a new source for rembrandt's "blinding of samson"

A NEW SOURCE FOR REMBRANDT'S "BLINDING OF SAMSON"Author(s): Cynthia LawrenceSource: Source: Notes in the History of Art, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Summer 1986), pp. 37-40Published by: Ars Brevis Foundation, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23202228 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 01:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Ars Brevis Foundation, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Source:Notes in the History of Art.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:11:26 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=arsbrevis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23202228?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


A NEW SOURCE FOR REMBRANDT'S BLINDING OF SAMSON

Cynthia Lawrence

In Broos's index of the formal sources for Rem

brandt's works,1 as well as in the subsequent

Rembrandt literature,2 several prototypes have

been proposed for the figures in his monumental

canvas of The Blinding of Samson (Fig. I).3

All of these hypotheses are, to varying degrees,

convincing: they identify those paintings and

prints that Rembrandt could have known first

hand or secondhand, and they then demonstrate

his adaptation and subsequent modification of

their figures or motifs. Although these proposals

promote different solutions, they are method

ologically alike in employing a model in which a single figure is considered to be derived from

a single source. In other words, while each schol

ar plausibly argues the impact of X's "a" on

Rembrandt's "b," the net effect of these in

dependent arguments is to unavoidably and

erroneously arrive at the dubious conclusion

that the Samson was consciously composed

piecemeal.

This paper adopts a different method by pro

posing the existence of another prototype that

includes additional points of congruity with

Rembrandt's canvas and that is thus more con

vincing as a source. This is Dirck van Baburen's

Prometheus Chained by Vulcan (Fig. 2),4 a

work whose Caravaggesque tendencies are anal

ogous to the Samson's. Although their arrange

ment and the details of their poses and dress

differ, Baburen's figures of Prometheus, Vulcan,

and Mercury are respectively similar to Rem

brandt's Samson, the Philistine soldier with the

spear, and Delilah. This indicates that either the

Prometheus or a work done after it was the

source for the Samson, or that both the Prome

theus and the Samson depend on a hypothetical

third canvas (or works done after it) that has

not yet been discovered.

That Rembrandt may have conceived his Sam

son in light of a punishment of Prometheus is

not unusual since the two were iconographical

ly linked in the seventeenth century: both fig

ures were identified with Christ, and their trials were frequently compared with His crucifixion.5

Furthermore, it is consistent with the claims of

scholars who have proposed various depictions of Prometheus's liver being pecked at by an

eagle as the source for Rembrandt's figures of

Samson and the Philistine to his left.6 However,

it is the correspondence between the figures of

Mercury and Delilah that ultimately indicates

the significance of Baburen's canvas.

That the Prometheus was the primary model

for the Samson is even more credible given Con

stantine Huygens's admiration for Baburen, as

indicated in Huygens's diary of 1629-1631 —

the same document in which he praises Rem

brandt. Here Huygens singles out the Utrecht

artist as one of the talented history painters

currently emerging in the Netherlands.7 In light of Huygens's statement, another link between

the works emerges since Rembrandt probably

presented his canvas to Huygens in 1639;8 and

Rembrandt may even have intended it for Huy

gens as early as 1636.9 However, under what

conditions Rembrandt might have known

Baburen'sPrometheus is not indicated.10

In spite of the satisfaction of this solution, the merits of earlier arguments demonstrating the importance of other models for the Samson

should not be dismissed. This is particularly im

portant with regard to the figure of Samson,

which clearly owes much to Rubens's Prome



38

Fig. 1 Rembrandt, The Blinding of Samson. 1636. Canvas (cut down). 236 X 302 cm. Stadelsches

Kunstinstitut, Frankfurt. (Photo: Frankfurt)

theus (c. 1612-1618, Philadelphia Museum of

Art),11 which, in turn, has also been proposed as the source for Baburen's figure.12 Similarly,

Baburen's canvas does not account for Rem

brandt's company of Philistine soldiers; and

thus one must assume that if they were not

purely Rembrandt's invention, they were derived

from yet another source. It is not inconsistent

that while Rembrandt used Baburen's Prome

theus as the initial and most important model

for his Samson, Rembrandt may subsequently have added or reworked certain figures in light 3f the individual models that have been proposed as well as others that have yet to be identified.13

NOTES

1. B. P. J. Broos, Index to the Formal Sources of Rembrandt's Art (Maarssen: 1977), p. 52.

2. G. Schwartz, Rembrandt: His Life, His Paintings (New York: 1985), p. 178.



Fig. 2 Dirck van Baburen, Prometheus Chained by Vulcan. 1623. Canvas, 202 X 184 cm. Rijks

museum, Amsterdam. (Photo: Amsterdam)

3. The vast bibliography for the work has most re

cently appeared in C. Lawrence, "'Worthy of Milord's

House'?: Rembrandt, Huygens and Dutch Classicism," Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 54 (1985): 16—26.

4. All the Paintings of the Rijksmuseum in Amster

dam (Amsterdam: 1976), n. A1606; see also C. Brown, "The Utrecht Caravaggisti," in Gods, Saints and Heroes:

Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt (Amsterdam:

1980), pp. 110-111.

5. Brown, p. 110.



40

6. See Broos, p. 52, esp. the articles by Valentiner,

Weisbach, and van Gelder.

7. J. A. Worp, "Constantijn Huygens over de Schilders

van zijn Tijd," Oud Holland 80 (1891): 118; see also

Brown, p. 102.

8. Lawrence, 16. The Samson is generally accepted as that large work Rembrandt stated he was sending to

Huygens as an expression of his gratitude in his letter

of 12 January 1639. The letter is included in H. Ger

son, Seven Letters by Rembrandt (The Hague: 1961),

pp. 34-40, and J. A. Worp, De Briefwisseling van Con

stantijn Huygens (The Hague: 1913), III, p. 425, n.

2020.

9. Lawrence, 16. C. White, Rembrandt and His

World (London: 1964), p. 50, has proposed that the

Samson is the "token" that Rembrandt referred to in

his letter to Huygens of February 1636. For the letter, see Gerson, pp. 18 and 22,and Worp, Die Briefwisseling . . . , III, p. 150, n. 1350.

10. Brown, p. 110, includes the work's provenance. The canvas is probably that recorded in an Amsterdam

sale of 1707.

11. Broos, p. 52.

12. Brown, p. 110.

13. This aspect of Rembrandt's working method has

been discussed in another context by Amy Golahny in

"Rembrandt's Early Bathsheba: The Raphael Connec

tion," Art Bulletin 65 (December 1983):672-674.



a new source for rembrandt's "blinding of samson"

Documents