DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.56726#0012
sill, then higher. Rembrandt left the sheet remarkably unbalanced : on the right clear
and subtle drawing, on the left furious strokes and undefined forms1. All the carefully
drawn parts correspond in the main to the picture—there is no space left for the full-length
figure of an angel. The method of representing the apparition adopted by Rembrandt
in the Reinhart drawing was obviously new, which accounts for the imperfect strokes.
X-ray photographs (fig. 19) do not reveal any trace of Rembrandt’s ever having transferred
this design to canvas. But it seems probable that on the picture there had been an
apparition, facing in the same direction as the angel in the Reinhart drawing, not turned
to the right, as it is now, for it is this vision from which Manoah’s head is averted. We are
faced with the problem that either the angel was shown as a full-length frontal figure, pos-
sibly in an abbreviated form, as in representations of the Ascension (in this case the canvas
must have been longer, which can neither be proved nor disproved), or that no figure
appeared, and the angel was left to the imagination.
Representations of the sacrifice of Manoah with only the parents did in fact exist.
There are drawings by Rembrandt’s pupils in Paris (fig. 38) and Naples (fig. 36), and there
is a picture attributed to Barent Fabritius (fig. 37), which contain nothing but the parents
and the flaming altar. In Fabritius’ painting the woman is a free variant of the corresponding
figure in the Dresden picture which therefore Fabritius must have known. Yet there is
no trace of the angel. Manoah’s attitude in Rembrandt’s work, his face averted from a
terrifying spectacle2, might also have been motivated by a strong ray of light only. It
would explain the fact that there is no space for an angel flying to the left, an observation
confirmed by the negative results of the X-ray photographs.
*
* *
Without exaggeration Rembrandt can be called a protestant Baroccio or Bernini, in
that the representation of a vision and of the miraculous effusion of light was his domain.
Instances of this are the painting, the drawings and engravings of the “Angel disappearing
from Tobias and his family,” or the “Dr. Faustus.” Scarcely any attention has been paid,
however, to Rembrandt’s method (and that of his pupils) of dealing with this problem.
In the famous Louvre picture of Tobias, the angel3 is flying towards the light. But there
are other solutions. In the engraving (B. 43), we see only rays of light and a slight indication
of the angel’s feet. An excellent Albertina drawing (fig. 26) by one of Rembrandt’s pupils
shows something similar. Another Albertina drawing (fig. 33) and one in the Pierpont
Morgan Collection (fig. 34) are most interesting in our context. The latter has a full-sized
angel, whereas in the Albertina drawing4, although the human figures are almost identical,
1 Similar indecision can be seen in the Aglaurus drawing (Vai. 597), where the kneeling figure on the left
has been partly obliterated by strokes indicating the lid of the basket. Rembrandt has left the drawing with
two lids, both impracticable, and the position of the lower part of the woman’s body undecided. The rest
of the drawing is final. It is interesting to compare this drawing with the earlier version of the subject
(a copy of this was sold in May, 1908, at Amsler and Ruthart’s in Berlin). The gestures and expressions in
the later drawing are toned down in the same way as in the Manoah picture, if the latter is compared with
the Berlin drawing.
2 So is the woman’s in the Naples drawing. Her gesture is a free imitation of Manoah’s in the Dresden
picture. In this artist’s mind no angel was necessary to provoke it.
3 Inspired by a Tintoretto angel (copied by Heemskerck) (fig. 28), the one which Rembrandt adopted
for the Berlin Manoah drawing (fig. 30).
4 See L. Miinz in : Jahrb. d. Kunsthist. Sign, in Wien, N. F. 9 (1935), pl- 15.
IO
and subtle drawing, on the left furious strokes and undefined forms1. All the carefully
drawn parts correspond in the main to the picture—there is no space left for the full-length
figure of an angel. The method of representing the apparition adopted by Rembrandt
in the Reinhart drawing was obviously new, which accounts for the imperfect strokes.
X-ray photographs (fig. 19) do not reveal any trace of Rembrandt’s ever having transferred
this design to canvas. But it seems probable that on the picture there had been an
apparition, facing in the same direction as the angel in the Reinhart drawing, not turned
to the right, as it is now, for it is this vision from which Manoah’s head is averted. We are
faced with the problem that either the angel was shown as a full-length frontal figure, pos-
sibly in an abbreviated form, as in representations of the Ascension (in this case the canvas
must have been longer, which can neither be proved nor disproved), or that no figure
appeared, and the angel was left to the imagination.
Representations of the sacrifice of Manoah with only the parents did in fact exist.
There are drawings by Rembrandt’s pupils in Paris (fig. 38) and Naples (fig. 36), and there
is a picture attributed to Barent Fabritius (fig. 37), which contain nothing but the parents
and the flaming altar. In Fabritius’ painting the woman is a free variant of the corresponding
figure in the Dresden picture which therefore Fabritius must have known. Yet there is
no trace of the angel. Manoah’s attitude in Rembrandt’s work, his face averted from a
terrifying spectacle2, might also have been motivated by a strong ray of light only. It
would explain the fact that there is no space for an angel flying to the left, an observation
confirmed by the negative results of the X-ray photographs.
*
* *
Without exaggeration Rembrandt can be called a protestant Baroccio or Bernini, in
that the representation of a vision and of the miraculous effusion of light was his domain.
Instances of this are the painting, the drawings and engravings of the “Angel disappearing
from Tobias and his family,” or the “Dr. Faustus.” Scarcely any attention has been paid,
however, to Rembrandt’s method (and that of his pupils) of dealing with this problem.
In the famous Louvre picture of Tobias, the angel3 is flying towards the light. But there
are other solutions. In the engraving (B. 43), we see only rays of light and a slight indication
of the angel’s feet. An excellent Albertina drawing (fig. 26) by one of Rembrandt’s pupils
shows something similar. Another Albertina drawing (fig. 33) and one in the Pierpont
Morgan Collection (fig. 34) are most interesting in our context. The latter has a full-sized
angel, whereas in the Albertina drawing4, although the human figures are almost identical,
1 Similar indecision can be seen in the Aglaurus drawing (Vai. 597), where the kneeling figure on the left
has been partly obliterated by strokes indicating the lid of the basket. Rembrandt has left the drawing with
two lids, both impracticable, and the position of the lower part of the woman’s body undecided. The rest
of the drawing is final. It is interesting to compare this drawing with the earlier version of the subject
(a copy of this was sold in May, 1908, at Amsler and Ruthart’s in Berlin). The gestures and expressions in
the later drawing are toned down in the same way as in the Manoah picture, if the latter is compared with
the Berlin drawing.
2 So is the woman’s in the Naples drawing. Her gesture is a free imitation of Manoah’s in the Dresden
picture. In this artist’s mind no angel was necessary to provoke it.
3 Inspired by a Tintoretto angel (copied by Heemskerck) (fig. 28), the one which Rembrandt adopted
for the Berlin Manoah drawing (fig. 30).
4 See L. Miinz in : Jahrb. d. Kunsthist. Sign, in Wien, N. F. 9 (1935), pl- 15.
IO