DOI Artikel:
Krzyżagórska-Pisarek, Katarzyna: Corpus Rubenianum versus Rembrandt Research Project: two approaches to a "Catalogue raisonné"
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.34225#0030
24
KATARZYNA KRZYŻAGORSKA-PtSAREK
reasonabiy easy to achieve. But the amplitude and compiexity of Rubens's muiti figural compositions, his
hght touch and transparency of coiours, might have been harder to imitate.
The core of Rubens's oeuvre was reiativeiy stabie but the number of accepted Rembrandt works had
doubied in the first haif of the twentieth century, mainiy through the inciusion of many rediscovered and
reattributed works. The first early twentieth-century (T77t7/ogr/e 7Y7M07777R of Rubens's paintings was compiied
by A. Rosenberg^ (1905), and iater revised by R. Oldenbourg^ (1921). These had foilowed the eariier and
important nineteenth-century pubiications by J. Smith (i 829-1842)4, and especiaily M. Rooses (1886-1892)T
Rubens coto/og77e^ re/Aoz/z/PA are fewer (4) and arguably less outdated than those of Rembrandt (10) in
the height of the artist's popularity. The maximum expansion of Rembrandt's oeuvre took place at the
beginning of the twentieth century when, as pointed out by G. Schwartz, the 'supreme judges among
art historians were working for the market'6. The nine Rembrandt coto/ogT/ay глАо7777а$ published after
J. Smith (1836)7 were written by W. von Bode and C. Hofstede de GrooC (1897-1905), A. Rosenberg
(1906)9, Valentiner*o (1909), C. Hofstede de Groot (1915)^, W. Valentiner (1921)^, A. Bredius (1935)^,
K. Bauch (1966)'4, H. Gerson (1968)'$, and A. Bredius edited by H. Gerson (1969)'T
To remedy the confusing situation in the field of Rembrandt attributions an authenticating organisation
The Stichting Toundation Rembrandt Research Project (RRP) was set up in 1968 in Amsterdam. It aimed at
producing the final c<77V/og7/<? 7Y7Ao777?<? of Rembrandt paintings by extensively using technical investigations
(such as X-radiography, infrared and ultraviolet photography, chemical analysis of paint layers, study
of supports including dendrochronology and canvas thread count) in order to establish authenticity. The
leading figure of the project, Josua Bruyn, said in 1969, by recalling Gerson, that The tradition the 18th
century has handed down to us must be considered corrupt. 1 should like to add that some people in the
18th century must have been aware of this. A glance at the annotated copies of eighteenth century sale
catalogues makes this very clear - and problems of attribution appear to have been known for a long
timek'T The same could be applied to the early twentieth century. The RRP was set up in the wake of
the Van Meegeren affair, which involved fake Vermeers and other forged paintings accepted as authentic
by the leading art experts such as A. Bredius, W. Martin and H. Schneider of the Mauritshuis, T. Schmidt-
Degener and J. Roell of the Rijksmuseum, or J.G. Van Gelder and D. Hannema. Even Gerson was duped
by Van Meegeren's forgeries. There was a strong suspicion among scholars that there may also be many
imitations and fake Rembrandts in circulation.
The RRP was predominantly set up as a massive and ruthless attempt to correct the corrupt tradition.
The aim was to establish a definitive chronological Rembrandt canon H о/Т^/б/млеУ/А T*0777/777gA
by using modem and scientific methods (sometimes described as 'obsessively technical') as well as the
more traditional connoisseurship. As a result a very large amount of valuable technical data on Rembrandt's
supports, grounds, paint layers and radiography has been gathered over the years. The scholars involved
in the early RRP stressed a need for a greater clarity in the interpretation of the available evidence and
for the full explanation of the final verdicts on authorship: 'After the monosyllabic pronouncements of
Hofstede de Groot and Bredius, there is a need now for a precise definition of our observations and of
2 A. Rosenberg, f.f. De^* A7eA/e/*^ Gewo/Jf 7/; YtfSTZ/ZT/JM/TgeH, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1905.
2 R. Oldcnbourg, RR ТСмТ/е/м. De^ A7e;V/e/*^ Ge///<7Z/7e. Kiassiker der Kunst, Beriin-Leipzig 1921.
4 .1. Smith, 4 co/o/ogMe /*o;To////e o/*/Zze ///o,s7 e/znZ/e/// Ом/еА. FZe//;AZ/ o/zuZ K/*e/?c/; po;Z;/e/^, part 11. R D 7?;;Z/e/M. London 1830.
s M. Rooses, Z,'Oe;/v/*e /Ve ЛЛ 7?;/Z/e/M.* LZ;T/o;'/*e e/ е/елс/*/р/;о/; <Te ^es /oZ/ZeoMX e/ с/е&у/'/м, 5 vols. Antwerp 1886—1892.
6 G. Schwartz, 'Rembrandt: connoisseurship and erudition', Züew/e 4e /'o/7, 42 (1978), p. 105.
2 J. Smith. 4 co/o/ogz/e /"а/Тонме p4/Zze //;os/ e//;;7;e/;/ Ом/с/;. К/е/мА/; o//r/ F/*e//cZ; poz'/r/e/'S'. part VII, 7^e/7;Z//*<3/7<7/ vo/; ZC/;y/7.
London 1836.
s W. vonBode and C. Hofstede de Groot, 77;e со/м/Уе/е wo/'/r^ o/ T7e//7Z//*o/7<7/. 8 vols, ed. Sedelmeyer, Paris 1897-1906.
9 A. Rosenberg, 7^e//;Z//*o/;<7/. De^* A4e;T/e/*s Ge//;oZ//e, Klassiker der Kunst, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1906.
W.R. Valentiner, 7^e//;Z//*o/;<7/. Des A4e;'Ve/*y Ge/;;o///e ;'/7 643 4Z/Z/;7//;;/7ge/7, Klassiker der Kunst, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1909.
C. Hofstede dc Groot, 4 Go/oZogMe Т^<з;То/7/;е o//Z;e ATo^/ D/;;;Z;e/7/ DM/c/; P<3/'/7/e/*s o//Zze Xevez;/ee/7//7 Ge/7/м/у. based on
the work of J. Smith, vol. VI, London 1915.
'2 W. Valentiner, /?e//;Z//*<3/;<7/. U;e<7e/*ge/M/7o'e/7e Ge//;oZ<7e G^ZO-20/, Stuttgart-Berlin 1921.
'2 A. Bredius, T^e/7;Z//*<3/7<7/ Ge//7oZ<7e, 630 4Z/Z/;'Z<7M/7ge/;, Vienna 1935.
'4 K. Bauch, 7?e/7;Z//*o/7<7/ Ge/?;<7Z<7e, Berlin 1966.
H. Gerson, 7^e//7Z//*<3/;<7/ D<3;Z;/;'/7gy, London 1968.
A. Bredius, ed. by H. Gerson, 77;e Go/7;pZe/e D<7;7;'o/; o/*/he Do/'/7/;Z;g^ Z/y 77e//;Z//*<3/7<7/. London 1969.
'2 D.C. Stam (ed.), ZZe/;;Z//*o/7<7/ p//e/* 77;/*ee 77м/;<7/*е<7 Jea/'^.* 4 X)^"Doy;'M//;, The Art Institute, Chicago. October 22-24, 1969,
Chicago 1973. p. 33.
KATARZYNA KRZYŻAGORSKA-PtSAREK
reasonabiy easy to achieve. But the amplitude and compiexity of Rubens's muiti figural compositions, his
hght touch and transparency of coiours, might have been harder to imitate.
The core of Rubens's oeuvre was reiativeiy stabie but the number of accepted Rembrandt works had
doubied in the first haif of the twentieth century, mainiy through the inciusion of many rediscovered and
reattributed works. The first early twentieth-century (T77t7/ogr/e 7Y7M07777R of Rubens's paintings was compiied
by A. Rosenberg^ (1905), and iater revised by R. Oldenbourg^ (1921). These had foilowed the eariier and
important nineteenth-century pubiications by J. Smith (i 829-1842)4, and especiaily M. Rooses (1886-1892)T
Rubens coto/og77e^ re/Aoz/z/PA are fewer (4) and arguably less outdated than those of Rembrandt (10) in
the height of the artist's popularity. The maximum expansion of Rembrandt's oeuvre took place at the
beginning of the twentieth century when, as pointed out by G. Schwartz, the 'supreme judges among
art historians were working for the market'6. The nine Rembrandt coto/ogT/ay глАо7777а$ published after
J. Smith (1836)7 were written by W. von Bode and C. Hofstede de GrooC (1897-1905), A. Rosenberg
(1906)9, Valentiner*o (1909), C. Hofstede de Groot (1915)^, W. Valentiner (1921)^, A. Bredius (1935)^,
K. Bauch (1966)'4, H. Gerson (1968)'$, and A. Bredius edited by H. Gerson (1969)'T
To remedy the confusing situation in the field of Rembrandt attributions an authenticating organisation
The Stichting Toundation Rembrandt Research Project (RRP) was set up in 1968 in Amsterdam. It aimed at
producing the final c<77V/og7/<? 7Y7Ao777?<? of Rembrandt paintings by extensively using technical investigations
(such as X-radiography, infrared and ultraviolet photography, chemical analysis of paint layers, study
of supports including dendrochronology and canvas thread count) in order to establish authenticity. The
leading figure of the project, Josua Bruyn, said in 1969, by recalling Gerson, that The tradition the 18th
century has handed down to us must be considered corrupt. 1 should like to add that some people in the
18th century must have been aware of this. A glance at the annotated copies of eighteenth century sale
catalogues makes this very clear - and problems of attribution appear to have been known for a long
timek'T The same could be applied to the early twentieth century. The RRP was set up in the wake of
the Van Meegeren affair, which involved fake Vermeers and other forged paintings accepted as authentic
by the leading art experts such as A. Bredius, W. Martin and H. Schneider of the Mauritshuis, T. Schmidt-
Degener and J. Roell of the Rijksmuseum, or J.G. Van Gelder and D. Hannema. Even Gerson was duped
by Van Meegeren's forgeries. There was a strong suspicion among scholars that there may also be many
imitations and fake Rembrandts in circulation.
The RRP was predominantly set up as a massive and ruthless attempt to correct the corrupt tradition.
The aim was to establish a definitive chronological Rembrandt canon H о/Т^/б/млеУ/А T*0777/777gA
by using modem and scientific methods (sometimes described as 'obsessively technical') as well as the
more traditional connoisseurship. As a result a very large amount of valuable technical data on Rembrandt's
supports, grounds, paint layers and radiography has been gathered over the years. The scholars involved
in the early RRP stressed a need for a greater clarity in the interpretation of the available evidence and
for the full explanation of the final verdicts on authorship: 'After the monosyllabic pronouncements of
Hofstede de Groot and Bredius, there is a need now for a precise definition of our observations and of
2 A. Rosenberg, f.f. De^* A7eA/e/*^ Gewo/Jf 7/; YtfSTZ/ZT/JM/TgeH, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1905.
2 R. Oldcnbourg, RR ТСмТ/е/м. De^ A7e;V/e/*^ Ge///<7Z/7e. Kiassiker der Kunst, Beriin-Leipzig 1921.
4 .1. Smith, 4 co/o/ogMe /*o;To////e o/*/Zze ///o,s7 e/znZ/e/// Ом/еА. FZe//;AZ/ o/zuZ K/*e/?c/; po;Z;/e/^, part 11. R D 7?;;Z/e/M. London 1830.
s M. Rooses, Z,'Oe;/v/*e /Ve ЛЛ 7?;/Z/e/M.* LZ;T/o;'/*e e/ е/елс/*/р/;о/; <Te ^es /oZ/ZeoMX e/ с/е&у/'/м, 5 vols. Antwerp 1886—1892.
6 G. Schwartz, 'Rembrandt: connoisseurship and erudition', Züew/e 4e /'o/7, 42 (1978), p. 105.
2 J. Smith. 4 co/o/ogz/e /"а/Тонме p4/Zze //;os/ e//;;7;e/;/ Ом/с/;. К/е/мА/; o//r/ F/*e//cZ; poz'/r/e/'S'. part VII, 7^e/7;Z//*<3/7<7/ vo/; ZC/;y/7.
London 1836.
s W. vonBode and C. Hofstede de Groot, 77;e со/м/Уе/е wo/'/r^ o/ T7e//7Z//*o/7<7/. 8 vols, ed. Sedelmeyer, Paris 1897-1906.
9 A. Rosenberg, 7^e//;Z//*o/;<7/. De^* A4e;T/e/*s Ge//;oZ//e, Klassiker der Kunst, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1906.
W.R. Valentiner, 7^e//;Z//*o/;<7/. Des A4e;'Ve/*y Ge/;;o///e ;'/7 643 4Z/Z/;7//;;/7ge/7, Klassiker der Kunst, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1909.
C. Hofstede dc Groot, 4 Go/oZogMe Т^<з;То/7/;е o//Z;e ATo^/ D/;;;Z;e/7/ DM/c/; P<3/'/7/e/*s o//Zze Xevez;/ee/7//7 Ge/7/м/у. based on
the work of J. Smith, vol. VI, London 1915.
'2 W. Valentiner, /?e//;Z//*<3/;<7/. U;e<7e/*ge/M/7o'e/7e Ge//;oZ<7e G^ZO-20/, Stuttgart-Berlin 1921.
'2 A. Bredius, T^e/7;Z//*<3/7<7/ Ge//7oZ<7e, 630 4Z/Z/;'Z<7M/7ge/;, Vienna 1935.
'4 K. Bauch, 7?e/7;Z//*o/7<7/ Ge/?;<7Z<7e, Berlin 1966.
H. Gerson, 7^e//7Z//*<3/;<7/ D<3;Z;/;'/7gy, London 1968.
A. Bredius, ed. by H. Gerson, 77;e Go/7;pZe/e D<7;7;'o/; o/*/he Do/'/7/;Z;g^ Z/y 77e//;Z//*<3/7<7/. London 1969.
'2 D.C. Stam (ed.), ZZe/;;Z//*o/7<7/ p//e/* 77;/*ee 77м/;<7/*е<7 Jea/'^.* 4 X)^"Doy;'M//;, The Art Institute, Chicago. October 22-24, 1969,
Chicago 1973. p. 33.