This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Note
J. Huizinga, Holländische Kultur des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts (Jena: Eugen Diederichs Verlag, 1933), 57–58.
Frits Lugt, “The History of Art”, an essay in The Contribution of Holland to the Sciences, a symposium edited by A. J. Barnouw and B. Landheer (New York: Querido, 1943), 184.
Nikolaus Pevsner, Academies of Art (Cambridge University Press, 1940), 130,
note 1. G. J. Hoogewerff, De Geschiedenis van de St. Lucasgilden in Nederland (Amsterdam: P. N. van Kampen en Zoon N.V., 1947), 108.
Pevsner, op. cit., 129–30; Hoogewerff, op. cit., 191.
H. Floerke, Studien zur niederländischen Kunst und Kulturgeschichte; die Formen des Kunsthandels, das Atelier und die Sammler in den Niederlanden von 15.–18. Jahrhundert, (Munich and Leipzig: Georg Müller, 1905), 87.
Cf. Alois Riegl, Das holländische Gruppenporträt (Reprint, Vienna: Oesterreichische Staatdr., 1931), 192 f.
It is difficult to understand such statements as Elizabeth Gilmore Holt’s in Literary Sources of Art History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947), 430: “In 1642, the Night Watch was refused by its commissioners and a lawsuit was begun to recover the money paid the artist.” A vast literature on this picture shows that there was no such refusal and no such lawsuit. Recent important contributions to the study of the Night Watch include A. van Schendel and H. H. Mertens, “De restauraties van Rembrandt’s Nachtwacht,” Oud Holland, LXII (1947), 1–52
and W. Martin, Van Nachtwacht tot Feeststoet (Amsterdam: Kosmos, 1947).
Julius Held specifically called attention to the myth of the Night Watch in “Debunking Rembrandt’s Legend,” Art News, XLVIII (1950), No. 10, 21f.
Sir Joshua Reynolds, “A Journey to Flanders and Holland in the Year 1781”, in The Literary Works of Sir Joshua Reynolds, edited by Henry William Beechy, (London: George Bell and Sons, 1890), II, 197. Reynolds doubted that Rembrandt painted the picture: “... it seemed to me to have more of the yellow manner of Boll (Ibid).
The inscription reads: “Schets van de Schilderije op de groote Sael van de Gleveniers Doelen daerinne de Jonge Heer van Purmerlandt als Capiteijn, geeft last aen zijnen Lieutenant, de Heer van Vlaerdingen, om syn Gompaignie Burgers te doen marcheren;” transcribed in Urk., No. 139. Since the album became a closed book after Gocq died January 1, 1655, we can conclude that the watercolor was made before that date.
Urk. 205 and 206 gives the text of the testimony given to support Rembrandt’s contention that the assessment he made of his estate of 40,750 florins, in 1647, was correct. The issue was a crucial matter because of Rembrandt’s declaration of bankruptcy in 1656. Rembrandt and Louis Grayer, the guardian of Rembrandt’s son Titus, insisted that Titus’ heritage, because he was a minor when his mother died, was 20,375 florins, that is, half of Rembrandt’s estate. They wanted Titus to receive this money before any of Rembrandt’s creditors received payment. The creditors were, of course, interested in proving that the assessment made in 1647 was too high. Grayer called witnesses, including Bronchorst and Cruysbergen, to prove that the estimate of 40,750 was not an exaggeration.
Urk., 205: “...dooréén de somme van hondert guldens, d’een wat meer en d’ander wat minder, nae de plaets, die sij daer in hadden.”
Urk., 206: “...dat het stuck schilderije staende op de Gleuveniersdoelen door den voorsz. Rembrandt van Rhijn geschildert, en daerin hy attestant mede is geconterfeijt, van schilderen wel heeft gekost de som van sestienhondert guldens.”
Cf. note 1 above.
The pictures were painted by Bartholomeus van der Heist, Govert Flinck, Jacob Backer, Joachim von Sandrart and Nicolaes Elias; cf. W. Martin, De Hollandsche Schilderkunst in de Zeventiende Eeuw, Frans Hals en zijn Tijd (Amsterdam: J. M. Meulenhoff, 1935), 218, fig. 123 for a reconstructed plan of the distribution of the paintings in the Kloveniersdoelen.
On May 23, 1715 the treasurers of the city of Amsterdam decided: “...het groote stuk schilderij van Rembrandts hangende op de saal van de Gloveniersdoelen schoon te maken en als dan hetzelve te plaetsen op de Kreygsraatskamer van het Stadhuys;” Urk., 402.
Although some new data have come to light since Hofstede de Groot published Die Urkunden über Rembrandt (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1906), the material he gathered remains the solid foundation upon which all studies of 17th and early 18th century Rembrandt criticism must rest. Two other studies have been made of Rembrandt’s critics: Gerard Brom, Rembrandt in de Literatuur (Groningen: J. B. Wolters, 1936), delivered as a lecture for the Allard Pierson Stichting;
W. Martin, “Rembrandt en de Gritiek 1630–1850,” Elsevier’s Geïllustreerd Maandschrift XLVII (1937), 225–239, delivered as a lecture for the Vereeniging Rembrandt.
Also cf. J. Q. van Regieren Altena, “Rembrandt Verdichtselen,” Handelingen Ned. Philologen Congres XVII (1937), 116–117.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1953 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Slive, S. (1953). Introduction. In: Rembrandt and His Critics 1630–1730. Utrechtse Bijdragen tot de Kunstgeschiedenis, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0838-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0838-4_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0306-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0838-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive