A CORPUS OF

REMBRANDTPAINTINGS

Stichting FoundationRembrandt Research Project

A CORPUS OF

REMBRANDTPAINTINGS

V

SMALL-SCALE

HISTORY PAINTINGS

Stichting FoundationRembrandt Research Project

A CORPUS OF

REMBRANDTPAINTINGS

ERNST VAN DE WETERING

with contributions by JOSUA BRUYN, MICHIEL FRANKEN, KARIN GROEN,

PETER KLEIN, JAAP VAN DER VEEN, MARIEKE DE WINKEL

with the collaboration of

MARGARET OOMEN, LIDEKE PEESE BINKHORST

translated and edited by

MURRAY PEARSON

with catalogue entries translated by

JENNIFER KILIAN, KATY KIST

Frontispiece:

V 19 A woman wading in a pond(Callisto in the wilderness), 1654

London, The National Gallery

Of this edition a limited number of copies have been specially bound and numbered.Subscribers to the complete special bound set will receive subsequent volumes with an identical number.

This is copy number

Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research ProjectA CORPUS OF REMBRANDT PAINTINGS V

© 2011, Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project

ISBN 978-1-4020-4607-0 (this volume)ISBN 978-94-007-0191-5 (limited numbered edition)

Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 82-18790

This work has been made possible by the financial support ofthe Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO),the University of Amsterdam (UvA), Essilor Benelux, Booz &Company, DSM and a number of benefactors who wish toremain anonymous.

Published by Springer,P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, the Netherlandswww.springeronline.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publishers.

Typesetting – Pre Press Media Groep bv, Zeist, the Netherlands

Printing – Ter Roye printing companyOostkamp, Belgium

Binding – Binderij Callenbach van Wijk,Nijkerk, the Netherlands

Disclaimer

This is a publication of the Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project. The opinions expressed in this volume (V), and thepreviously published volumes I-IV in the Series A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, should be understood as “opinions” that are meant foracademic use only. The opinions represent the Foundation’s best judgment based on available information at the time of publication.The opinions are not statements or representations of fact nor a warranty of authenticity of a work of art and are subject to changeas scholarship and academic information about an individual work of art changes. Opinions have been changed in the past accordingto new insights and scholarship. It should be understood that forming an opinion as to the authenticity of a work of art purporting tobe by Rembrandt is often very difficult and will in most cases depend upon subjective criteria which are not capable of proof orabsolute certainty. Therefore, the conclusions expressed in the volumes are only opinions and not a warranty of any kind. Third partiescannot derive any rights from these opinions. Neither the Foundation, nor the members of its board, nor the authors, nor thecooperators, nor any other parties engaged in the Rembrandt Research Project accept any liability for any damages (schade), includingany indirect or consequential damages or losses and costs. Anyone is free to disagree with the opinions expressed in these volumes.

We are grateful for the help of René J.Q. Klomp (Stibbe Lawyers, Amsterdam) and Ralph E. Lerner (Sidley Austin Brown & WoodLawyers, New York).

preface IX

bibliographical and other abbreviations XVI

Essays

Chapter I

towards a reconstruction of rembrandt’s art theory 3The advantage of the small-scale paintings 3-6

The basic aspects (de gronden) of the art of painting 6-10

From Van Mander to Rembrandt to Van Hoogstraten 10-14

Confusions over the meaning and purpose of Van Mander’s and

Van Hoogstraten’s treatises 15-28

Drawing 29-34

The proportions of the human body 35-48

Posture and movement of the human figure 49-52

Ordonnance and invention 53-64

Affects 65-70

Light and shadow 71-80

Landscape 81-88

Animals 89-97

Drapery 98-102

Colour 103-112

Handling of the brush 113-123

Space 124-128

Towards a reconstruction of Rembrandt’s art theory 129-140

Chapter II

an illustrated chronological survey of rembrandt’s small-scale ‘histories’: paintings, etchings and a selectionof drawings. with remarks on art-theoretical aspects,function and questions of authenticity 141

For a Table of contents of this Chapter (including reattributions) 146-147

Chapter III

rembrandt’s prototypes and pupils’ production of variants 259

Appendix 1an illustrated survey of presumed pairs of rembrandt’sprototypes and pupils’ free variants 262

Appendix 2a satellite investigated 271

Appendix 3two nearly identical variations on rembrandt’s 1637 THE ANGEL RAPHAEL LEAVING TOBIT AND HIS FAMILY in thelouvre 276

Chapter IV

on quality: comparitive remarks on the functioning of rembrandt’s pictorial mind 283

Chapter V

more than one hand in paintings by rembrandt 311

Catalogue

Catalogue of the small-scale history and genre paintings 1642-1669 by Rembrandt and his pupils

V 1 RembrandtSusanna and the Elders, 1638/1647. Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie 325

V 2 Pupil of Rembrandt (with intervention by Rembrandt)(free variant after V 1)The toilet of Bathsheba, 1643. New York, N.Y., The Metropolitan Museum of Art 343

V 3 RembrandtChrist and the woman taken in adultery, 1644.London, The National Gallery 355

V 4 RembrandtThe Holy Family, 1645.St Petersburg, The Hermitage Museum 371

V 5 Pupil of RembrandtThe Holy Family at night, 1645/46.Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum 379

V 6 Rembrandt or pupil The Holy Family with painted frame and curtain, 1646.Kassel, Staatliche Museen Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister 389

V 7 Rembrandt and pupilTobit and Anna with the kid, 164[5/6].Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie 405

V 8 Rembrandt and pupilJoseph’s dream in the stable at Bethlehem, 164[5].Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie 411

V 9 RembrandtAbraham serving the angels, 1646.U.S.A., private collection 418

V 10 Copy after Rembrandt’s (lost) Circumcision [1646].Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum 427

V 11 RembrandtThe Nativity, 1646.München, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek 435

V 12 Pupil of Rembrandt (free variant after V 11)The Nativity, 1646. London, The National Gallery 447

V 13 RembrandtNocturnal landscape with the Holy Family, 1647.Dublin, National Gallery of Ireland 457

V 14 RembrandtThe supper at Emmaus, 1648.Paris, Musée du Louvre 465

Contents

vii

V 15 Pupil of Rembrandt (free variant after V 14)The supper at Emmaus, 1648. Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst 479

V 16 Unknown painter (free variant after V 14)The supper at Emmaus.Paris, Musée du Louvre 489

V 17 Rembrandt or pupil The prophetess Anna in the Temple, 1650[?].Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland 495

V 18 RembrandtThe risen Christ appearing to Mary Magdalene, ‘Noli me tangere’, c. 1651.Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum 507

V 19 RembrandtA woman wading in a pond (Callisto in the wilderness), 1654.London, The National Gallery 519

V 20 Rembrandt (with later additions)The Polish Rider, c. 1655.New York, N.Y., The Frick Collection 535

V 21 RembrandtA slaughtered ox, 1655.Paris, Musée du Louvre 551

V 22 Rembrandt (with additions by another hand)Joseph accused by Potiphar’s wife, 1655.Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie 563

V 23 Pupil of Rembrandt (free variant after V 22)Joseph accused by Potiphar’s wife, 1655. Washington D.C., The National Gallery of Art 577

V 24 Rembrandt and pupilChrist and the Samaritan woman at the well, [1655]. New York, N.Y., The Metropolitan Museum of Art 585

V 25 Pupil of Rembrandt Christ and the woman of Samaria, [1]65[9]. Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie 597

V 26 Pupil of Rembrandt(?)Christ and the woman of Samaria 1659[?].St Petersburg, The Hermitage Museum 607

V 27 Rembrandt or pupilJupiter and Mercury visiting Philemon and Baucis,1658[?].Washington D.C., The National Gallery of Art 613

V 28 RembrandtTobit and Anna, 1659.Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen 621

V 29 RembrandtEsther and Ahasuerus, [1660?].Moscow, Pushkin Museum 635

V 30 RembrandtThe Circumcision in the stable, 1661.Washington D.C., The National Gallery of Art 647

Corrigenda et Addenda 659

Indexes

index of paintings catalogued in volume ivPresent owners 660Previous owners 661Engravers 662

indexes of comparative material and literary sources

Drawings and etchings by (or attributed to) Rembrandt 663Paintings by (or attributed to) Rembrandt 665Works by other artists than Rembrandt 667Literary sources 669

concordance 671

contents

viii

properties and stylistic characteristics of Rembrandt’sworks seemed, after all, to change only gradually and tofollow a logical development. Was it therefore not best tofollow that development? Our work on Volume II, whichwas for a large part devoted to the many portraits thatRembrandt painted between 1631 and ’35, taught ushowever that there were specific advantages in workingwith a larger group of paintings, in which Rembrandt hadworked from very similar pictorial starting points. Forexample, we learned that in his rendering of the anatomyand lighting of the face, in the treatment of the back-ground or in his handling of contours and contrasts, Rem-brandt developed certain ideas, which he then often modi -fied, together with skills that were in part rooted in theseideas. The insights thus gained also allowed us to avoidconfusing Rembrandt’s works with those of pupils or otherassociates involved in the production of portraits, or withlater fakes or imitations. That, after all, was the aim whichthe Rembrandt Research Project had set as its priority.

This experience with the early portraits was one of themain reasons, following a methodological reappraisal ofthe whole project between 1989 and ’93, for changing to athematic approach.1 It gradually became clear to us thatwith this thematic way of working we could get closer toRembrandt’s way of thinking and working in the face ofspecific artistic challenges. Initially we thought that theseinsights were no more than an interesting spin-off fromour research on authenticity, but this spin-off becameincreasingly important as an additional tool in the order-ing and sifting of the relevant part of Rembrandt’s oeuvre.

On a more limited scale we had already had this experi -ence in working on the first three volumes. Thus, work onVolume I produced insights into Rembrandt’s use of mate-rials, painting technique and workshop practice. In theVolumes II and III our insight developed into Rem-brandt’s teaching and the workshop production linked toit. But with the thematic way of working in Volumes IVand V there opened up much wider vistas that needed tobe explored if we were to get a grasp on the relevant fieldof Rembrandt’s activities. In the work on the self-portraits,for example, this led to the realization that we also neededto include in our investigation the etchings and drawingsthat Rembrandt had produced before the mirror if wewanted to understand Rembrandt’s exceptional pro -duction of self-portraits and the great variety of functionsof these works in their full compass. It was only throughthis integral approach that the realization dawned thatothers in Rembrandt’s workshop were also producing ‘self-portraits’ of Rembrandt, an advance in our understandingin which a key role was played by research methods of thephysical sciences to identify the relevant works.

What then are the fruits in the present Volume of ourinvestigation of the small-scale history pieces?

The cataloguing of the oeuvre, naturally, had to takeprecedence in this Volume too. The second half of thebook comprises 30 often very extensive catalogue texts

This preface can perhaps best begin by explaining therather puzzling title of the present Volume: ‘The small-scale history paintings’.

In such paintings the figures were as a rule representedfull length and engaged in some kind of action in a moreor less clearly defined interior or exterior spatial setting.This demanded of the painter not only insight into com-plex compositional problems, but also an understanding ofthe possibilities of light and shadow, and the skill to renderthe appropriate gestures and affects. He had to have athorough knowledge of the relevant Biblical or mytholo -gical stories and the associated costumes and other access -ories. Moreover, he had to be a competent painter oflandscapes, architecture, still lifes and animals. In short,the painter of such works in Rembrandt’s time was con-sidered to be an all-rounder. But it was also expected ofhim that he would be both inventive and possessed of apowerful visual imagination. Producing a history piece, infact, was considered the most demanding challenge that apainter could undertake.

Unlike Rubens, for example, Rembrandt seldom hadoccasion to paint history pieces on a life-size scale. Onecan in fact best get to know Rembrandt as an all-roundpainter through his c. 75 small-scale history pieces, for itwould seem that he deliberately chose this type of paint-ing in order to develop further his abilities as an artistimmediately after his period of apprenticeship. Byanalysing these works, therefore, one gets closest to Rem-brandt’s ideas about a number of fundamental aspects ofthe art of painting.

In Volume IV, devoted to his self-portraits, we tried tounderstand the figure of Rembrandt in the representationof his own appearance and how he saw himself in relationto his major predecessors and among those art loversinterested in his work. In the present Volume we approachRembrandt as an artist most intimately through an analysisof his many small-scale history pieces (and the smallgroup of genre pieces which are in many respects relatedto them).

The compilation of an oeuvre catalogue – which wasoriginally the ultimate objective of the RembrandtResearch Project – is not in the first place a matter of get-ting to know Rembrandt as man and artist but rather ofordering and describing his painted oeuvre. However, inthe work on these last two Volumes of the Corpus the the-matic approach to this oeuvre proved to have great advan-tages. Not only has our knowledge of hitherto oftenunknown aspects of his work been enormously enriched,this approach also turned out to serve the original goal ofthe Rembrandt Research Project in ways that were whollyunexpected.

At the project’s inception it seemed obvious that oneought to deal with Rembrandt’s paintings in the chrono-logical sequence of their origin. But because of the multi-faceted nature of Rembrandt’s production, that meanttreating very different types of paintings all mixed to -gether. Thus a portrait could follow a landscape which inturn followed a history piece which succeeded a self-por-trait and so on. And yet initially there was much to be saidfor the chronological way of working: both the material

Preface

ix

1 A detailed account of this reorientation can be found in the Preface of Vol.

IV and on www.rembrandtresearchproject.org

preface

x

That first chapter began as an attempt to explain whythe small-scale history pieces have been taken as the themeof this Volume. The potential significance of this theme,however, only became fully apparent during the work onthe chapter. When it did, the result was to suggest an alter-native way of analyzing Rembrandt’s works, wholly differ-ent from the stylistic approach that had led to so many dis-attributions that were now, in retrospect, no longertenable. But the writing of that part of the book was sounpredictable that Chapter I only came to assume its titleand the focus of its purpose during the writing of it. Thepiece began, as it were, to write itself. I must, however,offer my excuses to previous authors who have written onRembrandt’s presumed theory of art (or lack of it) for thefact that I could pay no more attention to their work.

It will no doubt surprise some that the study of docu-ments which provides the foundation to this chapter isrestricted to only two 17th-century texts. This deliberatechoice was not merely dictated by the pressures of time, itwas mainly determined by my desire to stay as close aspossible to Rembrandt’s language and likely conceptualapparatus. I consider the usual collation of all the con-cepts and ideas that were ‘in the air’ in a particular periodto be an approach that obfuscates rather than clarifies ourunderstanding.

As in Volume IV, here too it was decided, albeit in arather late stage, to include in the book the etchings anddrawings with histories. But this was a totally differentundertaking from the inclusion of etchings and drawingswith self-portraits in Volume IV. It meant that more thana hundred etchings and many drawings with histories (andsome genre scenes) had to be given a place in the survey inChapter II. Rembrandt’s painted histories could in thisway be placed in the context of his entire oeuvre in thisarea. This turned out to be a major – in fact the great –challenge, but it offered at the same time exceptionalopportunities.

Unfortunately the world of Rembrandt research islargely compartmentalized according to the three mediathat Rembrandt used, the RRP being constrained to thepaintings. In view of the extent of Rembrandt’s oeuvre ofhistories it is of course impossible for us to deal with theetchings and drawings with the same thoroughness as thepaintings. For problems of detail we could always counton the advice of the pre-eminent specialists, Peter Schat-born for the drawings and Erik Hinterding for the etch-ings, but desirable as it may have been it was at this stageof the Rembrandt Research Project no longer feasible tomount an interdisciplinary project. However that may be,the way in which the works in the three media are integ -rated and discussed in Chapter II is entirely the responsi-bility of the present author.

Bringing together the histories created by all three tech-niques in a roughly chronologically ordered pictorial atlasgave us – and we hope will also give many a user of thisbook – a new understanding of Rembrandt as artist. Bysystematically clustering the relevant reproductions ontwo (sometimes a multiple of two) pages, there emergeclear patterns in Rembrandt’s activities that have seldompreviously been recognized. One can regard the survey in

relating to the small-scale history pieces that originatedafter 1642, including, for instance, the disputed Polish Rider. In Volumes I-III the paintings designated as authen-tic works were incorporated in Category A, while theworks disattributed from Rembrandt were separated else-where in the book in Category C and those works whoseattribution remained uncertain in a Category B. In Vol.IV and V all the works of the relevant kind that originat-ed in Rembrandt’s workshop were chronologically dealtwith regardless of whether or not – or only partially – theywere executed by Rembrandt. This integrated treatmentof all the works of the group under investigation gave riseto a far more subtly differentiated picture of the activitiesin Rembrandt’s workshop. This in turn indicated that amore penetrating investigation was needed of Rem-brandt’s teaching and the workshop practice that we hadpreviously assumed. For this reason, in the present Volume attention is paid to the phenomenon of the freevariants produced by pupils after prototypes by Rem-brandt. Such ‘satellites’, we assume, were produced bypupils in the context of their training but also as an integ-ral part of the production of saleable paintings, the pro-ceeds of which augmented the master’s income (seeChapter III). We anticipate that this phenomenon willlead to further new insights in the wider context of 17th-century painting in general.

The comparison of Rembrandt’s prototypes and thepupils’ variants based on them proved to be a uniqueopportunity to gain insight into the way Rembrandtthought as an artist. Such comparative analyses in Chap-ter IV clarified specific characteristics of Rembrandt’s pic-torial considerations and the criteria of quality based onthem. In the wider perspective, these new insights couldwell be important for Rembrandt research and the investi-gation of Dutch 17th-century painting in general. This initself is of interest because the factor of quality is usuallydismissed as having no place in a scholarly art history andtherefore plays only a diffuse role in the work of art histo-rians – and consequently with the interested public.

The small-scale history pieces that originated between c. 1624 and 1642 were all dealt with in the first three vol-umes. Nevertheless, there was good reason to look at thesepaintings once again, if only to be able better to relate thepaintings after 1642 to these earlier works. Moreover, aconsiderable number of problems had arisen over theattribution of these earlier works. Where a reassessment ofthese paintings had led to changing our opinion over theirauthenticity, the arguments articulating these new insightsneeded to be presented to the relevant art world. Ratherthan describing these changes in attribution in a section of‘Corrrigenda and Addenda’, as in previous volumes, itwas decided in this Volume to include the re-attributionsin a survey of all the small-scale history paintings that weconsider to be autograph (see Chapter II) and to accountfor our changed thinking there. Indeed, the number of re-attributions is so great that they are given special attentionin a section below in this Preface (see Reattributions). Thisconsideration at the same time provides the backgroundto the decision to devote Chapter I of this Volume to whatis referred to as Rembrandt’s ‘theory of art’.

preface

xi

2 J.S. Ackerman, ‘Style’, in: Art and archeology, ed. J. S. Ackerman and R.

Carpenter, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963, p. 165.

This proposition – formulated by Josua Bruyn, the firstchairman of the Rembrandt Research Project – isremarkable in that it clearly implies that it is the investigatorwho determines which characteristics are significant in thework to be investigated. One has to imagine that the inves-tigator makes a selection from the characteristics distilledby him from a group of paintings – in this case Rem-brandt’s Leiden oeuvre – on the basis of which either todetermine the place of a particular work in the develop-ment of an artist or to decide whether that work falls in oroutside that artist’s oeuvre.

This same conception of stylistic analysis is to be foundslightly differently worded, for example, in the article onstyle published in 1963 by J.S. Ackerman, in which hewrites: ‘Because our image of style is not discovered butcreated by abstracting certain features from works of artfor the purpose of assisting historical and critical activity,it is meaningless to ask, as we usually do, “What is style?”The relevant question is rather “What definition of styleprovides the most useful structure for the history of art?”’2

What is remarkable about this approach to the phenome-non of style – an approach accepted and practised sincethe early 20th century – is that it gives no ground to theactual choices and objectives of the artists concernedwhen deciding which should be the distinguishing charac-teristics of their work. It rejects the idea that the choicesand aims of the works’ author need be discovered. It israther the investigator who ‘creates’ the relevant set ofcharacteristics ‘by abstracting certain features’, which cansubsequently be of use in the ‘historical and critical activ-ity’ of the art historian.

In this context it is important to point out that stylisticcriticism, specifically through the influential work ofHeinrich Wölfflin (1864-1945) was based on a set of crite-ria that was developed independently of the image in anyconcrete sense: that is, independently of the combinationof actual entities – things and figures – depicted in apainting. It was rather a matter of the ‘Vie des formes’ (theLife of Forms), an expression coined by Henri Focillon(1818-1943), who thought along similar lines as Wölfflin.

It is telling, and Wölfflin himself recognized as much,that the developments of this stylistic analytical approach– ran parallel to developments in the visual arts of thetime – specifically the path to abstraction and the birth ofexpressionism, in which it was assumed that the artist andhis pictorial language coincide. The conception of styleentertained by the early Rembrandt Research Project wasimplicitly characterized by the model that was still widelyheld in the early 1960’s, that the stylistic development ofthe artist would occur involuntarily, almost as a naturalphenomenon which manifested itself more strongly thegreater the artist. It was seen at that time to reflect a lackof integrity on the part of an artist if he deliberatelychanged his style – unless that change could be consideredas an evolutionary one. The only artist in whose careersuch changes (after his cubist phase) were indulgently tol-

Chapter II as a biographical sketch of Rembrandt’s think-ing and exploring both in the workshop and also – as willbecome apparent – in the domestic circle during the ‘longwinter evenings’ (see p. 219).

Anyone looking through Chapter II will note that theetchings are as a rule reproduced in mirror image. Thisdecision requires justification. After all, some may find it adisturbing experience, but one can argue that, for anyonewho wishes to understand Rembrandt’s pictorial thinking,this was for the one time a very useful decision, sinceRembrandt as inventor thought on the plate, and not onthe (reversed) image of the print made from it. A defenceof this decision is argued – convincingly, one hopes – inthe introduction to the chapter and from time to time inthe course of the chapter itself.

It is important for the user to realize that in the concisetexts in Chapter II no attempt has been made to achievein any respect a complete or even a balanced treatment ofall the works reproduced there. The chapter is, as alreadysaid, not much more than a tri-medial pictorial atlas thatis intended to give to the user of the book a new insightinto the ‘workshop’ of Rembrandt’s mind as a historypainter. But it is also a first attempt to apply, wheneverpossible, the insights gained in Chapter I in the examina-tion and ordering of these works – particularly the paint-ings. Also in Chapter II, the often neglected question ofthe raison d’être of the works shown is repeatedly raised andsometimes answered.

It will be clear to the reader, one hopes, that while theChapters I and II cannot claim to be more than sketchesthey are nevertheless more than mere by-products of theinvestigation of authenticity, even though one finds littletrace of their influence in the catalogue texts, most ofwhich were written when the work on these chapters wasfirst begun. The sympathetic reader, however, may stillconsider them the fruits of the thematic approach adopt-ed in 1993.

Reattributions

It may cause some surprise that the survey in Chapter IIcontains eight reattributions of paintings that were disat-tributed from Rembrandt in the first three volumes of ACorpus. In several of these cases, an account is given in therelevant texts of how these regrettable disattributionscame about (see pp. 154, 160, 168, 180, 191, 196, 206 and220).

The very first sentence of the first chapter of the firstvolume of A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings contains the ker-nel of the main explanation for the change of mind with-in the Rembrandt Research Project concerning the attri-bution of so many paintings. That sentence was amethodological statement to which the present author ful-ly subscribed at the time. The relevant chapter is titled Thestylistic development and contains a stylistic analysis of thepaintings that Rembrandt produced in Leiden. The state-ment reads: ‘The style characteristics one assigns to awork of art comprise a selection of observations and inter-pretations which is made with a particular purpose inmind.’

preface

xii

3 Max J. Friedländer, Von Kunst und Kennerschaft. The first German edition was

published in Zürich in 1939; the edition used here is M.J. Friedländer: On

art and connoisseurship, transl. T. Borenius, Oxford 1946 (4th ed.), p. 261.

4 E. van de Wetering, Fighting a Tiger: stability and flexibility in the style of Pabuji

Pars, South Asian Studies 8, 1992, pp. 33-52.

analysis. He was so convinced of the universal validity ofthis approach that he also wanted to apply this method,for example, to Indian art. When, in the course of myresearch, I actually did this the results proved to be non-sensical. In fact, fieldwork conducted at my request byspecialists in the local folk art turned out to deliverautochthonous categories by which the observed stylisticand the qualitative features concerned could be properlyunderstood.4 This may seem a far-fetched case to com-pare with that of the Rembrandt Research Project, butthe specific – if not actually alien – nature of 17th-cen turythinking on the art of painting is just as strange as (at leastone facet of) the 20th-century folk art of Rajasthan, whichis partly rooted in the sophisticated Moghul culture.Thinking about the art of painting in Rembrandt’s time ismuch more about the things, figures, effects, textures ofmaterials and based on a clearer interplay between formand content – and above all on the visual illusion – thanthe Vie des formes tending towards abstraction and expres-sion. It turns out that looking through 17th-century eyes ismore different from a 20th-century gaze than the mem-bers of the Rembrandt Research Project and many otherswith us suspected.

As an alternative to the 20th-century stylistic criticism,therefore, there is justification for reconstructing Rem-brandt’s thinking about the art of painting in a way thatone might compare with a cultural anthropologicalresearch project. In Chapter I, informants from Rem-brandt’s time and from his artistic cultural milieu areinterviewed, as it were, to get an overview of the workshopculture of 17th-century Holland.

It was the heated discussions within the RembrandtResearch Project concerning one of the paintings whichwill be treated in the present Volume, the Supper at Emmausin Paris (V 14), which eventually led to the re-appraisal ofour entire approach to the problems of authenticity andRembrandt’s oeuvre. As will become evident in this Vol-ume, this re-appraisal is still ongoing. This is by no meansa cause for embarrassment, it is rather an intellectualfeast.

The essay on methodology

In the Preface of Vol. IV it was announced that Volume Vwould include an essay on methodological aspects of thework of the Rembrandt Research Project. Since the briefdiscussion in the Preface of Volume I headed ‘SomeReflections on method’, such reflections have come toplay an increasingly important role in the project – andwith very good reason. Different positions taken withrespect to method would eventually lead to the review ofour entire way of working and the way we presented ourinsights and opinions, as briefly outlined above and moreexhaustively in the preface to Volume IV. During this period of revision, work began for an essay with the work-

erated was Picasso, but then he was considered – also byhimself – as a kind of genius child at play.

It will be clear that these two factors together form adangerous mix: on the one hand the liberty of the art his-torian to extrapolate from the work of an artist such fea-tures of style as he or she considers characteristic (on thebasis of his own preconceptions) and on the other handthe assumption of an autonomous process of develop-ment in an artist’s style. The researcher or connoisseurcould arrogate to himself the role of determining in retro-spect how the artist ought to have worked and on this basisdiscard a work from that artist’s oeuvre. This mix becomeseven more explosive in Rembrandt’s case when theresearchers’ intentions are focused on reducing the num-ber of paintings attributed to him. This latter tendencywas understandable in the context of the forces that hadbeen operating in the art world. Specifically, the great andgrowing demand for paintings by Rembrandt (notably inthe United States) had led to a concomitant expansion ofhis oeuvre. As Catherine Scallen demonstrates in her Rem-brandt, reputation and the practice of connoisseurship (2004), themost authoritative connoisseurs around 1900 connived ateach other’s attributions and presented a joint face to theworld as the defenders of both their discipline and Rem-brandt’s legacy. The result was that Rembrandt’s oeuvredegenerated into an almost indescribable chaos – heldtogether by a concept of genius according to which any-thing conceivable could be expected from Rembrandt. Inthe end it was one of this group of mutually promotingauthorities, Abraham Bredius, who broke ranks and inaug -urated a new era of a more critical attitude in Rem-brandt’s reception, increasingly aimed at reducing the sizeof what was considered to be Rembrandt’s oeuvre.

The Rembrandt Research Project stood firmly in thistradition of reduction, a tendency which was enhanced bythe trauma suffered by the Dutch art world following theVan Meegeren affair. Moreover, there were forces in playwithin the team of the Rembrandt Research Projectwhich served to lend the influence of what Friedländerdubbed in his Von Kunst und Kennerschaft the ‘Neinsager’ ornay-sayer an extra weight.3 If one adds to the mixdescribed above the belief in democratic collegiate deci-sion-making, part of the pervasive ideology of the time,coupled with a strong desire within the group to reachconsensus, then one has a good idea of the intellectual cli-mate in which the work on Volumes I – III was conduct-ed. However, it should be stressed that the most importantfactors in the development of a strong ‘reductionist’ ten-dency were the a priori notions assumed by the RRP con-cerning style, stylistic development and stylistic analysis.

My research on a particular facet of Indian Folk Artwere crucially important for the change in my personalthinking on this point. Wölfflin, whose approach was soimportant to the Rembrandt Research Project, was con-vinced that the foundation of art history lay in stylistic

preface

xiii

5 C. Brown, ‘The Rembrandt Year’, Burl. Mag. 149 (2007), pp. 104-108.

6 E.v.d.Wetering, ‘Connoisseurship and Rembrandt’s paintings: new

directions in the Rembrandt Research Project, part II’, Burl. Mag. 150

(2008), pp. 83-90.

7 A.Tummers; ‘The fingerprint of an Old Master: on connoisseurship of seventeenth-

century Dutch and Flemish paintings: recent debates and seventeenth-century insights,

Ph.D. dissertation, Amsterdam, 2009. For comments on her approach, see

p. 319 in this Volume.

out investigations on the grounds using the methods of thephysical sciences, and on other problems concerning thepaint layers; while Peter Klein continued his den-drochronological analyses of the oak panels used by Rem-brandt and related painters that had long been so impor-tant to the RRP. Jaap van der Veen contributed hisdetailed knowledge of the archival material relating toRembrandt and his world.

On the title pages of the Volumes I-III the five membersof the team always appeared as authors regardless of howmuch or how little each had contributed. In the VolumesIV and V the present author is given as the main author,giving rise to the impression that the Rembrandt ResearchProject now consisted of only one person. In reality that isby no means the whole case, as the above paragraphshould make clear, although admittedly in certain respectsthe impression is correct. This calls for further explana-tion, and of a rather personal kind. What was it thatchanged with Volume IV? Why have those who con-tributed to the writing of Volume V, particularly to thecatalogue texts, not given the status of co-authors ratherthan ‘contributors’? Why were these who contributedchapters to Volume IV not accorded co-authorial status?

One reason is that if contributors were given co-author -ial status, it would imply that they shared authorialresponsibility for the contents of the books as a whole,rather than their own more specialist contribution. But inaddition, and perhaps more importantly, there is clearly aproblem in accounting for both the continuity of theRembrandt Research Project through the major transitionfrom the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ team in the early 1990’s, andfor the radically different approach taken by the latter.This new approach, and in particular the reattributions towhich it led, were in fact the decision and sole responsibil-ity of the present author. He therefore is alone able toaccount for the direction taken by the project since theearly nineties and for the contents of Volumes IV and Vas a whole. It is clear that it would be a misplaced respons -ibility for those researchers who joined the RRP later, andcontributed to Volumes IV and V, to account for an earli-er phase of the project or for the reasons for adopting thenew thematic approach. Moreover, I was the sole remain-ing member who had studied virtually the entire paintedoeuvre of Rembrandt.

In the light of this prehistory, to which my earlier, notentirely happy experiences with ‘connoisseurship by com-mittee’ also belong (see the Preface to Volume IV, p. xiii,note 20) I considered it better in the context of the secondphase of the RRP that only one person should assume theresponsibility of expressing an opinion on the possibleauthenticity of a painting, or on doubts over the same.

ing title ‘Reflections on Method II’, for which, as a re -search assistant in 1993-94, the young Emilie Gordenkercarried out valuable work researching and correlating theliterature on the history and cognitive aspects of connois-seurship. With irregular intervals the essay was furtherworked on up to 2005 with the intention of including it inthe present Volume V.

In the event this has not happened, for three reasons. In2007 an article appeared in the Burlington Magazine inwhich Christopher Brown queried the more recent devel-opments in the approach of the Rembrandt ResearchProject with a number of critical remarks.5 This critiquedeserved a reply which duly appeared in the BurlingtonMagazine.6 That article incorporated several ideas devel-oped as part of the essay-in-progress. The second reasonwas that our treatment of the history of connoisseurshipdiscussed in the essay had in the meantime been super-seded by Anna Tummers’ doctoral dissertation: ‘The finger-print of an Old Master: on connoisseurship of seventeenth-centuryDutch and Flemish paintings: recent debates and seven teenth-centuryinsights.7 The third reason to suspend – or even abandon –work on ‘Reflections on Method II’ was that digital methods of analyzing images have been developed in therecent past, while significant insights in the neurosciencesnow hold out the possibility of understanding some of thecognitive processes involved in connoisseurship; but wesimply do not possess the new type of expertise that wouldbe needed to pursue these possibilites. Moreover, some ofour new thinking on methodological questions has alreadybeen presented in the Preface to Volume IV.

The team and the earlier history of the genesis of Vol. V

The origin of the present volume has a long history andmany have been involved in it in one way or another. Agreat deal of the research had already been carried out bythe ‘old team’ during research trips between 1968 and1975. And from 1989 onward, after the publication ofVolume III, Josua Bruyn worked on catalogue entriesdealing with the small-scale history pieces paintedbetween 1642 and c. ’46. In the 90’s Michiel Franken (fora while together with Volker Manuth) had been engagedin condensing the relevant RRP logbooks that relate to thepaintings dealt with here and in collating and summariz-ing the existing data – in short producing the basic textswhich served as the starting point for many of the entries.He also produced the catalogue entries on the BerlinSusanna (V 1), the Amsterdam Holy Family at night (V 5), thelost Circumcision from the Passion Series for Frederik Hen-drik (V 10) and the Berlin Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (V 22).Marieke de Winkel did important iconographic and icono-logical research, especially in relation to the Polish Rider(V 20) and the Slaughtered Ox (V 21). Karin Groen carried

preface

xiv

number of individuals who wish to remain anonymousgave generous financial support to the RembrandtResearch Project at critical junctures when our financesthreatened to turn dry.

In the realization of the book as such the essential workand control of detail with which Lideke Peese Binkhorstsaw its production through to its final state was - like withall previous Volumes - enormously important. The inputand editorial acumen of our translator Murray Pearson,who has been involved in the project since 1996, was alsoof great importance. Catalogue entries written before1996, the majority in fact, were however translated by Jen-nifer Killian and Katy Kist. Margaret Oomen’s indispen-sible work as assistant and secretary was always of majorimportance. Her intense involvement in the project overmany years has been greatly appreciated. When in the lastphase of the book’s production she had to leave the pro-ject, her role was miraculously taken over at short noticeby Carin van Nes, to whom we are enormously grateful.We are particularly grateful to Egbert Haverkamp Bege-mann, who has followed closely the work in progress witha keen critical eye throughout, and whose always wisecomments have played an indispensible role in the evolu-tion of the book’s content. Peter Schatborn and Erik Hin-terding were most generous in sharing their great knowl-edge concerning Rembrandt’s drawings and etchings withus. The technical photographer René Gerritsen, whoseexpertise was widely employed and greatly appreciated,and the restorer Martin Bijl, with his sharply focusedmind and broad experience, also became closely associat-ed with the production of Volume V. Aryan Hesseling andDaniëlle Voortman prepared the many digital images fortheir function in the book with great love and enthusiasm.Last of all to become involved was Roel van Straten, whoin an extraordinarily concentrated effort compiled theindex and registers of this book.

Seeing this work into print required the skills and tech-nology of the Pre Press Media Groep. We are immenselygrateful for their tolerance over deadlines and for theirgenerous allocation of time to the project. Special thanksare due to Jeanne Hundersmarck for the countless hoursof meticulous labour she has devoted with Lideke PeeseBinkhorst to get the book into its final form. We owe muchto our publisher Springer, Nederlof Repro, Grafikon /drukkerij Ter Roye and Binderij Callenbach van Wijk.

There are also many individuals who deserve heart-feltthanks for support and assistance at significant moments,in particular: Marina Aarts, Mechtild Beckers, Ton deBeer, Mària van Berge-Gerbaud, Hein van Beuningen,Hayo de Boer, David Bomford, Bob van den Boogert, Jan-rense Boonstra, Annemarie Bos, Christopher Brown, LuxBuurman, Marcus Dekiert, Taco Dibbits, Jan Diepraam,Joris Dik, Marieke van den Doel, Leon Dona, Bas Dudokvan Heel, Frits Duparc, IJsbrand van Dijk, Natasja vanEck, Margriet van Eikema Hommes, Rudi Ekkart,Charles Erkelens, Sarah Fischer, Sharon Flesher, RichardFrancisco, JanKarel Gevers, Jeroen Giltay, Emily Gor-denker, Martin Götting, Edward Grasman, Claus Grimm,Wim and Ose van de Grind, Frans Grijzenhout, Aernout

The future of the RRP and its archives

This is the 42nd year of the Rembrandt Research Pro-ject’s existence and the task which the RRP originally setitself of ordering and publishing Rembrandt’s paintedoeuvre has still not been completed. The intention wasthat yet another Volume would be devoted to the portraitsand tronies after 1642 and to the landscapes and thelarge-scale history paintings (mainly paintings with half-or three-quarter length, life-size figures). Considerablework on these paintings had already been carried out byJosua Bruyn and members of the new team – MichielFranken, Marieke de Winkel and Jaap van der Veen.Whether this will ever happen is for the board of theFoundation Rembrandt Research Project to decide. Ifwork on such a volume were to be realized, one assumesthat this would be undertaken from the Netherlands Insti-tute for Art History (RKD) in The Hague where teammember Michiel Franken is in charge of the RRP archivewhich has now been transferred there.

For the present author, however, as one involved in theRRP from the very first it would be disappointing to endthe work on the project without being able to round it offby giving it the shape of a finished assignment. Moreover,it is at present barely possible for the unititiated to find away through the forest of attributions, disattributions,revisions of the same and the more recently newly discov-ered works by Rembrandt etc. that are now distributedover the whole Corpus. There is thus a need for a manage-able single-volume survey of Rembrandt’s painted oeuvrebased on the RRP’s most recent insights, which a book ofthe Bredius/Gerson type would fulfil. There are in factplans to prepare such a book under the responsibility ofthe present author.

Acknowledgments

It will be clear from the above that the task of finding theappropriate forms to acknowledge the contribution ofothers to such a long-term production as this volume isnot simple. There are so many different kinds of supportand input involved – material, critical, moral and profes-sional, all of them essential, that to acknowledge ade-quately the debt owed to all those concerned is a dauntingtask.

The work of the project would not have been possible butfor the support of the Netherlands Organisation for theAdvancement of Pure Research (ZWO) – or as it is nowknown, the Netherlands Organisation for ScientificResearch (NWO); the University of Amsterdam, and itsKunsthistorisch Instituut; the Central Research Laborato-ry for Objects of Art and Science (now the NetherlandsInstitute for Cultural Heritage, ICN); the NetherlandsInstitute for Art History (RKD); the Rembrandt HouseMuseum; the Rijksmuseum and many other museums allover the world which own works discussed and/or repro-duced in this Volume.

We are very grateful to our additional sponsors: SNSReaal, Essilor Benelux, Booz & Company and DSM. A

preface

xv

feld, Konrad Renger, Gezien van de Riet, Annetje Roor-da-Boersma, Ashok Roy, Martin Royalton-Kisch, NathanSaban, Alexander Schimmelpenninck, Wim Schot, DariaShiskin, Jan Six van Hillegom, Jan Six, Leonore vanSlooten, Eric Jan Sluijter, Hans Smits, Mieke Smits-Veldt,Burckhardt and Manuela Söll, Irina Sokolova, Hubertvon Sonnenburg, Gilles and Sytske Stratenus-Dubah, JanStrootman, Werner Sumowski, Dorien Tamis, Atty Tor-doir, Christian Tümpel, Jaap van der Veen, Remco Ver -kerk, Martien Versteeg, Piet Visser, Christiaan Vogelaar,Lyckle de Vries, André van de Waal, Jørgen Wadum, JanWassmer, Gregor Weber, Thijs Weststeijn, Jonathan vande Wetering, Arthur Wheelock, Hermann Wiesler, Melcherde Wind, Hendrik Woudt, Manja Zeldenrust, AnthonieZiemba, and the multitude of other well-disposed andfriendly people who have assisted at different times.

Hagen, Ed de Heer, Wouter Hugenholtz, Cecile van derHarten, IJsbrand Hummelen, Christoph von Imhoff,Theo Jansen, Hans and Reinette Jansens van Gellicum-van Haeften, Ruurd Juist, Jan Kelch, Bram Kempers,René Klomp, Gerbrand Korevaar, Friso Lammerse, Clau-dia Laurenze, Cynthia van der Leden, Walter Liedtke,Bernd Lindemann, Rob Lisman, Kristin Lohse Belkin,David and Mary Alice Lowenthal, Doron Lurie, Mireille teMarvelde, Peter and Sandra Mensing, Anthonie Meij ers,Pieter Meyers, Monique de Meyere, Hotze Mulder, OttoNaumann, Petria Nobel, Andrew O’Connor, AntoineOomen, Henk van Os, Cees Ostendorf, Ab van Overdam,Nel Oversteegen, Sijbolt Noorda, Ad and Marie-JeanneNuyten, Frans Peese Binkhorst, Harm Pinkster, Peter vande Ploeg, Wim Pijbes, Annet van der Putten, AdrienneQuarles van Ufford, Paul van der Raad, Katja Reichen-

J.B. Josua BruynP.B. Paul BroekhoffM.F. Michiel FrankenK.G. Karin GroenB.H. Bob HaakE.H.B. Egbert Haverkamp BegemannS.H.L. Simon H. Levie

V.M. Volker ManuthA.Q.v.U. Adrienne Quarles van UffordP.S. Peter SchatbornP.v.Th. Pieter van ThielJ.v.d.V. Jaap van der VeenM.d.W. Marieke de WinkelE.v.d.W. Ernst van de Wetering

Abbreviations of names of persons involved in the research for the catalogue entries

Art Bull. – The Art Bulletin, New York 1 (1913) –B. – A. Bartsch, Catalogue raisonné de toutes les estampes qui forment l’oeuvre de Rembrandt et ceux de ses princi -

paux imitateurs, Vienna 1797B. I-XXI – A. Bartsch, Le Peintre-Graveur, vols. I-XXI, Vienna 1803-21Bauch 1933 – K. Bauch, Die Kunst des jungen Rembrandt, Heidelberg 1933Bauch 1960 – K. Bauch, Der frühe Rembrandt und seine Zeit. Studien zur geschichtlichen Bedeutung seines Frühstils,

Berlin 1960Bauch 1966 – K. Bauch, Rembrandt Gemälde, Berlin 1966Bauch, Eckstein, – J. Bauch, D. Eckstein, M. Meier-Siem, ‘Dating the wood of panels by a dendrochronological

Meier-Siem analysis of the tree-rings’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 23 (1972), pp. 485-496Ben. – O. Benesch, The drawings of Rembrandt. A critical and chronological catalogue, vols. I-VI, London

1954-57; enlarged and edited by E. Benesch, London 1973Blankert Bol – A. Blankert, Ferdinand Bol (1616-1680), Rembrandt’s pupil, Doornspijk 1982Br. – A. Bredius, Rembrandt schilderijen, Utrecht 1935

A. Bredius, Rembrandt Gemälde, Vienna 1935A. Bredius, The paintings of Rembrandt, London 1937

Br.-Gerson – A. Bredius, Rembrandt. The complete edition of the paintings, revised by H. Gerson, London 1969Burl. Mag. – The Burlington Magazine, London 1 (1903) –Chapman 1990 – H. P. Chapman, Rembrandt’s self-portraits. A study in seventeenth-century identity, New Jersey 1990Charrington – J. Charrington, A catalogue of the mezzotints after, or said to be after, Rembrandt, Cambridge 1923Exhib. cat. Art in the – Art in the making. Rembrandt by D. Bomford, Chr. Brown, A. Roy. The National Gallery, London

making. Rembrandt, 1988/891988/89

Exhib. cat. Rembrandt. – Rembrandt. The master and his workshop, vol. I Paintings by Chr. Brown, J. Kelch, P.J.J. van Thiel.Paintings, 1991/92 Berlin, Amsterdam, London 1991-92

Exhib. cat. Rembrandt. – Rembrandt. The master and his workshop, vol. II Drawings and etchings by H. Bevers, P. Schatborn,Drawings and etchings, B. Welzel. Berlin, Amsterdam, London 1991-921991/92

Exhib. cat. Rembrandt/ – Rembrandt/not Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Aspects of connoisseurship: vol. I Paintings: not Rembrandt, problems and issues by H. von Sonnenburg, vol. II Paintings, drawings and prints: art-historical1995/96 perspectives by W. Liedtke a.o. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1995-96

Exhib. cat. Rembrandt. – Rembrandt. A genius and his impact by A. Blankert a.o. Melbourne, Canberra 1997-98A genius and his impact, 1997/98

Exhib. cat. Rembrandt – Rembrandt by himself by Chr. White and Q. Buvelot. London, The Hague 1999-2000by himself, 1999/2000

Exhib. cat. The mystery – The mystery of the young Rembrandt by E. van de Wetering, B. Schnackenburg. Kassel,of the young Rembrandt, Amsterdam 2001-02 2001/02

Exhib. cat. Rembrandt- – Rembrandt-Caravaggio by Duncan Bull a.o. Amsterdam 2006Caravaggio, 2006

Exhib. cat. Rembrandt – Rembrandt – Quest of a genius by E. van de Wetering a.o. Amsterdam Rembrandthuis 2006 Quest of a genius, 2006 (published in Dutch as: Rembrandt – Zoektocht van een genie)

Exhib. cat. Rembrandt – Rembrandt - Genie auf der Suche by E. van de Wetering a.o. Berlin Gemäldegalerie Staatliche– Genie auf der Suche, Museen zu Berlin 2006. 2006

Exhib. cat. Uylenburgh – Uylenburgh & zoon. Kunst en commercie van Rembrandt tot De Lairesse 1625-1675 by F. Lammertse& zoon, 2006 and J. van der Veen. Amsterdam Rembrandthuis 2006

Exhib. cat. Rembrandt? – Rembrandt? The master and his workshop by L. Bøgh Rønberg and E.de la Fuente Pedersen a.o.The master and his Copenhagen Statens Museum for Kunst 2006workshop, 2006

Exhib. cat. Rembrandts – Rembrandts moeder. Mythe en werkelijkheid by C. Vogelaar and G. Korevaar a.o. Leiden Stedelijkmoeder, 2006 Museum De Lakenhal 2006

Exhib. cat. Rembrandts – Rembrandts landschappen by C. Vogelaar and G.J.M. Weber a.o. Leiden Stedelijk Museum Delandschappen, 2006 Lakenhal/Kassel Staatliche Museen 2006

G.d.B.-A. – Gazette des Beaux-Arts, Paris 1 (1859) –Gerson – H. Gerson, Rembrandt paintings, Amsterdam 1968Haak 1969 – B. Haak, Rembrandt. Zijn leven, zijn werk, zijn tijd, Amsterdam [1969]HdG – C. Hofstede de Groot, Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten

holländischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts, vol. VI, Esslingen a. N.–Paris 1915

Bibliographical and other abbreviations

xvi

xvii

HdG I-X – C. Hofstede de Groot, Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendstenholländischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts, vols. I-X, Esslingen a. N.–Stuttgart-Paris 1907-1928

HdG Urk – C. Hofstede de Groot, Die Urkunden über Rembrandt, Haag 1906 (Quellenstudien zurholländischen Kunstgeschichte, herausgegeben unter der Leitung von Dr. C. Hofstede deGroot, III)

Hind – A.M. Hind, A catalogue of Rembrandt’s etchings, vols. I-II, London 1912Hoet – G. Hoet, Catalogus of naamlyst van schilderyen, met derzelver pryzen …, vols. I-II, The Hague 1752Hoet-Terw. – see Terw.Hollst. – F.W.H. Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish etchings, engravings and woodcuts, c. 1450-1700, vols. I – ,

Amsterdam 1949 –Jb. d. Kunsth. Samml. – Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Vienna 1 (1883) –

WienJb. d. Pr. Kunsts. – Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, Berlin 1 (1880) –KHI – Kunsthistorisch Instituut, University of AmsterdamKühn – H. Kühn, ‘Untersuchungen zu den Malgründen Rembrandts’, Jahrbuch der Staatlichen

Kunstsammlungen in Baden-Württemberg 2 (1965), pp. 189-210Lugt – F. Lugt, Répertoire des catalogues de ventes, publiques intéressant l’art ou la curiosité …, première période vers

1600-1825, The Hague 1938 Münz – L. Münz, Rembrandt’s etchings, vols. I-II, London 1952New findings 1987 – P. Klein, D. Eckstein, T. Wazny, J. Bauch, ‘New findings for the dendrochronological dating

of panel paintings of the fifteenth to 17th century’, ICOM Committee for Conservation. 8th TriennialMeeting Sydney, Australia. 6-11 September, 1987. Preprints, Los Angeles 1987, pp. 51-54

N.K.J. – Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, The Hague 1 (1947) –O.H. – Oud Holland, Amsterdam 1 (1883) –RKD – Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie (Netherlands Institute for Art History), The

HagueRöntgenonderzoek … – M.E. Houtzager, M. Meier-Siem, H. Stark, H.J. de Smedt, Röntgenonderzoek van de oude

Utrecht schilderijen in het Centraal Museum te Utrecht, Utrecht 1967Schneider – H. Schneider, Jan Lievens. Sein Leben und seine Werke, Haarlem 1932Schneider-Ekkart – H. Schneider, with a supplement of R.E.O. Ekkart, Jan Lievens. Sein Leben und seine Werke,

Amsterdam 1973Schwartz 1984 – G. Schwartz, Rembrandt. Zijn leven, zijn schilderijen, Maarssen 1984Strauss Doc. – W.L. Strauss and M. van der Meulen, with the assistance of S.A.C. Dudok van Heel and

P.J.M. de Baar, The Rembrandt Documents, New York 1979Sumowski 1957/58 – W. Sumowski, ‘Nachträge zum Rembrandtjahr 1956’, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-

Universität zu Berlin, Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 7 (1957/58) nr. 2, pp. 223-247

Sumowski Drawings – W. Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School 1 – 10, New York 1979 – 1992Sumowski Gemälde – W. Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler I – VI, Landau/Pfalz 1983Terw. – P. Terwesten, Catalogus of naamlyst van schilderyen met derzelver pryzen …, vol. III, The Hague

1770Tümpel 1968 – Chr. Tümpel, ‘Ikonographische Beiträge zu Rembrandt. Zur Deutung und Interpretation

seiner Historien’, Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunstsammlungen 13 (1968), pp. 95-126Tümpel 1969 – Chr. Tümpel, ‘Studien zur Ikonographie der Historien Rembrandts. Deutung und

Interpretation der Bildinhalte’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 20 (1969), pp. 107-198Tümpel 1971 – Chr. Tümpel, ‘Ikonographische Beiträge zu Rembrandt. Zur Deutung und Interpretation

einzelner Werke’, Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunstsammlungen 16 (1971), pp. 20-38Tümpel 1986 – Chr. Tümpel (with contributions by A. Tümpel), Rembrandt, Amsterdam –Antwerpen 1986Van Gelder – J.G. van Gelder, ‘Rembrandts vroegste ontwikkeling’, Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse

Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. letterkunde, nieuwe reeks, deel 16, nr. 5 (1953), pp. 273-300(pp. 1-28)

Van de Wetering – E. van de Wetering, Rembrandt. The painter at work, Amsterdam 1997/20091997/2009

Von Moltke Flinck – J.W. von Moltke, Govaert Flinck. 1615-1660, Amsterdam 1965V.S. – C.G. Voorhelm Schneevogt, Catalogue des estampes gravées d’après P.P. Rubens, Haarlem 1873De Vries, Tóth-Ubbens, – A.B. de Vries, M. Tóth-Ubbens, W. Froentjes, Rembrandt in the Mauritshuis. An interdisciplinary

Froentjes study, Alphen aan de Rijn 1978Wallr.-Rich.-Jahrb. – Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch, Köln 1 (1924) –Zeitschr.f.b.K. – Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, Leipzig, Berlin 1 (1866) –Zeitschr.f.Kunstgesch. – Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, Berlin 1 (1932) –

bibliographical and other abbreviations