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#0052
46
KATARZYNA KRZYŻAGORSKA-PISAREK
On the other hand, A. Bahs in his introductory essay to Votume XVIII, part 2, Tfz/77//'/7g &re?70S'
extensively discussed the participation of Rubens's pupils in the execution of his paintings, as
well as various copies and replicas. Sometimes, he also disagreed with some of Burchard's old attributions.
A small number of perhaps misattributed works found their way into Volume XIX, 2 parts: F. Huemer's,
Po?T7Y7zA f 77/'/Z/7zV /77 /v77T'/g/7 ( '////////'/e.S. 1977, and H. Vlieghe's, /V/T7Y///.S o/ /ć/c'77////7Y/ .S7//ć'KS //7/7/7ć'(/ /77
Нт7/ие7р, 1987. Volume I by F. Huemer lists the following works by Rubens where the attribution is not
entirely convincing: n. 15, F/'z/zzce^co Go/zzogo, Plympton, Saltram House; n. 16. A/o/'g/zerz/o Co/zzogo,
Zurich, Dr. J. Bruppacher; n. 21a. Zo//A A7/7, Melboume, National Gallery, Victoria (Fig. 11); n. 46. 77zeo</or<?
7//'qz/c/ c/c Мзу<?/Т7с, New York, NY University Art CoIIection; n. 47. T/zcoć/opc Tz/z-gz/c/ <7c №rjv/'//e, Raleigh,
North Carolina Museum of Art, and others. Also Volume II lists a few pictures which could perhaps be
investigated further: n. 70. H/Z/ezYHTr/zc/z/łe qfXz/^//'/'ć7, Castangnolo, coll. Bentinck-Thyssen; n. 68. Н/бот/
H/'(77ć//7łc rz/ .4z7.s/7'/'ć/ and /.Sć//7ć7/ć7. 777/ć/7//ć7 o/ .S/7Ć7/7/, both at Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum; n. 84.
/?og7<?7' C/ć/z-zMc, and n. 85. &77Y/ //pcv//, both at San Francisco, California, the M.H. de Young Memorial
Museum; n. 101, S*Z7Zć77777ć7Foz/7'7//c7//, Brussels, private collection. Perhaps in such cases Burchard's opinion
was given precedence over that of the compilers?
In 1976, Julius Held wrote about the problems facing the CRLB in his review of H. Vlieghe's two
volumes on &7/77/V9. He noticed some traces of haste, some inaccuracies, and a 'lack of consistency in the
way the material was organized. Moreover, there was no statement that would explain why some works
have been included while others iconographically of the same order were not'^T Held also acknowledged
what he called the 'Burchard problem': 'the author had to cope with another, more delicate problem which
in most cases he solved commendably even though here too, some compromises had to be made, out
of respect for the scholar to the memory of whose work the Corpus has been dedicated. Authors of the
previous volumes had occasionally questioned some of the Burchard's attributions, yet those instances were
rare and generally concemed minor works. Vlieghe did not hesitate to contradict Burchard even where
Burchard opinions were not part of published records but were accessible to him only in tbrm of written
certificates. There is not one instance in which I would prefer Burchard's opinion to that of Vlieghe's'^.
A few more pictures could be reevaluated in Volume I of &7/77A: n. 52. 6/. Pć7z//, New York, coll. Dr. and
Mrs. R.J. Heinemanm n. 53. 6*/ /LYć'/'. /6/'//.; n. 76. /7/c AĄ'S't/ć' A/ć/zT/ćzge zz/ .S'/. Cć/z/zć'/'////' /z/N/слт?/?///'/'//. Present
whereabouts unknown. In volume II: n. 4. №oXj%G/7<?.s №ć/ćA, New York, G. Callimanopulis; n. 5. 7ft oXpo,sT/e,s
/7ć'ć7ć/s', oil sketch. Whereabouts unknown; n. 12. C/z/'z'.s/ <ж //zo /7/Ć777 o/ .S'o/'/Tzn.s'. Formerly Famham, Wolfgang
Burchard; n. 43c. 7/oć/ć/ 0/" <? Fbz/zzg ///<?// /z//'/7c<7 /o //7с 7еД. oil sketch. New York, private collection, on loan
to Metropolitan Museum NY; n. 43e. 7/eć7ć/ o/ ć/ ATb/z /z/7'/7e<7 /o //zo 7/g7/, oil sketch. Newcastle, New South
Wales, Bowmore collection; n. 58. 7z7///o/7/z7//'o77, Jacksonville, Florida, Cumner Gallery of Art e/o.
More recently, H. Devisscher and H. Vlieghe's, ^z/bc/z^. 77/? 7//b o/ C7z'/7/ //g/bz'o /7е 7ć7^/'o/7.* 7/?o
F0Z///7 q/ C/z/'/Y/, published in 2014, still largely follows the previous volumes of the Corpus in terms
of presentation (except for higher quality colour plates) and organization of the catalogue entries. The
emphasis is, as previously, on the detailed description of paintings, the iconography and the historical
context. Recurring motifs are extensively compared with those identified in other works by Rubens.
Regrettably no technical examination or condition of works is mentioned and problems of attribution are
only briefly addressed by including some opinions by Burchard, Jaffé, Held, Muller Hofstede, Valentiner
or Vlieghe. Pros and cons are rapidly assessed and a decision is made. Barbara Haeger, from The Ohio
State University, underlined in her review of the volume^ that 'particularly valuable is the discussion
of the various opinions regarding attribution that appear in the literature. As connoisseurship flgures
increasingly less prominently in the art historical literature, these analyses are especially appreciated'. Yet
these discussions are rather short, especially when compared with the lengthy arguments advanced by
the RRP. Haeger also noted that Tt is their examination of the various flgures and motifs that the artist
39 J.S. He!d. 'Rubens's Saints', Z?2<r/ń7g7o?? Mngor/77e, vol. CXVÜI, n. 884, 1976. pp. 775-778.
9° /ó/ć/ew, p. 775.
9* 7/n'ć/gw, p. 776.
9- B. Haeger's review ofH. Devisscher and H. Vlieghe. 7?м/)о/м. Z//è V С/м*м/ Ae/bre /Ae T*oyy/on.' №e №м/А q/
САлТ/, Согрм^ 7?м0ем/оммум YMć/w/gRMycAoG London. an Imprint of Brepols Publishers, Tumhout 2014, 2 vols. at the "Historians
of Netherlandish Art^ website accessed May 2016 at http://www.hnanews.org/hna/bookreview/current/vl_Youth-of-Christ0316.html
KATARZYNA KRZYŻAGORSKA-PISAREK
On the other hand, A. Bahs in his introductory essay to Votume XVIII, part 2, Tfz/77//'/7g &re?70S'
extensively discussed the participation of Rubens's pupils in the execution of his paintings, as
well as various copies and replicas. Sometimes, he also disagreed with some of Burchard's old attributions.
A small number of perhaps misattributed works found their way into Volume XIX, 2 parts: F. Huemer's,
Po?T7Y7zA f 77/'/Z/7zV /77 /v77T'/g/7 ( '////////'/e.S. 1977, and H. Vlieghe's, /V/T7Y///.S o/ /ć/c'77////7Y/ .S7//ć'KS //7/7/7ć'(/ /77
Нт7/ие7р, 1987. Volume I by F. Huemer lists the following works by Rubens where the attribution is not
entirely convincing: n. 15, F/'z/zzce^co Go/zzogo, Plympton, Saltram House; n. 16. A/o/'g/zerz/o Co/zzogo,
Zurich, Dr. J. Bruppacher; n. 21a. Zo//A A7/7, Melboume, National Gallery, Victoria (Fig. 11); n. 46. 77zeo</or<?
7//'qz/c/ c/c Мзу<?/Т7с, New York, NY University Art CoIIection; n. 47. T/zcoć/opc Tz/z-gz/c/ <7c №rjv/'//e, Raleigh,
North Carolina Museum of Art, and others. Also Volume II lists a few pictures which could perhaps be
investigated further: n. 70. H/Z/ezYHTr/zc/z/łe qfXz/^//'/'ć7, Castangnolo, coll. Bentinck-Thyssen; n. 68. Н/бот/
H/'(77ć//7łc rz/ .4z7.s/7'/'ć/ and /.Sć//7ć7/ć7. 777/ć/7//ć7 o/ .S/7Ć7/7/, both at Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum; n. 84.
/?og7<?7' C/ć/z-zMc, and n. 85. &77Y/ //pcv//, both at San Francisco, California, the M.H. de Young Memorial
Museum; n. 101, S*Z7Zć77777ć7Foz/7'7//c7//, Brussels, private collection. Perhaps in such cases Burchard's opinion
was given precedence over that of the compilers?
In 1976, Julius Held wrote about the problems facing the CRLB in his review of H. Vlieghe's two
volumes on &7/77/V9. He noticed some traces of haste, some inaccuracies, and a 'lack of consistency in the
way the material was organized. Moreover, there was no statement that would explain why some works
have been included while others iconographically of the same order were not'^T Held also acknowledged
what he called the 'Burchard problem': 'the author had to cope with another, more delicate problem which
in most cases he solved commendably even though here too, some compromises had to be made, out
of respect for the scholar to the memory of whose work the Corpus has been dedicated. Authors of the
previous volumes had occasionally questioned some of the Burchard's attributions, yet those instances were
rare and generally concemed minor works. Vlieghe did not hesitate to contradict Burchard even where
Burchard opinions were not part of published records but were accessible to him only in tbrm of written
certificates. There is not one instance in which I would prefer Burchard's opinion to that of Vlieghe's'^.
A few more pictures could be reevaluated in Volume I of &7/77A: n. 52. 6/. Pć7z//, New York, coll. Dr. and
Mrs. R.J. Heinemanm n. 53. 6*/ /LYć'/'. /6/'//.; n. 76. /7/c AĄ'S't/ć' A/ć/zT/ćzge zz/ .S'/. Cć/z/zć'/'////' /z/N/слт?/?///'/'//. Present
whereabouts unknown. In volume II: n. 4. №oXj%G/7<?.s №ć/ćA, New York, G. Callimanopulis; n. 5. 7ft oXpo,sT/e,s
/7ć'ć7ć/s', oil sketch. Whereabouts unknown; n. 12. C/z/'z'.s/ <ж //zo /7/Ć777 o/ .S'o/'/Tzn.s'. Formerly Famham, Wolfgang
Burchard; n. 43c. 7/oć/ć/ 0/" <? Fbz/zzg ///<?// /z//'/7c<7 /o //7с 7еД. oil sketch. New York, private collection, on loan
to Metropolitan Museum NY; n. 43e. 7/eć7ć/ o/ ć/ ATb/z /z/7'/7e<7 /o //zo 7/g7/, oil sketch. Newcastle, New South
Wales, Bowmore collection; n. 58. 7z7///o/7/z7//'o77, Jacksonville, Florida, Cumner Gallery of Art e/o.
More recently, H. Devisscher and H. Vlieghe's, ^z/bc/z^. 77/? 7//b o/ C7z'/7/ //g/bz'o /7е 7ć7^/'o/7.* 7/?o
F0Z///7 q/ C/z/'/Y/, published in 2014, still largely follows the previous volumes of the Corpus in terms
of presentation (except for higher quality colour plates) and organization of the catalogue entries. The
emphasis is, as previously, on the detailed description of paintings, the iconography and the historical
context. Recurring motifs are extensively compared with those identified in other works by Rubens.
Regrettably no technical examination or condition of works is mentioned and problems of attribution are
only briefly addressed by including some opinions by Burchard, Jaffé, Held, Muller Hofstede, Valentiner
or Vlieghe. Pros and cons are rapidly assessed and a decision is made. Barbara Haeger, from The Ohio
State University, underlined in her review of the volume^ that 'particularly valuable is the discussion
of the various opinions regarding attribution that appear in the literature. As connoisseurship flgures
increasingly less prominently in the art historical literature, these analyses are especially appreciated'. Yet
these discussions are rather short, especially when compared with the lengthy arguments advanced by
the RRP. Haeger also noted that Tt is their examination of the various flgures and motifs that the artist
39 J.S. He!d. 'Rubens's Saints', Z?2<r/ń7g7o?? Mngor/77e, vol. CXVÜI, n. 884, 1976. pp. 775-778.
9° /ó/ć/ew, p. 775.
9* 7/n'ć/gw, p. 776.
9- B. Haeger's review ofH. Devisscher and H. Vlieghe. 7?м/)о/м. Z//è V С/м*м/ Ae/bre /Ae T*oyy/on.' №e №м/А q/
САлТ/, Согрм^ 7?м0ем/оммум YMć/w/gRMycAoG London. an Imprint of Brepols Publishers, Tumhout 2014, 2 vols. at the "Historians
of Netherlandish Art^ website accessed May 2016 at http://www.hnanews.org/hna/bookreview/current/vl_Youth-of-Christ0316.html