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#0036
30
KATARZYNA KRZYŻAGORSKA-PISAREK
core of the man and his style"). That idea, however, proved to be very much a product of its time and,
as in the case of Rembrandt, ied to a number of unwarranted disattributions'^E
Voiume IV and the fohowing ones echoed the evotved conception of Rembrandt as an ateiier master
who worked more coHaborativety with his students and assistants. A new category of paintings was
introduced - works executed by Rembrandt with the assistance of others. Research on Rembrandfs
workshop practice, the training of his pupiis, and their contribution to his production was much intensified.
Surprisingly, not to attribute non-Rembrandt works to pupds, but to examine the workings of his studio:
'We are not primariiy interested in connecting the names of pupiis to non-Rembrandt paintings, but rather in
discovering the conventions of seventeenth century training - and workshop practices'^. Van de Wetering's
postuiated to inciude in the process of attribution any reievant information such as painterly technique
and theoreticai writings. He compared his approach to the theories of the 18th-century statistician and
ciergyman, Thomas Bayes, bringing every smaliest piece of evidence into account in order to establish
the highest degree of probability (of authorship). These new insights were possibie only if the group
of non-Rembrandt works to be investigated was aiso expanded. Van de Wetering was looking tor 'the
objective truth', retying more on the documentary evidence than styte criticism. He has grown criticai
of the 'intuitive connoisseuriat judgement' and the 'subjective connoisseurship' of the otd RRR based on
'rigid styhstic criteria', which overruied factuai evidence. If a number of objective arguments converged,
a reattribution to Rembrandt was possible.
Another distinctive difference between the voiume IV and the previous voiumes was that the questionabie
ABC system had been abandoned. Equaiiy, the strictiy chronoiogicai organisation of the first three voiumes
was dropped in favour of thematic groupings. Thus Volume IV oniy deait with Rembrandt's self-portraits,
dating from 1642 onwards. The focus on the subject of attributions has shifted towards thematic issues,
particulariy in reiation to workshop practices as witnessed by iengthy introductory essays. This iooked
like a compiete change of strategy.
Surprisingiy, the initiai high hopes of the RRP for the scientific research as proof of authenticity had
to be abandoned too. It transpired that the resuits of detaiied technicai investigations carried hardiy any
weight in attribution and the scientific research was of iimited use: 'Whiist in theory it may sometimes be
possible to prove that a painting is not by Rembrandt by means of technical investigation, the converse
- using the same methods to prove conclusively that a painting is certainly by Rembrandt - is never
possible'46. Although the RRP expected to find many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century works which
had infiltrated the large Rembrandt's oeuvre, very few works were later than the seventeenth century.
The vast majority were executed with a technique similar to Rembrandt's, so were probably made in
his studio. Purthermore, Rembrandt's oeuvre was accessible for technical examinations only to a limited
degree, as for instance collecting paint samples from valuable and important paintings was restricted
depending on the museum or the owner. Science could, however, still be used for other purposes. In the
first fitteen years of the Project, dendrochronology was of inestimable value: 'No single oak panel came
from any tree felled substantially later than the year to which the painting in question was dated on the
basis of style or the date it bears. Moreover, the fact that it seemed possible to demonstrate that two
or more panels came from the same trunk in relatively many instances indicated that there was a high
degree of probability that the works concerned were painted in the same workshop'^T Dendrochronology,
the research on the grounds, and the X-radiography came to play the most important role in the Project.
Van de Wetering stressed, however, that the Project's participants had to accept their rehance on a type
of evaluation consistent with the traditional connoisseurship. But in contrast with the experts of the past,
they were prepared to voice their arguments as explicitly as possible.
Eventually two more parts of the Corpus Rembrandt were published: Volume V in 201 T and Volume VI
in 2015; the latter will be discussed further on. Initially, Volume V called 77?e Xwa/Aycûf/e ЛАЛэту Ruwtmg.s'
was meant to be the last in the series. It contained more reattributions to Rembrandt, reversing more
previous decisions of the RRP. The reattributed paintings were marked with an asterisk in the catalogue.
44 E. van de Wetering (et aL), ГАе ///sVcrv Pc/???ć?gv (о/'/жу о/^с77?/?7'077</? fa/Trrmgs'. Votume V, Dodrecht
201), p. 191.
45 Van de Wetering (et al.), Уе/4ро/'?го/?^..., p. IX.
4^ /Z)/r/g?7?, p. XI.
47 №/ć/e???.
KATARZYNA KRZYŻAGORSKA-PISAREK
core of the man and his style"). That idea, however, proved to be very much a product of its time and,
as in the case of Rembrandt, ied to a number of unwarranted disattributions'^E
Voiume IV and the fohowing ones echoed the evotved conception of Rembrandt as an ateiier master
who worked more coHaborativety with his students and assistants. A new category of paintings was
introduced - works executed by Rembrandt with the assistance of others. Research on Rembrandfs
workshop practice, the training of his pupiis, and their contribution to his production was much intensified.
Surprisingly, not to attribute non-Rembrandt works to pupds, but to examine the workings of his studio:
'We are not primariiy interested in connecting the names of pupiis to non-Rembrandt paintings, but rather in
discovering the conventions of seventeenth century training - and workshop practices'^. Van de Wetering's
postuiated to inciude in the process of attribution any reievant information such as painterly technique
and theoreticai writings. He compared his approach to the theories of the 18th-century statistician and
ciergyman, Thomas Bayes, bringing every smaliest piece of evidence into account in order to establish
the highest degree of probability (of authorship). These new insights were possibie only if the group
of non-Rembrandt works to be investigated was aiso expanded. Van de Wetering was looking tor 'the
objective truth', retying more on the documentary evidence than styte criticism. He has grown criticai
of the 'intuitive connoisseuriat judgement' and the 'subjective connoisseurship' of the otd RRR based on
'rigid styhstic criteria', which overruied factuai evidence. If a number of objective arguments converged,
a reattribution to Rembrandt was possible.
Another distinctive difference between the voiume IV and the previous voiumes was that the questionabie
ABC system had been abandoned. Equaiiy, the strictiy chronoiogicai organisation of the first three voiumes
was dropped in favour of thematic groupings. Thus Volume IV oniy deait with Rembrandt's self-portraits,
dating from 1642 onwards. The focus on the subject of attributions has shifted towards thematic issues,
particulariy in reiation to workshop practices as witnessed by iengthy introductory essays. This iooked
like a compiete change of strategy.
Surprisingiy, the initiai high hopes of the RRP for the scientific research as proof of authenticity had
to be abandoned too. It transpired that the resuits of detaiied technicai investigations carried hardiy any
weight in attribution and the scientific research was of iimited use: 'Whiist in theory it may sometimes be
possible to prove that a painting is not by Rembrandt by means of technical investigation, the converse
- using the same methods to prove conclusively that a painting is certainly by Rembrandt - is never
possible'46. Although the RRP expected to find many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century works which
had infiltrated the large Rembrandt's oeuvre, very few works were later than the seventeenth century.
The vast majority were executed with a technique similar to Rembrandt's, so were probably made in
his studio. Purthermore, Rembrandt's oeuvre was accessible for technical examinations only to a limited
degree, as for instance collecting paint samples from valuable and important paintings was restricted
depending on the museum or the owner. Science could, however, still be used for other purposes. In the
first fitteen years of the Project, dendrochronology was of inestimable value: 'No single oak panel came
from any tree felled substantially later than the year to which the painting in question was dated on the
basis of style or the date it bears. Moreover, the fact that it seemed possible to demonstrate that two
or more panels came from the same trunk in relatively many instances indicated that there was a high
degree of probability that the works concerned were painted in the same workshop'^T Dendrochronology,
the research on the grounds, and the X-radiography came to play the most important role in the Project.
Van de Wetering stressed, however, that the Project's participants had to accept their rehance on a type
of evaluation consistent with the traditional connoisseurship. But in contrast with the experts of the past,
they were prepared to voice their arguments as explicitly as possible.
Eventually two more parts of the Corpus Rembrandt were published: Volume V in 201 T and Volume VI
in 2015; the latter will be discussed further on. Initially, Volume V called 77?e Xwa/Aycûf/e ЛАЛэту Ruwtmg.s'
was meant to be the last in the series. It contained more reattributions to Rembrandt, reversing more
previous decisions of the RRP. The reattributed paintings were marked with an asterisk in the catalogue.
44 E. van de Wetering (et aL), ГАе ///sVcrv Pc/???ć?gv (о/'/жу о/^с77?/?7'077</? fa/Trrmgs'. Votume V, Dodrecht
201), p. 191.
45 Van de Wetering (et al.), Уе/4ро/'?го/?^..., p. IX.
4^ /Z)/r/g?7?, p. XI.
47 №/ć/e???.