2004
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1566-7146
  • E-ISSN: 2667-1611

Abstract

Summary

This contribution studies the cessio bonorum of painter Rembrandt van Rhijn in relation to the relevant rules and institutions of Amsterdam.

fn1I would first and foremost like to thank professor Eddy Put (KU Leuven), for repeatedly reading my drafts and providing me plenty of useful references and advice. Gerrit Vanden Bosch, Marie-Juliette Marinus, and Jos Van den Nieuwenhuizen kindly answered my many questions, and, needless to say, all the possible flaws are on my own responsibility. In conducting this research, I was supported by the Hitotsubashi University Foundation (Japan).

In the Rembrandt case the procedural rules on the cessio bonorum were followed to a large extend. In regard to the beweysinge, a few weeks before the application for the cessio, it seems more convincing that it should be interpreted as a promise than as a conveyance of the house he owned. This new perspective on the beweysinge, however, does not alter the fact that it seems likely that there was a conflict between the Orphans Chamber (serving the interests of Titus) and the Insolvency Chamber (serving the interests of the creditors, and among them especially the former burgomaster Cornelis Witsen). Arguments for this are derived from: 1) the new bylaw issued by the Orphans Chamber shortly after Rembrandt’s application for the cessio, 2) the appointment of the renowned lawyer Louis Crayers as guardian of Titus (instead of Jan Verwout), and 3) the position of Titus’ preferential claim in the concursus creditorum. Crenshaw has stated that this conflict was decided by the personal influence of Cornelis Witsen. This contribution defends that Witsen only could enforce the sale of the house because of the institutional and political power structures within the city government. Witsen belonged to the powerful reigning faction of Cornelis de Graeff, whereas the majority of the officials in the Orphans Chamber belonged to the ‘political opposition’. In the end it was especially Witsen who profited from the sale (at the expense of Titus).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/PM2019.1.004.TANA
2019-01-01
2022-09-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/PM2019.1.004.TANA
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error