Pupil of Rembrandt — The supper at Emmaus (free variant after V 14)

Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst, inv. no. kms sp 405
  • Ernst Van De Wetering
Part of the Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project book series (RRSE, volume 5)

Abstract

Opinion has been strongly divided over the past half century on the question of whether or not this painting is from the hand of Rembrandt. Among the 20th-century authors who compiled surveys of Rembrandt’s painted oeuvre, Bauch was the first, in 1966, to disattribute the painting from Rembrandt. In his view it was a ‘free, very good remake of the Louvre-painting’ (V 14).1 With equal conviction, in 1968 Gerson re-attributed it to Rembrandt, adding that ‘a cleaning would probably restore to the curtain its proper function in the balance of colors’.2 Tümpel, in his 1986 survey of Rembrandt’s painted oeuvre, agreed with Bauch and suggested that it was a work by a pupil. He described the way he believed the painting had originated as follows: ‘The pupil makes a variant on Rembrandt’s painting [referring to V 14] using Utrecht methods and Utrecht school light effects. The framing of the work with rod and curtain is derived from the Holy Family in Kassel’ (V 6).3

Keywords

Clay Quartz Dolomite Posit Chalk 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Bauch 1966, p. 49: ‘Freie, sehr gute Wiederholung des Louvre-Bildes’.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Tümpel 1986, A 8.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    L. Bøgh Rønberg, ‘Rembrandt or not? Works by Rembrandt and his school at Statens Museum for Kunst’, in: Lene Bøgh Rønberg, Eva de la Fuente Pedersen e.a., Rembrandt? The master and his workshop, Copenhagen 2006, pp. 54–104, esp. 95.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    D. Bomford e.a., Art in the making, rev. ed., London 2006, p. 74.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    K. Madsen, ‘Larpents Gave til Kunstmuseet’, in: Kunstmuseets Aarsskrift 1 (1914), pp. 120–141.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    E. Michel, De Stockholm à Copenhagen, Copenhagen [1888], p. 307 ff.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    W. Bode and C. Hofstede de Groot, Rembrandt, Paris 1879–1905, vol. 5, p. 7.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    K. Madsen, Billeder af Rembrandt og hans Elever i den Kgl. Malerisamling, Copenhagen 1911, p. 29. Karl Madsen concluded that, ‘In purely painterly terms, our painting is certainly superior to the Louvre piece.’Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    J.Q. van Regteren Altena, review of Kurt Bauch, in: O.H. 82 (1967), p. 70.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    E. van de Wetering, ‘Het formaat van Rembrandts “Danae”’, Met eigen ogen. Opstellen aangeboden door leerlingen en medewerkers aan Hans L.C. Jaffé, Amsterdam 1984, pp. 67–72; J. Bruyn in: Corpus Vol. III, Chapter II, pp. 12–50 and J. Bruyn, ‘Rembrandt’s workshop: its function & production’ in: Exhib. cat. Rembrandt. Paintings, 1991/92, pp. 68-89.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Bøgh Rønberg, ‘Rembrandt or not? Works by Rembrandt and his school at Statens Museum for Kunst’, in: Lene Bøgh Rønberg, Eva de la Fuente Pedersen e.a., Rembrandt? The master and his workshop, Copenhagen 2006 op. cit.4, pp. 88–89.Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    Bøgh Rønberg, ‘Rembrandt or not? Works by Rembrandt and his school at Statens Museum for Kunst’, in: Lene Bøgh Rønberg, Eva de la Fuente Pedersen e.a., Rembrandt? The master and his workshop, Copenhagen 2006 op. cit.4, p. 89 and notes 127, 128; see also J. Wadum,’ Uncovering Rembrandt’, in: Rembrandt? The master and his workshop (see note 4), pp. 124–148, esp. 138–139.Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    Madsen, K. Madsen, Billeder af Rembrandt og hans Elever i den Kgl. Malerisamling, Copenhagen 1911 op. cit.10, p. 26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernst Van De Wetering

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations