EDUCATORS’ PERSPECTIVE
Risk, Return and Rembrandt( Part 3): The Artist’ s Personal Finances
By Brian Grinder and Dan Cooper
Le Boeuf écorché( 1655) hangs in the Louvre’ s Richelieu Wing. The Paris museum purchased the Rembrandt painting for a bargain price of 5,000 francs in 1857. Hopefully, the Louvre has improved its security system since the major breach that occurred last October, as Rembrandt has the dubious distinction of being the second-most stolen artist in history. 1 The subject matter of Le Boeuf écorché( The Slaughtered Ox) may make it less likely to be stolen than other nearby Rembrandts, such as Bathsheba at Her Bath or The Supper at Emmaus, but if it were to be sold at auction today, this grisly masterpiece would easily fetch millions of dollars.
Art historian Avigdor W. G. Posèq contends that Rembrandt“ invested the imagery [ of The Slaughtered Ox ] with intense personal feelings.” 2 He writes:
The possibility of interpreting the Louvre painting as an allegory of human agony suggests that the artist assigned to the carcass a special personal meaning presumably related to the fact that the painting was done soon after the wreckage of his career resulting from the publication( in 1653) of an official decree of his insolvency.
Rembrandt biographer Simon Schawa speculates that the artist may have been“ indulging in a case of tragic projection: a martyr in the making suspended between life and death. The autumn sale of his household properties had brought just 1,322 guilders and 15 stuivers. He owed 13,000 … No wonder he felt the flayers in the wings, the hooks in the bone.” Rembrandt, the brilliant Dutch painter, was a failure when it came to his personal finances.
Rembrandt’ s father, Harmen van Riijn, was a miller in Leiden. Although he managed his money successfully, none of his children inherited those skills. Rembrandt’ s ineptitude with money eventually
The 1655 Rembrandt van Rijn painting Le Boeuf écorché( The Slaughtered Ox) hangs in the Louvre’ s Richelieu Wing.
overshadowed his artistic genius and left him poverty-stricken at the end of his life.
Rembrandt was eager for fame and fortune, and during the early part of his career it seemed he would achieve both. His artistic genius ensured that fame would come his way, but arrogance and overconfidence kept Rembrandt from facing up to his financial difficulties and correcting them before disaster struck.
Amsterdam was the place to be for a budding young artist. Rembrandt married his business partner’ s sister, Saskia, soon after moving to the thriving metropolis, much to the chagrin of her family. The wife of an artist was surely not what they had envisioned for their youngest daughter, who brought a great deal of family wealth to the marriage.
By all accounts, the marriage was a happy one, but neither Rembrandt nor Saskia showed any restraint when it came to spending money. And Rembrandt made a classic financial error when he bought more house than he could afford.
“ Never confuse a genius with a saint.”
— Simon Schama
It ultimately proved to be his undoing.
Shortly before Saskia’ s death in 1642, she made out a will that left her entire estate to their infant son, Titus. Rembrandt was given control of her assets with the proviso that he take care of the 10-month-old boy. The will also stipulated that if Rembrandt remarried, he would lose control of her estate.
Though shattered by Saskia’ s death, Rembrandt avoided losing control of her considerable estate by never remarrying. Instead of choosing a life of celibacy, he simply cohabitated with his female companions. Although this arrangement kept him in control of his wife’ s assets, it created all sorts of problems with his first livein companion, Geertje Dircx. Geertje was hired to take care of Titus shortly before his mother passed away; she evidently was not aware of the details of Saskia’ s will and assumed Rembrandt would marry her.
When it became clear that Rembrandt was more interested in his young housekeeper, Hendrickje Stoffels, than in Geertje, she moved out. Rembrandt agreed to provide her with 160 guilders per year for life, assuming erroneously that the annual payments settled matters between them. But the jilted Geertje sued Rembrandt for breach of marriage contract. After much squabbling, the courts increased Geertje’ s annual income to 200 guilders a year. An angry Rembrandt somehow convinced Geertje’ s brother, Pieter Dircx, to help him get Geertje committed to a house of correction in Gouda known as the Spinhuis, which Schama described as a place“ of confinement and correction for women judged unstable.” 3 Geertje languished in the Spinhuis for five years; meanwhile, Rembrandt took up with Hendrickje, who gave birth to Rembrandt’ s daughter Cornelia in 1654.
10 FINANCIAL HISTORY | Spring / Summer 2026 | www. MoAF. org