DOI article:
Krzyżagórska-Pisarek, Katarzyna: Corpus Rubenianum versus Rembrandt Research Project: two approaches to a "Catalogue raisonné"
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.34225#0037
CORPUS RUBENIANUM EEÆSU.S' REMBRANDT RESEARCH PROJECT.
31
SOME CASE STUDIES OF REATTRIBUTIONS
Despite the remarkable achievements of connoisseurship under Van de Wetering, in some cases their
investigations could perhaps be taken further. In the Corrigenda to Voiume IV, the catalogue entry I A21
Т?е777/7г<з7?б/?Аoil on oak panef c. 1629, Mauritshuis, The Hague, (Fig. 1) previously
listed as Rembrandt's sell-portrait (not a t707??e), was downgraded to a workshop copy. The main reason
was that an underdrawing was discovered in The Hague portrait, an unusual feature for RembrandU^.
Volume VI listed 7Tw??'e w?7/7 7?0777Z77V777ć/?Ayb<T/?77v^, c. 1629, oil on oak panef Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg
(Fig. 2), as the original, previously thought to be a copy. Only Eric Jan Sluijter thought that The Hague
version may be Rembrandt's own after the (presumed) original in Nuremberg^. In Volume I the portrait
in The Hague was described as 'a well preserved painting (though slightly reduced in size some time
prior to 1752) that to some extent stands alone among the works from around 1629; there can however
be no doubt as to attribution and dating in that year, on the grounds of various detail features and of
its overall high quality'^- The painting displays a careful and smooth technique of execution, and is of
high quality. The initial attribution to Rembrandt was made by 'on the one hand resemblances in motifs
and details, and on the other by a strong impression of authenticity that is borne out by examination of
the paint structure'W Also ^677/7777677/7 were noted, and for these reasons the painting was identified as an
original by Rembrandt. The version in Nuremberg was deemed a copy: 'this is of relatively high quality
yet has unmistakable weaknesses, most evident in the neck area'$T
Yet it could also have been the other way round. The Nuremberg sketchy and freely painted portrait
could have been made ańer the carefully painted early self-portrait by Rembrandt, who was twenty-three
years old at the time. The arguments advanced by Van de Wetering in the Corrigenda$$ are rather short.
He sees 'the enlargement and elongation of the figure' (as compared to the other version) in The Hague
as 'typical faults of the copyist'. But one could see the reduction and the widening of the tigure in the
other work as such a fault. He advances some more arguments, clearly from an artist's point of view: 'the
author has set the various elements of physiognomy - eyes, nose, mouth and chin - as it were on the same
basic cylindrical form, whereas in the Nuremberg prototype the anatomically more correct disalignment
of the lower jaw and mouthparts with respect to the upper facial parts is observed and executed with
exceptional acuity and intelligence'. Does the author mean that the lower jaw in the Nuremberg portrait is
protruding, compared to the top lip and part of the face? If so, this is not the case with other Rembrandt
portraits, where the lower jaw is well aligned. Another argument, 'the painting in The Hague passes over
the eyelid also argues against the authenticity'^, does not sound convincing enough to demote the painting
to the status of a copy. The figure of the youthful Rembrandt in The Hague portrait looks anatomically
correct, well recognisable and spatially rendered. The Nuremberg portrait, on the other hand, is weaker in
expression and displays some anatomical problems with the contour of the face and neck. The portrait of
the young man looking at us from The Hague painting has arguably more presence and truth in it than
the Nuremberg one. Was the copyist a better artist than Rembrandt?
As the present paper was written for a Polish art journal, it is only fltting that Polish-related works be
discussed as case studies in Volume V. The first work catalogued as Rembrandt V 20, 77?<? E0/A/7 /ùobr*,
oil on canvas, c. 1655$$, The Frick CoIIection, New York (Fig. 3), is known worldwide. The question of its
attribution has attracted much attention since J. Bruyn suggested in 1984 in an article, that it might have
43 J. Wadum, 'Rembrandt under the Skin. The Mauritshuis 'Tortrait of Rembrandt with Gorget" in Retrospect/ Омг/ /7b//<wa'
П 4.2/4, 2000, pp. 164-187.
4^ E.J. Sluijter, 'The "Tronie of a Young Officer with a Gorget" in the Mauritshuis: A Second Version by Rembrandt Himself?'
Омг///о//лл</ 114,2-4, 2000, pp.188-194. More discussions on the subject in E. Buijsen and R.E.O. Ekkart, 'Rembrandt by HimselfT
Омг/ //o//oM</ 114.2/4, 2000, pp. 53-63; E. Buijsen, 'Rembrandfs Self-Portrait with Gorget. An ongoing debate', Ом</ //o//on</ 114,
2-4, 2000, pp. 155-163.
5° Bruyn (at al.j. OjO. c/?., p. 225.
з' /Zu'r/ew, p. 228.
5- /Zu'</g/?:, p. 229.
33 Van de Wetering (at al.), Vc//-po7*7/*<7/?j..., p. 598.
34 /Zn'</ew.
33 Van de Wetering (at ak), 77?e 5*м?о//-Хсо/е //А?огу fo/nt/ng^..., pp. 535-550.
31
SOME CASE STUDIES OF REATTRIBUTIONS
Despite the remarkable achievements of connoisseurship under Van de Wetering, in some cases their
investigations could perhaps be taken further. In the Corrigenda to Voiume IV, the catalogue entry I A21
Т?е777/7г<з7?б/?Аoil on oak panef c. 1629, Mauritshuis, The Hague, (Fig. 1) previously
listed as Rembrandt's sell-portrait (not a t707??e), was downgraded to a workshop copy. The main reason
was that an underdrawing was discovered in The Hague portrait, an unusual feature for RembrandU^.
Volume VI listed 7Tw??'e w?7/7 7?0777Z77V777ć/?Ayb<T/?77v^, c. 1629, oil on oak panef Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg
(Fig. 2), as the original, previously thought to be a copy. Only Eric Jan Sluijter thought that The Hague
version may be Rembrandt's own after the (presumed) original in Nuremberg^. In Volume I the portrait
in The Hague was described as 'a well preserved painting (though slightly reduced in size some time
prior to 1752) that to some extent stands alone among the works from around 1629; there can however
be no doubt as to attribution and dating in that year, on the grounds of various detail features and of
its overall high quality'^- The painting displays a careful and smooth technique of execution, and is of
high quality. The initial attribution to Rembrandt was made by 'on the one hand resemblances in motifs
and details, and on the other by a strong impression of authenticity that is borne out by examination of
the paint structure'W Also ^677/7777677/7 were noted, and for these reasons the painting was identified as an
original by Rembrandt. The version in Nuremberg was deemed a copy: 'this is of relatively high quality
yet has unmistakable weaknesses, most evident in the neck area'$T
Yet it could also have been the other way round. The Nuremberg sketchy and freely painted portrait
could have been made ańer the carefully painted early self-portrait by Rembrandt, who was twenty-three
years old at the time. The arguments advanced by Van de Wetering in the Corrigenda$$ are rather short.
He sees 'the enlargement and elongation of the figure' (as compared to the other version) in The Hague
as 'typical faults of the copyist'. But one could see the reduction and the widening of the tigure in the
other work as such a fault. He advances some more arguments, clearly from an artist's point of view: 'the
author has set the various elements of physiognomy - eyes, nose, mouth and chin - as it were on the same
basic cylindrical form, whereas in the Nuremberg prototype the anatomically more correct disalignment
of the lower jaw and mouthparts with respect to the upper facial parts is observed and executed with
exceptional acuity and intelligence'. Does the author mean that the lower jaw in the Nuremberg portrait is
protruding, compared to the top lip and part of the face? If so, this is not the case with other Rembrandt
portraits, where the lower jaw is well aligned. Another argument, 'the painting in The Hague passes over
the eyelid also argues against the authenticity'^, does not sound convincing enough to demote the painting
to the status of a copy. The figure of the youthful Rembrandt in The Hague portrait looks anatomically
correct, well recognisable and spatially rendered. The Nuremberg portrait, on the other hand, is weaker in
expression and displays some anatomical problems with the contour of the face and neck. The portrait of
the young man looking at us from The Hague painting has arguably more presence and truth in it than
the Nuremberg one. Was the copyist a better artist than Rembrandt?
As the present paper was written for a Polish art journal, it is only fltting that Polish-related works be
discussed as case studies in Volume V. The first work catalogued as Rembrandt V 20, 77?<? E0/A/7 /ùobr*,
oil on canvas, c. 1655$$, The Frick CoIIection, New York (Fig. 3), is known worldwide. The question of its
attribution has attracted much attention since J. Bruyn suggested in 1984 in an article, that it might have
43 J. Wadum, 'Rembrandt under the Skin. The Mauritshuis 'Tortrait of Rembrandt with Gorget" in Retrospect/ Омг/ /7b//<wa'
П 4.2/4, 2000, pp. 164-187.
4^ E.J. Sluijter, 'The "Tronie of a Young Officer with a Gorget" in the Mauritshuis: A Second Version by Rembrandt Himself?'
Омг///о//лл</ 114,2-4, 2000, pp.188-194. More discussions on the subject in E. Buijsen and R.E.O. Ekkart, 'Rembrandt by HimselfT
Омг/ //o//oM</ 114.2/4, 2000, pp. 53-63; E. Buijsen, 'Rembrandfs Self-Portrait with Gorget. An ongoing debate', Ом</ //o//on</ 114,
2-4, 2000, pp. 155-163.
5° Bruyn (at al.j. OjO. c/?., p. 225.
з' /Zu'r/ew, p. 228.
5- /Zu'</g/?:, p. 229.
33 Van de Wetering (at al.), Vc//-po7*7/*<7/?j..., p. 598.
34 /Zn'</ew.
33 Van de Wetering (at ak), 77?e 5*м?о//-Хсо/е //А?огу fo/nt/ng^..., pp. 535-550.