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#0053
CORPUS RUBENIANUM ITRNUS* REMBRANDT RESEARCH PROJECT...
47
II. Rubens, LoMA A777 o/'Froncg, 1622, oil on paper on wood panel.
Mclbourne, National Gallery, Victoria. Photo: NGV website
designed and employed sometimes with iittie variation in this group of pictures that provides the most
distinctive contribution'.
To give an example, the catalogue entry No. 22, Rubens. v4Jo7v?/?'o77 o//T/e TTog/, private coliection,
is said to have been accepted by Burchard as a 77?oo'c//o for a iost or never executed work. As stated
in the text, it was rejected by Geider and Jost, Vlieghe and Renger, but the attribution to Rubens is
'deemed here to stand up to scrutiny'. The theory of the 777oJc//o is discarded because of the high degree
of finish of the painting. The authors duiy note that some aspects of this painting do not immediateiy
favour attribution to Rubens. But they point out the similarities with Veronese's M(fo7V777o77 o/ ?/7c T/og/
in the Brera, and say that it cannot be denied that the painting 'contains numerous motifs that wouid
recur almost constantiy in Rubens's Epiphanies or wouid cieariy present in iater works'. But are such
simiiarities of motifs proof of authorship?
Jeremy Wood's three voiumes on Co/v'cs ит/с/ Æ/o/Vo//o77.s /77777/ //c77o/.s.so77cc 07/// /,(//<?/^ d77/'.s/.s,' //0//077
T/o^/c^, 2010 and 2011, focus on drawings and are considerably more radical in terms of attributions.
Very few works are catalogued as being by Rubens; most are listed as 'retouched by Rubens' even if
scholars such as Burchard, d'Hulst and especially M. Jaffé, thought tliey were entirely by Rubens's hand.
An explanation of this more critical approach can perhaps be found in Wood's TTg/ocB: 'much of the
Rubens - or supposed Rubens - material that I have scrutinised has been the subject of fiercely held
attributional opinion in the past. ln my opinion, the only way to deal with this was to set received opinion
aside and look at everything afresh'^. Wood rightly notes that 'the idea of compiling a complete c<3/<2/og?/B
7A7zVo7777<? has become contested' and says: T am less concemed that I was that some doubtful or marginal
inaterial has been included in the present volumes, sometimes on the basis of the Burchard's opinion"^.
Perhaps there is a need felt among the latest contributors to the CRLB, that a fresh approach is
required to Burchard's old attributions?
93 J. Wood, CojP/Vy o//(/4//qpZaZ/OTM /Zow Rgpo/'^opce o/77//,oZc/*,4/*Z/V^. №//'0/7 A/o^Zc/' /. /?а/7//ос/ 0//7/ AA Nc/700/, Tumhout
2010, p. 11.
94 /Z//T/g/77.
47
II. Rubens, LoMA A777 o/'Froncg, 1622, oil on paper on wood panel.
Mclbourne, National Gallery, Victoria. Photo: NGV website
designed and employed sometimes with iittie variation in this group of pictures that provides the most
distinctive contribution'.
To give an example, the catalogue entry No. 22, Rubens. v4Jo7v?/?'o77 o//T/e TTog/, private coliection,
is said to have been accepted by Burchard as a 77?oo'c//o for a iost or never executed work. As stated
in the text, it was rejected by Geider and Jost, Vlieghe and Renger, but the attribution to Rubens is
'deemed here to stand up to scrutiny'. The theory of the 777oJc//o is discarded because of the high degree
of finish of the painting. The authors duiy note that some aspects of this painting do not immediateiy
favour attribution to Rubens. But they point out the similarities with Veronese's M(fo7V777o77 o/ ?/7c T/og/
in the Brera, and say that it cannot be denied that the painting 'contains numerous motifs that wouid
recur almost constantiy in Rubens's Epiphanies or wouid cieariy present in iater works'. But are such
simiiarities of motifs proof of authorship?
Jeremy Wood's three voiumes on Co/v'cs ит/с/ Æ/o/Vo//o77.s /77777/ //c77o/.s.so77cc 07/// /,(//<?/^ d77/'.s/.s,' //0//077
T/o^/c^, 2010 and 2011, focus on drawings and are considerably more radical in terms of attributions.
Very few works are catalogued as being by Rubens; most are listed as 'retouched by Rubens' even if
scholars such as Burchard, d'Hulst and especially M. Jaffé, thought tliey were entirely by Rubens's hand.
An explanation of this more critical approach can perhaps be found in Wood's TTg/ocB: 'much of the
Rubens - or supposed Rubens - material that I have scrutinised has been the subject of fiercely held
attributional opinion in the past. ln my opinion, the only way to deal with this was to set received opinion
aside and look at everything afresh'^. Wood rightly notes that 'the idea of compiling a complete c<3/<2/og?/B
7A7zVo7777<? has become contested' and says: T am less concemed that I was that some doubtful or marginal
inaterial has been included in the present volumes, sometimes on the basis of the Burchard's opinion"^.
Perhaps there is a need felt among the latest contributors to the CRLB, that a fresh approach is
required to Burchard's old attributions?
93 J. Wood, CojP/Vy o//(/4//qpZaZ/OTM /Zow Rgpo/'^opce o/77//,oZc/*,4/*Z/V^. №//'0/7 A/o^Zc/' /. /?а/7//ос/ 0//7/ AA Nc/700/, Tumhout
2010, p. 11.
94 /Z//T/g/77.