Advertisement

Rembrandt’s self-portraits: problems of authenticity and function

  • Ernst Van De Wetering
Chapter
Part of the Rembrandt Research Project Foundation book series (RRSE, volume 4)

Abstract

Surely, a self-portrait is autograph by definition. After all, only the painter, draughtsman or etcher can be responsible for registering his own image as observed in the mirror. Yet the issue of authenticity is as pressing with respect to Rembrandt’s self-portraits as it is with other paintings long attributed to the master. There are a number of reasons for this. The first is obvious: like any other painting, a self- portrait can be copied. This could take place in Rembrandt’s workshop or elsewhere, in the seventeenth century or later. We know that a number of copies of Rembrandt self-portraits were made in his workshop.1 Some early copies may have originated in other seventeenth-century workshops,2 while a far greater number must have been painted after his death and even into the twentieth century. As a rule, the later copies are more faithful than the earlier ones.3 Copies from Rembrandt’s workshop are free copies in the sense that they were painted more or less freehand and usually not made with the help of tracing or other methods of transferring an image. They can also be called free because the makers did not try to literally imitate the brushwork of the prototype, as one finds in later copies. The brushwork in such paintings can be spontaneous, so much so, in fact, that should the prototype be lost (or erroneously considered a copy), a copy may have taken its place (see figs. 1 and 2 and IV Corrigenda I A 22, see also I A 14).
Fig. 1.

Rembrandt workshop, copy after fig. 2, c. 1629, panel 37.9×28.9 cm. The Hague, Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen, Mauritshuis (IV Corrigenda I A 21). For a colour reproduction see fig. 136.

Fig. 2.

Rembrandt, ‘Tronie’ with Rembrandt’s features, c. 1629, panel 38×30.9 cm. Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum (IV Corrigenda I A 21). For a colour reproduction see fig. 135.

Keywords

National Gallery Metropolitan Museum Portrait Painter Function Chapter Present Painting 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Compare The artist in oriental costume, Private Collection (I A 40 copy 1); Self-portrait, The Hague (I A 21; IV Corrigenda, p. 597; see also exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, cat. nos. 14a, 14b). See also I A 22 copy 1, IV Corrigenda, p. 598, probably by the same hand as The Hague. There is also evidence that the San Francisco version of Self-portrait with sketchbook (IV 10, no. 2) was painted in the studio.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    An example of a (drawn) copy after an (etched) self-portrait of Rembrandt made outside Rembrandt’s workshop is the copy by the young Moses Terborch after B.7. See A. McNeil Kettering, Drawings from the Ter Borch Family Studio Estate (2 Vols), The Hague 1988, M. 84.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sometimes later copies show deliberately differences from the original, perhaps introduced for the purpose of putting them on the market as newly discovered autograph self-portraits. For example, see Self-portrait in a flat cap, Windsor Castle (IV 1, 5. Copies).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerson had already suggested this possibility, albeit on a limited scale, in Gerson 1968, p. 62.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. van de Wetering, ‘The multiple functions of Rembrandt’s self portraits’, in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, pp. 17–19.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lien Heyting, interview with E. van de Wetering in NRC Handelsblad, Cultured Supplement, 12-4-2002: ‘Rembrandt-onderzoek: een soort waarheidsvinding’; letter of H.J.C. Veth.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    John Knowles (ed.), The life and writings of Henry Fuseli, Esq. M.A.R.A., keeper and professor of painting to the Royal Academy in London; member of the First Class of the Academy of St. Luke at Rome, Vol. II, London 1831, pp. 118–122.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Bredius, Rembrandt paintings, London 1937, nos. 1–62 and 63–131.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. de Bruijn, ‘Mahler, Mahler, niets dan Mahler’, in: NRC Handelsblad, 12-1-2001, p. 35.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. J. Sluijter, ‘The Tronie of a young officer with a gorget in the Mauritshuis: a second version by Rembrandt himself?’, O.H. 114 (2000), pp. 188–194.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Schwartz, Rembrandt. His life, his paintings, London 1984.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Corpus, Vol. I, pp. 3–9: The stylistic development; Vol. II, pp. 3-13: Stylistic features of the 1630s: the portraits; Vol. III, pp. 3-11: Stylistic features of the 1630s: the history paintings.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L.P. Hartley, The go-between, London 1953, p. 1.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Strauss Doc., 1639/11; J.J. Orlers, Beschrijvinge der Stadt Leyden, Leiden 1641, p. 377.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G.J. Hoogewerff, De twee reizen van Cosimo De’ Medici Prins van Toscane door de Nederlanden (1667–1669). Journalen en documenten. Published by the Historisch Genootschap, Derde Serie No. 41. Amsterdam 1919, pp. 66–67 and 270–275.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strauss Doc., 1657/2, no. 292.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    IV Corrigenda et Addenda pp. 598–601; 609–626; see also in this chapter the section The self-portraits of 1625–’40, and for instance, E. van de Wetering ‘“Old man with turban”, an early Rembrandt rediscovered’, in: exhib. cat. PAN (Pictura Antiquairs Nationaal), Amsterdam 11–18 Oct. 1998, pp. 10-20, esp. 18.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. Froentjes, H. J. J. Hardy, R. ter Kuile-Haller, ‘Een schriftkundig onderzoek van Rembrandt Signaturen’, O.H. 105 (1991), pp. 185–204; idem ‘“Old man with turban”, an early Rembrandt rediscovered’, in: exhib. cat. PAN (Pictura Antiquairs Nationaal), Amsterdam 11–18 Oct. 1998, pp. 10–20, A Comparative Handwriting Examination of Rembrandt Signatures. Published in the proceedings of the XXVIIIth International Congress of the History of Art, Berlin 15–20 July 1992. Proceedings published by Akademie Verlag, 1993, pp. 595-606.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    We earlier published our observations in this area in The Burlington Magazine 138 (1996), pp. 174–180 and in exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, pp. 14–17.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    E. van de Wetering and P. Broekhoff, ‘New directions in the Rembrandt Research Project, Part I: the 1642 self-portrait in the Royal Collection’, Burl. Mag., op.cit.19.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    For arguments opposing this view, see the section The various functions of Rembrandt’s self-portraits in this chapter (esp. pp. 137–143).Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Strauss Doc., 1659/18 and 1661/5.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Corpus II, p. 91 note 3.Google Scholar
  24. 26.
    See Corpus I, p. 32.Google Scholar
  25. 27.
    C. White, The Dutch pictures in the collection of Her Majesty the Queen, Cambridge 1982, pp. 111–12, no. 168.Google Scholar
  26. 28.
    O. Naumann, Frans van Mieris the elder (1635–1681), Doornspijk 1981, Vol. I, p. 184, document 30 April 1675.Google Scholar
  27. 29.
    See also exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, pp. 23–30.Google Scholar
  28. 30.
    S. Slive, Rembrandt and his critics (1630–1730), The Hague 1953, Chapter IV; E. van de Wetering, ‘The miracle of our age: Rembrandt through the eyes of his contemporaries’ in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt. A genius and his impact, 1997/98, pp. 58–68; see also Van de Wetering 1997, pp. 265–272.Google Scholar
  29. 31.
    De Vries, Tóth Ubbens, Froentjes, pp. 214–217 under 8. X-Ray examination.Google Scholar
  30. 33.
    M. P. Merrifield, Original treatises on the arts of painting, London 1849 (reprint New York 1967), Vol. II, pp. 810–813.Google Scholar
  31. 34.
    Corpus II, Chapter II, p. 18.Google Scholar
  32. 35.
    See Corpus II, pp. 25–31; also X. Henny, ‘Hoe kwamen Rotterdamse schilders aan hun verf?’, in: exhib. cat. Rotterdamse meesters uit de Gouden Eeuw, Rotterdam-Zwolle 1994/95, pp. 43–53, esp. 49 and note 85.Google Scholar
  33. 36.
    See for instance Corpus II, p. 24 fig. 8.Google Scholar
  34. 37.
    See for instance exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, cat. nos. 14a and 14b.Google Scholar
  35. 38.
    See Van de Wetering 1997, pp. 197–205.Google Scholar
  36. 39.
    See Wetering 1997, pp. 205–211.Google Scholar
  37. 41.
    Bauch 1966, no. 323; C. Müller Hofstede, ‘Rembrandts Selbstbildnis mit Skizzenbuch’, Pantheon 26 (1968), pp. 375–390.Google Scholar
  38. 42.
    A. Wurzbach, Niederländisches Künstler-Lexikon, Vienna/Leipzig 1906. Vol. I, J. Gole; for J. Gole see also J. E. Wesseley, Jacob Gole, Verzeichnis seiner Kupferstiche und Schabkunstblätter, Hamburg 1889.Google Scholar
  39. 44.
    J. von Sandrart, Teutsche Académie des Bau-, Bild-und Mahlerey-Künste, Nuremberg 1675, (ed. by Peltzer, Munich 1925) Part II, Book III, Chapter XXII, p. 326.Google Scholar
  40. 45.
    E. van de Wetering and P. Broekhoff, op.cit. 21; see also Corpus IV 1; E. van deWetering 1997, in the hard-cover edition see theinside of the dust jacket; see also the present Volume, Addenda 1 and 2, pp. 609–626.Google Scholar
  41. 46.
    P. Horwich, Probability and evidence, Cambridge University Press 1982; C. Howson and P. Urbach, Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois 1989; D. Steel,‘Bayesianism and the value of diverse evidence’, in: Philosophy of Science 1996, Vol. 63, pp. 666–674. We gratefully acknowledge the help in this area we received from Sven van de Wetering, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  42. 48.
    E. Hinterding, Rembrandt als etser: twee studies naar de praktijk van productie en verspreiding, diss. Utrecht 2001, pp. 85–91; E. vandeWetering, ‘Delimiting Rembrandt’s autograph ocuvre; an insoluble problem?’ in: exhib. cat. The mystery of the young Rembrandt, 2001/02, pp. 58–81.Google Scholar
  43. 50.
    Van de Wetering 1997, Chapter VII; B. Schnackenburg, ‘Young Rembrandt’s “rough manner”. A painting style and its sources’, in: exhib. cat. The mystery of the young Rembrandt, 2001/02, pp. 92–121.Google Scholar
  44. 52.
    See for instance Eduard Kollof in 1854, cited in Van de Wetering 1997, pp. 155–156.Google Scholar
  45. 53.
    A. Houbraken, Groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen I, Amsterdam 1718, p. 259: ‘…dat een stuk voldaan is als de meester zijn voornemen daar in bereikt heeft,…’Google Scholar
  46. 54.
    See Van de Wetering 1997, p. 188.Google Scholar
  47. 55.
    Compare R.N. Haber and M. Hershenson, The psychologyof visual perception, New York 1973, pp. 297–300.Google Scholar
  48. 56.
    S. Alpers, Rembrandt’s enterprise. The studio and the market, London 1988, p. 29.Google Scholar
  49. 57.
    S. van Hoogstraeten, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst, Rotterdam 1678, pp. 306–309; see also pp. 305-308 in this chapter.Google Scholar
  50. 58.
    Gerson 1968, p. 66.Google Scholar
  51. 59.
    In the case of the Windsor Castle Self-portrait (IV 1), Tümpel may have based himself on White, op. cit.27.Google Scholar
  52. 60.
    See Preface, p. XI.Google Scholar
  53. 61.
    W. Sumowski, ‘Kritische Bemerkungen zur neuesten Gemäldekritik’, in: O. v. Simson and J. Kelch (eds), Neue Beiträge zur Rembrandt-Forschung, Berlin 1973, p. 105.Google Scholar
  54. 62.
    Exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, cat. no. 76.Google Scholar
  55. 63.
    J. Bruyn in his review of Sumowski Gemälde II, in O.H. 81 (1987), p. 228; J.W. von Moltke, Arent de Gelder. Dordrecht 1645–1727, Doornspijk 1994, p. 114 no. D11.Google Scholar
  56. 64.
    HdG Urk, p. 395 (Sandrart), p. 440 (De Piles), p. 457 (De Lairesse).Google Scholar
  57. 65.
    J. Payne, unpublished report, National Gallery of Victoria,Melbourne 1987.Google Scholar
  58. 66.
    J. Bruyn, ‘Rembrandt’s workshop: Function and production’ in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt. Paintings, 1991/92, pp. 68–69, esp. 75–80.Google Scholar
  59. 67.
    W. Pinder, Rembrandts Selbstbildnisse, Königstein im Taunus/Leipzig 1943; F. Erpel, Die Selbstbildnisse Rembrandts, Vienna/Munich 1967; Chr. Wright, Rembrandt: Self portraits, London/Bedford1982.Google Scholar
  60. 68.
    Exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, London 9 June–5 September 1999.Google Scholar
  61. 69.
    Chapman 1990.Google Scholar
  62. 70.
    E. de Jongh, ‘De mate van ikheidin Rembrandt’s zelfportretten’, Kunstschrift 1991/VI, pp.13–23, esp. 13–14.Google Scholar
  63. 71.
    W. Martin, ‘Rembrandt zelf op de Nachtwacht’, O.H 41 (1923–4), pp. 1–4; E. Haverkamp-Begemann, Rembrandt: The Nightwatch, Princeton 1982, p. 81.Google Scholar
  64. 72.
    H.P. Chapman, exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, Glasgow Museums & Art Galleries 1991, p. 13.Google Scholar
  65. 73.
    The nine drawn self-portraits, authentic or not, (figs. 89, 91,93, 95, 97, 101, 108, 110,112) seem to be scattered incidences. They are dealt with in the section ‘The drawn self-portraits (1629–1660). Remarks ontheir possible function and authenticity ‘(pp. 145–157).Google Scholar
  66. 74.
    A. Small, Essays in self-portraiture. A comparison of technique in the self-portraits of Montaigne and Rembrandt, New York 1996, p. XVII and 1; see also exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, p. 19; see S. Dickey, ‘[review of exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000’, Art Bull. 82 (2000), pp. 366–369.Google Scholar
  67. 75.
    D. LaGuardia, ‘[review of] A. Small, Essaysinself-portraiture’, Renaissance Quarterly 51/1 (1998), pp. 240–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 77.
    M. Podro, ‘[review of] exhib.cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000’, in Burl. Mag. 141 (1999), pp. 553–556, esp. 554; Itshould be noted that toward the end of the eighteenth century, Shakespeare, with his extreme individualization of characters compared with classical drama, was a central influence in helping articulate the new Romantic perception of self. But Shakespeare’scharacters cannot be taken asevidence that western self-perception remained constant or unchanged before and after the Romantic movement.See,for example, Johann Gottfried Herder,’ shakespear (sic)’ in: Von Deutscher Art und Kunst. Einige fliegende Blätter, Hamburg 1773, ed. ReclamUniversital-Bibliothek no.7497 (1988), pp. 65-91, comments by D. Irmscher, see esp. pp. 183-188.Google Scholar
  69. 78.
    E. de Jongh, ‘The spur of wit: Rembrandt’s response to an Italian challenge‘, Delta: A review of arts, life and thought in the Netherlands 1969, no. 2, pp. 49–67; De Jongh, op. cit.70 E. de Jongh, ‘De mate van ikheidin Rembrandt’s zelfportretten’, Kunstschrift 1991/VI, pp. 13-23.Google Scholar
  70. 79.
    H.-J. Raupp, Untersuchungen zu Künstlerbildnis und Künstlerdarstellung in den Niederlanden im 17. Jahrhundert, Hildesheim/Zürich/NewYork 1984, pp. 10–11; H.-J. Raupp, Selbstbildnisse und Künstlerporträts vonLucas van Leyden bis Anton Raphael Mengs, Braunschweig, Herzog AntonUlrich-Museum 1980, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
  71. 80.
    op. cit.79, 1980, p. 8.Google Scholar
  72. 81.
    Ch. Taylor, Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity, Cambridge 1980, p. 184, see also note 77.Google Scholar
  73. 82.
    Taylor, op. cit.81, p. 28.Google Scholar
  74. 83.
    Raupp 1980, op. cit.79, p. 7.Google Scholar
  75. 84.
    Chapman 1990, pp. 5, 7, 11–12, 55, 135, 136, 140 notes 17, 18.Google Scholar
  76. 85.
    J. Pollmann, Another road to God: the religious development of Arnoldus Buchelius (1565–1641), diss. University of Amsterdam, 1998.Google Scholar
  77. 86.
    Gerolamo Cardano [1501-1576] for instance stated that he based his De propria vita (ed. Jan Lamein, Amsterdam 2000, p. 87) on Marcus Aurelius’ philosophical diary; Rembrandt’s fellow-townsman, Hermanus Verbeeck [1621-1681] in his Memoriaal ofte mijn levensraijsinghe (ed. by Jeroen Blaak, Hilversum 1999, p.30) mentioned thathe was inspired to write his autobiography by the Biblebook Job and Augustinus’ Confessiones.Google Scholar
  78. 87.
    Pollmann, op. cit.85, p. 21.Google Scholar
  79. 88.
    Pollmann, op. cit. 85, p. 23.Google Scholar
  80. 89.
    Pollmann, op. cit. 85, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
  81. 90.
    Cardano, op. cit. 86; Francesco Petrarca [1304–1374], Epistola posteritati; Michel de Montaigne [1533–1592], Essais, (1572–1588); Benvenuto Cellini [1500–1571], Vita di Benvenuto Cellini (1558-).Google Scholar
  82. 91.
    P.O. Kristeller, Renaissance thought and the Arts, Princeton 1990, pp. 163–227, esp. 212–224.Google Scholar
  83. 92.
    Cited on dust jacket of Chapman 1990.Google Scholar
  84. 93.
    Benvenuto Cellini, op. Cit. 90.Google Scholar
  85. 94.
    Chapman 1990, pp. 29–33.Google Scholar
  86. 95.
    De mate van ikheidin Rembrandt’s zelfportretten’, Kunstschrift 1991/VI De Jongh, op. cit.70, p. 19; M. Royalton-Kisch, ‘Rembrandt’s selfportraits’ [Review of Chapman 1990], in: Print Quarterly 8 (1991), pp. 304–308.Google Scholar
  87. 96.
    Dickey, op. cit.74, p. 369.Google Scholar
  88. 97.
    R. Baer, ‘The life and art of GerritDou’ in: R. Baer (et al.), Gerrit Dou 1613–1675. Master painter in the age of Rembrandt, exhib. cat.Washington (National Gallery of Art)/London (Dulwich Picture Gallery)/The Hague (Mauritshuis) 2000–2001, pp. 26–53.Google Scholar
  89. 98.
    Baer, op.cit.97, p. 29.Google Scholar
  90. 99.
    Baer, op.cit.97, p. 30.Google Scholar
  91. 100.
    Baer, op.cit.97, p. 35.Google Scholar
  92. 101.
    De mate van ikheidin Rembrandt’s zelfportretten’, Kunstschrift 1991/VI Cited by De Jongh, op.cit.70, p. 17.Google Scholar
  93. 102.
    J. Rosenberg, Rembrandt. Life and work, rev. ed. London 1964, pp. 50–51.Google Scholar
  94. 103.
    Raupp 1980, op. cit.79; V. Manuth, ‘Rembrandt and the artist’s self-portrait: Tradition and reception’, in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, pp. 38-57.Google Scholar
  95. 104.
    See also Van de Wetering, in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself 1999/2000, pp. 22–36.Google Scholar
  96. 105.
    See M. Winner, Die Quellen der Pictura-Allegorien in gemalten Bildergalerien des 17. Jahrhunderts zu Antwerpen, diss. Cologne, 1957; J. Brown, Kings & connoisseurs: collecting art in seventeenth-century Europe, New Haven 1995; E. van de Wetering, ‘Rembrandt’s “Satire on Art Criticism” reconsidered’, in: Shop Talk. Studies in Honor of Seymour Slive, (eds. C. Schneider, W. Robinson, A.I. Davies e.a.) Cambridge, Mass. 1995, pp. 264-270; E. van de Wetering, ‘The miracle of our age: Rembrandt through the eyes of his contemporaries ‘in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt. A genius and his impact 1997/98, pp. 58-68; E. van de Wetering, in:exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself 1999/2000, pp. 8–37; C. Gibson Wood, Studies in the theory of connoisseurship fromVasari to Morelli, New York/London 1988; M.J. Bok, ‘Art-lovers and their paintings: Van Mander’s Schilder-boeck as a source for the history of the art market in the Northern Netherlands’, in: (ed. G. Luijten)DawnoftheGolden Age: Northern Netherlandish art, 1580–1620, Zwolle 1993.Google Scholar
  97. 106.
    On this influential series see C. Depauw and G. Luijten (et al.), Antoon van Dyck en de prentkunst, exh. cat. Antwerpen (Museum Plantin-Moretus)/ Amsterdam (Rijksprentenkabinet) 1999–2000, passim.Google Scholar
  98. 107.
    See M. Mauquoy-Hendrickx, L‘iconographie dAntoine van Dyck: catalogue raisonnée, Brüssel 1991, cat. nos. 3, 75, 93, 114, 165, 185, 189, 190, 193.Google Scholar
  99. 108.
    See E. Van de Wetering in: exhib.cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, pp. 28–35 for relevant sources.Google Scholar
  100. 109.
    S. van Hoogstraeten, Den eerlyken jongeling, of de edele kunst, van zieh by groote en kleyne te doen eeren en beminnen, Dordrecht 1657, p. 26.Google Scholar
  101. 110.
    W. Prinz, Die Sammlung der Selbstbildnisse in den Uffizien, Vol. I: Geschichte der Sammlung (Italienische Forschungen, third series, vol. V) Berlin 1971; see also note 108.Google Scholar
  102. 111.
    O. Naumann, op. cit.28, Vol. I, pp. 27–28, 185 (24 May 1675) Guasconi to Bassette.Google Scholar
  103. 112.
    Houbraken, op. cit.53, II, p. 240; HdG I-X, ‘Ludolf Bakhuyzen‘, in: Vol. VII, pp. 235–356, esp. 247–249; H. van Hall, Portretten van Nederlandse beeidende kunstenaars, Amsterdam 1963, pp. 10–12; G. deBeer, Ludolf Backhuysen (1630–1708): sein Leben und Werk, Zwolle 2002.Google Scholar
  104. 113.
    E.J. Sluijter, ‘The painter’s pride: the art of capturing transience in self-portraits from Isaac van Swanenburgh to David Bailly’, in: K. Enenkel a.o.. (eds.) Modelling the individual: biography and portrait in the Renaissance, with a critical edition of Petrarch’s Letter to posterity, Amsterdam/Atlanta 1998, pp. 173–196, esp.175.Google Scholar
  105. 114.
    For 17th-century Russian dress see Irena Turnau, History of dress in central and eastern Europe from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, Warsaw 1991, pp. 86–108.Google Scholar
  106. 116.
    Naumann, op. cit.28, Vol. I, p. 126 (and note 205).Google Scholar
  107. 117.
    Naumann, op. cit.28, cat. nos. 21, 26, 29, 41, 43, 59, 72, 77, 96, 107, 110.Google Scholar
  108. 118.
    C.L. Heesakkers, Constantijn Huygens ‘Mijnjeugd’, Amsterdam 1987, pp. 70–71.Google Scholar
  109. 119.
    See for instance N. Popper-Voskuil, ‘Selfportraiture and vanitas still-life painting in the 17th-century Holland in reference to David Bailly’s vanitas oeuvre’, Pantheon 31 (1973), pp. 58–74; and Sluijter, op. cit.113 ‘The painter’s pride: the art of capturing transience in self-portraits from Isaac van Swanenburgh to David Bailly’, in: K. Enenkel a.o.. (eds.) Modelling the individual: biography and portrait in the Renaissance, with a critical edition of Petrarch’s Letter to posterity, Amsterdam/Atlanta 1998, pp. 173–196, esp.175.Google Scholar
  110. 120.
    Cornelis de Bie, Het Gulden Cabinet van de Edel Vrij Schilderconst, Antwerpen 1661, pp. 270–72, ‘… Midts hy den mensch soo naer het leven doetghelijcken, / Bat wie het staegh bemerckt, voor fleven sou bekijcken. / Het wesen vanden mensch gheschildert op panneel / Is een memori-stuck en loffelijckjuweel, I Het gen’ men laeten can aen sijn Erffghenaemen / Om noch naer hondertjaer hun leven te befaemen,…’Google Scholar
  111. 121.
    In view of the function of this book, there is no attempt here to deal with those history pieces in which Rembrandt incorporated his own face. For the function of such self-portraits, see Raupp, op. cit. 79, pp. 243–262; exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, cat. no. 1.Google Scholar
  112. 122.
    Th. Vignau-Wilberg, Rembrandt auf Papier. Werk und Wirkung/ Rembrandt and his followers. Drawings from Munich, exhib. cat. Munich/Amsterdam (Rembrandthuis), 2001/2002, p. 21.Google Scholar
  113. 123.
    J.L.A.A.M. van Rijckevorsel, Rembrandt en de traditie, Rotterdam 1932; Slive, op. cit.30 S. Slive, Rembrandt and his critics (1630–1730), The Hague 1953, Chapter IV; E. van de Wetering, ‘The miracle of our age: Rembrandt through the eyes of his contemporaries’ in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt. A genius and his impact, 1997/98, pp. 58–68; see also Van de Wetering 1997, pp. 265–272; J. Gantner, Rembrandt und die Verwandlung klassischer Formen, Bern 1964; K. Clark, Rembrandt and the Italian Renaissance, London 1966; B. Broos, Rembrandt studies, diss. Utrecht 1977; Van de Wetering 1997, Chapter VII, pp. 155-169.Google Scholar
  114. 124.
    Van de Wetering 1995, op cit.105.Google Scholar
  115. 126.
    See M. Royalton-Kisch, ‘The role of drawings in Rembrandt’s printmaking’ in E. Hinterding e.a. Rembrandt the printmaker, exhib. cat. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum/London, The British Museum, 2000/ 2001, pp. 64–81. Apart from drawings made in connection with portrait commissions there are no more than five drawings in which Rembrandt developed a conception with an eye to a specific etching, Saint Paul in meditation, c. 1629 (Ben. 15/B. 149), Diana at her bath, c. 1631 (Ben. 21/B. 201), The great Jewish Bride, 1635 (Ben. 292/B. 340), Joseph telling his dreams, 1638 (Ben. 161v/B. 37), The artist drawing from a model, c. 1639 (Ben. 423/B. 192) and the St. Jerome reading in an Italian landscape, c. 1653 (Ben. 886/B. 104). The other drawings where Royalton-Kisch sees relationship with specific etchings by Rembrandt (see note 1 of his article cited above) relate to single figures or small groups of figures of certain etchings. The drawings that relate to the conception of paintings are: The Baptism of the Eunuch, c. 1630 (Ben. 13) (the painting is vanished but we know it from a reproduction print by J.G. van Vliet and a painted copy, see Corpus I, p. 37, figs. 3 and 4); Ganymedes (Ben. 92/Corpus III A 113); Homer dictating to a scribe (Ben. 1066/Br. 483). Analysis of the genesis of the Judas returning the thirty pieces of silver (Corpus I A 15), and the Claudius Civilis (Br. 482) shows that these drawings, long considered to be preparatory sketches (resp. Ben. 8 and 1061), must have originated during the course of the work, apparently as preparation for subsequent radical changes (see our discussion in Corpus I A 15 and B. Haak, ‘De nachtelijke samenzwering van Claudius Civilis in het Schakerbos op de Rembrandt tentoonstelling te Amsterdam’, Antiek 4, 1969/70, pp. 136–148, esp. 143). Abraham’s sacrifice (Ben. 90) was made by Rembrandt in preparation of a pupil’s copy with changes after Rembrandt’s prototype (see Corpus III A 108, Copies 2).Google Scholar
  116. 127.
    See E. Norgate, Miniatura or the art of limning, 1627/28, revised in 1648, ed. 1997 J.M. Muller and J. Murrell, esp. p. 109, notes 67, 311, Appendix 2, p. 238; Van de Wetering 1997, Chapter III, pp. 46-73.Google Scholar
  117. 128.
    K. van Mander, Den grondt der edel vrij schilder — const, Amsterdam 1604, Ch. XII, 4; see Van de Wetering 1997, Chapter IV, pp. 75-89.Google Scholar
  118. 129.
    See for instance exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself 1999/2000, no. 63.Google Scholar
  119. 131.
    G. Biörklund in: Rembrandt’s etchings true and false, Stockholm/London/ New York 1968, p. 58, points out the connection between the drawing and the etching; for further literature concerning the drawing in Marseille, see Ben. II, no. 430.Google Scholar
  120. 133.
    See also M. de Winkel, Fashion and Fancy: Dress and meaning in Rembrandt paintings, doct. diss. Amsterdam 2003.Google Scholar
  121. 134.
    Houbraken, op. cit.53, 1718, I, pp. 257–258: ‘den toestel der kleedingen; waar in hy boven anderen […] is te pry zen. Ja hy munte daar in boven alien uit: en niemant weet ik dat zoo menige verandering in afschetzingen van een en’ t zelve voorwerp gemaakt heeff’.Google Scholar
  122. 135.
    Houbraken, op. cit.53, 1718, I, p. 257: ‘zulken, die dezelve wezens en kleedingen, even of het al tweelingen waren, in hunne werken te pas brengen’.Google Scholar
  123. 136.
    See for example the model book of Chrispijn van de Passe, ’t Light der teken en schilderkonst, Amsterdam 1643-1644, the IVth volume: ‘in which is set out how one shall clothe all kinds of images in the most artful way with all kinds of materials: as well as the use of the lay figure’ (‘in de welcke wort verhaelt hoemen op het alderkonstighste wijse/ alderhande Beeiden sal bekleden met alderhande Stoffen: mitsgaders het gebruyck van den Leeman’).Google Scholar
  124. 137.
    Van Mander, Grondt, op. cit.128, Ch. X, 8.’ Ick ontrade niet/datmen hem veel wende te leeren maken al verscheyden aerden van lakens nae t’leven/ …’Google Scholar
  125. 138.
    Van Mander, Grondt, op.cit.128, Ch. X, 5.’ Al wat Arachne const uyt brengt te vollen/moeten wy met opmerck vlijtich aenschouwen/ … wollen/Racen/Saeyen/ Sijden …’Google Scholar
  126. 139.
    Van Mander, Grondt, op.cit.128, Ch. X, 9. ‘Wel lettend’op t’spannen en neder störten/op uyt en in gaen/wech Schieten/vercorten der ployen/nae sy van aerdt zijn gheneghen …’Google Scholar
  127. 141.
    This effect was described in R. Kiessmann (ed.), Hendrick ter Brüggen und die Nachfolger Caravaggios in Holland. Beiträge eines Symposiums im Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum Braunschweig 1987, Braunschweig 1988, p. 47.Google Scholar
  128. 142.
    Van Mander, Grondt, op.cit.128, Ch. VI, 4, p. 159. ‘Een twee-lipte mondt/met datier is inne.’Google Scholar
  129. 143.
    For a further example see E. van de Wetering, ‘Remarks on Rembrandt’s oil-sketches for etchings’ in: Hinterding e.a. op. cit.126, pp. 36–63, esp. 54, where it is argued that the monumental drawing Christ with his disciples in Gethsemane (Ben. 89) in Teylers Museum, Haarlem, until now always seen as standing alone, can be considered as one of a series (part of it on paper!) of grisailles executed in oil paints in connection with an unfinished Passion series.Google Scholar
  130. 144.
    P. Schatborn, Tekeningen van Rembrandt en zjjn onbekende leerlingen en navolgers, The Hague 1985, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
  131. 145.
    See cat. no. 60 in exhib. cat. From Dürer to Rauschenberg: A quintessence of drawing, masterworks from the Albertina, New York, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 1997.Google Scholar
  132. 147.
    Strauss Doc, 1669/5, no. 46: ‘Op’t achterkamertje’: ‘10 mansmutsen’.Google Scholar
  133. 148.
    Strauss Doc, 1656/12, no. 216: ‘Een ditto [book] seer groot met meest alle de wercken van Titian’.Google Scholar
  134. 150.
    G. Jansen, P. Sutton et al., Michael Sweerts (1618–1664), exhib. cat. 2001/02, cat. no. XIX.Google Scholar
  135. 151.
    See CL. Heesakkers & K. Thomassen, Voorlopige lijst van alba amicorum uit de Nederlanden voor 1800, The Hague 1986. We know that Rembrandt contributed to such alba: the Album Amicorum Burchard Grossmann, see Strauss Doc, 1634/6, (Ben. 257; see fig. 111), the Pandora Album of Jan Six (Ben. 913, 914); Ben. 469 may also have been cut from an Album Amicorum.Google Scholar
  136. 152.
    Earlier doubts as to the authenticity of the drawing have already been expressed, although not in print. During discussions over the certain’ core’ of Rembrandt’s oeuvre of drawings between Peter Schatborn and Martin Royalton-Kisch, on the basis of stylistic characteristics, particularly the way of hatching, the drawing was connected to a group of drawings that are usually attributed to Willem Drost (1633’ 58) (Sumowski Drawings 3, pp. 1185–1241). Drost remained in Rembrandt’s studio from c. 1648 to c. 1653, so he must have known Rembrandt’s etched Self-portrait drawing at the window from 1648 and the Vienna Large self-portrait from 1652. See: J. Bikker, Willem Drost (1633–1658). A Rembrandt pupil in Amsterdam, doct. diss. Amsterdam 2001, pp. 9–14.Google Scholar
  137. 154.
    See Chapter II, p. 59; F. Baldinucci, Cominciamento, e progresso dell’arte dell’intagliare in rame: colle vite di molti de’più eccellenti maestri délia stessa professione, Florence 1686, p. 79.‘…era accompagnato da un vestire abietto, e sucido, essendo suo costume nel lavorare il nettarsi i pennelli addosso …’(‘… that went together with vile and filthy clothes, it being his custom whilst working to wipe his brushes on himself …’); Raupp 1984, op. cit.79, pp. 81–82.Google Scholar
  138. 159.
    S. Marschke, Künstlerbildnisse und Selbstporträts. Studien zu ihren Funktionen von der Antike bis zur Renaissance, Weimar 1998.Google Scholar
  139. 160.
    F. Ames-Lewis, ‘The Renaissance draftsman and his models’, in Drawing: masters and methods, Rafael to Redon, Royal Academies of Art, London/New York 1992.Google Scholar
  140. 161.
    CP. Rouffaer, ‘Vier Kamper schilders. Ernst Maeler, Mechtelt toe Boecop, Bernhard Vollenhove, Steven van Duyven’, O.H. 5 (1887), pp. 295–308, esp. 297). I am grateful to Jaap van der Veen for this reference.Google Scholar
  141. 162.
    See for instance E. Hinterding e.a., op.cit.126, cat. no. 51 with further literature.Google Scholar
  142. 164.
    J. Bruyn, ‘Studio practice and studio production’, Corpus III, Chapter II, pp. 12–50, esp. 25.Google Scholar
  143. 165.
    N. van Eck, Jongemannen-tronies, unpublished master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam 2000.Google Scholar
  144. 166.
    Vasari-Milanesi, Volume IV, p. 566; see also Marschke, op. cit.159, p. 272.Google Scholar
  145. 167.
    See, Marschke op. cit.159, p. 274 ff and 309–10.Google Scholar
  146. 168.
    The letter was written on 25th June, 1667, by the agent Paolo del Sera to Leopoldo de’ Medici. Marschke, op.cit.159, p. 309.Google Scholar
  147. 169.
    Houbraken, op. cit.53, 1718, I p. 182. ‘Hy heeft nog by zyn meester zynde, deszelfspourtret, dat van zyn vrouw en verscheide anderen gemaakt, …Google Scholar
  148. 170.
    H.L. Straat, ‘Lambert Jacobsz. schilder’, in: De Vrije Fries 28 (1925), pp. 53–94, esp. 73, no. 24.Google Scholar
  149. 171.
    Marschke, op. cit.159, p. 305; see however C. Goldstein, Visual fact over verbal fiction. A study of the Carracci and the criticism, theory and practice of art in the Renaissance and Baroque Italy, Cambridge/New York 1988, p. 56.Google Scholar
  150. 172.
    See, Van Eck, op. cit.165, pp. 33–40.Google Scholar
  151. 174.
    Strauss Doc, 1634/6.Google Scholar
  152. 175.
    W.R. Valentiner, Rembrandt. Des Meisters Handzeichnungen, Stuttgart/ Berlin/Leipzig, 1925–34, II, p. 415, no. 668.Google Scholar
  153. 177.
    E. Haverkamp-Begemann in: The Robert Lehman Collection VII, Fifteenth-to eighteenth-century European drawings (Central Europe, The Netherlands, France England), New York/Princeton 1999, cat. no. 71; see that entry for further literature.Google Scholar
  154. 179.
    See also M. Royalton-Kisch, op cit.126, p. 108.Google Scholar
  155. 181.
    P. Schatborn and E. Ornstein-van Slooten, exhib. cat. Rembrandt as teacher, Amsterdam (Rembrandt House Museum) 1984–85, pp. 19–22.Google Scholar
  156. 182.
    McNeil Kettering, op.cit.2, Vol. I, pp. 286–351, nos. 52, 98, 99, 100 (2x), 101, 102, 103, 130; and two paintings (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum A 2241 and A 2118).Google Scholar
  157. 183.
    F. Winkler, Die Zeichnungen Albrecht Dürers, Berlin 1936, Vol. I, nos. 26 and 27.Google Scholar
  158. 186.
    Strauss Doc, 1628/1; 1630/5 section 1; 1641/8; E. van de Wetering,’ Rembrandt’s beginnings; an essay’, in exhib. cat. The mystery of the young Rembrandt, 2001/02, pp. 22-57, esp. 27-32. The thoroughly detailed and monogrammed Old man with a turban (IV Add. 3) depicted with the same lighting seems to have been intended as another saleable byproduct of the Amsterdam study of back lighting; Van de Wetering 1998, ‘“Old man with turban”, an early Rembrandt rediscovered’, in: exhib. cat. PAN (Pictura Antiquairs Nationaal), Amsterdam 11–18 Oct. 1998, pp. 10–20 op. cit.17.Google Scholar
  159. 187.
    ‘…zoo moetmen zieh zdven geheel in een toneelspeeler hervormen. … voor een Spiegel, om te gelijk vertooner en aenschouwer te zijn.’ Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, pp. 109–110.Google Scholar
  160. 188.
    ‘… Als/een voorhooft/twee ooghen/en daer bovenl Twee wijnbrauwen/en daer onder verschoven Twee wanghen/oock tusschen neus ende kinne Een twee-lipte mondt/met datter is inne.’ Van Mander, Grondt, op.cit.128, Ch. I, cap. 6 Fol. 23; 4, p. 159.Google Scholar
  161. 189.
    Sy en hebbent niet crom/die ons verwijten/dat wy soo qualijck connen onderscheyden/In onse troengen het lachen en t’crijten/Maer wy sien/als wy het leven bevlijten/Dat door t’lachen mondt en wanghen breyden En rijsen/t’voorhooft daelt/ en tusschen bey den D’ooghen half toeghedruckt zijn en ghedouwen/ Makende nae d’ooren toe cleyne vouwen.’ Van Mander, Grondt, op.cit.128, Ch. I, cap. 6 Fol. 25 v.; 36, p. 168.Google Scholar
  162. 190.
    ‘[… Des Menschen ghemoedt.:] want kreucken en groeven Daer [op ‘t voorhooft] bewijsen/dat in ons is verborghen Eenen bedroefden gheest/ benout/vol sorghen.’ Van Mander, Grondt, op.cit.128, Ch. I, cap. 6, Fol. 25; 29, p. 167.Google Scholar
  163. 191.
    Exhib. cat. The mystery of the young Rembrandt, 2001/02, cat. nos. 9, 10, 11. See also IV Corrigenda, p. 627.Google Scholar
  164. 192.
    Exhib. cat. Rembrandt. A genius and his impact, 1997/98, pp. 38–40 (with reference to the initial publication of Blankert’s idea in a Dutch Festschrift in 1973).Google Scholar
  165. 193.
    A. Wallert, ‘Over Rembrandts schouder’, the science supplement of the daily Volkskrant I June 2002, p. W 1.Google Scholar
  166. 194.
    M.W. Ainsworth, P. Meyers, e.a., ‘Paintings by Van Dyck, Vermeer and Rembrandt reconsidered through autoradiography’, in: Art and autoradiography (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 1982, pp. 9–99, plates 14, 21, 25, 45.Google Scholar
  167. 197.
    P. Schatborn, ‘[review of] J. Bruyn e.a., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings’, O.H. 100 (1986), pp. 55–63, esp. 61.Google Scholar
  168. 198.
    J. Biaiostocki, ‘Das Modusproblem in der bildenden Kunst’, in Zeitsch, f Kunstgesch. 24 (1961), pp. 128–141, also published inj. Biaiostocki, Stil und Ikonographie, Dresden 1966, pp. 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 199.
    This was not a closed system. Aristotle, for instance, differed from Plato over the question of what meaning in the ideal state should be attributed to the only two harmoniai accepted by Plato, the Dorian and the Phrygian modes. Plato thus attributed to the Phrygian mode the character of valour and resoluteness, whereas Aristotle inclined rather to attribute affective states such as passion and ecstasy. Such theories persisted into the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance and in discussion arising from these musical theories the number of modes varied from four to seven or eight depending on the wider cosmological or other context in which they were placed. See E. Vetter, Concentrische cirkels. Modus, affect, sfeer en tijd in een middeleeuws muziektheoretisch gedieht, diss. Utrecht 2000; Biaiostocki 1961, J. Biaiostocki, ‘Das Modusproblem in der bildenden Kunst’, in Zeitsch, f Kunstgesch. 24 op. cit.198, pp. 130-132.Google Scholar
  170. 200.
    F. Quadlbauer, Die antike Theorie der genera dicendi im lateinischen Mittelalter, diss. Vienna 1962; L. Fischer, Gebundene Rede. Dichtung und Rhetorik in der literarischen Theorie des Barock in Deutschland, Tübingen 1968, pp. 184–252.Google Scholar
  171. 201.
    Das Modusproblem in der bildenden Kunst’, in Zeitsch, f Kunstgesch. 24 (1961) Biaiostocki 1961, op. cit.198, p. 131; see also F. Quadlbauer, Die antike Theorie der genera dicendi im lateinischen Mittelalter, diss. Vienna 1962 op.cit.200.Google Scholar
  172. 202.
    E.H. Gombrich, ‘Renaissance artistic theory and the development of landscape painting’, G.d.B.-A. VI/XLI (1953), pp. 335–360.Google Scholar
  173. 203.
    Blunt’s discovery was published by P. Alfassa, ‹L’origine de la lettre de Poussin sur les modes d’après un travail récent›, in: Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire de l’Art Français 1933, pp. 125–143.Google Scholar
  174. 204.
    Letter of Nicolas Poussin to Paul Fréart de Chantelou, Rome, 24 Nov. 1647. Translation published in: A. Mérot, Nicolas Poussin, Paris/ London 1990, pp. 311–312.Google Scholar
  175. 205.
    ‘… and he is so skilful in giving each line the sound appropriate to its subject matter that in truth it seems he can make us see the things he describes, simply through the sound of the words he uses. In passages where he talks of love, for instance, we see that he has skilfully chosen words which are soft, agreeable and extremely pleasing to the ear; in contrast, where he sings of some feat of arms or describes a naval battle or a sea adventure, he has chosen hard, harsh, unpleasant sounding words designed to provoke a sense of terror in those hearing or uttering them.’ Mérot, op. cit.204, p. 312.Google Scholar
  176. 206.
    Strauss Doc, 1628/1.Google Scholar
  177. 209.
    Van de Wetering 2001/02, op. cit.186.Google Scholar
  178. 210.
    H. Miedema, ‘Realism and comic mode: the peasant’, Simiolus 9 (1977) no. 4, pp. 205–219, esp. 211; E. de Jongh, Portretten van echt en trouw. Huwelijk en gezin in de Mederlandse kunst van de zeventiende eeuw, exhib. cat. Frans Halsmuseum Haarlem, 1986, pp. 15–18. J. Verberckmoes, Schertsen, schimpen en schateren. Geschiedenis van het lachen in de zuidelijke Mederlanden, zestiende en zeventiende eeuw, Nijmegen 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 211.
    See Corpus I A 27; J. Bruyn, ‘Jung und alt. Ikonographische Bermerkungen zur “tronie”’, Hendrick ter Brugghen und die Nachfolger Caravaggios in Holland, Symposium Braunschweig, March 1987, pp. 67–76.Google Scholar
  180. 212.
    H. Lindner, Der problematische mittlere Stil. Beiträge zur Stiltheorie und Gattungspoetik in Frankreich vom Ausgang des Mittelalters bis zum Beginn der Aufklärung, Tübingen 1988.Google Scholar
  181. 214.
    Jacobus Pontanus, Poeticarum Institutionum libri III, Ingolstad 1594, lib. 1 cap. 11, pp. 36/37.Google Scholar
  182. 215.
    On Rembrandt’s youthful ambitions, see Van de Wetering 2001/02, op.cit.186.Google Scholar
  183. 216.
    For the effects of time on the constantly changing human physiognomy, see E.H. Gombrich, ‘The mask and the face: The perception of physiognomic likeness in life and art’ in: The image and the eye. Further studies in the psychology of pictorial representation, Oxford 1982, pp. 105–136; J.B. Bedaux, ‘Portretten in beweging: Rembrandt als portrettist’, in exhib. cat. Kopstukken. Amsterdammers geportretteerd: 1600–1800, ed. N. Middelkoop e.a., Amsterdams Historisch Museum, 2002/03, pp. 64–81.Google Scholar
  184. 218.
    There are several characteristics of the Amsterdam Bust of a young man laughing that argue strongly against an attribution to Rembrandt. These concern both the stylistic aspects (particularly the handling of light and the way of dealing with contours) and the features of physiognomy. In addition, there is a puzzling technical aspect. In the handling of light it is striking that the highlights on the forehead have virtually the same intensity as the light on the chin; whereas it is characteristic of Rembrandt that he reliably ensured that the light intensity decreased from forehead to chin. (This is the case even in the Indianapolis painting, see fig. 123, where the head is so tilted that the chin projects prominently.) In the Laughing soldier in The Hague (see fig. 128), this gradient in the light value is emphasized, ensuring that the effect of the light as a whole is intensified. The manner in which the highlights in the Bust of a young man laughing, dabbingly applied, are evenly and, as it were, superficially attached to the flesh tones in the lit part and not, as in Rembrandt, integrated with the brushwork, thus also argues against the attribution to Rembrandt. The treatment of light on the lit shoulder in the Amsterdam painting similarly suggests that it has been ill thought out. There is no evident logic in the way the light value diminishes from the brown collar to the shoulder, while the indifferent contour of the shoulder in question also contributes to a general lack of any effect of plasticity in this passage. As far as the physiognomy is concerned, the large chin with its short beard is conspicuous, as is the knob of the nose. These are features that point more in the direction of Jan Lievens as the figure portrayed than toward Rembrandt. The same physiognomic features are evident in the large London Self-portrait of Lievens from the late thirties in which, furthermore, one can also see on the lit side the almost horizontal fold of skin running from the eye socket and bending upwards in the middle of the forehead (Sumowski Gemälde III, no. 1289). The first two of these features and the small beard can also be clearly seen in Lievens’ early Self-portrait in profile in Copenhagen (Sumowski Gemälde III, no. 1258). The posture of the figure in the Amsterdam painting under discussion with its outstretched neck and prominent Adam’s apple would appear to have been typical of Jan Lievens. Compare the self-portraits already mentioned and the portrait of Jan Lievens by Antonie van Dyck for the Iconographie. The young man playing the harp in Rembrandt’s Musical Allegory in Amsterdam (I A 7), convincingly identified by Henry Defoer as Jan Lievens in O.H. (91) 1977, p. 18, in addition to several other physiognomic features mentioned earlier also displays this idiosyncratic posture. This is also true of the painter in the drawing of a painter in his studio in the J.P. Getty Museum (Ben. 390) who, the present author is convinced, can be identified as Jan Lievens, see E. van de Wetering, ‹Leidse schilders achter de ezel›, in: exhib. cat. Geschildert tot Leyden anno 1626, ed. M.L. Wurfbain et al, Leiden De Lakenhai, 1976, pp. 21-31, esp. 29. The figure in this drawing, with its thrust foreward head and long chin, is also indicated as having a short beard. With regard to a technical singularity of the painting, in the Corpus text relating to this painting (I C 34), under Ground: scientific data Karin Groen observes that the top layer of the ground (the bottom layer is a normal chalk/glue layer) clearly deviates from the type of ground that one usually finds on Rembrandt’s panels, both in composition and colour. With this painting, the ground contains more chalk than usual and, as well as lead white, crude black pigment grains. One can only infer that this ground was grey and not the yellow-brown colour that was normal for Rembrandt’s panels (see Table II Grounds on panel, pp. 660 ff). As well as the physiognomic arguments, the stylistic arguments outlined above also argue for an attribution of the painting to Jan Lievens. The remarkable indifference to the potential of contours to suggest plasticity (which Rembrandt habitually employed so effectively and sensitively) is rather characteristic of Jan Lievens. Compare for example Sumowski Gemälde III, nos. 1236, 1255, 1259, 1260. This also holds for the latter’s usually unrefined use of the possibilities of the light. We know too little about Lievens’ preferences regarding the colour of the grounds of his panels to be able to draw any conclusion from the grey ground on this panel. The relation established by dendrochronology between the panel and the one on which the Nuremburg Self-portrait is painted makes an early dating (c. 1629/30), of the Amsterdam Bust of a young man laughing virtually unavoidable, but it does not exclude the possibility that we might be dealing here, if not with a work by Lievens himself, perhaps a copy originating in Lievens’ or Rembrandt’s studio (or their shared studio; see E. van de Wetering, ‘De symbiose van Lievens en Rembrandt’, in exhib. cat. Rembrandt & Lievens in Leiden, Leiden De Lakenhai 1991/92, pp. 39–47) of a lost prototype by Jan Lievens. In view of the above, we maintain our original standpoint that the Amsterdam Bust of a young man laughing was not painted by Rembrandt.Google Scholar
  185. 219.
    A. Blankert, Ferdinand Bol (1606–1680), een leerling van Rembrandt, diss. Utrecht 1976, p. 28; Blankert Bol, pp. 26–28; 57–59; J. Bruyn, ‘Jung und alt. Ikonographische Bermerkungen zur “tronie”’, Hendrick ter Brugghen und die Nachfolger Caravaggios in Holland, Symposium Braunschweig, March 1987, pp. 67–76. Bruyn 1987, op. cit211; L. de Vries, ‘Tronies and other single figured Netherlandish paintings’, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 8 (1989), pp. 185–202; J. van der Veen, ‘Faces from life: Tronies and portraits in Rembrandt’s painted oeuvre’, in exhib. cat. Rembrandt. A genius and his impact, 1997/98, pp. 69–80, esp. 71–73. Problems connected with phenomenon of the tronie were discussed during a two-day symposium under the heading ‘Tronies’ in de Italiaanse, Vlaamse en JVederlandse schilderkunst van de 16de en 17de eeuw, The Hague, 19–20 October 2000, summarized by D. Hirschfelder and H.-J. Raupp, in: Kunstchronik 54 (2001), pp. 197–202.Google Scholar
  186. 220.
    D. Hirschfelder, ‘Portrait or character head? The term tronie and its meaning in the seventeenth century’, in: exhib. cat. Tie mystery of the young Rembrandt, 2001/02, pp. 82–90.Google Scholar
  187. 221.
    For example, most of the ‘family’ members in Bredius’ catalogue are tronies; see A. Blankert in exhib. cat. Rembrandt. A genius and his impact, 1997/98, pp. 45–46.Google Scholar
  188. 222.
    See, for example, drawing from the Rembrandt school in the Frits Lugt Collection, Institut Néerlandais, Paris, reproduced by Jaap van der Veen, op. cit.219, p. 71, fig. 4.Google Scholar
  189. 223.
    Van de Wetering, op. cit.17 with reference to other paintings by Rembrandt and paintings by Jan Lievens, Gerard Dou and the Leiden painter Jacques des Rousseaux that made use of the same model (see also exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself 1999/2000, cat. nos. 14a and 14b).Google Scholar
  190. 224.
    J. Bruyn, ‘Rembrandt’s workshop: function and production’, in exhib. cat. Rembrandt. Paintings, 1991/92, pp. 68–89, esp. 79–80.Google Scholar
  191. 225.
    The four paintings are also included which, in our view, were intended as tronies for which Rembrandt posed himself (Br. 6, 7, 8, 11). The following of Rembrandt’s Leiden tronies and their presumed connotations should be taken as tentative: two with pious women (Br. 63, 69); three old men (Br. 76, 77, 82); three (perhaps) oriental figures (Br. 7, 8, 72); five figures with military connotations (Br. 6, 79, 81, 132, 134); a young man al Vantica (Br. 11); two Leiden tronies we know only from reproduction prints by J. van Vliet (see exhib. cat. Rembrandt & Van Vliet: a collaboration on copper (ed. by M. Enklaar e.a.), Amsterdam, Museum het Rembrandthuis 1996, cat. nos. 5 and 7). For six tronies Rembrandt used the same old man that was earlier regarded as Rembrandt’s father (Br. 72, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82). For two others the so-called ‘mother’ posed (Br. 63, 69).Google Scholar
  192. 227.
    De Vries, op. cit.219; meanwhile he withdrew that point of view (personal communication L. de Vries).Google Scholar
  193. 228.
    Hoet II, p. 404.Google Scholar
  194. 229.
    See Exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, cat.nos. 14a/14b.Google Scholar
  195. 230.
    E. Buysen, ‘Rembrandt’s Selfportrait with gorget an ongoing debate’, O.H. 114 (2000), pp. 155–163.Google Scholar
  196. 231.
    C. Grimm, Rembrandt selbst: Eine Neuerwertung seiner Porträtkunst, Stuttgart/ Zürich 1991, pp. 20–28.Google Scholar
  197. 232.
    J. Wadum, ‘Rembrandt under the skin. The Mauritshuis Portrait of Rembrandt with gorget in retrospect’, O.H. 114 (2000), pp. 164–187.Google Scholar
  198. 233.
    Rembrandt: Br. 72, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82; Lievens: Sumowski Gemälde III, no. 1236; Dou: Sumowski Gemälde I, no. 254; Des Rousseaux: Sumowski Gemälde TV, no. 1679.Google Scholar
  199. 234.
    See Van de Wetering 1997, p. 252.Google Scholar
  200. 235.
    K. van Mander, Schilder-boeck, Haarlem 1603–04, Vol. I, Fol. 209r, (H. Miedema (ed.), Lives, Doornspijk 1994–1999, Vol. I, pp. 94/95.Google Scholar
  201. 236.
    Raupp 1984, op. cit.188, p. 244 and p. 246: ‘Der Inhalt solcher Selbstdarstellung ist der Hinweis auf die Autorschaft.’Google Scholar
  202. 237.
    The traces of possible monograms on the other two paintings of this series are not reliable in either case. It should be pointed out that in the seventeenth century it was not unusual in the case of two paintings that belonged together — specifically pendants — for only one of the two paintings to be signed. Investigation of handwriting by Froentjes’ team (op. cit.18) revealed that in a number of pendants one of the paintings bore an autograph signature while a’ signature’ had later been added, by another hand, to the pendant. On Rembrandt’s activities in producing series, see E. van de Wetering, ‘Remarks on Rembrandt’s oil-sketches for etchings’, in exhib. cat. Rembrandt the printmaker, Amsterdam/London 2000, pp. 36–63, esp. 38–58. See also B.48, 51, 66 from 1630, no doubt conceived as a series and, moreover, in the same period as the three paintings on guilded copper plates.Google Scholar
  203. 239.
    Von Sandrart, op.cit.44, p. 41).Google Scholar
  204. 240.
    Leon Battista Alberti, Delia pittura, Florence 1435/36, book III 56.Google Scholar
  205. 241.
    Houbraken, op. cit.53, 1721, II, pp. 178–9: ‘feker wanneer de eigen beeltenissen in d’oude Historische verbeeldingen wierden waargenomen, zouden de beleezen konstminnaars… hun welgevallen daar in vinden’. We will not deal with the self-portraits incorporated in larger compositions from the Amsterdam period (II A 69 and III A 106, and possibly II A 65 and III A 146). The various possible functions proposed above for the Leiden history paintings incorporated Rembrandt’s self-portraits probably apply to the Amsterdam paintings as well.Google Scholar
  206. 242.
    Strauss Doc, 1639/11.Google Scholar
  207. 244.
    Van de Wetering, op. cit.237, p. 50.Google Scholar
  208. 245.
    See Corpus Vol. II, pp. 78–79 and note 160.Google Scholar
  209. 246.
    See also S.A.C. Dudok van Heel,‘Rembrandt: his life, his wife, the nursemaid and the servant’, in J. Lloyd Williams e.a., Rembrandt’s women, London 2001, pp. 19–27 esp. 22 (with further references).Google Scholar
  210. 247.
    Corpus Vol. II, Chapter III, p. 57, note 101.Google Scholar
  211. 248.
    Corpus Vol. II, pp. 59–60.Google Scholar
  212. 249.
    S.A.C. Dudok van Heel, ‘Doopsgezinden en schilderkunst in de 17e eeuw — leerlingen, opdrachtgevers en verzamelaars van Rembrandt’, Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 6 (1980); Schwartz 1984, pp. 146–147; Van de Wetering, op. cit.143, E. van de Wetering, ‘Remarks on Rembrandt’s oil-sketches for etchings’, in exhib. cat. Rembrandt the printmaker, Amsterdam/London 2000, pp. 36–63, esp. pp. 50–51.Google Scholar
  213. 250.
    Corpus III C 93; IV 10 version 2.Google Scholar
  214. 251.
    E. Hinterding, Rembrandt als etser: twee studies naar de praktijk van productie en verspreiding, doct. diss. Utrecht 2001, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
  215. 252.
    G.W. Nowell-Usticke, Rembrandt’s etchings: states and values, Narberth 1967. To the estimates of Nowell-Usticke cited in the present text there must be added a further estimated number of prints that are in public and old private collections.Google Scholar
  216. 254.
    Chr. Schuckman, M. Royalton-Kisch, E. Hinterding, Rembrandt & Van Vliet. A collaboration on copper, exhib. cat. Museum Het Rembrandthuis, Amsterdam 1996, p. 52.Google Scholar
  217. 255.
    See for instance L. Goldscheider, Fünfhundert Selbstporträts von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Vienna 1936, nos. 161, 162, 171, 175, 184, 205, 206, 211, 214.Google Scholar
  218. 256.
    S. Dickey, ‘Van Dyck in Holland: The iconography and its impact on Rembrandt and Lievens’, in: H. Vlieghe (ed.), Van Dyck 1599–1999: Conjectures and refutations, Turnhout 2001, pp. 289–303, esp. 293 and fig. 8.Google Scholar
  219. 258.
    Liefde haart kunst’, zie E. de Jongh, Portretten van echt en trouw. Huwelijk en gezin in de Nederlandse kunst van de zeventiende eeuw, Zwolle/Haarlem 1986, pp. 57–59.Google Scholar
  220. 259.
    Chapman 1990, p. 79.Google Scholar
  221. 260.
    G. Luijten, ‘Rembrandt the printmaker: the shaping of an oeuvre’ in E. Hinterding e.a., op. cit.126, pp. 11–35, esp. 21.Google Scholar
  222. 264.
    Chr. White, Rembrandt as an etcher. A study of the artist at work, (London 1969), 2nd edition, New Haven and London 1999, pp. 173–74.Google Scholar
  223. 265.
    For a recent discussion of this group of prints, see S. Sell, ‘“Quicke to Invent & Copious to Expresse”: Rembrandt’s sketch plates’, in Parshall e.a., exhib. cat. The unfinished print, Washington (National Gallery) 2001, pp. 55–70.Google Scholar
  224. 266.
    G. Luijten, cat. no. 29 in Hinterding e.a., op. cit.126, pp. 155–156 with further references.Google Scholar
  225. 267.
    It is also possible that this kind of sketch sheet developed over a longer period. Thus, B. 372 is usually dated to around 1642, but at least two authors have dated the tree in this etching years later than the other subjects. See A. Hind, A catalogue of Rembrandt’s etchings, London 1923, vol. 1, no. 155, and W. von Seidlitz, Die Radierungen Rembrandts, Leipzig 1922, p. 251.Google Scholar
  226. 268.
    From research on watermarks it is evident that the first, rare prints of B. 363 (fig. 171) — which is usually dated around 1631/32 — were only made around 1641. This clearly indicates that, in the beginning, no or hardly any prints were pulled from the copper plate, which was prepared or composed around 1631–32. See G. Luijten, in E. Hinterding e.a., op. cit.126, pp. 115–118.Google Scholar
  227. 269.
    See Luijten op. cit.126, p. 117.Google Scholar
  228. 270.
    Dickey, op. cit.74, esp. p. 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. 271.
    Chapman 1990, p. 33 (see also her Chapter I, note 117).Google Scholar
  230. 272.
    G. Luijten, cat. no. 16 in Hinterding e.a., op. cit.126, pp 115–18.Google Scholar
  231. 277.
    Seidlitz and Hind (op. cit. 267) dated the print to 1648. There is a print of B. 370 with a Strasbourg lily watermark that can be dated to 1648. See N. Ash and S. Fletcher, Watermarks in Rembrandt’s prints, Washington 1998, p. 185: Strasbourg Lily 36 G. Moreover, there is a print of B. 370 with the same foolscap watermark as several prints taken from the first state of B. 126 from 1648 (not in Ash & Fletcher).Google Scholar
  232. 278.
    See, for example, Schatborn in exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000, no. 31 (c. 1631) and Luijten Rembrandt the printmaker, exhib. cat. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum/London, The British Museum, 2000/ 2001 in Hinterding e.a., op. cit.126, no. 16, who dates the etching to 1631-32 and correctly observes that the separate sketches on this plate could be dated differently.Google Scholar
  233. 280.
    On the appreciation of unfinished art works already evident in classical antiquity and the possible link between this and Rembrandt’s working habits, see Van de Wetering 1997, p. 164.Google Scholar
  234. 281.
    Houbraken, op. cit. 53, I 1718, p. 258.Google Scholar
  235. 282.
    H. Perry Chapman, ‘Rembrandt’s “burgerlijk” self-portraits’, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 8 (1989), pp. 203–215, esp. 203.Google Scholar
  236. 283.
    B.P.J. Broos, ‘Review of Walter L. Strauss and Marjon van der Meulen, “The Rembrandt Documents”’, Simiolus 12 (1981–82), pp. 245–62, esp. 251; Chapman 1990, p. 61; Hinterding, op. cit.48, p. 77; M. Royalton-Kisch, ‘Review of H. Perry Chapman, “Rembrandt’s self-portraits: A study in seventeenth-century identity”’, Print Quarterly 8 (1991), pp. 303–8; Rembrandt the printmaker, exhib. cat. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum/London, The British Museum, 2000/ 2001 Hinterding e.a., op. cit.126 cat. no. 13 (contributed by M. Royalton-Kisch).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  237. 284.
    A third worked up version of B. 7 (third state) is in the British Museum in London. For arguments in favour of the authenticity of this print, see M. Royalton-Kisch, ‘Rembrandt, Zomer, Zanetti and Smith’, Print Quarterly 10 (1993), pp. 111–122, esp. 115. Given the poor quality with which the parts in chalk apparently were copied after the finished print, the present author strongly doubts that these parts were added by Rembrandt himself.Google Scholar
  238. 285.
    See Van de Wetering 1997 (hard cover edition) inside dust-jacket.Google Scholar
  239. 287.
    Jan Claessen ten Hoorn, Nieuwe Verhandeling van de hoqfsche wellevendheit en loffelyke welgemanierdheit, in Den Haeg aen het Hof en voorts door geheel Nederland, by treffelijke lieden gebruikelyk, onderwysende hoe men in alle voorval en ontmoeting sich wijselijk en lieftallig sal bestieren, Amsterdam 1675, p. 69: ‘En voorwaer indien iemand, hoe zedig, en ingetoogen hy ook wesen mooge, hardnekkig wil zjjn en sich aenkanten legen dese Mode, die een stroomvliet is; te voorschijn kornende by voorbeeld, onder de menschen met eenen hoogen spitsen hoed, tegenwoordig nu men die laeg, en rond draegt, sal hy sich in gevaer stellen, van als een Vastelavonds gek, van een deel kinder en en ruigte uitgejout te worden’.Google Scholar
  240. 289.
    See for instance Rembrandt’s Portrait of Frederik Rihel on horseback (Br. 255); exhib. cat. Art in the making. Rembrandt, 1988/89, p. 138 (infrared photo); S J. Gudlaugsson, Katalog der Gemälde Gerard ter Borchs sowie biographisches Material, The Hague 1959–60, cat. no. 185; S. Slive, Frans Hals, 3 vols; London 1970–74, Vol. Ill 1974, p. 111, no. 218.Google Scholar
  241. 290.
    E.E.S. Gordenker, Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641) and the representation of dress in seventeenth-century portraiture, Turnhout 2001, see csp. pp. 22–25 and 60. It is a tempting idea that there could have been a direct influence of Van Dyck on Rembrandt in this regard, although in the first instance it would not have been Van Dyck’s works that exerted such an influence. In his portraits, Van Dyck only begins to search for possibilities of this kind during the 1630’s. The problem of the rapid obsolescence of contemporary fashionable dress could well have been a subject of conversation in a situation where — as Stephanie Dickey has plausibly argued — Antonie van Dyck and Rembrandt could have met each other. (Dickey, op. cit.256). In the first months of 1632, Van Dyck spent some time in The Hague, while at the same time Rembrandt worked frequently in The Hague on portraits of Amalia van Solms (II A 61), Joris de Caullery (II A 53), Jacques de Gheyn (II A 56) and Maurits Huygens (II A 57). From a hypothetical meeting between the two artists, Stephanie Dickey believes one can deduce mainly effects on Rembrandt’s work as a printmaker. But the possibility cannot be excluded that discussions on the subject of timeless costume could have influenced Rembrandt’s choice in 1633 of the fancy dress and later the historicizing dress that he adopts in his painted self-portraits. The fact that during his visit to The Hague Van Dyck was working on his portrait of Jan Lievens, which was issued as a print, adds to the likelihood that Van Dyck and Rembrandt met at this time. If one asks the obvious question of why Van Dyck did not also make a portrait of Rembrandt during the same period, in the light of the above, one answer would be that Rembrandt himself had already made a portrait-print of himself, the Self-portrait with hat, hand on hip (B. 7). Seen from the perspective (outlined above) of the assumed function of a portrait-print, such a print after a design by Van Dyck was therefore in principle unnecessary.Google Scholar
  242. 293.
    Earlier versions of the catalogue text and the following remarks on style and quality were already published in Ernst van de Wetering, Rembrandt’s hidden self-portraits/Rembrandts verborgen zdfportretten, exhib. cat. Museum Het Rembrandthuis, Amsterdam 2003, resp. pp. 17–25 and 2–16, and summarized and in part quoted in a sales catalogue from Sotheby’s (London, Old Masters, July 2003).Google Scholar
  243. 294.
    See also Van de Wetering 1997, p. 172.Google Scholar
  244. 295.
    S. van Hoogstraeten, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst, Rotterdam 1678, p. 273. …‘wonderlijk heeft zieh onzen Rembrant in reflexeringen gequeeten, jae het scheen of deze verkiezing van H wederom kaetsen van eenich licht zijn rechte element was…’Google Scholar
  245. 296.
    Strauss Doc, 1654/4: ‘… hij insinuant bevindt dat de voorsz. schildery ofte conterfeijtsel op verre nae niet en gelijckt het wesen ofte tronie van de voorsz. jonge dochter …’.Google Scholar
  246. 297.
    #x2039;Talis Gheiniadae faciès si forte fuisset/Talis Gheiniadae prorsus imago foret.#x203A; JA. Worp, De gedichten van Constantijn Huygens II, Groningen 1893, pp. 245ff; see for a discussion of these texts, Corpus Vol. II, pp. 223–4; Strauss Doc., 1633/1.Google Scholar
  247. 298.
    N. van Hout, Rubens en dootverf, forthcoming dissertation.Google Scholar
  248. 300.
    Grimm, op. cit.231, p. 100.Google Scholar
  249. 301.
    Corpus II, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  250. 304.
    Grimm, op.cit.231, p. 101, see esp. Grimm’s colour plates 53 & 54. It should be noted that Grimm carries out his stylistic analyses mainly on the basis of a comparison of colour slides of details, mainly of the faces in the case of his study of the early self-portraits.Google Scholar
  251. 305.
    See for this detail of the Portrait of the shipbuilder Jan Rijcksen and his wife Grietjans, Corpus II A 77; Grimm, op. cit.231, colour plate 39.Google Scholar
  252. 306.
    See for instance J.G. van Dillen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven en het gildewezen in Amsterdam, 3 Vols., The Hague 1929–1974; I.H. van Eeghen, De gilden: théorie en praktijk, Bussum 1965.Google Scholar
  253. 307.
    W. Liedtke, ‘Reconstructing Rembrandt: Portraits from the early years in Amsterdam (1631–34)’, Apollo 129 (1989), pp. 323–31, idem, ‘Reconstructing Rembrandt and his circle: More on the workshop-hypothesis’ in: R.E. Fleischer and S.C. Scott, Rembrandt, Rubens and the Art of their time: Recent perspectives (Papers in Art History from the Pennsylvania State University, XI), 1997, pp. 37–59. Idem, ‘Rembrandt and the Rembrandt style in the seventeenth century’, in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt/not Rembrandt, 1995–96, Vol. II, pp. 3-39 etc.; see M. Franken, ‘Variants within the painting production in Rembrandt’s workshop’ and E. van de Wetering, ‘Collaboration in Rembrandt’s workshop’, two introductory essays in the forthcoming Vol. V of A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings.Google Scholar
  254. 308.
    See for instance the catalogue Gemäldegalerie Dresden. Alte Meister, 11th ed. 1968, no. 1559.Google Scholar
  255. 309.
    Rosenberg, op cit.102, p. 23 and fig. 21.Google Scholar
  256. 310.
    W.R. Valentiner, Rembrandt. Des Meisters Handzeichnungen 1, Stuttgart-Berlin-Leipzig [1925], (Kl.d.K.), p. 488 nos. 383, 386; I. Bergström, ‘Rembrandt’s double portrait of himself and Saskia at the Dresden Gallery. A tradition transformed’, N.K.J. 17 (1966), pp. 143–169; Chr. Tümpel, ‘Ikonographische Beiträge zu Rembrandt’, Kunstchronik 19 (1966), pp. 300–02; Chr. Tümpel, ‘Ikonographische Beiträge zu Rembrandt zur Deutung und Interpretation seiner Historien’, Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunstsammlungen 13 (1968), pp. 95–126, esp. 116–126; A. Mayer-Meintschel, ‘Rembrandt und Saskia im Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn’, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Jahrbuch 1970/71, pp. 39–57; Tümpel 1986, pp. 110, 114–116, cat. no. 54.Google Scholar
  257. 311.
    Corpus III, p. 146.Google Scholar
  258. 312.
    Rembrandt und Saskia im Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn’, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Jahrbuch 1970/71 Mayer-Meintschel, op.cit.310, pp. 48 and 52.Google Scholar
  259. 313.
    It should be noted, however, that two paintings from the same period, the St. Petersburg Abrahams sacrifice (III A 108) and its free copy in Munich (III A 108, Copies 2) have a horizontal seam but a vertical format (see Vol. II, p 24, fig. 8); Van de Wetering 1997, fig. 129.Google Scholar
  260. 314.
    The earliest report of a method of impregnating the reverse side of paintings on canvas is found in the Mayerne manuscript, see E. Berger, Quellen für Maltechnik während der Renaissance und deren Folgezeit (XVI–XVIII), München 1901/Reprint Wiesbaden 1973 (Vol. IV), p. 315 (no. 303).Google Scholar
  261. 315.
    V. Schaible, ‘Die Gemäldeübertragung. Studien zur Geschichte einer “klassischen” Restauriermethode’, Maltechnik/Restauro 89 (1983), pp. 96–129.Google Scholar
  262. 319.
    Tümpel 1986, pp. 115–6.Google Scholar
  263. 320.
    Schwartz 1984, p. 192.Google Scholar
  264. 321.
    Van Mander, op. cit.235, fol. 290r (English translation in H. Miedema, e.a., Lives, Vol. I 1994, p. 418): ‘hy heeft noch hem sehen lacchender wijse gheconterfeyt/ oock neffens hem een Vrouw-mensch/Madona venusta geheeten/speiende op een Luyt/en hy achter haer staende met een schael Wijns in df handt’.Google Scholar
  265. 322.
    Ibid.: ‘dit was soo ghehandelt en ghedaen/dat Const-verstandighe hebten ghesegt/noyt beter van hem noch anderen te hebben gesien.’Google Scholar
  266. 323.
    Van Hoogstraeten, op.cit.57, 1678, pp. 192–193. ‘Ten is geen schände op een behende vois, die reets al de werelt behaegt, eenige vaerzen te dichten. … Zoo wort Virgilius als een Vorst der Latijnsche Poeten geëert, om dat hy in zijnen doolenden Eneas, den doolenden Ulisses van Homerus volgende, zijn voorganger nergens en wijkt’.Google Scholar
  267. 325.
    Rembrandt und Saskia im Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn’, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Jahrbuch 1970 Mayer-Meintschel, see note 312; E. van de Wetering, A. van Grevenstein en K. Groen,’ Esther before Haman, attributed to Rembrandt, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 39 (1991), pp. 56–83.Google Scholar
  268. 326.
    See for instance Tümpel 1986, pp. 116–7.Google Scholar
  269. 329.
    Tümpel 1986, A 64.Google Scholar
  270. 331.
    See also N. Voskuil-Popper, ‘Johan de Cordua. A forgotten Vanitas painter. 17th century’, in: G.d.B.-A. 6th per. 87 (1976), pp. 61–74, esp. 69–70. The painting has since been attributed to Abraham Susenier by Fred Meijer of the Netherlandish Institute for Art History (Leiden c. 1620 — after 1666, probably Dordrecht).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  271. 332.
    E. van de Wetering, ‘Delimiting Rembrandt’s autograph œuvre; an insoluble problem?’, in exhib. cat. The mystery of the young Rembrandt, 2001/2002, pp. 58–81.Google Scholar
  272. 333.
    On this project see M. Royalton-Kisch Kroniek Rembrandthuis/ M. Royalton-Kisch, ‘The role of drawings in Rembrandt’s printmaking’ in E. Hinterding et al., op. cit.126, pp. 64–81; E. van de Wetering, ‘Remarks on Rembrandt’s oil-sketches for etchings’, Rembrandt the printmaker, exhib. cat. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum/London, The British Museum, 2000/ 2001 in: E. Hinterding et al., op. cit.126, pp. 36–63.Google Scholar
  273. 335.
    M. Royalton-Kisch in: E. Hinterding et al., op. cit.126, cat. no. 24.Google Scholar
  274. 336.
    There is one factor that may shift the probability in favour of Van Vliet having based himself preferably on an autograph work by Rembrandt: the figure in the etching, initially not part of the concept but subsequently developed in three steps to become the figure with the beret with two plumes, could have been intended as an effigy of Rembrandt, incorporated in the etching as an afterthought. Just as Rembrandt includes his own effigy in several of his most ambitious history pieces from 1625 onward, beginning with Tie stoning of St Stephen (see fig. 125), he may well have also decided to have his image included in this ambitious etching, thereby following an established tradition; see e.g. J. Woods-Marsden, Renaissance self-portraiture: the visual construction of identity and the social status of the artist, New Haven 1998, Ch. 4 (The Florentine artist as witness in religious narrative) figs. 28/29, 32/33, 34/35, 36/37, 43/44, 45; Ch. 8 (Mantegna) figs. 59a,b/60; Ch. 12 (Raphael and friend) figs. 84/85; Ch. 19 (Zucchari and family) figs. 114/115. In almost all cases where he did this, he placed himself on the edge of the main group in the composition, and in most cases with his face partially hidden behind the figures in front of him. (Cf. figs. 125, 139, 142 in this chapter and Corpus II A 69; Corpus III A 106 and frontispiece and III A 146 (detail reproduced in exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999-2000, p. 89, fig. lh). The singular genesis of this figure in the etching and the similarity of its eventual form with the figure in the painting under discussion here, which unquestionably bears Rembrandt’s features, does suggest that the figure in the etching is perhaps meant to be Rembrandt. But, if that were the case, could this be taken as a firm proof that the painting is an autograph self-portrait? In this connection, it is significant that the very large (originally much larger) panel is from a single piece of — almost certainly — beech. The latter is exceptional for Rembrandt and his workshop. As far as is known, Rembrandt’s only other painting on a beech wood panel is The slaughtered ox in the Louvre (Br. 457). In the case of that painting, the kind of wood was determined by micro-anatomical investigation. The most important support for the supposition that the present painting was also painted on beech comes from the unusual pattern of the wood anatomical peculiarities registered in the radioabsorbent layers as visible in the X-radiograph. Google Scholar
  275. 338.
    E. van de Wetering, ‘The aged painting and the necessities and possibilities to know its original appearance’ in: Conservare necesse est, Festskrift til Leif Einar Plahter, International Institute of Conservation (IIC) Nordic Group, Oslo 1999, pp. 259–264; also published in: H. Cantz (ed.), Horizons. Essays on art and art research. 50 Tears Swiss Institute for Art Research, Zürich 2001, pp. 399-406.Google Scholar
  276. 342.
    See the section ‘The various functions of Rembrandt’s self-portraits’ above; see also E. van de Wetering, ‘The multiple functions of Rembrandt’s self portraits’ in exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999–2000, pp. 22–36.Google Scholar
  277. 343.
    See notes 23 and 24 above.Google Scholar
  278. 344.
    As to early princely owners of self-portraits of Rembrandt, see the Appendix to this chapter, nos. 1,12, 25; Schwartz 1984, p. 349.Google Scholar
  279. 345.
    E. Haverkamp-Begemann, Rembrandt: The Nightwatch, Princeton 1982, p. 14 and note 16.Google Scholar
  280. 346.
    Van Hoogstraeten, op.cit.57, pp. 24–25.Google Scholar
  281. 347.
    For a theoretical discussion of aspects of perception involved in trompe l’oeil paintings, see Wolf Singer, ‘The misperception of reality’, in S. Ebert-Schifferer et al., Deceptions and illusions. Five centuries of trompe l’oeil painting, exhib. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington 2002/03, pp. 40–51.Google Scholar
  282. 348.
    Sumowski Gemälde II, no. 610.Google Scholar
  283. 349.
    An exception is the Night watch where the locally grainy surface of the paint plays a role in both the suggestion of space and the expression of material. See Van de Wetering 1997, Chapter VII, esp. pp. 173–186.Google Scholar
  284. 350.
    Br.-Gerson ‘…, there are many strange features about the self portrait which make the attribution to the artist and period doubtful’] Tümpel (1986) does not list the painting which implies that he neither accepts it as a work by Rembrandt nor as a product of his workshop; 1. Gaskell, The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection. Seventeenth-century Dutch and Flemish Painting, London 1990, pp. 134–139.Google Scholar
  285. 352.
    Grimm, op.cit.231, p. 104.Google Scholar
  286. 353.
    E. van de Wetering, ‘Rembrandt’s hidden self-portraits’, in Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis, Vol. 202/1-2, pp. 2–14.Google Scholar
  287. 356.
    F. Schmidt-Degener, Catalogus der schilderijen en teekeningen tentoongesteld in het Museum Boymans te Rotterdam, Rotterdam 1916, p. 29.Google Scholar
  288. 357.
    Br. 40; J.Q. van Regteren Altena, ‘Kurt Bauch, Rembrandts Gemälde, Berlin 1966’, O.H. 82 (1967), pp. 69–71, esp. 70.Google Scholar
  289. 358.
    C. Brown, Carel Fabritius: Complete edition with a catalogue raisonné, Oxford 1981, p. 132, fig. 63 and Sumowski Gemälde II. Also Frits Duparc in the catalogue of the 2004/5 Carel Fabritius exhibition in The Hague, implicitly rejects an attribution to Carel Fabritius.Google Scholar
  290. 360.
    Tümpel 1986, no. A 70.Google Scholar
  291. 361.
    Compare also exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself 1999/2000, p. 16, figs. 17 and 18.Google Scholar
  292. 362.
    Br.-Gerson 39 ‘the painting is an 18 th-or 19th-century imitation’; Tümpel 1986 did omit it altogether; A.K. Wheelock, Jr., Dutch paintings of the seventeenth century, National Gallery of Art, Washington 1995, pp. 296–300.Google Scholar
  293. 363.
    W. Liedtke in the catalogue of the Taft Museum. European and American Paintings, Cincinnati 1995, no. 1962.1, pp. 157–159, esp. 158.Google Scholar
  294. 364.
    See also E. van de Wetering, ‘Rembrandt und das Licht’, in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt, Albertina, Vienna 2004, pp. 26–39, esp. 35–37.Google Scholar
  295. 365.
    Van de Wetering 1997, p. 188.Google Scholar
  296. 367.
    1655, dem Jahr vor dem finanziellen Zusammenbruch, Rembrandt im Pelzmantel mit goldener Kette. Er reckt sich auf wie jemand, der sich nicht beugen will. Es entsteht das majestätischte Rembrandtbildnis, aber nicht gebieterisch, sondern sein Schicksal verschlossen in sich tragend — weitab wie ein Berg im Abendschatten. Es ist als ob Rembrandt in eine Versammlung tritt, deren Teilnehmer eben noch mit Geschrei und Gelächter über ihn gespottet. Und plötzlich verstummen alle und erheben sich von den Sitzen.’ R. Hamann, Rembrandt, Berlin 1948, p. 122; F. Erpel quoted Hamann’s text with approval in his Die Selbstbildnisse Rembrandts, Berlin 1973, p. 190.Google Scholar
  297. 368.
    J. Reynolds, Discourses on Art, 1769–1790, ed. Robert R. Wark, New Haven/London, p. 223.Google Scholar
  298. 369.
    A notable exception is the Portrait of Catherina Hooghsaet (Br. 391).Google Scholar
  299. 370.
    Compare p. 16, figs. 18 and 17 of exhib. cat. Rembrandt by himself, 1999/2000.Google Scholar
  300. 371.
    Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit. 57, pp. 237/38 and 280; see also JA. Emmens, Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst, diss. 1964; edition used: Amsterdam 1979, pp. 165-169; see also H.W. Janson, ‘The “Image made by chance” in Renaissance thought’, in De Artibus Opuscola XL, Essays in honor of Erwin Panofsky, 1961, pp. 254-266.Google Scholar
  301. 372.
    E. van de Wetering, ‘Opmerkingen over de relatie tussen techniek, stijl en toeval bij Arent de Gelder; een vergelijking met Rembrandt’ in exhib. cat. Arent de Gelder, Rembrandts laatste leerling, Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht/Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, Keulen, Gent (1998), pp. 18–35.Google Scholar
  302. 373.
    Houbraken, op. cit. 53, I, 1718, p. 269.Google Scholar
  303. 374.
    See for instance Strauss Doc, nos. 1642/10 and 1668/5.Google Scholar
  304. 375.
    K. van Mander, The lives of the illustrious Netherlandish and German painters, Vol. I, H. Miedema (ed.), Doornspijk 1994, fol. 214v/0. 117. ‘…[Lukas] was overal vergheselschapt met den verhaelden Jan de Mabuse den welken hem seer statigh en prachtigh droeg, hebbende aen een cleedt van goude laken en Lukas hadde aen eenen rock van ghele syden Cameloot, dat in de sonne oock eenen glans hadde als van gout’ (‘everywhere he was in the company of the aforementioned Jan de Mabuse, who acted in a very stately manner, resplendent in a garment of gold cloth, and Lucas wore a jerkin of yellow silk camlet which in the sunshine also had the lustre of gold’).Google Scholar
  305. 376.
    Van de Wetering 1997, pp. 173–179.Google Scholar
  306. 377.
    Tümpel 1986, cat. no. A 70 ‘from Rembrandt’s workshop’. Haverkamp Begemann expressed his doubts in an oral communicationGoogle Scholar
  307. 378.
    J. Boomgaard and R.W. Serieller, ‘A delicate balance: a brief survey of Rembrandt criticism’, in exhib. cat. Rembrandt. Paintings, 1991/92, p. 117.Google Scholar
  308. 380.
    Werner Sumowski, the most insistent of all the advocates of the authenticity of this painting, once apprised of a summary of our insights published in the IFAR Journal in a letter of 29.4.2002 wrote: ‘Your results regarding the Stuttgart painting are convincing. The reasoning leading to proof is compelling. I enjoy the fact that you have found the truth.’ (‘Ihre Ergebnisse zum Stuttgarter Gemälde sind überzeugend. Die Beweisführung ist zwingend. Ich freue mich, dass Sie die Wahrheit gefunden haben’.); E. van de Wetering ‘Thirty years of the Rembrandt Research Project: The Tension Between Science and Connoisseurship in Authenticating Art.’ in: IFAR Journal, International Foundation for Art Research, New York, vol. 4, no. 2, 2001, pp. 14–24.Google Scholar
  309. 381.
    C. Müller Hofstede, ‘Das Stuttgarter Selbstbildnis von Rembrandt’, Pantheon 21 (1963), pp. 65–90.Google Scholar
  310. 382.
    Es kann im Hinblick auf unsere Kenntniss von Rembrandts Spätstil nicht überraschen, daß jedes der Beispiele vom anderen abweicht und natürlich auch vom Stuttgarter Bild. Es ist der große Spielraum für verschiedenartige Ansätze bei seinen Konzeptionen, den sich Rembrandt in diesen Jahren geschaffen hat. Sie bewirken jene, den Betrachter oft verblüffende oder gar mißtrauisch stimmende Verschiedenheit. Seine von einigen Objekten gebildete Vorstellung paßt nicht zu neu auftauchenden Bildern: sie erweist sich als erstarrt und unelastisch.’, Das Stuttgarter Selbstbildnis von Rembrandt’, Pantheon 21 (1963) Müller Hofstede, op. cit. 381, pp. 82–83.Google Scholar
  311. 383.
    Dank der malerischen Eindringlichkeit strahlt von dem Stuttgarter Selbstbildnis eine alle anderen Schöpfungen überbietende Gegenwärtigkeit aus.’, Das Stuttgarter Selbstbildnis von Rembrandt’, Pantheon 21 (1963) Müller Hofstede, op. cit. 381, p. 86.Google Scholar
  312. 384.
    Eine ungewöhnlich gesteigerte Gelöstheit des Vortrags.’, Das Stuttgarter Selbstbildnis von Rembrandt’, Pantheon 21 (1963) Müller Hofstede, op. cit. 381, p. 79.Google Scholar
  313. 385.
    der Nachdruk, die Energie, womit die Physiognomie durchgeformt ist.’, Das Stuttgarter Selbstbildnis von Rembrandt’, Pantheon 21 (1963) Müller Hofstede, op. cit. 381, p. 79.Google Scholar
  314. 386.
    In kurz absetzenden und immer wieder ansetzenden Zügen, mehrfach überein-anderliegend oder den Malgrund freilassend und in die Bildwirkung mit einbeziehend, mit tiefen Dunkelheiten im Gefolge, haben wir ein pflügendes, knetendes Impasto vor uns, das, unterstützt durch das hier kulminierende Licht, mit ungewöhnlich plastischer Eindringlichkeit das Gesicht zum Bildnisdokument und Schwerpunkt eines vielfältigen und vertieften Ausdrucks macht.’, Das Stuttgarter Selbstbildnis von Rembrandt’, Pantheon 21 (1963) Müller Hofstede, op. cit. 381, p. 79.Google Scholar
  315. 387.
    etwas Schwermütiges, Sorgenvolles, wenn nicht Verhärmtes.’, Das Stuttgarter Selbstbildnis von Rembrandt’, Pantheon 21 (1963) Müller Hofstede, op. cit. 381, p. 86.Google Scholar
  316. 388.
    Das Kölner Bild ist in seiner Pinselschrift nicht so abwechlungsreich, gegenüber dem Stuttgarter eher monoton.’, Das Stuttgarter Selbstbildnis von Rembrandt’, Pantheon 21 (1963) Müller Hofstede, op. cit. 381, p. 84.Google Scholar
  317. 38.
    Houbraken, op. cit. 53, I, 1718, p. 269.Google Scholar
  318. 390.
    seine Bedeutung in unserem Zusammenhang ergibt sich aus einer völlig anderen Verhaltensweise des Künstlers. Statt sich abzuschliessen, öffnet sich Rembrandt dem Betrachter. Dazu gehört schon die zwanglose Art, wie er ins Bildfeld tritt, in schiefer Haltung, ohne Kontrapostische Wendung, als ob es soeben geschähe, und ohne daran etwas ändern zu wollen so wie es jeden Tag passieren könnte.’, Das Stuttgarter Selbstbildnis von Rembrandt’, Pantheon 21 (1963) Müller Hofstede, op. cit. 381, p. 86.Google Scholar
  319. 393.
    Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, p. 176. ‘De rechte meesters brengen te weeg, dat haer geheele werk eenwezich is, gelijk Clio uit Horatius leert: Brengyder werkstuk, zoo’ t behoort, / Slechts enkel en eenweezich voort.’Google Scholar
  320. 394.
    Horace Epistula ad Pisones (Ars Poetica) 23: ‘Denique sit quidvis, simplex dumtaxat et unum’. I am very grateful to Prof. Dr. D. den Hengst for his help.Google Scholar
  321. 395.
    A. Blankert, ‘Rembrandt, Zeuxis and ideal beauty’, Album Amicorum J.G. van Gelder, The Hague 1973, pp. 32–39. See also A. Blankert, in: exhib. cat. Rembrandt. A genius and his impact, 1997/98, pp. 38/39 and A. Blankert, Selected writings on Dutch painting: Rembrandt, Van Beke, Vermeer and others, Zwolle 2004.Google Scholar
  322. 396.
    See Strauss Doc., 1661/5 in which document only the canvas for the painting is mentioned; 1662/11, in which document the painting is referred to as ‘half complete’; the finished painting was signed and dated 1663.Google Scholar
  323. 397.
    Ernst H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion. A study in the psychology of pictorial representation, London 1960 (1990), part III, p. 153.Google Scholar
  324. 398.
    Hans-Jörg Czech, Studien zu Samuel van Hoogstratens Malereitraktat ‘Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkonst: Anders de Zichtbaere Werelt (Rotterdam 1678)’, doct. diss. Bonn 1999, pp. 9–11.Google Scholar
  325. 399.
    McKim-Smith noticed the same phenomenon in her study of the relationship between Spanish treatises on painting and the studio practice of the painters concerned. See ‘Writing and painting in the age of Velasquez’ in Gridley McKim-Smith et al., Examining Velasquez, New Haven/ London 1988, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
  326. 400.
    Mayerne in: E. Berger (ed.), Quellen für Maltechnik während der Renaissance und deren Folgezeit, Munich 1901, reprint 1973, p. 95.Google Scholar
  327. 401.
    Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, pp. 26–30, esp. 27/28.Google Scholar
  328. 402.
    Gombrich, op. cit.397, p. 153.Google Scholar
  329. 403.
    Maar boven al dient zy tot de Schilderkonst, waer van zy zoo onafscheydelijk is, dat de Schilderkonst, zonder haer, niet alleen gebrekkelijk, maer geheelijk doot en gansch niet is.’ Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, p. 26.Google Scholar
  330. 404.
    ‘… vermits het oud en algemeen gevoelen is, datter meer Schilders zyn, die’t aen’t wel teykenen, als aen’t wel koloreeren gebreekt.’ Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, p. 26.Google Scholar
  331. 405.
    Want gy zulfer [in een schetsmatig opgezet werk] deelen in vinden, die rondachtich, vierkantich, driehoekich, langwerpich, of schuins van form zyn. Merk deeze gedaentens dan met een half schermerend oog aen, zonder op eenige kleinicheden te letten.’ Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, p. 27.Google Scholar
  332. 406.
    ‘… deeze manier van in’tgros te schetssen’ Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, p. 27.Google Scholar
  333. 407.
    ‘… even gelijk men zijn vriend van verre bespeurende, of by schemerlicht ontmoetende, strax als met het verstant zijn gedaente ziet, en bevat, zoo geeft een ruwe schets dikwils aen den kenders zoo grooten indruk, dat zy’er meer, dan dieze gemaekt heeft, in zien kunnen.’ Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, p. 27. Given Van Hoogstraten’s scepticism regarding the connoisseurs and art-lovers of his time, one is tempted to read a certain irony into the last words of this passage. See Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, S. van Hoogstraeten, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst, Rotterdam 1678, in ‘aen de lezer’ also pp. 2, 3, 35, 76, 85, 127, 171/72, 183, 196/97, 216, 234,241, 309–21, 360; see also E. van de Wetering, ‘Rembrandt’s’ Satire on Art Criticism’ reconsidered’, in: Shop Talk. Studies in Honor of Seymour Slive, (eds. Cynthia P. Schneider, William W. Robinson, Alice I. Davies e.a.), Cambridge, Mass. 1995, pp. 264-270. It is more likely, however, that he is describing in a neutral fashion a property of human perception.Google Scholar
  334. 408.
    Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, pp. 307–308.Google Scholar
  335. 409.
    E. van de Wetering, ‘Rembrandt’s method — technique in the service of illusion’, in exhib. cat. Rembrandt. Paintings, 1991/92, pp. 12–39, esp. 32–37; Van de Wetering 1997, pp. 173-179.Google Scholar
  336. 410.
    See Van de Wetering 1997, p. 185–186.Google Scholar
  337. 411.
    See, for instance, B. Schnackenburg, ‘Young Rembrandt’s ldRough Manner”. A painting style and its sources’, in exhib. cat. The mystery of the young Rembrandt, 2001/02, pp. 92–121.Google Scholar
  338. 412.
    Wat is % als gy op blaeuw papier een blaeuwen Hemel met drijvende wölken in’ t veld na’ t leven tekent, dat uw papier zoo na by u schijnt te zijn, en het Hemelsch lazuur zo oneindelijk verre?’ Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, p. 307.Google Scholar
  339. 413.
    ’t Is om dat uw papier, hoe effen gy’ t ook oordeelt, een zekere kenbaere rulheyt heeft, waer in het oog staeren kan, ter plaetse, daer gy wilt,’ t welk gy in’ t gladde blaeuw des Hemels niet dorn en kunt.’ Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, pp. 307–308.Google Scholar
  340. 414.
    According to the Dictionary of the Dutch Language/Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT), in the seventeenth century the word ‘staeren’ (to stare) carried more the meaning of looking with concentrated atten-tion than it does today, when ‘stare’ tends to suggest a fixed, somewhat unfocused looking. Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie, Leiden, Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT), 29 vols., The Hague 1864–1998, lemma ‘staren’.Google Scholar
  341. 415.
    Dr. Jan Walraven, Senior Research Fellow of the TNO-Human Factors Institute, Soesterberg, The Netherlands, was kind enough to give the following information: ‘Studies on visual attention and space perception suggest various explanations for the effect of a Ifelike, almost forced (spatial) presence in the Kenwood Self-portrait. First, one of the various, so-called monocular cues that the visual system employs to derive the relative distances of objects in a visual scene, is the degree of detail by which these are registered in the retinal image.’ (See C.H. Graham, ‘Visual space perception’, in C.H. Graham (ed.), Vision and visual perception, New York 1965, pp. 504–547.) ‘This is particularly true for the loss of detail in surface texture with increasing distance. Second, in attempting to focus the optical image properly, the eye will hunt for critical details in the visual scene, a similar process that occurs when one tries to get a slide focussed on a projection screen. Last, but not least, there is also the aspect of mental focus, the mind’s eye, which is attracted by details contrasting with the more roughly painted surround. All these effects work in the direction of locking the viewer’s eye on to the face in the portrait, and making this face manifest itself in an inescapable manner.’Google Scholar
  342. 416.
    Van de Wetering 1997, pp 182–186.Google Scholar
  343. 417.
    Berger (ed.), op. cit.400, p. 289.Google Scholar
  344. 418.
    P. Taylor, ‘The glow in late sixteenth and seventeenth century Dutch painting’, in Hermens (ed.), ‘Looking through paintings: The study of painting technique and materials in support of art historical research’, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarhoek 11 (1998), pp. 159–178. See also Eric Jan Sluijter, ‘Goltzius, painting and flesh (…)’, in: The learned eye (…). Essays for Ernst van de Wetering, Amsterdam 2005, pp. 158–177.Google Scholar
  345. 419.
    ’t Is dan niet genoeg, dat men schoone kleuren menget, maer men moet de waere natuerlijkheyt naspeuren.’ Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, p. 227.Google Scholar
  346. 420.
    ’Ik zwijge van Rembrant en andere, die dit konstdeel [een natuerlijke karnatie] wonderlijk hoog achten. Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, p. 228.Google Scholar
  347. 421.
    See in this Volume Corrigenda I A 22.Google Scholar
  348. 422.
    See E. van de Wetering 1997, pp. 173–186.Google Scholar
  349. 423.
    Compare also: exhib. cat. Rembrandt/not Rembrandt, 1995/96, I figs. 68 and 70.Google Scholar
  350. 424.
    Ann-Sophie Lehmann, Mit Haut und Haaren, Jan van Eycks Adam und Eva Tafeln in Gent — Rezeption, Bedeutung und Maltechnik des Aktes in der frühniederländischen Malerei, doct. diss. Utrecht 2004, pp. 78–85.Google Scholar
  351. 425.
    In the French translation by Hubeaux and Puraye the relevant passage reads: ‘Cette ingénieuse imitation des différentes couleurs ne va pas sans donner quelque dureté aux pigments, laquelle rugosité doit être appropriée à la brillante figuration des pores de chacun des corps qu’il s’agit de représenter’. See Jean Hubeaux, Jean Puraye, ‘Dominique Lampson, Lamberti Lombardi … Vita. Traduction et notes’, Revue Belge d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art 18 (1949), p. 71. Lehmann raises the question of whether Lambert Lombard (or Lampsonius) could have based these ideas (on the mimetic rendering of the skin by means of pigment granules ground to a size corresponding to that of the epidermal pores) on Titian, who was highly admired in the sixteenth century for his ability to render the human flesh. She concludes, however, that the written sources give no indication that Titian might have availed himself of this method. Investigation of Titian’s paintings also yield no evidence for his having entertained this possibility as explicitly as did Lampsonius/Lombard. See Lehmann, op. Cit.424, Ann-Sophie Lehmann, Mit Haut und Haaren, Jan van Eycks Adam und Eva Tafeln in Gent — Rezeption, Bedeutung und Maltechnik des Aktes in der frühniederländischen Malerei, doct. diss. Utrecht 2004, pp. 78–85 p. 80 and notes 416–419.Google Scholar
  352. 426.
    Vasari, Le vite … (the life of Leonardo da Vinci).Google Scholar
  353. 427.
    ‘… men speurde de zueetgaetjes in het teedere vel’. Van Hoogstraeten, op. cit.57, p. 239.Google Scholar
  354. 428.
    A. Bredius, ‘Uit Rembrandt’s laatste levensjaar’, O.H. 27 (1909), pp. 238–240.Google Scholar
  355. 429.
    For Dirck van Cattenburgh and other art-lovers mentioned below who knew Rembrandt personally, see J. van der Veen, ‘Het netwerk van verzamelaars rondom Rembrandt’, in B. van den Boogert (ed.), Rembrandts schatkamer, Amsterdam/Zwolle 1999, pp. 141–145.Google Scholar
  356. 430.
    Prinz, op. cit.110, pp. 230 and 182.Google Scholar
  357. 431.
    Strauss Doc., 1658/22. The date of the document is mistaken by Strauss and Van der Meulen. According to Jaap van der Veen it should be 1685 (oral communication).Google Scholar

Early references to self-portraits by Rembrandt N.B. Where references to e.g. ‘een conterfeytsel van Rembrandt’ (‘a portrait of/by Rembrandt’) are not further identified, these are not included.

  1. [1]
    In the inventory of the collection of Charles I of England drawn up by Abraham van der Doort in 1639 there is mentioned: ‘The picture done by Rembrant. being his owne picture & done by himself in a Black capp and furrd habbitt with a litle goulden chaîne uppon both his Shouldrs In an Ovall and a square black frame.’ I A 33; Strauss Doc., 1639/11. (See Chapter III fig. 143) Google Scholar
  2. [3]
    In the will of Abraham Bartje(n)s: ‘Twee efigien van den constrijcken schilder Rembrandt met sijn vrouw’ (Two portraits of the artistic painter Rembrandt and his wife) GAA, not. P. van Velsen, NA 1785, fol. 396, dd. 14th December 1648; Strauss Doc. 1648/7.Google Scholar
  3. [4]
    In the inventory of the Amsterdam merchant, art dealer and collector Johannes de Renialme of 1657: ‘[No.] 292 Rembrants contrefeytsel anteycke f 150:-:-’ (No. 292 Rembrandt’s portrait à l’antique f 150:-:-) III A 139; GAA, not. F. Uyttenbogaert, NA 1915, pp. 663–692, dd. 27th June 1657, esp. 671; Strauss Doc., 1657/2. [N.B. Estimated by the painter Adam Camerarius and the collector-dealer Marten Kretzer] (See Chapter III fig. 242) Google Scholar
  4. [5]
    The inventory of Rembrandt’s daughter-in-law, Titus’ widow Magdalena van Loo, of c. 21th October 1669 lists: ‘Een conterfeytsel van des overledens schoonvader’ (A portrait of the father-in-law of the deceased) HdG Urk., no. 310.Google Scholar
  5. [6]
    In the list of paintings purchased by Cardinal Leopoldo de’ Medici between 1663 and 1671 mention is made of a: ‘Ritratto di Rembrans Fiammingo’ (Portrait of Rembrandt the Fleming) In the Inventario Generale de Quadri […] and K. Langedijk, Die Selbstbildnisse der holländischen und flämischen Künstler in der Galleria degli Autoritratti der Uffizien in Florenz, Florence 1992, p. 151. (See cat. no. IV 28) Google Scholar
  6. [8]
    In the inventory drawn up on 3rd January 1677 at Alkmaar listing the contents of the house of the painter (and possibly Rembrandt’s pupil) Lambert Doomer, there occurs: ‘Rembrants conterfeytsel’ (Portrait of Rembrandt) Th. Wortel, ‘Lambert Doomer te Alkmaar’, O.H. 46 (1929), pp. 171–187, esp. 176. [N.B. This entry occurs among a number of works by Doomer; so that the portrait concerned could therefore be from the latter’s hand.]Google Scholar
  7. [9]
    In the inventory of the house contents of Adriana van Gheyn, the widow of Louis Crayers [guardian of Titus]: ‘Een conterfeytsel van Rembrand van Rijn en zijn vrouw’ (A portrait of Rembrandt van Rijn and his wife) GAA, not. A. Lock, NA 2262(B), pp. 1090–1116, dd. 4th August 1677, esp. 1100; HdG Urk., no. 336.Google Scholar
  8. [11]
    Among the copper plates in Clement de Jonghe’s (d. 1677) print shop, under the heading ‘Rembrants’ were found: ‘[No.] 13 Conterf. van Rembr.’ ‘[ No.] 71 Rembrant selvs’ GAA, not. J. Backer, NA 4528, pp. 117–146, dd. 11 februari 1679, i.h.b. pp. 137 and 138; HdG Urk., no. 346.Google Scholar
  9. [12]
    In 1683 recorded in the collection of the French King Louis XIV in Paris as purchased in 1671 from Sr. de la Feuille. No. 318: ‘Un tableau de Raimbault représentant son portrait tenant une pallette de la main gauche et son appuy main de la droite avec une coëffe sur la teste’. (A painting of Rembrandt, showing his portrait holding a palette in his left hand and his maul-stick in the right, with a cap on his head) M. Le Brun, Inventaire des Tableaux du Cabinet du Roy, Paris 1683. (See cat. no. IV 19) Google Scholar
  10. [13]
    Dirck van Cattenburgh in 1685 was in possession of: ‘Een stuck schilderij sijnde een tronye door Rembrant nae hem selven geschildert, daerom is een platte gestroyde vergulde lijste’ (A painting, being a tronie by Rembrandt painted after himself, surrounded by a flat, sprinkled, gilt frame) GAA, not. J. de Hué, NA 5528(B), dd. 1st December 1685; Strauss Doc., 1658 [sic]/22.Google Scholar
  11. [15]
    At an anonymous sale in Amsterdam on 9th April 1687, was sold: ‘No. 100. Van Rembrant, zyn eygen Conterfeytsel f 6:-:-’ (Rembrandt’s self-portrait 6 guilders) Hoet I, p. 10, no. 100; HdG Urk., no. 362.Google Scholar
  12. [16]
    In the inventory of house contents of Willem Spieringh in Delft: ‘No. 48 Een trony van Rembrant sijnde sijn contrefeytsel’ (A tronie by Rembrandt being his portrait) GADelft, not. W. van Ruyven, NA 2290, deed 18, dd. 31st March 1689; HdG Urk., no. 364.Google Scholar
  13. [18]
    In the inventory of the collector from Cologne, Eberhard Jabach, Paris 17th July 1696: ‘Nr. 123 Portrait de Rimbrands, ayant un linge blanc autour de sa teste, 1/2 figure grande comme le naturel, de luy-mesme. 100 livfres]’. (Portrait of Rembrandt by himself, with a white linen cloth round his head, half-figure, life-sized. 100 pounds) Vicomte de Grouchy in Memoires de la Société de l’Histoire de Paris 21 (1894), p. 255. (See cat no. IV 24) Google Scholar
  14. [19]
    At an anonymous sale on 10th June 1705 was sold: ‘Rembrants Conterfeytsel, op zijn Persiaen, door hem geschildert f 59:-:-’ (Portrait of Rembrandt in Persian costume, painted by himself, 59 guilders) Hoet I, p. 79, no. 30; probably indentical with Br. 16 (Corpus I A 40) Google Scholar
  15. [20]
    In the printed sale catalogue of Jan de Wale, heer van Ankeveen (Amsterdam 12th May 1706) is found: ‘Nr. 27 Rembrants Conterfeytzel, door hem geschildert’ (Portrait of Rembrandt painted by himself) Lugt 200, p. 2, no. 27.Google Scholar
  16. [21]
    On 18th March 1711 the German Zacharias von Uffenbach saw at Sieuwert van der Schelling in Amsterdam: ‘ein unvergleichlich Porträt ganz gross von Rembrandt durch ihn selbst gemahlt, welches gewiss bewunderns werth ist, und nicht genug kan betrachtet werden’ (an incomparable, very large portrait of Rembrandt painted by himself, so admirable one cannot gaze on it enough) Z.C. von Uffenbach, Merkwürdige Reisen durch Niedersachsen, Holland und Engeland, 3 vols., Frankfurt/Leipzig/Ulm 1753-1754, esp. vol. III, p. 647; HdG Urk., no. 393.Google Scholar
  17. [22]
    At an anonymous sale on Amsterdam on 6th May 1716 was sold: ‘Zijn eygen Portrait van dito [Rembrandt] f 20:-:-(His own portrait by the same [Rembrandt] 20 guilders) Hoet I, p. 198, no. 91.Google Scholar
  18. [23]
    Arnold Houbraken mentions in 1718: ‘Onder een menigte van roemwaardige pourtretten die hy [Rembrandt] gemaakt heeft, is’ser een geweest by den Heere Jan van Beuningen, dat hy naar zyn eigen wezen had geschildert,’ t geen zoo konstig en kraftig uitgewerkt was, dat het kragtigste penceelwerk van Van Dyk, en Rubbens daar by niet kon halen, ja het hooft scheen uit het stuk te steken, en de aanschouwers aan te spreken.’ (Among many portraits deserving of fame that he [Rembrandt] made, there was one belonging to Heere Jan van Beuningen that he had painted of himself, which was so skilfully and artfully worked out that even the best brushwork of Van Dyck and Rubens could not match it; yes, the head seemed to emerge from the painting and speak to the viewers.) A. Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschildersen schilderessen, 3 vols., Amsterdam 1718-1721, esp. vol. I, p. 269.Google Scholar
  19. [26]
    On 6th August 1722, at the sale of William van Huls: ‘Rembrandt-His own Picture’ was purchased by Thomas Brodrick for £ 80 F. Simpson, ‘Dutch paintings in England before 1760’, Burl. Mag. 95 (1953), pp. 39–42, esp. 41.Google Scholar
  20. [27]
    The following entry appears on an undated list of paintings from the first quarter of the eighteenth century concerning one ‘mevrouw van Sonsbeek’: ‘No. 38 Het portrait van Rembrandt door hem selfs f 50:-:-’ ( Portrait of Rembrandt by himself 50 guilders) A. Bredius, ‘Eenige taxaties van schilderijen in de XVIIe en in het begin der XVIIIe eeuw’, O.H. 24 (1906), pp. 236–241, esp. 238. [N.B. Estimated by the painter Anthony de Waardt]Google Scholar
  21. [28]
    In the inventory of house contents of Catharina Grypestar (The Hague 1731/2) is found: ‘Het portrait van Rembrandt door hem zelf geschildert f 80:-:-’ (The portrait of Rembrandt painted by himself f80:-:-) Br. Künstl-Inv., p. 957. [N.B. without citation of source] [N.B. Estimated by the painter and art dealer Jacques de Roore]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernst Van De Wetering

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations