible afterwards; van Dijk, op.
cit. (note 23), pp.58–59.
28 Van Schendel and Mertens, pp.18–20. The poet and novelist Jacob van Lennep
(1802–68) wrote a laudatory article on the treatment (‘Rembrandts Nachtwacht’, De
Kunstkronijk (1851), pp.90–91), calling the painting ‘verhelderd, verfrischt, verjeugdigd’
(‘clarified, refreshed, rejuvenated’). Although this might suggest that quite a lot of the
varnish was removed, Hopman’s son, Willem Anthonij, who helped his father with
the treatment, later recollected that this was not the case; see E. Durand-Gréville: ‘Les
nouveaux documents Hollandais sur la Ronde de Nuit de Rembrandt’, Gazette des
Beaux-Arts ser.2, 37 (1887), p.184. In this article Hopman is wrongly spelt Hapman.
29 M. von Petterkofer: Über Ölfarbe und Conservirung der Gemälde-Gallerien durch das
Regenerations-Verfahren, Braunschweig 1870; idem: Over olieverven en het conserveeren
van schilderijen door de regeneratie-behandeling, transl. W.A. Hopman, Amsterdam 1871.
30 By the end of the nineteenth century regeneration seemed to be an attractive
method of make blind varnishes translucent while preserving the brown gallery tone
that was then so favoured; and it was seemingly completely safe for the paint layers.
We now know that the method, especially in combination with copaiba balsam, was
potentially harmful, because it not only softened the varnish, but could also soften the
paint layers or even the ground, which resulted, for example, in the migration of paint
particles into the varnish layer. When this happens, the varnish can never be removed
again without damaging the paint layers, although such a case has so far not been found
in the Netherlands. For more information on the regeneration method, see S. Schmitt:
‘Research on the Pettenkofer method and the historical understanding of paint film
swelling and interaction’, in Hill Stoner and Rushfield, op. cit. (note 13), pp.492–96.
THE RESTORATIONS OF REMBRANDT’S ‘NIGHT WATCH’
53. Infra-red photograph of 1946 showing a detail of the
cartouche in the Night watch. (From A. van Schendel
and H.H. Mertens: ‘De restauraties van Rembrandt’s
Nachtwacht’, Oud Holland 62 (1947), p.26).
amount of time and in a closed environment. The vapour causes
the varnish to soften and swell, thus repairing the micro-cracks
in the varnish layer and bringing back its translucency. To pre-
vent the micro-cracking from reappearing, the surface was often
coated with a layer of copaiba balsam, an oleo-resin with a high
amount of natural plasticisers.30
Hopman became an important advocate of this method in the
Netherlands and soon started to regenerate many paintings for the
Rijksmuseum.31 Regenerating the Night watch must have been
regarded as his crowning achievement,32 and indeed the treat-
ment was considered to be a triumph. The regained translucency
was such that it provoked general delight, with newspaper articles
claiming that the painting shone as if with its own light and that
it looked as fresh as if it had just left the painter’s studio.33 Yet, in
fact only the micro-cracking of the varnish had been remedied,
and that only temporarily; the brown discolouration remained.34
31 Van Duijn, op. cit. (note 21). Hopman also regenerated many paintings for other col-
lections, including the Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis in The Hague, for example
Rembrandt’s Anatomy Lesson of Dr Tulp in 1885 and 1891. B. Broos and J. Wadum:
‘Under the scalpel Twenty-one Times. The Restoration History of the Anatomy Lesson
of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp’ in N. Middelkoop et al.: Rembrandt under the scalpel. The Anatomy
Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp Dissected, The Hague and Amsterdam 1998, pp.39–50.
32 A report of the proceedings of the regeneration of the Night watch was sent to the
City of Amsterdam, showing how carefully the treatment was carried out. Amster-
dam, City Archive (ACA), 5166: Archief van Burgemeesters en Burgemeester en
Wethouders, 5th November 1889.
33 Newspaper articles in De Opregte Haarlemmer Courant (11th June 1889), Het Nieuws
van den Dag (13th June 1889) and Algemeen Handelsblad (16th June 1889). See also E.
Durand-Gréville: ‘Le nettoyage de la Ronde de Nuit’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts ser.3,
1 (1889), pp.102–04. A similar positive reaction was already noted in Jan van Dijk’s
report of the condition of the painting after his removal of the varnish layers during
the eighteenth century: ‘Dit Schilderij is verwonderingswaardig, zoo ten opzigt van de groote
kragt als bezonderheid van ‘t Penceel, het is een sterk Zonnelicht, zeer fors in de Verf geschildert
. . .’ (‘This Painting is admirable, in respect of the great power and especially of the
Brushwork, it is a strong Sunlight scene, done very forcefully in the Paint ...’). Van
Dijk 1760, op. cit. (note 23), p.60; Bruyn, op. cit. (note 1), p.482. The authors thank
Jonathan Bikker for his translation.
34 Remarkably this seemed to have been known, or at least guessed at; the journalist
of Het Nieuws van den Dag (13th June 1889) called on the public to come and see the
painting as soon as possible, ‘daar het begrijpelijk is, dat deze gelukkige toestand niet kan
aanhouden’ (‘because it is understandable that this fortunate condition cannot last’).
the burlington mag a z i n e • clviI1 • february 2016 121
AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:45 Page 6
THE RESTORATIONS OF REMBRANDT’S ‘NIGHT WATCH’
After 1889 the processes of removing the top layers of varnish,
of regenerating and/or re-varnishing took place increasingly
regularly, building up a sandwich of layers of varnish, copaiba
balsam and dirt on the picture. This sequence is well described
by Van Schendel and Mertens in their article that ends with
the last regeneration in 1936, which failed to cure the blanching
of the varnish even temporarily.35 The article made it evident
that the removal of the varnish could no longer be postponed,
providing a justification for the treatment in 1945–47.36 This
justification was necessary: the Netherlands had had their own
cleaning controversies, first during the early decades of the
twentieth century at the Frans Hals Museum in Haarlem, and in
1932–33 at the Rijksmuseum after the restoration in 1929 of
Rembrandt’s Syndics.37 In both cases complaints were raised –
mostly by artists – that too much varnish had been removed,
damaging the original paint layers, especially the resinous glazes
that Hals and Rembrandt were supposed to have used. Obvious-
ly the Rijksmuseum wanted to prevent controversy at all costs.
In this regard the discussions between the members of the
Committee are remarkable. Already during the relining in 1945,
B.V.A. Röling, a painter, professor at the Amsterdam Rijksacad-
emie and a member of the Committee, wrote a long letter to the
other members in which he emphasised the dangers involved in
removing the varnish layers, especially from the thinly painted
dark areas, where he felt there would be great danger of removing
original thin glazes. He recommended that an even layer of at
least one third of the old varnish should be preserved and suggest-
ed that two or more members of the Committee should attend at
all times during the varnish removal.38 In January 1946 Mertens
carried out the first cleaning tests. It became clear that chemically
dissolving the varnish was the only possible method since the
presence of resistant layers of copaiba balsam apparently made
rubbing or powdering off the varnish layers impossible.39 A mix-
ture of alcohol and acetone in equal parts, ‘neutralised’ with tur-
pentine, proved to work well, and the Committee agreed to this
treatment.40 During a subsequent meeting about the cleaning on
16th January 1946 there was a debate as to whether the varnish
should be removed in one or in two steps. In the end the Com-
mittee voted to remove the varnish in one go, with the provision
that a thin, even layer of the old varnish was preserved to ensure
that no original paint was damaged.41 Only the painting restorer
A. Martin de Wild (1899–1969) pleaded for the removal of all
35 Van Schendel and Mertens, pp.20–24.
36 Also stressed in the article – and in many subsequent newspaper articles – is the fact
that the copaiba layers turned sticky at high temperatures, trapping dust and even
insects that regularly had to be removed from the surface with tweezers.
37 Both controversies were widely reported in the newspapers of the time. For the
Haarlem cleaning controversy, see A. Erftemeijer: 100 jaar Frans Hals Museum, Rot-
terdam 2013, pp.232–34. For the Syndics, see note 57 below.
38 Van Schendel Archive, Night watch file, letter from G.V.A. Röling of October 1945
to the members of the Committee. Under his own copy of the letter, Van Schendel
wrote a few notes regarding Röling’s wish that members of the Committee be present
during varnish removal; Van Schendel felt that three times a week at set times would
be more than enough. In the end it was decided that the sub-commission would visit
once a week, on Mondays.
39 Van Schendel and Mertens, p.27. The authors call the copaiba ‘taai’ (‘tough’) and
impossible to remove mechanically. This may be related to the nature of the material,
which is a natural plasticiser. Copaiba is difficult to detect in paint samples even with
modern analytical techniques. In 1996–98 many samples of Rembrandt’s Anatomical
Lesson of Dr Tulp were analysed and, although copaiba had been named in nine-
teenth-century sources concerning the treatment, it could not be detected, probably
because the amounts were below detection level; see P. Noble, J. Boon and J.
Wadum: ‘Dissolution, Aggregation, Protrusion. Lead Soap Formation in 17th-cen-
tury Grounds and Paint Layers’, ArtMatters 1 (2003), pp.46–61, esp. p.49.
40 Van Schendel and Mertens, pp.27–28; see also the report of the sub-committee
122 f e b ruary 2016 • clviI1 • the burlington magazine
54. Van Schendel and
Kuiper inspecting the
damage caused by a
knife attack in Septem-
ber 1975; some cuts
went through the paint
layer, canvas and lining
canvas. (Photograph by
Rob Bogaerts / Anefo;
© National Archive).
varnish layers, but his advice seemed to have been a bridge too
far for this period and was not followed.
From April until November 1946 Mertens removed the
varnish in vertical strips each approximately one metre wide.42
He used a brush to apply the alcohol and acetone mixture and
then dabbed the area with turpentine on cotton wool to remove
the dissolved varnish (Fig.49).43 He was visited almost daily by
Van Schendel and every Monday by the sub-committee, an
arrangement that worked well for them all, building up trust
between them in the months that followed.44 In correspondence
with his Belgian friend and colleague Paul Coremans (1908–65)
some years later, Van Schendel emphasised the need for a restorer
to work in peace, not disturbed by curious visitors. He recalled
that during the treatment of the Night watch, he managed to close
Mertens off from distractions and intruders with a heavy iron
door, of which only he and the restorer had a key.45
concerning the restoration of the Night watch cited at note 15 above. In a later arti-
cle by Van Schendel: ‘Some comments on the cleaning of “The Nightwatch”’,
MUSEUM 3 (1950), pp.220–23, in which he was more detailed, he noted that the
ratio of acetone and alcohol actually changed according to the thickness and nature
of the layers that had to be removed. This issue of MUSEUM, edited by Van
Schendel, was devoted to the cleaning of paintings, and includes the Weaver report
on the controversial cleaning of the National Gallery paintings (pp.112–35).
41 Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Archive, Night watch conservation files, no.18 K.1945,
minutes of the 132th meeting of the Committee of Supervision and Advice of the
Paintings of the City of Amsterdam, 16th January 1946, p.3.
42 Mertens left a rectangle measuring about 2 by 3 cm. of the old varnish layers, as was
occasionally done during the first half of the twentieth century, for example in the Frans
Hals Museum in Haarlem on paintings by that master. In 1975–76 this was removed by
Kuiper and Hesterman, without any mention of it in their article or the reports.
43 Van Schendel and Mertens, pp.27–28.
44 Minutes cited at note 15 above, p.3.
45 Brussels, Belgian Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, Archive, file II.1795; corre-
spondence between Coremans and Van Schendel about the restoration of the Ghent
altarpiece in 1950: a letter by Coremans of 24th July and one by Van Schendel of 28th
July 1950; see also note 64 below. Although relations between Van Schendel and
Mertens were good during the War years and the treatment of the Night watch, they grad-
ually grew apart. In the 1990s conservator Hélène Kat conducted three interviews with
former employees from the Rijksmuseum: restorer H. Plagge (working between 1949
AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:45 Page 7
55. Damage
caused by an
acid attack in
1990; only the
varnish layers
were affected.
This may have been meant metaphorically, as Mertens
probably worked in a place without a door or key; the many
photographs of him at work show that the treatment took place
in the Night watch extension, behind the gallery in which the
painting was normally displayed.46 Although before the War it
was not displayed in the extension, it was probably a convenient
room for Mertens and Jenner to work in, larger than their studio
and with plenty of light. While the restoration took place, the
Rijksmuseum building was closed for renovation, with the
exception of some smaller exhibitions in the eastern courtyard.
After completion of the treatment in 1947 the painting was
brought to the Drucker building (added in 1915), the current
Philips wing, where it hung until 1948, the year the east wing of
the main building was re-opened, with the Night watch in its
rightful place in the Gallery of Honour.
and 1970) in January 1995, the restorer D. Middelhoek (working between 1955 and
1964) in January 1995 and assistant-curator Bob Haak (working between 1954 and 1963)
in July 1998 (interview conducted together with conservator Mireille te Marvelde). All
three describe Mertens as a surly, introverted man, dedicated to his work, but difficult to
work with. By the time he retired, his dislike of the Rijksmuseum had grown to such
an extent that apparently he burned all his working notes. Regardless of whether this is
true, we have no reports or working notes of his about the treatment of the Night watch.
46 From the time of the opening of the Rijksmuseum in 1885, there had been strong
criticism on the hanging of the Night watch in the Night watch room at the end of the
Gallery of Honour, because the light came from above, instead of from the side as it
had in the Trippenhuis. In 1906, after much debate and tests with different lighting
systems, the painting was placed in the extension added by the Museum’s architect
Pierre Cuypers (1827–1921), which was lit from windows facing south-east. The
painting hung there between 1906 and 1925, when it returned to a side wall of the
Night watch room; see J. Boomgaard: ‘“Hang mij op een sterk licht”. Rembrandts
licht en de plaatsing van de Nachtwacht in het Rijksmuseum’, Nederlands Kunsthis-
torisch Jaarboek 35 (1985), pp.327–49; and G. van der Ham: 200 jaar Rijksmuseum:
geschiedenis van een nationaal symbool, Zwolle and Amsterdam 2000, pp.217–18.
47 Minutes cited at note 41 above, p.3.
48 See, for example, newspaper articles of 5th October 1946 in De Tijd, De Waarheid
and De Leeuwarder Koerier. See also the anonymous article ‘De restauratie van de
Nachtwacht’, Amstelodamum 33 (1946), pp.75–78. This article starts with the text of
the press release issued by the Museum, followed by a discussion of several of the
THE RESTORATIONS OF REMBRANDT’S ‘NIGHT WATCH’
Although the Committee, together with Van Schendel and
the director, D.C. Roëll (1894–1961), at first decided that the
press would only be informed of the results of the treatment when
work on the painting was completely finished, they seemed to
have changed their minds during treatment and called a press
conference on 4th October 1946.47 By then nearly all the varnish
was removed from the surface, apart from an area over the figure
of Lieutenant Van Ruytenburgh, the man dressed in yellow. The
stark contrast of the brown varnish with the light yellow paint of
the lieutenant’s costume is striking, even from photographs
(Figs.50 and 51), and must have made a great impression. Judging
from newspaper articles that appeared over the following days,
the journalists were well informed, doubtless by Van Schendel.48
The press was unanimously enthusiastic, writing that the Night
watch had become a Day watch.49 Journalists were informed that
the last part of the treatment would take a few more months,
although in the end it was not until July 1947 that the Night watch
was presented to the public. Two articles by the renowned art
historians Wilhelm Martin and Max J. Friedländer, which
appeared in the Maandblad voor Beeldende Kunsten in December
1946, further paved the way for a positive reception of the cleaned
Night watch. It seems probable that the invitation to them to write
about the restored painting came from the Rijksmuseum.50
When the Night watch was finally put back on public view on
Tuesday 22nd July 1947, the press was again very positive. Arti-
cles often stressed that although most of the thick varnish
had been removed, a last thin film had been retained to protect
the original paint layers. The cleaning was a triumph, and was
associated with the post-War recovery of the Netherlands. The
public came in great numbers.51 Apart from the publication by
Van Schendel and Mertens in Oud Holland, a more popular book
written by Ton Koot, the secretary of the Rijksmuseum,
appeared under the title De Nachtwacht in nieuwen luister (‘The
Night watch in new splendour’).52 In subsequent years Van
Schendel gave lectures on the restoration of the Night watch in
many cities in Europe and the United States.53
Whereas Rembrandt’s Syndics was cleaned in 1929 without
any publicity, resulting in a highly emotional discussion in the
press in 1932–33, the cleaning of the Night watch caused hardly any
critical reaction at all. In January 1948 Mertens was created
Knight of the Order of Orange-Nassau. Thanks to the successful
treatment of the Night watch the Rijksmuseum gained a reputation
newspaper articles. From the Van Schendel archive we know that the press release
was written by G. Rueter, Secretary of the Committee.
49 The remark that the Night watch had become a Day watch is found after nearly
all treatments of the painting, even when they were visually far less transformative,
such as the 1889 regeneration. Van Schendel qualifies this statement in his article in
MUSEUM: ‘The Night watch has not, however, become a “Day Watch”. [. . .] When
the irreversible effect of time and irreparable damage inflicted on the picture during
the XVIIIth century are taken into account, we believe that the latest treatment has
restored it as nearly to its original condition as was possible in the circumstances’; Van
Schendel, op. cit. (note 40), p.222.
50 W. Martin: ‘De reiniging van de “Nachtwacht”’, Maandblad voor Beeldende Kunsten
22 (1946), pp.192–95; M.J. Friedländer: ‘De Nachtwake ontwaakt’, ibid., pp.195–97.
The articles were introduced by K.G.B. (Karel G. Boon): ‘Een tweetal uitspraken
over de restauratie van de “Nachtwacht”’, ibid., pp.191–92.
51 A short notice in the Limburgs Dagblad of 12th September 1947 mentions that the
restored painting had already attracted 100,000 visitors.
52 Koot wrote the book in collaboration with Van Schendel, Rueter and Mertens; see
Koot, op. cit. (note 7). That the Dutch title was not translated literally for the English edi-
tion of 1949, which was called Rembrandt’s Night watch, its history and adventures, had
probably to do with the fact that in 1949 the appearance of the painting was no longer
considered new. A German edition appeared in 1954: Rembrandt und seine Nachtwache;
see Verslagen omtrent ’s Rijks verzamelingen van geschiedenis en kunst, Amsterdam 1949, p.10.
53 Drafts in five different languages are in the Van Schendel Archive.
the burlington mag a z i n e • clviI1 • february 2016 123
AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:45 Page 8
THE RESTORATIONS OF REMBRANDT’S ‘NIGHT WATCH’
for expertise in cleaning Rembrandt’s paintings, which Mertens
performed regularly afterwards, including on those in other col-
lections. For example, in 1949 the Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum
in Braunschweig entrusted the treatment of Rembrandt’s Family
portrait to Mertens,54 and in 1956 he cleaned the famous Portrait of
Jan Six (Six Collection, Amsterdam), probably for the Rembrandt
exhibition of the same year.55
During the last phase of the treatment of the Night watch, a
cleaning controversy flared up in London after the re-opening of
the National Gallery in October 1946, which led to the staging
of the Exhibition of Cleaned Pictures in 1947.56 As in all cleaning
controversies, including that over Rembrandt’s Syndics in 1932–
33,57 there was a heated discussion about the potential loss of
patina and the risk of losing original glazes by removing the old
varnish.58 In terms of Rembrandt’s painting technique, Max
Doerner’s book Malmaterial und seine verwendung has been influ-
ential throughout most of the twentieth century.59 Doerner
explained – we now know wrongly – that one of the most
important characteristics of Rembrandt’s painting technique was
his abundant use of resinous glazes.60 He vividly described how
disastrous a varnish removal with alcohol would be for paintings
by Rembrandt.61
These controversies led directly to ICOM, the international
museums organisation, founding the Commission for the Care
of Paintings in 1948. Van Schendel was appointed its secretary
and Philip Hendy (1900–80), Director of the National Gallery,
London, its chairman.62 Undoubtedly the openness and critical
approach of the Rijksmuseum towards the treatment of the Night
watch strongly contributed to the fact that no controversy
followed its cleaning, in spite of the remarkable visual changes it
underwent. This treatment heralded a new period of systematic
removal of the multiple layers of toned varnishes from Rem-
brandt’s paintings, the so-called ‘gallery tone’ so appreciated
before the War.
In contrast to the opportunity taken by Van Schendel to study
the physical history of the Night watch working from publications
and archives during and shortly after the War, there was no
54 See articles by Van Schendel in the Dutch weekly De Groene (5th November 1949)
– a draft is in the Van Schendel Archive – and newspaper articles in De Tijd (11th
and 12th October 1949), De Waarheid (12th October 1949) and De Locomotief (20th
October 1949). A photograph taken before cleaning and dated January 1949 is in the
conservation files of the Rijksmuseum.
55 Verslagen omtrent ’s Rijks verzamelingen van geschiedenis en kunst, Amsterdam 1956,
p.12. Several photographs of this portrait, all taken before treatment, are in the conser-
vation files of the Rijksmuseum. According to the files, the painting was re-varnished
by Luitsen Kuiper in 1971 and in 1984 was treated by him. Both the Family portrait and
the Portrait of Jan Six were in the recent Late Rembrandt exhibition; see J. Bikker et al.:
exh. cat. Rembrandt: the Late Works, London (National Gallery) and Amsterdam
(Rijksmuseum) 2014–15, pp.314 and 298. In the conservation files are documents for a
few Rembrandt paintings that do not belong to the Museum that were treated by
Mertens on the occasion of the 1956 Rembrandt exhibition, among them the Portrait
of Oopjen Coppit (private collection); see exh. cat. Rembrandt, Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum)
and Rotterdam (Museum Boymans) 1956, no.26; although there is no documentation
that its pendant, Portrait of Maerten Soolmans (private collection; no.25) was treated at the
same time, it probably was, as was the Franciscan monk reading from Helsinki (no.85).
56 Good articles on cleaning controversies include S. Keck: ‘Some Picture Cleaning
Controversies: Past and Present’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 23/2
(1984), pp.73–87 and G. Hedley: ‘On Humanism, aesthetics and the cleaning of
paintings’, in C. Villers, ed.: Measured Opinions, London 1993, pp.152–66. There
were cleaning controversies in England in 1936–37, 1946–47 and again in 1962–63.
Keck mentions the Night watch in his article (p.83), but the criticism he quotes dating
from 1959 is not characteristic of the general reception of the treatment. A recent
publication on the cleaning controversies is https://burlingtonindex.wordpress.com/
2015/07/11/the-burlington-magazine-and-the-national-gallery-cleaning-controversy-
1947-1963/, accessed on 14th July 2015. See also M. Blewett: ‘Helmut Ruhemann,
Paintings Restorer (1891–1973)’, THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, forthcoming.
124 f e b ruary 2016 • clviI1 • the burlington magazine
chance to carry out any technical examination of the work
after its return, since the Museum lacked both the experience
and the equipment, while the country was still recovering from
the German occupation. However, Van Schendel received help
from Coremans, Director of the Central Icononographic
Archive and the Laboratory of the Royal Museums of Art and
History in Brussels. The two men met regularly in the spring of
1946, when Van Schendel curated the exhibition Bosch to Rem-
brandt in Brussels, and Coremans visited Amsterdam in
connection with the trial of the forger Han van Meegeren, in
which Coremans was one of the experts.63 Coremans, a chemist,
had specialised in the scientific examination of works of art, and
during the War had built up much experience in organising
photographic campaigns, including taking technical photographs.
Coremans promised that his institute would assist the
Rijksmuseum to make X-radiographs, infra-red photographs and
UV-photographs, and in January 1947, when the treatment of the
Night watch was nearing its end, his assistant Louis Loose (1908–
86) came to Amsterdam, while Coremans himself arrived in
March to discuss the results with Van Schendel.64 A number of X-
radiographs and some infra-red photographs were included in the
publication by Van Schendel and Mertens that appeared later that
year. Most of them concern interesting pentimenti that Rembrandt
made during painting, for example, the altered shape of Banninck
Cocq’s dangling glove, the original pose of Sergeant Rombout
Kemp – the man with his arm outstretched behind the drummer
– the backward bend in the drummer’s body etc. (Fig.52). The
supposition that the cartouche with the names of the militiamen
shown in the painting was added later in the seventeenth century
was proved by the X-radiograph and infra-red photograph
(Fig.53), in which the underlying architrave of the building in
the background is clearly visible. Thanks to the cleaning, the
heraldic lions of the coat of arms of Amsterdam in the embroidery
of Van Ruytenburch’s yellow jerkin became more distinct.65
In 1948, the Rijksmuseum bought its own equipment to
make X-radiographs and infra-red photographs as well as a
binocular microscope in order to create a small laboratory in the
57 The conservation files for the Syndics at the Rijksmuseum contain many documents
concerning the cleaning controversy of 1932/33. Especially important are the minutes
of meeting 114 (16th June 1932); 115 (26th November 1932); 116 (16th January 1933);
117 (26th January 1933). The controversy was fought out largely in the newspaper
De Telegraaf; see articles dated 21st, 22nd, 28th, 29th, 30th and 31st December 1932;
3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and 20th January 1933; 3rd and 10th February 1933.
58 Important articles on patina and glazes are reproduced in N. Stanley Price et al.,
eds.: Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Los Ange-
les 1996, pp.365–421. For articles on patina and glazes and the cleaning controversies,
see D. Bomford and M. Leonard, eds.: ‘Part VI: Cleaning Controversies’, Issues in the
Conservation of Paintings, Los Angeles 2004, pp.425–547.
59 M. Doerner: Malmaterial und seine Verwendung im Bilde. The book was first pub-
lished in 1921, but it has seen many (revised) editions during the twentieth century.
It was translated in Dutch for the first time in 1977, idem: Schilderkunst. Materiaal en
Techniek, Gaade 1977.
60 Idem: Malmaterial und seine Verwendung im Bilde, Stuttgart 1954, pp.328–34; see also
E. van de Wetering, C.M. Groen and J.A. Mosk: ‘Beknopt verslag van de resultaten
van het technisch onderzoek van Rembrandts Nachtwacht / Summary Report on
the Results of the Technical Examination of The Night Watch’, Bulletin van het
Rijksmuseum 24 (1976), pp.68–98, esp. pp.71–73.
61 Doerner, op. cit. (note 60), p.421. Middelhoek (see note 45), in the interview with
H. Kat of January 1995, said that he wanted to buy Doerner’s book for the restoration
studio, but was forbidden to do so by Mertens, because the cleaning of the Night watch
was criticised in it. In the 1954 edition of Malmaterial, there is a section in the book
called ‘Die Bedeutung der Maltechnik im Bilde’ (pp.1–10), written by the German
artist, teacher and restorer Toni Roth (Doerner had died in 1939) in which the clean-
ing of the Night watch is criticised (p.8).
62 Van Schendel played a major role in the newly founded ICOM committees for
the Care of Paintings and for Museum Laboratories, first as Secretary and later as
AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:45 Page 9
painting restoration studio. According to the annual report of
the Rijksmuseum of that year, Van Schendel had acquainted
himself with these techniques in London and Brussels.66 High-
quality X-radiographs could now be made thanks to the training
that Mertens and the museum photographers received in
Brussels; from 1948 onwards numerous X-radiographs were
made – and studied – in the Museum, not only of paintings in
the collection, but also of paintings on loan to the Rijksmuseum
during exhibitions.67 The possibility of making chemical analy-
ses was never pursued by the Rijksmuseum until the Centraal
Laboratorium voor Onderzoek van Voorwerpen van Kunst en
Wetenschap (Central Research Laboratory for Objects of Art
and Science) was founded in Amsterdam in 1963.68 Van Schen-
del ends his article in MUSEUM in 1950 with the prophetic
words: ‘One lesson we may learn from the cleaning of “The
Night watch” is the importance of being well informed about
the past history of the picture in question. [. . .] In future, the
historian and the laboratory worker will have to combine their
efforts to furnish the restorer, at the beginning, with a clear and
accurate analysis of the situation confronting him’.69
On Sunday 14th September 1975, shortly after the opening of
the Museum at one o’clock, the Night watch was violently
attacked with a serrated dinner knife by a mentally disturbed
man. He managed to make twelve cuts (Fig.54) of variable
depths before he was overpowered by a guard and a bystander.
Unfortunately this was not the first time that the painting had
been attacked, nor would it be the last, a dubious honour that
befalls many great works of art.70
Over sixty years earlier, on Friday 13th January 1911, an
unemployed marine cook attacked the painting with a shoe-
maker’s knife.71 The attack was widely reported in the press and
instantly became international news. However, the varnish at
that date was so thick, more than the thickness of a dime, as one
of the newspapers reported, that the cuts did not reach the paint
layer, or only barely.72 Yet another attack on the Night watch
took place on 6th April 1990, when a man sprayed a can of acid
on the painting. Thanks to the quick action of a guard, who
Chairman. He organised and chaired the meeting held in September 1957 in the
Rijksmuseum. Two issues of the Unesco journal MUSEUM 3/2–3 (1950), pp.111–
251, edited by Van Schendel, were devoted to cleaning, including the Weaver report
on the cleaning of the National Gallery paintings. See also note 40.
63 In 1945, shortly after the Second World War, the painter Van Meegeren confessed
that he was the author of a number of paintings sold for high prices to the Germans
during the War as works by Johannes Vermeeer and other seventeenth-century
Dutch artists. As member of the team of experts Coremans was keen to prove that
this was true by scientific examination; see P.B. Coremans: Van Meegeren’s faked Ver-
meers and de Hooghs: a scientific examination, Amsterdam 1949. Recently the role of the
technical experts in the trial and later lawsuits about the case were discussed by Arie
Wallert, Michel van der Laar and Arjan de Koomen and will be published in the Pro-
ceedings Symposium Coremans (15th–17th June 2015), Brussels 2016, forthcoming. For
the friendship between Van Schendel and Coremans, see J.P. Filedt Kok: ‘Arthur van
Schendel: friend and companion in the world of museums and conservation’, ibid.
64 Brussels, KIK/IRPA archives, Coremans Archive, file I.109; correspondence
between Van Schendel and Coremans between December 1946 and March 1947.
65 Van Schendel and Mertens, pp.33–46, figs.11, 12, 14, 25, 27, 29 and 30. As he wrote
to Van Schendel on 12th December 1946, originally Coremans had intended that
Loose would make about twenty X-radiographs, six infra-red photographs and six UV
photographs. Today there are forty-eight X-radiographs and twenty-two infra-red
photographs dating from January 1947, but no UV photographs from that date are
known. Since the photographs were made when all varnish had been removed from
the painting, it may have been decided that there was no need for UV images. These
images can be studied online at http://www.rembrandtdatabase.org/Rembrandt.
66 Verslagen omtrent ’s Rijks verzamelingen van geschiedenis en kunst, Amsterdam 1948, p.12.
67 Bob Haak testified in his interview with conservators H. Kat and M. te Marvelde
(see note 45) how Mertens made many X-radiographs and used them during restora-
tion. This is visible in a photograph from 1960 of Mertens working on Rembrandt’s
THE RESTORATIONS OF REMBRANDT’S ‘NIGHT WATCH’
56. Visitors to the Rijksmuseum inspect the progress on the treatment of the Night
watch through windows into the temporary studio, 1975–76.
sprayed the paint surface with sterilised water from a nearby
canister, significant damage was avoided,73 and, as in 1911, only
the varnish layer had been affected (Fig.55). Although the
attack yet again made the headlines, the painting merely needed
to be re-varnished and was off view only for a few weeks.
Luitsen Kuiper (1937–89), who had succeeded Mertens in
1970 as chief restorer of paintings in the Rijksmuseum, was
responsible for the treatment of the Night watch in 1975–76.
He belonged to the first generation of Dutch restorers to be
professionally trained in a number of institutions in Paris, Rome
and Brussels – at that time no education programme for restorers
existed in the Netherlands.74 He had been employed at the Mau-
ritshuis in The Hague since 1962 and had been nominated to the
Rijksmuseum post in 1970 only after Van Schendel had several
run-ins with the Dutch Ministry of Culture. Kuiper was the
first conservator in the Rijksmuseum to publish articles reporting
on his restoration treatments: in 1971 on that of a painting by
Hendrick ter Brugghen and in 1972 on Vermeer’s Love letter,
which was damaged during a theft in Brussels in that same year.75
The Jewish bride: he has (a print of) the X-radiograph next to the painting on an easel.
68 This was confirmed by Haak, see previous note.
69 Van Schendel, op. cit. (note 40), p.222.
70 This section briefly discusses the deliberate attacks on the Night watch. The paint-
ing had been damaged earlier, for example when it was in its original location, the
Kloveniersdoelen, by militiamen’s weapons (muskets, pikes, lances), by a carpenter’s
hammer in the nineteenth century and in 1902 by a piece of wood, also caused by
a carpenter. However, we may assume that these damages occurred by accident. Of
course the reduction in size of the painting in 1715 can be seen as a deliberate attack
on the painting. See Van Schendel and Mertens, op. cit. (note 2), pp.13, 14 and 18;
for the 1902 damage, see a letter (January 1902) from A. Kuyper to the Mayor of
Amsterdam in the conservation files.
71 Van Schendel and Mertens, pp.21–22.
72 ‘De Nachtwacht beschadigd’, Algemeen Handelsblad (14th January 1911), p.2. See
Van Schendel and Mertens, p.22 for the restoration treatments in the years after
the attack; the varnish was frequently regenerated by alcohol vapours, both by the
Hesterman family and by H. Heijdenrijk.
73 During the 1970s and 1980s there was a wave of attacks on paintings using
damaging liquids, many of them by one man, the infamous German H.J. Bohlmann
(1937–2009). Water canisters were placed in the Rijksmuseum in case of such an
attack and, although much debated at the time, in this case the water prevented more
severe damage to the paint layers.
74 See P.J.J. van Thiel: ‘In memoriam Luitsen Kuiper 1937–1989’, Bulletin van het
Rijksmuseum 37 (1989), pp.307–09.
75 L. Kuiper: ‘Restauratie-verslag van Hendrick ter Brugghen’s Aanbidding der
koningen’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 19 (1971), pp.117–35; idem: ‘Restauratieverslag
van Vermeers Liefdesbrief’, ibid. 20 (1972), pp.147–67. In 1973 he published a small
book on the restoration of paintings: idem: Restaureren van schilderijen, Bussum 1973,
which also appeared in an English translation: Restoration of paintings, Bussum 1973.
the burlington mag a z i n e • clviI1 • february 2016 125
AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:45 Page 10
THE RESTORATIONS OF REMBRANDT’S ‘NIGHT WATCH’
The full treatment that followed the 1975 attack on the Night
watch was described comprehensively in an article by the restor-
ers Kuiper and Roy Hesterman (1950–2008)76 in 1976.77 Here it
is only possible to discuss some aspects of the intervention and
compare them with the treatment of 1945–47. There are many
similarities between the two treatments, since both involved
a wax-resin relining, varnish removal and the application of
new varnish and retouchings. Here we shall focus on the first
two aspects.
In fact it was deemed necessary to remove the varnish from
the Night watch a few years before the attack occurred; in March
1972 Kuiper reported that structurally the painting was in good
condition, but varnish removal was desirable since many traces
of old varnish had remained on the surface after the last treat-
ment, and the mastic varnish used by Mertens had yellowed and
had become so brittle that it was impossible even to remove dust
from the surface without damaging the varnish layer.78 It took
nearly a year before Kuiper’s report was discussed in a meeting
with the Museum’s Director and curators on 4th January 1973.79
After further meetings it was decided that treatment would take
place between January and March 1974.80 In fact other projects
took priority, and the project was delayed. When the attack
took place on 14th September 1975, Van Schendel had just
retired as general Director, and his successor, Simon Levie (born
1925), sought the advice of Van Schendel, who had been
involved in making the plans for the treatment first formulated
in 1972–73.81 It was clear that the more practical aspects, such as
setting up a temporary climatised studio in the Night watch
room at the end of the Gallery of Honour, were already costed,
at least on paper. After the attack some of these plans were
implemented very swiftly.82
The windows in the temporary studio, through which the
public could view the progress of the treatment (Fig.56), were
already planned in 1972–73. The need to keep the public
informed seems to have been even more important in the 1970s
than during the 1945–47 treatment. While the restorers were
at work, curtains would be drawn over the windows in the
76 Roy (his first name was Walden) Hesterman worked in the Rijksmuseum from
1972. He left in 1981 to practise as a private restorer in Muiden. He was part of the
generation of young painting restorers that included Martin Bijl, Manja Zeldenrust
(1952–2013) and Michel van der Laar, trained by Kuiper in the Rijksmuseum studio
and through a number of internships in international conservation institutes.
77 Kuiper and Hesterman, op. cit. (note 20), pp.14–51.
78 Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Archive, Night watch conservation files, ‘Rapport over
de toestand van Rembrandt’s Nachtwacht’, March 1972.
79 Ibid., minutes of the meeting of 4th January 1973. Another meeting took place on
25th January 1973 with the Committee of Advice for the Paintings of the City of
Amsterdam, who agreed that treatment was necessary.
80 Ibid., minutes of meetings on 21st March and 23rd March 1973, in which costs
were discussed and it was proposed to set up an international advisory board consist-
ing of members of the Rijksmuseum staff involved in the project, together with a
representative of the city of Amsterdam, Bob Haak, and the Director of the Central
Laboratory, J. Lodewijks. Further external specialists included, from the National
Gallery, London, Martin Davies (Director), Arthur W. Lucas (chief restorer), John
Mills (a scientist who specialised in varnishes), as well as a Dutch private paintings
restorer, Peter F.J.M. Hermesdorf from Maastricht. A few years earlier a similar
international advisory committee was set up for the restoration of Vermeer’s Love
letter, damaged in the autumn of 1971. This commission was chaired by Martin
Davies and had twelve members drawn from national and international museums.
They met three times during the treatment; see P.J.J. van Thiel: ‘The Damaging and
Restoration of Vermeer’s “Love letter”’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 20 (1972),
pp.129–46, esp. p.13.
81 Van Schendel died in 1977, shortly after the completion of the treatment.
82 The unexpected start of the treatment may be the reason that the international
advisory committee planned in 1973 (see note 80) was never set up. All the members
126 f e b ruary 2016 • clviI1 • the burlington magazine
57. L. Kuiper and
R. Hesterman
removing the var-
nish in 1976 on
the bridge in front
of the Night watch
that hung sus-
pended between
rails and ropes
with contra
weights.
temporary studio, but during lunch hours (between twelve and
two) and at other times, such as the weekends, when the restor-
ers were not working, they were opened to the public. A nearby
room gave information on the painting’s history and its treatment.
Two documentaries were made: a television documentary by
Gerard van den Berg for the Dutch public broadcast corporation
NCRV (‘Nachtwacht onder ‘t mes’; ‘Night watch under the knife’)
and a more educational one by Theo Kok for Polygoon, a cinema
newsreel company that operated in the Netherlands between
1919 and 1987 (De restauratie van de Nachtwacht; The restoration
of the Night watch).83
There were several press briefings during the treatment. As in
1945–47, newspaper articles during and after the treatment were
enthusiastic about the results.84 The report of the restoration
of the advisory committee were Dutch: the Rijksmuseum officials, the former Direc-
tor Van Schendel, and Bob Haak, director of the Amsterdam Historisch Museum,
who represented the city of Amsterdam.
83 The first film lasts some forty-eight minutes: http://www.npo.nl/de-nachtwacht-
onder-t-mes/11-09-2014/WO_NCRV_625491, consulted on 16th July 2015. The
second film lasts thirty-six minutes. See also the letter of 13th October 1975 by
Rijksmuseum Director Simon Levie to the Alderman of Art of the City of Amsterdam
on the purpose of the documentaries; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Archive, Night watch
conservation files. Originally Polygoon was asked by the Rijksmuseum to make several
documentaries, both for the general public as well as for specialists. The NCRV seems
itself to have approached the Museum with the request for a documentary.
84 The only known exception is a rancorous article in a Dutch weekly by the art
historian and lawyer J.A. van de Graaf (known from his Ph.D. dissertation on the De
Mayerne manuscript in 1958): J.A. van de Graaf: ‘Dubieuze restauratie in het
Rijksmuseum – Mysteriespel rond de Nachtwacht’ (‘Dubious restoration in the
Rijksmuseum – Mystery Play concerning the Night watch’), Elseviers Magazine (7th
May 1977). He blamed the Museum for a lack of openness and information concern-
ing the treatment. Although letters to the editors in defence of the treatment were
written by C.J. de Bruyn Kops, curator of the Rijksmuseum, and A.B. de Vries, the
former Director of the Mauritshuis, neither seems to have been published. The unde-
served criticism died a quiet death.
85 Kuiper and Hesterman, op. cit. (note 20); for the documentary, see note 83 above.
Another account of the conservation treatment was written in the book by Wim Hij-
mans, Luitsen Kuiper and Annemarie Vels Heijn: Rembrandt’s Nightwatch. The history
of a painting, Alphen aan den Rijn 1978 (chapter 7, pp.97–120). Although this account
does not give new information, since it was written for the general audience, it has
helped much in the positive reception of the treatment.
86 The poor adhesion was first discovered when a piece of the original canvas that had
AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:45 Page 11
published by Kuiper and Hesterman in 1976, shortly after its
completion, is more detailed than the 1947 article, in particular
concerning the structural treatment, which the attack had made
necessary. Both the report and the documentary Night watch
under the knife give much information concerning the process of
the treatment.85
Remarkably, and somewhat worrying from the conserva-
tion’s point of view, the adhesion of the 1945 relining turned
out to be far less strong that anticipated in the report of 1972,
especially in the central area.86 Removing the 1945 lining
canvas in small strips was an arduous task. It took a week to
remove the lining canvas and another to remove the old
wax-resin mixture.87 A new wax-resin relining was carried
out after strengthening the tears in the original canvas with
numerous threads of linen dipped in synthetic resin. It is inter-
esting that a wax-resin relining was chosen without serious
discussion. The Greenwich Conference on Comparative Lin-
ing Techniques had been held in 1974, but as far as we know,
Kuiper did not attend it.88 It was at this conference that the
negative aspects of wax-resin linings, such as the irreversibility
of the treatment and the risks of darkening or otherwise dam-
aging the ground or paint layers, were discussed for the first
time by a large group of specialists. The conference marked the
start of alternative lining methods being proposed, but probably
none of them was sufficiently tested for Kuiper to apply them
to the Night watch.89
Kuiper’s wax-resin lining method was very similar to that
used by Jenner, except that there was only one wax-resin appli-
cation, not two. The relining was done by hand, albeit with
electric irons instead of irons heated on a stove.90 A very delicate
moment in treatment was the removal of the paper facing after
the lining.91 This revealed that the varnish had blanched, and
was almost white, an effect caused by micro-cracking as a result
of the humidity involved during the application of the protec-
tive layer of paper.92 It startled most of the people present, apart
from the restorers themselves, who were of course familiar with
this phenomenon.93
come loose from three of the cuts that formed a triangular shape, had fallen onto the
floor from the lining canvas (into which these cuts had not penetrated). The article
gives three possible reasons for this: the ingredients of the wax-resin mixture, the
thickness of the lining canvas and/or the possibility that too little warmth and pressure
had been used to ‘protect the varnish layers’. These hypotheses seem not to have been
studied further at the time. Kuiper and Hesterman, op. cit. (note 20), pp.23–24.
87 By contrast, it took Jenner three weeks. The time difference may be explained by
the fact that Jenner worked alone, although possibly assisted by Mertens, while
Kuiper had help from the restorer W. Hesterman; technical assistants, A.E. van Zan-
ten and H.Ch. Coen; temporary interns, Mrs L.C. d’Arnaud Gerkens and D. Schwa-
germann; and a young trainee restorer, M. Zeldenrust, although what their exact
tasks were in the process is unknown.
88 Conference on comparative lining techniques, National Maritime Museum,
Greenwich, 23rd–25th April 1974. Van der Knaap writes that Kuiper still used
wax-resin lining for a long time afterwards, and in 1988 still preferred this method
rather than synthetic adhesives; see F. van der Knaap: ‘Luitsen Kuiper, de praktijk
van een restaurator’, unpublished M.A. thesis (University of Amsterdam, 2011),
esp. pp.50–70.
89 This issue was raised, but not pursued, in a newspaper article in NRC Handelsblad
(20th September 1975); beneath an article devoted to the upcoming restoration of the
Night watch, there was one about new methods of lining that included an interview
with Vishwa R. Mehra and J. Volkuil, both working at the Central Laboratory.
Within the Museum there is no evidence that there was any discussion as to the use
of alternative lining methods for this treatment, even though the Director of the
Central Laboratory, J. Lodewijks, was one of the advisers. An argument that was
often repeated was that the ‘damage was already done’ by previous wax-resin linings,
so a new wax-resin lining would not cause any further damage.
90 Several experiments are described in the 1976 report; see Kuiper and Hesterman,
THE RESTORATIONS OF REMBRANDT’S ‘NIGHT WATCH’
The varnish of 1947 consisted of bleached mastic, probably
dissolved in turpentine, as was common then. This was an inter-
esting choice, since mastic turns considerably more yellow than
dammar, but Van Schendel and Mertens argued that this layer
could easily be removed at a later date by rubbing, a process that
they still felt was safer than chemical removal.94 Indeed, in 1972
the varnish had become so brittle that just touching it caused the
layer to powder. However, removal of the varnish by hand was
no longer common practice in 1975 and seems not to have been
considered as an option.
The varnish layer was removed with a mixture of one part
acetone and two parts alcohol (Fig.57), in fact a very similar
mixture to the one used in 1946–47. Here the documentary
Night watch under the knife is particularly informative (Fig.58),
because seeing the restorer at work is even more instructive
than a written report. Kuiper first employed a broad brush
dipped in acetone/alcohol to regenerate the blanched varnish,
which had lost its translucency. Next, working with both hands,
he dipped a large wad of cotton wool into an alcohol mixture
with one hand and another wad into a neutralising solvent,
probably turpentine, with the other. Working rapidly he
removed the varnish with one hand and quickly neutralised the
area with the other. This method of working was commonly
used in the Rijksmuseum for varnish removal up until the 1990s,
although by then cotton swabs were used.
According to the report, older layers of varnish, dating from
before 1946, were first rubbed with yellow turpentine to soften
them and then were removed with alcohol and acetone mixed
in equal parts. Lastly the remnants of the oldest varnish in the
interstices of the brushstrokes, especially in the pastose areas
of the costumes worn by Van Ruytenburch and the girl in
yellow, were dissolved with dimethylformamide.95 Kuiper
and Hesterman only needed six weeks to finish this part of
the treatment and the varnish was removed by Christmas
1975.96 In contrast, Mertens, working alone, took five to six
months to remove the varnish, although the amount he had to
remove was obviously much larger.
op. cit. (note 20), pp.25–26. For example, different thicknesses of lining canvas were
tested. The canvas chosen was thinner than that used in 1945, which helped the
wax-resin mixture to penetrate, but still provided enough strength to carry the
weight of such a large painting. If Jenner carried out such tests in 1945, they were
never documented. D. Middelhoek said in an interview with H. Kat in January 1995
that he had introduced electric irons into the studio in the 1950s (which he had stolen
from the Germans during the War), so we can assume that Jenner’s lining was carried
out with irons heated on a stove.
91 Communication by Wouter Kloek, former head of the painting’s department at
the Rijksmuseum.
92 Kuiper and Hesterman, op. cit. (note 20), pp.39–40.
93 See also the documentary Night Watch under the knife by Theo Kok (note 83).
94 Van Schendel and Mertens, p.30.
95 Kuiper and Hesterman, op. cit. (note 20), p.41. There were probably several reasons
to remove more of the old varnish layers than had been done during the previous
treatment. Aesthetically, the general public, but also art historians and artists, had
become more accustomed to ‘cleaned paintings’ than they had been thirty years earlier
and were less enamoured of a brown gallery tone. Additionally, there had been more
scientific research into the nature and behaviour of (aged) natural varnishes; see, for
example, R.L. Feller and C.W. Bailie: ‘Solubility of Aged Coatings Based on
Dammar, Mastic, and Resin AW–2’, Bulletin of the American Group. International Insti-
tute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 12/2 (1972), pp.72–81; and R.L. Feller
and M. Curran: ‘Changes in Solubility and Removability of Varnish Resins with Age’,
Bulletin of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 15/2 (1975),
pp.17–26. Even in 1975–76 not all the varnish was removed, as became clear on exam-
ining the painting in the summer of 2015.
96 The other restorers involved in the project are not mentioned in the article or the
documentary; it is unclear if they helped with this part of of the treatment.
the burlington mag a z i n e • clviI1 • february 2016 127
AOC3.FEB.DuijnKok.pp.proof.corr.qxp_Layout 1 19/01/2016 12:45 Page 12
THE RESTORATIONS OF REMBRANDT’S ‘NIGHT WATCH’
58. Stills from the documentary Night watch under the knife showing Kuiper removing
varnish in 1975–76.
Kuiper’s and Hesterman’s article states that scientific examina-
tion was only carried out insofar it was needed for the treatment.97
Already before the attack, the Central Laboratory had been called
in to help analyse the varnish applied by Mertens.98 Further
research in 1975 and 1976, also by the Central Laboratory,
focused on analysis of those areas about which there was uncer-
tainty as to whether they were painted by Rembrandt himself
or were later additions. Because these questions were specific to
certain areas of the canvas, tiny paint samples were taken during
treatment.99 Another line of research was started by the Central
Laboratory using the wealth of sample material caused, ironically,
by the attack. Numerous small paint fragments had fallen onto the
lower edge of the frame and were systematically collected two
days after the attack.100 The month of January 1976, by which
time all the varnish had been removed, was reserved for technical
examination, including microscopic research and making new
X-radiographs of the entire painting. The X-radiographs were
taken on five vertical strips of film in one single exposure.101
Ernst van de Wetering, Karin Groen (1941–2013) and Jaap
Mosk studied the collected paint samples in 1976, first to answer
the restorers’ questions, but also to get a better understanding of
Rembrandt’s painting technique. They published their results in
the same Bulletin of the Rijksmuseum in which Kuiper’s and Hes-
terman’s article appeared.102 This article was a scientific response
to Doerner’s theory regarding Rembrandt’s use of resinous glazes.
But the many samples analysed also formed the basis for later
research in the context of the Rembrandt Research Project.103
The restoration of the Night watch in 1945–47 was one of
the first instances of a treatment being based on a careful
97 Kuiper and Hesterman, op. cit. (note 20), pp.50.
98 See the minutes cited at note 79 above.
99 Kuiper and Hesterman, op. cit. (note 20), pp.50–51.
100 This was done by Jaap Mosk and Karin Groen, who divided the frame ledge in sec-
tions so they could later make a more educated guess as to where samples had come from.
101 Since the painting was still on a temporary stretcher, larger than the painting
itself, no stretcher bars interfered with the X-radiography. This innovative manner
of X-radiography for large objects was developed at the Belgian Royal Institute for
Cultural Heritage (IRPA/KIK) by Guido van der Voorde; see G. van de Voorde:
128 f e b ruary 2016 • clviI1 • the burlington magazine
preliminary study of the conservation history of the painting
taken from archival sources. It was published jointly by the
curator and the restorer. Unlike the treatment of the Ghent
altarpiece in 1950–51, with its subsequent publication, L’Ag-
neau Mystique au Laboratoire (1953), in the case of the Night watch
there was no preliminary scientific examination, since there
was no possibility of doing so at that date in the Netherlands,
nor was there any interdisciplinary co-operation with scientists
during the treatment. It is probable that the post-War optimism
in the Netherlands contributed much to the positive reception
of the outcome of the treatment, but the clear, carefully
planned and open way in which the working process was
explained, both to the press and in a scholarly publication, also
played a major role.
In the history of the Night watch, varnish has played a dual role:
in a positive sense as the protector of the paint layers and provider
of warm and glowing colours, and in a negative sense as providing
a muted, even distorting layer that hid the qualities of the
paint. We learn from sources from the eighteenth through the
twentieth centuries that generations of art lovers rediscovered
the same splendour and glorious colours of the painting after
each ‘cleaning’ or regeneration of the varnish. But there is no
doubt that the many layers of varnish, oil, copaiba balsam and dirt
that had accumulated on the painting’s surface over time built up
a ‘gallery tone’ that turned the paint surface brown and muddy.
It was the fate of nearly all Rembrandt’s paintings, but the Night
watch was one of the first to be freed from it.
When comparing the two twentieth-century restoration cam-
paigns of the Night watch there are remarkable similarities between
them, both in the treatment itself and in the openness towards the
public. In both periods a wax-resin relining was carried out. In
1945 this was the appropriate technique: it had already been used
in 1851 and had proven its worth in the humid Dutch climate. By
1975 other lining techniques were available, but were not yet well
enough established to take into serious consideration for such a
large and famous painting.
Both treatments included varnish removal, for which the
same solvents – alcohol and acetone, followed by turpentine to
stop the solvent action – were used, but the manner of applica-
tion differed. Where Mertens used a mastic varnish to cover the
painting again, Kuiper applied a varnish based on dammar, a
resin that becomes less yellow and less brittle with aging than
mastic. However, it too turns yellow, a fact that can be seen well
these days when visiting the painting in the Night watch room
of the Rijksmuseum. It is to be hoped that modern techniques
and materials can eventually slow down the cleaning cycles that
the Night watch, and other paintings, go through during their
lifetime, and that the renewed splendour, described after each
treatment, will become permanent.
‘De radiografie van Rembrandts Nachtwacht / The Radiography of Rembrandt’s
Night watch’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 24 (1976), pp.52–67.
102 E. van de Wetering, C.M. Groen and J.A. Mosk: ‘Beknopt verslag van de resul-
taten van het technisch onderzoek van Rembrandts Nachtwacht / Summary Report
on the Results of the Technical Examination of The Night watch’, Bulletin van het
Rijksmuseum 24 (1976), pp.68–98.
103 Bruyn et al., op. cit. (note 1), pp.430–85; E. van de Wetering: Rembrandt. The
Painter at Work, Amsterdam 1997; K. Groen: Paintings in the Laboratory. Scientific
Examination for Art History and Conservation, London 2014, esp. chapters 2 and 3.