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#0043
CORPUS RUBENIANUM UERWS' REMBRANDT RESEARCH PROJECT...
37
name he announces'^. Has the final outcome of the many years of intensive research on the authenticity of
Rembrandt's oeuvre caused even more confusion that the eariy twentieth-century connoisseurship?
If every painting by Rembrandt is individuai and unique as now postuiated ('there is no such thing as
a typicai Rembrandt; each painting is unusuai in its own way'73) how are we going to fïnd the necessary
common ground for making reiiabie attributions? Norms of authenticity and styie do exist for other
artists and attributions are stiii made on basis of styie. Why wouid Rembrandt be such an exceptionaily
changeable artist who painted in so many different styles at the same time? Why do Rembrandt's paintings
iiiustrated in the łatest 7vy/sw77?c iook so disparate and of such variabie quality when painted in
the same period of time? The complexities of probiems of attribution connected with Rembrandt are now
staggering, even for experts. When Van de Wetering, the iast member of the RRP and the final authority
on the subject disappears, wiii his opinions stiii stand? Who wiii be the next arbiter of authenticity and
wiii he or she make more corrections? Despite fifty years of research and aii the technicał investigations
the confidence in Rembrandt connoisseurship is iower than ever. Today nobody seems to know what
a Rembrandt painting shouid iook like anymore.
ii. LUDWiG BURCHARD AND THE CORPUS RUBENIANUM
The first cć7to/ogMe roAôwvd of Rubens's paintings was compiied in 1830 by the London art deaier
John Smith (1781-1855), as the second part of his Coto/ogTve 7V7Ao7777e o/ //?e 7770л/ 0777777077/ D77/C/7,
С/от77м/7 0777? Тго77с/7 /70777 /07^ in nine volumes, pubiished between 1829 and 1842. The cataiogue does not
contain iiiustrations, oniy a biographical chapter, preliminary observations discussing Rubens's output and
authorship, descriptions and subject of works, their dimensions, prices if sold, the gaiieries and private
coliections where found, and the names of engravers. The enormous scope of John Smith's work must
however impress today's readers, as he was not oniy capabie of compiling Rubens's cc/c/ogTve 7Y7M07777c
singie-handediy, which is now considered virtualiy impossibie, but at the same time the catalogues of so
many more artists - inciuding Rembrandt!
Fifty years iater, Max Rooses (1839-1914) pubiished his own monumentai co/o/og7/c 7V7M07777e, Z 'Œ77V7*c
?/c Л F. A?7/)C77U' /77.S707/U c/ Tc.sć'7T/7/7077 ć/c .sc.s' /o/?/co77v c/ ć/c.s.s77?.s (Antwerp 1886-1892), arranging the existing
materiai according to subject. The five iarge voiumes were iilustrated, mostly with engravings. Rooses also
studied contemporary painters in Antwerp and pubiished books on the work of the sixteenth-century print
pubiisher Christophe Piantin. In 1876 he became the first curator of the Plantin-Moretus Museum. He was
seiected to complete Rubens's co/o/ogoc roAo77/7c whiie simuitaneousiy compiling an inventory of the Plantims
archives, so his monumentai work was done when he was aiso busy on another iarge project!
In 1905, Adolf Rosenberg published his mainiy photographic cataiogue, Dc^ T/cA/c7^ Cc777c/ć/c
DD Ат//)С7?,у, revised in 1921 by Rudoif Oidenbourg. Both volumes contained an introduction, photographs
of Rubens's paintings in the chronoiogicai order with short captions, but nothing more. It is surprising that
there was no other compiete modem co/o/og7/e roAo7?77c of Rubens's works (apart from the stiii unflnished
CRLB), except for Michaei Jaffe's D?/Z)e77,s, Co/o/ogo C0777/7/C/0, published in 1989 in Italian. Jaffé's one
voiume cataiogue is iiiustrated and inciudes short entries on each painting, but is considered unreiiabie,
as it contains a number of questionabie and weak works attributed to Rubens by the author aione and
disputed by other scholars. Perhaps signifïcantly, it has not been transiated into Engiish.
Ludwig Burchard, who iaid the foundation of the Corpus Rubenianum conceived the pian for a Rubens
co/o/og?7c 7^oAo?777c in the 1920s, and outlined his goais in the 1939 prospectus for the pubiisher ElsevieŒ.
He stated in it that he aimed at 'the compiete embodiment of our improved knowiedge of Rubens's
work'. Burchard adopted the methods and framework used eariier by Smith and Rooses, whiie adding any
new information which came to iight since. This conservative, traditiona) approach which stiii continues
today at the CRLB, contrasts strongly with the radical goals and the cutting-edge methods of the RRP,
7- Van de Wetering (at ai.), p. Х1И, quoting M. J. Friediander, Tó/; Хм77У7 м???/ Oxford-Zürich
1946, p. 158.
VandeWetering, ^e???/??*?????/^^ Pa7n77Mg^ //ev?'^77e?/..., p. 664.
74 Prospectus published in ex7enyo in the foreword byF. Baudouin and R.A. d'Hulst to J.R. Martin, 77?e Ce7/7MgFo7??77??g^
of 7/?e Jey??/7 С/?м?*с/? ??? H??7rre?p. Со?*р??л 7/м/?е???'о??м??? ZM?/w7g /7м?*с/?о?'?/, Voi. I, London-New York 1968. pp. IX-Xl.
37
name he announces'^. Has the final outcome of the many years of intensive research on the authenticity of
Rembrandt's oeuvre caused even more confusion that the eariy twentieth-century connoisseurship?
If every painting by Rembrandt is individuai and unique as now postuiated ('there is no such thing as
a typicai Rembrandt; each painting is unusuai in its own way'73) how are we going to fïnd the necessary
common ground for making reiiabie attributions? Norms of authenticity and styie do exist for other
artists and attributions are stiii made on basis of styie. Why wouid Rembrandt be such an exceptionaily
changeable artist who painted in so many different styles at the same time? Why do Rembrandt's paintings
iiiustrated in the łatest 7vy/sw77?c iook so disparate and of such variabie quality when painted in
the same period of time? The complexities of probiems of attribution connected with Rembrandt are now
staggering, even for experts. When Van de Wetering, the iast member of the RRP and the final authority
on the subject disappears, wiii his opinions stiii stand? Who wiii be the next arbiter of authenticity and
wiii he or she make more corrections? Despite fifty years of research and aii the technicał investigations
the confidence in Rembrandt connoisseurship is iower than ever. Today nobody seems to know what
a Rembrandt painting shouid iook like anymore.
ii. LUDWiG BURCHARD AND THE CORPUS RUBENIANUM
The first cć7to/ogMe roAôwvd of Rubens's paintings was compiied in 1830 by the London art deaier
John Smith (1781-1855), as the second part of his Coto/ogTve 7V7Ao7777e o/ //?e 7770л/ 0777777077/ D77/C/7,
С/от77м/7 0777? Тго77с/7 /70777 /07^ in nine volumes, pubiished between 1829 and 1842. The cataiogue does not
contain iiiustrations, oniy a biographical chapter, preliminary observations discussing Rubens's output and
authorship, descriptions and subject of works, their dimensions, prices if sold, the gaiieries and private
coliections where found, and the names of engravers. The enormous scope of John Smith's work must
however impress today's readers, as he was not oniy capabie of compiling Rubens's cc/c/ogTve 7Y7M07777c
singie-handediy, which is now considered virtualiy impossibie, but at the same time the catalogues of so
many more artists - inciuding Rembrandt!
Fifty years iater, Max Rooses (1839-1914) pubiished his own monumentai co/o/og7/c 7V7M07777e, Z 'Œ77V7*c
?/c Л F. A?7/)C77U' /77.S707/U c/ Tc.sć'7T/7/7077 ć/c .sc.s' /o/?/co77v c/ ć/c.s.s77?.s (Antwerp 1886-1892), arranging the existing
materiai according to subject. The five iarge voiumes were iilustrated, mostly with engravings. Rooses also
studied contemporary painters in Antwerp and pubiished books on the work of the sixteenth-century print
pubiisher Christophe Piantin. In 1876 he became the first curator of the Plantin-Moretus Museum. He was
seiected to complete Rubens's co/o/ogoc roAo77/7c whiie simuitaneousiy compiling an inventory of the Plantims
archives, so his monumentai work was done when he was aiso busy on another iarge project!
In 1905, Adolf Rosenberg published his mainiy photographic cataiogue, Dc^ T/cA/c7^ Cc777c/ć/c
DD Ат//)С7?,у, revised in 1921 by Rudoif Oidenbourg. Both volumes contained an introduction, photographs
of Rubens's paintings in the chronoiogicai order with short captions, but nothing more. It is surprising that
there was no other compiete modem co/o/og7/e roAo7?77c of Rubens's works (apart from the stiii unflnished
CRLB), except for Michaei Jaffe's D?/Z)e77,s, Co/o/ogo C0777/7/C/0, published in 1989 in Italian. Jaffé's one
voiume cataiogue is iiiustrated and inciudes short entries on each painting, but is considered unreiiabie,
as it contains a number of questionabie and weak works attributed to Rubens by the author aione and
disputed by other scholars. Perhaps signifïcantly, it has not been transiated into Engiish.
Ludwig Burchard, who iaid the foundation of the Corpus Rubenianum conceived the pian for a Rubens
co/o/og?7c 7^oAo?777c in the 1920s, and outlined his goais in the 1939 prospectus for the pubiisher ElsevieŒ.
He stated in it that he aimed at 'the compiete embodiment of our improved knowiedge of Rubens's
work'. Burchard adopted the methods and framework used eariier by Smith and Rooses, whiie adding any
new information which came to iight since. This conservative, traditiona) approach which stiii continues
today at the CRLB, contrasts strongly with the radical goals and the cutting-edge methods of the RRP,
7- Van de Wetering (at ai.), p. Х1И, quoting M. J. Friediander, Tó/; Хм77У7 м???/ Oxford-Zürich
1946, p. 158.
VandeWetering, ^e???/??*?????/^^ Pa7n77Mg^ //ev?'^77e?/..., p. 664.
74 Prospectus published in ex7enyo in the foreword byF. Baudouin and R.A. d'Hulst to J.R. Martin, 77?e Ce7/7MgFo7??77??g^
of 7/?e Jey??/7 С/?м?*с/? ??? H??7rre?p. Со?*р??л 7/м/?е???'о??м??? ZM?/w7g /7м?*с/?о?'?/, Voi. I, London-New York 1968. pp. IX-Xl.