Mainmenu

Rembrandt after Rembrandt

An old scholar in a vaulted room, 1631 gedateerd
Stockholm, Nationalmuseum Stockholm, inv./cat.nr. [..]
Bredius 1935, no. 430
<a class="recordlink artists" href="/explore/artists/66219" title="Rembrandt"><span class="text">Rembrandt</span></a> after <a class="recordlink artists" href="/explore/artists/66219" title="Rembrandt"><span class="text">Rembrandt</span></a>
Illustration number 0000271879
Dimensions: 497x650 pixels
License undetermined
<a class="recordlink artists" href="/explore/artists/66219" title="Rembrandt"><span class="text">Rembrandt</span></a> after <a class="recordlink artists" href="/explore/artists/66219" title="Rembrandt"><span class="text">Rembrandt</span></a>
Illustration number 0000145689
Dimensions: 2671x3461 pixels
License undetermined
provenance
whereabouts
Suggested searches in RKDimages
Object information
Object category
painting
Support/medium
panel (oak), oil paint
Shape/dimensions
rectangle (portrait format) 60 x 48 cm
Signature/inscription
Information about the signature, dating, inscription or any other mark on the front or back of the art work
  • signed and dated center right: Rembrant fc. 1631
    on the letter on the wall. The RRP rejected the signature and date as authentic in 1982 because in 1631 Rembrandt used invariably the RHL monogram, except for the "Artist in oriental costume" in the Musée du Petit Palais, Paris. In 2015 the RRP argued in favour of the authenticity of the signature assuming that Rembrandt antedated both paintings while signing with his first name , which he started using in 1632.
Current attribution
Rembrandt
after Rembrandt
This painting was always considered to be an autograph Rembrandt until doubted by Wurzbach in 1882. He considered it to be an old forgery (Wurzbach 1882). However, for most authors the attribution to Rembrandt remained undisputed. In 1982 the members of the RRP questioned Rembrandt's authorship of the painting stating that it is an old copy of a lost original (Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings 1982-2015, vol. 1 (1982), no. C 17). In the sixth volume of the Corpus the painting is reattributed to Rembrandt (Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings 1982-2015, vol. 6 (2015), no. 85).
Date
Exact or approximate dating of the described art work; the search parameters adopted for this art work in this database, are found in brackets.
dated 1631 (1631)
Dendrochronological analysis showed that the panel was ready for use in 1624, but that a date in or after 1630 is more plausible (Cavalli-Björkman/Fryns/Sidén 2005, no. 423).
Artistically related
Artistically related to other work
Such as a preparatory studie, comparable composition, other version, or copy of the artwork in this record.
  • after unknown original
    Rembrandt
    In 1982 the members of the RRP stated that the painting of the Nationalmuseum Stockholm is a copy after a lost original (Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings 1982-2015, vol. 1 (1982), no. C 17).

  • copied in print by
    Pieter de Bailliu (I)
    reproduces the painting in reverse; inscribed: "Rembrand van Rhijn Invent. - S. ANASTASIUS. - Petrus de Balliu Sculpsit. / C. Danckertz excudit" (Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings 1982-2015, vol. 1 (1982), no. C 17)

Provenance
Exhibitions and literature
Visual documentation
Technical documentation
The RKD manages a collection of technical documentation that has been given to us by external researchers and museums or which stems from the RKD's own research with infrared reflectography. Documentation can be accessed by appointment at the RKD. While not all technical documentation has been entered in the database at present, new data is added on a regular basis.
Creation date: 2011-05-09; Last modified date: 2021-06-17

Comments

Jean-Marie Clarke 26 May 2021
I thought that this painting had been fully rehabilitated by the RRP in Corpus VI as a work by Rembrandt. And so it would be more logical to label it "Attributed to Rembrandt." The arguments advanced in Corpus II for its disattribution were very weak: on what basis is Rembrandt's authorship being put in doubt here? The most convincing evidence for attributing it to Rembrandt is the signature in the extremely rare first-name form: not what one would expect from a copyist. It closely resembles the signature on the "Self-portrait in Oriental Costume" at the Petit-Palais, Paris, and so might be an important document of Rembrandt's development as an artist in 1631-33.
My selections

My selections

Your current selection will be lost. Are you sure?