A CORPUS OF PAINTINGS Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project

A CORPUS OF REMBRANDT PAINTINGS

MCMLXXXII MARTINUS NI]HOFF PUBLISHERS • Boston • London Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project

A CORPUS OF REMBRANDT PAINTINGS

]. BRUYN • B. HAAK· S.H. LEVIE P.].]. VAN THIEL· E. VAN DE WETERING

with the collaboration of L. PEESE BINKHORST-HOFFSCHOLTE

translated by D. COOK-RADMORE

MCMLXXXII MARTINUS NI]HOFF PUBLISHERS The Hague • Boston • London Frontispiece:

Detail of no. A6, History painting, Leiden, Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, on loan from the State-owned art collection department, The Hague.

Of this edition 200 copies have been specially bound and numbered 1 -95 1 and 1- v. Su bsc ribers to the complete special bou nd se t will receive subsequent volumes with an identical number. The copies with roman numbers are solely for publishers' use.

Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Projert Distributor for the United States and Canada: A CORPUS OF REMBRANDT PAINTINGS I Kluwer Boston Inc./ lgo Old Derby Street/H inghnm, MA 02043/USA © [98z, Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project Distributor for all other countries: MCMLXXXII, Martln us NijholT Publishers K luwer Academic Puhlishen; Group/ Dist ribution Center/ The Hague Boston London P.O. Box 322 /3300 AH Dordrecht/The Nt:therlands

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 Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 82-1879° of the publishers. ~artinu s NijhoA· Publishers/P.O. Box 566/ 250 [ CN The Hague/T he Nt:t herlands

T ypesetting il nd printing - Koninklijke Drukkerij Van de Garde, Zaltbommcl Lithography - Repro-Koningsvcld , T he Hague Paper - Lutkic & Smit Papier, Culemborg The publication of this work has been made possible by the Binding and uillding lIlateriab -Paardckooper/Wohrmann, financial suppOrt of the Netherlands Organization for the Ad• Zutphen vancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.).

ISBN-13: 978-94-009-7519·4 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-009-7517-0 001: 10.1007/978-94-009-7517-0 Contents

PREFACE IX A 15 Judas, repentant, returning the pieces of silver, 1629. History of the Project IX England, private collection IJ7 The starting point for the study IX A 16 The supper at Emmaus, [1629]. Paris, Musee Objective and working method X Jacquemart-Andre 196 Some reflections on method XIII A 17 An old man asleep by the fire, perhaps typifying Sloth, The catalogue XVII 1629. Turin, Galleria Sabauda 202 Acknowledgments xx A 18 , [1629]. Boston, Mass., Museum of Fine Arts 208 PHOTO ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XXIV A 19 Self-portrait, 1629. , Bayerische X-RAY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XXVI Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek 214 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER ABBREVIATIONS XXVII A 20 Self-portrait, 1629. Boston, Mass., The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum 218 A 2 1 Self-portrait, [1629]. The Hague, Koninklijk Kabinet Introduction van Schilderijen, 225 A 22 Self-portrait in a cap, with the mouth open, [1629]. Chapter I Japan, MOA Museum 231 THE STYLISTIC DEVELOPMENT (J.B., E.V.D.W.) 3 A 23 Bust of a young man, [1629]. Cleveland, Ohio, The Cleveland Museum of Art 241 II Chapter A24 Samson betrayed by Delilah, [1629/1630]. Berlin PAINTING MATERIALS AND WORKING METHODS (E.V.D.W.) II (West), Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Gemaldegalerie 249 Chapter III A 25 David playing the harp to Saul, [1629/ I 630]. THE DOCUMENTARY VALUE OF EARLY GRAPHIC REPRODUCTIONS am Main, Stadelsches Kunstinstitut 258 (j. B.) 35 A 26 S. Paul at his writing-desk, [1629/ I 630]. Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum 266 Chapter IV A27 An old woman at prayer (commonly called A DESCRIPTIVE SURVEY OF THE SIGNATURES (J. B.) 53 Rembrandt's mother), [1629/1630]' Salzburg, Salzburger Landessammlungen-Residenzgalerie 272 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 61 A28 Jeremiah lamenting the destruction ofJerusalem, 1630. , 276 A:9 Bust of an old man in a fur cap (commonly called Catalogue Rembrandt's father), 1630. Innsbruck, Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum 285 NOTES ON THE CATALOGUE 64 A 30 The raising of Lazarus, [1630/ I 63 I]. Los Angeles, Cal., Los Angeles County Museum of Art 293 Paintings by Rembrandt A31 Andromeda, [1630/1631]' The Hague, Koninklijk A I The stoning ofS. Stephen, 1625. Lyon, Musee des Kabinet van Schilderijen, Mauritshuis 309 Beaux-Arts 67 A32 Bust of an old woman (commonly called Rembrandt's A 2 , 1626. Paris, Musee Cognacq-Jay mother), [1630/1631]' Windsor Castle, H. M. Queen 74 Elizabeth II 315 A 3 Tobit and Anna with the kid, 1626. Amsterdam, A33 Self-portrait, [1630/1631]' Liverpool, Walker Art Rijksmuseum 82 Gallery 322 A 4 Christ driving the moneychangers from the Temple, A34 in the Temple, 1631. The Hague, Koninklijk 1626. , of Fine Arts 88 Kabinet van Schilderijen, Mauritshuis 331 A5 The baptism of the eunuch, 1626. Utrecht, A35 Christ on the cross, 1631. Le Mas d'Agenais, Lot et Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent 94 Garonne, parish church 338 A6 History painting (subject unidentified), 1626. Leiden, A 36 S. Peter in prison, [163 I]. Belgium, private collection Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal 104 346 A 7 Musical allegory, 1626. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum A37 An old woman reading, probably the prophetess Anna II4 (commonly called Rembrandt's mother), 1631. A8 Bust ofa man in a gorget and cap, [1626/1627]. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum 351 Whereabouts unknown 124 A38 in her study, [1631]. Berlin (West), A9 David with the head of Goliath before Saul, 1627. Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Basle, Oeffentliche Kunstsammlung Basel 129 Gemaldegalerie 358 AIO The rich man from the parable, 1627. Berlin (West), A 39 The abduction of Proserpina, [1631]. Berlin (West), Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Gemaldegalerie 137 Gemaldegalerie 365 All S. Paul in prison, 1627. Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie 143 A 40 The artist in oriental costume, with a poodle at his A 12 , [1627/1628]. , feet, 1631. Paris, Musee du Petit Palais 373 Hamburger Kunsthalle 150 A41 Bust ofa young man in a plumed cap, 1631. Toledo, Two old men disputing, probably S. Peter and Ohio, The Toledo Museum of Art 383. S. Paul, [1628]. , of A 42 Half-length figure of an old man in a gorget and black Victoria 159 cap, [1631]. Chicago, Ill., The Art Institute of Self-portrait, [1628]. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum 169 Chicago 391

VII Paintings Rembrandt's authorship of which cannot be positively either Bust of an old man. Leipzig DDR, Museum der accepted or rejected bildenden Kiinste 593 B 1 Three singers (Hearing). The Hague, Cramer Bust of an old man wearing a cross. Kassel, Staatliche Gallery 399 Kunstsammlungen Kassel, Schloss Wilhelmshohe 598 B 2 The operation (Touch). The Hague, Cramer Gallery Bust of an old man looking downwards. Copenhagen, 405 Statens Museum for Kunst 603 B 3 The spectacles-pedlar (Sight). S. Peter Port, Guernsey, Bust of an old man in a gorget and cap (commonly colI. D. H. Cevat 410 called Rembrandt's father). Leningrad, The B 4 A man in a gorget and plumed cap. Malibu, CaL, J. 605 Paul Getty Museum 416 Bust ofa man in a cap (commonly called Rembrandt's B 5 The artist in a cap and pleated shirt. Stockholm, father). Cambridge, Mass., The Fogg Art Museum Nationalmuseum 424 6II B 6 Bust of a laughing man in a gorget. The Hague, Bust ofa man in a cap (commonly called Rembrandt's Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen, Mauritshuis father). Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Kassel, 427 Schloss Wilhelmshohe 615 . B 7 Bust of an old man in a cap (commonly called Bust of a man looking downwards. Oxford, Ashmolean Rembrandt's father). The Hague, Koninklijk Kabinet Museum 619 van Schilder~jen, Mauritshuis 431 Bust of a man wearing a gold chain. Leiden, Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal 623 Paintings Rembrandt's authorship of which cannot be accepted Bust of a laughing man (commonly called a Self• C I Samson betrayed by Delilah. Amsterdam, portrait of Rembrandt). ColI. Baron Edmond de Rijksmuseum 439 Rothschild 626 C 2 Esther's feast. Raleigh, N. C., The North Carolina Bust of a young man laughing. Amsterdam, Museum of Art 446 Rijksmuseum 629 C 3 Tobit and Anna. London, The National Gallery 46r Bust of a young man (commonly called a Self-portrait C4 Tobit at his son's return. New York, N.Y., coIL]. of Rembrandt). Cambridge, Mass., The Fogg Art William Middendorf II 467 Museum 634 C 5 The flight into Egypt. Tours, Musee des Beaux-Arts Bust of Rembrandt. Private collection 638 478 Bust of Rem brand t. Private collection 645 C 6 The rest on the flight into Egypt. Formerly Ludlow, Bust of a young man (commonly called a Self-portrait Downton Castle, colI. D. Lennox 483 of Rembrandt). New York, N.Y., The Metropolitan C 7 The tribute money. Ottawa, The National Gallery of Museum of Art 650 Canada 488 Bust of a young man (commonly called a Self-portrait C 8 Christ at the column. Belgium, private collection 497 of Rembrandt). Private collection 654 C 9 Minerva in her study. Denver, Col., The Denver Art Bust of a young man (commonly called a Self-portrait Museum 502 of Rembrandt). Sweden, private collection 658 C IO A biblical or historical nocturnal scene (fragment). Bust of an old woman (commonly called Rembrandt's Tokyo, Bridgestone Museum of Art 508 mother). The Hague, Koninklijk Kabinet van C I I The foot operation. Switzerland, private collection Schilderijen, Mauritshuis 662 512 Bust of an old woman (commonly called Rembrandt's C 12 Travellers resting. The Hague, Koninklijk Kabinet mother). Essen, call. H. von Bohlen und Halbach 667 van Schilderijen, Mauritshuis 519 Bust of an old woman (commonly called Rembrandt's C 13 Two old men disputing. The Hague, Cramer Gallery mother). Basle, private collection 671 524 Bust of a young girl. Helsinki, Sinebrychoff Art C 14 A man reading in a lofty room. London, The National Museum, The Fine Arts Academy of Finland 673 Gallery 529 C 15 A scholar reading. Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum 533 C 16 A hermit reading. Paris, Musee du Louvre 539 Tables and Indexes C 17 A Christian scholar in a vaulted room. Stockholm, TABLE OF TECHNICAL REFERENCE MATERIAL 679 Nationalmuseum 547 TABLE OF DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL DATA 683 C 18 A man writing by candlelight. Milwaukee, Wise., colI. INDEX OF PAINTINGS CATALOGUED IN VOLUME I 686 Dr. A. Rader 554 Present owners 686 C 19 An old woman reading. Salisbury, Wilts., Wilton Previous owners 687 House, colI. Earl of Pembroke 559 Engravers 691 C 20 An old man with his arms crossed over his chest. Subjects 691 Boston, Mass., Museum of Fine Arts 567 INDEXES OF COMPARATIVE MATERIAL AND LITERARY C 2 I Half-length figure of a man in a turban. Philadelphia, Penn., Philadelphia Museum of Art 572 SOURCES 693 C 22 Head of an old man. Milwaukee, Wise., call. Dr. A. Drawings and etchings by (or attributed to) Rembrandt Bader 576 693 C 23 Bust of a man in a plumed cap. USA, privatc Works by artists other than Rembrandt 694 collection 581 Literary sources 697 C 24 Bust of an old man with a bald head. Kassel, CONCORDANCE 698 Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Kassel, Schloss Wilhelmshohe 587

VIII Preface

History of the Project The starting point for the study

Is there any need for a new catalogue of Rem• Research naturally began from the point which brandt's paintings? It was the growing conviction studies of Rembrandt had reached in the I960s, that such is the case that led to the Rembrandt though without explicitly analysing the situation as Research Project. There is, of course, a wealth of it then was. As time went on, however, we became scholarly literature on the subject, but it is hard to confirmed in our impression that there is scarcely avoid the impression that much oCits interpretation any verifiable, documented continuity in respect of of the artist and his work is based on a picture of his the attribution of Rembrandt's paintings such as pain ted oeuvre that in the course of time has become there has been, to some extent, for his etchings from corrupted. By the I960s it was difficult for an im• the 17th century onwards. Such continuity does exist partial eye to accept all the works currently attrib• for a tiny handful of paintings, but it is hard to uted to Rembrandt as being by a single artist. describe these as a representative nucleus; they leave From the outset, those launching the initiative the limits of the painted oeuvre entirely undefined. realised that only conscientious examination, The process of illegitimate accretion to this oeuvre, making use of up-to-date methods of investigation which took place in the T8th and even as early as the whenever possible, could warrant a radical revision 17th century, can be glimpsed from the prints put of the Rembrandt canon. The prospect was thus out in those years and purporting to reproduce already a daunting one. The time, moreover, hardly paintings by Rembrandt (see also Chapter III of the seemed right for such an enterprise: preparations Introduction). \Vhen] ohn Smith published the first were already under way for the 300th anniversary of catalogue of the paintings, in 1836, his work inevi• Rembrandt's death, in 1969, and major publica• tably reflected a corrupted tradition and conse• tions dealing with the very same subject ofhis paint• quently gave a distorted view. Eduard Kolloff ings had been announced in anticipation of this ( 1854) and Carel V osmaer (1868) deserve credit for event. But when the first of these appeared, in 1966, bringing some kind of order into chaos, as Scheltema it gave the final impetus needed for translating what had done for the biography; but it was particularly had been vague ideas into definite plans, and for the young \Vilhelm Bode who, in the I880s, pro• putting these plans into action. duced a corrected image of Rembrandt's work, es• Financial aid from the Netherlands Organization pecially that [rom the early years. Though a critical for the Advancement of Pure Research made it pos• tendency may have subsequently gained ground, it sible to start on the first phase of the work in 1968. contributed relatively little to delimiting the painted This included an intensive programme of travel, oeuvre. Knowledge of the work done by pupils grew, during which pairs ofteam members together visited and undoubtedly this helped to bring about a sharp• various parts of the world gathering material on er picture of Rembrandt's own production. Yet only works attributed to Rembrandt. This material com• clearly identifiable works by these pupils were invol• prised a painstakingly detailed description of the ved in this hiving-off; what remained formed a re• painting as an object, together with photographic markably heterogeneous and extensive oeuvre. Bode evidence. Success in this was, of course, wholly de• himself (whose main interest had in the meantime pendent on the goodwill of museum curators and shifted elsewhere) codified this, in collaboration private collectors; almost without exception they with Hofstede de Groot, in a sumptuous work pub• were willing to let their paintings be examined, lished from 1897 to I goS by the art dealer under the best possible conditions. This phase, Sedelmeyer; this may have been seldom consulted• during which almost all the relevant paintings were if only because of the weight of its eight bulky vol• examined, lasted some five years, from 1968 to 1972; umes - but it does seem, from subsequent catalogues after this, paintings were examined or re-examined including that by Kurt Bauch in 1966, to have en• only occasionally. joyed a considerable authority. The vast amount of Processing the assembled material was, for the research done by Hofstede de Groot, not only in majority of the paintings discussed in the present 17th-century documents but also in the I8th• volume, done in two stages. The search for a suitable century sale catalogues available to him, provided Corm oC editing and presentation, and experiments this conglomerate work with a documentary basis with this, was followed from 1973 on by the writing that even today is bound to impress anyone who is of draft texts. As this work progressed the most not familiar with the relative worth of 18th-century effective way of dealing with the subject gradually attributions. The way in which HofStede de Groot, in became clear, and the various drafts could then be the sixth volume of this Beschreibendes und kritisches brought into line within a common framework. Verzeichnis (19 I 5), catalogued indiscriminately both

IX PREFACE

paintings that actually existed (and on which he and some time later the National Gallery in Wash• passed very magnanimous judgments) and old re• ington DC began a similar study. These studies were cords of paintings created a confusing effect that was were by their nature limited to a single collection, naturally unintentional. and therefore can do little to cater for the need for a Protests about this were not entircly lacking; but fresh interpretation based on all the comparative those voiced by Alfred von Wurzbach, tucked away material available. in the third part of his Kiinstlerlexikon (191 1), had more invective than scholarly critique about them, Objective and working method while the criticism offered by John C. van Dyke (1923) overshot the mark through his obsessional I t was plain, from the start, that preparing a new need to enhance the pupils at the expense of their catalogue of Rembrandt's painted oeuvre could not master. After the almost absurd expansionist ap• be a task for one man: this would be impossible if proach shown by \V. R. Valentiner in a supplement only because of the amount of material for which a to his earlier publication in the series Klassiker der description had to be prepared during the first Kunst, under the optimistic title Wiedergifundene phase, within a relatively short space of time. The Gemiilde (1921), the lists made by Bredius (1935), first step by those founding the project, therefore, Jacob Rosenberg (1948) and Kurt Bauch (1966) was to form a team, and the make-up of this team reduced the numbers somewhat and threw was the first subject to be discussed. Bearing in mind overboard some of the most obvious contraband. the many and differing problems that could be Nevertheless, the outlines were still set quite broad• expected in connexion with scientific investigations scarcely less so than they had been around 1900; too into the physical structure of the paintings, as well as broad to offer any guarantee that the interpre• with tracking down information in the archives, the tations, speculations and theories that had, over the question arose of whether experts in these fields decades, been based on this picture of the artist's ought not to be included in the team. This question work could be safely maintained. Bauch's two books was seriously considered but answered in the on the early Rembrandt - the first (1933) directed negative. Given the possibility of maintaining con• towards a portrayal with an existentialist tinge, and tact with experts in other fields whenever necessary, the second (1960) towards defining an historical we decided that the homogeneity of method and situation _. provide examples of an interpretation of results would be served best by forming a team this kind, based on inadequately sifted material. To consisting of art historians only. Without in any way Gerson, whose publications appeared when our pro• diminishing our debt of gratitude to scientists, archi• ject was in its initial stage (1968 and 1969), goes the vists, palaeographers and others for their sound honour of having had the courage to bring open• advice and important contributions to the work, we mindedness to his critical approach to the received believe that this was the right decision. The team image. He did this on the grounds of qualitative that came into being at that time included, in ad• criteria that are not always very clearly expressed, dition to the five members listed on the title page, and which the reader can sometimes recognize Prof. Dr. J. A. Emmens; his untimely death meant behind his conclusions and at other times not. that he could not carry out his plans for a systematic Although in a substantial number of instances his study of Rembrandt's iconography. Prof. Dr. J. G. opinion has proved to be close to or identical with van Gelder took part in our discussions during some ours, we felt that the appearance of his books did not six years and we are much indebted to him for render our work unnecessary. His statements, both sharing with us his great knowledge and experience. positive and negative, were indeed just as unspecific During the first phase of the work, members ofthe as those of his predecessors. We still believed that team operated in pairs - in constantly changing description of Rembrandt's painted oeuvre called combinations - in studying paintings in different for closer attention to a greater number of aspects of parts of the world. We have found this way of or• each painting, and more thorough supporting ganizing the work most salutary in achieving a bal• evidence for each and every interpretation. We were anced result. Though the work of processing the not alone in this fecling. Already in 1960, in the series collected material was spread less evenly among of exemplary catalogues issued by the National members of the team, weighing-up the arguments in Gallery in London, Neil MacLaren had given an joint discussion was again an essential part of arriv• unusually careful account of the attribution of the ing at interpretations and opinions. If the reader is Dutch paintings in the Gallery's collection. Simulta• occasionally aware that the catalogue entries are neously with ourselves the Mauritshuis started to from different hands, he will we hope find this only a prepare a critical catalogue of its own , minor disadvantage.

x PREFACE

A second basic principle was to try to learn and cases not the actual ground but rather part of the describe the features - including the purely physical preparatory brush drawing on top ofit, executed in features - of each painting, seen as an object, as fully predominantly translucent brown; while the ground as possible. This would naturally relate to the paint proper does show through this, it is not necessarily layer, but would also take in the ground and sup• directly visible. It was naturally impossible to inter• port. At the beginning we were by no means clear in pret afresh, in the light of this new view of things, what connexion, and by what criteria, the observa• hundreds of observations of widely scattered paint• tions made would eventually be interpreted and ings. The chapter on Materials and Methods will, assessed; our descriptive notes made on the spot we hope, provide a framework into which our own consequently did not immediately follow a cut-and• observations and - more especially - future studies dried pattern in all respects. Nevertheless, our can be fitted. expectation that this would make it possible for us to We have mentioned above the relationship be• find a broader basis for making judgments was, in tween our study and scientific research in the labora• general, borne out. It must be added that our ob• tory. We intended, from the outset, to benefit as servations were made under widely-varying circum• much as possible from the latter and from the various stances where the lighting, equipment and technical photographic techniques; yet on the other hand we documentation available were concerned; these are were aware that technical information alone would specified for each catalogue entry. On top of this, not provide us with criteria for authenticity. An however, the condition of the items described dif• international symposium held in Amsterdam in fered from one case to the next; this applies to the October 1969 and organized, on the initiative of Dr. support, the paint layer and - especially - to the J. R.J. van Asperen de Boer, by the Central varnish, which to a large extent determines the visi• Research Laboratory for Objects of Art and Science bility of the ground and paint layers and the inter• and our team provided a valuable insight into pretation of colours. In this latter respect, our de• scientific methods and the way they could be used; scriptions cannot claim to be anything more than an but at the same time it confirmed the impression that approximation, with no pretension to scientific the extent to which results obtained by technical exactitude. The degree to which perception of means can be employed for the purposes of art his• colours is subject to unintentional selection and cor• tory depends on how the art historian asks his ques• rection is wellnigh impossible to estimate, and is not tions and forms his hypotheses. During the course of infrequently found to differ from one person to the our work a number of institutions were generous next. Much the same is true of the description and with their help, supplying us with technical data. interpretation of paint structures, and their relation• We have indicated these data in the catalogue, ship to the ground. Leaving aside the considerable under the appropriate headings, and it is striking complications that wear, damage and restoration how much these results have not only been obtained can introduce, the naked eye - alone, or with the through a variety of techniques, but are also fre• help of only a magnifying-glass - is a relatively quently described and interpreted in different ways. primitive tool. Only in a limited number of instances By themselves (that is to say without the framework was there a microscope to hand to help us in in• provided by hypothetical links ) they do not, in the vestigating the problems that arose. Not until a late majority of cases, offer any coherent picture of the stage was a number of paintings, regarded as repre• technique employed by the artist. We are well aware sentative, systematically examined under the micro• that the use we have made of scientific data has been scope, and an analysis made of paint samples taken a limited one. Apart from elementary information for this purpose. This proved extremely valuable for on the materials used, we have not attempted a our insight into Rembrandt's technique. For the systematic study of pigments, media, drying agents, bulk of the paintings, however, examination had to dilutants etc.; such studies may yield further specific be limited to what could be seen at the surface, and technical information as analytical methods become the interpretation of what was observed must, how• more refined, though it remains to be seen whether ever usable this might be for comparative purposes, the results will help to solve problems of attribution. be termed an overall one. We have, for example, We have, rather, selected such information as can called the layer that shows through discontinuities or clarify the stratified structure of the painting as it translucent patches in the paint layer simply 'the results from the actual painting procedure. ground' without further distinction, and have re• The most familiar technique, and one which the ferred to it as such in our descriptions. It was only at art historian has known for a long time, is the X-ray a late stage that we formed the hypothesis that this photograph. Apart from the broadest kind of inter• layer (usually a light, yellowish brown) is in some pretation - noting certain changes in shape and

XI PREFACE

compOSItIOn - comparatively little attention has present volume we were very glad to make use of been paid in the literature to 'reading' these X-ray these. Further testing is currently under way, and documents; this has been pointed out by Dr. M. one may hope that this method of dating will playa Meier-Siem, of Hamburg, in the published account larger role in the forthcoming volumes. of a study undertaken at the Central Museum, Physical and chemical examination of sample Utrecht (1967). For us, the importance of X-rays material from the ground and paint layers already came to lie mainly in understanding how the young occupies a fairly important role in the literature, but Rembrandt set out his composition, applied the first this is only seldom clearly related to what the art layer of paint and worked towards completion. This historian is seeking. A first explanation for this can being so, we attached a more than casual signi• be found in the great degree of constancy in the ficance to the X-ray evidence, and a relatively large materials used by painters over several centuries. place has been allotted to reproduction and de• Only in a small minority of cases, as when one meets scription of the X-rays. The relatively large number a pigment that went out of, or came into, use at a of X-rays available to us we owe to the generosity of known period, is a conclusion as to dating possible; many owners, both public and private, who put this even then the conclusion will be no more than an material at our disposal. In addition, Dr. Meier-Siem approximate terminus ante quem or post quem. A more provided us with copyfilms of X-rays taken by him, general explanation, however, is provided by the and Dr. S. Rees Jones of the Courtauld Institute of differences in the sort of questions asked and the Art, London, went out of his way to procure those of working method adopted by a scientist and an art paintings in various English collections. historian, even when they approach the work of art Ultraviolet radiation and photographs, and in• as a shared subject of study. Each is conditioned by frared photographs, were a good deal less infor• the traditions of his own discipline. Without being mative. The former were sometimes helpful in unfair to either, we might perhaps say that the identifying subsequent retouching, though their scientist arrives at his interpretation from relatively practicability depends so much on the nature of the fragmentary and, of itself, unstructured information varnish layer that the value of the technique is relating to the physical make-up of the work of art, extremely uncertain. Infrared photographs do occa• while the art historian is concerned mainly with the sionally throw light in a surprising way on how paint stylistic interpretation of the picture and its execu• was applied, but where the preparatory stage of the tion. Their common frame of reference ought to be painting process is concerned the absence of any an understanding, based on source studies, of the underlying drawing in an absorbent material (like craft that governed artistic practice: this constraint is that used by the Early Netherlandish painters) certainly not ignored, but is not taken sufficiently to means that in Rembrandt's case infrared photo• heart in either field. As a result a coherent idea of the graphs do not leave us much the wiser. artist's working process is often lacking. There is Dendrochronology has opened up new perspec• much work still to be done on this point, but any ti ves for the da ting of oak panels. Prof. Dr. J. Bauch, useful contribution that Chapter II of the Introduc• Dr. D. Eckstein and Dr. P. Klein of the Ordinariatfiir tion makes in respect of Rembrandt's early work Holzbiologie, , have been must be due in no small measure to the fact that our most generous in sharing their results with us. team includes an art historian who was trained as an Honesty demands that we should confess that in a artist and can think like an artist. number of cases the results considerably modified Description and interpretation of the physical as• our provisional conclusions as to dating r~jected pects, and hence of what one might call the micro• paintings; in others where dating was not possible stylistic features, of the painting claimed a great deal they could not of course be correlated with our own of our attention; they take up a large part of our ideas on the subject. With paintings we consider to catalogue text, certainly far more so than in earlier be authentic or contemporary the correlation was literature. Though these parts of the text do not extremely satisfactory; with other paintings which make absorbing reading, we felt that the thorough• we placed in a wider periphery, and naturally in a ness of these descriptions was essential: they provide, later period, the dating of the panel did sometimes after all, the most important basis for our assessment, prove to be remarkably early, even considerably and we imagine that they will also provide indis• earlier than one would expect in the case of authen• pensable material for any discussion of our conclu• tic or contemporary paintings. sions. Alongside this, however, we have (especially The 1967 Utrecht study mentioned earlier has when developing our notes and making eonnexions already provided some insight into the possibilities of between the paintings discussed) made a point of dating canvas, and in the five cases falling within the discussing style in the traditional meaning of the

XII PREFACE

word - the features of composition, form, use of Increasing actIvIty in the field of scientific ex• colour and treatment of light. Although it was not amination of works of art warranted the hope that really likely that fundamentally new viewpoints the results of such research might help in forming an would emerge in this respect, the great care we felt opinion as to authenticity. Our expectations were ourselves obliged to take in reaching our conclu• limited in this respect, and fairly well defined. \Ve sions, and the need constantly to check observations realized, for instance, that the results of scientific and extrapolated features of style one against the examination would never be able to provide proof of other, did make it possible to achieve a more strin• whether a painting was by Rembrandt himself, by gent analysis than is usually the case. However since one of his pupils or by a painter in his immediate we were paying attention to the painting technique circle. We did hope for firm evidence in the category employed, our approach was more than usually of works which we believed, on stylistic grounds, practical. The picture that results, as presented in might be later imitations of Rembrandt's style. Chapter I of the Introduction, is that of a strictly Though here, too, we were well aware that in most individual development; the many ties linking Rem• cases we would have to say that the painting in brandt with his contemporaries in the Netherlands question was 'not demonstrably later than the 17th and abroad have deliberately been left aside, not century', we did however hope that with at least because they are in general unimportant but some of the works we examined it would be possible because they can provide no basic criteria for defin• to prove a later date of production, and that on the ing his painted oeuvre. These links will be referred to basis of such cases we migh t extend this conclusion to in the catalogue entries, as and when they arise. othcrs. In this respcct wc have had, over the years, to We have not been able to produce a compre• change our ideas drastically. \Ve found not only that hensive view of the iconographic significance of the number of 'demonstrably later' paintings was Rembrandt's work to the extent that we intended in almost negligible, but even that some of those that the early stages. The place left empty by the death of we had, because of stylistic features, regarded as Professor Emmens was not filled. \Ve owe much to being 18th or 19th century in origin could be proved, the publications of Dr. Christian Tumpel, Ham• or virtually proved, to date from the seventeenth. burg, who put his unpublished thesis at our disposal One need hardly say that coming to terms with this and with whom we had fruitful discussions. Both he experience was a painful process. Insufficient knowl• and Dr. Colin Campbell, Exeter, who also madc edge of what might happen in 17th-century work• his unpublished thesis available to us, contributed shops had, it seems, led to our expectations following greatly to our treatment of iconographic aspects too rigid a pattern. On this point, scientific tests have of Rembrandt's paintings and their formal sources. belied our expectations. On the whole, however, the In general, we have limited ourselves, in most combination of thorough visual examination and catalogue entries, to dealing with present knowledge scientific investigation has created a much broader in iconography and, in a few cases, to making sug• basis for developing criteria of authenticity. gestions based on views gained from this. Sometimes A major limitation on the usability of the results of these differ sharply from commonly held and still scientific examination in answering questions of rather romantically tinged ideas of the meaning that authenticity lies in the fact that there seems to be no Rembrandt's pictures may have held for him and his marked difference in the use of materials and work• contemporaries. ing procedures between Rembrandt and his close circle or even the wider circle of followers and SOIne reflections on xnethod imitators, since these methods and materials basi• cally fit a general 17th-century workshop practice. After what has been said on our working procedure This means that one has to search for individual and, particularly, on the scientific examinations that features in the application of these common supplemented our observations, we feel the need, materials and methods on a minute scale - by study• after some ten years' experience, to review the expec• ing the way the paint has been applied and the tations we had when we started, and how far these different stages in the execution relate to each other, changed as time went on. This is all the more ap• but also by taking into account the organization of posite as we have the impression that those in the the composition, the characteristics of the 'stage• world of who are interested in our work• direction', and imponderables such as the mood of ing method and its results are not always aware of the painting. Style in the broadest sense, from the the limited possibilities that scientific examination single brushstroke to the general design of a paint• offers, and of the relative weight it carries when ing, constitutes the repertory of features which forming an opinion on a painting's authenticity. enable one to accept or reject a painting. Technical

XIII PREFACE

features have, of course, to fit stylistic indications in Morellian method is thus not easily applied to their order to converge with them towards an opinion; but paintings. The fact that in Rembrandt's paintings only rarely are they of decisive importance. Most the brushwork is a most subtly varied and rich fea• later imitations or fakes with a deviant technique ture inspired A. P. Laurie in the I 920S to concentrate have been eliminated already, in former waves of on the search for criteria by analysing the brushwork purification. \\That we are left with in Bredius' cata• in comparable areas in comparable paintings. One logue, our point of departure, are in general 17th• cannot say that this method brought conclusive re• century paintings. Thus only incidentally will a sig• sults. Transferring a graphological approach to the nificant departure from normal 17th-century paint• analysis of brushwork in a painting where the brush• ing practice provide a clue for rejection. Even with a work seems to be the most suitable for these in• method as elegant as dendrochronology, which may vestigations - the lit areas - the brushstrokes are occasionally prove that certain panels derived from applied with a particular aim in mind, connected the same tree, one has no absolute proof that the with the suggestion of texture, light or shape; the paintings concerned are by the same hand - one is brushwork thus varies in accordance with that aim. not prevented from ascribing one to Rembrandt, the Moreover, Rembrandt's brushwork must have been other to somebody from his workshop or even to an recognized through the ages as being one of the main imitator around the corner who bought his panels in features of his style, and therefore served as a point of the same shop. In fact, even if all Rembrandts were focus for pupils as well as imitators, just as his highly to be subjected to thorough scientific investigation, a indi vid ual handling of pen and brush in his drawings decision on their authenticity would rest mainly on was copied with the utmost care. Laurie's efforts, considerations of a very different kind. based as they were on the study of isolated passages, Nonetheless, the idea that thorough knowledge of were rooted in ideas connected with the expressionist the painting as a physical object would produce art of his days. This is not to say that individual more precise authenticity criteria has provided the features in the brushwork of a 17th-century artist unique situation that nearly all paintings accepted should be denied any significance for identifying an by Bredius were studied closely, and a considerable individual artistic temperament. The study of these amount of new knowledge was gathered which was features is indispensable in the quest for authentic• to some extent relevant to the quest for authenticity. ity, but reducing the brushwork to abstract patterns Moreover, this situation created an exceptionally by means of macrophotography, as Laurie did in broad basis for connoisseurship on Rembrandt, order to isolate comparable elements of paintings, is though this in no way guarantees sound judgment; obviously not the right way; the brushwork can be connoisseurship depends heavily on the discernment significant only in the context of the entire painting. of eye and sensitivity of taste, not to mention the M. M. van Dantzig developed a method which he knowledge and wisdom necessary to understand the called 'pictology', in which he tried to combine artist's ways. Morelli's ideas with Laurie's while expanding the Our attempt to define and purify Rembrandt's criteria for authentication with a variety of other oeuvre amounts to an effort to find rational, commu• features which he extrapolated from a body of gener• nicable arguments to support our opinions. In the ally authentic, accepted paintings. His work resulted field of art history this is no new venture - the search in long lists of characteristic features which he for objective methods to differentiate between the elaborated for Frans Hals, Vermeer and also, hands of painters has been going on since the 19th though unpublished, for Rembrandt. His lists in• century. Morelli's notion that elements of minor clude features at a variety oflevels, and thus do not importance in a painting are produced by routine, suffer from the 'one-dimensionality' of Morelli's and and therefore betray an artist's involuntary habits, Laurie's criteria. With pictology a painting has to provided a method, thought of as objective, for dis• 'score' at least a certain amount of points from such a tinguishing different hands in otherwise closely re• list to be accepted. lated paintings. This method, which was applied to At first sight, one might think that such a method paintings from the Italian Renaissance, is based is nearly identical with the process that, on a less mainly on the study of well defined shapes like ears, conscious level, takes place in the connoisseur's hands and fingernails. It was later elaborated by mind. And no doubt the connoisseur's arguments, Berenson in the same field of Renaissance Art. Wi th when he is forced to rationalize and formulate his Rembrandt and with his pupils and followers, how• considerations, will not differ basically from the ever, the definition ofform is far less accurate than in criteria included in Van Dantzig's lists. In reality, paintings of the I tali an Renaissance, while areas of however, the processes which take place in the sub• little importance are usually hardly defined; the conscious layers of the connoisseur's mind seem to

XIV PREFACE

differ basically from such an analytical model. It is which account for the evident individuality more probably a synthesis which determines the achieved by Rembrandt in his early works. It is as if processes involved. M.]. Friedlander used to ill• this and other features are held wi thin certain ustrate this with the charming image of the con• boundaries, the limits of what a painter feels to be noisseur as an 'imaginary pupil' of the painter he is essential for a good painting. The onlooker, by ob• studying: he is following the processes of the artist's serving a number of paintings, or rather by absorb• mind and hand rather than analysing the final ing them in his visual memory, develops a certain result. It may be a truism to say that a painting is understanding for these boundaries. This is what more than the sum of the features one may isolate by Friedlander meant by the connoisseur being a pupil, analysis. I t is a mistake to think that even the most not collecting knowledge but rather developing a meticulous process of argument for or against the certain 'tact', an inner measure of what a painter authenticity of a painting covers the whole of the thinks or feels to be effective, permissible or beauti• visual experiences that led to that opinion. The ful. Of course pupils and followers could to a certain chilling impression one gets of a method like that of degree actually develop the same 'tact'. Some of Van Dantzig, let alone those of Morelli or Laurie, is these features arc however so complex that it is of the reduction of the painting to an assemblage of hardly possible to suppose they were absorbed and isolated features, almost like the sum of a series of then mobilized when the pupils painted in habits. Without stressing the romantic image of the Rembrandt's manner. An example of this might be artist, one feels this does not do justice to artistic or the 'weight' of figures in a painting: comparing the indeed any other human activity. In the case of a work of one painter with that of another, one gets the great artist like Rembrandt the friction between feeling that each painter has his own perception of mechanistic methods of authentication and the rich• the mass his figures suggest. I t is as ifhe does not rest ness of the artistic personality is all the more poign• until his figures sit and stand, move and even fly, an t, as the level of crea ti vi ty of an artist may well be emanating a specific feeling of weight which the in inverse proportion to the continuity or regularity onlooker registers. I t was Heinrich \Volffiin who to be expected from the evolution of his style and drew attention, in the field of architecture, to how even from the quality of his works. our sensi bili ty for the illusion of weigh t is genera ted The term 'habits', used to signify recurrent by our own body sensations. A certain impression of features in a group of paintings, is of course too mass can of course be reached in a variety of ways: by narrow a definition of style. In the widest sense, the proportions, by the extent to which limbs pro• limits to what is possible are set by the aesthetics trude from the main bulk of the figure, by the way acceptable to the period in which paintings are pro• the figure relates to its cast shadow or to the base it duced. More specifically connected to an individual rests on, but also for instance by the direction of the is what could be called the artistic vision that one brush stroke. This example demonstrates the num• feels sets certain margins to what the artist makes or ber of variables that can be connected with a feature allows his hand to do, and his eye to see, while which is felt to be typical of an artist. I n connoisseur• painting. Sometimes consciously, but mostly uncon• ship it is probably to a large extent the ability to sciously, the spectator collects in his visual memory 'tasle' these complex features that counts more than complexes of peculiarities regarded as indicative of the analysis of the clements that add up to them. the artist's vision. These can be isolated features, or Still less easy to grasp in words is the way the paint much more complex characteristics which escape surface, as a structured substance, relates to the objective analysis but are nonetheless perceived and degree of illusion aimed at by the artist. Of course, considered, rightly or wrongly, as typical for the such a relation cannot be measured - it can hardly artist. be described. It is only sensed, though sensed in a When one tries to isolate a feature of this kind in very precise way, by the onlooker. An attempt to put the work from the Leiden period, the rendering of these feelings into words results in either a lapidary materials such as drapery and books comes to mind. but very unspecific statement about the quality of In works from the years 1626-1629 one can see how the painting, or a poetic evocation in words that docs much the specific nature of diflerent materials is not translate such a visual feature directly, but pro• subordinated to the heavy, uniform rhythm of a vides a metaphor of it. Friedlander proposed such handling of paint which, in a single homogeneous poetic evocation as the only sensible way to do the pattern, encompasses the plasticity of the surface, artist justice once one is in a position where ver• the swelling of the contours and the light and colour balization is necessary; something which in the very values seen under a particular lighting. A feature end is a rather questionable necessity. like this may well be called a clue to one of the secrets In our catalogue entries the reader will find no

xv PREFACE

poetry. We positively mistrust poetic evocations of work. It is very hard to draw the consequences from rembrandtish qualities. Deeply-felt songs of praise such a case. It forces one to admit that the criteria have been written in the past about highly suspect and, in this case, the quality standards that were paintings in which no one believes today. The tone applied were too rigid; it means that one has to revise in our catalogue is usually very down-to-earth. these criteria and standards because of internal Many of the subtleties which determine the quality evidence. But such undeniable evidence only rarely of a painting, and which might even contain valu• occurs. able clues as to its authenticity, may have been A case like the initial rejection of the Artist in noticed and not put into words. Much energy has oriental costume is a demonstration of the force of bccn devotcd to a carcful record of our close in• preconception: that an artist has a certain limit as to spections of the paintings. This has certainly led to the quality of his work. If that preconception is too quite lengthy descriptions of observations which in strong, compiling a catalogue of an artist's oeuvre many cases hardly contribute in the final analysis to turns out to be hardly more than making a selection the formation of our opinions. The recording of of his best paintings. Another preconception is the brushstrokes, colours, translucencies and so on idea that the evolution of an artist must be thought of sprang partly from the idea that certain clues might as logicai: dated works that do not meet our expec• subsequently be derived from the body of these ob• tations about his stylistic development may be either servations. Yet these descriptions are not complete; rejected or given another date. Although we have when, after some five years, we discovered that there been well aware of the risk involved, we have in two was a fixed order in applying the paint (see Chapter instances gone so far as to assign to pictures dates II), we could find in our reports hardly any mention differing from those inscribed - not too convinc• of which arc a ovcrlappcd another. This is a clear ingly, to be sure - on them: the Berlin Samson and demonstration that every description is guided by Delilah (no. A 24) inscribed 1628 we have moved certain assumptions and expectations as to the rel• forward to 1629/30 and the Cleveland Bust ofa young evance of an observation, and that where relevant man (no. A 23) inscribed 1632 we have moved back assumptions fail to be made, significant phenomena to c. 1629, thus relying on our conception of a logical are not observed. Features such as small differences evolution. The preconception of a logical evolution between the contours in the X-rays and those in the is obviously such an indispensable aid to finding surface of the painting became understandable only one's way in an oeuvre that it is hard to do without. through the theory just mentioned, and it was only But these preconceptions may pave the way for mis• then that these differences were consciously noticed. interpretations as they tend to stretch reality along No doubt other features, just as interesting and sig• the ruler of causality. The gradual building-up of an nificant, are being overlooked to this day. Careful intuitive understanding of an artist's vision is not examination of every single painting certainly did purely the collecting of a stock of visual memories, produce a mass of evidence which in one way or but also the 'reconstruction' of an individual, with its another helped to form a picture of idiosyncracies in possibilities and limits and even with its potentiali• Rembrandt's working methods and style to an ties. One's opinions on authenticity are based a great extent where a body of paintings could be singled out deal on this reconstructed image of the artist, but which all of us were ready to accept as original. The every fresh confrontation with paintings seen before limits of that body of work remained blurred. Many causes friction between one's image of the artist and paintings questioned by us show basically the same the actual work of his hand. It is as if, time and again, features and peculiarities as the accepted ones, but a distortion occurs through one's own mental they show them in a more or less diiTerent way. The structure being projected on the imaginary mental essential question is how much divergence is to be structure of the artist. The emergence of the U trech t accepted as possible within the work of one hand. Baptism of the eunuch (no. A 5) was, in this context, a Adopting a low tolerance of deviation from the most interesting experience for anybody who 'norm' is of course the easiest solution to the prob• thought his image of the young Rembrandt was by lem, but this may lead to the rejection of originals. then clearcut. Some of the reactions Defoer, who Gerson, for instance, rejected the Artist in oriental discovered the painting, encountered when he costume (no. A40) on the basis of its deviations in the showed Rembrandt scholars his photographs were quality of execution. We tended to agree with him negative; the painting did not at first match their after our first inspection of the painting; however, reconstruction of the artist's image. The set of argu• the X-rays revealed hitherto unknown features of ments which later, after initial doubt, were adduced the genesis of the painting which made it virtually in support of the painting's attribution provide an impossible to assume that it was not an autograph appropriate demonstration of our working method.

XVI PREFACE

number of paintings that we were unable to track conjunction with the catalogue entries for individual down, and have been unable to discuss for lack of paintings, and in particular with Chapter II of the actual examination, total four (Br. 72, 83, 461 and Introduction, these results yield significant infor• 635). Three of these were included in a list of 27 mation in a number of cases. Even in instances where missing Rembrandts published in a Letter to the there does not for the moment seem to be any obvi• Editor of the Burlington Magazine (112 (1970), p. ous significance, we have referred to what scientific 239), which produced no response. Some of the data are available in a separate check list. pictures have however since reappeared, and five of The interpretative comments (and their sum• these are included in the present volume (nos. A 7, maries) arc meant primarily to provide a reasoned C 8, C 33, C 36 and C 40). We have added a number statement about attribution and dating, based on of paintings not listed by Bredius, which we consider our observations of the paintings and on other either authentic or otherwise relevant from a available data. The signatures occupy a relatively scholarly viewpoint, most of them having been pub• minor place in the reasoning. Arguments are drawn lished or exhibited as by Rembrandt since 1937 (nos. mainly from the affinities and differences seen when AI, A 5, A 14, A 15, A 35, B 2, B 3, C I, C 3, C 4, C 5 a work is compared with others, and from the result• and C 31) and one not yet known as such (no. A 22). ing possibility or otherwise of situating the painting Of three of these another version was already listed within the context of Rembrandt's work. Mention, by Bredius as being an original (nos. A 14, A 22 and in 17th-century documents and sources, of works C 31). that are still identifiable today constitutes important The text for each entry comprises a descriptive, an confirmation of the validity of this context. It must interpretative and a documentary section. As has be said at once, however, that even longstanding already been said, we are aware that our description attributions need to be approached with caution, of the physical features is of a rough-and-ready kind, and that only in a handful of cases can it safely be based on the use of an ordinary household tapemea• assumed that a painting known today is identical sure, a magnifying glass, and only occasionally more with one mentioned in the 17th century. In develop• sophisticated equipment. In describing the paint ing our arguments, features which are termed 'styl• layer we have, with similar reservations, aimed at istic characteristics' are discussed in each case in achieving accuracy, especially as regards the state of fragmentary form, and these are surveyed in preservation. In doing so we did not always avoid a Chapter I as a framework for the conclusions on the certain amount of subjectivity. We originally tried in individual paintings. We also look briefly at stylistic the descriptive sections entirely to disregard pic• relationships with the work of other artists, and at torial quality (understood as the relationship, seen the nature and significance of the subject-matter. within a stylistic framework, between the use of In the documentary section we have followed in materials and the artistic intentions); but this would the footsteps of earlier catalogues of the painter's have led to such a colourless account that any judg• oeuvre and given a place to copies of the painting in ment offered in the comments would not, for the question. We depart from normal custom, however, reader, seem to bear any detectable relation to the in being selective; copies devoid of any documentary observations described. Something of the same kind or artistic importance - and there are more of these applies even more strongly to the description of than we could ever trace - have in most cases been signatures: here we have as a rule given at once our omitted, in the belief that achieving completeness impression of whether the signature is from the would be both impossible and pointless. Attention artist's own hand or not; this avoids the risk, which has been given to the provenance of copies only offering a neutral description would bring, of gen• when this seemed important for throwing light on erating an appearance of consistency and dependa• that of the original. In referring to prints after a bility where really there are divergencies. A de• painting we have tried to cover all of these up to scriptive survey of the signatures we look on as being about 1800, because of the potential value of older authentic is provided in Chapter IV of the Introduc• prints as a source of information about the earlier tion. In discussing the X-rays, too, we have as far as appearance of a painting, its history and its attri• possible added an interpretation, without which a bution. Later reproductions, which seldom if ever description would make little sense to the reader. In add to our knowledge on these points, have been addition to the descriptions of support, ground and ignored. The list of engravers provided by von paint layer we have given details of the results of Wurzbach in his Kiinstlerlexikon has been of immense scientific examination of a number of the paintings value in assembling this material; the same is true of we discuss; a number of experts and institutions were the indexes we consulted in the Rijksprentenkabi• kind enough to make these available to us. Read in net, Amsterdam, the Print Room of the British

XVIII PREFACE

The painting turned out to be linked with Rem• team of art historians has caused curiosity as well as brandt's oeuvre by a variety of aspects, at various outright scepticism in the scholarly world. The levels. None of these aspects separately would have reason no doubt lies in the fact that, adopting in• provided a conclusive argument in favour of the tuition as a major tool for arriving at an image of the attribution, but all of them together provided a most artist and his work, it seems an impossible arrange• elegant constellation of positive evidence. These in• ment to operate as a group, which by definition cluded the size and composition of the panel, the cannot share a joint intuition. Again a certain nature and function of the ground and underpaint• amount of optimism about the possibility of achiev• ing, the extent to which these were visible, the order ing better-defined criteria of authenticity might of working and the characteristics of the areas left in serve as an explanation. Once that optimism is reserve during the making-up of the painting, the adopted, there is no reason not to undertake an way in which the edges of the paint surface were enterprise as enormous as ours with more than one (partly) left uncovered, the degree and nature of person. Team work has its advantages and its dan• changes in the composition, the way these demon• gers. The opportunity for sharing one's observations strated the painter's 'discussion' with Lastman and mutually testing one's opinions has certainly (already familiar from the Balaam, no. A 2), charac• been enriching and favourable to the quality of our teristic features in the application of the paint, its work. The way decisions on a final opinion have consistency and behaviour in the course of time, been taken, and the unperceivable forces that have certain compositional principles in the organization played their part in this process would - as with any of the groups of figures, and certain peculiarities in team effort - be an interesting subject for a socio• the colour scheme. All this made it possible to accept psychological study. A closely knit group tends to unusual features in the spatial organization, the feel less doubts or hesitations than an individual. treatment of the foreground and landscape, the The dilemmas of a team member were occasionally execution of Philippus' head, the posture of the washed away by the cogency of the others. But the cowering negro, etc., and induced us to adopt these project has lasted long enough to allow initial hesi• features as hitherto unsuspected potentialities in our tations that were swamped by the firmness of other's image of the young Rembrandt. opinions to come back to the surface, and give rise to But not always are cases as clear as this. The useful reconsiderations. The expression of open dis• indications for and against within the general 'Rem• agreement became a necessary consequence of our brandtishness' are often not as significant, and do growing realization of the inevitability of subjectiv• not add up as overwhelmingly, as in the case of the ity in the quest for authenticity. The fact that the Utrecht painting. Given the complexity of im• opportunity to express dissenting opinions has pressions, observations and findings on which an hardly been used in this volume serves as a demon• opinion or acceptance or rejection must rest, it is stration of the fact that a clarified image of the early inevitable that in a number of cases the weighing of Rembrandt oeuvre was developed on the basis of positive and negative evidence has been a subtle consensus. This clarification was a direct result of, process which it is difficult to mould into rational and only possible through, the intense accumulation reasoning. Even if the utmost care has been spent in of visual experience and data about the paintings rendering our train of thoughts, one may feel that, that our enquiry provided. especially in the case of rejections, the reasoning tends to sound more self-assured than it deserves The catalogue when the actual relevance of the arguments used is considered, and to reflect an excessive optimism The scope, editing and arrangement of the cata• about the possibility of basing attributions and re• logue call for some comment, apart from the practi• jections on precise criteria. The number of cases cal notes that precede it. where the decision as to whether a painting is con• The selection of the material to be discussed is sidered authentic or not is left open is fairly small (see based on the Bredius publication of 1935-37. Our nos. B 1-7). This can be seen as an indication that first volume deals with paintings which can be con• there has been an urge to express firm opinions. In sidered as having been produced by Rembrandt in this respect, this book is in the tradition of oeuvre Leiden in the years 1625-1631, or which display a catalogues that present a solid body of accepted style derived from these; a few paintings that bear works and just as solid a body of rejected paintings, the date 1631 but give the impression of having been in a situation where in fact there is always room for painted after Rembrandt's move to Amsterdam will discussion and reconsideration. be included in volume II, with the works from 1632 The fact that this project is being carried out by a and subsequent years. For the Leiden years the

XVII PREFACE

Museum, London, the Cabinet des Estampes at the seemed to us to be germane to the interpretation Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, and the Albertina, being given. We can only hope that in making this Vienna. Contemporary prints stand in a class of selection we have not left out too much that is of their own; the value of these as documentary interest. evidence for the authenticity of the picture repro• Where the arrangement of the catalogue is con• duced is discussed as a separate issue in Chapter III cerned, our intention from the outset has been to of the Introduction. Finally, we have gone into the arrange the paintings we regard as being authentic, provenance of the individual paintings. With all due given an A-number, in chronological order to give honour paid to the colossal and invaluable work the clearest possible picture of a development. This done by Hofstede de Groot and his assistants, we was quite easy to do for the Leiden years. The large believe that the way in which his pedigrees (based as number of dated works, their relatively homogene• they are on old descriptions without quoting them) ous character as far as style and subject are con• have been published has in fact rendered impossible cerned, and the rapid and fairly clear stylistic devel• any critical check, and has not infrequently sug• opment made it possible and meaningful to arrange gested a continuity that can at most be regarded as the paintings in chronological order, and in an hypothetical. Our pedigrees, too, arc naturally to iconographical order within each year. Two limita• some extent hypothetical. Wherever necessary this is tions have to be placed on this. First, not all the indicated, and we have so far as possible gone works are dated, and these had to be fitted into the through all the old auction catalogues with the aid of sequence on the basis of style and technique. Because 's Repertoire des catalogues de ventes. In order of this state of affairs (which is in fact common to enable the reader to form his own opinion we have enough) the value of a dating is virtually that of a cited in extenso the descriptions contained in these up symbol for a stylistic relationship, something that we to about 1800. In addition to this, all available sales tend perhaps all too readily to identify with chrono• catalogues up to this date have been combed afresh logical reality. Secondly there is, set against the bulk for references to Rembrandt with the indefatigable of history paintings, a smaller number of head-and• assistance of Mrs. L. Peese Binkhorst; while not shoulders paintings which sometimes can be related always a rewarding task, this has yielded a number stylistically to the former but usually cannot. When, of interesting results. Collections consulted for this in future volumes covering the Amsterdam years, a purpose included those of the Rijksprentenkabinet, distinction can be more clearly drawn between Amsterdam, the Bibliotheque Royale Albert I and categories of paintings, it will be sensible to discuss the Bibliotheque des Musees Royaux des Beaux• homogeneous groups each spanning a greater Arts, Brussels, the Library of the University of number of years. Ghent, the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische After the paintings we regard as being authentic Documentatie, The Hague, the British Library, comes a small group with B-numbers. These arc London, the Cabinet des Estampes and the Departe• paintings about whose authenticity we have, for a ment des Imprimes of the Bibliotheque Nationale, variety of reasons, not been able to reach any defini te Paris, and the Bibliothcque d' Art et d'Archeologie of decision one way or the other. We think that from the University of Paris. In addition, thanks to the the scholarly viewpoint it is right plainly to indicate kind permission of the late Dr. V. Loewinson• this uncertainty, and to set out the arguments for Lessing, Leningrad, and Dr. F. Lahusen, Kassel, we and against as clearly as possible. were fortunate enough to consult unpublished in• The C-category consists of a great variety of paint• ventories of the collections ofCatharina II of ings, whose only common quality consists in their and Wilhelm VIn of Hesse respectively. having been accepted as authentic by Bredius In the bibliographical references that accompany whereas, in our opinion, a sufficiently convincing most of the entries we have in no way attempted to relationship between them and the works we con• be exhaustive; this is because we would have been sider to be authentic cannot be found. The paintings unable to achieve a really comprehensive coverage, in this category thus range from works of art in their and did not in fact wish to do so. Experience shows own right (which though influenced by or connected that amassing references some of which are of scant with Rembrandt's work cannot be attributed to interest does more to confuse than to illuminate. him) on the one hand, to copies and imitations on Apart from the references (at the start of each entry) the other. We intended at first to distinguish be• to the most commonly consulted catalogues of tween these two categories by grouping them sep• Rembrandt's works by Ho(<;tede de Groot, Bredius, arately, but as our work progressed this proved vir• Bauch and Gerson, we have quoted opinions from tually impossib1c. Drawing a sharp dividing line older and more recent literature only where these between bona fide pain tings by con temporary artists

XIX PREFACE

and more or less old, possibly fraudulent imitations against a conception that is just as open to discussion would require a much clearer insight into 17th• as any scholarly hypothesis. century standards than we possess. The situation is complicated further by the fact that only a small AcknowledgDlents number of works by immediate followers can be attributed to known artists. One can indeed distin• Our project could not have materialized but for the guish groups of paintings which seem to be by one support and assistance of many persons and institu• hand, bu t wi th the exception of] an Lievens (nos. C I tions. First of all we have to thank the Netherlands and C 2), Gerard Dou (no. C 3 and possibly nos. C 5, Organization for the Advancement of Pure Rese• C 10 and C 18) and Isaac deJouderville (no. C 9) the arch (ZWO) for their financial aid and for their artists must, for the time being, remain anonymous confidence in our work, even when the results were (nos. C 19 and C 20; C 25 and a painting that cannot slow in coming. The time needed for gathering our now be traced). Copies after Rembrandt's work may material and preparing this volume was granted us• or may not have originated in his immediate circle to the extent official obligation reasonably permit• (see particularly under no. A 40) but even consider• ted - by our respective employers, the Ministry for ing this they do not form a distinct group. Three Culture, Recreation and Welfare, the Rijksmuseum, paintings may, for various reasons, be assumed to the Central Research Laboratory for Objects of Art reflect lost originals (nos. C 17, C 36 and C 4 I) but and Science, the City ofAmsterdam and the Univer• the possibility that this is also true of a few others sity of Amsterdam. Of a different kind, but equally cannot ,be excluded. A greater problem is however essential, has been the cooperation of a great number that in a number of cases it is all but impossible to of museum directors and curators and private collec• decide whether the Rembrandtesque aspect is due to tors, who in every case were prepared to let us study a deliberate, or even fraudulent, intention or to the works in their possession under the best possible Rembrandt's direct influence on a pupil or follower. circumstances, and often with the help of technical I t is only false signatures, if they form part of the facilities or information they put at our disposal. In original paint layer, that can provide cogent this connexion special mention must be made of the grounds for labelling a painting as a forgery. It assistance we received from restorers and those in would be of greater interest, however, to discover charge of various museum laboratories, who gener• more a bou t the time and place of the production of ously shared their experience and knowledge with these paintings. In only one instance have we been us. We also profited greatly from the support of the successful in this respect (concerning the author of Central Research Laboratory for Objects of Art and nos. C 12 and C 14); in general, however, our feel• Science, Amsterdam, who devoted part of their ings are vague in the extreme. Bearing in mind the programme to the examination of Rembrandt secrecy of the forger's world, and the consequent paintings. Experts in such divergent fields as botany, lack of documentary evidence, this is perhaps not to domestic architecture, history of weapons, humanist be wondered at. One conclusion, based especially on Latin and Amsterdam archives have been willing to a number of continuous pedigrees, is quite definite: answer the numerous questions to which the study of imitations that give evidence of a greater or lesser Rembrandt's paintings give rise. Indispensable li• degree of understanding of Rembrandt's style and brary facilities were provided mainly by the Kunst• technique were already being turned out in the 17th historisch Instituut of the University of Amsterdam, century. This may help to explain why the difference which also accommodated our material, and by the between the imitation and the school- or shop-piece Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD), The has proved insufficiently clearcut to justify a sep• Hague. Grateful acknowledgment is also made to arate heading for each category. those who were helpful in pointing out to us paint• ings in private collections and introducing us to the The primary aim of our work was thus to delimit owners. To all those listed below - and to others who Rembrandt's painted oeuvre, by reconsidering the prefer not to be named or whom we hope to mention authenticity of the paintings generally attributed to in subsequent volumes - we owe a debt of gratitude him. We have tried to interpret our observations of for their share in making possible the appearance of the paintings in such a way that they can be related this volume. to a conception of his style and working methods formed over the years, and presented in the first two ALLENTOWN, Penn., Allentown Art Museum chapters of the Introduction. Naturally, our views AMSTERDAM, Central Research Laboratory for Objects of Art are not the last word there is to be said on the subject; and Science / Christie's / Gemeentelijke Archiefdienst / they come from testing observations and data Gemeentemusea I Kunsthandcl P. de Boer /

xx PREFACE

Rembrandthuis I Rijksmuseum I Sotheby Mak van Waay HAMBURG, Hamburger Kunsthalle I Ordinariat fur B.V. Holzbiologie, U niversitat Hamburg ANHOLT, Museum Wasserburg Anholt HANNOVER, Niedersachsische Landesgalerie ANTWERPEN, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten HARTFORD, Conn., Wadsworth Atheneum ARLES, Musee Reattu HELSINKI, Sinebrychoff Art Museum, The Fine Arts ASCHAFFENBURG, Bayerische Staatsgalerie, Schloss Academy of Finland ]ohannisburg HOUSTON, Texas, The Museum of Fine Arts BALTIMORE, Maryland, The Baltimore Museum of Art I The INDIANAPOLIS, Ind., Clowes Fund Collection of Old Master Walters Art Gallery Paintings I Indianapolis Museum of Art BASLE, Art Collection Trust I Offentliche Kunstsammlung INNSBRUCK, Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum BAYONNE, Musee Bonnat JAPAN, MOA Museum BERLIN (West), Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, KANSAS CITY, Missouri, William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Gemaldegalerie I Staatliche Museen Preussischer Art Kulturbesitz, Kupferstichkabinett KARLSRUHE, Staatliche Kunsthalle BOSTON, Mass., The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum I KASSEL, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Kassel, Schloss Museum afFine Arts Wilhelmshohe BRAUNSCHWEIG, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum LEEUWARDEN, Fries Museum BREMEN, Kunsthalle LEIDEN, Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal BRIGHTON, Art Gallery and Museums LEIPZIG, DDR, Museum der bildenden Kunste BRUNSWICK, Maine, Bowdoin College Museum of Art LE MAS D'AGENAIS, Parish church BRUSSELS, Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique LENINGRAD, The Hermitage Museum BUCHAREST, Muzeul de Arta al Republicii Socialiste LISBOA, Funda<,:ao Calouste Gulbenkian, Museu Romania LIVERPOOL, \,y alker Art Gallery , Szepmuveszeti Muzeum LONDON, Thos. Agnew & Sons Ltd. I The I CAMBRIDGE, Cambridgeshire, Fitzwilliam Museum The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. I Christie, CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Manson & Woods I Courtauld Institute of Art I Dulwieh CARDIFF, National Museum of Wales College, Alleyn's College of God's Gift I Hazlitt Gallery CASTAGNOLA, Sammlung Thyssen-Bornemisza Ltd. I The Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood I The Paul Mellon CHAPEL HILL, N.C., Ackland Art Museum, The University of Centre for Studies in British Art I The National Gallery I North Carolina I Morehead Planetarium, The University Royal Collections I Sotheby Parke Bernet & Co I Victoria of North Carolina & Albert Museum I The Wallace Collection CHATSWORTH, The Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement, LOS ANGELES, Cal., The Armand Hammer Foundation I Los Devonshire Collections Angeles County Museum of Art I UCLA Art Galleries I CHICAGO, Ill., The Art Institute of Chicago U ni versi t y of Sou thern California CINCINNATI, Ohio, The Taft Museum LYON, Musee des Beaux-Arts CLEVELAND, Ohio, The Cleveland Museum of Art MACON, Musee Municipal des Ursulines COLOGNE, W allraf-Richartz-Museum MADRID, Museo del Prado COLUMBUS, Ohio, The Columbus Museum of Fine Arts MAINZ, Mittelrheinisches Landesmuseum COPENHAGEN, Statens Museum for Kunst MALIBU, Cal., The]. Paul Getty Museum CRACOW, Muzeum Narodowe W Krakowie MELBOURNE, National Gallery of Victoria DARMSTADT, Hessisches Landesmuseum METZ, Musees de Metz DENVER, Col., The Denver Art Museum MILANO, Pinacoteca di Brera DETROIT, Mi., The Detroit Institute of Arts MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, The Minneapolis Institute of Arts DORTMUND, Museum fur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte der MONTREAL, Montreal Museum of Fine Arts Stadt Dortmund, Schloss Cappenber:g MOSCOW, Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts DRESDEN, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemaldegalerie Alte MUNICH, Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Alte Meister Pinakothek I Doerner Institut DUBLIN, National Gallery ofIreland NEW YORK, N.Y., Acquavella Galleries I Columbia DlTSSELDORF, Kunstmuseum University I The I Samuel H. Kress EDINBURGH, National Gallery of Scotland Foundation I The Lehman Collection I The Metropolitan EPINAL, Musce Dcpartemental des Vosges Museum of Art I The Metropolitan Museum of Art, , Galleria degli Uffizi Paintings Conservation Department I The New York FRANKFURT AM MAIN, Stadelsches Kunstinstitut Historical Society I H. Shickman Gallery I Sotheby Parke , Christie's Bernet Inc. I Wildenstein & CO GLASGOW, Glasgow Museums & Art Galleries I The NIV A, Malerisamlingen pa Nivagaard University Art Collections NUREMBERG, Germanisches Nationalmuseum GLENS FALLS, N.Y., The Hyde Collection OBERLIN, Ohio, Intermuseum Laboratory GOTEBORG, Goteborgs Konstmuseum OMAHA, Nebraska,] osl yn Art Museum GRONINGEN, Groninger Museum voor Stad en Lande OSLO, Nasjonalgalleriet THE HAGUE, Bredius Museum I Cramer Gallery I Koninklijke OTTAWA, The National Gallery of Canada Bibliotheek I Koninklijk Kabinet van Munten, Penningen OXFORD, The I Research Laboratory for en Gesneden Stenen I Koninklijk Kabinet van Archaeology and the , Oxford University Schilderijen, Mauritshuis I Rijksbureau voor PARIS, Bibliotheque Nationale I Christie's I Musee Cognacq• Kunsthistorische Documentatie I State-owned Art Jay I Musee]acquemart-Andre I Musee du Louvre I Collections Department I Stichting Iconographisch Laboratoire du Musee du Louvre I Musee du Petit Palais Bureau PASADENA, Cal., Norton Simon Museum of Art

XXI PREFACE

PHILADELPHIA, Penn., Philadelphia Museum of Art / john G. C.]. de Bruyn Kops, George Buchanan, Richard D. Buck, johnson Collection Charles E. Buckley, Therese Burollet, Gunther Busch, PRAGUE, Narodni Galerie v Praze Adeline Cacan de Bissy, julien Cain, William P. Campbell, RALEIGH, N.C., The North Carolina Museum of Art David Carritt, David G. Carter, R. H. Cecil, D. H. Cevat, RENNES, Musees de Rennes Ph. Chapu, R. L. Charles, Andrzej Chudzikowski, RICHMOND, Virg., Virginia Museum of Fine Arts Curtis G. Coley, Gerald Collot, H. Lester Cooke, B. Cordier, ROCHESTER, N. Y., Memorial Art Gallery of the U ni versi ty of Malcolm Cormack, Mrs. Cowsland, Leo Cremer, Rochester Frederickj. Cummings, C. C. Cunningham, A. K. Czobor, ROTTERDAM, Gemeentearchief / Museum Boymans-van Sir Martin Davies, Mary M. Davis, H. Defoer, Beuningen Suzanne Delbourgo, Klaus Demus, Edgar Denninger, RIJSWIJK, Gerechtelijke Laboratoria j. Diepraam, Kenneth Donahue, Louisa Dresser, SALZBURG, Salzburger Landessammlungen-Residenzgalerie S. A. C. Dudok van Heel, Graham Duits, F.j. Duparc, SAN DIEGO, Cal., Fine Arts Gallery of San Diego / Timken G. Dijkstra,]. C. Ebbinge Wubben, D. Eckstein, Art Gallery I. H. van Eeghen, Erich Egg, Paul Eich, Peter Eikemeier, SAN FRANCISCO, Cal., California Palace of the Legion of William H. Elsner, Ildik6 Ember, Sterling D. Emerson, Honor / M. H. de Young Memorial Museum K. H. Esser, Gerhard Ewald, Robert van Eyck, SAO PAULO, Museu de Arte de Sao Paulo Hubert Falkner von Sonnenburg, Sarah Faunce, SARASOTA, Florida, john and Mable Ringling Museum of Helena Fekhner, Maria Teresa Gomes Ferreira, Art j. M. Fletcher,jan Fontein, jacques Foucart, SCHWERIN, Staatliches Museum Burton B. Fredericksen, Bjorn Fredlund, W. Froentjes, SHELBURNE, Vermont, Shelburne Museum Klaus Gallwitz, Claire Garas, Henry G. Gardiner, ST. BONAVENTURE, N.Y., St. Bonaventure University Eliza beth Gardner, Kenneth Garlick, j ean- ST. LOUIS, Missouri, The St. Louis Art Museum Franc;ois Garmier, Fred W. Geib, Irene Geismeier, STOCKHOLM, N ationalmuseum H. ErlIlo van Gelder,j. Giltay, Sadi de Gorter, STUTTGART, Institut fur Technologie der Malerei / Andrei Gouber, Dennis A. Gould, A. Graafhuis, Staatsgalerie j. Macgregor Grant, Deborah A. Gribbon, TOKYO, Bridgestone Museum of Art Harry D. M. Grier, C. M. Groen, Hans Werner Grohn, TOLEDO, Ohio, The Toledo Museum of Art RolfGummesson, R. de Haas, Geza von Habsburg, TORONTO, Ont., Art Gallery of Ontario Rollin van N. Hadley, T. Hage, P. Hallebeek, TOURS, Musee des Beaux-Arts George Heard Hamilton, Armand Hammer, M. Hamsik, TURIN, Galleria Sabauda Katherine Hanna, Andrew Hannah, john Hand, H. Hardy, UTRECHT, Gemeentelijke Archiefdienst / Historisch Kostuum Carlos van Hasselt, Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann, Centrum / Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent Michele Hebert, Karl-GustafHeden, Suzanne Heiland, VIENNA, Akademie der Bildenden Kunste, Gemaldegalerie G. Henle, juan M. Hernandez, Fr. Irenaeus Herscher, Graphische Sammlung Albertina / Kunsthistorisches O.F.M., R. Hesterman, Erich Herzog, H. R. Hoetink, Museum, Gemaldegalerie Ursula Hoff, Werner Hofmann, E. Holzinger, james Hope, WARSAW, Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie Mrs. ten Horn-Verheijen, Madeleine Hours, WASHINGTON, D.C., Corcoran Gallery of Art / National Thomas P. F. Hoving, james W. Howardjr., Donald Hull, Gallery of Art Shojiro Ishibashi, j. A. S. Ingamells, john jacob, WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass., Sterling and Francine Clark Art Andre j acq uemin, Anthony F. janson, Anthony F. j enzano, Institute Derek johns, Ben B. johnson, L. j ursz, Wend von Kalnein, WORCESTER, Mass., Worcester Art Museum jan Kelch, Doris W. Kent,james K. Kettlewell, Louis ZURICH, Kunsthaus Zurich / Schweizerisches Institutliir Keyzer, Edward S. King, Richard N. Kingzett,]. B. Kist, Kunstwissenschaft / Sotheby Parke Bernet AG Friderike Klaunel', Peter Klein, Rudiger Klessmann, W. Th. Kloek, Leo V. Klos, E. Klusman, Nobuo Abe, UlfAbel, Nicholas M. Acquavella, Wilhelm H. Kohler, F. Koens, Richardj. Koke, Etienne Ader, jean Adhemar, Gert Adriani, Edward O. Koramy, Walter Koschatzky,jifi Kotalik, Sir Geoffrey Agnew, Maryan W. Ainsworth, Heinz Althofer, jhr. F. G. L. O. van Kretschmar, Hermann Kuhn, Walter Ames, Rolf Andree, Irina Antonova, R. ter Kuile-Haller, L. Kuiper, Yu. Kuznetsov, Fedja Anzelewsky, Horst Appuhn, Tuula Arkio, Michel Laclotte, F. Lahusen, F. van der Laken, Helmut Arndt, j. R.j. van Asperen de Boer, E. M. Auer, Herbert Lank, T. Lans, Myron Laskin,jan Lauts, Otto Karl Bach, Manfred Bachman, A. Bader, Robert Lebel, Sherman E. Lee, Norman Leitman, Maria Biidulescu,j. M. F. Baer,jerzy Banach, P. M. Bardi, Mr. and Mrs. Denis Lennox, Christian Lenz, Michael Levey, j. Bauch, Paul Baze, Germain Bazin, Edmond de Beaumont, I. Lichtenwagner, Irina Linnik, W.j. B. Lishawa, H. Becker, Ko van Beek, Sidney j. van den Bergh, Alexander Lobodzinski, j. Lodewijks, Vladimir Loewinson-, Franc;ois Bergot, A. S. Berkes, Luciano Berti, jan Bia• Lessing,jhr. M. N. van Loon, Stanislaw Lorentz, :lostocki, Alois Bieber, justus Bier, Roger Billcliffe, Laura C. Lucky, Hans A. Luthy, Ann Tzeutschler Lurie, Veronika Birke, Marian Bizanz-Prakken, Steen Bjarnhof, Neil Maclaren, Miss Male, Roger MandIe, Peter O. Marlow, Hendrik Bjerre, Edmund Blechinger, F. F. Blok, Gregory Martin, Evan M. Maurer, A. Mayer-Meintschel, Henning Bock, Hans Bohm, Paul Boerlin, j. H. Mayne, Francesco Mazzini, William A. Mcgonagle, Harald von Bohlen und Halbach, Count Bonde, Allan McNab, Martin Meier-Siem, Mr. Menz, C. Boschma, E. Bosshart, Gerhard Bott, D. R. A. Bouvy, Rodney H. Merrington, Franz Meyer, Pieter Meyers, Thomas Brachert, Ms. G. Brauner, john Brealy, Ingeborg Michailoff, Janina Micha:lkowa, Emma Micheletti, B. Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij, Ernst Brochhagen, ]. William Middendorf II, Sir Oliver Millar, Agnes Mongan, Princesse jeanne-Marie de Broglie, ] anet Brooke, Philippe de Montebello, Edward Morris,]. A. Mosk, Christopher Brown,.T. Brown, john Carter Brown, Matthew Moss, Sir Brian Mountain Bt, Edgar Munhall,

XXII PREFACE

Clifford Musgrave, Pinkney Near, Knut Nicolaus, Benedict Nicolson, J. Nieuwstraten, Robert Oertel, Eva Ornstein-van Slooten, Eli~abeth Packard, Mrs. John Lyn Paris, Charles Parkhurst, Henry Pauwels, The Earl of Pembroke, G. Pieh,]ames F. Pilgrim, Marie• Noelle Pinot de Villechenon, Boris Piotrowsky, David Piper, LeifEinar Plather,]oyce Plesters, Margarethe Poch-Kalous, Earl A. Powell III, Harris K. Prior,] anusz Przewozny, Carmen Rachiteanu, Richard H. Randall]r., Perry T. Rathbone, Lady Rosemary Ravensdale, S. Rees]ones, R. A. D. Renting, Patrick Reutersward, Maurice Rheims, Joseph Rishel, Clement L. Robertson, Madeleine Rocher-]auneau, W. Roelofs, Derek Rogers, Giovanni Romano, Susan F. Rossen, Leo Rosshandler, Marek Rostworowski, ] ames Roth, Baron Edmond de Rothschild, Theodore Rousseau,] orn Rubow, M. Ruggles, Franco Russoli, Sakari Saarikivi, Samuel Sachs II, Xavier de Salas, Margaretta M. Salinger, Furst zu Salm• Salm, Lord Samuel ofWych Cross, P. Schatborn, A. F. E. van Schendel, A. Schlatter, K. Schoemaker, S. Segal, Harald Seiler, John Sheeran, H. Shickman, _ Theodor Siegl, Kay Silberfeld, Norton Simon,Jaromir Sip, ]hr. Six van Hillegom, Seymour Slive, Leon Sliwinski, Vitali Souslow, E. Speelman, Charles W. Stanford, Erich Steingraber, Timothy Stevens, B. Stokhuyzen, Nathan Stolow, G. Stout, Peter Strieder, John Suhr, F. Sullivan,]ean Sutherland-Boggs, Peter Sutton, Barbara Sweeney, George Szabo,] acques Tajan, Colin Thompson, H. H. Baron Thyssen-Bornemisza, Evan H. Turner, P. Tuynman, W. Vanbeselaere, Horst Vey, Claus Virch, Chris van Voorst, Anna Voris, A. B. de Vries, R. H. Wackernagel,] ohn Walsh] r., Nicholas Ward-] ackson, Richard]. Wattenmaker, K. H. Weber, R. Wehrli, Bo Wennberg, Richard V. West, Eric Westbrook, Hanne Westergaard, A. Westers, Arthur K. Wheelock]r., Christopher White,] ames White, Frederick S. Wight, Leonie van Wilckens,]. G. Wille, Benjamin F. Williams, Reginald Williams, Sigurd Willock, G. Winkler, William]. Withrow, Otto Wittmann, Cameron Wolfe, Christian Wolters, Willis F. Woods, Thomas S. Wragg, Karen V. Wright, M. L. Wurfbain, Michael Wynne, K. Yegorova, W.]. Young, Mahonri Sharp Young, H.]. Zantkuijl, M. Zeldenrust.

Finally it should be emphasized that this work would not have come into being without those who gave it its ultimate shape: Mrs. L. Peese Binkhorst• Hoffscholte, who took care of all those minutiae authors tend to overlook, Mr. D. Cook-Radmore, whose patience and devotion went far beyond a translator's normal task, and the publisher, who spent infinite care on the production.

December 1979.

XXIII Photo acknowledgments

AMSTERDAM, Kunsthandel P. de Boer: A 25 fig. 6 , Koninklijke Bibliotheek: A 15 fig. 13 -, Museum 'Het Rembrandthuis' (photo Central Research -, Mauritshuis (photo A. Dingjan): A 34 figs. 3, 4. B 6 fig. I. B 7 Laboratory for Objects of Art and Science, Amsterdam): fig. 3 Chapter II fig. 3 -, Mauritshuis (photo Rijksmuseum-Stichting Amsterdam): --, Rijksmuseum (photo Central Research Laboratory for A 2 I fig. I. A 3 I fig. I. A 34 fig. I. B 7 fig. I. C 12 fig. I. C 4 I Objects of Art and Science, Amsterdam): Chapter II fig. 13 fig. I -, Rijksmuseum (photo Rijksmuseum-Stichting Amsterdam): -, Museum Bredius (photo Haags Gemeentemuseum): C IO Chapter II figs. 6,12,14,17,18. Chapter III figs. 1,3,6,7,8, fig. 2 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19,22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29. Chapter IV -, Nystad Gallery (photo F. LahayeMaastricht): C 2 fig. 8 figs. on pp. 6 1,64. A 2 fig. 6. A 3 figs. 1,3,4. A 5 fig. 8. A 6 fig. HAMBURG, Hamburger Kunsthalle (photo R. Kleinhempel 7· A 7 figs. 1,3,4,5,6. A9 fig. 7· A IO figs. 5, 7· A 12 fig. 9· Hamburg): A 12 figs. 1,3,4 A 14 figs. 1,3. A 15 figs. 8, I I. A 16 fig. 5. A 17 fig. 4. A25 fig. HELSINKI, Sinebrychoff Art Museum, The Fine Arts Academy 5· A 26 fig. 4. A 27 figs. 2, 3. A 28 figs. 1,3,4,5. A 30 figs. 7,8, of Finland: C 44 fig. I 9, IO. A 32 fig. 5· A 33 figs. 5, 6. A 34 fig. I. A 35 fig. 5. A 36 HOUSTON, Texas, The Museum of Fine Arts: C 31 fig. 4 figs. 3,4. A 37 figs. I, 3,4, 7· A 39 fig. 4· A 40 fig. 6. B 4 fig. 6. INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, Indianapolis Museum of Art: A 22 fig. B6 fig. 2. B 7 fig. 4. C I figs. 1,4. C 2 figs. 9,10. C 3 fig. 4· C 5 3 fig. 4. C 16 fig. 8. C 17 fig. 5. C 18 fig. 2. C 22 fig. 3· C 24 fig. 4. INNSBRUCK, Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum (photo C 3 I fig. 3· C 34 fig. l. C 37 fig. 4· C 39 fig. 2 Schweizerisches Institut fur Kunstwissenschaft Zurich): -, University Library, University of Amsterdam: A 28 fig. 6 Chapter III fig. 12. Chapter IV fig. on p. 64. A 29 figs. 1,3,4, ANTWERP, Museum voor Schone Kunsten: A 17 fig. 3 5 ARLES, Musees d' Arles, Musee Reattu: A 22 fig. 9 JAPAN, MOA Museum (photo Schweizerisches Institut fUr BASLE, Oeffentliche Kunstsammlung Basel: Chapter IV fig. on Kunstwissenschaft Zurich): A 22 fig. I p. 61. A9 figs. 1,3,4,5 KARLSRUHE, Staatliche Kunsthalle: A 5 fig. 7 BELGIUM, private collection (photo copyright A. C. L. Brussels): KASSEL, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Kassel: A 14 fig. 4. C 24 A36 figs. 1,2. C8 fig. I fig. I BERLIN (West), Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, LEIDEN, Gemeentearchief (photo N. v. d. Horst, Leiden): Gcmaldcgalerie (photo W. Steinkopf): Chapter IV fig. on p. Chapter IV figs. on p. 59 61. A 10 figs. 1,4. A24 fig. I -, Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, on loan from State-owned -, -, (photo Jorg P. Anders): A IO fig. 3. A 24 figs. 3,4,5. A 38 art collections department, The Hague: Frontispiece figs. I, 3, 4· A 39 figs. I, 3 -, -, (photo Cental Research Laboratory for Objects of Art and -, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Kupferstich• Science, Amsterdam): Chapter II figs. 8, II, 15, 16,22 kabinett (photo Jorg P. Anders): A 13 fig. 6. C 7 fig. 6 -, -, (photo A. Dingjan The Hague): A 6 figs. I, 3, 4, 5, 6. C 32 BOSTON, Mass., Museum of Fine Arts: Chapter II fig. 4. A 18 fig. I figs. 1,3. C 12 fig. 4. C 20 fig. I LEIPZIG DDR, Museum der bildenden Kunste: Chapter III fig. -, The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum: A 20 figs. 1,3 20. C 25 fig. I BRAUNSCHWEIG, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum (photo Bernd• LE MAS D' AGENAIS, Lot et Garonne, parish church (photo Peter Keiser): C 15 fig. I. C4 1 fig. 5 Rijksmuseum-Stichting Amsterdam): Chapter IV fig. on p. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Courtesy of the Fogg Art Museum, 64· A 35 figs. 1,3,4 Harvard University: C 29 fig. I. C 35 figs. 1,3 LENINGRAD, The Hermitage Museum: C 28 figs. 1,3 CAPE TOWN, colI. Mr. Louis Keyzer (formerly) (photo courtesy LINCOLN, Nebraska, University of Nebraska Art Gallery, of the Courtauld Institute London): C 19 fig. 4 Sheldon Memorial Art Gallery: A 13 fig. 9 CHICAGO, Ill., The Art Institute of Chicago: Chapter IV fig. on LIVERPOOL, Walker Art Gallery: A 33 figs. I, 3, 4 p. 65· A30 fig. II. A42 figs. 1,3,4,5,6 LONDON, The British Museum: Chapter II fig. 20. Chapter III CLEVELAND, Ohio, The Cleveland Museum of Art: A 23 figs. I, fig. 2. A 12 figs. 6,7. A 13 fig. 7. A30 fig. 6 3, 4, 5, 6 -, Colnaghi (Prudence Cuming Associates Ltd): A 13 fig. 8 COLOGNE, private collection (photo Rheinisches Bildarchiv -, Thc National Gallery: C3 figs. 1,3. C 14 fig. I Cologne): A 31 fig. 3 LOS ANGELES, Cal., Los Angeles County Museum of Art: A 30 COPENHAGEN, Statens Museum for Kunst: Chapter III fig. IO. figs. I, 3, 4 C 27 fig. I. C 29 fig. 3 LUDLOW, colI. D. Lennox (formerly) (heliogravure Filion et DENVER, Col., The Denver Art Museum: C 9 fig. I Heuse): C6 fig. I DRESDEN, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Gemalde• LYON, Muscc des Beaux-Arts: A I fig. I galerie Alte Meister (photo Deutsche Fotothek Dresden): MAASTRICHT, Bonnefantenmuseum (photo F. Lahaye Maas• C 7 fig. 7 tricht): C 17 fig. 6 DUBLIN, National Gallery ofIreland: C 9 fig. 6 MALIBU, Cal., The J. Paul Getty Museum (photo Speelman -, Trinity College (photo The Green Studio Dublin): A 9 fig. 6 London): B 4 figs. I, 3 ENGLAND, private collection (photo The National Gallery MILWAUKEE, Wisc., colI. Dr. A. Bader (photo Ken Brown): C 18 London): Chapter III fig. 17. A 15 figs. 1,3,4,5,6, 12 fig. I ESSEN, colI. H. von Bohlen und Halbach: C 42 fig. I -, (photo A. Dingjan The Hague): C 22 fig. I FLORENCE, Soprintendenza per i Beni Artistici e Storici, Gabi• MOSCOW, Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts: A4 fig. I netto Fotografico: C I I fig. 5 -, (photo A. Frequin The Hague): A4 fig. 4 FRANKFURT AM MAIN, Stadelsches Kunstinstitut: A 25 figs. 1,3,4 MUNICH, Bayerische Staatgemaldesammlungen: A 19 fig. I GENEVA, Fondation Lucien Baszanger, Musee d'Art et NANCY, Musee des Beaux-Arts (photo Bulloz Paris): A 35 fig. 6 d'Histoire: C 41 fig. 4 NEW YORK, N. Y., colI. Richard L. Feigen (photo Bruce C. THE HAGUE, CranIer Gallery: C 13 fig. I Jones): Az fig. 5 -, Cramer Gallery (photo A. Frequin The Hague): B I figs. I, -, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: C 38 fig. I 3. B2 figs. 1,3

XXIV PHOTO ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

NUREMBERG, Germanisches Nationalmuseum: Chapter III fig. -, (photo Schweizerisches Institut fur Kunstwissenschaft 2J. A2I fig. 3. A26 figs. 1,3 Zurich): C36 fig. 3 OTTAWA, The National Gallery of Canada: C 7 figs. 1,3,4 -, (photo Arthur Swoper New York): A22 fig. 6 OXFORD, Ashmolean Museum: C3I fig. I WINDSOR, Windsor Castle, H. M. Queen Elizabeth II: A 32 figs. PARIS, Bibliotheque Nationale (Phot. Bibl. Nat. Paris): I, 3 Chapter III figs. I I, 30. A 12 fig. 5. A 28 fig. 7 -,Musee Cognacq-J ay (photo Rijksmuseum-Stichting Amster- dam): A2 figs. 1,3,4 -, MuseeJacquemart-Andre: A 16 fig. I -, Musce du Louvre (photo Agraci): C 16 figs. 1,3,4,5 -, Musee du Petit Palais (photo Rijksmuseum-Stichting Amsterdam): A40 figs. 1,3,4,5 -, Musee du Petit Palais (photo KHI Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht): A 12 fig. 8 -, private collection (photo Schweizerisches Institut fur Kunst• wissenschaft Zurich): C 9 fig. 4 PASADENA, CaL, Norton Simon collection, N.78.2. J.P.: Chapter III fig. 28 PHILADELPHIA, Penn., The Philadelphia Museum of Art: C 2 I figs. 1,3 PRIVATE COLLECTION: C 5 fig. 5 -, (photo A. Frequin, The Hague): C37 fig. I , (photo RKD The Hague): C 39 fig. I -, (photo Van Eyck London): C36 fig. I -, (photo Fototecnica Taddei, Lugano): C9 fig. 5 -, Baron Edmond de Rothschild: C 33 fig. I RALEIGH, N.C., The North Carolina Museum of Art: C 2 fig. I ROTTERDAM, Museum Boymans-van Beuningen (photo A. Frequin The Hague): A 15 fig. 9. A37 fig. 5· B4 fig. 5 SALISBURY, Wilts., Wilton House, ColI. Earl of Pembroke (photo The National Gallery London): C 19 fig. I SALZBURG, Salzburger Landessammlungen-Residenzgalerie: A27 fig. I SCHWERIN, Staatliches Museum: C 31 fig. 2 STOCKHOLM, Nationalmuseum: B 5 fig. I. C 17 figs. I, 3,4 ST. PETER PORT, Guernsey, colI. D. H. Cevat: B 3 figs. I, 3 STUTTGART, Staatsgalerie: A I I figs. 1,3,4 SWEDEN, private collection (photo Bukowski Stockholm): C 40 fig. I SWITZERLAND, private collection (photo Schweizerisches Institut fur Kunstwissenschaft Zurich): C I I figs. 1,3,4 TOKYO, Bridgestone Museum of Art: C 10 fig. I TOLEDO, Ohio, The Toledo Museum of Art: Chapter IV fig. on p. 64· A4I figs. 1,3,4,5 TOURS, Musee des Beaux-Arts (photo Rijksmuseum-Stichting Amsterdam): C5 figs. 1,3 TURIN, Galleria Sabauda: A 17 figs. I, 2 U.S.A., private collection: C 23 fig. I -, (photo Sotheby & Co London): C 19 fig. 5 UTRECHT, Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent: Chapter II fig. I. Chapter IV fig. on p. 60. A 5 figs. I, 3, 4, 5 -, (photo Central Research Laboratory for Objects of Art and Science Amsterdam): Chapter II figs. 9, 10. A 5 fig. 6 VADUZ, colI. Liechtenstein (photo Wolfrum Vienna): C 16 fig. 6 VIENNA, Graphische Sammlung Albertina: Chapter III fig. 5. A 22 fig. 8. C 38 fig. 3.C 42 fig. 3 -, colI. Lanckoronski (formerly) (photo Wolfrum Vienna): A 36 fig. 5 WARSAW, Muzeum Nadorowe w Warzawie: C 2 fig. 7 WEIMAR, Kunstsammlungen Zll Weimar: C 16 fig. 7 WHEREABOUTS UNKNOWN (photo Gemeentemllsea Amster- dam): Chapter II fig. 2. A8 figs. 1,3 -, (photo Rijksmuseum-Stichting Amsterdam): Chapter III fig. 4 -, (photo RKD The Hague): C 39 fig. 3

xxv X-Ray acknowledgments

AMSTERDAM, Rijksmuseum (X-ray Rijksmuseum-Stichting MELBOURNE, National Gallery of Victoria (Copy X-ray by the Amsterdam): A S fig. 2. A 7 fig. 2. A 14 fig. 2. A 28 fig. 2. A 37 Academical Hospital Lciden after originals made in fig. 2. C I fig. 2. C 34 fig. 2 Melbourne): A 13 fig. 2 BASLE, Oeffentliche Kunstsammlung Basel: A 9 fig. 2 MILWAUKEE, Wise., colI. Dr. A. Bader (X-ray Rijksmuseum• BELGIUM, priva te collection (X -ra y copyright A. C. L. Brussels): Stichting Amsterdam): C 22 fig. 2 C8 fig. 2 MOSCOW, Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts: A4 fig. 2 BERLIN (West), Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, MUNICH, Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen (X-ray Gemaldegalerie: A 10 fig. 2. A 24 fig. 2. A 38 fig. 2. A 39 fig. 2 Doerner Institut Munich): A 19 fig. 2 BOSTON, Mass., Museum of Fine Arts (X-ray Rijksmuseum- NEW YORK, N.Y., Metropolitan Museum of Art: C 38 fig. 2 Stichting Amsterdam): A 18 fig. 2 -, -, call. J. William Middendorf II (Copy X-ray by the -, The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum: A 20 fig. 2 Rontgen Technische Dienst Rotterdam after originals made BRAUNSCHWEIG, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum: C 15 fig. 2 by Dr. M. Meier-Siem Hamburg): C 4 figs. 3,5, 7 CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Courtesy of the Fogg Art Museum, NUREMBERG, Germanisches Nationalmuseum: A 26 fig. 2 Harvard University: C 29 fig. 2. C 35 fig. 2 OTTAWA, National Gallery of Canada: C 7 fig. 2 CHICAGO, Ill., The Art Institute of Chicago (X-ray Wes• PARIS, Musee Cognacq-Jay (X-ray Rijksmuseum-Stichting tinghouse Electric Corporation, X-ray Department, Amsterdam): A 2 fig. :2 Chicago): A 42 fig. 2 -, MuseeJacquemart-Andre: A 16 fig. :2 CLEVELAND, Ohio, The Cleveland Museum of Art: A 23 fig. 2 -, Musee du Louvre (X-ray Laboratoire du Musee du Louvre): DENVER, Coi., The Denver Art Museum (Copy X-ray by the C 16 fig. :2 Rontgen Technische Dienst Rotterdam after originals made -, Musee du Petit Palais (X-ray Rijksmuseum-Stichting by Wildenstein New York): C9 fig. 2 Amsterdam): A40 fig. :2 ENGLAND, private collection (X-ray The National Gallery PHILADELPHIA, Penn., The Philadelphia Museum of Art: C 2 I London): A 15 fig. 2 fig. :2 ESSEN, coll. H. von Bohlen und Halbach (X-ray Dr. M. Meier• PRIVATE COLLECTION (X-ray Rijksmuseum-Stichting Amster• Siem Hamburg): C 42 fig. 2 dam): C37 fig.:2 FRANKFURT AM MAIN, Stadelsches Kunstinstitut (X-ray cour• -, (X-ray Van Eyck London): C 36 fig. 2 tesy of the Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Cam• RALEIGH, N.C., The North Carolina Museum of Art (X-ray bridge, Mass.): A 25 fig. 2 Rontgen Technische Dienst Rotterdam): C 2 fig. 2 THE HAGUE, Cramer Gallery: C 13 fig. 2 SALISBURY, Wilts., Wilton House, colI. Earl of Pembroke (X• -, -, (X-ray Rijksmuseum-Stichting Amsterdam): B I fig. 2. ray courtesy of the Courtauld Institute London): C 19 fig. 2 B 2 fig. 2 STOCKHOLM, Nationalmuseum: C I7 fig. 2 -, Mauritshuis: A 2 I fig. 2. A 3 I fig. 2. A 34 fig. 2. B 7 fig. 2. C 12 ST. PETER PORT, Guernsey, colI. D. H. Cevat (X-ray Gemeente• fig. 2. C 41 fig. 2 musea Amsterdam): B 3 fig. 2 HAMBURG, Hamburger Kunsthalle (X-ray Rijksmuseum• STUTTGART, Staatsgalerie (X-ray Institut fiir die Technologie Stichting Amsterdam): A 12 fig. 2 der Malerei Stuttgart): A I I fig. 2 HELSINKI, Sinebrychoff Art Museum, The Fine Arts Academy SWEDEN, private collection (X-ray Nationalmuseum Stock• of Finland: C 44 fig. 2 holm): C40 fig. 2 INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, Indianapolis Museum of Art: A 22 fig. SWITZERLAND, private collection (X-ray Schweizerisches 4 Institut fiir Kunstwissenschaft Ziirich): C I I fig. 2 INNSBRUCK, Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum (Copy X- TOLEDO, Ohio, The Toledo Museum of Art: A4I fig. 2 ray by the Rontgen Technische Dienst Rotterdam after TOURS, Musee des Beaux-Arts (X-ray Rijksmuseum-Stichting originals made by the Schweizerisches Institut fUr Kunstwis• Amsterdam): C 5 fig. 2 senschaft Ziirich): A 29 fig. 2 U.S.A., private collection (X-ray Central Research Laboratory JAPAN, MOA Museum (X-ray Schweizerisches Institut fiir for Objects of Art and Science Amsterdam): C 23 fig. 2 Kunstwisscnschaft Z iirich): A 22 fig. 2 UTRECHT, Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent (X-ray KASSEL, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Kassel (X-ray Rijksmu• Central Research Laboratory for Objects of Art and Science seum-Stichting Amsterdam): A 14 fig. 5 Amsterdam): A5 fig. 2 -, (Copy X-ray by the Rontgen Technische Dienst Rotterdam WHEREABOUTS UNKNOWN: (X-ray Gemeentemusea Amster• after originals made by Dr. M. Meier-Siem Hamburg): C 24 dam): AS fig. 2 fig. 2. C 26 fig. 2. C 30 fig. 2 -, (X-ray Schweizerisches Institut fiir Kunstwissenschaft LEIDEN, Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal (X-ray Rontgen Ziirich): C36 fig. 4 Technische Dienst Rotterdam): A 6 fig. 2. C 32 fig. 2 WINDSOR, Windsor Castle, H.M. Queen Elizabeth II (X-ray LEIPZIG DDR, Museum der bildenden Kiinste (X-ray Dr. M. courtesy of the Courtauld Institute London): A 32 fig. 2 Meier-Siem Hamburg): C 25 fig. 2 LE MAS D' AGENAIS, Lot et Garonne, parish church (X-ray Rijksmuseum-Stichting Amsterdam): A 35 fig. 2 LENINGRAD, The Hermitage Museum: C 28 fig. 2 LIVERPOOL, Walker Art Gallery (X-ray courtesy of the Cour• tauld Institute London): A 33 fig. 2 LONDON, The National Gallery C 3 fig. 2. C 14 fig. 2 LOS ANGELES, Cal., Los Angeles County Museum of Art: A 30 figs. 2,5 LYON, Musee des Beaux-Arts (X-ray Laboratoire du Musee du Louvre Paris): A I fig. 2 MALIBU, Cal., The J. Paul Getty Museum (X-ray courtesy of the Courtauld Institute London): B 4 fig. 2

XXVI Bibliographical and other abbreviations

Art Bull. The Art Bulletin, New York 1(1913)- B. A. Bartsch, Catalogue raisonne de toutes les estampes qui forment l' oeuvre de Rembrandt et ceux de ses principaux imitateurs, Vienna 1797 B.I.• A. Bartsch, Le Peintre-Graveur, vols. I-XXI, Vienna 1803-2 I Bauch 1933 K. Bauch, Die Kunst desjungen Rembrandt, Heidelberg 1933 Bauch 1960 K. Bauch, Der fruhe Rembrandt und seine Zeit. Studien zur geschichtlichen Bedeutung seines Friihstils, Berlin 1960 Bauch 1966 K. Bauch, Rembrandt Gemiilde, Berlin 1966 Bauch, Eckstein, - J. Bauch, D. Eckstein, M. Meier-Siem, 'Dating the wood of panels by a dendro• Meier-Siem chronological analysis of the tree-rings', Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 23 (197 2),PP·485-496 Ben. O. Benesch, The drawings of Rembrandt. A critical and chronological catalogue, vols. I-VI, London 1954-57 Br. A. Bredius, Rembrandt schilderijen, Utrecht 1935 A. Bredius, Rembrandt Gemiilde, Vienna 1935 A. Bredius, The paintings of Rembrandt, London 1937 Br.-Gerson A. Bredius, Rembrandt. The complete edition of the paintings, revised by H. Gerson, London 1969 Burl. Mag. The Burlington Magazine, London I (1903) - Charrington J. Charrington, A catalogue of the mezzotints after, or said to be after, Rembrandt, Cambridge 1923 G.d.B.-A Gazette des Beaux-Arts, Paris I (1859) - Gerson H. Gerson, Rembrandt paintings, Amsterdam 1968 Haak 1969 B. Haak, Rembrandt. Zijn leven, zijn werk, zijn tijd, Amsterdam [I 969J HdG C. Hofstede de Groot, Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervor• ragendsten holliindischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts, vol. VI, Esslingen a. N. - Paris 19 15 HdGI-X C. Hofstede de Groot, Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervor• ragendsten holliindischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts, vols. I-X, Esslingen a.N. - Stuttgart-Paris 1907-1928 HdG Urk. C. Hofstede de Groot, Die Urkunden iiber Rembrandt, Haag 1906 (Quellenstudien zur hollandischen Kunstgeschichte, herausgegeben unter der Leitung von Dr. C. Hofstede de Groot, III) Hind A. M. Hind, A catalogue of Rembrandt's etchings, vols. I-II, London 1912 Hoet G. Hoet, Catalogus ofnaamlyst van schilderyen, met derzelver pryzen . .. , vols. I-II, The Hague 1752 Hoet-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. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Vienna I (1883) - Samml. Wien Jb. d. Pr. Kunsts. Jahrbuch der Preussischen K unstsammlungen, Berlin I (1880) - KHI Kunsthistorisch Instituut, University of Amsterdam Kuhn H. Kuhn, 'Untersuchungen zu den Malgrunden Rembrandts', Jahrbuch der Staatlichen K unstsammlungen in Baden- Wiirttemberg 2 (1965), pp. 189-210 Munz L. Munz, Rembrandt's etchings, vols. I-II, London 1952 N.K.J. Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, The Hague I (1947) - O.H. Oud Holland, Amsterdam I (1883) - RKD Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie (Netherlands Institute for Art History), The Hague Rontgenonderzoek... - M. E. Houtzager, M. Meier-Siem, H. Stark, H.J. de Smedt, RCintgenonderzoek van Utrecht de oude schilderijen in het Centraal Museum te Utrecht, Utrecht 1967 Schneider H. Schneider, . Sein Leben und seine Werke, Haarlem 1932 Schneider-Ekkart H. Schneider, with a supplement ofR.E.O. Ekkart, Jan Lievens. Sein Leben und seine Werke, Amsterdam 1973

XXVII BIBLIOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

Sumowski 1957/58 W. Sumowski, 'Nachtragc zum Rembrandtjahr 1956', Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 7 (r957/58) lif. 2, pp. 223-247 Terw. P. Terwesten, Catalogus of naamlyst van schilderyen met derzelver pryzen ... , vol. III, The Hague r 770 Tiimpel 1968 Chr. Tiimpel, 'Ikonographische Beitrage zu Rembrandt. Zur Deutung und Interpretation seiner Historien', Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunstsammlungen r 3 (1968), pp. 95-126 Tiimpel 1969 Chr. Tiimpel, 'Studien zur Ikonographie der Historien Rembrandts. Deutung und In terpreta tion der Bildinhal te', Nederlands K unsthistorisch Jaarboek 20 (r 969) , pp. !O7-1 98 Tiimpel 197 I Chr. Tiimpel, 'Ikonographische Beitrage zu Rembrandt. Zur Deutung und Interpretation einzelner Werke', Jahrbuch der Hamburger K unstsammlungen en r 6 (r 971), pp. 20-38 Van Gelder J. G. van Gelder, 'Rembrandts vrocgstc ontwikkeling', Mededelingen der KoninkliJke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen) afd. letterkunde, nieuwe reeks, deel 16, lif. 5 (1953), pp. 273-300 (pp. r-28) V.S. C. G. Voorhelm Schneevogt, Catalogue des estampes gravies d)apres P. P. Rubens) Haarlem r873 De Vries, T6th• A. B. de Vries, Magdi T6th-Ubbens,W. Froentjes, Rembrandt in the Mauritshuis. An Ubbens, Froentjes interdisciplinary study, Alphen aan de Rijn 1978 Wallr.-Rich.- Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch, Kaln r (1924) - Jahrb. Zeitschr.f. b.K. Zeitschriftfur bildende Kunst) Leipzig, Berlin r (r866)• Zeitschr. f. Zeitschrift fur K unstgeschichte) Berlin 1 (1932) - Kunstgesch.

XXVIII