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#0047
CORPUS RUBENIANUM ИЕЖСУ RJEMBRANDT RESEARCH PROJECT...
41
6. Rubens and studio, Lof onćf Az'y yà/??z'/p y7eez'??g ^о<7о/и, 1613-1615,
oil on canvas. Sarasota, John and Mabie Ringling Museum of Art.
Photo: Wikipedia
As far as matters of connoisseurship are concerned, there are some marked differences between the
voiumes of the Corpus. The two volumes on yfow ЖуЛзту, 1997, by Elizabeth McGrath and
Arnout Balis, are in my view exemplary, erudite and accurate in their attributions. McGrath does not
hesitate to disagree with some of Burchard's opinions and correctly labels lower quality works as 'after
Rubens' or 'Rubens and studio'. She puts it down to new evidence that came to light since Burchard's
death, and generally praises his meticulous scholarship. She admits however that the classification of works
was not without problems, because of the complex arrangements in Rubens's workshop: 'Sometimes the
designated original of a painting might be a work executed almost entirely by assistants; at other times
a good studio replica, which may in fact have been sold by Rubens as an example of his work, finds
itself simply listed among the copies, even if it features first in the lisGT
Some volumes are more radical than others in terms of connoisseurship, such as OAV TEsV<3/7?R77?'
by R.A. d'Hulst and M. Vandenven, 1989, where the authors openly disagreed with several of Burchard's
opinions, and listed the rejected works as copies. Even so, some of their verdicts were questioned further,
especially the lack of articulation when it comes to judgments of quality. Brown wrote the fbllowing
commentary to one of the catalogue entries, which could be treated as symptomatic of many other entries
in the volumes of the Corpus Rubenianum:
'fn the case of Zof 077J /77,? У07777/Р /7ef777g .So&w the discussion of the three versions is very brief.
D'Hulst simply states that he concurs with Burchard's opinion that the Ringling Museum painting (Fig. 6) is
the best, painted by an assistant and then retouched by Rubens and that the versions in the Bass Museum,
Miami Beach (not the Bass collection) and the Museum of Western Art are copies. D'Hulst adds that
he considers the Tokyo painting to be by Jordaens. It would have been valuable for these judgments to
have been argued in detail rather than stated, not least because the Ringling painting has been doubted
79 McGrath and Batis, op. c/7., p. 10.
41
6. Rubens and studio, Lof onćf Az'y yà/??z'/p y7eez'??g ^о<7о/и, 1613-1615,
oil on canvas. Sarasota, John and Mabie Ringling Museum of Art.
Photo: Wikipedia
As far as matters of connoisseurship are concerned, there are some marked differences between the
voiumes of the Corpus. The two volumes on yfow ЖуЛзту, 1997, by Elizabeth McGrath and
Arnout Balis, are in my view exemplary, erudite and accurate in their attributions. McGrath does not
hesitate to disagree with some of Burchard's opinions and correctly labels lower quality works as 'after
Rubens' or 'Rubens and studio'. She puts it down to new evidence that came to light since Burchard's
death, and generally praises his meticulous scholarship. She admits however that the classification of works
was not without problems, because of the complex arrangements in Rubens's workshop: 'Sometimes the
designated original of a painting might be a work executed almost entirely by assistants; at other times
a good studio replica, which may in fact have been sold by Rubens as an example of his work, finds
itself simply listed among the copies, even if it features first in the lisGT
Some volumes are more radical than others in terms of connoisseurship, such as OAV TEsV<3/7?R77?'
by R.A. d'Hulst and M. Vandenven, 1989, where the authors openly disagreed with several of Burchard's
opinions, and listed the rejected works as copies. Even so, some of their verdicts were questioned further,
especially the lack of articulation when it comes to judgments of quality. Brown wrote the fbllowing
commentary to one of the catalogue entries, which could be treated as symptomatic of many other entries
in the volumes of the Corpus Rubenianum:
'fn the case of Zof 077J /77,? У07777/Р /7ef777g .So&w the discussion of the three versions is very brief.
D'Hulst simply states that he concurs with Burchard's opinion that the Ringling Museum painting (Fig. 6) is
the best, painted by an assistant and then retouched by Rubens and that the versions in the Bass Museum,
Miami Beach (not the Bass collection) and the Museum of Western Art are copies. D'Hulst adds that
he considers the Tokyo painting to be by Jordaens. It would have been valuable for these judgments to
have been argued in detail rather than stated, not least because the Ringling painting has been doubted
79 McGrath and Batis, op. c/7., p. 10.